It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate change report is 'reliable but flawed'

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Climate change report is 'reliable but flawed'


www.newscientist.com

A tendency to highlight worst-case scenarios undermined parts of the last assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to a new study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL).

The inquiry was ordered by embarrassed Dutch ministers after it emerged that a mistake in the 2007 IPCC report originated with its own scientists. The report stated that 55 per cent of the Netherlands is below sea level, when in fact the true figure is half that.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I hesitated to post this thread because I suspect those who insist on the IPCC as the beacons of light in regards to climate change may take it as an assault on their position.

Such is not the case.

I am simply using this further material to highlight why so much resistance is offered to the "climate change shuffle" that seems replete with inconsistencies and back-tracking.

Had the IPCC simply admitted that they were relying on professional speculation regarding their models and the strong possibility that they haven't enough information to declare any definitive actions to the crisis, it would have been much more evident that the financial and political opportunists were taking advantage of a scary and tragic development in our ecosystem.

Instead they 'joined' forces with the celebrity ideologues and marketeers who used the incompletely developed observations as fodder for self-serving political and economic agendas.

Some of this article yields interesting and thought-provoking examples of what the scientific community can label as both 'flawed' and 'reliable.'

Essentially the truth is, we know the climate is changing, it seems to have changed before, it may change even further (to our detriment since we fail to prepare realistically) but acting to arrest or mitigate the change is still far from feasible because we are not entirely sure of the totality of the variables.

As I have stated before in other posts, reducing our carbon footprint is a good thing. I just don't expect it to alter the course of ecological change (except now it will be legislated to make certain parties a lot richer.)

For or against the Global Climate Change theory, this is a worthwhile read, in my opinion.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I am a bit confused. I have always been on the bus that thinks that climate change has always been a factor and will remain a factor long after we all turn to dust. And with the activity in the Gulf, nobody seems to be discussing Al Gore's polar bear problem. (his poodle issues still seem to be quite relevant)

Has there been a general consensus that Manbearpig is in fact just a myth?

If so, then great.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Essentially the truth is, we know the climate is changing, it seems to have changed before, it may change even further (to our detriment since we fail to prepare realistically) but acting to arrest or mitigate the change is still far from feasible because we are not entirely sure of the totality of the variables.


And we know one of the main contributors of the current global warming: human-sourced GHGs

Which, of course, lays the basis for one particular area of attention for mitigating the current climate change.


For or against the Global Climate Change theory, this is a worthwhile read, in my opinion.


However, my point here is that it's worth highlighting that the parts of the IPCC report which were somewhat flakey were from WGII: the group involved in assessing impacts, adaptation etc.

WGI (the main scientific report) is, what you would like to call, the 'beacon of light in regards to climate change'. Although, widely seen as pretty conservative.

One of the big issues with the IPCC is the poor interaction between the working groups. If those working in WGII even bothered to read WGI, that alone would have improved their report. The cream work in WGI


WGII need a smack around the lugholes, and I would hope they've learned the lessons for the coming AR5.

So, in sum, the particular issues raised by the Dutch Agency (Hup Holland Hup!) are quite specific to WGII - not the whole report.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



And we know one of the main contributors: human-sourced GHGs


These are a just a small sample of three references that suggest your assumption that all greenhouse gasses, or the increase in same, are caused by human activity is not necessarily proven or correct, or that illustrate that this is not a completely accepted opinion. If you would care to rephrase that statement along the lines of "In my opinion one of the main contributors etc..." then that would I feel be more appropriate as 'we', by which I assume you mean humanity as it is unqualified, do not know this to be a fact.

You make that bland statement without reference to any material and it is my contention that you are not able to back that statement up by proven fact.

Reference 1

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

By Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrasse 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany

Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany


Abstract
The atmospheric greenhouse e ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse e ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 deg C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.


Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275[364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c
World
Source: Scientific Publishing Company.

Reference 2


July 31, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well
established."

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers." The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the
"world's largest scientific society."

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: "Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"


Source

Reference 3


The approximate annual human contribution to the overall atmospheric CO2 content is apparently about 8 billion (some say six billion) tons per year. Humans emit approximately 8 billion tons of CO2 per year. It sounds like a lot doesn't it? But if we compare that to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we can put that figure into perspective. Approximately 8 gigatons is the total human annual output of CO2.

It is said that the atmosphere contains an average of about 750 gigatons of CO2 which is roughly 385 ppm. (parts per million) 8 gigatons into 750 gigatons = 93.75 385 ppm ÷ 93.75 = 4.1066666666666665 ppm.

So assuming these figures are correct, our annual contribution of CO2 to the total average of 385 ppm is at most, a fraction over 4.1 parts per million. 4.1 ppm is the entire annual CARBON FOOTPRINT of the whole of the human race.

That means that if all 6.8 billion of us reverted to a state before the discovery of fire we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 4.1 ppm per year, out of a claimed total average of 385 ppm.

Let me say that again.

Even if all 6.8 billion humans on Earth gave up ALL forms of transportation, ALL forms of industrial activity, ALL forms of energy production and even reverted back to a Stone Age state before the discovery of fire, living in cold damp caves as hunter gatherers and eating raw food, baring in mind that most of us would die of starvation and/or hypothermia, we could only reduce overall atmospheric CO2 content by about 4.1 parts per million per year
against a supposed average background level of 385 ppm. That is assuming of course that all anthropogenic CO2 ends up in the atmosphere and remains there for a significant length of time.


Source

If you would like me to note further works for reference I should be pleased to do so as I have in the order of 90 references from which I can draw, each one of which suggests that your statement may not be proven fact. I can assure 'we' do not 'know' and 'we' do not make assumptions based on erroneous data that has been manipulated to suit the purpose. Before you protest about that statement I will if you wish provide several sources that attest to the veracity of my statement that more than one source of data had been manipulated to the detriment of the eventual outcome and with malice aforethought..

I have no problem if you wish to present a reasoned argument but I am afraid I do not find your all inclusive statement appropriate as there are many scientists who disagree with that. I present the above as a partial refutation of your statement.

[edit on 6/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics


Oh my. Suppose I'm to blame for even giving the slightest slither of encouragement for this sort of garbage...

As this is the only actual published article which touches on the subject (i.e., GHGs), perhaps you can outline which argument of Gerlich & Tscheuschner's you find compelling.

Firstly, I do feel it's worth noting that G&T's article is very embarrassing, for both the authors and the journal.

However, this is pretty much distant from the thread topic I feel. So I think we should stick to this one article which is very specific and to the point, and this discussion should be quick enough. Then others users can more generally diss the IPCC and call Gore fat, if they so wish, when we're done.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Then others users can more generally diss the IPCC and call Gore fat, if they so wish, when we're done.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by melatonin]


so rather than answer my question, this is what we get. Right.

You aren't by chance, Mr. Gore posting under a Pseudonym are you?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
so rather than answer my question, this is what we get. Right.

You aren't by chance, Mr. Gore posting under a Pseudonym are you?


I didn't think your question was aimed at me, predominately due to the fact you quoted Maxmars and I originally switched off at the first sign of Gorangement. However, on reading it fully now it seems even more inane than I thought it would be, tbh.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


it wasn't aimed at you, but I did have you in mind when I asked it. It's just that there has been very little news about how our carbon footprint is destroying our coldness. I didn't know if I missed something. And I never miss an opportunity to crack on Mr. Gore. No offence. I guess we will still have to breath less to save the world. And stop those cows from breaking wind.

BTW, your tree is doing fine.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
As this is the only actual published article which touches on the subject (i.e., GHGs), perhaps you can outline which argument of Gerlich & Tscheuschner's you find compelling.


You miss the point of what I was saying. I was not saying that I agreed with these people only that there is dissent out there and thus your statement that 'we' know is not correct. Please do try to read the reply before leaping off at a tangent. Also if you think that that one article was the only one related to greenhouse gases perhaps you had better read the third one in full.

How since you have picked on specific report then Tables 3 through to 7 on pages 8,9, and 10. This is then discussed and at the bottom of page 12 there is a passage which I find quite compelling.


About 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme e ffect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.


There are others, but that one I find particularly significant.


I do feel it's worth noting that G&T's article is very embarrassing, for both the authors and the journal.


Is this a promulgated opinion of which you are aware, i.e. a statement by the editors of the journal and the authors of the article, in the which case perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to some documentation where I can verify this position, or are you just making up comments that you consider sound important but which have no factual basis? You make this sound as if it is a foregone conclusion, however I suspect that it is only that in your own mind and stated to make you sound good. I look forward to your rebuttal if I have got that wrong, and to your analysis of the author's points and reasons why they are not valid.


However, my point here is that it's worth highlighting that the parts of the IPCC report which were somewhat flakey were from WGII: the group involved in assessing impacts, adaptation etc.


Really? I don't think so. Perhaps you had better read the WG 1 reports again. Even before it was published there was controversy over sea levels as just one example.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
it wasn't aimed at you, but I did have you in mind when I asked it. It's just that there has been very little news about how our carbon footprint is destroying our coldness.


Perhaps you look in the wrong places? Here's just a few of the recent studies:


An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress
Steven C. Sherwooda,1 and Matthew Huberb
+ Author Affiliations

aClimate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia; and
bPurdue Climate Change Research Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and approved March 24, 2010 (received for review November 19, 2009)

Abstract

Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.



Significantly warmer Arctic surface temperatures during the Pliocene indicated by multiple independent proxies
A.P. Ballantyne1,*, D.R. Greenwood2, J.S. Sinninghe Damsté3, A.Z. Csank4, J.J. Eberle1 and N. Rybczynski5
+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
2Department of Biology, Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba R7A 6A9, Canada
3Department of Marine Organic Biogeochemistry, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), Texel 1797 SZ, Netherlands
4Department of Geosciences and Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
5Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6P4, Canada
*E-mail: ashley.ballantyne@colorado.edu.

Next Section
Abstract

Temperatures in the Arctic have increased by an astounding 1 °C in response to anthropogenic forcing over the past 20 years and are expected to rise further in the coming decades. The Pliocene (2.6–5.3 Ma) is of particular interest as an analog for future warming because global temperatures were significantly warmer than today for a sustained period of time, with continental configurations similar to present. Here, we estimate mean annual temperature (MAT) based upon three independent proxies from an early Pliocene peat deposit in the Canadian High Arctic. Our proxies, including oxygen isotopes and annual ring widths (MAT = –0.5 ± 1.9 °C), coexistence of paleovegetation (MAT = –0.4 ± 4.1 °C), and bacterial tetraether composition in paleosols (MAT = –0.6 ± 5.0 °C), yield estimates that are statistically indistinguishable. The consensus among these proxies suggests that Arctic temperatures were ∼19 °C warmer during the Pliocene than at present, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were ∼390 ppmv. These elevated Arctic Pliocene temperatures result in a greatly reduced and asymmetrical latitudinal temperature gradient that is probably the result of increased poleward heat transport and decreased albedo. These results indicate that Arctic temperatures may be exceedingly sensitive to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.



Warming alters the metabolic balance of ecosystems
Gabriel Yvon-Durocher1,*, J. Iwan Jones2, Mark Trimmer1, Guy Woodward1 and Jose M. Montoya1,3,*
+ Author Affiliations

1School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK
2Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, MacLean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK
3Institute of Marine Sciences (ICM-CSIC), Pg. Marítim de la Barceloneta, 37-49, 8003 Barcelona, Spain
*Authors for correspondence (g.yvon-durocher@qmul.ac.uk; montoya@icm.csic.es).
Abstract

The carbon cycle modulates climate change, via the regulation of atmospheric CO2, and it represents one of the most important services provided by ecosystems. However, considerable uncertainties remain concerning potential feedback between the biota and the climate. In particular, it is unclear how global warming will affect the metabolic balance between the photosynthetic fixation and respiratory release of CO2 at the ecosystem scale. Here, we present a combination of experimental field data from freshwater mesocosms, and theoretical predictions derived from the metabolic theory of ecology to investigate whether warming will alter the capacity of ecosystems to absorb CO2. Our manipulative experiment simulated the temperature increases predicted for the end of the century and revealed that ecosystem respiration increased at a faster rate than primary production, reducing carbon sequestration by 13 per cent. These results confirmed our theoretical predictions based on the differential activation energies of these two processes. Using only the activation energies for whole ecosystem photosynthesis and respiration we provide a theoretical prediction that accurately quantified the precise magnitude of the reduction in carbon sequestration observed experimentally. We suggest the combination of whole-ecosystem manipulative experiments and ecological theory is one of the most promising and fruitful research areas to predict the impacts of climate change on key ecosystem services.


The science goes on whether or not the deniers are gnashing teeth and blowing smoke about some manufactroversy.


BTW, your tree is doing fine.


kewl



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by melatonin
As this is the only actual published article which touches on the subject (i.e., GHGs), perhaps you can outline which argument of Gerlich & Tscheuschner's you find compelling.


You miss the point of what I was saying. I was not saying that I agreed with these people only that there is dissent out there and thus your statement that 'we' know is not correct. Please do try to read the reply before leaping off at a tangent. Also if you think that that one article was the only one related to greenhouse gases perhaps you had better read the third one in full.

How since you have picked on specific report then Tables 3 through to 7 on pages 8,9, and 10. This is then discussed and at the bottom of page 12 there is a passage which I find quite compelling.


About 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme e ffect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of `superinsulation' violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed.


There are others, but that one I find particularly significant.


This is very much diversionary. Conductivity is just one potential mechanism of heat transfer. However, it is pretty much uncorrelated to the main mechanisms: radiative and convection (and latent heat). Indeed, even Nitrogen has a higher conductivity than CO2.

But nitrogen gas has limited influence on radiative transfer, in contrast to CO2. In other words, CO2 is a GHG and N2 is not.

And I assume you infer from the tables the same as one of the blog/media articles you quoted: CO2 concentration is small, therefore we can ignore it? That's little more than an argument from small numbers. It means little. 390ppm? So what. It's not the size, it's what you do with it


The article is trash, and the parts you highlight are not really even fundamental to their claims - just fluff. They actually attempt to show there is no such thing as the Greenhouse effect. Even the common 'sceptics' don't try to pull that one (e.g., Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Pielke Sr., Spencer etc etc).

These guys are in the realm of creationists arguing with thermodynamics against evolution. Laughable. Look, I can even use a denier's website to show how ridiculous the claims of the paper are; here's a link to a John Daly page with the IR spectra of the earth collected by a satellite:

www.john-daly.com...

That observation would be impossible if G&T are correct. I leave highlighting their problem to Einstein:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

These people are mathematical physicists well outside their comfort zone with a very poor grounding in both thermodynamics and observational physics. And it shows. An undergraduate class in thermodynamics would cover most of their errors.

And as for noting that some people question particular issues. We can find people to question anything: I could easily find a christian geologist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old. The evidence says otherwise. And it's through the evidence that we know that GHGs are contributing to climate change.


Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).

Top of page
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


And the above study would also be impossible if G&T were speaking sense. However, contrary to their contrary physics, GHGs absorb and emit outgoing IR radiation.


Is this a promulgated opinion of which you are aware, i.e. a statement by the editors of the journal and the authors of the article, in the which case perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to some documentation where I can verify this position, or are you just making up comments that you consider sound important but which have no factual basis? You make this sound as if it is a foregone conclusion, however I suspect that it is only that in your own mind and stated to make you sound good. I look forward to your rebuttal if I have got that wrong, and to your analysis of the author's points and reasons why they are not valid.


You really think they have just overturned 150 years of radiative physics, even down to what we know about quantum mechanics? That they go and publish such ground-breaking work in some quite obscure physics journal? I sincerely hope they are not holding breath waiting for the Nobel.

If you want a decent rebuttal of their garbage, try Halperin et al 2010.

There's a reason why the G&T study is barely noted on the main 'sceptic' blogs - it's even too wacky for them. Their article had even less lifetime than the hacked CRU emails.


Really? I don't think so. Perhaps you had better read the WG 1 reports again. Even before it was published there was controversy over sea levels as just one example.


Yeah, they are now expected to be much more severe and current observations are at the extreme of the projections in WGIAR4. As I said, the WGI is seen as quite conservative.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


It is 03:30 and I am of to bed and do not have time to read all this right now.

The fact of the matter remains that your original statement, which was what I took issue with, was that you stated that we know the cause of greenhouse gas increases, however that is not the case and not every one agrees with your point of view. My point was, and still is, that there are dissenters. I have not read the articles you have posted and it may be that that one particular one that I picked is incorrect, however that does not detract in any way from my statement that 'we' do not know.

You have actually done nothing to refute that point that I made. I hopefully will have time to come back to this tomorrow evening.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
It is 03:30 and I am of to bed and do not have time to read all this right now.

The fact of the matter remains that your original statement, which was what I took issue with, was that you stated that we know the cause of greenhouse gas increases, however that is not the case and not every one agrees with your point of view. My point was, and still is, that there are dissenters. I have not read the articles you have posted and it may be that that one particular one that I picked is incorrect, however that does not detract in any way from my statement that 'we' do not know.

You have actually done nothing to refute that point that I made. I hopefully will have time to come back to this tomorrow evening.


Yeah, same here. Neeeeeeeeed sleeeeeeeep! So, just for now...

Perhaps you don't know. It also seems that G&T do not know. However, your and their ignorance is not evidence.

The evidence clearly shows that GHGs are influencing climate change (this was my point*). We can quibble over exactly how much and how bad it will get (where the main 'sceptics' actually tend to spend their time), but the causal effect is well-supported observationally and from very basic physics.

*I assume you made a sleepy error, as the cause of CO2 increases was not my focus or G&Ts, but that is known to be human-caused.

Night.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Yeah, same here. Neeeeeeeeed sleeeeeeeep! So, just for now...

Perhaps you don't know. It also seems that G&T do not know. However, your and their ignorance is not evidence.


This whole thing is pointless since I was not, as I stated earlier, saying they were right. I said that there is dissent and gave three examples of such dissent - right or wrong - which negates your statement that 'we' collectively know that greenhouse gasses are man made, or rather the increase in them is man made.


The evidence clearly shows that GHGs are influencing climate change (this was my point*).


And I don't have an argument with that. Yes they influence climate.


We can quibble over exactly how much and how bad it will get (where the main 'sceptics' actually tend to spend their time), but the causal effect is well-supported observationally and from very basic physics.

*I assume you made a sleepy error, as the cause of CO2 increases was not my focus or G&Ts, but that is known to be human-caused.


Because you are an adherent to the religion of Warmism you fail to see that there are two sceptic camps. There are the Deniers. It is reasonably obvious to everyone that there is climate change and no one can sensibly deny that. The other camp states that climate change and the increase in greenhouse gasses (AGW) is not attributable solely to human activity, indeed that the smaller part of the increase is so attributable, and yes for the most part this camp does not agree that the Warmist figures are correct.. These are two very different points of view.


but that is known to be human-caused


You see this is my problem, you have done it again. The grand sweeping statement "it is known". No it is not. "It is believed by some scientists to be human-caused", but it is also not believed by others - and we are talking the source here not the increase.

I could possibly even accept "It is believed by most people to be human-caused". That at least is factual and not a sweeping statement of knowledge clearing all before it.

Good fun! Perhaps we have hijacked the OPs thread long enough!

I will find time to read those links however as I believe is following both sides of the religious argument.


Peace

[edit on 7/7/2010 by PuterMan]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Because you are an adherent to the religion of Warmism you fail to see that there are two sceptic camps. There are the Deniers. It is reasonably obvious to everyone that there is climate change and no one can sensibly deny that. The other camp states that climate change and the increase in greenhouse gasses (AGW) is not attributable solely to human activity, indeed that the smaller part of the increase is so attributable, and yes for the most part this camp does not agree that the Warmist figures are correct.. These are two very different points of view.


Denialism is more a state of mind and approach to the issue. Indeed, most deniers tend to accept the fact of climate change.

We can give a step-by-step summary of the 'path of denialism':

1. The climate is not changing
2. If it is changing, it's not caused by humans in any way
3. If humans do have an input, the contribution is minimal
4. If the contribution isn't minimal, then the actual effect will be small
5. If the effect isn't small, then there's nothing we can do - batton down the hatches!.

The main overall aim of denialism is to do nothing and carry on regardless. Most are 2+. Although we see dabbling with 1 now and again (e.g., it's not warming now! Teh Ice-age is coming!).



but that is known to be human-caused


You see this is my problem, you have done it again. The grand sweeping statement "it is known". No it is not. "It is believed by some scientists to be human-caused", but it is also not believed by others - and we are talking the source here not the increase.


lol, even your own quoted article supports that statement:


So assuming these figures are correct, our annual contribution of CO2 to the total average of 385 ppm is at most, a fraction over 4.1 parts per million. 4.1 ppm is the entire annual CARBON FOOTPRINT of the whole of the human race.


4ppm or so annually. Of which around 50% is taken up by terrestrial and ocean sinks. So we see around 2ppm increases each year.

That's about right - that's the sort of increases we see each year at the moment. The "entire annual carbon footprint of the human race" causes the annual increases in CO2. Luckily, the sinks absorb about half.

So, here, you are even denying the claims of your own article, lol.


I could possibly even accept "It is believed by most people to be human-caused". That at least is factual and not a sweeping statement of knowledge clearing all before it.


The claim is based in simple facts readily supported by observations.


I will find time to read those links however as I believe is following both sides of the religious argument.


Peace


lol, speak for your own 'side'.

And, yes, we have hijacked the thread long enough.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 
Regardless of the credibility of the science, the main point most AGW advocates are missing it that 'good science' does NOT equate to good policy.

Too often, AGW advocates have taken whatever "evidence" they can muster and used it to influence or direct radical changes in policy and economics. This did not work for prohibitionists in the 20's or the unilateral disarmament advocates of the 70's.


At best, the green movement might be compared to an alarm clock: jangling shrilly to wake up the world. That is fair enough; they have turned our attention to a problem that needs to be carefully examined and dealt with. But the first thing you do when you wake up is to turn the alarm clock off; otherwise that shrill beeping noise will distract you from the problems of the day.

The alarm clock will never understand this; making shrill and irrational noise is what alarm clocks do and is all they understand. But sensible and thoughtful people who want humanity to live fuller, richer lives in a cleaner and more sustainable world need to get past the naive and crude policy ideas that currently dominate green thinking and start giving these questions the serious attention and careful thought they deserve.
blogs.the-american-interest.com...

Of course, a defensive attitude does not help.

... the problem also stems from the failings of climate scientists themselves, and the institutions they work in.

They have too often mistaken real doubts for scurrilous attacks, and relied on mutual reinforcement rather than open debate, on authority rather than argument. ... That the panel’s mistakes and questionable judgments almost all make the picture more gloomy, not less, reinforces a widespread worry that some of the authors are policy advocates as well as scholars.
www.economist.com...

Moreover, hyperbole and exaggeration serve only to discredit otherwise reputable opinions.

As the planet warms, floods, storms, rising seas and drought will uproot millions of people, and with dire wider consequences. Barack Obama, collecting his Nobel peace prize, said that climate change “will fuel more conflict for decades”. He took the analysis not from environmental scaremongers but from a group of American generals.

The forecast is close to becoming received wisdom. A flurry of new books with titles such as “Global Warring” and “Climate Conflict” offer near-apocalyptic visions. Cleo Paskal, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, predicts that floods, storms, the failure of the Indian monsoon and agricultural collapse will bring “enormous, and specific, geopolitical, economic, and security consequences for all of us…the world of tomorrow looks chaotic and violent”. Jeffrey Mazo of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, also in London, calls climate change an “existential threat” and fears it could usher in “state failure and internal conflict” in exposed places, notably Africa.

Yet surprisingly few facts support these alarming assertions.
www.economist.com...

Even the pro-AGW New York Times and its climate blogger recognize that, whatever credible science exists, policy must offer constructive solutions rather than extremist experiments.

Obama faces a reality that many of these groups seem slow to recognize: While the 20th-century toolkit preferred by traditional environmentalists — litigation, regulation and legislation — remains vital to limiting domestic pollution risks such as the oil gusher, it is a bad fit for addressing the building human influence on the climate system, which is driven now mainly by a surge in emissions mostly outside United States borders in countries aiming to propel their climb out of poverty on the same fossil fuels that generated much of our affluence.
...
This situation is what leads a growing call for a much broader energy quest, from the laboratory to the light socket, that starts with the “ no brainers” delineated by many studies ... .

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...-22065

To the extent that scientists attempt to be advocates, the entirety of their assessment becomes subject to questions that transcend science and include political affiliation, monetary gain and other, non-science, influences that have no place in an assessment of research.

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 13-7-2010 by jdub297]




top topics



 
2

log in

join