Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research

Jan 09, 2011

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, 'zero-emissions' scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

"We created 'what if' scenarios," says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor. "What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?" The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.

The fares better than the south in the , with patterns of reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada. At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West , a region the size of the Canadian prairies.

Researchers hypothesize that one reason for the variability between the North and South is the slow movement of ocean water from the North Atlantic into the South Atlantic. "The global ocean and parts of the Southern Hemisphere have much more inertia, such that change occurs more slowly," says Marshall. "The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century. The simulation showed that warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale."

Wind currents in the Southern Hemisphere may also have an impact. Marshall says that winds in the global south tend to strengthen and stay strong without reversing. "This increases the mixing in the ocean, bringing more heat from the atmosphere down and warming the ocean."

Researchers will next begin to investigate more deeply the impact of atmosphere temperature on temperature to help determine the rate at which West Antarctica could destabilize and how long it may take to fully collapse into the water.

Explore further: How much magma is hiding beneath our feet?

More information: The paper "Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions" by Nathan P. Gillett, Vivek K. Arora, Kirsten Zickfeld, Shawn J. Marshall and William J. Merryfield will be available online at www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

Related Stories

Wind shifts may stir CO2 from Antarctic depths

Mar 12, 2009

Natural releases of carbon dioxide from the Southern Ocean due to shifting wind patterns could have amplified global warming at the end of the last ice age--and could be repeated as manmade warming proceeds, ...

Massive Southern Ocean current discovered

Apr 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A deep ocean current with a volume equivalent to 40 Amazon Rivers has been discovered by Japanese and Australian scientists near the Kerguelen plateau, in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern ...

Southern Ocean winds open window to the deep sea

Mar 15, 2010

Australian and US scientists have discovered how changes in winds blowing on the Southern Ocean drive variations in the depth of the surface layer of sea water responsible for regulating exchanges of heat ...

Call for network to monitor Southern Ocean current

Aug 17, 2007

The senior science advisor to the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) has called for the establishment of a Southern Hemisphere network of deep ocean moorings to detect any change in ocean circulation ...

Recommended for you

How much magma is hiding beneath our feet?

31 minutes ago

Molten rock (or magma) has a strong influence on our planet and its inhabitants, causing destructive volcanic eruptions and generating some of the giant mineral deposits. Our understanding of these phenomena ...

Oso disaster had its roots in earlier landslides

3 hours ago

The disastrous March 22 landslide that killed 43 people in the rural Washington state community of Oso involved the "remobilization" of a 2006 landslide on the same hillside, a new federally sponsored geological study concludes.

Study finds missing piece of biogeochemical puzzle in aquifer

3 hours ago

A study published in Scienceby researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and co-authored by Georgia Tech may dramatically shift our understanding of the complex dance of microbes and minerals ...

User comments : 127

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

apex01
2.8 / 5 (36) Jan 09, 2011
Wow, they won't give up at all with the global warming propaganda will they?
kivahut
3.4 / 5 (19) Jan 09, 2011
I rather like global warming. We've had the best ski seasons in 2 decades here in Colorado. I also like the thunderstorms in the summer.
N6FB
2.6 / 5 (35) Jan 09, 2011
When are we going to get off the CO2 kick, and realize that our present cycle of warming mimics almost exactly, the warming cycles we have experienced for at least the last million years?

For you who are into environmentalism, check the July 2010 issue of the National Geographic for a graph of ocean levels over the past 500K years, and note that we are on the upwards side of our our present warming/cooling cycle, with 1500 to 2000 years to go before the peak. This tracks your article almost perfectly, and is consistent with my calculations of the temperature based on the astronomical phenomena of solar temperature variations, precession of the polar axis, changes in the perigee of the earth'

Need I mention that there was zero homogenic CO2 production during any of the previous cycles??

When oh when are the people in power going to learn a little elementary science and orbital mechanics, which taken together totally explain the cyclicality of these 40,000 year thermal cycles?
sstritt
2.8 / 5 (26) Jan 09, 2011
@N6FB-
Do you have a link to share where we can learn more about 40,000 thermal cycles?
As to this 1000 yr prediction, I guess it's safer for your career to make predictions that can't be disproved in your lifetime.
axemaster
3.8 / 5 (27) Jan 09, 2011
I find the level of disconnect between scientists and the general public to be astonishing... It's just embarrassing to live in the USA when so many people are just so... dumb.

Then again I guess it makes sense. Recent history certainly reflects the dumbing-down trend.
geokstr
2 / 5 (38) Jan 09, 2011
Recent history certainly reflects the dumbing-down trend.

Yes, thanks to the wonderful work of the leftwing NEA and the great propagandizing their union members do. But our kids have great self-esteem, access to the best free abortions, know how to put condoms on bananas, and can recite the awful poetry of Maya Angelou, so so what if they can't spell or write or add?

Sean_W
2.8 / 5 (41) Jan 09, 2011
They can't get the most general prediction of next season's climate right but given one thousand years they are going to be bang on. These guys are not scientists. They are government subsidized climate philosophers.
apex01
2.5 / 5 (24) Jan 09, 2011
I find the level of disconnect between scientists and the general public to be astonishing... It's just embarrassing to live in the USA when so many people are just so... dumb.

Then again I guess it makes sense. Recent history certainly reflects the dumbing-down trend.


I know, use general population guys are too inferior. We'll never be elite enough to match your divinity...
Jonseer
3 / 5 (42) Jan 09, 2011
There seems to be an inverse ratio in operation here regarding the skeptics.

The more skeptical you are, the less you know about actual science.

This is easy to spot by the people who take one or two facts as they see them and use them to disprove a theory founded on provable facts that indicate we are experiencing manmade climate change numbering in the thousands or more.

OH and I thought this bears repeating.

Climate Change, IS NOT, I repeat IS NOT a method to predict daily, weekly, monthly weather.

It never has been.

It never will be.

Climate Change is a method of understanding CLIMATE TRENDS OVER DECADES/CENTURIES.

Anyone who thinks they can prove climate change is a hoax by pointing to weather from this year or decade truly knows nothing about science.

Researchers should answer all questions regarding "Weather" with - watch your nightly newscast. Climate Change data IS NOT meant to be used to predict your weather - EVER.
Sean_W
2.5 / 5 (27) Jan 09, 2011
They can't get the most general prediction of next season's climate right but given one thousand years they are going to be bang on. These guys are not scientists. They are government subsidized climate philosophers.


Sorry. I meant to say "next season's weather" I is only an example of climate when it cooperates with their theory. Otherwise it's weather.
Sean_W
2.9 / 5 (38) Jan 09, 2011
Climate Change data IS NOT meant to be used to predict your weather - EVER.


What are you on about?

We are not saying climate scientology is wrong because it can't predict the weather. We are saying it is wrong because they keep using it to TRY to predict the weather and FAIL Then when the weather is above average in temperature in some isolated location it proves to be climate and proves the "theory".

When climate psychics state that over the course of several years and decades the general climate trend should be upwards and it stays flat and even decreases, to the extent that they need to start deleting far north and south temperature stations and moving stations closer to warm pavement just to protect the scam for the express purpose of instituting a redistribution of wealth from the producers to the world's dictators, it is them, and you who is showing an ignorance of the nature of science.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (28) Jan 09, 2011
"Carbon swap bank to beat climate change"
http:/www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-carbon-swap-bank-climate.html#firstCmt

"Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research"

Which is it?

toddao
2.9 / 5 (29) Jan 09, 2011
There seems to be an inverse ratio in operation here regarding the skeptics.

The more skeptical you are, the less you know about actual science.



have you looked at the actual science?

i am a "denier" because i have looked into it and there is BLATANT data manipuation and several CAUSALITY errors (like lung cancer causes smoking) in the models and underlying assumptions.

take a look at this paper, with its EXTREMELY statistically significant powerspectrum correlation beetween temperature variation and planetary oscillations. i believe it is the future of climate modelling:
" Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications" by Nicola Scafetta
geokstr
2.5 / 5 (38) Jan 09, 2011
Anyone who thinks they can prove climate change is a hoax by pointing to weather from this year or decade truly knows nothing about science.

And anyone who thinks that we know enough about how something as exceedingly complex and chaotic as climate works to predict what will happen in the next 50, 100, 200 or 1,000 years with any accuracy whatsoever is not a "scientist", but a leftist who wants to use the apocalyptic crisis that's too good to waste to Cloward-Piven the current political system to collapse so they can assume power.

Especially when they keep refusing to even admit that the climate has been much warmer, with much higher CO2 levels, than the IPCC predicts many, many times in the past when life thrived and diversity flourished.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (38) Jan 09, 2011
@geokstr: After reading your comment it occurred to me that the socialists who believe in AGW suffer from the affliction of 'control'.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." Heinlein.
These are the same people who want to control another emergent system, the economy.
Humans have prospered by adapting to change.
Most of these control freaks also believe in evolution. To bad they don't want to practice it by embracing change.
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (27) Jan 09, 2011
Ryggerson:

You had me until the "evolution" part. Sorry but I do think that the multi-disciplinary evidence for evolution gathered over several hundred years is pretty solid, especially since we can see it occurring in the past for millions of years and in the lab.

But evolution does not give the leftists nearly the opportunity for political control that "global-whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week" does.

And like evolution, warming and higher CO2 in the past have been pretty good for life on Gaia, something else the leftists seem loathe to admit.
bbd
2.2 / 5 (24) Jan 09, 2011
I find the level of disconnect between scientists and the general public to be astonishing... It's just embarrassing to live in the USA when so many people are just so... dumb.

And so the scientific intelligentsia connived a scheme to screw the general public and acquire their wealth by placing a tax on the very breath they exhaled. The proceeds of the tax would go to fund further "scientific research", the basis of which exceeded the imagination of the even the most fantastical of Hollywood script writers.
trekgeek1
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2011
I don't want to sound like I am developing a god complex, but I think humanity will be able to control the weather in no more than 500 years if we maintain even our present level of technological advancement. This isn't considering exponential tech growth either.
ted208
2.5 / 5 (29) Jan 09, 2011
There seems to be an inverse ratio in operation here regarding the skeptics.

The more skeptical you are, the less you know about actual science.

I beg to differ, I am a skeptic and most skeptics that add comments here and other sites are very well versed and educated about the climate and the underhanded ways and methods used by the warmist socialist AGW industry. That's how most of us became skeptic's! I've spent years educating myself on the facts not a modelers alarmists fantasy's!
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (24) Jan 09, 2011
Again, "The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson.

Good O on the Heinlein quote, it is a spot on bulls eye.

bbd
2 / 5 (20) Jan 09, 2011
I don't want to sound like I am developing a god complex, but I think humanity will be able to control the weather in no more than 500 years if we maintain even our present level of technological advancement. This isn't considering exponential tech growth either.

Control the weather yes, but alas, humanity will not be able to control the climate. So repent now and render your carbon tax unto Caesar.
Eric_B
3.9 / 5 (18) Jan 09, 2011
None of these articles about global warming are true because if it were we'd have to DO SOMETHING about it and that would interrupt TV viewers between trips in their SUVs picking up more mounds of comestible salty starchy greasy goodness.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (28) Jan 09, 2011
We do what humans have always done, adapt.
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (25) Jan 09, 2011
Ha, lets be more specific. "the more skeptical you are of man-caused global warming (AGW) the less you know about actual science" Totally agree. Look at how some will immediately label scientists "socialist" giving away their political agenda. Why these folks are so messed-up, I leave that one to the Clear-Channel monopoly and AM radio.

You know that AM radio is a consequence of global warm-en. Too much hot air!

Eric_B
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 09, 2011
None of these articles about global warming are true because if it were we'd have to DO SOMETHING about it and that would interrupt TV viewers between trips in their SUVs picking up more mounds of comestible salty starchy greasy goodness.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.8 / 5 (23) Jan 09, 2011
I don't want to sound like I am developing a god complex, but I think humanity will be able to control the weather in no more than 500 years if we maintain even our present level of technological advancement. This isn't considering exponential tech growth either.


I generally agree. Assuming the apocalypse doesn't happen between now and then, we'll probably have about the best possible of computers and manufacturing technologies that the universe allows.

With nanotechnology and automation, we'll probably be able to mass produce some sort of reflectors or white materials to cover the poles an equator with, which will cause global cooling, totally reversing whatever damage may or may not have been done by humans.

Think about what 500 years really is.

200 years ago penicillin, phones, automobile, cameras, refrigerator, computers, hypodermic needles, and vaccines hadn't been invented or discovered.

500 years from now we can't imagine what might be possible, even easy..
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2011
500 years from now we can't imagine what might be possible, even easy..

But QC knows what the economy will be like in a few decades?
trekgeek1
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Assuming the apocalypse doesn't happen between now and then, we'll probably have about the best possible of computers and manufacturing technologies that the universe allows.


I guarantee it won't. So celebrate!
Eric_B
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2011
And besides...I have my golden ticket to an underground city where I will spend the rest of my days with the elite, secure in luxury while the rest of you peasants fight it out in a barren wasteland to convert each other into mounds of comestible salty starchy greasy goodness.

Mmmm....
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 09, 2011
But QC knows what the economy will be like in a few decades?


We have history to look at for what human behavior is like: all the various forms of governments, the abuses of kings and emperors and presidents and monopoly owners past.

The digital age has not made "every man a king," but has created a two-class caste system. Either you're a multi-millionaire, or you work for them for as little as they can possibly get away with paying you.

What do you think business owners will do when they do have "Rosie the Robot" to replace you with? You won't be able to buy Rosie because she won't be for sale. They'll simply fire you and Rosie will do your job...for free.

You will be forgotten by the "elite," and when you beg for food, they will tell you, "Get a better education," and it'll be too expensive or, "you should have tried harder. You didn't work hard enough like *I* did..." And these same are the people who got where they are on the backs of other people's sweat and bloo
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (19) Jan 09, 2011
Eric_B has made my case for me.

Here we have a prime example of human filth who thinks he's better than everyone else, just like the "elite" today.

There is always an excuse for the "master" to make a virtual slave out of everyone else,a nd when they have no more use for you thanks to "Rosie" they'll just do away with you, and even blame you.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2011
Technology has the capacity to solve almost any problem, but one thing it cannot solve is human nature. It can't fix this bastard who just shot up people in Arizona, and it can't fix political or economic tyrants such as progressivism or capitalism.

QuantumDelta
3.2 / 5 (14) Jan 09, 2011
It's okay guys, you can keep your heads in the sand.
As you are all WELL aware, the tide is NOT rising.

...Right?
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2011
What are the plans to plug up the volcanoes and also to keep the ocean from releasing any more co2 into the atmosphere. Unless you do that, you aren't going to get zero emissions.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 09, 2011
I guarantee it won't. So celebrate!


That's what they said just before the Titanic sank too. "Even God couldn't sink this ship." Down it went.

Hopefully it doesn't happen.

Just because I believe in armageddon doesn't mean I like it or want it to happen.

Americans are such hypocrites. We watch classics like the Star Trek movies in which the hero captain risks his own life to save the world, because he values others life above his own life or "liberties".

Yet some would rather have "liberty" while others die.

I said earlier that nothing could change the lunatic gunman, and I'm right, but the shooting COULD have been prevented with modern technology. Had the proper intelligence and surveillance been installed, he could have been dealt with before the crime was committed. Where is the "liberty" for those victims who are now dead?

Patrick Henry once stated, "Give me liberty or give me death." Now we need liberty from lunatics, terrorists, and greedy businesses.
MorituriMax
1.7 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2011
Forget the whole, "in 500 years we'll control the weather."

I'm voting for, "in 500 years we'll build our own planets." And we'll design them to be a lot safer for humans to live in than the natural ball of rock we live on now.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2011
As I said in another thread, a few days ago, liberty without justice isn't liberty after all.

Cleaning up the mess after a crime is committed is not justice. It's a joke.

Our law enforcement must become motivated to crime prevention, and not just respond to a scene after the fact.

Our innocents have no true liberty or justice, because the "rights" and "liberties" of the criminals and terrorists and the corrupt are valued more than the lives of the innocent. Then again, I wouldn't expect some on this site to understand my complaint, because you bastards support murdering innocent babies anyway.

Some of you hyper-progressive jerks probably even support what he did, after all, he has the same favorite books and favorite heroes as you guys: Hitler and Mao.

I am so sick of the hypocrissy and political correctness crap every time something like this happens. The guy isn't a "suspect" or "alleged" gunman. They already know he did it. Kill him now and save the tax payer's money.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (20) Jan 09, 2011
{q]Had the proper intelligence and surveillance been installed,
Like the Minority Report?
A Pakistani governor was murdered by his security guard.
"Salman Taseer, a popular Pakistani governor, was assassinated this week because he was critical of Pakistan’s blasphemy law.

"And Governor Taseer, who bravely visited her and sympathized with her plight, had 40 bullets pumped into him by one of his own bodyguards.

http:/www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/radical_chic_PUya0FzJCY624wP11gO3BM#ixzz1Ab8uwSm3

"

Someone said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

A crazy person murders at a Congressman's meeting. A criminal from Mexico murders US citizens and the US govt doesn't care because they do nothing. The judge that was murdered did want to increase border security.
Terrorists find useful idiots. Maybe this was a hit by the Mexican drug lord terrorists.
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 09, 2011
I'm joining @Eric_B because I'm a scientist and we give the engineers something to make technology with if we don't event it ourselves. You peasant's can hangout in your self created waste-land eating your Soylent Green.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2011
I'm joining @Eric_B because I'm a scientist and we give the engineers something to make technology with if we don't event it ourselves. You peasant's can hangout in your self created waste-land eating your Soylent Green.

All is engineering.
"The objective of Discussion of the Method is to define the engineering method and to generalize it to universal method. An engineer solves problems using heuristics. A heuristic is anything that provides a plausible aid or direction in the solution of a problem but is, in the final analysis, unjustified, incapable of justification, and fallible."
http:/www.me.utexas.edu/~koen/OUP/OUP.html
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2011
Someone said those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither


"Someone" was a moron.

In the real world you cannot have liberty without security.

If anything, 9/11 and this attack should teach you that, but you STILL do not get it yet.

The only person here who had "liberty" was the gunman, because the law allowed him to do whatever the hell he felt like. Everyone else was a slave to whims of the evil, because our laws and our government allowed it to happen, again and again, and again, campus after campus, and street corner or home, one after another same story.

This is not the "liberty" founding fathers were talking about.

This is anything but liberty, when normal people are gunned down because political correctness and special interest groups don't allow governments to do the job of governments, which is to enforce order and protect the weak.
Mira_Musiclab
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2011
It's a climate-change article, and you twist up the Arizona shootings to make a political point?

Utterly distasteful..
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (16) Jan 09, 2011
What are the plans to plug up the volcanoes and also to keep the ocean from releasing any more co2 into the atmosphere. Unless you do that, you aren't going to get zero emissions.


I can answer that. We don't! The solution is simple, but difficult to do. We (as in everyone in the whole world) just need to stop using fossil fuels; Gas, Oil and Coal. Switch to other sources of energy; solar, wind, thorium and nuclear. Become a mostly electricity based world infrastructure. It could be done in 50-100 years.

No one has mentioned this, but in this article the scientist have used a best case scenario of zero-emissions of excess CO2 from 2010. And still "
warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale"

That is BEST CASE! Worst-case, people here can't handle the truth.

Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (19) Jan 09, 2011
It's a climate-change article, and you twist up the Arizona shootings to make a political point?

Utterly distasteful..


No, it's actually all connected in a very honest way, because both are somewhat related to what we value.

It's not a "political" issue. It's a moral issue.

What do I care more about? Human life, or a fricken whale? These stupid leftist activists spend millions of dollars per year so they can harrass some fishers trying to make a living to try to save a few whales, but the same people have no reservations about murdering a human baby.

Constitutional "rights" are not worth it if this is what we have.

The first 5 ammendments on the Bill of Rights are precisely what enabled this guy to do what he did.

If anyone who bothers to buy a gun can just walk up to you randomly and gun you down, along with 19 other by-standers, who gives a damn about your bill of rights now? It's useless.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (22) Jan 09, 2011
That is BEST CASE! Worst-case, people here can't handle the truth.


Do you have any idea how inconsitent weather and climate models are?

Back during 2010 hurricane season, when Gaston had died out and it's remnant low was still sort of chugging along, several computer models were still forecasting it to re-form, re-intensify, and become a 145mph to 190mph sustained hurricane in the caribbean. In reality, the storm gradually tracked west as a nameless remnant low, and did absolutely nothing, and then dissipated.

The exact same models went from being dead on accurate with Alex in both landfall location and intensity, to being completely stupid ROFLMAO wrong, off by 160mph on Gaston.

There you have it friend. That's the "science" of computerized weather models.
Mira_Musiclab
4.8 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Wow, seriously QC, how about just having a sense of decorum?
Whether I agree with you or not in a lot of your postings, you aren't a dummy. But you're selling yourself way short by pulling maneuvers just like this..
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (17) Jan 09, 2011
Do you have any idea how inconsitent weather and climate models are?


Simple: Yeap.

They are after all, creations of Man trying to predict the un-predictable with Science. However, what we do know is pretty good. I trust it over the alternative.

It's like this; if your a stock-broker and your computer models predict an up-tick in X and has been correct in it's predictions 90% of the time. You would invest in X. That is exactly what the climate models are like. Weather-models are even more accurate now for short term predictions from satellites and more (and better) observations.

It's all based on physics, mechanics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and fractals too boot!

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 09, 2011
I agree with Mira_Musiclab, QC; To much political attacking reveals a lot about your motives to even visit the forum. QED.
srikkanth_kn
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Does this mean that we have already crossed the 'tipping point'?. can we ever reduce if not stop the effects of climate change ?
trekgeek1
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 09, 2011
That's what they said just before the Titanic sank too. "Even God couldn't sink this ship." Down it went.


And god didn't. It was an iceberg which is far more dangerous because it's real. If you are referring to a natural disaster, then yes it can happen. If you are referring to Jesus coming back, it ain't happening.
maxcypher
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Actually, all these libertarian commentators are right: if AGW were true, then we would inevitably lose many of our personal rights via tighter regulation of how we interact with each other and with 'nature', because it's not healthy to excrete where you eat. With the population explosion, our 'elbow room' will invariably decrease. As people get more desperate, more and more law enforcement will be applied. It's inevitable.
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (10) Jan 09, 2011
Does this mean that we have already crossed the 'tipping point'?. can we ever reduce if not stop the effects of climate change ?


It certainly reads that way. I've not read the Nature article, but I would not be surprised based on the short term exponential spike as China, India ramp up fossil fuel use to meet their own peoples demands. Obviously the U.S. is growing too.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (23) Jan 10, 2011
With the population explosion, our 'elbow room' will invariably decrease

The entire world's population can comfortably fit in the land area of North America.
The area of TX is 696,200,000,000 m^2. Every person on the planet can fit in the US state of TX and have ~100 m^2 or in Australia and have 1000 m^2.
Seems to be plenty of 'elbow room'.
Mira_Musiclab
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 10, 2011
Areable land, potable water, moderate temps, oxygen creating ecosystems?

Kind of oversimplifying it, aren't you Rygg? Not to pick it apart too much, but how much of Texas would you call 'livable'? Lol.

I'll stick with my trees up here in the NW, thank you. ;)
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (23) Jan 10, 2011
I'm confused. Just a month ago, physorg had an article proclaiming the Antarctic icesheets were safe:

http:/www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-arctic-icecap-safe-runaway.html

And here's a fancy-pants Cambridge paper which claims the Antartic icesheets are growing:

http:/www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

So if some climatologists say it's melting, and some say it's growing, can we split the difference and conclude it's stable?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (28) Jan 10, 2011
"Chicken Little Climatology" - by uba

Chicken Little, a climatologist, was in the Artic one day when a raindrop fell on his head. It scared him so much he trembled all over.

"HELP HELP! The icesheets are melting! I have to tell the Climate Society!"

So he ran in great fright to tell the Society. Along the way he met Henny Penny.

"Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

"Oh, help! The icesheets are melting!"

"How do you know?"

"I saw it with my own eyes, and part of it fell on my head!"

"This is terrible, just terrible! We'd better hurry."

So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

"Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?"

"The icesheets are melting! We're going to tell the Society!"

"How do you know?"

"I saw it with my own eyes, and part of it fell on my head!"

So they all ran to the Society as fast as they could.

"The icesheets are melting!" they cried.

And the Society believed them.
trekgeek1
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
I'm confused. Just a month ago, physorg had an article proclaiming the Antarctic icesheets were safe:

http:/www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-arctic-icecap-safe-runaway.html

And here's a fancy-pants Cambridge paper which claims the Antartic icesheets are growing:

http:/www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

So if some climatologists say it's melting, and some say it's growing, can we split the difference and conclude it's stable?


Yeah, that's how it works, just average it. I was going to say that one was wrong and we should play it safe. That, or you misinterpreted one of the studies.
John_Doe
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2011
I don't care. I won't be around.
Doug_Huffman
2.2 / 5 (15) Jan 10, 2011
Ah, "dumbing" and "education" in the same climate change thread demands a citation of Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt's The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, a 700+ page, 6.75 MB PDF free or a large format p-book.

A 3000 year prospective probably fails the Criterion of Demarcation, failing induction from deduction where interpolation is tenuous enough and extrapolation ridiculous. It ain't science but is hysterical hyperbole.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (25) Jan 10, 2011
Kind of oversimplifying it, aren't you Rygg? Not to pick it apart too much, but how much of Texas would you call 'livable'? Lol.

Kind of missing the point?
Pop Densities (per km^2)
Macau: 18,500
Monaco: 16,900
Singapore: 7000
Hong Kong: 6300
Bermuda: 1200
Maldives: 1000
Texas (with all the world): 10,000
Australia (with all the world): 1000

As I said, where is the elbow room problem?
Shootist
2 / 5 (23) Jan 10, 2011
Ha, lets be more specific. "the more skeptical you are of man-caused global warming (AGW) the less you know about actual science"


So Professor Dyson doesn't, "know about actual science"? Crap, son, you don't know of what you speak.

Professor Dyson understands modeling, and its limitations, as well as anyone on the planet.

Doctor Pournelle understands statistical analysis and measurement as well as anyone and he calls crap on the published climate change data, as well.

No AM radio here.

"The polar bears will be fine".
ArtflDgr
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2011
this is getting very ridiculous where the zealots call the non zealots zealots for not being as zealous as they are because they know that through their zealotry they must be right, or else why are they so zealous...

trofim lysenko is laughing as these people destroy sciecne as a meritrcratic persuit and back to something the dominicans (zealots) dtried to destry in favor of social philosphy (they dictated at that time)
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 10, 2011
So - the climate, which has been changing since the beginning of the Earth's formation, will continue to change until the year 3000? This implies the authors believe it will not change after the year 3000? I am impressed.

Based on this, we do not need to begin making plans to move the Earth out of its orbit to avoid being engulfed by the Sun when it turns into a red giant. That would be a huge climate change, and with this new climate research, the anticipated red giant stage of solar evolution has been cancelled. Very reassuring to know that climate "science" trumps astronomy.

With science like this, who needs mysticism?
barakn
3.8 / 5 (17) Jan 10, 2011
I'm confused. -ubavontuba

That's obvious.
Just a month ago, physorg had an article proclaiming the Antarctic icesheets were safe:

http:/www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-arctic-icecap-safe-runaway.html

And here's a fancy-pants Cambridge paper which claims the Antartic icesheets are growing:

http:/www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf

Maybe you should learn the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic. And maybe learn how to spell "Antarctic." Also note that the 2nd paper you linked to noted that Western Antarctica is losing ice, which the present paper also discusses. You get an F for Reading Comprehension.
A_Paradox
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2011
@moriturimax:
What are the plans to plug up the volcanoes and also to keep the ocean from releasing any more co2 into the atmosphere. Unless you do that, you aren't going to get zero emissions.


You've got the wrong end of the stick here Max. Forget what most of the bozos hereabouts are crapping on about [just accept that AGW means we are going to have less and less climate but more and more weather ... it's that simple!]

The BIG issue, the real sleaper here is ocean acidification. The ocean [the big 4 km deep puddle round the planet] is currently ever so lightly basic [alkaline], but at current rate of its CO2 accretion it will be ever so slightly acidic before the end of this century. That seems to portent extinction of all the species that grow carbonate shells and exoskeletons. I am still reading up on this issue but it looks like bye-bye bony fishies ['cause their food is going to disappear].

UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
A_Paradox
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2011
@N6FB
When are we going to get off the CO2 kick, and realize that our present cycle of warming mimics almost exactly, the warming cycles we have experienced for at least the last million years?


As I read things, it appears that the current rate of change of oceanic pH is greater than any similar change in the last few millions of years.

Your comment please.
lengould100
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2011
And so dies science (and civilization, technology).
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 10, 2011
Maybe you should learn the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Did you not see the claim in the article:

"...causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West ANTARCTIC ice sheet..."
And maybe learn how to spell "Antarctic."
Dinging me on typos now? Did you notice I spelled it correctly, the first time?
Also note that the 2nd paper you linked to noted that Western Antarctica is losing ice, which the present paper also discusses. You get an F for Reading Comprehension.
But overall, the ice is increasing more than enough to offset the loss. And the Arctic is increasing as well.

See:

http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Therefore, it is you who gets the "F."
barakn
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2011
From the fancy-pants article that YOU linked to, "the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica" and "The draw down of the Pine island, Thwaites and Smith glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector (basin G-H) of West Antarctica are prominent." And I'm not certain why you are arguing about ice mass when I never made any claims on the subject. I merely pointed discrepancies between what you claimed your links said and what they actually said, like claiming you were presenting a link on Antarctica but the link was about the Arctic. Go ahead, deny it.
Kingsix
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2011
Didn't have time to read all the posts and I am sort of sure that someone has posted this already, but....
If any changes we make now will not stop things until the year 3000, the why the heck should we change? It won't matter.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2011
Ok, now I've read the Nature article; We are screwed.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 10, 2011
The BIG issue, the real sleaper here is ocean acidification. The ocean [the big 4 km deep puddle round the planet] is currently ever so lightly basic [alkaline], but at current rate of its CO2 accretion it will be ever so slightly acidic before the end of this century. That seems to portent extinction of all the species that grow carbonate shells and exoskeletons. I am still reading up on this issue but it looks like bye-bye bony fishies ['cause their food is going to disappear].

UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!


YEA! Hats of to you. The the effects of CO2 absorption on the alkalinity of the Oceans is already apparent in the kill of some coral reefs and diatoms everywhere.

[Flame on] The pollution lovers have killed the ocean with every kind of crap they can dump into 4km of water, and the atmosphere by dumping CO2 and other crap into 40,000 feet (12km) blanket of air. The CO2 rich air acidifies the ocean. Eat up your tuna now while there is some! [/flame_off]

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 10, 2011
From the fancy-pants article that YOU linked to, "the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica" and "The draw down of the Pine island, Thwaites and Smith glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector (basin G-H) of West Antarctica are prominent." And I'm not certain why you are arguing about ice mass when I never made any claims on the subject. I merely pointed discrepancies between what you claimed your links said and what they actually said, like claiming you were presenting a link on Antarctica but the link was about the Arctic. Go ahead, deny it.
Okay, I see it now. I had "Antarctic" on the brain when I meant to say "Arctic" in the first sentence (I was trying to cover both poles in one post). My apologies.

My point stands though. Ice accumulation is exceeding the melt off from the Western Antarctic icesheet. So suggesting a "four meter" sea level rise, is nothing less than scaremongering.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2011
My point stands though. Ice accumulation is exceeding the melt off from the Western Antarctic icesheet. So suggesting a "four meter" sea level rise, is nothing less than scaremongering.


Ice accumulation where? No not on you windshield. Seriously though, where are "New" glaciers being formed? Not one that I know of.
geokstr
1.7 / 5 (14) Jan 11, 2011
Seriously though, where are "New" glaciers being formed?

Seriously though, you do realize that if "new" glaciers were being formed, we'd be heading for Global Cooling, which would be about a million times more fatal for life than what the IPCC predicts we're in for.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (10) Jan 11, 2011
Seriously though, where are "New" glaciers being formed?

Seriously though, you do realize that if "new" glaciers were being formed, we'd be heading for Global Cooling, which would be about a million times more fatal for life than what the IPCC predicts we're in for.

Of course. So where are they? Where are these new glaciers that the anti-global-warming (AGW) crowd say are forming all the time, that is what I was asking.
Nothing more.
QuantumDelta
5 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2011
I'm curious, how many people actually read the linked paper?

Quite a few people seem to be getting slightly the wrong idea from the somewhat over-dramatised news-style cliffsnotes put up by Physorg, I understand why Physorg does it - to spark an interest, and debate, but sometimes it is a little misleading.

Honestly, on any material that you're likely to have an emotional responce to, it's best to read the actual science paper rather than the article.
geokstr
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 11, 2011
Of course. So where are they? Where are these new glaciers that the anti-global-warming (AGW) crowd say are forming all the time, that is what I was asking.

I certainly never made such a claim, nor do I recall any prominent antis saying new glaciers were forming. In order for actual new ones to start we would need a huge cooling trend, and just these last 15 years isn't enough.

But you do realize that glaciers advance and recede all the time? Oh, well, we'll know for sure in 2035, when the tip of Everest will be beachfront property, according to the IPCC.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2011
Ice accumulation where? No not on you windshield. Seriously though, where are "New" glaciers being formed? Not one that I know of.
Who said anything about new glaciers? Perhaps you think old glaciers can't grow?
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2011
"Who said anything about new glaciers?"; I thought you AGW (anti-global-warming) people did. Logically, if the glaciers are not melting from global warming, then they must either be stagnant or growing. You know Global Cooling would suggest that the new glaciers are forming all over the place

I've personally stood on several glaciers that don't exist now.

Also; Al Gore was absolutely spot on the money about the hockey stick graph, and you guys for whatever ignorant political motive want to deny his claim; his warning in fact.

geokstr
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2011
"Who said anything about new glaciers?"; I thought you AGW (anti-global-warming) people did...

No, you leftlings just make up the things you want to believe we said. Fits the dogma of your Religion of Global Whatever-They're-Calling-It-This-Week.
I've personally stood on several glaciers that don't exist now.

Did it ever occur to you that your oral flatulence warmed the immediate area and melted them?
geokstr
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2011
Howhot:

I sincerely apologize for my last comment. I shouldn't have lowered myself to your level of discourse even if I felt I had good reason to be offended by your comments about me.

You and SH and others here are obviously science oriented people who know little about politics. On the other hand I, a non-scientist, have a life-long interest in science but an even deeper interest in politics.

The AGW movement, regardless of the validity of the science, has been captured by the left from a political standpoint. Do you remember the article here recently about the last confab of warmists? They admitted outright that it was no longer about "science" or "solutions", but about how to divvy up the loot, so that the developed countries could have their wealth redistributed to third world toilets.

ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2011
Stop bringing up being left or right, it has nothing to do with science, it's just misinformed blanket statements.

geokstr
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2011
Stop bringing up being left or right, it has nothing to do with science, it's just misinformed blanket statements.


Science has been spun for political purposes since it was invented. If you don't like it or don't want to believe it, put your head back in the sand. That will protect you from it.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
3 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2011
Stop bringing up being left or right, it has nothing to do with science, it's just misinformed blanket statements.


Science has been spun for political purposes since it was invented. If you don't like it or don't want to believe it, put your head back in the sand. That will protect you from it.


Thank you for telling me things I already know :]
By saying people have done it so it is okay to do it here is nonconstructive. It doesn't have to or need to happen everywhere or here, this isn't politicasciencedotcom.

You remind me of people who comment on youtube.
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2011
@geokstr. Forget about it. Sorry about it when loose my cool too. There is a lot of passion about this issue. It is after-all, about mankind's future.

Dr_Tom
2 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
If the Dr.Marshall would just check his ice core science ,he would not make proclamations such as these.
There were periods before "WE" burned any petroleum or coal here that had higher concentrations than today.
Even Lindzen and others who get their "Jobs" insecured attempt to bring these "KOOKS" down to earth.
Marshall is a geography professor,whats wrong with you folks? A slow map making day brings forth a climate science chair,my,my,my.
Only mental illness would claim that plant carbons,(now come on supposed science experts)would heat the earths atmosphere to destruction of us all,and the language,oh the language that the in ground fuel is somehow a fossil.
Carbon,is still a bonded carbo-hydrate,plant sugar,whats wrong in your science class,we learned those simple facts in high school.
Oil has carbohydrates combined with it,as it is "Boiled Plants" that ran into BIG steam pockets.
Oil is made from plants,no where else,GOT THAT YET???
Dr_Tom
2 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2011
Charged particles in the eco-system gain and lose atomic level elements based on their ability to attach them selves to a more receptive element.
A simple conversation of the carbohydrate engine of the plant and the combining of oxygens molecules to gain lower charge depleted carbohydrates when the stomata are open can easily show the engineered mechanism of carrying depleted components from the plant.
Plants do not make oxygen,oxygens are drawn to the surface,Remember,"They are charged particles" and we have a gravitational core,got that? GRAVITATIONAL CORE.
Charges are drawn to the surface to bring airborn particulates to be depleted into "DIRT"
Airplanes account for 80 percent of airborne "Depleted,Combined Carbons" " Co2"
Even coal is still "Bonded depleted plant based components"
Even without alot of plants and deciduous trees supposedly "Making oxygen" here in the northern hemisphere in winter,you go outside and breathe just great.
Dr_Tom
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2011
ALL processes of warming the magma comes from the Suns powering each "Engineered component" of the eco-sphere.
When the sun is perturbed and its engine "Revved up" each eco-system component is revved up also.
These "NATURAL,Yet unatural because of the causation of the imbalance" energetic periodicidities of "Revv up" events,we have warmer and cooler periods.
Cometary showers always revv our system and cause enhanced weather.
When we have a long term period of enhanced energy,we get additional magma heating and ice melting,when it subsides, the ice will return,and because of the processes yet to come,it will actually get even more ice and colder until equilibrium returns.
Older science guys are specifically tasked against here because of the metal removal,if we were to be able to chat on TV,the metal boys would be dragged through the streets.Plain and simple.
Dr_Tom
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
If you do not like my grammar,or any other component in my posts,Please feel free to be a free secretary and fix it all for me,(I'm referring to Mr. paid troll) I no longer have a secretary to fix everything for me.
ECOnservative
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
I detest scientists that think they're politicians almost as much as politicians that think they're scientists.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
I don't get climate skeptics...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2011
I don't get climate skeptics...


Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

There have always been disasters as bad or worse than anything we can imagine. It's nothing new.

The world isn't going to end in the year 2100, nor even 3000.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
There seems to be an inverse ratio in operation here regarding the skeptics.

The more skeptical you are, the less you know about actual science.



have you looked at the actual science?

i am a "denier" because i have looked into it and there is BLATANT data manipuation and several CAUSALITY errors (like lung cancer causes smoking) in the models and underlying assumptions.

take a look at this paper, with its EXTREMELY statistically significant powerspectrum correlation beetween temperature variation and planetary oscillations. i believe it is the future of climate modelling:
" Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications" by Nicola Scafetta

Except that paper was debunked when we took the climate forcing measurements of clouds and found no net effect throughout day/night cycles.
Further we found no net cosmic ray influx in relation to cloud formation. Lindzen was wrong when he suggested it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
Science has been spun for political purposes since it was invented. If you don't like it or don't want to believe it, put your head back in the sand. That will protect you from it.
You gents who think science has been politicized show that you've read and understood exactly none of the science and research. THe only thing that has been spun is the massive marketing campaign to control economies by misreading or spinning the abstracts and articles written about the research by such fiune gentlemen as Al "truth doesn't matter" Gore and "Glen "the government is comming for me" Beck.

Read the research, not the articles and learn something.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2011
...Glen "the government is comming for me" Beck...


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't watching.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2011
Science can be politicized that there is no doubt. However, the scientific process can not be. Science is about using observation, hypothesis, experiment and theory to reveal an underlying truth of nature.

For whatever reasons in the right-wing manifesto, the environment and observations of it has become an area that challenges their sense of world control. I suspect that is why professional and delusional propagandists for the rightwing like Glen (the government is comming for me) Beck, do everything they can to keep rightwing base so mis-informed, uniformed, and angry at science and scientists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2011
Science can be politicized that there is no doubt. However, the scientific process can not be. Science is about using observation, hypothesis, experiment and theory to reveal an underlying truth of nature.

Why can't it be?
Opportunities exist at every step in the process to obtain the desired, political result.
Even if the process is honest and objective, there is no guarantee the process will reveal nature's truth. Especially when quantum mechanics suggests the act and intent of observer changes the results.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
...Glen "the government is comming for me" Beck...


Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't watching.

That's the problem. Everyone is watching him, but they're not fact checking his bullshit.
Why can't it be?
Opportunities exist at every step in the process to obtain the desired, political result.
When someone performs an experiement, the results aren't accepted until they can be replicated. Bad science will generate experiements and products that don't work. When someone examines why, the bad science is figured out. For example: Andrew Wakefield's research on vaccines and autism. He faked the results for political or financial gain, others investigated, found he lied, now he's probably going to go to jail.
PTK
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2011
The US government has known abour climate change since the 80's & have been trying to cover up it's effects & keep the people in the dark, most of the current science points to it being true & failing that common sence should prevail that every action has an equal & opposit reaction, therefore our actions as humans of adding to the earths natural CO2 emissions will certainly effect the future climate comparative to if we had not... As to the extent, that is where the research comes in to play, & to push science asside is to wonder back to the days of the earth being flat, it is science, not magic...
pubwvj
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
So this one says we'll be dry. Other models say we'll be wet. Don't you all get the point? Anyone can make a computer model to show what ever they want and then make a press release. It's not real - it's a model. It is full of assumptions many of which are wrong. Not only that but the planet has been warmer and warmer is better than colder. Get to the real point - pollution. That is the issue, not warming or cooling.
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2011
The article is entitled "Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions" and it basically says, gloom and doom style, that it is too late.

So, if nothing we do now, including cutting emissions to zero in 2010 (already past) will change anything, why bother doing anything? It will change nothing, right?

I think that technology will prove this prediction wrong over time. No sense stressing over something we cannot change...

I am much more worried about toxics dumped into the sea than this sort of gloom and doom scenario that might not even be fragmentarily right. One wonders what climate 'monkey wrenches' they did not account for in the models.

Corals came about as a result of evolution in hypoxic, high CO2 seas. They still have the genes to survive still within their genomes. But, kill photosynthetic life in the sea and we can cut oxygen levels in the atmosphere. The sea must be protected from proven life-killers. Spend more time on that.
Smoulder
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2011
climate change (man-made or not) is not ethically significant. it is a "hot button" for pseudo-environmentalists who haven't the motivation to look beyond mass-media directives and concern themselves with genuine pollution that destroys life. "change" is not evil, and anyone who wishes to discern the true motives of the AGW activists need only "follow the money" at the Copenhagen summit. funny that the "science" of climate change boils down to global wealth redistribution.
Dr_Z
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2011
Ok, I am a skeptic too. I have been in the sciences long enough to know that you don't diss the grant givers. That said, the problem I have with the those who are religious about human CO2 production being a bad thing are so against nuclear electrical production. Why can't we agree that the U.S.'s economy depends on vast and growing amounts of energy. If we want that to be clean energy, then nuclear has to be a substantial part of the answer. Can't the believers and the skeptics agree on that? It does not take much smarts in math to figure out that renewable sources will never go much beyond 20% of our requirements. Let's work together on this one - no?
Wha_wha_what
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2011
I can't believe I read all these ridiculous political comments.

It seems foolish to think humans aren't impacting our environment. We have an effect on our world.

It also seems foolish to think we can fix things by buying carbon offsets or spending money on cash-for-pollution trade schemes.

I don't know what the solution is, maybe there isn't one. The only constant is change, after all. Global warming could be completely true, and completely normal at the same time.

Try not to get locked into such black-or-white viewpoints and just keep your minds open.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
Ok, I am a skeptic too. I have been in the sciences long enough to know that you don't diss the grant givers. That said, the problem I have with the those who are religious about human CO2 production being a bad thing are so against nuclear electrical production. Why can't we agree that the U.S.'s economy depends on vast and growing amounts of energy. If we want that to be clean energy, then nuclear has to be a substantial part of the answer. Can't the believers and the skeptics agree on that? It does not take much smarts in math to figure out that renewable sources will never go much beyond 20% of our requirements. Let's work together on this one - no?

What field are you in?
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
Science can be politicized that there is no doubt. However, the scientific process can not be


It's been shown time and time again that it's exceedingly difficult to perform observations that are free from bias. Even double blind experiments aren't free from bias. As for SH's suggestion that replicating the results verifies that there wasn't any bias, that's a BIG fallacy. Here's why: The second researcher, having read the work of the first researcher, will be influenced by the work of the first researcher. I work in problem solving for a living. That effect is easy to demonstrate. If you take a group of people into a room and tell them that they will be working on a problem, then have each of them go up and take turns writing root causes on the whiteboard, you'll see a trend. The things written by the first couple people, especially if those people are seen as an authority, will cause all the other people to look at the problem in the same way.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
It's been shown time and time again that it's exceedingly difficult to perform observations that are free from bias. Even double blind experiments aren't free from bias. As for SH's suggestion that replicating the results verifies that there wasn't any bias, that's a BIG fallacy.
No. If you create an experiment that is biased, that means you left room for error. Another scientist will discover this error.

If I build a product based on faulty science, chances are it won't work. If I can't explain why it won't work, the science is immediately reviewed and scrutinized. I challenge you to name a research paper that is wrong and wasn't challenged when contrary observation occured.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2011
George Dantzig solves unsolvable math problem because he did not know it was unsolvable.
"An event in Dantzig's life became the origin of a famous story in 1939 while he was a graduate student at UC Berkeley. Near the beginning of a class for which Dantzig was late, professor Jerzy Neyman wrote two examples of famously unsolved statistics problems on the blackboard. When Dantzig arrived, he assumed that the two problems were a homework assignment and wrote them down. According to Dantzig, the problems "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for the two problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue.
Six weeks later, Dantzig received a visit from an excited professor Neyman, eager to tell him that the homework problems he had solved were two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics."
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
No. If you create an experiment that is biased, that means you left room for error. Another scientist will discover this error


And when the concensus agrees that the experiment is valid, how many disenters does it take to refute it?

Google Confirmation Bias. The wiki page isn't a bad place to start, as it links to many good references.

Google the following for a good journal article about it.

Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system

It's easy to find examples of science that has been refuted after years of peer review which confirmed it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2011
And when the concensus agrees that the experiment is valid, how many disenters does it take to refute it?
1 with reproducable results.
It's easy to find examples of science that has been refuted after years of peer review which confirmed it.
After contrary observation occured reproducably.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
Have you ever seen the video experiment, where there are two groups of people in a room, one with white shirts and the other with black shirts. They are passing basketballs around and peopel are asked to count how many times either the black or white group passes the ball. After the video, people get different answers. Then if you ask how many gorillas there were in the room, most people will say "what?". Then if you go back and show the video again, it's clear that a guy in a gorilla suite walked right through the middle of the room, stopped in the middle of the screen, and waved, then walked off. Almost nobody ever sees the gorilla in the room unless they are looking for it.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Almost nobody ever sees the gorilla in the room unless they are looking for it.
And that's why science works. The best scientists are always looking for the gorilla.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
1 with reproducable results


History shows that isn't true. It always takes time before the generation that gew up with the old, wrong way of thinking will fully accept the new way. That's human nature. People are not scientific, and science is a creation of people, carried out by people, and interpreted by people. You can't take the people out of science, and therefor can't take error and bias out.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
History shows that isn't true. It always takes time before the generation that gew up with the old, wrong way of thinking will fully accept the new way.
That was because we typically had to wait a generation ot test a mathematical hypothesis. That isn't the case any longer. You've seen how fast scinetists have been turned over by watching current scientific developments in fields like genetics and biology, chemistry and materials science.

You're operating on an outdated view of the endeavor.

Take the example of Einstein. Relativity had to wait decades to be proved by experiment beyond a doubt. There are still components of it that weren't provable until this last year. ie: the smoothness postulate. You're speaking of revolutions, you can see that happening now in physics since we've found that some of our "established" knowledge was wrong or incomplete, like the standard model.

I think you're not seeing the process as it occurs.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
The best scientists are always looking for the gorilla


Very few human beings are capable of looking for the gorilla without knowing that there's one there, especially if they are focused on verifying or disproving that the ball was passed x number of times. Only the very best scientists are able to get past that basic limit of human nature and then it's not very frequent. Even the most exceptional scientific minds can be shown to have exhibited bias. Newton, Einstien, Aristotle, Gallileo, etc. all had bias and false beliefs they could not be disuaded from till their dying days.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
Newton, Einstien, Aristotle, Gallileo, etc. all had bias and false beliefs they could not be disuaded from till their dying days.
Because the evidence to the contrary didn't exist.

Look at Einstein's rigid disdain for something that was unfalsifiable until Feynman? This is the same old argument. There have been hundreds of years since most of those men made their educated guesses. Long, long ago the world was flat, and that wasn't wrong because it looked flat. Then we found out it wasn't, thanks to the Greek Philosophers(in regards to Western Civ).

You're required to bring evidence so that the knowledge pool doesn't get poisoned. When technology advances, we see scinetific revolution because now we can test the theory in greater depth. Then we learn new things.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
You're required to bring evidence so that the knowledge pool doesn't get poisoned


Yeah, so when your evidence is based on arbitrary assumptions, as in the case of the above article, how strong is the 'science'? For example, they specifically state that they used the 'best case' scenario for carbon emissions. My immediate question is: what about all the other paramerterizations in the model? Are the other unknowns using best or worse scenarios? How many runs did they do, and what parameters did they change with each pass? With a 1000 year run of the model, what did the other output variables look like; were they within realistic bounds? I mean, did the model show a realistic air pressure and temperature? What did the model say about other features of the system? If part of the model goes out of bounds, is any other part of the model valid? How do you prove it; by using other models based on the same original assumptions? They all share certain components, don't they?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2011
These are questions that are answered in the paper, not a journalist's article about the paper.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2011
lol, those are questions which are avoided in every article about climate on this web site, and most others like it. That's the reason the average person doesn't have a clue, and people like Pink_elephant will defend every article about climate models, no matter how absurd. Nobody even talks about the uncertainties. It's just sensationalism and attention grabbing headlines. Even if you read the IPCC WG1 reports, there's a noticable bias towards the certainties and a marginalization of the doubts. There are many more doubts than you would think if the only source you read is the IPCC, NOAA, CRU, NCDC or NASA. It's not just the journalists at fault.
Dr_Z
3 / 5 (6) Jan 17, 2011
Those who believe that CO2 is bad must consider nuclear generation of electricity. Those who like the idea of providing lots of cheap energy must do the same. Some significant countries have come to this conclusion: France, China, India, Great Britain and Iran (yes, there are some problems). Sweden has nixed getting rid of some of their old nuke plants because they realized that the wind doesn't always blow and certainly insolation that far north is minimal. Spain is dismantling their costly wind turbine experiments.

Nuclear power promises huge amounts of electricity 24/7. Electric cars for those who do not mind 100 or so mile drive ranges will be able to rejoice that they are not causing coal or natural gas to be burned somewhere else and become as close to carbon neutral as one can possibly approach.

Replace aging coal-fired plants with nuclear facilities is the way to go if you really want to make a *big* difference in CO2 and many other pollutants.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2011
lol, those are questions which are avoided in every article about climate on this web site
This website is publishing articles, not research.
That's the reason the average person doesn't have a clue, and people like Pink_elephant will defend every article about climate models, no matter how absurd.
The models aren't absurd just because they're models, which is the most common stance taken on the opposition.
Nobody even talks about the uncertainties. It's just sensationalism and attention grabbing headlines.
You're not reading the research, you're reading the articles.
Even if you read the IPCC WG1 reports,
Which are articles, not research.
there's a noticable bias towards the certainties and a marginalization of the doubts.
Tadaaaa
There are many more doubts than you would think if the only source you read is the IPCC, NOAA, CRU, NCDC or NASA. It's not just the journalists at fault.
Yes it is. The research points out flaws, articles don't.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2011
You're not reading the research, you're reading the articles.


I read both, and you know it (when they are available for free). While some organizations are good at disclosing uncertainty, others are not. NASA GISS, led by Gavin Schmidt, is a repeat offender here.

Yes it is. The research points out flaws, articles don't


Even when the journal entries are good, there is almost zero outcry when the media reports it wrong. Scientists are frequently quoted in interviews relating to their work where absurd and/or biased statements are made. I could probably site 100 biased quotes from lead authors here on physorg in the past week. You hold those people on a high pedestal, but they are still just people.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
I read both, and you know it (when they are available for free). While some organizations are good at disclosing uncertainty, others are not. NASA GISS, led by Gavin Schmidt, is a repeat offender here.
An example please.
Even when the journal entries are good, there is almost zero outcry when the media reports it wrong.
What do you think the scientific revolt against the IPCC summary for policy makers was?
I could probably site 100 biased quotes from lead authors here on physorg in the past week. You hold those people on a high pedestal, but they are still just people.
No I don't hold the journalists of physorg on a high pedastle. I often call them out for getting it wrong on these pages, just like that article you pointed me to last week.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 18, 2011
An example please


"Atmospheric CO2 Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature"

Improbable conclusions drawn from inconclusive evidence using circular reasoning. Classic Gavin Schmidt.

What do you think the scientific revolt against the IPCC summary for policy makers was?


A half-hearted effort that you can find little reference to now, resulting in very few changes to the official stance of the IPCC. Anyone seriously upset about it would boycot future IPCC work. None of the big scientific organizations are complaining.

No I don't hold the journalists of physorg on a high pedas


I meant that you hold the scientists up on a pedestal, not the media goons (don't call them journalists, you'll only encourage them).

Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 18, 2011
Improbable conclusions drawn from inconclusive evidence using circular reasoning. Classic Gavin Schmidt.
You displaced him as a wacko then cite a paper on the radiative balance of gas forcings.....
I meant that you hold the scientists up on a pedestal, not the media goons
I don't put anyone on a pedestal. The whole worship thing is for other people, not my cup o tea.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2011
You displaced him as a wacko then cite a paper on the radiative balance of gas forcings


You asked for an example of a peer reviewed paper where they don't do a good job of disclosing uncertainties. I reached for Schmidt becuase it was quick and I already had it open. I could have pulled out a Hansen or Mann study just as easily.