Climate change odds much worse than thought: New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

May 19, 2009 by David Chandler
The wheel on the right depicts researchers' estimation of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The wheel on the left assumes that aggresive policy is enacted. Image courtesy / MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

(PhysOrg.com) -- The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.

Prinn says these and a variety of other changes based on new measurements and new analyses changed the odds on what could be expected in this century in the “no policy” scenarios — that is, where there are no policies in place that specifically induce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the changes “unfortunately largely summed up all in the same direction,” he says. “Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected .”

While the outcomes in the “no policy” projections now look much worse than before, there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions. Without action, “there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated,” Prinn says. “This increases the urgency for significant policy action.”

To illustrate the range of probabilities revealed by the 400 simulations, Prinn and the team produced a “roulette wheel” that reflects the latest relative odds of various levels of temperature rise. The wheel provides a very graphic representation of just how serious the potential climate impacts are.

“There’s no way the world can or should take these risks,” Prinn says. And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback “is just going to make it worse,” Prinn says.

The lead author of the paper describing the new projections is Andrei Sokolov, research scientist in the Joint Program. Other authors, besides Sokolov and Prinn, include Peter H. Stone, Chris E. Forest, Sergey Paltsev, Adam Schlosser, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, John Reilly, Marcus Sarofim, Chien Wang and Henry D. Jacoby, all of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, as well as Mort Webster of MIT’s Engineering Systems Division and D. Kicklighter, B. Felzer and J. Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole.

Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, “we do the research, and let the results fall where they may,” he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”

Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible, Prinn says. “The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies.”

Provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news : web)

Explore further: NASA sees Genevieve squeezed between 3 tropical systems

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Report: Human activity fuels global warming

Feb 02, 2007

Today's release of a widely anticipated international report on global warming coincides with a growing clamor within the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the potentially devastating consequences ...

Methane gas levels begin to increase again

Oct 29, 2008

The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.

Human-generated ozone will damage crops

Oct 29, 2007

An MIT study concludes that increasing levels of ozone due to the growing use of fossil fuels will damage global vegetation, resulting in serious costs to the world's economy.

MIT sees acceleration in US greenhouse emissions

Nov 19, 2007

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could grow more quickly in the next 50 years than in the previous half-century, and technological change may cause increased emissions rather than control them, according to a new study by an ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees Genevieve squeezed between 3 tropical systems

11 hours ago

The resurrected Tropical Depression Genevieve appears squeezed between three other developing areas of low pressure. Satellite data from NOAA and NASA continue to show a lot of tropical activity in the Eastern ...

User comments : 93

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Avitar
3 / 5 (24) May 19, 2009
There computer model predicts enormous global warming if immediate, drastic action is not taken. What a surprise. Why are we leaving MIT open if they are going to spout this crap?


Get a computer model with less than 1% error. Then prove it with actual historic climate data before pontificating. The Ozone predictions turned out to be vastly overstated. Since we have perhaps thirty degrees Celsius on the upside and only ten on the down side before we are in a full ice age computer models need to be proven first.

Velanarris
4.1 / 5 (17) May 19, 2009
I read the headline and was non-plused as well, however, if you read on you'll see that the refinement was in population and developmental growth.

Assuming CO2/GHG's are a problem exactly as stated by the IPCC and other relevant groups with regard to AGW, then the refinement is most likely accurate.

The problem is the basis on which the refinement was made. If the AGW hypothesis is accurate, then the above recalculation is accurate, however, if the AGW hypothesis is flawed, the above study bears no merit in regard to climate change.
fuzz54
3.3 / 5 (18) May 19, 2009
There computer model predicts enormous global warming if immediate, drastic action is not taken. What a surprise. Why are we leaving MIT open if they are going to spout this crap?





Get a computer model with less than 1% error. Then prove it with actual historic climate data before pontificating. The Ozone predictions turned out to be vastly overstated. Since we have perhaps thirty degrees Celsius on the upside and only ten on the down side before we are in a full ice age computer models need to be proven first.



I run high fidelity simulations of aerospace structures and not even my models have less than %1 error. If you are waiting for that before pontificating then you might as well stop thinking about global warming and a wide variety of other things.

This is our best guess at the moment on what to do about global warming. If we do something then perhaps we'll keep our ecosystems in check, but at the cost of trillions of dollars. If we do nothing then we'll be rich but with devastation to many ecosystems and improvement in others. But my bet is that the negatives will outweigh positives and it will be too late to do anything about it once it happens if it does. Regardless, global warming is bad whether it's because of historic earth weather patterns or because of man. We now have the ability to control it if we want.
Velanarris
3.3 / 5 (19) May 19, 2009
Regardless, global warming is bad
Want to justify that? Global warming led to the rise of mammals and in turn, humans, as well as punctuated periods of social and economic growth multiple times in the past.

Global warming has never been a bad thing in the past.
Sirussinder
3.5 / 5 (21) May 19, 2009
My Computer models of global warming says the odds are much better than thought: New analysis says its a good thing:) as growing seasons and farmland range around the world triples.

-Less fossil fuel is burned due to a shorter winter
growing seasons are longer.

-Areas that were too short of a growing season is now available.

-Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and warmer temperatures makes it easier for plants to thrive.
Rick69
3.1 / 5 (21) May 19, 2009
The AGW crowd is starting to panic because they see the public opinion polls showing more and more rejection of their premises plus society is not ready to submit to their draconian "remedies" and turn our lives over to their will. Thus, they keep having to rachet up their propaganda to try to win us over. They can't risk losing all of the public funding which provides their livelihood. Producing studies which promote more publicity, drastic action, etc. means more money for them. Producing studies which don't do that means the spigot gets shut off.
Dutchtraveller
2.6 / 5 (23) May 19, 2009
Imagine someone offering you 1 million dollars to play russian roulette with one of your kids. One gun, one bullet and 5 empty chambers. Would you take that risk?

Here we have a situation where more than 80% of climate scientists believe in global warming.
That translates to 5 bullets and one empty chamber.
And the results of a rise of only 3-4 degrees are already so bad that billions will probably die.
So our politicians put a gun to the head of our kids and their kids.
That's the risk are they taking!!
Do you really think we should take no action????



kerry
2.7 / 5 (21) May 19, 2009
AGW Deniers,

Instead of whining about every global warming article physorg posts, why don't you guys take the arguments to the institutions that conduct the studies, themselves? March up to MIT and have a debate with one of their professors. Better yet, set up your own experiments, run your own simulations, and publish your own data! Sure, everyone is free to express skepticism and doubt, but you should probably respect the data that's around out there, gathered by scientists with more experience than you..
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) May 19, 2009
1) In order to get people to accept deprivation youve got to get them to assume the blame for it. Or else you will hear 'you should have done something''let them suffer instead of us', etc.
2) This includes shouldering the cost of developing the new tech we will need to live with this warming. Warming may or may not occur but the tech needs to be developed now because it can be; and if the West doesnt do it, someone else might in some uncontrolled fashion.
Dutchtraveller
2.4 / 5 (20) May 19, 2009
George W. Bush played russian roulette with the world when he didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Because the US didn't sign, developing countries like India and China didn't want to sign either. As a result CO2 emissions over the past 10 years have exceeded the worst predictions...

We don't need draconian measures if we take action now. And it's not going to ruin the economy. On the contrary.

Let's assume an average oil-price of 100$ for the coming years. The US imports 11 million barrels per day. That amounts to a cost of $400 billion per year. That money is going to countries like Irak, Venezuela etc and adding to the deficit...

If the amount of money spent rescuing the banks would have been invested in solar or wind energy then no new fossil power plants would need to be built any more.

Covering the same area as taken up by roads in the US with solar cells is enough to supply all the electricity. They have been able to cover that area with asphalt, don't you think they could cover the same area with solar?

This also creates jobs that won't be outsourced to developing countries.

In this: http://www.scient...and-plan

article a plan is proposed that ends the US dependence on foreign oil for in investment of a total of just $420 billion over a period of about 40 years, just a bit more than $10 billion per year. Compare that to the $400 billion or more (oil prices will be higher and not only oil is imported) that will be saved yearly on imports. Seems like a good return on investment to me....
Szkeptik
4.2 / 5 (15) May 19, 2009
I'm sure that some degree of warming exists, but seriously, some article claiming that whatever we thought until now is wrong comes up every week nowadays.
And it's not the normal thing where a theory gets refined and more precise.
Completely new stuff seem to pop out of nowhere. One day CO2 emissions are to blame for it. Next day the sulfur atoms in the atmosphere mask the co2 effects, the next day a new model says all the previous models are completely wrong, next day a new model states the one yesterday was wrong. Then we can be looking at a maximum 100 year increase of 4°C the next day it goes to 7°C the next day it goes back to 5°C.

Why the hell don't they just admit they have no idea?
vos
3.6 / 5 (15) May 19, 2009
YAWN ... once more i have to point out that not once, not ever have the warmists predicted something correctly. thats never and instead of catching on like adults the useful idiots in media just get louder and more strident. "we mean it this time!" "this time for sure!" ect..

Its the sun.
superhuman
3.4 / 5 (18) May 19, 2009
So their prediction more then doubled during just six years and they want us to believe they can model what will happen in 100 years?!

This is just ridiculous, they managed to prove their own predictions are way off as both old and new outcomes cannot be true at the same time. It's completely irrelevant why their prediction changed, either you can make a valid prediction or not and if not then you need to shut up. No prediction is much better then bad prediction.

The situation is pretty serious at this point, not because of warming but because governments seem ready to take action against it. Action which may have very dire consequences for the economy worldwide. It is therefore extremely unfortunate that models which are the sole reason for this action turn out to be *THIS* bad.
x646d63
3.8 / 5 (13) May 19, 2009
Hey, what a great study. Just in time to vote on policy, too. Incredibly convenient.
mikiwud
2.3 / 5 (12) May 19, 2009
The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge.

If 400 runs have the same chance of being correct, the each one has only a .25% chance.
deatopmg
3.3 / 5 (14) May 19, 2009
have they been able to match historical climate data?? NO! So why should we believe ANY of these models?? THey're dealing with predicting the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin, never having measured or even seen a fairy.

Bottom line: it's simply about money, livelihoods, and keeping the AGW religion alive (in spite of models do have an excellent fit to the historical climate data and predict the present cooling period will continue to accelerate for another 20 yrs or so).
NeilFarbstein
1.3 / 5 (13) May 19, 2009
Its' all of those things and a lot of others. It's more complex than you imagine. We know the polar ice caps are melting. The northwest passage is growing..
the sea levels will rise 2.5 per decade enough to flood lower manhattan very time there's stormy weather.
GrayMouser
4.3 / 5 (11) May 19, 2009
George W. Bush played russian roulette with the world when he didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Because the US didn't sign, developing countries like India and China didn't want to sign either. As a result CO2 emissions over the past 10 years have exceeded the worst predictions...

You mean President Clinton. Who signed it but refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it wouldn't pass.
docknowledge
2.3 / 5 (12) May 19, 2009
Maybe the importance of fuzz54's example wasn't clear. In an aerospace simulation for a single plane, millions might be spent. And much of the methods are founded on decades of experience -- where a mistake could mean a plane falling out of the air, or an entire program being canceled. He's saying that even with the greatest care, using objective and empirical information they STILL can't get a simulation to an accuracy of 1%.

The global warming people are dealing with information that is 10 or 100 times as uncertain. You would EXPECT the results to vary -- the simulations are based on different assumptions. But that doesn't mean the simulations shouldn't be done. They are a trial-and-error process. We need to think in larger terms than "scientific breakthrough".
GrayMouser
3.2 / 5 (13) May 19, 2009
I read the headline and was non-plused as well, however, if you read on you'll see that the refinement was in population and developmental growth.

Assuming CO2/GHG's are a problem exactly as stated by the IPCC and other relevant groups with regard to AGW, then the refinement is most likely accurate.

The problem is the basis on which the refinement was made. If the AGW hypothesis is accurate, then the above recalculation is accurate, however, if the AGW hypothesis is flawed, the above study bears no merit in regard to climate change.

Refinements to a model of a process you don't understand? Worthless.
Add to that the fact that now we know we don't know what the oceanic conveyor are doing throws all of the general circulation models out the window.
http://www.nature...979.html
LuckyBrandon
3.6 / 5 (12) May 19, 2009
superhuman-maybe its a quantum prediction..then it can be both right and wrong at the same time...lol
whaleyboy
2.1 / 5 (14) May 20, 2009
Why has physorg become such a hang out for incredibly stupid climate change sceptics? Even with scientists at MIT telling you what's happening you still blindly and religiously hold onto your belief that this is some conspiracy. Why do you even read this science website?? That's right, this is SCIENCE. You are exactly the same type of people defending creationism. EXACTLY...think about that. You are going against a theory that is no more controversial (in the scientific community) than evolution. There are lots of conspiracy theory websites you could be reading with more idiots to discuss how you are smarter than the scientists at MIT and everywhere else. Every new bit of evidence we get only confirms the man-made climate change theory. When will it be enough for you? I suppose you've been spouting your shit for so long it's too hard for you to admit you're completely and indefensibly wrong. Then again, maybe a bunch of ignorants posting messages on the internet really do know more than just about every scientist who studies this for a living...

Nah.
Velanarris
4.1 / 5 (13) May 20, 2009
George W. Bush played russian roulette with the world when he didn't sign the Kyoto protocol. Because the US didn't sign, developing countries like India and China didn't want to sign either.
First, Clinton and Gore didn't sign Kyoto. Second, to all the warmists, bring facts, not propaganda.
Here we have a situation where more than 80% of climate scientists believe in global warming.

There is no consensus, not 100%, not 80%, and not any other percent. Scientists don't use "consensus" politicians do.
Why has physorg become such a hang out for incredibly stupid climate change sceptics? Even with scientists at MIT telling you what's happening you still blindly and religiously hold onto your belief that this is some conspiracy. Why do you even read this science website?? That's right, this is SCIENCE. You are exactly the same type of people defending creationism. EXACTLY...think about that. You are going against a theory that is no more controversial (in the scientific community) than evolution.
Wrong. AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory. It's not on par with evolution, nor is it much beyond the point of creationism if you subtract the known elements of how the greenhouse effect works.
We know the polar ice caps are melting.

No, no we don't. One section of Antarctica is melting, and right now the extent of that melt is under intense scrutiny.
If the amount of money spent rescuing the banks would have been invested in solar or wind energy then no new fossil power plants would need to be built any more.
The initial estimate to prevent the need for future fossil fuel power generation in the US alone was 16 trillion in 1998. The total bailout and government budget combined is less than 5 trillion. To meet the needs for just the US, assuming no growth. you would have to spend more than 8 times the total cost of the American bailout.

Facts win arguments, not emotional doublespeak and exagerated spin stories.



Johannes
3 / 5 (8) May 20, 2009
Imagine someone offering you 1 million dollars to play russian roulette with one of your kids. One gun, one bullet and 5 empty chambers. Would you take that risk?





The problem is that a system with a chaotic like behavior is difficult to predict (the weather is chaotic, so a system that includes this is likely to be chaotic to). A change in one direction might result in the opposite result.

Even if the earth climate isn't chaotic it is very complex and difficult to measure. A small lack in understanding the issues at hand or a miscalculation because of wrong measurements is easy.



From a meta-scientific point of view climate science is in its infancy because of the rapid change in knowledge in the last few years or so. So the facts accumulate in rapid succession. And our cumulative understanding of the climate changes rapidly too.



So the real gamble is to use this almost certainly incomplete knowledge of a certainly super complex system (possibly even chaotic) and predict what actions we should take.

I wouldn't do that. And it isn't scientific at all to do that. Climate science is more like a religion currently. And I would wait for predictions until our knowledge is somewhat more stable.



An important question to ask about the 400 climate simulations is how much variance the results have. This is an indication of the correctness (completeness) of the model or the randomness (chaotic nature) of the results. I bet the variance is huge and using the average as a result is meaningless.



And even if we have sufficient knowledge in the future it could be that taking action is the wrong thing to do. For example it could be that the lack of sunspots continues and that as a result the earth enters an ice age (some scientist think that sunspots and temperature are thus correlated) and only extended human activity can turn this around (at least if CO2 is as important as most climate scientist think).



Also, its a big problem that you are only concerned about the future of your kids. You should be concerned about the future of all other animals that live with us on this planet.

And reduction of the number of humans and the space humans occupy is number one in that respect, rising CO2 levels has no impact at all in comparison.

Johannes
4.1 / 5 (10) May 20, 2009
Why has physorg become such a hang out for incredibly stupid climate change sceptics? Even with scientists at MIT telling you what's happening you still blindly and religiously hold onto your belief that this is some conspiracy.
... Then again, maybe a bunch of ignorants posting messages on the internet really do know more than just about every scientist who studies this for a living...


You have no idea how science works. Skepticism is an essential part of it. A valid theory must be able to withstand all criticism, or it is flawed.

People who think of alternative scenarios and new ideas how to interpret the data are the essence of science.

Also, being scientific is a state of mind in combination with a certain intelligence. It isn't reserved for scientist in function.

As history shows a lot of alternative scientific ideas (later on proven to be correct) came form outside the scientific field.
Johannes
4.1 / 5 (9) May 20, 2009
AGW Deniers,
Instead of whining about every global warming article physorg posts, why don't you guys take the arguments to the institutions that conduct the studies, themselves?


@kerry,

It's because the article has an influence on people; I try to counter that.
Of course that wouldn't work for religious people like you.

dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (8) May 20, 2009
...If the amount of money spent rescuing the banks would have been invested in solar or wind energy then no new fossil power plants would need to be built any more.

...




The other aspects of this post were addressed by Velanarris and others. However, the above comment is something that also must be addressed.



All solar and wind-farm power production sites require the construction of power plants which burn fossil fuels on the same sites in order to make the sites viable. This has been discussed elsewhere here and is something that AGW supporters tend to omit from their considerations of the subject.



Production and maintenance of thin-film and other solar cells has been responsible for contamination of the atmosphere with two very potent, manmade GHGs, one of which is 17,000 times more potent than CO2! Increased production of solar cells on the range of that proposed to remove American dependence on foreign oil would only increase production and release of these two gases into the atmosphere under current technology.



It is more of a case of destroying the earth to save it, as I have remarked in other forum threads.
Godfather
1.9 / 5 (9) May 20, 2009
Firstly I have to agree with Whaleyboy that lately this site seems to have been accosted by climate sceptics, though you do tend to find that forums are flooded by people who feel the need to air their opinion, opinion which is often founded on limited knowledge (compared to that of an actual MIT professor for example). Whilst I agree that science is the essence of a balanced argument, the only reason its balanced is because the argument is provided by specialists in their field, not the general public.







Anyway, its starting to annoy me hearing people spout on about how this is some giant swindle, and how much this will cost the economy. Firstly, lets just put aside whether Climate Change is real or not, and look at what we are actually doing. We are trying to reach a world where we use sustainable energy sources, where our children breath non-polluted air.







Some of the arguments on this board would make you think that we should stick to burning fossil fuels just because climate change doesn't exist. Is that really what we are doing?... for some strange reason I thought we were supposed to 'advance' technology?







Secondly, for the genius economists we have here, would you mind explaining to me the cost of re-tooling our entire infrastructure when oil finally runs out or becomes too difficult / costly to drill?







The climate is changing, and you'll forgive me if I believe the publications of an MIT professor before I believe some guy writing on this forum during his lunch break, but whether you are willing to accept Climate Change or not, the outcome of reducing carbon emissions is still a good one.







P.S. - To the guy who said it was convinient how this report has come out just in time for policy decisions. Yes, they are supposed to. They have publication deadlines which are there to impact policy decisions. No actually you are right, it would make more sense to publish when all of the work would have little impact. Duh!!!







whaleyboy
1.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2009
Also, being scientific is a state of mind in combination with a certain intelligence. It isn't reserved for scientist in function.


This is a great quote...it's a state of mind, man! WRONG...science is "the systematic observation of natural evens and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts." You can't just post some bullshit on the internet and call yourself a scientist. You have no plausibility whatsoever. You give no evidence for any of your arguments against AGW, you just spout the usual tripe with an air of self-grandeur in the hopes some gullible reader will think you know better than real scientists.

As history shows a lot of alternative scientific ideas (later on proven to be correct) came form outside the scientific field.


Sorry, came from 'outside' the scientific field? What does that even mean? Give me an example of scientific ideas coming form outside science? Similar comments are posted on pro-creationist websites all the time.
Velanarris
3.8 / 5 (10) May 20, 2009
The climate is changing, and you'll forgive me if I believe the publications of an MIT professor before I believe some guy writing on this forum during his lunch break, but whether you are willing to accept Climate Change or not, the outcome of reducing carbon emissions is still a good one.
Prove it. Farmers regularly fertilize their fields with CO2. A reduction in ambient CO2 means fewer functional fields from which to feed your children. You don't want your children to face a food crisis do you?
Sorry, came from 'outside' the scientific field? What does that even mean?
It means someone not skilled in the art looked at the current state of the field and produced a solution, or theory that was all encompassing.
Give me an example of scientific ideas coming form outside science?
An austrian patent clerk accurately describing the relationship of mass to energy. His name was Albert Einstein.
Similar comments are posted on pro-creationist websites all the time.
So are the diatribes of the green movement. Does that mean we should pay your ideology no heed because a creationist believes it?
Godfather
1.9 / 5 (9) May 20, 2009
Velanarris, I'm afraid if you expect me to be able to prove it in a forum post, you overestimate the potential of forums as a mode of communication. I also don't contain every single bit of data in my brain which would be required for me to 'prove' it to you. I will just have to ask that you read the many publications from respected institutions, such as MIT, Cambridge, for economic impact of Climate Change try LSE.

And what do you mean "ambient CO2" - are you seriously suggesting that we do not produce carbon emissions which are beyond the natural ambient quantity?
whaleyboy
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2009
Farmers regularly fertilize their fields with CO2. A reduction in ambient CO2 means fewer functional fields from which to feed your children. You don't want your children to face a food crisis do you?


This is the stupidest thing you've said so far. You think when people say they want to reduce CO2 that they want to completely take it out of the atmosphere...to a point where it would kill crops? You really are the next Albert Einstein.

An austrian patent clerk accurately describing the relationship of mass to energy. His name was Albert Einstein.


Einstein didn't produce his work outside of the "scientific field". He was hired as a physicist (as they needed someone who could understand the applications for devices that were based on electromagnetic phenomena) so was certainly not 'unskilled' in the 'art' of science. He didn't just post messages on a website saying he thought scientists were wrong. No scientific theory has ever been overthrown by someone with no knowledge of science or the scientific method.

Similar comments are posted on pro-creationist websites all the time.
So are the diatribes of the green movement. Does that mean we should pay your ideology no heed because a creationist believes it?


I didn't mean there are climate change sceptics posting on pre-creationist websites. I mean they use similar arguments to back up their equally wrong ideas. That somehow it's the scientists who are wrong and that if we only look 'outside' of science we will realize creationism (or your ideas) are right.
Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (11) May 20, 2009
Ok gentlemen, since you're both so exquisitely learned on this subject matter, how much, in percentage, of ambient CO2 should human beings be allowed to produce?

1%?
5%?
25%?

What is an acceptable figure in your realities?

Current reality is human beings have generated less than half of 1% of the total ambient CO2 in the atmosphere during the entirety of the time period starting at the industrial revolution, up until now.

You're going to tell me that is a climate changing amount of a marginal GHG which is a trace gas occupying less than 1% of our atmosphere? You're both off base. You moreso than the rest whaleyboy, as you seem to have no grasp of the topic and prefer to palm any discussion off to "you vs. flat earthers/creationists/right wingers". The reality is, when the body of knowledge on the topic changes, so does my stance, can either of you say the same?
superhuman
3 / 5 (8) May 20, 2009
Maybe the importance of fuzz54's example wasn't clear. In an aerospace simulation for a single plane, millions might be spent. And much of the methods are founded on decades of experience -- where a mistake could mean a plane falling out of the air, or an entire program being canceled. He's saying that even with the greatest care, using objective and empirical information they STILL can't get a simulation to an accuracy of 1%.


That 1% is unattainable does not mean we should trust a model whose prediction shifted by 116% after just 6% of simulation time. No sane engineer would ever use such a model for anything.

Even with scientists at MIT telling you what's happening...


The fact that the model originated from MIT doesn't make it's error any smaller. In fact it makes this result much more unsettling as it implies this is one of the best climatologists have and it's worthless.

And I am not a GW denier, I believe the Earth is currently warming and I believe our emissions may be playing a significant role, unfortunately there is no way to tell how big this role really is until we can simulate what the climate would have been without us. This however requires a working climate model, a model *proved* to make accurate predictions. This article makes it painfully obvious that such a model is not even on the horizon. Too bad climatologists don't have enough scientific integrity to admit it instead of playing in astrology.
Dutchtraveller
2 / 5 (8) May 20, 2009
I see a lot of climate skeptics arguing that we should not take action because global warming is not proven...

In my book it is proven but I say it's the skeptics that need to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) that these continued emissions of CO2 don't cause harm to the environment. They are disturbing the status quo (pre industrial levels of CO2) and the burden of proof is therefore on them.

Before allowing any new fossil plants we need proof that they don't harm the environment.

The argument that when building solar or wind power equal amounts of conventional generation need to be built is fud.

The existing capacity needed for peak production is used for that. Actually less spare capacity is needed because a percentage of the total solar and especially wind power can be used for baseload.

Germany, Denmark and Spain already have generate large percentages of their electricity with solar and wind. This results in lower prices for the consumers even though those same consumers subsidize the electricity generated by solar and wind.

The government only needs to put up a small fraction of the total costs to make it attractive for investors.

And when gridparity is reached (in a couple of years time) no subsidies are needed any more.

It just needs to be jumpstarted and facilitated.

Variability can be handled by a grid across the whole of the US and Canada.

In the Netherlands there are lot's of coal plants that cannot easily or efficiently be turned off. It's also cheapest to run them full throttle.

A couple of years ago a high voltage underseas cable was installed between the Netherlands and Norway.

Norway produces almost all of it's electricity with hydropower. At night they turn off some turbines saving the water for the daytime and power is delivered from the Netherlands. In the peak during the daytime electricity flows the other way. This saves expensive generation based on natural gas. This cable paid for itself in less than 2 years.

Solar delivers most of it's power during the peak demand (daytime in summer when the airco's are running) so only price-parity with natural gas generation is needed for solar to be economical.

The US and Canada have lot's of hydropower and can use the same system. So there is no need for extra fossil capacity or expensive storage systems.

Just a good grid, which is a good idea anyway.

Wind turbines and solar panels are mostly produced locally creating lot's of jobs.

The money spent on building solar and wind power plants flows right back into the economy instead to foreign oil-producers.

My point is that you don't need to believe in global warming to do this.

It's doable (easier than putting a man on the moon)
and it's a good investment.
Godfather
2.1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2009
@Dutchtraveller - Good post, you seem pretty informed on energy generation, and nice to read some sound economic reasoning.

@velanarris... I'm sorry but I can't just accept your claim that "human beings have generated less than half of 1% of ambient CO2"... in fact that is my point, I'm never going to be convinced by anyone in a forum of anything, its unfounded banter. Please do post the link to that statistic though.

As this article states, the "MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well" - therefore, how you can say the result has massively changed and that they can't make up their minds, its a completely different model from ones that produced the previous results.

But yes my stance does change in the light of information and evidence, that is how science works, and so far, from what I have read, human activity is impacting the environment with detrimental effects. Please don't ask me to 'prove' it, its like asking someone to prove that God doesn't exist, they can't, but all the evidence suggest that he doesn't, and I'm afraid that all the evidence seems to suggest that climate change is not a fictional conspiracy.

In very basic terms, the Earth's biosphere has a finite ability to absorb / sink carbon. Carbon is a GHG, the more you produce, the warmer it gets. The climate (thats climate, not short-term meteorological temperature) is warming, we are producing above natural levels of CO2... its seems quite logical to me, but then I guess some people are still religious in the face of no evidence for God.

What really gets me though, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, is why the hell wouldn't you want advance technology? have a cleaner world? have more efficient systems? Create jobs? ... why are you so happy to keep burning fossil fuels? Do you work for Shell or something? One day oil will run out, and your argument over climate change is suddenly irrelevant, and well done, you just stopped us from re-tooling our species with the means of energy generation and non-oil driven infrastructure we needed. Nice.

whaleyboy
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2009
Ok gentlemen, since you're both so exquisitely learned on this subject matter, how much, in percentage, of ambient CO2 should human beings be allowed to produce?

1%?
5%?
25%?

What is an acceptable figure in your realities?

Current reality is human beings have generated less than half of 1% of the total ambient CO2 in the atmosphere during the entirety of the time period starting at the industrial revolution, up until now.


What is an acceptable amount of CO2 that humans should be allowed to produce? How about any amount that doesn't upset the natural balance? We can still produce CO2 if we offset the amount with sequestration. You don't seem to understand that the percentage of CO2 we produce, whether it's 1% or 25% doesn't matter. Any extra amount upsets the natural balance. Think of running a bath with the plug removed. If the amount of water entering the bath is equal to the amount going down the drain you've got equilibrium. Human emissions are like turning the tap on just a little bit more. It doesn't matter how much more, the bath will start to overflow. You've upset the balance. BTW your figure of "less than 1%" for human contribution of CO2 in the atomosphere is totally unfounded (let's see your source).

Although there is uncertainty as to the exact amount it is far higher than "less than 1%" you claim.

"...human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent"
source: http://www.noaane...2412.htm

"...human activity accounts for 22% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
source: http://www.netl.d...ge3.html

These are obviously from scientists, so you may be sceptical of their claims.
Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2009
Please don't ask me to 'prove' it, its like asking someone to prove that God doesn't exist, they can't, but all the evidence suggest that he doesn't, and I'm afraid that all the evidence seems to suggest that climate change is not a fictional conspiracy.
If you have evidence, that is proof, so proving it should be easy. If your evidence is not conclusive, there's no proof, and in turn, no evidence.

Here's a few lines from the IPCC's fourth review on climate, (mysteriously absent from the final draft of the version for "policymakers")

1) %u201CNone of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.%u201D
2) %u201CNo study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man%u2013made causes%u201D



What really gets me though, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, is why the hell wouldn't you want advance technology?
At what point in time did I say we shouldn't advance technology? We shouldn't waste money building an infrastructure for a technology that right now cannot succeed.
BTW your figure of "less than 1%" for human contribution of CO2 in the atomosphere is totally unfounded (let's see your source).
I base my figures off of the initial calibrated measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Measurements, that as so far, have not been disputed. You want em? go read Fourier's "Effects of Coal Combustion"

These are obviously from scientists, so you may be sceptical of their claims
So are these:
"Hence, in this best explanation yet for the impressive correlation of CO2 and air temperature over glacial-interglacial cycles, atmospheric CO2 variations are the result of temperature variations and not vice versa, which is what the ice core data also tell us about this phenomenon. Once again, therefore, we have another demonstration of the fact that it is changes in air temperature that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and not the reverse phenomenon, which figures so highly in GCM predictions of continued global warming as a result of the rising CO2 content of earth's atmosphere." -Stephens, B.B. and Keeling, R.F. 2000. The influence of Antarctic sea ice on glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. Nature 404: 171-174.

"A dramatic increase in forest growth has certainly occurred in this region since that time, and in particular over the last century and a half. One of the reasons for this increase is most certainly the rise in earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration." -Knight, C.L., Briggs, J.M. and Nellis, M.D. 1994. Expansion of gallery forest on Konza Prairie Research Natural Area, Kansas, USA. Landscape Ecology 9: 117-125.

Go here and read the article, maybe after that we can come to some sort of agreement in our debate.
http://masterreso.../?p=1538
whaleyboy
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2009
Here's a few lines from the IPCC's fourth review on climate, (mysteriously absent from the final draft of the version for "policymakers")

1) %u201CNone of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.%u201D


2) %u201CNo study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man%u2013made causes%u201D



Very good of you to post what wasn't put in the final draft, here are few lines that actually were:


"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (90% probable) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[34]"

"The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%."


You can bring out the old "it's a conspiracy to get funding" card if you want, but without any evidence for that its worthless.


I base my figures off of the initial calibrated measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Measurements, that as so far, have not been disputed. You want em? go read Fourier's "Effects of Coal Combustion"

Can you send a link to this source, a quick look on google comes up with nothing relevant.



These are obviously from scientists, so you may be sceptical of their claims
So are these:

"Hence, in this best explanation yet for the impressive correlation of CO2 and air temperature over glacial-interglacial cycles, atmospheric CO2 variations are the result of temperature variations and not vice versa, which is what the ice core data also tell us about this phenomenon. Once again, therefore, we have another demonstration of the fact that it is changes in air temperature that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and not the reverse phenomenon, which figures so highly in GCM predictions of continued global warming as a result of the rising CO2 content of earth's atmosphere." -Stephens, B.B. and Keeling, R.F. 2000. The influence of Antarctic sea ice on glacial-interglacial CO2 variations. Nature 404: 171-174.

"A dramatic increase in forest growth has certainly occurred in this region since that time, and in particular over the last century and a half. One of the reasons for this increase is most certainly the rise in earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration." -Knight, C.L., Briggs, J.M. and Nellis, M.D. 1994. Expansion of gallery forest on Konza Prairie Research Natural Area, Kansas, USA. Landscape Ecology 9: 117-125.

Go here and read the article, maybe after that we can come to some sort of agreement in our debate.

http://masterreso.../?p=1538


Right, you've quoted two articles there, one from 2000 and the other from, er...1994? We'll move quickly past those. Although I must just say the second quote says nothing about the argument but does say CO2 is good for trees...wow, who'd have thought. The link you sent seems to back up what I've been saying, so thanks for that. Here are a few quotes from it:

"So there are (at least) three independent methods of determining the source of the extra CO2 that is building-up in the atmosphere, and all three of them finger fossil-fuel combustion as the primary culprit.

Yet, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, the ultra-skeptics persist on forwarding the concept that the observed atmospheric CO2 growth is not caused by human actions."

"In future articles, if I have time between combating alarmist outbreaks, I may point out some other ultra-skeptic fallacies such as, "The build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases isn't responsible for elevating global average surface temperatures" or "Natural variations can fully explain the observed global warming.""


I guess we have come to an agreement.



Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2009
I guess we have come to an agreement.
Yes, ultra skeptics are moronic, as are ultra alarmists like Gore, Hansen, Mann, Soros, etc.



Join me in the middle, where there is intellectually honest debate, and do us all a favor, stop attempting to state that because we don't believe the tenents of AGW hypothesis that we're flat earthers, or creationists, as you have in this very conversation. It's ignorant, and telling of your actual aim.
Johannes
5 / 5 (7) May 21, 2009
@whaleyboy, "Einstein didn't produce his work outside of the "scientific field"."



Yes he did, he had when he produced his greatest ideas no contact with the physics community, so he was outside "the scientific field" (meaning, not in contact with the scientific establishment, and producing his ideas on his own).

Maybe before you start to scream accusations, ask a clarification.



It also helps when you read more carefully and without prejudice. Your remark about "scientific is a state of mind" is completely of the mark. I stated that "being scientific is a state of mind", thats something else than the scientific method.



Apparently you define everyone who opposes the majority of the scientific community as someone who must be mad, unscientific or a pro creationist.

In the history of science this situation has occurred several times, with the minority view as a 'winner', and the scientific establishment as a 'loser'.



Science isn't about majorities, it isn't about voting, it is all about sound arguments and facts.

So instead of accusing me, you could look at the sound arguments I posted in this forum.



J.
whaleyboy
1.9 / 5 (9) May 21, 2009
I guess we have come to an agreement.
Yes, ultra skeptics are moronic, as are ultra alarmists like Gore, Hansen, Mann, Soros, etc.


Are you saying that you are NOT an ultra-skeptic? That's hard to believe when you say things like:

"[AGW is not] much beyond the point of creationism"

or

"You're going to tell me that is a climate changing amount of a marginal GHG which is a trace gas occupying less than 1% of our atmosphere?"

By which I think you mean that you think that GHG are not at a level that can affect the atmosphere. That pretty much sums up what that site calls an ultra-skeptic:

"Ultra-skeptics think that human greenhouse gas-producing activities are impacting the earth%u2019s climate in no way whatsoever."

Or am I wrong on what your stance is? If you concede that it is at least possible that human emmisions of GHG are affecting the climate, then yes, we can come to some consensus. Read some other posts by others in this thread:


"Bottom line: it's simply about money, livelihoods, and keeping the AGW religion alive..."

"Hey, what a great study. Just in time to vote on policy, too. Incredibly convenient."

"YAWN ... once more i have to point out that not once, not ever have the warmists predicted something correctly. thats never and instead of catching on like adults the useful idiots in media just get louder and more strident. "we mean it this time!" "this time for sure!" ect..
Its the sun."


If you cannot distance yourself from comments like these, which obviously show no understanding of the issue, or the science behind it, then there can never be an intellectual middle ground for us to meet in. Distance yourself from posters like this and I will happily concede that your arguments are valid and based on the current scientific evidence, even if we disagree about the proportion that is human-caused and the severity that it will have upon our planet.

Lastly I will say that I find it difficult to not get infuriated when reading threads like these, where people seem to have ended up with an immovable perception of climate change. If there were a steady stream of science articles being published that went against the common consensus then I could understand. But there just isn't. Every article in recent times has only supported the AGW theory (or hypothesis, if you will). I cannot ignore that fact and cannot understand people who seem to have become so entrenched in the idea that there is some kind of cover-up or conspiracy that they will never take a scientific paper seriously if it shows evidence for AGW.

Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2009
I guess we have come to an agreement.
Yes, ultra skeptics are moronic, as are ultra alarmists like Gore, Hansen, Mann, Soros, etc.

Are you saying that you are NOT an ultra-skeptic? That's hard to believe when you say things like:
"[AGW is not] much beyond the point of creationism"
or
"You're going to tell me that is a climate changing amount of a marginal GHG which is a trace gas occupying less than 1% of our atmosphere?"

By which I think you mean that you think that GHG are not at a level that can affect the atmosphere.
So that means that CO2 is both the only GHG and that I don't believe the climate is changing.

The only constant to the climate IS change. I've said it many times, and will continue to say so. Man does affect his environment. Saying otherwise is foolish. Lastly, man does affect local and regional temperature, in my opinion, not through his emissions, but through his land use change, which is very rarely looked at by the AGW community. So rarely that in some cases it's offered as a counter to AGW theory, which is very quickly referred to as a "denialist" excuse. Like the UHIE.
That pretty much sums up what that site calls an ultra-skeptic:

"Ultra-skeptics think that human greenhouse gas-producing activities are impacting the earth%u2019s climate in no way whatsoever."
Also said of regular skeptics.
Or am I wrong on what your stance is? If you concede that it is at least possible that human emmisions of GHG are affecting the climate, then yes, we can come to some consensus.
GHGs do affect climate. A paltry increase in CO2 which is not outside of levels we have seen in the past, especially since CO2 is shadowed out by far more prevalent gasses on most of its absorption bands, is not affecting global climate to any significant margin. I'm not denying the Greenhouse Effect, I am denying the ability of CO2 to be the sole reason for any climate change. The system is too large, and too complex to be sunk by a single mechanism of such small quantity.

If you cannot distance yourself from comments like these, which obviously show no understanding of the issue, or the science behind it, then there can never be an intellectual middle ground for us to meet in.
Did I make those comments or are you associating another's comments with my own? Answer is, the latter. There is no line in the sand here. Discussions of science should not be a "you're with us, or you're against us" debate, Mr. Bush.
Distance yourself from posters like this and I will happily concede that your arguments are valid and based on the current scientific evidence, even if we disagree about the proportion that is human-caused and the severity that it will have upon our planet.
You're the one who has made the association, not I. Not once did you even ask what my stance was, you went by the comments of other posters and submitted that I was a member of an ultra-denialist, anti-AGW parade of soothsayers and creationist alchemy students.

Generalizations do not advance your point of view.
tly I will say that I find it difficult to not get infuriated when reading threads like these, where people seem to have ended up with an immovable perception of climate change. If there were a steady stream of science articles being published that went against the common consensus then I could understand. But there just isn't.
Actually there are many of them. The grand majority of articles in regards to climate have zero bearing on AGW or CO2. The issue is, most articles don't speak to any sort of extreme view of "impending doom" or "nothing going on". Most articles are inconclusive due to large holes in our framework of knowledge on the topic, and as such, never make headlines.

I don't deny the potential for AGW to be a valid hypothesis, and it is a hypothesis otherwise it wouldn't have undergone such a quick and easy name change, but in the words of Lewis Black:

"I may not be able to play sports, or produce nuclear fusion, but I'm a hell of a reader."

And this reader remains unconvinced.
Johannes
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2009
... I say it's the skeptics that need to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) that these continued emissions of CO2 don't cause harm to the environment. They are disturbing the status quo (pre industrial levels of CO2) and the burden of proof is therefore on them.


Interesting observation: no change of importance since pre-industrial CO2 levels. The predicted climate instabilities didn't occur (at least not above el-Niño level). So its reasonable to say that the current situation is 'stable'.

It is change that is the most probable cause of trouble. Reduce the CO2 level to before the industrial revolution is risky because a non linear possibly chaotic system doesn't react in a predictable way.

The argument that when building solar or wind power equal amounts of conventional generation need to be built is fud.


No it isn't. Solar power is heavily subsidized in Germany. Thats the only reason its is economically viable to use them. (In the Netherlands no one buys solar panels until it is subsidized, and the dutch government changes the rules by the day.)
Without the subsidy it is uncertain if the CO2 cost outweigh the CO2 reduction of solar panel use. The cost of producing it, transporting it (currently most solar panels are made in China unfortunately) installing it in combination with a life span of 20 years (and even that is uncertain) doesn't ad up favorably.
Non of the technical people I know are certain that the energy needed to produce a solar panel is lower that the energy produced by the panel all factors included. I don't say that this is impossible but for places like the Netherlands and Germany a factor two in energy yield and lifetime is needed.

The existing capacity needed for peak production is used for that.

I see a problem here, this energy is also reserved for future electric cars.
superhuman
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2009
What really gets me though, regardless of whether climate change is real or not, is why the hell wouldn't you want advance technology? have a cleaner world? have more efficient systems? Create jobs? ... why are you so happy to keep burning fossil fuels? Do you work for Shell or something?


It's all about money of course, you can't just print them, you have to take them from someone. Would you still be so enthusiastic about all those things if you knew it meant 30% higher taxes for you? Maybe you can afford it but there are millions who can't.

There are plenty of noble causes which need money, we have diseases, hunger, poverty, toxic pollution, etc. Shifting funding to fighting global warming will negatively affect all such programs resulting in more people dying, more starving, more environmental damage, and so on.

This is why it really matters if humans contribute significantly to the GW and if billions spent on fighting it will make any difference.
Velanarris
4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2009
SH,

I'm curious. What brought about the change in focus of your commentary? I recall you being less concerned with the economics of the issue in our prior discussions.
mikiwud
2.1 / 5 (7) May 23, 2009
It's all about money of course, you can't just print them, you have to take them from someone. Would you still be so enthusiastic about all those things if you knew it meant 30% higher taxes for you? Maybe you can afford it but there are millions who can't.

Even worse if after all the hardships caused it makes no difference.
superhuman
2.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2009
SH,
I'm curious. What brought about the change in focus of your commentary? I recall you being less concerned with the economics of the issue in our prior discussions.

It probably has more to do with your focus while reading my comments as I was always concerned with the whole picture including realistic economic costs.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) May 23, 2009
SH,

I'm curious. What brought about the change in focus of your commentary? I recall you being less concerned with the economics of the issue in our prior discussions.


It probably has more to do with your focus while reading my comments as I was always concerned with the whole picture including realistic economic costs.
Makes sense. In retrospect, I think we share more common aims than we realized prior.
LuckyBrandon
3 / 5 (13) May 23, 2009
Gotta love all the defense of professors on here since I last looked.

I've got news people...being a professor doesn't mean ANYTHING at all. In fact, you may not even be good at what you teach. This is teh same reason that if I am hiring a person, I will hire the person with 10 years experience over the person with a masters degree and 1 year experience.
Why? I'll tell you...all that 8 years of college did was give some lab experience, and a good amount of book experience...none of which adds up to real experience which the guy or gal doing it for 10 years has unbounded quantities more of.

Why do I mention this? Because to believe a professor just because he is at MIT, or any other country, just doesn't make sense because he/she is sitting on their butts at the college doing simulations or whatever else. If you want to believe a professor, fiune, but believe the one dropping measurement buoys into the ocean and monitoring them, or other hands on activities that acquire REAL data.

A real world example: A professor at my old school is now a colleague of mine, and although his total experience is around 2.5 times more than mine in terms of years, he had never done anything as intensive in our field of IT as I have, and as a result, I picked up a more more refined skillset. Now he calls me for answers.....and I never even got to finish my shcooling....


And before anyone says it...I'm not a global warming denier...I just think you need to put the blame where it belongs...on mother nature.

BTW if we build a bomb big enough to kill mother nature, then our climate issues will go away. Mark my words :P
vos
2.8 / 5 (6) May 23, 2009
aaawww jeeez here we go again with the global warming BS. booga booga ect. how can anyone still take this seriously?
blackle4ps3
not rated yet May 23, 2009
Doubtfully Iranian oil wells burning 24/7 for months on end figured in this theory
Gammakozy
3.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2009
I predict with 99% certainty that all of today's climate fear-prophets will be laughing stocks in the future and rightly branded as charlatans. And I did not even have to use a computer model. All it took was some common sense and objectivity.
RAL
3.2 / 5 (9) May 24, 2009
This article is the funniest thing I've read today. Which of the runs predicted ten years of no net change in global temperature ten years ago?

I thought the Homeland Security Danger Level graph was kind of hokey, but this takes the cake! It looks like something from Space Family Robinson. All they need is some flashing lights and an ominous voice klaxon coming out of the one on the right saying, "Danger Will Robinson. Must raise taxes and destroy world economy or we're all DOOMED!"

The more the empirical data deviates from the dire predictions the wilder the predictions get. Seems the only provable hypothesis in global warming, uh "climate change" these days.

Too funny.
RAL
3.4 / 5 (10) May 24, 2009
@Gammakozy - I think your prediction has already come true. A number of recent polls have shown that fewer and fewer people are falling for this alarmist malarky. Unfortunately many have found a way to make a lot of money with it so you have a bunch of businesses lining up at the Congressional trough backing it now. But eventually people will realize we've been taken for an expensive ride and I doubt they will be laughing.

VINDOC
3.5 / 5 (11) May 24, 2009
My computer model shows the earth turning into a big block of ice in 99 years. I taking my model to the government so your taxes can be raise to pay me. I call my model climate change. You can buy climate change offsets from me for $19.99 a month. If you send me money we all won't freeze to death.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (12) May 24, 2009
So they weren't getting enough scam money in government grants by saying "The sky is falling! the sky is falling!". So they changed tactics to "THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!"

Climatologists make me laugh. They're a shade away from those con artist preachers you see on at 3 a.m. every Sunday.
bangskij
2.1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2009
Actually, we *do* know the polar ice caps are melting. There is no controversy -based on the facts at least. Naturally, there are lots of people with vested interests in denying these facts. Personally, these facts are bleedingly obvious. I live far in the north, here the climate has changed radically since I was a child. It already happened. I don't need a climate model or government funded scientist to tell me that the nature outside this window could not be 30 years ago. The forests spawn taller trees, multiple new species that couldn't live here because it was too cold now live here... in all. I would appear that most on this forum have a vested political interest rather than a scientific interest. Maybe you should form a political party or join up with an existing one and lobby for your beliefs rather than bugging us scientists with your ridiculous semantics.
vos
3.3 / 5 (7) May 24, 2009
the poler ice caps are fine. they arnt melting any more than they always have. get a grip, look around, the sky isn't falling.
LuckyBrandon
1.5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2009
what im curious of, is since we can "read" carbon and other chemical traces in things like ice and rock cores, wouldnt that mean it is feasible to correlate former tipping points of earths climate (say from savanna to ice age and back) to specific measurements to then compare against now. My thinking is that this should give us a great estimate of what the atmospheric conditions were at the time an ice age started, or what have you...then that can be baselined and used to compare todays atmospheric conditions to yesteryears right as the ice age started, or a savanna started...you get my point...

or am i way off base here that it should be looked at only from a high level point of view with all the evidence side by side and not one off researching being done?
IMO, if the governments are that worried about it, regulate the research to being federally funded and work with the other teams across the world to share all data..then an actual concesus could be reached by those studying it.

Personally, I think they are going to find its natural and we better grab our river tubes because were going to ride the rapids in the next couple hundred years. I would just move to the orbital living habitats that are bound to exist by then.
gekozoid
4 / 5 (1) May 24, 2009
Please stop saying such bullshit.
Please read:
http://epw.senate...ty.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
(copy link)
And I'm watching weather too:
http://www.youtub...gekozoid





John_balls
1.7 / 5 (11) May 24, 2009
Velannaris is such a right wing hack it's not even funny anymore. Any person that spends this much time on a science forum denying AGW must reside in a mental institution.

Please publish your research to be peer reviewed or just go away with your nonensense. Your no different the person denying evolution or thinking smoking is not bad for you health. In other words your old and tired.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (9) May 24, 2009
Actually, we *do* know the polar ice caps are melting.
No. Only one cap was allegedly melting, and at this time the degree of melt appears to be greatly exaggerated.

There is no controversy -based on the facts at least.
Well if there was controversy they would cease to be facts.



Here's the problem with "the facts". "The facts" are not being used. A common propagandist starts with a fact, for example: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact is undisputable, and common knowledge. Then something odd happens, the fact is applied to the propaganda, typically in a method of tenuous connection, example: CO2 emissions from human beings have increased the temperature of the world. This tenuous connection is then stressed to an audience. When a member of the audience stands up and refutes the tenuous connection the storyteller does not defend against the accusation from the audience, instead he expounds upon the fact.

Me: Hey, you can't prove that CO2 is doing any sort of global damage, especially in such a small quantity.

Storyteller: So you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Wow, what's wrong with you, denialist!



Go through the threads on here, look at the political debates, this is the exact method employed to sell the CO2 scam.



Naturally, there are lots of people with vested interests in denying these facts. Personally, these facts are bleedingly obvious. I live far in the north, here the climate has changed radically since I was a child. It already happened. I don't need a climate model or government funded scientist to tell me that the nature outside this window could not be 30 years ago. The forests spawn taller trees, multiple new species that couldn't live here because it was too cold now live here... in all.
Well, my grandparents owned a farm in Novia Scotia at the turn of the century prior and were able to grow many vegetables there. When my aunt and uncle took it over, very little would grow, so they took to growing colder weather crops. Guess what their kids can grow there now? Yep, the weather cycle continues in timeframes longer than our lifespans. Get used to it.



I would appear that most on this forum have a vested political interest rather than a scientific interest. Maybe you should form a political party or join up with an existing one and lobby for your beliefs rather than bugging us scientists with your ridiculous semantics.
Sorry, you must have me confused with the great scientist who made us all aware of global warming, Al Gore.

Velannaris is such a right wing hack it's not even funny anymore. Any person that spends this much time on a science forum denying AGW must reside in a mental institution.
Yes, the textbook definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. I keep trying to educate you, yet you'll never learn. I must be utterly crazy.

FYI: Facts win arguments John, not insults.
gekozoid
2 / 5 (3) May 24, 2009
Sorry for previous post. Some "fuse" hase destroyed my link:)
Please feed google with:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
and read what will be found.
Regards:)
John_balls
1.9 / 5 (13) May 24, 2009
FYI: Facts win arguments John, not insults.


Yes, I have the scientific facts derived from some of the best scientific minds on the planet from the most reputable scientific institutions in the world.

Now, again, please publish your research to have it peer reviewed by these experts or just go away with your politics.

You are so dogmatic it's not even semi amusing. We get it, you hate Al Gore. Surprise, surprise.
RAL
3.8 / 5 (10) May 24, 2009
Well John_balls for being such an amazing scientist you start out demanding we accept AGW based on an anecdote about what is growing outside your window. How scientific is that?

It's been many years since I published in a peer reviewed journal, having retired, but I will stake my scientific training, background, and knowledge against Al Gore's and win any day of the week. The AGW proponents busily telling everyone else to shut up never seem to apply their strident demands for credentials to the biggest AGW advocate of them all.

As long as you are going to let Gore, Obama, McCain, and the mile long string of politicians lecture us on AGW, I'll feel perfectly comfortable getting on PhysOrg and refuting and ridiculing the biggest fraud in science since Piltdown Man.
GrayMouser
3.2 / 5 (11) May 25, 2009
Maybe the importance of fuzz54's example wasn't clear. In an aerospace simulation for a single plane, millions might be spent. And much of the methods are founded on decades of experience -- where a mistake could mean a plane falling out of the air, or an entire program being canceled. He's saying that even with the greatest care, using objective and empirical information they STILL can't get a simulation to an accuracy of 1%.



The global warming people are dealing with information that is 10 or 100 times as uncertain. You would EXPECT the results to vary -- the simulations are based on different assumptions. But that doesn't mean the simulations shouldn't be done. They are a trial-and-error process. We need to think in larger terms than "scientific breakthrough".

The basic problem here is that they can't quantify the error but still get the news and politicians agitated with their strident warnings. Then they bad-mouth anyone that has evidence that doesn't support them instead of analyzing the data and the hypothesis to see why they don't agree. Sorry, but this ain't science the way it used to be taught in college.
GrayMouser
2.8 / 5 (9) May 25, 2009
Ok gentlemen, since you're both so exquisitely learned on this subject matter, how much, in percentage, of ambient CO2 should human beings be allowed to produce?
1%?
5%?
25%?
What is an acceptable figure in your realities?

Current reality is human beings have generated less than half of 1% of the total ambient CO2 in the atmosphere during the entirety of the time period starting at the industrial revolution, up until now.


What is an acceptable amount of CO2 that humans should be allowed to produce? How about any amount that doesn't upset the natural balance?

In that case, can we take the atmospheric CO2 back up to 7000ppm where it was once before? That was part of the natural balance.
Birger
3.2 / 5 (5) May 25, 2009
Let me add my two cents worth..... I live in northern Sweden, which is one of the "mariginal" climate zones where global warming is expected to show up strongest. When I grew up, a normal winter day was -18 degrees (celsius, not fahrenheit) but that rarely happens anymore. There would typically be 1-2 weeks of temperatures around -25. This simply does not happen anymore. Ticks used to be unknown, but the climate has warmed enough to let them survive, and now dog owners have to check the fur every time after taking a trip through the forest. You may not notice similar effects since you live in a warmer climate zone, but up here every authority of climate agrees that the change is happening, and is stronger than any variation attributable to normal causes. And for the lapps (sami) further north, the changes are even more visible, including retreating glaciers, migration of the tree zone into what was previously alpine tundra (reducing the grazing possibilities for the reindeer), and so on. This is not the propaganda of some cabal, you can see it from the road as you pass by familiar landscapes.
vos
3.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2009
hey Birger, ask you parents, then ask you grand parents. or go look at old newspapers or letters. this is all part of a normal periodic swing of the climate. Its not cause for alarm much less for sending money to "activists".
i grew up in North Dakota and the oldsters there are laughing their asses of at the hysteria about AGW.

In short relax the earth will go without your check to algore
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (8) May 25, 2009
John_balls,

In order to determine which side of a debate is on shakier ground, one must simply look to the side that does the most vociferous name calling.

Thank you for making that very easy to determine.
Gammakozy
3.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2009
While those who choose the papers to report and compose the titles at physorg do seem to have a left-wing bias we, on the right side of the spectrum need to be grateful for the opportunity created by the physorg site(still my favorite) to truly debate the global warming issue in the commentary section. That said, I have a question? Why is it that most liberals are such ardent adherents of the man-made global warming religion? Could it be their anti-capitalist, pro-socialist, anti-Christian and even anti-American biases? They have successfully infiltrated and hijacked most media outlets especially television and print, most university faculties, all high schools and even the courts with disastrous corrupting effect. And now, in an attempt to legitimize their obsessive need to control more of our life they have targeted science. The "global warming debate" is as much a myth as is man-made global warming. There has yet not been any debate, and if the "believers" get their way, there will never be any debate, because the great scientist and Nobel Peace Prize recipient has declared that there is "consensus" for his views and "the debate is over", meaning it never started and will never be tolerated by his disciples. For those who believe, and I am afraid, will always believe, that the pro man-made warming argument is based on scientific methods you need understand that mere pronouncements by over-inflated egos like Al Gore and continuous tweaking of computer models to match past patterns so as to predict future patterns is less science than sophistry. The financial markets have a much longer and vastly more successful history of such practices than do the climatologists and all, with only a handful of exceptions, missed the recent economic collapse.
gekozoid
2 / 5 (3) May 25, 2009
GrayMouser:
"In that case, can we take the atmospheric CO2 back up to 7000ppm where it was once before? That was part of the natural balance."
Do you know what is main source of greenhouse effect?
How about throwing away megalomania and accept that our civilisation is responsible for say 0.2% of 'warming'?
Politics is like football, you must be enough smart to understand the rules and enough stupid to not loose interest in it. So keep politics away from science ( or from anything at all )

gekozoid
DoktorSerendipitous
4 / 5 (8) May 25, 2009
The reason CO2 was singled out as the culprit for the warming trend up until 1998 (the warming trend has been in abatement or in slight reversal since then) was that it was the only greenhouse gas that mankind might just be able to control since there is so little concentration of it in the atmosphere compared to, say, water vapor.

The reality is that if the observed warming until the closing years of the last century were due to any other factor, mankind would have had no power to control it. This, of course, was not acceptable to the green activists on white horses itching to rescue the Lady Earth from her bad children. CO2, then, was destined to be the "fall guy."

But even the UN's IPCC scientists admit that it is the increase in the atmospheric water vapor that actually causes overall warming. So the trick was to connect the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere by theorizing that a slight increase in the CO2 concentration causes minor warming which in turn causes enormous evaporation of water from the Earth's surface, particularly the oceans; thus resulting in the predicted massive increase in Earth's temperature.

It would seem like a no-brainer, after all anyone can see that a slight increase in the room temperature accelerates the disappearance of water in a glass. But outside the room and the isolated environment of a physics lab, we have such things to deal with as increased condensation in the air and cloud formations, which would lead to more of the Sun's incoming radiations being reflected back to space, and without the solar radiations, CO2 has virtually no role to play to keep Earth warm. This is why the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of ten times or more in some of the previous Ice Ages did not help Earth from being very frigid.

The dynamics of Earth's climate is far more complicated than the relatively simple model upon which the IPCC scientists based their prediction --the prediction upon which the faith of AGW believers rest, but the simplified model that those scientists had to invent in order to sell their AGW theory has more to do with the urgency of their personal belief and politics than science.



GrayMouser
3 / 5 (8) May 25, 2009
GrayMouser:

"In that case, can we take the atmospheric CO2 back up to 7000ppm where it was once before? That was part of the natural balance."

Do you know what is main source of greenhouse effect?

Of greenhouse effect? Water vapor.
Of global climate changes? No, and neither does anyone else. There are theories but little solid fact that can be backed up by good solid mathematics.

How about throwing away megalomania and accept that our civilisation is responsible for say 0.2% of 'warming'?

It might be. But where's the proof? Most of the AGW looks like hubris.

Politics is like football, you must be enough smart to understand the rules and enough stupid to not loose interest in it. So keep politics away from science ( or from anything at all )
gekozoid

Politics and science are mutually exclusive. The more science, the less politics. The more politics, no science.
GrayMouser
3.2 / 5 (9) May 25, 2009
But even the UN's IPCC scientists admit that it is the increase in the atmospheric water vapor that actually causes overall warming. So the trick was to connect the increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere by theorizing that a slight increase in the CO2 concentration causes minor warming which in turn causes enormous evaporation of water from the Earth's surface, particularly the oceans; thus resulting in the predicted massive increase in Earth's temperature.

It would seem like a no-brainer, after all anyone can see that a slight increase in the room temperature accelerates the disappearance of water in a glass. But outside the room and the isolated environment of a physics lab, we have such things to deal with as increased condensation in the air and cloud formations, which would lead to more of the Sun's incoming radiations being reflected back to space, and without the solar radiations, CO2 has virtually no role to play to keep Earth warm. This is why the atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of ten times or more in some of the previous Ice Ages did not help Earth from being very frigid.

The dynamics of Earth's climate is far more complicated than the relatively simple model upon which the IPCC scientists based their prediction --the prediction upon which the faith of AGW believers rest, but the simplified model that those scientists had to invent in order to sell their AGW theory has more to do with the urgency of their personal belief and politics than science.

You made at least 1 error, the "IPCC scientists" didn't write the report. They wrote the draft which did not survive being turned over to the political editors that generated the final, un-reviewed, report.

I would also argue that the small group of people that wrote the draft were not engaged in science since they were culling other people's work looking for papers that supported their position and ignoring those papers that didn't. From the little that was compelled to be released under the US Freedom of Information Act it is obvious that a number of issues brought up by the reviewers were ignored (as was requests by the reviewers that have their names removed from the report.)
mikiwud
1.7 / 5 (6) May 26, 2009
The IPCC%u2019s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is %u201Cvery likely%u201D that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the Vice Chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, %u201Cthe panic over global warming is totally unjustified;%u201D %u201Cthere is no serious threat to the climate;%u201D and humanity is %u201Chypothetically %u2026 more threatened by cold than by global warming?%u201D


GREENIE WATCH
A Closer Look at Climate Change and the IPCC
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
MorganW
4 / 5 (4) May 26, 2009
Why don't we just start by agreeing what the temperature of the Earth should be and go from there? I'm trying to figure out if climate change proponents are advocating "no change" or if they think colder is better? I'd have to say that Neanderthals would agree with you since they didn't fare so well after it began to warm up. It's ironic that Conservatives (generally) are more willing to accept that climate change is natural and we must adapt while Progressives (or whatever you call yourself) apparently want to lock the environment in stasis.
The reason why your models aren't accurate is because of sensitive dependance on initial conditions. Garbage in = garbage out. As a skeptic, I'm not doubting that the climate is changing, my doubt is over whether it's totally anthropogenic or if we could even do anything about it if can be proven one way or another without it being suicidal. Seems to me that the best course is to concentrate on activities that don't continue to pollute the planet and stop blaming one another for what happened in the past.
HeyZeuss
2 / 5 (4) May 27, 2009
Its not any mystery what higher global temps will/are giving us to live in. We have a year round hurricane belt to 30degr nth and sth to look forward to. And next to them as we proceed towards the poles, desert belts expanding to consume the current temporal zones, the bleating of the sheep in USA and EU will be extinguished by thirst. A relief for those with brain that have attention on this thread and are frustrated with the troop-apes of the fossil-fuel-cult that are polluting it at least :-)
Iceage = much more land with agreeable, fertile climate on the globe than recently! Why is this so hard for USA: republican/creationist/:
Annoyablly100%GloballycertainWishtheycould denyalists to understand?

Its been studied. Called the "aberdeen paradox" after the university that explained why most apes will hoot , dance , and affiliate with the side with the money, even when its obvious that its divergent with reality,truth, and ethics.
Sadly the real reason so many models have been unreliable in the last decade is that men of science and truth, besieged by brainless attacks from the lackeys of big commercial interest, have not understood the primate psychology, and taken far to much of it on board in excesive criticism and dismissal of effects that are not yet solidly quantified.
They mention this in the article. Feedback effects such as permafrost melting. Dissolving of peat and humus by acidic rain. Phytoplankton collapse in the oceans, methane clathrate releases yet to come.
All of these and more are not firmly pinned down, and so absent from these models. So We should expect more revisions upward in predictions, or big excesses over model predictions for sure. And no attack on the modellers is warrented. The Scientific community has been far too open to accepting challenges to its data from commercially motivated denialists and legitimisers of the pathelogical greed that has got us to this point. This is classic projection. People dedicated to truth have trouble understanding the reality of acceptance of delusions for money and power in others.
Velanarris
3.4 / 5 (5) May 27, 2009
HeyZeuss,

Unfortunately you're wrong. Warming in a heterogenous system begins at the coolest and driest parts of the system until a level of homogenity is reached. Only then will "global" temperatures rise in unison bringing disaster.

I would be far more concerned with a food crisis if we were actually using our arable land properly. Instead we use more than half of it to grow trees based upon the pseudo-science of AGW and CO2 interaction.
blackle4ps3
not rated yet May 27, 2009
YES WARMING 1 degree every 10 years (antarctic) yes ? in the 1960&70's there were less cars boats ships airplanes then there are today yet this 1 degree per 10 years stays same meaning pollution is not the major cause of global warming.HHO is.How do we make hydrogen gas very simple apply voltage to water,& how can we fill the atmosphere with hydrogen,simply run unshelded power lines through the air everywhere the more humidity,fog,clouds the more hydrogen gas emission.the emission is small per area,but unshelded power lines are everywhere,and the 1 degree every 10 years stays consistent no matter how much oxygen Darvas pit burns or no matter how many oil well fires there are.HHO is the problem not pollution
HeyZeuss
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2009
HeyZeuss,



Unfortunately you're wrong. Warming in a heterogenous system begins at the coolest and driest parts of the system until a level of homogenity is reached. Only then will "global" temperatures rise in unison bringing disaster.



I would be far more concerned with a food crisis if we were actually using our arable land properly. Instead we use more than half of it to grow trees based upon the pseudo-science of AGW and CO2 interaction.


Yes we are seeing warming mostly in the "coolest and driest" regions at present as you say. Nice buffering system for the ecosphere that, while it lasts. Jet streams decending on polar latitudes, raher than the subtropical desert belts have been a disturbing thing to watch over the last 6 mths, regular perhaps ~50% occurance of this giving polar circle temps persisting for periods over 12degC above baseline levels a decade ago.
Of course many leap on personal experience of cold weather events in temperate lattitudes to help themselves believe gw is not real. Just the polar air displaced by these descending at the poles equatorially originating jetstreams sent your way I have to point out.
If you compare the energy absorbed by current ice volumes melting in icecap, shelves, inland glaciers in these polar areas with the solar energy flux absorbed by our planet then I doubt anyyous will not be concerned.
As to sealevel, while meltwater is sinking to the deep oceans to maintain the low temp of the sub 5degC deep ocean water, increasing overall ocean temps are buffered by the contraction of water as temp rises from 2-6degC.
This is however an unstable bandage as low salinity meltwater is less dense at same temps than normal deep ocean water of high salinity. At some point there will be a collapse of the stable sealevel buffering system, anytime from now to at most 200years from now. Deep ocean water as much as a degree average higher than now will mean rapid and chaotic sealevel changes as standard experience.

dachpyarvile
3.4 / 5 (5) May 27, 2009
I've been monitoring CO2 levels and temperatures for years. What I am seeing is not matching up with what the IPCC says is happening. Period.

Of course, anything I write for the scientific community will never see the light of day due to politics munged with science. If I post summary statements here, at least some people will see it and get to thinking about doing the science for themselves.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) May 29, 2009
I've been monitoring CO2 levels and temperatures for years. What I am seeing is not matching up with what the IPCC says is happening. Period.

Of course, anything I write for the scientific community will never see the light of day due to politics munged with science. If I post summary statements here, at least some people will see it and get to thinking about doing the science for themselves.

Science doesn't need to be peer reviewed to be accurate nor does being peer reviewed mean you are accurate. The IPCC has proven that over and over again.
LuckyBrandon
2.3 / 5 (6) May 29, 2009
i agree with velannaris here. Using IT terms here, peer review is really just a pilot to get a feel for the "program" before it is put into proof of concept (commercialization reviews by consumers at a small scale), and then finally it will go into "production".

You show it to your peers for review to make sure youre not nuts and it works in everyones mind there...then you have other labs confirm the results...then you announce to the world what youve acheived, and give credit to people who probably dont deserve it :)
Velanarris
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2009
Couldn't have said it better myself. Now if we could jsut get the "climate analysts" to understand what Test, Dev, Train, and Pilot mean our production environment wouldn't be so messed up.

As an aside here Zeus:

I'm not concerned, and you seem to be missing a very basic tennet of water chemistry. In a precipitous saline system the induction of freshwater does not change the salinity, only the rate of precipitate formation. But thanks for the copy and paste of terms you don't understand.
HeyZeuss
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2009

As an aside here Zeus:
I'm not concerned, and you seem to be missing a very basic tennet of water chemistry. In a precipitous saline system the induction of freshwater does not change the salinity, only the rate of precipitate formation. But thanks for the copy and paste of terms you don't understand.


No C & P's or missunderstandings from me, thank you V.
I think the precipitations you speak of are perhaps in a far more personal saline enviroment to yourself than the oceans Vel'. Drink lots of water old chap. Keep that head clear.

The deep oceans are a complex system of distinct layers and bodies of differently characterised thermohaline properties. Sometimes, as in winter at the poles the subduction is of high salinity as iceformation removes H2O. When thousands of cubic kilometers of Ice Shelf collapses, then those ~1000ft thick burgs melting in warm water subducts cold freshwater.
Think about how much energy that is absorbing. And the vertical mixing that can result from those cold fresh lenses equalising temp with their warmer saltier neighbors. While surface waters warming have their expansion offset by deep water maintained below 5C contracting as it warms...As in the last few millon years... We are very lucky. A couple degrees rise in average ocean temp and: Average ocean depth 12000ft. thermal expansion has big teeth to bite us with then.
If the deep coldfresh situation goes into a cascade mixing event then the oceans could rise massively overnight as the deep and surface oceans mix and lose their expansion buffering behaviour etc.

Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2009
Zeuss, that would be interesting, if it hadn't already been challeneged by recent findings in how the "conveyor" system as well as verticle mixing theories have been challenged and all but invalidated.
Dubby
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to know about computer modeling. I do believe that MIT scientists know more about it than me. I also believe that some of the sceptics of this research, in this discussion, who seem to be so adamant to throw out this research, also know more about computer modeling than I do.

I'll even guess that some of those arguing in favor of doing nothing about behavior modification, especially how we do business, know more about the global economy and politics than I do. So if you are searching for my credentials, I'll save you the time. I'm just a dude.

I happen to agree with Sharon Begley from last week's Newsweek article called Climate-Change Calculus that "a new breed of climate sceptic is becoming more common--someone who doubts not the science but the policy response." She says that the test will come in December when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty.

I don't know why this one will be different than other attempts, Kyoto, etc.

Here is my suggestion at proper perspective: We know that all energy on Earth is related to the sun. Oil is ancient captured sunshine, which has been buried for centuries. Oil does all kinds of things for us now besides powering our vehicles, we use it for plastics and food colorings and it is also mostly how our industrial agriculture is run, from the equipment, to the fertilizers and pesticides and even the processing of our foods. We know that this modern agriculture is not as healthy as our grandparents version, which didn't have all those inputs--we know it because of our obesity, and diabetes and heart disease.

The other solar fuel which is ancient is coal which mostly makes our electricity. We know that burning coal has many bad effects from acid rain to mercury in our water and fish to emissions to asthma.

The age of oil is finite. Even if the people who want to argue that we have plenty would have to agree that it will run out, whether during the time of our children or grandchildren or their grandchildren--matters not when, so much as to agree that it will run out.

As to coal, we'll just agree that the burning of it isn't good and leave it there. Now if these things, including our modern day agriculture are all by-products of the sun's energy, then why wouldn't we want to improve our technology to mitigate waste and expense and healthcare costs to more directly benefit from the sun's energy (which by the way, wind is also a by-product)?

If we don't lower emissions by 70 to 80% within 10 years, global warming will be unstoppable. You can debate that if you want, but even if you proceeded with that hypothesis and modified appropriately, the worse that would happen is that we'll be healthier and happier and probably wealthier, because business will flourish as it becomes a world of people doing business for themselves, not for corporations which don't feel the need to be human.
Dubby
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
I'm not a scientist and won't pretend to know about computer modeling. I do believe that MIT scientists know more about it than me. I also believe that some of the sceptics of this research, in this discussion, who seem to be so adamant to throw out this research, also know more about computer modeling than I do.

I'll even guess that some of those arguing in favor of doing nothing about behavior modification, especially how we do business, know more about the global economy and politics than I do. So if you are searching for my credentials, I'll save you the time. I'm just a dude.

I happen to agree with Sharon Begley from last week's Newsweek article called Climate-Change Calculus that "a new breed of climate sceptic is becoming more common--someone who doubts not the science but the policy response." She says that the test will come in December when 192 countries meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a climate treaty.

I don't know why this one will be different than other attempts, Kyoto, etc.

Here is my suggestion at proper perspective: We know that all energy on Earth is related to the sun. Oil is ancient captured sunshine, which has been buried for centuries. Oil does all kinds of things for us now besides powering our vehicles, we use it for plastics and food colorings and it is also mostly how our industrial agriculture is run, from the equipment, to the fertilizers and pesticides and even the processing of our foods. We know that this modern agriculture is not as healthy as our grandparents version, which didn't have all those inputs--we know it because of our obesity, and diabetes and heart disease.

The other solar fuel which is ancient is coal which mostly makes our electricity. We know that burning coal has many bad effects from acid rain to mercury in our water and fish to emissions to asthma.

The age of oil is finite. Even if the people who want to argue that we have plenty would have to agree that it will run out, whether during the time of our children or grandchildren or their grandchildren--matters not when, so much as to agree that it will run out.

As to coal, we'll just agree that the burning of it isn't good and leave it there. Now if these things, including our modern day agriculture are all by-products of the sun's energy, then why wouldn't we want to improve our technology to mitigate waste and expense and healthcare costs to more directly benefit from the sun's energy (which by the way, wind is also a by-product)?

If we don't lower emissions by 70 to 80% within 10 years, global warming will be unstoppable. You can debate that if you want, but even if you proceeded with that hypothesis and modified appropriately, the worse that would happen is that we'll be healthier and happier and probably wealthier, because business will flourish as it becomes a world of people doing business for themselves, not for corporations which don't feel the need to be human.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
We know that this modern agriculture is not as healthy as our grandparents version, which didn't have all those inputs--we know it because of our obesity, and diabetes and heart disease.
This is completely false.

Modern agriculture is far safer than our grandparents version for two reasons.

1) guaranteed yield
2) fewer variables

Obesity and diabetes are great maladies to have when faced with starvation and black blizzards due to crops and ground cover failing, as it did in our grandparents era.

If anything modern farming is far safer than organics as we can target the fertilizers and pesticides as opposed to spraying it all and letting the field work it out, crossing our fingers hoping that the insects are immune to the "natural" pesticide.

By the way, thread necromancy is not a good practice.
Dubby
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
I have no clue how I am guilty of necromancy. I see you have returned here often to defend the other line.

My dear Velannaris, have you researched the effects on soil of our modern agricultural practices? Or the massive loss of topsoil? In fact, have you learned about the life of the soil which has been degraded by over production of on single crops, especially corn and soy beans? The soil is really dead, compared to soil which would have been farmed the way our grand parents did.

As to your argument about facing starvation, evidence suggests that those industrial farming practices, instituted after the green revolution (the one funded by Ford and Rockefeller Foundations starting in 1945--nothing like we would call our current Green Movement) have not been more productive for the world or solved hunger issues. In fact, what has happened is loss of forests, loss of culture and severe disruption to ecosystems, as a result of insane and unnatural processes involving huge petro chemical inputs, not to mention monoculture to the extreme (not to be seen anywhere in nature or history--except during the age of oil).

I see there has been some name calling in this thread and you have chosen to criticize others for their attacks. I agree, that name calling and making these arguments personal attacks is not wise. But another dose of wisdom would recommend that everyone do the proper research and learn about the complex issues of poor human behavior, which has mostly accrued as benefits to very few wealthy people and corporations, at the huge deficit to the masses and to the health of ecosystems.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
I'm sorry but you'll need to cite references on your claims.

Our modern agricultural practices include crop rotation, which when ignored, as you've stated, leaves the ground barren for that crop. As for topsoil erosion, that's a wholly different issue, mainly due to loss of cover crops due to the big price increases in corn and soybean due to....

Ethanol.

Industrial farming practices have saved mankind from starvation. People have received Nobel prizes for the effort. You should read a little more deeply yourself as there's a wealth of information you're missing.

As for necromancy, June second to August 10th.

That's a dead thread that you've brought back from the grave.