hmmm, how interesting that the US media is not picking up the reports coming out of London and Australia. Wonder why... *cough*AlGore*cough*

8/3/2008 5:26:08 PM

oh, alarmist claims aren't going away

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

Quote :

"Because in just 100 months' time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change. That said, among people working on global warming, there are countless models, scenarios, and different iterations of all those models and scenarios. So, let us be clear from the outset about exactly what we mean."

lolz. These guys are all about the 2 degrees C benchmark.

I still don't understand how a satellite measures the temperature at 30 km versus 35 km height. I don't doubt they can get some metrics on the atmosphere temp versus the ground... but not a vertical profile. I just don't see how this makes any sense.

8/4/2008 12:15:46 PM

i'm just trying to figure out how they figure we are approaching a "tipping point," when temperatures haven't risen in the past 7 years...

and, the guy who wrote that is an idiot. He calls the term "positive feedback" an example of "scientific humour." Umm, no, dumbass. It's an accurate term that refers to one action leading to more of the same action.

[Edited on August 4, 2008 at 10:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/4/2008 9:57:58 PM

yes, clearly you only joke that they call it something if you've never encountered the concept before.

sometimes i wonder if there are any articles on this that aren't extreme on one side or the other.

8/5/2008 12:49:40 AM

are you trolling me, or the author?

8/5/2008 12:55:59 AM

yes, clearly you the author only jokes that they scientists call it something if you've the author has never encountered the concept before.

Sorry, that was not perfectly clear before.

8/5/2008 11:19:20 AM

When Joe Biden said last night in the debate that there is no debate about global warming it really bothered me. Whereas Palin said almost word for word how I feel about it.

I've been leaning towards McCain but hadn't completely closed the door on Obama. But that comment from Biden was all I needed to hear. No way my vote for a leader of this country is going to someone with that viewpoint

10/3/2008 7:46:58 AM

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/03/cold_on_climate_warming/

Quote :

"When she ran for governor, Palin said she was unconvinced that human emissions are a major cause of global warming."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palin-dis.html

Quote :

" Couric: What’s your position on global warming? Do you believe it’s man-made or not? Palin: Well, we’re the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I’ve done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And … Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view? Palin: You know there are -- there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it."

And....

from the debate

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

Quote :

"PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that. As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts. We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change. IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes? BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden. If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting. Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels. The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it. China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology. We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled. In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble. "

How in God's green Earth did someone declare Biden's position worse? It doesn't even matter which side you're on - except for maybe a few flip-flops on Palin's part, they both voice the same position. Palin has numerous times recognized the fact that humans are causing climate change, the rest is semantics. You want to qualify the statement that climate changes naturally? That should be a duh. Hopefully listeners are smart enough to figure that out. And hopefully Biden saying that 'climate change is manmade' isn't taken to imply that climate never changed on its own. Like I said, hopefully people aren't so stupid as to claim stupid shit based off single sentences from politicians.

But really, if you think Palin won that bout somehow, please don't vote.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 8:43 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2008 8:42:17 AM

I didn't say Palin won the debate, I don't think she did.

But to me there's a big difference between someone saying that man may have some effect on climate change and someone saying that without a doubt we're the cause, i.e. Joe Biden.

(and thanks for pulling up the transcript)

10/3/2008 8:52:28 AM

Palin:

-We are causing climate change
-There are also natural climate changes (cyclical?)
-We need to do something about it

Biden:

-It is manmade (i.e. Climate change is caused by us --> We are causing climate change)
-We need to do something about it


Case in point.

10/3/2008 9:26:39 AM

Well I don't interpret her quotes quite that way, but saying thats how it is...

I totally disagree with Biden, and partially disagree with Palin. So its still preferred for me.

10/3/2008 9:40:20 AM

I disagree with Biden insofar as the notion of total human perpetuated climate change. There is no question as to the contribution from natural forces. We must, however, be responsible for what we know we are putting into the atmosphere, land and oceans. Any attempt to obfuscate our part out of sheer ignorance is unacceptable.

10/3/2008 4:33:41 PM

Scientific evidence doesn't matter. These are the same people that think dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God as a test of faith. Science just doesn't apply to them.

10/3/2008 4:39:26 PM

Quote :

"These are the same people that think dinosaur bones were put in the ground by God as a test of faith"

While I'm sure that applies to a very small fraction of people, thats far from the truth overall. It has nothing to do with science not mattering, it has everything to do with science not knowing how much and what impact we have versus how much and what changes are a result of natural cycles. Thus far, science hasn't been able to separate human and natural inputs to the temperature increase over the last 100 years, science has simply been able to hypothesize that our emissions have contributed to the warming, without even knowing the full extent.

10/3/2008 4:52:21 PM

Biden said "It is manmade".

You could make a host of statement regarding the natural element to weather fluctuations that I would agree with, and many of those would correctly modify Biden's statement. But with a 3-word sound bite, I would not be so quick to punish him for neglecting to qualify his statement.

Technically, yes, he should have qualified his statement. Did he? No. Would he, if pressed, admit a significant natural element to recent weather behavior? Of course he would.


In terms of the science, and largely the social responsibility, I think that you could turn this into an issue that Biden and Palin would 'agree' on.

10/3/2008 4:53:13 PM

Theres statistical scientific evidence that is much more viable than a simple hypothesis. An equation can be fitted for the cyclic nature of earth's temperature and long term climate. The amplitude of this wave function after being constant for all of the several periods we have plotted has skyrocketed into an exponential function coincidentally at the same time as the industrial revolution. Is it 100% sure? No. There is no way to be 100% sure but current the evidence of anthropogenic warming is OVERWHELMING.

10/3/2008 4:59:05 PM

Quote :

"An equation can be fitted for the cyclic nature of earth's temperature and long term climate. The amplitude of this wave function after being constant for all of the several periods"

We don't have accurate enough long term data to understand the cyclic nature of earth's temperature and long term climate. It is NOT a finite function that you can simply treat as a math equation.

10/3/2008 5:00:06 PM

I won't vote for a candidate who's VP pick doesn't acknowledge the raging debate still going on between literally dozens of internet forum posters.

10/3/2008 5:08:30 PM

Quote :

"We don't have accurate enough long term data to understand the cyclic nature of earth's temperature and long term climate. It is NOT a finite function that you can simply treat as a math equation."

We have 650,000 years of pure, unmolested data from which a trend can be identified. Now you could suggest that the climatic cycle is much more smoothly broad and an individual period in the cycle could be longer than the time our data accounts for, but the fact that we have seen an abrupt rise in temperature and co2 concentrations in the past 100 years would only further prove the anthropogenic nature of this sudden, wild burst. Theres really no way around it.

10/3/2008 5:13:33 PM

you know most people try to analyze data and then form a conclusion, and not come up with a conclusion and then find data to support it and say things like "there's really no way around it"

that 650,000 years of "pure, unmolested data"...were those ice cores taken globally to give an accurate representation of the earth as a whole? or were they taken from a few localized areas?

10/3/2008 5:26:59 PM

Actually, for many reasons obvious and non obvious, the polar regions are the best places to make these measurements. The data was taken before the conclusion was formed and from then it was a hypothesis which has been further and further supported by subsequent data. The latest being from 2005 and dating back 650k years.

O and

Quote :

"ice cores taken globally"

lol

10/3/2008 5:41:13 PM

you're lolling but you are missing my point

how come when i say "hey look it snowed in iraq today" or "it was hot as shit in canada today" you will point out that thats a localized observation and the issue is global warming, not a local phenomenon...but then when i point out that your "raw, unmolested data" was all taken from antarctica, you are fine with assuming its representative evidence of the entire planet?

10/3/2008 5:44:14 PM

Mainly because the poles are vital to global climate. The temperature gradient created by the poles drives global climate. If you significantly increased the temperature in Iraq and left everything else the same not nearly as much would change relative to a similar hypothetical situation where you incrdased the temperature of a polar region. The latter would change EVERYTHING. Also keep in mind the shape of the planet and % latitude of a given area near the poles to the same size area near the equator.

Like I said, theres a bunch of reasons why it needs to be taken from the poles. In fact there are so many that even I, holder of a BS in the field, don't remember them all.

Also keep in mind the direct, non-atmospheric implications of warming the poles thus melting ice and increasing the amount of water in the ocean/rising sea levels.

10/3/2008 5:57:42 PM

but completely relying on polar samples is implying that the atmosphere is globally homogeneous, which its obviously not

10/3/2008 6:00:33 PM

Quote :

"Theres statistical scientific evidence that is much more viable than a simple hypothesis. An equation can be fitted for the cyclic nature of earth's temperature and long term climate. The amplitude of this wave function after being constant for all of the several periods we have plotted has skyrocketed into an exponential function coincidentally at the same time as the industrial revolution. Is it 100% sure? No. There is no way to be 100% sure but current the evidence of anthropogenic warming is OVERWHELMING."

Except that we have no equation that accurately fits our record.

Something else that's pretty interesting:

Quote :

" Evidence is now 'unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming – UN report "Unequivocal" means "having only one possible meaning or interpretation" or "absolute." Yet, in the body of the report, the so-called experts indicate that they are only about 90 percent certain, which is obviously not 100 percent. "

Funny how the title of the article disagrees with the content. But its a politically driven report, big surprise.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM. Reason : http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21429&Cr=climate&Cr1=change]

10/3/2008 6:12:58 PM

Quote :

"Scientific evidence doesn't matter."

That's good, cause the global fearmongerers have no evidence.

Quote :

"I won't vote for a candidate who's VP pick doesn't acknowledge the raging debate still going on between literally dozens of internet forum posters."

Yep, because that is obviously all the people who are debating it

Quote :

"but the fact that we have seen an abrupt rise in temperature and co2 concentrations in the past 100 years would only further prove the anthropogenic nature of this sudden, wild burst."

actually, we have no evidence that temperatures have increased abnormally over the past 100 years. thanks for trying, though. It all conveniently fits solar patterns. Except, of course, when you take into account James Hansen's faked statistics.

10/4/2008 1:01:47 AM

We know how CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase temperature. Regardless of current and historical readings, pumping a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere should make it hotter.

10/4/2008 9:54:36 AM

Quote :

"It all conveniently fits solar patterns."

10/4/2008 10:52:23 AM

Quote :

"We know how CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase temperature. Regardless of current and historical readings, pumping a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere should make it hotter."

But... we don't know to what extent. And, if that were true, then shouldn't we be seeing temperature increases right now, as well? Fact is, temperatures have remained the same since 2001. And this, of course, neglects the fact that the greenhouse signature is missing...

10/4/2008 12:41:12 PM

I guess it's possible some interaction is stopping the carbon from heating the atmosphere.

But if the greenhouse effect didn't exist, we'd be a whole lot colder.

10/4/2008 12:42:57 PM

no one denies the greenhouse effect, silly. People do, however, deny that it is responsible for the alleged warming we have experienced recently. And, again, there is no greenhouse signature, so it would seem CO2 can't be responsible... but nah, fuck scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your agenda, right?

10/4/2008 12:45:27 PM

the planet isn't warming

we don't know for sure that the planet is warming

human activity isn't warming the planet

we don't know for sure that human activity is warming the planet

we don't know for sure how much human activity is warming the planet

...

10/4/2008 1:49:49 PM

Quote :

"but nah, fuck scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your agenda, right?"

Why should I believe in your religion?

10/4/2008 2:18:11 PM

^^ way to address anything I've posited. good work...

^ meh, you want me to believe yours, so I'm happy to call bullshit when it is blatantly obvious

10/4/2008 2:37:35 PM

Quote :

"^ meh, you want me to believe yours, so I'm happy to call bullshit when it is blatantly obvious"

My religion teaches that Republicans cause global warming and do so intentionally. I feel like we should teach the controversy and make it part of our middle school and high school science curricula.

10/4/2008 2:55:45 PM

well, that's already happening, so good work

10/4/2008 3:48:32 PM

Quote :

"And, again, there is no greenhouse signature, so it would seem CO2 can't be responsible... but nah, fuck scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your agenda, right?"

Again, even if that were true, it doesn't change the fact that releasing a bunch of greenhouse gas should eventually increase the planet's temperature. Or do you believe carbon's warming mechanism has been and will continue to be shut down by some unspecified interaction?

10/4/2008 6:46:29 PM

The argument you will get is that the oceans will come in a save us by absorbing anything we could possibly put into the atmosphere. The argument that you will not hear from those same people is how when oceans absorb that volume of CO2 in a short period of time it causes rapid acidification that kills marine life. But hey, humans don't live in the ocean so why should we care, right?

10/4/2008 8:19:44 PM

By the way, the greenhouse signature of stratospheric cooling has been measured.

10/4/2008 8:35:06 PM

^^ Yes, that is true. But that's not even all.

The more acidic the oceans get the less CO2 they can absorb. Some scientists have claimed to already detect a slowed rate of absorption by the ocean. One way or the other, this will continue to have a smaller and smaller effect.

Then there's the question of how effective it was to begin with. With just some simple calculations of adding the estimated (recorded) CO2 emissions every year, then you'll get something like 530 billion tons. Then take the change in concentration in ppm, multiply by the volume of the atmosphere, and you don't get less than 500 billion tons. It may be appropriate to say that the difference was primarily absorbed by the ocean. But it's not much, even when you include all carbon sinks. What we put up there stays for hundreds of years, everybody needs to realize that.

10/5/2008 8:17:19 AM

Quote :

"Again, even if that were true"

wtf do you mean "even if that were true." It IS fucking true. unless, you know, you ignore truth on a regular basis.

10/5/2008 1:25:41 PM

The paper someone was quoting a few pages back about the "signature" was BS. Good data, completely misplaced interpretation.

The temperature profile of all the atmosphere isn't going to look exactly like we predict it (epically when we're measuring it with lesser quality weather balloon quality). And it wouldn't take but a few button clicks with the simulations to produce and "expected" profile that looks different. The bottom line is that the upper atmosphere is cooler - which is what we should expect.

For those of you who missed it last time:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

10/5/2008 3:14:21 PM

i like it. all of the data points to something completely different. but we'll ignore it. now THAT is science, my friend.

10/5/2008 3:21:15 PM

Quote :

"unless, you know, you ignore truth on a regular basis."

I've found truth to be, well, inconvenient when attempting to overthrow capitalism.

Quote :

"The bottom line is that the upper atmosphere is cooler - which is what we should expect."

Exactly.

10/5/2008 4:23:27 PM

hmmm. even if we buy that bullshit, it doesn't address the fact that the rest of the atmosphere does NOT fit the profile. thanks for playing.

only liberals would look at all of the evidence and discard that which doesn't fit their agenda, and claim such a process to be "scientific."

10/5/2008 4:50:23 PM

Quote :

"only liberals would look at all of the evidence and discard that which doesn't fit their agenda, and claim such a process to be "scientific.""

I'd bet large sums of money that liberals aren't the ONLY ones who would do this.

10/5/2008 4:53:34 PM

maybe true. but they pretty much hold a monopoly on it right now w/ global fearmongering

10/5/2008 5:07:57 PM

Quote :

"hmmm. even if we buy that bullshit, it doesn't address the fact that the rest of the atmosphere does NOT fit the profile. thanks for playing."

Oh, my problems with the report's data analysis doesn't end there. Their "expected" has this big old red smudge in the middle, which is lacking on the real data. Looks pretty good for the anti-global warming case, doesn't it?

But why is there none of the brightest red in the experimental data at all? Wait, what are the scales of these graphs? Do they apply for the same change in temperature? For the same change in CO2 ppm? What year(s) was the experimental data from? This obviously changes year to year (the temperature of the Earth does), what on Earth kind of averages are we dealing with? Are we really comparing apples and apples here?

No folks, what we've seen here is some simple graph color tweaking.

10/5/2008 6:03:09 PM

Humans construct science. Like anything else we do, it's a messy process.

Even if I felt like ignoring the majority of folks in the field, I don't see anything wrong with eliminating primitive, unpleasant technologies. Maybe CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas. Maybe the whole greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I can imagine alternative explanations. Hell, who cares? I'd still happily oppose smoke-spewing coal power plants and the like. If the global warming hoax merely gives me extra leverage against capitalism, that's fine. The ends justify the means.

10/5/2008 6:11:26 PM

nice. let's fuck over our entire economy, our entire livelihood in the name of being tree-huggers. w00t. Or, in your case, in the name of a fucking lunatic who believes that machines will replace us. And you make fun of Christians for believing in nonsense...

10/5/2008 11:56:19 PM