discojoe was correct about the oil spill

[tereg]

All I was doing was responding to the claim that PDO predicts cooler than average temperatures over the next 20-25 years.

Also, lol at "Even the plot that shows the continued warming trend shows that the past few years have actually been getting cooler at the very end, all while CO2 levels have continued to rise?" Wtf look at 1940-1950. That is an even bigger drop than the drop at the end of the plot. I can just as easily have said in 1950, the world is headed for a huge cooling period based on the previous 10 years of data of PDO.

The point I'm making is that your claim that PDO can even be considered a legitimate factor in predicting global average temperatures is garbage.

[Not A Communist Shill]

"easy to argue"

"silly argument"=?

"significantly enhancing"=?

"warming and that this is having disasterous consequences"=?

"silly argument" - a discourse of no or little merit

"easy to argue" - anybody can say, without anything to back it up.

"significantly enhancing" - having a measurable effect on the current order of things.

"disasterous consequences" = negative events

[Not A Communist Shill]

Just because you see the scientists proposing human driven global warming theory on television, that does not make them more credible than scientists who do not make an appearance on television.

There is no dispute that humans have an impact on global warming, so I disagree.

Also, the vast majority of scientists who publish research in the field of climatology support the view that humans are enhancing global warming. I would trust experts with scientific data more than just anybody.

[Jimbean]

Oh, okay, that's you mean.

According to the online dictionary:

"Obviously" = ?

"more than a few" = ?

"credible" = ?

"far from settled" = ?

Obviously = easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident

more than a few = exceeding three.

credible = 1.) capable of being believed; believable 2.) worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy

far from settled = not settled, a long way from being finished

What's the point?

[Jimbean]

What I had posted was a true statement.

responding to what you posted:

There is no dispute that humans have an impact on global warming, so I disagree.

Are you disagreeing with anything I said?

Also, the vast majority of scientists who publish research in the field of climatology support the view that humans are enhancing global warming. I would trust experts with scientific data more than just anybody.

vast majority? Why not also listen to the experts that disagree with this alleged "vast majority?"

[Not A Communist Shill]

Oh, okay, that's you mean.

According to the online dictionary:



Obviously = easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident

more than a few = exceeding three.

credible = 1.) capable of being believed; believable 2.) worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy

far from settled = not settled, a long way from being finished

What's the point?

It wasn't obvious precisely what was meant to be obvious.

I believed that the phrase "more than a few" could potentially cause people to think that the "credible dissenting voices out there who make it clear that the 'science' behind AGW is far from settled" were significant in number.

By credible, I wanted to know what the qualifications of such people were, as well as who.

and by questioning "far from settled", I wondered if these "credible dissenting voices" questioned the notion of anthropogenic global warming entirely, or whether they just disagreed with the magnitude.

[Not A Communist Shill]

What I had posted was a true statement.

responding to what you posted:

There is no dispute that humans have an impact on global warming, so I disagree.

Are you disagreeing with anything I said?

Yes. I think that any individual who I see on television and says that humans have an impact on global warming is more credible than any scientist who says anything to the contrary.

vast majority? Why not also listen to the experts that disagree with this alleged "vast majority?"

I probably do give a greater proportion of time to the alternate view than the proportion of climatologists who believe that humans have no impact on global warming, or even that humans are have a net cooling effect.

[Jimbean]

It wasn't obvious precisely what was meant to be obvious.

I believed that the phrase "more than a few" could potentially cause people to think that the "credible dissenting voices out there who make it clear that the 'science' behind AGW is far from settled" were significant in number.

By credible, I wanted to know what the qualifications of such people were, as well as who.

and by questioning "far from settled", I wondered if these "credible dissenting voices" questioned the notion of anthropogenic global warming entirely, or whether they just disagreed with the magnitude.

oh, okay.

[Jimbean]

Yes. I think that any individual who I see on television and says that humans have an impact on global warming is more credible than any scientist who says anything to the contrary.

So you believe that, in your opinion, television has credibility?

[Not A Communist Shill]

What I had posted was a true statement.

responding to what you posted:

There is no dispute that humans have an impact on global warming, so I disagree.

Are you disagreeing with anything I said?

Yes. I think that any individual who I see on television and says that humans have an impact on global warming is more credible than any scientist who says anything to the contrary.

vast majority? Why not also listen to the experts that disagree with this alleged "vast majority?"

I probably do give a greater proportion of time to the alternate view than the proportion of climatologists who believe that humans have no impact on global warming, or even that humans are have a net cooling effect.

[Not A Communist Shill]

So you believe that, in your opinion, television has credibility?

That's not really the issue. I'd say the same thing about such an individual who wasn't on TV.

[stevENTj]

The point I'm making is that your claim that PDO can even be considered a legitimate factor in predicting global average temperatures is garbage.

Nonsense.

Even the source you linked didn't deny that PDO DOES have an impact on and can predict global average temperatures. They were just claiming that despite that, the long-term trend was still going upwards. Even your own source doesn't support what you're claiming.

There is no dispute that humans have an impact on global warming, so I disagree.

OH YES THERE IS! It might make you feel good to say this, but that doesn't make it so. If there was "no dispute" then there would be NO dissenting views yet there are plenty of them!

Also, the vast majority of scientists who publish research in the field of climatology support the view that humans are enhancing global warming. I would trust experts with scientific data more than just anybody.

Sorry there are PLENTY of scientists, minority or not, who disagree with this. Are you saying that the majority is always correct? You know the 'vast majority' used to believe that the earth was flat too, right? Do you know what they used to do to people who dared imply that the earth was really round?

Your burden of proof is far higher than mine by the way, so have fun attempting to argue this while I chuckle at such feeble attempts. To 'win' this argument you must prove that the 'AGW' view is correct and proven fact, which even AGW scientists cannot do. The only thing I'm looking to do is illustrating that the science is far from settled and that there's still plenty of debate and theories and counter-theories as to what's really happening, which has already been more than adequately illustrated.

"the majority think" = BS. Meaningless. Majority does not equal correct.

"there is no debate that" = BS. There's plenty of debate.


Off to go do some re-caulking around the house. Have fun.

[Jimbean]

That's not really the issue. I'd say the same thing about such an individual who wasn't on TV.

I don't understand. It is the fact that they are on television that you pay more attention to them?

[Not A Communist Shill]

OH YES THERE IS! It might make you feel good to say this, but that doesn't make it so. If there was "no dispute" then there would be NO dissenting views yet there are plenty of them!

Well okay, I don't rule out the possibility that some people would dispute that the Earth heats up a little when I turn on my toaster.

Sorry there are PLENTY of scientists, minority or not, who disagree with this. Are you saying that the majority is always correct? You know the 'vast majority' used to believe that the earth was flat too, right? Do you know what they used to do to people who dared imply that the earth was really round?

What you call PLENTY, I call the vast minority. I'm not saying that the majority is always correct, but I do believe it is generally the best course of action to do things which are for the best, taking into account the best scientific evidence.

I believe there have apparently been some people who have genuinely believed the earth to be flat, but this was much more common in far less unenlightened times.

No, what did they do to people who dared imply that the earth was really round? Do you actually know?

Your burden of proof is far higher than mine by the way, so have fun attempting to argue this while I chuckle at such feeble attempts. To 'win' this argument you must prove that the 'AGW' view is correct and proven fact, which even AGW scientists cannot do. The only thing I'm looking to do is illustrating that the science is far from settled and that there's still plenty of debate and theories and counter-theories as to what's really happening, which has already been more than adequately illustrated.

"the majority think" = BS. Meaningless. Majority does not equal correct.

"there is no debate that" = BS. There's plenty of debate.


Off to go do some re-caulking around the house. Have fun.

You presume that it is of great importance to me to prove that such a phonenomenon as anthropogenic global warming is behind all doubt, even if it for example involves burning down all the rainforests. Also, you are wrong to suggest that my burden of proof is higher than yours. They are equal.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't understand. It is the fact that they are on television that you pay more attention to them?

No, I mean that I consider it absurd to suggest that humans cannot have an impact on global warming.

[tereg]

Nonsense.

Even the source you linked didn't deny that PDO DOES have an impact on and can predict global average temperatures. They were just claiming that despite that, the long-term trend was still going upwards. Even your own source doesn't support what you're claiming.

No, listen. I do not deny that there exists a phenomenon in the waters north of 20N similar to El Nino and La Nina such that it has an impact on the sea surface temperatures of the waters of that region

Again

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) Index is defined as the leading principal component of North Pacific monthly sea surface temperature variability (poleward of 20N for the 1900-93 period). Digital values of our PDO index are available from Nate Mantua's anonymous ftp directory (linked here: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest).

I'm not denying that it exists. But using its data to then extrapolate that what we see in its data is equivalent to what happens to the entire earth's global temperature is not true. That is a pretty large leap.

Edit:
I'd also like to point out that I am not claiming absolute certainty about what is happening to the earth's climate. I do not deny that there is ongoing discussion about the many factors that are affecting the planet's climate. I do not deny that there is disagreement about the interpretation of the data. But, I also do not deny that there is sensationalism, cherry picking, and falsehoods with regards to this debate from both sides.

Chill out. The claim that PDO can be used to predict the earth's global temperatures I think is not valid. The value of PDO comes in predicting the water's climate in that region and the various impacts it has, like, for instance in marine life in that region.

[xerx]

You know the 'vast majority' used to believe that the earth was flat too, right? Do you know what they used to do to people who dared imply that the earth was really round?

I concur with the general sentiment in your quote, but the Earth was known to be round since ancient Greek times and was actually a widely held view by the time of the Inquisition. Sorry for being pedantic. :/

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rick]

OK, I'm back after a couple days without Internet.

2 Jimbean:

>> "What's your word on the scientists who say that the sun cycle is a much bigger determinant on climate change and CO2 emissions are of a much smaller consequence? Of course even this opinion varies amongst this group of scientists."

Like I said above, there are numerous climate forcing mechanisms that are all operating at the same time with varying levels of intensity. Global climate at any given moment is basically the sum of all the factors added together -- some positive, some negative. Cycles of intensity of radiation coming from the sun are certainly an important climate mechanism, but they cannot account for recent warming. If you look at sun cycles in the 20-21st centuries, they don't match global temperatures very well.

Historically, reconstructed CO2 levels (from ice cores, etc.) have corresponded remarkably well with reconstructed temperature levels. (If that sounds circular, it really isn't. If you do some study on the subject you'll find that the reconstructions are all very well substantiated and sophisticated.) The recent rapid rise in CO2 (we can use the word "unprecedented" because of the rapidity of the rise, which has no historical antecedent) has corresponded to a period of rapid temperature increase. The size of the rise in PPM (parts per million) in the atmosphere is large enough to expect a substantial warming by looking at past CO2/temperature reconstructions.

2 Ashton:

>> "Interesting excerpts from an interview with the "Father of Climatology," Reid Bryson: Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' | NewsBusters.org -- http://newsbusters.org/node/13541 "

My first question is, for people who are hypersensitive to AGW hype, does this article meet your standards of objective reporting? Is this the type of source you would turn to to understand a complex scientific topic? This article is for people who don't care to understand anything about climate science, but feed off the AGW-anti-AGW public debate as a form of entertainment. I won't comment on it except to say that Reid Bryson is no more the "father of climatology" as I am the "father of socionics" (which would be B.S., of course).

>> "Couple other interesting links: http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1837.htm"

Okay, this article is somewhat better, but the author is not talking to the scientific community, but to readers who have heard stuff in the press. Far better would be a published paper by Reid Bryson addressed to the community of climate scientists. I'll comment on his points anyway:

1. Duh!
2. "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone." >> Part of this is "duh!", part doesn't match what I read from climate scientists who have examined all relevant climate forcing mechanisms.
3. Duh! However, water vapor comes and goes quickly, while CO2 stays for centuries. Warming generally produces more water vapor as evaporation increases, producing a positive feedback loop.
4. I think he is partly wrong, though of course computer models have their limits and may be more or less accurate. Climate models and weather forecasting models are two different things, and the forces operating on day-to-day weather are different from those operating on long-term climate, just like intraday fluctuations in the price of stock occur for different reasons than long-term changes in price.
5. Whatever. He doesn't explain.
6. I think he is probably wrong, according to the studies I've read. A more meaningful question should have read, "climate scientists" instead of "scientists in general."

>> "We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of "greenhouse gases" until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used."

I'm almost certain he's mistaken on aerosols not having been included. As far as I'm aware, aerosol are considered in modern models and are thought to account in large part for the slight cooling of the 1930s and 40s. I don't understand his grounds for uncertainty regarding warming in the past century. Temperature records are pretty clear.

In the last section he states that 1) "the Earth has most probably warmed," and 2) "We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question --- too important to ignore." With that in mind, is this article really a debunking of global warming, as the website title would suggest (at top)?

Anti-AGW hype is at least equal in intensity to AGW hype. So, if your problem with climate change is the hype surrounding it (rather than educated scientific objections), please wake up to the hype surrounding the anti-AGW camp.

>> .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

First, browse the article/blog headings in the left-hand column of the site and ask yourself whether the website has a political agenda and how good of a source on the opinions and research of climate scientists it is.

Next, count the number of climate scientists/researchers in the list. I counted 4. Their scientific objections (which are briefly quoted, if at all) often don't seem as damning as the article itself suggests.

Far better would be a website by a climate scientist/researcher collecting the scientific opinions of fellow colleagues who dissent from the consensus view. If I were a climate researcher with a different view, that is one of the first things I would do. Why is it political parties that collect this information, not climate scientists themselves? If you can find a better source, please post it. (This is a sincere request.)





My goal is to understand what's going on with the climate and why. For me the politics are secondary. I have many questions -- for instance, what the climate predictions for the next few centuries would be if anthropogenic factors were not included in the model. I've read some things from a Russian climatologist that suggests that we are soon to enter a cycle that will largely reverse the recent warming period (which he attributes to CO2, like everyone else). So I need to read up on that and see what's what. Maybe I'll find that warming in and of itself might not be so much of a problem after all. But warming is just one dimension of industrial impact on the planet.

Like I've stated elsewhere, global warming is one of a dozen or so planetary-scale environmental problems facing modern mankind. My sense in this debates is that the camp that says that "climate change is not a problem" also believes that other environmental problems are "not a problem" either, or is simply unaware of them. That somehow by saying "AGW is a scam" we have suddenly rid ourselves of all environmental worries, and life as we are used to can continue to move forward unimpeded: "just keep the government out of things, deregulate the economy, open access to all oil reserves and other natural resources, and everything will be okay and the economy will soon be booming again."

So here's my little sermon on environmental awareness. Geography and ecology are the basis of economy. You cannot have long-term economic health and growth in a degrading ecosystem. There is a reason that an environmentalist movement arose in the middle 20th century. There is no smoke where there's no fire. So, instead of brushing all environmental concerns aside as "politicized topics," educate yourselves on topics like biodiversity, industrial agriculture and its impact on soil health and watersheds, pre-industrial agriculture, the role of forests, desertification, watershed health and management, marine biology, coral reefs, and the carbon cycle. You'll learn that things were pretty much okay until about 100 or so years ago, and that since then many natural systems upon which we ultimately depend have been dealt a serious blow. Unfortunately, these things don't get much public attention because everyone is so caught up in AGW.

[Rick]

The Post Climategate Consensus

Quite incriminating to AGW theory.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute]The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] = quite incriminating to the Heartland Institute? Funding from Exxon Mobile... hm?

Some of the talks at the conference had substance, but we are talking about a well-known small group of climatologists who question some tenets of the AGW consensus. If I remember correctly, none of them is actually a pure climate change denier such as many politicized bloggers and people who like to post graphs such as this one here:



Great job, SteveENTj, you are now officially a "cherry-picker". Why the choice of years 1998-2008? Why not 1997 to 2007, or 1999 to 2009? Is the graph above the preferred choice of climate scientists or of nonacademic bloggers? I especially like how the horizontal axis has two notches for each year to make it seem like a longer time period than it really is.

How about a longer time frame -- a period that climatologists actually use in their work, as opposed to the arbitrary selection of a small set of years that displays a short-term flat or slight cooling trend:



Note that 2005 was later revised upwards to become the hottest year on record, not 1998.

Finally, as I explained before, there are a multitude of climate forcing mechanisms, all of which are taken into consideration by climate change theory. The first decade of the new millenium corresponded to a solar minimum, which likely dampened the warming effect of continuing CO2 increases. Climatologists have predicted strong warming as we pull out of the solar minimum and move back into the zone of cumulative positive forcing.

As I stated, higher CO2 levels have historically come after warm periods and were not the cause of further warming afterwards.

I answered this misconception in an above post. This is a non-issue.

Rick, did you say 2009/2010 were the hottest years on record? Care to back that up?' aka 'hide the decline'

At the moment of publication 2010 was the warmest year on record according to federal National Climatic Data Center: World simmers in hottest year so far | Reuters

Also, a flashback.

Newsweek: The Cooling World
April, 1975

So these are your primary climate science source -- nonacademic blogs, Newsweek, conservative think-tanks?

Here's follow-up on the cooling stories of the 70s:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Newsweek Changes Media Climate 31 Years after Global Cooling Story
Climate Change: Prediction Perils - Newsweek

[Rick]

Sorry, right now, it just isn't.
Nothing has been "proven".
Nothing has been "settled".
By anybody.
There is only "theory" thus far, not proven facts.
The End.

So far you have not brought up a single scientifically valid argument against prevailing AGW theory. No climate scientist, not even an AGW contrarian, would agree with your statement that "nothing has been proven."

What's been proven:
1) some gases produce a "greenhouse effect," including but not limited to CO2
2) human activity has changed the atmosphere, particularly by increasing the concentration of CO2
3) there has been a strong global warming trend over the past 100 years, particularly the past 40
4) greenhouse gases are one of many climate drivers, several of which are affected by human activity

What's under dispute:
1) predictions of how much temperatures will rise if CO2 levels continue to rise, how quickly polar ice will be lost, and how much sea levels will rise
2) how feedback mechanisms will exacerbate or negate global warming (many feedback mechanisms have only been recently discovered, and not all are well understood)

[jughead]

I said from the beggining they wouldn't prove shit because they couldn't and don't try, its easier to hate. Discojoe trolls alot but also seems to believe some of the bullshit.

[stevENTj]

So far you have not brought up a single scientifically valid argument against prevailing AGW theory. No climate scientist, not even an AGW contrarian, would agree with your statement that "nothing has been proven."

What's been proven:
1) some gases produce a "greenhouse effect," including but not limited to CO2
2) human activity has changed the atmosphere, particularly by increasing the concentration of CO2
3) there has been a strong global warming trend over the past 100 years, particularly the past 40
4) greenhouse gases are one of many climate drivers, several of which are affected by human activity

What's under dispute:
1) predictions of how much temperatures will rise if CO2 levels continue to rise, how quickly polar ice will be lost, and how much sea levels will rise
2) how feedback mechanisms will exacerbate or negate global warming (many feedback mechanisms have only been recently discovered, and not all are well understood)

No to all of the above, but whatever.

The only way you could possibly come to the conclusions that you have above is if you accept every single thing AGW scientists are saying without question while also rejecting every single thing from scientists behind counter-theories.

There's plenty of debate and no the science is not settled whether you accept that or not. Obviously you don't, which is why I stopped reading this thread and any of your posts. There's simply no point in debating with you. But I did want to drop by to link this.

Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way

This is being attributed to the Gulf Stream, and not atmospheric CO2. Wow look at that, something besides CO2 and AGW theory having such a drastic effect on climates.

[Rick]

No to all of the above, but whatever.

The only way you could possibly come to the conclusions that you have above is if you accept every single thing AGW scientists are saying without question while also rejecting every single thing from scientists behind counter-theories.

There's plenty of debate and no the science is not settled whether you accept that or not. Obviously you don't, which is why I stopped reading this thread and any of your posts. There's simply no point in debating with you. But I did want to drop by to link this.

Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way

This is being attributed to the Gulf Stream, and not atmospheric CO2. Wow look at that, something besides CO2 and AGW theory having such a drastic effect on climates.

This is a straw man argument, and there is no contradiction. Where are the climate scientists that say that CO2 is the only thing that influences climate? I've answered this misconception several times already. The Gulf Stream and a host of other nonanthropogenic factors are an important part of climate science models and understanding.

>> "The only way you could possibly come to the conclusions that you have above is if you accept every single thing AGW scientists are saying without question while also rejecting every single thing from scientists behind counter-theories."

Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean that scientists don't understand it either. Everything I've listed is common knowledge in the climatology community and has more than ample scientific support, which I've studied personally to understand how and why. Questioning it is like questioning if viruses make people sick or whether nutrition has anything to do with health.

Once again, let me point out the low quality of your information source:

>> "Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years."

What forecasters? This is poor journalism just to catch people's attention and get them worried. Compare that to a good research paper with careful conclusions and a list of reputable sources.

Even if Europe does experience a "thousand year winter" (which is doubtful because the basic premise suggested by the article is doubtful -- see Shutdown of thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), does it contradict AGW theory? No. Anthropogenic CO2 positive forcing is still occurring. Furthermore, average global temperatures would likely not be affected in the short run by a shutoff of the Gulf Stream. Europe would become colder, while other areas would become warmer.

[Rick]

What's alarming, is that if they could, you know the useful idiots who believe in AGW nonsense would have no moral hesitation about culling the population of anyone who didn't want to tote the line.

One of the classic tactics of war and conflict is to make your people believe that the enemy wants to kill you. If you want to be a tool of political games, go ahead and believe that people who believe humans are contributing to climate change want to kill you and your family.

[Rick]

SteveENTJ, in response to your claim:

>> "The only way you could possibly come to the conclusions that you have above is if you accept every single thing AGW scientists are saying without question while also rejecting every single thing from scientists behind counter-theories."

We can look at the opinions of one of the most prominent AGW skeptics within the climate science community, Richard Lindzen. He gave testimony in 2009 to the U.K. parliament regarding climate change. A fair summary is here: RealClimate: Richard Lindzen’s HoL testimony

You can also read the transcript here:
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence
House of Lords - Economic Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

From the realclimate analysis of Lindzen's testimony:

"Lindzen accepts the main principle of the greenhouse effect, that increasing greenhouse gases (like CO2) will cause a radiative forcing that, all other things being equal, will cause the surface to warm. "

(Lindzen's words) “A doubling of CO2 should lead (if the major greenhouse substances, water vapour and clouds remain fixed), on the basis of straightforward physics, to a globally averaged warming of about 1°C”.

And from Lindzen's own mouth:

"I think the public is being misled as to the nature of the controversy and the science. I have given you a deposition and I will not repeat it at length, but when your Prime Minister assured you that the bulk of scientific opinion was on one side, in many ways I do not disagree with that. I want to clarify that the disagreement is not over whether temperature has been changing; almost everyone agrees somewhere around the order of a half degree change over the last century. No-one disagrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that doubling it would increase the greenhouse effect by about 2 per cent. No-one I know disagrees—there may be a few—that man has played a role in the observed increase in CO2 between about 290 and 380 parts per million. Where the disagreement exists is not over that but over whether that is an alarming statement. "

It seems your views are not supported even by AGW skeptics in the climate science community. You can choose another skeptic if Lindzen doesn't suit you. I am almost certain you'll see the same picture as here.

Here's Lindzen's main counter-opinion, which puts him in the "skeptic" camp:

"In the question session (Q143), Lindzen goes into more detail on the reason why he feels that climate sensitivity is so low – specifically, he believes that water vapour feedbacks are not only less positive than models suggest, but actually negative. That is he feels that the amount of longwave aborbtion by water vapour will go down as the planet warms due to increasing GHGs. This implies that actual water vapour amounts will decrease with increasing temperature. "

Note that his objections are neither 1) that CO2 produces positive forcing, 2) that human activity has increased CO2 levels, or 3) whether temperatures have actually risen. These things he accepts as fact, as I stated originally. His point of difference has mainly to due with climate predictions.

[Gilly]

The proposition of vapor content decreasing as the temperature warms, and thus counterbalancing the warming effect, is actually fairly compelling; however I think the risks are great enough, what with CO2 percentage climes and the potential for things like methane (one of the most destructive greenhouse gases) being released from pockets of melted ice in light of temperature increases, that the issue does still merit serious attention.

[Creepy-bg]

I think that the chance that WE ALL FUCKING DIE if we screw this up makes the issue merit serious attention.

[olduser]

No to all of the above, but whatever.

The only way you could possibly come to the conclusions that you have above is if you accept every single thing AGW scientists are saying without question while also rejecting every single thing from scientists behind counter-theories.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is a scientific fact. It absorbs infrared radiation deflected from the surface of the earth, source of the radiation is the sun, which emits radiation at every wavelength. The molecule enters an excited, vibrational state, and eventually emits the exact amount of radiation it absorbed as infrared energy initially. This is fact. I've done spectroscopy in the infrared range and if you don't have a closed, nitrogen(or other inert gas) pumped system, there will be characteristic absorbance from CO2 from human respiration. As usual, these arguments are always about politics rather than science.

[olduser]

I think that the chance that WE ALL FUCKING DIE if we screw this up makes the issue merit serious attention.

it won't be a sudden death. In my area, we have seen the temperature increase by 0.2 degrees Celsius for the last twenty years, and this has inhibited precipitation. The climate is becoming arid to the point that in 50 years it will possibly be a desert.

[Gilly]

I think that the chance that WE ALL FUCKING DIE if we screw this up makes the issue merit serious attention.

chyeah.

[discojoe]

[Jimbean]

Rick, what do you think about weather modification?

[Rick]

Rick, what do you think about weather modification?

In general or as a response to global warming?

If the latter, then I don't think it would work. You'd presumably have to keep doing it forever to maintain a neutral global energy balance at rising CO2 levels. At some point in time the cost of maintaining it could go up and become more than societies could bear. Then they'd have to let go at their own peril.

[Jimbean]

Weather modification is already going on; it has been going on full scale since 2008. I have not seen anything in global warming advocates mentioning or taking it into account when they speak of climate change. Have you seen or heard anything regarding this?

[Rick]

Weather modification is already going on; it has been going on full scale since 2008. I have not seen anything in global warming advocates mentioning or taking it into account when they speak of climate change. Have you seen or heard anything regarding this?

No, I know nothing about the topic.

[krieger]

What is your opinion on High Altitude Wind Power, Rick? Any chance this line of technology could bring these AGW and peak oil worries to an anticlimactic end?

High altitude wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

KiteGen research

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/7014

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5538

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5554

Thorium based nuclear power is also a contender for being an energy generation holy grail:

[Rick]

HAWP sounds promising indeed. Hopefully, it will be deployed as a kind of 2nd or 3rd generation windpower generator in coming decades. But it has the same problems as many other forms of alternative energy: energy storage and transmission, and the inability to fuel combustion engines which are the basis of modern transportation. There are also some long-term questions such as the sustainability of materials used for construction of the kites, but those can probably be mostly ignored for now.

I think you should read the Richard Heinberg report on energy, "Searching for a Miracle," to appreciate the technicalities involved. If it were as simple as putting up some windmills and filling a desert with solar panels, one would think we would have done so already.

Thanks, I hadn't read about thorium yet. According to this ( http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971 ) it seems to hold a lot of promise. But it takes decades to develop new energy sources and retool an advanced country's infrastructure, and if a place like the U.S. goes into a Peak Oil + ballooning national debt economic freefall, I don't know if there will be time or resources to build it. Countries with primarily self-sufficient rural populations, small gov't budgets and national debts, and a good level of education and centralized institutions (such as much of developing Asia) will probably be better off and may be able to deploy these new technologies quicker and with greater benefit.

[xerx]

I'm just waiting for humanity to become a type 1 civilization.

FutureTimeline.net | Future | Timeline | 2050 | 2100 | 2150 | 2200 | 21st century | 22nd century | 23rd century | Far Future | Technology

That will solve all our problems.

[Creepy-bg]

read that scifi book I posted sometime xerxes. it's set in kind of the same phase or more accurately after (except the people inhabiting the solar system pretty much leave earth behind to simmer in it's own filth)

[Rick]

The more energy-intensive technology humanity develops, the more it hastens entropy. High-grade metal ore is reduced to low-grade scraps. Hydrocarbons are converted into heat and high-grade materials, which are recycled into low-grade materials and finally become scrap. High-potential uranium, plutonium, and thorium become useless waste that requires continuing energy expenditures to store.

The greater the technological development, the fewer children smart, healthy, and independent people choose to have, meaning that developed societies are gradually swamped with the dumb, the sick, and the dependent, leading to ever greater stratification of society and an ever increasing proportion of dependents until eventually the system chokes.

These two points stand in the way of the high-tech sci-fi vision of the world. In the best-case scenario, society manages to find a sustainable, low-energy form of progress and finds a way to bring all or most of its members up to a higher level while maintaining birthrates and keeping mutations, sickness, old age, sloth, and indifference from overrunning society and compromising the overall biological health of the population.