posted
Just today, I rushed to the theater to watch Al Gore do his inconvenient speech.
I am of the opinion that this film should be blasted all over the airwaves 3 times daily, mandatory viewing in all the schools from Kindergarden on to the Universities, and basically, distributed at least as well as Coca Cola.
But of course, we all have to die first, don't we?
I have spent 20 or so years of my life trying to write good horror. Al Gore beat me hands down, and he didn't resort to zombies to do it.
DO NOT MISS THIS FILM!
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can argue against An Inconvenient Truth. It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.
They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.
*blink*
I read that column, my local paper carried it. And my first thought was: George Will you snide, blind ass. Global warming is real. Yes some of the people who are saying so come on a little strong and over the top, but their worried and can you blame em? Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths. (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten. These things are shifting and happening in a manner rather disturbingly similar to how folks have predicted they would do to global warming.
No they're not spot on, and no they can't predict exactly what the ice caps melting will do. We could be looking at a situation as bad as the one in The Day After Tomorrow or something far more gradual (far more likely). But we are looking at changing weather patterns and a drastic global heating trend. And the results will not be good for humanity. Maybe they won't be utterly catastrophic, but they don't have to be catastrophic to be ugly and something we should work hard to avoid. Katrina wasn't catastrophic, but I'm sure a lot of people be a lot happier if it hadn't have happened.
Frankly, if Gore does manage to ride a wave of fear into the White House then good. Maybe he can do something about it. And whatever he does it'll be far better then what our current fanatic in chief is doing.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths. (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.
Hurricane seasons cycle in intensity. We're at a particularly intense part of the cycle. I mean, bad hurricanes are nothing new, but we also didn't track them as closely way back in the days of bloomers.
quote: quote: Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths. (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.
Hurricane seasons cycle in intensity. We're at a particularly intense part of the cycle. I mean, bad hurricanes are nothing new, but we also didn't track them as closely way back in the days of bloomers.
Yes weather cycles. Yes we're nearing a couple of peaks, but the point is the peaks are a little bit higher than they were last time. It's a little warmer, a little more violent and little worse. And this has been a trend for years.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.
A quick study of the world climatology research bodies presently involved in the research of anthropogenic global warming (which exists, by the way) and the climate forcings associated with it shows that this statement is false.
The worldwide climate research consensus (and the depth of study) involving the global warming issue managed to eclipse the 'ice age fears' in around 2001-2002, back when global warming was still a reasonably controversial concept in the science world.
Nowadays, there's no real scientific controversy, only a battle around public policy. I.e., people attempting to pooh-pooh rational findings for the sake of ideological convenience.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be incredibly surprised, and more than a little horrified if Gore ran for president. Not because I don't want him in the White House, I do, but because I highly doubt his chances of making it in. And because I think it would encourage Republicans to run someone even more radically Conservative if they feel their chances are that good of beating a Democrat.
But I really doubt he will. While he hasn't declared his intentions to retire from ALL political life, I always assumed that meant he'd either try and run for the Senate again, or that he'd retain his position as lobbyist, more or less, leader of a league of PACs and think tanks. He knows that other Democrats have a better chance of getting elected, and I think he'd rather hitch himself to them than ruin it for everyone by taking a stab himself. Besides, his intentions are a moot point, I don't think he'd even win the primary. (Either way, Bush has been riding a wave of fear for the last five years, clearly it works, why would you expect other politicians not to do the same?)
The movie just recently got to a theater near me, and I plan to see it this week. I'll comment here later on it when I do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anti-Global Warming people hope Gore runs for President, so they can continue to ignore the scientific truths by labeling them election politics.
The most interesting fact I saw in discussions about this movie is the coverage in scientific journals vs generic media. In scientific jounals 99.9% of reports discuss the obvious proofs of Global Climate Change, thier causes (man and industry) and things we can do to change them. Generic media is 50% such reports, and 50% claims attacking those reports, all put together by various experts in the employ of oil companies or big, cheap, oil users not wanting to convert.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asphalt, as it happens, is a good way of reducing global warming, because it binds down carbon that would otherwise go into the atmosphere as CO2. So, build them parking lots.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: It does not take a brain surgeon...
How bloody dense can any of you be?
Sheep to the slaughter are smarter than you!
Edited by me. C'mon, you can discuss without calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid. I've seen you do it. These are all insults. Don't be a troll.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all we are between Ice Ages, and between every Ice Age is a Hot Age. That is indisputable. But Ice Ages and Hot Ages span many thousands of years. We are seeing a change in temperature that can be measured across 100 years.
Further, there are some very easily observed measures of general gobal temperature; polar ice caps, glacial activity, and the size of the Sahara Desert.
All of these expand and contract with subtle changes in average global temperature. Polar Ice Caps are shrinking substantially. That is easily observed. Glaciers are receding dramatically. That is easily observed. The Sahara Desert is expanding. That is easily observed.
For these thing to change that dramatically takes more than a slight spike in regional temperatures, especially when the effect can be observed in several locations on the earth.
Yes, or course, we are absolutely going into a Hot Age, that is irrevocable and inevitable. The real question is how fast and how soon? If we substantially affect global temperatures then we are heading for an accellerated Hot Age. I may come in a 100 years instead of 1000 years. But absolutely it is coming.
Now, if it is coming soon, we need to ask if we are ready for it?
The areaa of the Great Plains in the USA, is also known as the great American Desert. Though admitedly it is a very green desert. But if we go into a Hot Age, it is very likely that it will literally turn into a desert. That is a huge loss of farm land.
Sea levels will rise, absolutely and inevitably. The question is are we ready for that? Are we ready to have virtually every coastal city under water? Are we ready to build the massive dams to protect them? Are we ready to abandon them? Are we ready to live with our choice?
Regardless of whether the current heating trend is just a random fluctuation in climate or whether it is caused or accelerated by man, it is here, it is real, it is inevitable. So, regardless of the cause, the primary question is, are we ready and willing to deal with it?
I don't think we are either ready or WILLING. But, like it or not, we will have to deal with it.
quote:They are panic mongers, that's all, and Gore in particular is basically campaigning. George Will had a great column about it this morning. The man is planning on surfing a wave of fear right into the White House.
*blink*
I read that column, my local paper carried it. And my first thought was: George Will you snide, blind ass. Global warming is real. Yes some of the people who are saying so come on a little strong and over the top, but their worried and can you blame em? Have you not noticed the increasingly violent weather patterns? Each year we get record storm numbers and strengths.
Look, Alcon, weather changes. That's the way the world works. Things go up, things go down. I get that people want everything to stay the same, but the world just isn't like that.
The ice ages started all by themselves, and they ended all by themselves, and I just spent a frigid day in June in Chicago in which I could have used a little global warming.
The question isn't whether weather is erratic or not. The question is whether it's attributable to human activity or not. And that's the part that hasn't been well established.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: (Katrina anyone?) And they're predicting even worse storms... and these are normal weather and storm folk, not "panic mongers". Each year areas get more weather that they rarely in the past have gotten.
Define "past". A few decades isn't really that relevant. Of course, some people, Americans in particular, have tried to pretend that they're above nature. We've built cities in the deserts, like Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and cities in swamps, like parts of New Orleans. And we've assumed that things were going to stay the same forever, and ignored the fact that we were essentially building buildings on infirm foundations. So when those foundations give way, rather than saying, "Uh. Duh, I guess we shouldn't have built there," we go along with the panic mongers who have fought tooth and nail against human progress for a very long time.
Generally, people think of the difference between weather and climate as being that climate stays pretty much the same and weather changes. But climate changes too. It just has longer cycles.
If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: No they're not spot on, and no they can't predict exactly what the ice caps melting will do. We could be looking at a situation as bad as the one in The Day After Tomorrow or something far more gradual (far more likely).
Right, because global warming will certainly lead to a new ice age. That movie was even goofier than "Al Gore Saves the World". Or whatever this new adventure flick is called.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: But we are looking at changing weather patterns and a drastic global heating trend.
Weather patterns always change. And summers in Chicago have actually been cooler than usual. You need to take a deep breath. Gore hypnotized you.
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Frankly, if Gore does manage to ride a wave of fear into the White House then good. Maybe he can do something about it. And whatever he does it'll be far better then what our current fanatic in chief is doing.
And hell, the guy invented the Internet, right? So he can certainly invent something to fix global warming. Maybe build a giant fan in the arctic to blow cold air down here.
posted
It's so lame to still be lobbing that 'Al Gore claims to have invented the internet' line out there.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not global warming is actually an issue (and I believe that it is, but it's pretty irrelevant to my post here, and I also think that Earth tends toward equilibrium and in the long run we'll *probably* be okay, though possibly not without a fair amount of short-term carnage), some of the same things that affect this supposed global warming will need to be adressed.
Pretend this *isn't* a global warming thread. Instead let's talk about the world's supply of fossil fuel. It is running out. We need to reorganize and redesign so that if/when we get to the [another?] point of crisis, we aren't stuck foodless and A/C-less in naturally infertile and hostile territory. We need to look at alternate energy, or look at ways to depend less on energy.
A side effect of changing society to be less dependant on a finite resource is that greenhouse gases--and smog etc--will be reduced.
Here's a clearer and less parenthetical sum-up of what I think about global warming:
--The Earth's climate does vary naturally.
--Over the course of the last century, the way humans live and consume energy has changed drastically.
--CO2 levels are much higher now than they have ever been recorded, and scientists have data from ages back.
--On the whole, the climate has been getting warmer recently--average oceanic temperatures are rising.
Clearly, there is doubt as to whether global warming is capital Global Warming or just warming of the globe. I suspect that human interference has something to do with it, but I don't know how much, and I don't know how much it matters. All systems tend towards equilibrium. There are safety catches built into the system that ensure that overall, the Earth will be habitable. However, some of those catches have the potential to be pretty destructive in thier own right and I for one would rather stay closer to equilibruim than have to deal with the effects of flooding or constant cloud cover or whatever may come.
Whatever the effects of global warming (or Global Warming), I am fairly confident that by utilizing the technology available currently, humanity could protect itself from the consequences until Earth cycles itself back. And it is here, in my opinion, that lies the problem.
By the time global warming reaches uncomfortable levels, will we still have the ability to use our technology? I am not certain that we will. We have grid problems, we have oil shortage (which according to many predictions, will only get worse)...in more extreme weather, calling for perhaps more evacuations (most likely by cars needing gas), more air conditioning (stressing those power grids), more resources to get to that increasingly elusive oil, where will we be?
Maybe I'm a panic-mongerer. *shrug* But we're already seeing a lot of people flip out because gas prices are climbing, and they're still not at the "real" cost. I doubt the global warming/Global Warming situation is as dire as some are making it out to be, but the cynic in me wonders whether any attention would be paid to this issue (or hell, any issue) if it weren't sensationalized. Whether we should be worrying about global warming, or pollution and air quality, or energy crises, I think we do need to take a closer look at humanity's effect on the natural systems of our planet.
(Oh, and I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" and I probably won't. And of course you can argue with it. Anyone who can't find something to argue about, or at least question, over a, what, 2 hour documentary isn't thinking very hard.)
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's silly propaganda coming from the same people who were frantically warning of an imminent ice age only 30 years ago.
That's funny, because in 1972 I watched a movie in my 3rd grade class explaining that the "Greenhouse Effect" would cause the world to heat up. One of the first reasons I took "global warming" seriously was because it was succesfully predicted, over 30 years ago now.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all
Except that the water cycle keeps water concentration in the atmosphere in equilibrium, unless there is an increase in temperature. That's precisely what makes global warming so scary. By increasing the water in the vapor state, the greenhouse effect increases. If it passes a certain point, water vapor becomes a major player and we get the "runaway greenhouse effect" which the environmental scientists are trying to keep a lid on, because those in denial will claim that such a frightening concept can only be fearmongering.
Of course, we've got a pretty well-studied example of what the earth will be like if that happens.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe build a giant fan in the arctic to blow cold air down here.
Which is essentially what is happening. That's why people will make stupid jokes about how cold it is in the summer and that they can "use some global warming right about now."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have the people who are arguing that we are just in the middle of one of the earth's normal cycles seen the movie?
One of the main points is that by examining ice from glaciers, we actually have a record of carbon dioxide levels and temperatures from the last 650 million years. And yes, the earth cycled pretty regularly between ice ages and warm ages. But we're now so far off the charts that we can't compare our current climate to the previous cycles.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a big 'believer' in science. It's too much hoodoo for me too, but here are undeniable facts that I myself can vouch for:
1. Deforestation in South Carolina
2. Deforestation in Valle de Bravo
3. Deforestation in California
4. Increase in the buildup of roads and car production all over Mexico and the world hailed as 'progress'.
5. Increasing builing of homes and shopping centers all over the USA hailed as a 'economic miracles'..
Frankly, if one looks at a patch of forest anywhere, one can see the natural process of hydrification working, well naturally, form snowmelt in the Colorado region, rain in Valle de Bravo, and so on and such.
In my few years as a human being on planet earth, I can personally voucher for the drying up of dozens of rivers and small ponds in my home towns of South Carolina and Valle de Bravo.
And of course, I remember the Mexico City before the 'ejes viales'.
Ask me about those things, otherwise, google them. But the bottom line: water is running out. Water = Life. Hence;
T.I.M.E. is running out.
And in my humble POV as a schockmeister in Hollywood. It's ran out already.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
quote:
You aren't listening to me.
First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.
Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.
Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:
I. THE SHORT VERSION
1. Global warming is real 2. Anthropogenic global warming is real 3. Climate forcings are real 4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree 5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing
II. THE LONG VERSION
[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
quote:American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]
quote:In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community: The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
quote:In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:
* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30] * Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31] * Working Group III: Mitigation [32] * Synthesis Report [33]
The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased) 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) 3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].) 4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities 5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century 6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios
Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:
[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.
quote:t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause large climate change. ■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models. ■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set a low limit on the global warming that will constitute “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. ■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment.
pt. II
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.
quote:natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
posted
I'm so annoyed that the board is seemingly incapable of posting my lengthy replies. I have zounds and zounds of things to contribute, but I guess this has to do for now.
THE SUPER SUMMARIZED VERSION OF THE BIG HUGE POST THAT I CAN NOT POST
quote:But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
No.
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor.
Yes, because your frigid day in June is all the evidence needed to determine that the planet isn't warming. Obviously a random cold day in June is all you need to know. I can play that game too. We only had one or two major snowfalls this winter, which was by the way, one of the warmest that I can remember. I guess that means the planet is warming up eh?
Your "Chicago was cooler than usual" statement is just as silly. I trust you are well informed enough to know that global warming is a misleading title. Global climate change means that some places get hotter, some get colder. And one year on Chicago isn't really the kind of scientific evidence that moves the world. God knows the world moves or stays put based on what happens in the Windy City.
And like TL said, the internet thing is played out. If you can't come up with something better than that, you might as well not say anything, it makes you sound desperate, especially considering what Gore ACTUALLY said. But I won't let little things like truth and facts trip you up.
Even if it is proven that mankind hasn't effected global climate change...so what? That changes nothing. The new reality of the world still has to be dealt with, and considering the damage being done to the environment, we have far, FAR more immediate concerns to worry about than if it's getting colder or hotter outdoors. That's worrying about the future of our grandchildren.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
quote:
You aren't listening to me.
First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.
Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.
Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:
I. THE SHORT VERSION
1. Global warming is real 2. Anthropogenic global warming is real 3. Climate forcings are real 4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree 5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing
II. THE LONG VERSION
[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
quote:American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]
quote:In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community: The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
quote:In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:
* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30] * Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31] * Working Group III: Mitigation [32] * Synthesis Report [33]
The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased) 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) 3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].) 4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities 5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century 6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios
Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:
[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.
quote:t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause large climate change. ■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models. ■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set a low limit on the global warming that will constitute “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. ■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment.
pt. II
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.
quote:natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
quote:If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
quote:
You aren't listening to me.
First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.
Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.
Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:
I. THE SHORT VERSION
1. Global warming is real 2. Anthropogenic global warming is real 3. Climate forcings are real 4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree 5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing
II. THE LONG VERSION
[quote]On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
quote:American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders. [5]
quote:In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community: The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4] The summary begins with: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
quote:In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [url= http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222][2][/url], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The TAR consists of four reports, three of them from the Working Groups:
* Working Group I: The Scientific Basis [30] * Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [31] * Working Group III: Mitigation [32] * Synthesis Report [33]
The "headlines" from the summary for policymakers [34] in The Scientific Basis were:
1. An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere; Snow cover and ice extent have decreased) 2. Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate (Anthropogenic aerosols are short-lived and mostly produce negative radiative forcing; Natural factors have made small contributions to radiative forcing over the past century) 3. Confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased (Complex physically-based climate models are required to provide detailed estimates of feedbacks and of regional features. Such models cannot yet simulate all aspects of climate (e.g., they still cannot account fully for the observed trend in the surface-troposphere temperature difference since 1979) and there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols. Nevertheless, confidence in the ability of these models to provide useful projections of future climate has improved due to their demonstrated performance on a range of space and time-scales [35].) 4. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities 5. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century 6. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios
Final point, on the viability of attempts to change the problem through regulation:
[url= http://"http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf"]PDF: Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb,[/url] from the pages of Scientific American.
quote:t present, our most accurate knowledge about climate sensitivity is based on data from the earth’s history, and this evidence reveals that small forces, maintained long enough, can cause large climate change. ■ Human-made forces, especially greenhouse gases, soot and other small particles, now exceed natural forces, and the world has begun to warm at a rate predicted by climate models. ■ The stability of the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica and the need to preserve global coastlines set a low limit on the global warming that will constitute “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate. ■ Halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment.
pt. II
quote:Any effect of CO2 is negligible next to plain old water vapor. Both are greenhouse gasses, after all.
quote:natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels. In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. This in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature, and thus an increase in water vapor, until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback (but not a runaway feedback) to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.
posted
Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living in a complex, hi-tech society in which a small fraction of the population can feed hundreds of millions, leaving a few of us free to make movies? Would you want to undo all of that and give up what you've achieved to live as a low-impact subsistence farmer?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living in a complex, hi-tech society in which a small fraction of the population can feed hundreds of millions, leaving a few of us free to do silly things like make movies? Would you want to undo all of that and give up what you've achieved to live as a low-impact subsistence farmer?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the climate changes in certain ways, it could be something to worry about. But claiming that humans have caused it is just silly.
You aren't listening to me.
First, you may stop comparing the present global warming issue to the global cooling references of ages past. The scare is commonly referenced as being analogous to the global warming issue, but it was not backed up by references in scientific journals, which give legitimacy to the present issue, and which the former incident (which is crudely juxtaposed for 'comparison') lacked.
Second: in regards to the above quote: no, it's actually not silly at all! Science is reasonably skeptical. The climatologists are mostly being careful to judge and falsify their own works, despite attempts to portray them as being heedless alarmists. The published world of climatology, from the IPCC on down, has taken decades to reach a reliably actionable interpretation of global warming events; they have been reliably methodological and self-critical. They are the foremost authority on these affairs, and the data collection and analytical studies of independent scientific bodies the world over have primarily and overwhelmingly generated the conclusion that we are faced with today.
Here's what we have in the world of viable climate consensus:
I. THE SHORT VERSION
1. Global warming is real 2. Anthropogenic global warming is real 3. Climate forcings are real 4. Regulation of industry and production can inhibit the negative effects of climate change to a degree 5. It is probably better to do something than to do nothing
Since this board is incapable of allowing me to post the whole thing at once, I'll post in chunks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hold the phone -- water is running out? Is that a serious statement? If that's the case I'm going to hold on to my 36-pack of Dasani for my grandkids...come 50 years from now it could be worth millions!
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(is it just my computer, or is Hatrack on some sort of trippy time altering crazy drugs in this thread?)
I just went back and deleted a half dozen extra posts I made in here, through the magic of the net screwing up, hopefully I didn't miss any.
akhockey -
Water may not be running out where you are, but for some places shortages of fresh water may be a very real problem in the next couple decades.
And I think I forgot to say this earlier but, as to Lisa's comments about Americans building cities in NO and LA, we didn't build either of those. We just took them over. As for Las Vegas, well there's just no excuse for that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While water is running out here in Florida, it has a lot more to do with people building on it, digging retention ponds instead of letting it soak in naturally, and sucking it out with their wells. We just have more people crammed in than we can safely support.
Being a Floridian, I also like to laugh at the way people whine we need to let things be part of their natural cycles and then dredge up every sandbar to put back on the eroded beach. Like it's never occured to anyone that coastlines are supposed to change.
But the climatologist that covered for our oceanography class had some cool things to say about global warming and CO2. The natural cycle curve is a wavy line that doesn't fit our temperature data. The human interferance curve is a straight line that doesn't fit our data. The two together do. I don't have a problem with the thought that human byproducts are increasing a natural tendancy.
But our CO2 levels hae suddenly jumped in a way that doesn't fit any predictions. CO2 is doing something we don't understand. It did it once before in the time of the dinosaurs (which couldn't have been burnt fosil fuels related) and has never done it again until now. We have no idea what's causing it and therefore no way to stop it.
There is no proof that ceasing to use fossil fuels would stop the CO2 rise. There's plenty of proof that humanity would suffer. My apartment would be uninhabitable in a Florida summer without air conditioning. Most of our buildings are designed without working windows. I live across town from work and can't get there without a car. And these are all personal issues. What about the tractors that need fuel to grow enough food to feed an industrialized nation? What about the trucks that haul it across country for us? What about the pesticides that kill mosquitoes and let me live without fear of malaria and other diseases?
We should make better use of our resources. We should diversify. (Personally, I'd like to see fields of wind generators ten miles off shore where they don't interfere with anyone's view.) But running around telling people we're killing the earth is not a productive way to do it. Offering viable alternatives in a positive way is more likely to get results.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe build a giant fan in the arctic to blow cold air down here.
Which is essentially what is happening. That's why people will make stupid jokes about how cold it is in the summer and that they can "use some global warming right about now."
I love you too, Glenn. You're credulous and belligerent about it. Cute combination.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robin, what if global warming and rising sea levels were an inevitable cost of living...
It would seem, then, that it would immediately behoove us to acknowledge this and work to minimize and plan around this warming ASAP, rather than pretending it won't happen.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What worries me are the insurance companies. They have a lot to lose, and they are truly scared of the hurricane/global warming connection. Allstate will be imposing a 3-5% separate hurricane deductible in almost all coastal areas. They are working under the assumption that the east coast will be hit several times in a year.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: While water is running out here in Florida, it has a lot more to do with people building on it, digging retention ponds instead of letting it soak in naturally, and sucking it out with their wells.
Actually, retention ponds help recharge the aquifer. Much of the rain that falls on natural ground doesn't seep into the ground because of evaporattion and transpiration. A higher percentage of the rain that collects on paved areas, roofs, etc. and is then conveyed to a retention area eventually makes it to the aquifer.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Gore is pretty smart and having yet to see the movie I will go out on a limb and give him the benefit of his science. Then I will say so what?
Human Kind will certainly survive global warming, there are catastrophes pending that we certainly cannot survive. We all have seen the Discovery Channels various gloomy super volcano, and Mega Tsunami warnings. The fact of the matter is that we live in dynamic system that does not care and barely even notices our presence, if it makes everyone feel better to take responsibility for causing the rain to fall then that is fine. It is the oldest example of fuzzy magic thinking in our species. Far more practical to create solutions, short and long term.
Dredging and Dike building, irrigation, desalination of water, occupation of space, alternative fuel sources, atomic power, stronger border security etc...
I remember when we banned CFCs and that year a volcano erupted in the Antarctic that put out more CFCs then we would have in the next thirty years. Made our gesture pretty pointless.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
