:damn::damn::damn:

Haplo,

I had typed in a long reply, and then hit two wrong keys in the down right corner, deleting it all. Fan-tas-tic. Don't currently feel like wanting to type all that again.

Great way to start a Sunday. :dead: Happens when I type not in Words, becasue I don't expect it to become long, so I type directly into the forum browser, but then it necomes long, and then...

:stare:

I should have known myself better. :)

This is just a shorter versons of what I typed before, I cut some things short.

Haplo,

I do not gloss over your medieval ice age argument. I just fail to read so much into it like you do, because as you say it is part of a natural fluctuation. And that is the reason why the medieval temperatures do not serve well as a parallel that could explain the even faster rise in temperature we see in the present. Because the natural conditions back then and in the past 150 years or less, do not compare. The warming today is being caused by different factors then the warming phase back then. later some comments more to that.

I do not want to spend another hour of typing, so I cut it short and link to two findings, that aimed at what I tried to say (and probably in a more complicated manner, as always :) ). the first is this article in the New Scientist, describing doubts why the medieval climate maybe cannot be used as an explanation for global warming today, because it may have been not a global phenomenon, but caused by just different patterns of heat distribution than today.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...iscovered.html

the second is a german article mentioning a project regarding the present, and I summarise it in short words therefore.

http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissensch...id_448626.html

In that article they say that in Octobre, AP has ordered four statisticians to analyse - independently from each other - data sets provided by the american NOAA that included weather and temperature data, but the nature of the data was hidden from the analysts. All four statisticians came to the result that the data does not allow a conclusions that in the immediate past (the last years) a "cooling" has taken place. The statisticians were not aware of that the data they analysed was weather data - they did not know it, just dealth with the data formally and checking it with methodological tools of their profession. Even more: the conclusions of the statisticians mean that the American weather data by the NOAA indicate that the past years, including 2009, have been the warmest decade in the past 130 years since the beginning of recording weather data. According to that, 2005 has been the warmest year ever. the warmth record years of 1998 and 2005 are already lagging behind in people's minds, and the sceptic's argument that a cooling has taken place is being attacked by statisticians of the university of South Carolina for referring exclusively to the immediate past and trying to formulate a global, lasting trend by picking just the "rosins" from the past one or two years. They say that if you look at data since 1998 only, indeed that seems to indicate a minitrend downward, but doing so is simply misleading and wrong, because you just look at a very short timespan that happens to include a slight down-movement in the constant natural fluctuation of the general trend curve.

So much for that article.

We know for sure that in the past 11 or 12 centuries there have been 3 phases of relative coolings, followed by phases of relative warmings (logically! what naturally goes down, must naturally come up again). That this has been tried to hide in graphs linked to the IPCC reports, indeed is unforgivable, and bad science, or better: no science at all. But we are not sure about the quality of these phases, and currently the socalled medieval mini-ice age is beeing re-evaluated in temperatures, once it was said the phenomenen was global, it now gets seen as more regional, once it was seen as beeing all-low (and afterwards all-high) throughout the year, now one starts to think that the mean temepratures over the year possibly did not vary to the present by those excessive 3-5 degrees that once were assumed, but probably only differed by less than 1°C, but that the seasonal weather pendulum was swinging more extremely to the warm and cold poles: the summers were warmer, and the winter were colder. I think this is the most reasonable assumption indeed. In yearly averages, the weather was not that drastically different, probably, but the seasonal weather was far more extreme.

No serious scientist doubts that there are natural weather cycles, of various timespans, reaching from just 10-20 years, over a 300-400 year cycles to one including timespans of several thousand years. Occasionally I read the same three such cycles getting mentioned time and again. But there are huge differnces between scientiists and the sceptics camp in to what degree these could be held respinsible for the global weather trend of the modern era.

The point is that this natural fluctuation does not seem to be fit to explain the current acceleration in warming that we see, making it the fastest happening climate change and warming known in history. On the other hand we do know that we are emitting a lot of gasses that are proven in their effects on changing the temperature behavior of an atmosphere. And we see the close coincidence between the climate change starting to become conspicious in a statistical, methodological understanding, and the setting-in population explosion and industrialisation and environmental destruction done by man. These factors do not get explained by the medieval ice age at all (I also wonder why they call it the medieval ice age or mini-ice age, it wasn't an ice age, compared to a real ice age the climate still was pretty much moderate).

And let's not forget another thing: global warming can cause paradox effects. When you have ice melting in the arctic, the water vaporises into the air - and condenses (?) on the still present ice areas in other parts of the arctic that are still coller in relation, making the ice thicker there for a temporary time only. The melting ice is sweet water, but sea currents, amongst others depend on salienity differences, so the adding of huge ammounts of sweet water into the salt water ocean changes the pattern and energetic intensity of global currents, with all effects on climate that brings. If the Gulf Stream lowers it's activity, it brings less warmth to Europe, which translates into a relative REGIONAL cooling that is caused by global waming nevertheless. In the past years, there have been reports saying that some experts said the Gld Stream already has lost 18% in activity in the past years. Factors like this have been predicted and explained since the mid or late 80s, but still get picked out of context and then serve as an excuse or should I say: axe-cuse? - to doubt global warming - in principle the same distortion of methodology as the statisticians complain about in the article I summarised above.

I repeatedly said that science is no religion, claiming to have the ultimate, the final, the total truth, but I said that science tries - or at least should try - to bring observations made and systematically gained data into explanation models that combine and explain them in the currently best way possible, which means: logically, and as uncomplicated as possible, the models then get tested and usd for prediction, and eventually altered, which often is a constantly running process, making theories change over time, eventually. This is no treacherous or cheating behavior trying to supoort an agenda, but just natural acting in science. If sticking to this principle, I cannot do different than to assume that currently the theory of man-made emissions and environmental changes causing the major drive for an non-natural acceleration in global climate change - is the most appropriate explanation model available to us at the present moment. The emails do not change that in principle or detail, to me the "scandal" very much is a fabricated conspiration theory only.

I leave it here, it already is longer again then planned, and I already have typed so much this morning. :)

Maybe I must correct my definitions of "summary" and "cutting it short". :D

My Concern isnt wether Climate Change is real, not real, caused by Humans or whatever....Its the Political storm of Control, Taxation, regulation and policing that "taints" this issue. And its not that I would mind paying a little extra, however we are already paying enough, and now with our economy in shambles the boneheads dont seem to realize that every bill that costs the American Tax payer $ makes any chance of recovery take two steps back. Who in their right mind plans taxing whne the unemployment rate is heading to over 20%.

For a short recount on the for/against camp, I recommend this article. It is in no way comprehensive, considering its length, yet it gives good starting point for debate. Guess which side has more scientific arguments?

Oh, and it's the medieval warm period. The little ice age was later on, during 17-19th centuries. The fact that Europe was overpopulated at the time of the Black death is because of the warmer climate and consequently the surprisingly high amount of grain produced considering their "primitive" farming techniques.

Edit: Thank you Neon.

I share that attitude. I just say "energy-saving light bulbs", "CO2 footprint of my pizza for dinner" etc.

It would be easier business if global warming theory would not be corrupted
by political opportunism and mass hysteria. It gives it a bad name.

On the one hand the private household'S concern'S over the monthly budget available to it, are real and cannot be ignored. But on the other hand if thing sreally should become bad and time already is of the essence, we must weigh the stressed economical situation versus elemental survival.

And let's be realistic: since generations the politicians as well as most private persons silently expect the next generation solve the issues that we do not wish to touch ourselves during our life span. "Let them fix it!" and "Wait for the economical growth start accelerating again!" are our most favourite mottos.

Nah, for you that is a summary and cut short :-j

BTW I like your Popper quote, that is a good one.

Think you forgot to put in the article :DL

Tell that Letum - he loves Popper, he says, but probably not me. :woot:

Climate conference and Al Gore is writing poetry :shifty:

Quote:

One thin September soon A floating continent disappears In midnight sun Vapors rise as Fever settles on an acid sea

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/pol...te-change.html


Maybe Al can get the Nobel for literature.

I would say that he shouldn't quit his day job, but he sucks at that too.

That is the problem, Al has made climate change his job...:shifty: Pays well and comes with prizes. :up:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282


Scientists of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, that has contributed to the IPCC report, also reports a recent raise in systematic attempts to breach their internal computer systems' security.

In Novembre, the server of realclimate.org, a major platform where scientists rallied that support the theory of GW, has come under increased fire in an attempt to breach it.

As I already said earlier, to me this email scnadal is just part of a huge offensive of the interested economic circles that want to prevent changes to the current business routines at all cost.

Hah, I'm guessing some folks want to get to the bottom of this issue. :hmmm: This will blow over as soon as the 140 aircraft land in Copenhagen for the conference! Carbon Credits for all!

Actually I am critical of Kopenhagen, because politicians still raise the - false - impression that it is within their reach to adress major issues with climate if only they wish that. But the truth is that the tagetted CO2 emmission cuts are expensive, and simply are not enough both in quality and quantity, and even this insufficient goal will not be met anyway.

German edition of Der Spiegel has a good essay on right this today, to my surprise matching my own opinion to very wide degrees. I hope they translate it for their international edition in the coming days, then I will link it.

Gentlemen, if you would, I would like to barge in and have a say.

Many things have been said in this thread, from both sides of the argument. Yet it does not matter how much evidence you show in support of either side, the question of climate change is a sociological and cultural one. Just as religion, you cannot expect anyone to change their minds unless there is some great cataclysm which will prove an argument once and for all. Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, which may or may not be purely subjective, depends on how you wish to see me, climate change does exist and all evidence shown by the other side can stand only inside its own construct, that is without any additional and different evidence. Yet I'm digressing from what I wanted to say.

It does not matter of you believe/have a rational explanation in climate change, accelerated climate change or just natural cycles. Climate change is a question of human rights and the question of famine, poverty and development. The Millennia Goals were set for a reason, and by states which are far from being an actor to ever set eyes of its own goals, that is power and even more power. Here lies also the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans. It is our different political paradigm that influences our views on climate change and how it should be solved and its damages mitigate. Yet again, I digress.

The importance of climate change is the fundamental change of paradigm in the way we interpret our world. I would like to call it rationalism (not only a method (empirical evidence+deductive reasoning), yet a system of action, a behaviour if I may call it that). We have come to realise, at least certain parts of our societies have, that there are millions out there, that suffer under the yoke of capitalism and economic liberalism that we have put around their necks and the sting of colonialism is still felt strong. Our strong-headed defiance to their claims will change nothing and even worsen the situation, to the point that we risk once again staring into a barrel of a gun. If economic ideology did not have the strength to destroy us all, it will be the question of climate change.

One thing that we are forgetting is that there is more to the world than just our materialist needs inside our closed communities. The governments of the world are meeting in extreme places to show that climate change is happening, no matter who's fault it is, although out actions are far from helpful, anyone must admit that. Even if this is something out of our hands, we have billions out there who live worse lives than frankly an animal. There are numbers that show that the billion most poor live worse than any medieval European peasant did (Katschinski lectures in Ljubljana). Who are we to today these people the right to exercise their reason and to live a dignified life, which we defend inside our comfortable and protected habitats, while denying it to those outside.

As I have mentioned, it is the way we look at the world that has slightly changed and that will change again in the future and this is something both sides have to expect. The change is both socio-economical and cultural in nature and will have profound influence on the way our world and the Homo sapiens sapiens species will develop in the future. Why has Desertec failed? The human condition. Which brings me to another point in this short post of mine. Even if we reduce all our emissions to 0% with renewable energy (solar) (let us forget about the cost for the moment, although again, economy isn't an argument that can stand to any logic), it is the resources which we do not and will have even less in the future. We have polluted our waters, destroyed our ecosystems and have come to the point where our food output can be expected to start falling, rather than decreasing. The only possible change is advanced aeroponics with GMOs, something which I am not right not willing to accept.

Even if food is not the question, what about the premise of capitalism? Are we really to expect infinite growth with finite resources? We have tried to combat this with sustainable development. An interesting experiment, which unfortunately has so far failed miserably. As someone has mentioned, it is the number of people that is too great to be supported, climate change or not. How can we expect everyone in the world to achieve a similar standard of living, even under the presumption of a rational individual and a pure socialist economic system? An utopia? Maybe? That does not mean it should not be explored, at least intellectually.

So what have I come to in this post of mine? Nothing actually, just a rant probably, but one which will point out that there is something some outside this world of ours than just economy and growth and that there are human beings being denied the right to prosper and grow and contribute to the development of the common humanity we are all members of.

I would only like to ask those who are crazy enough to respond to do so diligently and in an academic manner. I did not have enough time to present all my evidence, yet I did point out the basic outline. Questions asked will be answered as soon as humanly possible, to other I ask only to restrain your emotions and respond as rationally as possible.