I am afraid my replies will have to wait till the end of the week. I do not have time right now to devote to properly answering everyone. So my apologies in advance.

Oh ya there are a pile of things that could happen. Many scientists based on past events believe it operates kind of like a seesaw with a weight in the center, a few little tips one way or other don't matter, but go to far and the changes will start getting very big and happening very fast, spiraling out of control until hitting a fixed point. The Ice ages are an example of this.

Education level does not prove intelligence or intellectual capacity. There is a relationship at the higher levels (graduate studies for example). There are plenty of morons who made it into university, and plenty of bright people that never did.

Anyhow I would certainly encourage you to pursue a higher education. Can you retake a couple of classes to boost your marks? I don't know about there but here in Canada we have mature student status at universities which give people (like myself) a second chance at it.

We know a lot more then you suggest from what I know personally about the science. The models are not perfect and we don't know everything (nor will we ever), but they are good enough to give us a pretty good picture of things. I do agree though that there is a lot of sensationalism going on too. Notice all the catastrophe based programing on tv now?

Yep that is true, so could an asteroid smack us. But in our case its not ash that is the problem it is co2 and other greenhouse gasses.

As I said in a previous post, the basic science is very simple and easily confirmed. We are pumping out vast amounts of co2, co2 is a greenhouse gas, we are also destroying what takes co2 out of the air (forests and other stuff). co2 levels are on the rise across the globe, and accordingly so is the temperature, particularly in the poles where co2 tends to accumulate due to air currents. This is rock solid absolute science. We need to do something that either reduces our emissions drastically, or create something that sucks out the vast amounts of co2 in the air. We as a species all need to do something, and fast or we will pay dearly for it.

Oh I agree totally, I don't like Gore either (do a search on me and the word gore if you like), I also hate how the topic has been split along democratic/republican lines. This is not a political decision, never has been.

As for sweeping aside contradictory data, well a lot of it is pure junk and is discarded for very good reason. Because the data is questionable, because the source and funding suggest a very strong bias (which almost always comes out in the sponsored research, just look at the tobacco lobby and all their studies). Of the scientific community, almost all reputable scientists are on the side of man made climate change. Those that are not are for the most part either bought and owned scientists by certain interest groups, or outliers (crackpots pretty much). There are a few respected scientists who disagree and those may be worth listening to.

Thing is though is if we wait too long, the seesaw effect will happen and it will be nigh impossible to divert it by then.

Ok I read it. I find it interesting that I could only find the document referenced on 'climate gate' sites, and the document itself on fox's website. That article from fox itself is biased garbage and full of speculation, assumption, misquotes, half truths, and claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. I could very easily rip apart the entire article, but I won't waste my time as media sources count for zip in a scientific debate. If you want to debate science, you need counter with proper science and scientific sources of your own.


Anyhow on to the only thing worth looking at, the Met document itself. I am curious, did you take the time to read it in full, or did you just go by what fox news said? I get the feeling that you probably did not (I know the person who wrote the article didn't, they just skimmed and cherry picked to quote out of context).

So what is the article about? Well its about..

1. improving the tools of measurement to allow for more precise results (particularly to better asses the risks of changes in extremes of climate).
2. there are some problems with the CRU (climate research unit) land surface dataset due to large IPR (intellectual property rights) issues. They want to make that data publicly available, but it is owned data so they can't.
3. cleaning up and recalculating the available data so that it is more reliable (and to verify the findings once again)

Basically they want to modernize the available data, increase the strength of data gathering, and move away from IPR data, so that the data itself can be made fully public. This is a good thing, not a cover-up or scientific fraud or anything. It is also perfectly normal and reasonable.

Here is the full quote
So what does that all mean? Simple, they want to make everything public and open to eliminate all accusations of fraud and cover-up. They want to set up a public database with independently verified data from multiple sources. They want it to follow the peer reviewed system (the gold standard for all scientific discourse), and open to be examined for faults. They want to make sure the data is conclusive and as error free as possible.

They are pretty much trying to shut down the other side (the deniers) by eliminating all the valid points of contention. So what is the problem?

They won't. All of the completed research is available to anyone with university or research affiliations, or is willing to subscribe to the databases which store the articles. The papers have the data used in the research contained within as well (though not the raw data, just calculated data). This is the way it works and is nothing new. So its already wide open for those that have access to the databases. The problem is the databases are private companies and want people to pay to be able to view this stuff (so it is still available to the public, they just gotta pay).

Good God in heaven, now they start to link whaling to carbon pollution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8538033.stm

I'm against whaling. And I am against mindlessly polluting the environment, and mindlessly wasting fossil fuels.

And sure as hell I am also against sciences loosing all sanity and all scruples.

I'm quite a follower of science, and from a data standpoint, we do know quite a bit about the RAW data. However, we are still quite ignorant with regards to how that data impacts world climate as a whole. Saying that our models are not perfect doesn't do justice to the reality that our models are completely theoretical and have, to this point, accurately predicted NOTHING with certainty.

We're not even talking about an accuracy RATE ... at this point, our models are so far across the board that science can claim to have predicted ANY event, despite such events contradicting other events.

Snows a ton? Climate change. Snows a little? Climate change.

Considering that averages merely mean out the extremes, this isn't reassuring.I have to stop you there. Volcanos emit VAST amounts of greenhouse gasses, including CO2. Indeed, ash is a primary factory in dimming sunlight, yet volcanic activity produces large quantities of greenhouse gasses.

Yes, humans emit quite a magnitude of gasses over volcanos collectively, but generally speaking climate change throughout history has been brought upon by massive events. In some circles, this suggests that the Earth reacts more regarding the extreme events and has been able to adapt more readily regarding more steady changes.

In fact, that is one of the most controversial topics in the scientific community. The suggestion that a slow-but-steady outpouring of greenhouse gasses would have the same effect as an instaneous deluge of the same is fundamentally flawed. However, many of our models base the 1-1 impact of the same gasses simarly, which is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, many of our models exclude other factors ... for instance, the claims that X amount of CO2 has shown to be Y amount of climate change has not necessarily accounted for the other factors that may have contributed to Y.

This is the primary reason for the minority dissent of the scientific community. They believe the majority is rushing to judgement. I happen to agree.Al Gore would make you think such science is simple and easily confirmed, but it is not. What you say, at face value, is true. However, the IMPACTS that we've attempted to historically draw from such increases is still unclear, due to most models not including other factors.

But also quite intriguing, over long term models, is the decreasing energy gained from the sun. Ultimately, over the long term (speaking in terms of eons), the Earth NEEDS to increase its greenhouse effect in order to pace the decreasing solar energy. Because our models have not contemplated evolutionary aspects as well as solar energy changes, we still don't have quite an idea as to the effect of increased CO2. Furthermore, I submit that we haven't even bothered to calculate the evolutionary difference occurring in flora faced with rising CO2 levels. Some scientists have suggested simply that plants may ultimately "breath faster", helping to offset some of the increase in CO2 levels.

By and large, however, as you have stated the system which provides life on Earth is quite interconnected. There are so many factors, many offsetting, which assist in sustaining life as we know it, that most climate models are wrong due to merely excluding that very concept.

Like I said, we really don't know squat.In my opinion, that conclusion is premature and that sense of urgency that you display is a reason as to why our science has rushed to judgement rather than making sure they have it right.

I agree that, likely, carbon emissions need to decrease. However, due to other factors, I believe that we don't really know the science behind it. So instead of making sensational yet unfounded predictions claiming that the end is nigh, we may as well simply encourage people to live as responsibly as they can, without the rhetoric.

Indeed, after awhile of making broad claims and the public seeing them not come true, people start thinking of such "science" as no more valuable than the guy on the corner wearing a sandwich sign screaming "THE END IS NEAR!!!!".Now damn, if this isn't one of the smartest things (although it should be obvious) I've ever read on here. Kudos.See, I disagree with that concept and find it irrelevent in any case. There are plenty of well-reputed scientists who have data suggesting other than what the alarmists claim. Sure, there are people on both sides that are bought and paid for, yet ultimately science isn't democratic.

Heh, there was a time in which the Earth was the center of the universe, according to scientific consensus. The fact is that we still don't know what the hell to think, and we've rushed to judgement. And, historically, the record of the predictions stemming from the models of that rushed judgement are not very good.See, here's my angle: there are so many things that are likely to happen during human civilization that will be nigh impossible to divert, we had better be DAMNED SURE that this particular issue is spot-on before the public gets truly interested.

Think rationally, for a moment: say Yellowstone erupts and causes mass death and destruction. Okay, fine, the ash becomes the problem, and not so much the greenhouse gasses. Well, when you wipe out say, 25% of the Earth's population, CO2 emmissions are bound to decrease anyway.

People should naturally just turn off their lights when not in use. Most environmentally friendly concepts are economically advisable as well. We need to focus on that, rather than an alarmism based merely upon clearly incomplete models.

You're right but I'd like to see them pushed because they're economically advisable reasons not make people think they're saving the earth from climate change. The only thing that is going to do that is actually reducing the worlds human population.

Do you honestly think we will ever have a perfectly accurate model of weather or even close? There are so very many variables that can potentially influence weather and interact with each other in a myriad of ways.

The models we have are more designed to predict averaged behavior over a long period of time and over large geography, not predict individual events. Those models also do cover the more extremes of weather, but rare events like that don't matter much.

The problem I have though is people use single events such as an unusual weather event (like a lot of snow in an area that usually gets very little) and try to use it as anecdotal evidence for or against the theory. The thing is though is that individual events don't matter, it's the overall trend that does.

Also the theoretical framework does cover large changes in weather patterns, as one thing global temperature change does is screw with the water and air currents (which are major factors in weather produced). This is in part due to the uneveness of temperature change across the globe (the poles for example have been warming up much faster then the rest of the world as co2 levels tend to concentrate there).

Well there isn't much we can do about volcanoes and the gases they emit. But we can do something about what we are doing.

Yes many mass extinction events happened very rapidly, but not all of them. There is evidence for example that the K-T extinction did not happen anywhere near as fast as people think (there are dino bones found 40,000 years after the event for example). From a geological perspective these events happen in the blink of an eye, yet from a human perspective they can take hundreds of years or longer before the full effect is felt.

However we also have several examples of gradual changes in the environment such as the ice ages, and that is where the comparisons are being made, not in the sudden events. I have never read a single paper from a reputable source where such comparisons you speak of have been made. Nor would any make such a claim as x co2 = y change as it is not that simple.

If you can link such papers (and they have to be reputable sources), I would be interested to see them.


The very basics are that simple though, higher co2 levels in the air = more trapped heat pretty much, just as lower co2 levels = less trapped heat. The degree that it happens is where it becomes more questionable and much more variable due to all the possible variables for temperature.

As for the sun's output, I am not aware of any overall decreases in the last while. It does go through phases of activity where it releases more and less energy, and accordingly grows and shrinks. We also have a very good idea of the effect of co2 on temperature from ice core data.

I have never heard of any reputable scientist postulating that plants will start to breath faster. For one thing if you understand how photosynthesis works such an idea makes little sense. For plants to photosynthesize faster, they would need more light (and the ability to absorb it) and water in addition to co2. They already do it at pretty close to optimal levels as it is, and are evolved to do it as efficiently as possible for their environment

Anyhow I disagree with your assertion based on what I know. The sense of urgency comes from the fact that it will take a very long time for us to do something about it, and it may already be too late before we even do. Even if we halt the rate of co2 increase the temperature will still continue to climb for quite a while after that as the system has not reached the stabilizing point yet for the amount of co2 in the air.

Well I disagree. We don't know it all (nor ever will) but we know enough to see the trends and warning signs, and be very concerned about it. Living "responsibly" isn't going to cut it either, as what exactly is living responsibly? That can have many possible definitions and none of them would do enough.

As for the public, well most of them barely understand the first thing about science or how it works. They constantly misinterpret it and try to apply it incorrectly and then when it doesn't work they will claim its false. Also most of these predictions are still several decades away at minimum.

Oh I've never been a fan of Gore. He was useful at first in raising awareness, but mostly he is a liability as he doesn't understand the science much better then your average lay person, and as a result frequently says things which are not true. People love to wait for him to mess up and then say "ahah! see I told you it's all a lie! That proves it." as if what he says proves or disproves anything at all. I have already torn him apart and discarded him a few times in other threads.

Oh? I know of a handful of reputable scientists that have peer reviewed articles on the subject. On the academic databases there are not very many such articles. There is however a landslide of peer reviewed articles in support of man made climate change. But I would be interested in seeing some examples (links to peer reviewed articles) of what you say.

Also the method I use to discard research is pretty much the standard method used in science (which by the way is fairly democratic in how consensus is reached). If it is not peer reviewed from a reputable source with sufficient references, it didn't happen and doesn't exist. This is the case with most of the counter 'evidence' offered from public sources.

Umm.. no. That was never the scientific consensus, that was a religious ruling based off of a few verses in the bible. Modern science started with Heliocentric theory, which claimed the opposite (and was proven mostly true). Even the ancients knew otherwise from astronomical observation.

I also do not think the judgment is at all rushed or is the science behind it. Science has been aware of this problem and has been researching it for well over 40 years now (some say well over 100 years depending on which article is considered the start). The science behind it will never be perfect, it can't ever be as it is a human creation and thus will always be flawed. This doesn't mean though we should not listen. Heck we have wildly gone ahead with risky science all the time. Like the atom bomb for example, its a good thing that certain scientists were wrong, otherwise we would have burn off the atmosphere.

We are about as sure as we are ever likely to get given the nature of the beast and science itself. People like to wait until the roof is caving in, that is the problem. I can point to many many different civilizations that went extinct exactly because they refused to see the problems and warning signs. This is one of the few things we are very responsible for and can change, unlike storms, comets, volcanoes, etc. Humanity is now almost a global civilization, if it collapses, it will collapse everywhere.

Hmm funny, all I have been doing this entire time is thinking rationally (I am a scientist, its what I do for a living). Anyhow as for Yellowstone super erupting, not much we can do about that either way. If it happens we are seriously screwed (and way more then 25% of the population will die if it super erupts in the long term).

If you wait for complete models you will wait for eternity as they will never exist. Turning off the lights, car pooling, and all the other grass roots stuff is not going to change things. There are way to many people producing way to much carbon and other pollution in the world. The problem as I see it is the changes that need to be made are massive baring some miracle technology. There are way to many humans on this planet, sucking up way to many resources. That desperately needs to change, but I don't see it happening as at least 5 billion need to go away if we want real sustainability. I figure nature will in the end make the choice for us.


I do not consider myself to be an alarmist. The conclusions, as I said, I have come to are well grounded in science and history. Global warming is just one of many things we are facing. Many of these things are interconnected, and one will amplify the effect of others. Such as global warming working on the global ecosystem which is being strained to the breaking point as it is. I am very worried by all that I see.

Yes, actually. We may never attain perfect models, but I think we'd be able to get quite close.

Our models and data are always improving. The very idea that we're already at or close to the pinnacle of climatic modeling doesn't ring true to me at all.Indeed. However, I remember that after hurricane Katrina, scientists predicted a swelling in Atlantic storm activity the following year, using those models. Furthermore, they attributed their prediction on global warming.

It didn't come true.

Those models are indeed predictions of long term AVERAGES. Why, then, is much of the scientific community dead set upon using that data for more immediate alarmism?Man, how right you are in this, but how wrong your interpretation of this is, in my opinion.

Yes, we need to control what we can control. But what doesn't make sense is that many people on your side of the debate actually believe that it is possible to control the human condition overall.

We have a burgeoning global population, developed nations with no interest in pollution control but a vested interest in economic and industrial development (China), and an increasing global energy demand. You believe that, while we cannot control, say, volcanos, WE can control human energy consumption and the resulting CO2 emmissions. I submit to you that you're wrong - we can hardly control human energy consumption any more than we can control a volcano.

What we CAN do is avoid absurd policies which shift industry from countries with decent environmental policies to those without. Say, if it's too expensive to build something in demand in the US due to environmental policies, then it will simply be built in China, with lax controls. Most extinctions happen in a geological blink but really occur over a period of many years. Should a large enough asteroid collide with the Earth today, we'd see massive loss of life initially but human civilization would likely prattle on for thousands of years. The environmental changes may or may not eventually catch up to humans, and either we would become extinct or we'd survive.

However, in any case, the event itself which would cause the eventual extinction would have happened in an instant. That is essentially what theoretically happened regarding the K-T extinction.

Pollution, on the other hand, is a much slower process. The Earth is far more likely to be able to adapt to gradual CO2 emmissions than, say, the Chicxulub event.

Ultimately, my point is we really don't know.For full disclosure, I only follow climatology with passing interest. Physics are far more interesting to me. As such, I don't read papers but simply follow the highlights. If something seems interesting, I look briefly at it and at counter-proposals without predisposition. I found that, in science, it's pretty easy to identify what makes sense.

That being said, science is NOT A DEMOCRACY! There have been many instances of failed scientific consensus. I'll link to a great list a lilttle bit later on.

In any case, that's besides my point. I have little doubt that CO2 levels are rising, my issue is that the effects of this are little understood. Umm...yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superse...tific_theories

Ever heard of Aristotle? Or Ptolemy? Both believed in the geocentric model of the universe where the Earth was at the center, and not for religious purposes. The latter was a mathematician, the former devised one of the first theories on physics.

BOTH proposed a geocentric universe independantly of anything Biblical (I'm pretty sure Aristotle had no idea what the Bible even was), which mathematical reasoning behind it. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen. I'm merely saying the data is incomplete. And finally, I'm saying that we should attempt to make drastic, short-sighted economic policy based upon such data.Perhaps the global civilization will collapse, but personally I don't think humanity benefits greatly from being a global civilization anyway.

In all honesty though, I don't see any collapse as necessarily being global, and I don't see why one should except in perhaps an anecdotal sense. Should civilization change, there will be haves and have-nots. The haves will move on, and mankind will endure. In fact, preventing such a collapse is partly why I'm so opposed to socialism, but that's another topic for another time.Okay, so my point was wrong, how?

Also, what kind of science do you do?I pretty much agree with all of that (although I think you're idea that the earth could only sustain around 1 to 2 billion people is, well, off).

In the end, my point is this: we really don't know what's going to happen, we need to NOT screw with economics in an attempt to engineer a decrease in energy use as it could likely backfire, and we need to search for an artificial way of stabilizing the climate SHOULD it become necessary.I don't agree completely.

I mentioned in my last post about the sun's impact on terrestrial climate. The sun's output is continually decreasing (over long term periods) at it decreases in overall mass. However, there have been recent theories that a long term solar cycle may be a primary cause of the Earth's past ice ages. An ice age would be detrimental to humanity as well, wouldn't it?

Furthermore, over the long term geological period known as the Cenozoic, we have been experiencing a rather steady period of global COOLING. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses could have perhaps a stabilizing effect long term. Or, should an ice age loom (due perhaps to solar causes), an enhanced greenhouse effect could be somewhat mitigating.

Again, we really don't know what the long term effects of all this is. And that's my point.

That I agree with. But that leaves us with a problem: either we institute population control measures so draconian as to make the Chinese look like saints, or we simply allow the population to continue its explosive growth. The latter is more likely considering that any sort of population control measures are likely to offend the sensibilities of western civilization.

Ultimately, once the earth can no longer sustain the human population, it will stop doing so. In the meantime, however, I believe our scientific endeavors should focus not on alarmism but rather practical solutions. Arcologies, artificial climate control, etc., should be our goals.

That would be the most painful way of solving the problem. We've used our technology to stave that day off for so long that when it finally fails it may drop us right into extinction.

For sure, but what's the alternative?

To f*ck political correctness and install birth control wherever possible or isolate from areas where this is not possible.
I'm afraid that would be the only way, but people will ignore that and preach about human rights and stuff....how many rights will they still have when they have to fight to death for water, food, oil, wood etc. ?:nope:

I don't pretend to have all the answers but whatever is done will have to be done world wide.

What do you mean by isolate?

More and more I tend to think that if there is truth in that everything has it'S right time, has a rise, a climax, and a decline, then it is unreasonable to assume that human civilisation as we know it is the exception from the rule.

As I pointed out some weeks ago, man has the ability to reject survival for very reasonable, very logical reasons that make a lot of sense.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=159065

How to come from 7+ billion to 1 billion in a reasonable ammount of time...? Let nature handle it? Or lend her a hand ourselves? There is a massive moral dilemma.

Man has a tendency to get to a point where either nature steps in - or we do it for nature. Massive epidemics, war, etc.

Ultimately, its not a question of IF nature or man will prune the tree of humanity - its a question of WHEN. Only by expansion off this rock can humanity avoid such an outcome.

Damned unpleasant - but facts usually are.

Edit - isn't it odd how far we have come from the OP - and the reality that one of the "leading" climatologists behind the global warming hoax has admitted that there has been no real change in 60 years..... EDIT - that should be 15 years..... my fault - had 1950 on the brain at the moment.