A funny thing happened on the way to the forum....
 

What happened to my climate change thread? Guess I have to make a new one. Anyway, good to note that the GW crowd is the one generating the controversy these days as said below. 2 Years ago, I looked out of touch to many and I felt like the only one who actually looked at the data instead of taking it as gospel. Today, I am finally liberated. :D :up: :p :cool: :lol:

As said below:

-S



A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the (Climate) Forum

2008 sees a sea change in the face of the global warming debate.

When I began writing about global warming climate change, public outcry was tremendous. Amid a sea of media stories about the sins of our wasteful lifestyle, no one wanted to hear about contradictory research, conflicting data, or skeptical scientists.

Now, over two years later, a funny thing has happened. The roles have shifted. My stories are the staid and ordinary ones. It's the fellows predicting flood, famine, and disaster who are generating all the controversy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What happened?
2008 was the year predicted to be the "hottest in a century". Instead it became the coldest of the decade. It was the year the North Pole would "melt entirely, allowing you to swim to it". Instead, nuclear-powered icebreakers became trapped in unseasonably thick ice. It was a year of record-breaking cold and snow, everywhere from Baghdad to the beaches of Malibu. It was the year the "Gore Effect" entered the public vocabulary, as whenever global warming protestors got together to march, they were met with blizzards and ice storms. Let's hope schadenfroh isn't a sin.

Polls are clear. Despite the media's increasingly shrill tone and ever-more unrealistic predictions, the public has lost all faith in global warming. After all, how many times can you say that this time the science is now finally proven, without being laughed at?

In some respects, that's good. It means less chance of implementing incredibly damaging policies, policies that will have disastrous impacts on standards of living, especially among the poor.

In other ways, it's bad. The overselling of inconclusive conjectures as "proven science" is leading some to distrust science itself. Given that, I think the year should conclude with a reminder of just what the scientific debate -- minus its alarmist media trappings-- is really all about.


As a moderately well known skeptic, I sometimes surprise people when I say I believe in global warming. If we define the term as, "man is having some impact on global temperatures", then the evidence is fairly clear. That statement in itself, though, means nothing. Are we impacting it enough to matter? Can CO2 cause catastrophic climate change?

That debate revolves around a single number, one so important we have a special name for it.

Climate Sensitivity
How much will the earth warm if we double the amount of atmospheric CO2, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases? That value is called climate sensitivity. If all else remains equal, it’s fairly easy to calculate: about half a degree C, a figure accepted by most proponents and skeptics of AGW alike. It's also a value far too small for concern. With that sensitivity, the planet would warm by maybe a quarter of a degree by the year 2100. Yawn.

But there's a wrinkle in that simple calculation. As greenhouse gases rise, other things change as well. Some are positive feedbacks, which lead to more warming. Some are negative feedbacks, which counteract the warming. Scientists in the modeling community tend to believe positive effects predominate; they bandy about sensitivity values from 2C all the way up to 6C or more. Observational earth scientists (primarily geologists, meteorologists, and some atmospheric physicists) tend to believe negative effects dominate, and that the actual value may be even smaller than 0.5C.

The problem is that no real evidence exists for strong positive feedbacks.


Worse, they seem contradicted by the paleoclimatic history of the planet, which has never experienced runaway warming even when CO2 levels were ten or more times higher than they are today. Over geologic time, CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature, leading one to conclude that it's a very weak greenhouse gas.

There is other evidence against a high sensitivity. But the real point is this. Whichever side is right, the media (and a few researchers) have forgotten one of the basic rules of science. Until a theory can predict the unexpected, it should always be viewed critically. The ancient Greeks knew the stars moved, and they had a thousand theories to predict why it would keep happening. Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence.

Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.


http://www.dailytech.com/A+Funny+Thi...ticle13816.htm

Good post.

I usually don't comment on environmental subjects but this time I'll make an exception. I'm not a meteorologist (man, that was tough to write after some red wine), my neighbour is but that's beside the point. I used to work in a factory and we used to put all kinds of nasty **** directly, unfiltered into the nature. Now you, Subman1, are telling me that it didn't make any difference.

Well thank you very much, that is really a load off.

Well apparently you either didn't read the article or just didn't comprehend it, because that is not what it said.

Yep! The hoax is a great way to get money and control by scaring them. The "scientists" who support the fear mongering Al Gorleones' should be held accountable for their bogus claims and for what...more grant money!

I find it nauseating to listen to so called conservatives taking about hoaxes, control, and fear mongering. This has been the blue print of the Republican party's plan to win elections for the least the last 8 years. Yet that doesn't seem to bother our right wing friends here at subsim one little bit. I mean, if you really had a problem with fear mongering, how could you have possibly voted for John McCain or Dubya? Just doesnt compute, regardless of politicl stripe....

You mean like how George Bush was going to declare martial law and stay in power after his term expires? Or how we were going to take all of Iraq's oil? Or how Bush was going to attack Iran? Or how the Patriot act was going to round up all the Democrats and put them in a concentration camp? You mean that kind of hoax, control and fear mongering?

You left wing folks both here at Subsim and everywhere else have engaged in the same exact kind of tactics that you accuse the right wing of and now you attempt to act all innocent about it? Hypocrisy, thy name is Enigma.

I heard all of these rumors from my 40 year old son for the last three years. I think he listens to public radio called NCR and late night talk shows.

It's worse than you can imagine to have someone like that in your own family much less a forum. At least on a forum you can go, click!

Sigh... :doh:

Sir August,

may I ask you to quote the part I did not understand, please.

I'm still all giddy and stuff from the absolution that Subman1 gave me.

Apparently i'd have to quote the entire article Sir Herring. :roll: Simply put I think your hatred of Subman is getting in the way of your objectivity, but that's just me.

Whether Global Warming is a myth, overstated or dead on correct is kind of beside the point. Humans have been turning the world into a dump for years. Really kind of hard to argue otherwise. Least we can do is try and figure out how to clean up our act a little(more). God knows we should be smart enough to do it.

Even if global warming dosent exits. We need to try to do something to make the environment cleaner, before we make the planet a nasty place where the water is un usable, and the air is unbreathable unless you want to die 7 years younger or something like that. People need to try to clean the plant up, society need to think about the future.

Well it's not like people haven't been making such efforts for decades already.

They had a funny show on discovery channel tonight, it was their "doomsday" show, you know, a meteor hitting the earth, global warming, etc.

I think they really need to declare GW a religon, because they sure have a lot of faith in it. The climate is dynamic and will always be in motion, ,anyway, this show made it sound like it was going to happen next year.:rotfl: London flooded, Florida gone,:rotfl: . Massive flooding, famine, etc. How many times have they been prodicting these catastrophic famines, and they never happen. I thought the world was over-populated anyway, so why is that bad.

Lets just say all of the doom-sayer's prophesies come true. Too bad mankind has always been able to adapt to change.

It does make great ratings though.:rotfl: