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

[SUBMAN1]

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. :p

As said below:

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

-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

[Argyle]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

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

[Frame57]

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!

[Enigma]

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....

Originally Posted by August

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

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Sir August,

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

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

[Kapt Z]

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.

[Task Force]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Task Force

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.

[nikimcbee]

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:

[SUBMAN1]

More interesting news on the subject:

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

I wonder if Al Gore and his 1.8 Billion from his investors are as rich as when they started? Seems to me his plan is a losing proposition.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm

-S

[Frame57]

Regardless of ones political stance, I think that the most casual observer can make an educated estimation that what Al Gore is pushing is indeed a hoax. Time is on the side of truth in this laboratory we call life. In fact I predict that this will go down in history as the greatest hoax ever fashioned. Scientist? Cannot live with them, cannot live without them it seems. The scientific mind once told us that margarine is better for you than butter...Not! How many FDA approved drugs have been recalled? Many! People tend to believe what they hear because some "scientist" promotes or approves of something. Yet we have seen many failures in this regard. The current trend of the medical profession to hand out Viagra like candy is an accident waiting to happen. Vasodilators are good in short term usage for other clinical applications, but long term usage will invoke the aterial and venous walls to actually loose their elasticity, which could promote stroke and other circulatory problems. So, they play to the male psyche and prescribe a drug that will no doubt have long term implications, and they laugh all the way to the bank. The scientific mind did not see the problems on the long term with what is happening with anti-biotics. Anti-biotics do save lives, but the over usage of them causes the bacteria to adapt (Mendel's law again...). So what was once a life saving drug is now almost useless. Well, I see these same "scientific minds" here at work with global warming. They dismiss the history of the earth and its natural warming and cooling cycles and dismiss the fact that any 10th grader should know that CO2 will produce more plant life in reaction to that fact. There is no way what they are promoting will remotely come to pass...

[SUBMAN1]

The underlying reason I'm pointing this stuff out is not so much that its wrong, but actually to point out that there are people out there capable of leading the public mindset to an idea, no matter how incorrect. They could get the public populace to believe in the moon being made of cheese. It is that bad.

The point being, there are forces at work in this world that I believe are dark and self serving. Al Gore is one of them. This GW garbage is the perfect magnifying glass for the common man to observe this happening for himself.

-S