Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yes. And your little research = what I said, what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts".

No. I meant it literally. I was simply talking of what I see when I open the door and go outside. That "outside" is not the same outside I used to walk out to 25 years ago. The seasons are different, the weather does not match the time of the year in the way it did back then. and I am not even living in a region with extreme climate changes and extreme weather phenomenons. these changes are so obvious that insurrance companies have recalculated their cost payments for that reason several times since I left school. they would not have done that if the weather had not changed and fluctuations - which are natural - would be within the natural norm. Due to a low in the sun cycle, currently the global means fluctuate to a relative low as well (which does not mean or show the general trend of wrming has reversed). Many people immediately say: "Look, it's coolin." but the fact remains that even since this claim is made, in the past ten years since I arrived in my current hometown, one warming record for "warmest month in the region/in Germany/in Europe since weather recordings started" has followed the other. Globally, the tmeperature may plateauing currently. But here in Northwestern Germany, you don't feel that. you just relaise that the seasonal escesses we have had for winter and summer five years ago currently do not take place.but record numbers for seasons and months we still have. Novembre just again was beyond what is the meteorological norm over here.

There are micro cycles, like sun activity, and El Nino/El Nina. they cover some years and cause the zigzags in the temperature curve. and then there is the general trend. It does not cover some years, but several decades and centuries. This is the constant general "up" in the temperature curve, that simply swallows up all that microscopic zigzagging. Much of the disucsisons leave to desire a lot becasue people do not differ ebtween the general trend, and microcycles. they think one sunny day makes a sunner, one weekened defines the yearly mean weather value, and five oir ten years of plateauing means a trend is changing. and that is simply a wrong thing to do.

Books, data, other material from research - all that exists, too, and you belitteling it will not make it go away, Neal. Better try o differ between the populstic stuff, and the more reaosonable stuff, and then have some reading about the latter, Neal, it won't hurt you. But ignorance will. To say "It's all just paper and media, and thus you only believe what they tell you to believe", is another way to say "Leave me alone, I do not want to check my own position." There is better literature than newspapers, you know. If your attitude is "don't trust the media", then I have sympathy for that, but my advise is not to stop reading, but stop watching every TV news show, and most of what is on the internet. Be a critical reader, then, raise your standards. If you do, the stuff presented by "sceptics" is the stuff you will reject first.

Have you checked the photos of glaciers I linked to two days ago? It's things like that you have to explain. Or the ever rapidly disappearing arctic ice. You have to explain how it comes that species that in the past did not survive in once moderate and cold climate zones in the past, now can, and move into them, while others that cannot move and are sensible to raising temepratures, die.

the important thing simply is this. Whether you believe it is man-made or not, the climate becomes warmer, you can climb on a piano and make stand on your head and wave your hat and yell "Texans don't believe in GW" and sing your anthem backwards - but that does not change it. The question is: how do we deal with the changes that climate change will bring - whether we are prepared for them or not.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I know this is going to irritate GW supporters - but lets be real.

Yes, I will be the first to admit that "fact" that over the last 600 years there has been what appears to be a "global average" increase of temperature. However, this "fact" is based off of things like Ice Core and "third party" indicators (called proxies) - such as tree rings. Now if I am going to stipulate that - whats the problem? Global Warming must be true, right? Well not exactly.

There is a wonderful piece of wisdom that bears directly to this....

"Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure!"

The data used to create this fact is accurate - but those presenting the arguement do so in a way to make the figures match their intended goal. Why use the figure of 600 years? Global Warming advocates in the science realm are using one of the oldest tricks in the books to push this. How you ask? Simple - instead of going back 600 years - use those same methods of gathering data to go back 200 years more - for a total of 800 years. What then? Wonder of wonders, we find that the earth was warmer 800 years ago than it is today. This is what is known as the "Medieval Warm Period" in environmental studies, and is a big problem for GW advocates.

Selective use of the start date on any set of data is one of the oldest tricks to used to get the outcome you want. Is the earth warming? Sure it is. But its doing so well within what we can already tell are its normal margins and tolerances. This "our impact is the straw that MIGHT break the camels back" is fearmongering - and is being used to create onerous, intrusive and destructive regulations and laws upon nations because others don't approve of what we do.

There are so many proofs AGAINST global warming being a man made phenomenon, its unreal. However, as a scientist, many cannot put forth that proof in "respectable" journals for the reasons we see in these emails - to go against the "consensus" - regardless of fact, is to be outcast. What is sad is that many people are defending these actions, as well as ignoring the reality that the evidence shows, because once again, it conflicts with their attempts to control others.

you accuse others of abusing correct data by presenting them in a manipulative manner so that it fits their agenda, but you just do right that yourself, Haplo.

the one thing you miust explain is this: why is it that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years? Never, never has the climate chnaged and warmed upo so damn fast. And you need to think in geological dimensions. a tenth centigrade in a couple of years or so, that may not sound much. But for geological thinking, it is a rollercoaster falling in the vertical and having lost touch with the track. This acceleration in climate actiivty is the thing you must explain, not pointing to that cklimate is chnbaging - that is just natural. the speed at which it does is what is the message. And next you must explain why it does so obviously coincides with the beginning of the industrial age and the beginning of a real dramatic population growth globally.

I remember to have read estimations of the climate change accelrating ba several hundred factors, the fastest calculation I heared about was a factor of I think some thousand.

At the same time this planet sees another speed record: that for the fastet mass exticntion of species ever. Never before Earth has carried such a diversity in different species. and never before have species died in such a rapid succession like they do since the mpdern past, I don't know, let'S say 150 years or so. again the factor by which it accelerated, ranks in the 3-4 digit range.

for both these accelerations, no scientific discipline knows a precedent or comparable parallel caused by natural climate fluctuations.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird,

It is always enjoyable to discuss in a rational manner with a friend and colleague, even when we disagree. I want you to realize I enjoy our back and forth tremendously.

With that said, you say that I am guilty of the same thing the GW proponents are. Then you ask "why is it that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years?" Well, lets look at that ok?

I am going to use random numbers here to illustrate - as I do not have data in front of me at the moment. So don't quote these numbers, they are for picture purposes only.

Today's global average temp was 85 F (29.4 C) and it was warmer than that 800 years ago. Ok - lets say 800 years ago, it was 87 F (30.5 C) since your not disputing the 800 year data old data I referenced earlier. Now - data says we have been growing warmer over the last 600 years, and I will play devils advocate and accept that for now. So - for 600 years the temps have been rising right? Ok - then the two hundred years prior - they had to drop. Whats more they had to drop so steeply during that "short" 200 year period that the increases over the last 600 years still hasn't caught up. Yet you claim that "that the climate change speed has so insanly accelerated that now it is the - by far - fastest climate change taking place that science knows for planet earth since many huindred million years." Well - looking back at that 200 year cold span - where temps dropped drastically to get the GW outcome some claim, would mean that the climate change was insanely accelerated at least 3 times higher than it is today, since it had to do in 200 years what is now being reversed over the course of 600. This means your question / statement on climate change rates is fundamentally flawed. Not your fault, but the data you have been given of "hundreds of times faster" is demonstratably false.

Which could mean a number of things.

The data we are being "fed" could be inaccurate - which the emails show is at the least highly likely as there is clear communications that the data has been "massaged" to perpetrate a specific agenda.

We could look at it and realize that there were no SUV's, evil corporations spewing pollution into the air, or other "environmental" sins going on that could cause such a drastic change in the climate, which would mean that nature has its own cycles that go well beyond what our "computer models" can truly forecast with any accuracy. On that note, I would point out that we still can't even figure out for sure if its going to rain or snow or be sunny tommorow, yet we are supposed to place blind faith in what a glorified weatherman tells us its going to be like in 100 years if we don't start living in caves again. They can't nail next week's weather, but by george there is not any question what the next century will be like! Sorry, but logic says otherwise.

Lastly, we could look at our world, realize that there are things we can, and should do, to conserve the resources we share, as well as do what we can to responsibly minimize our impact on the environment without destroying our way of life. This must then include a healthy scepticism of what a talking head predicts, just as it means we need to look at the many small things we can voluntarily contribute to the efforts of conservation.

Is there climate change? Of course. The fact that we do not have a stable and static environment requires climate change. But change over 600 years, that does not outpace changes that occured over 200 years, demonstrates that we are not on some environmental "doomsday" course. It does show that the earth has undergone significant changes in climate beyond what man at the time had the ability to cause, and that the changes we see now are minimal compared to that. Thus, there is no logical reason to fearmonger - unless those in power want to use the subject to further their control. Sadly, this is what we have seen.

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

At the same time this planet sees another speed record: that for the fastet mass exticntion of species ever. Never before Earth has carried such a diversity in different species. and never before have species died in such a rapid succession like they do since the mpdern past, I don't know, let'S say 150 years or so. again the factor by which it accelerated, ranks in the 3-4 digit range.

for both these accelerations, no scientific discipline knows a precedent or comparable parallel caused by natural climate fluctuations.

Not actually true, Sky.

Carboniferous period saw the most diverse range of plant and animal life (albeit somewhat less complex than todays), and the period finished in an extremely quick fashion at the end of the period.

Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

[Skybird]

Haplo,

First, better do not base on the assumption the email "scandal" shows any systematic, widespread effort or habit to feed manipulated data for reasons of pushing an “Goreanesque” agenda. The scandal so far is not basing on the content of the emails, but is fabricated. There is not a single systematic analysis out that proves point by point that the accused emails are what they are claimed to be, but over the past days more and more insiders from the fields seem to speak out that they cannot see the accusations as being true when they consider there knowledge of habits and proceeds from inside the field. There is a lot of yelling and fingerpointing going on, and shouting and "scandal" and "shame!", but until today it is just ungrounded media hysteria that even is so noisy that it creates waves into the politicians' arena as well. And that is wanted, and that is why it has been fabricated.

antikristuseke has posted a nice video which shows some very illustrating spotlight on what I say. It is linked somewhere above, I recommend you see it.

Second, whether or not I watch a graphs of temperature over the past few centuries, or the past millennia and millions of years, I see two cycles in them, making them look like the "skyline" of a shark's row of teeth. There seems to be a natural fluctuation cycle creating ups and downs over long periods of time, we are not talking just 600 years, but at least many millennia. These spikes are the single teeth of the shark. And then there are even smaller zig-zags in the contour-lines of these "teeth", micro-fluctuations taking place over much shorter periods of time, some centuries, and less. These are the serrated edges of the single teeth of the shark. Your reference to the medieval ice age is like that.

In the past let's say 150-200 years, we have seen a quick, very high upwards spike, a spike that also has a serrated edges, but the peaks in this serration are following in shorter succession, and they are separated by longer vertical distances, meaning the temperature from peak to peak is separated by a bigger margin (sorry, I feel I currently mess with English, it seems to me). This together means a massive acceleration of a warming, taking place in a fluctuating process that sees greater extremes than we have known before. You do not see such extremes in temperature difference sin a given timeframe, or such an acceleration in the beginning cooling and ending warming phase of the medieval mini - ice age, for example.

This sudden, almost vertical rocket climb of the curve corresponds to the timetable for the beginning population explosion, the industrialisation, and the also sudden acceleration of species' extinction.

Let me tell a story. It is an epic story truly minimising the importance of man and all timescales he is used to, and it will appear to be a distraction at first, but I explain at the very end why I tell you.

360 million years ago - I admit we think in different timescales now than just from the present back to the medieval - the era of the "Devon" (same word in English?) ended with a mass termination of animal and zoological and botanic life that saw half of the species in the ocean disappearing from the stage of planet Earth. The so far dominant species of the the placodermi (appropriately called "Panzerfische" in German) was completely terminated, and the architects of the coral reefs of that time were decimated and escaped extinction only by a single hair' width. The reason for these mass extinctions at the end of the Devon is unclear, popular theory is to assume that Earth once again had been hit by meteor strike.

but it was becoming even worse. the Carboniferous lasted until 200 million years ago, following the Devon. This era sees just one giant super continent, surrounded by just one big super-ocean, and the appearing of the first coal deposits. Glaciers formed at the poles, and the oxygen in atmosphere reached a hopping 35%, resulting the enormous boost in vegetation. Fishes start to undergo major evolutionary improvement, sharks appear, squids are one dominant species in the oceans. Both animals and plants enjoy an era where they reach sizes like never before, and never again after.

but then, in the North-East of Pangaea, today's Siberia, a very ambitious Volcanic activity started to seal the fate of this era.

Life was not in balance back then. Dead organic material was not transformed as efficiently, as it was to be seen in later eras, on the other hand, the ocean was brimming with monstrous life producing ever more amounts of future dead organic matter. The dead matter reacted with the high levels of oxygen in the atmosphere, binding it. The oxygen level in the atmosphere dropped to 16% (today it is 21%). due to the forming of glaciers and the polar ice caps, the sea level fell, exposing even more dead matter to the air that before was covered by water and hidden on shallow parts of the ocean floor. The forming of the united super-continent did not help, too, because it had drastically altered the sea tidings and the circulation of global ocean waters was not as efficient anymore as it had been before.

The Volcanic activity pumped a lot of toxic agents and substances into the air, not only being dangerous to life, but also changing climate regulation and the temperature absorption, although the latter probably was on a scale that it would not have caused that drastic end-result as there has been. Ashes and sulphur combinations amassed in the atmosphere. It became colder as sun light was reflected. More ice formed up, the sea level fell even more. Some scientists say the ozone layer suffered major damage, others point at the changed sea currents that favoured bacteria eating sulphur, and their excretions slowly poisoned the ocean and poisoned the life forms in it that could not adapt to these agents soon enough.

This development was further helped, so says a dominant theory, by the impact of a meteor 6-12 km in diameter somewhere in the ocean. This probably has caused a chemical chain reaction that led to the freeing of almost all methane reserves on earth and the creation of new methane, most of it getting bound in the water. This proceeding caused by a stellar event worked hand in hand with the ongoing global killing project initiated by Earth's volcanoes.

The estimated result of this cooperation differs from source to source, nevertheless it is dramatic. Some say that 90-95% of all life forms on earth faced extinction. Others estimate that "only" 75% of all species on land but at least 95% of all maritime species in the ocean had been terminated.

Why do I tell this big story, why did I take the time to quickly reread two brief chapters in one book of mine to sort my memories on the timeline numbers, and summarize all this in the above paragraphs?

The reason is simple. It is to illustrate what it means when scientists tell us that currently the global climate is changing faster and quicker and more excessively than ever before in the known history of Earth, further helped by a stellar event that today is not there in defence of man-caused consequences. It is to illustrate the dimension of the acceleration in climate change, because this insight into Earth's past can only be filled with a living idea of what that means for us today instead of just intellectual, abstract interest if putting it into a context of geologic timescales. Planet earth has seen cataclysms that have been much, much more drastic than what we currently can, by all reason, assume to come as a result of Global Warming. But even these worse disasters were accompanied by changes in the Earth's atmosphere and climate that took place in time spans that are a hundred and thousand times longer than the handful of years in which we have accelerated climate changes in the present that by their extrapolated trend could cause as severe climatologic endresults as back then, and it needed probably meteors impacting to reach the effects that man seems to have triggered all by himself. I repeatedly read comments of scientists saying something like that man's impact on the ecosystem of planet earth can only be compared to the meteorite that hit Earth and ended the era of the dinosaurs - just that man works quicker. Today, species on this planet get deleted by extinction much faster than ever before in earth's history, and faster than during the long mass extinction at the end of the carboniferous that lasted 60 million years and took quite some part of that time to get all that life killed. Zoologists and botanies say we have accelerated the extinction of species by up to a four digit factor. Climatologists say we have accelerated the climate warming by a factor in the high three digits or low four digits. The beginning of both processes corresponds with human population explosion and mass industrialisation.

that has been a long story. Now does that put some things into relation?

We are not only responsible for ourselves, but also for the generations coming after us. It is people's future we mess up that even are not born, and cannot defend themselves and their valid interest to have a place to live in themselves. And all we do is searching excuses why we must not care and why we must not change and why we must not stop accelerating climate changes and why we are not responsible and why it cannot be what should not be, and we invest resources in fabricating pseudo-scandals and pseudo-data whose only purpose is to reassure us that we must not change.

Homo sapiens - the man gifted with reason, and intelligence.

Well - really?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Not actually true, Sky.

Carboniferous period saw the most diverse range of plant and animal life (albeit somewhat less complex than todays), and the period finished in an extremely quick fashion at the end of the period.

Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

While I wrote for Haplo and posted the one before this post, you posted as well.

Well, see my description on the Carboniferous. We are talking about a mass extinction that was very total, but nevertheless took place over much longer time then the speed record set by our present. we compare the past 100-200 years - to tens if not hundreds of thousands of years, maybe even more. Think in geologic time scales. The carboniferous lasted roughly 60 million years. Even a fraction of that seeing the extinction of much of the life forms of that time - most likely ystill means hundreds of tousand, even one or 2 million years. and one million years only - is fast, for geological standards.

The diversity of life forms today is the highest in Earth's history. If we already have deleted so much of that that it compares to a prominent numerical fraction of the diversity of species 300 million years ago, and did acchieve that in just 200 years where back then it took a thousand times or more longer, then this really holds a message, doesn't it.

Again, man's impact on earth only compares to a major killer meteorite impact - just that we work for the consequences a thousand times faster than that damn rock.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Books, data, other material from research - all that exists, too, and you belitteling it will not make it go away, Neal. Better try o differ between the populstic stuff, and the more reaosonable stuff, and then have some reading about the latter, Neal, it won't hurt you. But ignorance will. To say "It's all just paper and media, and thus you only believe what they tell you to believe", is another way to say "Leave me alone, I do not want to check my own position." There is better literature than newspapers, you know. If your attitude is "don't trust the media", then I have sympathy for that, but my advise is not to stop reading, but stop watching every TV news show, and most of what is on the internet. Be a critical reader, then, raise your standards. If you do, the stuff presented by "sceptics" is the stuff you will reject first.

Have you checked the photos of glaciers I linked to two days ago? It's things like that you have to explain. Or the ever rapidly disappearing arctic ice. You have to explain how it comes that species that in the past did not survive in once moderate and cold climate zones in the past, now can, and move into them, while others that cannot move and are sensible to raising temepratures, die.

the important thing simply is this. Whether you believe it is man-made or not, the climate becomes warmer, you can climb on a piano and make stand on your head and wave your hat and yell "Texans don't believe in GW" and sing your anthem backwards - but that does not change it. The question is: how do we deal with the changes that climate change will bring - whether we are prepared for them or not.

I'm always amazed at how you turn any discussion, on any topic, into a "I read a million books and you should too, so you won't be ignorant, but be an expert like me". When I said what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts", please understand that carries over to all the books you have time to read on the subject, as well as the numerous ice berg photos.

The global climate changes, I know that. It may becoming warmer, but so what? It could just as likely be a typical cycle, as has been occuring since the dawn of creation. I certainly wonder why these climate scientists are massaging the data to prove their point.

Now, as usual, over to you for the last word.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

The intensity and number of severe storms has been increasing over the globe. You can also have high and low periods between years, which is why one looks more long term to avoid statistical flukes. Anyhow here is some data.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24452

If that data is true, the number of category 4&5 hurricanes has more then doubled in the last 30 years. I would call that a sudden increase myself.

That article was written just after Katrina's hurricane season ended, exactly when that argument was being made and it's chart ends 2 years before that.

But be that as it may, even if you are right what can be done about it? If GW is indeed human caused then it's human numbers, not human activities, that is driving it and you're never going to legislate that away.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I'm always amazed at how you turn any discussion, on any topic, into a "I read a million books and you should too, so you won't be ignorant, but be an expert like me". When I said what you read in the papers and hear on TV from "experts", please understand that carries over to all the books you have time to read on the subject, as well as the numerous ice berg photos.

The global climate changes, I know that. It may becoming warmer, but so what? It could just as likely be a typical cycle, as has been occuring since the dawn of creation. I certainly wonder why these climate scientists are massaging the data to prove their point.

Now, as usual, over to you for the last word.

Sometimes i wonder how you are ticking.

Since you reject any attempt to get some education on the data available, since all that is just biased and prejudiced and means nothing and reading and trying to get some edudcation on something is very much in vain anyhow, i wonder why you say you think it could as well be just natural things going on. You cannot have any data basis for that opinion, since you refuse books and media and research data and everything!?!?

One can have two kinds of opinion. One that one just choses to have because one wants to have what it says. The other is an opinion that results from info one has collected, thought about and then considering the outcome of that reasoning. That can be in support or in opposition to what one wanted to have before. the first kind of opinion is called bias, or prejudice. The second is called conclusion.

What's it for you?

And just for the record, I do not boast with how much I have read in books, not as long as people do not provoke me and try to ridicule what I say by assuming I just don't know what I am talking about: Islam. there i indeed have had a lot of books, yes, amongst other input. I do not claim that with other themes, too, not even psychology. But I would be a fool to refuse to use the few things that I have read, just becasue somebody thunks if I do not own all knowledge of the world, just pieces of it is irrelevant.

It's just that you refuse all available data, all books and all media and papers alltogether so that it cannot eventually put your opinion in questions. At least it appears to me like this, considering what you said on the issue discussed here.

I have a better alternative for you. Get as many different pieces as you can or are willing to put time into collecting, and then put them together in the way that best matches their individual forms. You never will get the 100% complete picture that way, and thus you never will have 100.000% certainty. But the more single piece you get, the closer your impression of what it is about, meets reality. Science does not claim to have that 100% criterion, too - it tries to give the best idea, the best theory on the available data we have. And if you think about it, you must admit that it is like that with all things in life, including your decisions and deeds you start to carry out. the outcome you never know for sure, but you know that you must try nevertheless. So, picking the pieces you can get instead of refusing them alltogether, saying you will never have them all, is a much more reasonable way to approach life and reality.

If you only wait before you start acting, until you ahve gotten all the possble pieces together, thehn you will see yourself at the end of your life having done nothing, and always having been blown back and fourth by a fate that always appeared as random event or naturalness only, nothing you could eventually have influence on.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird, I understand what your trying to convey, but it doesn't change the reality that your question earlier is based on a demonstratably false premise.

I don't say that we should not have a concern over our actions. But the data that you are trying to use in conjunction with the issue of "accelerated" climate change due to mankind's actions just doesn't hold with the facts. I pointed out that it was a NATURAL cycle that brought temps down significantly during the ~200 years between about 1100 and 1300 AD, since there was no man made SUV's and evil corporations to do so. This cycle was not man caused. Yet that same change, in reverse, over a period of 3 times as long, somehow gets attributed to mankind, and if you debate or question it, your just a "denier". Facts don't fit the claims.

What suprises me, is you glossed over the point I made. In doing so, I can only assume you have no rebuttal. If your post about what happened millions of years ago was it, then I fail to see how that story had anything to do with the data we are discussing - that covers the last 800 years.

Want to discuss the "serrated edge" effect seen in temps? Sure. We can do that. If you do the research, you will find each temporary, high intensity "spike" directly correlates with a measured increase in solar activity. Big suprise, that big ball in the sky that lights and heats us got a little more active on its own cycle, and wow - we got a spike in temps during that time. Simple cause and effect at work.

One thing that today's scientists are struggling with is a simple principle.

When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

Literally, if a logical answer presents itself, and can be shown to have been a variable that was acting as theorized at the time, as well as the demonstratable result of such a thing, its simply bad science to dismiss a provable answer simple because it doesn't fit a political or social agenda.

What too many people do when they look at this question is take the data they are given, be it on the news, in books, or whatever, at face value, without questioning it. Just because someone claims to be a scientist, and an "expert" in the field, does that mean they are right without question? If so, then whats the difference between that and a mathmatician telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal four, but instead actually equals Pi to the 12th power. Oh, but don't forget, he also won't "show his work" when working out the problem to let you verify the accuracy. That is what has happened with GW. And my friend, you have latched on hook, line and sinker.

Now, maybe its that "middle ground" thing, but I don't disagree that we have an impact on our environment. Conservation is required - within reason. But the earth is not a planet balanced on the head of a needle. If you believe the evolutionary theories, its ecosystem has hit extremes well outside those considered "tolerable" by modern man, and has in fact had times when it would have been considered uninhabitable by mankind. It did this without our intervention.

So now here we are, with people screaming "you have to stop your way of life or you will kill the planet!". Such a statement is entirely false. The planet, and its ecosystem will continue to exist, barring a stellar event outside our control. The issue is that the earth is continuing its natural cycle - and while I will admit we may contribute slightly to changes, the fact is that it is going to go through its natural cycles with, or without us - as well as it is going to do so IN SPITE of us.

The only good arguement I ever have heard on "climate change" is that we may be speeding up our own destruction, by bringing on changes that will outstrip our ability to cope with them and remain on this planet. That may be the case - but then again, natural history shows - as you pointed out - that everything is cyclic, including what species is dominant. Neither of us want to see humankind be extinct, but the reality is that if you hold an evolutionary view, it is inevitable that humanity as we now know it will cease to exist at some point anyway. So either we remain on this planet, continue to adapt to its cyclical changes by whatever means are necessary - or we find a way to move past the confines of this ecosystem.

Regardless of "global warming" - the population growth dooms humanity unless new frontiers are opened, or nature reacts and lashes back, trimming humanity back as it would any other "top of the food chain" animal. Science "shows" that nature has done it numerous times before.

Let me bottom line this for you. Nature will continue its cycle regardless of what humanity does, unless we find a way to make that cycle stop in its tracks, and instead reroute and control that cycle as we see fit. Right now, that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. So you can do one of two things. Live your life trying to push against an inevitable force, knowing there is no hope of success, and no reason to fight that natural force. Or you can realize that the question is one that humanity cannot control, and therefore concentrate instead on those things that you can. Your choice.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

That article was written just after Katrina's hurricane season ended, exactly when that argument was being made and it's chart ends 2 years before that.

Yes you are correct, we won't know if the trend is continuing or not for several more years (10 or 20). Anyhow here is some more data (Wikipedia unfortunately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_At...rricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_At...rricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_At...rricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_At...rricane_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_At...rricane_season

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...-forecast.html

Now you will notice that the number of storms and damage vary wildly from year to year (also depends on how many make landfall, and where). This behavior is repeated if you go further back, where one year you can have very few damaging storms, and the next you can have a whole stack of them causing billions in damage. That is why the data I presented tabulates storms over 5 year increments. 2009 didn't have very many storms, and the big storms burned out their energy before making landfall, 2008 though was very similar to 2004, and caused 50 billion in damages

But be that as it may, even if you are right what can be done about it? If GW is indeed human caused then it's human numbers, not human activities, that is driving it and you're never going to legislate that away.

I would say its both human numbers and human activities are equally to blame. As for a solution, I don't see a ready one available yet, but does that mean we should just ignore it?

I don't feel that most people realize how serious a change of a couple of degrees theoretically can be. For example if the temperature continues to climb, we can expect many things to happen. If the theory that warmer ocean temperatures is fueling bigger storms, then we will continue to see more and more damaging storms (how many 2005 or worse hurricane seasons can the US take before going bankrupt? not forgetting that other kinds of storms will be getting more powerful too). The temperature change will also totally upset the ocean ecosystems (which already are under severe strain from overfishing, pollution, and dumping), there are already numerous signs of this, such as the explosion of Humboldt squid populations, which have been decimating fish populations. There is a huge pile of other potential outcomes from GW which could have devastating consequences on the global ecosystem (and ourselves since we are not independent of it). This is aside from the problem of the most densely habituated areas on the planet being flooded from all the melted ice.

Even though we are entering into a cooling cycle right now, I expect that at best the temperature climb will only halt temporarily. However this will probably continue to melt the ice at the poles and glaciers, which if certain theories are correct will worsen the rate of warming. It is theorized that ice helps regulate global temperature by reflecting light back into space, where water absorbs it and converts it into heat, so the less ice and the more water, the more heat is absorbed. So if we loose enough ice, the earth may continue to warm during what should be a cooling period.

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Interesting to note, that C02 levels were roughly 3000ppm as opposed to the measly 385 or so of today, and yet the earth supported more and more diverse life than now.

hmmm

Do I need to point out that life then was adapted to that kind of environment, and that sudden shifts to it would have wiped them out? Also to my knowledge life was not more diverse back then.

Its not a question of global warming turning the planet into a dead rock. On some level life would survive and adapt to the new conditions. However as the apex species we are among the most vulnerable to extinction if our environment gets trashed and many of the species of life go extinct.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon - I think we agree on some things here.

So let me ask you. Should we, as the animals at the apex, be taking steps to insure our own survival against the cycles of nature? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that nature will react drastically should we do so? To borrow from "The Lion King" - it is the circle of life that your saying we should be altering.

In one sense, yes - our existence alters the environment. However, isn't that alteration "natural" given the makeup of our species? Thus, our actions and its impact are in effect, a "natural" occurance. They are a product of humanity's "evolution" from its primitive roots. When people talk about modifying society's behavior to keep from "altering the natural course" of things, are they not altering the natural course of things by that very modification?

Climate change proponents state that we must change our society to maintain an ecosystem. Just a postulation - but wouldn't that change alter not just the forecasted weather - but the entire fabric of nature in all its facets by changing the track of natural evolution? Isn't maintaining an ecosystem, when the natural progression is to have that ecosystem change, a worse meddling in the affairs of what we all fail to understand in its entirety?

Granted, these questions border more on the philisophical, but they are thoughts that are rattling around my head at the moment.

[August]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

We won't know if the trend is continuing or not for several more years (10 or 20).

Yep. I would go further to say that we won't know for that long what are the true average numbers of storms per year.

The thing is Neo in the last 40 years we're really come a long way when it comes to identifying and monitoring the weather out at sea. Before the 60's the only way somebody knew there was a storm was if they happened to fly or sail through it. So i'd be surprised if there wasn't a big increase in the count since we've put those electronic eyes up in the sky.

I would say its both human numbers and human activities are equally to blame. As for a solution, I don't see a ready one available yet, but does that mean we should just ignore it?

Nobody is ignoring it but i'm wary of throwing lots of money at things that won't actually address the problem.

[Pacific_Ace]

We have exactly one planet, and no where else to go. It is far better to err on the side of caution and discover later we didn't have to because the other option is we pay no attention at all and end up extinct or back in an iron age society.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Neon - I think we agree on some things here.

So let me ask you. Should we, as the animals at the apex, be taking steps to insure our own survival against the cycles of nature? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that nature will react drastically should we do so? To borrow from "The Lion King" - it is the circle of life that your saying we should be altering.

Well we have done exactly that for much of human history. We have (I think foolishly) tried to dominate, subdue, and control nature. We use technology to overcome population limits, and medicine to limit the effectiveness of natural population controls (disease, etc). Honestly I don't think we will be stopping that any time soon. We have already stomped all over the circle of life.

I think we need to learn how to control ourselves, for our own sake if for no other reason.

In one sense, yes - our existence alters the environment. However, isn't that alteration "natural" given the makeup of our species? Thus, our actions and its impact are in effect, a "natural" occurance. They are a product of humanity's "evolution" from its primitive roots. When people talk about modifying society's behavior to keep from "altering the natural course" of things, are they not altering the natural course of things by that very modification?

Is it? We are not purely creatures of instinct, but are capable of escaping those bonds and able to consider our actions. If not we never would have gone far beyond our hunter/gatherer origins, which is what we are most naturally suited for. If we hadn't use our intellect beyond basic instinctive needs, the world probably wouldn't be in the mess it is in now. Most of our problems are due to our natural instincts to survive, thrive and reproduce, coupled with our intelligence, and developed technology. Though in spite of all our foolishness and hubris we are still just as bound to nature (the ecosystem) as we ever were.

Climate change proponents state that we must change our society to maintain an ecosystem. Just a postulation - but wouldn't that change alter not just the forecasted weather - but the entire fabric of nature in all its facets by changing the track of natural evolution? Isn't maintaining an ecosystem, when the natural progression is to have that ecosystem change, a worse meddling in the affairs of what we all fail to understand in its entirety?

The question is, if our species is responsible for the changes to the ecosystem, and if so how much are we responsible for. I think in most cases the answer is that we are responsible for a lot of it. Obviously we cannot control the paths nature itself takes, the warming and cooling cycles which have gone on since the planet was formed we can't do much about. But we can try to control how much we negatively affect those cycles, and our negative impact on the global ecosystem. We are already meddling with nature by releasing the massive quantities of greenhouse gasses we do, by hacking down the forests (which consume C02), by causing the mass extinction of species, by overfishing the oceans and over cultivating the land, by creating massive amounts of pollution and dumping it into the environment, by overpopulating and putting local ecosystems under severe strain to maintain our numbers and continue our growth, etc.

Sure we are not responsible for everything, but I do think we are responsible for a lot of what is going on. The basic solutions are less people, less man made carbon and other emissions, more trees and other CO2 consumers, lower pollution, putting a halt to our expansion into the natural world, etc. Problem is I don't see this happening until it is way too late, which means nature will either take our species out (after a major global extinction, probably caused by our last gasps to survive, destroying everything around us), or cut our numbers down drastically (which has already happened more then once).

Granted, these questions border more on the philisophical, but they are thoughts that are rattling around my head at the moment.

I don't mind discussing philosophical things, and thinking is always a good thing.

Originally Posted by August

Yep. I would go further to say that we won't know for that long what are the true average numbers of storms per year.

The thing is Neo in the last 40 years we're really come a long way when it comes to identifying and monitoring the weather out at sea. Before the 60's the only way somebody knew there was a storm was if they happened to fly or sail through it. So i'd be surprised if there wasn't a big increase in the count since we've put those electronic eyes up in the sky.

Yep which is why such studies tend to look at data starting in around the 1970s onward (we can though calculate how many damaging storms made land before that, but that data is incomplete as many storms do not make landfall). Of course the obvious problem is we have a very small window of data to work with. So we can't say for certain if the data we do have is following a pattern (natural or otherwise) or not as that pattern may be beyond the scope of our more recent solid data.

I will say though that it is pretty certain that warmth increases the power of storms, and that this has been demonstrated under laboratory "storm in a bottle" conditions.

Nobody is ignoring it but i'm wary of throwing lots of money at things that won't actually address the problem.

That I can understand. I do think we better damn well start addressing the problems though, or pay the consequences later on. I do feel though that many people are trying their best to stuff their fingers in their ears and pretend its not happening, that is human nature too.