I haven't seen it yet, I plan to wait till I can get it on video, so I can sit in my living room with a remote control and a notepad...

Regards,

Mike

The WSJ had an article that the "Hockey Stick" graph that is used to 'prove' the temperature has risen sharply in the last 30 years, and used in the movie, is not the full story.

In the article, they place the original graph next to the hockey stick chart.  The original data indicates a rise in temperatures from 1100-1300AD that is very similar to the last 30 years but is missing from the hockey stick data.  They don't explain why the data is missing.

So, I guess that could be one source for factual errors.

Consensus science in not real science.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

apparently critics of the "hockey stick" could create a hockey stick trend using the original author's statical model and random data.

Any factual errors?  I seriously doubt there will be any facts at all in this movie.

Well...  Al Gore did a pretty good job when he invented the internet....

I didn't see the movie, but I think it would be interesting to see it, for entertainment if nothing else.  I can imagine it was not too different than Tom Brokaw's special which seemed to me fairly lean on facts and heavy on hype.

There is of course plenty of hype on both sides.  I don't think anyone serious about the issue should trust the assessments of a politician or a journalist any more than a publication devoted to near-term business interests.

People who are serious about understanding the issue should take a look at credible sources such as LANL, LLNL, NANA, NOAA, NAS, WHOA, IPCC, NAS whose comments are  linked in the thread "The Cylce of Global Warming"

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

NANA should be LANL.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Correct that correction.  NANA should be NASA.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Factual errors?  Sounds like an Oxymoron to me....

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

I saw it. It made me mad. Mad on one hand because a movie like that had to be made in the first place, but also because "global warming" is being used as a blunt instrument to try to shift unsustainable behaviour. What is most maddening is the tendency for people to use science to baffle scientifically illiterate or ill equipped audiences into believing their position though the use of unjustifiable extrapolations or connecting unrelated events for convenience.

The point in Gore’s move that had me boiling was attributing global warming to the swamping of New Orleans. Hurricanes have always happened and big ones have hit that area before and that’s why there are dykes. If there weren’t millions of people living below sea level in that area would it have been a ‘disaster’? I digress, my point is there is no provable cause-and-effect relationship between global warming and hurricane Katrina, but there it is large as life on the screen with a brainiac ‘scientist’ saying there’s a direct connection, so who’s gonna say there ain’t?

There must be a word for that kind of thing: experts in one area overstepping the bounds of their qualifications and using their reputation to lend credibility in another area where they shouldn’t be practicing.

Marcel Chichak
www.starchak.ca
www.TDCperformance.ca
www.shell-4000-rally.org

"There must be a word for that kind of thing: experts in one area overstepping the bounds of their qualifications and using their reputation to lend credibility in another area where they shouldn’t be practicing."

There is: Politics.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Greg:  you got it.

curtacrankndaddy, there's another word, propaganda.

I would also say that's its not just "unsustainable behavior" (whatever that is) these people are trying to shift, its behavior they find undesirable, particularily in OTHER people.


Some of these people won't be satisfied until we're all living in mud huts.

Regards,

Mike

Unsustainable or just bad behaviour, either way there are things that it would be better to change.  Diverting attention away from pollution or other less arguably poor attributes is a bad thing.

I do not thing they want us in mud huts.  I think the overboard rhetoric is to push in the direction they want.  Identifying tear jerker bad things and them attempting to relate them to a cause is a poor way to change minds like those that would visit this site.  But for the masses, it might have proven effective over the years.

jsolar

Or, perhaps they're correct.

Perhaps human activity *has* dramatically increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Perhaps the temperature of the Earth *is* rising due to fossil fuel combustion. Perhaps that will lead to severe changes in weather patterns and the concomitant shifting and/or destruction of fertile areas and substantial rising of tidal levels.

Perhaps.

I haven't seen the movie and don't spend much energy on the global warming thing. It does strike me, though, that many of you seem to already have your minds made up that this is just a scare tactic by people who are pushing a political agenda and not a legitimate concern.

Surely as engineers, you strive to keep an open mind and consider those things that seem unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Surely you also consider not just the probability of an event but also the severity of its outcome in making your judgements about desirable courses of action.

I, for one, am pleased to hear this issue being addressed.

Let the flaming slings and arrows fly.

--------------------
How much do YOU owe?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
--------------------

..."unsustainable behavior" (whatever that is)

What I mean by that is beautifully encapsulated at www.fuh2.com and others that illustrate our society’s addiction to oil and our ignorant insistence that it is somehow our ghawd given right to use as much of it as we want. No, I’m not a tree hugging, mud hut dweller, I own 7 antique cars and I’m addicted to vintage racing so I’m just as guilty as anyone, but I do bike to “work”.

My point is this: oil is at $76 (+- something) a barrel and it’s only going to get costlier and more people will die so the machine can get more of it. There’s no question that there’s a limited supply of oil and we’re using it at an unsustainable rate. So what are we doing about it? Bugger all. Read the weekly ‘cars’ section of your local paper (or the SAE magazine ): the emphasis is on more power, bigger engines, and faster cars. The gains our brilliant mechanical engineers are making in harnessing the energy of gasoline is being used to make cars faster rather than more economical. If every new car had an acceleration and speed governor (easy to program into the ECU) how much fuel could be saved? Would it work? Not a chance. It’s an infringement on your ‘rights’. I tell ya, your ‘rights’ will surely be infringed when you have to choose between driving to the corner grocery store or saving the fuel so your food can be transported to that store. The faster our society uses up the oil, the sooner that day will come.

Marcel Chichak
www.starchak.ca
www.TDCperformance.ca
www.shell-4000-rally.org

...Or, perhaps they're correct.

Or perhaps they're not wrong? Where I'm going with my diatribe is that we all realize we're not doing the right thing by using fossil fuels at the rate we are, but, as engineers, we need an indisputable connection between the cause and effect before we completely buy into the argument. There are just too many variables in the equation to make the connection, although there’s sufficient evidence to suggest there is one. The confusion comes in when history is considered objectively: before the industrial revolution there were droughts, extreme storms and receding glaciers so to use those as conclusive evidence of global warming only works for people that don’t think too hard.

What Gore does in his movie is use the evidence in a very economical and biased way. Not a true scientific consideration of facts, but a Hollywood style cherry picking of convenient truths to make his point.

Marcel Chichak
www.starchak.ca
www.TDCperformance.ca
www.shell-4000-rally.org

Beggar:

Quote:

Surely as engineers, you strive to keep an open mind and consider those things that seem unlikely for a variety of reasons.

That's just it.  We keep an open mind.  Look at the FACTS.  And realize that there are conclusions and "sky-is-falling" screamers (Gore) out there that go waaay beyond factual knowledge and use political driven hysteria to move the politics their way.

I love the environment.  I hike, climb mountains, hate pollution.  But when lots of technical people discuss the potential for Global warming, we find that there is no set factual-based consensus YET.  To over-react and spend millions of dollars based on this sort of emotion is not my idea of having an "open mind".

Let's distill it a little further, GregLock.

Politics -> Power.....or the desire for.

JAE, to me that's kind of the whole point. If one wants any FACTS much digging is required. If one wants agenda presented as fact one only has to turn on the TV or pick up the newspaper. Too many people don't seem to know that the science is not at all settled. I really hate the way that the media treats the subject.

However, it is complicated and the media is NOT in the business of explaining complicated matters, whatever the subject.

Regards,

Mike

And for another kick at the cat:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072406_source_hopelessness.shtml

Marcel Chichak
www.starchak.ca
www.TDCperformance.ca
www.shell-4000-rally.org

RE: fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072406_source_hopelessness.shtml

What a bunch of socialist Marxist nonsense (ooo! watch out for the Black Helicopters!). The writer, Catherine Austin Fitts, is obviously an idiot--check out the link at the bottom of her diatribe, it really speaks to the credibility of the editorial writer:

Cynthia McKinney for Congress
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/

This appeared in my local paper recently. I think the whole discussion would be much more grounded in reality if more of this kind of discussion was availble in the mass media.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060707_Sy_A12_Engin21971

Enjoy,

Mike

A little rationality, SnTMan, added to the discussion. Unfortunately, there appears to be very little movement in that direction, spending fed. gov't budget on engineering R&D in these areas.

Beyond the rhetoric and politicalese, the facts are these:
1) increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the heat retained in the atmosphere
2) burning fossil fuels releases amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere beyond that which would naturally occur
3) the earth has some finite capacity to process CO2 without a response
4) the effects of global temperature rise, regardless of cause, will be devastating to ecology worldwide

" So what are we doing about it? Bugger all. Read the weekly ‘cars’ section of your local paper (or the SAE magazine  ): the emphasis is on more power, bigger engines, and faster cars. The gains our brilliant mechanical engineers are making in harnessing the energy of gasoline is being used to make cars faster rather than more economical. If every new car had an acceleration and speed governor (easy to program into the ECU) how much fuel could be saved? Would it work? Not a chance."

The sad fact is that the car industry can only sell the cars that people want to buy. If they don't like them much, they won't pay as much for them, so we have to bribe them to take the cars off our hands. Losing $4000 on every car is not a recipe for success.

If we fit stonking big engines, 22 cup holders, dead cow seats and dead tree trim, and a couple of extra seats just in case, then our customers will pay us enough money to stay in business.

In a recent survey of US new car buyers fuel economy came 19th out of a list of 20 reasons to buy a car. (in Canada oddly it came 3rd)

At $3 per gallon, a rational human being will know that fuel is only a small proportion of the annual cost of running a new vehicle, and buying a more economical car will typically involve trade-offs that are less acceptable.

This does annoy me, but the cold hard fact is oil is not, and will never be (unless heavily taxed), so expensive as to force affluent people into small economical cars. There are several ways to make oil, profitably, for the current price. If the price remains high you will see those methods introduced.

Sorry I realise this is thread drift, peak oil (etc) is not really related to climate change.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Quote:

the effects of global temperature rise, regardless of cause, will be devastating to ecology worldwide

So that's why all those historic swings in temperature over the centuries has left our earth devastated, just devastated.
  

Were those historic swings in temperature devastating in the long term? Nope. Were they devastating in the short term? Evidently. I notice that the dinosaurs didn't make it through one (or several?) of those swings.

--------------------
How much do YOU owe?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
--------------------

About ccor's facts:

"1) increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the heat retained in the atmosphere"

Just because A causes B doesn't mean all of B is caused by A, or even that it can be detected.  


"2) burning fossil fuels releases amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere beyond that which would naturally occur"

Minutely.  Remember that the ocean constantly purges CO2 to the atmosphere and sucks it in at the poles.  It's an "equilibrium" of sorts.  The warm coke effect.


"3) the earth has some finite capacity to process CO2 without a response"

Maybe.  All the models don't realistically handle the increased robustness of flora from an enhanced food supply.


"4) the effects of global temperature rise, regardless of cause, will be devastating to ecology worldwide"

The last time Earth was in a stable climate warmer than this it was the pliocene, where temps at the equator were about the same as they are now.  We don't know if the effects will be "devestating" - in fact, Homo sapiens have always thrived in warming climates.  When climate cools it becomes problematic.

Remember, more people live at the equator than at the poles.  Doesn't sound like more warming would necessarily be "devastating."

The dinosaurs all perished because they stampeded over a cliff when they thought that the days were getting hotter and the end was near.  Mass dino hysteria. Or was it a meteor?

Forgive my odd humor here, Beggar, but you do have a good point there.

Here we go

http://au.news.yahoo.com//060727/21/zxcv.html

That's 60000 barrels of oil per day from coal. That's about 20% of the national requirement... rather a lot!

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

I thought the dinosaurs perished because of a cataclysmic asteroid collision into the northern coast of the Yucatan 65 million years ago?

This asteroid hit a pre-dino deposit of oil and coal, burning and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing a warming trend sending the dinos into a media frensy communicating that the world was ending thereby causing the dinos to stampede off the cliff.  The asteroid is the precursor SUV.  That's why some SUV's are called dinosaurs.

Or something like that.  I'm so glad it's Friday and I don't do Saturdays.  

I've heard of multiple mass extinctions on our planet (in audio books).

One of the more interesting ones was a supernova radiating on our sun changing the radiated wavelengths of our sun to something that didn't support life for a while.

maybe, just maybe. everybody is wrong. nobody is right. That is why we bias the data for our own objective. It helps form a consensus, get things mobilized, hopefully it is positive direction. Ever wonder what several well placed earth penetration nuclear bombs will do when ejaculated and detonated precisely into the "best known oil-fossil fuel reserve locations?". (this an option that could well get us into action, good kick start). Best burn it up, and by the way look into cheaper alternatives that keep the scholars and red necks busy working. Dinesaurs were of limited intelligence, or did they, maybe they were busy storing oil for the future?

................. That is, for-seeing their eminent demise......... they devised a scheme by which using implanted  best rapidly evolving DNA in the most robust survivor types.. they could dominate again... When the programed "CO2-GW" conditions are right. With a lot of munchy crunchy food available, we can flourish again!!!!

Proven oil reserves have increased in the last ten years.  Oil sands, heavy tar pools, coal gasification, collection and development of natural gas facilities are all technologies that become feasible with $70/barrel oil. Chicken little and doomsayers need to put on the rose tinted specs for the future is bright with solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power technologies.  (one eruption from Mount St Helen, Pinatubo, Mayon, Apo or any other active volcano can produce CO in a single day equal to decades of mankind fuel burning.  It is hubris to claim modern man is a major factor in climate change.)

They claim that the surface of the earth is smoother than a ping pong ball, in relative terms. How could microscopic – nanoscopic activities possibly effect this?

 But yet, driving down to LA from the mountains there is a yellow-brown haze, static, unnatural, thick, and sickening. Acid rain, CFC, nuclear fall out, all products of volcanic, meteors, or other natural phenomenon. However the “smoke-oil-gas” was mainly attributed to poorly regulated night time refining of the local petrol. Not as bad as it used to be, sure it still is a problem, in areas like the lower San Joaquin valley, where the San Francisco green people’s pollution tends to gather, over the farmland, bottled up by the Sierra Nevada mountains.

So believe what you want, but, some areas of this nano-scopic human activity has demonstrated, and is widely recognized, as having a negative impact on the air quality.
Just walk on a sidewalk in Caracas, as a herd of two stroke mopeds putter past. You can just watch the blue-green haze, float in the air, like the ever present demons of my mind.

The engineering mind can easily understand that the Urban Heat Island is only a concentration of albedo difference.  It's not some magical thing, only a heat collecter - and a square yard of Asphalt pavement contributes the same to global warming whether it's in the middle of a city or in the middle of the country.  Global warming alarmists are compartmentalizers vs. the cool headed integrators; anecdote collecters vs. conceptualizers.  Check out these blogs:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/comments.html
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/comments.php

You can recognize the patterns.

Climate change and air quality are different concepts.  The US imported 3 million barrels of oil a day.  

Honestly, if President Reagan stated that acid rain was caused by trees, what can we really expect from Vice President Gore?

Regards,

Joseph

BTW my main array is 750W of used ARCO panels that were 5 years old, 18 years ago.

civil person..? not man, I deduce female. Emissions are Emissions period - pollution. Just because these are colorless and odorless do not mean they are harmless. As for LC's links; I really do not personally see any more value added, just more blabbering. And lastly, josephv, the old soviet union had a lot of trees, now they have been converted,  acid rain is less of an issue... it must have worked.

Now the current PUSA. global warming happens because it is summer?

Periods of galciation, Ice ages, are a reoccurring event in our history. The occur on large scale and small scale. The 17th & 18th century are refered to as a mini ice age. In order for a period of galciation, especialy global glaciation, an extended period of global warming must occur. how does this happen? the earth is not as stable as we would like. The axis shifts slightly over the centuries, as does its orbit and other fetures such as the ionisphere.
So will the earth get warmer? - yes

Is this period begining now? - maybe, although there are indications of it, including rising gulf current temperatures, which bring more severe huricane seasons.

Is this because of our impact on the enviornment? - That is the million dollar question no one has asked. We could all live in mud huts and at some time global warming would begin anyway.

In the thread "the cycle of global warming, I provided several links to credible sources supporting the claim that man is significantly contributing to a global warming trend.  (Again LANL, LLNL, NANA, NOAA, NAS, WHOA, IPCC, NAS).

I issued a challenge in that thread for credible sources on the other side which has been completely unanswered (unless you guys think blogs are credible).

At the beginning of this thread I have reiterated my stance on credible sources and pointed out the obvious fact that Al Gore is not among them.   

The majority of comments in this thread continue to dwell on Al Gore and provide links to weblogs as if these things have any place in the serious discussion.

Another credible source which appears credible is the Hadley Center which is part of the Met Office of the British Government.  The list of their publications in peer-reviewed journals is huge:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/refereed.html

Their climate models are impressive and well described:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.html

In my view from these facts and other things you'll see poking around their web site it is clear this is a scientific organization, not some politication propaganda mill.

Their conclusions on the significant impact of man's CO2 emissions on global warming outlook are clear in the document entitled "Climate change and the greenhouse effect
- a briefing from the Hadley Centre" available for download here:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/

On page 12, they explain why man's CO2 contribution has a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 even though manmade emission rate is much less than natural emission rate.

On page 19 - CO2 is THE major contributor to global warming.

On page 22 - demonstration of how large manmade climate forcings are compared to natural (similar view as Hansen of Nasa).

On page 25 - more about their computer models.

On page 26 and 27 - evidence of global warming trend from multiple independent measurement methods.

Page 29 - natural factors cannot explain global warming.  

Page 30 - the observed global warming trend is well-predicted when man-made factors are added.

This is just a teaser to a few key points.  I know some of you guys will be in a rush to go point out where and why it's wrong.  Do me a favor and take a read before you judge.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Teaser is right.

I don't seem to have the same page numbers as you. Anyway

P12 If my bank balance is 200 dollars overdrawn, does that prove that when I went out to dinner and paid the 200 dollar bill, that therefore stopping eating out is the best response? no. Why is the natural carbon cycle magically able to compensate for the variations in natural CO2 production, but not the additional tiny load of the manmade CO2? How does it tell the difference?

P19, no it isn't. Water is. see P14

P22 but excludes water

Sorry, I haven't got time to read the whole thing, but it seems to be an agenda-driven botch job.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Thanks for taking a look.  What I called page numbers are the number on the bottom of my pdf reader (1 of 71, 2 of 71, etc).

I would agree the presentation aims to make a point.

You have a right and perhaps an obligation to be skeptical.

The basic point I will repeat is that this is a credible organization (not based on the content of the report but based on the fact that it employs many scientists and actually studies the issue through state of the art models, rather than just talking about it like 99% of the naysayers).

My primary criteria for credible organizations are 1 - large organizations whose primary function is technical and 2 - who have made their reputation outside of the realm of global warming predictions.

I think you should agree these folks meet #1. I'm not so sure about #2... I think global study is the main point of the Hadley center although they are part of a larger organization that has a much broader role. Maybe someone from the U.K. can chime in.  There are of course among the other organizations listed plenty who meet both criteria.

I have not seen anything close to a large credible technical organization endorsing the naysayer stance.  I think if you look through the links posted on that side posted in this and the other site you will see single individuals (Dr X from University Y), a few cleverly named centers which upon digging invariably have no function other than to "provide information" and usually are funded by big business.  Is there someone out there with a supercomputer model that supports the naysayer view? I haven't seen it.

It will never be an open and shut case but to me the credible sources are all lined up on one side.  Again please judge the credibility considering the technical nature of the organization and not whether you agree with their conclusions.  I repeat my challenge to everyone... credible organizations on  the other side?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"P12 Why is the natural carbon cycle magically able to compensate for the variations in natural CO2 production, but not the additional tiny load of the manmade CO2? How does it tell the difference?"

P12
"As can be seen from the slide, these man-made
fluxes are much smaller than the fluxes in the
natural carbon cycle. However, the natural carbon
cycle is in balance, and has led to concentrations
of CO2 in the atmosphere remaining relatively
constant for the thousand years before the
industrial revolution."

If you disagree with their logic, why not look at the data.  Atmospheric CO2 has increased 25-40% in the industrial era and is now the highest in the 600,000 year history recorded in ice cores.  Do you think it's just a coincidence that we happened to hit our 600,000 year high (and still increasing) at this particular point time?  That's a pretty big coincidence for me to swallow.  I find it easier to believe that the scientists who study this full time actually know what they're talking about.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Let me quickly clarify that the "actually know what they're talking about" was NOT meant as a slam against anyone here.  It was meant to emphasize the irony of the unlikely vs likely alternatives (imho). Unlikely that we hit the 600kyr high by coincidence. Likely that they know what they're talking about.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

In an attempt to provide some backup for my statements about CO2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm

Quote:

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

I'm not saying these guys are necessarily in the category of those credible groups we can trust to draw unbiased conclusions (I haven't researched them).  I don't think the extradinary increase in CO2 is in question (but I'll dig up some more sources if anyone doubts it). There seems far more questions discussed concerning whether increased CO2 will affect the climate.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"P19, no it isn't. Water is. see P14"
The way I understand it, we have a big model which includes many feedbacks.  Water vapor is one of the most important parts (and somewhat unknown) parts in the system model and the feedbacks.

There are also forcings. These are things outside the system model that change over time and provide an input to the system model. That would be CO2 concentration change, earth tilt change, etc.

NASA and Hadley center both describe it this way (although I may have jumbled it a little in the translation).

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

OK, I've skimmed through the whole thing now.

The modelling looks pretty convincing (although see point 3), and although I think they are pushing an agenda in accordance with the prejudices of their paymasters, it seems to be a reasonable summary.

so, for my initial set of questions

1 is the climate changing? Yes

2 is it getting warmer (on average)? Yes

3 is a large part of this change due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases? Probably - assuming that all of the models are as convincing as the one shown. I'm making the assumption that if the output of the model is correct, and the science is honest, then they are able to break down the contributions correctly. However, many of these models are calibrated by fine tuning the 'constants' in the program, to agree with historical data. The fact that they then agree with that data is no proof that they are correct.

4 Is the increase in greenhouse gases affected significantly by mankind? Not proven. The report does not identify why the natural carbon cycle is in equilibrium, but special naughty manmade carbon is outside the feedback loop. That seems frankly preposterous.

I'll add some new ones, gleaned from this thread and that article.

5 Is the predicted climate change a beneficial or a retrograde step, on average?

6 Is there any sign that any amount of effort by the global community will actually have much effect on the climate change? No. In the next 30 years NONE of the 4 economic/greenhouse scenarios will make a skerrick of difference (look at the results for 2005-2035 on the graph on pdf P41). No politician is capable of planning that far ahead, and no democratic nation will opt for low growth, if the pain is immediate and continual, and the benefits will be completely invisible for 30 years.

7 Are there better approaches than just reducing economic activity to suppress greenhouse gas concentrations? or warming?

Well, they've suggested one, pouring fresh water into the Gulf Stream. That's probably not a smart move, fresh water is a far more valuable resource than that. So, how about cloud seeding? Sulphate smog chimneys? High albedo roofs? Aluminium foil (oops bad idea) coverings for deserts?

As I've said before, I'm not against reducing fossil fuel usage. It is an irreplaceable resource, and its extraction and consumption (particularly coal) are both messy and unnattractive industries.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

I think we are not too far apart in opinions on this subject.

I agree on your item 3 - model constants can be tweaked. The more numeric assumptions you can tweak, the more ability to make it match the test case trial data (in this case historic data).  It's not a proof unless you trust the source.

On your item 4 I think we go back to the ice cores again.  Is it some coincidence that we happen to live at a time with highest CO2 in 650,000 years and increasing at a rate 200 times higher than at any time in the past ( between 650k years ago and the start of the industrial revolution). No, I do not buy that coincidence.

On item 5 - We are creating an experiment introducing a very strong bias for upward temperature change.  And a ton of inertia in the system which  means that even when we stop adding CO2 the effects will continue.  Obviously, the safe thing is not to journey too far into the unknown.  Meanwhile there are plenty of adverse effects we can anticipate (massive displacement of people near sea level).

On item 6 - Our CO2 is the major forcer in this change.  To say it's not worth trying because we're not sure it'll make a difference... sounds like the guy who is $100k in debt in his credit cards. Why pay more than the minimum monthly payment... after all that few hundred extra dollars a month to drive down the principle will barely make a dent.  The answer is it's not going to go away unless we make it go away.  Ignoring it won't make it go away.  The longer we ignore it without addressing it the more painful it is to dig out of the hole.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Yeah, I Know, more of the ridiculous again. But if in fact large cold? blooded reptilian creatures roamed, well, pretty much the whole planet. The global temperature must have been well above what it is today. The question I wounder is what did these creatures do in the winter? Snakes and lizards hibernate, maybe that is it.

Again:  Correlation is not causation, and just because A causes B does not mean all of a change in B is caused by A, nor that it's portion is even detectable.

There is a great deal of discussion now whether or not some collection of temperatures on land accurately reflects "global warming" (7 collections, 7 different trends).  The new measurement, in light of the magnintude of heat storage capacities, is heat in the ocean.  There is as much heat capacity in the top two meters of the ocean than the atmosphere, and in land a mere few more centimeters.  

The fact that the ocean is now cooling, in concert with natural variability theory, is something the sites electricpete quotes will not mention.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

The Hadley Centre is hardly an objective source.

Here is the beginning of a discussion on heat capacities, and a good access point to the previous and subsequent threads on the site - black carbon and uncertainties.

http://tinyurl.com/lbukh

z633 - I know... science is so annoying. It's so much more pleasant to listen only to the sources that tell us what we want to hear.  For that I would refer you to LCruisers links in this thread and past links.

LCruiser
"The fact that the ocean is now cooling, in concert with natural variability theory, is something the sites electricpete quotes will not mention."

You might want to go back and read my previous post which suggested that you actually READ the document before you criticize it.

If you did, you would have known that the type of trends you mention are specifically shown and discussed on page 32 of 71 of my link.  Specifically an overall upward trend, with a smaller variation up and down approx on the scale of decades which they had a hard time explaining.  They never said it was a monotonically increasing function.  They also acknowledged that ocean temperatures are a weaker and more unknown link in the argument based on challenges of sampling and vertical distribution.

None of this is in contradiction with the link you cited.  In fact the link you cited provides many of the same thoughts:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Quote:

INTRO...With over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the World Ocean is the largest repository for changes in global heat content [Levitus et al., 2005]. Monitoring ocean heat content is therefore fundamental to detecting and understanding changes in the Earth’s heat balance. Past estimates of the global integral of ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) indicate an increase of 14.5 ´ 10 22 J from 1955 to 1998 from the surface to 3000m [Levitus et al., 2005] and 9.2 (± 1.3) ´ 10 22 J from 1993 to 2003 in the upper (0 – 750 m) ocean [Willis et al. 2004]. These increases provide strong evidence of global
warming. Climate models exhibit similar rates of ocean warming, but only when forced by anthropogenic influences [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005; Church et al.,
2005; Hansen et al., 2005].
While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short period of rapid cooling (6 ´ 10 22 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983 [Levitus et al., 2005]. Most climate models, however, do not contain unforced decadal variability of this magnitude [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005, their Figure S1;
Church et al., 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005] and it has been suggested that such fluctuations in the observational record may be due to inadequate sampling of ocean
temperatures [Gregory et al., 2004]. We have detected a new cooling event that began in 2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using high-resolution satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.

DISCUSSION:...
This work has several implications. First, the updated time series of ocean heat content presented here (Figure 1) and the newly estimated confidence limits (Figure 3)
support the significance of previously reported large interannual variability in globally integrated upper-ocean heat content [Levitus et al., 2005]. However, the physical causes for this type of variability are not yet well understood. Furthermore, this variability is not adequately simulated in the current generation of coupled climate models used to study the impact of anthropogenic influences on climate [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al.
2005; Church et al. 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005]. Although these models do simulate the long-term rates of ocean warming, this lack of interannual variability represents a shortcoming that may complicate detection and attribution of human-induced climate influences.

So these guys see the same overall upward trend with shorter term oscillations that are hard to explain (just like the Hadley center). Their major finding is that we happen to be in the middle of a shorter-term downward oscillation.  Exactly what do you think this proves?  

For the record, NOAA is a part of the US government and a scientific organization and far more credible than the majority of leaks spewed by the sketpics here.  You may find it informative to browse their website to step beyond the business and political links and see what science is telling us:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Quote:

"Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

"Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.....Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth.

...Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

LCruiser wrote:

Quote:

The Hadley Centre is hardly an objective source.

Here is the beginning of a discussion on heat capacities, and a good access point to the previous and subsequent threads on the site - black carbon and uncertainties.

http://tinyurl.com/lbukh

[The link leads to "Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog"

So if I'm understanding you correctly,  the Hadley center which is an arm of the British government, using one of the best climate models in the world is not an objective source.  But you would refer us instead to a blog.  Am I the only one that sees the irony here?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

The irony here is that you are dismissing Colorado State University for the Hadley Centre.  I have no intention of reading more than a couple of pages from the Hadley Centre as they are in no way objective.  Compare their position on their brochures with this statement from the IPCC about their third report:

"Feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry, climate, and the biosphere were not developed to the stage that they could be included in the projected numbers here. Failure to include such coupling is likely to lead to systematic errors and may substantially alter the projected increases in the major greenhouse gases."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/128.htm

I am the first to admit I have no idea what I am dismissing.  The page you linked is labeled "webblog".  If there is some link there to some organization then I missed it (entirely possible).  If you can point more more directly to a description of this organization that you are holding up as more credible than the Hadley center, then I would appreciate it.   It would be at least the beginning of an attempt to answer my challenge for credible sources on the other side which still remains unanswered.

Is Hadley's model perfect? Absolutely not.  Are there better models?  Not too many that I know of.  (I doubt that CSU has any but I'm interested to hear).  Yes there is uncertainty in Hadley's projections.  And Hadley does not shy away from those uncertainties - you will find plenty of discussion of them in that document and their other literature (but you actually have to read them).

But the important part, even though they're not perfect,   the best available projections that we have as input to our decision-making come from folks like Hadley center. The real unknown truth could be better or worse than those projections.  Depending on your predisposition, that will make your less or more comfortable about the situation.  

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Both the Pielkes - one at Colorado State in Fort Collins, the other at the University of Colorado in Boulder, are highly respected in their fields.  Here are some basic links about their organizations:

http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/index.html

The first uncertainty is how much warming is due to increased CO2, and how much is due to other GHG's, denudation of existing arable land, solar factors, and other unknowns.

Then, the second uncertainty is the question of how bad is warming anyway?  A lot more people live on the equator than at the poles, indicating logically that warmer is better than colder.

Third concerns the fact that CO2 is the base of the food chain.  How much good, considering Earth's burgeoning population, will an increase in that supply be, compared to how bad it is.  How, exactly, will the biosphere react to this increased food supply - particularly on marginally arable land?
http://www.co2science.org

The comprehensive question, then, is do we really need to address increasing CO2 or should we be looking more at education concerning land use etc.  We don't have those answers, but the wannabe power brokers (literally) like the Oil for Food guys at the UN and the Enrons of the world just want to set up a carbon trading scheme for their profit.  That's the real irony - the current leaders at the UN don't care about feeding the third world - they just want to broker carbon.

Well, you'll have to give me just a little bit more to go on as to why you consider these guys a credible source.  I'm sorry to be blunt, but the fact that an anonomous eng-tips user such as yourself says they are highly respected doesn't quite meet my burden of proof.  I hope we all are excercizing just a little more skepticism on the sources of our informaiton than that.

It looks like these guys rely on donations:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/donate.pdf
Do they have any financial disclosure that tells us exactly who they are working for? In the absence of knowing who paid for these opinions, they mean nothing.  There are of course plenty of people who would pay money to get quack PhD's to say whatever they want.   In contrast, the Hadley center is part of the British government that has no financial stake in skewing the results one way or another.

What kind of models do these guys run?  What do their results say about the feedbacks?  Do they predict more or less change in temperature from CO2 than what the Hadley center is saying?  Can you provide a link to their model results?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"the Hadley center is part of the British government that has no financial stake in skewing the results one way or another"

Surely you jest.

Yeah, sorry electricpete, the British government has a stance on global warming that is NOT science driven, it is primarily political. They pay the Hadley Centre.

Now on the other hand, I doub the Met Office is actually going to lie, directly, but they certainly don't seem to investigate the negative arguments with much enthusiasm.

You should also be aware that the huge increase in the climatology budget in academia is largely based on global warming. So, all of the graduates who now work for the Met Ofiice will have been brought up in an environment where global warming is the raison d'etre for their degree courses.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

An interesting perspective on what “Studies Prove.”   See part I through III of “Studies Prove”.  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml
Whereas this article is not specifically about global warming it does touch on the issue and hits soundly on the problem with government and university studies.

Yes, Zapster, I think there's a lot of folks who get sucked into "studies prove".  Not to say that anything listed above is then automatically wrong...but there's value in skepticism whenever there's a politically charged, and motivated debate - on both sides of the issues.

Another link - more specifically about global warming:

Boudreax Article

I work in the Aerospace industry.  If we have a potential issue with the aircraft design, we have to make sure the problem is managed.  So if an issue could cause a catastrophic failure of the aircraft, we have to take every possible step to prevent it, by maintenance, lifing, redesign etc.  Therefore, if a potential problem is life-threatening, it can be shown by actions that the probability of it happening is extremely remote.

If we apply this to global warming, then we can agree the following:
Something is happening.
We don't know for sure what is causing it.
A potential cause is human emissions.
The consequence of global warming could be catastrophic.

If this was an aircraft, we would have to do something, not just carry on with a "well, it might not happen" attitude.  The potential consequences are just too dramatic to ignore.

scotty7 -

You're mixing apples and oranges.  Or, rather, you're ignoring oranges.  The point is not whether or not we should do something about global warming per se, although warming in the past has always been associated with flourishing civilization.  It's cooling that's been the problem.  

The point is that there are many other contributing factors to increasing temperature, such as land use changes decreasing transpiration, natural variability, other GHG's, etc.

The facts that the effect of CO2 on heat retention in the atmosphere is logarithmic, and that CO2 is the base of the food chain and may have a hand in curing problems due to land use changes, means we need to investigate the true causes and effects through *realistic* modeling - which includes accurate regional representations, before we choke our productivity.  We are a long way from that point.  What climate scientists have now is very simplistic and in no way represents reality.

scotty7 - your last point:

The consequence of global warming could be catastrophic.

I just wonder about this.  Yes, there is the potential for some serious issues but we engineers (and hopefully the public) always weigh the probabilities against the risk/rewards of any action.  

What I've seen in terms of Global warming is a huge over sensitivity to a totally unknown risk to the point of spending enormous amounts of money on "repairs" that we don't even know will resolve the risk that we can't even define.

This isn't wisdom.  It's a compulsive over-reaction and to make things worse, politics gets involved.

With groups of people hell-bent on exterminating other groups or people, there appear to be greater, more immediate issues than global warming.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/15275602.htm

Quote:

I thought of this tendency when I read the results of a recent Pew Research Center poll. The subject in question was global warming, and responses were broken down along political lines. Of those polled, 81 percent of Democrats said there is solid evidence that temperatures are rising, compared to 58 percent of Republicans; 54 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans say human activity is the root cause. That is a huge difference of opinion on a subject that, one would think, should be understood mainly through its science.

I suspect most of the people polled got their information from their favored media outlets rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific articles. If you read The Wall Street Journal or watch Fox News, you are far more likely to question the existence of global warming. If the New York Times and NPR are your organs of influence, you will likely believe we have a serious problem on our hands.

This is an interesting phenomenon.  It should make us all think twice about the facts and relationships we assume to be true.  Especially if we have not payed close attention to the sources of our information.

Pielke I agree is held up as an expert by many.  I'll talk about him some more when I have the time.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"54 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans say human activity is the root cause. "

And again, there are many other possible reasons than CO2 if human activity is the root cause.  

Cutting CO2 emissions could be cutting our own throats.  Certainly blaming the world's woes on CO2 is.

ok, let's talk Pielke.

Look at the front page of his website:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/
"More Information on the Geophysical Research Letters Article Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean" dated August 14, 2006

After excerpting several pieces from the article, Pielke sums it up for us as follows:

Quote (Pielke:):

This is a very important observational study of changes in climate system heat content. While the models predict a general montonic increase in ocean heat content (e.g. see (Figure 1) ), the new observations in Lyman et al 2006 show an important decrease. The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth’s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports.

That is the full extent of his front-page discussion and summary of this article (maybe he provides more details elsewhere, but not on the front page).  The implication is that 1 - this observed cooling trend is significant in the long-term 2 - this is something new that brings into question the conclusions of the legitimate scientists of governmentally-sponsored credible organizations such as Hadley, NASA, NOAA etc.   

But quite the contrary, 1 - the historical trend is up and down with a long-term rise 2- this has been known for a long time.

See Hadley Center's comments on page 32 of 71 here
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf

Quote (Hadley:):

"The large decadal variability shown in the observations cannot be simulated by the models"

See also NASA Hansen's comments on page 2 of 5 here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Quote (Hansen:):

"Total ocean heat storage in that period [1955-1998] is consistent with the climate model simulations, but the models do not reproduce reported decadal fluctuations

Imho this is a clear misrepresentation of the big picture with intent to mislead.  If anyone doubts that Pielke can achieve his intent to mislead folks, they need only look earlier in this thread to see the erroneous conclusions people draw after reading Pielke's site.

Roger could have told us that 1 - the historical data contains up and down swings and therefore a current downswing doesn't change anything in the long-term prognosis and 2- mainstream sciences acknowledges this variability, but he chose instead to sensationalize it as a new finding to undermine mainstream scientific predictions.  That's not surprising since one of Roger's recurring themes is throwing stones at the models of others.  Ironically, I don't see that he has published any of his own model results.

It seems to me that Pielke is more deeply involved in the political arena than the scientific arena.

Look at the mission statement of the Center Directed by Roger Pielke Sr.:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/
Strategic Intent #1 - Help guide the University of Colorado in educating the next generation of science and technology policy decision makers.

Strategic Intent #2 - Help make the nation’s science portfolios more responsive to societal needs.  Example areas include climate and global change, disasters, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and renewable/sustainable energy

Strategic Intent #3 - Provide various means for people with differing perspectives to discuss research and practice related to science in its broader societal context.

Strategic Intent #4 - Build a sustainable, diverse and productive institution at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

I didn't see research listed there (did I miss it?).  Seems to me that involvement in policy-making is the goal of these folks.

Then there' this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

Quote:

His son Roger A. Pielke (Jr) is a political scientist.

And finally one need only browse the websites linked by LCruiser to as further evidence of the political activism of RP1 and RP2.  You will find many more articles discussing the politics than the science.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that political and policy discussion is not important. But it seems to me these guys make living as political animals masquerading as scientists.

And finally as a matter of curiosity, I would like to see an accounting of the donations that are plainly solicited on their website.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Also I see at http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/ the following"
[quote}The Climate Science Weblog has clearly documented the following conclusions:...
In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change. [/quote]

I saw the claim but I didn't see the proof. Is there proof of this claim somewhere in that website?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

It looks like this is not an isolated mischaracterization. I see this on

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/
"Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions" by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr.  August 8, 2006

Quote:

There is some emerging empirical evidence to suggest, however, that the concerns expressed here are worth consideration. The recent dramatic cooling of the average heat content of the upper oceans, and thus a significant negative radiative imbalance of the climate system for at least a two year period, that was mentioned in the Climate Science weblog posting of July 27, 2006, should be a wake-up call to the climate community that the focus on predictive modeling as the framework to communicate to policymakers on climate policy has serious issues as to its ability to accurately predict the behavior of the climate system. No climate model that we are aware of has anticipated such a significant cooling, nor is able to reproduce such a significant negative radiative imbalance.

The same old thing....  recent dramatic cooling.... horrible models (what does Roger's model predict btw?).

Sorry to harp on one example. I am not immersed in the tremendous details of the debate like these guys are.  I am 100% sure Roger Pielke is fully aware of all the facts I stated.   As to why he would choose to present this new finding repeatedly without the most important context (long-term average increase with short-term ups and downs), I can come to no conclusion other than he has an agenda and full accounting of relevant facts is not part of his agenda.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

I guess I missed it.  What facts did you present?  Why do the Pielke's have to have models?  There are lots of models out there.  Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)?  Models are based on assumptions - assumptions manufactured to fit the data.  Ensemble climate models are averages of assumptions.  

I'm not sure what your point is - the Hadley Centre needs a crisis for future funding.  Don't you understand that?

But using conclusions from faulty models (statistics) does not a crisis make!

Quote (LCruiser):

I guess I missed it.  What facts did you present?

Page 32 of 71
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf

shows the historical trend of ocean temperature.  It is a long-term upward trend with shorter-term ups and downs.  Both Hadley and NASA acknowledged long ago (see links in my post 19 Aug 06 1:08) that their models do not predict the shorter term ups an downs... with some speculation that it may be caused by incomplete sampling of the oceans).

Now comes Pielke dicussing the results of an article finding a recent downturn.  He omits the fact that the known long-term trend is up with shorter term ups and downs and that the real scientists admit their models don't show that.  Instead he presents is as if it is something new that sheds great doubt on the models.  Without the important contexts, one could easily incorrectly conclude:
1 - This is new information that the scientists are unaware of.
2 - This represents a long-term cooling trend.

I was trying to be polite but the comments I was referring to earlier in this thread are your own: "The fact that the ocean is now cooling, in concert with natural variability theory, is something the sites electricpete quotes will not mention."  You present this as if the fact that it is now cooling is something different than we have already seen in our history (long-term upward trend with shorter term ups and downs) and further as if this would be something new that Hansen and Hadley Center don't know about.  It would be a logical (but incorrect) conclusion if your source of fact was Pielke.  

Quote:

There are lots of models out there.  Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)?

The most detailed models and most respected models tend to support the projections of Hadley and the ipcc.  The illusion of mass dissention comes from numerous scientists that don't even have models but are very vocal in their disagreement of those that do.  It's worthwhile to note that if you have a big respected model, anything you come up with tend to be important news that have the potential to advance the state of the art of our understanding (unless contradictory evidence is found that may indicate a need for revision of the model). In contrast if you are trying to make news and all you have is your opinion, you won't make much of a splash saying you think the respected models are correct, but anyone can get airtime claiming this big models are wrong.

Quote:

Why do the Pielke's have to have models?  There are lots of models out there.  Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)?

I thought it was important to provide the context that the expert you are citing doesn't have any model of his own, he's just throwing rocks at other people's models.  In other words, he can't support any different prediction, he can only cast doubt on the best available predictions that we have.  So there is no scientific basis from any of Pielke's objections to adjust the average prediction to a more optimistic value. The best we can do is pay close attention to the uncertainty. These are the best available models mankind has to project the climate change. The fact that there is uncertainty can make you feel better or worse about the situation, depending on your predisposition.

melone - what is the basis for your comments other than your opinion?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

melone - in other words, what basis do you have for concluding Hadley's models are faulty.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

electricpete

One of the biggest questions we have about warming is the effect of clouds - and it's a big question.  Why, during the Pliocene for example, was the equator roughly the same temperature as now but the north pole much warmer?  Why does there seem to be a max surface temperature over the ocean of less than 100 deg F?

Until these questions, among many others (not the least of which is flora response to increased CO2) are answered, what makes you think *any* model can possibly be correct?  That's the point.  

It's not whose model is the best, it's is *any* model good.

Based on what's been stated here, the models are only valid for "short" periods of time.  Perhaps, I'll spend the time and re-read all of the information, but probably not.  This issue is so politically charged, the likelihood of finding unbiased information is virtually 0.

Therefore, my only option is to make a decision based on what I BELIEVE is right.  I BELIEVE we should reduce our polution.  Those BELIEFS are based on my personal ethics / morals and biases.  My BELIEFS have nothing to due with the "facts" that are provided in this or any other forum.

Have fun arguing the validity of the models!

May be somebody has already mentioned it, anyway..., the Sahara desertification has been attributed to a change of half a degree in the 23.45^o angle of declination of the tropics caused by the gravitational pull of the planets in the solar system over the last 9,000 years. This fact has always been considered a dominant cause for major changes in Earth's climate.

Even the elliptical path of Earth around the Sun changes to totally circular (perihelion=aphelion) every 21,000 years or so.

I feel these "external" factors and others however small, should be brought into consideration when making models of future weather predictions.

25362 – Changes in solar radiance due to 11-year cycles, and other factors are considered in the models.  See page 11 of 71 here http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf     On page 29 you’ll see results of temperature trends using model with natural forcings (doesn’t match historical). On page 29 you’ll see results when man-made forcings are added (matches the historical hockey stick graph).

Melone –
Actually with respect to ocean temperatures, the models do better at predicting the long-term behavior than the short term behavior.  I have pulled out page 32 of 71 of link above into a 1-page pdf document which is easier to read:
http://home.houston.rr.com/electricpete/HadleyPage32_Of_71.pdf

Lcruiser – I have no idea what are the answers to your questions.  One would assume that thousands of the world’s most respected climatologists in the IPCC had a better idea than me, and factored this into their projections and uncertainty statements.  

I went back and looked at the Hadley Center’s publication on uncertainy:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/B2004/global.pdf

It seems like they use a very logical approach to attempt to quantify their uncertainty. They examine how much does changing a certain parameter assumed value affect their results.

But then on page 9 of 16 there is this interesting tid-bit:

Quote:

The uncertainty results presented in this report are a new refinement in the technique of making climate predictions with complex climate models. Work still remains to investigate the uncertainty caused by changing more of the model’s parameters, including those in the ocean and carbon cycle, or by making large changes in the structure of the model. Before the results are robust enough to be used for planning, it will also be necessary to establish if the more extreme simulated changes are associated with model versions that simulate observed climate well or poorly. The predictions can then be weighted accordingly.

One has to admire them for their candidness, but critics can easily interpret their  phrase “before the results are robust enough to be used for planning, it will also be necessary to…” as implying that their results are not yet a suitable basis for planning or taking action.   Hmmm.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Sorry electricpete, you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not (or will not) understand that the Hadley Centre is irrelevent to a factual discussion in this matter by ignoring the fact they have a mission - to increase their funding by promoting alarmism and barking the government line.  You keep quoting them time after time.  The latest link you posted on your site showing how climate should have been cooling over the last 40 years is only the latest, and disagrees with accepted science that we are under a peak now and should begin to cool:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html

Please try to stay relevent.  This is an engineering board.  Relevence is our mainstay.

Thank you.

Hadley was selected by world-leading scientists of the IPCC to provide input to that international team.

They provide the most complete and balanced information I have seen.  Furthermore their general conclusions regarding CO2 are in good qualitative agreement with information that I have shown in links (The Cycle Of Global Warming thread)  from other organizations that have a similar level of prestige: Los Alamos National Lb, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, NASA (Hansen), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Academy of Science, MIT Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, National Academy of Science, International Panel on Climate Change.

That I should disregard their input because some guy on the internet with no credentials says they are political is ridiculous. That the only credible source offered in alternative is Pielke is even more ridiculous.  I think that any level-headed neutral observer can easily look at the quotes I cited from Pielke regarding recent ocean warming news and come to the conclusion that these comments are misleading (in a direction that supports Pielke's conclusions).  Can you possibly disagree that these comments were misleading?  Do I need to explain it again?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Actually, we shouldn't exclude anyone's input.  We should just consider their motivation and their credibility.

I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible.  The only negative I see about Hadley is what appears from posters in this thread.

I have already voiced my objections to Pielke.  (I would still like to know whether you consider those ocean comments miseading).  In spite of my objections, I think his comments certainly can be considered along with the other in the debate.

I think the tendency to throw out opinions that don't match your preconceptions is a dangerous one.  I am guilty of it to a certain extent, and I believe others are as well.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Let me revise for clarity:
"I think the tendency to disregard opinions that don't match..."

("throw out" opinions could be taken two ways)

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Correction:
"I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible.  The only negative I see about Hadley is what appears from posters in this thread."

"I am nowhere close to being convinced that Hadley is not credible.  The only negative I see about Hadley are the opinions from posters in this thread."

This will clarify that there have been no facts, evidence, quotes etc offered to show Hadley is not a credible source, only opinions from eng-tips posters.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"Hadley was selected by world-leading scientists of the IPCC to provide input to that international team."

http://tinyurl.com/nuhcy

'nuff said.

I see a hodge-podge of links with meandering disussions related to global warming (certainly not all credible).
Can you do me the favor of spelling out your point?
Thanks.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

There are hundreds, and yes - they are "not *all* credible."  But some are...

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it would save me some time if you could tell me which information in which links is relevant.  One link (to start) would be much more helpful than 761 links.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

The first link describes a tirade by Congressman Joe Barton.

The second link babbles about blogs and pajamas.

The third link written by "Tom Harris" who describes himself as " mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company"  (I wonder who pays them)

The fourth link talks about Breast Cancer.

The fifth link is the IPCC Special Report on the challenge of carbon dioxide...

The fifth I am happy to discuss but I but I doubt that's the one that interests you.

I don't have time to look at the remaining 756 links.  Hence my request for you to tell me more specifically what you are trying to say and what links might back it up.
Respectfully
electricpete

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

LCruiser - Is it possible you qualify your credible sources based on their inclusion in the google search engine?  That would explain a lot

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.  Just a joke though.
My apologies.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Is it true that, of late, scientists started to lean more on methane emissions from ocean floors as a probable cause of global warming rather than by human-originated CO2 ?

Not exactly.  The fear, though, is that methane clathrates:
http://www.answers.com/topic/methane-clathrate
will become unstable as the Earth warms, becoming a positive feedback as the methane is released to the atmosphere.

Methane itself has not been increasing in the last few years though:
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html#atmospheric
so the alarmists' claims to the contrary have proven unfounded.

My company (an oil company) believes it is the CO2.  There is a potential for large methane releases from the oceans that would cause problems.

I just found this thread.  It is surprising how strong some feel (because I don't see the science, just hope) that CO2 is not significantly contributing to the trend in increased temperatures.

My company and several OEM's for machinery think there will be profit in this by storing the carbon somewhere besides the atmosphere.

Regards,

Bill

Well it seems the stodgey old "ECONOMIST" periodical,
usually a cheerleader of big business has decided
it is time to take a stand on the issue.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7852924

When you get a pub like this acknowledging the issue
it must have some truth to it.

Ther is no doubt there is "some" truth to it.  In the middle of the page is the statement:
"Unfortunately, the argument is also fuelled by ignorance, because nobody knows for sure what is happening to the climate"

Just how much is caused by CO2, how much by land use changes decreasing transpiration which decreases albedo, how much by black carbon, how much by solar particle variations?  Nobody knows, and CO2 also is the base of the food chain.  So it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial.

Yet another argument based on a clearly-biased source.  Seems irrelevant to me.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

LCruiser - is there any basis for your continued denial of conclusions widely accepted by the world's most respected scientific organizations other than Pielke (discussed at length above... no response) and the Economist?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

What conclusions are you talking about?  I think you are confused about my position.  Be more clear please.

Quote (LCruiser):

So it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Step #1:  We don't know how much of "global warming" is natural, how much is black carbon on e.g. snow, how much is due to change in clouds from changes in land use decreasing transpiration.  Do you think that statement is incorrect?

Step #2:  We know that CO2 is the base of the food chain.  Do you think that statement is incorrect?

We need to establish which one of those two statements you disagree with.

Otherwise, IF the effects listed in step #1 are large enough, the benefits of CO2 emissions are a net positive.

You will maybe now notice (since your emotionalism has apparently not allowed you to see it before) that I said IF.  The fact you deny the possibility based on some irrational comfort level with model outputs (remember GIGO?) would mean you think it's irrelevant.  Oh, you *do* think it's irrelevant.  

I, however, am not prepared to accept dogma based on ineffectual models when so many lives are at stake.  

A little analogy, if I may, that involves the difference between geotechnical engineers and geologists (told from a humorous point of view).

Geotechnical engineers can do 10 borings on a 1 acre site and concede that there are still many unknowns about how the soils will respond to new building loads.  In contrast, a geologist can do 10 borings across northern Michigan and tell you everything you'd want to know about how the land was formed!  BTW, I need to be a little bit of both in my practice...

But, it seems that there are those that want to be "geologists" only when discussing global warming.  They take extremely limited bits of information and extrapolate it to the point where they're blaming mankind for the change in the climate.

To me, this is irrational when you use common sense.  The earth has been polluting itself, and has been attacked by the rest of the universe, for billions of years.

There have been innumerable volcanoes.  Entire continents have drifted thousands of miles apart.  The magnetic poles have reversed back and forth probably hundreds of times.  Giant meteors have struck the earth causing blackouts of the sun for extended periods.  There have been solar variations in the sun that caused who-knows-what to happen (the sun is a dynamic place too).  The equator has been cold and Michigan has actually been warm at points in the distant past.  There have been hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, mudslides, avalanches, wildfires, and every other type of natural disaster, all of which would dwarf anything that's happened in the last couple thousand of years.

All of this before man ever set foot on earth.

We've been hit by catastrophic meteors etc before, so anything mankind can do which is not as bad as a meteor is not worth worrying about?  I don't quite see that logic.

LCruiser: I specifically identified your statement  "it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial"  I  identified that this conflicts with widely accepted scientific findings and asks for a source.  Your response dwells on the semantics of "may" without providing any referebce.  I guess I could say that superintelligent 3-eyed monkeys from the Congo MAY rise up and take over the world and put mankind in slavery within the next 20 years.  Apparently you would think such a claim is relevant because it MAY happen.  I happen to think it requires some explanation as to the source.  Otherwise, it's just a lot of hot air.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Since you won't identify what you think is wrong, do you not agree with either statement?  The situation is not that I have to prove some qualitative statements wrong.  I wholeheartedly agree, as I've said before, that increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.  What I don't agree with is how much it affects it, or if it's even a first order forcing.  Just because A causes B doesn't mean the effect is measurable.  There is consensus that CO2 effects a greenhouse effect.  There is not consensus that it is the sole cause.

Here's a reference for you:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/

Where does it suggest that the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

Correction:
Where does it suggest that the overall effect of CO2 may be beneficial?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

It doesn't.  That's beyond the scope of the study.

For that, here is this which I gave you before:

http://www.co2science.org/

But if you're not able to use a little more logic I'm afraid we won't be continuing this discussion.

Studies using special field experiments show the actual benefit from rising CO2 to world staples, such as corn, rice, sorghum, soybeans and wheat, they say.
By the other side because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature

The first paragpraph on the linked site:

Quote:

Temperature Record of the Week
This issue's Temperature Record of the Week is from Bunkie, LA. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward, Bunkie's mean annual temperature has cooled by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!

Is there any followup statement saying that the temperature record at a single location during this time period is statistically meaningless for the global climate?  Nope. Do these guys have an agenda? What do you think?

Is there some reason that I am missing that we should place any faith in the information from this site?   I don't see any organizational affiliation that I recognize.  I suspect this is a paid political action group but I am willing to be proven wrong.  Once again, being listed within google does not meet my standard for a credible source for a subject usch as this where there is so much disinformation published.  If you can't come up with any credible souces or any reason to trust the sources you have identified I don't see any point in continuing the discussion either.

respectfully,
electripete

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

"I suspect this is a paid political action group "

Of course. Their benefactors include ExxonMobil, Western Fuels Associations, and so on.

But first, how much (especially the "and so on" group...) have they donated to them?  I think you will find it to be an insultingly low amount over the years.  What does it work out to per day for how many people?  Hardly on the scale of what the Oil for Food guys "donate" to climate alarmists supporting *their* position.  Many of them get their entire paycheck that way.

Do you seriously not believe that co2science exists to promote the interests of coal and oil companies?

How do you explain the Western Fuel Alliance videos they promote on their front page?

What, specifically, do you find false about them?

It's "situational science", dudes!  Don't you get it?!

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060305

Journalists are taught that there are always two sides to every story.  And they deserve an airing- even if one side isn't supported by the facts, observations and consensus of the scientific community, and is discredited by the funding they receive from vested interests!  For every hundred million or so people who understand that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, there's at least one person who is dead sure the Earth is as flat as Christopher Columbus's head in that Bugs Bunny cartoon!  Surely these folks deserve equal time!

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

(Ironic isn't it- these people, who believe that every scientist since Ptolemy has been a liar, are using the www to promote their bizarre ideology!)

Whether global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions or not is basically irrelevant.  There are enough other proven harmful effects, both environmental and political/social/economic, to warrant significant action and expenditure on the part of everyone in the developed world toward weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction.  The mere suggestion that human greenhouse gas emissions have a finite probability of causing irreversible and potentially catastrophic consequences to the Earth's climate that we all depend on- that too should be sufficient reason.

We in the developed nations have a responsibility to do what we can.  But nothing short of a miracle will stop India, China and the rest of the developing world from developing along the cheapest, most fossil-fuel addicted lines, using the cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuel available- coal.  They'll do it the same way that we in the West "developed".  Don't worry- they won't bother with gasification, CO2 sequestration or co-generation unless somebody puts some money in it for them.  This will happen, pretty much regardless what the rest of us do!  And it's doubtful that you could provide every family in China and India with the car and a refrigerator that most North Americans take for granted without humanity drowning in the resulting filth.  Global warming will be the least of our worries at that point!

"What, specifically, do you find false about them?"

They deny that mean global surface temperature has risen over the past century.

I doubt that - where do they say it?  They say there is no evidence all the heating of the last century is caused by CO2, but that's different.

<quote>I doubt that - where do they say it? </quote>

On their website.

They sure don't say it here:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/temperatures/temps.jsp

I quote from their editorial:

Quote:

we thus conclude that there truly has been no warming due to any cause over this period of time over the entire planet

They also explain why the historical data shows otherwise:

Quote:

the only reason the surface record for the globe shows warming is that outside of the United States and a few other places of high-quality temperature measurement, the surface record is just plain wrong

Boy, this is more fun than TV (but what isn't?).

Quote:

Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones; but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.  ~Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905

( http://www.quotegarden.com/science.html where there are a couple like this on the same idea).
They say life imitates art and here we are with engineers imitating life. Since we are none of us climatologists (and none of us have the credentilas of some of the protagonists out there in the world of "Global Warming") all we can really do is take up our positions and throw web links at each other.
Then we question the ethics/morality/honmesty of the various organisations which propose the views we least like.

This thread isn't really going to go anywhere because we will none of us make that telling argument nor provide that final proof. All we can hope is that we can trust the experts in this field to recognise it for us when it happens.

At the moment we have the opposing sides building up heaps of stones and we need a climatologist (with his credability still intact) to tell us when one of them starts to look like a house.... and still there will be disenters, there still those who think the earth is flat.

The very dissent between experts and think tanks, Universities and government advisory bodies tells us that there is no concensus and that we are a long way from it.

I think we can all agree that the contributors to this thread are as divided as the "experts" and probably it would be as well to leave it at that before virtual blood gets spilt.

On the other hand, the most encouraging thing is that there are interested minds on both sides prepared to do there own thinking and not have it done for them by the media. Sadly, the majority of the population haven't done there own thinking since the printing press was invented....

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

I think if you stick to credible sources (large recognized scientific/technical organizations), there is not nearly as much disagreement as if you read every link that comes up on google.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

image http://www.rense.com/general69/060116.GW.toon-AU.jpg

jmw:  the "situational science" reference details the deliberate, successful strategy of those whose ideology isn't supported by observations and our current understanding of how the universe works.  The strategy is to turn the natural to-ing and fro-ing of scientific debate and discussion, plus the ravings of the lunatic fringe, into an argument which attempts to discredit the scientific consensus.  That this political/ideological strategy works with technologically educated folks like those participating in this forum is extremely disheartening to me, and leaves me wondering if humankind is smart enough to survive long-term.

For some, the standards of "proof" required for action, especially action requiring alteration of our lifestyle and our economy, are too high to ever be met on this issue.  For something as speculative and frankly impossible to accurately model as the earth's climate, "proof" of the etched-in-stone variety is quite frankly impossible.

But to conclude that the "do nothing" option is the best one, based on this uncertainty, is utterly moronic!

These folks don't understand how we engineers manage uncertainty.  If we used a "do nothing until the harm is proven" approach to everything we did, the dead from engineering mistakes and misjudgments would be piling high on a daily basis.  But we DON'T use this approach with virtually anything we do.  We manage risk on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities- we do not require certainty to take protective action!

Why on earth would we behave differently with respect to the climate- something we all depend on and are utterly powerless to repair once it goes wrong?

I suppose co2 levels are based on models predictions difficult to be accurate and based on lobbies’ conveniences. In one side we have the ambient fundamentalists, on the other side we have the industrials dependent on fuel fossils, maybe the truth of CO2 global warming (inconvenient or not) is in the middle of this two opposed ideas.

My take on  this debate is:

a) the debate can be better analyzed by social psychologists than by engineers

b) regardless of whether CO2 is causing the climate changes, the climate is changing slighlty. Regardless of efforts made to stop it, the most likely long term repsonse by humanity is to adapt to it by moving to cooler areas. The changes are occurring slowly enough that the collective memory loss that occurs as each generation  departs will solve the political issues- we will forget what is like to have a diverse ecosystem, etc.

What is not directly solved by a do-nothing attitude is that there is also occurring at the same time a rundown in fossil fuel resources. For example, the often touted estmate that the US has 200 yrs worth of coal deposits is based on the stipulatin that it is at the 1990 rate of coal  consumption- if you correct the estimate for cosnumption increases due to expected use of gasification and CTL plants, the US DOE now estmates only 70 yrs of coal deposits.

 So, it is interesting that the same political and technical measures that would address "global warming "  would also tend to reduce the shock that would occur as the "peak " in fossil resources is reached. Withouts such measures, the shock to the current power structure could be politically  catastrophic.

davefitz:  that analysis is very interesting and thought provoking.  Thanks for contributing it!

I'm not worried about our ability to find new ways to exploit existing, marginal fossil fuel reserves.  If merely "running out" is the concern, we'll have a very long time based on using coal, coal bed methane, methane hydrates, tarsands, oil shale etc., despite how inefficiently we use these.  The planet will choke long before we reach these limits, and we along with it, unless we do something to wean ourselves from our addiction.

Gasahol perhaps? Is that carbon neutral? Shame about the methane.
Er, I believe the Max Plank institute and their latest  "clarification" (or an attempt to exit the climate change argument into which they strayed) which suggests we should not be alarmed by methane production by reforestation, but it shows that until they did the study, no-one had accounted for this unkown.

Incidentally, I like their comment:

"Even if land use practices have altered plant methane emissions, which we did not demonstrate, this would also count as an anthropogenic source, and the plants themselves cannot be deemed responsible."

So what is it man has been doing for the last several millenia? Is it OK for animals to affect the vegetation? what is "anthropogenic" and what is not?

Perhaps the only real way to cut consumption and maintain lifestyle is to develop a more responsible attitude toward sustainable population levels.

Of course, this will cause far more friction than the "what to do about CO2" debate.

Incidentally, has anyone agreed what environment we wish to protect?

Nature abhors a vacuum.... it also abhors the status quo.

So let's be honest, our real concern for the environment is how it affects us personally and to hell with everything else.

And that is why the angst; what is ideal for one is not for another.

So now some propose to change it in favour of one particular scenario "Stop the clock!" everyone yells, this is as good as it gets, or, actually, we need to back up a bit to an earlier idyllic time and it doesn't matter that we can't pove it yet, it is enough to suppose it might be true.

Take a look back into pre-history and what you find is that climate change that has taken us from one extreme to another and as the environment changes so too does the plant life and the animal life.
Even without ELEs (extinction level events) we see evolutionary changes where some species become dominant and others go extinct. That is a fundamental of nature.

So how can we justify stopping climate change? Will we stop at stopping just the bit we think we are responsbile for or will we find a compulsion to go further. How long ebfore we are designing the environment "we" want?

Earth life is adaptable.
Life has yet to become extinct in all its forms even in the most extreme of conditions. If we take away change, and where do we stop, what does that do for future generations?  Is our responsibility just to people or to all life? To all future life?
Do we trap the bnext generation into accepting a rigidly enforced ecoregime in which it always rains on Teusdays but only at night? Sure as eggs is eggs, it won't stop wat just greenhosue gases. People aren't like that and governments less so.

So yes, what we are really concerned about is us.
But who is "us"? is it westerm consumerism we wish to protect? eskimos? do we want to preserve Faroe Islanders rights to hunt whales? or do we sacrifice that for something else altogether? Who's version of an ideal world are we seeking to protect, to enshrine for ever?

Of course we all have opinions about what is and what isn;t acceptable. The problem is that we none of us can agree.

If we mess it up, so what? Touh on people but cnature could care less. There will just be no more people around, or at least, not in SUVs, but perhaps in the stomachs of the latest species winner in the survival stakes.
Nature could care less about people, it isn't The Environment that is at risk, just our environment... In natures environment climate changes and species die out to be replaced by others.

So here we are, trying to preserve our (this century's, this  specific mindset's) version of the environment, yet within this "our" we have competing viewpoints as to what we should and should not preserve.

Or am I wrong, is someone suggesting we want to revert to last years environment, last century's? who is the arbiter of what we want and don't want in our environment?
Which is the Shangrila we want?

OK, elephants are in, mosquitos out, European brown rat out, Pandas are in (because they are cuddly, is that a survival trait?)tetse fly out. SUVs are out, unless we can all have one, Air conditioning is in(?)Australian rabbits are out. Shell and BP are out (no matter what they say on their webistes) the yellow meadow ant is in (it is vegetarian). Oh, and opponents of the global warming theory (and "don't knows" and "wait for the evidencers") are also out. And I'm out. Actually, I'm not sure I want to be in even if i had a choice, if in means more nanny state and government by "Frankenstein's" complex.

So changing sea levels affect some people adversley and others beneficially. Warmer climate means population moves toward the poles, this is, after all what people and animals have doen forever, south in ice ages and north when the climate warms. Of course, if you have a condo in LA, migration is out, if you live in an RV perhaps you too can migrate with the seasons.

So who are the beneficiaries of stopping/reversing climate change? All of us? I doubt it very much, especially if it means changes to the environment (not just climate but socio/economic and technological) to meet this requirement.

For all those of you who favour the global oil company conspiracy theories behind everything, what makes the climate lobby any different?

Doing nothing isn't an option?
How about doing, as the history of attempts at environment control show all too well, more harm than good because we don't understand the problem sufficiently well and maybe we never will, at least, not enough to meddle.

Wasn't it government scientists who introduced kudzu into the US?

And no, I'm not advocating we do nothing (the stock response to nay sayers is to accuse them of being poluters); I thoroughly agree with meaningful regulation of our wastes and am active in trying to support reasonable initiatives but if the option is we quit life-as-we-know-it altogether or go for something really way-out and with doubtful benefits, count me out. I wouldn't survive in a forest anyway.

Does anyone find it ironic that governments who advocate climate change policy still put up street lights in rural areas that stay on all night whether anyone needs them or not, that take away school buses so that the schools are surrounded by 4x4s delivering children one at a time?
Yes, there are a lot of options to control how we impact our environment and many of them that are far more palatable and probably more imediately effective but ignored.

Of course, if climate change is happening and can be proved and there is a causal link between us and it, not just coincidence, and if we can and should do something, come back and talk some more.
Should means that we can justify what we do for the benefit of all and that it won't, long term, be harmful to the planet (which is quite capabale of managing itself, it just didn't expect to be hijacked by people thinking they know what's best for the planet as well as themselves) and can guarantee the results will actually be beneficial and not just another mess of unexpected consequences.

Last point: is a government agency to be trusted?
Is it impartial and acting in everyones best interests?
That would be a first!

But maybe we should re-evaluate the German Eugenics programs of the Hitler era anyway?
Tony Blair's government?
Tony thinks smoking is harmful.
If smoking is harmful, ban it entirely, but no, health alarms justify huge tax hikes (with no proven impact on smoking; in the UK all it does is increase smuggling) and hey, Bernie Ecclestone needs tobacco sponsership for a bit longer so, after a donation to the party, he gets and excemption for Formula 1 racing to continue to advertise smoking....

Climate change? what a great excuse for a carbon tax as if that is going to have any more impact than tobaco tax... you just pay more for the same polution and it justifies wind farms all over the place even if of doubtful benefit.

So if Tony Blair's government agencies are behind climate change, I want to know what the catch is. I'd sooner believe a 419 email from Nigeria telling me that millions could be mine than that government agencies are genuine, impartial, staffed by saints and have all the answers denied to everyone else.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

It's definitely true that this is a polarized discussion, and the consensus is that Earth is warming.  What is not in consensus is what is the cause - especially since the oceans, the largest heat storage mass by far, are not heating - in fact have been cooling lately.  Arable land destruction (and development generally) will warm the land too.  Methane has not increased in years.

The other side of the equation is the question is warming bad.  It has not been in Homo sapiens history - in fact it gives us an advantage.  Cooling has always been the problem, despite what the climate luddites proclaim.

And, in spite of the shortsighted view, the carbon tax wannabes have their own agenda - especially Gore et al.

Imagination is more important than knowledge - who said that?  Imagine wheat growing all the way to the Arctic Ocean, and ice free shipping from there globally.  Would that be so bad?  I'm not sure that it would.  We should find out though - so we should put money into research instead of hobbling civilization.

This is really a conundrum discussion the hearth is absorbing more heat from the sun than the heat she radiates so the hearth is becoming warm and warm. Volcanoes, solar flares, nuclear explosions industry emissions, airplanes and urban traffic, fossil fuels, forest fires, population increasing, all seem to be contributors for this so called “global warming”. Who has the “magic stick” to inverse the situation? Our behaviour? Governments? Industry? Research? New Energies? World solidarity?
We have to interiorise seriously this problem for the benefit of future generations and before we “all gone”.

Fossil fuels have sulphur.
A large power station would produce sufficient sulphur oxides which contribute to global cooling to balance the CO2 contributing to global warming i.e. global warming neutral on average.

SOX causes health hazards and "acid rain".
At one point fossil fuels contributed 33% of the SOX in the air, 30% being from land based fossil fuel consumption.
Ultralow sulphur fuels have been successful in reducing the SOX contribution from land based burning alomst entirely. What's left is that in marine fuels and we are starting on that now.

The CO2 continues to be produced.

Anyone got any data on "global warming" related to when we cut the sulphur from fuels?
Do the models include for this data?

Isn't this single issue thinking just what we need to avoid? I can imagine the same arguments applied to sulphur as to global warming, "We don't know everything but we can't afford to do nothing. It makes sense to take the sulphur out now." This is treating symptoms (SOX)not the cause: fossil fuel burning.

Until the models account for everything, until we can anticipate consequences, don't get stampeded ar do the stampeding.

JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com

Moltenmetal,

"But to conclude that the "do nothing" option is the best one, based on this uncertainty, is utterly moronic!"

It is a certainty that Earth will one day be hit by a massive meteor, if not asteroid, which will result in the deaths of millions.

Is it likewise "utterly moronic" to do nothing about this threat, which is arguably more certain to occur than catastrophic global warming?

Resorting to such ad hominem attacks against men of science, such as ourselves,  who hold a different opinion on the matter does not enhance one's credibility....no matter how loud one shouts.