Global Warming, A Good Thing?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Well you can get a very good picture of temperatures in the past from sediment examinations, ice cores taken for this prposes, distribution of plants and their rests found...

But do those methods have sufficient resolution to determine temps over periods of a few thousand years? I accept that they are probably reasonably accurate, but accuracy doesn't equal precision. I expect they can get pretty close to the true average temp for, say, 500 years, but can they see down to the decade level? The changes in temp they are looking for are pretty small compared to the amount of other variance, both non-random (seasonal) and random changes.

[gunnut]

Well you can get a very good picture of temperatures in the past from sediment examinations, ice cores taken for this prposes, distribution of plants and their rests found...

Also the ice core samples are taken from specific locations on this earth, usually places with ice. How do we know the temperature fluctuations of say...the Amazon forest or Gobi Desert, or even the middle of the Pacific ocean?

[dalem]

But do those methods have sufficient resolution to determine temps over periods of a few thousand years? I accept that they are probably reasonably accurate, but accuracy doesn't equal precision. I expect they can get pretty close to the true average temp for, say, 500 years, but can they see down to the decade level? The changes in temp they are looking for are pretty small compared to the amount of other variance, both non-random (seasonal) and random changes.

Paleo temperature older than a million years or so doesn't really resolve below the 10,000 year mark. I mean, you can point to a spot in a roadcut or a sediment core and say "there was a storm there, right there", but when it was is iffy. And temps are inferred from O2 isotope levels - you can get those from ice cores but also calcium carbonate deposits - i.e. shelly remains, and the fossil record has lots of shelly facies.

Bottom line is that the planet is usually much hotter/milder than it has been for the last million or so years, and no one knows what the "true" background rates "should be'.

So as always in these threads I devolve into the simple challenge of "show me a tested mechanism connecting industrial output to increased global temperature." Until someone does that it's all doomsturbation.

-dale

[sirpuddingfoot]

So as always in these threads I devolve into the simple challenge of "show me a tested mechanism connecting industrial output to increased global temperature." Until someone does that it's all doomsturbation.

-dale

The problem with relegating it to "doomsturbation" (great word by the way), is that many people assume that means that we have no obligation to commit to sustainable development. But the problem with the people who most avidly advocate sustainable development is that they make their case by pointing at the "scary signs" that a graph of temperatures over the past 150 years makes as "proof" of why we should take up their plea.
"Doomsturbation"? Sure.
A reason to continue polluting and strip mining? No.

[gunnut]

Strip mining prevents forest fires.

[dalem]

The problem with relegating it to "doomsturbation" (great word by the way),

Thanks! I'm rather proud of that one myself.

is that many people assume that means that we have no obligation to commit to sustainable development. But the problem with the people who most avidly advocate sustainable development is that they make their case by pointing at the "scary signs" that a graph of temperatures over the past 150 years makes as "proof" of why we should take up their plea.
"Doomsturbation"? Sure.
A reason to continue polluting and strip mining? No.

I agree that the two concepts are disconnected. Sensible stewardship of the land and resources is a no-brainer, even for an all-consuming "pave it all" whore like me. Heck, clean air and clean water are just good ideas. But don't try and scare me, cuz it doesn't work.

-dale

[T_igger_cs_30]

Ok have I got this right?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Warming 'very likely' human-made

The above on BBC news this am.

About IPCC

Yet the people(above link) who released the above report,the"Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC)....do not actually do any research into it, just accept all the other "subscribers" research and come up with the best answer? ....

[Sombra]

PARIS - Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

ADVERTISEMENT

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

Environmental campaigners urged the United States and other industrial nations to significantly cut their emissions of greenhouse gases in response to the long-awaited report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"It is critical that we look at this report ... as a moment where the focus of attention will shift from whether climate change is linked to human activity, whether the science is sufficient, to what on earth are we going to do about it," said Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program.

"The public should not sit back and say 'There's nothing we can do'," Steiner said. "Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible."

The 21-page report represents the most authoritative science on global warming as the panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives. It only addresses how and why the planet is warming, not what to do about it. Another report by the panel later this year will address the most effective measures for slowing global warming.

One of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, said scientists are worried that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands. Instead, world leaders should to reduce emissions and adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather, he said.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," said Trenberth, the director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

It also said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the scientists said.

The report blamed man-made emissions of greenhouse gases for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.

Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.

"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.

Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years — although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases — this is the first of four this year.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," said another author, Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

As the report was being released, environmental activists repelled off a Paris bridge and draped a banner over a statue used often as a popular gauge of whether the Seine River is running high.

"Alarm bells are ringing. The world must wake up to the threat posed by climate change," said Catherine Pearce of Friends of the Earth.

Stephanie Tunmore of Greenpeace said "if the last IPCC report was a wake up call, this one is a screaming siren."

"The good news is our understanding of the climate system and our impact on it has improved immensely. The bad news is that the more we know, the more precarious the future looks," Tunmore said in a statement. "There's a clear message to governments here, and the window for action is narrowing fast."

if you dont want to believe it dont believe

[mostlymad]

Yet the people(above link) who released the above report,the"Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (IPCC)....do not actually do any research into it, just accept all the other "subscribers" research and come up with the best answer? ....

If you check group links on the IPCC site, it gives a breakdown of who worked on what, and there were many climatologists and other scientific researchers who actually made up part of the panel.

Also, when you are dealing with that much research, there is no way you can have that many people on a panel and expect to finalize a report. You need a balanced, co-ordinated group to compile the research into a report. All of the results and conclusions have to be well documented as to the source of information, the methodology, ect.

This link on their site covers some of the methodology: Publications

There's nothing wrong with a panel coming up with a report based on other people's research, in any event, as long as the research they are using is valid, referenced, follows sound methodology, and is done by credible people with proper credentials.

"Friends of Science" quote other sources, other research, and I have seen people try to give them as a valid, scientific source.

[dalem]

if you dont want to believe it dont believe

Perfect assessment - anthro-drive global warming is a belief - it is not science. As I have said before it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the Lefties choose to embrace gleefully.

In short, it is a religion.

-dale

[Bluesman]

Perfect assessment - anthro-drive global warming is a belief - it is not science. As I have said before it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the Lefties choose to embrace gleefully.

In short, it is a religion.

-dale

Do you see WHY Sombra is on my 'Ignore' list?

[MarquezRazor]

Is global warming related to global mean surface temparatures?

[mostlymad]

In short, it is a religion.-dale

well, looks like more than a few right wings joined this religion:

Hansard notes
Question Period

January 31, 2007
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this government has run on, and has introduced, the clean air act because we believe we have to take action on the science of climate change. The only person who denies the science here today is the Leader of the Opposition, who, when asked about emissions, said this month on CTV Newsnet, “But about clean air, it's certainly not true that we have one of the worst records. It's one of the cleanest air you may find in the developed world.” Our emissions are near the bottom of the developed world, not just on carbon dioxide, but on nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide. The leader of the Liberal Party should stop denying the science.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Again, Mr. Speaker, this government has made it clear in the election campaign and since that we accept the science, and that is why we are acting.



February 1, 2007

Hon. John Baird (CPC): Let me begin my remarks today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat we are facing...While we share the disappointment of many Canadians and people from around the world that the former government did not meet its obligations or accept its responsibilities, let me indicate that Canada's new government will take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as we make our air more breathable.

Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Canada's new government has said before that it accepts the science of climate change. We understand that it is real and we know that it is here. That is why we are taking real action to preserve our environment and to protect the health of every Canadian...Soon we will announce aggressive short term targets for industrial greenhouse gas emissions with sector by sector regulations, all coming into effect between 2010 and 2015.

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's intentions with respect to solving the problem of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted by certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially industry...The notice of intent highlighted the importance of regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution given that industry produces about half of all emissions in Canada, both greenhouse gases and air pollution...We also strongly believe that it is important to support the development of transformation technologies to reduce greenhouse gases—technologies we need to achieve the necessary reductions so we can prevent irreversible climate change.

Hon. Christian Paradis (Secretary of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by my hon. friend's remarks, given that, just yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said:

“At the outset of my remarks let me start of today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat that we are facing. Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most importantly, for us right here in Canada”.

By saying action is needed to reduce greenhouse gases, and stating they plan on reducing emissions from industry to curb these gases, that is definitely an acknowledgement that they believe this is man-made. Or they're lying.;)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just find it pretty funny to see the about face from some CPC members.

[Bluesman]

Politicians willing to strike a pose, while using other people's money? Unheard-of!

[highsea]

Politicians willing to strike a pose, while using other people's money? Unheard-of!

Same can be said for the research groups and scientists. They live and die on grants to study this or that. Global Warming is the "hot" topic, so that's where they focus. Universities crank out so called Climatologists and Environmental Studies grads by the truckload, and they have to earn a living somehow.

You can design an experiment to prove anything. Without alarming and dire predictions, there would be no grant money and these people would have to go do something productive.

It's institutionalized chicken-littleism.