Bush Says Yes To Global Warming

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
She was just a lousy German anyway. What did she know?

Austrian.

Just one of those days, eh ?

[KrazyHorse]

Austrian, German. All the same.

[DanS]

"But to just say 'no' to the combined scientific consensus is not being sceptic, just ignorant..."

Who's saying no? Rather, a cautious approach in my view is warranted.

[CyberGnu]

Yes, and the cautious approach says that there is 95% chance that humans have caused an unprecedented global rise in temperatures during the last century.

The cautious approach would also force us to do something about it, rather than just sit back and think happy thoughts.

[Richelieu]

I remember spending entire days outside in my youth, without sunscreen, and only getting mild sunburns, and only in the first days of summer. After that you had a tan and you didn't care.

I come from the northern part of Quebec and seeing the smog above Ottawa, Montreal etc... is something that repulses me.

I don't really care about the scientific consensus. I see the pollution. I see children who can't go out without their hats and sunscreen lotions. We're throwing this planet away. Consuming it.

[Ned]

There is a report on CNN today on how the Japanese are struggling to implement their obligations under Kyoto. They are relying primarily on new, but expensive, technologies - at a time when they are struggling economically.

How are the Europeans doing in meeting the Kyoto protocols?

[Wraith]

--"No Wraith, in your world the data that shows the global temperature rising 0.6"

No, in my world such a trend hasn't really been shown with any certainty. There's that whole selective endpoints problem. There's also the minor issue that the earth has been both drastically warmer and drastically cooler than it is now long before humans were ever about, much less industrialized.
I also haven't yet forgotten the fairly recent cries of "the world is freezing". It's pretty obvious to me that blaming any change in a dynamic (more, chaotic) system on human action is a bit presumptious barring much greater amounts of evidence.

--"Tha the future computer projections are uncertain is quite natural."

Exactly. The problem is that about the only even half-way serious arguments for global warming are based on those highly flawed computer models. They're simply missing too many factors to be even within an order-of-magnitude of observed changes. Note, I'm not talking about modelling past behaviour, but the predictions made by those same models being used as a basis for global warming, and how far off they already are.

--"the scientific consensus is that the global impact will range from bad to catastropic."

This again is bullshit. Not even the supposed effects of global warming are known with any certainty. There are a large numbers of areas that could easily benefit from global warming, especially since most of the claimed warming has shown itself as milder winters rather than hotter summers.

--"If you think that it is insulting to be called on the fact that your'd rather trust O'Reilly"

I'm perfectly willing to keep the debate about the science, not make ad homeniem attacks. I also have no idea why you hate O'Reilly, but it's all rather irrelevant since I've never actually watched his show.

--"I guess you call the multitude of data presented in peer reviwed journals personal insults...."

You didn't read my link, did you? Oh well. Sorry, but as in a lot of highly politicized areas, it's amazing how many of those supposedly peer-review studies cite other studies that have either been withdrawn or have been acknowledged as fabrications by their own authors.

--"I don't know what you refer to when you talk about the 'unprofessional treatment of Bjorn Lomburg'."

Well, I was mostly referring to Scientific American, but I was sure I'd seen some stuff about Nature and/or Science as well.

An honest review isn't a problem, but in Scientific American's case it was four personal attacks against the author, which is an altogether different matter.

--"both well known right-wing sponsors)..."

You do realize this works both ways? And also that Enron was one of the biggest US supporters of Kyoto?

--"I see the pollution."

As I've mentioned already, carbon dioxide is not pollution. If you want to rail about carbon monoxide or mercury fumes or something, that's something else, but I was under the impression that this thread was mostly about Kyoto.

Wraith
"The trouble with Jim was he looked at the world and could not look away. And when you never look away all your life, by the time you are thirteen you have done twenty years taking in the laundry of the world."
-- ("Something Wicked this Way Comes")

[CyberGnu]

No, in my world such a trend hasn't really been shown with any certainty. There's that whole selective endpoints problem. There's also the minor issue that the earth has been both drastically warmer and drastically cooler than it is now long before humans were ever about, much less industrialized.

Again, we're back to your world vs. reality. Just show me where scientists disagree with global warming. So far you have shown political/media figures disagreeing with ONE report, apart from Bjorn Lomborg who didn't actually publish science, just his [flawed]interpretation of it...

BTW, scientific american, isn't that a popular science magazine? Are you confusing that with a peer-reviewed journal?

Exactly. The problem is that about the only even half-way serious arguments for global warming are based on those highly flawed computer models. They're simply missing too many factors to be even within an order-of-magnitude of observed changes. Note, I'm not talking about modelling past behaviour, but the predictions made by those same models being used as a basis for global warming, and how far off they already are.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

AFAIK, the conclusion that global warming is real and has increased the temperature by 0.6 degrees is NOT based on any modelling, only observations.

furthermore, IIUIC, one of the most important factors seems to be that while the wolrd has undergone warm and cold periods, it has never seen such a rapid change as we are seeing right now.

[CyberGnu]

Could you find even ONE article that suggest that global warming is beneficial?

AFAIK, the predictions range from bad (increased frequencies of tornadoes, El Nino's, climatic changes due to swithcing stream patterns, melting ice causing rising sea levels) to catastropic (synergetic effects causing up to 3m higher water levels, intense drought in areas currently fertile, rainfall in current arid areas, causing widespread erosion and starvation, algae blooming followed by poisoned oceans).

[CyberGnu]

Any sources for fabrication of articles, and where they are cited?

Furthermore, just because a peer-reviwed articles sites an article that turns out to be wrong doesn't mean the subsequent article is wrong... Observations are observations, regardless.

[DaShi]

C Beast!

[Duddha]

blah

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Could you find even ONE article that suggest that global warming is beneficial?

AFAIK, the predictions range from bad (increased frequencies of tornadoes, El Nino's, climatic changes due to swithcing stream patterns, melting ice causing rising sea levels) to catastropic (synergetic effects causing up to 3m higher water levels, intense drought in areas currently fertile, rainfall in current arid areas, causing widespread erosion and starvation, algae blooming followed by poisoned oceans).

CyberGnu, The official US Govt. report I read at the end of the Clinton admin. stated that many Northern countries would benefit. The US in particular would see a 100% increase in agriculture and a 1 percent increase in GNP. Similar benefits were seen everywhere across the world's North.

When the report came out, Gore focused his public remarks on the several paragraphs of the very large report that discussed negative impacts.

What this indicates to me is that at least Gore was and "advocate," by being very selective about what to discuss from official reports.

Regarding your earlier post, thanks for pointing out that the authors of the report I cited had a bias.

Note, that I am not here dismissing Global Warming. I am simply stating that the US Govt. report suggests a lot of positives if Global Warming is real.

[Tolls]

DanS:
"It was a one byte problem, costing us $200 billion, for God's sake! "

Sorry to labour the point, but considering a financial typo can wipe over a billion of the markets, imagine every financial institute suffering typos at the same time...$100 billion+ was not all that far fetched.

Ned:
"Similar benefits were seen everywhere across the world's North"

Did this cover the effect of a shift in the Gulf Stream which would dramatcially alter the climate of Western Europe? That, by the way, would be far from a benefit.

[Wraith]

--"apart from Bjorn Lomborg who didn't actually publish science, just his [flawed]interpretation of it..."

Well, it was flawed. He accepted the IPCC numbers at face value. Other than that, his statistics are less flawed than any other I've seen on the subject.

As far dissenting scientists go, just do an online search. It's amazing how many references you can find. Heck, even the BBC acknowledges their existence.

Oh, and one of the people who signed that anti-Kyoto petition was Frederick Seitz, first President of the National Academy of Sciences and a winner of the National Science Medal. Now, he's a physicist rather than a climatologist, but he should have some idea of how to run decent experiments and spotting distorted statistics, right? However, it was his misfortue to publicily disagree with global warming while employed by the government during the Clinton administration... ugh.

Then there are people like Dr. Fred Singer, professor of environmental sciences and former director of the National Weather Satellite Service.
Or Eric Rignot, of Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with scientists at
the British Antarctic Survey, who admit they don't yet know what exactly is going on.

Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, had this to say:

There is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them. Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are in no position to attribute confidently past climate change to carbon dioxide or forecast what the climate will be in the future.

If you're relying on the mainstream media for your information, there's your problem. Their coverage of dissent on this issue almost totally nonexistent, even in magazines like Nature and Science.

--"BTW, scientific american, isn't that a popular science magazine?"

Yes, but like I said, I was I had seen some stuff about Nature and Science on the same topic.

--"I don't know what this is supposed to mean."

Look, the models have been around for quite a while, right? So check their predictions against what's happened since they've been created.

--"AFAIK, the conclusion that global warming is real and has increased the temperature by 0.6 degrees is NOT based on any modelling, only observations."

No, it is based primarily on modelling. Observations show conflicting data. The surface records show a heating trend, but are known to be subject to all sorts of errors. The Urban Heat Island Effect, bad placement of temperature stations, urban growth around the temp stations, increasing accuracy of instruments as well as number of measurements (most of which are being taken in low income areas where they have been shown to be more prone to error). The satellite and baloon measurements do not agree with this warming trend, and the two have not yet really been reconciled in favor of global warming.

Interestingly enough, there is some evidence that changes in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere do not preceed warming trends, but rather follow them. Which means that it's the warming (more favorable conditions to life) that's causing the CO2 increase, and our "control" efforts are futile.

--"it has never seen such a rapid change as we are seeing right now"

And how can you tell? There are certainly periods of rapid climate shift. We did go from a warm period to a minor ice age within human recorded history.

--"Could you find even ONE article that suggest that global warming is beneficial?"

If I looked. It's really not that hard to find contrary sources. Unfortunately my links were lost recently, and I have to go to work in a few. I'll look some tonight.

--"Any sources for fabrication of articles, and where they are cited?"

The IPCC is one, actually. The peer-reviewed report included phrases like:

None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

Yet this sort of thing somehow managed to disapper from the publicised version. Even some of the authors of the report (note: the actual scientists, not the politicians who form up the panel) have come forward to complain publicly about how their work has been represented.

And again, I'll try to look for more sources tonight but I'm running out of time this morning.

Wraith
"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by people who 'thought they were doing the right thing'..."
-- Charles M. Schulz

[- Groucho -]

Lets clear away a few misconceptions. Some excellent data is available at http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/...ing/intro.html which I have gleefully pilfered.

First, Atmospheric CO2 ...





The data for the first graph was taken from ice-core samples at Law Dome, Antartica by Etheridge et al. (1998). The data in the second represents direct CO2 measurements taken at Mauna Loa by Keeling and Whorf (1998).

No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities. So we can all agree that atmospheric CO2 is rising rapidly.

Now for temperature ...



This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period. Although the difference is relatively small, the average temperature is clearly increasing.

What effect will all this extra atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures have? There is no universal consensus but the overwhelming majority of researchers say that the evidence we've got shows that we are impacting the environment. Unlike other surveys with nameless participants, a group that Wraith cited, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a panel of over 2,500 scientists), has published a report that states that the Panel believes that "... the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." The official summary report is here. I'll let interested parties read it rather than post a bunch of quotes out of context.

Needless to say, it doesn't support Wraith's position. He seems to think that because a handful of participants have disagreed with the final product means the whole thing should be ignored. But that is the problem, isn't it? When 2,400 scientists say "there is an issue here" people who don't want to hear that anything is wrong will concentrate on the 100 dissenters. (I'm not sure how many dissenters there were, if any, but I thought I would be generous)

I'm with Roland. Human activities are increasing atmospheric CO2 at a very fast rate and are affecting the climate. Rather than DanS's "lets see what happens" approach, I think prudence dictates that we stop experimenting on the only planet we've got.

And ditch the SUVs.

[DanS]

May I direct the court's attention to the fact that those are biased charts.

[Ned]

Let us for a moment assume that the US government reports are accurate and that the average temperture in the United States will rise by 2-5 degrees C in the next 100 years.

The report identifies some positives and some negatives.

The positives are that the temperature rise is almost all due to shorter and milder winters and longer growing seasons that will lead to doubling of agricultural output and an increase in GNP. The negatives are the loss of some habitats and some coastal flooding. (There may also be an increase in disease due to the milder winters.)

Why don't we discuss these points rather than simply "assuming" that global warming is something that must be avoided at all costs - i.e., that it will lead to catastrophe. The official reports paint an entirely different picture.

[Jon Miller]

umm

about those temperature charts

you know that we were in an ice age don't you??

we were suppose to get warmer

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

The report identifies some positives and some negatives.

Well also add some negatives to Climate Change. You've already seen the increases in exremity of El Nino. Also if the temperature rises by 5 degrees Centigrate, there is a good chance that the Gulf Stream will stop, thereby plunging Europe into an ice age, destroying international crop yield. This also has the oppertunity to disrupt other area's temperatures as well, such as the ending of monsoon rains over India, which the agriculture is dependant on. The negatives are very scary.

[Ned]

Imran, Perhaps. But I really doubt it. The world was much warmer in the past than it is today. Did the gulf stream stop then? No.

What evidence is there that the gulf stream will stop other that pure speculation?

[Ned]

On a slightly different point, let us assume for the sake of argument that Canada, Scandanavia, and Russia (keeping the US out of this for the moment) will all benefit greatly due to global warming -- while India will be harmed.

Do we have the moral right to assist India while causing harm to the other nations?

[Tuberski]

Does anybody remember the 70's?

Back then they were worried about another ice age.

[Wraith]

Wow, this thing is still here?

--"First, Atmospheric CO2 ..."

A fine example of "how not to make a graph", thank you. Most numbering systems start at 0, not 270.

--"No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities."

Here we get the absolutes again. Sorry, but yes there are.

--"This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period."

Yes, there's that whole selective endpoints problem. You also didn't say anything about how those graphs were derived. Surface measurement? Satellite records (not likely, given the supposed span)? Magic 8 Ball?

--"a panel of over 2,500 scientists"

Now, see, here's where you're wrong. Very wrong. There are almost no actual scientists on the IPCC. They're just a political body created for the purpose of dealing with the report. Now, the report was created by scientists, but not 2,500 of them. And it is largely being ignored by the panel itself, which is working soely from the summary, which has become so highly politicized and bias that the actual scientists are complaining about it.

Now, if you just follow the mainstream media, you'd never know that. Ah well.
I seem to recall one of the major papers a few months ago giving a quote about global warming attributed to a "top UN scientist". Only, when someone bothered to track to quote down, it was something said by an appointed official. One with no science degree. This is very typical of the coverage.

--"You've already seen the increases in exremity of El Nino."

I would love to see some sources backing that one up. El Nino is named because it has a notable effect on weather patterns in the first place.

In any case, this likely my last post on this thread. I do not have the time to rehash the same arguments we've gone over and over and over.

Wraith
Not only do I not care if you smoke, I don't care if you burst into flames and die.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ned
On a slightly different point, let us assume for the sake of argument that Canada, Scandanavia, and Russia (keeping the US out of this for the moment) will all benefit greatly due to global warming -- while India will be harmed.

Do we have the moral right to assist India while causing harm to the other nations?

The fact is Russia, Canada and Scandinavia are all perfectly happy with things the way they are now. You would not be causing harm to us.
So you have the moral obligation to help India.

[- Groucho -]

Come off it, Wraith. You kvetch but offer nothing in reply but Fox-worthy quasi-rebuttal which is all pundit no proof.

Originally posted by Wraith
A fine example of "how not to make a graph", thank you. Most numbering systems start at 0, not 270.

A fine example of not actually adressing the issue. Sure the origin isn't zero. So what? Have you got any actual figures to dispute these measured increases in atmospheric CO2?

--"No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities."

Here we get the absolutes again. Sorry, but yes there are.

A fine example of an absolute. Any examples of a serious explanation for the rising CO2 levels that has an attribution other than human acitivity?

--"This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period."

Yes, there's that whole selective endpoints problem. You also didn't say anything about how those graphs were derived. Surface measurement? Satellite records (not likely, given the supposed span)? Magic 8 Ball?

And I suppose you have alternate data available to show that these endpoints were picked to skew the data? No? I didn't think so because these endpoints aren't arbitrary. The endpoints were picked because this graph attempts to show direct observational recordings. No one was systematically recording temperature prior to the 1850s. For more info on how the UK's Climatic Research Unit derived these figures, see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep93/globtemp.htm

--"a panel of over 2,500 scientists"

Now, see, here's where you're wrong. Very wrong. There are almost no actual scientists on the IPCC. They're just a political body created for the purpose of dealing with the report. Now, the report was created by scientists, but not 2,500 of them. And it is largely being ignored by the panel itself, which is working soely from the summary, which has become so highly politicized and bias that the actual scientists are complaining about it.

Now, if you just follow the mainstream media, you'd never know that. Ah well. I seem to recall one of the major papers a few months ago giving a quote about global warming attributed to a "top UN scientist". Only, when someone bothered to track to quote down, it was something said by an appointed official. One with no science degree. This is very typical of the coverage.

This kind of mud-slinging at the IPCC has been attempted by the head in sand types so many times that Dr. Charles F. Keller of the The Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote this just to convince guys like you, Wraith. Hope it works.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Richelieu


The fact is Russia, Canada and Scandinavia are all perfectly happy with things the way they are now. You would not be causing harm to us.
So you have the moral obligation to help India.

Richelieu, Just so we understand each other, the assumption is that global warming is real and that the world's temperatures will rise 2-5 degrees C.

When you say the Russian's, Canadian's and the Scandanvians are happy with the way things are now, what do you mean? For the way the things are now, these nations will be a lot warmer in 100 years, have milder winters and much longer growing seasons. The climate in the North will be similar to the climate experieced in the days of the Vikings.

Also, I have seen posters here from Canada actually applauding Global Warming.

[Clear Skies]

But that's only a potential change. You can't possibly justify a detrimental change to one nation's climate just because there's a beneficial change to some others. Increasing one nation's welfare by decreasing another's is morally indefensible. Making India's climate worse by doing nothing is wrong no matter what's on the other side of the equation. Nothing balances such an act. How would you make the definition? What if the detrimental effect were to your beloved USA and the beneficial to, say, Afghanistan? Would you be so quick to give up your climate then?

[Garth Vader]

Also, I have seen posters here from Canada actually applauding Global Warming.

That was probably Asher. He doesn't count.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
But that's only a potential change. You can't possibly justify a detrimental change to one nation's climate just because there's a beneficial change to some others. Increasing one nation's welfare by decreasing another's is morally indefensible. Making India's climate worse by doing nothing is wrong no matter what's on the other side of the equation. Nothing balances such an act. How would you make the definition? What if the detrimental effect were to your beloved USA and the beneficial to, say, Afghanistan? Would you be so quick to give up your climate then?

Clear Skies, for the sake of this argument alone, I am assuming the correctness of the predictions. We really don't know what will happen, do we?

But as it stands, if we do nothing, the North will see a huge benefit to Global Warming, while places like India will suffer. If we act to reduce greehouse gasses, and our actions are successful, we will deny this benefit to the North while helping India.

It really depends on how one looks at this, doesn't it?

Let's take a slightly different approach for the moment. We move the clock ahead 100 years. The North is now warm, growing seasons are longer and agriculture is at 100% of 2000. India in contrast is at 50% of 2000.

Now there is a proposal by the Indian government to reduce CO2 output of America in order to change the climate so that their agricultural production doubles. But the consequences would be to halve the agriculture of the North.

Why would we choose to help India when our actions will hurt the Northern Countries?

Now, suppose you are president of Russia 100 years from now. India has asked for your support to reduce CO2 emissions to boost its agricultural production by 100%. Your scientists say that this action will reduce Russian agriculture by 50%. What do you do?

Again, I am just assuming the preditions are accurate. Some countries will actually benefit from Global Warming. Other countries will be hurt. We should understand that asking countries like Russia to support reductions in CO2 is actually asking them to harm their country for the benefit of others. Why would they do that?

The problem with the debate over Global Warming to date is the black and white nature of the debate. There is a lot more grey here than advocate on each side of the issue admit, as one should expect.