So my question, does global warming exist? Do you believe it does or doesn't?
I know when I was in high school I had a pot smoking hippy Earth Science teacher that scared the whole class into believing the world was going to be destroyed by humans by 2010, so back then I was confident it did. Nowadays I'm not so sure. I know this year Indiana recorded its first July in recorded history without a 90 degree day all month.
It is pretty clear that global warming exists. The question which is still unanswered is whether or not human activity contributes significantly to it.
It should be noted, the use of the term 'global warming' by many over the years has been misleading, it doesn't mean every place in the world will become hotter, it just refers to the average temperature of the entire Earth going up.
The term climate change, however, is infinitely more accurate as it refers to a change in climate. Such a change could entail: Higher or lower temperatures, increased or decreased rainfall, enhanced extreme climate events (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.), etc. so Indiana recording an unusually cold July could fit in with the concept.
Climate change is undeniably occurring and has been for 100's of 1000's of years. As we are still in the beginning of an interglacial the climate will tend towards a warmer, wetter globe, with higher sea levels and less permafrost and Ice. The only thing that is under debate right now is the amount humans have contributed to this process and whether it will drastically effect the cycle.
Man is screwing with the rainfall, the sun is getting hotter. These two things are not good together. Man causing super hurricanes and the like is erroneous and arrogant.
Green technologies and resource usage reduction is necessary for every technology driven society on this planet. Cap and trade? Just makes another centralized power structure to be exploited by scalpers; you know Wall Street.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
So far, it looks like there's not a whole lot of real proof one way or another to come out of this.. it's way too easy to put a spin on snippets of e-mails without knowing the full context of the discussion.
Also, is it possible to get the title of the thread updated to reflect the "breaking news" nature of this story, rather than to be about climate change/global warming in general?
Basically, the emails didn't say much, and most of the claims of the skeptics were cherry-picking and semantics games. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the FOX article insinuated that the scientists' emails hid the true conspiracy behind a jargon smokescreen, but c'est la FOX. *shrug*
Point is, the hacking was illegal, and didn't turn up anything substantial to boot.
It is pretty clear that global warming exists. The question which is still unanswered is whether or not human activity contributes significantly to it.
More like "to what degree human activity contributes," since I think it's very difficult to rule out that we have no effect on the climate given our huge effects on biodiversity and other natural systems.
The term climate change, however, is infinitely more accurate as it refers to a change in climate. Such a change could entail: Higher or lower temperatures, increased or decreased rainfall, enhanced extreme climate events (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.), etc. so Indiana recording an unusually cold July could fit in with the concept.
Exactly. It's also important to emphasize that climate != weather. Example:
"The climate in the Pacific Northwest is generally cool and wet." True statement.
On a sunny summer day in Seattle: "The weather should be cool and wet, what gives?" Erroneous statement.
Climate describes overall trends in weather over a long period of time. Decades, if not longer. So statements like this:
Man is screwing with the rainfall, the sun is getting hotter. These two things are not good together. Man causing super hurricanes and the like is erroneous and arrogant.
Green technologies and resource usage reduction is necessary for every technology driven society on this planet. Cap and trade? Just makes another centralized power structure to be exploited by scalpers; you know Wall Street.
I think a better point is that it doesnt matter about global warming. We still cant continue to rely on fossil fuels for a LOT of other reasons.
I think a better point is that it doesnt matter about global warming. We still cant continue to rely on fossil fuels for a LOT of other reasons.
Oh, I agree. Furthermore, I'm all for actually leaving minerals in the ground. We can't continue to mine our way to prosperity, we have to recycle and reuse what we can with diminishing returns.
Now if we could actually mine stars for materials...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
adversity breeds innovation and directing market forces through the idea of global warming, while perhaps not accurate, cant be seen as anything but a good thing. apparently humankind wont respond to the undisputed facts of our destruction of the natural world, but discussing DIRECT and DRASTIC consequences to us suddenly focuses energy on solutions. I am all for it. A side effect of many anti-climate change initiatives will be positives towards 100% confirmed and real problems we are creating in the world. At this point i could care less whether global warming actually IS real, as long as the world acts as if it is.
Does climate change exist? Yes. I think it's safe to say that the weather now is different from the weather several thousand years ago.
Does global warming exist? Yes.
How much of an effect does man have on it? My personal belief is that whatever mankind does is a drop in the ocean.
I hate when people argue in this way. What is your personal believe based on? You just reasoned it out in your head that the earth is big so humans couldn't affect it in a large way, or was that actually based on scientific fact?
My personal belief is that whatever mankind does is a drop in the ocean.
That's not what the evidence suggests. To put it mildly. We have pretty good evidence that the huge increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly man-made. And we have good evidence that such an increase is correlated to increase in the heat of the planet.
There is also no *serious* scientific opposition to these facts.
It's the later generations that will be left in chaos after the big collapse.
Disagreed. The current numbers suggests we'll see these issues in our lifetime. It's just that the polluters will not face the consequences... they are the rich and powerful. Neither will their children, most likely. Instead we'll see more things like Rwanda, where people kill each other over dwindling ressources in the Third World.
That's not what the evidence suggests. To put it mildly. We have pretty good evidence that the huge increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly man-made. And we have good evidence that such an increase is correlated to increase in the heat of the planet.
There is also no *serious* scientific opposition to these facts.
That is about as far from the truth as you can get. Where are you pulling your information? We have "pretty good evidence" that people who stand to benefit $$$ are manipulating data to meet their ends. Oh noes, the world is burning, we need to tax the hell out of everyone to make it all better
Anyway. Add fuel to the fire, seems the New Zealand monitoring stations' data have been fiddled with too;
Quote from tbr.cc »
We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.
NIWA claim their official graph reveals a rising trend of 0.92ºC per century, which means (they claim) we warmed more than the rest of the globe, for according to the IPCC, global warming over the 20th century was only about 0.6°C.
NIWA’s David Wratt has told Investigate magazine this afternoon his organization denies faking temperature data and he claims NIWA has a good explanation for adjusting the temperature data upward. Wratt says NIWA is drafting a media response for release later this afternoon which will explain why they altered the raw data.
Looking forward to reading NIWA's response.
There is a big Cap + Trade scheme up for vote in the Aussie Parliament, + several MPs have resigned rather than vote on the bill, in the face of this 'Climategate' business. . .
NIWA's response, which basically says that the raw data is not taken from one station through time, but various stations in different area's with different average temperatures. To compare these data, corrections need to be made.
I'll have to come back to this. . .
Frankly, people thinking the earth is not warming (whatever the cause) are completely deluded. They're denying what is established fact by multiple countries' measurements and by proxy measurements like glaciers and ice caps.
Frankly, the methods by which we gather these measurements is what is in question, + whether the warming we are experiencing (which is itself debateable) is an alarming trend, or something that the Earth does anyway (see the Medieval Warming Period).
It is my understanding that while, yes, the ice cap up top is tending towards shrinking, the one on bottom is growing? It's hard to see the big picture.
Where are you pulling your information from? And what reason do you have to find those sources credible?
Geeze, I linked to stuff in my post for a reason, guy
I tend to hit WUWT regularly, + do a little digging beyond that myself. Why do I find WUWT credible? The site appears to be untied to any organization, allows free debate in the comments, + doesn't seem to be pushing a personal agenda, rather cutting to the 'why these methods are flawed' meat of the debate.
Not that I am the topic at hand here, nor do I qualify "NO U :mad:" as a legitimate way to discuss this issue.
What evidence? And what about the way more powerful people who stand to benefit by prolonging decisions on this issue, by sowing doubt and by faking a controversy, like so many others like them have done before? The billion dollar industries that are the most important cause of this issue?
Way more powerful? Faking a controversy? I will totally agree that industry is often mucking up the environment, but trying to toss a tax on everything to solve a problem that isn't actually the problem seems ass-end-up to me.
To be sure, I am an amateur in deep waters, + hold only my opinion based on what I've read. I'm writing this up with no time to do it justice, so please bear with me. I think this debate is fascinating + terribly important to weed out all the chaff for the people who have no time to study the numbers or look at who's pushing the what. I'll be back
i would like to take the time to reiterate that many of the initiatives that are being presented to combat "global warming" have an intrinsic positive effect on many other 100% confirmed guaranteed environmental problems. As i said before, if people wouldnt stand up and take action when mass deforestation, mass polluting (See asthma growth charts) and other such problems arose, then i would be much more careful in my opinion on this matter. but since they didnt, and suddenly you present them with catastrophic global meltdown and everyone is "oh oh lets save the environment", then i am all for it.
This of course leads to many things which arguably WONT have a positive effect on the environment if global warming is not indeed man made or correlated to CO2. Spending millions on figuring out carbon trapping mechanisms etc is just money down the tube. We should focus on fixing the environment and our economic models in a way that stopping global warming is a BYPRODUCT. its very much a doctors "Treat the symptom" mentality in many of these focuses.
It's one of the main features on WUWT - monitoring the veracity of temperature monitoring stations. People send in photos of monitoring stations built over concrete, next to AC exhaust vents, all manner of improperly set up/maintained equipment that is being used to determine the big picture. Surfacestations.org provides a great example of what I'm talking about.
Quote from ss.org »
In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: “Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press”, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:
"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."
Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.
Or how about "proxies"? Ring samples taken from Bristle cone pine trees. . . except that the rings don't seem to match surface temperatures, so some other factor must be unaccounted for? Pretty sure this was one of the big reasons the 'hockey stick' temperature graph was tossed out the window - the data was based on this kind of proxy, which has proven unreliable. I'm sure I can dig up some links if you need them.
Next step is the climate model that researchers are putting this data through. They won't share the program, so how can we repeat their results? Bad science.
Some people question this, yes. But the climate is warming. That is really an undisputable fact, given the huge piles of evidence, and every time people come up with claims like the above that the earth is not warming, you can basically know they're wrong in some way.
I like how you try to just dismiss the skeptic's take with a wave of your arm. Sure, the climate is changing. If it is indisputably warming (in an unnatural manner!), if there are "huge piles of evidence", why are we even having this discussion? Why is the scientific community having this debate?
One of the things that harms the skeptic's case the most is that most of them make no difference here: every weapon is good for their fight, which speaks very low of their scientific integrity.
This seems like a divergent tangent. I'm talking about transparency, demonstrably repeatable results. It is my understanding that one of the strongest 'weapons' skeptics have right now is that those pushing the AGW case hardest are refusing to show their math. . . which is the cornerstone of the scientific method, unless I am mistaken?
Seriously now, if independant sources all over the world show warming, will this be a giant conspiracy spanning through decades, a gigantic pile of consistent positive errors or, in fact, warming?
That's a big IF, partner, + I'll leave the speculating to someone else. . . but again, when we look at how that data is gathered, is the method sound? Is it being massaged? If we're gathering data from faulty stations, + then massaging that data to match up with what our buddies are publishing (+ being funded for), is that a conspiracy? Does it need to be conspiracy for them to be wrong?
Do you have a source on that?
I strongly get the feeling you're being pedantic, but sure, I'll dig up a source for you to look at. Here's a quick one, specifically dealing with measuring the area of Arctic sea ice. Now, the actual square kilometers being graphed there are probably a little hard to visualize, but I don't see the drastic reduction in sea ice that is so frequently tossed out there. I'd prefer to back this up with a few more examples from a variety of sources, like whatever that article I was reading last month about Antarctic shelf growth was, but whatever. It's out there.
Yes, but one blog seemed really little.
But it's a start, right? I asked because I want to read from both sides of the issue. I think you asked because you wanted to shut me down. Not the same thing.
I find it odd how you can say Watts has no personal agenda. Anyone in this debate has a personal agenda. You can't just stay on the fence if you go deep in this issue, either you buy it or you don't, and all your talk or writing about it will reflect this stance.
Apologies, I meant private agenda. Clearly he wants to educate some people with what he believes to be good science. Again, it's my opinion of my perception of how he manages his site.
Also, that Watts show no ties to any organization on his site is hardly a strong argument. It seems to me that someone who would be dishonest about this issue for a reason tied to some organization would try to make this not apparent in public.
Sure, if you want to think like that. Maybe he is a wolfman to boot. Better you have a reason to think he's being dishonest before getting into that kind of talk, I think.
On top of that, he is in fact associated with the Heartland Institute. There's no clear ties like with Steven Milloy, but then that guy is also one of the worst of the lot.
Can't say I recognize that group, but their wiki page doesn't vilify them, which I kind of expected from your tone. Also not familiar with Steven Milloy, but again, I'm not in this but for the fact that I liked plate tectonics as a kid + my interest just kept bleeding over. Why are they bad guys, exactly?
It sure seems important to know why you question something so many scientists consider as scientifically established. AGW appears many times throughout my curriculum, after all, and many of my teachers do research somehow related to it (and it's really not like their careers depends on GW, their research fields are much, much wider than that).
I can't vouch for the veracity of your curriculum, but I hope I've given you a little understanding as to why I personally question these things presented to me as 'fact'.
I don't get this paragraph. Isn't this just circular reasoning?
If Guy A sees an opportunity to get Money X moved his way by framing up something that is a concern to everyone, but beyond the grasp of the layperson, then hyping up a solution to that "problem" is, to me, dishonest. There needs to be transparency. There needs to be confidence. I don't see either of those things with regards to AGW.
There has been much talk about this environmental issue of capitalism. I've made some posts about it in previous threads. As I see it, there's little else that can be done than taxing, since our capitalism by its nature considers natural sources and sinks as free, where they are not. There is no practical way to account for that under a true free market.
My economics is far worse than my climatology, but you seem pessimistic here. It is my feeling (produced perhaps from an under-educated mind filtering a mishmash of half-remembered articles) that raising the price of an airline ticket is not going to reduce the carbon output of an airplane, nor decrease the demand for the service. Apologies for dumbing it down so far, I'm sure I've missed the mark.
It's not just GHG. The same goes for nitrate/phosphate leaching, NOx and sulfur emissions, metallurgical emissions such as cadmium and cyanide and so many organic chemicals harmful to the environment.
I'm right there with you with regards to industrial waste, but it is my understanding that the heart of this debate is whether or not the carbon dioxide output of an industrialized society has the power to sway the temperature of the Earth. . . which I think detracts from the real issue, which is resource management + waste management, things we can see taking a toll around us (deforestation, pollution, et cetera).
All this aside, man, I am a nature-lovin' ecofreak, all I want is to understand what the debate is about, + why either side thinks what it does. So far, on one hand, I got the skeptics (to group a divergent mass of individuals into a generic pile) willing to show their work + discuss the matter, + on the other, AGW proponents who want to tell me to sit down + stop questioning the math because I wouldn't understand.
Again, where's your source? That's a, er, serious accusation
I'm not asking to shut you down, I'm asking because I like to read both sides of the debate. Have a look at Mad Matt's post. There's a guy interested in discussing this, + giving me something to look at.
All you're doing is putting your hand in my face.
eds - here's a more reasonable response, I think;
Quote from Dr. Judith Curry »
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org (you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities. I post the content of one of the emails here, without reference to the student’s name or institution:
Hi Dr. Curry,
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
1. Retreat into the ivory tower
2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
My paper on “Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity” can be found at http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
My presentation on the integrity of climate research can be found at http://www.pacinst.org/ topics/ integrity_of_science/ AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf
Dark, you appear to be circling the wagons. . .
Interesting 'Climategate' article at the Telegraph, here.
Quote from Christopher Booker »
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
Way more powerful? Faking a controversy? I will totally agree that industry is often mucking up the environment, but trying to toss a tax on everything to solve a problem that isn't actually the problem seems ass-end-up to me.
The economic motive for doing so is as follows, basically: Excess pollution of any sort occurs because businesses do not have to pay for it. If we tax emissions, say, or nitrates, or sulfur dioxide (already done), then we can cause the cost of producing whatever has the polluting by-product to approximately equal the true (hidden) cost of production. Quick e.g., sulfur dioxide emissions from a power plant lead to acid rain that falls on a farmer's crops and partially ruins his yield. That's a cost that isn't borne by everyone who buys power from the plant.
i would like to take the time to reiterate that many of the initiatives that are being presented to combat "global warming" have an intrinsic positive effect on many other 100% confirmed guaranteed environmental problems. As i said before, if people wouldnt stand up and take action when mass deforestation, mass polluting (See asthma growth charts) and other such problems arose, then i would be much more careful in my opinion on this matter. but since they didnt, and suddenly you present them with catastrophic global meltdown and everyone is "oh oh lets save the environment", then i am all for it.
This of course leads to many things which arguably WONT have a positive effect on the environment if global warming is not indeed man made or correlated to CO2. Spending millions on figuring out carbon trapping mechanisms etc is just money down the tube. We should focus on fixing the environment and our economic models in a way that stopping global warming is a BYPRODUCT. its very much a doctors "Treat the symptom" mentality in many of these focuses.
My economics is far worse than my climatology, but you seem pessimistic here. It is my feeling (produced perhaps from an under-educated mind filtering a mishmash of half-remembered articles) that raising the price of an airline ticket is not going to reduce the carbon output of an airplane, nor decrease the demand for the service. Apologies for dumbing it down so far, I'm sure I've missed the mark.
Short answer: It depends on the price elasticity of demand for airplane tickets, at least in this example. Essentially, it's a function of how much people can afford to go without that thing, or use a substitute. If gas prices go up, people won't necessarily drive less because it's hard to just not use gas and still get around as easily as you can in a car. But the main thing is not how many people buy X product, it's whether the price of X reflects the true cost of production. Theoretically, this will ensure that either we can clean up after ourselves, or that newer, cleaner technologies will easily replace the old. We only burn a bajillion tons of coal because it's currently (and artificially) cheaper than, say, the much more efficient natural gas.
I'm right there with you with regards to industrial waste, but it is my understanding that the heart of this debate is whether or not the carbon dioxide output of an industrialized society has the power to sway the temperature of the Earth. . . which I think detracts from the real issue, which is resource management + waste management, things we can see taking a toll around us (deforestation, pollution, et cetera).
Aha! The true argument! I actually agree with you in speculating that perhaps CO2 is being overhyped as the One Big Bogeyman of Climate Disaster when in fact nitrate runoff, deforestation, plastic sargassos in the Pacific, etc. are much more immediate and dangerous issues. And in some sense they're connected, since for example fewer trees means less carbon fixation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Geology is more indicative of trends than climatology. We're in an interglacial period and will gradually get warmer. The sun is also warming up.
My problem with Anti Global Warming supporters is that they do not focus on the most obvious forms of pollution such as acid rain and instead cling to climatological models that are not accurate.
Link pollution+physical body=bad things happen. If I show a child a duck covered in oil, it's fairly obvious that oil spills=bad. Instead we focus on something more abstract and slow moving like climate change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Short answer: It depends on the price elasticity of demand for airplane tickets, at least in this example. Essentially, it's a function of how much people can afford to go without that thing, or use a substitute. If gas prices go up, people won't necessarily drive less because it's hard to just not use gas and still get around as easily as you can in a car. But the main thing is not how many people buy X product, it's whether the price of X reflects the true cost of production. Theoretically, this will ensure that either we can clean up after ourselves, or that newer, cleaner technologies will easily replace the old. We only burn a bajillion tons of coal because it's currently (and artificially) cheaper than, say, the much more efficient natural gas.
It's not all about price elasticity. It also encourages investment into R&D for the same industry. Essentially if you have 2 companies currently producing cars using X amount of fossil fuel and then with the tax on pollution, one company invests in R&D to reduce their pollution in the long run that company will have a cheaper product cause its not as fossil fuel dependant.
Whilst this isnt a direct comparison you can see it happening in the car industry today. Only a few decades ago Ford and GM were the world leaders in cars. Now its Toyota. Why? essentially because Toyota spends lots of money on R&D for a more efficient product (whilst Ford seems to mainly be focused on how to make their muscle cars more muscular). The result and shift in purchases because the Toyota product is generally cheaper for a more efficient product. Whilst Toyota didn't do it for environmental reasons, the impacts are extrodinary if selected directions are provided.
Chris Horner writing for Big Government reveals that the principle warmist blogsite, Real Climate, is a Fenton operation. Fenton Communications is the left wing PR operation that promoted the Alar scare and other bogus health scares, and are the poeple who created the infamous "General Betray Us" ad attacking General Petraeus.
So I guess my answer to you question would be, smear + confuzzle the issue?
Well, something about the earth's climate is different, this year, at least. There are birds at my house at the beginning of December, chirping every morning as though it were springtime. In years past, the birds would have flown south for the winter by now.
You realize, of course, that this is no more relevant a statement than me saying that last year it was abnormally cold at my house for the whole winter.
both of those statements are easily explained by minor fluctuations and don't necessarily reflect an overall trend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
So my question, does global warming exist? Do you believe it does or doesn't?
I know when I was in high school I had a pot smoking hippy Earth Science teacher that scared the whole class into believing the world was going to be destroyed by humans by 2010, so back then I was confident it did. Nowadays I'm not so sure. I know this year Indiana recorded its first July in recorded history without a 90 degree day all month.
My MP Decks:
BKorlashB
WGSuperfriendsGW
GRBTorrent of SoulsBRG
UWDeath CannonWU
WUBRG5 Color AllyGRBUW
WUBMaster TransmuterBUW
The term climate change, however, is infinitely more accurate as it refers to a change in climate. Such a change could entail: Higher or lower temperatures, increased or decreased rainfall, enhanced extreme climate events (tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.), etc. so Indiana recording an unusually cold July could fit in with the concept.
Climate change is undeniably occurring and has been for 100's of 1000's of years. As we are still in the beginning of an interglacial the climate will tend towards a warmer, wetter globe, with higher sea levels and less permafrost and Ice. The only thing that is under debate right now is the amount humans have contributed to this process and whether it will drastically effect the cycle.
Green technologies and resource usage reduction is necessary for every technology driven society on this planet. Cap and trade? Just makes another centralized power structure to be exploited by scalpers; you know Wall Street.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Guardian.Co.UK Article 2
Here are a couple that are not from FOX. I recommend everybody read the above before discussing the leaked e-mails. With that understanding...
Investigate Magazine
Link to "The Examiner" (includes bits from actual emails)
So far, it looks like there's not a whole lot of real proof one way or another to come out of this.. it's way too easy to put a spin on snippets of e-mails without knowing the full context of the discussion.
Also, is it possible to get the title of the thread updated to reflect the "breaking news" nature of this story, rather than to be about climate change/global warming in general?
Ah yes. That. This blog covered it well, I think.
Basically, the emails didn't say much, and most of the claims of the skeptics were cherry-picking and semantics games. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the FOX article insinuated that the scientists' emails hid the true conspiracy behind a jargon smokescreen, but c'est la FOX. *shrug*
Point is, the hacking was illegal, and didn't turn up anything substantial to boot.
More like "to what degree human activity contributes," since I think it's very difficult to rule out that we have no effect on the climate given our huge effects on biodiversity and other natural systems.
Exactly. It's also important to emphasize that climate != weather. Example:
"The climate in the Pacific Northwest is generally cool and wet." True statement.
On a sunny summer day in Seattle: "The weather should be cool and wet, what gives?" Erroneous statement.
Climate describes overall trends in weather over a long period of time. Decades, if not longer. So statements like this:
Are, sadly, just as misinformed as crazy statements about the world being "destroyed" in 20XX because of rampant climate change.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I think a better point is that it doesnt matter about global warming. We still cant continue to rely on fossil fuels for a LOT of other reasons.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
Does global warming exist? Yes.
How much of an effect does man have on it? My personal belief is that whatever mankind does is a drop in the ocean.
Oh, I agree. Furthermore, I'm all for actually leaving minerals in the ground. We can't continue to mine our way to prosperity, we have to recycle and reuse what we can with diminishing returns.
Now if we could actually mine stars for materials...
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I hate when people argue in this way. What is your personal believe based on? You just reasoned it out in your head that the earth is big so humans couldn't affect it in a large way, or was that actually based on scientific fact?
That's not what the evidence suggests. To put it mildly. We have pretty good evidence that the huge increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly man-made. And we have good evidence that such an increase is correlated to increase in the heat of the planet.
There is also no *serious* scientific opposition to these facts.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Agreed.
Disagreed. The current numbers suggests we'll see these issues in our lifetime. It's just that the polluters will not face the consequences... they are the rich and powerful. Neither will their children, most likely. Instead we'll see more things like Rwanda, where people kill each other over dwindling ressources in the Third World.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Anyway. Add fuel to the fire, seems the New Zealand monitoring stations' data have been fiddled with too;
Looking forward to reading NIWA's response.
There is a big Cap + Trade scheme up for vote in the Aussie Parliament, + several MPs have resigned rather than vote on the bill, in the face of this 'Climategate' business. . .
Frankly, the methods by which we gather these measurements is what is in question, + whether the warming we are experiencing (which is itself debateable) is an alarming trend, or something that the Earth does anyway (see the Medieval Warming Period).
It is my understanding that while, yes, the ice cap up top is tending towards shrinking, the one on bottom is growing? It's hard to see the big picture.
Geeze, I linked to stuff in my post for a reason, guy
I tend to hit WUWT regularly, + do a little digging beyond that myself. Why do I find WUWT credible? The site appears to be untied to any organization, allows free debate in the comments, + doesn't seem to be pushing a personal agenda, rather cutting to the 'why these methods are flawed' meat of the debate.
Not that I am the topic at hand here, nor do I qualify "NO U :mad:" as a legitimate way to discuss this issue.
Way more powerful? Faking a controversy? I will totally agree that industry is often mucking up the environment, but trying to toss a tax on everything to solve a problem that isn't actually the problem seems ass-end-up to me.
To be sure, I am an amateur in deep waters, + hold only my opinion based on what I've read. I'm writing this up with no time to do it justice, so please bear with me. I think this debate is fascinating + terribly important to weed out all the chaff for the people who have no time to study the numbers or look at who's pushing the what. I'll be back
This of course leads to many things which arguably WONT have a positive effect on the environment if global warming is not indeed man made or correlated to CO2. Spending millions on figuring out carbon trapping mechanisms etc is just money down the tube. We should focus on fixing the environment and our economic models in a way that stopping global warming is a BYPRODUCT. its very much a doctors "Treat the symptom" mentality in many of these focuses.
Next step is the climate model that researchers are putting this data through. They won't share the program, so how can we repeat their results? Bad science.
I like how you try to just dismiss the skeptic's take with a wave of your arm. Sure, the climate is changing. If it is indisputably warming (in an unnatural manner!), if there are "huge piles of evidence", why are we even having this discussion? Why is the scientific community having this debate?
This seems like a divergent tangent. I'm talking about transparency, demonstrably repeatable results. It is my understanding that one of the strongest 'weapons' skeptics have right now is that those pushing the AGW case hardest are refusing to show their math. . . which is the cornerstone of the scientific method, unless I am mistaken?
That's a big IF, partner, + I'll leave the speculating to someone else. . . but again, when we look at how that data is gathered, is the method sound? Is it being massaged? If we're gathering data from faulty stations, + then massaging that data to match up with what our buddies are publishing (+ being funded for), is that a conspiracy? Does it need to be conspiracy for them to be wrong?
I strongly get the feeling you're being pedantic, but sure, I'll dig up a source for you to look at. Here's a quick one, specifically dealing with measuring the area of Arctic sea ice. Now, the actual square kilometers being graphed there are probably a little hard to visualize, but I don't see the drastic reduction in sea ice that is so frequently tossed out there. I'd prefer to back this up with a few more examples from a variety of sources, like whatever that article I was reading last month about Antarctic shelf growth was, but whatever. It's out there.
But it's a start, right? I asked because I want to read from both sides of the issue. I think you asked because you wanted to shut me down. Not the same thing.
Apologies, I meant private agenda. Clearly he wants to educate some people with what he believes to be good science. Again, it's my opinion of my perception of how he manages his site.
Sure, if you want to think like that. Maybe he is a wolfman to boot. Better you have a reason to think he's being dishonest before getting into that kind of talk, I think.
Can't say I recognize that group, but their wiki page doesn't vilify them, which I kind of expected from your tone. Also not familiar with Steven Milloy, but again, I'm not in this but for the fact that I liked plate tectonics as a kid + my interest just kept bleeding over. Why are they bad guys, exactly?
I can't vouch for the veracity of your curriculum, but I hope I've given you a little understanding as to why I personally question these things presented to me as 'fact'.
If Guy A sees an opportunity to get Money X moved his way by framing up something that is a concern to everyone, but beyond the grasp of the layperson, then hyping up a solution to that "problem" is, to me, dishonest. There needs to be transparency. There needs to be confidence. I don't see either of those things with regards to AGW.
My economics is far worse than my climatology, but you seem pessimistic here. It is my feeling (produced perhaps from an under-educated mind filtering a mishmash of half-remembered articles) that raising the price of an airline ticket is not going to reduce the carbon output of an airplane, nor decrease the demand for the service. Apologies for dumbing it down so far, I'm sure I've missed the mark.
I'm right there with you with regards to industrial waste, but it is my understanding that the heart of this debate is whether or not the carbon dioxide output of an industrialized society has the power to sway the temperature of the Earth. . . which I think detracts from the real issue, which is resource management + waste management, things we can see taking a toll around us (deforestation, pollution, et cetera).
All this aside, man, I am a nature-lovin' ecofreak, all I want is to understand what the debate is about, + why either side thinks what it does. So far, on one hand, I got the skeptics (to group a divergent mass of individuals into a generic pile) willing to show their work + discuss the matter, + on the other, AGW proponents who want to tell me to sit down + stop questioning the math because I wouldn't understand.
Again.
There is no serious scientific opposition to these facts.
Where the opposition is scientific it is not serious.
Where the opposition is serious, it is not scientific (but economic/political).
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
I'm not asking to shut you down, I'm asking because I like to read both sides of the debate. Have a look at Mad Matt's post. There's a guy interested in discussing this, + giving me something to look at.
All you're doing is putting your hand in my face.
eds - here's a more reasonable response, I think;
Dark, you appear to be circling the wagons. . .
Interesting 'Climategate' article at the Telegraph, here.
The economic motive for doing so is as follows, basically: Excess pollution of any sort occurs because businesses do not have to pay for it. If we tax emissions, say, or nitrates, or sulfur dioxide (already done), then we can cause the cost of producing whatever has the polluting by-product to approximately equal the true (hidden) cost of production. Quick e.g., sulfur dioxide emissions from a power plant lead to acid rain that falls on a farmer's crops and partially ruins his yield. That's a cost that isn't borne by everyone who buys power from the plant.
Agreed on all counts.
Short answer: It depends on the price elasticity of demand for airplane tickets, at least in this example. Essentially, it's a function of how much people can afford to go without that thing, or use a substitute. If gas prices go up, people won't necessarily drive less because it's hard to just not use gas and still get around as easily as you can in a car. But the main thing is not how many people buy X product, it's whether the price of X reflects the true cost of production. Theoretically, this will ensure that either we can clean up after ourselves, or that newer, cleaner technologies will easily replace the old. We only burn a bajillion tons of coal because it's currently (and artificially) cheaper than, say, the much more efficient natural gas.
Aha! The true argument! I actually agree with you in speculating that perhaps CO2 is being overhyped as the One Big Bogeyman of Climate Disaster when in fact nitrate runoff, deforestation, plastic sargassos in the Pacific, etc. are much more immediate and dangerous issues. And in some sense they're connected, since for example fewer trees means less carbon fixation.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
My problem with Anti Global Warming supporters is that they do not focus on the most obvious forms of pollution such as acid rain and instead cling to climatological models that are not accurate.
Link pollution+physical body=bad things happen. If I show a child a duck covered in oil, it's fairly obvious that oil spills=bad. Instead we focus on something more abstract and slow moving like climate change.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's not all about price elasticity. It also encourages investment into R&D for the same industry. Essentially if you have 2 companies currently producing cars using X amount of fossil fuel and then with the tax on pollution, one company invests in R&D to reduce their pollution in the long run that company will have a cheaper product cause its not as fossil fuel dependant.
Whilst this isnt a direct comparison you can see it happening in the car industry today. Only a few decades ago Ford and GM were the world leaders in cars. Now its Toyota. Why? essentially because Toyota spends lots of money on R&D for a more efficient product (whilst Ford seems to mainly be focused on how to make their muscle cars more muscular). The result and shift in purchases because the Toyota product is generally cheaper for a more efficient product. Whilst Toyota didn't do it for environmental reasons, the impacts are extrodinary if selected directions are provided.
So I guess my answer to you question would be, smear + confuzzle the issue?
You realize, of course, that this is no more relevant a statement than me saying that last year it was abnormally cold at my house for the whole winter.
both of those statements are easily explained by minor fluctuations and don't necessarily reflect an overall trend.