Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Rainmaster 7]

No, we're fine here. GW will cause us to become colder, so I believe. So really you should be advocating GW

I should've mentioned I don't like cold weather either, I like it 'just right'.

Anyway there have been many great posts in this thread, all very interesting and thought provoking. Thanks people for your time and effort, just one request, a summary of all of your conclusions in less than 1000 words. Cheers

[Max Mosley 2]

Obviously not you

No I'm not an expert, alas. But I looked up an article from experts who explain the differences for us. Predicting the weather is so difficult because the equations are chaotic, in other words they are very sensitive to the initial conditions. If you get some detail of the input data wrong by a tiny amount, the forecast will gradually diverge more and more from real life. But that problem doesn't exist when predicting the climate, because the average behaviour will still be accurate. You do have to incorporate the weather into simulations of climate, but it doesn't have to be accurate! It only has to represent the typical weather conditions. This is a common feature of computer models, but it's quite subtle.

This whole argument that if you can't predict the weather you can't predict the climate is incredibly stupid. It's confusions like these that show why we need experts in the first place!

[Oli 1]

OK Oli..... <rolls up sleeves>

I think there's only one way to settle this- pistols at dawn!

All of which face water shortage problems, anyway because of population growth, so GW (if true) is one (probably minor) factor in a pre-existing problem.

At existing levels of water availability all those areas can cope with significant population growth. The "probably minor" part doesn't seem to be backed up by anything.

2 degrees is the mid-point of IPCC's projections, so we are agreed that overall there will be more food..

In the very short term, in the areas where it's least required. In the long term there will be less everywhere.

Ah OK, the so called "Dumb Farmer" scenario pushed heavily in the 2001 IPCC report. This assumes that there is no change in farming practices, technologies, etc. Well in this scenario of course farmers will be in trouble, but this takes no account of human ingenuity or technological development. Bear in mind, that economic projections are that even with no change, developing countries will become wealthier and better equipped. In the 1940s in the UK, some of our key agricultural belts were still farmed by horse and cart and by manually intensive processes. Farms would employ dozens of labourers. The introduction of tractors doubled production overnight and today the same grain fields can be farmed by a single person with massively increased yields. Yes the poor will still be poor, but one major failing of the IPCC report is that it does not take account of human adaptability and technological progression.

For the developed world, yes. For the undeveloped world I can't see any evidence that farming practices have changed significantly in the last 100 years. It's not a question of being "dumb", it's a question of having the money and resources to use such technology. You say "even with no change developing countries will become wealthier", which will be true in some cases and not others, but nevertheless I don't think a GW-caused food shortage would accelerate their ability to develop, but it would almost certainly inhibit it.

My cat wrote this bit by walking over my keyboard, but I thought I'd leave it in since her voice should be heard:

p[owoaaaq[;;r555444444e

1) These are the islands that many pro GW campaigners quote (dear old Al Gore said the population of Tuvalu was emigrating to New Zealand as a result of sea rises... hmmmm)

Al Gore is an idiot. Don't assume anyone in the scientific world takes him in any way seriously.

2) Some of these trends are global as a result of interglacial warming - sea levels have risen 300 feet since the last ice age.

Yes, but mostly in the period between about 22000 and 8000 years ago. The increase since then has been minimal.

3) The basic model you quote is too simplistic. If this was the case, we would have seen a parallel decrease in ice that correlates directly to temperature increases and this is not happening - Antarctic ice is growing!!!!

This is of course expected if you think about it. A warmer climate produces more rainfall, thus greater precipitation and more ice. Therefore in the center of Antarctica you would expect a thickening- after all, the temperature rise in such a cold place would have to be astronomical in order to reach melting point. In addition Antarctica rests on a base of rock which acts as a huge heatsink, making it less vulnerable to short-term temperature changes than the Arctic ice. Nonethless, the edges are melting, leading, to a 75% acceleration in the mass of ice lost from the continent overall between 1996-2006.

In addition (and this is worst case scenario- the IPCC plays it down) the West Antarctic Shelf is thought to be weakening. If this collapses a 20 foot sea-level rise could occur over a relatively short period, putting London, for example, underwater.

Also the ice is not of course the whole issue. The sea expands as it gets warmer anyway, so even if there were no ice melting we'd still expect a rise in sea levels.

As you point out the areas most at risk are countries like Bangladesh which already have flooding problems!!! So again, CO2 is playing a minor role in an existing problem.

I would argue that the more developed areas that you mention are better equipped to handle change like this and over the space of 100 years could cope. Half an inch a year!!!

18cm to 59cm over a hundred years is not a lot, is it? Two feet rise in the worst case scenario???!!! Is that all this boils down to?

And isn't it jolly nice of us to be so kind to these low lying countries.... Why have we developed a social conscience for them now when they have been flooded for centuries? Why don't we invest the money being ploughed into wind-farms, GW research and tax billions into providing longer term solutions for them rather than stifling economic growth and perpetuating poverty.

Because the problem is getting worse, when previously it has been stable enough to sustain a population. But if you wish, forget about the foreigners- what do you suppose the impact of a flood on London would be? Repeated floods? Moving the most important financial center in the world to another location? Think of the effect on the global economy. Now compare to the relatively modest costs of addressing global warming in a scaled fashion.

He didn't say that, I paraphrased him badly. Lawson is an economist remember and in fact went into a lot of detail about how he calculated the figures. Those "for arguments sake" are double the projected GDP impacts from IPCC (I can provide maths if you really want). They are not meaningless as the IPCC highlights the impact of GW on GDP and what Lawson demonstrates, rather importantly is that IPCC have ignored the underlying growth in GDP, so what they headline as a drop in GDP is actually less spectacular growth rather than a drop from the current level.

OK, well I'd need to see a citation for that really. Unless it also compares this figure to the amount currently being spent on anti-GW measures it can't possibly reach a conclusion on whether it is economically viable to act or not.

Search me.

A mix I would imagine of control, ability to raise taxes to pay for expensive foreign wars, a genuine desire to get people to economise (as they were being inefficient and I certainly do support people saving energy) - supported by a "stick" rather than a carrot, an excuse to build more nuclear power stations (= more nuclear material for nuclear bombies)...., wins votes from green people.....

But overall I would imagine its more a case of "ooh here's a worthy cause that everyone else is following" lets jump on the bandwagon.

I don't buy that. It's not in any governments interests to do anything about Global Warming because the public is almost universally against any change that affects them. Raising taxes is never popular with any electorate. I agree with you about the expense of the wars, but both the US and UK have been pretty transparent about the cost of that for those who wish to find out. Green votes? History shows that Green votes are virtually non-existent. Energy saving as you say is a good thing. Nuclear bombs don't require nuclear power stations. We have plenty of nuclear missiles already.

Again, I have yet to be shown why this huge conspiracy is of any benefit for anyone involved in it.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Thanks people for your time and effort, just one request, a summary of all of your conclusions in less than 1000 words. Cheers

OK, here goes:

I'm right, you're wrong, nyah, nyah, nyah, na, nyah, nyah!!!

Bit less than 1000 words, but I think you could apply this to both sides of the debate

[Oli 1]

This link is quite amusing- stumbled across it whilst looking through some other articles. Fascinating what people will believe:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Global-warmin...al-warming.html

Note- obviously this guy is a fanatic- I don't intend this to be part of the debate, just an amusing link.

[Oli 1]

My summary would be:

1) Global warming is occurring based on all the available evidence and a large scientific majority, however the effects of it are hard to predict. Nonetheless there are ways we can combat it without significant impact on ourselves- indeed in many cases simply doing things we'd have to do anyway due to the inevitable energy crisis we will face.

2) Renewable energy resources deserve more funding than they currently receive. In addition, world energy production and usage is currently extremely inefficient and improving its efficiency is in everyone's interest.

3) Certain governments may make incorrect decisions and be inclined to panic, however this is not the scientists fault and does not disprove the case. The correct response is to criticise the government in question rather than the science they use to make their decisions.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

This link is quite amusing- stumbled across it whilst looking through some other articles. Fascinating what people will believe:

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Global-warmin...al-warming.html

Note- obviously this guy is a fanatic- I don't intend this to be part of the debate, just an amusing link.

Lol that's a good one - the "let's see how many conspiracy theories we can link together" theory

aka the Unified Fear Theory

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

OK, my summary is similar to Oli's but slightly different:

1) Global warming may or may not be occurring based on the available evidence and scientific opinion and the effects of it are hard to predict. There may be ways we can combat it without significant impact on ourselves - however more objective research is required both to ascertain whether it is happening (and to what level) and what mitigation we can apply. We should still aim to reduce our impact upon the planet, but in a considered fashion i.e. don't do something in a knee-jerk fashion that could do more damage longer term.

2) Renewable energy resources deserve more funding than they currently receive. In addition, world energy production and usage is currently extremely inefficient and improving its efficiency is in everyone's interest.

3) Certain governments may make incorrect decisions and be inclined to panic; the media also act irresponsibly. There is a need for an objective source of rational information so that people can make their own decisions and understand how to act.

[Max Mosley 2]

Yup, I agree with all of that. Global warming likely is taking place and we should try to pollute the planet less, but we mustn't hold back development of poorer countries, or get obsessed about GW in the UK. To do that, I would invest more in nuclear because I think renewables won't provide us with enough energy on their own, but we should use them more often where we can. Nuclear fusion should be researched a lot more urgently, but fission is the best of the rest imho. There is definitely a need for objective rational information on GW, but I'm not optimistic on that score.

The issues are too complicated for lay people to understand so I think we have to take the scientific consensus as a guide to the current science of GW, as opposed to the economics or policy implications. Based on what we hear from scientists, I'd say there is a real risk of irreversible climate change that might well have huge financial and social costs. On the other hand, we know that there are equally big problems in the world, so I would rather focus on them, whilst doing what we reasonably can to lessen GW.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Yup, I agree with all of that.

You agree with me? <faints>

Not bad for a guy who eats dog poo

[pabloh20 1]

No I'm not an expert, alas. But I looked up an article from experts who explain the differences for us. Predicting the weather is so difficult because the equations are chaotic, in other words they are very sensitive to the initial conditions. If you get some detail of the input data wrong by a tiny amount, the forecast will gradually diverge more and more from real life. But that problem doesn't exist when predicting the climate, because the average behaviour will still be accurate. You do have to incorporate the weather into simulations of climate, but it doesn't have to be accurate! It only has to represent the typical weather conditions. This is a common feature of computer models, but it's quite subtle.

This whole argument that if you can't predict the weather you can't predict the climate is incredibly stupid. It's confusions like these that show why we need experts in the first place!

No, you missed the point, Muzza. You were saying that weather and climate were completely different and I was saying that they aren't, the only difference is the timescales used.

However, the main point about the relationship between the weather and climate is to point out that it is extremely hard to predict either with any sort of accuracy, so any GW theory that states x, y & z is going to happen is probably talking bollocks

1) Global warming is occurring based on all the available evidence and a large scientific majority, however the effects of it are hard to predict. Nonetheless there are ways we can combat it without significant impact on ourselves- indeed in many cases simply doing things we'd have to do anyway due to the inevitable energy crisis we will face.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I see it.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Not bad for a guy who eats dog poo

I know how it started, Muzza went into a sandwich bar and asked for a duck-wrap... (duck crap, gettit? Oh never mind...)...

Or maybe he phoned his local Chinese and asked for a number 2 with rice

[Max Mosley 2]

You agree with me? <faints>

Not bad for a guy who eats dog poo

Doesn't say much for the other guy though. Oh wait, that's you.

No, you missed the point, Muzza. You were saying that weather and climate were completely different and I was saying that they aren't, the only difference is the timescales used.

I was quibbling about the times tables used? I must have completely missed the point.

However, the main point about the relationship between the weather and climate is to point out that it is extremely hard to predict either with any sort of accuracy, so any GW theory that states x, y & z is going to happen is probably talking bollocks

OK. I thought you were saying: we know weather is hard to predict, therefore climate must be hard too. Whereas in fact that doesn't follow at all. Weather is in some sense harder to predict. But obviously there are huge uncertainties in climate predictions: even the IPCC gives a wide range of scenarios.

Or maybe he phoned his local Chinese and asked for a number 2 with rice

And it all got worse when I went to the finest restaurant in Glasgow one year. Unfortunately even this chippy was full of overweight Scottish people so I couldn't help ridiculing the entire nation by doing my Sean Connery impersonation. It just happened. Unable to hide my disappointment on arrival, I exclaimed: 'iz thish it?' As all good Bond villains, he spoke with a perfect English accent: 'no, no, my Sassenach friend, you haven't even been served yet.'

[maure 1]

Every single post of yours is an attempt to evade the issue and mislead people. You can find the details of the models online as easily as I can. In any case, I freely admit I'm not an expert. But your repeated posts that deliberately confused weather forecasting and climate modelling have just been refuted, so you dodge the issue and attack another straw man.

Regarding the Sun, yes of course it can affect the climate, and I've already said it was probably the main cause of warming/cooling before 1970. But I've given links already to papers showing the Sun is quite unlikely to be the cause of warming since 1970.

So you are not an expert but you consider yourself able to assess "the details of the models online". You are the funniest guy.

And just when I think you really, really cannot possibly get any funnier, you drop another gem. It turns out that you have such a (non-expert) understanding of the sun that you can tell us when and how its effect matters. My face hurts from laughing and I thank you for that.

Just what kind of child's game do you think you are playing? Your latest post is just another example of how you try to "evade the issue and mislead people". But still, funny through and through.

Here is something else for you to pretend that doesn't exist. My intention, as always, is to try to _help_ you to _start_ to get an idea of the complexity you are trying to dismiss and the many crucial factors involved in any scientific inquiry.

Say a _true_ scientist wants to study cognition. Because, in this example, the scientist is a _true_ scientist (let's say a "she"), she will never ever start by yelling to the world about prediction and explanation. Rather she will start by obtaining a _proper_description_ from which subsequent work may ensue.

And so, our scientist asks herself, "what is cognition?" and quickly realizes that to answer that question, she needs to ask many, many others. For example, she needs to answer first "what is the brain?". But to answer that question, she first needs to answer many, many another questions. One of them is "what are neurons?" which, in turn, requires asking many many other questions, which include, for example, "how do dendrites and axons exchange information?" which, in turn, requires asking many many other questions, for example, "how do neurotransmiters work?" which in turn.... and so on and on and on.

How does this true scientist get around the never ending subsequent questions (that in this example are linear for simplicity of exposition but that in treality are exponential)? She, like all other true scientists, places barriers. These barriers are called _assumptions_. All scientific work relies on certain assumptions. Depending on the problem, some assumptions are huge.

It is important to understand the role of assumptions for it is crucial. If assumptions are erroneous, all work that has been built on them, collapses. Do jump on the net and try to find what are the assumptions on which the GW movement is based. You will learn _a_lot_ more than be taking their conclusions as creed.

For when the assumptions become the conclusions, it is an indication that the entire scientific process has been jumped over, that is, it has been ignored, it has not been carried out, it has been dismissed because it gets in the way of... imagination.

[maure 1]

I should've mentioned I don't like cold weather either, I like it 'just right'.

Anyway there have been many great posts in this thread, all very interesting and thought provoking. Thanks people for your time and effort, just one request, a summary of all of your conclusions in less than 1000 words. Cheers

Actually, all you need is three words. These are: we don't know.

Since this is apparently difficult for some to grasp:

1. The temperature of the Earth has never been the same for some 4 billion years. It will continue changing. There is not enough data to claim, predict, or explain anything much.

2. One can be the most extreme environmentalist, survive on fruit and wear nothing but grass skirts, and still understand that GW claims, predictions, and explanations are groundless. The reason is that there is no relation between GW and thinking that we can take better care of the only ecosystem we've got.

3. If the problem were much much simpler, GW claims could turn out right by pure chance. Since it isn't, they won't. The GW movement is already wanning out of failure to account for anything and will soon be replaced by something else. Like I said, the clever ones are already pushing for the tautology/slogan "climate change".

4. The manner in which the GW movement pursues its agenda is detremental to scientific progress since those that by design or accident investigate elsewhere are persecuted.

5. These kinds of fads and the guys that blindly follow them bring me much amusement. I'm already looking forward to the next armageddon.

[Medilloni 6]

.................................Thanks people for your time and effort, just one request, a summary of all of your conclusions in less than 1000 words. Cheers

1. GW causes huge massdebatation on forums. Forums prosper, move to better and bigger servers, use more electric. This is compounded by the heat generated in the massdebation on the forums, accelerates GW into OMG!!!

2. All the events in 1. make water levels rise, cut off electric, floods cities, stops cars, everything at a standstill.

3. All the events in 2. causes rapid Earth cooling, scientists say we're headed for New Ice Age.

4. Man buys skis.

[Rainmaster 7]

1. GW causes huge massdebatation on forums. Forums prosper, move to better and bigger servers, use more electric. This is compounded by the heat generated in the massdebation on the forums, accelerates GW into OMG!!!

2. All the events in 1. make water levels rise, cut off electric, floods cities, stops cars, everything at a standstill.

3. All the events in 2. causes rapid Earth cooling, scientists say we're headed for New Ice Age.

4. Man buys skis.

Thanks that's cleared it up for me

[Oli 1]

OK, my summary is similar to Oli's but slightly different:

1) Global warming may or may not be occurring based on the available evidence and scientific opinion and the effects of it are hard to predict. There may be ways we can combat it without significant impact on ourselves - however more objective research is required both to ascertain whether it is happening (and to what level) and what mitigation we can apply. We should still aim to reduce our impact upon the planet, but in a considered fashion i.e. don't do something in a knee-jerk fashion that could do more damage longer term.

2) Renewable energy resources deserve more funding than they currently receive. In addition, world energy production and usage is currently extremely inefficient and improving its efficiency is in everyone's interest.

3) Certain governments may make incorrect decisions and be inclined to panic; the media also act irresponsibly. There is a need for an objective source of rational information so that people can make their own decisions and understand how to act.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the summary "it doesn't matter whether GW is proven or not, the course we should take is pretty much the same."?

Note even if this is the case I still stand by the science .

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the summary "it doesn't matter whether GW is proven or not, the course we should take is pretty much the same."?

Naughty!! Sure I will correct you:

Overall of course it makes sense to reduce our energy consumption and investigate other renewable means. Common sense.

What I am saying is that we should do so in a considered fashion, once we know the facts. There needs to be more objectivity within the scientific and political community (which IMHO I think there is not currently and maybe never will be) and the press need to be more balanced (which again will probably never happen).

What concerns and annoys me is the fervour and speed with which decisions are being made which seems out of proportion to the level of perceived risk (if you look at the list of what we are trying to mitigate against) and compared to other global problems. Especially when our understanding of how the climate really works is so limited.

Ans some decisions - like the UK's push to get more people using diesel have equally concerning long-term considerations.

Note even if this is the case I still stand by the science .

So will I but both sides of the argument need to keep listening to the other.....

[Max Mosley 2]

Christopher: I pretty much agree, except for 2 points. Sometimes you have to take measured action on the basis of subjective judgements of risks. Sometimes it's just not possible to wait until every detail is proven beyond doubt. Of course, these are difficult cases to know how to handle, and you mustn't be rash either. And the other point is that I tend to think most scientists are being straight about this. That often gets obscured however when a few vested interests deliberately muddy the waters.

Just what kind of child's game do you think you are playing? Your latest post is just another example of how you try to "evade the issue and mislead people". But still, funny through and through.

Exactly. Thanks for the encaure!

[pabloh20 1]

Christopher: I pretty much agree, except for 2 points. Sometimes you have to take measured action on the basis of subjective judgements of risks. Sometimes it's just not possible to wait until every detail is proven beyond doubt. Of course, these are difficult cases to know how to handle, and you mustn't be rash either. And the other point is that I tend to think most scientists are being straight about this. That often gets obscured however when a few vested interests deliberately muddy the waters.

Indeed.

I feel all dirty now I agree with you.................and not dirty in a good way either

[maure 1]

That often gets obscured however when a few vested interests deliberately muddy the waters.

So you think there is a conspiracy after all...

Not surprising. The same things you claim don't apply to GW, you naively apply elsewhere.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Christopher: I pretty much agree, except for 2 points. Sometimes you have to take measured action on the basis of subjective judgements of risks. Sometimes it's just not possible to wait until every detail is proven beyond doubt.

I didn't say prove it beyond doubt.... I said we should act once we know the facts. At this stage, I am not sure we do know the facts as they are being obscured by politics and personal agendas.... Furthermore as I hope I outlined somewhere ^ up there or < there.... that the actual impacts may not be as devastating as people realise, or may manifest themselves in different ways.

e.g. If lack of clean water/sea-rise induced flooding of low lying countries is a serious problem as a result of GW and these problems already exist then why not start to tackle that now? This is my main problem with GW - it has become such a mantra of politicians, corporations and scientists that its obscuring clear thought on many pre-existing issues.

Also I would like some clear messages to come out that explain to people *really* what the issues are and what they can do. e.g. did you know that the sea-rise (based upon IPCC projections - rightly or wrongly) was only 18 - 59 cm over 100 years? Does this change your view?

[pumpdoc 2]

I had 2 bowls of 3 alarm chilie last night, I guess that means I need to buy some of Algore's carbon offsets.

[Medilloni 6]

I had 2 bowls of 3 alarm chilie last night, I guess that means I need to buy some of Algore's carbon offsets.

Nah, as long as you keep your re-cycled bog-roll in the fridge you'll be fine