Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Bodhi]

Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.

[bozon]

Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.

Actually, venus and mercury are good test cases for atmospheric models. The problem with earth atmosphere is that it is just one specific case and it is very easy to tailor the model to fit the current atmosphere, but you have no confidence in the prediction of such a model for different conditions (say, double the CO2 content). A good test is to apply such models to other atmospheres, like Venus. Yes, green house effect is very dominant in venus but atmospheric radiative transfer models used in earth climate science fail to predict the correct temperature. They over predict it by almost factor of two if I remember correctly. I don't know of other component of global climate models but I know that their radiative transfer is brown and smelly. Note: This is independent of whether there is or isn't strange climate effects, I just think that the catastrophic claims and hysteria spreading are totally un-scientific.

[33Vortex]

It's all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that man made estrogens being released into the water will get us long before any other catastrophic event does.


   

 

[Angus]

Angus, In the global warming debate, comparing Venus to Earth is one of the most ignorant comparisons I have ever heard.

You can add Mars as well. Anyway what makes Venus special is that it's a good bit further from the Sun than Mercury, but due to atmospheric gasses, it's much warmer.
Mars is also warmer than it ought to be due to the distance from the Sun.
So, call it ignorant to compare planets....well, I won't loose much sleep from that

[LYNX]

It's OK.... climate change bias safeguards

http://www.disclose.tv/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fenvironment%2F2009%2Fnov%2F29%2Fipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

[Angus]

Oh, by the way, 3 inches of sea over the globe equals to a chunk of ice some 27.000 cubic kilometers (if my calculation is right). That is about the Ice that has been added from land based glaciers, since melting of sea ice does not give an effect. Now go and look at the Volume of some glaciers, and you will see this is quite some chunk.

[Simaril]

I'm conservative, and in honesty my bias was against believing in global warming...until I saw widespread changes in ice and glaciers. Seeing things like the ice line recession at Glacier National Park, and later the loss of polar ice, make it pretty hard to believe that worldwide average temperatures aren't actually rising.


If this is manmade, we want to minimize manmade destabilizations. If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further.

It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.

[indy007]

It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.

There's a big flaw with your logic. Why would natural heating be a bad thing?

[Angus]

I'm conservative, and in honesty my bias was against believing in global warming...until I saw widespread changes in ice and glaciers. Seeing things like the ice line recession at Glacier National Park, and later the loss of polar ice, make it pretty hard to believe that worldwide average temperatures aren't actually rising.


If this is manmade, we want to minimize manmade destabilizations. If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further.

It seems to me that the discussion should therefore be more about the costs and returns of interventions, and less about whether warming is real. Even scientists on the make can't blow enough hot air to melt glaciers.

A salute to a cool minded and good post Simaril A total opposite to a complete lack of understanding in the reply of "Why would natural heating be a bad thing?", since you already say "If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further".
Anyway, to my little calculation, 27.000 cubic kilometers of land based ice that has melted, - not mentioning what would have melted in the sea, - go to Wiki and look up how big a mass those glaciers are as a total compared to what 27.000 km3 make up. Quite something of a shock, now isn't it....

[indy007]

<snip>

and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded.

[Stoney]

A salute to a cool minded and good post Simaril A total opposite to a complete lack of understanding in the reply of "Why would natural heating be a bad thing?", since you already say "If this is a natural climate change, then we don't want blindly continue to do things that destabilize things further".
Anyway, to my little calculation, 27.000 cubic kilometers of land based ice that has melted, - not mentioning what would have melted in the sea, - go to Wiki and look up how big a mass those glaciers are as a total compared to what 27.000 km3 make up. Quite something of a shock, now isn't it....

But Indy makes a good point.  The glaciers didn't just start melting once we started throwing CO2 into the air.  They've been melting since the last Ice Age, and I think we'll all agree that man didn't cause that warming.  The problem is that no one can accurately quantify exactly what contribution man-made CO2 has made to the on-going and pre-existing glacial melting.

[33Vortex]

What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?

[CAP1]

What we do know however is that they want to put a tax on CO² emission, which effectively means a tax on all animal life on the planet! It's pure fascism and someone has to stop it! If we can't do it now, who will in the future when the tax has already been legalized?!?

actually, if it's not stopped now, we're all screwed. once it's in place, it's there for good.

[Chalenge]

... but lets avoid that conversation please.

I think the man-made part of it is pure lie. The scientists themselves admit that they dont know enough to predict the outcome so how is anyone can say for a fact that it is mans fault? Also I dont think that man in any way has enough power to kill the earth or the biosphere more precisely. Yes man has over-hunted species before but I also think that mans 'protection' of species has caused more harm than good and there are always rules to get around the 'protection' when it is expedient to do so. That in itself leans to the conclusion that its never about the species or the biosphere.

[Angus]

But Indy makes a good point.  The glaciers didn't just start melting once we started throwing CO2 into the air.  They've been melting since the last Ice Age, and I think we'll all agree that man didn't cause that warming.  The problem is that no one can accurately quantify exactly what contribution man-made CO2 has made to the on-going and pre-existing glacial melting.

Lookie here. We will NOT agree about the last bit. And while you can ponder on the accuracy of our contribution, I refer to Simaril when he stated that we should perhaps not help on with destabilization of our climate.
Guess we all agree about GW though,....since we have that much Ice melting in the last 50 years. Would amount to about most of the European glaciers put together, the biggest one by far being only a quarter or so of the total there. And don't forget the sea-ice, since it normally melts before....

And Indy:
"and people have lived below sea level for centuries. The idea people will just stand around and drown is retarded."
I guess you must be living below sea level. And I guess people lived fine with the Dinos. Oh, forgot that we got created only a short while ago perhaps. Anyway, I think that the rather "delicate" climate in the later and less violent times of our earth did indeed help with us becoming...."intelligent creatures", but however, reading these threads make me think if that is the case at all.....