Another Dissenting voice

[Tech_Esq]

Hey Tech dude,

When you need expert advice on cancer, do you go to an oncologist? Or, do you go to a guy with a bachelor's degree in ecology?

Keep trusting the hyper-politicized pseudo-scientists. Look out for the cliff lemming!

 

[Tech_Esq]

This conclusion is based on your expertise as a climatologist?

I'm NOT saying you are wrong, understand.

I am merely suggesting that I am not qualified to determine which set of scientists are right.

Are you?

I'm at least qualified to look at a set of factors and look at the evidence the side citing the disaster and advocating for the expenditure of Trillions and Trillions of dollars to the detriment of most civilizations on earth and decide whether it is likely that they could possibly have the a firm grasp on the data to be accurate when they are predicting the catastrophe. Given a few common knowledge pieces of information, like the earth is billions of years old. Life is millions of years old on this planet. The climate has warmed and cooled before without man having any part in it. The climate has never been static, it has always changed.

Lastly, if we wanted to change the climate, we couldn't do it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I feel that I am qualified, in this case, to determine which set of scientists is correct. First, the existance of GHGs was identified by Fourier arround 1820. Tyndal isolated CO2 as the primary GHG a bit later. In 1895, Svante Arnnhenius did the numbers for CO2, and recognized the increasing amount from the industrial revolution would start warming the atmosphere. So the science of the affect of GHGs is not new at all, and has been confirmed repeatedly.

Suess did the work in the 1950s that established that the increase in CO2 was from the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. Since the '60s, there has been ever increasing and intensive research into how our climate works, and how it has worked in the past. Paleo-climatology is a full blown and respectable science today, and has given us many insights into the climates, and climatic disasters of the past geologic ages.

What has been found is that if the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere is increased rapidly, there are natural feedbacks, involving sequestered CO2 and CH4, that cause adrupt climate changes. Climate changes that create conditions that cause extinctions.

Today, there is not a single scientific society, not a single National Academy of Science, not a single major university that does not state that global warming is occuring, that it is a clear and present danger, and that the primary driver is manmade GHGs. That is a clear and overwhelming scientific consensus.

But one does not have to know any of this to observe that our climate is rapidly changing. From losing two trillion tons of ice in the last few years from the worlds glaciers and ice caps, to the drunken forests of Alaska, one can readily see that the world is warming. The reason for that warming is also readily apparent. The total solar irradiance for the last 50 years has not increased, indeed, there has been an insignificant decrease. There is no vast volcanic eruption putting GHGs into the atmosphere, as there was in the P-T and PETM extinctions. The only known source for the 39% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, is the burning of fossil fuels by man.

Given that the Milankovic driven feedback on CO2 involves a change of only 100 ppm to make the differance between ice age and interglaciel, and that we have added another 100 ppm to the interglaciel high of 280 ppm, so that we now stand and 385+ ppm, with an accelerating increase, how can we not be having a major affect on the climate?

And look at many of the leaders of the denialist movement. Singer for instance, a known charlatan that, for money, is quite willing to testify in front of Congress that tobacco smoke is harmless. Oregon Institute of Medicine and Science, that so many love to cite, a group of loonies from the great learning center of Cave Junction, Oregon. Population, 1126. One of their "petitions" claiming 31,000 scientists, had people on it that were not involved in science in any way, and a number of real scientists, when told that their signiture was on vehemently denied ever signing it, or holding the opinions expressed in the paper. And these same people, until it became too obvious to deny, denied that there was any warming at all, right up to 1998. Today, they have changed their tune to "Well, there is warming, but it is not man caused". That too, is no longer accepted by the majority of people in the world, and not accepted at all by the scientific community.

The fact is you do not have the data set that is sufficient for anything but a Wild Assed Guess.

 

[Old Rocks]

The data set that we have is sufficient to create an overwhelming consensus among the scientists worldwide that global warming is occurring, is a clear and present danger, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver. The data set that we have goes back, through proxies, to a least 2 billion years. That data set includes several times that there has been sudden increases in GHGs, each time with the same results, major and minor extinctions.

Now you keep throwing out these 'talking points'. How about linking to some real science papers that agree with your position. Here are some of the sources of my information;

http://geo-nsdi.er.usgs.gov/metadat...htmlhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm...servatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology/

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting. Only two of five. And those don't come up when I try to link. Well, let's try this;

NASA GISS: Research in Paleoclimate

 

[Old Rocks]

That's better. Here is another;

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

 

[garyd]

I minored in climate and geography some years back and have spent considerable time doing weather observation while I was in the army. That enough for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

I minored in climate and geography some years back and have spent considerable time doing weather observation while I was in the army. That enough for you?

And I have three years of university level training in Geology. No degree, but a strong interest that has had me reading all I am can about geology since the mid-60s. In the first geology class I took, the professor brought in a post grad student he said wanted to introduce us to some radical ideas. Radical, but backed with good evidence. When the young man had finished his presentation, the professor stated that it was too bad that the predictions that he made were mostly for 2100, because no one in class would be able to check them out. Most of the predictions have already came to be.

I have personally seen the diminuation of the mountain glacies in the Cascades and the Blues. If you are really interested in evidence for global warming, scientific evidence, not political rhetoric, I can provide that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The data set that we have is sufficient to create an overwhelming consensus among the scientists worldwide that global warming is occurring, is a clear and present danger, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver. The data set that we have goes back, through proxies, to a least 2 billion years. That data set includes several times that there has been sudden increases in GHGs, each time with the same results, major and minor extinctions.

Now you keep throwing out these 'talking points'. How about linking to some real science papers that agree with your position. Here are some of the sources of my information;

http://geo-nsdi.er.usgs.gov/metadat...htmlhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm...servatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology/

I'm talking data set and you are talking "consensus". It's bullshit. It's just about power, control and money.

 

[editec]

I feel that I am qualified, in this case, to determine which set of scientists is correct. First, the existance of GHGs was identified by Fourier arround 1820. Tyndal isolated CO2 as the primary GHG a bit later. In 1895, Svante Arnnhenius did the numbers for CO2, and recognized the increasing amount from the industrial revolution would start warming the atmosphere. So the science of the affect of GHGs is not new at all, and has been confirmed repeatedly.

Suess did the work in the 1950s that established that the increase in CO2 was from the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. Since the '60s, there has been ever increasing and intensive research into how our climate works, and how it has worked in the past. Paleo-climatology is a full blown and respectable science today, and has given us many insights into the climates, and climatic disasters of the past geologic ages.

What has been found is that if the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere is increased rapidly, there are natural feedbacks, involving sequestered CO2 and CH4, that cause adrupt climate changes. Climate changes that create conditions that cause extinctions.

Today, there is not a single scientific society, not a single National Academy of Science, not a single major university that does not state that global warming is occuring, that it is a clear and present danger, and that the primary driver is manmade GHGs. That is a clear and overwhelming scientific consensus.

But one does not have to know any of this to observe that our climate is rapidly changing. From losing two trillion tons of ice in the last few years from the worlds glaciers and ice caps, to the drunken forests of Alaska, one can readily see that the world is warming. The reason for that warming is also readily apparent. The total solar irradiance for the last 50 years has not increased, indeed, there has been an insignificant decrease. There is no vast volcanic eruption putting GHGs into the atmosphere, as there was in the P-T and PETM extinctions. The only known source for the 39% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere, is the burning of fossil fuels by man.

Given that the Milankovic driven feedback on CO2 involves a change of only 100 ppm to make the differance between ice age and interglaciel, and that we have added another 100 ppm to the interglaciel high of 280 ppm, so that we now stand and 385+ ppm, with an accelerating increase, how can we not be having a major affect on the climate?

And look at many of the leaders of the denialist movement. Singer for instance, a known charlatan that, for money, is quite willing to testify in front of Congress that tobacco smoke is harmless. Oregon Institute of Medicine and Science, that so many love to cite, a group of loonies from the great learning center of Cave Junction, Oregon. Population, 1126. One of their "petitions" claiming 31,000 scientists, had people on it that were not involved in science in any way, and a number of real scientists, when told that their signiture was on vehemently denied ever signing it, or holding the opinions expressed in the paper. And these same people, until it became too obvious to deny, denied that there was any warming at all, right up to 1998. Today, they have changed their tune to "Well, there is warming, but it is not man caused". That too, is no longer accepted by the majority of people in the world, and not accepted at all by the scientific community.

You miss my point, I think.

You and I can both read the findings (more like the summaries, actually) of these experts and based on their summaries believe (or not) that they are right.

But are YOU PERSONALLY qualified to critically analyise their tests to determine if their findings are right and based on those findings that their conclusions and predictions are right?

Now I KNOW that I am not qualified to do that.

So, I am given to looking at who is making those claims, and based on little more than my faith that some of them are on the level, to take a position that

1. global warming is definitely happening; and

2. mankinds industrialism is playing a significant role in it, but not necessarily the ONLY role in it; and

3. we do NOT know if there is anything we can do to reverse this trend NOW.

 

[Caligirl]

Mars is Melting
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots.

Mars is Melting

it must be all the cars....

Your link is only talking about the seasons on Mars. Not planetary warming.

Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."

 

[Caligirl]

Lastly, if we wanted to change the climate, we couldn't do it.

Could you expand on this?

I can change the temperature of my backyard by planting trees vs paving the whole thing.

Heat islands exist in urban areas, so we obviously change climate at a city wide level as well.

If I am not mistaken, larger scale changes, such as desertification, can be linked to agriculture.

What specifically do you mean when you say we can't change climate?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Could you expand on this?

I can change the temperature of my backyard by planting trees vs paving the whole thing.

Heat islands exist in urban areas, so we obviously change climate at a city wide level as well.

If I am not mistaken, larger scale changes, such as desertification, can be linked to agriculture.

What specifically do you mean when you say we can't change climate?

What I was talking about was the global climate. There are a few things we've discovered that can cause global climatic changes. Polar winds, solar activity, El Nino/La Nina effect. So far we can't make any of that happen (or anything different with similar results). For instance, some folks think it is better for the climate not to change (and apparently they have a lot of leading scientists with them) fine, then just change the climate so it's cooler instead of warmer. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's a fucking cult.

 

[Caligirl]

I missed the fucking, damn.




Tech, do you think that if the planet was covered with ice to latitude 30 north and south that more heat would be reflected away from the planet?