How would you score the AGW debate -- IF?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by flacaltenn, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    12 years from now -- the GATemp has gained 0.25deg but the rise rate has greatly taper off AND we NOW know that there is a warming trend and CO2 has an influence, but is NOT the primary driver of the warming.

    In other words, increased amounts of CO2 contributed by mankind has ENHANCED the warming trend, but never was the primary driver of the warming.

    Let's say we've discovered long term physical cycles of climate change due to the alignment of solar system, earth positional dynamics or changes in the nature and composition of the Solar irradiation. -- AND the thermal forcing that is created by THAT primary driver is enhanced 25% by the increased CO2/GHG concentration..

    Do we ALL win? Are Hansen and Mann still heroes in the history books because they honked the warning horn, but blew the analysis? Is Al Gore still a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Does the Hockey Stick and that Siberian YAD061 tree still matter?

    Are skeptics like me still guilty of stalling and foot-dragging on spending TRILLIONs of dollars on CO2 mitigation? Will Muller still be a "skeptic"?

    I just might pull a Muller here as I learn more about what's being claimed. I don't think ANYBODY'S got the CAUSE of the warming down right yet. YET -- It is warming and we are gambling here.. I'm not a "cult retard denier" without a conscience or a brain.

    Chances are -- EVERYBODY'S gonna look stupid at a high scientific level when the history is written. That's the way science history usually goes..
     
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    Another question might be -- If CO2 ENHANCES the warming -- are we still gonna change our ways and spend fortunes on GHG mitigation? Or just kill off all the termites and call it even? Is CO2 STILL a pollutant?
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    Flacaltenn..........actually, Ive been keeping score for the forum the last two years or so.............

    The current score, skeptics vs alarmists................


    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    No. Not until there is a large enough disaster to get the attention of all.
     
  5. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    So -- nothing short of a Biblical Sign of Divine Proportion is gonna justify a change?

    Could still be a disaster under the thought experiment I gave. That would please you?
     
  6. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,632
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,113
    What kind of change. I'm only for change as long as it's economical and doesn't hurt people.

    Caring about the poor and middle class must always be a factor in our decisions. :eusa_angel:
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    IF

    Thus far all the science states that the GHGs are the primary driver of the warming. I have yet to see an article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that shows the sun to be the primary driver.

    Tyndall established the cause in 1858. That has been confirmed hundreds of times since, with increasingly accurate mapping of the absorption spectra of the GHGs, natural and manmade.

    I have followed this issue since the mid '60's when a graduate student made a presentation to geology class I was attending. In that half century, I have seen the predictions of the 'alarmists' proven routinely wrong. That affects that those scientists were predicting have arrived decades early in almost every case.

    We are seeing consequences now that were not expected until midcentury. Both Swiss Re and Munich Re confirm this in their actuarial books on extreme weather events. Professor Jennifer Francis's lecture on the affects of the melting ice in the arctic on the weather patterns is an eye opener on how the extreme weather events are created.

    Even were we to decide to cut GHGs on a worldwide level, we still have 30 to 50 years of heating in the pipeline from existing levels. And the reaction of the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean is going to determine how bad it will get. The time for prevention of consequences is long past, we are seeing consequences now, and will see those consequences increase in the coming years. Reduction in output of GHGs on a worldwide level will help those in the 22nd century, but the path of warming in this century is already established.

    The question now is will those that prevented reductions in GHGs for the last 30 years prevent prepartion for the consequences of the warming?
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    None of this is pleasing to me. I do not like the changes I have seen in the mountains that I love. I do not like the prospect of the forests being burnt out as the climate warms, and droughts and flooding both become major factors in firestorms and extreme erosion.

    You are a prime example of why it will take a major disaster to wake up the people up. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists of academic fraud, or worse.

    The science has been established for a long time. That you cannot or refuse to comprehend that is your problem. Events are vindicating the scientists that have tried to warn us of the consequences of the warming.

    The policy statements of all the scientfic societies that deal in science related to the warming have been unequivical for the last 5 years. The GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere has created a very bad future for all of us.

    That you now wish to state, "Oh maybe there is just a little bit of truth in the science" at this time only indicates your basic lack of understanding of what is happening, or a basic dishonesty on your part.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    The poor and middle class will see major impacts from the changing climate. Far more impacts than if we do nothing at all.

    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...6314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf
     
  10. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,021
    Thanks Received:
    4,652
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,339
    What I gave you here was a projected truth, not an actual truth. But one that I believe to be the most likely outcome of this debate. It IS based on the ideas of others that I've read. For instance Nicola Scarfetta has taken the official Surface Temp Record and clearly shown 60 year "natural cycles" in the last 2 centuries that COULD account for up to 60% of the warming attributed to anthropogenic causes. HE speculates on astronomical reasons for this cycle. Cycles that were also (coincidentally) identified by ancient civilizations.

    Because the Anthropogenic part of AGW is focused solely on MOSTLY the last 100 years, folks could be missing the LARGER picture.. But we're not discussing Scarfetta or individual ideas.

    The excersize was to project a plausible outcome where we're BOTH somewhat right. That you and your bud Tynedahl fingered CO2 but blew the theory part of causality, and I was correct about the complexity of the driving causes and skeptical of purely anthropogenic cause -- but maybe too ready to dismiss auxilliary "contributions" from GHG.

    In that case -- it might not interest you at all -- because you've got your flak jak on waiting for the immediate apocalyse rather than pondering and thinking about the issues. And when your primary defense is that some dude without a lab or satellites or computers in the 18th century had it all right and refuse to review a LITERAL OCEAN of work since -- then I take it you're done debating and you're gonna bet on Tynedahl REGARDLESS of any new evidence presented or any descrepancies in the theories or measurements.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012

Share This Page