Real, or a scam? Can we trust them to tell the truth?

[rdean]

Scientists are only now putting together meaningful computer models of the worlds climate. Is it too little too late? Will the models be accurate? Will we finally get proof that global warming is real or a scam?

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/...hange-Just-the-Tip-of-the-Iceberg-063009.aspx

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They don't need computer models to tell us that our SUV's are burning "Fossil fuels" and causing it to warm not only Earth, but Mars Jupiter and Saturn as well.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Scientists are only now putting together meaningful computer models of the worlds climate. Is it too little too late? Will the models be accurate? Will we finally get proof that global warming is real or a scam?

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/...hange-Just-the-Tip-of-the-Iceberg-063009.aspx

Problem is getting to the cause. Everyone knows things are heating up. If you're denying that fact, then you're a flat Earther.

Problem is, what's the cause? Sun Spots? Volcanic Activity? Fossil Fuels?

Until the models can make predictions about that, you won't settle the debate.

 

[N4mddissent]

The question has always been one of degree and cause.

Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? Of course. You can go in a lab and do experiments which show that CO^2 acts as an insulator, trapping escaping heat. Do human activities release a lot of CO^2? Yes, our burning of fossil fuels releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.

So the question come down to
1) How much of a warming effect does CO^2 have on the atmosphere.
2) Is the amount of CO^2 contributed by human activities having or potentially will have a significant warming effect?

When examining th evidence, these should be the questions considered. There is no doubt we are having some impact on the atmosphere and there is no question that increased carbon dioxide will cause warming. The question is whether it is significant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists are only now putting together meaningful computer models of the worlds climate. Is it too little too late? Will the models be accurate? Will we finally get proof that global warming is real or a scam?

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/...hange-Just-the-Tip-of-the-Iceberg-063009.aspx

Problem is getting to the cause. Everyone knows things are heating up. If you're denying that fact, then you're a flat Earther.

Problem is, what's the cause? Sun Spots? Volcanic Activity? Fossil Fuels?

Until the models can make predictions about that, you won't settle the debate.

Sun spots

The Total Solar Irridiance has actually declined in the past years. Sun spot activity is at a low. That should produce a cooling effect.

Volcanic activity

Volcanic eruptions, other than Trap Volcanics, result in climatic cooling. And the amount of CO2 that volcanoes put into the atmosphere is only 130th as much mankind puts into the atmosphere.

Fossil Fuels

We have raised the CO2 level from 290 ppm to nearly 390 ppm in the last 150 years. We have more than doubled the amount of CH4 in the same period. We have also added many manmade GHGs that retain many times the amout of heat that CO2 does.

It would seem to me that it is pretty obvious that the reasonable conclusion is that the increase in GHGs is the primary cause of the heating that we observing.

 

[KittenKoder]

TFF

 

[Old Rocks]

The question has always been one of degree and cause.

Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? Of course. You can go in a lab and do experiments which show that CO^2 acts as an insulator, trapping escaping heat. Do human activities release a lot of CO^2? Yes, our burning of fossil fuels releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.

So the question come down to
1) How much of a warming effect does CO^2 have on the atmosphere.
2) Is the amount of CO^2 contributed by human activities having or potentially will have a significant warming effect?

When examining th evidence, these should be the questions considered. There is no doubt we are having some impact on the atmosphere and there is no question that increased carbon dioxide will cause warming. The question is whether it is significant.

I cannot fail to think that a nearly 40% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a major effect on the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. There is a differance of 100 ppm of CO2, 180 ppm at the depths of an ice age, to 280 ppm to 290 ppm, at the height of an interglacial. Now we have increased the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm. And we are seeing a rapidly accelerating change in the average temperature worldwide. Given that the inertia in the system is such that the amount of heat we are seeing now is the result of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere 50 years ago. In other word, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'm melting!

 

[N4mddissent]

The question has always been one of degree and cause.

Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? Of course. You can go in a lab and do experiments which show that CO^2 acts as an insulator, trapping escaping heat. Do human activities release a lot of CO^2? Yes, our burning of fossil fuels releases large quantities of carbon dioxide.

So the question come down to
1) How much of a warming effect does CO^2 have on the atmosphere.
2) Is the amount of CO^2 contributed by human activities having or potentially will have a significant warming effect?

When examining th evidence, these should be the questions considered. There is no doubt we are having some impact on the atmosphere and there is no question that increased carbon dioxide will cause warming. The question is whether it is significant.

I cannot fail to think that a nearly 40% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a major effect on the amount of heat retained by the atmosphere. There is a differance of 100 ppm of CO2, 180 ppm at the depths of an ice age, to 280 ppm to 290 ppm, at the height of an interglacial. Now we have increased the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm. And we are seeing a rapidly accelerating change in the average temperature worldwide. Given that the inertia in the system is such that the amount of heat we are seeing now is the result of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere 50 years ago. In other word, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I tend to think the impact will be significant as well. The problem is that usually exaggerations come not with the basic premises, but with the likely impact. Sometimes the exaggeration is simply a stating of potential impact as likely impact. Other times it is outright hyperbole. I try to remain cautious because unfortunately, those with selfish motives or those with an ideological axe to grind, will often use exaggerated information as an excuse to dismiss all information about AGW. They seem to crave an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's why in this post I focused on the indisputable facts (by any reasonable standard) and am holding off on the likely effects until more certainty is in the equation. The potential effects are alarming though and I believe justify some degree of action even if they are unlikely.

 

[Oddball]

I cannot fail to think that a nearly 40% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.......

That's because you fail to think at all, seeing as you've already admitted that the only way your mind will be changed on this, is by the minds of those who've been doing your thinking for you being changed.

 

[N4mddissent]

I cannot fail to think that a nearly 40% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.......

That's because you fail to think at all, seeing as you've already admitted that the only way your mind will be changed on this, is by the minds of those who've been doing your thinking for you being changed.

Or perhaps his opinion was formed on the same information that causes a result like this.

When asked:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

[Oddball]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Scientists are only now putting together meaningful computer models of the worlds climate

They are?

Computer models which depend only on human input?

Of course!

 

[garyd]

Given that the heating is confined largely to Europe and that the effects of urban heat Islands are grossly understated in the current models; given also the fact that CO2 doesn't reflect the entireity of infrared wave band but only a small fraction of it and that current CO2 levels are in fact still quite low at something around 3.5 to 4 hundreds of a percent of our atmosphere, the notion that CO2 is the problem is vanishingly small.

Further given the amount of info that is not know about the various and sundry feed back loops and other mechanism of a weather system that for complication makes the theory of relativity seem like childs play by comparison, I find it quite doubtful that anyone can produce a working computer model of the earths climate.

 

[N4mddissent]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It would seem to me that it is pretty obvious that the reasonable conclusion is that the increase in GHGs is the primary cause of the heating that we observing.

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually prove that man made and released Green House Gases are helping fuel the increase. I doubt they are the sole cause.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

That's the real question. Life is pretty hardy. I doubt seriously that we can cause the extermination of life on Earth by Greenhouse Gas.

There is the historical question though. Climate change throughout history always leads to cultural collapse. Even if we are not causing (and I lead towards that camp), it IS happening and we need to be ready. If it continues, serious changes in how we produce food and run our civilization will occur.

Note I said: "Will occur." Its not a matter of we'll have to decide to change, its a matter of we'll be forced to change if we want to keep our civilization around on this planet.

 

[N4mddissent]

We've already covered this ground awhile back, when it was asked what evidence he'd accept that the AGW hoax is a hoax.

His answer boiled down to; "I'll change my mind when they change theirs".

OldRocksinthehead is a parrot and follower, not an analytical thinker.

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

That's the real question. Life is pretty hardy. I doubt seriously that we can cause the extermination of life on Earth by Greenhouse Gas.

There is the historical question though. Climate change throughout history always leads to cultural collapse. Even if we are not causing (and I lead towards that camp), it IS happening and we need to be ready. If it continues, serious changes in how we produce food and run our civilization will occur.

Note I said: "Will occur." Its not a matter of we'll have to decide to change, its a matter of we'll be forced to change if we want to keep our civilization around on this planet.

Has someone been reading their Jared Diamond?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I think global warming deniers are equally hyperbolic and unreasonable. I watched a Glenn Beck clip about global warming and it was among the least rational screeds I have ever heard.

And the guy who helped found the weather channel...I read his arguments against AGW and it was so fallacious as to be laughable.

AGW is real. The question is how much of a threat it is.

That's the real question. Life is pretty hardy. I doubt seriously that we can cause the extermination of life on Earth by Greenhouse Gas.

There is the historical question though. Climate change throughout history always leads to cultural collapse. Even if we are not causing (and I lead towards that camp), it IS happening and we need to be ready. If it continues, serious changes in how we produce food and run our civilization will occur.

Note I said: "Will occur." Its not a matter of we'll have to decide to change, its a matter of we'll be forced to change if we want to keep our civilization around on this planet.

Has someone been reading their Jared Diamond?

Who?

I've been studying Europe about the 14th Century. An unusually long and rainy period led to years where Summer was no longer dependable (sometimes called the Little Ice Age). That led to famine and a massive die out in Europe due to starvation, which was followed up by the 100 Year War, various peasant revolts against feudalism, and the Bubonic Plague (made that MUCH worse due to rampant malnutrition).

If you read up on that period of time, you really start to believe that the Four Horsemen were up and running. Folks of the time certainly thought (with good reason) they were in the End of Days.

Folks don't realize it doesn't take a lot in the way of climate change to kick off famine, which often leads into war, which can set you up for pandemic. If something like that starts, it takes a VERY hardy civilization to survive it.

 

[garyd]

That was caused by cooling. Warming has usually been quite beneficial for humanity. Frankly we are about fifty years late for a minor ice age. I'd prefer that we get no more of them. The Medieval Warm period which was warmer world wide than what we are experiencing now was a time of great prosperity nearly world wide.