Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

spendius wrote:

Cyclo-

Wasn't it nice of me to provide you with an opportunity to flash your credentials.

They say one should wear one's learning lightly. Like one does a good suit.

What was the most important idea you gained from your study of history?

Probably that it was incredibly preferable to Heavy Lifting.

That, and that pointing out past mistakes has never really prevented current ones from happening; it takes action to prevent mistakes, not just criticism and a knowledge of history.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

History provides numerous and often contradictory lessons. Wisdom lies not so much in knowing them, as in understanding which applies. Very often that is unknowable in prospect, but all too evident in retrospect.

The essential problem is that history does not reveal its alternatives. We cannot know what might obtained if the "lessons" we derive from it had been applied.

0 Replies

Quote:

Arctic sea ice shrinking at a record rate, says scientist

Randy Boswell
CanWest News Service

Friday, August 10, 2007

Just a day before Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to arrive in the Far North today to try to boost Canada's claims of sovereignty over a melting Arctic, a U.S. climate expert announced that the ice cover in the northern hemisphere has shrunk faster this summer than in any year since reliable satellite imagery of the polar cap became available in 1979.

William Chapman, a University of Illinois researcher whose Cryosphere Today website provides day-to-day pictures of the global sea ice, said Thursday that "today, the northern hemisphere sea ice area broke the record for the lowest recorded ice area."

And he predicted that with "a month or more of melt" left this season, "it is therefore almost certain that the previous 2005 record will be annihilated," when the minimum ice cover is reached in September.

Noting that previous low-ice years could be attributed largely to faster melting in specific regions of the Arctic, such as the Beaufort or Bering seas, Chapman's website stated that "the character of 2007's sea ice melt is unique in that it is dramatic and covers the entire Arctic sector. Atlantic, Pacific and even the central Arctic sectors are showing large negative sea ice area anomalies."

In a story about Chapman's findings published late Thursday by the New York Times, NASA scientists and other ice experts confirmed that the Arctic is experiencing a record-setting melt this summer and pointed to a combination of natural fluctuations and persistent long-term polar warming due to global climate change.

"The melting rate during June and July this year was simply incredible," Chapman told the Times. "And then you've got this exposed black ocean soaking up sunlight and you wonder what, if anything, could cause it to reverse course."

© The Calgary Herald 2007

of course , we could simply say that unless we are 100 % certain there isn't much to worry about - unfortunately we may face the prospect of having been fried when we are certain at the 100 % level .
hardly any scientific scenarios are ever 100 % certain , are they ?
(btw we are often ready to go to war even though we are not 100 % certain who the enemy really is and what his intentions are .
i seem to recall that it was said that it would not be possible to wait for 100 % proof - mushroom cloud and all that - action was required right then and there - or did i misread ?)
hbg

source :
SEA ICE MELTING ACCELARATES

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

.....of course , we could simply say that unless we are 100 % certain there isn't much to worry about - unfortunately we may face the prospect of having been fried when we are certain at the 100 % level .....

fried?

0 Replies

okie questioned :

"FRIED ?"

you may have read the article issued under the seal of approval by the white house that i posted a few days ago ( and to which you responded) :

Quote:

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame....

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be. "And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable," he said.

would "BOILED" be are more appropriate description ?
IT'S YOUR CHOICE !
hbg

0 Replies

After Marburgers comments, is there anyone still disputing anthropogenic global warming?

0 Replies

I think that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a conspiracy by motorists, jet-plane travellers and those with money burning a hole in their pockets, which is supposed to be reserved for any children they have had the temerity to bring into the world to face the consequences of their behaviour, to render the population as stupid as they are. It is well known that CO2 causes a gradual slipping away eventuating in a comotose condition.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

would "BOILED" be are more appropriate description ?
IT'S YOUR CHOICE !
hbg

Boiled?

I always knew there were kooks, but seriously? Sorry hamburger, but using such terminology strikes me as silly when we are talking fractions of a degree, or about a degree.

0 Replies

I would love to read all the posts in this one, but time is of the essence.

I have read extensively on the matter of global warming, pros and con, tried to come to a reasonable and solid conclusion on the matter and believe that it is happening. To what extent and how much I am going to have to worry about it, I don't know.

In explanation: I am sixty something, have no children and from a purely selfish point of view really have no concern about "The future of the planet". From that aspect my vision of the future doesn't extend far. (Rather like politicians whose horizon for the future tends to be limited by time to the next election.)

On the other hand, I have always considered my selfish needs very much secondary to the overall needs of family, friends, state, nation, humanity in general. Therefore I DO care about global warming. I worry about it and take the heat from my associates who don't "buy into it".

It will not, in my lifetime, be proven one way or the other, but I fear that those who do not "buy into it" does so at their peril. Particularly if they are a generation or so younger than I.

I have seen the stats, looked at the before and after pix, noted that more and more of the scientists are getting on the bandwagon with this. (I am mindful of the geologist who first theorized that a large meteor caused the extinction of the dinosauers. He was generally scoffed at for a while. Then, as more "Proof" came in and more experiments were performed..... well, it is generally accepted as fact now.)

We have a harder problem to solve here. 1) The "proof" is not set in "stone", literally. But, rather, is incremental over time and continues as we speak. 2) Many governments will drag their feet on this, mainly because it will upset the modus operandi of their country to a great extent to combat or reverse global warming. 3) Many will simply take the selfish view and decide, well, I won't have to worry about it in my lifetime.

I said above that I believe something is going on. Because the evidence comes in slowly and incrementally and hard, "smoking gun", iron clad "PROOF" is hard to come by..... belief is about the best one can offer. I happen to believe that something bad is happening to our climate. I can't defend it absolutely, so I have to go with just the belief.

There are those who do not believe. I won't argue with them.

We are left with wait and see. Except:

1) One prediction made recently. "Seas will rise a meter in the next 5-20 years, and there is nothing we can do about it." (Now THAT I can observe in my lifetime.) If it does, my favorite hangout, the outer banks of NC will be devestated. I will use that, then, as my test case. Holland: If true, you guys got some serious problems coming up! Crying or Very sad

2) With the observation that Government never seems to act unless there is a crisis, I suspect only lip service will be paid to the problem until draconian efforts will be the only solution. I expect Modern Industrialized Countries won't like it too much. Even then, it may be too late.

3) On a purely philosophical vein: Man has struggled for thousands of years for survival. He has wrapped himself in a safety net of technology. Perhaps to the point that man believes he is in complete control of his enviornment. Perhaps Nature is warning us not to be so arrogant.

Halfback

0 Replies

Thanks for a thoughtful post. Welcome here.

One note, I don't see the meteor thing as accepted fact for dinosaur extinction, and I fail to see how it can be much more than a theory. Another observation, climate change is normal, with or without man, so the possibility that climate has changed and is changing really is not much of an argument for anything.

0 Replies

Okie:

Theory; a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. (Websters')

In short, an explanation of observed facts. Having the caveat "Theory" attached is about as good as it gets in the Scientific field. Scientists are expected to be flexible enough to refute one theory in favor of another, should that new theory better explain the phenomena in question. That doesn't always "go down" that easily.

I should have tempered my comment with the observation that it is the theory held presently by the majority of Astronomers, Geologists and whatever in the world one calls dinosaur bone hunters. (Ah, Paleontologists. I think.) Embarrassed

The general population, with their marked aversion to Science, would not have followed the theory development over a fifteen year or so period of time, of course.

Amongst the aforementioned Scientists, however, it is generally accepted.

There are always those who won't "buy into" a given theory. ALWAYS! This is probably a good thing, overall, it helps thinking outside the box.

As for those who go along with the "weather cycle" position. Yes, that could be the primary reason for global warming. If you are willing to bet the future on that, OK. (Like I pointed out, I have reached that exalted position in life where I don't have to worry about the future too much.) I said I wouldn't argue with alternate views on global warming.

Like I said, my test case will be the sea rise prediction noted in my last post. I go to the outer banks often, it is my place to regain inner peace and tranquility. I would be greatly saddened should it be destroyed. I will watch the area for as long as I still dance on this earth and maybe somewhere down the line I can say, AHA! Or, perhaps, "Another theory shot to hell." :wink:

However, if the seas do rise a meter in the next 20 years or less, there are going to be much more serious problems world wide than the loss of the outer banks to contend with.

Halfback

0 Replies

dr. marburger stated :

Quote:

"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable" .

okie wrote :

Quote:

Boiled?
I always knew there were kooks, but seriously? Sorry hamburger, but using such terminology strikes me as silly when we are talking fractions of a degree, or about a degree.

okie :
you say that : "we are talking fractions of a degree, or about a degree." ,
but dr. marburger states : "so at some point it becomes unliveable" .

i would think that if we are only talking about a one degree maximum increase in temperature , the earth would likely NOT become unlivable .

i would be very pleased indeed if we only have to deal with a one degree maximum increase in temperature . i would think that people could adjust to that .

there are two things that puzzle me a bit :
1) why would dr. marburger speak of "unlivable" if that is simply not true ,
2) why is there no uproar to be heard from scientists in dr. marburger's field that would prove him to be wrong ?

i have to admit that i was surprised at dr. marburger's outspoken comments . i am assuming that he must have felt that nothing short of such strong words would get much attention ?

i would think that if dr. marburger's comments are simply not scientifically sound , a panel of distinguished scientists will prove him to be wrong in short order .
i am waiting to hear from such a panel .
hbg

0 Replies

Very thoughtful posts, Halfback - a rarity on this subject.

Some ask us to "Accept the principle of Anthropogenic Global warming" without specifying just what they mean by the term. Descriptions range from small steady contributions to atmospheric warming with the possibility of future natural attenuation & damping, to inescapable rapid warming exacerbated by regional catastrophies such as the collapse of oceanic currents that transfer heat from the tropics to higher latitudes and other like phemnomena.

I suspect that nearly everyone acknowledges the contribution of greenhouse gases to warming and that warming of about 0.5 deg C has already occurred likely as a result. After that opinion and proposed strategies diverge sharply. The fact is that the attention-grabbing doomsday scenarios based on dramatically effective but fundamemtally flawed numerical simulations are known to science to prove nothing, given the strong nonlinearity of the phenomena and the known problem of chaos to which such simulations are inexorably subject.

Science is fairly certain that the basic atmospheric cycles, observable in the earth's geological record, will continue -- that means we are headed for yet another ice age. How mankind's contribution of greenhouse gases (as well as reflective ones such as SO2 which have the opposite effect) may affect this long term natural cycle remains unexplained.

The remedies widely proposed promise costs - and human suffering - on a scale comparable to the problem itself, excepting only the worst of the unproven catastrophe scenarios. That, of course, means that a rational approach to the problem will take into account the economic aspects of both the problem and the remedys proposed.

Unfortunately most of the AGW zealots refuse categorically to consider such tradeoffs. To illustrate this point consider the fact that significantly increasing the generation of power by nuclear reactors is strongly opposed by most AGW of them.

I take it that your expressed concern about the Outer Banks, places you in the category of one who doesn't wish to see any of the doomsday catastrophies occur - at least during your lifetime. I believe that nearly all of us feel the same. The problem is that if the dynamic of natural forces is such that such a catastrophic outcome is likely, then the prescriptions of the AGW zealots for better lightbulbs, wind and solar power and smaller cars won't save us. It will be a case of too little too late.

Meanwhile more rational people can ignore the scaremongers and proceed with a rational consideration of the problem, hoping that reason will prevail.

For those who insist that all of the prescriptions of the environmental movement are necessarily beneficial, consider the resurgence of mosquito borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue fever in Africa and Latin America (and other areas as well). The resurgent mortality associated with them far exceeds any forecast by the continuation of the use of DDT.

0 Replies

george wrote :

Quote:

For those who insist that all of the prescriptions of the environmental movement are necessarily beneficial, consider the resurgence of mosquito borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue fever in Africa and Latin America (and other areas as well). The resurgent mortality associated with them far exceeds any forecast by the continuation of the use of DDT.

from my limited understanding of this subject , it's not as simple as it sounds .
apparently many mosquitoes have now become resistant to DDT .
perhaps other/additional methods of combating malaria may have to be found .
there is a whole slew of articles on the subject - see link .
it seems to me that there is no easy solution at hand .
hbg

link to articles :
MOSQUITOES BECOMING DDT RESISTANT

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Some ask us to "Accept the principle of Anthropogenic Global warming" without specifying just what they mean by the term.

Its relatively self explanatory. If you're not sure ask your President's chief scientist, Dr Marburger.

0 Replies

from Wikipedia

Quote:

Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences.

The term is often used in the context of environmental externalities in the form of chemical or biological wastes that are produced as by-products of otherwise purposeful human activities. For instance, a scientific consensus holds that man-made carbon dioxide is the primary factor driving climate change.

0 Replies

Steve,

I believe I was very clear about what I meant by the wide spectrum of likely outcomes being considered in the AGW debate. I also noted explicitly that there is little doubt or debate about the greenhouse gas effect - and thus a strict interpretation of the definition you cited. I was also clear about the significance of this broad spectrum of forecasts relative to the decision making before us, and noted that this is precisely the issue most overlooked in an overheated debate that, in some quarters, is populated with demands by zealots that one accept without question whatever it is that they may wish to forecast and whatever remedy they may favor. As I noted, the first casualty in this irrational process is a reasoned debate about the real tradeoffs and the likely efficacy of the various remedies proposed (and others oddly neglected).

The schoolboy definition you offered did nothing to address this matter.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve,

I believe I was very clear about what I meant by the wide spectrum of likely outcomes being considered in the AGW debate. I also noted explicitly that there is little doubt or debate about the greenhouse gas effect - and thus a strict interpretation of the definition you cited. I was also clear about the significance of this broad spectrum of forecasts relative to the decision making before us, and noted that this is precisely the issue most overlooked in an overheated debate that, in some quarters, is populated with demands by zealots that one accept without question whatever it is that they may wish to forecast and whatever remedy they may favor. As I noted, the first casualty in this irrational process is a reasoned debate about the real tradeoffs and the likely efficacy of the various remedies proposed (and others oddly neglected).

The schoolboy definition you offered did nothing to address this matter.

I have a hard time understanding why you assume that the Zealots represent the reasonable side of the debate opposite yours.

I, for example, think that the environment and global warming are important issues and that cleaning them up, yes, will affect our ability to grow unchecked. But I don't think the world is going to end in a decade if we don't get on everything immediately.

By defining your opponent's position with the most radical version of any position that opposes yours, and then knocking down that strawman, you aren't winning the argument. There's a huge amount of room for us to improve even if you don't think that catastrophic failure of the ecosystem is right around the corner; and what more, the reasons for making these improvements stand upon their own merits, and not some doomsday scenario.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Some ask us to "Accept the principle of Anthropogenic Global warming" without specifying just what they mean by the term.

I was just specifying what I meant George.

How you resisted the temptation of laying the blame for AGW with Europeans, especially the Brits, and in particular Steve41oo is remarkable. Well done Laughing

0 Replies

As my old man used to say--"It'll all come out in't wash."

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know