Global warming

David Rodale said:
As for all this unprecedented warming we've had the last 30+ years, it's hard to find. CD, would you point it out for us?
Click to expand...

Have you not noticed it yourself where you live? Most people have, that's why it's become such an issue.

CD, you say you base your rock solid predictions of non-stop catastrophic warming on physics and simple reasoning (whatever that means).
Click to expand...

I said "significant", not "catastrophic". Are you driven to misreprent, or is it simply a failure of comprehension brought on by hysteria? (Rhetorical.)

It will get warmer because the global climate is not yet at equilibrium with 380ppmCO2, let alone what the CO2-load is now or will be in the near future. That's simple reasoning. No matter how much fun you have with statistics in the meantime, that's not going to go away.

Nothing's going to happen to stop CO2-load increasing absent a signficant bolide incident or a big-boy's nuclear-exchange (in which case all bets are off). That's simple extrapolation from observation of the world today. The rate of increase of CO2 production has increased over the last decade - that's the second-derivative heading upwards. That's one hard beast to rein in, and the half-assed political, diplomatic, economic, industrial, and popular response is a flea on its back.

Buy the ticket, take the ride (as we old acid-heads used to say). The ticket's been bought, and we're already on the ride.
 
Diamond said:
Perhaps that's because you deny historical evidence on the racist grounds. Which makes you a racist.
Click to expand...

It goes without saying that I have never done, nor am, anything of the sort. It also goes without saying (I hope) that such an accusation confirms just how far out in shiny-hat territory you're coming from.

In any case, for someone who has claimed (rather hysterically) to have very few presuppositions ...
Click to expand...

HTF did I manage to get hysterical over such a bland claim? If you have a moment to spare I'd appreciate a pointer - post number, reference, whatever. I could read through all of my own stuff to find it, and everything else I posted in drink and don't recall, but there's just so much of it. From what I'm hearing it's my best product, or at least most featured. But it's as if my daytime persona was never there.
 
varwoche said:
In other words, you're posting a chart and you don't know where the data comes from. Surely you don't expect this to fly on a skeptical forum.

You already made a mistake by attributing it to IPCC. I suggest you do your legwork instead of offering up this new speculation.
Click to expand...

Big surprise. I just downloaded a IPCC Summary for Policymakers from AAAS, and it was substantially different than the current one at the IPCC website - the tables on "Sea Level Rise" are different. Not sure what was going on and no real reason to suspect the worst here, but also wonder.....

Maybe that earlier report is what had a lot of reporters going about the 20 foot sea level rise? Hmmm.... Maybe there were just plain errors that were corrected.
 
mhaze said:
Instead of taking that for granted (no one has in this forum answered David Rodale's simple question -

He nor anyone else has yet to cite a paper explaining the physics (not consensus or opinion) of temperature rising 2+C due to doubling (or any amount) of atmospheric CO2. ​
Click to expand...
​
Is that what it's come down to?

Cite a paper that explains all the physics of the greenhouse effect before it gets to the meat of the issue? Impossible. Papers that address the question of climate sensitivity to CO2-load naturally assume a great deal of well-established science. They're like articles in SciAm, but more so. That's why David Rodale poses the specific question. Of course there's no single paper - notice how "consensus" is specifically rejected from on high in this implicitly crucial (or at least very significant) question - that can be referenced to answer this quasi-question.

The consensus scientific opinion is that about 450ppmCO2 will be in equilibrium at about 2C warmer than the global 1960-91 average, for what that's worth. What it will be is significantly warmer than today, which is (relatively speaking) pretty damn' warm
 
mhaze said:
Big surprise. I just downloaded a IPCC Summary for Policymakers from AAAS, and it was substantially different than the current one at the IPCC website - the tables on "Sea Level Rise" are different. Not sure what was going on and no real reason to suspect the worst here, but also wonder.....
Click to expand...

The latest IPCC Summary isn't current on the IPCC website?

Maybe that earlier report is what had a lot of reporters going about the 20 foot sea level rise? Hmmm.... Maybe there were just plain errors that were corrected.
Click to expand...

If the 20-foot clue is anything to go by, and we're talking reporters here, the Goreist Greenland Gambit seems to have worked. It surely can't be a coincidence ...
 
CapelDodger said:
The latest IPCC Summary isn't current on the IPCC website?
Click to expand...

Apparently there ore several versions of the Feb 2007 documents. You don't see the earlier ones. Wayback machine might drag 'em, I found the one on AAAS which is an "earlier" one.

If the 20-foot clue is anything to go by, and we're talking reporters here, the Goreist Greenland Gambit seems to have worked. It surely can't be a coincidence ...
Click to expand...

You said it not I.;)
 
mhaze said:
Big surprise. I just downloaded a IPCC Summary for Policymakers from AAAS, and it was substantially different than the current one at the IPCC website - the tables on "Sea Level Rise" are different. Not sure what was going on and no real reason to suspect the worst here, but also wonder.....

Maybe that earlier report is what had a lot of reporters going about the 20 foot sea level rise? Hmmm.... Maybe there were just plain errors that were corrected.
Click to expand...

No, it's there in the long version. Your link was the Supplemental. I just didn't bother looking as it really isn't worth the time, but whatever, here it is:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf
page 776 and again 819. See if anyone can make heads or tails of it.

There are so many uses of words such as if, but, however, could, unlikely, might, possibly, unknown and uncertainty, it's hard to follow. Use of arguments against their hypothesis are few and far between or ignored completely; a common trait of IPCC. It is a convoluted mess. Nevertheless, Greenland has been much warmer than today and most would like to forget it existed, so the entire chapter should be rewritten.

To that end, Al Gore was in fact using IPCC numbers, I retract my admission of misstatement, and mhaze can now rest in peace this evening because he was not seeing things.
 
CapelDodger said:
[/indent]Is that what it's come down to?

Cite a paper that explains all the physics of the greenhouse effect before it gets to the meat of the issue? Impossible. Papers that address the question of climate sensitivity to CO2-load naturally assume a great deal of well-established science. They're like articles in SciAm, but more so. That's why David Rodale poses the specific question. Of course there's no single paper - notice how "consensus" is specifically rejected from on high in this implicitly crucial (or at least very significant) question - that can be referenced to answer this quasi-question.

The consensus scientific opinion is that about 450ppmCO2 will be in equilibrium at about 2C warmer than the global 1960-91 average, for what that's worth. What it will be is significantly warmer than today, which is (relatively speaking) pretty damn' warm
Click to expand...

What I had in mind was simplified one dimensional formulas or verifiable rules of thumb. Tabletop model, you know.
 
mhaze said:
But where is the NEWS?
Click to expand...

The findings of a new modelling study which suggest that the Greenland icecap is all but doomed is the news. This is science news, and New Scientist reports science news. Which is no news to anybody.

David Rodale seems to have regarded it as partisan or propagandist, possibly even alarmist, but he's since been disabused of that misapprehension. Or possibly not, who's to say?
 
mhaze said:
Apparently there ore several versions of the Feb 2007 documents. You don't see the earlier ones. Wayback machine might drag 'em, I found the one on AAAS which is an "earlier" one.
Click to expand...

If the earlier ones can't be seen, how is it "apparent" that there are several versions :confused: ?

You said it not I.;)
Click to expand...

You're reporting on reporters (who are mostly proles) and reporters do like the dramatic. They don't generally like reading long scientific reports that they think they already have the gist of. (Just as sub-editors don't generally like reading through long, closely-argued, information-rich pieces; they prefer to slap on a headline that accords with their preconceptions :mad: . I digress.) When reporters link the IPCC report to 20ft sea-rise it's because that's what they assume is in there, and why is that? The Goreist Greenland Gambit.

Drama works when it comes to raising awareness, and Greenland has the ingredients. 7m sea-rise (which nobody disputes and we can all relate to) and a strong, simple central character.
 
mhaze said:
Sort of a big ad campaign then?
Click to expand...
Yep.

As the latest Newsweek reports, there has been a concerted effort by some scientists, small in numbers but big in funding, to cast doubt upon the mountains of evidence for human-influenced global warming.
070813_Cover.standard.jpg


Chief among the culprits is ExxonMobil who mounted a 'greenwash' campaign to dispute global warming findings. As a geologist in the petroleum industry, I am infuriated by this action by the world's largest oil company. It grieves me that scientists could be bribed away from the principle foundations of science in order to imitate places like "Answers in Geneis" by fitting the data to their preferred conclusions.

Under its former chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who retired in 2005 as one of the best-paid corporate executives in history, ExxonMobil was well known for its hostility to government regulations on emissions of carbon dioxide. But, according to the report, the op-eds and position papers were only the visible tip of Exxon’s effort to fund a small group of researchers and an overlapping network of think tanks that could be relied on to spread the message that global warming was nothing to worry about—or at least, nothing the government could or should do anything about. Their frequently repeated call for “sound science” on global warming echoes the tobacco industry’s endless demand for more research on whether cigarettes really, truly, unquestionably cause cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Tricky said:
Yep.

As the latest Newsweek reports, there has been a concerted effort by some scientists, small in numbers but big in funding, to cast doubt upon the mountains of evidence for human-influenced global warming.
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/...os/Mag/070813_Issue/070813_Cover.standard.jpg

Chief among the culprits is ExxonMobil who mounted a 'greenwash' campaign to dispute global warming findings. As a geologist in the petroleum industry, I am infuriated by this action by the world's largest oil company. It grieves me that scientists could be bribed away from the principle foundations of science in order to imitate places like "Answers in Geneis" by fitting the data to their preferred conclusions.
Click to expand...

It's a regular media blitz, then? A starburst media campaign?
Can you verify all that huge funding, maybe provide a link for the year 2006?

Here's yet another "news report".

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-08-07-gore-climate-change-manipulation_N.htm
 
Pipirr said:
Why do you want to see that?

Just wondering.
Click to expand...

There is a well known bit of info by Greenpeace concerning this issue - not by any means "new news", that asserts basically the same thing. But when you go and look at the actual data behind the "2.1 million" that they allude to as having been spent to fund "the machine", it is really hard to see any significant allocations that can be identified as anti-gw. There were a few, but nothing substantial.

So I was wondering if some new data had came up, or if this was just more of the same-old-same-old.

CP: I realize that in explaining the "Greenland is doomed" you are accurately explaining the British press, which at least to us in the US is a curious and interesting thing - but here are a couple more headlines the British press might find some use for, all authenticatable by computer models and similar to the Greenland issue, in that the rarified edge of the model's conclusions is used for a headline - :D

NASA's Shuttle is "Doomed to catastrophic explosion in ascent"
London "Doomed to vanish under tital wave from meteor impact"
Airliner "Doomed to fiery crash in major American city"
Ipod users "Doomed to be struck by lightning"

Oops, that last one actually got into the press!:)
 
mhaze said:
It's a regular media blitz, then? A starburst media campaign?
Can you verify all that huge funding, maybe provide a link for the year 2006?

Here's yet another "news report".

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-08-07-gore-climate-change-manipulation_N.htm
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be a media blitz if the funding buys access to the right audiences. But yeah, they have several media outlets. Like this one:
Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute received $115,000 from Exxon Mobil in 2006. According to the UCS, between 1998 and 2005 Heartland received $561,500, including $119,000 in 2005 alone. Heartland also maintains a separate "Global Warming Facts" Web page that promotes books by and offers links to the works of Exxon Mobil-funded skeptics.
Click to expand...
 
mhaze said:
There is a well known bit of info by Greenpeace concerning this issue - not by any means "new news", that asserts basically the same thing. But when you go and look at the actual data behind the "2.1 million" that they allude to as having been spent to fund "the machine", it is really hard to see any significant allocations that can be identified as anti-gw. There were a few, but nothing substantial.

So I was wondering if some new data had came up, or if this was just more of the same-old-same-old.
Click to expand...


It's not Greenpeace this time.

The second of the article links that Tricky provided, went to a story about The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have a report detailing how Exxon has been funding climate change disinformation to the tune of $16 million between 1998 and 2005.

Linky to UCS

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

UCS report finds that the oil company spent nearly $16 million to fund skeptic groups, create confusion

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming.
Click to expand...


Is this something new?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom