global warming denial

[Drooper]

If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again. However, the scientists are using methods to determine if this is in fact a valid conclusion to make. They appear to be saying it is, based on the evidence.

Good, back to the research.

The problem is that the research, in the form of global climate models, has not yet satisfactorily accounted for all the various injections (e.g. solar forcing), leakages (e.g. CO2 consumption/carbon sinks)and feedback (both positive and negative; e.g. evaporation, clowd cover etc.) that may drive the global climate. Hence the results that drive the conclusions that drive the recommendations that drive the policies (Kyoto) are very very debatable.

It is certainly debatable enough to avoid for a while the extremely high cost of implementing policies as envisaged under Kyoto or any other subsequent prescription.


[edited for spelling]

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

I'd love to see more research. Hell, I'd love to see some basic, public research, but that dried up in the mid-1990s.

If this is such a big issue for so many people, why don't they all contribute their own personal funds for basic research?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

It is not their call, you mean. They can only say what the science tells them.

Thank you for finally admitting that the science DOES NOT tell them that we're headed for disaster. Thread over. We've won.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

It appears to be pretty confident. You can read it on the IPCC web page.

Why do you always refer to a government panel and not, say, peer-reviewed journal articles? We KNOW what the politicos are saying. What we want to know is the scientific basis for it.

 

[shanek]

From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC:

I don't see any 20 degree change.

Perhaps because the x-axis covers hundreds of thousands of years, and it doesn't have the resolution to show such a change over a 50-year period?

 

[shanek]

"Weather Events" is the technical term. And that does mean extremes in both directions.

In other words, no matter what happens, it confirms Global Warming. Sounds like an unfalsifiable nonscientific claim to me. I even heard one of these GW guys refer to "extremely moderate" weather. Apparently, if previous extremes are no longer present, that's considered an extreme, too.

 

[shanek]

If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again.

Did you read my sources showing that increased foliage (based on experimental data with both trees and grasses) absorbs much of the excess CO₂?

 

[Kodiak]

Climatologist and member of intergovernmental board says Don't Fear Global Warming.

 

[RichardR]

Perhaps because the x-axis covers hundreds of thousands of years, and it doesn't have the resolution to show such a change over a 50-year period?

Why wouldn't it show on the Y axis?

 

[a_unique_person]

Did you read my sources showing that increased foliage (based on experimental data with both trees and grasses) absorbs much of the excess CO₂?

Yes, I have asked him about this point too. It is all factored into the models. Do you really think they are stupid?

 

[a_unique_person]

Climatologist and member of intergovernmental board says Don't Fear Global Warming.

He does agree with all the IPCC conclusions on GW, though. What he fails to consider, though, is the cost to us humans of the change that will happen. Society and economies will undergo massive change and trauma.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good, back to the research.

The problem is that the research, in the form of global climate models, has not yet satisfactorily accounted for all the various injections (e.g. solar forcing), leakages (e.g. CO2 consumption/carbon sinks)and feedback (both positive and negative; e.g. evaporation, clowd cover etc.) that may drive the global climate. Hence the results that drive the conclusions that drive the recommendations that drive the policies (Kyoto) are very very debatable.

It is certainly debatable enough to avoid for a while the extremely high cost of implementing policies as envisaged under Kyoto or any other subsequent prescription.


[edited for spelling]

But the they are seeing change, and it is caused by humans, and it is also possible that the worst case scenario will happen. Everyone seems to concentrate on the best case and say so what, they worst case is also possible.

The models are accepted by the majority of the experts in this area as being valid, and are being tuned all the time. For example, the affect of ocean currents on temperature are being incorporated into models. It is nothing new.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

If this is such a big issue for so many people, why don't they all contribute their own personal funds for basic research?

It isn't an issue for "so many people." It's an issue for me. Hence the personal pronoun "I."

I suppose one could theoretically render me, but at best you'd get three people, and they'd be unusually short dwarves.

If this is still a difficult concept, I'd be happy to find a translation of "I" into whichever language you like, but you have to tell me what the language is, first.

In the meantime, you might get somewhere with "ich," "yo," and "je."

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Thank you for finally admitting that the science DOES NOT tell them that we're headed for disaster. Thread over. We've won.

Won what? The fact is, that the effects of climate change are many and varied. For example, species extinction. Species that are unable to migrate to areas that suit them better. Rising sea levels that make ports unuseable. Weather events that cause excessive destruction. Changing rain patterns that make farms unviable. There is a lot to consider.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Why do you always refer to a government panel and not, say, peer-reviewed journal articles? We KNOW what the politicos are saying. What we want to know is the scientific basis for it.

The contents of the IPCC are not put up by governments, idiot, and you know it. The contents are put up by scientists. And all the scientists put out peer reviewed articles.

 

[dsm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

If this is such a big issue for so many people, why don't they all contribute their own personal funds for basic research?

Contribute them to who?

The Sierra Club? Oh, well, the members of the Sierra Club are already contributing funds for this.

The World Wildlife Fund? Oh, well, they get their funding from their members.

And so on...

(Really, Shanek, that's the most ridiculous statement I've seen you make )

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Contribute them to who?

The Sierra Club? Oh, well, the members of the Sierra Club are already contributing funds for this.

The World Wildlife Fund? Oh, well, they get their funding from their members.

And so on...

(Really, Shanek, that's the most ridiculous statement I've seen you make )

No, his previous one was.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Contribute them to who?

Apart from the Sierra club, I always thought that the Nature Conservancy and the Land Conservancy were pretty good organizations.

However, none of them do real research. I somebody wants to donate some money, I'd suggest the Florida State University by way of Jim Obrien. Note: no apostrophe. I've worked with him, and he's the real deal.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

It isn't an issue for "so many people."

Really? It seems like an awful lot of people are making a big stink about it, not just you.

[patronizing bull$#!7 deleted]

 

[shanek]

Yes, I have asked him about this point too. It is all factored into the models. Do you really think they are stupid?

They CAN'T have factored it into the model, because they don't yet know the magnitude of it. The Duke study found one area with different results because there was a nitrogen deficiency in the soil. They said they need to find out the nitrogen content of the soil throughout the world to make a good prediction on it.

You have just admitted that these models are based off of factors that are still unknown. Thank you for proving they're worthless.