Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

Cataclysmic ....

Excellent choice of word, but I think you've let it out a bit early. When "significant" can no longer be denied (because the signature is there), and "dangerous" can no longer be denied (because the danger is already evident), there's still "catastrophic" to fall back on. Beyond that is the terribly apt "Cataclysmic".

Further yet, I suspect, lies "Apocalyptic", but more as a temptation than a warning. Do let us know how it all works out for you.

 

[CapelDodger]

As to a political agenda ...

Try to keep politics out of it. That's all I ask.

Well, that and some sources for your multiplying claims.

Particularly the "group of journalists" (formerly known as "the media", by you at least) who are engaged in a lamentable conspiracy to publicise every warm event while not mentioning cold events.

... mother earth hippies of the 60s and 70s are now running the show

They are? Which show is that?

There are certainly people involved in running things now who were into drugs and random sex back in the day, but "Mother Earth" never featured much for them. The music was brilliant, and will never fade, but the wars are new.

China isn't being run by ageing hippies. Nor is Russia. Nor the USA. Nor Brazil.

Not even Cuba.

Try to keep politics out of it, and I mean that as friendly advice.

 

[macdoc]

As usual you are asked a specific question about your claims regarding "catastrophe "predictions......and fail entirely to answer with even a single example in the climate science field.

Much noise, no signal.

regarding models....

How about you start your education here...written by an actual climate modeler working in the field.......since you so freely claim others have no understanding...

FAQ on climate models

Filed under:

• Climate Science
• Climate modelling
• FAQ

— group @ 3 November 2008 - ()
We discuss climate models a lot, and from the comments here and in other forums it’s clear that there remains a great deal of confusion about what climate models do and how their results should be interpreted. This post is designed to be a FAQ for climate model questions – of which a few are already given. If you have comments or other questions, ask them as concisely as possible in the comment section and if they are of enough interest, we’ll add them to the post so that we can have a resource for future discussions. (We would ask that you please focus on real questions that have real answers and, as always, avoid rhetorical excesses).
Part II is here.

Quick definitions:

• GCM – General Circulation Model (sometimes Global Climate Model) which includes the physics of the atmosphere and often the ocean, sea ice and land surface as well.
• Simulation – a single experiment with a GCM

continues

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

 

[Furcifer]

Albeit on the low end, this paper is consistent with the range of warming for CO2 doubling that has been agreed on for decades. Of course I could just as easily cherry pick papers in the high end, but in the end that would be equally pointless.

Oh you mean like that Astronomy professor from LSU? The one that was telling students they could expect a 4-10 degree increase in their lifetime?

It's funny how when alarmists are threatening catastrophe and quoting extreme high end effects, like doubling CO2 in 60 years suddenly it isn't "pointless".

It's a double standard and it has no business in a scientific discussion.

 

[macdoc]

The one that was telling students they could expect a 4-10 degree increase in their lifetime?

More unsupported claims - someone said something to someone.....

while you are at it - would you like to dispute the claim?? You can't even be bothered to put in in F or C terms and if LSU 4 degrees F is almost a certainty in a student's life time which would be within 60 years on average....

Perhaps you should look a little more carefuly at the MIT assessment and take up your "ideas" with the scientists that do actual work....

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/...imate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

snip

The MIT team released a statement accompanying the research, saying that their findings show that “without rapid and massive action,” an almost 10 degree rise in temperatures will take place this century. What’s worse, the outcome of their calculations shows that the end result will be a lot more extreme if our actions to combat climate change are not proficient or adequate. “But there is less change if strong policies are put in place now to cut greenhouse gas emissions”, according to a Reuters report on the study.

What it would appear is your vague unsupported arguments have no business in a science discussion. - especially a moderated one where a modicum of support for claims is expected.
So far from you .....nothing, nada - - zero supporting links for your statements and arguments.....

now what was that about standards for a science discussion???

put your own arguments on a science basis with support before dissing others.....

 

[Furcifer]

As usual you are asked a specific question about your claims regarding "catastrophe "predictions......and fail entirely to answer with even a single example in the climate science field.

Talk is cheap.

I've clearly stated that the available information is behind a pay wall.

If you think I'm misrepresenting what was being said, produce climate models prior to 1990 so we can review them.

 

[Warmer1]

Arctic research and video documentation of change

The Arctic may be warming faster than other areas of the Earth and I've enjoyed watching the videos in the upper right hand corner of the pages on the website linked to below. A lot of Arctic research is based out of Barrow, Alaska and the locals are very interested and involved in the science and supporting the researchers, as well the elders talk about the changes that they see happening. There are only a few video links on each of the various pages on the site so some navigation is needed.

The third video link on this page "Disappearing Ice", which is not visible without scrolling to the right, is a favorite

http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/big-ideas/climate-change/

The home page is
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/

Subjects in the videos on the website include;

NOAA Asst. Administrator Dr. Richard Spinrad
- Ice coverage in 2007 40% less than the mean than 1997 - 2007 (usual NASA satellite data)

From "Disappearing Ice" with Penn State University glaciologist Dr. Richard Alley
- houses falling over as the ice that protected the shorline disappears (also a picture at the bottom of the page)
- the idea that polar bears will have to adapt to living on land

From
"Pairing Scientific and Traditional Knowledge"
"Inupiaq knowledge meets science on Alaska's North Slope (Webcast)"
You can start at 10:00
- cliffs collapsing as the ice lens melts
- ice cellars are thawing which are needed to keep the meat supply cold all year
- ice no longer forms in October for sleds to cross

other videos include
- in separate videos accounts of robins and moose being seen in Barrow for the first time
- instruments for measuring the albedo

Hopefully seeing is believing!

"What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic" (NOAA Asst. Administrator Dr. Richard Spinrad)

 

[macdoc]

Talk is cheap.

Perhaps you should take note of that statement and show us the posts of yours that are backed by evidence in form of papers and references as are the norms in a science forum - rather than making smart assed remarks yourself about "cheap talk"
......do you know the term ...."irony" perhaps?

I've clearly stated that the available information is behind a pay wall.

Dodge....bottom line is you cannot back your broad brush claims about failed "prediction" of catastrophe - so YOU hide behind a paywall excuse.

If you think I'm misrepresenting what was being said, produce climate models prior to 1990 so we can review them.

I have no idea what you are on about since computing was in infancy and as you will see below calculation was often done by hand.... but in general dealing with the current state of the science and models of anthro climate change is where the focus is as computers and models have both advanced remarkably in 15 years.

That said the fundamental understanding outlined by Gilbert Plass in 50s remain entirely valid as the physics of C02 in the atmosphere remain rather simple tho how the induced changes unfold is anything but....

and the verification for that history is not behind a paywall but rather available for all to read....

Long article outlining the history

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.8374,y.2010,no.1,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

significant clip....

In 1956 Gilbert Plass was heir to a century of work that identified variations in the trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a possible cause of ice ages and interglacial periods.



John Tyndall wrote in 1861 that slight changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere—water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone or hydrocarbons—may have produced “all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal … they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.”



Thirty-five years later Svante Arrhenius published a landmark paper examining the effect of different concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on the temperature of Earth. His energy budget model, which he calculated by hand, contained estimates of the absorption and emission of terrestrial radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide, but since infrared research was in its infancy then, Arrhenius had access to only very limited spectroscopic data.


Because of these limitations, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change was in deep eclipse in 1938 when British scientist and engineer Guy Stewart Callendar revived it and placed it on a firm scientific basis. Callendar documented a significant upward trend in temperatures for the first four decades of the 20th century and noted the systematic retreat of glaciers. He compiled estimates of rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times and linked the rise of CO2 to the combustion of fossil fuel.

Finally, he synthesized information newly available concerning the infrared absorption bands of trace atmospheric constituents and linked increased sky radiation from increased CO2 concentrations to the rising temperature trend. Today this is called The Callendar Effect.


Building on such foundations, Plass was able to take the next steps in research and provide his masterful overview of the carbon dioxide theory and its implications for the future. He established connections between the physics of infrared absorption by gases, the geochemistry of the carbon cycle, feedback loops in the climate system and computer modeling. Using recent measurements of the influence of the 15-micrometer CO2 absorption band, Plass calculated a 3.6 degrees Celsius surface temperature increase for doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide and a 3.8 degree decrease if the concentration were halved. Contrary to the assumptions of many scientists at the time, the effect of water vapor absorption did not mask the carbon dioxide effect by any means. He used these results to argue for the applicability of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change for geological epochs and in recent decades.
Stressing the intrinsic role carbon dioxide plays in our atmosphere, Plass discussed the danger of fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The six billion tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year was sufficient to cause noticeable changes in the Earth’s radiation balance and thus the climate. He noted that the observed 1.1 degree rate of climate warming per century was in agreement with the predictions of the carbon dioxide theory.
Waxing prophetic, Plass wrote that the oceans would be able to sequester only a small amount of the anthropogenic carbon, leaving the majority in the atmosphere. Accumulating atmospheric CO2 content from fossil fuel-based industrial activities would eventually result in a temperature rise of at least 7 degrees. Plass held out little hope for nuclear power—expressing an opinion that would not be widespread for several more decades. Presaging the work of Charles David Keeling, which began two years later, Plass called for new accurate measurements of the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which he rightly estimated should be on the order of 0.3 percent per year. Plass pointed out that humanity was conducting a large-scale experiment on the atmosphere, the results of which would not be available for several generations: “If at the end of this century, the average temperature has continued to rise and in addition measurement shows that the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount has also increased, it will be firmly established that carbon dioxide is a determining factor in causing climatic change.”

and it certainly has been

He was correct then and what we have in addition is more accurate understanding of the complexities.....but the fundamentals have not changed....

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to release of fossil carbon.

The six billion tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year was sufficient to cause noticeable changes in the Earth’s radiation balance

.

Exactly what the fossil fuel industry's own scientists told their paymasters in 1995.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

and you are still arguing insufficient understanding to act.....

 

[macdoc]

Another denier "faint hope" theory postulating a negative feedback for clouds bites the dust.....and reaffirms the models.....through observation of the predicted effect.....

Cloud 'Feedback' Affects Global Climate and Warming

enlarge


Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to new research. (Credit: iStockphoto/Tamara Kulikova)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 10, 2010) — Changes in clouds will amplify the warming of the planet due to human activities, according to a breakthrough study by a Texas A&M University researcher.
Andrew Dessler, a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, says that warming due to increases in greenhouse gases will cause clouds to trap more heat, which will lead to additional warming. This process is known as the "cloud feedback" and is predicted to be responsible for a significant portion of the warming over the next century.
Dessler used measurements from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onboard NASA's Terra satellite to calculate the amount of energy trapped by clouds as the climate varied over the last decade. He also used meteorological analyses provided by NASA's Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) and by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
"It's a vicious cycle -- warmer temperatures mean clouds trap more heat, which in turn leads to even more warming," Dessler explains. His work is published in the Dec. 10 issue of Science magazine and is supported by a NASA research grant.
While climate models had long predicted that the cloud feedback would amplify warming from human activities, until recently it was impossible to test the models using observations. "This work suggests that climate models are doing a pretty decent job simulating how clouds respond to changing climates," Dessler says.

more

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101209141231.htm

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh you mean like that Astronomy professor from LSU? The one that was telling students they could expect a 4-10 degree increase in their lifetime?

It's funny how when alarmists are threatening catastrophe ...

You think 4-10 degrees (Fahrenheit presumably) would be catastrophic?

... and quoting extreme high end effects, like doubling CO2 in 60 years suddenly it isn't "pointless".

Taking pre-industrial CO₂ load as ~280 ppm, double would by 560-570 ppm. An average of 3ppm per year for 60 years would about get us there.

You think that would be catastrophic?

It's a double standard and it has no business in a scientific discussion.

I haven't followed this particular exchange closely : who brought it up?

 

[CapelDodger]

New Negative Feedback Discovered

A new NASA computer modeling effort has found that additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would create a new negative feedback – a cooling effect – in the Earth's climate system that could work to reduce future global warming.

NASA link here


Interested parties may want to read the fine print in this article and take note of the fact that this model actually predicts a 1.7 degrees (C) increase in average global temperature upon doubling CO2.

So we've got what, about 150 years to avert this "disaster"? I'm still not seeing the reason to jack up my fuel bills and sanction third world countries for using cheap energy to industrialize their nations.

One paper, from NASA, based on computer modelling, and you wrap yourself in it. Good to see you're on-board with NASA and computer modelling now.

On a side note I see the Climate conference in Cancun is seeing record low temperatures today. Oh the irony of it all.

Where did you see that? Are you quite sure these are record low temperatures? And do you have photos of the local weather-stations?

(I'm being ironic, by the way.)

 

[CapelDodger]

The issue is you are not only citing what was discovered in the 19th c. but also predictions made based upon those discoveries. The discovery of the laws of thermodynamics has little to do with learning how to apply them correctly. Nor can a correct 1820 theory be taken as applicable despite mitigating new theories which came later.

Mitigating theories? Are you still harking back to Angstrom? He was wrong, you know.

You tried to make an issue equating the fact of heat from the sun known since forever with a late 19th c. discovery that it was an extension of the visible light spectrum. That is not legitimate.

Heat from the Sun was a late 18thCE discovery, using sunlight, prisms, and thermometers.

Excuse, there were NO galaxies before this discoveries.

Yes, there were. They've been around for billions of years.

In fact is was a discovery that most galaxies are not like ours and have a much greater fraction of red dwarves than ours.

Which doesn't change the apparent mass of said galaxies, which is not determined by counting the stars they contain.

I know the manner in which it is described to do what it supposedly does does not make sense ...

It makes perfectly good sense.

... and I have corresponded with one of the team leaders looking for it. Not to make much of it but they are looking for a certain type of matter but cannot exclude some more prosaic explanations.

What are his thoughts on the red dwarf discovery? Does it count as a "more prosaic explanation" or is that just your own opinion?

The "certain type" of matter is not the only possible candidate, and of course there may be types that haven't been conceived of yet.

It is a matter of taste I guess. For example the assertion that dark matter does not "stick" as in forming planets but the matter in stars does not "stick" either. That DM does not clump is mostly a desired but not a necessary characteristic.

Matter doesn't have to "stick" to form stars. Check out the Milky Way, it's full of them.

See milkyway@home for more details.

See where now? That's not really a link.

Save what you have so gratuitously cited are implying that facts of science legitimize predictions in vacuuo.

I think you've spent too much time listening to Monckton.

That is never the case. A may be true but without considering B C D and all the rest there is no basis for asserting the predictions based upon A alone are true.

For example if the earth is heated the re-radiated heated is in direct proportion as its surface area remains a constant. But if the atmosphere is heated it expands increasing its radiating surface radiating heat faster as a negative feedback rather than as a constant. A prediction which does not account for the atmosphere cannot be correct.

Run the numbers. You don't get much change.

Almost the only discovery/knowledge about the atmosphere in the 19th c. was that the pressure decreased with altitude and that only in the very narrow range of balloon height and a few mountains.

Let's face facts : your knowledge of 19thCE science is woeful. Consider the unknown unknowns - yours, I mean.

My intent is not just to cite the errors but also the nonsense that comes from projecting those errors

The errors are not projected. This is science not economics, and you are not uniquely placed to recognise what is or is not erroneous. Scientists are, and have been, in a much better position, and have either abandoned the ideas or improved on them (some mysteries remain, of course). Consider Hadley cells, for instance. Not quite right, but the fact was recognised and the theory improved on.

Nor are real scientists embarrassed predictions of disaster as they do not make that kind of prediction.

Scientists are people, and may well make predictions of disaster if that's what they see coming.

The mass of the glacier at present attracts water to Greenland increasing the sea level around it. Without the glacier the net result of more water in the ocean less the gravitational attraction results in a net decrease in the local sea level.

It's an ice-cap, not a glacier, and the mass is nowhere near enough to make a difference. You obviously have confused Greenland with Antarctica, where the mass of the ice-cap is enough to make a difference.

As to a political agenda the mother earth hippies of the 60s and 70s are now running the show and just by the strangest of all coincidences the inspirations and insights granted by Peyote and Marijuana just happen to be correct as soon as they got old enough to run things.

I love the fantasy, but do you really think hippies ran the Cancun show? They don't even run Holland. Nor BP.

Fascinating that Hippies were in fact prophets

or

We have a self-fulfilling prophecy,

Which do you think is more likely?

We certainly don't have hippies in charge of anything much.

We certainly do have Global Warming, as predicted, and the predicted effects are visible. This was always the denier's problem : AGW would only remain a prediction for so long, and time is up. It'll only get more obvious from now on.

 

[Furcifer]

Perhaps you should take note of that statement and show us the posts of yours that are backed by evidence in form of papers and references as are the norms in a science forum - rather than making smart assed remarks yourself about "cheap talk"
......do you know the term ...."irony" perhaps?

So you can't produce what you're demanding...Gotcha

Dodge....bottom line is you cannot back your broad brush claims about failed "prediction" of catastrophe - so YOU hide behind a paywall excuse.

Like I said, you're just hiding behind a paywall, you can't produce what you're demanding. The thing is you're grandstanding on this, it's intellectually dishonest.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to release of fossil carbon.

Obviously, it's just insignificant. Nobody needs to make reactionary decisions based on doomsday predictions.

You're either ignorant of what's being set up by the alarmists or you just don't care. Global Warming activists are pandering solutions to a problem that just doesn't exist. The exact same way alarmists sold fallout shelters in the 50's.

It's all about alarmism and nothing to do with actual solutions. Just look at what's happened to the solutions threads while this thread and other political threads thrive. The alarmists have been going on all summer about the Arctic Sea ice decline, but not one post mentioning to solutions to deal with the actual problem, which has almost nothing to do with the increase in CO2 and everything to do with aerosols.

The only way to significantly decrease the amount of CO2 being produced globally over the next 50 years is to pay (or coerce) underdeveloped nations to stay under developed. But go ahead, change to CFL's, install solar panels on your roof and drive a Prius if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Furcifer]

One paper, from NASA, based on computer modelling, and you wrap yourself in it. Good to see you're on-board with NASA and computer modelling now.

I don't usually post "news", but I noticed the usual "news" mongers weren't having anything to do with it.

Don't think I didn't notice you didn't have any comment on the study

Where did you see that? Are you quite sure these are record low temperatures? And do you have photos of the local weather-stations?

(I'm being ironic, by the way.)

Yah, apparently they're calling it the "Al Gore effect". The weather doesn't seem to care much about the climate says it should do.

It's been unusually cold so far this December here in Ontario. In fact it's so cold I'm pretty sure the summer claims of 2010 being the hottest year on record are in serious jeopardy. I guess we'll know in a few more weeks.

 

[macdoc]

Good post Capel

We certainly do have Global Warming, as predicted, and the predicted effects are visible. This was always the denier's problem : AGW would only remain a prediction for so long, and time is up. It'll only get more obvious from now on.

Speaking of getting more obvious....the Arctic is where the impact was predicted to have greater effect....

Multi-national, multi-disciplinary, evidence from the biome as well as the physical planet updated for 2010

snips

Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion

Atmosphere
Sea Ice Biology
Ocean Greenland
Land Red boxes: Consistent evidence of warming.
Yellow boxes: Many indications of warming.
Atmosphere
Arctic climate is impacting mid-latitude weather, as seen in Winter 2009-2010

Sea Ice
Summer sea ice conditions for previous four years well below 1980s and 1990s

Ocean
Upper ocean showing year-to-year variability without significant trends

Land
Low winter snow accumulation, warm spring temperatures lead to record low snow cover duration

Greenland
Record setting high temperatures, ice melt, and glacier area loss

Biology
Rapid environmental change threatens to disrupt current natural cycles

That would be evidence, from scientists working in the field in various disciplines.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

and the knock on effects of the warming in the Arctic.....are sometimes unexpected...

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/12/07/warm-arctic-cold-continents/

snip from the compendium article above which has links to the relevant papers

Two weeks after NOAA's Arctic Report Card was published, Vladimir Petoukhov (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany) and Vladimir A. Semenov (Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, Germany) published A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents (J. Geophys. Res., 5 November 2010)

 

[Furcifer]

Doing a search for early climate models this video came up:



This is a pretty explicit example of what alarmists are will to do to. Nobody's worried about the fear mongering? Seriously?

 

[macdoc]

Creaking and groaning but some steps forward globally - apparently Mexico did a great job stick handling the various issues to bring about an agreement.

A Comeback in Cancun: Countries Move Forward with Climate Agreement

December 11, 2010
Location: CANCUN, MEXICO

Jennifer Morgan, director of WRI's Climate and Energy program

The Cancun climate talks concluded today with countries agreeing by consensus to move ahead with an international agreement on climate change.

Following is a statement from Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at the World Resources Institute (WRI):

“Modest expectations gave way to promising results, as the Cancun climate meeting wrapped up with a new but fragile international climate agreement. Under the watchful eye and strong management of the Mexican presidency, delegates agreed to establish a platform for international climate action, while recognizing that much more needs to be done to tackle climate change.

“This agreement was a remarkable turnaround for a multilateral approach to address climate change, including commitments on emissions from all the world’s major economies.

“By consensus, countries agreed to a ‘balanced package’ that includes targets and actions, increased transparency, the creation of a climate fund, and other important mechanisms to support developing countries. Delegations also recognized the urgency of keeping global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, with the ability to strengthen the response in the coming years.

“Over the next year, countries will have to work to resolve many complex challenges. The agreement did not resolve the issue of legal form, leaving that to be determined in the future. Countries must also further develop the climate fund to ensure developing countries receive financial support through an effective and transparent mechanism to assist with adaptation, reduction of emissions from deforestation, and de-carbonization efforts.

“Ultimately, the world will need to take bolder steps to tackle the challenges of climate change. On its current pace, global temperatures will exceed 2 degrees Celsius, leaving people more vulnerable to severe droughts, melting glaciers, and rising seas, along with more extreme weather events around the world.

“Countries must build on the momentum at Cancun to deliver real change on the ground in response to the growing threat of climate change.”

http://www.wri.org/press/2010/12/co...edium=worldresources&utm_campaign=twitterfeed

 

[aleCcowaN]

In Bob Woodward's book he quotes Obama saying in their interview that another 9-11 style attack on the USA does not bother him. Our president says that the USA could absorb another such attack. He says that a nuclear attack from terrorists is what troubles him.

Well, humanity can stand some global warming. Another ice age, or worse yet, a snowball earth, is what we should really be concerned with.

One gets alot of press, the other does not. That does not mean one is more deadly just because everyone talks about it.

I make his post now because it just so happens that there is a link today on space.com's website to a story about snowball earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/snowball-earth-ice-age-winters-101104.html

http://i.space.com/images/snowball-earth-ice-age-winters-1-101104-01.jpg

Better yet, the current greenhouse is PREVENTING another ice age.

So, what have we all learned? I will tell you. We have learned that I am correct. Thank you for your kind admiration.

Sorry. Is this a reply to my post #755?

I'd like you to provide some material about the benefits of anthropogenic (or not) global warming or endorse any you can find among the +10,000 posts about GW in this forum.

So far I understand you take an extreme cold scenario, present it as a menace and use verbal means to argue for warm scenarios generated by human actions or a restraint on human actions in a way I understand as a sort of intelligent design applied to climate.

For instance, you may provide data about the economical benefit of a raise in average temperature of, say, 1 degree Celsius. You also may clarify and backup bold claims like the above "Better yet, the current greenhouse is PREVENTING another ice age."

 

[Furcifer]

Speaking of getting more obvious....the Arctic is where the impact was predicted to have greater effect....

Obvious indeed, it's like predicting the flip of a coin won't land on it's side. I'm not seeing your reason for pointing this out

 

[macdoc]

Doing a search for early climate models this video came up:




This is a pretty explicit example of what alarmists are will to do to. Nobody's worried about the fear mongering? Seriously?

Let's see - early climate models search - a specious comment with nothing attched, and a Youtube ad, this is your version of science discussion when earlier you were dissing others .....???

On the other hand the Head of Climate Science program from the University of Calgary was practically in tears when he testified before Parliament to take action for the sake of his children....

and an a pre-eminent climate scientist gets himself arrested to protest coal plants....

Hansen of NASA Arrested in Coal Protest - NYTimes.com

23 Jun 2009 ... James Hansen of NASA gets arrested in effort to stop coal mining.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/

3,000 scientists in Canada sign a letter, the second of two letters begging the government to move on C02 curbs....

Scientists have turned up the heat on the Harper government and are calling for urgent action on climate change.
"We must act responsibly. We must act now. We must act in concert with other industrialized nations," leaders of organizations representing more than 3,000 scientists said in an open letter to parliamentarians Thursday.

http://www.canada.com/technology/sc...+government+climate+change/2272707/story.html

and I could list many others from the earth science community world wide who both in speech and in print ....and with the credentials to give their concerns weight....are becoming activist...

like these

WARNING ​

We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

Just a very few of the 1600 that put their names to this from science academies all over the planet....
OVER A DECADE AGO

_Anatole Abragam, Physicist; Fmr. Member, Pontifical Academy of Sciences; France
_Carlos Aguirre President, Academy of Sciences, Bolivia
_Walter Alvarez Geologist, National Academy of Sciences, USA
_Viqar Uddin Ammad, Chemist, Pakistani & Third World Academies, Pakistan
_Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Crafoord Prize, France
_Michael Alpers Epidemiologist, Inst. of Med. Research, Papua New Guinea
_Anne Anastasi, Psychologist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Philip Anderson, Nobel laureate, Physics; USA
_Christian Anfinsen, Nobel laureate, Chemistry; USA
_How Ghee Ang, Chemist, Third World Academy, Singapore
_Werner Arber, Nobel laureate, Medicine; Switzerland
_Mary Ellen Avery, Pediatrician, National Medal of Science, USA
_Julius Axelrod, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_Michael Atiyah, Mathematician; President, Royal Society; Great Britain
_Howard Bachrach, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA
_John Backus, Computer Scientist, National Medal of Science, USA
_Achmad Baiquni, Physicist, Indonesian & Third World Academies, Indonesia
_David Baltimore, Nobel laureate, Medicine; USA
_H. A. Barker, Biochemist, National Medal of Science, USA​

http://dieoff.org/page123.htm

and you find it distasteful...and have the utter gall to label them alarmist..

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited for moderated thread.[/mod]