Is there an upside to global warming?

The ONLY upside I can see to global warming is that once it becomes impossible to deny, some, maybe about half, of the deniers will STFU. The rest will find some other reason to keep their heads in the sand.

A.
 
Uncertainty, certainly, but where, given the current scientific understandings and their record of predictions and projections, do you feel the scientific concensus estimates shake out? Are they too conservative, recklessly catastrophic or roughly appropriate, and can you reference which specific scientific concensus you are going with here?

I haven't researched the question of uncertainty in predictions & climate models enough to settle on any particular view yet concerning the question of the effects of AGW in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. So, until such a time as I see compelling info on that question, I shall remain mum.

As for your second question, I am referring to the consensus as outlined by the IPCC and the National Academies of Science in the U.S. (and the broader international climate science community, in general).

I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you stand and what that perspective is based on. I'll be happy to share my own considerations on these same issues so that we both know where we are starting from in any further discussion.

Just for clarity, so that the discussion doesn't devolve, yet again, into stupid politicking, I want to make one thing clear. Contrary to what many people might think, I have never seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" nor am I interested in seeing it. I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

I make such a big deal to point this out because it seems that everyone I encounter either here or in person who wants to argue with me about how "AGW isn't real" wants to just blather on and on about how stupid & deceptive Al Gore is. I honestly don't give a damn about Al Gore - he's not a climate scientist, so I'm not interested in what he has to say on this issue.

Sorry if that's a derail, but I wanted to get that out there so we don't go there - again. If the thread turns that direction, I'm gone.
 
Last edited:
Good post especially on info sourcing.

Climate scientist do not predict as they cannot know what amount of C02 we will put into the atmosphere.
They provide a range of possible outcomes....from BAU to strong action on reducing CO2 emissions.

I must admit I was shocked at the updated MIT assessment....:boggled:


http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/23/mit-doubles-global-warming-projections/

In terms of up to date - worth the read tho it is policy oriented.

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport
 
Last edited:
A specific scientific consensus? There's never a choice of concensuses..

There are a range of perspectives within both the field specfic climatology concensus, and within the broader more generally relevent scientific fields with regards to the climate changes currently being experienced.

You start with "current scientific understandings" (a consensus no less) and ramble off into who knows what you might want to class as predictions via other undefined terms before ending with a demand for a specific scientific consensus.

Actually I'm just trying to nail down specifically what the poster I was speaking with is talking about, what perspective he is coming from, what he understands about the current scientific understandings with regards to climate change and whether or not he understands and accepts the consequences of those understandings.

Why not share with all of us? How would you answer your own questions? If nothing else it might give us a clue as to what they mean.

I've actually expressed my opinions and considerations many times on these issues and will be glad to do so again, for those who don't seem to remember, but first, I'd really like to hear and better understand the considerations and perspectives of the poster whom I was talking with. If he doesn't understand what I am asking, I will be happy to try and explain it to him as best I can.
 
Last edited:
Stop being coy - if you are referring to Matt then I'd say the mainstream climate stance

it's getting warmer and we're mostly responsible

would be the anchor.

Given there is great uncertainty as to the level of C02 we emit - the range of scenarios is exceptionally wide over that time period.

I'd not be patronizing him - from his answer he understands very well and has no intention of suffering fools gladly.

matt wrote
I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

So I'm quite sure of his chops.....not so sure of yours. :garfield:
 
I haven't researched the question of uncertainty in predictions & climate models enough to settle on any particular view yet concerning the question of the effects of AGW in 10, 20, 50, 100 years. So, until such a time as I see compelling info on that question, I shall remain mum.

As for your second question, I am referring to the consensus as outlined by the IPCC and the National Academies of Science in the U.S. (and the broader international climate science community, in general).

Interesting, of course, the IPCC findings do include projections, and the NAS statement, as well as most of the other scientific organization statements and findings regarding climate change do include some predictions as to the effects that can be expected to accompany climate changes over the coming decades and century. Are you unfamiliar with these projections/predictions or in disagreement with them?

Just for clarity, so that the discussion doesn't devolve, yet again, into stupid politicking, I want to make one thing clear. Contrary to what many people might think, I have never seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" nor am I interested in seeing it. I get all my info on these issues from the scientific sources, most especially from the NAS.

Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.

I make such a big deal to point this out because it seems that everyone I encounter either here or in person who wants to argue with me about how "AGW isn't real" wants to just blather on and on about how stupid & deceptive Al Gore is. I honestly don't give a damn about Al Gore - he's not a climate scientist, so I'm not interested in what he has to say on this issue.

Sorry if that's a derail, but I wanted to get that out there so we don't go there - again. If the thread turns that direction, I'm gone.

You brought it up, if you don't want to go into it, it would have probably been better not to go there in the first place, but I've no problem leaving it lay where you sat it, if that's your choice.
 
Interesting, of course, the IPCC findings do include projections, and the NAS statement, as well as most of the other scientific organization statements and findings regarding climate change do include some predictions as to the effects that can be expected to accompany climate changes over the coming decades and century. Are you unfamiliar with these projections/predictions or in disagreement with them?

I am aware that those sources did get into questions of prediction, but I am also aware those same sources stated, very clearly, that the area of greatest uncertainty in the science deals specifically with making such long term predictions.

Hence, my stance.

Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.

So what? So I should watch it to admire Al Gore's hairdo? :rolleyes:

You brought it up, if you don't want to go into it, it would have probably been better not to go there in the first place, but I've no problem leaving it lay where you sat it, if that's your choice.

Nope, I was just heading off any anti-AGW pseudoscientists (there are more than a few on these boards) off at the pass. That's all.
 
Well, I wouldn't ask you to comment on or discuss an advocacy presentation you obviously haven't seen, though before you become resolute in the decision not to see it, you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information.
An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court and Peer-Review.

Proof: 'An Inconvenient Truth' is Science Fiction (Video) (1min)


Debunked in a UK Court:
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (Daily Mail, UK)


Debunked By Peer Review:
An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle (David R. Legates, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)
An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction (Roy W. Spencer, GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)


35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie (Science & Public Policy Institute)

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
 
I am aware that those sources did get into questions of prediction, but I am also aware those same sources stated, very clearly, that the area of greatest uncertainty in the science deals specifically with making such long term predictions.

Hence, my stance.

Which is what I'm trying to determine.

These scientific organizations are pretty straight-forward in their assessments of outcomes that are probable, likely and most likely. Yes, there is some uncertainty, which is the reason that the assessments are expressed in these terms, and as conservative minimals.

I'm trying to figure out where your understandings shake out and how these shape your personal projections. It doesn't matter that much to me, at this point whether your personal projections are ultra-conservative, catastrophic, or somewhere in the middle, I just want to understand where they are at and what scientific evidences you are most heavily relying on to derive that position.

So what? So I should watch it to admire Al Gore's hairdo? :rolleyes:

If that's your thing, go for it, though I really don't think anyone but Hannity might have had that goal.

Nope, I was just heading off any anti-AGW pseudoscientists (there are more than a few on these boards) off at the pass. That's all.

True Bleevers aren't going to be disuaded by such, regardless of which side of the issue they are emotionally drawn to.
 
Oh dear evil Jeebus...

I'm trying to figure out where your understandings shake out and how these shape your personal projections. It doesn't matter that much to me, at this point whether your personal projections are ultra-conservative, catastrophic, or somewhere in the middle, I just want to understand where they are at and what scientific evidences you are most heavily relying on to derive that position.

I have no position on what's going to happen in the future. I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked. I'm awaiting further data & research on this question before saying more.

That is my stance. Now go away - you bother me, kid.
 
An Inconvenient Truth is a science fiction fantasy movie that has been debunked in a UK Court and Peer-Review.

... blah blah blah...

... PopTech displays his secret yet forbidden love/lust for Al Gore - once again...

Right on cue, folks. What'd I tell you? :rolleyes:

Consider this thread in the trash heap...
 
Right on cue, folks. What'd I tell you? :rolleyes:

Consider this thread in the trash heap...
Why? A false statement was made about Al Gore's movie. I did not bring it up as I never stated this fallacy...

"...you should understand that almost in its entirety, it draws upon well evidenced and supported science from the same sources you claim to be relying upon for your own information."
 
Short memory, no just impatience with the silly inquisition you are undertaking when Matt's comment on not wanting politics polluting the science mirrors your own last January.

TShaitanaku


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4314187#post4314187

:confused::con2::boggled:

Exactly how do you feel that this reference in any way contradicts or is at odds with anything I'm asking about or have stated?

I'm just trying to figure out what Matt understands about the topic and what his position is. Some of his statements seemed a bit contradictory or perhaps I have just misunderstood what he was saying, either way, I am trying to resolve these issues through getting him to clarify the issues for me. This isn't an "Inquisition," merely an inquiry, if doesn't feel like responding, that's his option. I have no ulterior or hidden motives, just a desire to better understand that which I don't currently understand.
 
Oh dear evil Jeebus...



I have no position on what's going to happen in the future. I think there is too much uncertainty now to accurately predict what will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years in the future if AGW is unchecked. I'm awaiting further data & research on this question before saying more.

That is my stance. Now go away - you bother me, kid.

And you don't find this position at odds with the sources you claim are the primary resources for your understandings of this issue?

"...World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century...Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)...There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall...There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides...Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium..." "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe." "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded." http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/ar4.html

"If emission rates for greenhouse gases (which trap heat inside Earth’s atmosphere) continue on their current track, models indicate that the globe will be 4.3 to 11.5°F warmer by 2100 than it was in 1990...Climate change in the current era is expected to be exceedingly rapid--likely at least 10 times faster than the global warming that occurred after the last ice age....models indicate that sea levels could rise 2 feet or more by 2100 compared to 1990 levels...range--it is estimated that about 20 to 30 percent of studied species could risk extinction in the next one hundred years..."
http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/ecological-impacts.shtml

Of course, it may just be a language difference, or perhaps we're both a bit too controlled in our wording. You haven't really said much of anything that directly contradicts any of these predictions or positions, perhaps I'm just seeing ghosts. So to relieve my silly little voices, how do you feel about these predictions and statements from the IPCC and NAS? Do you feel that they reflect your understandings and considerations? Do you feel them to be conservative estimates that are rapicly becoming outdated, recklessly catastrophic overkill, or something else?
 
Matt has you on ignore on this.
He has no idea why you are pursuing this silliness nor do I.
You are being completely dunderheaded on it.....clear enough?? :mgbanghead

Move on to something on topic.

•••

a bit dated but perhaps accurate in benefits to Russia and other circumpolar nations

The Economist is running yet another inane article, this one suggesting that global warming is good for Russia. It starts off with the bad- "This is bad for local wildlife. All over the world, species are edging towards the poles as their habitats change. But Arctic and Antarctic creatures have nowhere colder to go. Pity the polar bears. " and "Rising polar temperatures also mean bad news for many human beings—notably the 150,000 Inuit of Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Russia. Frozen ground is turning mushy, making it hard for hunters to travel. Mosquito infestations have driven their main quarry, caribou, into the hills."

However it goes on to say " The shipping industry will be able to use new short-cuts along the north coast of North America and the north coast of Russia. A newly navigable Arctic could cut thousands of miles off the journey between the Atlantic and the Pacific.The biggest beneficiary is likely to be Russia itself, which encircles almost half the Arctic Ocean. Currently uninhabitable areas will become more hospitable; currently inaccessible energy resources will become more exploitable. " The Economist suggests that "However the sea is divided up, warming is likely to make Russia richer rather than poorer. "
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/global_warming_11.php
 
And you don't find this position at odds with the sources you claim are the primary resources for your understandings of this issue?

No.

Of course, it may just be a language difference, or perhaps we're both a bit too controlled in our wording. You haven't really said much of anything that directly contradicts any of these predictions or positions, perhaps I'm just seeing ghosts. So to relieve my silly little voices, how do you feel about these predictions and statements from the IPCC and NAS? Do you feel that they reflect your understandings and considerations? Do you feel them to be conservative estimates that are rapicly becoming outdated, recklessly catastrophic overkill, or something else?

I've already answered your question, repeatedly. My answer won't change, no matter how many times you ask. Now go away and keep listening to those little voices in your head, and leave me alone.
 

Back
Top Bottom