Page 36 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2631323334353637383940414686 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 720 of 2209
  1. #701  
    Quote Originally Posted by brettferrell
    It actually appears that the earth got cooler during the industrial revolution, so it seems that the effects of humans do not drive the cycles at all. Sometimes we help, sometimes we hurt, but to assume we cause these things, and worse, understand them-particularly enough to improve the situation, is IMO very arrogant.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnclim06.xml
    http://www.globalwarmingissues.com/v...ange%20science

    B
    I agree that it is hubris for us to believe that we understand what is going on enough or exercise enough control to improve the situation. That said, given the limits on our understanding and control, what does a prudent society do?
  2. #702  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I agree that it is hubris for us to believe that we understand what is going on enough or exercise enough control to improve the situation. That said, given the limits on our understanding and control, what does a prudent society do?
    There are two mistakes that can be made: assume global warming to be an accurate theory and attempt to address it or believe it is a natural cycle which we have no impact on and change nothing. If we are incorrect in the first instance, some effort is wasted. If we are incorrect in the second instance, our species may cease to exist.

    I'll take the first mistake please.
  3. #703  
    Chillig,
    1. We're talking about the cost of Kyoto. How do you measure the cost? Are you advocating assuming that the cost is zero?

    2. The "obscene profits" of auto makers and the success of Toyota are not relevant to the existence of a cost. And I'm not arguing against regulation, and so the cost of not having regulation is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge the cost. Is there a cost to regulation? Yes or No?

    3. What's the worst that could happen? That there will be a great cost without a benefit. Why is it so hard for you to even admit that? Even daT agrees with that.

    4. The "reasonable doubt" is supported within the reports that you cited. I'm on my Treo (my cable connection is dead), and so I can't quote and link properly. The IPCC report, if I recall correctly, talks about its conclusions using language such as "suggests," "likely," and "uncertainty." You pretend that considering the possibility that the conclusions might be wrong is unreasonable. Your position is irresponsible and is not supported by science.

    5. Thanks for actually quoting my statements. But you still can't resist the temptation of ignoring my statements and responding to what you believe are the implications.

    6. As I said before, I'm not questioning all of climate science. And you're right; you haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about. Go ask someone who understands how to read English.

    7. Both papers on solar irradiance support what I've said. You described the use of ice cores to determine solar irradiance for the past 650,000 years. I said that sounded like BS, and asked you to cite a source. You came up with nothing.

    8. A variation on the order of magnitude of 0 .5% in the sun's irradiance can have an impact on the climate and so is a major variable.

    9. As support for your claim that solar irradiance is a minor variable, you cite a paragraph indicadting the sun didn't seem to vary much during a recent decade. You must be a brilliant scientist.
  4. #704  
    daT,
    Good post. Reasonable position.

    But remember that it doesn't have to be an all or nothing decision. We can move cautiously...
  5. #705  
    For what it is worth there is a very clear scientific consensus article on global warming from December 2004 issue of Science magazine. If you want the entire article you can find it at this link.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

    The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    Naomi Oreskes
    Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

    The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

    IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

    Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

    References and Notes

    1.A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

    2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).

    3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

    4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

    5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

    6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).

    7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).

    8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

    9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.

    10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
  6. #706  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Chillig,
    1. We're talking about the cost of Kyoto. How do you measure the cost? Are you advocating assuming that the cost is zero?

    2. The "obscene profits" of auto makers and the success of Toyota are not relevant to the existence of a cost. And I'm not arguing against regulation, and so the cost of not having regulation is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge the cost. Is there a cost to regulation? Yes or No?

    3. What's the worst that could happen? That there will be a great cost without a benefit. Why is it so hard for you to even admit that? Even daT agrees with that.
    perhaps you need to brush up on your english a bit and read what I've written again - I never said that there were no costs for regulation. First, I was trying to point out that in the past automakers cited the costs of these as prohibitive that would lead to the demise of the auto industry - and clearly that hasn't happened. Second, I was also trying to point out that it is meaningless to talk about costs alone without factoring in the benefits.

    4. The "reasonable doubt" is supported within the reports that you cited. I'm on my Treo (my cable connection is dead), and so I can't quote and link properly. The IPCC report, if I recall correctly, talks about its conclusions using language such as "suggests," "likely," and "uncertainty." You pretend that considering the possibility that the conclusions might be wrong is unreasonable. Your position is irresponsible and is not supported by science.
    Funny - just a few days ago you thought that what I said was reasonable:
    The available evidence for global warming (which is continuously being corroborated with new data) is beyond reasonable doubt (or virtually certain as some scientists like to say).

    It is highly likely (i.e. preponderance of evidence) that these trends will continue in the near future and it is also reasonable to believe that these continued trends would cause some kind of global climatic shift though it is uncertain as to what kind of climate changes will occur or as to the magnitude of such changes.

    This is the general consensus of the scientific community studying the global climate - and of course there is a significant effort to try and improve the level of certainity as much as possible.
    chillig35 - I'm surprised at how reasonable your answers are.

    I completely agree with the first and fourth assessments. And I think it's reasonable to believe that if these trends continue well beyond the short term that they'll cause some kind of global climatic shift, whatever that means.
    Where have I said anything different?? You really need to brush up on your english and perhaps check your memory while you're at it!

    As for the IPCC report - here is the summary page - please show me where I'm saying anything different??

    An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system.

    Since the release of the Second Assessment Report (SAR4), additional data from new studies of current and palaeoclimates, improved analysis of data sets, more rigorous evaluation of their quality, and comparisons among data from different sources have led to greater understanding of climate change.

    The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C.
    • The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C5, 6 (Figure 1a).
    • Globally, it is very likely7 that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861 (see Figure 1a).
    • New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely7 to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely7 that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year (Figure 1b).
    • On average, between 1950 and 1993, night-time daily minimum air temperatures over land increased by about 0.2°C per decade. This is about twice the rate of increase in daytime daily maximum air temperatures (0.1°C per decade). This has lengthened the freeze-free season in many mid- and high latitude regions. The increase in sea surface temperature over this period is about half that of the mean land surface air temperature.
    Temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere.
    • Since the late 1950s (the period of adequate observations from weather balloons), the overall global temperature increases in the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere and in surface temperature have been similar at 0.1°C per decade.
    • Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show that the global average temperature of the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere has changed by +0.05 ± 0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface temperature has increased significantly by +0.15 ± 0.05°C per decade. The difference in the warming rates is statistically significant. This difference occurs primarily over the tropical and sub-tropical regions.
    • The lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere and the surface are influenced differently by factors such as stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosols, and the El Niño phenomenon. Hence, it is physically plausible to expect that over a short time period (e.g., 20 years) there may be differences in temperature trends. In addition, spatial sampling techniques can also explain some of the differences in trends, but these differences are not fully resolved.
    Snow cover and ice extent have decreased.
    • Satellite data show that there are very likely7 to have been decreases of about 10% in the extent of snow cover since the late 1960s, and ground-based observations show that there is very likely7 to have been a reduction of about two weeks in the annual duration of lake and river ice cover in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, over the 20th century.
    • There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century.
    • Northern Hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice extent has decreased by about 10 to 15% since the 1950s. It is likely7 that there has been about a 40% decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness during late summer to early autumn in recent decades and a considerably slower decline in winter sea-ice thickness.
    Global average sea level has risen and ocean heat content has increased.
    • Tide gauge data show that global average sea level rose between 0.1 and 0.2 metres during the 20th century.
    • Global ocean heat content has increased since the late 1950s, the period for which adequate observations of sub-surface ocean temperatures have been available.
    6. As I said before, I'm not questioning all of climate science. And you're right; you haven't the faintest clue what I'm talking about. Go ask someone who understands how to read English.
    Perhaps I need to learn to intrepret double-speak. I quoted your past statement because you seemed to be questioning the climate science models and comparing them unfavorably with finance or experimental physics models. So I'm asking you specifically once again - are you questioning the data and validity of the GCM models which lie at the heart of climate science?

    7. Both papers on solar irradiance support what I've said. You described the use of ice cores to determine solar irradiance for the past 650,000 years. I said that sounded like BS, and asked you to cite a source. You came up with nothing.
    I'm sorry - I should have realized that you really are close-minded and assume that everyone has your affliction - and so you accuse others of BS or making stuff up. Here is a whole slew of cites (and this time I made sure that the links work for a layperson) that use ice core isotopic data to estimate prehistoric solar radiance:
    1. http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..802A.pdf
    2. http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760.....76..805F.pdf
    3. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2005S...Atmosphere.pdf
    4. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2005S.../Muscheler.pdf
    5. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2_A&A.pdf

    9. As support for your claim that solar irradiance is a minor variable, you cite a paragraph indicadting the sun didn't seem to vary much during a recent decade. You must be a brilliant scientist.
    Are you having a blonde moment? - all I was trying to show was that greenhouse gas effects have 500% more impact than solar irradiance. Why does the timescale matter? Unless, of course you're ready to believe that the solar output could vary by 500%???
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #707  
    There seems to be broad confusion about the meaning of the word, “likely.”

    Without checking a dictionary (because I'm on my Treo), I'm going to say the best definition and synonym is “probably.” Please feel free to cite your own sources.

    It's true to say that scientists agree that global warming is probably caused by human activity. But there is no consensus that it's certain. It's irresponsible to imply otherwise.
  8. #708  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    There seems to be broad confusion about the meaning of the word, “likely.”

    Without checking a dictionary (because I'm on my Treo), I'm going to say the best definition and synonym is “probably.” Please feel free to cite your own sources.

    It's true to say that scientists agree that global warming is probably caused by human activity. But there is no consensus that it's certain. It's irresponsible to imply otherwise.
    hmmm - if your doctor told you that you had high bad cholesterol levels and that you were likely a candidate for a heart attack - would you still choose to ignore his warning? Would you refuse to take precautionary measures because he wasn't 100% "certain" about the link between bad cholesterol and heart disease?
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  9. #709  
    1. You said the worst that could happen was that we would breathe clean air. No costs.

    But I'm glad that you now acknowledge there are costs.

    2. There's a significant difference. You haven't consulted a native English speaker yet, I see.

    In the earlier passage, the only thing you say is beyond reasonable doubt is a set of well-established facts. The rest of the climate change claims are described very reasonably in proper language: likely, reason to believe, uncertain. That's good.

    Later you claim it's unreasonable to even consider the idea that human activity or CO2 might not cause global warming. That's bad.

    3. You try to position me as attacking all of climate science and all the modeling done in it. As I said before, I only claim what I say. I listed several areas where data is lacking. Those gaps mean the conclusion from the models are less than certain - which the scientists acknowledge freely. I also said that models that make predictions of 50+ years have not been proven accurate; so you can't claim that those models are accurate or certain.

    I've said all of this before, and in English. I've never said that these models are invalid or of no value. And none of this is "at the heart of climate science."

    4. I can't check the pdf links, but I will. I don't doubt that they relate to ice cores and solar irradiance. I do doubt that they support your actual claims. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Give me a few days to get a PC Internet connection.

    5. Timescale matters because the models aren't linear. The change in solar irradiance has had more impact on global temperatures in the past than greenhouse gases ever will. Solar irradiance doesn't need to rise by 500% to boil the oceans.
  10.    #710  
    How do human blaming global warming believers explain how the Arctic was tropical with palm trees and alligators 55 million years ago?

    This indicates our Earth is on a cyclical global warming event.
  11. #711  
    Advance, nice to run into you here, and I have enjoyed our informed discussions in the past. One thing I will just remind everyone is that Advance was interested enough in this subject to actually call the author of the Science Journal consensus article that I cited above.

    At any rate, to address your last post, the panel of scientists who President Bush appointed to study climate change appear to be human blaming global warming believers:

    "On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil."
    Excerpted from:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

    In response to your other question, their comprehensive report shows how they arrived at their conclusions. Maybe I am wrong, but I think the actual report has not yet been cited in this thread.

    Anyway, here is the link to the 14 page executive summary:
    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...al-execsum.pdf

    and to the full 150 page report
    http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...rt/default.htm
  12. #712  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    How do human blaming global warming believers explain how the Arctic was tropical with palm trees and alligators 55 million years ago?

    This indicates our Earth is on a cyclical global warming event.
    I'm going to die, but I deem it a smart choice to invest in better health practices so as not to expedite the process.

    It doesn't matter if fatalist views are correct, we do know that current habits are bad.
  13. #713  
    Hey cell!!! Darn you, ya just cant seem to stay away. BTW, wikipedia is not really a source
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  14. #714  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    How do human blaming global warming believers explain how the Arctic was tropical with palm trees and alligators 55 million years ago?

    This indicates our Earth is on a cyclical global warming event.
    hey ATM --- I think north pole was not where it used to be 55 million years ago (if you get my drift.)

    Santa's preferred wardrobe then was flip flops and bikini shorts.

    (good times ... )
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15. #715  
    CG thanks and all the best to you too.

    I am sorry you don't like the wikipedia link. if you notice the other two links are direct reports of the Presidential scientific commission.

    do those pass muster?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 05/31/2006 at 09:16 PM.
  16. #716  
    ICU need a refresher. No double double posts please
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. #717  
    CG, yes, I was on my treo and could not delete, fixed it now. Anyway I did have a long hiatus away, but returning here, I am just happy to come by here not with an agenda, but to say hello and see some old friends. How are the journalism studies going?
  18. #718  
    Schools out for summer...

    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #719  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    For what it is worth there is a very clear scientific consensus article on global warming from December 2004 issue of Science magazine. If you want the entire article you can find it at this link.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686
    Hello Cellmatrix, good to see you here. As usual, the board is in dire need of a voice of reason, welcome back.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #720  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    How do human blaming global warming believers explain how the Arctic was tropical with palm trees and alligators 55 million years ago?
    Read the article in Nature. It's all there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    This indicates our Earth is on a cyclical global warming event.
    Birth and death are parts of the normal life cycle. Does this indicate murder does not exist?

    A tree falling is a normal part is its life cycle. Does this indicate it doesn't matter that your neighbor chops a big chunk of wood out of the big tree leaning over your house?

    Nobody ever said that there is no natural climatic variation. But the fact that natural climatic variation exists does not mean that man-made climatic change does NOT exist. Your line of argumentation is logically flawed and not supported by scientific evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions