Global Cooling will kill us all!

[Old_Man]

Ah yes, Dr. Hansen's (has an agendas graph that uses 30 yrs worth of point data..non-satellite at a low) as the average for which to base all anomoly events and then applies satellite data against it...but that is ok....wait I thought 30 yrs didn't count.

thats ok....water vapor is no good...but you only list water vapor derived from methane...no natural water vapor anywhere????...hmm...I'm sure you aren't cherry picking.


Believe what you want...dissenting opinion in science is necessary...if it wasn't the world would still be flat.

I encourage people to read information at:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://climatesci.org/

and make your own decision...educate yourself...look in all directions..

Again a chaotic system cannot have a linear solution....the math just doesn't work.

of course it is my opinion....make your own decision.

[marzpan]

Again a chaotic system cannot have a linear solution....the math just doesn't work.

This is so true. Not just in climate change but in a lot of other situations too.

[Sapient]

I encourage people to read information at:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://climatesci.org/

Holy demagoguery, Batman!

I checked out all three of those sites. A cursory scan of their contents revealed obvious bias and plain old logical fallacies. If this is what they consider their most persuasive evidence, I'd hesitate to trust most of the people involved with any decision more important than deciding what toppings to put on a pizza.

Now I'm thinking it's time to put some investment dollars into the woodcutting-tool industry, because if these guys keep grinding this way, there will soon be a global axe shortage.

[Old_Man]

I encourage people to read information at:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://climatesci.org/

Holy demagoguery, Batman!

I checked out all three of those sites. A cursory scan of their contents revealed obvious bias and plain old logical fallacies. If this is what they consider their most persuasive evidence, I'd hesitate to trust most of the people involved with any decision more important than deciding what toppings to put on a pizza.

Now I'm thinking it's time to put some investment dollars into the woodcutting-tool industry, because if these guys keep grinding this way, there will soon be a global axe shortage.

Yes boo dissenting opinion..it must all be wrong... Dr. Pielkie (shhh gets money from NASA...whom isn't stupid enough to hedge bets in only one direction)...must be insane and full of bull....as well as many other well published others (Scafetta and West...top solar geophysicists have lost it!!!) we must all believe!...it is the CO2 and nothing but the CO2!!!!

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

[crypto]

.. Dr. Pielkie (shhh gets money from NASA...

[Sapient]

I encourage people to read information at:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://climatesci.org/

Holy demagoguery, Batman!

I checked out all three of those sites. A cursory scan of their contents revealed obvious bias and plain old logical fallacies. If this is what they consider their most persuasive evidence, I'd hesitate to trust most of the people involved with any decision more important than deciding what toppings to put on a pizza.

Now I'm thinking it's time to put some investment dollars into the woodcutting-tool industry, because if these guys keep grinding this way, there will soon be a global axe shortage.

Yes boo dissenting opinion . . .

If any opinion is to be taken seriously, its supporters need to get serious about the way they present it. These web sites are not doing any favors for the point of view they are trying to promote. Unless each one's primary goal is to look like the handiwork of a crank with an axe to grind, they need to seriously reconsider their methods and their arguments.

It would be difficult indeed for them to make their point of view look any less persuasive, although it has been done, looking at Time Cube as one notorious example. That site's author also claims there is a vast conspiracy to prevent the truth of his views from gaining wider acceptance.

[Old_Man]

.. Dr. Pielkie (shhh gets money from NASA...

" At the University of Colorado I am affiliated with CIRES, the Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences, a joint institute of the University of Colorado and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Center that I direct at CIRES has received research funding
from a number of other federal research agencies, including NSF and NASA."

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20 ... -25161.pdf

I think I need to question my membership to a group that doesn't tolerate differing opinions or implies I am lying.

I do appreciate passion about a subject, but when it turns to name calling it no longer is a discussion.

[ghostface]

Ah yes, Dr. Hansen's (has an agendas graph that uses 30 yrs worth of point data..non-satellite at a low) as the average for which to base all anomoly events and then applies satellite data against it...but that is ok....wait I thought 30 yrs didn't count.

If you have evidence of scientific misconduct on James Hansen’s part, feel free to present it.

thats ok....water vapor is no good...but you only list water vapor derived from methane...no natural water vapor anywhere????...hmm...I'm sure you aren't cherry picking.

Water vapor only sticks around in the stratosphere long enough to be considered a forcing rather than feedback, which is why water vapor from CH4 is listed but “regular” water vapor is not- it is included as a feedback as I’ve previously stated, and as I previously stated, we know we have it properly accounted for by running climate models against real world events, like Pinatubo.

Believe what you want...dissenting opinion in science is necessary...if it wasn't the world would still be flat.

In order to dissent from mainstream scientific opinion in any meaningful way, one usually has to be at least rudimentarily familiar with it. You are simply refuting mainstream opinion, and doing so in self-contradictory ways.

This is a mainstay of the denial (evolution, HIV-AIDS, etc.) mindset- bring up numerous and contradictory reasons why the science is wrong, shifting the goal posts as one after another are shot down, and retreat to the righteous indignation position of “Well, science needs people like me, or else we’d all still believe X!”

No, science doesn’t need people that throw whatever scraps of rebuttal “evidence” they can Google (even when those sources contradict their point) in the hope that something sticks. Science doesn’t need people that don’t know ENSO from albedo claiming they don’t believe CO2 increased radiative energy is the main driver of the current warming when they don’t understand planetary energy balance. Science doesn’t need people that don’t understand science heckling from the peanut galleries.

Science needs people that do the due diligence of learning from the bottom up and make inventive, coherent, well-supported criticisms of the mainstream opinion- not just endlessly repeat debunked talking points. Nothing in the world would make me happier than if someone was able to show that anthropogenic warming had some terrible flaw, and that we have nothing to worry about. And should anyone do so, it won’t be buried in some obscure denialist blog, it will be worldwide headline news because it will require overturning over 100+ years of physics in the process.

I encourage people to read information at:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://climatesci.org/

and make your own decision...educate yourself...look in all directions..

I encourage everyone to look in all directions, sure. But rather than start with the fringe (Anthony Watts??!), I encourage them to learn the basics first. It would give someone a rather skewed view of biology if they had no firm grasp of evolution through natural selection and jumped right into Uncommon Descent or AnswersInGenesis.

Again a chaotic system cannot have a linear solution....the math just doesn't work.

Who is that directed to?

[ghostface]

Yes boo dissenting opinion..it must all be wrong... Dr. Pielkie (shhh gets money from NASA...whom isn't stupid enough to hedge bets in only one direction)...must be insane and full of bull....as well as many other well published others (Scafetta and West...top solar geophysicists have lost it!!!) we must all believe!...it is the CO2 and nothing but the CO2!!!!

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

Your mock-hysterics aside, no one believes that CO2 is literally the only factor.

Scafetta and West, in that opinion piece, are forced to use a debunked{1}{2} climate sensitivity because solar influence is otherwise insufficient{3}{4}{5}{6}{7}to produce the amount of warming they suggest and climate sensitivity in line with the consensus has been derived without relying on models whatsoever{8}, which completely destroys their argument.

So we’ve gone from natural cycles to UHI to water vapor to solar/climate sensitivity. Which contrarian argument will be next?

[Sapient]

I think I need to question my membership to a group that doesn't tolerate differing opinions or implies I am lying.

I have not seen anybody here ever imply you were lying about anything. In the particular case of NASA funding received by Dr. Pielkie, the fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (cited by Crypto) arises when you attempt to imply that this NASA funding somehow makes Dr. Pielkie's conclusions correct.

As for tolerating differing opinions, calling someone's conclusions less than fully persuasive is a far cry from real intolerance.

[crypto]

I think I need to question my membership to a group that doesn't tolerate differing opinions or implies I am lying.

I tolerate your opinion in the same sense that I tolerate the opinion of people who think we never landed on the moon, or who think AIDS is a government plot to eradicate minorities.

To be specific, I tolerate your right to have those beliefs even if I think they're foolish and incorrect. That has no bearing at all on my vehement disagreement with them and my desire to publicly decry them as bunk science.

[wanderingwaldo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2529744920080326?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
The crap is starting to hit the fan as it were. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet goes we will be in the region of existence I like to call "beyond boned". That's according to those big stupid doo-doo heads at NASA anyway.

[SSgtMobley]

Ok, we've gone from people discussing the science (or lack of) related to global warming/global cooling/whatever to people getting personal (weather implied, intended or not).

Lets refocus here people before this devolves further please.

I challenge and disagree with many statements (not limited to ghostface's side) on here largely because I'm actually learning things here (on both sides of the arguement).

Personally, I don't believe in "saving the planet" because I don't believe that ultimately it can be done. I do believe in learning about whats happening so we can "save the humans" (ultimately also futile depending on your point of view). One of the ways to do that is to postpone the innevitable uselessness of this world of finite resources until we can find more to eat up.

I tend to follow a Hindu philosophy of "nothing can be immortal that hasn't always been immortal". Everything that has a begining has an end. Which means this world will ultimately fail to fullfill our needs.

So, I don't push the whole "the world is ending because of global warming" hype and I don't push "global warming is total crap" hype. I'm listening to both sides and trying to find where the reality of things are and to what level I actually care - and as such what I want to do about things.

Please...back on topic.

[wanderingwaldo]

I view saving the environment as saving ourselves. The planet can take it. It's had mass extinctions on several occasions and life returned and even evolved cultural and linguistic intelligence (edit: this last time around anyway). The problem with a mass extinction is that it doesn't matter how big your brain is or how opposable your thumbs are if you can't find something to fill your belly.

[SSgtMobley]

I view saving the environment as saving ourselves. The planet can take it. It's had mass extinctions on several occasions and life returned and even evolved cultural and linguistic intelligence. The problem with a mass extinction is that it doesn't matter how big your brain is or how opposable your thumbs are if you can't find something to fill your belly.

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered in advancement through the simple concept that we don't technically NEED to grow food or hunt food any more. We can make it.

We can generate a lab-constructed protien-soup with vitamens, minerals and ameno acids campable of fullfilling the bodies need for survival. In fact we're able to make it even taste good nowadays.

We don't need an atmosphere to survive. The concept of domed cities or sealed-off building with climate controls (that pump toxic wastes and materials into a desolate and otherwise abandoned world) are not only now decades old but completely technologically possible.

We don't need the Earth to survive. And yes, the world will outlive us and likely some form of life will pervail no matter what we do the the planet. But it will eventually stop supporting us regardless of the effort.

My desire is to delay that inevitability until we have better options somewhere else - so that my later bloodlines can have a life as good as mine here and, eventually, elsewhere.

[andygates]

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered

And there lies the nub of it: this is a *moral* issue, not an end-of-lifekind issue. but make no mistake, massive die-offs globally would be TEOTWAKI. Things would change bigtime, and it's only luck that we're the rich westerners who will probably survive.

Thing is, that's a pretty crummy future, and I hope we have higher aspirations than that.

[19kilo]

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered

And there lies the nub of it: this is a *moral* issue, not an end-of-lifekind issue. but make no mistake, massive die-offs globally would be TEOTWAKI. Things would change bigtime, and it's only luck that we're the rich westerners who will probably survive.

Thing is, that's a pretty crummy future, and I hope we have higher aspirations than that.

I agree. if the fix is a 1960's JFK man to the moon push to get us off of oil and a greener life style then I think we can do it. But with Kyoto that has not lived up to expectations, (as far as I know) And leaders who do not practice what they preach what they preach, I don't think anything will get done about it that isn't some massive carbon tax to the U.N. So I will continue my part, driven 5000 miles in almost three years, cfl,s recycle, shop local coop, And bike more. I just don't think dumping more money into the government coffers will do it.

[SSgtMobley]

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered

And there lies the nub of it: this is a *moral* issue, not an end-of-lifekind issue. but make no mistake, massive die-offs globally would be TEOTWAKI. Things would change bigtime, and it's only luck that we're the rich westerners who will probably survive.

Thing is, that's a pretty crummy future, and I hope we have higher aspirations than that.

Agreed - simply stating that I don't forsee quite the same level of horror-movie apocolypse so many others portray in the media regarding global warming (as opposed to the science).

[ghostface]

Agreed - simply stating that I don't forsee quite the same level of horror-movie apocolypse so many others portray in the media regarding global warming (as opposed to the science).

What kind of apocalypse scenarios and where are there being portrayed (e.g. Discovery Channel, TIME magazine, etc.)?

I don't often see the flip side of the misreporting, so I'd be interested in seeing where they went wrong.

EDIT to add:

It would also be an easier segue into projected effects of unchecked emissions.

[SSgtMobley]

Agreed - simply stating that I don't forsee quite the same level of horror-movie apocolypse so many others portray in the media regarding global warming (as opposed to the science).

What kind of apocalypse scenarios and where are they being portrayed (e.g. Discovery Channel, TIME magazine, etc.)?

I don't often see the flip side of the misreporting, so I'd be interested in seeing where they went wrong.

EDIT to add:

It would also be an easier segue into projected effects of unchecked emissions.

A few examples.

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, even if based on actual scientific fact, hypes the panic button remarkably.

The Day After Tomorrow, though it goes the Ice Age path (caused by Global Warming), dramatizes the "apocolypse" mindset of a blown-out-of-proportion rapid shifting in climate.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/globalwarming/interactive/interactive.html <--- Discovery Channel Global Warming with Tom Brokov. Without even going into the facts listen to the language used to hype the danger level to sound immediate and desperate -

"Strange things are happening on Earth -- more powerful superstorms, megadroughts, massive fires and melting polar ice caps. Scientists believe that all of these unavoidable events point to a climate change of uinimaginable proportions..." (emphasis added to illustrate the below point)

I've got a degree in Journalism...granted only an Associates... but they teach you some very basic fundementals in the first couple years of any journalism degree. Those fundementals are -

1) The more readers/viewers the better.

2) Nothing draws attention like a catastrophy or a controvery.

3) You can report the truth while using better words to get more viewers by making a debate a controversy and a series of normal events catastrophic.

There isn't some playbook telling you to play dirty journalism, but there is social effects for sensationalism and successful draw of viewers.

Its one of the reasons I got out early.

[wanderingwaldo]

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered in advancement through the simple concept that we don't technically NEED to grow food or hunt food any more. We can make it.

We can generate a lab-constructed protien-soup with vitamens, minerals and ameno acids campable of fullfilling the bodies need for survival. In fact we're able to make it even taste good nowadays.

We don't need an atmosphere to survive. The concept of domed cities or sealed-off building with climate controls (that pump toxic wastes and materials into a desolate and otherwise abandoned world) are not only now decades old but completely technologically possible.

Where will the compatable building blocks of life come from to manufacture this miraculous flavored goo? Without viable agriculture all I could think of would be people.



The fact is our entire agricultural system is based on cheap petroleum and our current climate. I'm not saying the world will become a desert - just that with more oscillations in weather patterns our crops would fail more often.

One major problem could be disease:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126151723.htm

Other biggies include drought, flooding, and insect damage.

Even in the U.S. the bottom 60% of the population has 4.7% of the wealth in the country while the top 1% has 38% of the wealth. If things slide far enough, the economic disparity and social fallout will create it's own disaster. The bread lines dry up and hungry people become angry people. Civilizations and governments have collapsed from less in the past. Just because we have a greater understanding of science doesn't mean our politicians will be able to do much more than the leaders of old when faced with powerful forces no longer within their control. Some people will live, but not 300 million of them and they will never be the same - I would not call them undeterred. I imagine they would probably be quite a bit more humble for a few generations. Kinda like what happened after the Great Depression.

With regard to domed cities in the future - living like an astronaut on our own planet with the earth converted into a protozoan playground doesn't sound that appealing - although they would come in handy if all that methane ice locked in at the bottom of the ocean started bubbling up as predicted. How well would the cities hold up if there was a spark outside? A stitch in time my friend.

[andygates]

Skip the domes and go to wealthy, well-armed, tech-heavy city folks and lots of dirt-poor displaced folks around them. Add resentment "why are they hoarding the good stuff?" "why don't they get their own?" and a good splash of racial tension for a really nasty powderkeg. The models for that sort of situation - Israel/Palestine, 1980s South Africa - are not places I want to go.

I'm a lot less worried about the world turning into a horror-movie apocalypse than into a garden variety shithole.

Gotta agree with Mobely about sensationalism though. TV journalists are mostly toxic hacks. Yay for peer review.

[19kilo]

We're humans and we have science. Even if it means the third world and much of the second and even first world dying, our species will go forth undetered in advancement through the simple concept that we don't technically NEED to grow food or hunt food any more. We can make it.

We can generate a lab-constructed protien-soup with vitamens, minerals and ameno acids campable of fullfilling the bodies need for survival. In fact we're able to make it even taste good nowadays.

We don't need an atmosphere to survive. The concept of domed cities or sealed-off building with climate controls (that pump toxic wastes and materials into a desolate and otherwise abandoned world) are not only now decades old but completely technologically possible.

Where will the compatable building blocks of life come from to manufacture this miraculous flavored goo? Without viable agriculture all I could think of would be people.



The fact is our entire agricultural system is based on cheap petroleum and our current climate. I'm not saying the world will become a desert - just that with more oscillations in weather patterns our crops would fail more often.

One major problem could be disease:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126151723.htm

Other biggies include drought, flooding, and insect damage.

Even in the U.S. the bottom 60% of the population has 4.7% of the wealth in the country while the top 1% has 38% of the wealth. If things slide far enough, the economic disparity and social fallout will create it's own disaster. The bread lines dry up and hungry people become angry people. Civilizations and governments have collapsed from less in the past. Just because we have a greater understanding of science doesn't mean our politicians will be able to do much more than the leaders of old when faced with powerful forces no longer within their control. Some people will live, but not 300 million of them and they will never be the same - I would not call them undeterred. I imagine they would probably be quite a bit more humble for a few generations. Kinda like what happened after the Great Depression.

With regard to domed cities in the future - living like an astronaut on our own planet with the earth converted into a protozoan playground doesn't sound that appealing - although they would come in handy if all that methane ice locked in at the bottom of the ocean started bubbling up as predicted. How well would the cities hold up if there was a spark outside? A stitch in time my friend.

God damn evil rich people,

I had this horrible guilty when I almost broke six figures this year that I cut back on my second job so I wouldn't be one of those evil rich folks who hoard all the money.

Instead of hating, get to work.

[wanderingwaldo]

Skip the domes and go to wealthy, well-armed, tech-heavy city folks and lots of dirt-poor displaced folks around them. Add resentment "why are they hoarding the good stuff?" "why don't they get their own?" and a good splash of racial tension for a really nasty powderkeg. The models for that sort of situation - Israel/Palestine, 1980s South Africa - are not places I want to go.

I'm a lot less worried about the world turning into a horror-movie apocalypse than into a garden variety shithole.

Here's a bit of the why behind this: