BS: Global warming - the myth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 09:10 AM

I think the first thing Wunsch write there was more apposite than the ones bearded bruce picked: "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component."

And later on, this : "Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled...I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change - in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 09:17 AM

McGrath,

You brought out the point that he was not happy with the show- I was bringing up the point that he was aware of the dangers of ignoring the real dangers of Global Warming.

To worry about the man-made contribution WITHOUT any concern for the real effects that all the controls in the world will have no effect upon is like worrying about the oil level in a car while it is rolling off a cliff: YES, you should worry, but AFTER you have stopped the car- ie, dealt with the serious effects that will not go away just because you have got the proper lubricant.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 09:51 AM

Bagpuss's link is a lamentably typical example how journalists abuse scientists for one-sided propaganda. They (some journalists) care for headlines and not for truth. In the climate debate, too often the loudest get the headlines. And in the public debate, all the "could's" and "if's" disappear.

I have not seen the TV-film, but it seems to be entertaining at the expense of being extremely one-sided. A government warning "the following is for your entertainement, if you want to be informed look for other sources" should have preceeded its airing.

Global warming is real, and human activity contributes to it. How much is still a question of debate. As a Green voter, I understand the motivation of alarmists to paint the future in the darkest possible coulours, but as a scientist I am appaled by the extremists at both sides of the debate.

The graphs I have linked to show that what happens now is still very small compared to events on which we have no influence. If you read Foolestroupe's link you'll see (whether you are convinced by the the particular scenario or not) that any supervolcano explosion or asteroid impact will have a much larger influence than all our activity could ever have.

At the British coastline one can see a "high water mark" some dozen feet above today's sea level. Sea levels have been dramatically higher and lower than today in earth history. What we do now is a small push in one direction. But it is worth considering whether we want go on pushing or not. Using other forms of energy or reducing energy consumption is also a worthwhile aim for reasons that have nothing to do with climate (health, oil reserves, political dependencies etc.).

I wish we'd do more to prevent CO2 increase but I'm not much worried about global warming. These processes are so slow that we have enough time to react. A German climate scientist said recently at a conference that we should react until the end of the century which is a long time. Any thermonuclear war that is not strictly local during that time might have a larger impact on world climate. This is a scenario which worries me much more.

One should never forget the difference between data and model predictions. The data show a temperature increase which is still not really big. The bleak warnings come from model predictions and I have learned not to trust such predictions. Within the last decade there have been many conflicting predictions what global warming would do for Europe. After a series of predictions that the gulf stream stopping would put an icecap on the Northern half of Europe (which would let the sea level fall by the way), the now newest has Europe getting hotter. Sorry, but when I am reading these largely differing predictions in quick succession I just can't take the newest of them as serious as the authors would like me to.

There are good reasons to think about our way of energy production and to change it, but there is no reason for any panic.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 09:59 AM

"Any thermonuclear war that is not strictly local during that time might have a larger impact on world climate. This is a scenario which worries me much more."


Agreed. And does anyone think that telling nuclear nations such as India and China to cut back on CO2 emmissions will help the situation?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

It makes sense to try to deal with the stuff we actually can deal with, such as the contribution human beings are actually making. If changes in the Sun's activities are part of it, there's not a lot we can do about that right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 01:49 PM

"If changes in the Sun's activities are part of it, there's not a lot we can do about that right now. "

We SHOULD be relocating coastal populations, and preparing for the change in climate: Instead, we bitch and moan about how everything would be just fine if ( insert hated country) would just comply with the Kyoto accords.

And NOTHING is being done to DEAL with the effects that WILL be coming along, regardless of what we "can" do about CO2 emmissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
New York Times March 13, 2007

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,â€쳌 which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuraciesâ€쳌 in “An Inconvenient Truth.â€쳌

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,â€쳌 Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.â€쳌

More here

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: MaineDog
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:31 PM

Seems to me we pulled out of an ice age about 11000 years ago without having to increase the burning of fossil fuels by using automobiles and power plants. How did we do it?
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:54 PM

re the small temperature changes - it is projected to be 1 + Celsius higher within the next 25 years - I read that the difference between today's temperatures and the last ice age is only 5 degrees C.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM

Well, that's true enough bruce - it's pretty evident that whatever we do about cutting down carbon pollution, it's too late to avoid some pretty hairy problems coming up in a few years with coastal areas flooded and so forth. Anyone who's been suggesting that cutting down really significantly on emissions now can solve everything is just peddling lies.

But there really does appear pretty overwhelming evidence that if we don't cut down the effects are liable to be a whole lot worse than if we do succeed in achieving that.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

Please see

"Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:42 AM "

For plots of temperature over time.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:57 PM

anyone agree that telling nuclear nations such as the United States to cut back on C02 emmissions will help the situation?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:01 PM

Help how? It will NOT prevent global warming; It WILL alter the ability to deal with the problems that global warming creates.

It may be a good idea, for various reasons.

BUT IT WILL NOT STOP GLOBAL WARMING.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 05:38 PM

But not doing it will make things worse. To use your analogy bruce, if you need to stop a car, it's a good idea to take your foot of the accelerator pedal, even if you aren't too sure about the brakes working. It's not an either /or situation, it's both / and.

If your house is on fire you don't put it out by hosing it with petrol.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:00 PM

It's almost time for a few cool spinoff threads now, like....

"Democracy - the myth"
"A Just War - the myth"
"Objectivity - the myth"
"Truth in advertising - the myth"
"The War on Drugs - the myth"
"USA Department of Defence - the myth"
"Operation Iraqi Freedom - the myth"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 06:32 PM

Folk music - the myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 07:39 PM

I just took your statement from above and subbed in US for India and China. (after all the bulk of the last 150years of industrial c02 came from the US and Europe)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:09 AM

From: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bee
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 06:47 AM

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

Yep. That's the honest way to present complex science data to the public. Have the graphics guy make it look neater.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 06:59 AM

If a 'real peer reviewed scientist' did that, he would be disgraced for 'tampering with the data' - if a journo or a 'pseudo-scientist'¹ does that, it gets headlines and is believed!


¹ Like Dr Singer - working² outside his 'field of expertise'.... :-)


² ... especially if their 'non-peer-reviewed' 'research' is funded by those know to have and agenda to destroy the credibility of the case against their financial interests!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:20 AM

The swindle in this case was the entire documentary. It was a misrepresentation of the facts and a distortion of the arguments - it wasn't too difficult to guess something was amiss with the entire documentary as it proceeded.

It's not an exaggeration to say this documentary has caused a stir amongst climate scientists who are angery their work is represented in such sensationalist terms - this is fine for Daily Mail readers, not so good for those after the truth.

So, here we go. Check this lot out:

The article in The Guardian that gives an overview on the problems with the documentary.

On the subject of the graphs, here's a start on the Bad Science forum with discussions on the presentation of data in the graphs, and some more discussion on the erroneous graphs here.

Information on some of the experts here. This thread includes a post from one of the scientists misrepresented on the programme.

More information of flaws in the programme addressed at www.realclimate.org.

bearedbruce - A look at the Wikipedia entry on Abdusamatov makes interesting reading, He is not a climatologist but a mathematician and physicist. Using other planets as models for what is happening on the Earth (and vice-versa) is not good science. Although it's helpful to compare data on other planets systems on theose worlds invariably behave very differently to systems on this one - there may be parallels but often these are because the differnet systems demonstrate some convergence rather that a straight reproduction of a particular behaviour or result.

It is outrageous that science is misrepresented in this way. The result of programmes like this is to give justification to the selfish idiots who tool around in their Humvees and SUVs in between taking too many plane flights and leaving their AV setup on standby permanently.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:46 AM

State of fear at least was sold and advertised as a novel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:40 AM

Good selection of links, Stigweard. That should be the final word about this particular programme.

But I disagree with two minor points.

(1) It is quite misleading to merely say about Abdusamatov he is not a climatologist but a mathematician and physicist. He works on solar physics and that is clearly a part of climatology. What people have studied is less relevant than what they work in.
(2) Using other planets as models for what is happening on the Earth (and vice-versa) is not good science. Sure it is. I bet you wouldn't write that if a scientist uses the Venus atmosphere and temperature as an argument to warn about the danger of a runaway greenhouse effect.

BTW, selfish idiots is the perfect preparation for a change of minds in the people one discusses with.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

Is the United States the biggest oil consuming nation in the world?

It ranks 17 th at .0677 barrels per day per capita, just above Saudi Arabia at .0672 barrels per day per capita and Canada at .0668 barrels per day per capita.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:45 AM

'per capita' is an interesting way of measuring, but hardly addresses the question of which nations use the bulk of the oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:06 AM

I think that 'per capita' is actually a fairly good way to describe oil consumption.

If one looks who ranks before the USA in that measure one sees that nearly all of these countries are tiny island countries or oil producers.

I don't know how the per capita oil consumption is determined, but if transport (of people and goods) to and from the country is in the calculation I am not surprised that small island countries have a very high per capita consumption. And that those who sit on the oil and for whom oil is extremely cheap have no incentive to use anything else to produce energy I also find unsurprising.

If one looks at larger industialised countries without (much of) own oil, those that are comparable to the USA, one finds that roughly the per capita consumption in the USA is twice as much.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

thats because in oil producing nations gas is so cheap
people dont even turn off their engines..

my mechanic who just came back from his pilgrimage to Mecca
was in a hotel in Saudi Arabia and went outside for a smoke
(even though the security guard said its ok to smoke inside)
all the cars that were outside the hotel were idling and he asked one driver if he could shut the engine off -- the guy said no way man its too expensive! (ie. wear and tear)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

Jeez, Wolfgang, where were you during this discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM

"He works on solar physics and that is clearly a part of climatology"

I disagree. Solar physics is the study of the Sun, it's climate and atmosphere, not the climate of earth. Of course the Sun influences our climate, but though a Solar physicist can make pronouncements on the workings of the earth's climate, he ain't no expert. A different discipline entirely.

"I bet you wouldn't write that if a scientist uses the Venus atmosphere and temperature as an argument to warn about the danger of a runaway greenhouse effect."

I certainly would - I am keeping an open mind on the subject, and anyway I suspect the analogy is flawed. Different planets, different variables driving the climate systems. However, you could say Venus was an example of an extreme greenhouse effect.

"BTW, selfish idiots is the perfect preparation for a change of minds in the people one discusses with. "

Point taken, but bollocks to them all the same. I am not pussyfooting around people who ignore the common good for their own selfish ends - after all they're not pussyfooting around everyone else are they?

And let's face it, they won't gladly take advice from the world's scientific community, what hope from a pompus fart like me?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

Wolfgang, where were you during (the Inconvenient Truth) discussion?

Reading. I read more threads than I post to.

Climatology (the short Britannica online definition with my selective emphasis)

Branch of atmospheric science concerned with describing climate and analyzing the causes and practical consequences of climatic differences and changes. Climatology treats the same atmospheric processes as meteorology, but it also seeks to identify slower-acting influences and longer-term changes, including the circulation of the oceans, the concentrations of atmospheric gases, and the small but measurable variations in the intensity of solar radiation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:21 PM

Forget the last paragraph of my post. I am guilty of at least a very ambiguous way of saying what I meant:

He works on solar physics and that is clearly a part of climatology

I did mean with "that" his work within solar physics, but the reading that "that" refers to "solar physics" is the dominant reading for "that" comes directly after "solar physics". My mistake. No, I don't think solar physics is a part of climatology.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Dickey
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM

'per capita' is an interesting way of measuring, but hardly addresses the question of which nations use the bulk of the oil.

Do you want nations to limit their population in order to satisfy environmentalists?

The US is rankes 154th in birthrate

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 04:03 PM

It always astonishes me when 'environmentalist' is used pejoratively. It is as though some people don't understand that the environment is where we have to live; it would seem that ALL of us would be interested in having that environment be as sustainably livable as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:16 PM

We insist on living on this planet as if we are planning to live on another very soon... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

I suppose it's really another rather more extreme example of "spending the kid's inheritance" - after all we won't be around to see the consequences of our activities and our inaction. What has posterity ever done for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:12 PM

"Do you want nations to limit their population in order to satisfy environmentalists?"

why yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Birth control by lottery, I'd think would be the fairest. Thanks for asking.
   Do I think it will happen? Oh, maybe when the famine lasts for 5-6 years in a row....

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth

There is also a 20 minute epilog to this documentary with more "Gore" and "car chases" that aired on Cinamax.

7 years ago I objected with most of what little hawk said. Now I agree with most of what he says.

Who changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bagpuss
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 04:11 AM

I find AGW a really easy argument to have. For every point someone makes, I know I can look up a well thought out evidence based summary at a single website.

Re the increase in solar activity BB keeps talking about:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:01 AM

That site is a really good source for arguments and articles about climate but I dislike the way they treat dissenting opinions and how they use ad personam arguments. There's too much emotion for me to trust them completely.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:15 AM

from that site:

"The fact that there is little recent trend in the GCR and solar activity does not mean that solar activity is unimportant for earth's climate. There are a large number of recent peer-reviewed scientific publications demonstrating how solar activity can affect our climate (Benestad, 2002), such as how changes in the UV radiation following the solar activity affect the stratospheric ozone concentrations (1999) and how earth's temperatures respond to changes in the total solar irradiance (Meehl, 2003). Furthermore, the lack of trend in GCR does not falsify the mechanism proposed by Svensmark, i.e. that GCR act as a trigger for cloud condensation nuclei and are related to the amount of low clouds. As for this latter issue, the jury is still out."


The site starts with the assumption that the Cosmic rays WILL reflect the increase in soalr radiation:

"There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming. Since the paper by Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), there has been an enhanced controversy about the role of solar activity for earth's climate. Svensmark (1998) later proposed that changes in the inter-planetary magnetic fields (IMF) resulting from variations on the sun can affect the climate through galactic cosmic rays (GCR) by modulating earth's cloud cover. Svensmark and others have also argued that recent global warming has been a result of solar activity and reduced cloud cover. Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws. For one thing, it is clear that the GCR does not contain any clear and significant long-term trend (e.g. Fig. 1, but also in papers by Svensmark)."

Thus, the increase, or lack thereof of solar activity is not proven nor disproven by this paper.


And you fail to account for the present climactic changes to both Mars and Jupiter at this time- Are you claiming that the Martians are also burning too much oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

As sciences go, this attempting to graph, predict and explain long-term climate changes is still pretty new. We can debate the details as we get more & more data, but the fact remains that ANY attempt to reduce our impact on the complex of systems that sustain us seems to be a good idea. What we do NOT want to do is base decisions strictly on political or economic special interests.
   There is no doubt that there are cyclical natural forces that we cannot easily control, and thus we need to take special care to adjust to them...(like NOT building in flood plains or on beaches!). It IS the case, however, that special interests push pretty hard for the 'right' to build wherever they think they can sell...and to fish, cut, burn, dig, pave and breed without restraints. These people have little concept of maintaining a "margin for error" ...and in the case of Earth resources and living space, it is BEYOND foolhardy not to stay within a safety margin.

so....go on...compare graphs and nitpick over precise melting rates of various glaciers and ice sheets or influence of cosmic rays and solar radiation...but we need to OPERATE as if the most pessimistic predictions 'might' be true....then if we were too conservative, we can shrug. But if we were way too optimistic, it's gonna be awkward.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

"but we need to OPERATE as if the most pessimistic predictions 'might' be true....then if we were too conservative, we can shrug. But if we were way too optimistic, it's gonna be awkward. "


Agreed- which is why the assumption that curbing emissions will solve the problem should not be assumed to be correct.

If the steps are taken to deal with the effects of GW, then we can work on the emissions and other controlable aspects- but NOT in place of dealing with the ( highly likely) effects that will occur regardless of who wins the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:50 PM

"And you fail to account for the present climactic changes to both Mars and Jupiter at this time- Are you claiming that the Martians are also burning too much oil?"

Using other planet's climate systems as an analogy for our own is not a good idea. Whilst I see what you are getting at bb (the Sun's warming Mars and Jupiter so it must be warming us). Your earlier links to the Jupiter story in no way points to solar activity being a catalyst for climate change on the Red Planet. The article clearly states "Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet." If Jovian weather is a mystery, then it's climate is even more of an unknown.

In the case of the Martian warming, the Nasa pages simply state warming appears to be happening on Mars - the reason for this is not clear (though the planet's wobbles seem to be favourite at the moment) at all as we understand the climate on Mars less than we do our own. The final article quotes our old friend Abdussamatov (the Solar physicist and not climatologist, terrestrial or planetary) and as the article states if you read further than the first page, climatologists dismiss his ideas altogether.

Of course the main reason other scientists think Abdussamatov's argument is complete bollocks is because if Martian ice is being warmed by Solar radiation it is releasing C02 into the atmosphere as it melts, speeding up the martian greenhouse effect - precisely the same process Abdussamatov dismisses as being the cause of climate change on Earth.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 12:53 PM

My I suggest not using the letters GW here, as mixing up 'George W' and 'global warming' isn't useful....

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM

Nah. The most pessimistic prediction would be that we have already passed the point of no return to the region of positive feedback and the planet is on its way to become a second Venus soon.

Operating with this prediction we should just go on with business as usual and enjoy the last couple of decades.

More seriously, I strongly disagree with the "we can shrug" part. The more realistic (than the above) very pessimistic predictions would require that the human population should be reduced very much and that our way of living should be changed dramatically and very quickly in many respects, transport, food production and all that. If these measures are applied very quickly, the consequences would likely be worldwide mass deaths by starvation and cold. That is not what I consider "we can shrug" off in case of error.

It is in principle wise in my opinion to err a bit more on the pessimistic side, but what we can do always comes with costs and not only with benefits. So I'd do what can be done with low costs (better isolation, less fuel cars, increasing costs of transport even if the British Mudcatters shout at me) and has also additional benefits like independence from OPEC.

As a political leader I'd assume
(1) that the middle of the road predictions are the best guess and
(2) that the most extreme models that require immediate and drastic measures are plainly wrong.

That has two advantages:
(1) If I err on (1) it doesn't matter much if I am right on (2) which is very likely, for more drastic steps can still be implemented some decades later with better data.
(2) This is the only policy the population will tolerate without a revolution. Any much more drastic policy could only be implemented by brute force and I'm not sure the police and army would follow me.

Even if my policy was wrong and the correct action would be a policy that leads to 1/3 of the wordl population dying within a short time, only a brute force world dictatorship could make it at high costs.

This is actually discussed among some German environmentalists, mainly from the political right. We call them ecofascists.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:16 PM

"Your earlier links to the Jupiter story in no way points to solar activity being a catalyst for climate change on the Red Planet. The article clearly states "Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet." If Jovian weather is a mystery, then it's climate is even more of an unknown."

It is reasonable to assume that, even if we do not understand the exact mechanism of solar flux upon the red spot, the present change ( after 400 years of stability) is indicative of a climactic shift.

1. We know that solar flux has an effect upon climate.
2. We know that climactic changes are occurring on ( at least) Earth, Mars, and Jupiter.
3. The common factor to the planets is solar flux. Others MAY exist, but solar-system wide changes in universal constants and such have not been proven.
4. To postulate that the solar flux is NOT responsible for climactic change on multiple planets at the same time which do not share an industrial civilisation nor population is NOT a reasonable assumption.


Of course, it could all just be coincidence. Just as the increase of atmospheric CO2 on Earth( for whatever reason) and the increase in average temperature could just be coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM

"It is reasonable to assume that, even if we do not understand the exact mechanism of solar flux upon the red spot"
Where is there any indication that the change in the red spot of Jupiter is anything to do with the Sun? It might indicate Jovian climate change but please post a ref where it states it has anything to do the Sun.

"1. We know that solar flux has an effect upon climate."
It's not unreasonable to suggest that there are other variables affecting the climate as well as C02, but some of the data hte Solar theory is based on is suspect - check out this paper in pdf format.

"2. We know that climactic changes are occurring on ( at least) Earth, Mars, and Jupiter."
So? The climates on every planet and all of the moons with atmospheres are in constant climatic change - always have been and always will be. This is not an argument in favour of the solar hypothesis driving the current increase in global mean temperature of the Earth.

"3. The common factor to the planets is solar flux. Others MAY exist, but solar-system wide changes in universal constants and such have not been proven."
Others do exist - how about the position of the entire solar system as it rotates around the galactic centre? We pass through dust clouds, supernovae debris etc. None proven, but all possible influences on the climates of the planets. Are the atmospheres of all the planets and their moons warming? Refs to articles/papers on this subject would be nice.

"4. To postulate that the solar flux is NOT responsible for climactic change on multiple planets at the same time which do not share an industrial civilisation nor population is NOT a reasonable assumption."
Neither is saying it isn't (especially using a non-existent "all the planets are warming so it ain't our fault" theory). I don't know whether it is or not - but current scientific analysis of the available data indicates the current rise in global temperatures is due to the increase in anthropgenic C02.

"Just as the increase of atmospheric CO2 on Earth( for whatever reason) and the increase in average temperature could just be coincidence."
Might be, but the guys who job it is to know seem to have a different opinion. For more info on climate change denial, including rebuttals of the main points of the programme and some information on some of the contributors, have a look here.

Still, either way the results are the same. We need to stop pumping C02 into the atmosphere real quick, or the kids will be cleaning up the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

"We need to stop pumping C02 into the atmosphere real quick, or the kids will be cleaning up the mess. "


WRONG_

Whether we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere or not, the kids will be cleaning up the mess. THAT is my point. THE CLIMATE CHANGE WILL OCCUR, as it has in the past BEFORE the industrial age, even if we stop all CO2 emissions.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Stu
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 02:16 PM

Sorry bb.

It's just in your previous posts you seemed to be arguing in favour of the Channel 4 documentary that said the Sun was responsible for the current rise in global temperatures rather than man pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causing the rise.

I was wrong. My mistake. You are right.

Did you know birds are actually dinosaurs according to phlyogenetic analysis?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming - the myth
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 02:17 PM

Yes bruce, Mars is getting warmer.

THis entire segment of our Galactic spiral arm is entering a new region of space.

Weather ain't just down here but the CO2 we make down here is paramount