Question about the Green Shift

[Riverwind]

Its unfortunate there's no military solution to AGW. I bet 90% of the skeptics around here would be on board in a flash.

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many supporters of AGW alarmism presume that any opposition must be ideological rather than simply a result of investigating the facts and coming to a rational conclusion based on those facts. Perhaps this explains it. Edited August 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[Smallc]

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many supporters of AGW alarmism presume that any opposition must be ideological rather than simply a result of investigating the facts and coming to a rational conclusion based on those facts. Perhaps this explains it.

Exactly. I'm a centrist and I still need to see more evidence to convince me that we are causing the world to self destruct. There is really in many ways no reason to believe that this isn't a natural event.

[jdobbin]

I find it absolutely bizarre that so many supporters of AGW alarmism presume that any opposition must be ideological rather than simply a result of investigating the facts and coming to a rational conclusion based on those facts. Perhaps this explains it.

More personal attacks won't help the denialist argument nor will running down respected scientists.

[Riverwind]

will running down respected scientists.

Your logic is facinating. Your post an opinion that has errors of fact and introduces irrelevant details that do not address the argument at hand yet you insist that the argument should be given consideration because he is a 'respected scientist'. The respectable scientist would have provided a counter argument to the non-warming over the last 10 years which goes something like this:

The climate is extremely variable and we don't really understand all of the factors that affect it, however, 8 years of cooling is not enough to demonstrate conclusively that our current understanding is fundamentally flawed - especially when the 8 years question happen to coincide with end of a solar cycle. The current trend should reverse itself shortly and warming will resume at the rates within the ranges projected by the climate models.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The climate is extremely variable and we don't really understand all of the factors that affect it, however, 8 years of cooling is not enough to demonstrate conclusively that our current understanding is fundamentally flawed - especially when the 8 years question happen to coincide with end of a solar cycle. The current trend should reverse itself shortly and warming will resume at the rates within the ranges projected by the climate models.

You keep saying he has a flawed argument and yet Brook calmly maintains that warming has continued and gives a logical argument to support that claim. It happens to be the argument that the consensus of scientists support and even the present Conservative government now supports it.

Edited August 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

You keep saying he has a flawed argument and yet Brook calmly maintains that warming has continued and gives a logical argument to support that claim.

The temperature could stay the same for the next 100 years and he could claim that the 100 warmest years were the last 100 but that does not mean the planet has warmed over the 100 years. His argument is meaningless.

[jdobbin]

The temperature could stay the same for the next 100 years and he could claim that the 100 warmest years were the last 100 but that does not mean the planet has warmed over the 100 years. His argument is meaningless.

That was not in argument.

[Riverwind]

That was not in argument.

Then you did not read his argument.

[jdobbin]

Then you did not read his argument.

He was indicating a decade to decade difference and cited the WMO report to back his statement.

His debates which are available on ABC Radio further detail what he means.

[Riverwind]

He was indicating a decade to decade difference and cited the WMO report to back his statement.

Comparing one decade to a previous decade does not refute the claim that the world has not warmed for the last 10 years. It is as rational as a financial analyst trying to sell Nortel stock today based on its rise in the 1990s.

Also referencing facts that have no relevance do not make an argument stronger no matter what the source.

I already gave you the only rational counter argument to the problem of lack of warming. Some alarmists make that argument (a precious few). Most resort to completely irrelevent arguments that undermine their own credibility.

Here is a more detailed response to Barry Brook claims:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb.../comments/vvvv/

This comment is interesting:

Reader Sinclair points out that Barry Brook is in fact a biologist, which is not an obvious qualification for a professor of climate change.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

Its unfortunate there's no military solution to AGW. I bet 90% of the skeptics around here would be on board in a flash.

LOL!

It's funny 'cause it's true.

If there was ever a concentration of alarmist thought in our government, it sits firmly among the Forces. Now before anyone gets the idea that this is an insult of our military, it isn't.

Defence requires vigilance, and prudence requires that shadows be seen where no forms exist. This is why elements of our defence establishment are growing both concerned with, and investigating the potential impacts of global warming. From the sovereignty implications of arctic melt to domestic disaster response capabilities, there is much for our military to be concerned about; and they are growing increasingly concerned.

[jdobbin]

Comparing one decade to a previous decade does not refute the claim that the world has not warmed for the last 10 years. It is as rational as a financial analyst trying to sell Nortel stock today based on its rise in the 1990s.

And Brook disagrees.

Also referencing facts that have no relevance do not make an argument stronger no matter what the source.

I already gave you the only rational counter argument to the problem of lack of warming. Some alarmists make that argument (a precious few). Most resort to completely irrelevent arguments that undermine their own credibility.

And some denialists resort to calling something irrelevant whenever they disagree with it.

Here is a more detailed response to Barry Brook claims:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb.../comments/vvvv/

And here is where Barry Brook responds to another critic.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/files/prof_barry_brook.mp3

This comment is interesting:

And Andrew Bolt is a journalist like a lot of the citations I see from those on the right.

[Riverwind]

And Brook disagrees.

And some denialists resort to calling something irrelevant whenever they disagree with it.

Your are a hoot. You can't explain in your own words why his argument is relevent to the question so you resort to appeals to authority. I have explained in a few ways why talking about temperatures 20 years ago does not refute the claim that the world has not warmed in 10 years. If you can't understand then that is your problem. Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Your are a hoot. You can't explain in your own words why his argument is relevent to question so you resort to appeals to authority. I have explained in a few ways why talking about temperatures 20 years ago does not refute the claim that the world has not warmed in 10 years. If you can't understand then that is your problem.

You criticize him for being a biologist although he has a background in peer reviewed climate work.

The denialists trying to say that these last 10 years basically throw the whole argument about global warming down the drain. The trend continues to be upward. The 2001 to 2007 average is higher according to the Hadley Centre than 1991 to 2000 period.

[Riverwind]

The skeptics trying to say that these last 10 years basically throw the whole argument about global warming down the drain. The trend continues to be upward. The 2001 to 2007 average is higher according to the Hadley Centre than 1991 to 2000 period.

You are engaging in the all or nothing style of argument which has polarized the debate. It would help if we break the problem down into several questions:

1) Is the planet warming? (Yes)

2) Does CO2 cause warming? (Yes)

3) How much warming does CO2 cause? (We don't have a clue since we can't conduct real experiments to test hypotheses)

4) Is warming a good, bad or a bit of both? (We don't really know but it is most likely good and bad)

5) Are rapid reductions in CO2 output the most cost effective way to deal with the bad effects? (Mostly likely not)

Now question 3) is really where the debate hinges because we can't even start to answer questions 4) or 5) without a decent answer to 3).

But Question 3) is why the current flat temperature trend is EXTREMELY relevent because it suggests that the IPCC estimates are mostly likely on the high side. IOW, it does not make a difference if you cherry pick 2000 as a starting point and show a slight positive trend because that slight positive trend is still much smaller than what it should be according to the numbers the IPCC uses. At minimum that is a sign that we should hold off on any expensive anti-CO2 actions until we get more data.

[jdobbin]

You are engaging in the all or nothing style of argument which has polarized the debate. It would help if we break the problem down into several questions:

I think when I hear the word alarmist and some of the other stuff over quite some time, I think we can see how things get polarized.

1) Is the planet warming? (Yes)

2) Does CO2 cause warming? (Yes)

3) How much warming does CO2 cause? (We don't have a clue since we can't conduct real experiments to test hypotheses)

4) Is warming a good, bad or a bit of both? (We don't really know but it is most likely good and bad)

5) Are rapid reductions in CO2 output the most cost effective way to deal with the bad effects? (Mostly likely not)

Now question 3) is really where the debate hinges because we can't even start to answer questions 4) or 5) without a decent answer to 3).

But Question 3) is why the current flat temperature trend is EXTREMELY relevent because it suggests that the IPCC estimates are mostly likely on the high side. IOW, it does not make a difference if you cherry pick 2000 as a starting point and show a slight positive trend because that slight positive trend is still much smaller than what it should be according to the numbers the IPCC uses. At minimum that is a sign that we should hold off on any expensive anti-CO2 actions until we get more data.

Hadley has lots of numbers out there. They pointed out the ones that their critics pointed out. In this case, they left out 1998 and still had a warming trend.

We keep getting more data which the present Tory government releases last at night on Fridays.

As for the argument that it is good or bad, we have a study from health experts that some on the right seem to dismiss who say it will increasingly be bad for Canada.

The same people who said we should hold off on action on smoking seem to be stating the case for no action now.

Edited August 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Hadley has lots of numbers out there. They pointed out the ones that their critics pointed out. In this case, they left out 1998 and still had a warming trend.

Are you capable of addressing the argument made?

I said that it is not enough to show some mesely warming trend by cherry picking a starting and ending point. The problem is the warming trend is still smaller than it should be according to the IPCC models. More importantly, the most recent 8 years is a clear downward trend. 8 years is a significant period too. The only other volcano free period of 8 years in the last 150 years with a negative trend was after the 1998 El Nino.

As for the argument that it is good or bad, we have a study from health experts that some on the right seem to dismiss who say it will increasingly be bad for Canada.

Tell that to all of the Canadians who spend their winters in the southern US or warmer climes. As I pointed out before if there was any merit to the claim that warmer climes are net negative then we would have conclusive evidence that people living in the southern US are less healthy than those in the north. Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Are you capable of addressing the argument made?

I said that it is not enough to show some mesely warming trend by cherry picking a starting and ending point. The problem is the warming trend is still smaller than it should be according to the IPCC models. More importantly, the most recent 8 years is a clear downward trend. 8 years is a significant period too. The only other volcano free period of 8 years in the last 150 years with a negative trend was after the 1998 El Nino.

I'd say the cherry picking has been on the part of people denying global warming. The Hadley Centre used the same time frame that has been used by the people denying and we keep hearing words like measly? It clearly shows a trend upwards.

Tell that to all of the Canadians who spend their winters in the southern US or warmer climes. As I pointed out before if there was any merit to the claim that warmer climes are net negative then we would have conclusive evidence that people living in the southern US are less healthy than those in the north.

You obviously have not read the report.

Edited August 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I'd say the cherry picking has been on the part of people denying global warming.

Hello? Address the argument. I have explained why the flat trend over the last decade is significant even if some start dates produce a small trend. If you can't understand it that is your problem.

You obviously have not read the report.

Sure I did. But I did not see any section on how warmer winters would increase fitness levels because Canadians would be able to spend more time outside. I did not see anything about reduced incidences of respiratory illness such as colds, influenza and pneumonia nor reduced traffic fatalities and injuries due to ice free roads. Nor was there any discussion of the reduction in injuries from slipping on ice in parking lots and sidewalks. Of course the reduction incidents of frost bite and hypothermia is pretty obvious benefit,

The fact that such discussions were missing from the report indicates it is a propoganda piece.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

Or, because of the increased costs, more and more businesses will simply move away to Asia or somewhere else where they can pollute to their heart's content and in the process, leave thousands without a job.

If the carbon tax is coupled to an equal reduction in corporate taxes, then I don't see why businesses will move away. Businesses who pollute more than average will be worse off, but those who pollute less than average will be better off and therefore more likely to stay in the country, so it should even out.

[Riverwind]

If the carbon tax is coupled to an equal reduction in corporate taxes

Many businesses do not pay taxes because they don't have profits because they are start ups or struggling. Carbon taxes would kill struggling businesses and make it harder for start ups. More importantly, it would increase the incentive to outsource all or part of the business because the carbon tax would make Canada less competitive. In fact, we would most likely see worst of both worlds where the business stays and takes advantage of the lower tax rates but outsources a large part of its operation to avoid paying the carbon tax.

but those who pollute less than average will be better off and therefore more likely to stay in the country, so it should even out.

Increasing input costs will encourage businesses to look for cheaper alternatives even if they are given a tax break because the companies always seek to maximize profits.

[jdobbin]

Hello? Address the argument. I have explained why the flat trend over the last decade is significant even if some start dates produce a small trend. If you can't understand it that is your problem.

And there's that insulting tone that we have all see come to know.

It is your opinion that it is less significant. The consensus among scientists is that the trend upwards is still there and continues now. They say it is significant and the Hadley Centre says it shows global warming has not stopped.

Sure I did. But I did not see any section on how warmer winters would increase fitness levels because Canadians would be able to spend more time outside. I did not see anything about reduced incidences of respiratory illness such as colds, influenza and pneumonia nor reduced traffic fatalities and injuries due to ice free roads. Nor was there any discussion of the reduction in injuries from slipping on ice in parking lots and sidewalks. Of course the reduction incidents of frost bite and hypothermia is pretty obvious benefit,

The fact that such discussions were missing from the report indicates it is a propoganda piece.

The report did mention that there would be less death and illness as a result of warming. They even quoted a figure of how much more death and illness there is now due to cold in Canada now.

The report then went on to show that while death and illness from cold would go down, the incident of heat related deaths and illness would go up.

The only propaganda is how the denialist dismiss an expert report.

[noahbody]

Only the media was saying that. There certainly wasn't a consensus of scientists.

When exactly did NASA become the media?

The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says

And here's something interesting:

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ew-ice-age-1971

A few people on the net have claimed David Suzuki was a keynote speaker at the U of T in 1976. His topic: Global Cooling: The Coming of the Next Ice age. So, if true, the media also did say it. Of course, he's a scientist now.

[Smallc]

The consensus among scientists

There is scientific consensus on very few if any subjects. There is not a consensus when it comes to global warming. You can find many scientist (and many of those in the climate field) that disagree.

Also, you talk about reports that say GW will be bad for Canada. There are other reports that say it would be nothing but good. More crop land would be opened up and the growing season would be longer. There would also be room for northward population expansion and many of the natural resources that exist in the north would become much easier to access. Another benefit would be less infrastructure damage with a less intense freeze thaw cycle.

[jdobbin]

When exactly did NASA become the media?

And here's something interesting:

I have seen this before and NASA did not endorse the view at the time. Nor did a consensus of scientists agree that there was a cooling happening.

A few people on the net have claimed David Suzuki was a keynote speaker at the U of T in 1976. His topic: Global Cooling: The Coming of the Next Ice age. So, if true, the media also did say it. Of course, he's a scientist now.

As I said, there no consensus that cooling which had been happening in the years following 1945 was the start of a new ice age. In fact, in 1971 was the year in the journal Science examined forces behind warming and cooling.

The consensus of scientists at the time was more research was needed.

The media ran stories on the implications of an ice age if the cooling continued.

I have no idea what Suzuki did or did not do.