Should global warming result in global cooling

[noahbody]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

"March 5, 2004: Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades."

This gist of this theory is that melting in the Arctic would result in the cooling of the ocean and therefore significantly decrease the temperature in North America and Western Europe.

In 20 years, will the scientific community promoting increasing man-made CO2 to replace the loss of CO2 due to the cooling of the oceans? How ironic would that be?

[telegopoly]

The climate changes all the time - why bother worrying about this.

[speaker]

Telegopoly have a look at this, http://www.ipcc.ch/ for an indication of why people should worry about it this time. our scientists have found good reason to worry.

Noahbody, in case you haven't yet got an answer to your question I think this article sums it up pretty well.

http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/02/..._climate_c.html

[AMAI]

Telegopoly have a look at this, http://www.ipcc.ch/ for an indication of why people should worry about it this time. our scientists have found good reason to worry.

There's nothing there. Oh, plenty of links - but where is the solid data? How many hours of gobbledy-goop do you have to read/listen to in order to find out that these fools don't actually have a scientific basis for their ludicrous claims?

If you, speaker, have waded through it, provide a transcript of the relevant information.

[B. Max]

How many hours of gobbledy-goop do you have to read/listen to in order to find out that these fools don't actually have a scientific basis for their ludicrous claims?

If you, speaker, have waded through it, provide a transcript of the relevant information.

Actually I think you've already given it the best possible summation.

[speaker]

Amai, gobbledy goop, Ok maybe the ipcc could do a better job by making a more user friendly home site..

Wikipedia has it pretty well covered in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

and for a scientific basis this one in particular.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

talking turkey.

[Canuck E Stan]

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Three Quarters Believe Global Warming A 'Natural Occurrence'

Maybe the scientists have to change strategy and go with some super(it will happen tomorrow)catastrophic preditions to get people to believe.

[ScottSA]

Telegopoly have a look at this, http://www.ipcc.ch/ for an indication of why people should worry about it this time. our scientists have found good reason to worry.

Noahbody, in case you haven't yet got an answer to your question I think this article sums it up pretty well.

http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/02/..._climate_c.html

You're using a partisan blog and the IPPC report to back up your argument?

[gc1765]

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Online study? What exactly does that mean?

Also, their opening paragraph: "ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today"

...and the body: "The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally"

...are different. I'd like to know exactly what question they asked (I wish more polls would do this). There is a difference between saying that rises in temperature can occur naturally and saying that rises in temperature are only natural. Which one did they ask in this online poll?

[B. Max]

Amai, gobbledy goop, Ok maybe the ipcc could do a better job by making a more user friendly home site..

Wikipedia has it pretty well covered in this article.

The IPCC has no credibility, they still use the hocky, they have withheld research from their own experts reviewers others have quit in disgust and now this.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

[Canapathy]

Here is a great article that tackles 26 of the most common climate change myths.

There are a lot of people currently making a lot of money that are willing to fight tooth and nail for the status quo. Misinformation always seems to be the weapon of choice for both sides of any debate, especially with one with so much at stake. I find that most people choose a side first then choose to believe the (mis)information that supports their choice and discredits the opposing one. Very few minds are actually open and very few people seem to be willing to change their stance in the face of new information.

The link above contains a brief article and 26 links to stories designed to shed light on climate change myths. I recommend book marking it and referring back to it from time to time.

[ScottSA]

Here is a great article that tackles 26 of the most common climate change myths.

There are a lot of people currently making a lot of money that are willing to fight tooth and nail for the status quo. Misinformation always seems to be the weapon of choice for both sides of any debate, especially with one with so much at stake. I find that most people choose a side first then choose to believe the (mis)information that supports their choice and discredits the opposing one. Very few minds are actually open and very few people seem to be willing to change their stance in the face of new information.

The link above contains a brief article and 26 links to stories designed to shed light on climate change myths. I recommend book marking it and referring back to it from time to time.

The trouble with stuff like this is that it is presented as objective reporting when it's clearly not. Look, for instance, at the "myth" that the hockey stick was wrong. The article actually confirms that it's wrong, but couches the admission in terms that make it appear "not far off the mark." I'm sure one can retreat the the old standby that all the bad guys are funded by "vested interests" and the oil companies, but not only is that not true, but to the extent that it is, it's true for the other side as well. Try getting a research grant for arguing that GW isn't human caused. Just try it. Try getting tenure.

This nothing new...it happens all the time, and especially in the hard sciences. You're absolutely correct that people refuse to change their stance in theface of new information...but that works both ways.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here is a great article that tackles 26 of the most common climate change myths.

There are a lot of people currently making a lot of money that are willing to fight tooth and nail for the status quo. Misinformation always seems to be the weapon of choice for both sides of any debate, especially with one with so much at stake. I find that most people choose a side first then choose to believe the (mis)information that supports their choice and discredits the opposing one. Very few minds are actually open and very few people seem to be willing to change their stance in the face of new information.

The link above contains a brief article and 26 links to stories designed to shed light on climate change myths. I recommend book marking it and referring back to it from time to time.

Alot of the "explanations" of the myths therein aren't very solid.

For example under the myth "we can't trust computer models", they basically go on say yes, the models arn't perfect. The detailed explanations says:

Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars. In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like “likely” and “very likely” in terms of percentage probability. Given the complexity of our climate system, most scientists agree that models are the best way of making sense of that complexity. For all their failings, models are the best guide to the future that we have.

Moreover the explanation further goes on to compare global climate models to stock market computer models:

Finally, the claim is sometimes made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market. Well, they are! A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.

This statement just shows plain ignorance about the stock market. Anyone with experience in the financial markets knows the big time fallibility of computer based trading models LOL!!!

In another "myth debunked" this link attempts to explain the inaccuracy of the original Hockey Stick Graph, again quite poorly and admitting the shortcomings of the model:

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

This is a "myth debunked"? Looks more like a "myth proven" to me.

The hockey stick graph, even in it's obsolete state, goes to the heart of climate science and why there are prudent doubters.

In it's heydey the hockey stick was a much used symbol of what kind of trouble we were in as a world. The graph was also highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report. Since being discredited, the graph has mysteriously disappeared from subsequent IPCC reports.

This illustrates an important point: Climate Science isn't static. For that matter, no science is static. Scientific advancement is, in large paart, perpetrated by disproving what we thought we knew. What we think know today does not represent absolute truth.

Anyone truly interested in science, and not in politics, would welcome a healthy debate on the subject. The problem is that the IPCC report - written by scientists and containing a varied number of viewpoints and opinions with respect to the relatinoship between climate and CO2, is a completely different animal than the "IPCC policy summary" - which is most often quoted by alarmists and written by politicians and UN monkeys.

Many scientists have expressed concern or even anger at being included as one of the "2500 top climatoligists who have a consenses that climate change is largely manmade".

[Canapathy]

The trouble with stuff like this is that it is presented as objective reporting when it's clearly not. Look, for instance, at the "myth" that the hockey stick was wrong. The article actually confirms that it's wrong, but couches the admission in terms that make it appear "not far off the mark." I'm sure one can retreat the the old standby that all the bad guys are funded by "vested interests" and the oil companies, but not only is that not true, but to the extent that it is, it's true for the other side as well. Try getting a research grant for arguing that GW isn't human caused. Just try it. Try getting tenure.

This nothing new...it happens all the time, and especially in the hard sciences. You're absolutely correct that people refuse to change their stance in theface of new information...but that works both ways.

The article on the hockey stick graph does not say that the original was wrong. It says that newer models are better but that new data still falls within the error bars on the orginal graph.

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

This article also seems very objective to me as it points out that scientists are very aware of the uncertainties in climate modeling.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems, and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

By not objective do you really mean it disagrees with your viewpoint?

[B. Max]

The article on the hockey stick graph does not say that the original was wrong. It says that newer models are better but that new data still falls within the error bars on the orginal graph.

The problem with the hockey stick is that it deliberately left out the medieval warm period and the little ice age. In an attempt to show that temperature is more of a constant, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is nothing but misleading information. The alarmist's been doing this all along. The link below is another example of misleading information designed to push an agenda. Which even the politicians have grabbed onto.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modu...article&sid=136

[FascistLibertarian]

We need to figure out how we will deal and adapt. That should be our main goal.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We need to figure out how we will deal and adapt. That should be our main goal.

I totally agree.

I looked at the seawall around stanley park yesterday. There is still a good 4 feet of excess wall, even at the highest tide.

By my calculation, that gives us thousands of years to build another foot or two onto the wall.

[fellowtraveller]

We need to figure out how we will deal and adapt. That should be our main goal.

I totally agree.

I looked at the seawall around stanley park yesterday. There is still a good 4 feet of excess wall, even at the highest tide.

By my calculation, that gives us thousands of years to build another foot or two onto the wall.

Lemme see, first we'll have to find some money for an environmental impact study of adding a couple of feet...... duke it out in court with the Friends of the Old Seawall......monitor the scrap between Vancouver and the province over funding.....blame it all on the Conservative federal government, who will deny that there is an ocean at all then finally cough up.... find a contractor who has not retired from the 2010 windfall......

Thousands of years? Could be close......

[JerrySeinfeld]

We need to figure out how we will deal and adapt. That should be our main goal.

I totally agree.

I looked at the seawall around stanley park yesterday. There is still a good 4 feet of excess wall, even at the highest tide.

By my calculation, that gives us thousands of years to build another foot or two onto the wall.

Lemme see, first we'll have to find some money for an environmental impact study of adding a couple of feet...... duke it out in court with the Friends of the Old Seawall......monitor the scrap between Vancouver and the province over funding.....blame it all on the Conservative federal government, who will deny that there is an ocean at all then finally cough up.... find a contractor who has not retired from the 2010 windfall......

Thousands of years? Could be close......

haha I know - strange world we live in.

Win a war in Iraq? Nope. Can't be done.

Actually alter the overall climate we live in to suit our needs by changing the behaviors of everyone on earth?

Sure. No problem. LOL.

[ScottSA]

The trouble with stuff like this is that it is presented as objective reporting when it's clearly not. Look, for instance, at the "myth" that the hockey stick was wrong. The article actually confirms that it's wrong, but couches the admission in terms that make it appear "not far off the mark." I'm sure one can retreat the the old standby that all the bad guys are funded by "vested interests" and the oil companies, but not only is that not true, but to the extent that it is, it's true for the other side as well. Try getting a research grant for arguing that GW isn't human caused. Just try it. Try getting tenure.

This nothing new...it happens all the time, and especially in the hard sciences. You're absolutely correct that people refuse to change their stance in theface of new information...but that works both ways.

The article on the hockey stick graph does not say that the original was wrong. It says that newer models are better but that new data still falls within the error bars on the orginal graph.

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

This article also seems very objective to me as it points out that scientists are very aware of the uncertainties in climate modeling.

It is true that there are big uncertainties about the accuracy of all past temperature reconstructions, and that these uncertainties have sometimes been ignored or glossed over by those who have presented the hockey stick as evidence for global warming.

Climate scientists, however, are only too aware of the problems, and the uncertainties were both highlighted by Mann's original paper and by others at the time it was published.

By not objective do you really mean it disagrees with your viewpoint?

I'll defer to Jerry's more detailed observations above, but I suggest that before you start accusing people of being entrenched in their viewpoint, you first look in the mirror. I believe that an objective reading of the piece in the article you supplied would find:

1 It is a defence of the Manmade GW proponents

2 It is objective enough to admit the weaknesses in the Manmade GW case, but not objective enough to be forthright about it. Instead it couches the evidential uncertainties as stages on a pre-ordained learning curve rather than as the fundamental uncertainties they are. In other words, it's saying that the conclusion is right, even though the evidence isn't there toi support it. Read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean.

[stevoh]

It is objective enough to admit the weaknesses in the Manmade GW case, but not objective enough to be forthright about it. Instead it couches the evidential uncertainties as stages on a pre-ordained learning curve rather than as the fundamental uncertainties they are. In other words, it's saying that the conclusion is right, even though the evidence isn't there toi support it. Read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean.

One of the issues so many people seem to have with global warming science, is that they simply can't handle the uncertainty. They want absolute proof, not models, not trends, but absolute cause and effect science.

The problem is, once we get to that point, significant damage may have already been done, and changes may have occured that are not easily reversable. We do know that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up 50% over the last 100 years. There does not appear to be any other cause other than human to explain this increase. What other natural activities have occured in the last 100 years that did not occur in the last 600 000 that would have produced this sudden increase in carbon concentrations?

Luckily the dynamic nature of both capitalism and politics is already beginning to make a difference. Can you believe the conservative government has a "green" platform? Consumer choice is also making a difference. While some endlessly argue and wait for absolution, others with more vision can see the dangers and are taking action.

[ScottSA]

It is objective enough to admit the weaknesses in the Manmade GW case, but not objective enough to be forthright about it. Instead it couches the evidential uncertainties as stages on a pre-ordained learning curve rather than as the fundamental uncertainties they are. In other words, it's saying that the conclusion is right, even though the evidence isn't there toi support it. Read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean.

One of the issues so many people seem to have with global warming science, is that they simply can't handle the uncertainty. They want absolute proof, not models, not trends, but absolute cause and effect science.

The problem is, once we get to that point, significant damage may have already been done, and changes may have occured that are not easily reversable. We do know that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up 50% over the last 100 years. There does not appear to be any other cause other than human to explain this increase. What other natural activities have occured in the last 100 years that did not occur in the last 600 000 that would have produced this sudden increase in carbon concentrations?

Luckily the dynamic nature of both capitalism and politics is already beginning to make a difference. Can you believe the conservative government has a "green" platform? Consumer choice is also making a difference. While some endlessly argue and wait for absolution, others with more vision can see the dangers and are taking action.

I have no problem with "taking action" in cleaning up the environment to the extent that we can without suffering for it. What I do have a problem with is fabricating a sky-is-falling scenario and then dumping billions of dollars into it when we're not even sure a problem exists, and even less sure that we can do anything about it if it does. I especially object to throwing billions away on a treaty designed to redistribute wealth rather than attend to the environment. Of course, you can couch this all in the language of progress if you want, and built in certainty where none exists, and even cobble together an argument based on faulty facts (CO2 going up 50% over 100 years), or assign causality to GW arbitrarly, but none of that justifies doing the things we are apparently prepared to do in aid of this nonsense.

[B. Max]

The problem is, once we get to that point, significant damage may have already been done, and changes may have occured that are not easily reversable. We do know that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up 50% over the last 100 years. There does not appear to be any other cause other than human to explain this increase. What other natural activities have occured in the last 100 years that did not occur in the last 600 000 that would have produced this sudden increase in carbon concentrations?

Mans contribution to C02 is 0.117% . Total CO2 is 3.618%, of which 3.502% is natural. If CO2.

has doubled then it is natural. 95.000% of all green house gases is water vapor. CO2 is a tiny player let alone mans contribution.

[stevoh]

I have no problem with "taking action" in cleaning up the environment to the extent that we can without suffering for it.

As in, suffering = dollars. If thats the only factor we take into account, then we will all experience another kind of suffering.

What I do have a problem with is fabricating a sky-is-falling scenario and then dumping billions of dollars into it when we're not even sure a problem exists, and even less sure that we can do anything about it if it does. I especially object to throwing billions away on a treaty designed to redistribute wealth rather than attend to the environment. Of course, you can couch this all in the language of progress if you want, and built in certainty where none exists, and even cobble together an argument based on faulty facts (CO2 going up 50% over 100 years), or assign causality to GW arbitrarly, but none of that justifies doing the things we are apparently prepared to do in aid of this nonsense.

The ice core samples show that CO2 concentrations have increased greatly in the last 100 years, at a much faster pace than in the last 600 000. Depending on the source, it ranges between 25 and 60%. Even in many articles critical of the causal effect of increasing C02 concentrations, they agree with this basic fact.

The effect is in "debate", but that raw fact, CO2 concentrations are increasing at record pace, isn't.

Two simple questions based on this fact:

1. If man isn't causing the increase, what has occured over the last 100 years that hasn't occured in the last 600 000 that is?

2. If man is causing the increase, but we can't be sure of the effect, should we ignore it until we can?

We can bicker over kyoto and other agreements all you like, but if their effect is an increased use of renewable resources, less man made change to the atmosphere, and more efficient use of current resources, I am all for it.

[ScottSA]

1. If man isn't causing the increase, what has occured over the last 100 years that hasn't occured in the last 600 000 that is?

2. If man is causing the increase, but we can't be sure of the effect, should we ignore it until we can?

1 False question based on false information. It was warmer, both regionally and arguably globally, a mere 600 years ago. The earth has had climate change for millenia upon millenia. Nothing has happened in the last 100 years that hasn't happened dozens of times before.

2 Question based on a questionable premise. You might as well ask "if bananas are causing the increase, but we can't be sure of the effect, should we ignore it until we can?"