My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

PBS ran a show this week on global warming. Best enjoyed with a cold beverage. All the science in the world isn't going to stop greed. :shrug:

 

FRONTLINE: heat | PBS

 

With that sense of urgency in mind, Smith traveled to 12 countries on four continents to investigate whether major corporations and governments are up to the challenge. HEAT features in-depth interviews with top policy-makers and with leading executives from many of the largest carbon emitters from around the world, including Chinese coal companies, Indian SUV makers and American oil giants. The report paints an ominous portrait. Despite increasing talk about "going green," across the planet, environmental concerns are still taking a back seat to shorter-term economic interests. ...

[REASON]

All the science in the world isn't going to stop greed. :shrug:

 

FRONTLINE: heat | PBS

 

This same short-term greed with no long-term vision is what has created this financial meltdown we are currently experiencing.

 

I'm not sure there is such an easy bailout for a global climate meltdown, if you know what I mean.

 

The warnings are being sounded.....are we listening?

 

I will never understand the refusal to act. We can create a society that has plenty of energy, yet does not so dramatically impact our environment. Is there no money to be made in implementing such systems?

 

Why are we so resistant to change?

[Zythryn]

...Why are we so resistant to change?

 

Fear:eek:

[Turtle]

This same short-term greed with no long-term vision is what has created this financial meltdown we are currently experiencing.

 

I'm not sure there is such an easy bailout for a global climate meltdown, if you know what I mean.

 

The warnings are being sounded.....are we listening?

 

I will never understand the refusal to act. We can create a society that has plenty of energy, yet does not so dramatically impact our environment. Is there no money to be made in implementing such systems?

 

Why are we so resistant to change?

 

 

Long term greed? :eek2: :doh: Seriously though, the warnings are decades old and come in all flavors. People will change when they're forced to and or croak. My informal polling of folks' taking any action to prepare for unexpected disaster, is that ~75% don't prepare and expect they will get what they need from the ~25% of us that do prepare. Knowing better is not good enough if you don't do better by it. :shrug:

 

People run like tired lemmings headed for the sea

Borders of imagination keeping them from seeing things

Ancient guards in greying fortresses of old ideas

Standing guard on treasure that has long since disappeared from use.

 

Dreams Dreams Dreams Lyrics

[Moontanman]

I think it needs to be said that humans taken as a group are very Conservative in their resistance to change. All humans tend to resist change, scratch a Liberal with significant change and find a Conservative. The good news is that a significant portion of society will embrace change at some point. It usually starts with people being forced by circumstances into change and others seeing the first ones didn't croak due to the change will embrace it quicker when their turn comes. Eventually you will have people who will embrace change because they can see the change as good for everyone and not because they have no real choice. We are still in the early stages of change, many things have distracted us from see the need for change not the least of which is politicians using the fear of change as a campaign point. change will come, the ones who see the needs sooner will be better off afterward than the ones who cling to the change long after it is obvious it has happened.

[Flying Binghi]

...This same short-term greed with no long-term vision is what has created this financial meltdown we are currently experiencing.

 

Were 'sub prime loans' new or old ideas ? That "resistant to change" Buffet fellow might have some thoughts about it.

[freeztar]

This same short-term greed with no long-term vision is what has created this financial meltdown we are currently experiencing.

 

I'm not sure there is such an easy bailout for a global climate meltdown, if you know what I mean.

 

The warnings are being sounded.....are we listening?

 

I will never understand the refusal to act. We can create a society that has plenty of energy, yet does not so dramatically impact our environment. Is there no money to be made in implementing such systems?

 

Why are we so resistant to change?

 

I've said it before here, but I'll say it again. There's a book called "Natural Capitalism". I *highly* recommend that everyone read this! The main premise of the book is to put a *true value* on natural resources. This includes endangered species, disenfranchised ethnic cultures, and of course pollution.

 

The only way to enact such a change is from the ground up, imho. That means that everything with "value" will have to be restructured to include the "intrinsic value" of nature. Talk about a database nightmare!

 

We need *rapid* change of policies and it's looking like all the red tape will stretch further than our timeline for effectively enacting the changes required. If we can't do this (it WILL require gov't help), then we might as well sit back and watch it us fry.

[cooloola]

Moyself - I would imagine that since 1988 that those percentages will have drastically changed, consider the industrialisation throughout the asian continent and the destruction of forests since that time. Do you have more recent sources?

Cooloola

[Flying Binghi]

My "belief" gets even more "shaky" -

 

The rate and amount of modern climate change is well within past variability. The current rate of sea level rise is low, changing sea levels is normal, sea levels can over geological time change by up to 600 metres.

 

The atmospheric CO2 content at present is the lowest for millions of years. CO2 levels have been up to 25 times higher than at present yet, during the history of the planet, CO2 has not created acid oceans. Natural processes capture and store CO2.

 

Planet Earth is a warm wet greenhouse planet that has had ice for only 20% of geological time. Extinction of life on Earth is normal and life is most commonly stressed by cold climates. Temperature is buffered by the water cycle.

 

Supernoval eruptions, the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tectonics and the water cycle are the primary drivers of climate. In the past, CO2 changes have followed temperature changes.

 

The hypothesis that humans change climate is not in accord with history, archaeology, geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy, and is rejected.

 

Conserving energy might be a jolly good idea, but until there is a workable energy policy in Australia, then fundamental errors of policy can only decrease the standard of living and quality of life.

 

 

Professor Ian Plimer

 

Australian Mining industry news, forums, monthly presentations and resources - Sydney Mining Club

 

Expert profile: Professor Ian Plimer

[InfiniteNow]

And none of that was peer-reviewed. Please, try again. Linking to a website that claims "purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns" is not valid "evidence" that global warming isn't a fact.

 

The rate of change IS very much different than natural history, and the cause is very much not natural (unless you include the activity of humans in your description of natural).

 

At this point in the game, people who imply that humans are not the primary driver of current climate change really sound like ignorant morons. This science has been well understood for over 3 decades.

[Essay]

And none of that was peer-reviewed. Please, try again. Linking to a website that claims "purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns" is not valid "evidence" that global warming isn't a fact.

 

The rate of change IS very much different than natural history, and the cause is very much not natural (unless you include the activity of humans in your description of natural).

 

At this point in the game, people who imply that humans are not the primary driver of current climate change really sound like ignorant morons. This science has been well understood for over 3 decades.

Yes, Binghi, there are some really strange overgeneralizations (absolutes) in that stuff you quoted; but....

 

 

Real briefly....

 

Could this just be a semantic problem (between the words "science" and "principle")?

 

I can grant that the "science" is not fully worked out, even to the point that it may be problematic to call it "climate science."

 

But physical sciences are well enough worked out that we can understand physical processes and see how they are connected to other physical processes, interrelated, etc., etc.

 

Thus we can see that there must be "principles" that govern climate.

 

My point being... that we can tell by looking at the basic science of physics, chemistry, and biology that we are influencing the climate. The fact that we don't yet know all the details of every climate related system in a scientifically rigorous way, doesn't meant that the principle of AGW is bogus, or even shakey....

 

So in terms of one's "belief," from the title of this thread, it might be best to acknowledge a belief in the "principles" of AGW, while still leaving room to doubt and question the specific scientific details and conclusions; realizing that uncertainty or even errors in the "science," do not invalidate the basic "principles."

 

...that we need green-collar jobs!

...so much for a quick comment.

...sorry to hit and run. bbl?

 

~:hihi:

[Flying Binghi]

But physical sciences are well enough worked out that we can understand physical processes and see how they are connected to other physical processes, interrelated, etc., etc.

 

Thus we can see that there must be "principles" that govern climate.

 

Australias top climate change expert offers another view -

 

"Is climate change a terrible threat or a beat-up? A bang or a whimper? Perhaps it's something in between"...

 

..."climate change is a breaking story. Just over 30 years ago the experts were at loggerheads about whether Earth was warming or cooling - unable to decide whether an icehouse or a greenhouse future was on the way. By 1975, however, the first sophisticated computer models were suggesting a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperature of about three degrees".

 

"Because concern about climate change is so new, and the issue crosses disciplines, there are few true experts in the field - and even fewer who can articulate what the problem might mean to the public and what we should do about it".

 

Aparently there are few AGW experts

 

 

(extract from The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change by Tim Flannery Civilisation's darkest hour - Environment - Specials - smh.com.au )

[REASON]

Aparently there are few AGW experts

 

What, exactly, are you advocating with your efforts to discredit climate science that has identified human activities as a factor of global warming?

 

The status quo?

 

How do you compare the risks associated with attempting to do something to moderate our climatological impact versus doing nothing?

[Essay]

Aparently there are few AGW experts

Very good point. I agree we are like babes in the woods (though it's over a century that some have been talking about these problems).

I wouldn't advocate any non-reversible geoengineering projects; but we've been unconsciously geoengineering our planet for several millennia now, so I think we should begin to try to act more consciously.

 

And y'know, regarding your comment, very few "experts" understand relativity; but the principles still operate, and are used to make our satellites work properly, etc.

 

But it's not quite as unknowable as you might think:

Just think of the scales involved in our little layer of this 7 mile deep fishbowl that we live within.

 

...for a moment....

Think of a store that is 7 miles away. ....Got it?

That's how deep our atmosphere (troposphere = 75%) is above us.

 

6.5 to 10 Billion highly efficient entropy generators (us)... with lots of fuel... confined within a 7 mile layer... almost instantaneously by geologic standards....

 

What instability could possibly arise? -Dr. Who?

 

~

 

p.s. oops! ...great minds think alike, eh Reason?

[cooloola]

 

 

Aparently there are few AGW experts

 

 

 

I suggest FB that you read the entire article to which you have posted a link before you try to discredit global warming. And your earlier article was from a professor who no doubt owes the mining industry. Who do you think funds those medals he has been awarded with?

[Essay]

My "belief" gets even more "shaky" -

...but I think you are somewhat misled by overgeneralized and out-of-context statements. For instance (my comments in bold):

 

The rate and amount of modern climate change is well within past variability.

But if we even came near to some of the "past variability," it would be devastating to our civilization. Don't let the phrase "past variability" lull you into a feeling that such a description of "normality" means it must be fine for us now.

 

The current rate of sea level rise is low, changing sea levels is normal, sea levels can over geological time change by up to 600 metres.

Low rate compared to what? Not a low rate compared to historical human time scales!

...and again: ...if we even came near to some of the normal "past variability," it would be devastating to our civilization.

 

The atmospheric CO2 content at present is the lowest for millions of years. CO2 levels have been up to 25 times higher than at present yet, during the history of the planet, CO2 has not created acid oceans.

See, here is an example of poor context. Sure, "during the history of the planet" qualifies the statement, making it sound rational; but it is really only during life's history on the planet that we are interested in CO2 levels (and really only during mammalian times). I don't think there have been any 25 times current levels during those times (except maybe for transient spikes). Does that article give any particulars or references for statements such as this?

 

Natural processes capture and store CO2.

Yea... and unnatural processes can overwhelm those natural systems.

 

Planet Earth is a warm wet greenhouse planet that has had ice for only 20% of geological time.

Now wait a minute.... "had ice for only 20% of geologic time."

...again, let's look at mammalian time scales, with the continents fairly well stabilized as they are now. I think you'll find Ice Age is the norm.

 

Extinction of life on Earth is normal and life is most commonly stressed by cold climates. Temperature is buffered by the water cycle.

So your point is...?

Have we come to this extent of civilization by accepting what is normal?

We can influence these cycles. Maybe we should start doing so with intention, instead of blindly.

 

Supernoval eruptions, the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tectonics and the water cycle are the primary drivers of climate. In the past, CO2 changes have followed temperature changes.

Yes, all true; which is why it is so worrying that we are now changing the normal pattern and unwittingly driving climate with an unnatural forcer, CO2.

 

The hypothesis that humans change climate is not in accord with history, archaeology, geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy, and is rejected.

Oh, nice; and why is that?

 

Conserving energy might be a jolly good idea, but until there is a workable energy policy in Australia, then fundamental errors of policy can only decrease the standard of living and quality of life.

Well, that sounds true.

Let's get "a workable energy policy!"

 

~

[Flying Binghi]

Just think of the scales involved in our little layer of this 7 mile deep fishbowl that we live within.

 

I'm fairly familiar with the scale of it - I see it from the front seat of an aircraft several times a week. Most of the livable part is smaller again - below 10,000'

 

Heres some extracts from an article by Tom Switzer (was a senior adviser to the former federal Liberal leader Brendan Nelson and formerly an opinion editor of the Australian (newspaper)) He refers to the situation in Australia -

 

Not only was it impermissible to question climate change science; we were now being told to not even question unilateral action to combat global warming, even if it would come at huge cost to the economy. It was a sad state of affairs that ideas bearing on Australia’s national interest could not be discussed and speculated on freely without fear of being dismissed by those who claim moral superiority in this debate.

 

The Chinese government is not only refusing to cut its emissions; it is building a new coal-fired plant nearly every week. The Indian government is not only rejecting (Australian Prime Minister) Rudd-style cuts; it is unashamedly saying poverty poses a greater threat to its people than climate change.

 

The full article via - How we found ourselves ambushed by reality | The Spectator

 

 

Heres another view on things. Interesting the comments on mathematical models -

 

The famed mathematical physicist and father of cybernetics, John von Neumann, once said: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly."

 

Climate change looks more and more like becoming a catastrophe we inflict upon ourselves in trying to avoid one we have only imagined.

 

Full article via - SCIENCE: Global-warming - myth, threat or opportunity? - 27 September 2008

 

 

And some further doubts about the science being all-done -

 

From an aparently pro AGWer, Roy W. Spencer, PhD (Principal Research Scientist The University of Alabama in Huntsville)

 

(extract)...we are finding satellite evidence that the climate system could be much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) climate models suggest.

 

Via - Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming as a Natural Response to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

 

Now, this non-scientist is yet to see any physical proof of a climate catastrophe....

 

very few "experts" understand relativity; but the principles still operate, and are used to make our satellites work properly, etc.

 

I can actualy see real satellites, nuclear explosions, etc (via movie footage obviously) thats the physical proof of the "principles".