Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

[wayang]

Admittedly, it's not as simple as 'Baby vs. Chicken'...it requires some allegorical thinking, for one thing. But every hypothetical question is complicated, if one gives it enough consideration. Do I like babies or chickens better? Well, it depends...are we talking about having a barbecue?

But seriously, folks...the world's condition today is much more dire and complicated than: 'do I like people more than chickens?'... We're in a situation where what's bad for the chickens (or polar bears, or blue whales, or rainforests) is also bad for the babies. Every year, there's less rainforest...less bats, less honeybees, etc....and more humans. Kent, you're a capitalist (and I don't mean that in a bad way), right? And so you understand about supply and demand curves, inflation, etc. So just treat this problem like a capitalist...isn't the intrinsic value of the human individual imperiled by oversupply? Especially if the means of supporting each individual, i.e., the bioshere, is being depleted?

It's boiling down to choices now...societal choices, individual choices...what information did this woman in California miss out on to the point that she's now made these bizarre, wrongheaded choices? How are we going to get through to people who think, whether they have a supportive life-partner who's present or not, that they can pooch out as many babies as the clinic has test tubes for? How do we get people driving through suburbia in Hummers to understand the damage they're doing?

I only know I feel terrible if I leave a light bulb on in an unoccupied room for any amount of time...what taught me to feel that way, and how can we spread that around a bit? If you haven't started to feel a bit guilty about our collective orgy of consumption and waste, you might as well start rolling in mud and take up 'oinking'...

[ram]

There has been a bunch of well thought out arguments addressed here but I must say one thing - for a 'hot button' type issue I think we have all remaind quite well behaved. This is truely refreshing. I salute you all!!!

[brammy]

I only know I feel terrible if I leave a light bulb on in an unoccupied room for any amount of time...

Now we're getting to the heart of the problem.

what taught me to feel that way,

Crazed radical environmental sky-is-falling inaccurate doom'n'gloom BS?

and how can we spread that around a bit?

Oh Lord, save me from your do-gooders

[jingle_jangle]

And--surprise--thus ends the good behavior...

[dr_bob]

What are the negative consequences of listening to the "doom 'n gloom" (some of us may call them enlightened) people and changing the way we act in regard to our environment? It seems that according to Kent a number of conniving and unscrupulous people and institutions get filthy rich. Granted, not the optimal outcome for many of us.

On the other hand, what are the negative consequences of not listening to the "doom n' gloom" people and continuing to corrupt our environment? Some different institutions (or maybe in some cases the same institutions) still get filthy rich AND we accelerate climate change to the point perhaps that one or more of the predictions come true -- coastal flooding, severe drought in parts of world, depletion of the rain forests, elimination of species (maybe including humankind), etc.

I'd rather the doom n' gloom people be wrong and we change our behaviors, than have them be right and not do a thing to change what we do. I'm not prepared to "go all in" with a bet that doom n' gloom people are wrong, but it seems like some folks are. So I turn off lights, set my hot water heater at a lower temperature, recycle, carpool, take public transportation, use paperless billing systems, support environmentally friendly legislation, and vote for people who also aren't willing to go all in with a bet that the doom n' gloom is all a hoax. It's sort of the same logic I used forty years ago when I quit smoking.

[bails]

severe drought in parts of world

10 years and counting in Australia so far...

"AUSTRALIA had its hottest January on record, in line with a pattern that has seen the country's average temperature rise over the past five decades" (Sydney Morning Herald, 31/01/2009)

"Melbourne recorded its second highest-ever temperature last week - 45.1 degrees[113º Fahrenheit] - falling just short of the record - 45.6 - degrees on Black Friday, 13 January 1939."
(The Age, 04/02/2009)

"Mildura is on track to record 13 consecutive days of temperatures in excess of 40 degrees[104º Fahrenheit], which Jones says is nearly double the previous record"
(The Age, 04/02/2009)

"Weather Bureau records show there has not been a heatwave of this severity since the keeping of records began in the mid-1880s."
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 479064.htm)

[ajish4]

And--surprise--thus ends the good behavior...

[cassius987]

Crazed radical environmental sky-is-falling inaccurate doom'n'gloom BS?

Do you get your science news from [insert loud annoying pundit] or something? Issues such as global climate change (including the warming trend) have been very well documented, much more so than the counter arguments have as yet. A lot of the "global warming is false" talk has been generated by politicians and journalists rather than scientists. What scientific claims have been raised against it are a mixed bag of ideas that aren't always well hashed-out, as though they are often knee-jerk reactions against the theory.

I dislike blind "environmentalism" as much as the next person but there is nothing wrong with A) a concern for the state of the world community informed by well-documented scientific theory (such as telling someone not to walk off of a cliff because of this theory about gravity you read about); B) a concern for the ecosphere and for biodiversity, because it has been shown time and time again that WHAT IS GOOD FOR IT IS GOOD FOR US; C) taking action in your own life, even small ones such as, yes, not being wasteful by running lights all of the time--if you can't handle the "guilt" this brings with it (none) then see a psychotherapist.

[scotty]

the clouds are looming! Acidic too!

[admin]

Please, let us stay focused on the topic and avoid the personal comments.

[wayang]

You know what? I do know what "taught me to be that way": four-and-a-half years of my life spent in a place where we got two "two-minutes-of-running-water" showers a week because water was so scarce, and we could hear (and smell) the 'limited supply' of diesel fuel being converted into kilowatts around the clock.

Experience (and the knowledge that accompanies it) taught me, not anything I read...

How can we spread it around a bit? Why, we're doing that right now...

[brammy]

we're doing that right now...

yes we are. And if this discussion has caused even one person to see Al Gore's pronouncement that the "science is settled" as being completely false, then I consider it time well spent.

By the way, why wont Al Gore debate the issue in open forum? He absolutely refuses any and all requests and challenges. Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook. Guess he never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman—former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich—president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology—says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes—director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute—states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi—one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter—calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski—world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research—says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad—head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo—says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu—founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen—Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov—head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol—Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki—director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson—one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen—director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.


http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned- ... 364&sr=8-1

[bails]

Kent, there's also plenty of world renowned scientists who say the opposite - that climate models are getting better and better and we've certainly plenty to worry about. Their agenda is no different to the ones you've mentioned - grants come to those who present the best case for a grant to the sponsor, and sponsors will sometimes have an alterior motive to either promote or refute climate change. Grants given by fossil fuel producers tend to go to research showing fossils fuels are our best friend, and grants given by the 'Save the Kanagaroos'* foundation tend to show that kangaroos are definitely in need of saving.

I'm interested to know why you believe climate change promoters are less reliable than climate change refuters. You've mentioned money grabbing in a few posts, but the petroleum, fossil fuel, and manufacturing industries have magnitudes more moulah than the enviromental science industry. I believe there's far more cash to be had by refuting climate change, because changing habits to cater for climate change will actually cost every industry trillions and trillions, rather than make money. If someone were to be 'paid for positive comments' as you've suggested, wouldn't they be more likely paid by the highest bidder, rather than by the side who is saying you'll lose money if you listen to us, but please listen anyway?

How do you personally decide which side is correct?

*Note: I just made this organisation up. Please do not try to donate money to 'Save the Kanagaroos', as they don't really exist.

P.S. Al Gore is not a world renowned expert in climate change, but merely a spokesperson with an agenda. He has as much need debate refuters as I do to debate flat-Earthers. Additionally, Al Gore is not my leader. I take my leads from my family and friends whose future I wish to ensure in a sustainable environment.

[longboard_ric]

Thank you Bob and Josh for your well presented posts.

Just to elaborate on Mark’s earlier post regarding the unusually hot weather we are experiencing.

Many of the market gardens here, which supply most of Melbourne’s vegetables, have had their crops destroyed by the excessive heat.

Easily fixed you may say, just import them from elsewhere. But that will cost, and the consumer bears the brunt of it. Hold on!!!…… what if the crops elsewhere have failed due the heat: we have no veggies to eat at all. Now we have a problem!!!

Australia has been cited by many as the country that will be the first to feel the effects of GW/CC. We live in the driest inhabited continent on the planet, which, despite it’s size, could not sustain a population much larger than what we have now (23mil). A change in rainfall distribution and increasing temperatures, will mean more crop failures. Any country that cannot feed its own population is in serious trouble.

The implications here are profound, and we could arguably be used as a model for the rest of the planet. Regardless of your belief of the causes of GW/CC, the thought of insufficient food supply must be cause for concern.

Despite the skepticism on GW/CC, I, like many others, will endeavour to continually reduce my impact on the environment. There can be no harm in that.

[longboard_ric]

If these people are correct, and why shouldn't they be, the situation will only get worse.


http://www.csiro.au/news/ClimateChangeS ... ected.html