[WeatherOp]

'The definition of "good science" can't be "scientists who tell me what I want to hear."'

I like this, I like this very much, anyone who considers themselves to be a scientist should always check the possibilities that they do not like. especially if these possibilities, go against a person's beleifes or positions. it is at the core of science to be be critical of what you hold most dear, this is science's true streigth, the ability to turn on a dime and abandon old theories when the evidence does not support them. so it does sadden, and in fact unsettle me to see that politics have managed to make man kind's greatest achievement, turn in on it'self.

when ever this subject gets brought up, the question it's self is almost never addressed directly. many people have what I guess you could call a misguided sense of responsibility which makes it easy for them to perceive human causes for damage when only circumstantial evidence points to it. having been raised by people who were among the first humans to realize the finite nature of the planet. children of solders in a cultural war between those who did not see or perhaps care about the consequences of there actions, and those who realised that humanity does have the ability to bring about great damage to the earth. anger ran deep and the battle was hard fought, but in the end the war was won, it is now believed that teaching our children about responsible management of our worlds limited resources is as important as teaching them how to get along with other people, or make a living for themselves. there is now an entire generation of people who, possibly for the first time understand how important caring for the earth is, an whole generation who know there is only so much coal, that forests take many years to regrow, and understand about how dumping poison into a stream will eventually filter back to them. as a triumph of science, countless melenia of harmful superstition and tradition like clear cutting forests and stream dumping were overthoughen in just a few short decades.

but unfortunately this triumph is short lived, because science is a creation of man, but not his natural state. now adults, these people perceive anyone who descents against any of the established ills humanity has wrought upon the earth as the enemy, the enemy who denies the obvius harm he is doing either out of ignorance or greed. much as  generations of Greeks were told tales of Leonidas and the Persians, this generation grew up listening to captain planet versus the forces of pollution and human greed, unwilling to allow the hard fought battles of there parents to be lost they are quick to attack anyone who sounds like they might be trying to form an argument for shrugging off shepherding earth responsibly in favor a lazier greedier path. it is I suppose a better way than the one we had before, but I think there is still room for improvement.

so by this point you may be wondering what this has to do with global warming. well, it should have nothing to do with it, but unfortunately it has everything to do with it. if I ask the question "are humans responsible for global warming" I can not expect anyone to give me an unbiased answer, in fact I can hardly expect a scientific answer at all. before anyone looks at the data behind it they start looking up the potential consequences, and I'll get an answer like "what if we do nothing?". well that's a fine way to live as a general rule, you are concerned about to consequences of your actions, but it does not answer the question, 'are we to blame?'. specifically for THIS one, it's an isolated question, there are enough reasons to cut back on emissions a thousand times over. like you, I don't want dioxin in my water, I don't want mercury in my fish, I don't want acid in my rain, and I am quite happy with the thought of ozone layer's continued existence. but unlike many of you, I am unconvinced that the global warming that is happening is caused in great effect as result of mankind's industrialization.

now, this may anger or upset many of you. you are thinking what sort of an idiot can I be? carbon dioxide, as a green house gas, retains heat and humans are producing a **** ton of it, how can this not be effecting the earth? well first off I did not say it wasn't having an effect I just don't think it is as profound as you do, but more importantly, I think you have a misunderstanding about the stage that the temperature of the earth is standing on.

years ago, I accepted this line of thought, the earth is getting hotter, we are makeing stuff that can make it hotter, therefore we are responsible for the earth getting hotter. but then I started seeing the history of earth's climate. ice cores give about half a million years word th of information. if you go back about 12,000 years you see the earth is a much colder place, the graph between then and now is quite dramatic in fact, but this is before humans began to do anything insignificant. if you go further, you will find temperatures gradually get warmer and warmer until they are even hotter than they are now, then it suddenly falls out again. scale the scope back to a few hundred thousand years and a pattern seems to emerge, there is a sudden warming period followed by long periods of cold. we seem to be in one of the warming periods. interestingly the other warming periods all seem to be a bit warmer. using deep sea sediment cores, global temperatures for the last five million years have been calculated, these are much more interesting, in addition to the wild variations caused by the glacial cycle there is a clear trend the further back in time you go, the warmer it gets. even more interesting is radiometric measurements have been used to gauge a rough estimate of temperatures back as far as the dinosaurs, the measurements show earth is in a historically cold period right now, once you go back more than five million years today's temperatures are about as cold as it could get, the earth was 12 degrees hotter 50 million years ago than it is now, extending this technique out to the last 500 million years shows a number of ice ages, and it looks like we may be coming to the end of one right now.

of course, the issue isn't simply about the earth getting hotter, it's about humans causing the earth to get hotter, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is about 800 billion tons IIRC, and humans are believed to be responsible for about half of that. sence we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the air in 200 years, and the temperature has shot up it seems that there is a causal relationship here, but is it? the temperature has been shooting up for a long time, it only stumbled a little over the last thousand years ago, as the temperature got warmer humans boomed, our crops grew, our cattle flourish, and we had time to tinker with machines. the fact that we hit the industrial revolution just as the earth started warming up isn't totally coincidence, had the little ice age continued, I doubt we would have developed the technology we did or at least as fast as we did.

but disregarding that for a moment, we are currently responsible for fully half the CO2 in the air, that should count for something, right? well it is undoubtedly causing some additional warming, but CO2 as it is currently, only represents less than half of one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, and it's not even that strong of a greenhouse gas, water vapor for example is far more effective and far more abundant, CO2 is only responsible for 6% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is at historically low concentrations. wait, what's that? you don't believe me? isotopic ratio analysis has consistently shown that CO2 levels have been almost unanimously higher than they are now, during the time of the dinosaurs, it was 10 times as high, before that it was as high as 30 times the current concentration, if you look at the timelines you will see some of these high concentrations correlated with ice ages, so even if CO2 wasn't at all time lows, it still is clearly not a dominant green house gas.

now all of this does not prove anything, but it does give me some perspective. we know that the green house gases we are emitting are capable of retaining heat, but they make up a fairly small percentage of our atmosphere, the effects that our portion have I do not believe represent something unprecidented in earth's history. and the more I look at longer term temperatures the less I see us causing major changes. even if you go by the wildest projections the temperatures are still well within earth's long term norm.

and with this mighty blast of text typed after inq's post without reading anything that has happened since, I enter the frey.

Wow, I have to say, I am impressed.

It is one thing to warm the atmosphere slightly(that is if we are to blame for a little of it), but it is a far,far,far other thing to mess up the climate with a little bit of warming in the lower levels or the atmosphere.

[achtung]

*WALL OF MOTHER ****ING TEXT*

Well said.

[Bobboau]

the only possible way the heat island effect could be makeing a significant effect on earth's recorded temperature would be something along the lines of a large portion of the temperature recording devices being in cities. I doubt this has actually caused major discrepancies, though it might be interesting to look into.

[WeatherOp]

the only possible way the heat island effect could be makeing a significant effect on earth's recorded temperature would be something along the lines of a large portion of the temperature recording devices being in cities. I doubt this has actually caused major discrepancies, though it might be interesting to look into.

Yeah, that was what I was referring too. The thing that is debated is whether or not the ones recording and analyzing the data are giving enough effect to the heat-island effect vs. normal high temps. And when I say debated, I mean fiercely debated.

EDIT, btw guys, some of you might want to pick up "State of Fear", if you are on either side of the GW debate. Not only does it have some good hard science in it, it's a very good novel too.

[Bobboau]

of course, you realize, if that idea were to gain ground you'd have people calling to bulldoze all cities, right?

but I would be VERY suprised if this actually had an effect of any kind, for one, the temperature rise has been recorded all over the place, some places are getting colder, but most are getting hotter, most of the temperature readings we get are done from satalites so it would be virtually imposable for there to be a localized phenomenon like that to skew the results of the people who do nothing but try to get the earth's temperature, and the temp change maps I've seen show no huge localized spikes around cities. and the portion of the earth that is urban is actually quite minute, so I seriously doubt it would effect the actual temperature of the earth. now if some amiture group or a media organization tried compiling there own data I could see this being an issue, but scientists are smart enough not to fall for this sort of error.

it is called a heat "island" for a reason.

[WeatherOp]

of course, you realize, if that idea were to gain ground you'd have people calling to bulldoze all cities, right?

but I would be VERY suprised if this actually had an effect of any kind, for one, the temperature rise has been recorded all over the place, some places are getting colder, but most are getting hotter, most of the temperature readings we get are done from satalites so it would be virtually imposable for there to be a localized phenomenon like that to skew the results of the people who do nothing but try to get the earth's temperature, and the temp change maps I've seen show no huge localized spikes around cities. and the portion of the earth that is urban is actually quite minute, so I seriously doubt it would effect the actual temperature of the earth. now if some amiture group or a media organization tried compiling there own data I could see this being an issue, but scientists are smart enough not to fall for this sort of error.

it is called a heat "island" for a reason.

Heh, I would not be surprised should someone think of that.

Now I'm not much of a climate scientist, sorry that is too long and too slow for this fast minded weather guy who needs doses of hurricanes and tornadoes a year. But, if I remember right, most satellites read only the mid-level of the atmosphere, but it has been a long time since I looked through stuff like that and I may be wrong. And secondly, temp maps are not designed to be really high res, and they likely would not show spikes around cities.

But, the Heat Island effect has been debated about raising the surface temp on the earth. Here is a real good article you might like.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Contains about global warming and the heat island effect. Don't be fooled by the name, they really seam to know their stuff.

[Bobboau]

even if they are extremely low resolution, I'd expect there to be some sort of blurb around Chicago, New York, LA, cities you can see from space with the naked eye. if there is no blurb, then I don't see how they would be able to skew the global temperature to any detectable degree, and it wouldn't change the fact that the temperature is hotter all over the place, not just in the general geographic reigon around urbanized nations. for instance, the amazon bason, Siberia, the antarctic peninsula, have all experienced a lot of warming.

[WeatherOp]

even if they are extremely low resolution, I'd expect there to be some sort of blurb around Chicago, New York, LA, cities you can see from space with the naked eye. if there is no blurb, then I don't see how they would be able to skew the global temperature to any detectable degree, and it wouldn't change the fact that the temperature is hotter all over the place, not just in the general geographic reigon around urbanized nations. for instance, the amazon bason, Siberia, the antarctic peninsula, have all experienced a lot of warming.

That is certainly true, but another reason to why you do not see the heat island effects on maps is that most scientist try to average out the temps should the city not had been there. And that is really the basis of those who take the route as to saying whether or not the heat island effect is inflating GW numbers, is are the taking account how much to add or subtract.

Also I found this really cool animation while looking for that other site. Showing Pacific SST anomalies, watch how the El'Nino(warm waters of the coast of Mexico) quickly collapse as the La'Nina(Cool waters off the coast of Mexico) builds in.

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst_olr/sst_anim.shtml   

[Bobboau]

ok, let's look at this in specific terms,
this is a map of temperature changes over the last few decades,

this is a map of night lights on america

we can probably assume that the lights roughly correlate to levels of urbanization. so by the bottom map the eastern half of the country should have warm scew, sence the temperature variation is only about 1 degree, I would expect this to be rather pronounced. but in the first image you can see the mountains and far north of Canada have experienced the greatest change, exactly the opposite of what you would predict.

[Mefustae]

But you're not really here to ask real questions are you?

I'll admit, I was a little more abrasive than I should have been. Sorry about that.

I'll also admit that I didn't look as closely as I could have at the video you posted. I guess I kinda tuned out after they started painting Global Warming proponents as fear mongerers scaring small children with their tales in inevitable doom.

Moreover, several of the scientists that the reporter interviews as "opposing global warming" also believe firmly in the science behind Intelligent Design, or agree with human-induced global warming but disagree that the end result will be as catastrophic as some say.

Finally, why exactly are we to take the side of 4 scientists in the face of the 3500 in the IPCC?

Making another wild assertion was exactly my point...

In my defense, sarcasm and wry humour are difficult to get across in an entirely written medium. Again, my bad.

...that man-made global warming just might possibly be totally and completely FALSE?  And that there is actually extremely strong evidence to suggest so.

You must be right, I must have missed a lot of good stuff. I'll admit, I don't think i've seen this strong evidence. In fact, i'm willing to bet that a large portion of the global scientific community haven't seen it either.

So, let me just understand this right: Are you saying that there is actually a massive debate in the scientific community that we don't know about, or that a large portion of the scientific community - most of it, in fact - is suppressing this evidence to push the... Global Warming lobby? Uh...

#2:  On the contrary, those non-scientists are all I hear.  They're being quoted everywhere and get their own television programs ALL THE TIME.  But again, that's just here in the U.S.
  -Please don't bring the creationist thing into this.... ugh.  That was/is about religion vs science.  This is science vs science.  We can debate that another time.

Yeah, sorry about bringing up the Creationism issue, but you've got to admit the parallels are there.

Anyway, from the ads they showed in the report, i'm not surprised to hear how much "bad science" you see. Heck, you've got people comparing "Deniers" to Holocaust deniers, you've got children standing in front of trains as a metaphor for the "coming catastrophe". But then, these are likely the worst offenders in this area, so it's tough to judge from here. This is actually one of the major failings of the video you posted: It clearly only shows the utterly terrible ads - and they are freaking awful - to further support its mini-crusade against Global Warming.

#4:  Again, by bad.  I'll put it in next time when its just something I observe in the U.S.  I am a stupid American afterall.  I can't even point out my own country on a map.  (sarcasm again, for the culturally inclined)

I was out of line with my remark, but you were the one to start throwing labels around. I don't know much about American politics, but how about we leave all the mud-throwing for another time, yeah?

#5:  I put the "ABC fluff-piece" up there because at least here in the U.S. a news story like that is so incredibly rare I was completely blown away that it was even put on television.  Parts of it may have been junk science, but its stuff you just don't see or hear very often.  I'm willing to bet its stuff that you've never heard before, Mefustae.

That report looks like something you'd find on a Current Affairs-type program: Simplistic, one-sided, doesn't make you think all that much, and is likely inaccurate in any number of ways. You'll notice that it didn't really portray any viewpoint whatsoever, it just repeatedly took potshots at easy targets in Al Gore's movie and that disturbing ad campaign you guys seem to have. The reporter resorted to the aforementioned "scared little children" to vie for your sympathy. It praised the scientists that appeared on the report while demonising Al Gore, the IPCC, and any other Global Warming proponent. Quite frankly, this Stossel bloke is a hack and his report is even worse.

Down here, we've had quite a few programs about Global Warming, summoning up what little debate there is on the issue. Just recently, we had a couple of dedicated presentations - including that British anti-Global Warming doco that was heavily lambasted both here and in Britain for being blatantly propagandist - followed for several days by debates on the issue between experts to provide a 'fair playing field' for the issue. We've openly discussed it here and just about the only people still debating the issue are those close-minded die-hards on both sides, people sitting on the fence, and politicians.

 The science is relatively conclusive, but you just have to look past all the tripe to get an unbiased look at things.

[Hazaanko]

Well, if you'd have seen the video in the context of what is all over the tv these days in the U.S..... its all incredibly ridiculous stuff about global warming.  This single video was so incredibly uncommon... you wouldn't believe it.

On another note... I have heard almost everything you could possibly imagine in the case -for- manmade global warming.  And yet I still have extremely large doubts about its reality.  Its really freaking late where I live... within a week here, I'll put together a comprehensive list about things that really throw many aspects of the whole man-made global warming thing up in the air.

(keep in mind I'm not saying climate change doesn't happen... because it DOES and has been happening since the earth was formed.  I'm arguing that the man-made global warming doomsday is almost completely a hoax.)

[Inquisitor]

What you're not being told... and really WHY you believe that "scientists have largely been in agreement for ... 20 years" is because you're never been told that there are actually TONS of scientists that do NOT agree with it... and a lot of these so called global warming scientists aren't really scientists at all.

Before being a techie, I was a geologist for about 10 years. Actively involved in the debate.  Reviewed the measured carbon levels in glacial ice, saw the spike that corresponded to the industrial revolution. From 1984 till about 1994(ish). I was not an principal researcher, but I knew enough about the various fields related to it to evaluate the data.

That was ~10 years ago, the "debate" wasn't much of one then. The data were pretty convincing. You're right, I have been out of the game for a while. However, I still know people in the game. I understand the "debate" is pretty dead unless you are into politics.

So I actually "believe" because I was an active participant with expert knowledge.

As I may have mentioned, I usually regret even posting in these, so I'll beg off now. And no, I did not watch the video, nor did I see Gore's movie, I was responding, specifically, to the assertion that the "science" behind these conclusions wasn't good, and the misinformed opinion that "Global Warming" is entirely about hot temperatures all the time. Its a straw man argument: "but its really cold now, so much for global warming."

The planet doesn't work that way, or operate on that day to day scale.

-edit-
Wow, ok, that video was just... How in the hell is THAT contributing to intelligent debate? How the HELL is that nothing but political debate?

[Asuko]

It is pure political debate in my opinion. I find myself on another perspective of the argument.

What about adapting toward the climate if it does so change? That's what we've been doing. Just because we could attempt to change the climate, if we actually could agree, does not mean it is the only option available to us.

[Inquisitor]

I suspect I would be annoyed by the Gore movie as well, using the carbon graph without the context of the measurements doesn't help the argument.

That graph IS an indicator of temperature rise, but its also an indicator of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. Its usually taken from glacial ice, and there is a lag between the cause and the measured effect. That particular counter "argument" has been debunked repeatedly in the last 20 years. Its showing it in context that makes it meaningful. And that clip of Gore possibly showing it out of context was as bad as showing that clip of Gore's movie.

The CO2 system is pretty well understood, has been for a long time. Its a pretty clear indicator, when shown in context. But that requires some analytical understanding, how measurements are taken and evaluated, what the number actually means. CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans and the ice, and its relation to temperature is as close to "truth" as you can get in science. It is also a big, multi-variable "truth" not particularly suited to soundbite without exagerration.

That kind of critical thinking never gets applied on either side of the political debate.

-edit-
From the link WeatherOp posted, I'll buy this argument:

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

[Asuko]

That kind of critical thinking never gets applied on either side of the political debate.

That pretty much renders the topic moot.

[Inquisitor]

Indeed

[IceFire]

It is pure political debate in my opinion. I find myself on another perspective of the argument.

What about adapting toward the climate if it does so change? That's what we've been doing. Just because we could attempt to change the climate, if we actually could agree, does not mean it is the only option available to us.

We haven't been doing very much about preparing for a shift in the climate.  It hasn't really affected major populated areas yet but its having an impact in the more extreme regions like in northern Canada where they really don't care too much about who is debating over what...just that the climate is changing all around them...ice is melting...stuff is thawing that hasn't thawed for thousands of years.  Again they really don't care too much about the debate but the people living up there are probably going to have to cope with some of those changes as they progress.  They are probably better off.

Heres my thing....focus on transportation seeing as thats a major component to all of this.  We have twin problems with transportation.  The first problem is that oil is starting to run out and the business reports are saying that crude production is falling because they aren't pumping as much oil as they used to.  They think we may have peaked in 2006.  So lets continue on with the solutions towards making cars, trucks, trains, busses, and other forms of land transportation more sustainable using hydrogen or something just as good and get it to the point where its sustainable.  There's plenty of different ways to get hydrogen from just about anything and I think its possible given the technology and the will power to make it happen so that hydrogen is actually a renewable and clean energy source.  If not hydrogen than something else that is clean as well.

With the right sort of investments in this you serve all sorts of purposes:

1) Creates jobs (a key thing for me really) in manufacturing, technology fields, and R&D
2) Reduces dependence on oil with the political issues that has as well as the environmental issues
3) Theoretically creates a clean energy source that has no or significantly less impact (nothing we do will have no impact)

There's probably more but all I see are benefits.  It needs to work first and it needs the money and people are starting to get it...if not hydrogen than name your alternative but there are all sorts of alternatives out there now that we didn't even have 5 years ago.  It will take some time but we're going to have to solve this soon for economic reasons if not for environmental ones.  Might as well kill two birds with one stone.

[Asuko]

Fine then, make it happen.

I remember thinking this some time ago. If those in power did bother to do something (Oho, they might say so but it's always misplanned and misdirected), then I'll be glad.

I take life with a pinch of salt and tend to be pragmatic.

[Hazaanko]

Alright... here's a few interesting reads concerning global warming / climate change:

Volcanoes, El Niño, and cattle: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/07/global_warming_1.html

Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

Mars is warming: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?ArtId=17977

Antarctic ice ISNT decreasing / climate's checks & balances: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/
see also: http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html      http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/04/22/the-tip-of-the-iceberg-yet-another-predictable-distortion/

Arctic warming info: http://www.techcentralstation.com/112204A.html  (add: the northwest passage isn't really open, and is still much less traversable than it was 70 years ago and beyond)

More to follow..... I seem to have run out of time.

P.S.  Another site with general information: http://www.co2science.org/

[Inquisitor]

Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

"Doctor, if you keep doing that, the patient may die!"

"I'll wait to see if she does before I believe you!"

Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Just because nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are having no effect, doesn't give us license to act like idiots. The consequences are ia bit steep if the politics override the science, and the science turns out to be right.

Sorry, not willing to trade my children's future for your profit (political or otherwise) today.