Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

1) He didn't say anything about persisting. He said if you have ice. I assume he meant where you didn't have it before, but that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.2) We are not discussing rarity of ice outside of Ice Ages. Ice has existed throughout human civilization (even if not all have experienced it). Thus we are discussing the term Ice Age as humans use it. I provided a reference for that usage. It suggests that it is based on quantity of Ice, not existence of ice. Thus it seems you are using a more technical idea not actually used in common nomenclature. While I did learn that ice was scarce outside of Ice Ages, I certainly did not learn that thus when there was any ice around (even for over a year) it was an Ice Age.3) If any ice is indicative of an Ice Age, and thus we are in an ice age now (technically), then Jar's entire point collapses anyway as GW cannot be said to be the instrument of a NEW Ice Age.You seem knowledgeable, and I'll be getting to your posts in a bit. But this seems like hairsplitting in order to defend Jar's def, which ends up countering the larger argument being made.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... point taken. Though I did think there were geologists and climatologists around to debunk (or prove!) the Flood and other YE theories.I should also add that this ought to be important to bio people. Whether we are in an abnormal climatic condition which could harm organisms or entire ecosystem requires knowledge about paleoclimates and efficient modeling. I find both sides of this debate to be inhabited by true believers. This is unfortunate. I am truly an agnostic on this subject, but am firmly a skeptic in scientific practice. I am waiting for good solid data and models. Gene may have provided this. I have yet to get to his data link packed post. Those are obviously fallacies... the first betraying a knowledge of science anyway. The second one however does hold some truth. There are true believers, including within the science world. And there are environmental activists that place their ideology above science. Thankfully one cannot see that in an article. They have good data or they don't, and they have a good argument off the data, or they don't.Of course good data itself raises an issue...I've been on the verge of discussing some personal things that I would rather not. But it is highly pertinent to this whole subject. Let me be vague enough, yet remain candid. I've told you I worked for the gov't (internally and as a contractor). It was in one of the USs major science/enviro departments. In fact it was within an int'l section (hi importance) of this major department. It dealt with what was supposed to be real data on important sci/enviro issues.I was part of a section within that section which was newly formed to review the data. I was told on entering the job, by those departing, that I would never trust a sci/enviro statement made by a gov't based org (particularly that one) ever again. They were right.You don't have to take my word for it. But keep your eyes open if you move into science/enviro and especially if you go to work for the gov't. Science data being generated under the wing of politicians and that means important orgs, may have little to do with reality.I left for several different reasons, but one of the biggest shocks before I left came when our oversight of the data was pulled and when we questioned this, were given the statement "Who cares about science? People need to be concerned about this." I forget now, maybe it was even "scared" instead of "concerned".Either way it was definitive. They wanted data presented as if real, that may have no legitimate basis, just to get people concerned on that topic of the year. This happened to be an enviro issue which I was VERY concerned about as it had a real potential impact, and the data was crucial. It did not make me happy to see someone potentially fluffing the data, even if we shared the same basic concern.It was not uncommon to find that those in upper reaches of certain sci/enviro offices, had degrees in art and history and biz and nothing close to science. Some were people just like you described and they were IN CHARGE of combing... I mean cherry picking and then protecting from internal review... the data everyone uses.When the raw data itself can be corrupted, anything is possible.That is why I am a bit cynical, on top of being skeptical. The number of agencies and scientists which say anything, is not half as important as the data (how they got it) and clear explanation of how that relates to a model. That goes double when an agency with political overtones says something.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... I agree. And thus the question becomes is GW consistent with a scenario where glaciers eat Manhattan? And I don't mean beyond 100+ years.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Let's keep in mind that I laid out specific points and have already stated that I do aree that there appears to be a warming trend, and I most certainly agree that humans have been pumping out CO2. Thus the more important points were the latter ones, though accurate answers to those first two, suggest something about the ultimate conclusions.So I was in agreement up till this point... Now I really want to move away from Crichton. I can only assume this means you did not read his book. He discusses regional versus global temp issues. Now maybe you did read it and missed it, or somehow read into that section some meaning it didn't have, but I'd rather not get derailed into discussing the book. The only thing I have to say is that if you have not read it, and this came from critics, this is the second patently false statement I have seen about his book from critics.He may very well have made mistakes, but as yet none that anyone has placed in his typewriter. Okay back on track, and sweet. I will be reviewing the data over the next couple of days. As this is recent data, I am wondering (if you know) whether it has been corroborated by others, and if so if it is from original data or simply using the same generated data. I think there still seem to be pieces missing. I get the correlation (there are rising temps and there are rising CO2 levels), specifically over the last few years, but not the causation... the connection.We've been pumping out CO2 (actually I'll switch to GHGs) for quite a while and yet the correlation was not consistent, and indeed was contrary for a portion of time. This can be explained (and has been) due to the nature of additional emissions, yet still leaves somewhat of a question mark. After subsidence ended the correlation picked back up and with a bit more rapid incline (so far). Is this increase in increase a significant product of GHGs, or is it more of a synergistic effect between a natural and mandmade source?I suppose what I'm bringing up is that nature itself can change temps and it can change relatively quickly. Is there a good way of measuring/separating natural and manmade components?From what I have been reading there is still no solid mechanical modeling of the atmosphere as it would be sans the human input, with some suggestion that it might actually be in a temporary warming trend (solar), beyond just the overall earthly warming cycle. But you may have better info.By the way this is the kind of stuff I was looking for. I take it you are involved in climatology or something like that?I will read your links. I should say I have already been perusing the realclimate site after viewing the Wiki link crash provided. I have to say I am feeling 50/50 about that site. Maybe I'm biased by the superiority of EvC. I did see some comments that were not quite right (its not like their was unanimity there either). I won't go into them, and focus to see if I see anything from the specific RC links you provided.Thanks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well you could have fooled me. You certainly seem knowledgeable on this subject in rather important ways. Mmmmm, yeah, I read the RC site's review and it was really unfair and inaccurate. While the science points the site's author wants to make may be valid, and especially to head off misunderstandings others could have, I feel the author was way off target with what Crichton was saying (in specific) as well as meaning to say (in general). I note that some people commented on the review to that effect.My guess would be the author read the book in a defensive mood and so attributed things that were not there, and skipped some bits assuming he understood what must be said. And of course forgot that what wasn't data, were characters in a fictional book.On to reality... Mmmmmhmmmm. This is why I asked the question I did, and this is an interesting answer. I agree that this tends to favor RSS analyses.However I think a point should not be lost in this. I will repeat the section about the data... That is something very similar to what I have had experience with (creating useful homogenous data sets). What it appears has happened is that a first group made a pass at the data to create a set and came up with results that were inconsistent with GW models, and which would have an effect of calling into question the thermometer based observations (on top of GW in general). Then a second group made a pass at the data to create a set and got one that did match the GW model.From where I am sitting, in a skeptic's chair with my skeptic's hat on, I might want to accept for now that that mean's the second team properly "focused" the data, as it does match ground readings, but at the same time not feel very comfortable until a few more independent tries have been done on that data, and even better similar methods for processing of future data, with an equal result.I get a bit nervous having someone say the data set they just massaged out of raw data streams must be better, or should be considered more valid as it matches a preconception we were looking for in the data itself. Yes, and yessssss! Your post with the links was very useful for me, particularly the very first one. In particular I found comparing the Wiki temp graph (from crash), with the giss graph's on forcings, and RC's model runs on temp and radiation. People might want to open each image separately and compare them.The RC site said (iirc) that some of this work was hailed as the smoking gun on GHG effects to climate change. I have to say I have finally found something that looks good. But then again not in the way that should have people saying "told you so".Connecting GHG levels to temps to generate a conclusion were quite problematic, without mechanisms to explain the rather obvious anomolies raised by general GW theory. The emphasis seemed to be on strength of GHGs, and did not address what other mechanisms might be playing into the environment which could create the anomolies as well as the steepness of the rise seen within the 90s.These models seem to answer those in a satisfying, though not perfect, way. And as you suggest it is the persistance, and not the strength of GHGs which seems to be the key here.Looking at the graphs carefully, it appears that GHGs are forcing the general assent of temps (although one could still argue some other factors), with rather strong influences (but more short lived) coming from stratospheric aerosols and solar irradiance.It sort of calls into question the idea that the sharp increase we have just seen is GHG related at all, or will be long lasting with no global reverses, but does suggest that over greater time build up of GHGs will "force" the center of climate dynamics higher.This is a model which appears to have hypothesized interaction of some key mechanisms properly, and I look forward to some future models/tests.One question I do have though, is where they got the aerosol data from before 1900 to create the forcing quotient it would provide. I'm going to dig for it, but if it turns out to be assumptions so as to drive the model runs to generate past data correctly, that will be sort of deflating. I saw a curious argument over this very kind of thing at RC, and the site's author did not provide a satisfying answer to a question posed. One questioner asked about the fact that in some paleo data there was a discordance between a rise in temp and a rise in GHGs (or was it a fall of both) by several thousand years. That seemed highly inconsistent, yet the author passed it off with the above explanation that it is of course reasonable as the climate could have changed the concentration.Okay, but then why not a further climb or fall after that change in concentration? It seems that if more is released, then temps should climb even more, or if it is taken out then temps should fall.If this is not the case and they simply act on each other in different ways at different times, then any discussion of alleviating climate change is made even harder.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well there's no "good" reason to be cynical. The disillusionment was stunning. It appears that I will continue to leak out my life bit by bit at EvC. If I ever reach the point where my memoirs might be valuable, some shrewd person will be able to produce an unauthorized version by tacking all the stuff together from here.But back to the topic at hand. Not sure if you've been keeping up with my back and forth with gene90, but he did present some credible evidence that I would accept as support for one of the more important points, and that is that GHGs are accumulating and an important force in driving the rise in temps. Although I do have some questions about some of the "force" estimates/figures that went into their model. If they have credible sources and are not "reverse calculated" to drive a model, then I'm pretty satisfied, even if more work needs to be done.The data itself was from a recent report which they suggest was considered the "smoking gun" science had been waiting for on the subject. That fact raises a couple of issues. Anyone suggesting they "knew" GW before this study came out seem to have been premature in their opinion. And anyone suggesting that the "proof" here suggests GW is a major crisis (especially that the "dramatic rise" of temps recently is a result of GHGs) appear to be going beyond the data.The data shows that GHGs are staying around and so slowly increasing temps, with the downswings and dramatic upswings being the result of other forces.It does suggest some longterm effects, but not immediate effects unless exacerbated by other forces. It is true that many scientists are cautioning that people should not be ascribing environmental disasters (like Katrina) to GW, and state that there is no current evidence for global escalation. The data would back up such conclusions.Yet such connections/claims appear in many places, including here. If I remember right one of the statements I was refering to of people stating how clear evidence was for GW, how "known" it was, occured within a Katrina thread.Is there a reason to be pointing to weather people are experiencing at this time as signs of climate change? Specifically resulting from GW?Or should people be more cautious and say, okay we do see elevations in GHGs and a connection to a rise in global temp which has the longterm potential to effect climate in ways we are not totally certain but if it does is likely to make storms more powerful as more energy is in the system. We are not necessarily facing this now, but should try and reduce GHGs, as they will continue to persist and have an additive effect.Should people who use storms like katrina be labeled as environmental fundies just as much as people who use such storms to promote their religion?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There is no question that greater energy in a system will lead to greater action within a system, though how that energy is expressed in action may have all sorts of results.I am not dismissing that with greater energy in the system, storms can become more numerous and the bad ones more frequent. The point I am trying to get at is the rush to judge each and every storm which comes out now as signs of that increase due to GW, and so become a talking point for environmental policy?It would seem fair to say that hey if you don't like bigger storms, we might want to look at developing tech which will reduce our contribution to rising energy in the system. But that is different than saying, Katrina shows we need to do something NOW!!! Sign Kyoto!You posted an article on the growing number of severe hurricanes. Yet was what you posted credible in the way it is being used? I will also later use quotes from a CNN article to contrast with the WP one you gave, notice that there is a difference. That's a political statement, and one which mixes science with an outright ad hominem or guilt by association fallacy. It is also shifting the goal posts. I don't think there are many scientists that would disagree that sea temps will effect storms, the question are: if the warming is generally related to GHGs and if the worse storms are intrinsically part/due to that warming of which we CAN control.Look back at the "smoking gun" research that I think does show (if the data supporting the models was valid) what the primary forcing agents are. The appearance given is that the recent upsweep in temps is primarily the result of a degradation of aerosols combined with solar radiation.Yes the general global temp is climbing due to growing GHG levels, but what we have experienced may have been much the same due to the other forcings had the levels stayed the same.And on a regional level there will be differences (that's where people mention cooling in parts despite a general global warming). The caribean for instance (and that is where Katrina was) has experienced the least increase. Thus Katrina is unlikely to be showing us anything about GW effects. I might also add that the "effects" of Katrina were manmade in a totally separate sense. If the levees had held, and proper action taken by authorities, we would not have seen the devastation we did.You see where I am going with this?The Post acts as if the study is winning over the few remaining stragglers (I guess conservatives wanting to pollute), yet in the CNN article there remain some points to be said. This is not to mention we have very very little historical data beyond that for trends in storm systems which may not be linked to temps at all!But here is the counter from an author of the paper... Heheheh... that's moving beyond science and into rhetoric. That there is an increase over a period is pretty well useless, when the point is before that the data is less accurate and drops to essentially nothing outside of our last century.We know temps were dipping in the 40s to 70s. Was there a lull in activity or not? And if there was could the return to increasing temps have triggered an action which will eventually settle?It is also important to note that there is a difference between storm and hurricane, what does the data show? So though even I would agree that increasing temps could generate more storms, that is in fact not happening. Thus advocates who thought that was possible should now be said to be shown wrong? Or do we rightfully say, we simply have no data for that effect at this time? How do we use this data?Well what the data does suggest is that while there may be no increase in storm formation, those that do form have increased in intensity. Does that then prove advocates right?How does a mixed bag of results work for the advocate?And what exactly was the increase in strong storms? Is that a "substantial" increase, especially given that in the 70s data we were likely to undercount? As an environmental activist I can see that it would seem so, but as a scientist wanting data that doesn't seem much to go on at all.That of course does not mean it does not lead to some proper conclusions which have practical value... But is THIS the proper conclusion?... My eyebrows shoot up, don't yours? And it really pisses me off because I do not like pollution and I want sound environmental policies, yet comments like this end up pushing me into agreeing with people I generally do not like, who say this... The irony here is enormous. One wonders if and why Inhofe supported Bush attacking Iraq, with such a sound scientific scepticism as it impacts policy.Heheheh... I suppose this is where I find myself back in the center. I could not stand the abuse of science by conservatives to boost military policy, and I cannot stand to see it abused by liberals to boost environmental policy.Or am I missing something?This message has been edited by holmes, 09-17-2005 05:38 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Political conservatives also use a small c. Look up the definition of conservative. I will grant that this could swing either direction but it appeared sort of a double entendre to me, and even if not meant by schmidt chosen for quote for that meaning by the Post author. That was of course the least important point. You seem to have missed the entire point of the question I was raising. Certain environmentalists and politicians have been. My question is if such advocates have been overreaching in order support policy. I wasn't asking if what you quoted was credible in the way you quoted it. Since I did read the entire article, I was asking (and I admit it could have been more clearly worded) if the study (esp its reslts) which was the main focus of the article you posted a link about and quoted being used in a credible way by the science, political, and public communities? Well this hits upon two different things, and all supporting the thrust of my point. A politician was very much pandering and the Post helped it along. Remember until you altered it my subthread title was who is stirring the pot, temps or advocates? I am trying to get at the fact that environmental data is being used incorrectly. RAZD, that is the most asinine and fallacious statement I haver ever seen you make. Not only are the two completely incomparable (I'm still trying to figure out where the analogy is), it is simply an emotional appeal or perhaps guilt by association.I am talkin about science, not rescue efforts. Yes, a short term trend of geological activity is relatively meaningless. Why on earth would that surprise you? In any case I already had a ref to the "problem" of global cooling. If you had read that you would have seen that it was a short term trend of cooling that was misdiagnosed as something greater than it was. The system is intricate. Did you even read my posts which compared the very latest models which are the "smoking gun" of GW, with temps? The reason I found this convincing (though still trying to find where they got some data) was that it finally involved other forcings.If you looked at the graphs it appeared that aerosols and solar irradiation were the ones truly "forcing" the trends of greatest temp change. The GHGs produced steady and slow climb, with the other forcings making it dip globally cooler to vastly hotter. Thus the trend in raising sea temps and storm strength could best be attributed to those factors in the recent past (including now).That is also to ignore other possible causes of sea temp rising (including manmade pollution effects as we dump quite a bit of energy into the sea directly). That's funny but I don't remember saying that was what was stated in your article. I was addressing one of the common "scare" tactics related to GW. There have definitely been people saying more storms will be produced in general. That's part of climate variability and why people were in fact looking for that statistic. This has already been discussed and agreed to upthread. And only supports what I have been arguing/asking regarding this subject. There is a popular and political aspect about this which has stolen and effects the science. Lets talk about the new ice age, no lets talk about warming, no lets talk about climate change. In any case lets talk about something in some overly dramatic terms beyond what the science is suggesting. ??? Not only has this been discussed I have already posted material, at least I thought I did, shooting down the new "Ice Age" concept based on shutting down the "conveyor". You can quote who you want, but show the data and models. This concept is pretty well roundly dismissed at this point in time.I did see an interesting idea on a discovery channel show where someone believes that a certain amount of warming will result in such sudden release of currently trapped gases that the air in great stretches will be poisonous. It was even suggested that that was part of one extinction event. I agree that denial of evidence is incorrect, but pretending science and data is there which is not is also absurd. How long has GW theory been around, and how long have people believed that the data was there, and how long has the data actually been there with decent enough models to make the predictions which should cause concern regarding "ultimate" results?This seems to be the latest "cause" which happens to have gotten some recent kind of close to what the advocates were saying, scientific support. Isn't the equally shortsighted view that we know exactly what we can do to start minimizing effects, especially as some of this will include shifting resources to other forms of energy production which may also have their own effects?I think one irony here is that nuclear was an answer to GHG energy production until rampant environmentalist fears pulled the plug on that. So we had continued and expanded use of GHGs, rather than largescale replacement. Now nuclear looks good all over again, except of course political fears make us not want to allow emerging nations to have nuclear power.In the end even windfarms and solar panels (or tidal turbines) may have an effect on climate. The answer really is we will always effect the environment, especially when we are producing chemical and energy output and are growing in number all the time.Thus we need to get better at modelling systems, so as to understand potential effects, and demonstrate real solutions. The knee jerk approach has not been working so far.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I can't tell you what he actually meant, but I can explain how I read it which may be accurate since my geo background was similar.As you had already suggested, this is about how humans will experience the changes which climate change will bring. Landsea appears to be suggesting what many geo people have been discussing which is populations moving into and growing in "risky" areas. Nature is wild and there is a natural variability, regardless of GW. Yet humans are increasingly flocking to areas where nature can do serious damage. Thus more damage is being done, especially when the variability is for something stronger.In this way human behavior, combined with natural variability is going to have humans facing greater "effects" than anything GW will be causing them to suffer. This is from one of the co-authors. That ought to be instantly recognizable as "famous last words" within science. Although I certainly do agree that sea temps will effect storm energy and so strength, and GHGs are apparently (still looking to corroborate forcing data from the "smoking gun" report) raising global temps which can raise sea temps, she appears to be blatantly ignoring other forcing possibilities and mechanisms.There may be upper limits, there may be lower limits to what can be added, as there may be additional atmospheric and oceanic mechanisms for getting rid of energy. This was indeed suggested by something which I had not seen in either of the other articles on the study, and which you did not include in the quote. I think the point is quite important so here it is... In a way I will disagree with Landsea, there very well could be a reason for no change in peak winds. That itself may be intriguing, if there are no increases in numbers of storms, and no greater devastation by the top storms, but all storms that do exist will more likely be toward the top. Why not? And that certainly would have some implications on how we might view this.In any case, the non increase in peak winds is something of interest and a challenge to the researcher above who seems to like to theorize beyond data when she can't think of what else might be going on. I have yet to see any data which suggests our species will run into an extinction scenario. Discomfort and personal hardships, that's a possibility. Doomsday? No. But it won't be global, it will be regional in effect. I guess this means that as weather changes, people will have to move to new locations that fit what they like?As far as sea levels go, the Netherlands has been facing that challenge for centuries, and with great success over the last few decades. Unless there is a waterworld scenario, which can't happen, I'm not that concerned. One common feature of human existence is bitching about the weather. The above comment is not true, or at least not accurate. People are increasingly worried about gays and gay marriage, yet that does not mean anything bad will happen to the world because of it, specifically along the lines of longterm survival.People are suffering more as they increasingly live in risk areas, which is what i believe Landsea was addressing, without paying heed to what they must do to protect themselves adequately. The horrible devastation of the indonesian tsunami, points up that nature can pack a punch without anything man made as a cause, and that humans need to prepare for THOSE eventualities. Hey, I agree. The models are still not accurate. But if you are going to dismiss it then you are dismissing the only "smoking gun" that GW has. This was the best case that could be presented and it does show other forcings have greater effects, only more temporary in nature.And indeed its interesting that the time of increase in growing global temps has coincided directly with the massive increase in industrialization in China (esp) as well as the rest of Asia, which are all high in GHG and energy output. And this is also where the greatest increase in strength of storms has been. Let's, but let's stick to science instead of science fiction. These are great concepts but we need some science before discussing concrete solutions. Throwing hysteria into the mix in order to drive decisions, does not help.By the way, I am for reducing emissions and energy output anyway. There are more immediate detrimental effects from emissions, and energy output is waste which means inefficiency. I'd be much more motivated by having someone say, hey I can't see shit outside and its hard to breath because of all the smog, even on its good days it just looks ugly, and I'm wasting good energy... can't something be done to improve this? Being below sea level, and where glaciation has had an integral connection to the area, I would as well. Heck I'd watch it just because I like reading science stuff.In any case, there is currently no evidence for GW creating an Ice Age in the common sense of the word, it is completely contrary to the concept of GW, or climate change based on GW models. Glaciation itself will take some time and I doubt you'd live to see it happen even if that were a possible outcome.I do find it odd that you seem to accept what a majority of scientists say if it confirms a potential problem, and then dismiss what the majority says (including some of the very same people) when they disconfirm a potential problem. ??? It was sold as being a reducer of GHG production. Up until nuclear energy (and still existing in developing nations, including China) fossil fuels were the main source of energy production. That would be CO2.And yes it would also result in other benefits as far as soot and smell. I don't agree that it produces more problems than it solves, but I do agree that it is a stepping stone to better technology. In any case, it beats the hell out of fossil fuel energy production.I am for solar and wind for most individual and local power production. I'd love to see most power taken "off the grid", and reduce the need for nuclear power. I just know that we'll still need that for large energy supplies, as well as running things like hydrogen car "filling stations". Yup. I'm all for proactive environmentalism, indeed as built into manufacturing as we can get. I just don't believe that equals shouting at people that the sky is falling and we need to do something, anything, before it does.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure why his point is opaque to you. I'll give this one more try. Because people are increasingly living in risk zones, and so will be feeling the brunt of nature's inherent variability, the effects of GW will be minor in comparison and so "lost in the noise".It is not that there will be no effects, just that they'll be inconsequential to natural effects. This is where I have to scratch my head. Do you know much about geology/meteorology? Its still a very new field and we don't have enough data, and more importantly MODELS of activity, to be reaching decisive conclusions, much less to say "well I don't know what else there could be".You have some scientists stating that, including some who were co-authors on the study. We've had droughts and famines long before global warming became a possibility, and we will continue to have them. As globalization continues, regional droughts will become less a problem for a population. heheheh... that's my point and in a way Landsea's. He was dealing with the latest models and saying the results did not match in a way to suggest GW. I raised the issue that maybe the model's are wrong. In any case that impacts GW. It would only have coastal effects. But there would be changes in many different ways as deglaciation effects plates. The rise of sweden due to loss of glacial ice, is making netherlands sink. Whoops! I wasn't talking about regional weather effects in this case, but actual global temperature change. The models indicate that there are much greater factors in temp variability, just that GHG effects remain longer. You are correct that there was a broad based appeal, but I am unsure why you are discounting the GHG portion. Once GHGs became an idea to focus on, nuclear was discussed as a solution to this. It only produces H2O vapour, and radioactive waste. That's a problem, but not more problems than it solves, which is what you said and I questioned. I'm not sure that nuclear waste is necessarily more frightening than quality of life problems generated by fossil fuel usage.Yes there will be a build up, but the question becomes if we will be able to invent tech to deal with it. If we can make waste material which won't "move", and so lock it up, then it would be less of a problem. There is also the possibility of dispersing it. These materials were not nonexistent in the environment before we opened the reactors. We pulled them out of the environment and concentrated them. I disagree. Methane is also a GHG. Burning it will produce GHGs. If your concern is for GW, then that is not a wise option. No, your commentary isn't as rabid as what I am addressing. I think this is where people are departing from my point. People talk relatively calmly and act as if that is the environmental movement around GW. I am discussing that movement and questioning if they are essentially fundies going well beyond data and using hyperbole to net agendas rather than solutions.I will point out, again, that while the world is getting measurably warmer, the GHG contribution to that warmth we are feeling is very small, even according to the best models. Fluxes in aerosols and solar radiation appear to be the greatest and overrriding factors in what we experience as global temps. Indeed that is why GHG effects were not only negated but wholly reversed for a 30 year period.One can say, hey this is a taste of what we could be having on a more regular basis if we allow GHGs to accumulate, but not that this that we feel now will be the point of departure for all future weather (including heat).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'll drop this as you are being deliberately obtuse. For a person who has gone on and on about how this is an issue of how people wish to be effected by their environment, its a bit insulting to see you pretend not to understand when someone else is discussing GW in the same manner. Well than that's a pretty shitty study. From what I've read antarctica is cooling and ice is thickening in places. I do believe that the loss of the arctic ice cap (and the antarctic) would potentially have an effect on global climate patterns. I have absolutely no reason to believe it will cause an ice age however. RAZD at this time I think I am done arguing with you. You seem to have not done your homework on this issue, including reading the articles I have linked to up thread. Even while the Ice Age theory was going on, scientists understood the capabilities of CO2 and other GHGs to potentially reverse and warm the earth, even into a GW apocalypse.Nuclear negated CO2 emissions and was lauded for this saving grace. No, not exactly. How much methane must be burned to get the same equivalent amount of heat as CO2? How much methane will be released and not captured for combustion, in freeing that source of fuel? Although it is higher in gwp its lasting contribution to climatic change is much lower. And on top of all that one will still be releasing CO2. Apparently, if we decide to run our cars using scramjets. I think they are equally dangerous. Pushing for solutions to nonproblems, and worse still nonsolutions to real problems, can be just as bad. I do not subscribe to an idea that the devil I don't know is better than the one I do know, especially when the devil I do know isn't killing me.I do agree that those who underplay it misrepresent the information intentionally more often than the other side. But intentionally or unintentionally is little difference to me. Personally I don't like hot summers, and I don't like big storms, and I would rather have the gulfstream. I think the data suggests we should be looking for ways to curb GHG emissions, or alleviate them, so that over the long haul we will not have some of these effects. It does not however show that the effects are currently being seen by anyone (other than a potential in making some storms worse, though not the worse storms any worse).I have also seen no data to suggest we have any responsible mechanism, with credible science, for curbing or alleviating GHG effects.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again, I will say that I cannot tell you exactly what he meant, and perhaps he made the mistake you were suggesting. I am only pointing out that there is another valid interpretation which would make sense given his specialty, dialogues within that realm, and the correlation of his statement to those dialogues.In that case what happened was that he started by discussing the results of the study in specific, and then moved on to the issue of how such effects are likely to be felt by humans.On can criticize him for mixing and matching issues I suppose. That's where good data sets in terms of length are important. We can look past the time of industrial pollution by man, and man's existence at all, with regard to the climate to some degree. In the case of specific weather we can't really.But then we can use models and testing to eliminate human effects and see how much they play. If that were not possible then we'd still be scratching our heads about what happened from 1940-1970. You can't say we can only determine human effects in models, and not possibly rule them out. Let's be clear, I'll also be keeping an eye on such research and will be glad that people pursue it. I'm just not breaking any sweat on it, and feel pretty confident in saying there is no scientific basis (support) for the claim at this point in time.Its a hypothetical issue, not a concern. Okay, then I can only conclude you are being intentionally obtuse on the subject we are discussing. I have presented evidence for my statements all along. Most of the time we've been talking about stuff I've cited previously up thread. Correct me if I'm wrong (I could only read the abstract), but that was discussing issues regarding fuels in engines that perform thrust, like rockets. This is not the same as what would be used in the closed systems of cars, especially hydrogen cars. I'm probably coming off more negative on methane use as fuel than I really I am. There are of course other advantages for methane, such as the possibility of not having to use as much energy, and destroy as much area of earth, in order to get it.I'm just saying that from a GHG standpoint, and so a GW standpoint, that is not going to be coming off much better than what we already have.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well here's an example of exactly what I was talking about... Milking tragedy like any other good fundie he says... So what do scientists actually think about events like Katrina and Rita... Hey but don't let science get in the way of using something scary to support a political position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not really since the people who made the connection between GW and rising storm strength, as well as the people who provided the first "smoking gun" on GW and climate change have said these storms are not really connected to it.Did you notice any facts attached to this guy's commentary? If you can find them, please post them in the other thread.All I saw was an assertion which is not shared by most scientists in that field, and some name-calling. Then that'd be in the title and the main portion of the text. You don't bury a false conflict which you are inventing to boost interest in a story. You bury the facts which refute the main attention grabbing headline and so make it less interesting.Weekly World News was a pioneer of this great technique, Fox has brought it mainstreaam, and I'm sad to see it taking root elsewhere.Do you really think Tal's Fox quotes were all accurate as the facts buried at the end of the articles were simply there as fake conflict?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No. He may be a scientist. I am totally unaware what his actual field of study is, and all I do know about him is that he is in charge of an environmental gov't program. His statements are inconsistent with the views of scientists in the field. I'm sorry why would I have to mention that, when it has been discussed within this thread already? And in fact I did mention it in passing when discussing how the article was laid out.Do you know what the people who wrote that study said about making the connections Lawton did? I do, it's upthread. Uh, I did deal with it. But perhaps it was not in this thread. I had another post on the exact same article in the Rita thread. It was after I did that one, when I realized it was probably more fitting for this topic and did a short version here.In any case, I linked to the article so you could read the whole thing. Did you notice the problems mentioned regarding the study at the bottom? By which you mean you have not read this thread, nor any of the studies/data linked to within this thread in order to "cherry pick" your own quotes to support your own position. If you had read so far, even those scientists providing "smoking gun" models for GW have downplayed the connection Lawton was attempting to make.Oh, yeah, but for anyone not willing to read the thread with regard to the science, here is a brand new article on what hurricane experts are saying.Here is a statement from a scientist that would be most proactive on the GW issue... So even as they do support the connection to storm strength being increased, they STILL would NEVER point to a weather event and blame warming. One might add that that would be especially true for Gulf region hurricanes as if you read upthread studies show the smallest increase in strength is found within the Gulf.And what else might experts in the field say about these storms?... Awwwwwwwwwwwww. But wait, they even mention that study, which has already been discussed, and you decided to cherry pick! What do the authors of that say? Oh, that's gotta hurt.Now the question is raised... as the evidence is in... why do YOU feel so weak about YOUR position that you have to resort to creationist tactics to support it?(AbE: I just looked up what kind of scientist Sir Lawton is, he is a zoologist with emphasis in population diversity... primarily birds. Is there a reason I should be believing him over climatologists?)This message has been edited by holmes, 09-24-2005 05:36 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)