Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming?

[aurik]

Those of you that claim we don't have enough data and can't conclude that human activity is the cause of climate change, I refer you once again to the IPCC. Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have concluded that:

* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
* "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."

The panel, which represents consensus in the scientific community, defines "very likely," "extremely likely," and "virtually certain" as indicating probabilities greater than 90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, if people weren't so irrationally afraid of nuclear power plants... Those suckers can produce massive amounts of energy with far less pollution.

This is exceptionally true. Nuclear energy is still more expensive than coal, but it's well worth it.

Leif, regarding "low-flow showerheads" and such - how do you propose we regulate water usage, especially in perennially drought-plagued places like southern California?

Running out of water isn't an option - how do we make sure everyone has enough? There's only so much fresh water to go around.

[zoobernut]

Its will be easy to convince countries that are in the Axis of evil, that its ok for us to develop Nuclear power, but its not ok for them.

I don't think we ever told them they could not develop nuclear power plants for electricity. I remember that it was ok for them to do that but not start a program creating weapons grade plutonium.

The fuel in a nuclear power plant is not the same as the fuel in a nuclear bomb.

[Max™]

What about totally batshit insane views like I have, that Global Warming is a good thing?

We are in a warm spell between ice ages.

Glaciers are bad.

"Smokey the Tailpipe says, 'Give a hoot, pollute! Cause only YOU can delay glaciation!'"

[deshende]

I haven't liked much of anything being presented around a cap and trade route. Like some folks have said, sounds like it's just a way to increase too much regulation and drive businesses away.

I like the idea of promoting the use of clean energy usage, developing new technologies, and rewarding those individuals/companies that promote their use (tax breaks, etc) rather than penalizing everyone to non-productivity.

[Bingbong]

Those of you that claim we don't have enough data and can't conclude that human activity is the cause of climate change, I refer you once again to the IPCC.

The IPCC has been put under the microscope as of late for possible research fraud, and elimination of some facts in that very report that once again diminshed non-natural CO2's effect on "global warming". Not dismissing the report, but it's definitely not the be-all end-all on the global warming discussion.

[Leif]

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have concluded that:

When the name of the organization has "climate change" in its name, there are some clear credibility problems.

Simple, we can make direct measurements of the amount of each respective gas in the atmosphere. We can also calculate the amount of gases released per unit coal/oil/gas etc. burned. Been done decades ago. Still being measured and constantly validated.

But then how do you show this is due to man-made stuff and that the problem is urgent enough to warrant immediate action. It's a big judgment call that needs some serious discussion before we start passing bills.

Why not invest and standardize energy efficient structures and develop alternative fuels? why, specifically, would this be catastrophic to the economy?

Why not let private corporations decide when they want to invest in "energy efficient structures" and "alternative fuels". If there was a market for it, they'd be doing it. Forcing them to operate in a way that is less than efficient due to government regulation is bad for the economy.

Its will be easy to convince countries that are in the Axis of evil, that its ok for us to develop Nuclear power, but its not ok for them.

They can whine, fuss, etc. However, the second they attack America, Obama will overreact (see Clinton launching missiles following Lewinsky scandal in order to appear "tough" - surprisingly this scenario is more than a cheap hit at Clinton) and likely wipe them off the globe. You can't hold America back because the crazies might get angry.

how do you propose we regulate water usage

I'm not the self-proclaimed expert at deciding how to regulate things. I think I can spend my own money very efficiently however.

The IPCC has been put under the microscope as of late for possible research fraud

I saw that one coming.

[Tristam]

# The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.

--- Yes

# The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

--- No, both positive AND negative forcings are taken into account in the models, as well as natural oscillations (this is why the models work). If we didn't understand feedbacks, we wouldn't understand the origin and cyclic nature of ice ages. Climate is buffered, but the most important buffer (and the driving force behind ice ages and interglacials), is long-term snow/ice on land.

# The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

--- prior to 1950 we were still putting GHGs into the atmosphere, that is why Svente Ahrrenius postulated the global warming model in 1886. There is no data to support anything after the second sentence, I'd love to read it as it would certainly overturn laws of thermodynamics and probably result in a few nobel prizes. Looking forward to the citation.


# There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

--- 10 points if you could explain why it should be linear, I don't know if it necessarily would be over short time scales due to other forcings. Which, of course, are why global mean temps have "both risen and fallen". The ENSO, axial tilt of the earth, sunspot cycles, all these things are also drivers of climate IN ADDITION to atmospheric gases.

# The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

--- The natural world, yes, industrial civilization, no.

# Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.

--- Like what?


# Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.

--- Yes, and fat is essential for us as well, but if we eat too much of it....

# There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

--- This is correct, but I reiterate that we understand planetary temperature cycles very well.

# Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

--- Not true atall, plants and respiratory organisms buffer atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels, the biosphere has self-regulated the amount of O2 and CO2 for a long time now. Not sure what the point of this is.

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

Oh and if all else fails, label the entire opposition as zealots.

[Blarg]

I didn't realize only 1% of the atmo is greenhouse gases. I guess I will be fine with drinking 1% my bodyweight in poison, battery acid, nails, nuclear waste, it should be fine though right, just 1%, it's not as if things in small quantity can have a big effect.

Omg I also didn't know that the world has gone through cycles of heating and cooling, I better go tell the thousands of scientists that have spent their lives researching this stuff . I bet they didn't take that into account when they did their experiments and came to the same conclusion as most every other scientist.

[Tristam]

The IPCC has been put under the microscope as of late for possible research fraud, and elimination of some facts in that very report that once again diminshed non-natural CO2's effect on "global warming". Not dismissing the report, but it's definitely not the be-all end-all on the global warming discussion.

The IPCC does not do research. It provides a lay summary of the research to help advise governments, who are also members of the panel. And the elimination of most things in the report was done at the request of legislators. The 4th report is a very, very, very watered down document.

[Bingbong]

--- 10 points if you could explain why it should be linear, I don't know if it necessarily would be over short time scales due to other forcings. Which, of course, are why global mean temps have "both risen and fallen". The ENSO, axial tilt of the earth, sunspot cycles, all these things are also drivers of climate IN ADDITION to atmospheric gases.

It shouldn't be linear, but there is a perception out there that it is, in the way that an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels have not always meant a higher global temperature. So if we've been creating all this CO2 now because of SUV's and etc, and yet yearly average temps are not always going up, then there must exist the possibility that man's effect on climate is minuscule compared to nature's effect. Thus making the steps we take to prevent it, just as minuscule.

[Bingbong]

The IPCC does not do research. It provides a lay summary of the research to help advise governments, who are also members of the panel. And the elimination of most things in the report was done at the request of legislators. The 4th report is a very, very, very watered down document.

Semantics really, so the misrepresentation and incorrect research was in the reports that the IPCC used to summarize the research that was done. It's still a definitive position based on incomplete research.

I didn't realize only 1% of the atmo is greenhouse gases. I guess I will be fine with drinking 1% my bodyweight in poison, battery acid, nails, nuclear waste, it should be fine though right, just 1%, it's not as if things in small quantity can have a big effect.

of that 1%, CO2 and Methane are produced naturally, and can be attributed, in part, to population growth. The other major GHG's are Nitrous Oxide and CFC's (which have been drastically cut in usage over the last 30 years)

[Neosutra]

I didn't realize only 1% of the atmo is greenhouse gases. I guess I will be fine with drinking 1% my bodyweight in poison, battery acid, nails, nuclear waste, it should be fine though right, just 1%, it's not as if things in small quantity can have a big effect.

Omg I also didn't know that the world has gone through cycles of heating and cooling, I better go tell the thousands of scientists that have spent their lives researching this stuff . I bet they didn't take that into account when they did their experiments and came to the same conclusion as most every other scientist.

Scientists dont have god in their heart, so how can we trust them?

[Max™]

This is correct, but I reiterate that we understand planetary temperature cycles very well.

While you make great points, and I agree that it is happening, I think this is at best a facetious claim.


Personally, I would love if we realized how unstable this planet can be and sought to move out into space finally, but I doubt that will happen any time soon, if ever... stupid goddamn worthless fucking humans.

Nonetheless, worrying about climate change while we're trashing the place up is like worrying about what's on TV while you're shitting in your bed.

You can stop shitting in the bed, and you can try to change what's on TV through indirect processes which suffer massive amounts of inertial resistance to change.

Fighting climate change is like trying to make a TV station stop showing stupid bullshit like Lost and Survivor, cutting down on non-recyclable products, cutting emissions, diversifying our energy needs, that is akin to not shitting in your bed.

No TV exec is going to listen to a tard who shits themself, and the climate isn't going to listen to us while we're literally shitting all over it.

There ARE things we can do which would be wise even if the climate weren't warming, but this stupid goddamn inane "THE SKY IS FALLING" shit has to stop.

Education is superior to fear, science or religion, what do YOU think will get us farther in the long run?

[SephYuyX]

Hahahahaha.. oh man.. global warming... hahahahaha wow. Thats gotta be the best joke in the past 100 years, cant believe how many people are fooled by it. This thread is a good laugh. I find it so funny that people think anything we do will have any sort of significant effect. Better off finiding a way to control the distance of the sun.

[Neosutra]

Hahahahaha.. oh man.. global warming... hahahahaha wow. Thats gotta be the best joke in the past 100 years, cant believe how many people are fooled by it. This thread is a good laugh. I find it so funny that people think anything we do will have any sort of significant effect. Better off finiding a way to control the distance of the sun.

You're trying too hard.

[Bingbong]

Hahahahaha.. oh man.. global warming... hahahahaha wow. Thats gotta be the best joke in the past 100 years, cant believe how many people are fooled by it. This thread is a good laugh. I find it so funny that people think anything we do will have any sort of significant effect. Better off finiding a way to control the distance of the sun.

I think Obama just appointed a Czar to look into this.

[Tristam]

Semantics really, so the misrepresentation and incorrect research was in the reports that the IPCC used to summarize the research that was done. It's still a definitive position based on incomplete research.



of that 1%, CO2 and Methane are produced naturally, and can be attributed, in part, to population growth. The other major GHG's are Nitrous Oxide and CFC's (which have been drastically cut in usage over the last 30 years)

So the thing about this is that the IPCC summary really isn't just the best information we have to go on, it's the only information. None of the claims about falsifiability have impacted any of the overall conclusions.

The relative weights of CO2 and NO are important but are constantly calulated in terms of the overal atmospheric and energetic contribution to energy imbalance over long periods of time. CFCs are aerosols, which contribute to cooling when they don't deplete the ozone.

[Tristam]

While you make great points, and I agree that it is happening, I think this is at best a facetious claim.


Personally, I would love if we realized how unstable this planet can be and sought to move out into space finally, but I doubt that will happen any time soon, if ever... stupid goddamn worthless fucking humans.

Nonetheless, worrying about climate change while we're trashing the place up is like worrying about what's on TV while you're shitting in your bed.

You can stop shitting in the bed, and you can try to change what's on TV through indirect processes which suffer massive amounts of inertial resistance to change.

Fighting climate change is like trying to make a TV station stop showing stupid bullshit like Lost and Survivor, cutting down on non-recyclable products, cutting emissions, diversifying our energy needs, that is akin to not shitting in your bed.

No TV exec is going to listen to a tard who shits themself, and the climate isn't going to listen to us while we're literally shitting all over it.

There ARE things we can do which would be wise even if the climate weren't warming, but this stupid goddamn inane "THE SKY IS FALLING" shit has to stop.

Education is superior to fear, science or religion, what do YOU think will get us farther in the long run?

I know we've argued this before, but it boggles my mind that you can accept that humans have a certain understanding about the forces and motions governing subatomic particles and energy, yet cannot accept that we know things about earth's climate which can be directly measured and predicted not just based on gas laws and thermodynamics, but Newtonian realms such as the motions of planets and proximity to the sun.

Why is climate perched atop an unassailable mountain of human understanding?

edit: It's like saying that because at a sufficiently subatomic level, there is an uncertainty, therefore we cannot understand how protons and electrons are arranged in an atom.

[Neosutra]

I know we've argued this before, but it boggles my mind that you can accept that humans have a certain understanding about the forces and motions governing subatomic particles and energy, yet cannot accept that we know things about earth's climate which can be directly measured and predicted not just based on gas laws and thermodynamics, but Newtonian realms such as the motions of planets and proximity to the sun.

Why is climate perched atop an unassailable mountain of human understanding?

Agreed lol. "WE CANT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS!!!".

Also, Max: Education is indeed superior to ignorance/fear/superstition, but education is far less equally spread out or available than ignorance/fear/superstition. Just because the knowledge is out there, doesnt mean that everyone has it, especially when there are people ACTIVELY trying to fight against the knowledge that counters their political gains.