Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok. Thanks. I've never heard or used that term. For what it is worth, I don't know if it will be catastrophic in most places. That is usually, when a change occurs so quickly that no response is possible (e.g. Pinotubo's eruption, Kracatau,etc.), but I think being sensible is highly warranted. Given most of the world's populatio lives within 200' of current sea level, it seems that rapid sea level rise could cause massive human challenges.
Frankly, what I worry about in the near term is the failure of the Gulf Stream. Apparently, the Northeast N. America and NW Europe have had a huge range in temperature over the last few million years. When the melting rate of the Greenland Ice Cap reaches a critical level cold water dilutes the high salinity Gulf Stream waters and may screw up the functioning of the thermohaline N. Atlantic conveyer belt, which is what helps pull the warm water up the eastern seaboard. This would cause a plummet in temperatures in that region, even as global temperatures climb. All of NW Europe, in particular has an anomolously mild climate for its latitude, due to the Gulf Stream. The failure of the Gulf Stream would likely be catastrophic for European agriculture. And crop failures in N. Europe could very well result in war, as the devastated, but powerful countries (Russia?), invade southward to secure resources. This is the only huge thing I think might happen quickly, but it seems quite possible, given the melting rates seen in Greenland in recent years.
Also, there is the possibility that the polar jet will reconfigure itself radically, which might occur rapidly, increasing variability in the middle latitudes. I don't understand that one very well, but the last three years have been pretty odd. Mild early winter patterns followed by a very high amplitude jet that shoots arctic air into the Southeast in late winter. The jet stream has demonstrated higher amplitude and big temperature shifts. I don't know if this is related, just my observation.
Again, I just don't know, and I would certainly not say climate cannot do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what we do. But I cannot defend the big global experiment we have underway. It seems like Russian roulette to me.
Frankly, what I worry about in the near term is the failure of the Gulf Stream. Apparently, the Northeast N. America and NW Europe have had a huge range in temperature over the last few million years. When the melting rate of the Greenland Ice Cap reaches a critical level cold water dilutes the high salinity Gulf Stream waters and may screw up the functioning of the thermohaline N. Atlantic conveyer belt, which is what helps pull the warm water up the eastern seaboard. This would cause a plummet in temperatures in that region, even as global temperatures climb. All of NW Europe, in particular has an anomolously mild climate for its latitude, due to the Gulf Stream. The failure of the Gulf Stream would likely be catastrophic for European agriculture. And crop failures in N. Europe could very well result in war, as the devastated, but powerful countries (Russia?), invade southward to secure resources. This is the only huge thing I think might happen quickly, but it seems quite possible, given the melting rates seen in Greenland in recent years.
The Gulf Stream as the source of Europe's mild climate is a bit exaggerated.
The article has been disputed, but nevertheless, a good portion of Europe's mild climate has little to do with the gulf stream, it's just geography. I don't think the Gulf Stream could suddenly shut down. The Gulf Stream is primarily a wind-driven circulation, there would still be a Gulf Stream even without the thermohaline conveyer belt.
The article has been disputed, but nevertheless, a good portion of Europe's mild climate has little to do with the gulf stream, it's just geography. I don't think the Gulf Stream could suddenly shut down. The Gulf Stream is primarily a wind-driven circulation, there would still be a Gulf Stream even without the thermohaline conveyer belt.
Interesting article. Perhaps you are right. I was just pondering the things that could potentially be "catastrophic." I have generally not taken that view. The changes will likely be gradual, and perhaps we will be able to adjust to many of them. Or there could be surprises. This Gulf Stream question is an interesting one, I will look into it a bit more. Thanks for this one.
Sorry, but calling AGW a hoax is just idiotic. I am shocked by the arrogance of the posts here, usually by people who most likely never took a single atmospheric physics class in college. I agree that there are issues with the actual climate data, and perhaps some conflicts of interest for some scientists, etc. But to think that pumping tremendous quantities of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have not some effect is just ludicrous. A hoax? We are not talking about a guy in a bigfoot suit with a Super 8 camera. We are talking about a broad consensus among thousands of global scientists with PhDs. Pretty hard to fake that.
No, it's not hard to fake and it's been done many times. There have been many instances of errors and deceit among the AGW crowd.
Quote:
The burden of proof is on us not to screw things up royally, not on scientists to prove that the results of a global experiment which will take hundreds of years to play out are conclusive at this point in time.
I agree. That's why we should put our energy and resources behind environmental pollution controls.
Quote:
In statistics we talk about Type I and Type II errors. The Type I is when you claim to see a real effect that is actually false. That is the accusation about AGW by deniers. The Type II is when you fail to record a real effect when it is actually happening. This happens all the time, and in environmental or health issues is often the worse scenario. Tobacco companies love Type II errors. They spent decades trying to muddy the water on the health effects of smoking, because we know other health factors (drinking, diet, genetics) complicate things, allowing them to say we could not prove the cigarette/cancer link. So it is with AGW. Yes, the world,especially climate is very complex, and we don't know everything yet. People with an agenda to protect (oil companies,etc.) can therefore muddy the water and claim we know nothing. That is not true.
People with a job to protect (scientists) can focus their findings on their agenda. We have emails that prove they have done it.
The fundamental atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases are as simple as gravity and have been known for 100 years. CO2 limits long wave radiation from the earth back to space. That is precisely why nighttime and winter temperatures are rising around the globe, but especially at the poles. Exactly as predicted.
Quote:
Now, think for a minute, who has more money to spend shaping the discussion on this complex topic. Exxon Mobil and friends or a bunch of scientists? Who has the resources to fund hundreds of lobbyists and other shapers of opinion?
I suspect that the billions of dollars being spent by the tax payers on AGW research far exceeds the amounts spent by oil companies.
Quote:
On a final note I will say, I have been asked to speak on global warming several times. I've never received a dime for doing it. I resisted for some time, because I wanted to study it. I agree with those who say that there is no "normal" climate. Climate has varied tremendously before humans came around. However, what we are doing to our planet strikes me as very foolish and dangerous. My opinions on the topic are the result of nearly decade of study, I have no agenda, and I can assure you the peer reviewed papers I have read are not all hoaxes.
That info is useless.
Projecting events in the future is not science. It's forecasting. Predicting the future is at best an educated guess and experts in any subject will disagree.
There is violent disagreement among experts about many topics. Very intelligent people who make a career out of economics have opinions about what we should do that are exactly opposite. The same is true with medicine and many other areas. it's not that one group is smarter than the other. It's that these areas cannot be proven and therefore the experts will come to different conclusions.
Good for you, now he can buy a carbon credit and won't feel bad heating one of the 20 bathrooms in either of his two mansions for the winter.
sure sounds like "CLASS ENVY" to me. You feel that those with wealth should not enjoy their wealth?
From what I have read, Gore uses his home for his business' offices. Most recent former presidents and VP'S have such offices, Clinton in Harlem, carter in plains and Americus. Are you counting both of bushs' or cheney's bathrooms, too? You got a bathroom fetish?
Or you just have a hardion for gore becuz you don't agree with his agenda?
I am sure there were experts that were certsin the Titanic was not going to sink, but they were proven wrong. Those that believe the wrong experts, the wrong path, were doomed. With global warming the deniers are asking the rest of us to ignore the danger. We are saying we all need to get in the lifeboats, if we are wrong, what is lost? A cleaner atmosphere? Is that bad? Oh horror, we might spend more money. Wait, doesn't spending more increase the volosity of money and raise gdp? How is either bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
No, it's not hard to fake and it's been done many times. There have been many instances of errors and deceit among the AGW crowd.
I agree. That's why we should put our energy and resources behind environmental pollution controls.
People with a job to protect (scientists) can focus their findings on their agenda. We have emails that prove they have done it.
The fundamental atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases are as simple as gravity and have been known for 100 years. CO2 limits long wave radiation from the earth back to space. That is precisely why nighttime and winter temperatures are rising around the globe, but especially at the poles. Exactly as predicted.
I suspect that the billions of dollars being spent by the tax payers on AGW research far exceeds the amounts spent by oil companies.
That info is useless.
Projecting events in the future is not science. It's forecasting. Predicting the future is at best an educated guess and experts in any subject will disagree.
There is violent disagreement among experts about many topics. Very intelligent people who make a career out of economics have opinions about what we should do that are exactly opposite. The same is true with medicine and many other areas. it's not that one group is smarter than the other. It's that these areas cannot be proven and therefore the experts will come to different conclusions.
No, it's not hard to fake and it's been done many times. There have been many instances of errors and deceit among the AGW crowd.
I agree. That's why we should put our energy and resources behind environmental pollution controls.
People with a job to protect (scientists) can focus their findings on their agenda. We have emails that prove they have done it.
The fundamental atmospheric physics of greenhouse gases are as simple as gravity and have been known for 100 years. CO2 limits long wave radiation from the earth back to space. That is precisely why nighttime and winter temperatures are rising around the globe, but especially at the poles. Exactly as predicted.
I suspect that the billions of dollars being spent by the tax payers on AGW research far exceeds the amounts spent by oil companies.
That info is useless.
Projecting events in the future is not science. It's forecasting. Predicting the future is at best an educated guess and experts in any subject will disagree.
There is violent disagreement among experts about many topics. Very intelligent people who make a career out of economics have opinions about what we should do that are exactly opposite. The same is true with medicine and many other areas. it's not that one group is smarter than the other. It's that these areas cannot be proven and therefore the experts will come to different conclusions.
The big assumption you make, which is inaccurate, is that most researchers are in on the take for global warming research. A very small percentage are. There is a reason why scientists have to publish in peer reviewed journals. It is to minimize "prostitution" for specific funders. Not to say that bad work does not sneak through, nor that some bad ideas get spread around (as the article NEI posted suggested). But overall, the system is about finding the truth about the world. And that system generally works. I simply cannot claim that all of western science is a scam. Imperfect, sure, but a bunch of deceitful, self-serving scoundrels? Hardly.
I am sure there were experts that were certsin the Titanic was not going to sink, but they were proven wrong. Those that believe the wrong experts, the wrong path, were doomed. With global warming the deniers are asking the rest of us to ignore the danger. We are saying we all need to get in the lifeboats, if we are wrong, what is lost? A cleaner atmosphere? Is that bad? Oh horror, we might spend more money. Wait, doesn't spending more increase the volosity of money and raise gdp? How is either bad.
Yes, it is that bad for two reasons. 1) Spending trillions of dollars on AGW will lower the world's standard of living, and 2) Environmental resources, money and attention are not unlimited. AGW spending diverts attention from real environmental problems so that we will end up with a more polluted environment not a cleaner one.
And reducing carbon does not result in a cleaner environment.
The big assumption you make, which is inaccurate, is that most researchers are in on the take for global warming research. A very small percentage are. There is a reason why scientists have to publish in peer reviewed journals. It is to minimize "prostitution" for specific funders. Not to say that bad work does not sneak through, nor that some bad ideas get spread around (as the article NEI posted suggested). But overall, the system is about finding the truth about the world. And that system generally works. I simply cannot claim that all of western science is a scam. Imperfect, sure, but a bunch of deceitful, self-serving scoundrels? Hardly.
Actually my big assumption is that experts disagree because the future cannot be proven.... it's all speculation. Forget the dishonest ones for a moment. The fact is that many very smart experts just disagree on AGW just like they do on lots of other topics. So even if 100% of the AGW supporters were totally honest and had no agenda, they would be at odds with hundreds or thousands of other very smart experts who are equally credible.
And then there is the concept of "confirmation bias" which I am convinced has pervaded the whole AGW arena. See below and in particular the sentences at the end.
"What sustains pseudoscience is confirmation bias. We look for and welcome the evidence that fits our pet theory; we ignore or question the evidence that contradicts it. We all do this all the time. It’s not, as we often assume, something that only our opponents indulge in. I do it, you do it, it takes a superhuman effort not to do it. That is what keeps myths alive, sustains conspiracy theories and keeps whole populations in thrall to strange superstitions. Bertrand Russell* pointed this out many years ago: “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” Lesson no 5: keep a sharp eye out for confirmation bias in yourself and others. There have been some very good books on this recently. Michael Shermer’s “ The Believing Brain”, Dan Gardner’s “Future Babble” and Tim Harford’s “ Adapt”* are explorations of the power of confirmation bias. And what I find most unsettling of all is Gardner’s conclusion that knowledge is no defence against it; indeed, the more you know, the more you fall for confirmation bias. Expertise gives you the tools to seek out the confirmations you need to buttress your beliefs."- Bishop Hill blog - Scientific*heresy
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
