Is It Really That Cold?

[assassin_696]

Can we please just ditch this whole climate change/global warming we-are-making-earth-explode debate? It is so complex that we're spending far too much money into this with no conclusion on the horizon and not enough at developing Hydrogen fuels and energy sources for when the oil runs out, which is the real problem. It is not helping anyone and will do us no good in the future. We will adapt to climate change, evolution has allowed us to survive thus far, and our technology will see us through. Get on with it.

 

But what if the "adaptaion" is the loss of thousands of human lives in freak weather events as the global climate becomes more unbalanced, thousands of species die out, and millions are displaced due to the changing global landscape with sea level rises etc. Taking a priveleged western view of how easy it is to 'adapt' doesn't help.

[Rebdragon]

Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.

[obfuscator]

Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.

I like climateaudit.org, but I wouldn't exactly call it unbaised - it definitely has a deniers slant.

[meol]

Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.

What's a good site for you? I'm on a scientific career, so I'm horribly biased towards scientists, and I'd say that the NASA and the NOAA would be good places to start with. Of course, they'd source the IPCC and side with them so you can't expect a neutral tone from them.

[Will H]

Can we please just ditch this whole climate change/global warming we-are-making-earth-explode debate? It is so complex that we're spending far too much money into this with no conclusion on the horizon and not enough at developing Hydrogen fuels and energy sources for when the oil runs out, which is the real problem. It is not helping anyone and will do us no good in the future. We will adapt to climate change, evolution has allowed us to survive thus far, and our technology will see us through. Get on with it.

 

But what if the "adaptaion" is the loss of thousands of human lives in freak weather events as the global climate becomes more unbalanced, thousands of species die out, and millions are displaced due to the changing global landscape with sea level rises etc. Taking a priveleged western view of how easy it is to 'adapt' doesn't help.

 

Neither is this endless and expensive debate and research. Far more people are going to be thrown into poverty stricken conditions, and global social unrest will kill many more when the oil runs out and we haven't set up a system to compensate in time than some freak weather which we can't do much about. We've wasted about 10 years debating this, I don't want to see us waste another decade.

[magekillr]

Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.

 

Why not actually read the scientific literature? And what is "unbiased?"

 

http://www.realclimate.org/

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

We've wasted about 10 years debating this, I don't want to see us waste another decade.

 

Me either. We need to act. Now.

 

And the millions/billions who will die is not something I want to have happen, especially when it will come from us being the ones who caused these imbalances. I don't know what's going to happen, no one does. I don't want to risk it. Especially with the oceans doing what they're doing. 10x faster than any time in 55 million years? Evolution can probably cope, but I don't know if humans can. Remember, there was a point in history where we as a species didn't make it. Subsequently, it was caused by a drastic change in climate.

 

And, generally, all economists are in agreement: a carbon tax is the best way to spur innovation. Even right-wing groups who don't want the government involved in markets at all. It's not comparable to cigarette taxes whatsoever. Yes, we in a sense have a carbon addiction, but taxes can be used to push the public in a certain direction; just look at bag fees/taxes in Europe. Plastic bag use has come down tremendously.

 

What's unfortunate is that even countries in Europe aren't doing enough, while the US continues to debate when the science was settled over a decade ago. China's just not that interested, but given their heavy investments into new technologies, they'll probably ween themselves off of coal/oil before we do. India is the same, although they've shown some interest in international agreements.

 

And then this damned blizzard isn't helping things. We have Senator Inhofe with his grandchildren making igloos in Washington DC, calling them Al Gore's new home. Idiots. What's ironic is that a blizzard is exactly what we'd expect when there's more moisture in the air due to a warming climate and it mixes with the cold air of winter.

 

one edit: I do not by any means advocate that "the world will end!" The scientific literature doesn't say this. I don't think humans will go extinct either, or anything close to it. Just want to point that out, because I think some people who wish to save a lot of lives use hyperbole to make their case. I don't want to be in the same camp. All I can say is, read the literature and the scientific papers.

[Alg]

Does anyone know of a site or news source that is unbiased and extensively explains the true science of climate change? I havn't had any luck, so I kind of fall into a state of not-caring since it seems like no one can be trusted for proper information.

I can say something similar because of how often vague mentions of science are used to get people to buy "green" products. That for me detracts from a lot of its credibility. Especially since the other side is the one selling fuel.

Fix that, then try to stop whatever changes may occur. Don't corrupt the science with consumerism.

[H2PM]

This is getting old...

Every winter, summer is "record breaking" and what not.

 

Seriously its getting old now.

[SeanyTheSailor]

All I have to say is.... it snowed in Texas. I'm sorry. I realize it's not the world but just consider that. IT SNOWED IN TEXAS.

 

Also though this contradicts my statement of "all I have to say". The news media did a wonderful job of covering up I think it was about 3000 documents and over 9000 emails from these climate change scientists in which they pretty much say, "We lied and there is little to no proof." Unfortunately I do not have a link for you but if you would reject it out of hand you wouldn't look anyway, if you are interested however I'm sure you'll be able to find something. In my current issues class at one point my teacher said that he read somewhere that Congress might want to take a look at these but never did. Also as a side note these came out due to someone hacking them.

[magekillr]

All I have to say is.... it snowed in Texas. I'm sorry. I realize it's not the world but just consider that. IT SNOWED IN TEXAS.

 

Also though this contradicts my statement of "all I have to say". The news media did a wonderful job of covering up I think it was about 3000 documents and over 9000 emails from these climate change scientists in which they pretty much say, "We lied and there is little to no proof." Unfortunately I do not have a link for you but if you would reject it out of hand you wouldn't look anyway, if you are interested however I'm sure you'll be able to find something. In my current issues class at one point my teacher said that he read somewhere that Congress might want to take a look at these but never did. Also as a side note these came out due to someone hacking them.

 

Obviously you didn't even read the emails yourself, and relied on fat mouths like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck yelling about them "making it up." The emails don't do anything to the climate science, but to an amateur skeptic, they do look revealing, don't they? Why not actually inspect what they mean?

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

 

There's one thing that bugged me about the emails, it's something that should be investigated, and that's if there was any fudged data in the paper. This is highly unethical, and if there was anything that was fudged, then the scientists should be reprimanded appropriately. No matter what the outcome, it doesn't really say anything about climate science in general.

 

However...

 

Did the media report this email from the list with a climate scientist yelling at an environmental group urging the scientists to sign their letter to enact a carbon tax, and in doing so would be signing a letter that misrepresented the science? Of course not, because that doesn't fit the media narrative:

 

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get

others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of

this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the

IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a

convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast

to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3

review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting

arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more

cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"

for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers

would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the

emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your

statement.

 

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a

dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is

apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,

balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not

be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In

issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their

personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others

when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their

scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

 

The email continues here: http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40

[michel555555]

As for how CO2 increases after temperature, this is because of Milankovitch cycles. First, the cycle brings us out of an ice age and warms the oceans, releasing CO2 which then amplifies the effect of warming. We know that CO2 causes warming - there is no debating that point.

 

No we don't. the majority of the data that is used to asume this point is from the fact that the earth heats up when co2 levels rise. The theory behind this is that greenhouse gasses trap the heat from the sun in the atmosphere preventing it from escaping. If this were the case then we would expect to see a increase in temperature in the atmosphere, I forget which level, and then over time see an increase in surface temperature. Any reliable data that should be used for determining if the eath is heating up because of greenhouse gasses would come from atmospheric readings, not surface data which is, from what I can find, is the the only data that the IPCC has been using in its reports.

 

And even then it is also proven that in higher co2 environments plant growth is stimulated, its the reason why alot of the comercial greenhouses pump co2 into the buildings, and an increase in plant life means a decrease in co2. If anything it would be comercial logging and other deforistation projects that would be the cause of global warming, not the fact that we are pumping co2 into the atmosphere, simply because volcanoes alone produce more co2 then most cities combined.

 

As for the urban heat island effect, don't you think thousands of scientists working on the same problem for decades would have figured this out by now? It's obviously not the only source to form the global temperature record. Take satellite data, for example.

 

Of course they would have thought of that. But because they have used data in their reports that has been proven to be unsound it sheds doubt onto any other data they might be collecting. Whether or not the data is correct is a moot point at the moment simply because they felt the need to use unsound data in their reports.

 

As for how prevelant CO2 is as a greenhouse gas, your argument doesn't really mean anything. Small changes don't necessarily mean small effects. In fact, scientists have never claimed that it's all about CO2. It's also about methane and deforestation, for example, which both contribute to warming. Water vapour is a constant (and clouds actually cool the planet by reflecting incoming radiation), but the balance of carbon-based pollution in the atmosphere has shifted dramatically since the start of modern industrialisation (current levels of CO2 are about 380ppm where as they were below 300 prior to the industrial revolution for hundreds of thousands of years). It's fairly clear from modelling that we're partly to blame for global warming.

 

It is true that the average co2 is up. However there have been points in history where co2 levels have skyrocketed because of volcanic eruptions. For instance if yellow stone were to sudenly erupt again it would far eclipse any co2 levels that humans could dream of producing. I agree with you that one of the reasons why we might be suffering from global warming is deforistation. However even if humanity were to stop producing any co2 but still keep logging the temperature would still go up because there are just so many natural producers of co2. A carbon tax or a complete switch to green alternatives would have no effect if we continue logging.

 

As for the head of the IPCC, you're really not helping your cause by making stupid points like this. The head of the IPCC doesn't write the reports - the expert scientists do. You really have to look at the reliability of the source of the information, and the majority of earth scientists with expertise in how the climate works clearly think that we're contributing to recent warming.

 

Yes but he is the one who is supposed to ensure that those reports are accurate. Having someone who has no clue as to if the reports are actually correct just helps to invalidate any legitimate arguments that might be in it. It would be like me trying to validate astro physics or any other similar material and saying that it must be correct because so and so told me it is.

 

As for your argument against a carbon tax, it's a fair point. I would have thought, however, in the long-term it's still an incentive (at least in part) for businesses to go green.

 

In the long term it would be. But first effective alternatives would need to be developed and in that time the world would suffer and nothing would actually change since there are no alternatives that would be comparable to gassoline and other fossile fuels even with a tax hike. If they would would have first developed effective alternatives and then added the tax it might work but now it is just going to be more suffering for alot of people.

[Zygimantas]

There have always been patterns of climate change throughout history, just look at the ice ages. It doesn't necessarily have to be global warming.

[Ouchy]

Hottest since 32 years? :-| [bleep], go back even further, past the Industrial Revolution, past all this Global Warming Phase, and there have been periods where it has been hotter. Besides, communities are actually better with hotter weather. We have more children, studies have shown.

[Zygimantas]

^ yep

 

I also think that we just want to be in control of everything natural nowadays. When something as important as the climate changes, we have to try and find reasons why its directly our fault and that we have control over it, when that might not be true.

[Nenga]

^ yep

 

I also think that we just want to be in control of everything natural nowadays. When something as important as the climate changes, we have to try and find reasons why its directly our fault and that we have control over it, when that might not be true.

That's because humans still like to believe the universe revolves around us. We have to have a purpose and have our hands in everything.

[SeanyTheSailor]

All I have to say is.... it snowed in Texas. I'm sorry. I realize it's not the world but just consider that. IT SNOWED IN TEXAS.

 

Also though this contradicts my statement of "all I have to say". The news media did a wonderful job of covering up I think it was about 3000 documents and over 9000 emails from these climate change scientists in which they pretty much say, "We lied and there is little to no proof." Unfortunately I do not have a link for you but if you would reject it out of hand you wouldn't look anyway, if you are interested however I'm sure you'll be able to find something. In my current issues class at one point my teacher said that he read somewhere that Congress might want to take a look at these but never did. Also as a side note these came out due to someone hacking them.

 

Obviously you didn't even read the emails yourself, and relied on fat mouths like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck yelling about them "making it up." The emails don't do anything to the climate science, but to an amateur skeptic, they do look revealing, don't they? Why not actually inspect what they mean?

 

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

 

There's one thing that bugged me about the emails, it's something that should be investigated, and that's if there was any fudged data in the paper. This is highly unethical, and if there was anything that was fudged, then the scientists should be reprimanded appropriately. No matter what the outcome, it doesn't really say anything about climate science in general.

 

However...

 

Did the media report this email from the list with a climate scientist yelling at an environmental group urging the scientists to sign their letter to enact a carbon tax, and in doing so would be signing a letter that misrepresented the science? Of course not, because that doesn't fit the media narrative:

 

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get

others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of

this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the

IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a

convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast

to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3

review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting

arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more

cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"

for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers

would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the

emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your

statement.

 

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a

dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is

apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,

balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not

be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In

issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their

personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others

when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their

scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

 

The email continues here: http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=40

I didn't read them myself because from what I heard there were over several thousand... so I highly doubt YOU read them all either. And you say if they fudged the numbers it doesn't affect the science.... If you are accused of a murder and you have clear cut evidence that says you didn't do it would you lie about said evidence? I'm willing to bet no, just why if they had evidence that proved climate change they wouldn't lie about it. And if I'm wrong about you reading all the emails please post theme her so i can draw my own conclusions form the big picture and not emails that someone hand picked.

 

P.S I don't have cable or satellite, so before you start yelling about me being a FOX slave just stop. And On the rare occasions I do listen to conservative talk radio they never mentioned this. I believe where I did hear it was Google news which I check just about every time I get online. And if you believe these should be investigated why weren't they? Also perhaps I got the wrong idea due to not having the major news networks but this was pretty "hushed up" I saw/ heard about it like three times, two of which I never would have without my current issues class.

[Zygimantas]

^ yep

 

I also think that we just want to be in control of everything natural nowadays. When something as important as the climate changes, we have to try and find reasons why its directly our fault and that we have control over it, when that might not be true.

That's because humans still like to believe the universe revolves around us. We have to have a purpose and have our hands in everything.

exactly.

[magekillr]

Here's why even though the future is uncertain, and the climate models can't predict what the temperature rise will be, the probability is 100% in favor of action:

 

"...there is a 10 percent chance that the average global temperature will rise more than 12.4 degrees by 2100, and a 3 percent chance it will climb more than 14.4 degrees."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21view.html

[magekillr]

And this is why a carbon tax WOULD work. Not only would these companies avoid the tax by going green, but they'd get a refund from the government for cleaning up their act. Some companies are doing it right now, and I think they'd do it even faster with that financial incentive:

 

In a joint NRN/Retail Systems Research poll, 66 percent of restaurateurs surveyed said they believed going green would make their products more appealing to consumer but nearly as many—63 percent—said they felt an ethical responsibility to improve their company’s sustainability as well. Another 63 percent hoped going green would boost the public’s perception of their company as being industry leaders. While 54 percent of those polled hoped they would see some sort of return on their green investment, nearly half—47 percent—said they didn’t know whether they would or even expect any such return.

 

http://www.grist.org/article/when-the-big-guys-want-to-do-the-right-thing/

 

Money talks.

[Assume Nothing]

I see solar energy and geothermal having huge potential. Vast, untapped energy from the sun exists, and alot of the time the energy is wasted, poured directly back into space.

 

If a simple 40 inch fresnel lens can boil a gallon of water, imagine what a power plant for solar energy could do. And these aren't even solar cells, it takes a stirling engine and some parabolic mirrors. The only downside is the fact that it completely stops when the sun isn't shining.

 

Perhaps use this untapped energy as a reserve?

 

I don't have time to make much more of a post now, I'll leave this here.

[Racheya]

I think that climate change or no climate change, there's nothing wrong with going greener. It IS an undeniable fact that our fossil fuels will run out someday, so the sooner we develop greener methods of generating energy the better. Also, what's wrong with trying to cut carbon emissions ect? Unless people like having a polluted atmosphere.

[tortilliachp]

I think that climate change or no climate change, there's nothing wrong with going greener. It IS an undeniable fact that our fossil fuels will run out someday, so the sooner we develop greener methods of generating energy the better. Also, what's wrong with trying to cut carbon emissions ect? Unless people like having a polluted atmosphere.

 

not only this, but we simply have no idea on the effects of our emissions are. If you can find scientists who argue otherwise, be very sceptical.

 

Honestly though, it's a vicious cycle, the more we emitt, the harder it is to restore previous balance IF we find our emissions can be damaging.

 

No-one would aprove a drug without its side-effects being known, heck cocaine was considered a good cough medicine. Wouldn't it be nice to do the research before the possibly globally changing effects are too late to stop?

 

That approach at least gives me a sense of having some control of what you're doing.

 

 

For the North American sceptics: Think of the energy security you could get if you go green.

Carbon tax works. Norway is an oil nation. our oil is basically free, cause we get it ourselves. Carbon taxes make gas prices here $8,26 per gallon. We drive less than a quarter of the average American.

 

If that money was designated, by law, to development of new technology for energy security and self-sufficiency, Both Canada and the US would be safer, more secure and locally more healthy to live. It would provide long-term jobs, and less uneccessary spending / consumption. That is healthy for the economy as well.

 

What reasons are there for not going green, if it's done properly?

[Alg]

From Obama's state of the union, something along the lines of "We must be the first to invent green technologies so that we can have a huge advantage when it comes to the global economy". Heavily paraphrased, but I assume I got the meaning right at least...

See, something even the right can agree with. Green tech for people = green wallets for its investors

[Giordano]

And do you all expect Mobile-Exxon, Shell, and the other oil companies to go bankrupt after oil runs out? They're not being runned by idiots you know. Once oil runs out, WOOSH, Chevron magically has hydro-powar!!!

[tortilliachp]

And do you all expect Mobile-Exxon, Shell, and the other oil companies to go bankrupt after oil runs out? They're not being runned by idiots you know. Once oil runs out, WOOSH, Chevron magically has hydro-powar!!!

That's so long in the future they don't have to try exploring other technology. Rather, they oil-lobby to ensure no no technology emerges in the next 50 years, when there's still guaranteed more oil. who knows what happens after that, as it all depends on how population growth continues, and consumption / fuel efficiency rates.