Trent Jones Jr. on Global Warming

[Jeff_Brauer]

Never in a million years of evolution, did I think that this group would object to a pot shot at RTJ Jr!

Jeff,

You are so out of touch sometimes!  

RTJ Jr (GOOD)
Rees   (BAD)

Next time make it about Rees and Global Warming and you'll likely pass by unscathed.  

MPC,

As that noted philosphere Gomer Pyle says, "Shazamm" (sp?)

Only problem is, in a million years of evolution, Rees would never say such a thing, only Bobby!

Matt,

Yes, it is about interpretation.  If we stuck to known facts on this board there wouldn't be nearly as many posts or topics.  Why start confining ourselves now?  I think I know a few facts about gca, but am regularly shouted down here.  So why should scientists be any different?  Frankly, I am relieved to see the barrel of the gun pointed at someone else in this thread!

And, no real harm is done. I mean, its the internet, who reads these opinions anyway?

[Dan Kelly]

As that noted philosphere Gomer Pyle says, "Shazamm" (sp?)

Jeff -- I'm surprised at you!

That's SHAZAM! From the Captain Marvel comics: an acronym, explained as follows at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shazam_%28comics%29:

When Billy [Batson] first meets him, Shazam tells Billy that his name is an acronym for the six gods and mythological figures who empower him with certain attributes:

        * The wisdom of Solomon;
        * The strength of Hercules;
        * The stamina of Atlas;
        * The power of Zeus;
        * The courage of Achilles; and
        * The speed of Mercury.

For much, much more about Captain Marvel, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Marvel_(DC_Comics)

[Matt Kardash]

jeff,
You can't threaten anyone with the barrel of a gun if your gun is empty. If you know nothing, or next to little on the subject, you can't trully engage in a dialogue. Then you become just like my father, blindly shouting his OPINIONS and making people beleive they are facts.

Kalen,
Actually, there are VERY few scientists who do not beleive global warming is human related. VERY FEW. It's just that they get the media attention because they have a view which is counter-current.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Actually, there are VERY few scientists who do not beleive global warming is human related. VERY FEW. It's just that they get the media attention because they have a view which is counter-current.

You really drove the point home on that last post.  Its a belief among scientists, and nothing more.

There were also very few scientists or otherwise of Chris Columbus day who thought the earth not to be flat.  And I'm sure if we went back just 30-40 years ago we would find most scientists thought we were headed towards another ice age.  

[Bill Shamleffer]

Kalen,
Actually, there are VERY few scientists who do not beleive global warming is human related. VERY FEW. It's just that they get the media attention because they have a view which is counter-current.

You really drove the point home on that last post.  Its a belief among scientists, and nothing more.

There were also very few scientists or otherwise of Chris Columbus day who thought the earth not to be flat.  And I'm sure if we went back just 30-40 years ago we would find most scientists thought we were headed towards another ice age.  

Actually, there were likely NO scientist around the time of Columbus who did not realize the world was round, and there had not been many thinking it was flat for quite a few centuries.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,
Actually, there are VERY few scientists who do not beleive global warming is human related. VERY FEW. It's just that they get the media attention because they have a view which is counter-current.

You really drove the point home on that last post.  Its a belief among scientists, and nothing more.

There were also very few scientists or otherwise of Chris Columbus day who thought the earth not to be flat.  And I'm sure if we went back just 30-40 years ago we would find most scientists thought we were headed towards another ice age.  

Actually, there were likely NO scientist around the time of Columbus who did not realize the world was round, and there had not been many thinking it was flat for quite a few centuries.

Fair enough about the Chris Columbus assertion, I just got schooled by wikepedia. But it doesn't change the fact that at one point this was indeed the common belief.  

And for the record, I'm never wrong, just factually challenged from time to time.  

[Matt Kardash]

Kalen got the shaft  

Sure, there is no 100% definitive proof. Mind you, relativity or gravity cannot be proven either, they just can't be disproven yet. I'm just saying the science and the evidence suggests anthropogenic climate change. At least there is science backing up what i'm saying. Disagreeing is fine, and is a healthy part of science. But disagreeing just for the sake of it, without much evidence, is just kinda silly.

[astavrides]

stavros,

That's what I'm hoping to hear, no matter how remote the possibility of it actually happening in reality.  (i.e. everyone switching to a vegan diet)

As a self-professed agnostic moderate (people who claim to know all the answers on both sides scare the heck out of me), one of the frustrating things I find with the Democrats being the loyal opposition has been their amazingly eloquent ability to criticize and their utter mute inability to offer any meaningful ideas of their own.

While Bush has been an unmitigated disaster, I struggle with the idea that Gore or Kerry would have been a marked improvement.  

Here's a link to another solution.  No mention of veganism.  More than one way to skin a cat.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=47208

[ForkaB]

Kalen got the shaft  

Sure, there is no 100% definitive proof. Mind you, relativity or gravity cannot be proven either, they just can't be disproven yet. I'm just saying the science and the evidence suggests anthropogenic climate change. At least there is science backing up what i'm saying. Disagreeing is fine, and is a healthy part of science. But disagreeing just for the sake of it, without much evidence, is just kinda silly.

Matt

Could you please refer those of us who are still agnostic to some scientific article which supports you point of view?  I've looked often for one and can't find it.

Thanks

Rich

PS--post hoc, propter hoc arguments just will not do.

[Matt Kardash]

You have to be kidding me? There are like a billion scientific papers and textbooks on the subject. Granted, many scientific papers online aren't for public viewing. Through my university I have access to quite a few, however. You just gotta look a little harder. Search for "anthropogenic climate change" in google.

The begining of this paper has some basic info on the subject
http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/IB89005.pdf

Kalen got the shaft  

Sure, there is no 100% definitive proof. Mind you, relativity or gravity cannot be proven either, they just can't be disproven yet. I'm just saying the science and the evidence suggests anthropogenic climate change. At least there is science backing up what i'm saying. Disagreeing is fine, and is a healthy part of science. But disagreeing just for the sake of it, without much evidence, is just kinda silly.

Matt

Could you please refer those of us who are still agnostic to some scientific article which supports you point of view?  I've looked often for one and can't find it.

Thanks

Rich

PS--post hoc, propter hoc arguments just will not do.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Matt

I'll look at it and get back to you.

Rich

[Jason Topp]

I'm not a scientist but I have a hard time thinking that both the US EPA and the intergovernmental body that is putting out its report in a week are trying to pull a fast one:



From the US EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html



Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.


What's Likely?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" (IPCC, 2001). In short, a number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

What's Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms.

[Kalen Braley]

I found this tidbit interesting:

"The group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [9]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. By a 39% to 33% margin, more climatologists agreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period" [10] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified."

[John Kirk]

Here is part of the mission statement of Citizens For A Sound Economy, aka FreedomWorks:

"FreedomWorks drives policy change by training and mobilizing grassroots Americans to engage their fellow citizens and encourage their political representatives to act in defense of individual freedom and economic opportunity."

Could you possibly pick a worse example?   I guess you get your science news from an organization that lobbies Washington for absolute freedom in pursuing economic development.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't see how this changes the result of the poll.

Are you suggesting they fudged the results and just made the numbers up?

[Matt Kardash]

kalen,
It's not the numbers that are fudged, it's the way the questions are asked and who they are asked to. "39% of scientists agree that we are headed towards another ice age." I think that was the line that totally made me laugh. No shit we are headed towards another ice age. There is a 100% chance we are headed towards another ice age and there is nothing we can do about it. Ice ages are not human related. They are related to the earth's milankovich cycles such as tilt, and orbit around the sun. Ice ages occur about ever 100000 years. It's just how the earth works.
So the numbers probably aren't fudged, but the questions are asked in a way that is deceiving.

This is the problem with the world. Someone finds one poll or article that sides with them and they think they are right. I'm sure I could find a poll that tells me that oxygen is dangerous to human health. Or better yet, i'm sure I could create such a poll and prove it.

[John Kirk]

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and if you can actually find the results of the same study elsewhere, I'll bet they are directly tied to some organization with a clear bias and motivation.  At a minimum they are cherry picking either subjects or responses to get the answer they desire.

What do you think the science community's motivation is?  Do you think they want to discourage economic growth?  Why would they do that?  They'll get hurt by economic problems just like everybody else.  Do you think the science community is just trying to stick it to the Republicans, because the current administration has been stifling important research into global warming and stem cell research?

A few men, like the previously mentioned Jim Hansen, may win Nobel Prizes for their efforts, but the majority will continue to toil in anonymity, receiving modest compensation when compared to many professions.  They're just trying to warn the world, and up until last Tuesday, our president and his administration were stifling their efforts to doing so.

Guys, it's so simple.  Adding carbon dioxide to the air traps additional heat inside the atmosphere.  We burn gas.  It releases more carbon dioxide into the air, creating an imbalance.  More heat is trapped.  Glaciers fall into the sea.  It gets hotter.  What is so hard about understanding this?

[John Kirk]

Actually, now that I read Matt's response, and re-read the poll results, I agree with his analysis.

[Matt Kardash]

Well said John.

Science is about the pursuit of truth and knowledge. There is nothing political about it. As a matter of fact, if you look back through history it is always the political people who are trying to surpress what the scientists are saying. Did Newton have anything to gain from his discovery of gravity? No, not really. He just wanted to understand why an apple fell from a tree  

[ForkaB]

Matt, I have read the report you referenced as well as the one Mark B. mentioned.  Both say that the climate is warming and both say that anthropogenic forces have contriubted to this.  Neither, however, is at all absolute in stating that man is causing all, or even a signfiicant majority of the changes we have seen in recent years.  This is proper, as they rightly pepper all their phrases with qualifiers like, "may", "possibly" "evidence to date" etc.

They know, as should you, that the science relating to global temperature models is in it's infancy and is full of assumptions, dodgy data and guesstimates as to how all the data fit together.  I've done complex forecasts, and I know this.

30 years ago climatologists were warning of global cooling, and given that global temperatures declined in the 1950-1975 period, this was understandable.  More recently, many climatologists were predicting another disastrous hurricane season in 2006.  As more and better data come in, some important assumptions are being corroborated and some are being seriously questioned.  This is what does and should happen when any new theory based on patchwork data and largely untested models is put under the microscope, as is were.....

I would hope that you are looking at all the data, including that which might be, shall we say, inconvenient to your current point of view.

Rich

PS--Mark B.  It is "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc," but you probably knew that..........

[Matt Kardash]

Rich,
This entire time I have said that no one can say with 100% certainty that climate change is anthropogenic. I think I said that in just about every post. I'm just saying that the data is showing strong evidence. And the evidence is kinda disturbing. We owe the planet a little more than treating it like our garbage can.

[ForkaB]

Mark

You are doing this because you like it!  That's me chanelling Jeremy Bentham.

I published a paper on the future environment in Scotland about 8 years ago, and acknowledged that the Dornoch Firth will be one of the first places to flood if some of the more drastic predictions of sea level rise takes place.  By then, however, I'll be more likely looking upward at the ocean from my grave on the 16th tee than wearing shorts and golfing my ball on the revised course up on the raised beach.

The fact that I am sceptical of global warming science does not mean that I think that we should bury our head in the sand, nor that we should ignore the related (but peripheral to the science) issues such as energy independence (not that it will ever come unless we succeed in subjugating the entire middle east....), pollution control, and feeling warm and fuzzy about being proactive.

Yes, there might be some exponential processes going on, but I'm very doubtful about that.  I'm old enough to remember the famous bet that Julian Simon made c. 1970 with Paul Ehrlich regarding future availability and price of "scarce" commodities.  Markets and other complex systems tend to regulate themselves.  I'm not yet convinced that the global climate is any different.  There is evidence coming out which blows holes in the models of Hansen and others.  Before jumping on any bandwagon we should make sure that it is truly roadworthy.  No.........?

Of course, I may be wrong, but what if I am?  Has anybody yet come up with any practical program for reversing anthropogenic contributions to climate change (please do not say "Kyoto....")?  Is there any model which tells us even if the most drastic proposals will in fact work, and if so, how?  Might the "best" solution not be to go with the flow and plan accordingly?  Accept that Dornoch and London might be under a few feet of water, but that ther ewill probably be other areas on the globe which will benefit from higher temperatures and sea water levels?

Rich

PS--I'll bet that in 10 years time we'll be swimming in Cod again.

[ForkaB]

Rich,
This entire time I have said that no one can say with 100% certainty that climate change is anthropogenic. I think I said that in just about every post. I'm just saying that the data is showing strong evidence. And the evidence is kinda disturbing. We owe the planet a little more than treating it like our garbage can.

Matt

I agree with everything you say except the words "strong evidence."  Even the sources you and Mark cite don't go that far.  Evidence--yes, strong--possibly.

Rich

Rich

[David Sucher]

1. I found Trent Jones'  description -- the center of gravity for new course development was shifting North, with many new courses being constructed in Norway and Sweden among other Northern locales. -- to be a striking one and apt to get the attention of many people, which is good.

2. Even if climate change is not entirely due to human activity, aren't skeptics just a bit concerned that we should figure out what to do? I can see great disagreement about what to do and/or when. But to toss off climate change as "Don't worry, it's natural."  makes me wonder if such folks, when faced with a hurricane, would refuse to put plywood over the windows of their house because "It's natural." The fact that climate change is "natural" seems to me to be no cause for inactivity.

[RJ_Daley]

The thing that really frosts my cookie is the notion that no matter how smart we are - or are forced to become - in order to survive this whole global climate change as an anthropogenic consequence, some already overdue 'effing' vulcano is going to blow, some unnoticed astroid is sliding our way, or Lou Duran will become a socialist.    And then what?  We are a blip on the time chart of life on earth.

see time line on:  http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/Geologictime.html

I say, do the right thing, make everyone as comfortable as possible, preserve what we got as long as we can via smart earth stewartship, play more golf, and hold hands waiting for the really big one... it is out there!