Global Warming: In Practical Terms

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Admittedly, TNO is the only advocate in the forum at this; so I suppose this thread is mostly for him/her/it.

The debate about the scope of AGW is a debate that can go around for some time with no real headway by either side. So perhaps it should be more reasonable to talk in practical terms.

What exactly should be DONE with AGW and how extensively based on the natuer of the debate.

Ultimately this means laws, economic policy, industrial regulation. How far, how deep and for how long in what directions?

[The Night Owl]

Admittedly, TNO is the only advocate in the forum at this; so I suppose this thread is mostly for him/her/it.

The debate about the scope of AGW is a debate that can go around for some time with no real headway by either side. So perhaps it should be more reasonable to talk in practical terms.

What exactly should be DONE with AGW and how extensively based on the natuer of the debate.

Ultimately this means laws, economic policy, industrial regulation. How far, how deep and for how long in what directions?

Because the science on what, if anything, can be done about global warming is new and highy speculative, I don't know if I know enough about the topic to comment on it, but I'll try...

I get the sense that some here expect me to follow some sort of script which involves me extoling the virtues of the Kyoto Protocols, but to be honest, I just don't feel comfortable doing that. I have serious questions and reservations about the Kyoto Protocols. I think that what governments need to do right now is increase funding for research on what, if anything, can be done to slow or halt global warming and on what might happen if we allow global warming to continue. What governments should not do is sit idly by waiting for some sort of great debunking of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Once scientists have a reasonably good idea about what can be done to slow or halt global warming, governments must be willing to act on recommendations by scientists. Look at it this way... If doctors were to tell you that your eating habits are putting your life at risk, would you change your eating habits or would you gamble on the doctors being wrong?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Not necessarily Kyoto. Heaven knows plenty of "ideas" have been floated; some scarier than others.

My main point is: if we are uncertain to the point of indeciveness, why bother fighting?

If some have decided on what eneds to be done are their proposals worth it?

[The Night Owl]

Not necessarily Kyoto. Heaven knows plenty of "ideas" have been floated; some scarier than others.

My main point is: if we are uncertain to the point of indeciveness, why bother fighting?

If some have decided on what eneds to be done are their proposals worth it?

If we are uncertain about the effects of climate change on mankind, then we should strive to learn more. I have a lot of confidence in science and I believe that if there is a way to slow or stop gobal warming, scientists will find it.

[djones520]

Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done.  Not how to stop it.

We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.

Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.

And personally I don't think we can do anything.  If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?

That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If we are uncertain about the effects of climate change on mankind, then we should strive to learn more. I have a lot of confidence in science and I believe that if there is a way to slow or stop gobal warming, scientists will find it.

Can we stop it? Should we even try?

I'm not saying I want dirty water and smoggy air but as there is so much uncertainty about AGW it seems the empirical thing to do is to ascertain more definitively how much AGW is a factor.

This is my only position and I think it is a fair position considering how much the AGW camp wants to impose regulations and sanctions on people and their livelihoods.

[The Night Owl]

Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done.  Not how to stop it.

We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.

Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1? 

And personally I don't think we can do anything.  If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?

That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.

Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.

[Rebel]

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1? 

Do the 9 mean you need surgery? Or is it just their consensus? Suppose they're general practitioners but you need one that specializes in Endoscopy?

Consensus is NO way to base science. It's too prone to agenda.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1? 

What if they're phrenologists?

BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?

[Chris_]

Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done.  Not how to stop it.

We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.

Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1? 

And personally I don't think we can do anything.  If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?

That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.

Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.

Numbers means nothing. It all depends on the doctors.  And what if it radical surgery like a limb amputation?   Let me extend your analogy.  What if you knew the doctors who recommended the surgery KNEW they would get full-fare fees for the operation and the one doctor had no such personal interest?

Before you say that isn't a real world example, I suggest you research the huge increase in C-section births that are done now, NOT out of medical necessity but to financially protect the doctors from lawsuits.

[Chris_]

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?

What if they're phrenologists?

BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?

We have a problem there -- anyone can call themselves a "Climatologist."  It is like "Futurist."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1?

What if they're phrenologists?

BTW - do 9 out fo 10 climatologists affirm AGW?

We have a problem there -- anyone can call themselves a "Climatologist."  It is like "Futurist."

I dunno. I'm sure there are empirical methodologies.

I'm sure if you sawed algore in half you could examine his ruings for carbon deposit thickness.

I would certainly be willing to try in the name of global balance.

[djones520]

Research on HOW global warming is occuring needs to be done.  Not how to stop it.

We need irrevocable proof that humanity is the cause of it, before we "attempt" to do anything about it.

Once it is proven that humanity is the primary cause of this warming trend, then and only then should we take any steps at all to mitigate what we've done.

If 9 out of 10 doctors, all equally qualified, tell you that you need surgery, would you go with the opinion of the 9 or the opinion of the 1? 

And personally I don't think we can do anything.  If we cannot do anything to change the path of a hurricane, or cause a severe thunderstorm to prematurely collapse, then how are we expected to change the global juggernaught that is our climate?

That is also why I don't believe we have had any effect on the climate.

Weather and climate are related but are not the same thing.

I'm a Meteorologist, I'm sure I understand the relationship between Climate and Weather more then you do.  As a result, I'm also sure I have a better grasp of what the "global climate" actually is then you do.

Let me ask you something.  If 9 of those 10 doctors had just graduated school, and where still in their internship, all at the same time having their pockets lined by organizations who stand to gain something from that surgery, would you still trust them?

When I reference the internship, I'm not saying that the "scientists" who support the man-made theory are inexperienced, I'm using it in the reference that we just honestly don't know what the hell is going on.

The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine.  Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is.  We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century?  I'm sorry, but thats a ****ing joke.

In my professional opinion, I think any impact that mankind has had on the atmosphere, has been nothing more then a pin prick on the skin that it probably hasn't even noticed yet.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'll bite, what the Hell does the "A" stand for?

And as I have said elsewhere, IF the popular theory of global warming (or "Global Climate Change" when the weather is behaving badly for demonstrating 'Warming'), it means there is an accumulated load of gases in the atmosphere that would continue to escalate change even if we stopped cold on producing the gases.  Yes, that's right, we could bring all industry worldwide to a screeching halt and it would take decades to make any difference, and centuries to actually reverse, and treating human industrial emissions as the exclusive problem even at that...it's like trying to stop a mile-long high-speed freight train in six feet, or slalom race a cruise ship through a line of bouys that are only a bit over its own length apart at 20 knots.  The inertia of the system is an implacable and unbeatable enemy of such thinking, it can't actually work!  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

A = anthropogenic

[Rebel]

I'm a Meteorologist,

I forgot about that. Dude, you SO have a job when you ETS or retire..if you continue on with your studies.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/about/personalities/weatherbios/877022.html

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....




Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.

[djones520]

I'm a Meteorologist,

I forgot about that. Dude, you SO have a job when you ETS or retire..if you continue on with your studies.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/about/personalities/weatherbios/877022.html

I'm shooting for a degree in Broadcast Meteorology myself.  I hope to finish it up during my next tour.  I figure with that, and 20 years forecasting experience in the Air Force, I'll have no problem landing a job.

[The Night Owl]

I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....

As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948. 

Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.

That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.

[The Night Owl]

I'm shooting for a degree in Broadcast Meteorology myself.  I hope to finish it up during my next tour.  I figure with that, and 20 years forecasting experience in the Air Force, I'll have no problem landing a job.

How cool! Good luck to you.

[Chris_]

I say it this way... wanna get rid of global warming? Get rid of this....

As I pointed out in another thread, the sun has been ruled out as the primary culprit behind climate change. Solar irradiance has been more or less constant since 1948. 

Even Venus and Mars has global warming going on now.... anybody that buys into this "man made global warming" bullshit is either a liar or a sucker.

That planets go through natural warming cycles is not disputed by scientists. What scientists believe is going on now is either a natural warming cycle being significantly augmented by human activity or a warming cycle being caused mostly by human activity and augmented by natural factors.

So how many humans are on Mars and Venus...causing those "warming cycles"?  

[The Night Owl]

So how many humans are on Mars and Venus...causing those "warming cycles"?  

A little bit about warming on Mars...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Global warming on Mars?
Filed under: FAQ Climate modelling Sun-earth connections Climate Science— group @ 11:21 AM - ()
Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.

Global warming on Mars?
Filed under: FAQ Climate modelling Sun-earth connections Climate Science— group @ 11:21 AM - ()
Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

...

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth…

...

The warming on Mars is, of course, natural, but it cannot be attributed to the sun. Some research suggests that dust storms are the cause of warming on Mars...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

[The Night Owl]

The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine.  Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is.  We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century?  I'm sorry, but thats a ******* joke.

We can predict with certainty that spring is coming and that it will be followed by summer, fall, and winter and that the cycle will repeat, can we not? As a scientist, you must know that climate, while difficult to predict, is much easier to predict than weather. The argument that difficulties in weather prediction apply to climate prediction doesn't work because climate is not as chaotic a system as weather.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The atmosphere if a ungodly huge engine.  Unless you where to honestly spend a long time studying it, I find it doubtful that you could truly grasp just how complex, and powerful it is.  We can't create models that can give you any serious accuracy more then 7 days out, yet we're supposed to trust models that map this entire engine for the next century?  I'm sorry, but thats a ******* joke.

We can predict with certainty that spring is coming and that it will be followed by summer, fall, and winter and that the cycle will repeat, can we not? As a scientist, you must know that climate, while difficult to predict, is much easier to predict than weather. The argument that difficulties in weather prediction apply to climate prediction doesn't work because climate is not as chaotic a system as weather.

Talk about false analogies.

You cannot say that AGW is as certain as the passing of seasons. At best climate change can be based on past history. As human industrialization is merely 100 of the last 10 million years your comparative database is miniscule and would barely suffice as a single anecdote in a larger statistical field.

[The Night Owl]

You cannot say that AGW is as certain as the passing of seasons. At best climate change can be based on past history. As human industrialization is merely 100 of the last 10 million years your comparative database is miniscule and would barely suffice as a single anecdote in a larger statistical field.

Borehole data provides a temperature record for the past 500 years...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/borehole/index.html

And, proxy data provides a temperature record for the past 1000 years...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Pretty interesting stuff.