Skip to main content

View Diary: Global Warming Science Developments (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  don't eat billy goats (none)
    It's not a troll.  Honest.

    Quite pleased to meet you all I'm sure.

    The global warming scientists publish the models with the most adverse results.  Actual warming is less than predicted by those models.  Gov't funding rewards researchers whose results scream 'gov't must do something'.
    smoke that.

    Undrinkable water is a solvable problem that we know exists.  People are dying today from this problem.  It could be solved for far less than the cost of the Kyoto accords.  IF global warming exists, is it solvable?  The only honest answer to that is WE DON'T KNOW.  

    I am trying to question the rationality of embarking on the world's largest spending program in an attempt to solve a problem that a) may not exist and b) may not be solvable.

    If that's a troll, I prefer cabrito.

    "Dig within; there lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow" Marcus Aurelius

    by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 04:53:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Billy goats gruff (none)
      I agree that drinking water is a big problem...and will become bigger as time goes on. You know what will make it even worse? Flooding of coastal areas by rising sea levels due to global warming. These are not mutually exclusive issues.

      Scientists are not publishing the most dramatic models. Not at all. The media may report on those that either show the most adverse effects or no effects, but scientists aren't in that business. That would not be science. My wife in is the field we are talking about. If she were into blogging, she'd be covering this. The models show varied effects. The current warming trend closely fits the majority of models and this is made more robust by the reassessment of sattelite data that I report in the diary. Models are made not to give a certain result. They are made to reflect reality as much as possible. THey all make assumptions in order to estimate variables that are not directly calculable. That makes all of them deviate from reality. But they are not only reporting the most adverse effects. They are reporting whatever their models show.

      THe majority of evidence shows a clear warming trend. Hardly anyone disputes that. Only a small minority of scientists dispute that this is caused by us. The exact effects are still debated because the models do not completely agree. For example, the shutting down of the North Atlantic current is predicted by only some models, not all. If it happened, there would indeed be a paradoxical cooling in those areas currently warmed by that current. Will that happen? Don't know. It is one of the more dramatic adverse effects and different models predict different things regarding it.

      Most effects that are predicted by models are already happening. The receeding of glaciers worldwide, the break up of Antarctic ice sheets, the spread of tropical diseases northward, increased storminess in certain areas, etc. etc. etc. Most things predicted by most models have already started happening. This shows the models to be on the right track. They predicted it years ago...and they are happening. We can't ignore that.

      To say that global warming may not happen is to ignore the fact that it IS happening right here and right now. You are standing in the eye of a hurricane and claiming that the hurricane may not exist. But the hurricane is there. We don't know what it will do to us, but we do have predictions and so far those predictions have been pretty accurate.

      Don't know where you get your info from, but I get mine from the Union of Concerned Scientists (which is a lobbt group, so grain of salt), my wife (who is in the field studying actual sattelite data and working with models), and articles in Science and Nature (the two most respected scientific journals in the world). I am a scientist myself (not atmospheric sciences, though) so I understand how to read and interpret scientific data. Those are my credentials for saying what I am saying in this diary. What, other than apparant oil industry research that you cite, are you basing your claims on?

      Delenda est Sinclair!

      by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:12:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  baaaaa (none)
        I didn't cite the article as proof.  Your original post said, paraphrasing now, 'all right thinking people agree'.  I just googled the topic and found a group of scientists who disagreed who were holding a meeting on that exact day.  I was just pointing out that not everyone agrees.

        Temperatures rise and fall, no?
        Temperatures have risen and fallen more and faster than they have over the last decade/century (take you pick), no?

        Coincidence is not causation.  I'm not a scientist, but when I played one on TV they drilled that into my head.

        Your lobbyists, the union of concerned scientists, are objective, says you.  Scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming are not objective seems to be your claim.  Golly, I guess you won that round....

        Whaddya think of former global warming doom & gloomer Bjørn Lomborg?

        "Dig within; there lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow" Marcus Aurelius

        by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:23:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well now... (none)
          Now you are being misleading.

          First, no, I did not say "all right thinking people," I said "90% of of atmospheric scientists." There is a difference.

          Second, I did not call the UCS as completely objective. In fact I said "grain of salt." But I did call the 90% of atmospheric scientists and the scientific journals Nature and Science objective. The UCS statement I state refers to published work from actual peer reviewed data.

          In human history, there has never been as abrupt and sharp a warming as we are seeing now. Outside of our history, yes there have. But we have no evidence that our civilizations can survive climate change on this scale at this rate. In fact we have evidence (Jared Diamond has covered this in several articles and in his new book,as has Brian Fagen in his books) that slower and less dramatic climate changes have contributed to the collapse of many, if not most, human civilizations.

          The chemistry of CO2 effect on heat retention is pretty well known. We KNOW that increasing CO2 leads to a geenhouse effect. THAT IS A FACT BASED ON CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS. There are clear, parallel (correlated, to use the proper term) increase in both global temp and CO2 associated with first human clearing of forests, then, more rapidly, industrialization. The correlation we see agrees with the chemical and physical facts of CO2's effect on a planet's temp. Again, this can almost be taken as proof of prinicple rather than theory.

          NONE OF THE ABOVE IS SERIOUSLY DISPUTED. The increases in CO2, the unusually sharp and abrupt increase in temp, the correlation between the two, and the agreement with known chemistry and physics are virtually undisputed now that the satellite data and the surface data are in agreement. This alone destroys the bulk of your arguement.

          From here there is dispute. The exact effects the greenhouse effect will have on the global climate are disputed. The amount of warming, the effect on  ocean currents, the mitigating or amplifying effects of various factors like water vapor, soil, changes in photosynthesis, decay, etc. are uncertain and still active areas of study, including by my wife. THe various models suggest different things, but the bulk of them suggest some common things. And all of those are taking place.

          The most dramatic effects, which represent the straw man you put up, are unlikely to be exactly what happens. Woe to us if they turn out to be accurate, though the Hollywood version can never happen (spread that movie over about 10-20 years and you just might have an extreme end of the models' predictions). Similarly, the least dramatic ones, which still suggest we will have some major problems, which are the ones you seem to push as being the ones we should consider, aer unlikely to be what happens. The current conditions and rates of change suggest that the fairly dramatic, but not extreme, models are likely. BUT there are likely to be inflection points. If an ocean current shuts down or shifts, it is likely to greatly increase the severity of the effects.

          I have already said that not all things environmentalists warn of should be listened to. But when 90% of the experts agree we are heading for some deep shit, it is stupid to ignore them. That is what we are doing and that is what you are advocating.

          Delenda est Sinclair!

          by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:53:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ah, finally (none)
            to disagree is to be stupid.
            That about wraps this thread up for me.


            "Dig within; there lies the wellspring of all good. Ever dig and it will ever flow" Marcus Aurelius

            by Mosquito Pilot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:13:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree based on what? (none)
              If you want to disagree, you got to back it up. The ONLY backup you give is a single citation of a biased source. WHAT aspect of the science that I mention do you disagree with and what is your scientific reason for that disagreement. Science is NOT opinion. Science is based on data. You present nothing but unsubstantiated statements.

              Disregarding science IS stupid. If you disregard the theory of gravity you splat on the sidewalk when you jump off a building. That's stupid. If you disagree with a scientific statement, you gotta back it up with science, not opinion. So stop disregarding science and start giving scientific arguements rather than just your opinion. WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR STATEMENTS ON? I have given you what the science tells me. Couter those arguements with sicence if you can. If you want let's get into a citation war from the literature. But don't just come on and keep stating the same old statements that don't have scientific backing.

              Delenda est Sinclair!

              by mole333 on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:22:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site