US govt starts to accept climate change

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Stu

The flaw is a simple one, and it's the same one that everyone who makes the "the earth is actually cooling because it was cold yesterday" argument makes. 12 months is not enough data to create accurate results. It's the same reason most social experiments must have a minimum of 150 participants, because below 150, there isn't enough data to create accurate results.

Anyone will readily admit that the earth has been cold at points in the last decade or whatever time scale you want to use, and somewhere in the world, some records for coldest whatever were probably even broken, but the overall trend has been warming, and will, predictably, continue to be warming.

Well if 10 years is flawed isn't 1000 years too short as well? The argument that this millenia was warmer isnt conclusive either is it?Many scientist also say global warming is not real. You can find supporting data for both.

[Stu]

Schola, you might be interested in this article, How You Can Save The World | Visions for Tomorrow I think it takes your argument to its logical conclusion.

Still Growing, from the blog Schola linked to:

Now let me be clear that a 10 year trend is not typical for climate analysis. Typically a 30 year period is used to establish a climate baseline. For example, NOAA publishes climate summaries for cities in the USA based on 30 year periods.

[Brutha]

Well if 10 years is flawed isn't 1000 years too short as well?

If you want to seperate noise from signals having more data helps a great deal.
To know how much data you need to have a certain confidence you need to do a lot of math.
If someone wants the case that 10 year is enough, that person should lay down why he thinks that he can make good predictions based on a complicated mathematical climate model. That usually something that you don't find outside of peer revied articles.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you want to seperate noise from signals having more data helps a great deal.
To know how much data you need to have a certain confidence you need to do a lot of math.
If someone wants the case that 10 year is enough, that person should lay down why he thinks that he can make good predictions based on a complicated mathematical climate model. That usually something that you don't find outside of peer revied articles.

And so should the person who says that 1000 years is enough.

[schola]

This year so far coolest for at least 5 years: WMO | Environment | Reuters

This year so far coolest in 5 years

"LONDON (Reuters) - The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) said on Wednesday..."

Originally Posted by Stu

Schola, you might be interested in this article, How You Can Save The World | Visions for Tomorrow I think it takes your argument to its logical conclusion.

OK I'll check it out.

[schola]

You guys really should check out Anthony Watts' blog. He is a meteorologist and is currently doing a tour of across the United States, evaluating temperature measuring facilities. What he's found is that these devices are found in some of the worst places: On top of hot blacktop, gravel roofs, etc. A few meters difference in location could skew the temperature up 5 degrees or more.

Here's the most recent edition:
How not to measure temperature, part 69 « Watts Up With That?

[Brutha]

And so should the person who says that 1000 years is enough.

Actually they do.
There are a lot of peer reviewed articles that use less than a 1000 year time span and argue for it.

What he's found is that these devices are found in some of the worst places: On top of hot blacktop, gravel roofs, etc.

Those aren't influences that should change from year to year systematically.

[pkeod]

Arctic Sea Ice Nears Record Low - TIME
Arctic Sea Ice Drops to 2nd Lowest Level on Record | LiveScience
Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | LiveScience
Environmental Futurism: Images of the Arctic Ocean as We Will Know It
'Land that never melts' is melting: Erosion probed in Nunavut park

Nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Sure.

[Still Growing]

Brutha and pkeod we know the temp's up over the past few decades however what the scientific community is debating is whether its another cycle like we've experienced in the past. If you look at the last 1000 then 10000 year cycles the temp could be normal. This is still inconclusive.

It could be a result of co2 or not.

To argue that its hotter isn't a slam dunk to the initial theory. Its certainly evidence but not conclusive.

[schola]

Originally Posted by pkeod

Arctic Sea Ice Nears Record Low - TIME
Arctic Sea Ice Drops to 2nd Lowest Level on Record | LiveScience
Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted | LiveScience
Environmental Futurism: Images of the Arctic Ocean as We Will Know It
'Land that never melts' is melting: Erosion probed in Nunavut park

Oooh. I loves me some anecdotal evidence. Here's some more for ya:

Arctic Ice Increasing Between Canada And Greenland. "Highest Level Of Ice In 15 Years."

North Pole to remain frozen : Nation : The Rocky Mountain News

Here's my favorite. An arctic icebreaker on a tour of the melting arctic gets stuck in thicker than expected ice:

globeandmail.com: The irony leaves us cold

[Stu]

One day, they will write articles like this about people who believe climate change isn't real.

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat?

[Brutha]

Brutha and pkeod we know the temp's up over the past few decades however what the scientific community is debating is whether its another cycle like we've experienced in the past.

Which peer reviewed paper is debating that claim?
Blogs don't count.

According to the Ipcc:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

Also in that Ipcc report:
"During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling."

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
I thought it was common knowledge that the earth's temp has experienced temperature shift to warmer and colder.

Below is an a link that I could find but I'm sure you could do your own research to find that the earth has experienced temp shifts before.

Image:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Also, I'm not married to the concept that global warming is not happening or that its not caused by CO2. Since I don't have an agenda I'm more than willing to believe that global warming is human caused. I think its highly possible and believable.

Its not just my opinion but it is a fact that there are people in the scientific community arguing both sides. It seems to be inconclusive that human CO2 is the main cause for global warming. To me there seems like there is not enough evidence to make it a fact.

Some are saying "Hey stupid can't you see the earth is warmer; this therefore means that its caused by humans and Co2 emissions". Since you're an analytical guy Brutha, surely you know that you cannot draw the conclusion that "Because the earth is warmer it must therefore be caused by CO2".

I always ask the question "Could we both be right?" Is it possible that we are naturally coming out of the "Little Ice Age" and also that the increased CO2 emissions is either speeding it up or making it increase slightly more than normal? These are all things worth looking at and only when you've made your mind up on something do you stop learning. I am eager to gather any more facts or data but just not so eager to draw a final conclusion so quickly.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I think its pretty impressive that a scientist can tell us what the CO2 levels were 400,000 years ago. How do they do it?

They analyze ice and soil that are layered and they can analyze concentrations of substances.

[Brutha]

Since you're an analytical guy Brutha, surely you know that you cannot draw the conclusion that "Because the earth is warmer it must therefore be caused by CO2".

No, my conclusion is "Because the scientific community says that it's manmade it's manmade".
That's argument by authority.
I don't think that either you or me know enough about how the climate works to make such judgements on our own. For that reason we should trust the scientific etablishment.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
I wasn't aware there was a consensus in the scientific community and most scientific experts agree that its an ongoing debate. It seems only biased political people have been so quick to say its "A fact" or "A hoax".

Global warming controversy

I personally think that its more likely that humans have contributed some to global warming however I cannot say "Because the earth is warmer its a fact that its caused by humans" like the one person on this thread who I am quoting.

I'm being careful not to take a political assumption based upon party lines simply to conclude something prematurely.

I don't have an emotional stake in a desired outcome and simply cannot conclude something as a fact without more evidence. Now that doesn't mean that we should not take steps to aid the environment just in case right? We shouldn't dismiss it as a hoax and go about our dangerous poluting ways.

Why can't we say "Humans may be causing temperatures to rise and surely the environment is suffering in some manner with all our polution and so therefore we should improve the air quality". I'll tell you why Brutha.... because that won't get people to vote for their candidate. Once again it comes down to politics and money rather than truth and the best solutions.

[Brutha]

According to your own link the current state of affairs is: "The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend."

If we don't have any political biases guiding us, why shouldn't we go with that scientific consensus?

The debate is about which solutions are the best one, but the debate isn't about those highlited words.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
First of all I personally said that I thought humans may be "CONTRIBUTING" to global warming however we cannot conclude by the basis alone that because its warmer outside that this is be-all end-all fact that humans are the sole contributors to global warming.

Could it be that both are right? Could it be that part of the increase in temp is caused by nature's natrual fluxuations and that man caused global warming is also responsible for some portion? I guess we can't even discuss or look at this because then nobody's political agenda gets served. So lets just not even discuss it.

The link I provided acknowledged that some in the scientific community have spoke out against this but it seems you are selective of what you read. It also had a link to wikipedia as well speaking of the disputes:

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also mentioned that there were serious reprocussions to any scientists who did not agree with the mainstream's outcome:

"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

Certainly you can acknowledge that there are conflicting theories within the scientific community and certainly there should be no political motivations behind people's fact finding missions.

Surely people who do research can try to do so objectively. Am I asking too much?

To me it appears you are franticly grasping for any and all data that will support your theory and blockading any other discussions that may give evidence to the contrary.

OK I've got it, you're mind's made up and you don't need to hear any more. I'm simply stating that to me the jury is out. I respect your decision on the subject and I hope you'll respect me maintaining objectivity.

[Brutha]

I think that public policy should be based on the scientific consensus that exists instead of your balanced claim that "Humans may be causing temperatures to rise and surely the environment is suffering in some manner with all our polution and so therefore we should improve the air quality".

I think that going with the scientific consensus is resonable.
You seem to be baised against the scientific consensus because you believe in being an independent and want to be balanced.

The scientific consensus could also heavily underrate the threat of climate change, if you argue that it's wrong.

It had a link to wikipedia as well speaking of the disputes:

Wikipedia is no scientific source and it's easy to manipulate if you want to pay a lot of money.

[JMan]

Originally Posted by schola

Oooh. I loves me some anecdotal evidence. Here's some more for ya:

Arctic Ice Increasing Between Canada And Greenland. "Highest Level Of Ice In 15 Years."

North Pole to remain frozen : Nation : The Rocky Mountain News

Here's my favorite. An arctic icebreaker on a tour of the melting arctic gets stuck in thicker than expected ice:

globeandmail.com: The irony leaves us cold

This one's good too. Hmm, wonder if the northern hemisphere is warming while the southern is cooling? Do South American blogs fill up with 'Global
Cooling' conspiracy theories? Is that why the new buzz word has been 'Climate Change' instead of 'Global Warming'? Maybe Al Gore knows.

Climate Skeptic: Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High

and here:

NASA - Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?

[Brutha]

Is that why the new buzz word has been 'Climate Change' instead of 'Global Warming'? Maybe Al Gore knows.

As far as I'm aware Gore wants to call it Climate Crisis.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that public policy should be based on the scientific consensus that exists instead of your balanced claim that "Humans may be causing temperatures to rise and surely the environment is suffering in some manner with all our polution and so therefore we should improve the air quality"..

Oh I don't disagree with that.
It seems to me that the threat is large enough that just to be sure we should proceed with caution right? Shouldn't we prepare for the worst and hope for the best?

What comments we make vs what actions we take are two different things.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The scientific consensus could also heavily underrate the threat of climate change, if you argue that it's wrong.
Wikipedia is no scientific source and it's easy to manipulate if you want to pay a lot of money.

Wikipedia does not work on a bribe or pay system. Its a community based dictionary and its monitored and regulated by the community as a whole. Some complete falsehoods can be put up but they are usually taken down within a few days. I am not saying Wikipedia is the end all source, far from it however I do consider it to be just as reliable as any other source the great percentage of the time.

[Brutha]

What comments we make vs what actions we take are two different things.

Better filters can do a lot for normal air pollution. You however can't do much with filters against CO2.
If you want to really filter out CO2 you have to store it in liquid form which is energy intensive and has potential problems with storing that liquid CO2.
Focusing on CO2 instead of general air pollution changes actions.

In addition making public comments is an action because it increases the power that a certain meme has in society. This is a forum with a lot of visitors and a good google ranking.
Ideas matter.

Wikipedia does not work on a bribe or pay system. Its a community based dictionary and its monitored and regulated by the community as a whole.

Exactly it's community based. You need a group of people with high standing inside the community and you can get everything you want.
Especially the anonymous nature makes it an easy target.

All big competent PR firms care about what written in Wikipedia about their clients and should influence the way Wikipedia presents a page about the topic they care about and participate inside the community.