Global warming is just half what was projected: IPCC

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

We don't need to reduce our GHGs by 97%. We need to reduce by between 70 and 80% over the next four decades and we need to peak our use of fossil fuels globally by 2020. Sure it's ambitious but it's not to the magnitude you're saying it is.

To add...I work for a very large multinational company who in the last decade and a half have reduced the carbon footprint of the company by 54%. We also make products to help our customers do the same. 70-80% is not a lofty goal. At all.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

You listed a number of statements as "truisms" along with an ad hominem attack on anyone who challenges any of them. That's an excellent style for scientific debate.

Your 6th truism mentioned above is also logically impossible to prove. You can't demonstrate that large scale geo-engineering couldn't be done. There could be an as-yet-unknown method for solving the problem later, is it your position that it's irresponsible to look for that?

Better question: Do you think it's responsible to hold out and wait for a currently undiscovered geoengineering solution that may or may not manifest and that may or may not be cheap?

Also, please demonstrate where I placed an ad hominem attack.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by troutman

Was he being serious, or satarizing that point of view?

Satirical.

[Plett25]

I've never met anyone on either side of this "debate" even remotely interested in changing their position.

[photon]

I changed to my current position based on evidence and reading the science, I'd be willing to change my position again if something that had better explanatory power and was better evidenced came along (at least I hope I would be, I've talked many times before about the difficulty in changing one's belief).

Richard Muller, star of a skeptic video that HOZ posted years ago and the guy that was supposed to spearhead climate change denial by coming up with something different by running a study the Koch brothers partially funded, ended up converting and now agrees that it's real and is man made. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/op...e-skeptic.html

So it can happen, but I agree with your sentiment that changing one's mind is very difficult and it's hard not to be (and so many people seem to be) motivated by ideology rather than just following the evidence. It's a problem all human brains have.

[Ashartus]

I changed my mind. I'd been leaning against man-made global warming until the "Climategate" scandal which was put forward as this smoking gun. After looking into that and realizing there was nothing there it forced me to dig deeper into the issue and look at it critically and now agree that man made climate change is real and important. Though I wasn't firmly entrenched in my position to start with.

[JobHopper]

There was a similar article a couple weeks ago, were the scientists were scrambling to change their predictions due to the ice build ups currently in the north. I believe there are also some ships stranded in the NW passage due to it freezing over sooner than expected.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Obviously there is climate change going on, but that is normal for this planet to see. The question is how much of it is "manmade" change. What does this study now tell us in that regard then?

Mr. Transplant, I think there is a documentary you, and others who question the validity of climate change, need to watch. I'm not going to say it is the greatest source of information or that the findings are irrefutable, but it does present data in way that is easy to comprehend and absolutely stunning in its efficacy of driving the point home. It should be noted that the guy behind the project was supposedly a skeptic, but this project that he documents changed his mind. Give it a watch. It might help you understand the issue a little better.

http://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Ice-Ja...ds=Chasing+ice

[photon]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

There was a similar article a couple weeks ago

Similar article yes in that it made claims and conclusions that were in no way warranted. By the same guy that wrote the article in the OP of this thread no less.

Originally Posted by JobHopper

were the scientists were scrambling to change their predictions due to the ice build ups currently in the north.

80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought there would be more ice in 2013 than 2012...

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-ice-delusions

The ice free by 2013 prediction was a "could" prediction, and was 2016 +/- 3 years, and not all climatologists agree on the exact date. Predicting the exact date for a complex system isn't going to happen.

More important are trends that are formed over a long term, if a team wins two then looses one that one loss doesn't mean they're going to keep losing.

Regression towards the mean is expected.

It was predictable that the Daily Mail would write something when there was an upward change, it happens all the time:

[troutman]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

There was a similar article a couple weeks ago, were the scientists were scrambling to change their predictions due to the ice build ups currently in the north. I believe there are also some ships stranded in the NW passage due to it freezing over sooner than expected.

Not really.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...ce-increasing/

It does appear to be true that arctic sea ice increased by about 60% from August 2012 to August 2013. Like all climate, sea ice fluctuates from year to year. The trend over a single year cannot tell us much – it’s just the background noise. If we want to know what the trend in sea ice is over the last few decades, then we need to look at a few decades of data, at least.

Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian has a nice graphic showing Arctic sea ice trends from 1980 to this year. In this graph you can see the background fluctuation year to year, but also the clear downward trend overall. Another trend is also apparent – following any year with a record low Arctic ice measurement, the following year is likely to have increased total ice. This is simply regression to the mean. In any fluctuating system, extreme values are likely to be followed more average values.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Better question: Do you think it's responsible to hold out and wait for a currently undiscovered geoengineering solution that may or may not manifest and that may or may not be cheap?

Also, please demonstrate where I placed an ad hominem attack.

"if you do not accept these then I suggest you not go sailing for fear of falling over the edge of the world:"

That seems like attacking the person holding the idea more than the idea itself.

Also, good job moving the goalposts on a better question. You stated its a truism that dealing with it now is cheaper than latter. You can't prove that, it's certainly not a truism. I'm not saying acting now is a bad idea, I'm saying your post was hyperbole.

That's the biggest reason reasonable people dislike global warming advocates. They're often a lot like SebC on a crusade for no suburbs.

[JobHopper]

This guy was on Coast To Coast Am a couple weeks ago. Interesting perspective.

Robert Felix, a former architect, became interested in the ice-age cycle back in 1991. He spent the next eight and a half years, full-time, researching and writing about the coming ice age. He then concentrated on spreading the word. Robert's book, "Not by Fire but by Ice" has achieved international acclaim with readers around the world. Today, Felix continues his research, and is more firmly convinced than ever that the next ice age could begin any day. In fact, he believes it has already begun.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

This guy was on Coast To Coast Am a couple weeks ago. Interesting perspective.

Robert Felix, a former architect, became interested in the ice-age cycle back in 1991. He spent the next eight and a half years, full-time, researching and writing about the coming ice age. He then concentrated on spreading the word. Robert's book, "Not by Fire but by Ice" has achieved international acclaim with readers around the world. Today, Felix continues his research, and is more firmly convinced than ever that the next ice age could begin any day. In fact, he believes it has already begun.

lol

The program that discusses Shadow People, UFO's and has Alex Jones as a regular contributer ... that they take seriously.

[troutman]

Coast To Coast AM also interviews alleged time travellers from Mars, with not a speck of skepticism. Not a good source of information.

[JobHopper]

Originally Posted by troutman

Coast To Coast AM also interviews alleged time travellers from Mars, with not a speck of skepticism. Not a good source of information.

Sure, but it's something to think about. They have broken news stories on that program. I think we should also be skeptical of the main stream media as well on a lot of topics.

[JobHopper]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol

The program that discusses Shadow People, UFO's and has Alex Jones as a regular contributer ... that they take seriously.

I may be sceptical on a lot of things from that program as well but I don't think I can completely disregard all the people that have claimed to be abducted, have seen ufos, or have had alien encounters. There is a lot of documented stuff out there.

[nik-]

If a barrel of apples is 90% rotten, I'm not going to keep reaching in there hoping to find good apples.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

I may be sceptical on a lot of things from that program as well but I don't think I can completely disregard all the people that have claimed to be abducted, have seen ufos, or have had alien encounters. There is a lot of documented stuff out there.

How come in a world of cell phone cameras there isn't anything better than grainy old footage?

How come there isn't any more proof than unverifiable stories?

If people claiming encounters is proof, does the real God speak in tongues through people?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by JobHopper

Sure, but it's something to think about. They have broken news stories on that program. I think we should also be skeptical of the main stream media as well on a lot of topics.

Another thing you should be skeptical of is media sources telling you to be skeptical of the mainstream media while telling you information that does not pass the smell test. The Weekly World News may have got a story right here or there, but that does not make them a credible source of information. Always consider the credibility of the source of information. The mainstream media became the mainstream media because they have a history of credibility on their side. Yes, they blow a story here or there, but for the most part they report accurate information based on multiple trusted sources.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

"if you do not accept these then I suggest you not go sailing for fear of falling over the edge of the world:"

That seems like attacking the person holding the idea more than the idea itself.

If you believe in fantasies or demonstrably false convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence then what else can I say?

Also, good job moving the goalposts on a better question. You stated its a truism that dealing with it now is cheaper than latter. You can't prove that, it's certainly not a truism. I'm not saying acting now is a bad idea, I'm saying your post was hyperbole.

That point is almost universally accepted in the field of climate change policy. I'm not going to dig up the hundreds of different articles, impact analyses, cost benefit analyses that waiting until the world warms to 4 degrees and then geoengineering/adapting our way out that situation is more expensive. Because it makes intuitive sense.

The cost of paying say 20% more (at most) for your energy is much much lower than building adaptation infrastructure, dealing with the significant economic impacts to sectors dependent on the current climate systems, dealing with the unknowns of warming, dealing with the risks and then dealing with the unintended consequences of geoengineering. And further, there's just somethings geoengineering can't cure like, oh I dont' know, ocean acidification?

What are the costs of the ocean losing say 50% of its net primary productivity? How do you even start quantifying that?

My point is so well supported that it is a truism. You can choose to stick your fingers in your ears but you could also take my word for it.

That's the biggest reason reasonable people dislike global warming advocates. They're often a lot like SebC on a crusade for no suburbs.

Sorry for trying to get you to care about a problem that will affect you significantly.