Climategate

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't agree totally with the attitude of this next picture, but it does illustrate the problem in thinking with this blog entry and the Daily Mail link it relies on.

EDIT: Oops forgot the pic:

No one commented on it, but I linked a university video earlier in this thread
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=432
As I said, I've been mostly on the sidelines of this debate, but the video I linked went back farther than 1970. The sciencetist compared ice core samples and CO2 data from the last ice age and showed that "warming" is statistical insignificant. If anything the world is going into another cooling thrend, that would have even more dire consequences than global warming.
If some people more educated on this subject would look at it and show where he went wrong, that would very eye opening to me. As of now, it appears that both sides of this debate are throughly entrenched.

[photon]

I watched a bit of the video at the time but not much of it, I prefer to read than watch a video, it's so much more effective and time efficient. Plus on video like that you can't really see the graphs very well, or follow their references, or get much detail, etc..

Interesting that they would find the warming as statistically insignificant, because the current data has been sent blindly to several different statisticians (they didn't know it was climate data) and all agreed with the warming trend.

Ultimately science is done through refereed journals, has whoever made those videos published their findings would be my first question. I'll try and take a look further though.

EDIT: Also, with regards to the Daily Mail article that blog post Jetsfan posted, one of the scientists they based their premise on is upset because they misused his research: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ng-mojib-latif

[HOZ]

Growing Polar Bear Population
Taylor downplays the theory that CO2 is the culprit responsible for warmer Arctic temperatures. Other factors, including wind-driven ice movement, shifting ocean currents, reduced albedo effect (less snow-cover resulting in less heat reflection) and increased water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) from a growing expanse of ice-free water, leading to warmer air temperatures, may be influencing the local climate, he says.
“Arctic warming is real, but just because it’s warmer doesn’t mean it’s caused by carbon dioxide. I don’t think CO2 is the main factor causing it.”
He notes that the current model forecasts, which show elevated CO2 levels triggering global temperature increases, don’t agree with the contemporary temperature record. “When predictions don’t match the observations, scientists should say ‘there is something wrong here.’”
The IPCC models, he claims, are “multiplying the effect of CO2 to obtain the temperature increases they predict,” a criticism shared by others in the scientific community who have openly accused modelers of data manipulation.
“The idea that these models can make predictions 50 to 100 years into the future seems, frankly, absurd to me.”
Both Nirlungayuk and Flaherty ridicule media claims that the polar bear is threatened or on the verge of extinction.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by photon

I watched a bit of the video at the time but not much of it, I prefer to read than watch a video, it's so much more effective and time efficient. Plus on video like that you can't really see the graphs very well, or follow their references, or get much detail, etc..

Interesting that they would find the warming as statistically insignificant, because the current data has been sent blindly to several different statisticians (they didn't know it was climate data) and all agreed with the warming trend.

Ultimately science is done through refereed journals, has whoever made those videos published their findings would be my first question. I'll try and take a look further though.

EDIT: Also, with regards to the Daily Mail article that blog post Jetsfan posted, one of the scientists they based their premise on is upset because they misused his research: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ng-mojib-latif

This isn't just to one person but everyone on either side:

Maybe the cycles are just bigger. If you told the statisticians that the actual dataset is a million times larger than the data that was submitted, they would unquestionably come back with a different answer.

Dinosaurs didn't freeze because of their exploitation of fossil fuels, the weather is extremely complex with probably thousands of mutually independant cycles, some short, some long, some small and some large.

Overall I don't understand why anyone, on either side argues with much passion, almost nobody understand weather completely. It could have been that we were in a 50 year warming trend, and now we are in a 50 year cooling trend. Nobody knows for sure, so how could anyone feel comfortable in arguing that the planet will heat up, or not?

The better discussion (by far) is if human activity is playing much of a role, again, nobody knows for sure however even if we think the chances are slight, that's reason in itself to change behavior.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Overall I don't understand why anyone, on either side argues with much passion, almost nobody understand weather completely.

I think it's fair to go further and say with certainty that nobody understands climate completely or even close to completely.

I take issue in the fact that these scientists want to toss around literally trillions of dollars based on what can at best be described as incomplete science.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I think it's fair to go further and say with certainty that nobody understands climate completely or even close to completely. I take issue in the fact that these scientists want to toss around literally trillions of dollars based on what can at best be described as incomplete science.

The tobacco industry considers the cigarette <---> lung cancer science to be incomplete. For the denialists, no amount of science would be sufficient.

But "Flames in 07" makes a point. The question isn't "are we 100% sure there is global warming", but rather "are we so sure that there is not global warming that we are willing to risk the well-being of our children?". Like I said earlier in this thread, it's not going to be my generation that is going to suffer if there is global warming, but rather our children. And I think that sufficient to argue passionately for change.

[icarus]

Since the discussion of global cooling has popped up a few times in this thread, here is a recent research paper from the NOAA.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/ima...ateWarming.pdf

They conclude:

[I]t is reasonable to expect that the natural variability of the real climate system can and likely will produce multi-year periods of sustained “cooling” or at least periods with no real trend even in the presence of longterm anthropogenic forced warming. Claims that global warming is not occurring that are derived from a cooling observed over such short time periods ignore this natural variability and are misleading.

Originally Posted by Dan02

I take issue in the fact that these scientists want to toss around literally trillions of dollars based on what can at best be described as incomplete science.

I don't understand this, can you explain? I don't see how scientists could throw around this kind of money, governments definitely and corporations perhaps, but scientists? Really?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The tobacco industry considers the cigarette <---> lung cancer science to be incomplete. For the denialists, no amount of science would be sufficient.

But "Flames in 07" makes a point. The question isn't "are we 100% sure there is global warming", but rather "are we so sure that there is not global warming that we are willing to risk the well-being of our children?". Like I said earlier in this thread, it's not going to be my generation that is going to suffer if there is global warming, but rather our children. And I think that sufficient to argue passionately for change.

My God, think of the children!

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by zuluking

My God, think of the children!

Good contribution. Well done.

[Tiger]

I have a question though. Everybody says ignore the weather because it is not climate. That makes total sense. And people say ignore downward trends because that only last say five years max (as of recently). But how much data do you need to say that it is for sure a warming trend and it is for real or just an anomaly is 30 year enough? 100 years? Say we take the last 1000 years than thirty years is probably a significant trend but if we are looking at hundred of thousands or years or millions of year, then the last 30 years is just a blip on the radar.

I think a lot should be done to stop pollution, but we still have issues like acid ran, solid waste, polluted water. Thing that the world can make a lot of improvement on. And yet all this money, which I believe could be used better is being spent on global warming prevention. I do agree that if we are unsure, the safest bet is to assume we are causing global warming, but I'm worried this "problem" if it even is one, is taking away from a lot of other issues in the world.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

The better discussion (by far) is if human activity is playing much of a role, again, nobody knows for sure however even if we think the chances are slight, that's reason in itself to change behavior.

Bingo.

After 26 pages of this I sure as hell hope everyone agrees.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Bingo.

After 26 pages of this I sure as hell hope everyone agrees.

I'm sure most people agree that with that statement. The issue is how much should we should change our ways. I have no problem with recycling, reducing pollution into our environment, promoting conservation..etc.
The issue I have is where people are freaking out that the sky is falling and much more drastic measures are needed that quite frankly, will only have a negible impact on the environment

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

The issue I have is where people are freaking out that the sky is falling and much more drastic measures are needed that quite frankly, will only have a negible impact on the environment

Conservative: "I don't know why we are spending so much money on Global Warming. It's a hoax and there is global cooling and it's just made up by evil scientists trying to make a buck."

Environmentalist: "Well, because if the whole of the ice caps melt, the world will look like this. Are you willing to take the chance that we are wrong?"


Conservative: "Bunch of chicken littles trying to scaremonger."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

You can't win. If environmentalists were to soft-pedal the issue, it doesn't get taken seriously. If environmentalists push the issue, they are labelled 'alarmists'. I don't know what you want.

[Pastiche]

Humankind: making bad bets for personal convenience

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

.

The only thing "wrong" about that graphic is that it would obviously inconvenience humanity.

Mother nature and the planet, on the other hand, would adjust and carry on, probably with a lesser burden of a few billion humans.

If it's true there is a trend developing, instead of a fairly normal cyclical development, then we realistically care only because it's inconvenient or dangerous to the accomplishments of humanity and, perhaps more pointedly, our inability to adjust adequately or in time.

Does the planet care? Mother nature can be brutally efficient.

Cowperson

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Conservative: "I don't know why we are spending so much money on Global Warming. It's a hoax and there is global cooling and it's just made up by evil scientists trying to make a buck."

Environmentalist: "Well, because if the whole of the ice caps melt, the world will look like this. Are you willing to take the chance that we are wrong?"


Conservative: "Bunch of chicken littles trying to scaremonger."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

You can't win. If environmentalists were to soft-pedal the issue, it doesn't get taken seriously. If environmentalists push the issue, they are labelled 'alarmists'. I don't know what you want.

That's the thing, I'm trying to stay level headed but what bolded is part of the problem with this debate, and with any issues really. The media (and maybe the general human nature) really only responds to headlines. It's sad, but science stories and issues can't compete with how many women Tiger's has been with, or what's going on Hollywood.
It took Al Gore's movie about Polar bear drowning and the end of the world type doom and gloom to really get people to think about Climate change and the environment. Right now, it's a shouting match between 2 heavily entrenched sides, each with their own agendas, that it's really hard to get an unbias view of the issue
I was responding to quoted text by Flames in 07, "The better discussion (by far) is if human activity is playing much of a role, again, nobody knows for sure however even if we think the chances are slight, that's reason in itself to change behavior."

What I was trying to say is that I agree with him, it's a good thing that we should be changing our behaviour regarding the environment.
Water conservation, recycling, reducing sulphur and ozone destroying chemicals, stop dumping waste into our oceans..etc are all things I agree with.
Something like carbon capture programs where we are trapping CO2 (which isn't a pollutant in the first place) into deep underground tubes, that's an example of something I believe is a waste of resources.

From what I remember in geology in university, ice ages happen in cycles and we are due for one. With that being said, the period right after our last ice age would represent a time where there was a rapid warming of climate. Before that last ice age, well, that was a time period that would be charaterized as rapid cooling. It is a very difficult science to determine how much is do to our doing, and how much of it is a geological thing that we have very little control of.

In a round about way, I guess what I'm trying to say is that:
- I'm not on either side, I have my own opinions and believes, but I'm willing to learn more about it myself
- I do believe climate is changing, but the real issue for debate is how much we are responsible for it
- If we have an impact, let's change our ways than, but do so rationally

[Pastiche]

In a round about way, I guess what I'm trying to say is that:
- I'm not on either side, I have my own opinions and believes, but I'm willing to learn more about it myself
- I do believe climate is changing, but the real issue for debate is how much we are responsible for it
- If we have an impact, let's change our ways than, but do so rationally

You are definitely on a side. You are a status quo climate change skeptic. You support actions that don't incovenience or cost you too much. I definitely think you should go out and learn more. CO2 is a pollutant as classified in Canada. There is a canon of literature on how the humans are changing the climate. You can choose to read it or not but do not act like you are a beacon of level-headedness and rationality when you are by definition ignorant to the science.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Good contribution. Well done.

Thank you.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

The only thing "wrong" about that graphic is that it would obviously inconvenience humanity.

Mother nature and the planet, on the other hand, would adjust and carry on, probably with a lesser burden of a few billion humans.

If it's true there is a trend developing, instead of a fairly normal cyclical development, then we realistically care only because it's inconvenient or dangerous to the accomplishments of humanity and, perhaps more pointedly, our inability to adjust adequately or in time.

Does the planet care? Mother nature can be brutally efficient.

Cowperson

Agreed, but what is the point of this post in a broader context of this thread?

Mother nature can ruin us? Okay... does that mean we shouldn't do anything?

Or are you simply implying that we are being hubristic when we talk about the planet's peril and really what we're talking about is our species and biodiversity's peril?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Does the planet care? Mother nature can be brutally efficient.

Aye. That's how I look at it. I've long since given up hope that humans will be smart enough to avoid the impacts of our crimes against the environment. Let Mother Nature have her way. I personally will continue to take public transportation, use Bullfrog power, etc... but I got tired of being burned out for very little accomplishment.

What irritates me is that once again the uninvolved will be punished for the crimes of the guilty.