Climate Change - Human Induced or Not?

[calrockx]

Well, the masses won't change until 1) it's "too late", or 2) it saves them a buck.

[oly884]

Well, last I checked, being green does save a buck. In fact, quite a few bucks by what my wallet says.

[bamachem]

I agree that is will be a change in moral compass and not new regulations that will push people to be more and more green. I recycle. I am energy conscious with my home and my vehicles. I try to limit our amount of landfill use via selective purchasing. However, I won't be buying an ethanol powered vehicle unless the market trends that way out of concerns over convenience and vehicle reliability. When that happens, then I'll jump on that wagon as well.

Until then...

more to chew on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong
Thursday, December 13, 2007

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

However, Christy was a major contributor to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is one of the world's premier authorities on collection and analysis of satellite-derived temperature data, having been commended by both NASA and the American Meteorological Society for his efforts.

"We do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere," said Christy. "Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface."

The difference between the climate models and the satellite data has been known for several years.

Studies in 2005 found that improper compensation for temperature differences between day and night was the cause of most of the satellite-data discrepancy, a correction that Christy has accepted.

No explanation has been put forth for the weather-balloon discrepancy.

[calrockx]

[img width=521 height=800]http://calrockx.com/etc/_temp/deluge.jpg[/img]



[img width=521 height=800]http://calrockx.com/etc/_temp/new_map_of_hell.jpg[/img]

[oly884]

Not to rip on ya cal, but it's easy to link pictures, I'd prefer a discussion if you'd like to join in.

The Kyoto agreement is, in simple terms, a joke. It doesn't cover developing nations, and in essence of global warming, if it is solely caused by CO2, would have a very small effect, and that's if nations met it.

I did notice a headline in the first picture that says something on the order of, "... says it's time to adapt to warming"

I'm willing to adapt, but I'm not willing to see our (and other) economies crippled and developing nations prevented from growing due to the hands of people who "think" they know better.

As for the rest of the articles, you can do the exact same for the other side, and with every issue. There isn't a scientific consensus, plain and simple. People are not "skeptics" either, there's conflicting proof about this whole "man made global warming" argument. I have looked at both sides, and both sides are compelling. Which tells me that we don't know exactly what's going on. Hell, they can't predict the weather here in Bozeman as good as they say they can IN THE WHOLE WORLD. For the past couple nights they say it was going to dip into the single digits, Friday night they said 5°F, it really got down to about 22°F that's a 440% difference. I've seen it go the other way too, they predict it'll be in the single digits and it will drop into the NEGATIVE teens. Again, a very large margin of error.

Granted, I live in a section of the world where the weather IS very hard to predict due to the elevation, mountains, etc. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that it IS hard to predict. So, if they have a harder time being accurate over the course of a week, in one region of the world, what's to say they are 100% accurate in a much broader sense?

As I've said before, what if we acted when we thought there was global cooling in the 70's? <- Please address this question, I'd like to get a response from someone who believes that man made global warming is the sole cause of what we are seeing in weather patterns.

[calrockx]

I just wanted to post up a couple posters I just designed since they sorta relate to this.
You didn't recognize me with the umbrella? haha

I'm not gonna get all into into it now, but I'll say this: I liked the movie. Overall I support the Kyoto idea, but I've read even among nations who signed themselves up for it, it's not having much the intended effect. I'd like to see the US be a part of future environmental agreements, maybe what becomes a new, improved Kyoto 2.

[AxleIke]

Well, believe this if you want:

Boss is just back from AGU (This is the HUGE Geological science annual meeting)

Basically think of it as a get together for the researchers in the geological sciences. Including the top researchers in the field of climate science.

EVERY SINGLE model of Northern hemisphere ice sheet melting was WRONG. The melting in the Northern Hemisphere was VASTLY greater than ANY of the models predicted.

That isn't theory or conjecture. Those are cold, hard data.

It is not twisted by the media, nor by the environmental dipshits. It is purely scientific research.

Now, keep in mind that this says NOTHING about the cause. Simply that global warming is REAL. I will continue to maintain that we have an effect, but I agree in that I believe we aren't COMPLETELY at fault. I do think we have a pretty large impact.

Are you all going to die? Of course not. But it is something to think about.

[AxleIke]

The Kyoto agreement is, in simple terms, a joke. It doesn't cover developing nations, and in essence of global warming, if it is solely caused by CO2, would have a very small effect, and that's if nations met it.

This is a good point. However, I would argue that we have no business dictating to a country trying to FEED itself how much pollution it can put out. I think we would be hypocritical to the extreme if we were to limit their production of food, shelter, and transportation while we guzzle oil like water and are rich beyond belief.

On the other hand, some of those nations are taking down rain forests like there is no tomorrow, so its a toss up. Not saying you are wrong, just that the developing nations issue is a tricky one.

[oly884]

Cal, I think we can agree, on some level, that the kyoto agreement isn't working as intended. I'm not opposed to the idea of a kyoto based agreement, so long as it doesn't cripple economies and lets the nations keep their sovereignty.

Axle, I do agree that the developing nations issue is a very tricky one, and I'm with you on this. A growing nation needs to do just that, grow. They have to go through the stepping stones just as we did. So, to control them is wrong. Preventing cheaper forms of electricity and fuel that could save millions of lives is sad and arrogant.

However this brings up another problem. What is the justification to impose such strict limits on a grown nation (the USA) when a "developing" nation (China) is allowed to spew pollution into the atmosphere? I made the comparison earlier,

"what good does putting up sand bags on the river bank do if your next door neighbors don't?"

The sand bags you put up won't do a damn because the water coming over the banks in your neighbors property will make it to yours.

[AxleIke]

Very good points. Can't say I have an answer for you. I agree, doing something seems pointless, but doing nothing seems wrong. Its a bit of a Catch 22.