New Anti-global warming debate?

[Jonah]

I think we can have a anti global warming thread with some very interesting and enlightening dialogue.

Science is not based on a consensus, it is partly based on skepticism and should include the scientific method. Current positions from the AGW supporters include neither.

I think this is an important issue and the debate should never be over, or locked, unless forum rules are not followed.

These statements are the reason I joined this particular fray. And I would ask for clarification before proceeding. This thread is, by definition of the Pixelsmith, an Anti-Global Warming thread. The statement above, that science is not based on consensus and should include the scientific method is somewhat accurate. However, I would alter the wording a bit to -must- include, rather than "should" include, the scientific method. I would also argue that, while one may be skeptical, once the science is found to be sound and based on that, consensus is arrived at, skepticism must give way to acknowledgment.

The last statement made by Pixelsmith, that "Current positions from AGW supporters include neither" is incorrect, an assumption based on lack of said acknowledgment of scientific consensus.

At this point however, we find that Pixelsmith acknowledges the science that give the 'Greenhouse Effect' a reality. We see that Bob also acknowledges this fact and even goes on to acknowledge that the planet is warming, due to his assumption that the entire solar system is warming. He has provided links supporting that contention, which will be addressed momentarily. We also have Pixelsmith acknowledging the reality of Global warming, cooling etc etc., although his issue tends to be with the politics of AGW, rather than the fact that it is a reality. I think this is where we are at, correct?

Bob, I appreciate the time you took to post those links. However, they don't seem to support your position. Take for example a quote from the MIT piece regarding climate change on Pluto

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."


Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes.

.

I also read your link on the prediction of climate change on Jupiter.

Jupiter's atmosphere, as observed in the 1979 Voyager space craft images, is characterized by 12 zonal jet streams and about 80 vortices, the largest of which are the Great Red Spot and three White Ovals that had formed¹ in the 1930s. The Great Red Spot has been observed² continuously since 1665 and, given the dynamical similarities between the Great Red Spot and the White Ovals, the disappearance^3,⁴ of two White Ovals in 1997–2000 was unexpected. Their longevity and sudden demise has been explained⁵ however, by the trapping of anticyclonic vortices in the troughs of Rossby waves, forcing them to merge. Here I propose that the disappearance of the White Ovals was not an isolated event, but part of a recurring climate cycle which will cause most of Jupiter's vortices to disappear within the next decade. In my numerical simulations, the loss of the vortices results in a global temperature change of about 10 K, which destabilizes the atmosphere and thereby leads to the formation of new vortices. After formation, the large vortices are eroded by turbulence over a time of

60 years—consistent with observations of the White Ovals—until they disappear and the cycle begins again.

Maybe I'm not understanding you Bob? The contention that climate change is not solely a phenomenon found on Earth is not disputed. However, it happens for different reason on different planets based on different variables, correct? So the contention that Earth is warming because all the other planets are, is lost on me. Unless you are saying that it is due to increased solar output? In which case, you have completely failed to back up your claim scientifically.

I hope your not really giving up that easy Bob...

So we are at the point where we need to explain why the Earth is warming. The theory that it is doing so due to increase CO2 in the atmosphere (which is composed of gases) seems to be proven to a great extent. Basically, The Greenhouse Effect (not disputed). An argument has been put forth that the warming is due to increased Solar output (I think). This has yet to be backed by the "Scientific Method" and so should be discarded for the sake of this discussion. Unless someone else would like to make a go of it.

There is a major difference between the science that's supports the reality of AGW, and the politics of what should be done about it. It's confusing the two that plays the devil. I am aiming for clarification and separation between the two in this thread. Hopefully I'm not alone in feeling that this is a critically important task.

 

[pixelsmith]

Thanks for your reply Jonah.
Please show us the "science" that supports run-away-global-warming due to increased CO2.
Please show us how politics will save the planet.
Please explain the massive corruption that surrounds the Leader of the UN IPCC and its supporting scientists, including NASA and other environmental agencies, and also explain why they have to manipulate data if the AGW theory is true.

 

[Roro]

This page has a very good interview with an astrophysicist. Unfortunately I could only stream it off the site, didn't seem to be any way to download. He talks about how data contrary to AGW is suppressed, how he has been attacked personally for trying to present the data and expose the bad science the AGW people are using.
http://itsrainmakingtime.com/2009/climate-part2/
The interview on the show that proceeded this one also presents very good information but I found the personal story of someone trying to do the right thing very compelling. Also interesting because the host was totally sold on AGW after seeing and reading the Al Gore stuff.

Here is a recent article about a scientist lying about glaciers in the Himalayas.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe

Here's a UN official- "Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35029710/ns/us_news-environment

Burt Rutan says AGW is a fraud.
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

And my favorite chart. I don't know how humanity survived the medieval warm period, or how medieval man managed to produce enough CO2 to cause it, since we know now that it's all about the CO2. The sun has nothing to do with it.

See larger version here- http://www.iceagenow.com/The_IPCC_is_lying.htm

All we can do is keep pointing to the data and pointing out the bad data.

 

[bobheck]

And, on a side note -

I wonder what could possibly be at the bottom of the list. I juuuuuust wonder...

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.

 

[Jonah]

Thanks for your reply Jonah.
Please show us the "science" that supports run-away-global-warming due to increased CO2.

This is what I am purposefully and methodically trying to do if given the chance. Using science.

Please show us how politics will save the planet.

I think you are changing the parameters of this discussion Pixelsmith. This discussion is not about politics, what to do about AGW or how to save the planet. This discussion is to prove the scientific concept of AGW. Of course, I do understand the need for climate change denialist to distract and derail the conversation away from the science, as demonstrated above. There are key physical scientific realities to be understood that care not for political arguments. And once they are understood, only then can a rational discussion be held as to what impact these realities may have on the future and then, based on that, what to do about it.

Please explain the massive corruption that surrounds the Leader of the UN IPCC and its supporting scientists, including NASA and other environmental agencies, and also explain why they have to manipulate data if the AGW theory is true.

This is a very broad brush you are using to paint science with, similar to the one used by Bob above wrt to the certainty of science. And again, this is distraction. We will have the conversation Pixelsmith, just not quite yet. That said, if you and others feel they need to continue on about the politics, please feel free to do so. I'm am employing Muhammed Ali's "Rope a dope" strategy here and so really do hope you swing away. And of course, anytime one of you wishes to concede the reality of AGW and move on to the politics of the thing directly, please to so in another thread - stating up front that you concede the reality of AGW and I will then join you for another rational discussion of the issues.

I mean that is what you advocated for, rational discussion and debate, in the creation of this thread, right Pixelsmith?

 

[bobheck]

A current related story

The Hindu : News / National : India, China won't sign Copenhagen Accord

 

[Jonah]

I suspect Bob, that your intentions here are not quite honest as you seem to think that poll results are somehow enlightening us as to the reality of AGW. The same with your link to an article on India's and China's reluctance to sign the Copenhagen agreement. Again, not really enlightening as to the science of the issue at hand. I did note that you put forth an explanation that the causation for the warming of the Earth in recent years was due to other planets warming for various reasons, providing us with various and sundry links that had nothing to do with what you were really trying to say. I'm not even sure -you- know what you were really trying to say. Which would explain your reluctance to re-visit the issue again, and instead try to derail the debate here with various unrelated issues such as I've mentioned. To me, Bob, that is somewhat akin to a form of censorship. In essence, "I can't make a sensible point, so in turn, I will not allow you to". It is the telltale sign of a weak, unsupported position taken in debate and reflects for all to see, the childish, "my way or the hiway" nature of AGW denialist often used in the form namecalling. Which I expect we shall see soon. "Treehugger", Greenie", "Sheeple"....you all know the drill here, right?

But, but , but.....

Swing away Bob, swing away.....

Let's talk science shall we?

 

[bobheck]

I suspect Bob, that your intentions here are not quite honest as you seem to think that poll results are somehow enlightening us as to the reality of AGW

Nope, you read way too much into it. Just showing you that most of us don't give a damn, got other things to worry about. Hey the earth is warming, you win. Big deal.

-----

Ok, here it comes, Jonah is formulating his "Mother earth will show you all and win in the end, mwuuhahahahaha" response right this minute...

 

[Jonah]

Nope, you read way too much into it. Just showing you that most of us don't give a damn, got other things to worry about. Hey the earth is warming, you win. Big deal.

I'm not sure that I "win" anything here. And for someone who doesn't "give a damn", you've put way to much energy into this and other threads countering the pro-AGW/Science stance to make that a fair statement.

So we agree, that the Earth is warming, right? And you really have know idea as to why, right? And since it really doesn't affect you, who cares, no "big deal", right?

Just trying to understand where it is your coming from, Bob.

 

[pixelsmith]

This is what I am purposefully and methodically trying to do if given the chance. Using science.



I think you are changing the parameters of this discussion Pixelsmith. This discussion is not about politics, what to do about AGW or how to save the planet. This discussion is to prove the scientific concept of AGW. Of course, I do understand the need for climate change denialist to distract and derail the conversation away from the science, as demonstrated above. There are key physical scientific realities to be understood that care not for political arguments. And once they are understood, only then can a rational discussion be held as to what impact these realities may have on the future and then, based on that, what to do about it.



This is a very broad brush you are using to paint science with, similar to the one used by Bob above wrt to the certainty of science. And again, this is distraction. We will have the conversation Pixelsmith, just not quite yet. That said, if you and others feel they need to continue on about the politics, please feel free to do so. I'm am employing Muhammed Ali's "Rope a dope" strategy here and so really do hope you swing away. And of course, anytime one of you wishes to concede the reality of AGW and move on to the politics of the thing directly, please to so in another thread - stating up front that you concede the reality of AGW and I will then join you for another rational discussion of the issues.

I mean that is what you advocated for, rational discussion and debate, in the creation of this thread, right Pixelsmith?

Fair enough. One thing at a time. Ok Jonah... show me that science.

---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------

Nope, you read way too much into it. Just showing you that most of us don't give a damn, got other things to worry about. Hey the earth is warming, you win. Big deal.

-----

Ok, here it comes, Jonah is formulating his "Mother earth will show you all and win in the end, mwuuhahahahaha" response right this minute...

Thanks Bob but I can handle this. Please do not jeopardize this thread. I do not want it locked again.

 

[bobheck]

Just trying to understand where it is your coming from, Bob.

Where I am coming from is that the earth is warming as it has done many times in the past. Thousands of years from now, it will cool again, as it has done many times in the past. Then warm again, ad infinitum. And there is nothing we can do to stop it. So stop trying to change it, and don't support any increases in taxation or government controls that are based on the silly notion that we can alter the temperature of this planet.

I support restrictions on littering, toxic waste, polluting water, and I am for clean air controls -- all within what society agrees are reasonable limits. They all make perfect sense, we use and need clean natural resources.

Global warming is a whole new agenda that is some nebulous cloud that anything can be thrown under in order to create knee-jerk policies that unneccessarily restrict personal freedoms and economic growth. And, while increases in the toxicity levels in air and water can be measured in a reasonable time frame with clear results, planetary temperatures have risen and fallen over thousands of years in the past. We are warming now, and have been for over 18,000 years. So why should this be alarming? It is not.

There, is that clear enough?

There is ample science already posted, you simply deny it and ask for scientific proof. Let me ask you for some scientific proof that the current warming trend is anomalous compared to previous warming trends in past cycles. All of the current science is trying to prove that the earth is warming. Well, duh. Prove that this warming cycle is distinct from any of the past cycles over thousands of years.

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Thanks Bob but I can handle this. Please do not jeopardize this thread. I do not want it locked again.

Thanks, Pixel. Take it away.

 

[Jonah]

Where I am coming from is that the earth is warming as it has done many times in the past.

Thanks Bob. I think this is a good place to start. And so the question is, how do we know this? Since we weren't there recording temperature fluctuation, we really only have the fossil record to clue us in. And while most would think organic fossil, which do provide us with some insight and which we will discuss further at some point, lets start with an inorganic "fossil" record, and by that, I mean Ice. I've included here a paper written by Professor Richard Alley, who discusses his study of ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. This is the same scientist who lectured in front of the fall meeting of the American Geophysicist Union in December, a lecture I linked to in my first post in this thread. The document I've attached is presented by PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. It is entitled "Ice-Core Evidence of Abrupt Climate Change"

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full.pdf

It is important to understand the findings presented here in order to further the discussion with regard to associating what is found in these ice cores and their correlation with the earths climate history. If you haven't watched the lecture I linked to, now would be a good time. If you can't devote an hour to understanding the science of CO2 and it's corollary to the control of Earth's temperature, then I will assume you're satisfied with willful ignorance when it comes to this discussion. Bob's assertion that the Earth's climate has fluctuated many times in the past is a given and not in dispute. But unless he can tell us why, it's a moot argument. Understanding what the fossil record tells us is an important key to further discussion.

 

[pixelsmith]

Can we please move on? Do you have a point to make with ice core data?

 

[David Biedny]

I'll go out on an limb here, pixel, but I suspect that the only post that would make me consider killing the thread would be one of yours. But seriously, unless it gets totally out of control, the thread will stay open, no worries.

 

[pixelsmith]

I'll go out on an limb here, pixel, but I suspect that the only post that would make me consider killing the thread would be one of yours. But seriously, unless it gets totally out of control, the thread will stay open, no worries.

I think we have things under control. I like Jonahs approach.

 

[pixelsmith]

Remember when the "science was settled" back in the 70's? We were all going to die from Global Cooling. They even wanted to melt the ice caps to slow the next ice age. Google Image Result for http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg

One of the people warning us of impending doom was John Holdren, Our Nations science advisor who advises Obama on Global Warming.

 

[bobheck]

Remember when the "science was settled" back in the 70's? We were all going to die from Global Cooling. They even wanted to melt the ice caps to slow the next ice age. Google Image Result for http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg

Well, pixel, you can't expect the Chicken Little's of 2010 to scream the same thing as the Chicken Little's of 1975 -- I mean, look how silly the 1975 Chicken Little looked.

 

[pixelsmith]

They should have stuck with Global Cooling. They could sell that very easily today. Hey Jonah, you still there?

 

[David Biedny]

Where I am coming from is that the earth is warming as it has done many times in the past. Thousands of years from now, it will cool again, as it has done many times in the past. Then warm again, ad infinitum. And there is nothing we can do to stop it. So stop trying to change it, and don't support any increases in taxation or government controls that are based on the silly notion that we can alter the temperature of this planet.

So excuse my ignorance, but am I to understand that those of you who think that global warming is a scam are claiming that the burning of fossil fuels has had zero effect on the planet? Do you think we should promote the increased burning of fossil fuels? Do you think that human industrial activities have a zero sum impact on the planet? Do you feel that the Earth is less important than human progress and industrial activity?

Do you all think that perpetual growth is viable? Ever hear of cancer? Is cancer a good thing for the host body?

Yeah, I know, I'm being awfully provincial and all, but I'm just wondering...

Of course, I'll regret posting this message, especially when pixel starts typing, but I do this show, so I must be a masochist.

dB

 

[bobheck]

So excuse my ignorance, but am I to understand that those of you who think that global warming is a scam are claiming that the burning of fossil fuels has had zero effect on the planet? Do you think we should promote the increased burning of fossil fuels?

David, absolutely not. I think we should reduce the burning of fossil fuels, but for quantifiable reasons, such as toxicity, air quality, overall general pollution, etc... I think they have had an effect on the planet, a negative one. But, I don't think anyone can make some giant leap and say we are warming the planet. Keep the reason for reducing these things to easily identifiable measurements (ppm of certain elements in the air samples, etc...).

I don't think we could warm or cool the planet on a permanent basis even if we wanted to -- with all of our scientific might (or so we perceive) and all of our resources. The earth will find it's balance. It is much too powerful.

For criminy's sake, the earth has survived ice ages, warm ages, comet/asteroid collisions, massive eruptions.

I don't know how many times I can say it, I am for air quality controls, water toxicity regulations, all that stuff. I want clean air and water and natural resources.

But this global warming thing is a big umbrella that is being set up to allow global control over countries, taxing them at a new level and imposing restrictions. It is kind of a catch all. That is very scary.

Do you all think that perpetual growth is viable?

Fossil fuels, by definition, are depletable resources (abiotic oil theory, which has merits, notwithstanding). Therefore, using them in perpetuity is impossible. Hmm, how about that, earth has a built-in safety cut-off valve.