Bolivian Glacier Disappears

[shawn]

Avi:
1) It doesn't matter how many people sign a petition.

On the same token, then it matters not how many alleged specialists you dredge up who point the finger at people being the cause which is the real issue.
But if you would look at the people involved in the petition you would find a great many climate specialists.
But since they do not toe the party line of your stripe, they must all be wrong....eh?!

 

[citizenzen]

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

The names on the Petition Project are real. They are real PHD and real scientists.

shawn, while you may think this indicates that a consensus does not exist on global warming, you need to look a little closer at the numbers. Some can be found here U.S. scientists and engineers, by labor force status and level of highest degree: 1999 (PDF)

According to this, there were in America 829,000 scientists and engineers who held a doctorate degree in 1999. If this were the only group allowed to have a say about climate change, your 31,000 votes amounts to 3.74%. That's hardly a consensus-busting number.

If you look at professional scientists and engineers (993,800) the percentage drops even further to 3.1%.

Somebody smarter than I will have to factor in whether engineers are scientists, the data doesn't separate them out. I would bet that some engineers are involved in climate change in very important ways.

Why I'd even be willing to put $20 on it.

C'mon shawn. Double or nothin'! I'll give you a chance to break even.

 

[shawn]

I have no problem accepting that there are climate changes going on.
But where is the finger of blame pointed?
People.
This is not the main cause.
Sure we pollute.
Why do some deny the effects of the sun and volcanoes?
What is the output of polluting gases from people compared to volcanoes?
What is the output of CO2 per year by people?
Why has all the focus gone from polluting to climate changing?
You folks have drank the kool-aid and now sound like a religious cult.

 

[iBrian]

I don't think the contention is that there are natural sources of polluting gases - we can't control those - but we can control our own levels of pollution.

 

[citizenzen]

You folks have drank the kool-aid and now sound like a religious cult.

The problem with this point of view is that when you start going down this path of argument you demonstrate that logic and evidence no longer matter.

There's a familiar ring to your quote and I know where I've seen this before. Check out the Obamas Birth Certificate thread. You'll see how Nick_A deflects point after point, not with logic, not with evidence, but simply by accusing people of "having joined the choir".

You really don't want to follow Nick down that road, do you?

All these quotes are pulled from just one page (the most recent page) of the Obama discussion...

"May you someday get another hobby than choir singing."

"But the real concern is how deeply you have become enchanted by choir logic."

"I do hope some day you can become free of the hold the choir has on you."

"It may seem delusional to your choir mind..."

"Empty words are what allow one like Obama to con people into choir logic..."

"Yes, the choir is loud but I choose not to be a part of it."

"...his sweet young girl was fortunate to be refused by the choir..."

"...you are appearing more like them as the choir virus slowly takes over your mind."

"...sink back into the choir for additional indoctrination..."

That's a long, lonely, twisted road shawn. I hope you don't find yourself lost on it.

 

[shawn]

nice trick.
Pull one line from a string of statements and questions that you can make something of, which you, by the way, have blown way out of proportion.
How about answering some of the questions you just glossed over, please.
(Rather rude of you to be comparing me with nick.
I now think somewhat less of you)

 

[citizenzen]

nice trick.
Pull one line from a string of statements and questions that you can make something of, which you, by the way, have blown way out of proportion.

It's your line dude. I didn't make it up.

 

[seattlegal]

So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?

What if CO2 does not cause global warming? (Keep in mind the massive ice age when CO2 levels were well over 4000 ppm, as compared to the less than 400 ppm today.) What happens when we propagate delusion?

 

[Avi]

So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?

It gets even better than that. Once the pols and "powers that be" understand the potential of recycling, conservation (meaning reduction of the demand side) will no longer be necessary. We will be able to consume vast amounts of materials without destroying the environment, because they will all be recycled . In other words, the beauty of recycling is that it makes demand no longer limited by supply, but instead by the quantity of the recycled stream !!

 

[citizenzen]

What if CO2 does not cause global warming? (Keep in mind the massive ice age when CO2 levels were well over 4000 ppm, as compared to the less than 400 ppm today.) What happens when we propagate delusion?

Well, since we provided evidence that this was not the case in the Ordovician Ice Age I would suggest that other ice ages are probably resolved in a similar manner.

I'm a little leery of your numbers. As quoted in this post:

"These climates would be just dandy as a natural test of the Earth's sensitivity to long lived greenhouse gas concentrations were it not for one nasty fact: it is very, very difficult to get an accurate idea of how high the CO2 concentrations were so far back in time (see Crowley and Berner or Broadly Misleading on RC). For example, estimates for the Eocene range from values similar to modern CO2 concentrations all the way up to 15 times pre-industrial CO2. This unpleasantly large range represents uncertainties in the proxies used to estimate CO2 in the distant past."

So let's just say I'm a little skeptical when you throw out figures claiming how high past CO2 levels were.

Perhaps you can supply more data and specifics about which ice ages you refer to and we'll examine the evidence more thoroughly.

 

[iBrian]

What if CO2 does not cause global warming?

The suggestion seems to be that there is a clear mechanical process that involves CO2 and hydrocarbons such as methane being able to serve as a thermal barrier to heat exchange process within the earth's atmosphere.

And as before, if the rise in earth's temperature seems to be happening far faster than any existing known processes - such as being in an interglacial state, impact of solar cycles, orbital path oscillations - and we have both a mechanical model and a clear escalation in the changes to atmospheric composition due to human pollution, then it seems there are few other conclusions that can be reached than there is a likely correlation between observation and the mechanical process, and the human contribution to it.

It's ironic - climatology previously highlighted the impact of nitrous and sulphur-compounds on the formation of acid rain; the impact of CFC's on ozone depletion - and neither was particularly challenged.

Neither were models implicating CO2 in Global Warming seriously contested - until the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) was charged to report on the issue to the UN.

Suddenly, climatology is branded as being filled with commie-pinko-liberals who want nothing more than to bring down capitalism through fear-based pseudoscience.

It's funny that climatology wasn't regarded so critically until it indirectly challenged one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the world.

 

[seattlegal]

The suggestion seems to be that there is a clear mechanical process that involves CO2 and hydrocarbons such as methane being able to serve as a thermal barrier to heat exchange process within the earth's atmosphere.

Indeed, without these atmospheric gases, along with water vapor, we would lose most of our heat at night where the sun isn't shining on the earth.

And as before, if the rise in earth's temperature seems to be happening far faster than any existing known processes - such as being in an interglacial state, impact of solar cycles, orbital path oscillations - and we have both a mechanical model and a clear escalation in the changes to atmospheric composition due to human pollution, then it seems there are few other conclusions that can be reached than there is a likely correlation between observation and the mechanical process, and the human contribution to it.

The problems with this model are its very limited scope in regards to the history of the earth, as well with its inability to make accurate predictions. Even the old geocentric models of the universe were useful in making accurate predictions over a broad time range, but they were still based upon a fallacious assumption.

It's ironic - climatology previously highlighted the impact of nitrous and sulphur-compounds on the formation of acid rain; the impact of CFC's on ozone depletion - and neither was particularly challenged.

Neither were models implicating CO2 in Global Warming seriously contested - until the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) was charged to report on the issue to the UN.

Suddenly, climatology is branded as being filled with commie-pinko-liberals who want nothing more than to bring down capitalism through fear-based pseudoscience.

Indeed. Have you seen the studies about how sulfur compounds in pollution greatly lower the greenhouse gas production of wetlands?

It's funny that climatology wasn't regarded so critically until it indirectly challenged one of the biggest and most profitable industries in the world.

Yep. Have you also noticed how most of this industry is owned by governments, rather than by private companies? I would say that politics is a greater driver of CO2 emphasis than science is. It moves attention away from the sulfur compounds and other pollutants that are uncontested in their impact on the environment. So instead of talking about the negative impact of these pollutants, we are talking about methane and CO2. (I'm sure those who are doing the major polluting are enjoying all this distracting hub-bub regarding CO2 and methane.)

 

[Avi]

Have you also noticed how most of this industry is owned by governments, rather than by private companies?

SG, where did you get this idea ? All of the major petroleum companies are publically owned corporations traded on the stock market. The same ownership structure as the tobacco companies, who delayed the dissemination of knowledge about tobacco's carinogenicity for 20 years.

I think Brian's observation strikes close to the heart of where the confusion is coming from.

 

[citizenzen]

The problems with this [human influenced climate change] model are its very limited scope in regards to the history of the earth, as well with its inability to make accurate predictions. Even the old geocentric models of the universe were useful in making accurate predictions over a broad time range, but they were still based upon a fallacious assumption.

SG, it seems we are at an impasse. In the end, whatever does happen, you will explain as a "natural" occurrence.

What fallacious assumption is keeping you from hopping on to our side of the argument?

Why are you so convinced that humans are not influencing the climate?

 

[Avi]

I just starting looking at the peer reviewed literature in this area and quickly found this interesting article from the UK in 2000. It now has over 900 citations (Shawn that is different from signatures on a petition. It means that over 900 other peer reviewed manuscripts referenced this one for the importance of its contribution). Also, Nature is a top impact journal.

Even 9 years ago they linked at 1.5K temperature rise to "anthropomorphic carbon emissions".

I am sure it will be easy to link many of these top notch scientific papers to support the well understood relationship between greenhouse emissions and global warming.

Letters to Nature
Nature 408, 184-187 (9 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35041539; Received 6 January 2000; Accepted 26 September 2000
Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model





Peter M. Cox1, Richard A. Betts1, Chris D. Jones1, Steven A. Spall1 & Ian J. Totterdell2

1. Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 2SY, UK
2. Southampton Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK

Correspondence to: Peter M. Cox1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to P.M.C. (e-mail: Email: pmcox@meto.gov.uk).
Top of page
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate1. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems2, but this absorption is sensitive to climate3, 4 as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations5, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change6. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon–climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

 

[citizenzen]

Shawn, you mean well, but you are burying yourself: The one legitimate reference you cite about volcanos vs. meteor impact reinforces the need to be careful about greenhouse gases.

Exactly. A volcano spews an unbelievable amount of pollution into our atmosphere and this is added to the pollution that humans create.

shawn, here is an excerpt from the U.S Geological Survey website: Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

"The [volcano's] sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with the increased stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere".

also from the U.S Geological Surve website: Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

So, are we scared yet? (I know SG, I know... they want us to be scared.)

 

[seattlegal]

SG, where did you get this idea ? All of the major petroleum companies are publically owned corporations traded on the stock market.

Look worldwide, Avi. (China, Mexico, India, etc.) Look at how many state-owned oil companies are doing business in Burma. It seems like way more than half have state ownership, many of which are publically listed, while fewer still are actually publically traded.

The same ownership structure as the tobacco companies, who delayed the dissemination of knowledge about tobacco's carinogenicity for 20 years.

Look again.

 

[Avi]

Look worldwide, Avi. (China, Mexico, India, etc.) Look at how many state-owned oil companies are doing business in Burma. It seems like way more than half have state ownership, many of which are publically listed, while fewer still are actually publically traded.
Look again.

True, SG, I considered the multi-nationals after I posted.

Most of the big ones are publically traded, but more importantly, it is all of the oil companies that stand to lose the most when the reality of the situation is understood.

These are the folks who will have to pay for sequestration technologies and better yet CO2 to liquid fuels technologies (Incidentally, lots for research is going on this area now, any guesses why ?? )

 

[citizenzen]

Look worldwide, Avi. (China, Mexico, India, etc.) Look at how many state-owned oil companies are doing business in Burma. It seems like way more than half have state ownership, many of which are publically listed, while fewer still are actually publically traded.

But this doesn't alter the fact that we need to address the problem, it just indicates that it will be a struggle to institute world-wide change.

We don't shy away from struggles.

 

[seattlegal]

But this doesn't alter the fact that we need to address the problem, it just indicates that it will be a struggle to institute world-wide change.

We don't shy away from struggles.

So you admit that this more about energy than the environment?