'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

[KidRocks]

It's official folks, global-warming is indeed here. Deal with it before it's too late.











'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."...

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Doesn't matter, the nay-sayers will press on unflinched. I really cannot stand people who think that you can pick and choose from what science tells you is true. Science isn't a buffet, you must sit down and take what you're served.

If you want insulin for your diabetes, you have to take gravity, evolution, and climatology with it. What you want to be true is irrelevant.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Wonder why the icecaps in both Antarctic and Greenland are getting thicker........hmmmmmmmm.......

 

[jallman]

Wonder why the icecaps in both Antarctic and Greenland are getting thicker........hmmmmmmmm.......

Increased moisture in the air from having warmer temps globally. Adds more ice to the caps temporarily.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Increased moisture in the air from having warmer temps globally. Adds more ice to the caps temporarily.

so tell me.....how long has this increased moisture been going on? 5, 10 years? Cannot be longer than 20 because 20 years ago you environmental people were claiming global cooling.....so if the temporarily is only 20 years tops....why has the icecaps in both regions been seeing an increase for the last hundred years or so if its only temporarily?

 

[WI Crippler]

Well at least we don't need to debate about global warming anymore. Its already here. Its too late.

 

[jallman]

so tell me.....how long has this increased moisture been going on? 5, 10 years? Cannot be longer than 20 because 20 years ago you environmental people were claiming global cooling.....so if the temporarily is only 20 years tops....why has the icecaps in both regions been seeing an increase for the last hundred years or so if its only temporarily?

Whoa...don't take that tone with me, I just gave you a possible explanation for your question. It's the accounting for the glacier expansion I got from one of the geologists up here in AK.

In terms of global climatology, 100 years is temporary. Personally, I don't think the global warming trend is anything more than an inevitable climate shift that is bound to happen anyway. Perhaps you shouldn't make such stupid and thoughtless claims like "you environmental people" when you respond to someone who was just being helpful.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Whoa...don't take that tone with me, I just gave you a possible explanation for your question. It's the accounting for the glacier expansion I got from one of the geologists up here in AK.

In terms of global climatology, 100 years is temporary. Personally, I don't think the global warming trend is anything more than an inevitable climate shift that is bound to happen anyway. Perhaps you shouldn't make such stupid and thoughtless claims like "you environmental people" when you respond to someone who was just being helpful.

I didnt know I was taking any tone with anyone.......if I thought you were an environmental wacko, I would have said so....which everyone knows here that I speak my mind no matter who its to.......but since you started the name calling............

back to the topic......if a 100 years is temporary....and cars havent been around in large numbers for a hundred years.....how you evironmentalist explain the icecaps growing for the last hundred years in these two regions if there is this so called global warming?

 

[jallman]

I didnt know I was taking any tone with anyone.......if I thought you were an environmental wacko, I would have said so....which everyone knows here that I speak my mind no matter who its to.......but since you started the name calling............

back to the topic......if a 100 years is temporary....and cars havent been around in large numbers for a hundred years.....how you evironmentalist explain the icecaps growing for the last hundred years in these two regions if there is this so called global warming?

Let me repeat myself...and this time read reaaal sloooowwwwly. Now concentrate like a laser beam and try to comprehend:

Personally, I don't think the global warming trend is anything more than an inevitable climate shift that is bound to happen anyway.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Let me repeat myself...and this time read reaaal sloooowwwwly. Now concentrate like a laser beam and try to comprehend:

Why in the hell do you think I am only talking to you? Are you that vain to think everyone that posts something here is directed at you?.....youre not the only person here:roll:

 

[jallman]

Why in the hell do you think I am only talking to you? Are you that vain to think everyone that posts something here is directed at you?.....youre not the only person here:roll:

But I am the one you quoted, brain child....

 

[Binary_Digit]

Why in the hell do you think I am only talking to you?

Hmm...

how you evironmentalist explain the icecaps growing for the last hundred years in these two regions if there is this so called global warming?

Could that be a clue?

 

[Binary_Digit]

It amazes me how armchair scientists can dismiss the consensus of experts who have dedicated the better part of ther lives to studying things they only read about in the newspaper. I bet they even have the balls to tell their doctor how to put on a band-aid.

 

[RightinNYC]

Doesn't matter, the nay-sayers will press on unflinched. I really cannot stand people who think that you can pick and choose from what science tells you is true. Science isn't a buffet, you must sit down and take what you're served.

If you want insulin for your diabetes, you have to take gravity, evolution, and climatology with it. What you want to be true is irrelevant.

While I'm sure its great fun to paint everyone who doesn't march lockstep with Al Gore as idiots who hate science, there's a bit more to it than that.

Here's the important questions, and the Al Gore/Global Warming Enthusiast's response:


Is global warming happening? YES.

Are humans causing it? Yes, to some degree.

To what degree? Uh.........dunno.

What will the positive and negative effects of this be? Well, we have no idea about the positive effects, because researching that kind of stuff won't pay the bills. We have lots and lots of theories about the negative, but most of us can't even really agree on it. But bad things WILL happen.

How can it be slowed or reversed? Uh..........dunno. Probably can't be reversed, but can maybe be mitigated. Maybe.

How much would slowing/reversing it cost? Who would bear the cost? How could we ensure that countries pay their fair share? How can we ensure that countries agree to abide by regulations? Uh........dunno.

Until the important questions get answered (all of them), then making a massive effort to do something is akin to going to war without properly planning it beforehand. And I already know the views of most leftists on that subject.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Is global warming happening? YES.

Are humans causing it? Yes, to some degree.

To what degree? Uh.........dunno.

What will the positive and negative effects of this be? Well, we have no idea about the positive effects, because researching that kind of stuff won't pay the bills. We have lots and lots of theories about the negative, but most of us can't even really agree on it. But bad things WILL happen.

How can it be slowed or reversed? Uh..........dunno. Probably can't be reversed, but can maybe be mitigated. Maybe.

How much would slowing/reversing it cost? Who would bear the cost? How could we ensure that countries pay their fair share? How can we ensure that countries agree to abide by regulations? Uh........dunno.

Until the important questions get answered (all of them), then making a massive effort to do something is akin to going to war without properly planning it beforehand. And I already know the views of most leftists on that subject.

If the global warming scientists had an agenda, as many claim, don't you think they would have fabricated answers to those questions?

Before the first nuclear bomb was tested, they didn't know if the chain reaction would stop. But they damn sure as hell knew it was going to explode!

Criminy, so they don't know every last detail. If you had any idea how hard it is to determine those answers without actually observing it, you'd realize how ridiculous it is to toss everything they say on the back burner until they figure the rest out.

How much would slowing/reversing it cost? Who would bear the cost? How could we ensure that countries pay their fair share? How can we ensure that countries agree to abide by regulations? Uh........dunno.

This isn't a question for scientists anyway, it's a question for politicians.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Let me repeat myself...and this time read reaaal sloooowwwwly. Now concentrate like a laser beam and try to comprehend:

who is taking "a tone" with whom?

 

[RightinNYC]

If the global warming scientists had an agenda, as many claim, don't you think they would have fabricated answers to those questions?

Actually, quite the opposite. I think they'd claim that they don't have those answers and thus need billions more in order to conduct the research in order to get closer to those answers.

And in case anyone is misreading my accusation of an "agenda" on the part of the scientists - I'm not claiming that all scientists are somehow evil liberals out to destroy America with lies. I'm simply pointing out that there is a STRONG financial incentive for scientists to a) publish research that will attract the public attention, and b) publish research that will spur a push for increased funding for...additional research. I'm not imputing any bias or any serious breaches of ethical character. Just noting that like most people, they will present things in a way that supports their needs.

Before the first nuclear bomb was tested, they didn't know if the chain reaction would stop. But they damn sure as hell knew it was going to explode!

True. And they determined that the costs associated with a failed test were higher than the costs of failing to do the test, thus making a rational decision. You can't make a rational decision when you're dealing with two completely unquantified variables.

Criminy, so they don't know every last detail. If you had any idea how hard it is to determine those answers without actually observing it, you'd realize how ridiculous it is to toss everything they say on the back burner until they figure the rest out.

I'm not tossing anything on the back burner. In fact, I'm trying to bring it to the front burner. I would LOVE for research to be done to get even SOME answers to these questions.

However, I am adamantly opposed to taking on any of the MASSIVE policy and economic changes that many GW enthusiasts are proposing without this information. I think its foolish and reactionary.

This isn't a question for scientists anyway, it's a question for politicians.

Which terrifies me even more. At least scientists are smart enough to stay away from stupid and overly conclusive claims like "We have to do this now or XYZ will happen." Politicians on the other hand...

 

[Stinger]

Increased moisture in the air from having warmer temps globally. Adds more ice to the caps temporarily.

Actually it will probably be there for a pretty long time as the earth regulates itself.

 

[Stinger]

It amazes me how armchair scientists can dismiss the consensus of experts who have dedicated the better part of ther lives to studying things they only read about in the newspaper. I bet they even have the balls to tell their doctor how to put on a band-aid.

It amazes me how the arm chair scientist can dismiss the consensus of the experts in the field that the climate is no different that it has ever been, always changing.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Actually, quite the opposite. I think they'd claim that they don't have those answers and thus need billions more in order to conduct the research in order to get closer to those answers.

And in case anyone is misreading my accusation of an "agenda" on the part of the scientists - I'm not claiming that all scientists are somehow evil liberals out to destroy America with lies. I'm simply pointing out that there is a STRONG financial incentive for scientists to a) publish research that will attract the public attention, and b) publish research that will spur a push for increased funding for...additional research.

You're right. And if there were any solid reasons to believe that global warming may not be the cause for concern its being made out to be, then publishing that research would definately attract public attention at this point, and would probably come with a few kickbacks from certain companies which would amount to more personal gain than funding ever would. But we haven't seen many of those reports.

True. And they determined that the costs associated with a failed test were higher than the costs of failing to do the test, thus making a rational decision. You can't make a rational decision when you're dealing with two completely unquantified variables.

What do you mean they're unqualified? What possible outcomes of global warming do scientists disagree on, specifically?

I'm not tossing anything on the back burner. In fact, I'm trying to bring it to the front burner. I would LOVE for research to be done to get even SOME answers to these questions.

However, I am adamantly opposed to taking on any of the MASSIVE policy and economic changes that many GW enthusiasts are proposing without this information. I think its foolish and reactionary.

That's reasonable, I understand where you're coming from. But when it comes to something this important, why wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? I think it's foolish not to be safe, especially when the primary solution is something we need to do anyway (implement a better kind of fuel). If there were more scientists disagreeing about global warming then I could understand, but this is akin to refusing to stop smoking just because they haven't proven it causes cancer, even though they all agree it's linked to cancer.

Which terrifies me even more. At least scientists are smart enough to stay away from stupid and overly conclusive claims like "We have to do this now or XYZ will happen." Politicians on the other hand...

Lol so true!

 

[Binary_Digit]

It amazes me how the arm chair scientist can dismiss the consensus of the experts in the field that the climate is no different that it has ever been, always changing.

Surely you could be so kind as to reveal the identity of these "experts in the field" who say such things? Because it's pretty ridiculous to think almost every scientist in the world overlooked the simple fact that global climate fluxuates when they arrived at their conclusions, don't you think? How often do you remind Bill Gates that he forgot to declare an integer?

 

[RightinNYC]

You're right. And if there were any solid reasons to believe that global warming may not be the cause for concern its being made out to be, then publishing that research would definately attract public attention at this point, and would probably come with a few kickbacks from certain companies which would amount to more personal gain than funding ever would. But we haven't seen many of those reports.

I'm not saying that there's serious ethical breaches, just that it's very easy to shift the scope of the argument by focusing on certain things.

Example: Let's say I have two studies I can conduct using the same data. One will likely show that global warming is imminent and dire. The other will show that while being imminent, we don't know how bad, don't know how to stop it, and don't know if it the current claims are oversold.

The first one will win me plaudits, keep me funded, and maybe even get my name in the paper. The second will get me labeled a skeptic, cause me to be shunned by my colleagues, and likely end my funding.

Simple choice.

What do you mean they're unqualified?

I said unquantified, not unqualified, in that they're not calculated.

What possible outcomes of global warming do scientists disagree on, specifically?

They disagree as to what the impact will be, how severe, how the climate will react, etc etc. These are all things that are incredibly difficult to predict, yet incredibly crucial to know if we are proposing such massive changes.

That's reasonable, I understand where you're coming from. But when it comes to something this important, why wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? I think it's foolish not to be safe, especially when the primary solution is something we need to do anyway (implement a better kind of fuel). If there were more scientists disagreeing about global warming then I could understand, but this is akin to refusing to stop smoking just because they haven't proven it causes cancer, even though they all agree it's linked to cancer.

If there were not costs associated with it, sure. But when the cost estimates of slowing or stopping global warming range from the hundreds of billions to the trillions, I think it's certainly worth knowing what the hell we're spending that money on and what we're going to get out of it.

The smoking analogy doesn't work because smoking is an act that provides no benefits, costs money, and is conclusively proven to do drastic and measurable harm to your health. Quitting it is clearly beneficial.

Implementing some of the proposals for stopping global warming may provide an unquantified benefit, will cost an incredibly massive yet unspecified amount of money, and is not certain to improve the health of the world at all. In this case, it is by no means such a clear choice.

 

[jfuh]

Wonder why the icecaps in both Antarctic and Greenland are getting thicker........hmmmmmmmm.......

Oh you mean like what the Competitive Enterprise Institude from the oil companies is saying?
This all stems from one scientists study and his highly been used by the opponents of science whom completely mis-informed the science presented by Dr. Curt Davis. Here is what Dr. Davis, the original author of the paper said about his research.

"These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said. "They are selectively using only parts of my previous research to support their claims. They are not telling the entire story to the public."

"The text of the CEI ad misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers and our current state of knowledge by selective referencing,"said Dr. Brooks Hanson, deputy editor, physical sciences, Science.

What does the ice sheet increase actually mean?

Davis said that three points in his study unequivocally demonstrate the misleading aspect of the CEI ads.

- His study only reported growth for the East Antarctic ice sheet, not the entire Antarctic ice sheet.
- Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas.
- The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming.

"It has been predicted that global warming might increase the growth of the interior ice sheet due to increased precipitation," Davis said. "All three of these points were noted in our study and ignoredby CEI in a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public."

Source
What's actually happening in Antarctica and greenland?

The survey documents extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves, but a thickening in the East of the continent, though not by as much as some other studies have shown. It shows the interior of Greenland is gaining mass due to increased snowfall, but the edges are getting thinner.

source
More on Greenland

Greenland is currently losing about 100 billion tonnes of ice a year. - source

So your false and misinforming submission that somehow the ice sheets are increasing are completely unjustified and a mis-representative lie.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I'm not saying that there's serious ethical breaches, just that it's very easy to shift the scope of the argument by focusing on certain things.

Example: Let's say I have two studies I can conduct using the same data. One will likely show that global warming is imminent and dire. The other will show that while being imminent, we don't know how bad, don't know how to stop it, and don't know if it the current claims are oversold.

The first one will win me plaudits, keep me funded, and maybe even get my name in the paper. The second will get me labeled a skeptic, cause me to be shunned by my colleagues, and likely end my funding.

Simple choice.

I'm not sure that I'm able to follow that. The report with less information seems to be the better fund-getter, since everyone agrees the situation is possibly bad and it will require more funding and research to learn how bad. Compare that to how much research funding they would get if they already know most of the answers. Besides, and I actually defended Bush in another thread with this same point, motive is a good reason to be skeptical and ask questions but it's not proof of anything.

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" was a NYT best seller. Surely any scientist who published a book containing credible refutations of the global warming claim could retire on that money, never again having to mislead people for more research funding. If there's such a motive among the scientific community that they publish biased reports to get more funding, why haven't we seen such a book published yet?

I said unquantified, not unqualified, in that they're not calculated.

My bad. Huge difference.

They disagree as to what the impact will be, how severe, how the climate will react, etc etc. These are all things that are incredibly difficult to predict, yet incredibly crucial to know if we are proposing such massive changes.

That's interesting. My understanding is, while they have proposed theories about what the effects could be that are different, none of them are arguing steadfastly that the negative effects will be less than what another collegue is arguing. Arriving at different estimates is not a disagreement in the sense that they consequently disagree with the underlying premise. That's like saying the CIA disagrees with the FBI's assertion that Hussein had WMDs, because the FBI says he had 20,000 gallons of anthrax while the CIA said he only had 10,000. (mock scenario, just throwing numbers around)

The smoking analogy doesn't work because smoking is an act that provides no benefits, costs money, and is conclusively proven to do drastic and measurable harm to your health. Quitting it is clearly beneficial.

The analogy does work for the point I was trying to make. There's a danger that we're facing. It could be small, it could be big, nobody knows. But almost everyone agrees it's a danger of some magnitude. We have to make a choice between reducing the number of ways we contribute to this danger, or sit idly by and learn the hard way. What do you do?

If there were not costs associated with it, sure. But when the cost estimates of slowing or stopping global warming range from the hundreds of billions to the trillions, I think it's certainly worth knowing what the hell we're spending that money on and what we're going to get out of it.

Implementing some of the proposals for stopping global warming may provide an unquantified benefit, will cost an incredibly massive yet unspecified amount of money, and is not certain to improve the health of the world at all. In this case, it is by no means such a clear choice.

Implementing an alternate fuel is something we'll need to do eventually anyway, so that cost is only important for considering when it should happen rather than if. I'm not sure what else would need to be done, but it seems to me that's the most expensive and effective thing that needs to happen.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm not sure that I'm able to follow that. The report with less information seems to be the better fund-getter, since everyone agrees the situation is possibly bad and it will require more funding and research to learn how bad. Compare that to how much research funding they would get if they already know most of the answers. Besides, and I actually defended Bush in another thread with this same point, motive is a good reason to be skeptical and ask questions but it's not proof of anything.

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" was a NYT best seller. Surely any scientist who published a book containing credible refutations of the global warming claim could retire on that money, never again having to mislead people for more research funding. If there's such a motive among the scientific community that they publish biased reports to get more funding, why haven't we seen such a book published yet?

Crichton's book did well because it was interesting and well written, not because of its scientific expertise.

And again, I'm not ascribing any ill will to these scientists. I'm just saying that its beneficial to leave things up in the air, yet ominous.

My bad. Huge difference.

No worries.

That's interesting. My understanding is, while they have proposed theories about what the effects could be that are different, none of them are arguing steadfastly that the negative effects will be less than what another collegue is arguing. Arriving at different estimates is not a disagreement in the sense that they consequently disagree with the underlying premise. That's like saying the CIA disagrees with the FBI's assertion that Hussein had WMDs, because the FBI says he had 20,000 gallons of anthrax while the CIA said he only had 10,000. (mock scenario, just throwing numbers around)

But the situation is this: For example, let's look at sea rise. Everyone agrees that if global warming continues, the sea will rise. But how much. The estimates for the change in sea level over the next 100 years range from as high as 880 cm to as low as just 9 cm.

Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a BIIIIIIG difference. One is 25 feet, the other is about 5 inches. So which is it? If it's 25 feet, thats very significant, and worthy of efforts to do something. But if sea level is only going to increase by 5 inches over 100 years, is that really worth the billions and trillions that are being proposed in spending?

The analogy does work for the point I was trying to make. There's a danger that we're facing. It could be small, it could be big, nobody knows. But almost everyone agrees it's a danger of some magnitude. We have to make a choice between reducing the number of ways we contribute to this danger, or sit idly by and learn the hard way. What do you do?

You do your damndest to figure out what the costs and benefits are. You can't make an effective cost-benefit analysis without this information. It is nothing more than the height of irresponsibility to make such serious changes without this info.

Implementing an alternate fuel is something we'll need to do eventually anyway, so that cost is only important for considering when it should happen rather than if. I'm not sure what else would need to be done, but it seems to me that's the most expensive and effective thing that needs to happen.

Oh I agree, but the question is how to best go about it.