Jump to content

Climate Change


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ancient ice survived hotter Earth than today

A team of Canadian researchers has discovered the oldest ice in North America, 700,000-year-old wedges unearthed near Dawson City in the Yukon that stayed solid when the Earth was much hotter than it is today.

The discovery suggests that one of the most catastrophic global warming scenarios, in which melting permafrost releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, may not occur as quickly as some scientists fear.

Globe and Mail, September 18

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The world has never seen such freezing heat

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

"You guys don't really know who you're dealing with."

"Oh yeah, and who exactly are we dealing with?"

"I'm the mother flippin' rhymenoceros."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

(Fits here as well as anywhere)

I'll be covering Hollywood Goes Green 2 next week. Topics include: (keynotes) Using Technology to Reduce Hollywood's Carbon Footprint; Sustainable Strategies in Home Entertainment; The Conscious Consumer: Implications for Media, Entertainment and Brands; Expanding Your Brand to Become Green; (breakout sessions) ECO-tainment for TV and Film: Creating Good Content About Doing Good; Eco-Friendly Strategies for Film and TV Production;Advertising and the Conscious Consumer.

Should be an interesting couple of days, even if it does mean doing the morning commute into Universal City. It's been 20 years since I had to commute more than 3 miles.

A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Anybody what to create some havoc with your church's property committee? Figure your congregations carbon footprint and task them with cutting it back.

BTW, here's my report on Hollywood Goes Green. I really hate when I have to say good things about Walmart and News Corp.

Edited by Darrel Manson
A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the thread on film awards lists:

Ebert names the year's best foreign films, then closes with this startling observation, which deserves a thread of its own:

Although I have long defended celluloid projection over video, the time has come for me to relent. Video projection is now excellent; it was not in earlier years, even though its proponents claimed it was. I still prefer film, but I think the time is approaching when the original promise of video can come true. If distributors of foreign and indie films are able to beam a video signal directly to theaters, the cost savings on the manufacture and distribution of prints would be enormous, and allow wide simultaneous openings even in smaller cities. It's clear something has to be done, and maybe this is it.

This would be a very green thing to do. Transportation, replication, and various other ways. It would no doubt shift some carbon footprint aspects from one place to another, but overall, it would be good at this level as well as others. I would expect one of the key down sides is that it will take a good deal of capital expenditure for an infrastructure.

A foreign movie can't be stupid.

-from the film
Armin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned...

"You guys don't really know who you're dealing with."

"Oh yeah, and who exactly are we dealing with?"

"I'm the mother flippin' rhymenoceros."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned...

I read this online a few days ago, and thought it was very interesting, especially the document all those scientists signed. I know almost nothing about the actual science, so it's weird to hear that the consensus may not be so ironclad. I'd be curious to know how significant the The Manhattan Declaration really is.

Below is a quote from the document, endorsed by hundreds of scientists.

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Edited by Sundered

I reason, Earth is short -

And Anguish - absolute -

And many hurt,

But, what of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

Personally, I'm waiting (and probably will be until hell freezes over) for scientists to start sticking to science, and stop pretending to be experts in public policy.

That's just how eye roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

Personally, I'm waiting (and probably will be until hell freezes over) for scientists to start sticking to science, and stop pretending to be experts in public policy.

Good point. I remember being annoyed by Michael Crichton's clearly political message to Congress, stating that global warming was not that big of a deal.

I wonder whether both sides, however, are equally entrenched in politics. In this case, it makes it difficult for us non-scientists to sort through the truth.

I reason, Earth is short -

And Anguish - absolute -

And many hurt,

But, what of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science, like it or not, will always have implications for public policy. Just think of the laws regulating tobacco use, or banning certain kinds of chemicals in baby's milk bottles, etc. Those sorts of laws are based (we hope) on scientifically demonstrable facts about the substances being regulated. So it makes sense that claims about pollution etc. would have an effect on public policy. The question is, How much proof and much universality of consensus should we require when some scientists make enormous claims demanding enormous expenditures and enormous changes in our public policy? (This applies not just to the global-warming controversy, but also to, say, any study which claims that raising or lowing a tax over here will increase or decrease certain kinds of activity over there.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science, like it or not, will always have implications for public policy.

And nobody's denying it. The question isn't whether the implications are there, but who should draw them.

Scientists are experts in a relatively narrow field. Meanwhile, politicians (ideally -- if not in practice) are supposed to have a broad enough base of knowledge to work out how to apply diverse things to the best benefit of the people. Seems to me that it's inevitable that when scientists, out of an understandable lack of trust of the political system, start taking it on themselves to make policy, that we'll see proposals with little basis in common sense.

The question is, How much proof and much universality of consensus should we require when some scientists make enormous claims demanding enormous expenditures and enormous changes in our public policy?

Should the "enormity" of the claims even matter, if they're true? What matters is, of course, the consensus, but also the evidence on which the consensus rests -- which is why having an open discussion of that evidence, accessible even to non-experts, is healthy. (I think we agree here...)

That's just how eye roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Smedberg wrote:

: Should the "enormity" of the claims even matter, if they're true?

The enormousness (not "enormity", strictly speaking) should matter, yes, absolutely -- especially when the claims are being made to further enormous changes in how our society does things. You can't make major policy changes based on slender evidence. Enormous claims need enormous evidence.

: What matters is, of course, the consensus, but also the evidence on which the consensus rests -- which is why having an open discussion of that evidence, accessible even to non-experts, is healthy. (I think we agree here...)

I think so, yeah.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Smedberg wrote:

: Should the "enormity" of the claims even matter, if they're true?

The enormousness (not "enormity", strictly speaking) should matter, yes, absolutely -- especially when the claims are being made to further enormous changes in how our society does things. You can't make major policy changes based on slender evidence. Enormous claims need enormous evidence.

I tend to disagree, actually (about the need for enormous amounts of evidence, not my misuse of enormity). Take a couple of examples...

If scientists were tomorrow to claim that if we don't end smoking by 2020, the atmosphere will become unbreathable and all animal life will perish, we would require enormous amounts of evidence; but I would think that the underlying reason we would want that evidence is the preposterousness of the claim, with a necessary prerequisite being the time interval before apocalypse; and the massive effects on many people's way of life would be a secondary concern.

If scientists were tomorrow to claim that an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and would pummel Metuchen, New Jersey on Friday next, we would not necessarily require hearings or conferences to finetune the models and validate the prediction, even though the claim means a wholly new life for the population of Metuchen. Since the claim is not wholly unbelievable, the claim need not be vetted as thoroughly, and since the slated deadly event happens so soon, there's no time to put it under a microscope anyway.

The application of these examples to global warming is pretty straight-forward, methinks. The amount of evidence you want depends on your ability to swallow Day after Tomorrow doomsday scenarios as plausible and/or immediate threats.

Edited by David Smedberg

That's just how eye roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Smedberg wrote:

: The amount of evidence you want depends on your ability to swallow Day after Tomorrow doomsday scenarios as plausible and/or immediate threats.

Well, yes. Some people are more gullible and/or skeptical than others. But that is precisely why enormous claims that would affect enormous numbers of people cannot be accepted on the basis of slender evidence.

And the global-warming advocates recognize this, which is why Al Gore tried to marshall so many data points in his favour in his film. That he got some of them wrong or exaggerated some of them or was misled in some cases is a secondary matter. The point here is that he knew he was making an enormous claim, and that he therefore needed an enormous amount of evidence.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list . . .

Harold Ambler, The Huffington Post, January 3

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list . . .

Harold Ambler, The Huffington Post, January 3

The Huffington Post is publishing against global warming?!

It's over.

I reason, Earth is short -

And Anguish - absolute -

And many hurt,

But, what of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate rains on Aussie drought

Last March, Mr. Flannery pronounced that

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Global and Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years

Tropical cyclone (TC) activity worldwide has completely and utterly collapsed during the past 2 to 3 years with TC energy levels sinking to levels not seen since the late 1970s. This should not be a surprise to scientists since the natural variability in climate dominates any detectable or perceived global warming impact when it comes to measuring yearly integrated tropical cyclone activity. With the continuation (persistence) of colder Pacific tropical sea-surface temperatures associated with the effects of La Nina, the upcoming 2009 Atlantic hurricane season should be above average, as we saw in 2008. Nevertheless, since the Atlantic only makes up 10-15% of overall global TC activity each year (climatological average during the past 30 years), continued Northern Hemispheric and global TC inactivity as a whole likely will continue.

...

Bottom Line

Under global warming scenarios, hurricane intensity is expected to increase (on the order of a few percent), but MANY questions remain as to how much, where, and when. This science is very far from settled. Indeed, Al Gore has dropped the related slide in his PowerPoint (btw, is he addicted to the Teleprompter as well?) Many papers have suggested that these changes are already occurring especially in the strongest of hurricanes, e.g. this and that and here, due to warming sea-surface temperatures (the methodology and data issues with each of these papers has been discussed here at CA, and will be even more in the coming months). The notion that the overall global hurricane energy or ACE has collapsed does not contradict the above papers but provides an additional, perhaps less publicized piece of the puzzle. Indeed, the very strong interannual variability of global hurricane ACE (energy) highly correlated to ENSO, suggests that the role of tropical cyclones in climate is modulated very strongly by the big movers and shakers in large-scale, global climate. The perceptible (and perhaps measurable) impact of global warming on hurricanes in today's climate is arguably a pittance compared to the reorganization and modulation of hurricane formation locations and preferred tracks/intensification corridors dominated by ENSO (and other natural climate factors). Moreover, our understanding of the complicated role of hurricanes with and role in climate is nebulous to be charitable. We must increase our understanding of the current climate's hurricane activity.

Edited by TexasWill

"If the Christian subculture exists primarily to condemn the world, you can be sure that Jesus is not having any part of it." - John Fischer

"Ignorance is excusable when it is borne like a cross, but when it is wielded like an axe, and with moral indignation, then it becomes something else indeed." - Flannery O'Connor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we would all be better off without the condescending comments.

Feel free to delete what I posted if you really think I'm just "dumping" stories.

"If the Christian subculture exists primarily to condemn the world, you can be sure that Jesus is not having any part of it." - John Fischer

"Ignorance is excusable when it is borne like a cross, but when it is wielded like an axe, and with moral indignation, then it becomes something else indeed." - Flannery O'Connor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan Thomas wrote:

: I've renamed this thread to "Climate Change" since the "Global Warming" title seemed to leave this topic open to being a dumping ground for every kind of nonsense that doesn't involve a straight, linear, line--"Global" means, on average, the whole Earth, folks.

Well, yeah, of course. I assume that is as true of alleged "global cooling" (a topic that has already come up in this thread) as it is of alleged "global warming".

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Global Cooling. The 35 year cycles are starting to assert themselves. It still remains to be demonstrated that Warming will be a complete disaster and that the present status quo is the global norm.

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Ben Giese of Texas A&M University said complex computer modelling showed the 1918 El Nino event was almost as strong and occurred before there was much global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels or widespread deforestation.

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution? With methane being the most obvious difference between now and 100(+) years ago? During our own deforestation, now recovered?

"During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933 [submitted by Franken, rk]. The three judges finally defined what constituted a 'legal' absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied the standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional basentees the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now 'illegal' according to the panel's own ex-post definition."

The Wall Street Journal editorial, April 18, 2009 concerning the Franken Coleman decision in the Minnesota U.S. Senate race of 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Interesting piece on views of global warming among Christians in the USA. Disturbing to see the opinions of evangelicals.

I'm disturbed that every group - evangelicals included - has such a low percentage of "don't know"s, given that probably 95% of people have no clue other than choosing to believe whatever their favorite politician tells them.

"You guys don't really know who you're dealing with."

"Oh yeah, and who exactly are we dealing with?"

"I'm the mother flippin' rhymenoceros."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...