Global Warming Consensus -- Not man made!!

Jim, nice to have you back. Of course he believes that "simplistic drivel," he's a republican (libertarian?) after all, and simplistic drivel is what they thrive on. Hell, Bush was elected because the average joe doesn't like "nuance" or complex thought, and PREFERS simplistic drivel as long as it tells them what they want to hear, and Bush was ALL about being a simpleton (they call it "straight talk" to sell it to the dummies)

well you forgot their "science has been wrong before, so there is a good chance it is wrong this time too!" argument. They can use that argument even if 99.9999999999% of scientists agree on something.

do you know what nanotechnology is? Pretty much every new technology on the market is dependent on nanoscience in one way or another. So, if there's a solution to the fossil fuel problem it is going use nanotechnology. I don't see what the problem is.

I hope all the dipwads that are 'fraid of dem der compooter models" don't drive cars, take medicine, or go into any steel framed buildings because those are modeled on computers as well.

very funny penis breath.

the problem is that the models do not match the observations

This just in ....

According to calculations done by Minnesota researchers, 54 percent of the total energy represented by a gallon of ethanol is offset by the energy required to process the fuel; another 24 percent is offset by the energy required to grow the corn. While about 25 percent more energy is squeezed out of the biofuel than is used to produce it, other fuels yield much bigger gains, says Stephen Polasky, a professor of ecological and environmental economics at Minnesota. Making etha­nol is "not a cheap process," he says. "From my perspective, the biggest problem [with corn ethanol] is just the straight-out economics and the costs. The energy input/output is not very good."

The high energy requirements of ethanol production mean that using ethanol as fuel isn't all that much better for the environment than using gasoline. One might think that burning the biofuel would release only the carbon dioxide that corn captures as it grows. But that simplified picture, which has often been conjured up to support the use of ethanol fuel, doesn't withstand closer scrutiny.

In fact, Polasky says, the fossil fuels needed to raise and harvest corn and produce ethanol are responsible for significant carbon emissions. Not only that, but the cultivation of corn also produces two other potent greenhouse gases: nitrous oxide and methane. Polasky calculates that corn-derived ethanol is responsible for greenhouse-gas emissions about 15 to 20 percent below those associated with gasoline: "The bottom line is that you're getting a slight saving in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions, but not much."

You're talking out of your ass. You think that 99.9999% of scientists agree because someone else told you that. While the vast majority of scientists may agree, not all of them matter.

There's very few people who are qualified to address the issues that plague modeling climate change. While there are many people who can participate in the observational efforts, (biologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc) a much smaller number can effectively discuss modeling. Almost all biologists are DQ'd. Almost all chemists except computational /physical chemists are DQ'd. Many physicists can understand the relevant issues and a good number of mathematicians can. A small number of geologists and meteorologists understand the limitations of their modeling but most don't.

So when you tell me 99% of scientists agree about something, I'll respond by saying that most of their opinions are irrelevant. Poll the people that are qualified to answer and you'll get a very different picture.

For the people comparing being a skeptic about the dire predictions made about global climate change to disbelieving the moon landing or evolution vs creationism, you couldn't be more wrong. Evolution has been a scientific theory for about 150 years and has been subjected to a wide variety of tests - predictions have been made that are falsifiable and so far no exception to the theory has been found.

There is no proper theory of climate (change) that is falsifiable. Computer modeling of the climate is really difficult and I don't believe that all of the forcing functions have been properly identified. There are many other people who hold this view.

The truth is that there is room for debate. Most "advocates" here can't tolerate that - they think that anyone who questions their assumptions is anti-science. This couldn't be further from the truth. When the arguments fail, the name calling starts.

When you think of Nebraska you think of beef and cattle, but the power and money in Nebraska is in the corn fields. Much like North Carolina farmers are the world evil behind lung cancer and emphysema, Nebraska farmers are the world evil behind diabetes and obesity. Nebraska farmers sell corn, and processed corn syrup, it's in everything, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, oatmeal cookies. There's no sales tax nor deposit on soft drinks in Nebraska, now you know why.

dmb, you should have no problem then, referring us to your federally funded research that somehow avoided all this funding agency bias of which you seem to have inside knowledge. Since we all paid for it, you at least owe us that.

Funding agencies do indeed have topics that they tend to favor. And these topics do change as their priorities change. This much is true but to say that they favor conclusions and outcomes of the research they fund is pretty stupid. No offense, but you sound bitter (not to mention your maturity is on full display in your "ass wiping" remark to an undergraduate).

You should give some of us a little credit as well. Please point to the modeling flaws propagated in climate change studies. Cited references would be appreciated. I am sure you are bright guy, but I think I can keep up.

Olympus Mons wrote:

Why are the icecaps on Mars melting?

Global warming there too?

Almost certainly for different reasons. Mars has one of the more eccentric orbits of the inner planets and is, if I remember correctly, approaching a "super summer". It is also the case the high winds on Mars have exposed darker earth, which absorbs more sunlight, heats the planet, and causes more winds. Lather, rinse, repeat. Solar output hasn't changed drastically over the last 30 years, so you can't really blame that.

Further, I'm not sure that Mars is experiencing global warming. The warming may be localized to the south pole. Localized warming can happen anywhere. Planetary scientists don't think that there is much of a connection between what's happening on Earth and what's happening on Mars.

I don't know if I went overboard or just explained myself poorly about federal funding. I'm not saying all federally funded research is biased, I'm just trying to show that at times it is a much more subjective process than people think. I think if people saw how the decisions are made they would be shocked.

I think there are a number of people a la Al Gore who have adopted this as a cause celebre and the more press coverage they can generate, the more likely it is to move up as a funding priority - that's the kind of manipulation that I am talking about.

As for the other stuff, I really could care less if you think I'm immature. Anyone who tells me that they're "in the know" because they're about the receive their BA is deserving of correction. For the record, I don't think that telling someone that they don't know how to wipe their ass is that big of a deal. Especially here.

Why would I be bitter? I'm successful, received tenure and routinely get funded. I like going to work and I'm genuinely excited most days about my work. I get to work with great kids and I feel young most of the time.

Finally, I wish all of the people that take issue with me would realize that I am not saying that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I just think that there's room for debate and we should have a much better handle on the underlying science before we try to predict the future.

For an interesting discussion see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/climate-sensitivity-and-aerosol-forcings/

There's a link to a nature article there that addresses the role of aerosols in climate change. The important thing to point out here is that there is uncertainty about how to handle a very important forcing term - this alone warrants discussion, much more than we've already had.

Another issue is the oft repeated hurricane myth, specifically that we're seeing more and stronger storms as the result of global warming. You can check for yourself at NOAA.gov and look directly at the data, you'll see that there were more storms in the 40's and 50's and they were stronger than we've seen in the last decade.

400 scientists wrote:

“I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

So that's why Mangini is only 3-11 this year, he's been distracting himself with this global warming research bullshit!

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

wrong bozo!Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist SaysKate Raviliousfor National Geographic NewsFebruary 28, 2007Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

Olympus Mons wrote:

Why are the icecaps on Mars melting?

Global warming there too?

Almost certainly for different reasons. Mars has one of the more eccentric orbits of the inner planets and is, if I remember correctly, approaching a "super summer". It is also the case the high winds on Mars have exposed darker earth, which absorbs more sunlight, heats the planet, and causes more winds. Lather, rinse, repeat. Solar output hasn't changed drastically over the last 30 years, so you can't really blame that.

Further, I'm not sure that Mars is experiencing global warming. The warming may be localized to the south pole. Localized warming can happen anywhere. Planetary scientists don't think that there is much of a connection between what's happening on Earth and what's happening on Mars.

Interesting:

"Using the Mars data as an argument for a changing solar constant is absurd. We don't understand Mars well enough to make that case."

Nor do we understand our own climate to make a similar case.

dmb wrote:

Finally, I wish all of the people that take issue with me would realize that I am not saying that there's absolutely nothing to be concerned about. I just think that there's room for debate and we should have a much better handle on the underlying science before we try to predict the future.

For an interesting discussion see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/climate-sensitivity-and-aerosol-forcings/

The important thing to point out here is that there is uncertainty about how to handle a very important forcing term - this alone warrants discussion, much more than we've already had.

dmb,

What I am curious about is the major limitations of the modeling systems. You seem to know or at least know where to obtain the information about the limitations. I don't doubt that limitations would be present when modeling something with as many variables and is as dynamic as the earth's atmosphere. It has been said that some of these models proven NOT to predict current situations? Is this true? What do people believe are the limitations resulting in an incorrect prediction in these specific situations? I am currently in the 4th year of a PhD program in physiology and am well aware that I probably won't be able to comprehend most of the modeling biases or pitfalls, but am nevertheless curious as to where I can find more information. Also do you believe that modeling is the best (only?) way that we can test and predict the the consequences of current rises in temperature and man influence on the rise in temperatures or are there short term experimental designs that allow direct testing of these modeled hypotheses? It seems that often these arguments (on each side) are brought by people who often limit their complete understanding of a given topic. I am continually amazed that the more I know about a given topic the more I realize I don't know the first thing about it. I am sure I know more about physiology than 99% of the posters on these boards, but at the same time I don't know more than 99% of posters on this board.

Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton has this to say about the computer models:

"... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice reaches Record Maximum

Just as we set a new record in the northern hemisphere for minimum sea ice area in September, the southern hemisphere has officially set a new record for maximum sea ice area. According to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Polar Research Group the southern hemisphere sea ice area reached 16.17 million square kilometers, narrowly breaking the old record of 16.03 million square kilometers. The record data goes back to 1979.

Therefor lets burn coal and pollute and do all that shit we did before? Global warming isn't the only reason emmissions are bad bro.

The models are designed to track atmospheric temperature, right? If they describe those well, then the question becomes how much of an impact does the biology really have on atmospheric models that are well understood? What kind of corrections can you use (or are already used) based on historical data to clean up a given model or give a wider range of scenarios?