What Do We Think About Climate Change

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Marco1

Troy, with all due respect, what does it matter if it is 1, 2 or 3 C hotter? And for that reason what does it matter if it is cooler as we have it now in Australia?

If you don't know the answer to that question by now, you just don't want to know. Obviously a degree here or there means nothing in the short run; it's the average over time that matters. And yes, just a few degrees difference in the average global temperature can cause a significant change in climate.

Answer, nothing.

Wrong answer....

It would matter only if the variation is outside normal parameters and cause is
A) andropogenic
B) we could do something about it.

It is outside normal parameters; the cause is anthropogenic; and we can do something about it.

Everything else is fluff, scare mongering, political mumbo jumbo as pseudo science.
We had much hotter climate before. We had much colder climate before and neither had anything to do with passing wind or burning fuel.

Complete non sequitur. The fact that there have been climate changes for other reasons in the past hardly proves that today's cause isn't anthropogenic. That's like telling your doctor, "this can't be food poisoning, because the belly-ache I had last year turned out to be gas."

The sea level has not changed in the last 100 years yet it has been lower than it is now and it has been higher than it is now. So?

Wrong again. The average sea level has risen measurably in the last hundred years.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p364381652174757/

This fanatic search for the missing link that will "prove" that it is humans fault and that therefore we must go back to live in caves or even better pay more taxes as if that would make any difference is nonsensical.
The "rapid" climate change is not changing anything at all. Not rapid nor slow.

No 'fanatic search' is necessary, because there is no missing link. The fanatic searchers are the ones throwing up ever-more-far-fetched alternatives, explanations and misinformation in an attempt to discredit legitimate science

Nor is anyone who matters saying we should go back to living in caves; that's nonsensical. The truth is that better and more modern technology is what will help us out of this mess, not throwing technology away.

Computer models can be programmed to say anything you want.
It is ONLY reality that matters

Typewriters or a pen and pencil can say anything you want, too. That doesn't prove someone who uses them is lying, just because they're saying something you don't want to hear.

[Guillermo]

In “Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate,” Christian Beer et al. estimate total annual terrestrial gross primary production (GPP) in an approach more solidly based on data than previous approximations. Terrestrial GPP is the largest source of global carbon exchange. It drives many ecosystem functions, such as respiration and growth. Food, fiber, and wood production from plants are all part of terrestrial GPP. Moreover, GPP is one of the major processes controlling land-atmosphere CO2 exchange.

The researchers used a combination of observation and calculation to estimate that the total GPP by terrestrial plants is around 122 billion tons per year. In part, the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems acts to offset human CO2 emissions, which total around 7 billion tons annually. Thirty-two percent of this uptake occurs in tropical forests, and precipitation controls carbon uptake in more than 40% of vegetated land. Here is how Beer et al. sum up their findings:

After four decades of research on the global magnitude of primary production of terrestrial vegetation, we present an observation-based estimate of global terrestrial GPP. Although we arrive at a global GPP of similar magnitude as these earlier estimates, our results add confidence and spatial details. The large range of GPP results by process-oriented biosphere models indicates the need for further constraining CO2 uptake processes in these models. Furthermore, our spatially explicit GPP results contribute to a quantification of the climatic control of GPP. Complementing theoretical or process-oriented results about climatic limitations of GPP, our observation-based results now constitute empirical evidence for a large effect of water availability on primary production over 40% of the vegetated land (Fig. 3A) and up to 70% in savannahs, shrublands, grasslands, and agricultural areas. Our findings imply a high susceptibility of these ecosystems’ productivity to projected changes of precipitation over the 21st century, but a robustness of tropical and boreal forests. Results of current process models show a large range and a tendency to overestimate precipitation-associated GPP (Fig. 3B). Most likely, the association of GPP and climate in process-oriented models can be improved by including negative feedback mechanisms (e.g., adaptation) that might stabilize the systems.

(bolded is mine)


In “Global Convergence in the Temperature Sensitivity of Respiration at Ecosystem Level,” Mahecha et al. assess how ecosystem respiration (R) is related to temperature over week-to-month and longer annual time scales, and find a potentially important but difficult-to-interpret relationship. Attempting to understand the sensitivity of respiratory processes to temperature, they approximated the sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to air temperature (Q10) across 60 FLUXNET sites. The authors expand on their motivation:

Quantifying the intensity of feedback mechanisms between terrestrial ecosystems and climate is a central challenge for understanding the global carbon cycle and a prerequisite for reliable future climate scenarios. One crucial determinant of the climate–carbon cycle feedback is the temperature sensitivity of respiratory processes in terrestrial ecosystems, which has been subject to much debate. On the one hand, empirical studies have found high sensitivities of soil respiration to temperature, with values of Q10 (here an indicator of the sensitivity of terrestrial ecosystem respiration to air temperature) well above 2. Dependencies of Q10 values on mean temperatures have been attributed to the acclimatization of soil respiration, among other factors. On the other hand, global-scale models often make use of globally constant Q10 values of 2 or below to generate carbon dynamics consistent with global atmospheric CO2 growth rates. Nonetheless, several models have directly included empirical dependencies of the parameterization of respiratory processes to environmental dynamics. This inclusion is questionable, given that single-site studies have indicated that factors seasonally covarying with temperature can confound the experimental retrieval of the intrinsic temperature dependence of respiration.


The investigators report that the week-to-month scale sensitivity is stable across sites varying in mean temperature, but annual sensitivity varies markedly from cold to warm ecosystems. Overall, they found an empirically inferred Q10 of approximately 1.4 at the ecosystem level. “These results reconcile the empirical evidence with findings that the global carbon cycle can be well modeled only with an ecosystem level sensitivity of Q10 < 2,” Mahecha et al. conclude. “Moreover, our results may partly explain recent findings indicating a less pronounced climate–carbon cycle sensitivity than assumed by current climate–carbon cycle model parameterizations.”

(bolded is mine)

The combined impact of these two papers is yet another blow to the validity of current computer models. Previous assumptions about the absorption and production of CO2 by terrestrial plants under changing conditions are in error. These new results once again reinforce the fact that rising CO2 levels will not cause the temperature increases predicted by existing computer models.

[Boston]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Plant stomata data show much greater variability of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1,000 years than the ice cores and that CO2 levels have often been between 300 and 340ppmv over the last millennium, including a 120ppmv rise from the late 12th Century through the mid 14th Century. The stomata data also indicate higher CO2 levels than the Mauna Loa instrumental record; but a 5-point moving average ties into the instrumental record quite nicely…



The Beck 2007 survey of historical chemical analyses shows even more variability in atmospheric CO2 levels than the plant stomata data since 1800…



The GEOCARB data also suggest that ice core CO2 data are too low…The average CO2 level of the Pleistocene ice cores is 36ppmv less than GEOCARB



Recent satellite data (NASA AIRS) show that atmospheric CO2 levels in the polar regions are significantly less than in lower latitudes. AIRS data show that carbon dioxide is not well mixed in Earth's atmosphere, results that have been validated by direct measurements. There is a net transfer of carbon dioxide from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. The northern hemisphere produces three to four times more human produced carbon dioxide than the southern hemisphere.



So… The ice core data may be yielding low and uncertain CO2 levels.

On the other hand, paleoclimatic records have less resolution than the present instrumental data, not accurately showing short term spikes.

Using paleoclimatic reconstructions of CO2 only from the ice cores and pretending to drive "unprecedency" conclusions from them for global asessment by comparing such records with the more accurate present and instrumental data, is flawed and incorrect.

(In my, of course, 'untruthful denier' opinion... )

I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

cheers
B

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

... And yes, just a few degrees difference in the average global temperature can cause a significant change in climate.
...
the cause is anthropogenic; and we can do something about it.... The fact that there have been climate changes for other reasons in the past hardly proves that today's cause isn't anthropogenic. ...I had last year turned out to be gas."....
......
Nor is anyone who matters saying we should go back to living in caves; ..... The truth is that better and more modern technology is what will help us out of this mess, not throwing technology away.Typewriters or a pen and pencil can say anything you want, too. That doesn't prove someone who uses them is lying, just because they're saying something you don't want to hear.

The cause is not anthropogenic.

We can do nothing about it.

There is no proof of AGW.

Sorry about your gas. Try Beano.

There are some who belong in caves, they are sooooooo batty.

Why give the typewriter, pens and pencils as an example of modern technology?

Some people are lying any time their lips are moving.

You are correct that I don't want to hear their lies. I especially resent the fact that they have bamboozled you.
Come over to the light.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

The cause is not anthropogenic.

We can do nothing about it.

There is no proof of AGW.

Sorry about your gas. Try Beano.

There are some who belong in caves, they are sooooooo batty.

Why give the typewriter, pens and pencils as an example of modern technology?

Some people are lying any time their lips are moving.

You are correct that I don't want to hear their lies. I especially resent the fact that they have bamboozled you.
Come over to the light.

I wasn't mentioning typewriters, pens and pencil as examples of modern technology. I was pointing out how absurd it is to distrust computer modeling simply because it comes from a computer.

I don't bamboozle worth a damn, Hoyt. You should know that by now, after all the attempts that have been made here to do so...

The rest of your post is simply 'deny, deny, deny.' And you wonder why folks use the term 'deniers'?

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by wardd

in the banks?

address the statement not who made it, if they don't have a history of false claims

This is yet another ridiculous statement made by our friend from Ward D.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

cheers
B

You better hope she isn't squirelly, but she probably is, anyway.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

This is yet another ridiculous statement made by our friend from Ward D.

in what way?


I have found that even people I hate can be right

[hoytedow]

You hate me?

I'm honored.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

You hate me?

I'm honored.

very few people I hate and they had to work very hard for it

I don't know you so your just background

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

right now I have some girl hangin onto my nuts and happy as a clam

This girl...?

[hoytedow]

Yep. Just as I thought.


Squirelly.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

I love this one
soon as i get a chance I'll dig through it

Yes, you have an opportunity there, as there are debattable matters, I know. But try not to dig very deep as perhaps you'll not be able to come out of your own grave once again.

Like...let's see....what about this one? We are still waiting....

"And what the fitting of the base line for the models (usually 1961-1990 by the way, not 1940-1970, nor 1910-1940), has to do with the cooling temperature behaviour of the 1940-1970 period or the similar warming behaviour in spite of the big difference in CO2 concentrations between 1910-1940 and 1970-2000? Explain that to us from your high knowledge, scatterbrained Weasel. And also show us the impact of the base line in the several periods' temperature trend by choosing whatever base line you prefer."

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by bearflag

Alas, liberals are hardly "liberal" anymore.

It would probably be more accurate to call them "socially permissive" or "moral relativists" and fiscally "progressive" (in the political sense of the term, ie Progressive movement, not progressing forward), based upon dialectic materialism etc.

You can't differentiate between liberals and conservatives on grounds of permissiveness or morality. That's a red herring dragged across the trail, mostly by hypocritical preachers and politicians who are Hell-bent on enforcing "do as I say, not as I do." So many of them have been caught engaging in the same behavior they want to outlaw for the rest of us that it's become a cliche....

Please note that politically and socially conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the country at large, even though they spend a ridiculous amount of time criticizing 'liberals' for their immorality and lack of family values:

A study saying that born-again Christians divorce more often than non-Christians has raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, even brought on a little holy anger. So much, in fact, that the study's author, evangelical George Barna, put out a special letter to "our partners in ministry" trying to calm their fury and let his fellow believers know that he was standing by his stats no matter how distasteful they might be.

The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in contrast to 25 percent for the general population. Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce 21 percent.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

Continuing on the theme of permissiveness: my personal lifestyle and habits are so boringly conservative that I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone to condemn them. But it certainly isn't because I lack permission from some government agency or church to live and act differently....nor do I think it gives me the right to demand that everyone else follow my example. They don't need (and shouldn't seek) my permission to live their own lives by their own standards. If that be permissiveness, make the most of it.

I think many of the hot-button issues conservatives are carrying on about today are mostly symbolic, anyway. Take gay marriage for example. I fail to see how allowing two guys or two women to marry will have any effect on my marriage. I doubt either of my sons is going to decide he wants to marry a man instead of a woman, if it becomes legal to do so. And it's completely absurd for people like four-times married Rush Limbaugh to lecture me on the sanctity of marriage.

Or look at flag burning. It's beyond me how that can be such a threat to the country that a Constitutional amendment is needed to stop it....

Its interesting you bring up "Golden Age" because that is almost picture perfect imagery from the Progressive and Socialist literature, pop culture like The Wizard of Oz comes to mind. These thinkers really believed in perfect societies and the perfection of man, in fact that was government's role, individual man needed to be steered by those who knew best what was best for society at large. You could argue that the progressive experiment is in many ways the opposite of the formative liberalism and positivism which came from the age of enlightenment or the american experiment.

Um....say what? How you could possibly interpret the Wizard of Oz as some sort of advocacy for big government is beyond me. And I not only saw the movie; I read almost every Oz book ever written when I was a kid.

Nor are you using 'Golden Age' in the traditional sense of the term, or in the same way I used it. It generally refers to some idealized notion of a time past when things were better than they are now, not some sought-after Utopia in the future.

The term Golden Age (Χρυσόν Γένος) comes from Greek mythology and legend and refers to the first in a sequence of four or five (or more) Ages of Man, in which the Golden Age is first, followed in sequence, by the Silver, Bronze, and Iron Ages, and then the present, a period of decline. By extension "Golden Age" denotes a period of primordial peace, harmony, stability, and prosperity.

Often a Golden Age is ascribed to a period in time where one can observe a definite low point prior to and after the age. Thus it is frequently premature to call a new event a Golden Age, since without being able to foretell the future, we are not able to view its decline. Therefore, generally the term Golden Age relates to things past, and should not be applied to present events or cultural developments.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-golden-age.htm

You could perhaps argue that "modern conservatism" (not to be confused with Bush, Thatcher, McCain, Gingrich, et all) is perhaps more true to the original idea of liberalism, so yes, in a sense you are right, they are going back to the idea of limited government, individual responsibility, logical positivism (and with it skepticism). Of course the term conservatism has other baggage, and the term can mean many things depending on the era and the context.

You're making my point for me: modern conservatives generally talk about going back to some time when people were more responsible, more rational and more moral; a time when government powers were limited and not abused, etc.

Unfortunately, such a time never really existed. Pick me the era in American history when you think such ideals were better upheld, and I doubt I'll have any trouble at all proving it just ain't so.

Definition wise these are the ones useful:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

1 and 3 are the definitions used by most, but 2 is probably more accurate in re: governance and philosophically speaking. That is to be conservative in regards to the involvement of government, ie to limit the powers of government and moderate its role.

I have no trouble agreeing with what conservatives consider the underpinnings of their beliefs concerning government or social institutions; I agree that we need to tread carefully in allowing the government new powers, and that changes in government or attempted changes to the social fabric shouldn't be made arbitrarily, capriciously, or unnecessarily. It's more the particulars I disagree with than it is the basic belief system. The Devil is in the details....

I guess to end my rant, I see what you are saying and I agree with it in part. But the statement is so blanketing that is it without any meaning. Most self proclaimed "liberals" are hardly in possession of any quality that would be identified with the liberal thinking you are arguing for, similarly most self identifying conservatives aren't making any claim at all in regards to philosophy but are usually addressing some other topic entirely, such as small governance or perhaps traditional family values, and not "return to the way things were, or don't change we like the way things are" If anything amongst "conservatives" there are more people for changing the status quo than on the other side of the fence.

The claim is commonly made by conservatives that liberals want to expand big government and have it take over our lives, as opposed to conservatives wanting to limit it and get it out of our lives. I would submit that in reality, most conservatives aren't really against government power as such; they just have different ideas about where and how it should be applied.

They're less likely to think that government should step in to regulate business practices, for example. On the other hand, they're more likely to believe personal behavior they disapprove of should be criminalized and punished.

They call corporate political donations free speech which can't be infringed. But they want to put people in jail for burning an American flag.

They supposedly support freedom of religion and defend property rights. But they want government-mandated Christian prayers in schools, and believe the government should step in to prevent a property owner from building a mosque on it.

They claim to oppose arbitrary government power. But they believe that anyone accused of being a national security threat should immediately lose all his Constitutional rights.

So on and so forth....yes, I know I'm painting with a broad brush. But that list does generally apply to the friends I have who self-identify as conservatives.

A final note: dialectical materialism is a philosophical approach to reality derived from the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. When you say liberalism is based on it, you're essentially calling American liberals Marxists. I certainly hope that wasn't your intent.

[wardd]

modern conservatives are prone to try and shape reality to fit their beliefs

progressives seek to find what works

when clinton was in office the R's complained about his polling, but he used polling to find out what the people wanted

when bush polled it was to find out what words would work to sell what the R's wanted to sell the people