What Do We Think About Climate Change

you mean like the ones that deny agw for pay?

 

haha :?: :!:

 

you didn't know?

if i were you i'd go to the oil companies and demand back pay

 

Ahh.. because the scientists who you agree with are "real" and the ones you disagree with are err.... "not"?

How very unscientific of you, sounds more like politics.

This saying is getting a lot of play recently: "You are entitled to your own opinions just not your own facts"

What we have here is not one or two, but many camps who look at the same evidence, ie the same empirical facts, and we interpret differing opinions.

There are fringe nutters on both sides. Anyone arguing for climatic armaggedeon in the immediate future, is pretty near insane, likewise, anyone who is arguing young earth, or who is looking to Revelations for weather predications is equally so.

But don't discount that there are serious ideas and serious scientists on many sides of the climate debate.

 

the rate of change is unprecedented

what if a point is reached where it becomes a self reinforcing feedback loop?

it would be like bearing wear, slow at first then speeding up

 

Do you understand how we're using the term 'scientific consensus?' No one claims it's some magic phrase or spell that makes something automatically true. It's just a shorthand way of saying, "the vast majority of scientists agree on this subject."

That is undeniably true, by the way. The vast majority of scientists do agree that global warming (or rapid climate change, or whatever you want to call it) is real, and that humans are one of the major causes.

Of course, scientific facts aren't decided by voting, whether it be by scientists or by the public. But the fact that such an overwhelming majority of scientists agree should indicate that it isn't just a kooky fringe theory - or a sinister plot by liberals, New World Order agents, capitalists run amok, or any other group of conspirators.

 

but occasionally liberals can be right

 

Liberals are generally right, in the long run. Or at least they generally win in the long run, because they embrace change.

Conservatives, by definition, want to either stick with the status quo or turn the clock back to some (mostly imaginary) golden age when things were better. Since they can't stop change, they're mostly on the losing end of history.

That's a good thing, because in my opinion the world is getting better overall in most ways, not worse. As my dad once said, "people are always talking about the good old days. But I was there, and I wasn't impressed."

 

So, you don't want cheap goods made with child labor?

 

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

A thoughtful post; it deserves more time and attention than I can give it before bedtime. I'll tackle it tomorrow.

 

WASHINGTON — 2010 is running neck-and-neck with 1998 as having the warmest first eight months of a year since the start of record keeping in 1880.

The planet's average temperature for January-August was 58.5 degrees Fahrenheit, tying the 1998 record for that period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday. That temperature was 1.21 degrees F above the 20th century average.

A late-surge in temperatures at the end of 2005 made that year the warmest full year on record.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center also reported:

* It was the third-hottest August on record with an average temperature for the month of 61.2 degrees F (16.2 C). The hottest August was 1998, followed by 2009.
* The meteorological summer — June-August — averaged 61.3 degrees F, making it the second-hottest summer on record worldwide behind 1998.
* August was hotter than normal in eastern Europe, eastern Canada and parts of eastern Asia but cooler than normal in Australia, central Russia and southern South America.

Meanwhile, a separate report from the National Snow and Ice Data Center said the sea ice coverage this summer in the Arctic was the third-lowest since satellites began measuring that in 1979. Only 2007 and 2008 were lower.

Sea ice levels appear to have reached their low for 2010 on Sept. 10, the center said. The extent was 1.8 million square miles — 625,000 square miles below the 1979-2009 average minimum.

"Despite a late start to the melt season, the ice extent declined rapidly thereafter, with record daily average ice loss rates for the Arctic as a whole for May and June," the center stated. "Assuming that we have indeed reached the seasonal minimum extent, 2010 would have the shortest melt season in the satellite record, spanning 163 days between the seasonal maximum and minimum ice extents."

The sea ice report follows news that tens of thousands of walruses had flocked to shorelines because the sea ice they normally rely on this time of year was scarce.

Melting sea ice is part of a pattern of changes atmospheric scientists attribute to global warming, which has been documented in rising temperatures over the last several decades.

Other changes include melting ice in Greenland and Antarctica, which can lead to rising sea levels, a decline in glaciers and changes in weather patterns around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39199247/ns/us_news-environment/

 

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?

Answer, nothing.

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

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.

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

 

Some further info;

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp

Deutches Bank, they're interested in the money side of things too, probably?

 

We can also say 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Area Maximum has been the second on record since 2002.

Satellite records for both Poles Sea Ice are only from 1979, so they tell us nothing about previous times. And of course they also tell us nothing about the causes.

Arctic has been with less ice area before, i.e. 6000-7000 years ago, having nothing to do with CO2 (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/). Descending trend for Arctic sea ice is happening since around 1850, which most likely is caused by the coming out of the LIA. I have posted about this before, a week or two ago.

Now let's see the other side of the planet:

2007 was the highest ever Antarctic Sea Ice Area Maximum ever recorded, while 2010 has already reached the 2nd highest Maximum Antarctic Sea Ice Area on records.
1993 was the lowest ever Antarctic Sea Ice Area ever recorded, and this year(2010) is the 24th lowest and the 8th highest.
The highest Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum ever recorded was 2003.

So what?