March 22nd, 2007, 06:52 PM
Quoting CDNBear
Not that it isn't allowed but it would be better to use articles to backup a position rather than it be the entire position.
The forum heading is articles and debate is it not?
Is that not an article?
Did I err?
Oh forget it.
Is that not an article?
Did I err?
Oh forget it.
March 22nd, 2007, 06:56 PM
To be honest, I can't be bothered to type out a longwinded post, supplying the evidence that refutes the pro AGW crowd, and quite frankly, I likely won't read much of what is posted in here either. I'm tired of being referred to as ignorant or uneducated for questioning the theories.
There is so much evidence on both sides that cast a shadow of doubt on the other, that you couldn't get a jury out of deadlock if you tried it in court.
I just question the politisizing of the issue and the motives of those that push it, one way or the other.
In short, why debate, the camps have struck their tents, and they've claimed their victories already.
Quoting Kreskin
You will probably want to delete all these once we're done, lol.
Not that it isn't allowed but it would be better to use articles to backup a position rather than it be the entire position.
To be honest, I can't be bothered to type out a longwinded post, supplying the evidence that refutes the pro AGW crowd, and quite frankly, I likely won't read much of what is posted in here either. I'm tired of being referred to as ignorant or uneducated for questioning the theories.
There is so much evidence on both sides that cast a shadow of doubt on the other, that you couldn't get a jury out of deadlock if you tried it in court.
I just question the politisizing of the issue and the motives of those that push it, one way or the other.
In short, why debate, the camps have struck their tents, and they've claimed their victories already.
March 22nd, 2007, 07:00 PM
Quoting CDNBear
Then why believe either side? You should be in the undecided camp.
You will probably want to delete all these once we're done, lol.
To be honest, I can't be bothered to type out a longwinded post, supplying the evidence that refutes the pro AGW crowd, and quite frankly, I likely won't read much of what is posted in here either. I'm tired of being referred to as ignorant or uneducated for questioning the theories.
There is so much evidence on both sides that cast a shadow of doubt on the other, that you couldn't get a jury out of deadlock if you tried it in court.
I just question the politisizing of the issue and the motives of those that push it, one way or the other.
In short, why debate, the camps have struck their tents, and they've claimed their victories already.
To be honest, I can't be bothered to type out a longwinded post, supplying the evidence that refutes the pro AGW crowd, and quite frankly, I likely won't read much of what is posted in here either. I'm tired of being referred to as ignorant or uneducated for questioning the theories.
There is so much evidence on both sides that cast a shadow of doubt on the other, that you couldn't get a jury out of deadlock if you tried it in court.
I just question the politisizing of the issue and the motives of those that push it, one way or the other.
In short, why debate, the camps have struck their tents, and they've claimed their victories already.
March 22nd, 2007, 07:08 PM
Quoting Kreskin
But why can't I be in the realist camp, I believe GW is real, I believe that humans have contributed to some extent, but I also believe that natural processes are at play as well and they play a larger roll then they are being given credit, because of the politizing of the issue. Not the merits of the science. Of which their is sufficient proof of tampering on both sides.
Then why believe either side? You should be in the undecided camp.
March 22nd, 2007, 07:17 PM
Quoting CDNBear
There are plenty of threads to sling predictable political opinions around. Perhaps some would like to put that stuff aside and talk about the issues, and not the politicians.
But why can't I be in the realist camp, I believe GW is real, I believe that humans have contributed to some extent, but I also believe that natural processes are at play as well and they play a larger roll then they are being given credit, because of the politizing of the issue. Not the merits of the science. Of which their is sufficient proof of tampering on both sides.
March 22nd, 2007, 07:20 PM
Quoting Kreskin
But the politics of the issue, is almost the point of the issue. The ramifications of the actions that are being demanded of John Q Public, have far reaching economic and political effects. How can the politics be removed?
There are plenty of threads to sling predictable political opinions around. Perhaps some would like to put that stuff aside and talk about the issues, and not the politicians.
March 22nd, 2007, 07:30 PM
Quoting CDNBear
What are the economic effects? Why does someone need to be called a leftie or rightie or an AlBore lover to debate the economics of climate change? The issue is climate change, not Al Gore's house or the poster's political ideology. Some of us would like to see the real topic discussed.
But the politics of the issue, is almost the point of the issue. The ramifications of the actions that are being demanded of John Q Public, have far reaching economic and political effects. How can the politics be removed?
March 22nd, 2007, 08:03 PM
The climate change debate has been increasing in intensity over the last 10 years. If we were to graph the number of articles versus temperature increase we could probably show a correlation between the energy expended on this issue and the increasing global mean temperature. That of course would not stand up to the rigors of proper scientific inquiry, but serves to frame the essence of the debate.
Large amounts of money and time have been thrown at the issue. The centerpiece of the dispute involves our own hand in the plot; that is whether or not we are part of the problem and if so, by how much. This is not to say that the debate has always followed this line of questioning. Early on, the issue involved global cooling. When that phase ended we wondered if the globe was warming. Finally we arrive at the question of our hand in the global climate and if the changes we see are part of a natural equilibrium.
The Science
Central to the issue is the science. The natural world is brimming with complex relationships. It is through our understanding of the basic laws of the Universe that we are able to identify the mechanisms and build models to represent these complex systems. Ironically it is our manipulation of these laws and the subsequent technological feats that are front and center and very likely the cause of global warming.
As the science has progressed, a number of fundamental questions have been answered. Some of these questions include: 1) Are the greenhouse gases increasing in concentration? The answer is yes. 2) Is the greenhouse effect a valid theory? The answer is yes. 3) Has global warming been observed? The answer is yes. 4) Are climate models reliable when we can’t even predict the weather? The answer is yes.
Those are just some of the questions that have been conclusively proven. The answers to these questions demand further investigation. For now, lets focus on the climate models, as they are the tools by which the climate hypotheses are proven by comparing to observed data.
The models work because once you have determined the climate sensitivity through calculations based on observed data, we can use these inputs to predict the change to temperature. These models can then be used to determine what the temperature will look like when we change variables. This is important for predicting how changes in both natural and anthropogenic forcings will affect the temperature.
To illustrate how the models have progressed, the IPCC models have gone from a 66% probability in the 2001 report, to 90% in the current 2007 report. The importance of these models is highlighted by the fact that without the human component, the trends in temperature cannot be explained. Given the statistical significance of the models, this essentially negates the notion of business as usual.
The sheer volume of studies and investigations which, have been completed since the 2001 IPCC report, give the models a very large arsenal to work with. In fact the models have been strengthened so much that the paleoclimate reconstructions have been extended from 1000 years to 1300 years, again with an increase in probability to 90%. With these new reconstructions, the report can conclude that the recent large-scale warming very likely (that’s the IPCC lingo for 90% probability) exceeds the normal range over the past 1300 years.
Coming soon, Part 2 and the discussion of the contrarian doctrine.
The Cost of Business As Usual
Part 1The climate change debate has been increasing in intensity over the last 10 years. If we were to graph the number of articles versus temperature increase we could probably show a correlation between the energy expended on this issue and the increasing global mean temperature. That of course would not stand up to the rigors of proper scientific inquiry, but serves to frame the essence of the debate.
Large amounts of money and time have been thrown at the issue. The centerpiece of the dispute involves our own hand in the plot; that is whether or not we are part of the problem and if so, by how much. This is not to say that the debate has always followed this line of questioning. Early on, the issue involved global cooling. When that phase ended we wondered if the globe was warming. Finally we arrive at the question of our hand in the global climate and if the changes we see are part of a natural equilibrium.
The Science
Central to the issue is the science. The natural world is brimming with complex relationships. It is through our understanding of the basic laws of the Universe that we are able to identify the mechanisms and build models to represent these complex systems. Ironically it is our manipulation of these laws and the subsequent technological feats that are front and center and very likely the cause of global warming.
As the science has progressed, a number of fundamental questions have been answered. Some of these questions include: 1) Are the greenhouse gases increasing in concentration? The answer is yes. 2) Is the greenhouse effect a valid theory? The answer is yes. 3) Has global warming been observed? The answer is yes. 4) Are climate models reliable when we can’t even predict the weather? The answer is yes.
Those are just some of the questions that have been conclusively proven. The answers to these questions demand further investigation. For now, lets focus on the climate models, as they are the tools by which the climate hypotheses are proven by comparing to observed data.
The models work because once you have determined the climate sensitivity through calculations based on observed data, we can use these inputs to predict the change to temperature. These models can then be used to determine what the temperature will look like when we change variables. This is important for predicting how changes in both natural and anthropogenic forcings will affect the temperature.
To illustrate how the models have progressed, the IPCC models have gone from a 66% probability in the 2001 report, to 90% in the current 2007 report. The importance of these models is highlighted by the fact that without the human component, the trends in temperature cannot be explained. Given the statistical significance of the models, this essentially negates the notion of business as usual.
The sheer volume of studies and investigations which, have been completed since the 2001 IPCC report, give the models a very large arsenal to work with. In fact the models have been strengthened so much that the paleoclimate reconstructions have been extended from 1000 years to 1300 years, again with an increase in probability to 90%. With these new reconstructions, the report can conclude that the recent large-scale warming very likely (that’s the IPCC lingo for 90% probability) exceeds the normal range over the past 1300 years.
Coming soon, Part 2 and the discussion of the contrarian doctrine.
March 23rd, 2007, 07:53 PM
As a % of world emissions to contribution to the world economy it appears China is quite excessive. As of June 2004 the US contribution to the world economy was 30% but the contribution to emissions was 24%. Europe 23% and 14%. China 3.2% abd 13%. The ratio of China's economy to emissions is way beyond the rest of the big economies.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html
As a % of world emissions to contribution to the world economy it appears China is quite excessive. As of June 2004 the US contribution to the world economy was 30% but the contribution to emissions was 24%. Europe 23% and 14%. China 3.2% abd 13%. The ratio of China's economy to emissions is way beyond the rest of the big economies.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html
March 23rd, 2007, 09:28 PM
Quoting tamarin
That should be interesting. I don't understand why they wouldn't be already given they pollute 7 or 8 fold on a per GDP unit compared to Europe and North America.
I want to see how China will react when it finally is covered by Kyoto. Will the giant be buying emission credits on the world's exchanges as we're soon expected to?
