Global Warming is a hoax.

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1236744' date='Apr 9 2007, 07:08 PM']The computer models [which time has shown to be very, very accurate seeing as many of their predictions have already come true] predict the displacement of millions and millions of people...many deaths happening in the wake of all of this. So it's either the doing of mankind through global warming, or an act of God. And last I checked, God promised not to do something like that again.[/quote]
Computer models are actually a very poor predictor of complex systems like global climate. The truth is that different models have come up with wildly different conclusions from one another, and that they basically only give you what you put in them (which is often quite different and much more simplistic than the real world). It's essentially (as the old programmers say) garbage in-garbage out.
And it's simple fact that computer models cannot predict things like "displacement and death of millions of people."
And as they've only been around for a few decades, your claim of their accuracy record for predicting decades into the future is bizarre. (Were they accurate back in the days of "global cooling" and "new ice age" scares?)
And they can't even accurately predict short term. Remember how las year's hurricane season was supposed to be even worse than 2005's, yet was actually quite mild?

I don't have time to refute everything at the moment, but much of what you've said here is in fact overblown political rhetoric, lefty platitudes, and junk science, rather than proven scientific fact.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238213' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:27 PM']He says he suspects it has [i]more [/i]of an effect than acknowleged. Go back and read it.
He says this may be more of a factor than so-called "greenhouse gases."

The main point of the book is that the actual hard scientific evidence for CO2 and other emissions causing global warming is extremely spotty at best and is mostly pure hypothesis. He says global warming is actually extremely poorly understood, and more solid scientific research should be done before massively costly government "solutions" are invested employed on something based on an unproven hypothesis.[/quote]

On the contrary. The IPCC has just released their latest report which declares 80-90% certainty that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. The science is very, very strong on this matter. There is a consensus in the Scientific community that Global Warming is man-made.

For example, of the over 900+ scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the last decade...none of them dispute that Global Warming is man made...in fact all of them support it.

The term 'spotty evidence' is better aimed at the Climate Change deniers who haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting their claims in over 10 years.

-Tom

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238225' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:39 PM']Your facts are a little outdated concerning the windmills. All the new designs are bird friendly because they don't have any surfaces where birds could roost...which was the main cause of death to the critters, and the main cause of concern around them. As for flying into them, it's going to happen occasionally...but not too often, and the amount of bird species that we can save from extinction [3 in 5 species in many parts of the world face extinction because of global warming] is much greater than the few that would accidentally fly into windmills.

As for the endorsement of Nuclear Energy, I think it has it's uses...but ALL of the alternative energy options have their uses. We're not going to solve this by becoming very dependent on one type of energy [that's what got us into the mess we're in now] but rather we'll have to accept all of the different energy production options in a very eclectic mix. Energy production is likely to move away from the larger, more centralized model that we have now....and instead move towards a smaller more grassroots operation where smaller communities manage their energy production and usage.

And if you're going to argue against any of the alternative energy sources, you definitely cannot argue in favor of Nuclear...for it's the 2nd most expensive of all the energy sources...and it isn't projected to go down in cost because of how centralized it is...whereas the single most expensive [solar] will be one of the cheapest options in a decade or two. In fact prices are being slashed as we speak.

As for the amount of land that photo-voltaic energy requires...lets put it into perspective:

[img]http://www.treehugger.com/solar-world-jj-001.jpg[/img]

Those black dots represent all the land we would need to devote to Solar Panels to meet all of the worlds energy needs at an efficiency of 8%...but the really good news is that current solar panel technology has an efficiency of about 20%...so shrink those even more.

The market is tending towards the greener energy production options.

-Tom[/quote]
Source please for the photo-energy map?
That is contrary to everything I've read on the topic (not just from "evil conservatives" but environmentalists as well).

Nuclear power would be initially expensive, but would be much more productive and less land-intensive than solar panels and windmills. The technology has improved much since the 1950s and 60s. It is actually advocated by more than a few serious environmentalists, though it still remains "politically-incorrect" in the larger Green culture.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238230' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:43 PM']Computer models are actually a very poor predictor of complex systems like global climate. The truth is that different models have come up with wildly different conclusions from one another, and that they basically only give you what you put in them (which is often quite different and much more simplistic than the real world). It's essentially (as the old programmers say) garbage in-garbage out.
And it's simple fact that computer models cannot predict things like "displacement and death of millions of people."
And as they've only been around for a few decades, your claim of their accuracy record for predicting decades into the future is bizarre. (Were they accurate back in the days of "global cooling" and "new ice age" scares?)
And they can't even accurately predict short term. Remember how las year's hurricane season was supposed to be even worse than 2005's, yet was actually quite mild?

I don't have time to refute everything at the moment, but much of what you've said here is in fact overblown political rhetoric, lefty platitudes, and junk science, rather than proven scientific fact.[/quote]

Global Climate Models have been able to reproduce trends that we've seen in the past...and this is a testament to their accuracy

"GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century [16]." [url="http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm"][Source][/url]

When we first started using computers to model climate trends...we didn't have as much information to input as we do today. I do recall the very flaws that you speak of. But the truth of the matter was that they didn't yet know about aerosols. Now that we can include the effects of aerosols in our atmosphere into the models they've become increasingly accurate.

Again, please don't refer to the science that we had the the 1970's [which is the era of the inaccurate models that you speak of] please look at the evidence that we have today. The supercomputers and networked 'cell' idea computer grids that we have working on the issue today are vastly superior to what we had in the 1970's.

Again look at that source that I posted.

And now I'll take this time to beg of you guys to start using sources. Sources to scientific papers [which have been peer reviewed] are very important in any such debate. It's important that we not neglect to use them.

-Tom

[Socrates]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238233' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:49 PM']On the contrary. The IPCC has just released their latest report which declares 80-90% certainty that Global Warming is a man-made phenomenon. The science is very, very strong on this matter. There is a consensus in the Scientific community that Global Warming is man-made.

For example, of the over 900+ scientific studies and reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals in the last decade...none of them dispute that Global Warming is man made...in fact all of them support it.

The term 'spotty evidence' is better aimed at the Climate Change deniers who haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting their claims in over 10 years.

-Tom[/quote]
"Consensus reports" are not science, but are politically-influence documents.

There are actually many individual reputable climate scientists who doubt the current politically-correct orthodoxy on global warming. Their conclusions just happen to be politically inconvenient to those who publish U.N. reports and the like, and are thus conveniently ignored. (Contrary to propoganda, politics actually plays a [i]huge[/i] part in the "scientific community.")

Science is about testible, duplicatable concrete evidence.

How is it [i]proven [/i] that global warming is caused primarily by CO2?
It's not - it's pure hypothesis.

The climate has always been changing - since long before human-made "greenhouse gases" could have any serious effect. Once arctic glaciers stretched as far south as Ohio - that is scientific fact. The climate was not and never was stable, but is constantly fluctuating.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238236' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:50 PM']Source please for the photo-energy map?
That is contrary to everything I've read on the topic (not just from "evil conservatives" but environmentalists as well).

Nuclear power would be initially expensive, but would be much more productive and less land-intensive than solar panels and windmills. The technology has improved much since the 1950s and 60s. It is actually advocated by more than a few serious environmentalists, though it still remains "politically-incorrect" in the larger Green culture.[/quote]

By the numbers I have seen, the entire surfac e of the continental united states could be covered with solar panels and still not supply the US with its energy needs.

Also, the energy invested in producing a solar panel is greater than the energy it produces (although recently that actually may have changed, but the technology remains to be seen on the market).

Solar energy is not a feasable alternative to fossil fuel.


But Soc, you are correct that amongst proven energies on the market today, nuclear fission is the most attractive (save for hydro-electricity) in terms of production, supply and environment.


I would be VERY interested in learning the wattage per cubic feet of area of solar power used, as well as energy consumption, in the photo-energy map. He-whoever could prove that map correct I would readily nominate for a nobel prize.

[Didacus]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238246' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:56 PM']Global Climate Models have been able to reproduce trends that we've seen in the past...and this is a testament to their accuracy

[snip]

-Tom[/quote]

And how many have they accurately predicted in the future?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238249' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:58 PM'][snip]

The climate has always been changing - since long before human-made "greenhouse gases" could have any serious effect. Once arctic glaciers stretched as far south as Ohio - that is scientific fact. The climate was not and never was stable, but is constantly fluctuating.[/quote]

And that is a corner stone fallen out of the pro-enviro-CO2 theorists. They not only need to prove the effects of CO2 on weather, but also to compound it against global weather trends that would naturally occur.

Their basic assumption here is that global temperature would remain stable if man would not exist. However, may I ask this; If weather would change without man's tampering, should we do our best then to halt this change and force nature to remain in a stable condition against its own tendencies?

No 'science' needed for these questions as such, only a bit of philosophy. Anyone here aware of the primary prorogative of 'non-interference'? Should that apply to 'mother nature' as well?

[Mercy me]

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1238249' date='Apr 10 2007, 09:58 PM']"Consensus reports" are not science, but are politically-influence documents.

There are actually many individual reputable climate scientists who doubt the current politically-correct orthodoxy on global warming. Their conclusions just happen to be politically inconvenient to those who publish U.N. reports and the like, and are thus conveniently ignored. (Contrary to propoganda, politics actually plays a [i]huge[/i] part in the "scientific community.")

Science is about testible, duplicatable concrete evidence.

How is it [i]proven [/i] that global warming is caused primarily by CO2?
It's not - it's pure hypothesis.

The climate has always been changing - since long before human-made "greenhouse gases" could have any serious effect. Once arctic glaciers stretched as far south as Ohio - that is scientific fact. The climate was not and never was stable, but is constantly fluctuating.[/quote]

Science is about concrete evidence. Evidence that Global Warming is man made has been published in Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals for years. Evidence is posted in those journals so that it can be attacked from all angles. That is the foremost job of science, skepticism. The integrity of the evidence that proves with 80 - 90 % certainty that global warming is man-made is up for all to see, and for all to dispute...yet none have risen to the challenges...none have been able to falsify any of those reports and studies.

Why is it that the Global Warming deniers cannot provide 1 single piece of evidence that proves that Global Warming is not man made...Why can't they put their arguments into a paper along with all of their evidence and submit it for a critique? This hasn't occurred in the last 10 years, while evidence that Global Warming is man made has been submitted for criticism [and stood up against it] for the entire past decade.

That is the scientific method, it is integrity at it's finest because it's a matter of scientists asking people to try to disprove them...that is how you find truth through science.

Why can't Global Warming deniers own up to the same amount of integrity in their arguments?

-Tom

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1238294' date='Apr 10 2007, 10:14 PM']And that is a corner stone fallen out of the pro-enviro-CO2 theorists. They not only need to prove the effects of CO2 on weather, but also to compound it against global weather trends that would naturally occur.

Their basic assumption here is that global temperature would remain stable if man would not exist. However, may I ask this; If weather would change without man's tampering, should we do our best then to halt this change and force nature to remain in a stable condition against its own tendencies?

No 'science' needed for these questions as such, only a bit of philosophy. Anyone here aware of the primary prorogative of 'non-interference'? Should that apply to 'mother nature' as well?[/quote]

The speed and magnitude with which Global Warming is occurring right now has not been seen since life itself balanced out the atmospheric concentrations of C02 through the establishment of the Carbon cycle.

Didacus, answer this plain and simple: do you honestly believe that putting millions and millions of years of carbon that's been out of the atmospheric cycles for so long, all back into the atmosphere in only a few decades is completely devoid of any negative consequences? Do you really deny that it could upset any sort of delicate balance on the earth?

-Tom

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1238265' date='Apr 10 2007, 10:08 PM']And how many have they accurately predicted in the future?[/quote]

Only time will tell...but no climate models that take into account all of the variables have shown a decrease in the trend of Global Warming...they all show an increase in Global Average Temperature. The most conservative models show a 2 Degree Celsius rise in Global Average Temperature, and the most extreme show an 11 Degree Celsius Rise.

A 2 degree rise is what the IPCC is predicting. Yes it's going by the most watered down, conservative estimates that good science will possibly allow. In truth it's likely to be more threatening, but the Scientists of the IPCC have to water things down a bit so that the politicians wont be put off by the severity of the situation.

The fact that scientists have been able to look at a time in the earths past...input all of the known variables...and run a model to ten years in the future, and have it match the actual global climate for the next decade with impressive accuracy is a testament to how accurate our latest, most advanced climate models are.

Climate models aren't perfect...but the broad range of models all being run right now do show that Global Warming is man made. It doesn't take too much to show that. Again simple reasoning can tell us that dumping millions of years of Carbon into the atmosphere in just a few decades is going to have negative consequences. Who among you can dispute that simple claim?

I encourage you to read more on Global Climate Modeling both its strengths and weaknesses. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model"][Link][/url]

-Tom

Edited April 11, 2007 by ThomasDM

[ThomasDM]

NEWS ALERT:

Here is a testament to just how fast Solar Power is developing. If you'll read above I said that modern photo-voltaic sells could reach a hefty 20%.

It was just announced in the news a few moments ago that a company named Spectrolab has engineered Solar Cells that reach an efficiency of 40%.

I think we can all be happy at this recent development. The future is looking greener and more responsible! [url="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/stateoftheart_m.php"][Link][/url]

-Tom

[ThomasDM]

NEWS ALERT:

Here is a testament to just how fast Solar Power is developing. If you'll read above I said that modern photo-voltaic sells could reach a hefty 20%.

It was just announced in the news a few moments ago that a company named Spectrolab has engineered Solar Cells that reach an efficiency of 40%.

I think we can all be happy at this recent development. The future is looking greener and more responsible! [url="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/stateoftheart_m.php"][Link][/url]

-Tom

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='ThomasDM' post='1238497' date='Apr 10 2007, 11:17 PM']NEWS ALERT:

Here is a testament to just how fast Solar Power is developing. If you'll read above I said that modern photo-voltaic sells could reach a hefty 20%.

It was just announced in the news a few moments ago that a company named Spectrolab has engineered Solar Cells that reach an efficiency of 40%.

I think we can all be happy at this recent development. The future is looking greener and more responsible! [url="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/stateoftheart_m.php"][Link][/url]

-Tom[/quote]

I've searched reputable news agencies for this. And, um, was unable to find anything this optimistic.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1238512' date='Apr 11 2007, 02:37 AM']I've searched reputable news agencies for this. And, um, was unable to find anything this optimistic.[/quote]
Are you doubting www.treehugger.com?

[Guest T-Bone]

Ya think!?!?

[Paddington]

I don't see why any non-scientist should trust his own judgment on the topic.

[Anomaly]

On the IPCC that Thomas keeps referring to, do a little research.

Not all the scientists credited to the report even agree with the report. Very few of the scientists on the report are climatologists.

That's like asking your proctologist to confirm it will be a sunny day tommorrow.

How does Tom address the MIT Proffessor climatologists who disagrees with the 'consensus of non-climatologist scientists'?

I'm not denying the world population should be good stewards of the environment and energy, but using extremist hype that isn't really true is not productive to deriving a good and balanced answer.

Extremist hype is why nuclear energy is so expensive in the US. Construction is over-regulated, picayune, and created a warped market place. One can look to England for more efficient nuclear model with smaller plants, clear safety protocols, etc. I am a construction contractor that works in the private and governmental markets. There are some govenmental agencies where beaurcracies have a negative effect on safety, quality, efficiency, and cost the tax payers three times as much to construct something as it should. I'm not saying the Government should not regulate and control construction of public utilities, but it has to be enlightened enough with [b]truthful and accurate[/b] goals to serve the taxpayer.

Sorry about my incomplete post earlier. I think it became too lengthy.

Again, I challenge you Tom to point out the 'peer reviewed' report that you believe is the foundation of your belief. I also ask you what your conclusions are. Please be specific so things can be addressed specifically.

I have questions I'd like to see answered. I'm open minded. I'd like to see a study of historical temperature fluctuations done by climatologists. Is the current temperature fluctuations outside of what is considered the 'normal cyclical variance'? Why yes, or why no? That's the problem with the IPCC report. A group of scientists (not necessarily experts in climatology) took the question alone, wrote a report, and signed off on it. Not all the scietists aggreed with the conclusion but were listed as contributors. That group did not study why the fluctuations occured, nor identify and assign responsiblity to the causitive factors. That was a different section of the report, assigned to other scientists.

Maybe the IPCC report isn't your reference. I don't know. You won't tell us.

[ThomasDM]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1238578' date='Apr 11 2007, 06:35 AM']On the IPCC that Thomas keeps referring to, do a little research.

Not all the scientists credited to the report even agree with the report. Very few of the scientists on the report are climatologists.

That's like asking your proctologist to confirm it will be a sunny day tommorrow.

How does Tom address the MIT Proffessor climatologists who disagrees with the 'consensus of non-climatologist scientists'?

I'm not denying the world population should be good stewards of the environment and energy, but using extremist hype that isn't really true is not productive to deriving a good and balanced answer.

Extremist hype is why nuclear energy is so expensive in the US. Construction is over-regulated, picayune, and created a warped market place. One can look to England for more efficient nuclear model with smaller plants, clear safety protocols, etc. I am a construction contractor that works in the private and governmental markets. There are some govenmental agencies where beaurcracies have a negative effect on safety, quality, efficiency, and cost the tax payers three times as much to construct something as it should. I'm not saying the Government should not regulate and control construction of public utilities, but it has to be enlightened enough with [b]truthful and accurate[/b] goals to serve the taxpayer.

Sorry about my incomplete post earlier. I think it became too lengthy.

Again, I challenge you Tom to point out the 'peer reviewed' report that you believe is the foundation of your belief. I also ask you what your conclusions are. Please be specific so things can be addressed specifically.

I have questions I'd like to see answered. I'm open minded. I'd like to see a study of historical temperature fluctuations done by climatologists. Is the current temperature fluctuations outside of what is considered the 'normal cyclical variance'? Why yes, or why no? That's the problem with the IPCC report. A group of scientists (not necessarily experts in climatology) took the question alone, wrote a report, and signed off on it. Not all the scietists aggreed with the conclusion but were listed as contributors. That group did not study why the fluctuations occured, nor identify and assign responsiblity to the causitive factors. That was a different section of the report, assigned to other scientists.

Maybe the IPCC report isn't your reference. I don't know. You won't tell us.[/quote]

The IPCC report isn't my only reference...it's just the most comprehensive, most highly supported by evidence scientific report that humans have ever [yes ever] put together. You speak of skepticism on the IPCC or my sources, yet I think I've been very good at providing sources for my arguments. Meanwhile I have yet to see many sources from you. You have yet to post a link to a single peer reviewed scientific article. All I ask for is one peer reviewed report, why can't you do this?

The IPCC on the other hand publishes all peer reviewed reports. They are submitted for criticism. In fact, before they're released they are highly criticized and very much watered down by all of the politicians involved.

Who is in the IPCC:

Contributors

"according to a flash animation on the front page of the IPCC's website, the people contributing to the IPCC 4AR include:

* 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
* 850+ Contributing authors
* 450+ lead authors

from over 130 countries, contributing for the last 6 years.

of these, the contributors to the Working group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included [8]

* 600 authors from 40 countries
* Over 620 expert reviewers
* a large number of government reviewers
* Representatives from 113 governments
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change"] [Source][/url]


Now the IPCC isn't perfect [in fact it has to water the facts down a lot just so avoid putting anyone off - there are many right wing politicians also involved in the report. The U.S. have a governmental representative who downplays human led Global Warming and is involved in the report, insisting that much get watered down] but it is releasing all of its reports as peer reviewed...which is much more than the Global Warming deniers have ever done in the last 10 years.

The vast majority of scientists in the IPCC are climatologists, but not all of them because it's not strictly a climatologists domain. Zoologists, Paleontologists, Ecologists etc. all have must to contribute. But the vast majority are climatologists.

There are over 2500+ expert scientists involved in the report and they're churning out one peer reviewed study after the next. The IPCC was started in part by the World Meteorological Society. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization"][Source][/url]

As for which peer reviewed scientific articles to go by? Well the IPCC ones are the best, because the IPCC reports are the largest most comprehensive scientific ANYTHING's done in the history of humanity. Never has there been so much expertise, so much science behind any report.

And again everything the IPCC releases is peer reviewed.

First IPCC assessment report. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report"][Link][/url]

The second one: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Second_Assessment_Report"][Link][/url]

The third: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report"][Link][/url]

And the fourth, and most comprehensive and largest scientific report ever done in the history of man. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report"][Link][/url]

All of those are peer reviewed.

The IPCC contains 2500+ Expert Scientists....MANY of which are climatologists and meteorologists.

Where is even a single peer reviewed study by the opposition? Just one within the past 10 years is all I ask. Why can't you do this Anomoly?

But if you don't want to hear from the IPCC studies, then lets try some other reputable sources:

NASA:

[url="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,476275,00.html"]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,476275,00.html[/url]

-Tom