Global Warming and the pride of scientists

[TylerRDA]

Hey INTPf, this is a post from my blog about my perspective of the topic of Global Warming. I'd love to hear your opinions of it. Here's the link to my blog if any of you are interested in following or reading some of my other posts. http://acreativelytitledblog.blogspo...cientists.html


This post is not about how global warming exists, or how global warming doesn't exist. This post is about how the issue of global warming has shamelessly displayed the hubris of the scientific community.

Recently we've been hearing with increasing frequency about how global warming is causing climate change, and how it's displacing millions with drought, hurricanes, etc. What the scientific community has entirely ignored is the fact that our planet is alive. Historians, anthropologists, geologists, biologists, and meteorologists all will passionately attest to Earth's dynamic nature. Yet when we actually witness Earth changing, we soil our pants with worry that we've somehow put a dent in the fragile, tender haven of life that is our Earth.

Baloney.

99% of species to ever exist are extinct. Why? Earth is dynamic. It changes every time you blink. Sea levels rise and fall, glaciers melt and freeze, continents drift apart and collide , carbon cycles are altered, and life just goes on its merry way in spite of it. Any scientist worth his BS (pun intended) will wholeheartedly agree to this. Yet at the first sign of a changing ecosystem, all is lost! Mankind has destroyed Mother Earth from whence he came!

Chill out guys. First off, we're not even sure the climate is changing at all. Second, we're not even sure if this only-probably-existent change is our fault. Third, even if this is our fault, we're only speeding up the inevitable change in climate that results from living on a living planet. On a dime Mother Nature has decided to pump out many times the CO2 we could ever hope to emit in the whole Era of Man in an instant- through volcanoes (obligatory dramatic supervolcano pic to the left). She has done it many times. And guess what? The whole planet is flourishing with life.

So now back to my point about the scientific community being excessively prideful. It is only hubris before Science and nature that would lead to such a universal consensus that mankind is soooo powerful as to even be able to dent the world's ecosystem, and that is what's causing so much suffering. Newsflash, guys- catastrophe is the story of life. Catastrophe is life, and it's been that way since the very first bacteria started wiggling around (or since Adam and Eve partook of the Forbidden Fruit, if you're feeling fundamental).

Are we really so prideful that we think we are free from famine, drought, and flood and that we the mighty Homo sapien is the only entity powerful enough to cause such suffering? Are we so arrogant that we think spitting out a few bits of CO2 can stop life from thriving? Yes, it will make ice caps melt, coral reefs become barren, shorelines change, and people become displaced. This is nothing new. We as a species are guilty of supreme hubris in thinking that the dubious effects of our proliferation are anything more than a hiccup in the cycle of life.

I decided to keep it broad this time around for fear of making it too long and boring. If anyone is interested, I could go into the specifics of how life is adapting to the changing environment.

 

[boondockbabe]

I will be back to discuss this with you tomorrow night as I have some of the same theories. I have to go to bed.

 

[snafupants]

The air floating around all over the place, and the air we breathe, is mostly nitrogen - carbon dioxide has a small role to play percentage wise. Carbon dioxide levels, while we're on the topic, haven't risen too much over the years due to man's supposed folly. For that matter, temperatures haven't risen steadily enough - perhaps a degree or two - to get me marching in the streets. Before industrialization proper, I think the bigger problem was horse shit. The methane from horse shit is far worse than the carbon dioxide from buring fossil fuels - could be a matter of quantity though. Having said that, I wouldn't extol the beauty of Linfen, China too long. Love is in the air.

Spoiler

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Errr that's particulates in the air not CO2. Holy crap! I'm supposed to know stuff about air pollution. rofl

 

[telepathink]

it seems to me that this man made global warming, cleverly called climate change these days, is a fraud. It just makes sense although I am no expert on climatology.

I will quote from here: http://thedailybell.com/1919/Global-Warming-Climate-Change.html

"Global warming promotes the idea that temperatures have increased around the world due to too much manmade carbon dioxide. Of course there are alternative explanations. Reasonable people point out that most heat is trapped by atmospheric humidity – water vapor – about 95 percent in fact; thus CO2 is a fairly minor component of the heat-trapping environment.

But facts do not get in the way of what seems to be "a good story." Proponents of global warming or climate change wish to use the concept to introduce a fairly Draconian regulatory regime that will control people's usage of energy via Smart Meters and other devices. The global warming promotion is thus a Trojan Horse leading to additional oversight of how people use energy and lead their lives.

Proponents of global warming (or climate change) deny they have such intentions. They also claim that atmospheric humidity is not the problem. What goes on in the atmosphere is "normal," they argue. It is the insignificant additional "man-made" carbon that is doing all the damage. Everything would be fine, but it is what human beings are producing now as a result of the industrial revolution, etc., that has caused the disaster-in-the-making.

Since this meme has been partially discredited by the email scandal called Climategate, global warming terminology has changed. These days the "PC" term is "climate change." Like Peak Oil, another fear-based power elite meme, global warming was more popular in the mid 2000s before the financial crisis began to concentrate people's minds and Climategate emails showed that proponents of global warming had conspired to hide contrary evidence and had apparently lied about data, conspired against dissenting views and generally done everything in their power to turn an opinion (the world is warming) into an actionable perception.

After the Climategate emails came to light, there were several quasi-formal panels that examined the matter with risible results. Witnesses were not called and the assertions of those responsible for the emails and data misrepresentations were apparently taken at face value. The show must go on.

Despite the conflation of the Internet, war-problems and the economic crisis, the elite still pushes ahead. Yet the more promotions like global warming, zombie-like, stagger forward, the more resentment they will generate. The process will continually damage the legitimacy of modern regulatory democracy, which is the most powerful promotion of all. Generally, this is a dangerous situation for the powers-that-be."

 

[Agent Intellect]

Anyone who denies that the climate has changed, is changing, and will change is deluded. Anyone who thinks the relatively closed system of earth is immune to the activities of humans is in denial.

Where climate science falls short is both A) in calculating the precise effect humans actually have on the complex dynamic system of climate and B) predicting what the complex system of climate will do in the near and far future.

Also, to be knit picky, if water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, fossil fuels would still have an effect (no matter how big or small):

2C8H18 + 25O2 --> 16CO2 + 18H2O

 

[Jah]

All you need to know about Climategate:

YouTube - Unwinding "Hide the Decline"


What was the issue again ?

 

[Architectonic]

The hubris is more to do with the media and perhaps a few outspoken individuals, rather than the scientific community as a whole.
It is easy to predict that most of those people who post strong opinions on climate change either way have not read or understood the scientific literature first hand.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I want the engines of their models to be released to the public.

 

[Hadoblado]

I find this issue so aggravating. The sheer volume of utter bullshit that is flung by both sides makes me want to puke. Even when you manage to debunk some bold claim, you have not got any closer to closure, but only managed to stop yourself believing something for the wrong reasons. I am sometimes frustrated by how stupid the masses are, but when it comes to this issue I cannot blame them, as the amount of data to analyse is enormous, and often misleading at face value.

 

[EditorOne]

What AI said.

What thoughtful people find saddest is that those human activities which seem to have the biggest negative results are the ones fueled by ignorance.

The American Great Plains thrived for thousands of years until human activity killed the buffalo herds that were the major force in the Plains cycle, replacing that with both overgrazing by domestic cattle and plowing millions of acres of perfectly good topsoil. The result was the American dustbowl of the 20s and 30s, when a normal period of several dry years this time hit an area with exposed soils rather than soil covered in six-foot-high grass. Black blizzards, economic disaster, millions forced to leave the area.

That's just human activity by thousands of farmers using plows and harrows, ignorant that there could possibly be any effect beyond them getting out a crop expeditiously.

Kick it forward to 2011 and we have ignorance piling nuclear disaster atop earthquake damage in Japan. What a place for a nuclear plant. Now that's hubris.

Will life continue? Of course. Maybe we'll succeed in fouling our nest to the point where it kills us, but other life will continue.

The real hubris seems to lie in denying we are having an effect on our environment.

 

[fullerene]

Stupid blog post, imo. Not because of what it said about global warming (I don't know anything, although I will say it's been my experience that AI does his homework), but because its obvious what you had in mind while writing it, and it's not at all what you said you were doing. This is basically an outline of how I read it.


This post is not about the existence or non-existence of global warming.

This post is about the hubris the scientific community displays.

Global warming is probably not happening. If it is, it's probably not our fault. If it's our fault, we shouldn't worry about it
- Earth would be dynamic even without humans
- The fear we have about this issue is irrational
- The evidence that the climate is changing isn't convincing
- If it is changing, we're not sure if it's our fault
- If it's our fault, it was going to change anyway
- Nature emits more CO2 in an instant than we ever could [offered in support of 'if it's our fault, it was going to change anyway'?]

Implied/unspoken assumptions:

Scientists, as long as they're separated from personal biases, never conclude anything which is wrong.

The only personal bias which could lead them to universally support this [wrong, in light of the evidence above] conclusion that we're warming the planet is hubris.



...Therefore I conclude that scientists are exhibiting hubris in supporting this [wrong] theory.

[proceeds to guilt trip anyone who exhibits hubris, ie, anyone who also supports this [wrong] theory]


You might say you didn't want to talk about the truth or falsehood of global warming theories, but it was the only explicit premise in your argument that scientists are exhibiting hubris, and you tried to give 5ish (depending on how you break them down) pieces of evidence supporting the one thing that supports your "main point." And then after establishing that the people who disagree with that premise are the ones with the hubris, you spent another 5-ish sentences guilt tripping them for it.

c'mon man. Saying that you want to talk about the hubris of the scientific community does not mean that you actually talked about the hubris of the scientific community at all.

 

[Jesse]

Your a fucking retard if you don't believe in Climate Change.

There is a scientific consensus, though the effort to combat it requires political will which means there has to be a political consensus and hence you now have skeptics.

 

[EditorOne]

"Your a fucking retard if you don't believe in Climate Change."

Don't hold back, Jesse, tell us what you really think. Old joke, but yikes what a spot for it.

Climate change deniers as a group always seem to me to be the kids with baseball bats, gloves, and no ball claiming they aren't the ones responsible for the broken window in the neighbor's house. And they can prove it ....

 

[Jah]

The whole idea that there is a split in the scientific community about this subject is misleading.

Just as in the case with evolution vs creative intelligence.

the Vast majority of our compiled human intellect within the field holds the opinion that the data indicates that we as human beings are contributing to a global warming (The same goes for support of evolution by natural selection).


The science is clear: Global Warming/Climate Change, is recognized as fact.


The politics is fuzzy; Since we have no easy way of reversing our influence, nor do we have the capacity to identify where the line is between what would have been, given no human influence, and what is now. Compiled on top of that is political interest, oil magnates, religious interests, conspiracy theorists and a whole lot of people talking about shit they have no knowledge of.

I don't pretend to know the entire complex which is climate, and thus I expect those that have dedicated their lives to understanding it have more knowledge and thus more valid opinions on the subject.
Anything else would be the much-ado, Hubris.
Excessive pride/self-confidence, that leads to nemesis.


The hubris you speak of is your own, and it is the common conception among intelligent people that we somehow think we can understand a field in which we have no training.

Ultimately, this leads to a foolish resistance from the most intelligent, who should know, due to pure statistics, that there are more intelligent people out there, and that intelligence does not equate knowledge. The ability to Compute does not mean you have superior data, nor that you should look down on those that do, but take longer to figure out what it means.



"You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have the right to your own facts." - Ricky Gervais

 

[The Frood]

Preface: I am not a tree hugging enviro-nut.

The climate is changing. It does that from time to time. That is a fact, the thermometers don't lie

However, there is a correlation between when the global climate started changing (i.e. heating up overall) and the industrial revolution. It is important to note here that correlation =/= causation. Btw, "scientific consensus" is kindof misleading.

That said, a little greenhouse gas, (carbon, methane, water vapor etc (which make up about 1% of the atmosphere)) goes a long way in trapping the heat of the earth (the sun heats up the earth, not the atmosphere for the most part) and we are pumping out a lot of those gasses.
It probably does not help that we are cutting down the "lungs lungs of the earth", the carbon sinks that are forests especially rain forests like the Amazon, at an ever increasing rate, so that carbon isn't absorbed and replaced with oxygen.


So I think it is fair to say that humans are at least somewhat responsible for the climate changing.
Especially looking around at the general impact that we have on the environment, It is folly to say "we can't effect the earth"

While in the long run, the earth itself will be fine, why do we have to screw it up now? It takes time for things to heal. Nature(and life in general) is finely balanced , small changes have big effects.
Also, it is really really stupid to say that "global warming"(which is really just a political buzzword at this point) will kill us all... humans are survivors by nature.

I think better and more efficient alternatives to our current fuels can and should be found and used.
Heck, from a national security standpoint: is it smart to be reliant on fuels the majority of which we don't make ourselves? No.
There is a limited amount of raw materiel out there, why not use stuff that is sustainable?
We should find something useful to make with our trash, building materiel or something.

But then we get into the question of how to do anything about it...
How do we do anything about any of the multitude of problems we have, environmental (global warming, running out of fish, habitat destruction, great pacific garbage patch etc), political(rampant corruption, political stagnation, wars, etc), Economic (recession, national debt etc), humanitarian, medical and so on?

Found one! lol, not really.

 

[snafupants]

"Your a fucking retard if you don't believe in Climate Change."

Don't hold back, Jesse, tell us what you really think. Old joke, but yikes what a spot for it.

Climate change deniers as a group always seem to me to be the kids with baseball bats, gloves, and no ball claiming they aren't the ones responsible for the broken window in the neighbor's house. And they can prove it ....

Except that the window was broken thousands of years before they were born. Temperatures have been fluctuating for quite a while. Nothing new under the sun. Now, do I think carbon is the way to go long term? No, I don't. For one, fossil fuels are a finite resource and that's not even possible. Second, there are other energy sources available - the most viable being hydropower, electrical grids, and nuclear energy - while some purported alternative sources - wind turbines and solar energy - are woefully inefficient at harnessing and distributing energy to millions of people, not to mention costly and taxing on avian life. Finally, I definitely agree that humans can alter their environment - who would dispute that? - but I also think the earth would rebound - it's been around for approximately five billion years. The earth has seen far harsher conditions than this - look at the atmospheric breakdown billions of years ago, no one could survive a day in those conditions. We'll kill ourselves before we do irreparable harm to the planet.

 

[Jah]

yeh, the problem is that there are fresh cracks...

and they're growing.


Arguing that the window is broken doesn't give you rights to throw balls at it.

 

[Architectonic]

Your a fucking retard if you don't believe in Climate Change.

No, you're a fucking retard if you form an opinion without doing extensive literature reviews and building your own rigorous models. INTPistically speaking of course.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Your a fucking retard if you don't believe in Climate Change.

There is a scientific consensus, though the effort to combat it requires political will which means there has to be a political consensus and hence you now have skeptics.

Is this same type of retard I get called for not believing in Jesus? There is a consensus of people that testify that Jesus is real.

Please answer the following questions:

1) How did they calculate the forcing caused by an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide?
2) How did they disaggregate the carbon dioxide forcing from all other forcings?
3) How did they disaggregate increase in carbon dioxide concentration caused by man rather than naturally caused?
4) How did they determine the feedback mechanisms and whether or not they were positive or negative?
5) What are engines of their models?
6) What is the training period?
7) What is the validation period?
8) What are the accuracies of the application of their models to the training and validation periods?
9) What are the data sets used in their models?
10) How was the data collected?
11) How did they determine the magnitude of and what consequences of increased warming?

 

[Aramea]

I decided to "look into" climate change for myself a few years ago. My intention was to decide for myself based on the "data". It took about two hours to conclude that I did not have the background to understand it nor the desire to spend years acquiring it. I am, therefore, neutral on manmade climate change. However ...

I have observed man's effect on his environment on several levels. After three weeks in Egypt the boogers in my Kleenex were black. Human and bovine shit lines sewers in Kathmandu while children run barefoot. At a pricey bed and breakfast in Sedona, AZ water is so precious you are advised to only run the shower to rinse off the soap and they will not replace your towels, so pick them up. Here in my hometown (Atlanta, GA) most of the summer has ozone levels considered unsafe for breathing. In the US we can't seem to find a suitable place to store a few fuel rods.

Climate change is a bit of a red herring. Whether or not we can change the global temperature aside, we CAN and DO influence the surface of the planet in ways detrimental to human health. Breathable air, fertile soil and potable water are far more pressing issues than climate change (and perhaps fourth place would go to the mountains of garbage we are generating). The cynic in me might pause to wonder if our attention is being diverted intentionally.

 

[snafupants]

I decided to "look into" climate change for myself a few years ago. My intention was to decide for myself based on the "data". It took about two hours to conclude that I did not have the background to understand it nor the desire to spend years acquiring it. I am, therefore, neutral on manmade climate change. However ...

I have observed man's effect on his environment on several levels. After three weeks in Egypt the boogers in my Kleenex were black. Human and bovine shit lines sewers in Kathmandu while children run barefoot. At a pricey bed and breakfast in Sedona, AZ water is so precious you are advised to only run the shower to rinse off the soap and they will not replace your towels, so pick them up. Here in my hometown (Atlanta, GA) most of the summer has ozone levels considered unsafe for breathing. In the US we can't seem to find a suitable place to store a few fuel rods.

Climate change is a bit of a red herring. Whether or not we can change the global temperature aside, we CAN and DO influence the surface of the planet in ways detrimental to human health. Breathable air, fertile soil and potable water are far more pressing issues than climate change (and perhaps fourth place would go to the mountains of garbage we are generating). The cynic in me might pause to wonder if our attention is being diverted intentionally.

That last paragraph is interesting. Since industrialized nations apparently can't (or don't want to) relate to vertitable problems of poor countries (starvation, malaria, clean water, etc.), the media magnifies a global crisis that at once instills fear and diverts attention from legitimate issues. It's an intriguing thought. After all, global warming is the ultimate boogeyman, it's a riddle that can't be solved - a lot like the war on terror, neverending and amorphous.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You can pay me to solve such problems. XD

 

[Agent Intellect]

I'll take a quick stab at it.

1) How did they calculate the forcing caused by an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

See section "2.9 Synthesis" and the corresponding tables (mainly tables on pages 201-202)

2) How did they disaggregate the carbon dioxide forcing from all other forcings?

Spoiler

[10] To isolate and detect enhanced radiative forcings that
are solely due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations
and their feedbacks, temperature changes as well as humidity
changes that are due to external warm air advection,
must be subtracted from LDRcf. Temperature (Figure 1a)
and cloud free longwave downward radiation (Figure 3a)
are highly correlated showing correlation coefficients r
between 0.88 and 0.97 at all stations. Since average temperatures
as well as residuals to the linear regression and
temperature increases at the stations are known, year-toyear
variations as well as temperature trends over the
measurement period can be corrected. From LDRcf values
we subtract the respective temperature driven changes of
longwave downward radiation (
LDRt), which is the first
derivative of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation multiplied by
the cloud-free apparent sky emittance (eAcf) (see Table 1).

Δ LDRt = 4 σ Ta3 Δta εAcf

σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Ta the average
temperature at the station and
ta is on the one hand the
residual of the temperature to the linear regression for the
year-to-year correction, and on the other hand two thirds of
the temperature trend that is due to warm air advection. The
resulting temperature corrected cloud-free longwave downward
radiation (LDRcf,tc) shown in Figure 3b) has, due to the
high correlation, now much less variability and a quite
uniform increase between 2.1 and 2.9 Wm
2 over all
stations. The average LDRcf,tc increase is +2.4 (0.9) Wm
2
and most of the stations show a trend at the 95%
significance level.
[11] Stand-alone radiative transfer calculations with the
MODTRAN model predict a +0.26 Wm
2LDR increase for
12 ppm CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases apart from
water vapour. For water vapour, MODTRAN calculations
show sensitivities of 0.56 and 1.73 Wm
2 at 500 respectively
3000 meters a.s.l., for a 0.1 g m
3 change of water
vapour (gradual decrease assumed in the first 4 km).
According to the GCM calculations only one third of the
measured water vapour increase (Figure 1b) is due to
feedbacks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.
Measurements further show that for cloud free situations
the water vapour increase is about half of that measured for
all sky situations. Accordingly, the expected increase of
LDRcf due to water vapour feedback is +0.44 Wm
2. The
LDRcf increase due to one third of the temperature increase
over the measurement period is 0.88 Wm
2. Overall, model
calculations predict anthropogenic greenhouse gases and
feedbacks to increase LDRcf by a total of +1.58 Wm
2 on
average over the eight years.
[12] Since part of the increased LDRcf,tc flux shown in
Figure 3b) is due to water vapour that stems from external
warm air advection, we correct for two thirds of the
humidity increase applying the same sensitivities as in the
preceding paragraph. Good correlation is also found
between LDRcf,tc and absolute humidity (r = 0.89 for the
average values), which allows further correcting year-toyear
variability. Figure 3c) shows the cloud and external
temperature and humidity corrected longwave downward
radiation (LDRcf,tc,uc), uniformely increasing by 1.4 to
2.5 Wm
2 over the eight years. No clear sign of altitude
dependence is observed. On average the final corrected
LDRcf,tc,uc measurements show an increase of +1.8
(0.8) Wm
2 with a 95% significance level at almost all
stations. This remaining increase of longwave downward
radiation demonstrates radiative forcing that is due to
enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations and feedbacks,
and is in reasonably good agreement with the expected
+1.58 Wm
2 increase predicted by MODTRAN radiative
transfer model calculations.

http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Philipona2004_IncreasingGhE_GRL.pdf

3) How did they disaggregate increase in carbon dioxide concentration caused by man rather than naturally caused?

Spoiler

Four source-sink scenarios which explain the observations are presented in Table 1 below. Scenario A reflects the data presented above which indicates that all, or nearly all, of the accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Scenario B allows for a minor amount of natural emissions, about 5%. Scenario C assumes that there are natural sources, as yet unidentified, of the same magnitude as human emissions and that there are, as yet, undetected sinks which can account for the observed net concentration of carbon dioxide. This is the position taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cahange (IPCC) [#1]. Scenario D assumes that human contributions to carbon dioxide accumulation are insignificant (about 5%), as argued by the climate-change skeptics [#2].
Cumulative human carbon emissions over the past 200 years (270 Gton) as well as net carbon accumulation in the atmosphere (160 Gton) are known quantities. Scenarios A - D balance these quantities with the required net natural sources and sinks which would determine the specified human contribution.
TABLE 1. Four scenarios of net cumulative carbon sources (+) and net sinks (-) for carbon added to the atmosphere from 1800 to present in billions of metric tons (Gton).

scn. | Human(+) | Natural(+) | Subtotal(+) | Natural(-) | Net(+&-) ---------------------------------------------------------------
A. | 270 (100%) | 0.000 ( 0%) | 270 | 110 (41%) | 160
B. | 270 ( 95%) | 14 .00( 5%) | 284 | 124 (44%) | 160
C. | 270 ( 50%) | 270.0 (50%) | 540 | 380 (70%) | 160
D. | 270 ( 5%) | 5400 (95%) | 5670 | 5510 (97%) | 160

One of the basic principles of science is the simplicity hypothesis. That is, among competing explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. Scenario A in Table 1 satisfies the simplicity hypothesis. Scenario B accounts for the possibility that there could be a minor amount of natural emissions. Scenario C, advanced by the IPCC, leaves considerable wiggle room for adaptation to the, as yet, incompletely understood carbon cycle; including the mystery of the missing carbon. Scenario D, put forth by the climate-change skeptics, is preposterous on its face. Here, a 5.4 trillion ton, undetected natural source (emitting 95%) as well as a 5.5 trillion ton natural sink (absorbing 97%) are required to explain the observations. Further, in accordance with the data in Fig. 2, this hypothetical net source and sink must have grown over the past 200 years almost exactly in parallel with human carbon emissions. TABLE 2. Same four scenarios as in Table 1, but for projected year 2000 net cumulative carbon sources (+) and net sinks (-) for carbon added to the atmosphere per annum in billions of metric tons (Gton).

Scn. | Human(+) | Natural(+) | Subtotal(+) | Natural(-) | Net(+&-) ---------------------------------------------------------------
A. | 7.0 (100%) | 0.000 ( 0%) | 7.0 | 3.5 (50%) | 3.5
B. | 7.0 ( 95%) | 0.400 ( 5%) | 7.4 | 3.9 (53%) | 3.5
C. | 7.0 ( 50%) | 7.000 (50%) | 14.0 | 10.5 (75%) | 3.5
D. | 7.0 ( 5%) | 133.0 (95%) | 140.0 | 136.5 (98%) | 3.5

Table 2 lists the data for the four scenarios, but for projected year 2000 annual emissions of carbon (see Fig. 1). Scenarios A - C represent a rationally pessimistic to optimistic range. Although there is the mystery of the missing carbon, the climate-change skeptic's scenario D requires such a huge net natural source and sink that it would be impossible for scientists to have missed them.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

Spoiler

The general circulation model (GCM) that we used is based on
the third Hadley Centre coupled ocean±atmosphere model,
HadCM37, which we have coupled to an ocean carbon-cycle
model (HadOCC) and a dynamic global vegetation model (TRIFFID).
The atmospheric physics and dynamics of our GCM are
identical to those used in HadCM3, but the additional computational
expense of including an interactive carbon cycle made it
necessary to reduce the ocean resolution to 2.58 ´ 3.758, necessitating
the use of ¯ux adjustments in the ocean component to counteract
climate drift. HadOCC accounts for the atmosphere±ocean
exchange of CO2, and the transfer of CO2 to depth through both the
solubility pump and the biological pump8. TRIFFID models the
state of the biosphere in terms of the soil carbon, and the structure
and coverage of ®ve functional types of plant within each model
gridbox (broadleaf tree, needleleaf tree, C3 grass, C4 grass and
shrub). Further details on HadOCC and TRIFFID are given in
Methods.
http://www.blight.com/~sparkle/z3/global3.pdf

4) How did they determine the feedback mechanisms and whether or not they were positive or negative?

Water vapor feedback.
Ice-Albedo feedback. (see pages 243-245).
Carbon dynamics and climate feedback:

Spoiler

Figure 3a shows potential interactions between microbial metabolism and the physics of permafrost thawing and carbon release. Current estimates of carbon stored deep-frozen in permafrost regions amount to at least 400 petagrams (4

1011 tonnes) of carbon (ref. 13) that is relatively unprocessed and labile as the frozen state protects it from microbial decomposition. Moss and turf layers provide very good insulation against the atmosphere. With rising summer temperatures, these soils begin to melt, the carbon becomes metabolized and microbial metabolism may release enough heat (the 'dung-heap effect') to facilitate further melting, providing a nonlinear positive-feedback mechanism to enhance permafrost melting and, through methane and CO2 emissions, to increase the greenhouse effect. Model simulations indicate that a run-away dynamic may be triggered by a few warm years, but the strength of this feedback mechanism and the realism of these simulations remain unclear14.
Another mechanism for potential mobilization of large amounts of carbon is the so-called 'microbial priming effect'. It has been shown in several experimental systems that the addition of substrates with readily available energy (for example, glucose and cellulose) to the soil stimulates the decomposition of 'old' soil carbon. Sébastien Fontaine et al.15, 16 showed that simply by adding cellulose to the soil they could mobilize carbon from the subsoil of grasslands that was assumed to be stable, whereas other factors such as temperature, nitrogen addition or increasing oxygen concentration had no effect. Counterintuitively, addition of such material even induced a net loss of carbon from the soil samples, as the soil carbon stock is large. In the context of climate change this effect may induce a positive-feedback effect, particularly in grassland soils (Fig. 3b). Increasing CO2 concentrations can lead to enhanced below-ground allocation of labile carbon through roots and root exudates, which can enhance microbial activity and foster decomposition of carbon material that has been deemed stable but was in fact not being attacked because microbes were not active. Also, if rooting patterns change, either because of altered precipitation or as part of general vegetation dynamics, carbon input into deeper layers that were not rooted before might induce release of old carbon through this mechanism.
Last but not least, the interaction of the carbon and nitrogen cycles offers a plethora of mechanisms that could alter expected ecosystem carbon responses to the prevailing trend in climate change. Some of these are shown in Fig. 3c. In nitrogen-limited ecosystems, nitrogen nutrition limiting the CO2 fertilization effect on canopy assimilation is regularly found after a few years of increasing CO2 levels9. There are also indications that nitrogen availability influences the decomposition of soil organic matter. Fungi use lignin, an abundant, stable organic substance found in plant cell walls, as a nitrogen source under conditions of limited nitrogen availability. Enhanced decomposition of lignin may lead to a positive feedback in response to rising atmospheric CO2. On timescales longer than a few years, however, acclimation or change in species composition, or, for example, increased nitrogen fixation through increased carbohydrate input into the soil, may relax or even overcompensate for the nitrogen-limitation effects. Also, an interaction with microbial 'priming' (see above) through more intensive and deeper plant rooting is not unlikely, as a decrease in nitrogen availability often leads to a larger allocation of carbon to roots.

Ocean-Carbon feedback.

5) What are engines of their models?
6) What is the training period?
7) What is the validation period?
8) What are the accuracies of the application of their models to the training and validation periods?

I think the wiki article does a decent job explaining some of this?
There is also the 1995 report (1), the 2001 report (2) (3) and 2007 report (4) by the IPCC (although from what I understand you don't trust that source?).

9) What are the data sets used in their models?
How was the data collected?

IPCC DDC: Climate Observations (1) (2).
RealClimate data sources.
Remote sensing techniques.

11) How did they determine the magnitude of and what consequences of increased warming?

I'm not sure how one could predict this, but there have already been consequences attributed to climate change, such as coral bleaching, diatom-phytoplankton equilibrium (1), sustainability of marine fisheries, marine phenology etc.

 

[ummidk]

Recently we've been hearing with increasing frequency about how global warming is causing climate change, and how it's displacing millions with drought, hurricanes, etc. What the scientific community has entirely ignored is the fact that our planet is alive. Historians, anthropologists, geologists, biologists, and meteorologists all will passionately attest to Earth's dynamic nature. Yet when we actually witness Earth changing, we soil our pants with worry that we've somehow put a dent in the fragile, tender haven of life that is our Earth.

I agree with the jist of your post that essentially even if Global warming were to exist and we caused it that it probably doesn't mean much in the long run for planet earth. The thing is though, people don't give a shit about that. We care that we survive, and if Global Warming is real it could put an end to that.

Also It looks to me like this completely turned into a global warming is real or not discussion even though you specifically mentioned it wasn't about that =).

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ Agent Intellect, I didn't expect anyone to respond to those questions. Sigh. Now you have provided the mindless lemmings something to refer to.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

@ Agent Intellect, I didn't expect anyone to respond to those questions. Sigh. Now you have provided the mindless lemmings something to refer to.

Spoiler

Amen, Amen.

 

[The Frood]

You know, funny thing about lemmings, they don't actually mindlessly follow the leader off the cliff, that is a myth basically created from a 50's Disney "documentary" where they herded a bunch of lemmings off a cliff into a river and filmed it.
In actuality when population density gets too great, lemmings do mass migrate and since lemmings can swim they cross streams and rivers, some lemmings inevitably drown. If the stream is at the stretch of lemming's physical capacity many may die.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You know, funny thing about lemmings, they don't actually mindlessly follow the leader off the cliff, that is a myth basically created from a 50's Disney "documentary" where they herded a bunch of lemmings off a cliff into a river and filmed it.
In actuality when population density gets too great, lemmings do mass migrate and since lemmings can swim they cross streams and rivers, some lemmings inevitably drown. If the stream is at the stretch of lemming's physical capacity many may die.

Yes! I found this out the other month. It blew my mind.

 

[Jah]

That's probably what causes global warming.

The methane from drowned Lemmings that are rotting under water.




Jokes aside;
http://berkeleyearth.org/
http://berkeleyearth.org/findings

Whether or not you believe that this dude;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

Who is the founder and primus motor of the berkley earth project, is in with the consensus of climate-scientists, is up to you.


Now, over to the realistic part of the debate:
Somehow I find this guy more important than the Warming/Not-Warming debate.
(edit: removed wrong link, video in next post.)

 

[Jah]

Hmm; wrong video:

Here's the one of Bjorn Lomborg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MEKyJEn0Wk

 

[Architectonic]

I kind of liked the other (TED) video about economic prioritisation and how tackling climate change is way down the list in terms of cost vs benefit.

 

[Jah]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Ehhh, Global warming is a plot conceived by the socialists to turn the country red. They once said the reds were under our beds. I guess they're no longer under our beds, they're all covered in green.

 

[EditorOne]

"Ehhh, Global warming is plot conceived by the socialists to turn the country red."

I'm not sure where you are, but my country has been operating in the red since 2000.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

lol

 

[RobdoR]

I just want to thank everyone who posted on this thread.

I especially like the Bjorn Lomborg video. I would encourage everyone reading this thread to watch that video, because there are much better solutions than cutting carbon emissions.

 

[snafupants]

A book I read recently talked about crafting a thin tube to send sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to prevent ultraviolet rays from heating up the earth's surface. The precedent for this came from a 1991 volcano in the Philippines when sulfur dioxide blanketed our atmosphere and temperature went down globally approximately two degrees fahrenheit for two years. A caveat that I would add to this proposition is that it does not do much to make any nation carbon neutral; then again, carbon dioxide is not the most harmful greenhouse gas, despite what is said about it. Another factor to consider is that a plan like this - that involves polluting to curb the effects of pollution - not only mimics natural processes but does not exceed the amount of pollution emitted from coal power plants (think of it as beneficially relocating the pollution). People like Al Gore and radical environmentalists hate considering "man-made" solutions to carbon emissions, but I think these things should be considered.

 

[Jah]

There was also talk of littering the upper atmosphere with tiny mirrors (sort of like Saturn's rings, but with a shell made from mirrors instead.) ((I'm guessing this is much of the same idea, since sulfur dioxide basically works as tiny mirrors))

But these things will be hard to calculate the long-term effect of.

Won't they ?

 

[snafupants]

There was also talk of littering the upper atmosphere with tiny mirrors (sort of like Saturn's rings, but with a shell made from mirrors instead.) ((I'm guessing this is much of the same idea, since sulfur dioxide basically works as tiny mirrors))

But these things will be hard to calculate the long-term effect of.

Won't they ?

The beauty of that idea is that one could start small, gauge the effects, and dial back the amount of sulfur dioxide if need be. A handful of coal plants already release ample amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere; the issue in this proposal is relocating the pollution and strategically emulating the effects that that earlier volcano had on our global temperature. As of now, there is probably no international law stopping an agency or individual from employing this plan. Finally, although the plan would be relatively easy to implement and fund, it may send the wrong message to people. Because the plan is more of a band aid than a long term solution, perhaps companies and governments would continue to pollute and individuals would not curb their consumption of fossil fuels, seeing the effects on weather as a specious indication that they are doing something right.