Global Dimming - More Gloom and Doom from the BBC

[wacki]

Sorry about your country nicky G.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point that a ten degree shift in 100 years is bullshit, where do these people think they live? They'd need a 50 degree swing to be like africa in a hundred years. Their weather is shite...

[ilya]

I remember reading about this a couple years ago when the guy first published his research...then the story disappeared, so I figured he'd been discredited. I guess not...sweet!

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point that a ten degree shift in 100 years is bullshit, where do these people think they live? They'd need a 50 degree swing to be like africa in a hundred years. Their weather is shite...

[/ QUOTE ]

5-25 degree swing? yes
50 degree swing? no

average temperatures:

London: 11.7 C
Algiers: 16.8 C
Nema (a city in Mauritania, inland, in/near Sahara desert) : 30.2 C

(worldclimate.com)

[nicky g]

My country? Wouldn;t the US be even worse off given how hot it gets there in the summer?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My country? Wouldn;t the US be even worse off given how hot it gets there in the summer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Parts of the US would be worse off, and parts wouldn't. Some parts of the US would dry up, others would become so soaked with rain that malaria would start to become a problem. A 10 degree shift is huge though. I think that at 5 degrees the ocean will rise 3 feet and put 100 million people out of homes.

[stabn]

Maybe you didn't understand my joke.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point that a ten degree shift in 100 years is bullshit, where do these people think they live? They'd need a 50 degree swing to be like africa in a hundred years. Their weather is shite...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you didn't understand my joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your joke. Is the 10 degree thing a joke as well?

[Cubswin]

I highly recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Envirnnmentalist if you have any interest in the issue of global warming (or any other environmental matter).

Ice ages and periods of extended warmth have been happening on our planets for a long long time. Global warming research is mostly based on data from the last hundred or so years. To these environmentalist drawing doom and gloom conclusions about our planet i say 'sample size too small'. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

cubs

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Envirnnmentalist

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that arguement before. He only has one published paper, and it is in game theory and not his take on environmentalism. The lack of peer review makes it extremely difficult to check his facts and claims, but I am in the process of doing so. I will admit there is uncertainty, but there more and more evidence is popping up everyday showing that maybe we should not be taking any chances. In fact, the vast majority of scientists have very little doubt. Do you think it's wise to ignore the vast majority of scientists?

Here is a video you should watch. It is from the Nobel Laureate R.E. Smalley. He proposes a solution. It's pretty dumb not to follow his advice IMO, for economic reasons alone.

http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv

http://smalley.rice.edu/

[The once and future king]

Oooh oooh there is one lonely scientist who reafirms my point of view.

He must be right and all the other ones wrong.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you didn't understand my joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...actually I sitll don't understand it.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you didn't understand my joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...I'm still confused actually.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
Besides the point that a ten degree shift in 100 years is bullshit, where do these people think they live? They'd need a 50 degree swing to be like africa in a hundred years. Their weather is shite...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you didn't understand my joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your joke. Is the 10 degree thing a joke as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the joke is that his own claim that they'd need a 50 degree swing to be like Africa in 100 years contradicts his dismissal of the idea that a 10 degree swing in the same time is possible (since he knows that the difference is now only about 20 degrees)??

I am befuddled.

Maybe the joke is that British weather is too crappy to "improve" that much?

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Envirnnmentalist

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard that arguement before. He only has one published paper, and it is in game theory and not his take on environmentalism. The lack of peer review makes it extremely difficult to check his facts and claims, but I am in the process of doing so. I will admit there is uncertainty, but there more and more evidence is popping up everyday showing that maybe we should not be taking any chances. In fact, the vast majority of scientists have very little doubt. Do you think it's wise to ignore the vast majority of scientists?

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of a recent exchange on Slate between the authors of "Blink" and "The Wisdom of Crowds."

http://www.slate.com/id/2111894/entry/0/

[Cubswin]

Oooh oooh there is one lonely scientist who reafirms my point of view.

He must be right and all the other ones wrong.

I dont believe i ever did give my point of view, rather, i stated it is wrong to come to a scientific conclusion if your methodology is flawed.

cubs

[Cubswin]

In fact, the vast majority of scientists have very little doubt. Do you think it's wise to ignore the vast majority of scientists?

Your logic is flawed... do you see why??? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vulturesrow]

Wacki,

You know I like you but your global warming schtick is getting old man. I might have to start calling you chicken little. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki,

You know I like you but your global warming schtick is getting old man. I might have to start calling you chicken little. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, it could be worse. Atleast I'm not a hippy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif *cocks shotgun... drinks a beer... shaves with machete....*

Seriously, you can't deny this is important stuff. And it's not like I'm trying to turn everyone into enviromaniacs. If you watched the Smalley video, I think even you would agree it's something we should do even if there wasn't global warming. How bad is it that all I'm saying we need to do is to get the US back ontop of the largest industry in the world? If a president does decide to make a move like Carter did, I just hope the public will be educated enough to be behind him this time.

Do you really think Smalley's proposal is a bad idea?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, the vast majority of scientists have very little doubt. Do you think it's wise to ignore the vast majority of scientists?

Your logic is flawed... do you see why??? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, please inform me why it is a bad idea to listen to the vast majority of scientists and Nobel Laureates.

[cnfuzzd]

yes, but those long-term variations are created through natural causes, usually taking the course of hundreds of years to shift from one extreme to the other. However, many scientists now feel that with the extent that we have been dumping various chemicals into our atmosphere which affect the amount of heat energy being radiated "off" of the planet, they can comfortably claim that we are having a demonstrable impact on the planet's climate. Not only that, but given that most theories, and the better models, show that we are creating some great scenarios for "run-away warming" where we actually help to speed up the planets natural warming and cooling trends, thus further excerbating the problem. Not only that, but given the extent to which this problem would devestate our civilisation, most ethicists conclude that erring on the side of caution is the better decision than doing nothing, particularly since by the time we have absolute proof, we will already be too far gone to do anything but witness the consequences of our pollution. Finally, there is even a great economical argument to be made that the global warming problem is an excellent impetus to begin readjusting our economies into more sustainable models. There is some economic benefit to more enivronmental-friendly technologies, and given the dangerous financial and geo-political stresses created by petroleum-based economies, "untapping" ourselves from the oil well makes even more sense. Unless, of course, you are an oil company executive or oil-company-bought politician.

peace

john nickle

[wacki]

Wow john nickle, I am impressed. Very eloquent.

[cnfuzzd]

yeah, i had potential once. I coulda been a contenda. Instead, i am here, playing poker, and much happier with myself.

peace

john nickle

[EliteNinja]

6 more degrees and L.A. will be under water.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
That means a temperature rise of 10 degrees Celsius by 2100 could be on the cards, giving the UK a climate like that of North Africa, and rendering many parts of the world uninhabitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I live in the UK... but even if temperatures change that much by 2100, if I'm still alive I'll be shitting myself and eating baby food. So I should care why?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I live in the UK... but even if temperatures change that much by 2100, if I'm still alive I'll be shitting myself and eating baby food. So I should care why?

[/ QUOTE ]

That what my dad says, then again he's an [censored]. I'm guessing you don't have kids...

As far as being dead, this guy is getting a lot of attention lately.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm

I think he's a bit nuts, but there is some truth to what he says.

[Il_Mostro]

One reason and one reson only. Because then you can go on as you always have, screw the future.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly recommend reading Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Envirnnmentalist if you have any interest in the issue of global warming (or any other environmental matter).


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Lomborg is a statistics professor and not a scientist. There is a saying about statistics which basically says you can prove anything you want to prove with statistics. Lomborg has some very severe flaws in his methodology. Scientists follow something called the scientific method, Lomborg doesn't. Numerous panels and government organizations have claimed that he is dishonest, unscientific, and has little or no value.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22004/newsDate/27-Aug-2003/story.htm
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949
I can provide many more links if needed.

His arguement against Kyoto?

"Global warming is real and caused by CO2. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming,"

http://tinyurl.com/6b29d

He then argues:

"Even if everyone (including the United States) did Kyoto and stuck to it throughout the century, the change would be almost immeasurable, postponing warming by just six years in 2100,"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,11692253,00.html

Are you kidding me? Isn't he admitting global warming is going to occur? I thought that was nonsense!!! *sarcasm*

Do you see the problem here? He says global warming is unstoppable in order to fight Kyoto. He also ignores many parts/future CO2 cutbacks of Kyoto in his climate models. Pretty lame tactic if you ask me. (I am against Kyoto btw, but for different reasons.)

If you want some really good stuff. Here is 10 pages written in scientific american that rips this guy apart.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2

Lomborgs undoing is that he thinks there is nothing we can do. I say there is. I say we have an easy way out through technology. People like Lomborg hurt us because he knows global warming is going to happen, he just doesn't have any faith/hope we can fix the problem. That is a dangerous mindset IMO.

I could be wrong about what Lomborg truly thinks, but I do know that no widely respected scientist is defending his methodology. Keep in mind, I'm talking about his methodology alone that is indefensible. The overwhelming majority of scientists dismiss him.

[Il_Mostro]

Good info, thanks man.

One thing though...
[ QUOTE ]
Lomborgs undoing is that he thinks there is nothing we can do. I say there is. I say we have an easy way out through technology. People like Lomborg hurt us because he knows global warming is going to happen, he just doesn't have any faith/hope we can fix the problem. That is a dangerous mindset IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are generally more of a beliver in technology as a saviour than I am, so I want to point out that it's techonolgy that put us in this mess. Rare is the technology that has not had sideeffects that are worse than the problem it was invented to solve. So, for techonology to solve the problems we need to start inventing tech. without any sideeffects.

I'm not saying that we can't do that, but so far the track-record is not as good as one would like.

[Leo99]

Scientists need to do something to justify their existence. If everything was ok, then who would want to pay them to predict when meteors will hit the earth or when the polar ice caps will melt. I'm not buying it.

[wacki]

So far, we've never really tried. Sure some investments have been made, and some research has been done. Our hot fusion programs have all shown lots of progress. They just aren't getting the funds that are required to make progress at a speed that we need it too. We can get it in 40 years. That is enough time to stop the worst case scenarios.

Also, much has been done to hinder efficiency in transportation. I've been told tire company execs actually went to jail due to their effort to undermine the train companies in the US. An effort that actually worked as we really don't have public transport/trains in the US. I know it's still a gamble, but you have to admit that the worst case scenario of Smalley's Apollo energy program is a plethora of new technologies that will drive our economies.

If you keep telling people that there isn't hope, then they won't be willing to make an effort. And that is the worst case scenario of all. A very dangerous thing that I suggest you be very careful not to do. Let them know some things are a gamble, but don't destroy hope. Fusion, although still in developement, is almost certain so I don't think it's as grim as you do.

You are right about one thing, I am very optimistic. I think we can solve this problem. People said we couldn't fly, we can. People said computers would never be in the home, now they are being implanted in people. Trust our scientists, there is tons of room for improvement of our technology. I honestly think this is an easy out if politics doesn't tie the scientists hands.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists need to do something to justify their existence. If everything was ok, then who would want to pay them to predict when meteors will hit the earth or when the polar ice caps will melt. I'm not buying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in pathology, what do I get out of this?

I have tons of friends getting rich off of pharmaceuticals, what do they get out of writing global warming papers?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not buying it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What part of it are you not buying? The part where they state that it's a repeated observation, using different methods or the part stating that it's caused by pollution? Do you have any information to base this sceptisism on, or are you just plain ignorant?

Your statement about scientists is just plain silly. You know about peer review? Scientific methodology?

[wacki]

One more thing, I do strongly feel after looking at our climate models we can develop fusion in time. I also think man made carbon sinks are going to play a huge role and new ways of artificially sinking carbon are being developed/researched. Phytoplankton and algae can actually be modified genetically to sink carbon into very stable forms. Cars may still run on petro in the future (but using more efficient technology) and it may not even matter. You never know what is going to happen.

[Leo99]

Why don't you type in "Global warming hoax" on google and read? There are plenty of scientists that think it's hoax. Or all they all crackpots? Open up your mind and think for yourself, maybe you should stop being ignorant. Do you have any first hand knowledge or are you just believing what they tell you? BBC said it, so it must be true? You probably believe in the AIDS in Africa epidemic too. I don't.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the bill's biggest opponent, said, "Like Kyoto, this is an extreme approach." Inhofe has called global warming a hoax perpetrated by environmentalists on the American public.

I've worked as a research scientist. Don't preach to me about peer review and scientific methodology.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
They just aren't getting the funds that are required to make progress at a speed that we need it too.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. We need to move money into these areas, now. You know I agree with you there.

[ QUOTE ]
We can get it in 40 years. That is enough time to stop the worst case scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]
You also know that I do not belive we have 40 years.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, much has been done to hinder efficiency in transportation.

[/ QUOTE ]
True without a doubt. And it will continue to be done, there's too much money in oil to stop the current trends.

[ QUOTE ]
but you have to admit what the worst case scenario of Smalley's Apollo energy program is a plethora of new technologies that will drive our economies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that is a good line to use to get people to see the need. But I also belive that if we don't implement that type of program there won't be any economies to drive.

[ QUOTE ]

If you keep telling people that there isn't hope, then they won't be willing to make an effort. And that is the worst case scenario of all. A very dangerous thing that I suggest you be very careful not to do. Let them know it's still a gamble, but don't destroy hope.

[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. But I also think there should be more being said about the future. There is a distinct possibility that the future for us will be energy scarce, not energy rich as so many popular belifs have it. Thus, the general public should be made aware of that fact.
I don't see any chanse of that happening, though.

[ QUOTE ]

You are right about one thing, I am very optimistic. I think we can solve this problem. People said we couldn't fly, we can. People said computers would never be in the home, now they are being implanted in people. Trust our scientists, there is tons of room for improvement of our technology. I honestly think this is an easy out if politics doesn't tie the scientists hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm right about many things /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
I do not, however, belive there is an easy way to solve the future problems in the area of pollution (and it's consequenses, warming and now dimming) or in the area of energy. There might be a way out, but to find that one we need to start looking, really really hard. There we are in total agreement, you and me.

[Il_Mostro]

Ohh, I have read a lot. Check out Wacki:s post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1356373&page=&view=&s b=5&o=) on global warming in the Politics forum.
[ QUOTE ]
Science magazine analyzed peer reviewed papers only (those are the only ones you should pay attention to). 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Global warming is happening.

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of scientists that think it's hoax.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name some. And they need to be scientists, not lobbyists. They must have peer reviewed papers in the area.

[Leo99]

John Christy, University of Alabama Climatologist

Last fall, the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations to combat global warming. Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK] led the opposition, and went so far as to call global warming a hoax. He based that statement, in part, on the work of John Christy, a professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Christy is a respected climatologist, but he's also a maverick who argues that global warming isn't a problem worth worrying about. His major contribution has been to analyze millions of measurements from weather satellites, looking for a global temperature trend. He's found almost no sign of global warming in the satellite data, and is confident that forecasts of warming up to 10 degrees in the next century are wrong.

If you're gonna reference Wacki's post then I have no choice other than to reference Felix (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1356879&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1)

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
He's found almost no sign of global warming in the satellite data,

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost? I thought you said he did not belive in global warming?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're gonna reference Wacki's post then I have no choice other than to reference Felix

[/ QUOTE ]
You did read the responses to that post, right? The ones showing that he is way off base?

[Leo99]

I read that long and painful thread. No point in repeating the same thread here. It's well documented that some respected minds believe in global warming and others do not. To resort to calling people ignorant or silly because they don't believe the same things you believe is childish.

I don't see where Felix's argument is discredited. Ray Garlington and Zeno, to a lesser degree, offer support of Felix while Wacki argues against him.

The one thing all agree on is that politics is muddled with science and that's not a good thing.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
To resort to calling people ignorant or silly because they don't believe the same things you believe is childish.


[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. However, I still think your first post in this thread showed you off as silly and ignorant. Your following posts has shown that to be untrue. I still think you are wrong, but I don't think you are any more silly than any of us /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing all agree on is that politics is muddled with science and that's not a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed <font color="blue"> </font> <font color="blue"> </font>