Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

I am not a climatologist, and I don't think you are either. I am sure that they (climatologists) have accounted for the data in this paper and 1,000's of others, too.

So, I cannot judge a paper one way or the other. And I doubt that you can, either. Whether or not you or I are convinced by one paper or another -- doesn't matter. What matters is the scientific judgment.

I do know that the polar ice caps ARE melting, as are almost all glaciers and snow packs. The ocean is acidifying, and the sea level is rising. Methane is being released from melting "permafrost". Patterns of weather is changing -- changes in snow, rain, drought, storms, etc. are all evidence of this. And I know that climatologists have looked at all the data available to them. And their conclusion is that it is anthropogenic global climate change.

The risks are way too high to screw around. We have got to change our energy use to renewables.

[Edit: If you had watched the NOVA program I linked to about ANDRILL, you would know that I know a fair bit about Antarctica ice.

You are making things up -- of course the scientists like Richard Ally have all the sun data in their models! What they heck do you think they are doing? They are scientists, and they do their jobs well.]

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I am not a climatologist, and I don't think you are either. I am sure that they (climatologists) have accounted for the data in this paper and 1,000's of others, too.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Or, for that matter, AGW?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, I cannot judge a paper one way or the other. And I doubt that you can, either. Whether or not you or I are convinced by one paper or another -- doesn't matter. What matters is the scientific judgment.

Ah, a variation on "it's settled." Hate to break it to you, Neil, but it is far from settled. Cap'n Trade is dead here in the States. Kyoto II is also dead. If the "science" were "settled," then we wouldn't see this, would we?

Besides that, if you're not a climatologist, then you should immediately stop speaking about which you don't know about. Otherwise, quit playing this "only a an authority may speak on something" card.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I do know that the polar ice caps ARE melting, as are almost all glaciers and snow packs.

The polar ice CAP partially melts every year. Here's a hint, though. It also GROWS every year. And if you would like, you could look at the scientific data regarding the singular polar ice CAP, and look for yourself. Oh, that's right - you're not a scientist, only a true believer.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The ocean is acidifying, and the sea level is rising. Methane is being released from melting "permafrost". Patterns of weather is changing -- changes in snow, rain, drought, storms, etc. are all evidence of this. And I know that climatologists have looked at all the data available to them. And their conclusion is that it is anthropogenic global climate change.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You just want to ignore the inconvenience of their results.

Such a nice quote, Neil. Thank your for providing it for me. You want to ignore physical observations, current news, and opposing viewpoints because it's just soooo inconvenient. Do you want us to disappear a la 10:10?

Sorry, but AGW is far from convincing as a source that neatly explains all of your points above.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The risks are way too high to screw around. We have got to change our energy use to renewables.

You start doing that, then. You convert all of your energy usage to renewables. You convince others to do so, voluntarily. Don't use the power of the government to force change based on junk science.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

[Edit: If you had watched the NOVA program I linked to about ANDRILL, you would know that I know a fair bit about Antarctica ice.

Sorry, but I don't get my scientific data from a television show.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You are making things up -- of course the scientists like Richard Ally have all the sun data in their models! What they heck do you think they are doing? They are scientists, and they do their jobs well.]

Sorry, but Dr. Richard ALLEY (if you're going to use a source, at least spell his name correctly) even admits that using BE-10 isotope readings for historical sun output estimation is imperfect. Besides that, we're interested in how the Sun affects recent temperature changes. You can't point to historical estimates based in imperfect indirect measurements, and then claim that the Sun does not affect climate. Especially if you're trying to prove that the 3% per annum carbon dioxide (out of all of the annual carbon dioxide production of the Earth) output by Mankind is somehow impossibly causing a net decrease in ice mass.

[Arragonis]

The changing arctic. Its all melting, ice retreating....

...in 1922.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The changing arctic. Its all melting, ice retreating....

...in 1922.

1922? Oh, but that is well after the invention of the internal combustion engine. Obviously modern technology (particularly the burning of oil and gas) causes all undesirable weather in modern times.

Right, Neil?

Let us return to the primitive 'good old days' of no electricity, no central heating, no indoor plumbing, no central sewage, and plentiful horse manure everywhere in the streets... so we can saave the plaanet, right?

[NeilBlanchard]

What you or I think of any particular paper matters not. What matters is if that paper convinces the people who actually know all about global climate change, and who have read 100's or 1,000's of papers on the subject, and have done related work.

Of course the polar caps refreeze in the winter; I mean really? What the data show is that it is melting more and more in the summer, and freezing less and less in the winter. The age of the ice used to average 5-6 years, and now most of it is only 1-2 years old. It is not only covering less area, but it is thinner, too. The lack of ice and the other melting (of permafrost, etc.) is very disruptive to all animals and to people, and plants -- everything that was living well is now challenged to change very quickly.

Have you ever watched a NOVA program? What are you worried about -- you get to see the actual in the moment work that they are doing, you get to hear the actual scientists speaking about what they are working on, you get to see the actual data they are collecting. A science documentary is incredibly interesting to me, because I am very curious about how our world works. Seeing the passion that these people have for their work makes it all the more interesting.

Here's the link again to the NOVA program about the ANDRILL project:

NOVA | Secrets Beneath the Ice

Here's a much shorter one about how the largest glacier in the world that used to move just 1 foot a day -- now moves 113 feet in a day:

NOVA | Fastest Glacier

I hope you can overcome your seeming reflexive rejection of anything I post, and actually watch it. I'm actually a reasonable guy, and I promise I have not implemented any evil mind tricks to hypnotize you... Though if I could, don't you think I would have already?

****

An article here and a paper there are not scientific refutation. You guys are acting like I am driving this issue. I'm not.

This is real science and the conclusions are what they are; based on real data. It is done using the exact same process of peer review that all other science goes through -- all the ones that you and I accept, and ALL available data is accounted for. Nothing is perfect, but none of the big questions are in doubt. None at all. This is not me saying that -- it is the scientists. If you believe that any science is real, then you have to also trust this science.

Anthropogenic global climate change is real, and the scientists are not making it up. It is already affecting things all over, and more change is coming -- you'll see.

[Thymeclock]

You guys are acting like I am driving this issue. I'm not.

Neil gets an "A" for honesty on this one. It's a well-organized, politically motivated, activist movement. He's only a believer, sent to try to win converts.

If you believe that any science is real, then you have to also trust this science.

"(T)his science." Indeed. That tactic is the faith based appeal.

It is already affecting things all over, and more change is coming -- you'll see.

That frames it in a way that he cannot be wrong. Yes, there will be weather tomorrow and it will change - just as it has been doing since the beginning of time. SO WHAT?

[NeilBlanchard]

What motivates the deniers, I wonder? It is certainly easier to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong...

A lot of science that we now know is true, was at first resisted: Copernicus and Darwin and Einstein come to mind. Do you trust that we know the structure of the atom, or the speed of light, or evolution, or that the planets orbit the sun, or what causes gravity? Do you *really* know that these are all true, and can we prove beyond all doubt that they are true?

We trust science because it is the best explanation, and it fits the data the best.

****

You are confusing weather with climate. Weather changes all the time; no duh. Climate generally does not change -- but it is changing now.

++++

I think it's great that we all have our opinions about science. If you want to jump in on the importance of the Higgs boson, or the tube worms that eat scorching hot chemicals around volcanic vents, or on life on Mars, or on Pluto not being a planet anymore, or on spectroscopy and lasers, or on organic chemistry synthesizing a glaucoma drug from Calabar beans, or how supernovas create all elements heavier than iron (all the gold in existence came from supernovas!), or about dark matter, or how evolution has changed birds who eat from bird feeders, or how to cure cancer, or discuss an ancestor of birds that had four wings, or reconstruct the the temperature of ancient oceans based on the fossil record, or why the megafauna died out except for musk oxen (which are not as closely related to bovines as they are to goats), or why so many bats are dieing of "white nose disease", or why we are seeing bee colony collapse, or just how do they use lithography to make CPU chips, or on earthquake detection, or on the life cycle of the soil, or about horseshoe crab's copper-based blood (which has benefited ALL of us reading this, believe it or not!), or any other of a myriad of subjects that I find fascinating -- then the more opinions, the merrier.

But, if you think you can prove that any of these scientists are faking it, or that they can't possibly know what they are doing, or that you or Glen Beck or Michell Bachmann or Megyn Kelly or James Inhofe -- can any more tell Percy Julian (the genius organic chemist) that he was barking up the wrong tree, or that Pluto should still be considered a planet, or that dark matter really doesn't exist -- any more than you or they can say that the science that shows that anthropogenic global climate change isn't real -- then you need to think again.

As Richard Alley said in the video of his Congressional testimony (paraphrasing):

"If this was all a video game -- sure, I would push the button to see how it would turn out! But -- it's not a video game."

[ceej]

Interesting thread.

On this subject, I add:

I don't know.

Therefore, I choose to conduct my consumption in as meager a manner as my ego and thirst for adrenelin will allow.
I'm not very good at it by my estimation, but better than the average. As the average improves, hopefully I will too.

My second grandchild will be arriving next month. It would be nice for him to have a nice place to live, food to eat and a bright future.

2¢

CJ

[endurance]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What motivates the deniers, I wonder? It is certainly easier to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong...

I've said already that I'm neither a denier (or any other type of nylon) or an advocate of the science of AGW. I do believe the planet is getting warmer, as it has been since the end of the last ice age with a few brief interruptions (i.e. the "Little Ice Age").

But I digress, my real point in responding is not to argue science, because I see much of this thread as pointless; I doubt a single mind will change from an exercise like this. Rather, it's the politics of AGW that scares the hell out of me. I believe that AGW is being used as an excuse for creating new taxes and new pyramid schemes. Cap and Trade has the potential to become one of the largest trading markets ever developed and for what? Trillions of dollars trading something of no intrinsic value. That's insanity. Then you talk about BTU or Carbon Taxes and you have a system that will allow the government an escape-proof way of taxing everyone at every level, with a disparate impact on the working class and poor. And what will we get for our money? More government that's more intrusive into our lives that ignores the Constitution. In 1930 the Federal government spending was 3% of US GDP, now it's roughly 24% of US GDP. Are we all better off? Do we have more liberty because of it?

Anyway, I don't know if AGW is real or not. I believe the science behind Peak Oil is undeniable. If both lead me to take the same steps in reducing my consumption of fossil fuels and creating a more sustainable lifestyle, does it really matter what I believe or why? By reducing my needs for natural gas, gasoline and electricity derived from carbon fuels, I'm reducing my exposure to the risk of rising energy prices and mitigating the impacts a scheme like cap and trade or a carbon tax will have on me while simultaneously taking money out of the government's pocket. What doesn't sound appealing about that solution?