|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 1, 2009 0:18:04 GMT
I will not revile Hansen or other proponents of global warming or climate change. The dialectic with "skeptics" should resolve. My complaint is directed at politicians/lawmakers who are self-serving cynics. And the arrogance comprised within such authority which deems causation and solution its jurisdiction will be duly whacked by the gods. Hello, Apophis.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2009 6:58:58 GMT
I will not revile Hansen or other proponents of global warming or climate change. The dialectic with "skeptics" should resolve. My complaint is directed at politicians/lawmakers who are self-serving cynics. And the arrogance comprised within such authority which deems causation and solution its jurisdiction will be duly whacked by the gods. Hello, Apophis. But Hansen has crossed the line. He has lost all scientific objectivity. He mainly deals in rhetoric now. Of course, he could just be starting to get senile. Either way, he's spreading misinformation and condoning (if not encouraging) terrorism against the technologies that have greatly extended our lives. He deserves some harsh words...possibly more. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 12:01:27 GMT
I will not revile Hansen or other proponents of global warming or climate change. The dialectic with "skeptics" should resolve. My complaint is directed at politicians/lawmakers who are self-serving cynics. And the arrogance comprised within such authority which deems causation and solution its jurisdiction will be duly whacked by the gods. Hello, Apophis. But Hansen has crossed the line. He has lost all scientific objectivity. He mainly deals in rhetoric now. Of course, he could just be starting to get senile. Either way, he's spreading misinformation and condoning (if not encouraging) terrorism against the technologies that have greatly extended our lives. He deserves some harsh words...possibly more. All the people whose intellect I have admired (even if I don't agree with them) are great at cutting through a complex issue and getting straight to a salient point that clarifies the subject. Hansen's focus on the coal industry could be such an example of clear thinking - after all you cannot deny that he a) truly believes that CO2 is a threat to the planet b) has an almost unprecedented amount of scientific support for that view, and c) he knows that there is a huge BAU argument to overcome. Using the word "terrorism" is ridiculous hyperbole. Anyone who makes such claims would fit well into an authoritarian police state. I don't care how many ludicrous arguments about the benefits of warmer weather to nature I read. 2-3C warming will be hugely damaging to human society and current species. Given that Hansen is right to be concerned about this risk, he should be applauded for his moderate actions. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 12:51:07 GMT
But Hansen has crossed the line. He has lost all scientific objectivity. He mainly deals in rhetoric now. Of course, he could just be starting to get senile. Either way, he's spreading misinformation and condoning (if not encouraging) terrorism against the technologies that have greatly extended our lives. He deserves some harsh words...possibly more. All the people whose intellect I have admired (even if I don't agree with them) are great at cutting through a complex issue and getting straight to a salient point that clarifies the subject. Hansen's focus on the coal industry could be such an example of clear thinking - after all you cannot deny that he a) truly believes that CO2 is a threat to the planet b) has an almost unprecedented amount of scientific support for that view, and c) he knows that there is a huge BAU argument to overcome. Using the word "terrorism" is ridiculous hyperbole. Anyone who makes such claims would fit well into an authoritarian police state. I don't care how many ludicrous arguments about the benefits of warmer weather to nature I read. 2-3C warming will be hugely damaging to human society and current species. Given that Hansen is right to be concerned about this risk, he should be applauded for his moderate actions. Steve: You state that a 2-3C rise in temperature will be hugely damaging to human society and current species. What proof do you have of that? |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 1, 2009 14:40:34 GMT
He doesn't have any more proof for the damage then for the argument that temps will rise up to 3 degrees C.
As for Hansen, he is in it for the money. It's called grant money from people like George Soros and the Kerry's (as in Heinz foundation).
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 15:27:36 GMT
Steve: You state that a 2-3C rise in temperature will be hugely damaging to human society and current species. What proof do you have of that? WG2 of the IPCC report gives a good summary of the evidence. www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm |
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Jul 1, 2009 15:55:15 GMT
I would strongly agree that 2-3C increase would be hugely beneficial for humans. My evidence is based on the historical record:
1) All previous historical time periods with increased temperatures have strong evidence of human civilization flourishing (e.g. Holocene maximum ==> early human civilizations, Roman maximum==> roman and chinese civilizations, MWP ==> medieveal civilization flourishing with population increases across northern europe and the flourishing of cathedrals, etc.)
2) The temperature increase would not be uniform on the planet, but would be greater at the higher latitudes (if it does occur) and would therefore tend to increase the northern limit of various temperature plant species (including corn, wheat, soybean). Longer growing seasons mean greater crops yields. This would be compounded by the heavily documented and undeniable improvement in crop yields with increased CO2. There are literally hundreds of articles proving this. Also, both water and other nutrient uptake is REDUCED as CO2 increases, so crop yields would increase EVEN IF THERE WAS A DECREASE in rain fall (up to a point).
3) The northern tundra and taiga across Russia and Canada are HUGE in area. These lands are less productive than the land further south because of the low temperature. An increase in this temperature would be hugely beneficial to both crop and forest productivity (again huge amounts of data to confirm this ==> try the NIPCC report for one).
4) Any effect on icecaps of an increase in air temperature would be incredibly slow to manifest itself. For simple reasons of heat capacity it is MUCH easier (and quicker) to heat up the air (VERY low heat capacity with low amounts of water vapor) compared to water or ice. Water or ice is 10,000 TIMES the density of air and it has a much higher proportion of water (obviously!). Each kilogram of water requires four times as much heat to increase its temperature than each kilogram of air. That means that (on average) it requires 40,000 times more heat to increase the temperature of water or ice than to increase the temperature of the air. That is an UNDERESTIMATE, because it does not take into the amount of energy for a phase change. Phase changes for water and ice involve HUGE amounts of energy. Here is a table of these values:
Water/Ice: Heat of fusion (melting) = 333 kJ/kg
Heat of vaporization (evaporation) = 2257 kJ/kg
Specific heat (changing temp in same state)= 4.19 kJ/Kg
Air: Specific heat (changing temp in same state)= 1.01 kJ/kg
This is one of the main reasons that it takes at least 800-900 years for the ocean to increase/decrease in temperature when the air can increase/decrease in temperate in a year or less.
Another factor is that the oceans contain (roughly) 25,000 more mass than the air (LOTS more water on this "earth" than air).
This is also one of the reasons why the Greenland icecap has been continuously present for the last 2 million years (icecores prove that) EVEN THOUGH it has been much warmer (4-6 deg. C) than it is now (e.g. during the last interglacial period ==> Eemian). Just to provide more evidence, during the Eemian, there were REDWOOD forests on the southern part of Greenland ==> a lot warmer than today!!! (yet the icecap did not completely melt). Of course, this ALSO means that sea level rise would be minimal in the short term (similar to the current 1-2 mm/year) because it just takes that long to increase the temperature of the ocean/icecaps.
So there is substantial evidence that humanity would be able to adapt to a warmer world (especially one with higher latitude temperature increases) if only from the historical record. Put it this way, if humanity with 1000 year old technology could not only adapt but THRIVE during the last warm period (MWP) how much better could we "manage" today with our current technology?? E.g. how about genetic modification of plants to take advantage of higher temperatures and higher CO2??
So there is lots of evidence that humans would be better off in a warmer world and lots of evidence (on the other side) that cold temperatures are a BIG problem (more storms, frosts killing crops, northern areas becoming uninhabitable, etc. ==> e.g. LIA). So if I had a choice, I would choose a warmer world (obviously!!!). We are a tropical species. Why wouldn't we want a warmer world???!!!
Unfortunately, it seems the data does not support a substantially warmer world (despite its advantages). So I would definitely support the AGW theory because of its advantages IF there was enough evidence (no bias against an improved world from me!!!). Sadly, the evidence is either poor or skewed by politics and bad science. I also fear that the world is heading into a colder period (e.g. reduced solar activity, ENSO cold phase, etc.). That is a problem!! Now how about us advocating for political and practical solutions to global cooling? Maybe that would give the politicians something to do.
Iwylie
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 16:09:19 GMT
Couldn't have said it better myself. Historically, warmth is man's friend, cold is man's enemy. Easy enough isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jul 1, 2009 17:14:40 GMT
Is it not correct to say, however, that the concern is not with an increase of a few degrees celsius, but with the advent of irrevocable runaway heating of the atmosphere?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 17:53:22 GMT
Is it not correct to say, however, that the concern is not with an increase of a few degrees celsius, but with the advent of irrevocable runaway heating of the atmosphere? There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jul 1, 2009 18:03:40 GMT
"Highly supportable view"?? By who? The highly discredited Michael Mann. The "Highly supportable view" of agw would be that without man on the earth, climate would never deviate more than 1 sd from normal. What a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 18:06:42 GMT
Steve: You state that a 2-3C rise in temperature will be hugely damaging to human society and current species. What proof do you have of that? WG2 of the IPCC report gives a good summary of the evidence. www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htmAfter reading chapter two I am still not concerned. Why is that? Because, even tho the modelers mean well, the bases of the underlieing models is what it is. Models. One of the main reasons I doubt models is that for a large part of the US at least, the models predictions from 10 years ago have been wrong. I don't know where the flaws are in the models, but looking out the window, it is obvious there are huge flaws. That brings us back to square one does it not? Instead of looking at what the models project, one should be looking at what is wrong and missing in the model runs for them to be so out of whack with reality. The AGW scientists, who seem to get the vast majority of funding, are hung up on co2. I wish they would take their blinders off and look for the cause of heat fall and rise. Then we would all have something of value to exchange ideas about. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 18:10:37 GMT
Is it not correct to say, however, that the concern is not with an increase of a few degrees celsius, but with the advent of irrevocable runaway heating of the atmosphere? There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. Steve, Ahem, you have to be kidding me that the MWP was not a global event.....right? The idea it was not was trial balloned about 10 years ago. Since then, peer reviewed literature has shown that it was worldwide in nature. Both SH and NH continents show the MWP. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 1, 2009 18:26:13 GMT
There is a risk of additional unpredictable effects that might lead to more warming (eg. methane release) but no "runaway" warming to evaporating oceans. I would agree that in a few thousand years' time, once things have settled down, an earth that is 3C warmer may well have more plants and animals on it than now. Since humans developed their intelligence in cold weather, since the Industrial Revolution started during the "LIA", and since the temperature of a country is not well correlated with its level of development, claims that we thrive in warm weather have to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Hansen is taking the highly supportable view that the evidence does not show that the MWP was globally warmer than is now (certainly not 2-3C) and that the Holocene optimum was northern latitute event caused by earth wobbles. Since his view is well-supported by the science, it is perfectly rational for him to put himself on the line over this. Steve, Ahem, you have to be kidding me that the MWP was not a global event.....right? The idea it was not was trial balloned about 10 years ago. Since then, peer reviewed literature has shown that it was worldwide in nature. Both SH and NH continents show the MWP. But not at the same time |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 18:29:19 GMT
Steve, Ahem, you have to be kidding me that the MWP was not a global event.....right? The idea it was not was trial balloned about 10 years ago. Since then, peer reviewed literature has shown that it was worldwide in nature. Both SH and NH continents show the MWP. But not at the same time Socold: I spent my spare time in the past two weeks studying the MWP. Show me a reliable source that the MWP was not a world wide event. In all my reading, the time frame from caves, stalagmite, plant growth, etc showed it was happening worldwide. I have no idea of the cause, as there were many ideas floated, but one thing did stick. IT was worldwide, and it happened during the time frame. |
|
