NationStates Jolt Archive

More from the heads-in-sand crowd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/gores_faith_is_bad_science.html

By Michael Barone

Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.

He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.

Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.

To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.

Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.

When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.

As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.

But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.

Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.

The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.

Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.

We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

I particularly like the fact that global warming isn't as dangerous as fascism and communism. Oh shit, must be nothing then! Hey, rape isn't as bad as murder... rape must not be so bad?

More from the heads-in-sand crowd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/gores_faith_is_bad_science.html



I particularly like the fact that global warming isn't as dangerous as fascism and communism. Oh shit, must be nothing then! Hey, rape isn't as bad as murder... rape must not be so bad?


Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors. After all, we've had similar warming periods (the Cretaceous springs to mind) and unless the dinosaurs had coal-fired power plants...

I also have a question for Gore.

He has said that we only have ten years to act...

So, when did that ten year window begin? When the movie came out? Or when he testified before Congress?

I mean, it would be interesting to know how he came up with that time frame, what science that was based on, and when the time period began...

Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors. After all, we've had similar warming periods (the Cretaceous springs to mind) and unless the dinosaurs had coal-fired power plants...


I'm no expert, but I've a feeling that the timescale is different.

I'm no expert, but I've a feeling that the timescale is different.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors. After all, we've had similar warming periods (the Cretaceous springs to mind) and unless the dinosaurs had coal-fired power plants...


The Cretaceous period was one of cooling, not warming.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

No one, no one...not a single person is saying that the world will end.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

No one, no one...not a single person is saying that the world will end.

There seems to be considerable ranting about the end of civilization, the end of our way of life as we know it, the massive flooding of cities, the megastorms, etc.

And we only have "ten years" to act...

So, someone tell me when that ten year window started.

The Cretaceous period was one of cooling, not warming.

It was still hotter than it is now.

There seems to be considerable ranting about the end of civilization, the end of our way of life as we know it, the massive flooding of cities, the megastorms, etc.
Does not equal world ending. Most of the species from your stated period no longer exist.

Gore accelerates his timetable for political purposes. Probably not by much, though.

Also, isn't it incredibly ironic and hilarious that these people--the same ones who would kowtow to the Christian far-right wingers--are saying something based on faith is bad? Ignoring for the moment that Gore's claims have nothing to do with faith, it's just hypocritical of them, almost ridiculously so.

Does not equal world ending. Most of the species from your stated period no longer exist.

That's because of the asteroid impact.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

If the world ended... where the hell am I? :D

Seriously though, like I said: the time scale was different. It took a long time for the temperature to rise to that point, and compressing that into mere decades would undoubtedly have disastrous repurcussions on all earthly lifeforms.

That's because of the asteroid impact.

Regardless of impact, most of them couldn't survive in the new climate.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

you mean that things that evolved in certain conditions tend to do alright in those conditions until something dramatic changes them? astounding!

Even if it's not as dire as Gore makes it, it's still important. As an athsmatic, there are many cities I cannot visit because I can't breathe when I'm there (Modesto and LA for two). Now I realise most people aren't nearly as affected as I am, but that crap cannot be healthy for anyone.

Regardless of impact, most of them couldn't survive in the new climate.

That's because of the years of cooling after the impact.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

Has anyone said that the world is going to end due to global warming? Not that I know of. Many have said it may become uninhabitable for humans (emphasis on the may), which is accurate, but that's hardly having the world come to an end.

That's because of the years of cooling after the impact.

You mean the years of coldness that ensued after rapid cooling.

You mean the years of coldness that ensued after rapid cooling.

Yes. The rapid cooling was brought on by the impact.

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.
And how many humans were around then?

Why use the Cretaceous period, where the temperature rise took millions of years and the creatures had time to evolve and adapt to these higher temperatures?

Why not use the Permian period of 250 million years ago, where the temperature rose by 6C over a few thousand years, leading a massive change in the world's climate and contributing to the extinction of 95% of the world's species?
Oh, of course. Because that particular rise doesn't help you ignore reality now does it?


6C, incidently, is how much the IPCC report is predicting global temperatures could rise by, by the end of the century. Not the end of the millenium. End of the century. A 6C rise over a few thousand years contributed to the extinction of 95% of all species 250 million years ago, and you're blathering that a 6C rise within a few decades is fine cause the dinosaurs could cope with that.

Has anyone said that the world is going to end due to global warming? Not that I know of. Many have said it may become uninhabitable for humans (emphasis on the may), which is accurate, but that's hardly having the world come to an end.

Good 'ol human arrogance.

Has anyone said that the world is going to end due to global warming? Not that I know of. Many have said it may become uninhabitable for humans (emphasis on the may), which is accurate, but that's hardly having the world come to an end.

So, when does the ten years start?

Yes. The rapid cooling was brought on by the impact.

The flip side of rapid warming due to CO2 emissions, isn't it?

The flip side of rapid warming due to CO2 emissions, isn't it?

The dinosaurs had no problem with the heat for millions of years.

Yes. The rapid cooling was brought on by the impact.

Imagine...massive sudden climate change on a global scale making the planet uninhabitable for the current species that comes from a single outside source that cumulates. Wow, you're right, that's nothing like what could be happening now...

Imagine...massive sudden climate change on a global scale making the planet uninhabitable for the current species that comes from a single outside source that cumulates. Wow, you're right, that's nothing like what could be happening now...

You'll note from the OP that I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing that Gore is not Mr. Unimpeachable Know-it-all.

For starters, none of you have answered me when Gore's ten year window to act begins...

The dinosaurs had no problem with the heat for millions of years.

Last I checked I'm classified as a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Not under Dinosauria Primates or anything such thing.

Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors. After all, we've had similar warming periods (the Cretaceous springs to mind) and unless the dinosaurs had coal-fired power plants...

I also have a question for Gore.

He has said that we only have ten years to act...

So, when did that ten year window begin? When the movie came out? Or when he testified before Congress?

I mean, it would be interesting to know how he came up with that time frame, what science that was based on, and when the time period began...

Aye, it would be nice to know where exactly he got the ten year timetable for.

Thing is, that's irrelevant. We have to change what we're doing. Is climate change natural? Yes. Is this particular set of climate changes natural? No. It's being accelerated by our own CO2 production.

Think of it like this: The Earth has, thanks to evolving life, developed a method of countering natural CO2 production. A cycle, if you will. All natural CO2 produced is eventually cycled back, which is why the atmosphere mainted a general level of CO2.
So, let's say the Earth produces 10 units of CO2 naturally, and can account for 10 units of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Then we come along and release CO2 from sources that otherwise could not release CO2 naturally, such as coal deposits. Let's say human burning contributes 2 units of CO2.
The Earth can handle 10 units of CO2, but now 12 units of CO2 are in the atmosphere. Thus the extra CO2 overwhelms the system and alters the climate on a human timescale of tens of years rather than the natural timescale of thousands.

I should point out that my model is partially flawed as it does not account for the amount of time necessary to process CO2. The Earth could probably handle our amount, but the problem is the Earth's system cycles slowly, over much longer periods than the life-span of one human, and over the life-span of one human we've contributed so much so fast that we're overwhelming it.

So, basically, we need to cut back severely, and stop bickering about specific details. All the science points towards human actions altering the climate radically and we need to halt it now. Our bickering about the methods such as refusing to act simply because another nation also refuses to act must also be halted, as it is childish and suicideal. Worst case scenario we could end up making the climate intolorable for human life on this planet.

I don't think we're going to cause that, though. Odds are we'll simply have a large number of problems, not the least of which will be agriculturally related. With a change in climate comes a change in how we have to produce food, and if we can't produce enough food...well, I don't need to tell you how bad that would be.

We can't stop it completely, but we can slow it down and eventually reverse the effects, and we need to do it NOW. As in right this bloody second. In the future, most probably by only a matter of years, we will reach a point of no return where there is no stopping the accelerated climate change from pushing it to the utmost limit of what it can do, and that is something we must avoid, for all our sakes.

Last I checked I'm classified as a Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Not under Dinosauria Primates or anything such thing.

Funny, the planet didn't spiral into an unchecked greenhouse condition like Venus...

The dinosaurs had no problem with the heat for millions of years.
That's because they had several million years in which to evolve and adapt.

The species who were around during the Permian period before the dinosaurs pretty much all died out when they went through a massive rise in global temperature.
Indeed, as far as we know, just one large land animal survived this global disaster: the Lystrosaurus, which was about the size of a pig. Everything bigger perished.

You'll note from the OP that I'm not arguing that.

I'm arguing that Gore is not Mr. Unimpeachable Know-it-all.

For starters, none of you have answered me when Gore's ten year window to act begins...

Ask Al Gore, I'm thinking that he doesn't post here though. Shockingly liberals aren't a hive mind.


Also isn't nearly all faith bad science?

Funny, the planet didn't spiral into an unchecked greenhouse condition like Venus...

Have you seen ANYONE seriously suggest that? Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because it has a huge amount of greenhouse gases. Probably more than contained in our entire planet.

Funny, the planet didn't spiral into an unchecked greenhouse condition like Venus...

It doesn't have to become Venus to kill a whole lot of people.

Again I stress: climate change was very gradual for the dinosaurs.

Funny, the planet didn't spiral into an unchecked greenhouse condition like Venus...
It's also funny that the Earth (despite our greatest efforts) doesn't have an atmosphere of 96.5% Carbon Dioxide.

So, no one is going to defend Gore's "ten year window" to act?

6C, incidently, is how much the IPCC report is predicting global temperatures could rise by, by the end of the century. Not the end of the millenium. End of the century. A 6C rise over a few thousand years contributed to the extinction of 95% of all species 250 million years ago, and you're blathering that a 6C rise within a few decades is fine cause the dinosaurs could cope with that.

Exactly the point I was going to make.

This 6C rise could be enough to melt the methane hydrates at the bottom of the oceans, and if that occurs, it won't be the end of the world, but it will be for most of the life on it.

So, no one is going to defend Gore's "ten year window" to act?

Why should we?

If someone does, you'll claim that there's mindless zealotry and deny the conclusion again and again.

If someone doesn't, you'll claim that this goes to show that Gore's message is one of "faith" and therefore wrong.

It's a nice fork, but it just doesn't jive with reason.

So, no one is going to defend Gore's "ten year window" to act?

Without knowing where he pulled that number from, no.

Rational people don't believe shit just because someone said so. That's more your line of reasoning.

Without knowing where he pulled that number from, no.

Rational people don't believe shit just because someone said so. That's more your line of reasoning.

I got the impression Barbara Boxer believed his shit, just because he's Al Gore.

He obviously intended for large numbers of people to believe it.

I also have a question for Gore.

He has said that we only have ten years to act...

So, when did that ten year window begin? When the movie came out? Or when he testified before Congress?

I mean, it would be interesting to know how he came up with that time frame, what science that was based on, and when the time period began...

ipcc models, i'd guess
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm

ipcc models, i'd guess
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-13.htm

That doesn't show anything about a ten year time window in which to "act" or suffer irreversible consequences.

So, no one is going to defend Gore's "ten year window" to act?
Well, the UK wants a 1/3 cut in CO2 emissions by 2020, and 2/3 by 2050. I imagine most of the work for that would be done in the first 10 or so years, so it can't be too wild a guess. However, it's so vague can be construed in so many ways, it's just a red herring.

Well, the UK wants a 1/3 cut in CO2 emissions by 2020, and 2/3 by 2050. I imagine most of the work for that would be done in the first 10 or so years, so it can't be too wild a guess. However, it's so vague can be construed in so many ways, it's just a red herring.

I have the feeling he pulled the 10 years out of his ass, just like a former senator pulled 57 Communists out of his ass in the 1950s.

I have the feeling he pulled the 10 years out of his ass, just like a former senator pulled 57 Communists out of his ass in the 1950s.Because those two things are so alike. :rolleyes:

What difference does it make whether or not Al Gore agrees with scientific consensus? Why should I care?

Because those two things are so alike. :rolleyes:

As a matter of fact, they are.

Bullshit numbers, covered in excrement, broadcast for political purposes.

While I believe the warming, and believe that man plays some role in the warming (but not all of it), I find his "ten years" remark to be utter bullshit.

It's meant to scare people.

I have the feeling he pulled the 10 years out of his ass, just like a former senator pulled 57 Communists out of his ass in the 1950s.
Wow, you've just converted me to disbelieve in human-produced global warming based on that powerful and well constructed argument. Congratulations.

Wow, you've just converted me to disbelieve in human-produced global warming based on that powerful and well constructed argument. Congratulations.

Wow, you just missed the point...

As a matter of fact, they are.

Bullshit numbers, covered in excrement, broadcast for political purposes.

While I believe the warming, and believe that man plays some role in the warming (but not all of it), I find his "ten years" remark to be utter bullshit.

It's meant to scare people.

They aren't, but I wouldn't expect you to stop spewing your bullshit no matter what I post, so I'm not going to bother today. I've got work to do. Suffice to say that your rep around here is such utter shit that I don't think I have to worry about anyone falling for it for the moment. Might be about time for you to kill off this nation and come back again under another name.

They aren't, but I wouldn't expect you to stop spewing your bullshit no matter what I post, so I'm not going to bother today. I've got work to do. Suffice to say that your rep around here is such utter shit that I don't think I have to worry about anyone falling for it for the moment. Might be about time for you to kill off this nation and come back again under another name.

So your only defense for Gore's "ten years" remark is to say I'm bullshitting?

Not exactly a cogent argument.

What difference does it make whether or not Al Gore agrees with scientific consensus? Why should I care?
Because it's the latest political strawman.

As a matter of fact, they are.

Bullshit numbers, covered in excrement, broadcast for political purposes.

While I believe the warming, and believe that man plays some role in the warming (but not all of it), I find his "ten years" remark to be utter bullshit.

It's meant to scare people.
Why not? If we do decide to cut emissions by a reasonable amount - I'll give the UK's example of 2/3 cut by 2050 - then most of the work would have to take place in the first ten or so years. I'm talking making structural changes that do take a long time (Things like installing Co2 caputure facilities in power plants), and investing in those that take even longer - replacing power plants, for example, the process of which takes a long time. In other words, both short term action and paying for long term action would have to happen quite soon, and it taking 10 years doesn't seem too implausable.

In any case, I don't remember conservatives accusing the government of 'scaring' people over Iraq's WMD, for example. If you're worried about politicians scaring people, there's plenty of politicians less innocuous than Gore.

In other words, both short term action and paying for long term action would have to happen quite soon, and it taking 10 years doesn't seem too implausable.


The question is, why in "ten years" or suffer "irreversible consequences"?

Sure, you're fitting your plan in the window, but why?

The question is, why in "ten years" or suffer "irreversible consequences"?

Sure, you're fitting your plan in the window, but why?

Once again, Al Gore does not post here, liberals are not a hive mind. Stop asking us.

Eve, do you support cutting emissions? Did you read my post for why it's necessary to do so? If not I can requote it for you. I'd like an answer to what I've said, if you don't mind.

Gore's numbers, as I said, are accelerated. They're not pulled from thin air, but they are accelerated for political gain. However, odds are they are not as accelerated as one might believe.

Eve, do you support cutting emissions? Did you read my post for why it's necessary to do so? If not I can requote it for you. I'd like an answer to what I've said, if you don't mind.

Gore's numbers, as I said, are accelerated. They're not pulled from thin air, but they are accelerated for political gain. However, odds are they are not as accelerated as one might believe.

Yes, I do support cutting emissions.

The question I have, which has not been answered is:

1. Why the 10 year window?
2. What proof that if we don't act within the window is there for "irreversible consequences"? (Gore's claim).
3. When did the 10 years start?

Once again, Al Gore does not post here, liberals are not a hive mind. Stop asking us.

That's such a lame response. If we're supposed to accept everything Gore says as the Inconvenient Truth, then we must become a hive mind...

So your only defense for Gore's "ten years" remark is to say I'm bullshitting?

Not exactly a cogent argument.

No--I'm not defending Gore's remark at all. I'm not even discussing it. What I said was that your comparison of his remarks to McCarthy's was bullshit, and that your reputation precedes you around here. You're "the boy who cried liberal" and everyone knows it, so even if there is an off chance that you're right, it doesn't matter, because no one believes you.

That's such a lame response. If we're supposed to accept everything Gore says as the Inconvenient Truth, then we must become a hive mind...

Wow, just.. wow.

Where have I ever said that? Have I hinted at that, implied it? No I haven't. You keep ranting about this 10 years crap, stand there and stomp your feet DK, maybe hold your breath for a while. I'll give you the same regard I give a three year old having a tantrum.

Actually at this point I'd take the three year old more seriously, atleast they occasionally listen.

No--I'm not defending Gore's remark at all. I'm not even discussing it. What I said was that your comparison of his remarks to McCarthy's was bullshit, and that your reputation precedes you around here. You're "the boy who cried liberal" and everyone knows it, so even if there is an off chance that you're right, it doesn't matter, because no one believes you.

It's not bullshit. You just can't see it because you love Gore so much.

Yes, I do support cutting emissions.

The question I have, which has not been answered is:

1. Why the 10 year window?
2. What proof that if we don't act within the window is there for "irreversible consequences"? (Gore's claim).
3. When did the 10 years start?

1. Presumeably this ten year window is based on the most severe climate projections, and then accelerated a bit.
2. Plenty of proof of a point of no return exists. Basically, there's a tipping point where the changes become irreversible. Before you reach that tipping point, cutting emissions can--slowly--reduce the severity of and eventually reverse the changes as the Earth's natural CO2 cyclical system takes effect. But once you overwhelm it to a sufficient degree it no longer can, though I'm not entirely certain how. I leave it to a more informed person to answer this with more detail.
3. Damned if I know. Ask Gore, I suggest.

It was still hotter than it is now.

Average temperature was higher. Maximum was lower.

Also, you claimed it was a period of warming. It wasn't, so your argument fails.

That's because of the years of cooling after the impact.

Nope. It was because of the shockwave. They could survive fine in a cooling climate. The shockwave and the subsequent explosion of a good chunk of India was what wiped out the dinosaurs.

Edit: Also, the whole air becoming corrosive due to massive amounts of SO2 being put into the atmosphere didn't help matters.

It's not bullshit. You just can't see it because you love Gore so much.

Figured you would start posting little sass like this.

Seriously, Gore is not like McCarthy. I mean yeah - they're both politicians. You and others can question their veracity. Of course, this describes 100% of the world's politicians, so as a simile its only example seems to be guilty by association. But McCarthy's guiltyworthy shit was accusing people of being Communists and spreading rampant Red Scare.

You know... kind of like how you accuse people on this forum of being Jihadists. And spreading Islamophobia.

Nope. It was because of the shockwave. They could survive fine in a cooling climate. The shockwave and the subsequent explosion of a good chunk of India was what wiped out the dinosaurs.

...India? I thought the impact was off the Yucatan Peninsula, or rather where the Yucatan Peninsula was in 65,000,000 B.C.

So, when does the ten years start?

im no expert on global warming but im pretty sure that the 10 year period always starts NOW.


does that make you feel better?

...India? I thought the impact was off the Yucatan Peninsula, or rather where the Yucatan Peninsula was in 65,000,000 B.C.

The impact was in the Yucatan. However, around the same time, part of India practically exploded from an enormous number of volcanic eruptions.

The impact was in the Yucatan. However, around the same time, part of India practically exploded from an enormous number of volcanic eruptions.

Ah, yes, of course, the shockwave from the impact would trigger the supervolcano in India...that should have been obvious. Silly me.

Anyway, Eve, if you want some serious answers, you're going to have to stop the attacks on Gore's character and focus on the science at hand, because right now you're just looking like a fool.

*snip*

And when did the Temperature rise begin? A couple thousand years ago. Incase people have forgotten, we are coming out of a mini ice age! Of course temps are going to rise. And when it reaches a point, the temps are going to go back down and then go back up again.

Is Global Warming happening? Yes. Is climate change happening? Yes.

This has been going on for quite sometime. Are humans the cause of it? To a minor point, yes but not to the point that scientists are claiming.

Why the ten year number?

"The analysis used in this report is based on a study by Baer and Athanasiou. They perform a probability calculation assuming that any of the climate sensitivities in the IPCC range are equally likely. This is a relatively conservative assumption (since it does not include the really high sensitivities that we argued above are ruled out by paleo-data). The results suggest that in order to avoid 'dangerous' climate change with a reasonable probability (>90%), the maximum forcing that could be allowed is around 2 W/m2 over pre-industrial levels. This corresponds to a CO2 level of around 400 ppm, assuming all other forcings were at pre-industrial levels. This limit is to some extent subjective, but it is similar (though a little lower) than the level proposed by Jim Hansen.

Note that this is not the same as simply reaching the 400 ppmv CO2 level (which is highly likely to happen over the next ten to 15 years). The reason is because the other forcings (aerosols mostly) have collectively diminished the total forcing up to now. Currently this is about 1.6 W/m2. Whether and when we reach 2 W/m2 total forcing is a function of the changes in many different forcings. CFCs are projected to decline in the future and CH4 is currently steady (and possibly could be reduced), however aerosol growth rates are quite uncertain.

Is there a “point of no return” or “critical threshold” that will be crossed when the forcings exceed this level, as reported in some media? We don’t believe there is scientific evidence for this. However, as was pointed out at an international symposium on this topic last year in Beijing by Carlo Jaeger: setting a limit is a sensible way to collectively deal with a risk. A speed limit is a prime example. When we set a speed limit at 60 mph, there is no “critical threshold” there – nothing terrible happens if you go to 65 or 70 mph, say. But perhaps at 90 mph the fatalities would clearly exceed acceptable levels. Setting a limit to global warming at 2ºC above pre-industrial temperature is the official policy target of the European Union, and is probably a sensible limit in this sense. But, just like speed limits, it may be difficult to adhere to."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=115

The impact was in the Yucatan. However, around the same time, part of India practically exploded from an enormous number of volcanic eruptions.

And I would bet the Yellowstone Supervolcano as well would have erupted around that sametime too.

And I would bet the Yellowstone Supervolcano as well would have erupted around that sametime too.

If we're all going to die, I bet it'd be that bastard Yellowstone.

To a minor point, yes but not to the point that scientists are claiming.

I don't think this is based on anything. I think it's weird that you talk about science but dismiss "scientists".

Why the ten year number?

"The analysis used in this report is based on a study by Baer and Athanasiou. They perform a probability calculation assuming that any of the climate sensitivities in the IPCC range are equally likely. This is a relatively conservative assumption (since it does not include the really high sensitivities that we argued above are ruled out by paleo-data). The results suggest that in order to avoid 'dangerous' climate change with a reasonable probability (>90%), the maximum forcing that could be allowed is around 2 W/m2 over pre-industrial levels. This corresponds to a CO2 level of around 400 ppm, assuming all other forcings were at pre-industrial levels. This limit is to some extent subjective, but it is similar (though a little lower) than the level proposed by Jim Hansen.

Note that this is not the same as simply reaching the 400 ppmv CO2 level (which is highly likely to happen over the next ten to 15 years). The reason is because the other forcings (aerosols mostly) have collectively diminished the total forcing up to now. Currently this is about 1.6 W/m2. Whether and when we reach 2 W/m2 total forcing is a function of the changes in many different forcings. CFCs are projected to decline in the future and CH4 is currently steady (and possibly could be reduced), however aerosol growth rates are quite uncertain.

Is there a “point of no return” or “critical threshold” that will be crossed when the forcings exceed this level, as reported in some media? We don’t believe there is scientific evidence for this. However, as was pointed out at an international symposium on this topic last year in Beijing by Carlo Jaeger: setting a limit is a sensible way to collectively deal with a risk. A speed limit is a prime example. When we set a speed limit at 60 mph, there is no “critical threshold” there – nothing terrible happens if you go to 65 or 70 mph, say. But perhaps at 90 mph the fatalities would clearly exceed acceptable levels. Setting a limit to global warming at 2ºC above pre-industrial temperature is the official policy target of the European Union, and is probably a sensible limit in this sense. But, just like speed limits, it may be difficult to adhere to."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=115
I think you just won the thread. Judges?


dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding

If we're all going to die, I bet it'd be that bastard Yellowstone.

I wouldn't because of where I am located. I'd get some of its eruption yes but not enough to actually kill the area.

I think you just won the thread. Judges?


dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding

Nah. The thread was not really about Eve Online's focus on Gore's "limit." It was about the article and how stupid it is as far as proving Gore's message is "bad science" or "faith."

And I would bet the Yellowstone Supervolcano as well would have erupted around that sametime too.

Nope. I don't think it even existed then.

Why the ten year number?

"The analysis used in this report is based on a study by Baer and Athanasiou. They perform a probability calculation assuming that any of the climate sensitivities in the IPCC range are equally likely. This is a relatively conservative assumption (since it does not include the really high sensitivities that we argued above are ruled out by paleo-data). The results suggest that in order to avoid 'dangerous' climate change with a reasonable probability (>90%), the maximum forcing that could be allowed is around 2 W/m2 over pre-industrial levels. This corresponds to a CO2 level of around 400 ppm, assuming all other forcings were at pre-industrial levels. This limit is to some extent subjective, but it is similar (though a little lower) than the level proposed by Jim Hansen.

Note that this is not the same as simply reaching the 400 ppmv CO2 level (which is highly likely to happen over the next ten to 15 years). The reason is because the other forcings (aerosols mostly) have collectively diminished the total forcing up to now. Currently this is about 1.6 W/m2. Whether and when we reach 2 W/m2 total forcing is a function of the changes in many different forcings. CFCs are projected to decline in the future and CH4 is currently steady (and possibly could be reduced), however aerosol growth rates are quite uncertain.

Is there a “point of no return” or “critical threshold” that will be crossed when the forcings exceed this level, as reported in some media? We don’t believe there is scientific evidence for this. However, as was pointed out at an international symposium on this topic last year in Beijing by Carlo Jaeger: setting a limit is a sensible way to collectively deal with a risk. A speed limit is a prime example. When we set a speed limit at 60 mph, there is no “critical threshold” there – nothing terrible happens if you go to 65 or 70 mph, say. But perhaps at 90 mph the fatalities would clearly exceed acceptable levels. Setting a limit to global warming at 2ºC above pre-industrial temperature is the official policy target of the European Union, and is probably a sensible limit in this sense. But, just like speed limits, it may be difficult to adhere to."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=115
You win the thread.

Nope. I don't think it even existed then.

That's what I thought too but I can't find anything either way on it. From what I recall the first eruption was ~3,000,000 years ago, which would be about 62,000,000 years later than the impact, obviously.

Nope. I don't think it even existed then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

I think it existed but by this list, it did not erupt unless it was not recorded or it cannot be confirmed. Just like I do not see the indian one on this list either.

That does not mean anything though.

That's because of the asteroid impact.

Technically, that wasn't world-ending. Devastating, yes, ending no. There is a large difference. Global Warming has the possibility of be devastating to the climate, as rabid climate change always does. Also, the periods of time that it takes for the climate to change is usually rather slow- a few hundred years or so, where as this appears to be far more rapid than usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

I think it existed but by this list, it did not erupt unless it was not recorded or it cannot be confirmed. Just like I do not see the indian one on this list either.

That does not mean anything though.

There was no Indian supervolcano. It was a bunch of regular volcanoes.

Edit: Also, Yellowstone Caldera is about 17 million years old. It was not around then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

I think it existed but by this list, it did not erupt unless it was not recorded or it cannot be confirmed. Just like I do not see the indian one on this list either.

That does not mean anything though.

To be fair to you, though, the eruption of Yellowstone has caused at least one mass extinction, killing off a good chunk of life. Just highly unlikely the extinction near the end of the Cretacious.

DK, why do you even bother?

I wouldn't because of where I am located. I'd get some of its eruption yes but not enough to actually kill the area.

You're a Mooninite?

Nah. The thread was not really about Eve Online's focus on Gore's "limit." It was about the article and how stupid it is as far as proving Gore's message is "bad science" or "faith."

I won't have you take my trophy from me. It is mine and it will remain displayed on the mantelpiece.

You're a Mooninite?

I do live in Moon Township and according to what I have been able to gather, the East Coast is relatively safe for the most part from the Yellowstone Caldera.

The dinosaurs had no problem with the heat for millions of years.

The warming is not the main problem. It is what the increase in temperatures does to other factors, particularly ocean and wind currents. With a 6 degree Celsius or greater increase, there is high probability of massive changes in the prevailing winds and ocean currents.

This leads to a massive shift of rainfall patterns. Rainforests become savannas, breadbaskets become deserts, or vice versa. This has a tremendous negative impact on both human agriculture as well as native life. Massive changes in rainfall patterns would cause mass starvations in many areas, and it would take years to readjust centers of food production to meet the needs.

Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors.
What do you right-wing Americans know that everyone else in the world does not? What makes you all so certain that the idea of human responsibility for global warming is a fraud?

What do you right-wing Americans know that everyone else in the world does not? What makes you all so certain that the idea of human responsibility for global warming is a fraud?

In case you have a problem in reading, he said that WE ARE having an impact. Just not to the extent as being reported.

Have you seen ANYONE seriously suggest that? Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect because it has a huge amount of greenhouse gases. Probably more than contained in our entire planet.

Considerably more. Venusian atmospheric pressue (in an atmosphere that is 95% CO2) is 100 times greater than Earth's.

Although I believe global warming is real, I don't necessarily think it's solely caused by human factors.

No one's claiming it is, Eve. Yes, there is a natural element to climate change. How does that mean that humans aren't contributing to it?

No one's claiming it is, Eve. Yes, there is a natural element to climate change. How does that mean that humans aren't contributing to it?

He's got straw men for sale, don't you know? Clearing out his stock.

More from the heads-in-sand crowd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/gores_faith_is_bad_science.html



I particularly like the fact that global warming isn't as dangerous as fascism and communism. Oh shit, must be nothing then! Hey, rape isn't as bad as murder... rape must not be so bad?

For a group of people who constantly denounce the evil of "relativism", that's very much an exercise in relativity.

I'm taking Eve's bitter ramblings and stupefying generalisations and obfuscations as a positive sign.
why?
Because it shows that the whole concept of Global Warming is finally sinking through the skulls of the dittoheads.

Last year, he refused to believe there was anything such as GW. And now he's begrudgingly admitting that not only is there GW, but also that humans are contributing to it.

Sure, we still have to put up with his kneejerk, "I hate Clinton, Al Gore likes Clinton, therefore I hate Al Gore and everything he says" and the inevitable lame attempts to obscure the issue with an impressive number and variety of strawmen - attacking anything from one single line in decades of research and hearings Gore has done to making weird and laughable connections between now, Earth 70 million years ago and even Venus of all places.

But let's face it, these attempts are incredibly lame and feeble. It means all their other, more rational, arguments against GW have been so thoroughly debunked, they're resorting to dredging up anything and everything in a vain - and ultimately futile - attempt to avoid the cognitive dissonance of finally admitting that those ebil Liberals and Al Gore have in fact been right all along.

These latest arguments against are more death throes caused by people unwilling to swallow their pride and admit that someone they hate, for no other reason but that they hate him, is right.

What will no doubt happen is that a 'respected' right-wing think tank will come out in support of GW and that will give them the reason to finally accept GW. Of course, then we'll have to put up with them going on about how they've always supported the theory of GW and that Gore is still wrong (based on some minor semantic difference) but that's ok. We can live with that if it means that finally everyone starts addressing the issue.

For a group of people who constantly denounce the evil of "relativism", that's very much an exercise in relativity.

Hmm, indeed. But my view is that of COURSE things are relative - I mean if there is an absolute, objective morality that is utterly consistent, which one is it? Who is objectively, inherently, completely separate from human's considerations, "right?" God? Who's God? Which interpretation of God's morality? Applied how? It's always relative, whether some people think theirs is the "absolute" or not.

I won't have you take my trophy from me. It is mine and it will remain displayed on the mantelpiece.

But don't I, as Thread Creator, get the veto vote? I think I do!

But here, you can have the "Win The First Battle of the Thread" award. Keep it up FTW!

It was hotter during the Cretaceous, and the CO2 levels were higher.

Somehow, the world didn't come to an end until the asteroid showed up.

Except, even if the asteroid hadn't hit, most paleotologists and paleoclimatist(is that right?) would say that the earth was going down the path of a large scale extinction, prolly not as bad as the permian though.

But idk if it had anything to do with the CO2 levels, so thus I just hijacked this thread :)

Except, even if the asteroid hadn't hit, most paleotologists and paleoclimatist(is that right?)

Apparently it's paleoclimatologists. studying the science of paleoclimatology.

Whew, what a mouthful.

Whew, what a mouthful.

-insert dirty joke here- :p

To claim that anyone knows everything about the supposed man-accelerated climate change is ridiculous.

If you can't even predict the weather in 24 hours with millions of dollars worth of equipment, how are you going to figure out what a new situation will do to a complex, worldwide system, over a matter of decades?

No kind of worldwide change in policy or anything of the sort has a legitimate place if what they are saying is not proven, or even close to proven.


And about Gore - how can you trust someone that insisted they count votes multiple times to see if any of them changed, making him the winner? 'Hey, maybe if we count them again, I will have won!'

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

*points at the man in the pic*

What he said.

To claim that anyone knows everything about the supposed man-accelerated climate change is ridiculous.

If you can't even predict the weather in 24 hours with millions of dollars worth of equipment, how are you going to figure out what a new situation will do to a complex, worldwide system, over a matter of decades?

Weather is not climate.

Climate is long-term trends analysis. Weather is extremely short-term. As such climatology covers over the daily variations that trying to predict the weather tomorrow gets stuck on. That's why one can analyze an Ice Age 10,000 years ago, but have no idea what the weather was like on June 23, 891 AD.

No kind of worldwide change in policy or anything of the sort has a legitimate place if what they are saying is not proven, or even close to proven.

"Proof" as you say it is little more than subjective consideration and persuasion.

If you don't see something as convincing, you will never consider it "proven."

But in science, a proof is hard to come by. Are you honestly saying there has to be an actual Law of Climate Change before you'd consider it persuasive? If so, do you apply this "it has to be a Law" scientific standard to other things? Like the Theory of Relativity, for example. Do you consider that "illegitimate?" If so how do you explain nuclear weapons?

And about Gore - how can you trust someone that insisted they count votes multiple times to see if any of them changed, making him the winner? 'Hey, maybe if we count them again, I will have won!'

How interesting. Here you demand PROOF for one thing, but you mock Gore for demanding PROOF about the vote. Aren't you versatile.

Weather is not climate.

Climate is long-term trends analysis. Weather is extremely short-term. As such climatology covers over the daily variations that trying to predict the weather tomorrow gets stuck on. That's why one can analyze an Ice Age 10,000 years ago, but have no idea what the weather was like on June 23, 891 AD.

OK, but we still don't know enough about climate to make a prediction into the future. That was my point - how can you justify a mass change in life around the world based on something we know so little about?


"Proof" as you say it is little more than subjective consideration and persuasion.

If you don't see something as convincing, you will never consider it "proven."

But in science, a proof is hard to come by. Are you honestly saying there has to be an actual Law of Climate Change before you'd consider it persuasive? If so, do you apply this "it has to be a Law" scientific standard to other things? Like the Theory of Relativity, for example. Do you consider that "illegitimate?" If so how do you explain nuclear weapons?

Maybe proof was too strong of a word, I should have said something else. The theory of relativity is a legitimate 'proof' because it has been shown to be correct in multiple examples. The theories on climate change have not been 'proven' in this way.


How interesting. Here you demand PROOF for one thing, but you mock Gore for demanding PROOF about the vote. Aren't you versatile.

Wanting to change the world's way of life based on shaky science is a little different than wanting to count a vote again to make sure it is right ( I should add that votes have been counted thousands of times, unlike this 'man-accelerated climate change' which has never occurred)

OK, but we still don't know enough about climate to make a prediction into the future. That was my point - how can you justify a mass change in life around the world based on something we know so little about?

Who is "we?" Certainly not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (http://www.ipcc.ch/) We do indeed know enough about climate to make predictions. Now you might disagree with some predictions, but I doubt you'll disagree with each and every one of them - but if you do, you need to demonstrate specifically which conclusions are false, which evidences are misleading, and why.

Maybe proof was too strong of a word, I should have said something else. The theory of relativity is a legitimate 'proof' because it has been shown to be correct in multiple examples. The theories on climate change have not been 'proven' in this way.

Take a look at the IPCC website. Publications. Technical Papers.


Wanting to change the world's way of life based on shaky science is a little different than wanting to count a vote again to make sure it is right ( I should add that votes have been counted thousands of times, unlike this 'man-accelerated climate change' which has never occurred)

Never occurred? OK, prove it.

I want to be shown exactly how the entire race of humanity, all of our industries and infrastructure, throughout history, have somehow not impacted the climate anywhere.

And yeah the votes were counted - by biased politicians who support their party, and by faulty machinery. Are you really gonna suggest that climatologists are as blindly supportive of their predictions, as given to corruption and bribery, as politicians are to their parties? That's like arguing that a defense lawyer has more ethics than the murderers he knowingly sets free.

Who is "we?" Certainly not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (http://www.ipcc.ch/) We do indeed know enough about climate to make predictions. Now you might disagree with some predictions, but I doubt you'll disagree with each and every one of them - but if you do, you need to demonstrate specifically which conclusions are false, which evidences are misleading, and why.



Take a look at the IPCC website. Publications. Technical Papers.


The IPCC is a political group. They cannot be counted on as a completely trustworthy scientific group because they have other interests.



Never occurred? OK, prove it.

I want to be shown exactly how the entire race of humanity, all of our industries and infrastructure, throughout history, have somehow not impacted the climate anywhere.

The entire argument is not about weather it impacts the environment or something. This is something that never occurred before because of the higher co2 levels, higher temps, blah blah blah, etc. They are not talking about 'does it impact the climate' they are trying to state that this new situation will cause horrible consequences.


And yeah the votes were counted - by biased politicians who support their party, and by faulty machinery. Are you really gonna suggest that climatologists are as blindly supportive of their predictions, as given to corruption and bribery, as politicians are to their parties? That's like arguing that a defense lawyer has more ethics than the murderers he knowingly sets free.

Real climatologists are not blindly supportive no, but real ones don't work for the IPCC. They work purely for science.

The ones that work for politics are blindly supportive of their 'predictions'.

So they should have recounted the votes in all the states electing democratic because they actually could have been republican right? (you know - due to the powerful, evil, politicians that were counting the votes.)

OK, but we still don't know enough about climate to make a prediction into the future.

does winter catch you by surprise every year?

Real climatologists are not blindly supportive no, but real ones don't work for the IPCC. They work purely for science.

Please, name at least three of those "real" climatologists.
I'd like to read something written by them.

Notice that the IPCC is not "blindly supporting" the theory of climate change, climate is changing already and anyone can read the data and make his own extrapolations.
Feel free to browse the WMO database on weather data reports. http://www.wmo.int/search?query=climate+data&reverse=on

How interesting. Here you demand PROOF for one thing, but you mock Gore for demanding PROOF about the vote. Aren't you versatile.

Apparently the phrase "margin of error" also proves elusive to him.

does winter catch you by surprise every year?

No, but the weatherman is wrong half the time. Even large scale predictions (like the hurricane season predictions) are seriously wrong a lot of the time (like they were last year - by a ridiculous margin).

Yes, there's warming. Yes, people cause SOME of it (not all of it).

Yes, we should reduce our carbon emissions. Frankly, I think we should try to work on eliminating urban heat islands (that can't help either).

But saying "how fast" we should do these things really isn't well known. Even if we move as fast as we can right now to sharply curtail industrial activity (throwing a lot of the world into medieval living conditions rather rapidly) and sharply reducing the world's population (by slaughtering all but 1 billion people on the planet), we don't really know how long the recovery would take - or if it would do any real good over the next 100 years.

The studies all seem to disagree on "how fast". Hearing Gore say "how fast" with such certainty seems like political grandstanding.

After all, he's no more of a climatologist than I am.

The IPCC is a political group. They cannot be counted on as a completely trustworthy scientific group because they have other interests.

The IPCC itself does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.


The entire argument is not about weather it impacts the environment or something. This is something that never occurred before because of the higher co2 levels, higher temps, blah blah blah, etc. They are not talking about 'does it impact the climate' they are trying to state that this new situation will cause horrible consequences.

And that's hard to understand... why? See, a minute ago you were trying to say climatology as a whole is useless because one can't predict the weather. I think we're making progress. But you need to understand that yes, global climate change in a short amount (i.e, human-civilization timeframe) is not a good thing. Why would it be? Why would pollution be good? Why would temperature changes be good for agriculture? Why would coastal flooding be good for anyone?

Real climatologists are not blindly supportive no, but real ones don't work for the IPCC. They work purely for science.

See my first paragraph...

The ones that work for politics are blindly supportive of their 'predictions'.

OK, so could you give me an example, in the technical papers, of one that is incorrect, false, or skewed?

So they should have recounted the votes in all the states electing democratic because they actually could have been republican right? (you know - due to the powerful, evil, politicians that were counting the votes.)

I'm not really going to get into this.

Harris certified that George W. Bush had defeated the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, in the popular vote of Florida and thus certified the Republican slate of electors. Her ruling was challenged and overturned on appeal by Florida's Supreme Court; this decision, however, was itself reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. That Court ruled (5-4) that Gore's request to extend Florida's statutory deadline for ballot re-counts had no merit, because no Florida law at the time provided for that option.

I hope you're not going to claim that the Supreme Court ruling was some sort of vindication of the vote... it only affirmed that extending a deadline wasn't provided for by Florida law.

does winter catch you by surprise every year?
http://www.uthscsa.edu/opa/presaward2004/eventimages/51.jpg

No, but the weatherman is wrong half the time. Even large scale predictions (like the hurricane season predictions) are seriously wrong a lot of the time (like they were last year - by a ridiculous margin).

Yes, there's warming. Yes, people cause SOME of it (not all of it).

Yes, we should reduce our carbon emissions. Frankly, I think we should try to work on eliminating urban heat islands (that can't help either).

But saying "how fast" we should do these things really isn't well known. Even if we move as fast as we can right now to sharply curtail industrial activity (throwing a lot of the world into medieval living conditions rather rapidly) and sharply reducing the world's population (by slaughtering all but 1 billion people on the planet), we don't really know how long the recovery would take - or if it would do any real good over the next 100 years.

The studies all seem to disagree on "how fast". Hearing Gore say "how fast" with such certainty seems like political grandstanding.

After all, he's no more of a climatologist than I am.

There's a few things worth observing here ....

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=90A5DC7C-E7F2-99DF-320EEF89EB22219C&chanId=sa022

As in:
March 26, 2007
100-Year Forecast: New Climate Zones Humans Have Never Seen
Worst-case warming scenario may bring totally new kinds of tropical climate and cause others to disappear
By JR Minkel
If global warming continues unabated, many of the world's climate zones may disappear by 2100, leaving new ones in their place unlike any that exist today, according to a new study. Researchers compared existing patterns of temperature and precipitation with those that may exist at the turn of the century, based on scenarios put forth in the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue rising at the same rate, up to 39 percent of Earth's continental surface may experience totally new climates, primarily in the tropics and adjacent latitudes as warmer temperatures spread toward the poles.

Researchers say the analysis was intended to more precisely gauge the ecological consequences of climate change. Studies have already estimated that species such as butterflies are creeping toward the poles at a rate of six kilometers per decade as temperatures rise. Some species, however, may not be able to keep pace with future changes potentially leading to new regional ecosystems as novel climate patterns emerge, possibly leading to extinctions if some climates disappear entirely.
To evaluate the range of possible outcomes, ecologists John Williams of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Stephen Jackson of the University of Wyoming, along with U.W. Madison climatologist John Kutzbach compared global climate projections published last month by the fourth IPCC with current regional climates, looking specifically at average summer and winter temperatures and precipitation. They considered scenarios of either unchecked greenhouse gas emissions or a global reduction in the rate of emissions growth.

They found that the business-as-usual scenario comes with large climate changes the world over and would create entirely new patterns of temperature and precipitation for 12 to 39 percent of Earth's land area. An additional 10 to 48 percent of land would see its climate zones disappear, replaced by patterns of temperature and precipitation now occurring elsewhere, such as rain forest becoming savanna or evergreen forest becoming deciduous. In the reduced-emissions scenario, the group reports that the two kinds of change would each take hold over 4 to 20 percent of land.

In the case of unchecked emissions, "we are going to be seeing climates that certainly are completely outside the range of modern human experience," Jackson says. According to the analysis, new climates would be most dramatic in the rain forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, but would extend as far toward the poles as the American southeast.

Climate disappearance would occur in tropical mountains and near the poles, including regions such as the Andes, the African highlands, Indonesia and the Philippines, parts of the Himalayas and near the Arctic. With nowhere to go, species in these regions might become extinct, the group notes in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.

Jackson says that prior studies have concentrated on ecological changes closer to the poles, but the tropical changes might be more dramatic. "If [the climate of] Memphis moves to Chicago, we have a Memphis there to say what Chicago will look like," he says. "For an area where we don't have a modern analogue, there's really nothing to look at to say, this is what the environment will look like."

So here's where you should consider Don Young's quote:
"My opinion is as valid as any scientists'." :fluffle:

Has anyone pointed out to DK the fallacy involved in dismissing the message simply because one doesn't like the messanger?

But don't I, as Thread Creator, get the veto vote? I think I do!

But here, you can have the "Win The First Battle of the Thread" award. Keep it up FTW!
I suppose you have the right. But mark this day. I will be avenged.

The warming is not the main problem. It is what the increase in temperatures does to other factors, particularly ocean and wind currents. With a 6 degree Celsius or greater increase, there is high probability of massive changes in the prevailing winds and ocean currents.

This leads to a massive shift of rainfall patterns. Rainforests become savannas, breadbaskets become deserts, or vice versa. This has a tremendous negative impact on both human agriculture as well as native life. Massive changes in rainfall patterns would cause mass starvations in many areas, and it would take years to readjust centers of food production to meet the needs.

As much as I hated quoting my own post, this point must be made.

When we deal with prehistoric extinctions, we deal with their geological significance. While man's impact by global warming may be geologically insignficant compared to say, the Permian Extinction, from a humanistic point of view, it is no less of a tragedy. The potential death of millions of people through famine, drought and climate change is no laughing matter.

Has anyone pointed out to DK the fallacy involved in dismissing the message simply because one doesn't like the messanger?

What? Are you not a fan of epic threads with post upon post heaped up with arguments? What if we all argued like you? Wouldn't be much to read, would there? Cut to the bottom of the matter on your own time. No reason to ruin the joy we have in beating around the bushes and on the carcasses of dead horses.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Quoted for mighty truth.

To claim that anyone knows everything about the supposed man-accelerated climate change is ridiculous.
Obviously, but is it more or less ridiculous than beating on a strawman either because you think you are hitting a real target or expect others to be stupid enough to believe you are?

If you can't even predict the weather in 24 hours with millions of dollars worth of equipment, how are you going to figure out what a new situation will do to a complex, worldwide system, over a matter of decades?
Since we can predict the weather in the next 24 hours, it seems somewhat beside the point. Or do you mean if we cannot always predict the weather within the next 24 hours with 100% accuracy? That being the case, much the same way as a business is more able to predict their revenue accurately for a single financial period than they are for the half an hour between 10.00am and 10.30 pm on the 3rd day of the 7th week of the next financial period. Or in the same way I can more accurately predict what house I will be living in next week, than I can my exact location within the house at 11.24pm next Tuesday evening.

No kind of worldwide change in policy or anything of the sort has a legitimate place if what they are saying is not proven, or even close to proven.
Bullshit. I cant prove you will kill or injure anyone if you drive drunk tomorrow, but public policy is still to disallow you to drive drunk because the risk to benefit ratio makes not doing so very unwise. To suggest that if we cannot prove catastrophic outcomes until it is too late to avoid them, means it is not legitimate to take steps to avoid them, even though very strong evidence indicates the outcome will occur if not prevented, and no strong evidence indicates the counter is just absurd, and frankly begging for extinction.


And about Gore - how can you trust someone that insisted they count votes multiple times to see if any of them changed, making him the winner? 'Hey, maybe if we count them again, I will have won!'
Gee, why dont I automatically distrust someone who continues to call for recounts when each counting returns a different result? Who knows, who cares? Is there some reason you imagine I need, want or ought to trust Al Gore? I had no plans to marry my daughter off to him, or invite him to babysit my house when I was away, and I certainly dont need to trust someone to evaluate their ascertions against readily available information in order to reach a conclusion based on the merits of the argument presented. If a convicted fraudster tells me water is wet, their known dishonesty gives me no reason to believe water is dry and if someone with a reknown reputation for honesty tells me it's dry, that doesnt make it wet. Gore's trustability is utterly irrelevent to the question 'are we at risk as a result of anthropogencially driven climate changes?'