DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Anyone still a climate change skeptic?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 427, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/17/2007 02:18:32 PM · #1
I'm no activist and I enjoy so much of life, but too much of it comes at a very high cost to the planet. We in the UK, on average, need about 3.7 planet Earths to support our consumption and lifestyle.

If you still resist the mass of increasing evidence then please read on and explain why that may be. I really need to know why anyone in their right mind might imagine that their unsustainable practices will not be having lasting effects on this planet. Generations down the line will surely be cursing our globally frivolous reaction to the intelligence presented.

I often wonder if men in particular have a problem facing these facts. I've seen examples of peer pressure in action when men gather in groups and the subject of climate is raised. I often see a reluctance to openly express belief in it in favour of continuance of bravado/machismo. If men are put together in a corporate environment then the peer-to-peer reactions are even more extreme, especially in financial institutions where the car is king and frequent air travel is the norm. Petrol heads the world over must recoil at the very thought of kerbing their precious obsession too - so if you're one of them what do you think?

Are these people brave enough to face the unwelcome changes that must be brought to protect everyone's interests?

Please read this fresh report from the IPCC (PDF file - 9MBs) and the BBC news feature on it.

I've listed a few top-line extracts here and a couple of charts.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/8860/120/614118.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/8860/120/614118.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/8860/120/614119.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5000-9999/8860/120/614119.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.

Anthropogenic [man-made] warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.

Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5oC (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5oC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels. Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.

In order to stabilise the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilisation level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.


: J

[edited for misplaced apostrophe!]

Message edited by author 2007-11-18 16:51:43.
11/17/2007 02:21:50 PM · #2
Since we've had this debate so many times, I think it would be interesting if nobody could post a fact without citing the original study it came from.

I bet it would be a real quiet argument since I'm pretty sure nobody here with an opinion has delved into the actual data. We are all spoonfed.

That's not a cut at you Imagineer. I'm trying to wade through the entire IPCC paper (not the summary). I'm fairly confident the detractors of global warming will always point to somebody else who states an opinion and not be able to cite original journal articles.
11/17/2007 02:30:34 PM · #3
There is no doubt that the climate is changing, but this has happened time and time again. Wine grapes were grown in England in the 1300s as it was a very warm period (before it cooled off once again.) I disagree with the political hype and fervor and fear mongering. Yet it is with this fear that we are controlled. Crichton wrote a good book on this.

There is another side (or 2 or 3) yet they are not allowed to speak, being shouted down by these political ones. Scientists do not get grants unless they toe the party line - sounds like a dictatorship system to me.

The voice of reason. Scroll down to Comments.
11/17/2007 02:38:44 PM · #4
papagei - you'll need to read the report because it deals with the issue of historical patterns.

As a rational, inquisitive person who fears nothing without good reason I don't subscribe to the Crichton theories.

Most propoganda has an incentive but the climate data is so broadly researched internationally and across all boundaries that any ulterior motives are so dilute as to be invisible. To simply reject all information out of hand is a true climate of fear, turning people into virtual hermits assuming the world is out to get them.
---

DrAchoo - not quite sure what you're getting at (have I misunderstood you?). I've read the report (first skim) and pulled out a few extracts, but short of getting out there and doing all the research again myself, I have to refer to the report!
11/17/2007 02:46:35 PM · #5
Originally posted by Imagineer:

DrAchoo - not quite sure what you're getting at (have I misunderstood you?). I've read the report (first skim) and pulled out a few extracts, but short of getting out there and doing all the research again myself, I have to refer to the report!


I think he's referring to the fact that the report itself is not research, it is a summary of research. And it doesn't summarize ALL research, ALL opinions (how could it do that after all) and so it is (arguably, I haven't read it) a summary of opinions with which the summarizers are in agreement. There are those who do not agree with the "party line", but they have been marginalized and demonized in this debate.

R.
11/17/2007 02:50:35 PM · #6
It is pretty cold for the time of the year though.
11/17/2007 02:59:25 PM · #7
Originally posted by Azrifel:

It is pretty cold for the time of the year though.


I'll try this once: climate and weather are not the same thing. One year's temperatures aren't the point.
11/17/2007 03:04:09 PM · #8
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

There are those who do not agree with the "party line", but they have been marginalized and demonized in this debate.

R.


I promise this isn't directed at you specifically, Robert, but I get so tired of this argument.

You'll always ... ALWAYS ... be able to find someone to disagree with the majority on any subject. Do you argue that their existence nullifies the overwhelming evidence supporting the majority? Is the mere existence of a massive majority somehow proof that the majority is wrong?

Also, the minority will always claim it's being marginalized. All that means is that perhaps someone's being marginalized, not that the purportedly marginalized group is right in its claims.

Remember that, say, 15 years ago, it was the climate skeptics in the majority, so the folks who said it was a problem could've claimed "oh, we're being suppressed."

What changed the balance was evidence, not hyperbole.

Message edited by author 2007-11-17 16:01:26.
11/17/2007 03:05:57 PM · #9
Originally posted by Imagineer:



As a rational, inquisitive person who fears nothing without good reason I don't subscribe to the Crichton theories.


(sigh) As you know, Crichton is a fiction author, yet the fact that populations have been, and contue to be, controlled through fear is obvious. Look to history. Look to any authoritarian government, look to religions, Geez, the list is endless. And to insinuate that I am not a "rational, inquisitive person who fears nothing without good reason" has no place in a debate.

There is other research, There are other voices. They are not that hard to find either.

From Canada.com:
"McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.

The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.

Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.

The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.

In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" video


11/17/2007 03:31:48 PM · #10
Sighing has no place in a debate!

My position is this, I have a brain and I use it in conjunction with things that I see first hand and learn from others. I know that particles in our atmosphere will have an effect on the sun's rays and that the process of emitting them is staggeringly huge, relentless and in most cases blindly selfish. The problems associated with global dimming and warming are complex but can even be observed (as they were when planes were on ground-stop after 9/11) however difficult the task of making accurate predictions around the effects they will have in a long-term future.

Perhaps you're one of the people who'd rather wait for the evidence to present itself when it's too late to prevent it. John Christy, one of the more sceptical scientists on the IPCC panel, says: "... Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties."
Those benefits are short-lived ones for humans only, and I'm sure that the planet's other species aren't particularly grateful for our self-centred experiments with their world.

The bottom line for me is: I don't like the stinky, land-grabbingly consumer-centric world we're creating because it comes in spite of the other things I love. I now care far less about my car and material goods than I do about having meaningful experiences, mostly outdoors. Yet we're destroying these resources and PROBABLY altering the balance of things irepairably.

I wouldn't put much money on a bet against man-made climate-change, put it that way.

Message edited by author 2007-11-17 15:34:45.
11/17/2007 04:05:59 PM · #11
too many fleas can kill a dog.........
11/17/2007 05:19:51 PM · #12
I believe it is happening but I hate when Gore and all the "Big Bands" say how we're killing the plant but THEY burn more carbon by air / Limo travel than my family will in 10 lifetimes.

When I see Gore and the other's driving and flying or (rail) in maximized to the limit alternate fuel drivin vehicles, then I'll have more respect for their opinion.

Let's not forget that research shows that burning corn and other "food" may cause shortages of food around the world also.

Originally posted by Imagineer:

Sighing has no place in a debate!

My position is this, I have a brain and I use it in conjunction with things that I see first hand and learn from others. I know that particles in our atmosphere will have an effect on the sun's rays and that the process of emitting them is staggeringly huge, relentless and in most cases blindly selfish. The problems associated with global dimming and warming are complex but can even be observed (as they were when planes were on ground-stop after 9/11) however difficult the task of making accurate predictions around the effects they will have in a long-term future.

Perhaps you're one of the people who'd rather wait for the evidence to present itself when it's too late to prevent it. John Christy, one of the more sceptical scientists on the IPCC panel, says: "... Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties."
Those benefits are short-lived ones for humans only, and I'm sure that the planet's other species aren't particularly grateful for our self-centred experiments with their world.

The bottom line for me is: I don't like the stinky, land-grabbingly consumer-centric world we're creating because it comes in spite of the other things I love. I now care far less about my car and material goods than I do about having meaningful experiences, mostly outdoors. Yet we're destroying these resources and PROBABLY altering the balance of things irepairably.

I wouldn't put much money on a bet against man-made climate-change, put it that way.


Message edited by author 2007-11-17 17:22:19.
11/17/2007 05:40:01 PM · #13
Originally posted by levyj413:


I promise this isn't directed at you specifically, Robert, but I get so tired of this argument.


I understand that. And it isn't even MY position; I was just trying to explain what Doc *might* have meant.

R.
11/17/2007 05:40:20 PM · #14
Here are some direct quotes from the IPCC. They do not list citations, but I can dig them out for you because they are ultimately there.

1) Concerning current CO2 levels and their rise:
"The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago."

2) Concerning papagei's claim there is no pattern of warming observed:
"The instrumental temperature data that exist before 1850, although increasingly biased towards Europe in earlier periods, show that the warming observed after 1980 is unprecedented compared to the levels measured in the previous 280 years, even allowing for the greater variance expected in an average of so few early data compared to the much greater number in the 20th century. Recent analyses of instrumental, documentary and proxy climate records, focussing on European temperatures, have also pointed to the unprecedented warmth of the 20th century and shown that the extreme summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any that has occurred in at least 500 years. (Luterbacher et al., 2004; Guiot et al., 2005; see Box 3.6)."

I'd love to quote lots more parts, but I just recommend people (papagei especially) just read chapter 6 of the IPCC report which talks about temperature change on a geologic timescale. In true scientist form, they even air their laundry and speak specifically to the Mann "hockey stick" data.

Message edited by author 2007-11-17 17:41:35.
11/17/2007 05:54:01 PM · #15
geologic timescale? that's what the SC uses. hahah

on topic -- do i believe things are "warmer?" yes. thirty years ago, it would be cold enough to snow by the end of September and we would have several snows (re -- more than 4 or 5 inches) each winter. In elementary school, I can remember missing the entire month of January because everything was under snow.

Now, it typically doesn't snow until mid to late November, then it is just a "dusting." The past several winters, we have not had any snows over 2 or 3 inches, but we have had some miserably wet, rainy winters. (yuck).

Not really empirical, I know, but it is what I've seen.

do i know what causes it? no, but in this immediate area, there was a surge in paving roads about 15 years ago -- I blame the asphalt.
11/17/2007 06:02:21 PM · #16
The bottom line on this, and oh so many other endless debates is that so many are trying to find out where to point the finger and what specifically to point the figer towards.

IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

What I try to do is what *I* can, and that doesn't mean going for the Nobel Peace Prize for talking about it. I'm so ashamed of that whole debacle I cannot even begin to tell you.

I want what someone previously mentioned.......I want these people in the limelight, that have the voice and the power to actually *DO* something about it and quit squawking.

He supposedly is going to donate half the money, or some such thing; well, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is, and maybe house some people in his "Carbon-Neutral" 5000 square foot mansion in Tennessee, work towards making sense with American industry, and do the long term things that will make a difference.

What are you doing? What can we do?

Personally, it doesn't mean a hill of beans whether or not global warming is true or not because if we don't stop what we're doing soon and get a handle on it, we're going to kill off the planet sooner anyhow.

I do what I can. I make a conscious effort. I don't do enough, but I'm working on that, too.

I'm doing things better than I was 5, 10, and 20 years ago, but I can do even better from now on. I have a twelve year old daughter......I'd like to think that she'll be proud of what her Dad tried to do to help keep Earth a safe and sustainable place for her and her kids.

But it sure as Hell isn't going to be by running around shouting,"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

YMMV

Message edited by author 2007-11-17 18:04:34.
11/17/2007 07:03:05 PM · #17
Originally posted by papagei:

There is no doubt that the climate is changing, but this has happened time and time again. Wine grapes were grown in England in the 1300s as it was a very warm period (before it cooled off once again.)


This is true, to a point (the medieval warm period to which you refer is not thought to have been a global phenomenon). In fact, the clear signs of other climatic shifts from the paleoclimatic record is a large part of what makes us so certain of the changes we're seeing.

For instance, no one thought abrupt climate change was a realistic possibility until the discovery of paleoclimatic events such as the end of the upper Dryas period, where records show warming as much as 10 degrees in a decade. The presence of these events STRENGTHENS AGW science, it does not undermine it.

The idea that "skeptics are marginalized" is, to put it bluntly, a joke. Any scientist would love to be the one that overturned the status quo. People get controversial research funded all the time. The reason there are few scientific skeptical voices is that there's very little to say... The existing science is extremely strong. There is little other research, there are few other voices.

Originally posted by kenskid:

I believe it is happening but I hate when Gore and all the "Big Bands" say how we're killing the plant but THEY burn more carbon by air / Limo travel than my family will in 10 lifetimes.

When I see Gore and the other's driving and flying or (rail) in maximized to the limit alternate fuel drivin vehicles, then I'll have more respect for their opinion.

Let's not forget that research shows that burning corn and other "food" may cause shortages of food around the world also.


To take these two seperately... the Gore thing is both a strawman (it's irrelevant to the truth value of what he's saying) and it's false - Gore has taken steps to offset his carbon footprint, yes, by buying offsets, and yes, they work in a limited way. But as you say you believe in the truth of it, think about what Gore has done to spread the word, and realize that there's no way he could have done it without flying in jets.

The biofuels thing - a very real problem, and one that people are actively working on right now. Biofuels is THE hot topic in the environmental sciences right now, for a bunch of reasons; the competition of food and fuel is big one (and hugely important), but also the production pathways for biofuels has a huge impact on their carbon footprint, to the point that certain lifecycle analyses show ethanol as being even worse than gasoline in terms of carbon impact. The good news is the science is catching this one early, and can, with luck, have some impact. Biodiesel, on the other hand is better than conventional diesel (or ethanol) in almost every way. This is why you see Europe pushing towards a diesel fleet; it's likely the future for internal combustion (barring hydrogen).

Originally posted by canada.com:

"McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.


That's fine... Not exactly true, but fine... probably is, very little of modern warming science is based on the "hockey stick." So you can demolish it, and the rest of the science holds. It's like taking out a leg of a stool - but a stool with 1000 legs.

Like it or not, the science is about as strong as it gets.
11/17/2007 08:14:37 PM · #18
I'm a firm believer in conservation. I use the funky light bulbs, I bought more efficeint cars, I have an efficeint house, I won't use a plasma TV, I have lots of trees and plant in my yard, I use recycle bins, I minimize my use of bottled water... I'm probably greener then most of the global warming nuts. So if all the global warming talk inspires more people to conserve, then that's great. Otherwise, I think most of it is just hot air spewed by people trying to better their position on the planet's pecking order.

11/17/2007 08:23:58 PM · #19
Originally posted by eamurdock:

For instance, no one thought abrupt climate change was a realistic possibility until the discovery of paleoclimatic events such as the end of the upper Dryas period, where records show warming as much as 10 degrees in a decade. The presence of these events STRENGTHENS AGW science, it does not undermine it.


Recalling that I'm a "believer", can you provide some citation for this? A) when was the Dryas period and how do we have accuracy within 10 years for the climate change?

Also, I think you are hurting the overall argument here. By allowing evidence of local climate change you are letting the other side provide all sorts of contradictory evidence depending on where we look. The warming you speak of was a localized effect (as far as I understand). Those changes are far less important to the argument than global temperature changes (which are much harder to measure as we go back in time).
11/17/2007 08:41:15 PM · #20
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Let's see, that starts about the time the Soviet Union went belly up and stopped supporting a host of recording stations in the northern reaches thereby making those observations unavailable. Averaging all world stations would show a warming. Statistics don't always show the truth if the matter.

Additionally, any belief in a 'steady state' is also flawed and unsupportable.
11/17/2007 08:41:35 PM · #21
I believe there has been a minimal warming in climate do to solar variation. I believe this warming is part of normal cycles, and is overall a beneficial thing for mankind. I do not believe the warming is in anyway man made. I would post some references, but I have to go out (in my suv of course) now.
11/17/2007 08:45:14 PM · #22
Originally posted by LoudDog:

I'm a firm believer in conservation. I use the funky light bulbs, I bought more efficeint cars, I have an efficeint house, I won't use a plasma TV, I have lots of trees and plant in my yard, I use recycle bins, I minimize my use of bottled water... I'm probably greener then most of the global warming nuts. So if all the global warming talk inspires more people to conserve, then that's great. Otherwise, I think most of it is just hot air spewed by people trying to better their position on the planet's pecking order.


Same boat here. I want a new home that I am going to build myself. I have already started studying and planning. Bought this book and DVD--(Building with Awareness-strawbale/adobe homes), but I am in no way totally convinced on the Global Warming thing. I do believe that WE have an impact on the environment, you would be ignorant to say you don't, but the PUSHING me to do things is pissing me off. Especially since the ones pushing are such hypocrites.

I am a self sufficient/sustainable type of person. I mainly like the idea of the house I want to build as being self sustainable. Cheaper to live in, less maintenance and efficient. I like the idea of having enough solar powered energy to keep 3 months of juice for me, if needed (in Colorado Mountains) stored up and selling back the extra to electric company. I like the idea of using less "piped" water and using rainwater stored in a cistern, using grey water to water my trees, etc., adobe walls to capture and radiate heat or "cool" in my house. Living off the land type of stuff. I guess I really would have rather lived in the 17-1800's. :) But then again I do LOVE my 2004 F-150 4x4 truck to get me where I want, when I want.
11/17/2007 09:08:25 PM · #23
Originally posted by dsray:

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).

Let's see, that starts about the time the Soviet Union went belly up and stopped supporting a host of recording stations in the northern reaches thereby making those observations unavailable. Averaging all world stations would show a warming. Statistics don't always show the truth if the matter.


hahaha, this is the stuff that is just incredible. Can you provide any sort of support for such a supposition? Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? Believe me, the community would spot such a flaw and absolutely destroy any supposition based on such obviously flawed data.

I'm afraid such lunacy does not make you look good in a real discussion...
11/17/2007 09:19:47 PM · #24
Originally posted by eamurdock:

The biofuels thing - a very real problem, and one that people are actively working on right now. Biofuels is THE hot topic in the environmental sciences right now, for a bunch of reasons; the competition of food and fuel is big one (and hugely important), but also the production pathways for biofuels has a huge impact on their carbon footprint, to the point that certain lifecycle analyses show ethanol as being even worse than gasoline in terms of carbon impact. The good news is the science is catching this one early, and can, with luck, have some impact. Biodiesel, on the other hand is better than conventional diesel (or ethanol) in almost every way. This is why you see Europe pushing towards a diesel fleet; it's likely the future for internal combustion (barring hydrogen).

It's really not a viable answer to think of biofuels simply because of the great expanses of area needed to grow the soybeans to convert. It's really not possible as there isn't enough arable land in the world to make up 25% of what the US would use in biodiesel if that's all that we wanted to burn. As nice as it is, it's too little, too late.

Message edited by author 2007-11-17 21:21:54.
11/17/2007 09:26:41 PM · #25
If global warming is in fact being caused by the carbon that humans are putting into the air and not by many of the natural reasons even before humans were more than one cell creatures... then we are all doomed. The Chinese are about to surpass the US in carbon output and they are only getting started. Throw in all the other 3rd world countries that are producing more and more carbon bi-products and the US could stop all output today and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Besides, all it's going to take is one decent sized astroid hitting a land mass and we are going to be back into an ice age anyway. Or a chain of volcanoes throwing up enough ash to put a thick layer of reflective material in the upper atmospher.

Yes, man has helped speed it along, but I don't think we are all to blame... although we will be the ones (or our grandkids will) that pay for it.

Mike


Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 02/20/2020 11:11:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/20/2020 11:11:23 PM EST.