New Global Warming Question

Science & Technology Biosciences
1

Two Questions:

First, has anyone ever read the 2001 climate change report put out by the IPCC? Is there an newer version where they did an about face?

I was reading near the end of the 2001 report where they write, and I quote:

In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible . The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions.

[bold emphasis by me]

…seems to me this should have put an end to alarmists taking over the business world with their global warming nonsense…and

  1. I had read somewhere (and I cannot recall where and it’s bugging me) that the Earth flushes about 150 to 200 billion tones of carbon into the atmosphere every year while humans contribute about 8 or 9 billion tones. Obviously that’s small in comparison, but I need some help if anyone knows or has read this also…what is the source of this information?

Thank you,

David

2

What did your search results turn up? Somebody on this board published a paper a little less than a year ago with data similar to the human output and nature output numbers you cited – although they didn’t cite their source, directly, if I remember correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid…%27s_atmosphere – there you go. It’s wikipedia, so don’t trust just that – go to it’s sources. But that Mauna Loa data is the most commonly published data I have seen.

Also – the IPCC report. That’s great that the last page says that. But you must remember, thats the 2001 report. They published a 2007 report in March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)

I’m not nullifying what the 2001 report said that you quoted – for all I know, the 2007 report says the same thing, so I can’t speak for that. Check it out…

But I CAN speak about the numerous professors, two of whom worked on the IPCC report, that I have had. The most common story they tell is that back in 2001 and even up until several years ago, they would have said, “Yeah, global warming is a real thing, but we don’t know if humans are DEFINITELY causing it – I wouldn’t put my life on it.” Now they are saying, “As new data pours in, we can say with virtual certainty that humans are causing it and that if we don’t take action IMMEDIATELY, we are going to suffer the consequences”

Whether or not that’s true, I don’t know, I do not study science – let me know what you find.

The problem I really have, which has been addressed here numerous times, is the “solutions” these professors propose. I don’t know if it’s due to the extremely liberal background of my university, or if they are just too lazy to think of other solutions, but the only thing they suggest is to write letters to senators and representatives asking them to approve climate change legislation, and that we need to take as much political action as possible.

Aside from the moral issues in government doing things like Kyoto, it’s just incredibly impractical, if the goal really is to stop climate change. I wish science professors, who have a credibility amongst their students as being incredibly smart, would just stick to what they specialize in – science. Leave economics and politics to the people who have actually studied such things and don’t adopt the attitude of “If something’s wrong, pass it along” – who don’t automatically assume that the best way to deal with problems is through the government.

3

What did your search results turn up? Somebody on this board published a paper a little less than a year ago with data similar to the human output and nature output numbers you cited – although they didn’t cite their source, directly, if I remember correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid…%27s_atmosphere – there you go. It’s wikipedia, so don’t trust just that – go to it’s sources. But that Mauna Loa data is the most commonly published data I have seen.

Also – the IPCC report. That’s great that the last page says that. But you must remember, thats the 2001 report. They published a 2007 report in March (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report)

I’m not nullifying what the 2001 report said that you quoted – for all I know, the 2007 report says the same thing, so I can’t speak for that. Check it out…

But I CAN speak about the numerous professors, two of whom worked on the IPCC report, that I have had. The most common story they tell is that back in 2001 and even up until several years ago, they would have said, “Yeah, global warming is a real thing, but we don’t know if humans are DEFINITELY causing it – I wouldn’t put my life on it.” Now they are saying, “As new data pours in, we can say with virtual certainty that humans are causing it and that if we don’t take action IMMEDIATELY, we are going to suffer the consequences”

Whether or not that’s true, I don’t know, I do not study science – let me know what you find.

The problem I really have, which has been addressed here numerous times, is the “solutions” these professors propose. I don’t know if it’s due to the extremely liberal background of my university, or if they are just too lazy to think of other solutions, but the only thing they suggest is to write letters to senators and representatives asking them to approve climate change legislation, and that we need to take as much political action as possible.

Aside from the moral issues in government doing things like Kyoto, it’s just incredibly impractical, if the goal really is to stop climate change. I wish science professors, who have a credibility amongst their students as being incredibly smart, would just stick to what they specialize in – science. Leave economics and politics to the people who have actually studied such things and don’t adopt the attitude of “If something’s wrong, pass it along” – who don’t automatically assume that the best way to deal with problems is through the government.

I haven’t had much luck with the search feature. I must not know how to use it. I type in “Global warming” and ask for exact matches and it turns up completely unrelated topics. :huh:

4

Oh okay – when you do a search, I find that it is often times more useful to (1) make sure you are searching in All Forums (under the search entry) and then to the right of where you click “All Forums” – there is an option to “Search Titles Only” – I often find that to be the best.

5

Two Questions:

First, has anyone ever read the 2001 climate change report put out by the IPCC? Is there an newer version where they did an about face?

I was reading near the end of the 2001 report where they write, and I quote:

In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible . The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions.

[bold emphasis by me]

…seems to me this should have put an end to alarmists taking over the business world with their global warming nonsense…and

  1. I had read somewhere (and I cannot recall where and it’s bugging me) that the Earth flushes about 150 to 200 billion tones of carbon into the atmosphere every year while humans contribute about 8 or 9 billion tones. Obviously that’s small in comparison, but I need some help if anyone knows or has read this also…what is the source of this information?

Thank you,

David

There are only fifty two scientists on that pannel, the rest are all politicians (which may give you a good hint at their real intentions when writing that thing). Ten of those scientists refused to sign that document and another twenty are currently demanding that their names be removed (not the media would ever say any of this). We contribute a combined total effect of .4% of earth’s climate change. In order to make that lessen by even .1 of a percent, we’d have to submit ourselves to economic oblivion and settle for near stone-age lifestyles. Global warming is just an altruist conspiracy to trick mankind into following its ideals.