TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

Originally posted by melatonin


Poppycock. Half of researchers in what?

The most recent study of climate scientists shows the vast majority actually firmly in the 'agree on this ill-founded theory' box (Pielke, Annan, & Brown).

15-20% worse than IPCC
45-50% just as IPCC
15-20% less than IPCC

97% agreed that anthro CO2 is an issue and has contributed to climate change in some way.

The previous study from Bray & Storch (2003) showed good agreement (75% that IPCC consensus is correct).

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) have moved from complete denial to tentative acceptance very recently. And that must have been painful.

It is quite a shame that you do not even know a REAL Scientist when you see one. All of these "surveys" are put forth through politically affiliated Pseudo-Scientists. The actual scientists have for YEARS been unable to voice realities due to the Bureaucratic leadership, and overtones, attempting to hijack their work and findings. I have dealt with and closely worked with countless scientists, especially within the fields of Meteorology and Climatology, and your assumptions could not be FURTHER from the truth.

I hope I do not come off as insulting, but there is no replacement for experience, and the knowledge gained through such.

I once delved into the subject of Global Warming, as I even performed vast amounts of research through contacts within the community, long before this ever became mainstream. I presented such research as a report, and this was in correlation with the amazing aide of a specific Climatological Observatory. So when I comment on this subject, I do think I have some room to speak.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
It is quite a shame that you do not even know a REAL Scientist when you see one.

So people actually researching and publishing in the area of climate science are not real scientists?

lol

All of these "surveys" are put forth through politically affiliated Pseudo-Scientists.

Not true.

The actual scientists have for YEARS been unable to voice realities due to the Bureaucratic leadership, and overtones, attempting to hijack their work and findings.

That's true, but not the way you appear to be suggesting.

I have dealt with and closely worked with countless scientists, especially within the fields of Meteorology and Climatology, and your assumptions could not be FURTHER from the truth.

Not assumption. Data.

I hope I do not come off as insulting, but there is no replacement for experience, and the knowledge gained through such.

Yah.

I once delved into the subject of Global Warming, as I even performed vast amounts of research through contacts within the community, long before this ever became mainstream. I presented such research as a report, and this was in correlation with the amazing aide of a specific Climatological Observatory. So when I comment on this subject, I do think I have some room to speak.

Well done.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


I was wrong in my initial assessment of your contributions to this thread, I apologize.

You have obviously done far more investigation than I.

There is something about the current AGW hysteria that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I haven't put my finger on it yet, but am working towards it.

You come across as someone who is 100% certain that manmade CO2 is the prime driver of current global warming, and I guess it is the certainty that bothers me.

There are massive agendas at play in this issue. The propoganda is obvious and disturbing. The 'ignorant masses' are lapping it up as usual. This I find dangerous and another step backwards away from a society based on compassion, warmth and doing the right thing because it IS the right thing to do.

People are being manipulated and controlled under the guise of AGW. I find this repulsive.

I'll read a lot more, from both sides, and hopefully, my contributions and challenges can be more intelligent in the future.



[edit on 12/12/08 by RogerT]

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by melatonin

 

I was wrong in my initial assessment of your contributions to this thread, I apologize.

You have obviously done far more investigation than I.

Perhaps.

There is something about the current AGW hysteria that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I haven't put my finger on it yet, but am working towards it.

Fair enough.

You come across as someone who is 100% certain that manmade CO2 is the prime driver of current global warming, and I guess it is the certainty that bothers me.

I'm 100% certain of very few things, probably none. I'm not even 100% certain that I'm 100% certain on anything.

Such certainty can be left to maths and religion.

There are massive agendas at play in this issue. The propoganda is obvious and disturbing. The 'ignorant masses' are lapping it up as usual. This I find dangerous and another step backwards away from a society based on compassion, warmth and doing the right thing because it IS the right thing to do.

I think acting is probably the right thing to do. I think you are tending to mix the political and the scientific. It is an issue in this area, but it needn't be that way. In fact, I despise politics.

I have no intuitive reason to favour any method of action - be it taxes, caps, technological, adaptation, head in sand-fingers in ears, etc etc. I'm not some green-freak or luddite. TBH, even if we don't act I won't lose sleep. Won't be my problem. I care more about the beauty and integrity of science. I do my little bit in acting, that's all I can do. I'd just rather people be open and honest - it's too expensive and too painful to actually do something substantial about this real pressing but long-term issue, so lets take a risk and ignore it. Because when I hear people like Inhofe and his minion whining about some BS list of supposed 'international' or 'prominent' scientists, it's obvious it's politically informed denial.

The problem is when science starts to tell us stuff we don't want to hear - be it politically, ideologically, or economically salient. Then it all goes a bit pear-shaped and people start to meddle and fudge. Indeed, when the ministers from across Europe meet on this issue, they'll be finding the most effective method to backtrack on their positions. That's the way of myopic power-driven politics.

Banks are going bust because they are full of totally retarded selfish & impulsive dullards! Quick give them $700bn, the plebs will cover it...

Society is under threat from an insidious creeping phenomenon caused by our lifestyles! Yeah, when can we meet to talk about it some more...

Look! What have you done! You made me speak about bleedin' politics. One thing you'll note is how when certain people talk about climate science the discussion instantly degrades to politics, the Gorelax, and taxes - an argument from consequences. Not much better than denying the diabetes a doctor has just discovered, because it means you really probably can't binge on burgers, cake and beer whilst lounging around like a Hutt for much longer without real negative consequences.

They are two distinct issues. And the ability to argue backwards from potential sociopolitical consequences to the science is one obvious symptom of denier wackiness - 'politicians want to tax you, therefore the science is a hoax!'

People are being manipulated and controlled under the guise of AGW. I find this repulsive.

There's at least one rube who has clearly been manipulated, and that's the one who did Inhofe's dirty work by circulating his stinking turd. An anti-science poop which attempts to foster his (and other shills) perpetual manufactroversy. The actions of these people are well-honed and -worn, sourced from the days of tobacco-science denial, and has even involved the same Think-tank talking heads (Seitz and Singer).

If you mean that people actually listen to scientific experts then, yeah, it tends to make sense to do so - but there are experts and 'experts'. Similarly, I tend to listen to gas boiler engineers and doctors if they have something relevant to tell me.

We can't all be experts in everything. But I also do tend to follow certain issues more than others.

I'll read a lot more, from both sides, and hopefully, my contributions and challenges can be more intelligent in the future.

Don't be silly, the honest asking of questions is cool. I just meant I don't take these discussions seriously. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I don't care for debates or such, too much effort. You asked questions, I tried to answer or help you to an answer. Just attempting to give a fair outline of the scientific position. It wasn't much more than that to me. ATS is the time-killer!

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

Thanks for the response, I've enjoyed the last couple of posts.

I also listen to the boiler engineer, although having spent the last 3 years building my own house, I found that with a couple days self learning, I knew more than my local guy

As for the doctors ... well, I'll agree to disagree on that one. That's probably one of the roots of my distrust in 'scientific certainty'. I've yet to meet a doctor that knows much if anything about health, and listening to them during the first 2 decades of my life only got me into trouble.

I found nature (coupled with personal responsibility and the courage to be contrarian and contenscious) held the answers to my own health and healing and that of all others I managed to successfully share my experience with.

Maybe that's why I am intuitively drawn to the 'nature' side of the GW than the AGW side

Best to you.
R

Melatonin!...permafrosts in siberia...it will melt in the future anyway due to the natural cycle of global warming,the amount of methane it will release will dramatically change our climate,so is there much point in delaying the inevetable?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Solomons]

reply to post by RogerT


That's fine by me. Honestly, whatever floats ya boat.

Originally posted by Solomons
Melatonin!...permafrosts in siberia...it will melt in the future anyway due to the natural cycle of global warming,the amount of methane it will release will dramatically change our climate,so is there much point in delaying the inevetable?

Eh? You're saying a natural cycle will cause permafrosts to melt, so lets fowgeddabowtit?

I think the current warming is much less than a natural cycle. Indeed, the evidence clearly suggests it is anthropogenic. So, if we don't want to risk a prolonged rapid period of climate change that will probably last for a very very long time, severely impacting human societies that have flourished during a period of stability, then we might want to change our habit of burning very old stuff.

Of course, that doesn't preclude the presence of natural cycles. Perhaps the sun might be kind enough to sufficiently weaken for us until long after we burn everything worth burning.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

Narrator: Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: "Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!"

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: "Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

Chicken Little: "Oh, help! The sky is falling!"

Henny Penny: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

This is a pretty interesting narrative and gets better: eleaston.com...

There's a lot to be learned, even from a fictional story. The ending I think may have relevance to the discussion as well.

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by RogerT

 

That's fine by me. Honestly, whatever floats ya boat.

Originally posted by Solomons
Melatonin!...permafrosts in siberia...it will melt in the future anyway due to the natural cycle of global warming,the amount of methane it will release will dramatically change our climate,so is there much point in delaying the inevetable?

Eh? You're saying a natural cycle will cause permafrosts to melt, so lets fowgeddabowtit?

I think the current warming is much less than a natural cycle. Indeed, the evidence clearly suggests it is anthropogenic. So, if we don't want to risk a prolonged rapid period of climate change that will probably last for a very very long time, severely impacting human societies that have flourished during a period of stability, then we might want to change our habit of burning very old stuff.

Of course, that doesn't preclude the presence of natural cycles. Perhaps the sun might be kind enough to sufficiently weaken for us until long after we burn everything worth burning.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

Yes but i mean lets say our co2 emission do directly impact,it will still warm for years to come,so by no stretch of the imagination it is going to melt and the climate will change dramatically...so...shouldn't we be investing in ways to save ourselves rather than the silly notion of saving our planet for when it does? Why is this not a natural cycle process has been that has been sped up by man? wasnt there global warming from the 11th to 13th century?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Solomons]

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Solomons]

Originally posted by saint4God
There's a lot to be learned, even from a fictional story. The ending I think may have relevance to the discussion as well.

Good day/evening/morning [delete as appropriate] saint.

A story! Nice.

However, the scientific evidence suggests the sky is actually rising, not falling.

BOULDER--A team of scientists, including several from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has determined that human-related emissions are largely responsible for an increase in the height of the tropopause--the boundary between the two lowest layers of the atmosphere. The research results, which will be published July 25 in the journal Science, provide additional evidence that emissions from power plants, automobiles, and other human-related (or anthropogenic) sources are having profound impacts on the atmosphere and global climate.

Chicken Fatso

Originally posted by Solomons
Yes but i mean lets say our co2 emission do directly impact,it will still warm for years to come,so by no stretch of the imagination it is going to melt and the climate will change dramatically...so...shouldn't we be investing in ways to save ourselves rather than the silly notion of saving our planet for when it does? Why is this not a natural cycle process has been sped up? wasnt there global warming from the 11th to 13th century?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by Solomons]

Oh yeah, this is about saving our own way of life. The earth will be fine.

There's been lots of global warming and cooling over geological time, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that this period of warming is a purely natural phenomenon.

ABE:

For below



V V V V V

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

I would like to personally add that here in Western Australia which is one of the driest and hottest parts of the world it is one of the coolest and wettest second half of the year I have experienced.

Even old timers say this is unbelievable how long winter has gone and how stormy and wet it is, not to mention when the sun is out we're lucky to get to 25 degrees C.

I say give it some time before we decide if the Planet is heating up, 10 years isn't enough and perhaps we try to fix something with massive resources and energy only to find it was a total waste or effort trying to harness mother nature.

Originally posted by melatonin
Good day evening saint.

A story! Nice.

However, the scientific evidence suggests the sky is actually rising, not falling.

There was a point to the story, the story isn't a debate as to if the sky is rising or falling. Go ahead and indulge in the full readthrough, it's pretty facinating.

Originally posted by melatonin

BOULDER--A team of scientists, including several from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has determined that human-related emissions are largely responsible for an increase in the height of the tropopause--the boundary between the two lowest layers of the atmosphere.

Okay, I didn't want to get into the science because it becomes an argument of speculaton, but being that it's what my degree is in, perhaps I should point out some verbage in the link.

Originally posted by melatonin

"The study also gives support to scientists, including Wigley and Santer, who believe

Can I get an amen?

Originally posted by melatonin

temperatures in the upper troposphere are increasing. Researchers have been at odds over whether satellite data indicate that atmospheric temperatures are rising or stable. But a new data set produced by researchers at remote sensing systems in Santa Rosa, California, and analyzed by Santer, Wigley, and other scientists in Science earlier this year indicates that global temperatures in the lowest several miles of the atmosphere rose by one-third of a degree Fahrenheit (about 0.2 degrees Celsius) between 1979 and 1999.

1/3? Are they sure? Break out the tanning lotion, in another 20 years it'll be 1/3 degree warmer.

Anthing more substantial since public release date: 24-Jul-2003?

[edit on 12-12-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
There was a point to the story, the story isn't a debate as to if the sky is rising or falling. Go ahead and indulge in the full readthrough, it's pretty facinating.

I understand your penchant for stories and parables, but they don't quite tickle my fancy. Indeed, I'm a bit past being affected by children's stories.

Chicken gets hit on the head by an acorn. Being a bit of a retard, thinks it's the sky. And whines a lot. Other animals being just as retarded take her story on faith...ermmm, yeah.

So, that's related to scientists independently and repeatedly verifying particular theories and predictions and finding converging evidence on a particular phenomenon over a period of around 150 years how?

ABE: you know, Saint. I know your MO so well, I actually thought to myself about 5 minutes ago the first thing you would do is peruse the article looking for words that would allow you to retreat into FUD. Wow, you also have a degree! Well done you!

Okay, I didn't want to get into the science because it becomes an argument of speculaton, but being that it's what my degree is in, perhaps I should point out some verbage in the link.

had to add this

lol

[ABE2: What you have a degree in some sciency subject (BSc biology-based, no?), which you finished a few years back, now work as a lab rat in bio-something, and that means you have some form of expertise in any science subject, lol. Isn't pride a sin? I don't even give your opinion on biology much weight, we've been there before.]

If you knew the history of the satellite data, you would know why there was conflicting findings. It was to do with the UAH boys (Christy and Spencer - creationist climate science deniers, by the way) fluffing up their analysis. Apparently they had issues with + and - signs or something.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I understand your penchant for stories and parables, but they don't quite tickle my fancy. Indeed, I'm a bit past being affected by children's stories.

I'd not be quick to discount valuable lessons whether obtained via fiction or non, but to each their own.

Originally posted by melatonin
Chicken gets hit on the head by an acorn. Being a bit of a retard, think's it's the sky.

He's not retarded, he just doesn't have all the facts about acorns.

Originally posted by melatonin
And whines a lot. Other animals being just as retarded take her story on faith...ermmm, yeah.

Ya! Get it?

Good ending too, don't forget the ending.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, that's related to scientists independently and repeatedly verifying particular theories and predictions and finding converging evidence on a particular phenomenon over a period of around 150 years how?

We did not start exploring human impact on the environment 150 years ago. "Human ecology began in the 1920s, through the study of changes in vegetation succession in the city of Chicago, Illinois. It became a distinct field of study in the 1970s. This marked recognition that humans, who had colonized all of the Earth's continents, were a major ecological factor." - www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Yep, we learned hairspray can be bad for ozone.

It's not an 'age old' science, and even if it were around for 500 years, that's still not enough time to record the earth's changes whether cyclical or not.

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: you know, Saint. I know your MO so well, I actually thought to myself about 5 minutes ago the first thing you would do is peruse the article looking for words that would allow you to retreat into FUD. Wow, you also have a degree! Well done you!

lol

Thank you, got a job in biochemistry too ^_^

[edit on 12-12-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I'd not be quick to discount valuable lessons whether obtained via fiction or non, but to each their own.

Aye, I find them pretty boring. So, I'm not even going to bother responding to your fluff.

We did not start exploring human impact on the environment 150 years ago. "Human ecology began in the 1920s, through the study of changes in vegetation succession in the city of Chicago, Illinois. It became a distinct field of study in the 1970s. This marked recognition that humans, who had colonized all of the Earth's continents, were a major ecological factor." - www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

Yep, we learned hairspray can be bad for ozone.

Saint, my man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Go back to the big, big names in science. Fourier. Tyndall. Arrhenius.

We should be standing on the shoulders of giants, not mucking around in the playpen with kiddie stories.

It's not an 'age old' science, and even if it were around for 500 years, that's still not enough time to record the earth's changes whether cyclical or not.

Heh.

Thank you, got a job in biochemistry too ^_^

[edit on 12-12-2008 by saint4God]

If I need to get some info on doing whatever lab techniques you do, I'll know where to come. I always found such lab work very tedious and boring.

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, I find them pretty boring. So, I'm not even going to bother responding to your fluff.

Ah, but you already have. Now knowing however, I'll be sure to expect your exclusion in lessons that parallel human nature.

Originally posted by melatonin
Saint, my man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course not, please advise the university that gave me my degree at once! Also fire my ecology professor while you're at it.

Originally posted by melatonin
Go back to the big, big names in science. Fourier. Tyndall. Arrhenius.

We should be standing on the shoulders of giants, not mucking around in the playpen with kiddie stories.

"Big names mean...?" It's all about the data my friend. Science isn't about names. History is about who said what to whom.

Originally posted by melatonin

It's not an 'age old' science, and even if it were around for 500 years, that's still not enough time to record the earth's changes whether cyclical or not.

Heh.

Oops, strike a hot-button of truth?

Originally posted by melatonin
If I need to get some info on doing whatever lab techniques you do, I'll know where to come. I always found such lab work very tedious and boring.

It can be, but it's a lot like cooking...just can't drink what you make, nor would you want to. The biggest issue is the gobs and gobs of paperwork, "For crying out loud I added the Aprotinin! Now they want to know the part number, what I used to measure it, what bottle I poured it in, where the bottle came from, the social security number of the person I was with while I poured it..."

[edit on 12-12-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by melatonin
Saint, my man, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course not, please advise the university that gave me my degree at once! Also fire my ecology professor while you're at it.

You still don't. You just gave me a random quote about something you thought was relevant to my comments.

Originally posted by melatonin
Go back to the big, big names in science. Fourier. Tyndall. Arrhenius.

We should be standing on the shoulders of giants, not mucking around in the playpen with kiddie stories.

"Big names mean...?" It's all about the data my friend. Science isn't about names. History is about who said what to whom.

Oh my!

So, that's related to scientists independently and repeatedly verifying particular theories and predictions and finding converging evidence on a particular phenomenon over a period of around 150 years how?

My original words. You come back with some random quote about human ecology.

...wow. You really have no idea what I'm talking about. Do you actually know who the people I mentioned are?

Googleisyourfriend.

Oops, strike a hot-button of truth?

Nope, I find your comments funny.

It can be, but it's a lot like cooking...just can't drink what you make, nor would you want to.

I'm sure.

ABE:

Human Ecology is an interdisciplinary applied field that uses a holistic approach to help people solve problems and enhance human potential within their near environments - their clothing, family, home, and community. Human Ecologists promote the well-being of individuals, families, and communities through education, prevention, and empowerment.

www.ales.ualberta.ca...

lol

Sounds, errrm, very interesting. I'm sure Tyndall would have been fascinated.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by melatonin]

I remember disengaging our discussions before because of your condescending tone. I think it was right of me to do so then as I see little has changed since. Numbers speak louder than names, it's just that simple. Sorry I cannot establish the concept of 'this is a new science, we have not data to make determinations' but perhaps one day it'll be more readily apparent. We may or may not be negatively impacting global temperatures, no one can say for certain. "We should expect the worst" is "the sky is falling" without data whether that news comes a scientist, a farmer, or a janitor. You don't have to be an english major to know what these words mean from the original poster's article:

"...we clearly said that we didn't know enough and therefore we can't place an upper limit on sea level rise this century."

"...if they were to melt"

"...which makes projections difficult."

"...could lead to..."

Sounds like the scientists know a thing or two about not screaming the sky is falling, unlike claims on ATS.

In ecology, there's a reactionary effect to climate changes. For example, warmer air means higher water capacity, which means more clouds, which means a cooling effects from shade and more rain (simply put of course). It's speculation at this point.

[edit on 12-12-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
You don't have to be an english major to know what these words mean from the original poster's article:

...

Sounds like the scientists know a thing or two about screaming the sky is falling, unlike claims on ATS.

Scientists attempting to learn stuff they don't know enough about shocker!

Saint, you do know that science is a bit more than doing repetitive lab techniques to find who baby A's daddy really is?

As I said, you fall into arguing over the very language scientists use. The language that accepts uncertainties and makes tentative insights into important real-world phenomena. If they made claims of absolute truth I'd be more worried.

As for condescending, I happen to find your waving of a your weak credentials around as some sort of 'sword of truth' pretty sad. And your responses betray your pretty superficial understanding of this stuff. You have an undergraduate degree, cool. It adds nothing.