'New and stronger evidence developed in the past year also suggests that many risks cited in the panel's first three reports this year actually will be larger than projected and will occur at lower temperatures, according to a draft of the report.' The Seattle Times

'Launching the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together hundreds of scientific experts, Mr. Ban said that slowing and even reversing the effects of climate change “is the defining challenge of our age.”' Science Daily

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Climate change is irreversible, only slowed down. We have to put up with a lot worse regarding climatic change before it starts to improve.

Not in our life time.

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

I recall watching a TV programme where it stated that during the medieval period when they were building cathedrals, the climate was a lot hotter than it is today.

Also during the Roman times we had grape production up in Northumbria, and much later in history we were having frost fares on the River Thames in London.

A look at climate over the ages will show that we go through periods of warming and periods of cooling. According to that programme, the last mini period of cooling was just after WW2 when there was a lot of industrial output and CO2.

According to that programme it was...

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

So?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

When I need to replace a button

or

Climate can be cyclic in nature, could we be just part of a warming cycle, one of a number from Earth's history?

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

The experts say no. The current warming is not part of natural cycles, it's much too fast. You should know this already -- it's been explained many times here in these forums.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Which is why we need yet another thread?
ToSeeked.

__________________
*

That thread is old, and about the 2007 IPCC report. This one is about the UN's recent statement.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Yeah, that one was a real beaut. Environmental groups got lumped in with Nazis, white supremacists, and other fascist undesirables.

Beautiful--just effin' beautiful.

If that is going to be the overall quality of the debate (and I use that word very loosely) on this topic, I'd prefer that it not be brought up at all. Very few people on the ATM side of AGW appear to be able to discuss the topic without slinging ad homs and becoming generally obnoxious. As a mainstreamer on this topic, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I do object to be called a fascist because I hold the mainstream view, however.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

So long as we get to call 'em spaced-out hippies...

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

To say that climate change is irreversible is foolishness.

First, If you are saying that any climate change caused by humanity must be cancelled out and the climate returned to some exact start point, you are ignoring the fact that the climate changes. Since climate change is a pretty random thermodynamic problem, it goes pretty much by definition that it is irreversable.

Second, if you not saying you have to return to some exact start condition, but just to some set of global conditions, then saying that the effect is irreversable is to assume that the accidental conditions we have gotten ourselves into are not correctable by deliberate action. This seems to be silliness in the extreme. If humanity gets together and actually fixes the problem, then the problem will be fixed, ergo the change is not irreversable.

This is another example of bad rhetoric.

Also, if it is irreversible, then there's no point in bothering to reduce CO2 emissions. We need to focus our efforts on adapting to the inevitable change. Somehow, I doubt that's what the report's authors really intend.

The climate is always changing. It has been both warmer and colder in the not too distant past. Through it all, humans have adapted to the changes. We'll have to do it again.

Why do people "Raise Questions™" which they could easily answer themselves by checking with the sources?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Not taking a shot at you Paracelsus, but it would be nice if this applied to both sides. Implying that someone is ignorant is just as bad for the debate as full up ad-homs (see post above)

Except that an accusation of ignorance may well be factual. Whereas a hysterical accusation of "fascism!" is just that much rhetorical fireworks.

And here's another factual accusation for you: the ammo of the global warming deniers seem to have been reduced to ad homs.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

So you are pure since you are a believer and those who oppose you are simpletons who know nothing and can only throw insults?

I have gotten into the GW debate here a couple of times. I am prolly one of the biggest, if not the biggest skeptic left here. Please show me where I resorted to an ad-hom, and please show me that you are actually better equpped than me to actually make a scientific determination on the validity of the GW science.

I will freely admit to calling someone ignorant at least a couple times here, but since you have determined that that is a fact, and not an ad-hom, I guess that dosent count.

My BS is physics and the PhD I am working on is in space physics. While that does not make me an expert in climatology, it does mean that I have all the tools to become one in a relatively short time. What are your qualifications to show that you are not ignorant? Can you actually make judgments based on the raw data, or are you merely parroting what you have read?

I do not condone invoking Godwin's Law for any reason, and I havent, so dont lump me in with those who do.

Didn't you just try to lump me with them?

Nevermind -- as I said, the questions you raised are easily answerable, provided one is genuinely curious and interested in the mainstream answers.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

This is what I call a "way cool" way to control CO2 content, according to MIT: Essentially have a reverse oil well pump pressured CO2 into the ground and store it into "briny porous rock".

The Gulf of Mexico already has a lot of offshore wells, ditto for the North Sea, Angola, and of course the Persian Gulf. Maybe I'm underestimating the difficulty, but I see no reason why any abandoned wells cannot be readapted to pump stuff INTO the ground - especially the older fields whose gushing days have long past (I understand several West Texas fields are like that now)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/co2-0207.html

PS, I only glanced at the article from a google search, after vaguely recalling such a thing. They don't specifically mention oil wells, but that seems like a good place to start.

I wonder if pumping CO2 deep into the ground would have the same effect that they discovered back in the 1960s (or so) with fluid injection - it induced small earthquakes.

It depends on the stability of the underlying geology. Sure, if you did it near a plate boundary or fault zone, you're in trouble. But if you did it in the heart of North America, there shouldn't be too much in the way of trouble (yes, I know faults can happen well away from plate boundaries - the Mid-Mississippi River Valley's New Madrid fault is a perfect example. I exclude that area, naturally). Northwestern Europe's another relatively stable place. As it is, both regions emit a lot of CO2, so they/we won't have to look very far to find a geologically safe place to sequester it. China and Japan (especially the latter) will have a harder time though.

Even so, every little bit helps. What's lots of progress but lots of tiny progresses adding up?

As someone near the middle of the debate (I'm skeptical of both the apocalyptic end of AGW arguments and the arguments that there is no AGW effect) in public debates I see ad-homs flying in both directions. I don't think "fascist" should be used, but then what do terms like "AGW denier" suggest? Or dismissals like "anyone who argues against this proposal is surely being paid off by big oil?" Mostly, I think people who accept one extreme or the other don't even realize what their comments look like to people who aren't in complete agreement with them.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That's a very "balanced/politically correct" view, but not a very fair one. To repeat what I wrote in the other thread:

Which "proposal" are you talking about?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

So people can feel justifiably angry at "fascist" but a term patterned after "Holocaust denier" shouldn't bother anybody. Right.

You seriously aren't familiar with the type of argument I'm referring to? That would be AGW related proposals. I've seen that type of argument on BAUT, in fact.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Who says it was 'patterned after "Holocaust denier"'?

That's just another one of the stock red herrings the GW deniers use to shift the conversation away from the uncomfortable facts.

What is an "AGW related proposal"?! "Hey guys, let's heat up the planet with CO₂ emissions"?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

You're hopeless. There's no point in attempting discussion on this.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

so are we headed towards being a second Venus?

This claim that the climate was hotter in the period when the Medieval cathedrals were built, was that true? When I saw the programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" it did seem quite slick and compelling. I am told that some of the talking heads claim they were misrepresented by that documentary or were in the pay of oil companies.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

It depends on the stability of the underlying geology. Sure, if you did it near a plate boundary or fault zone, you're in trouble. But if you did it in the heart of North America, there shouldn't be too much in the way of trouble (yes, I know faults can happen well away from plate boundaries - the Mid-Mississippi River Valley's New Madrid fault is a perfect example. I exclude that area, naturally). Northwestern Europe's another relatively stable place. As it is, both regions emit a lot of CO2, so they/we won't have to look very far to find a geologically safe place to sequester it. China and Japan (especially the latter) will have a harder time though.

I'm not so sure. The first I heard of fluid injection causing minor earthquakes was from the Denver area. The earthquakes were all low magnitude (<3 IIRC) but there were many of them.

This claim that the climate was hotter in the period when the Medieval cathedrals were built, was that true? When I saw the programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle" it did seem quite slick and compelling. I am told that some of the talking heads claim they were misrepresented by that documentary or were in the pay of oil companies.

Keep this story in mind when you read an alarming report from UN "scientists".

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year's estimate, documents show. The worldwide total of people infected with HIV -- estimated a year ago at nearly 40 million and rising -- now will be reported as 33 million.

Having millions fewer people with a lethal contagious disease is good news. Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way."

The UN is a massively corrupt organization. I don't take anything they say at face value.

"Slick and compelling" = good salesmanship, not science.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Yes, another little piece of propaganda that was torn to shreds in these very forums, not to mention elsewhere.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

This is what I was responding to:

The second paragraph seems to include all 'deniers.' Since you would lump me in with the deniers, I took exeption.

By the way, Van is right, the source of the 'denier' term is based out of Holocaust deniers. It may not be a direct reference, but every time I have had it used on me it has certainly had the same connotative meaning.