Former NASA Scientists, Astronauts Criticize

[JayMark]

While looking for the same article in French for my blog I found this list. Unfortunately it's in French but for those who can check the names it's worth looking and there are not only 49 sceptic but 31000.

http://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Liste_de_scientifiques_sceptiques_sur_le_r%C3%A9chauffement_climatique

I have glanced at the list. French is my first language (Québec).

That's a lot of baloney there. I have almost finished the book "Le Populisme Climatique" which you should read if you haven't yet. It covers some of the biggest climato-skepticism campaings.

A lot of the names in this list were invoked in the book and these frauds have been debunked again and again especially Claude Allègre et Vincent Courtillot which are important players in the campaign. Fossil fuel industries are all behind it. This has been shown, disclosed and proven many times.

A lot of the arguments shown on this list can be debunked in a couple of sentences with scientific facts. Many of them also contradict themselves. That, to begin with, is simply rediculous. Some say we are warming, some say we don't, others say we are cooling. Some say CO₂ levels have raised but are not contributing to an increase in forcing while others say that CO₂ levels are actually decreasing. And you have those green prophets that say that since CO₂ is good for plants, there is nothing to worry about and that it's only going to help us if anything. Etc etc et cetera.

Peace my French cousin!

Edited April 12, 2012 by JayMark

[Essan]

I find it interesting that this group of professionals is rising up to protest against claims they consider to be inaccurate being made by NASA.

Beware the 'appeal to authority'

They may be professionals. But so are millions of other people.

They are fully entitled to their opinions, as are you and I and the lady down the street who owns 19 cats. But on what basis would you consider the opinion of a few people who have not studied a subject over the opinions of a great many more people who have studied the subject?

If a Doctor says cancer is caused by eating salt, would you believe him because he is a doctor? Or would you question his assertion because most other doctors, particularly those who specialise in cancer, disagree?

Think about it.

Meanwhile, a piece in the Guardian on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff?newsfeed=true

Worth reading, whatever your conviction.

btw there are millions of scientists in the world. Tens of thousands currently involved in climate and related research.

When someone says 1,000,000 scientists have signed a petition stating that humans cannot under any circumstance affect climate, I'll think about listening, though I'll still think them most likely wrong. But then, I'm not religious ....

[Calibeliever]

I find it interesting that this group of professionals is rising up to protest against claims they consider to be inaccurate being made by NASA. I expect that they are aware of, and frustrated by, many more inaccuracies being promulgated by what most accept as the definitive voice of science. Kudos. Don't stop here.

Agreed. Question everything. But do it with a true questioning mind. Skeptics think the questioning IS the news. No they are just questions. The argument that plants need CO2 and the earth has always been cyclical are just smoke and mirrors to confuse those who don't have access to the data. Too much prolonged exposure to high levels of CO2 is as harmful to plants as prolonged exposure to high levels of oxygen is to humans. Not to mention water becomes more acidic as it absorbs more CO2. Not all plants are big fans of acid. Or fish for that matter.

Science always questions itself. That's its job. But when the "skeptic" reports come from think tanks that are paid to produce pre-determined results skewed to their employer's benefit I take those and throw them out the window. NOAA, NASA and most major universities are not in the business of perpetuating fraud. I'm sure not one them is excited about the news that humans will be in distress in the next century.

As George Carlin put it: "The planet will be fine, we're the ones that are ****ed!"

[JayMark]

Science always questions itself. That's its job. But when the "skeptic" reports come from think tanks that are paid to produce pre-determined results skewed to their employer's benefit I take those and throw them out the window. NOAA, NASA and most major universities are not in the business of perpetuating fraud. I'm sure not one them is excited about the news that humans will be in distress in the next century.

As George Carlin put it: "The planet will be fine, we're the ones that are ****ed!"

Nicely said.

It sould be everyone's concern. The World Bank is clear about the economic issues related to climate change. If we don't make a big move, the economic system will most probably collapse. And God knows that it is already crumbling.

On top of that, people's health and well being will also be endangered more and more. That is priceless.

Peace.

[Von Bismarck]

Professionals whose specialty is of all but one is totally unrelated to the area of expertise needed, and the one is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. Their opinion is about as relevant as yours and mine, only you and me have not worked and (in some cases) been fired by NASA.

What a load of bull.

Climatology is also a specialization in atmospheric science.

First you get a bachelor's degree in meteorology. You are now an atmospheric scientist.

To get a master's degree in atmospheric science you need to specialise in something, which could be climatology.

[questionmark]

What a load of bull.

Climatology is also a specialization in atmospheric science.

First you get a bachelor's degree in meteorology. You are now an atmospheric scientist.

To get a master's degree in atmospheric science you need to specialise in something, which could be climatology.

Even if so, it still is one out of how many that work or worked at NASA? The point remains, most of the opinions of the gentlemen above are as valid as your or mine. Which in the world of real science is well.... somewhere behind the janitor's opinion.

Ah yes, as far as I remember, climatologists working for the guv have at least a PhD. But sometimes things slip my attention.

[Von Bismarck]

Ah yes, as far as I remember, climatologists working for the guv have at least a PhD. But sometimes things slip my attention.

Questionmark no need for you to google "What do you have to take in college to become a climatologist" Btw why can I see that in the reply? Is it a link?

But really? Most scientist working for the government have a Ph.D?

If you were hiring wouldn't you choose a candidate with a Ph.D? Or do you settle for the next best?

Edited April 12, 2012 by BFB

[questionmark]

Questionmark no need for you to google "What do you have to take in college to become a climatologist" Btw why can I see that in the reply? Is it a link?

But really? Most scientist working for the government have a Ph.D?

If you were hiring wouldn't you choose a candidate with a Ph.D? Or do you settle for the next best?

You try to switch the theme now? And naturally if you make a claim I try to find out if unsure... and I don't use Google I use Ixquick.

And sincerely, depends, for those reading the weather a masters is enough, but here comes the next link for you confirming the above, and if you give me a few hours to run through USA jobs (descriptions are a little garbled there) and will probably come up with the same: minimum requirement to work for the government as climatologist is a PhD. Meteorologist in non-research positions need a Masters. Technical assistants an Associate. And for that I don't need to google (I just was unsure if there is a non-research climatologist job, well evidently not). And if the government cannot find a PhD or a Master to fill the position it remains vacant until they can (or at least that is how I remember it worked at Human Resources).

[Paracelse]

I have glanced at the list. French is my first language (Québec).

That's a lot of baloney there. I have almost finished the book "Le Populisme Climatique" which you should read if you haven't yet. It covers some of the biggest climato-skepticism campaings.

A lot of the names in this list were invoked in the book and these frauds have been debunked again and again especially Claude Allègre et Vincent Courtillot which are important players in the campaign. Fossil fuel industries are all behind it. This has been shown, disclosed and proven many times.

A lot of the arguments shown on this list can be debunked in a couple of sentences with scientific facts. Many of them also contradict themselves. That, to begin with, is simply rediculous. Some say we are warming, some say we don't, others say we are cooling. Some say CO₂ levels have raised but are not contributing to an increase in forcing while others say that CO₂ levels are actually decreasing. And you have those green prophets that say that since CO₂ is good for plants, there is nothing to worry about and that it's only going to help us if anything. Etc etc et cetera.

Peace my French cousin!

I'm an American who just happen to be born in France and who lives there for the moment and sorry, I don't believe in global warming. Knowing we just getting out of the last ice age it is normal that the climate becomes warmer. Furthermore, the creation of a paranoia involving CO2 has permitted the creation of a carbon tax on which corporate greed is preying like vultures.

Explain to me why EU has not banned the use of 2 stroke engine who pollutes more than my little Citroen diesel? Why streets in towns and cities have been narrowed down slowing to almost an alt when one knows that it's the change in acceleration that creates more pollution. It doesn't make sense. Why the excellent public transportation available in the 70's is now down to half?

Trust me with gas price as high as they are here (1.50 euros for a LITER of diesel) people would use public transportation. When I go to Metz or Nancy for business it's cheaper for me to take the car than take the train and that's include parking. 45 kms by train to Metz (about 27 miles) costs 14,27 euros round trip and costs me 7 euros by car.

There is something wrong with the system, although I really don't want ramble over it because it would go towards the conspiracy theories.

Peace to you to.

[Heroic Bishop]

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

[Essan]

If it's religious to say the world is not flat, was not created in 4004BC, and that life on it was not all created in a couple of days but instead evolved over thousands of millions of years, then I guess it's also religious to say that human activity can affect the climate.

Worth noting that the driving force behind objections to the 'heretical' idea that humans can adversely affect the climate comes from fundamentalist Christians in the US, see, for example: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/302874/20120222/santorum-environment-climate-change-global-warming-catholic.htm - so it's always struck me as quite ironic that acceptance of climate science is described as 'religious'!

[questionmark]

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

Thank to Al Gore the discoveries of Scientists since the 1950s that had been mostly ignored came to publicity. The fact that a certain greenhouse gas was growing in a dangerous fashion was discovered in 1954 and that the world was consequently warming in 1973. I don't care who jumped on the bandwagon as long as the majority are now aware of the problem. Now they either react or suffer the consequences.

[Von Bismarck]

You try to switch the theme now? And naturally if you make a claim I try to find out if unsure... and I don't use Google I use Ixquick.

And sincerely, depends, for those reading the weather a masters is enough, but here comes the next link for you confirming the above, and if you give me a few hours to run through USA jobs (descriptions are a little garbled there) and will probably come up with the same: minimum requirement to work for the government as climatologist is a PhD. Meteorologist in non-research positions need a Masters. Technical assistants an Associate. And for that I don't need to google (I just was unsure if there is a non-research climatologist job, well evidently not). And if the government cannot find a PhD or a Master to fill the position it remains vacant until they can (or at least that is how I remember it worked at Human Resources).

What do you mean by "switch the theme"?

Questionmark i dont now what you are going on about. Or i think so, but cannot see the point? Is it because you are trying to tell me that meteorologists don't know anything about climate? That 60% of the education to become a climatologist is studing meteorology?

As a student in meteorology i can tell you we study the Earth system, radiative transfer, atmospheric thermodynamics, atmospheric dynamics, climate dynamics, the atmospheric boundary layer and a lot more. (All a must in climatology) We dont just study weather systems and cloud microphysics, there's a lot more in the field of meteorology than just doing weather .

Your argument that meteorologists knows as little as you do is completely ridiculous. With out a background in meteorology it's pretty hard to understand how our climate works. Many geologists who want to become a climatologist need a degree in meteorology or at least many supplement courses in the field of meteorology. I have a geologist in my class, he worked for the city council for about 20 years but wanted to move into the field of climatology since the city council closed down his department. He virtually had no knowledge of adiabatic processes and static stability and only the basic of blackbody radiation, just like you. So by thinking meteorologists know nothing about climate is just wrong.

[Von Bismarck]

Thank to Al Gore the discoveries of Scientists since the 1950s that had been mostly ignored came to publicity. The fact that a certain greenhouse gas was growing in a dangerous fashion was discovered in 1954 and that the world was consequently warming in 1973. I don't care who jumped on the bandwagon as long as the majority are now aware of the problem. Now they either react or suffer the consequences.

Why aren't i surprised that you would thank Al Gore. A man who is correct in saying that Earth is warming but uses wrong data to draw the conclusion that Earth is warming. Sounds like ?

[questionmark]

Why aren't i surprised that you would thank Al Gore. A man who is correct in saying that Earth is warming but uses wrong data to draw the conclusion that Earth is warming. Sounds like ?

Because without him, even if mostly he was spouting emotional BS, the problem would still be ignored. Like carbon increase was since the 50s and warming since the 70s. Once you had him and the film it got near to impossible to ignore it anymore, and then we have seen by the reaction of interested parties that the problem was real. Else nobody would spend lots of millions in shareholder money to deny it happening (and lately spending even more to say it is happening but we have nothing to do with it) .

[questionmark]

What do you mean by "switch the theme"?

Questionmark i dont now what you are going on about. Or i think so, but cannot see the point? Is it because you are trying to tell me that meteorologists don't know anything about climate? That 60% of the education to become a climatologist is studing meteorology?

As a student in meteorology i can tell you we study the Earth system, radiative transfer, atmospheric thermodynamics, atmospheric dynamics, climate dynamics, the atmospheric boundary layer and a lot more. (All a must in climatology) We dont just study weather systems and cloud microphysics, there's a lot more in the field of meteorology than just doing weather .

Your argument that meteorologists knows as little as you do is completely ridiculous. With out a background in meteorology it's pretty hard to understand how our climate works. Many geologists who want to become a climatologist need a degree in meteorology or at least many supplement courses in the field of meteorology. I have a geologist in my class, he worked for the city council for about 20 years but wanted to move into the field of climatology since the city council closed down his department. He virtually had no knowledge of adiabatic processes and static stability and only the basic of blackbody radiation, just like you. So by thinking meteorologists know nothing about climate is just wrong.

Well, putting the words in my mouth, aintcha? What I am saying is that this meteorologist was certainly not working in a research capacity else he would have needed a PhD to do that for the government. And that he is the only one with possibly qualified opinion among those guys up there. If all he was doing is drawing weather charts, like most meteorologists without a PhD do for the government, his insight on the research and methodology would be about as big as yours and mine. All he can do is read the papers the others produce. And even there the correct method is not to sign a list but producing a paper of your own REFUTING the findings. So far all paper that I have seen to this effect, well does Munchhausen sound like something you know?

Edited April 13, 2012 by questionmark

[Von Bismarck]

Because without him, even if mostly he was spouting emotional BS, the problem would still be ignored. Like carbon increase was since the 50s and warming since the 70s. Once you had him and the film it got near to impossible to ignore it anymore, and then we have seen by the reaction of interested parties that the problem was real. Else nobody would spend lots of millions in shareholder money to deny it happening (and lately spending even more to say it is happening but we have nothing to do with it) .

Thats true. Without him the media wouldn't have picked it up, so i retract my previous comment.

I still don't like him though. He is inventor of "Make a HUGE amount of money by selling your carbon credits to the big companies"

[Von Bismarck]

Well, putting the words in my mouth, aintcha? What I am saying is that this meteorologist was certainly not working in a research capacity else he would have needed a PhD to do that for the government. And that he is the only one with possibly qualified opinion among those guys up there. If all he was doing is drawing weather charts, like most meteorologists without a PhD do for the government, his insight on the research and methodology would be about as big as yours and mine. All he can do is read the papers the others produce.

Okay i might have misunderstood your point. But he is not even a meteorologist! As i have said earlier. He doesn't have a degree in meteorology. He is a self-proclaimed meteorologist.

well does Munchhausen sound like something you know?

Trying to be funny?

[JayMark]

I'm an American who just happen to be born in France and who lives there for the moment and sorry, I don't believe in global warming.

Good. Hope you enjoy it there. I will surely visit France in the future.

Knowing we just getting out of the last ice age it is normal that the climate becomes warmer.

Ice ages (and following warmer periods) have been driven by changes in the earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles). The temperature variations during this cycles are much more gradual than what we are living right now. Also note than during those cycles, GHG have increased as a result of temperature increase, not the opposite like today.

As stated in the IPCC Report; "These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper. FAQ 2.1 addresses the question of how human influences compare with natural ones in their contributions to recent climate change."

Then going into the FAQ 2.1; "Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

"Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."

Furthermore, the creation of a paranoia involving CO2 has permitted the creation of a carbon tax on which corporate greed is preying like vultures.

I understand your concern about it but it dosen't change the scientific facts and real-time observations that all show an increase in global temperature.

Explain to me why EU has not banned the use of 2 stroke engine who pollutes more than my little Citroen diesel?

Why would I know that? And how would that be evidence that global warming is a myth? And why specifically 2-stoke engines? There are vehicles that pollute much more and that are also recreative. Why not banning them all?

Why streets in towns and cities have been narrowed down slowing to almost an alt when one knows that it's the change in acceleration that creates more pollution. It doesn't make sense.

The amount of pollution from a car depends on how much fuel it burns. Greater accelerations burn more fuel, yes. But there are some many other factors involved here concerning car pollution. It also depends on it's weight, gear ratios, power/torque curve; the engine's displacement, management and condition. And it also depends on the kind of fuel they burn. We could go far.

Why the excellent public transportation available in the 70's is now down to half?

I guess it depends on where you live. Where I live (Québec) we have more public transportation and we are planning to change 95% of our buses for electric ones.

Trust me with gas price as high as they are here (1.50 euros for a LITER of diesel) people would use public transportation.

Right. And that is exactly what's going on here.

When I go to Metz or Nancy for business it's cheaper for me to take the car than take the train and that's include parking. 45 kms by train to Metz (about 27 miles) costs 14,27 euros round trip and costs me 7 euros by car.

There is something wrong with the system, although I really don't want ramble over it because it would go towards the conspiracy theories.

Peace to you to.

A carbon tax could be used to help with this. If we tax carbon, it could lead people to use more public transportation and that could result in lower costs for it. That is also an objective of a carbon tax. But that depends on political decisions and that could vary from place to place. If done right, it could be a positive thing. I won't go too far in it as well because there is a lot of stuff. I'll keep reading what the World Bank is sayig about it and perhaps come back with more.

Peace again bro.

[JayMark]

The biggest problem I can see is that all of this 'Environmental' vogue, has just become the latest religion to riddle the planet. And we are already arriving at the stage where, in the same vein as the world religions, you cannot question their validity without being branded a heretic and being viewed negatively by society.

I look around the English landscape which is now full of the growing malignant cancer that is the wind turbine, something that would probably have to work it's whole life just to offset the so called 'carbon footprint' of it's own construction and erection, and can't help looking at the hysteria this new religion is causing. Unlike the other religions though, I hope this one goes away.

I mean come on...Al Gore wins accolades for film making?..it just shows, anyone can jump on the band wagon and become a champion of the new faithful.

A religion is based of beleifs. Climatology is based on science. Your way of comparing both things is pathetic. No harm intended.

[Heroic Bishop]

A religion is based of beleifs. Climatology is based on science. Your way of comparing both things is pathetic. No harm intended.

Actually the science is deeply flawed but that is another issue, and I was referring to 'people'and the feverish devotion with which people defend their religious beliefs is now akin to the adamant defence of this new 'environmental' religion. The way 'people' are making it such a deeply entrenched part of society and whomever chooses to speak out against it is hypothetically put against the wall and stoned to death, or burned for being a witch, or branded a heretic for saying the earth isn't the centre of the universe.

Your method of simplifying the matter in this child like manner is what is pathetic, this isn't a 'black and white' issue, no harm intended.

[JayMark]

Actually the science is deeply flawed but that is another issue, and I was referring to 'people'and the feverish devotion with which people defend their religious beliefs is now akin to the adamant defence of this new 'environmental' religion. The way 'people' are making it such a deeply entrenched part of society and whomever chooses to speak out against it is hypothetically put against the wall and stoned to death, or burned for being a witch, or branded a heretic for saying the earth isn't the centre of the universe.

Your method of simplifying the matter in this child like manner is what is pathetic, this isn't a 'black and white' issue, no harm intended.

I understand. Science has it's flaws. It will be so as long as we don't know everything about it. That is an established fact.

Of course, as far as climate change is concerned, there is a lot of matter in there on which you could debate on because we certainly do not know with precision how all the mechanisms of climate work. And even within our current observation and evaluation methods, there is always a part of uncertainty. But even within this uncertainty, the two main conclusions remain the same. It is warming, we are the main cause.

We know that temperature is rising. No need to make fastidious calculations and studies to know it. It is something that can be directly observed in real-time, directly and indirectly.

Now concerning the causes, I could very well try to explain to you how we know for sure that we are the main cause (including the uncertainty) but I fear that it would perhaps be too "childish" for you.

I have nothing against debating the question of AGW but if you want to try to prove it wrong, you'll need to have something a little more credible that this. If what I'm talking about is too childish, it shouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate how bad is the physics I relate to and how flawed it is.

Peace.

[Guyver]

It's all a question of math, or in this case probability statistics of experimental science. The earth's climate has never been fixed and stable and we observe climate change only after the fact and over millions of years not decades. The tools used for measurement have sampled local weather conditions for only the past 150 or less years. Their accuracy has changed dramatically in that time. Their sample size and distribution has not been uniform across the planet and is much too little in too short a time frame.Secondary methods of CO2 and climate estimations from fossil studies are even less accurate and more sparse.

To be brief, we are in a post-glacial warming cycle for the past 10,000 years. Past times have been a lot warmer with greater CO2 than we have now (by point measurements). Finally, there is not enough data to accurately predict a worldwide trend much less data with sufficient accuracy to justify the contention that one source of CO2 is a greater contributor than any other. These poorly developed climate models are no more accurate than predicting the end of the world by the Mayan calendar. Their models don't account for all the proper variables and their boundary conditions are poorly established.

By the way you don't need to be a atmospheric scientist to recognize poor theoretical model building and data gathering. This is basic knowledge from any undergraduate physics lab.

Win.

[Doc Socks Junior]

Sorry. English isn't my first language.

Plants in many places will die either as a concequence or droughs, floods or forest fires. Also erosion can also take out vegetations off coasts. Algae will die in many places (already happening) as a result of water acidification. CO₂ converts to H₂CO₃ into water. When you see a green lake turning clear blue for instance, it means algae died.

If all of this occurs in warm climates with abundant CO2, then what did the dinosaurs eat? I mean, 13 degrees warmer, a bunch more CO2, they must have been living on a barren planet, according to you.

Right. But it'll get worst over time.

Still, the problem isn't global warming so much as distribution problems. And it'd be getting worse over time with increased agriculture anyway. Not something that is only affected by global warming.

Already more than half the wolrd's population live close to coastal areas. Many very populated coastal areas are also under sea level. We are talking about millions if not billions of endangered people.

Yeah, so they should move. As I said, a foolish move in light of geologic history in the first place.

No. The point here is that it'll have very negative effects in many places for humans. If it was a breeze and not a problem, we wouldn't care. People have adapted to current climate and if the change is to abrupt, they won't all be able to adapt new climate as much as it'll keep changing. Not everyone is rich and living in the comfort of a big industrialized city.

Adapt to current climate, adapt to new climate. I don't know how fast it's going to be moving for humans to be unable to keep up with it. If anything, the big industrialized cities aren't as able to adapt to new climates.

The mechanisms behind that are very complex and I am no expert in the matter. But I know it's hard to predict with precision how/where/when it's going to happen.

Keep in mind though that the energy supplier of a hurricane is heat (thermodynamics). By getting warmer, water will provide more energy.

Alright, that makes sense. But haven't ocean temperatures been steadily rising? Why haven't we seen a similar steady increase in hurricane size and frequency? Is it possible that the issue is being oversimplified?

The Wolrd Bank made a 400 pages report about the current costs (2010) of climate changes and how it's going to evolve depending on multiple scenarios. The economic problem related to it is already set in stone and will become a real crisis if we do nothing. If you want to think that they lie or don't know what they talk about, feel free to e-mail them. You can't take the economy out of climate changes. Not at all.

If it is set in stone, we can by definition do nothing about it...so are you saying we can't do anything, but should do something? I never advocated taking the economy out of it. I said that the economy should obviously try to adapt to it.

There is always a cause for extinction. And past massive extinctions didn't involve humans but still had concequences on other species. You don't seem to understand that if a great deal of species become extinct as a result of global warming we will be in major crap. During the Permian–Triassic extinction event, temperature and greenhouse gases have abruptly raised and that killed 95%+ of marine species and 70% of vertebrates. We are talking of about 8°C of warming. Our current warming could get us already to 5°C+ by 2100.

Really? Extinctions have a cause? And here I thought that it was all based on magic. Do you have any idea of what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? No, clearly you do not. It wasn't the temperature. It's been fairly settled on that it was anoxia, due to massive amounts of CO2 basically smothering life, resulting from the eruption of the Siberain Traps. Glaciation climate change, as a rule, causes more extinctions than warming climate. Look at the Ordovician, or the Pleistocene. Or the KT extinction (although that's a little more hazy.) Correlation doesn't imply causation.

I am simply saying that a raise in temperature will provide an accute liberation of non-anthropogenic greenhouse gases that will lead to even more warming. Like methane hydrates for instance. This is a very dangerous timed bomb.

Yep, warming causes more warming. I'm shaking in terror.

We have the power to change things and minimize the impacts of it. But the more we wait, the worst it's going to be. There is a soon-to-be-reached point of "non-return" ahead.

Sure, it's going to be worse. But it's going to be worse for us. It'll be our own fault. I'm a lot more comfortable operating from that basis. Our own action or inaction is predicated on saving our own butts. That's what action should be based on.

Not optimistic but you mostly lack knowledge in the matter. I'm not saying that to insult. It's ok to not know things. But when I see you going around and say so much non-sense, I need to point it out.

Odd, there wasn't much nonsense in what I was saying. If anything, it's nonsensical to hyperbolize current and long-standing problems, and attribute them to global warming. You've looked at a lot of current data, and that's admirable. But you're a little weaker on recognizing and having a long-term view of the Earth. This planet isn't a magic human biosphere. It's a complex and constantly changing geoid that flings itself around a giant ball of nuclear fusion. Everything doesn't revolve around humans.

Peace. No harm intended.

Don't worry, no harm given. Peace.

[JayMark]

If all of this occurs in warm climates with abundant CO2, then what did the dinosaurs eat? I mean, 13 degrees warmer, a bunch more CO2, they must have been living on a barren planet, according to you.

I was refering to either droughs, fire or floods that could kill dense vegetation in some areas. That would be an indirect concequence of a rise of temperature which is partially a concequence of a rise in carbon dioxide. Of course, vegetation will grow and life will flourish in many other places. But we will need to adapt, move and it's not as easily done as it can be said. That is one of my main concern about humans. Adaptation. We do not all have the strenght and ressources to be able to go through this.

Still, the problem isn't global warming so much as distribution problems. And it'd be getting worse over time with increased agriculture anyway. Not something that is only affected by global warming.

Main cause of current distribution problems are a concequence of global warming as far as I know (radiative balance). It affects the thermodynamics of air currents and physico-chemical properties of water (water currents) for instance.

Yeah, so they should move. As I said, a foolish move in light of geologic history in the first place.

Fair enough. But for many people, moving away to a better place can be a real challenge especially when your only objective, everyday that you wake up, is to make sure you don't die of dehydration and hunger. We are talking about millions of people as we speak. Many wont have the energy and ressources to adapt the climate changes.

Adapt to current climate, adapt to new climate. I don't know how fast it's going to be moving for humans to be unable to keep up with it. If anything, the big industrialized cities aren't as able to adapt to new climates.

Fair enough again. The point here is that millions if not more will have a very hard time doing so and many will die. Not to mention the economic problems we will face when we'll have to re-locate entire cities that could be flooded for instance. I have a full report covering the economic issues. I'm currently going through it.

Alright, that makes sense. But haven't ocean temperatures been steadily rising? Why haven't we seen a similar steady increase in hurricane size and frequency? Is it possible that the issue is being oversimplified?

It has been rising but not always steadily and not everywhere. Global and local are two diffrent things, same with air and ground temperature. As I said, the mechanisms behind it are complex so predicting how/what/where/when is hard. The dynamics of heat distribution could radically change as well from what I understand and that is also hard to precisely predict. The overal idea is that we will most probably see more "extreme phenomenons" more frequently and with greater amplitude in the future (again, in some places, not all).

Where I live (Québec) that is exactly what is going on since the end of last century. Many never-seen and unusually intense phenomenons have manifested and are more and more frequent as a result of global warming. The loses have been astronomical. There are always direct economical costs/losses but also indirect ones that can be in many cases much greater.

If it is set in stone, we can by definition do nothing about it...so are you saying we can't do anything, but should do something? I never advocated taking the economy out of it. I said that the economy should obviously try to adapt to it.

We could do something about it. But it'll only reslut in minimizing the ampliture of climate changes to some degree that depends on how fast and effectively we make a move. What is set in stone is the fact that acting on it, as much as doing nothing will result is great costs and losses. Only that the inaction will result in more costs/losses especially if we don't do something by the next 8 years or so (estimated by the World Bank).

Really? Extinctions have a cause? And here I thought that it was all based on magic. Do you have any idea of what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? No, clearly you do not. It wasn't the temperature. It's been fairly settled on that it was anoxia, due to massive amounts of CO2 basically smothering life, resulting from the eruption of the Siberain Traps.

I never said the temperature was the cause of the great extinction. I agree it wasen't too clear though and I should have elaborated on it.

Glaciation climate change, as a rule, causes more extinctions than warming climate. Look at the Ordovician, or the Pleistocene. Or the KT extinction (although that's a little more hazy.) Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Fair enough. But we are not undergoing a glacial age here so I don't see how this is so relevant with current warming. It dosen't reduce the risks involved with current situation even if it has been worst in the past in diffrent contexts. If that's not what you meant, I apologize.

Yep, warming causes more warming. I'm shaking in terror.

Well you shouldn't because I'm not.

Sure, it's going to be worse. But it's going to be worse for us. It'll be our own fault. I'm a lot more comfortable operating from that basis. Our own action or inaction is predicated on saving our own butts. That's what action should be based on.

Fair enough. But not only worst for us though. We also depend on other species that are currently endangered. Like bees for instance.

Odd, there wasn't much nonsense in what I was saying. If anything, it's nonsensical to hyperbolize current and long-standing problems, and attribute them to global warming.

I understand what you mean. I didn't mean to insult. With this very message, I get a better picture of what you mean. I certainly don't always make sense either.

You've looked at a lot of current data, and that's admirable. But you're a little weaker on recognizing and having a long-term view of the Earth. This planet isn't a magic human biosphere. It's a complex and constantly changing geoid that flings itself around a giant ball of nuclear fusion. Everything doesn't revolve around humans.

Well put. I'm always learning. But where did you get the idea that I say it all revolves around humans? I may have expressed myself in a way that seems to imply it but it's not my intention. My basic point concerning humans is that we are the main cause of current global warming and that we have the power to minimize the long term negative impacts. I am well aware there is so much more to it but since we have no actual control on natural phenomenons (we can only affect them directly or indirectly) I tend to talk more about the human impacts and risks.

Don't worry, no harm given. Peace.

Ditto. I have nothing against respectful debates.

Peace.