Top Japanese scientists disagree with Global Warming

[perseus]

Not at all. But the jury is still out on what causes "Global warming"

In theory there is always an element of uncertainty, that's the way science works. All claims are subject to counter argument. The IPCC doesn't actually say human caused global warming is confirmed and they probably never will, they simply say 90% sure, then 99% sure, no doubt they willl be 99.9% sure until it gets to the point it really makes little difference. Unfortunately, the media and in particular the organisations funded by the fossil fuel industry take advantage of this honesty to sow doubt in the minds of voters who see their cherised dream of riches and unbridled eternal growth threatened.

But you have to understand that science and juries work differently, juries require only reasonable certainty and all these juries agree that Human based Global warming is true beyond reasonable doubt

Since 2001, various national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. The 32 signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

If it looks, walks and barks like a dog chances are it is a dog even though our eyes will never be perfect. The facts are that temperatures have rapidly risen far more in the last hundred years than since the last ice age almost 10000 years ago, and to blame this on natural climate variation goes against all common sense. Moreover, the facts are that we know greenhouse gases MUST trap heat, we even build machines that utilise this principle. We also know that the temperature rise and the increase in greenhouse gases are closely related, therefore to gamble on inaction is pure insanity.

 

[Damien435]

Just in case anyone is concerned, I've been in a blizzard warning for 18 hours how and so far I have seen one snow flake, we're roughly five inches behind where we were supposed to be at this point. I only mention this because I think it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[The Other Guy]

Not at all. But the jury is still out on what causes "Global warming"

To quote Lewis Black, "What jury, where?"

Those graphs Perseus posted don't lie. The temperature increase directly correlates with the increase in carbon emissions by yours truly. Even if it turns out that global warming is not human caused and that we are wrong, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Cleaner air improves our overall health... I'm all for getting it.

 

[Damien435]

That's been my argument in the past too, even from a doubter's point of view, the same emissions that "might" be cause global warming make the air in some cities damn near toxic and has made already scarce drinking water undrinkable in many parts of the world. Even now I don't totally embrace the idea of man made global warming and I'm not about to go protesting for green policies on such a basis, but I do think that in my home state of South Dakota it is absolutely retarded to be building new coal plants in the 21st century when our potential for wind energy is so great our state alone could power the entire Midwest the combination of SD, ND, KS and WY could provide all the electricity the country needs from wind alone once we develop the technology to properly store the energy. Why build a coal plant when we can build wind turbine generators that provide energy practically for free and with zero emissions?

 

[perseus]

Why build a coal plant when we can build wind turbine generators that provide energy practically for free and with zero emissions?

Because it isn't for free, there is the cost of construction, maintenance and replacement of the turbines and infrastructure. However, the main cost is back up for when the wind doesn't blow and this is expensive and doesn't save anything during this period. Coal in contrast is reliable and dirt cheap (if you ignore the long term environmental cost), you just dig it out of the ground.

 

[perseus]

any rise in sea level isn't going to be that significant. If it does happen, places that are basically a few inches above sea level would be at risk but the Himalayas will still be the Himalayas. Also, this is another thing that people can't really seem to prove. Temperatures are going up a bit but the sea level doesn't seem to be changing enough for anyone to be absolutely sure.

I doubt if it will be significant in our lifetime however, the small rise in combination with stronger tropical storms will cause problems for the Gulf coast. The main short term problem will storm damage, water shortage and food supply, particularly in the tropics. No doubt more wars will result.

Over 100 years the latest estimates are of the order of a metre so parts of Florida and the Mississippi basin will be threatened. However, property prices could propagate back in time since is a piece of land worth anything that will be underwater in a century? Over the longer term say 200 to 500 years the Greenland ice sheet alone would raise levels by 7 metres so you can say goodbye to many coastal cities. Ultimately we may be talking about 100 metres.

Of course the US will have to let in all the Mexicans due to water shortages and the UK will let all the Bangladesh's in due to flooding won't we Del Boy? :wink: Far better than cutting back carbon emissions!

Don't think this will happen fast? be aware that the North pole could be free of Summer sea ice within a few decades, perhaps sooner, thankfully sea ice as opposed the land glaciers doesn't raise sea levels. It just reflects the suns rays which are absorbed instead, resulting in faster melting of the glaciers.

 

[The Other Guy]

Because it isn't for free, there is the cost of construction, maintenance and replacement of the turbines and infrastructure. However, the main cost is back up for when the wind doesn't blow and this is expensive and doesn't save anything during this period. Coal in contrast is reliable and dirt cheap (if you ignore the long term environmental cost), you just dig it out of the ground.

Not as easy as it used to be... lots of companies have resorted to strip mining, tearing up much of the Appalachian Mountains.

 

[Chukpike]

Not as easy as it used to be... lots of companies have resorted to strip mining, tearing up much of the Appalachian Mountains.

Actually, I think stripping mining is the easiest way to mine. Although it might be harder on the environment.

 

[Damien435]

Because it isn't for free, there is the cost of construction, maintenance and replacement of the turbines and infrastructure. However, the main cost is back up for when the wind doesn't blow and this is expensive and doesn't save anything during this period. Coal in contrast is reliable and dirt cheap (if you ignore the long term environmental cost), you just dig it out of the ground.

And building new coal fired plants is free? Construction, maintenance and infrastructure are all costs that would be incurred with either option, but coal also needs to be mined, transported and then treated to decrease emissions, wind turbines merely harness a source of energy that was there already.

 

[A Can of Man]

Perseus, you're assuming that it's man made.
Also, although the tropics may have issues with farming, the overall area on the earth you could actually farm on would increase significantly simply because there's more land in the northern hemisphere as opposed to the tropical rain belt.

 

[perseus]

Perseus, you're assuming that it's man made.
Also, although the tropics may have issues with farming, the overall area on the earth you could actually farm on would increase significantly simply because there's more land in the northern hemisphere as opposed to the tropical rain belt.

I am not assuming anything, I go off the evidence.

The rapid rise in temperature points over the past century strongly points to a man made influence of some kind whether it be carbon, aircraft trails or deforestation. The known effect of greenhouse gases (by definition) absorbing infra red radiation from the ground simply confirms this.

There are other confirmations. 3 decades ago before much of the rise had occurred a group of military scientists nicknamed the Jason's were hired to predict the effect of future greenhouse gases. Without the use of modern computers and data they concluded the sort of global rise we now see with an accelerated warming at the poles (an astonishing correct prediction). Climate scientists rather pissed off with not being consulted reanalysed the calculations and came up with exactly the same conclusions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4690900.ece

With regard to food you could be correct since large areas of Canada and Russia could be made suitable for growing food (assuming you chop down the forest). Increasing temperatures increases rain overall. However, some areas will be stricken with drought and population increases will demand more water. These population increases aren't in Canada or Russia but equatorial regions. Therefore I say again who is willing to subsidise these people or bring them into the temperate countries if temperatures and life becomes unbearable?

 

[A Can of Man]

"The rapid rise in temperature points over the past century strongly points to a man made influence of some kind whether it be carbon, aircraft trails or deforestation. The known effect of greenhouse gases (by definition) absorbing infra red radiation from the ground simply confirms this."

I think we've discussed this one to death about a thousand times already.

Demand for water... if you increase the temperature, you will have more evaporation. Sure, as air temperature rises so does its ability to hold moisture, but in the ITCZ the air rises and cools anyway. If anything, you'll have more water. It'll be up to them to manage it.
The equitorial countries with their population booms will have to figure a way to reduce it. If they can't adjust to the changes the world undergoes, it's not up to us to baby feed them every solution. Like the AIDS epidemic. Wear the damned rubber. Apparently that's asking too much.

 

[Damien435]

But instead of seeing rain showers through summer, places like Canada and Russia where so much new land will be available will see longer, dryer growing seasons with the "extra" rain coming in the form of severe storms during the spring and fall.

 

[The Other Guy]

Actually, I think stripping mining is the easiest way to mine. Although it might be harder on the environment.

Might? It's destroying the floodplains in the Appalachians; while it is the easiest way to access coal, it destroys the scenery and fills valleys with muddy sludge and floodwater that drains off the mountains. And in many cases the workers used in the strip mines aren't local; they're shipped in from Tennessee or Georgia or Mississippi or the Carolinas because they're cheaper. So it's not like it's being done by the people who live there.

 

[Chukpike]

Might? It's destroying the floodplains in the Appalachians; while it is the easiest way to access coal, it destroys the scenery and fills valleys with muddy sludge and floodwater that drains off the mountains. And in many cases the workers used in the strip mines aren't local; they're shipped in from Tennessee or Georgia or Mississippi or the Carolinas because they're cheaper. So it's not like it's being done by the people who live there.

Not local? Suggest you look at a map to see the range of the Appalachians. They are still American workers from poverty stricken areas. And your statement and my response was about the ease of mining. Not the environmental cost. By the way I am not against improving or maintaining the environment. I am against environmentalist who cry foul and do not offer alternatives.

They are against wind. Kills birds and might block their view.
They are against solar. Don't want new transmission lines from the areas like the California desert with plentiful sun.
No new dams for hydroelectric power. Might kill a fish.
No nuclear power plants. Possible mushroom clouds.
Pretty much against any kind of energy.

So if you are really environmentally concerned, unplug your computer, turn out your lights and don't waste energy replying to this post.:smile:

 

[tomtom22]

I still like Ted's assessment of this.

 

[The Other Guy]

Not local? Suggest you look at a map to see the range of the Appalachians. They are still American workers from poverty stricken areas. And your statement and my response was about the ease of mining. Not the environmental cost. By the way I am not against improving or maintaining the environment. I am against environmentalist who cry foul and do not offer alternatives.

They are against wind. Kills birds and might block their view.
They are against solar. Don't want new transmission lines from the areas like the California desert with plentiful sun.
No new dams for hydroelectric power. Might kill a fish.
No nuclear power plants. Possible mushroom clouds.
Pretty much against any kind of energy.

So if you are really environmentally concerned, unplug your computer, turn out your lights and don't waste energy replying to this post.:smile:

I'm for wind and solar. Don't stereotype.

I'm not big on hydroelectric but any of the above is better than coal.

 

[Chukpike]

I'm for wind and solar. Don't stereotype.

I'm not big on hydroelectric but any of the above is better than coal.

Do not see where I stereotyped. Environmentalist in California just fought a long battle in California to stop transmission lines from an area solar power companies wanted to build plants. Without a guarantee from the Power companies for the transmission lines, the solar plants would never be built.

Lots of people are pro environment as long as it does not effect their lives or cost them more money. I know green power will cost more, and am willing to pay more and conserve where I can. I would say I am in the minority.

We as a population are not to bright. We complain about high cost of gasoline when it is $4.00 a gallon as we buy bottled water at $1.29 for 16 ounces. That's $10.32 a gallon, and we have the cleanest water system in the world right out of the tap.

 

[Partisan]

Partisan, any rise in sea level isn't going to be that significant. If it does happen, places that are basically a few inches above sea level would be at risk but the Himalayas will still be the Himalayas. Also, this is another thing that people can't really seem to prove. Temperatures are going up a bit but the sea level doesn't seem to be changing enough for anyone to be absolutely sure.

13th - you've got that right, but just once I'd like to ahead of the game, knowing my luck the ice from the Himalayas will come crashing down on my Shangri La. That said there is definitely some evidence of sea levels rising, for the Pacific islands and even some parts of the eastern US seaboard. I don't think that we're on for Waterworld, but I'm always trying to make sure that I live on a hill!

 

[perseus]

The security implications of climate change may also be of some interest here:

The Military Advisory Board, a panel of retired U.S. generals and admirals released a report entitled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." The report predicts that global warming will have security implications, in particular serving as a "threat multiplier" in already volatile regions. Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett argues that "An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict, such as migratory pressures and competition for resources." And several weeks earlier, U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NB) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced a bill in the U.S. Congress that would require federal intelligence agencies to collaborate on a National Intelligence Estimate to evaluate the security challenges presented by climate change.

In November 2007, two Washington think tanks, the established Center for Strategic and International Studies and the newer Center for a New American Security, published a report analysing the worldwide security implications of three different global warming scenarios. The report considers three different scenarios, two over a roughly 30 year perspective and one covering the time up to 2100. Its general results include:

"There is a lack of rigorously tested data or reliable modeling to determine with any sense of certainty the ultimate path and pace of temperature increase or sea level rise associated with climate change in the decades ahead", "most scientific predictions in the overall arena of climate change over the last two decades, when compared with ultimate outcomes, have been consistently below what has actually transpired" and "this tendency should provide some context when examining current predictions of future climate parameters".

"A few countries may benefit from climate change in the short term, but there will be no "winners...While growing seasons might lengthen in some areas, or frozen seaways might open to new maritime traffic in others, the negative offsetting consequences -- such as a collapse of ocean systems and their fisheries -- could easily negate any perceived local or national advantages."

"Perhaps the most worrisome problems associated with rising temperatures and sea levels are from large-scale migrations of people -- both inside nations and across existing national borders. "
"Poor and underdeveloped areas are likely to have fewer resources and less stamina to deal with climate change -- in even its very modest and early manifestations."

"The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming