Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by TheLastMan:
What worries me about all these graphs of temperature are the fact that they use "temperature anomolies" rather than the actual temperature. The anomolies range from -1 deg C to +1 deg C. Plot these on a graph with a vertical scale of -1 to +1 and, of course, the changes look dramatic.
It took me a lot of digging around but it turns out that the base for most of these graphs is the average temperature between 1951 - 1980 (NASA). This average was 14 deg C. According to NASA in 2006 there was a temperature anomoly of 0.54 deg. This compares with an anomoly of -0.25 deg C in 1886.
Thats right - although research published by the Hadley Centre usuage a slightly different reference period for its average baseline -- between 1961 and 1990. There are perfectly good reasons why climate scientists plot temperature changes in terms of temperature anomaly. Here's a good explanation: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2006/12/12/clearing-the-air/Temperature anomaly is the difference between the temperature and its average over some “reference period”; climate scientists generally analyze temperature anomaly rather than temperature. Why? Suppose there are two temperature recording stations in the same cornfield, but one of them is six feet off the ground while the other is elevated 50 feet in the air. They will record different temperatures! But generally they will indicate the same anomaly, i.e., when one says it’s hotter or colder than yesterday so will the other. By taking the difference between individual measurements and averages from the same station over a reference period, we separate the changes (which is what we’re really interested in) from the location-specific conditions. Also, anomalies are defined as the difference between temperature and the average for the same date, so we can remove the seasonal variation (unless of course we want to study the seasonal variation). There are two principal “keepers of the thermometer,” the Hadley Center/Climate Research Unit (HadCRU) in England, associated with the U.K. meteorological office and the University of East Anglia, and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), part of NASA. Temperature anomaly in HadCRU data is defined relative to a reference period 1961-1990, while that in GISS data use the 1951-1980 averages to define anomaly. Global average temperature anomaly is defined as the area-weighted average of temperature anomaly over the entire globe. This is what you’ll see plotted in almost all graphs related to global warming in news and other media reports. “Area-weighted” means that each input to the average is weighted proportional to the size (area of earth’s surface) it represents. It’s area-weighted for two reasons. First, we don’t want small areas with lots of meteorological stations to dominate the global average. Without area weighting, the U.S. (and to a lesser degree, Europe) would dominate the world average simply because we have so many meteorological records. Second, area-weighting gives the closest approximation to the total thermal energy in the lower-atmosphere climate system. quote: Now if you plot temperatures ranging from 13.75 up to 14.54 degrees on a chart with a range from, say, 0 - 15, then the whole thing looks a lot less alarming.
What you seem to be saying is, "so, it's gotten 0.54 degrees warmer in the past 30-odd years? Big deal! It's nothing; why worry?!" But tiny changes in the global *average* temperature can have big effects on weather patterns; we are already seeing serious effects. For instance: 1. Progressive, annual decrease in averge polar ice extent and thinning of the polar ice cap and retreat (or disappearance) of glaciers worldwide. 2. Migration of species habitat, most dramatically the burgeoning of invasive species in northern regions where they used to be killed off by winter freezing (like the pine beetle that has destroyed millions of acres of pine forest in regions which no longer have enough “killing frosts” to eliminate them). 3. Dramatic increase in wildfires (e.g., in Australia and the western U.S.A.) 4. Dramatic increase in the severity of heat waves. The European heatwave of 2003, which killed 30,000 people, was statistically a “5-sigma” event, which means that if climate had not warmed, the chance of its happening naturally is less than one in a million. 5. Large-scale bleaching of coral reefs 6. Melting of permafrost in Canada and Siberia Given these established effects of a global average temperature increase of just .54 degrees, the prospect of an increase of 3-6 degrees over the next century is obviously, very serious. quote: It also should be noted that temperatures rose from 13.75 in 1886 to 14 in 1936, a 50 year period of relatively little CO2 emissions compared with today. So it is obviously quite possible for temperatures to rise at a rate of 0.25% every 50 years by natural means unconnected with CO2 emissions.
This isn't disputed by climatologists. No one thinks CO2 emissions are the ONLY cause of temperature variations; there are a number of other factors. The early-20th century warming is associated with several such factors; a period of unusually LOW volcanic activity (hence a lower-than-average concentration of cooling aerosols) a fairly small increase in solar irradiance and steadily rising emissions of greenhouse gases. The mid-century levelling off is readily explained by the effect of human aerosol emissions (e.g., NOx, S02 etc.), canceling the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Then in the 1970s, aerosol emissions were restricted because of other problems they were causing (notably, acid rain) -- and temperatures started climbing again. What could be causing that? NOT rising solar activity, which hasn't shown a significant increase over this period. A 1991 paper by Friis-Christensen (who was interviewed in "Swindle") suggested that it had; but this has been shown to be riddled with arithmetical errors; his graph is just wrong. Friis-Cristensen has regularly repeated his claims to skeptical audiences, without mentioning the fact that they've been discredited in the literature. (See Damon, Paul E.; Paul Laut (28 September 2004). " Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data". Eos 85 (39): 370-374 Volcanic activity over the past 20 years is no longer unusually low... So the only plausible explanation that remains is that greenhouse gases have now reached levels where they dominate other factors.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TheHeretic:
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
TheHeretic, I'm a bit puzzled by the tag-line you keep signing off with. Maybe you can help me with it? You say "free-thinking doesn't just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good..." so I suppose you have something else in mind that free-thinking also is (and have decided not to let on)? But then you go on to tell us that your first option of what free-thinking is, isn't in fact thinking at all! Are you trying to say that there is no thought in free-thinking? ... and perhaps if we want to think at all it has to be un-free thinking - or, in other words, imprisoned thinking? And then you bring in choosing to 'feel good', by which I suppose you mean wanting pleasure? So, maybe your tag-line would better express your beliefs if it went: *When I think of what gives me pleasure I'm not thinking because I only want to think of what doesn't give me pleasure - which is thinking but in an un-free way* Any use? |
| |
|
|
... on second (free) thoughts, that's a bit long. Lets shorten it to:
*I only think about miserable things*
I think that's it in a nut-shell.
|
| |
|
|
I understand it perfectly. Whenever there is a contentious issue, whether political, social, religious, or now, oddly, scientific, the vast majority of people will latch onto whatever position makes them feel good, regardless of the evidence against it or the clear self-interests of its promoters. If we needed another example of this phenomenon, other than the re-election of George Bush, this global warming forum has provided admirably.
Character consists of doing the right thing even when the right thing is the more difficult option, and it is always the more difficult option.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elfuente:
I understand it perfectly. Whenever there is a contentious issue, whether political, social, religious, or now, oddly, scientific, the vast majority of people will latch onto whatever position makes them feel good, regardless of the evidence against it or the clear self-interests of its promoters. If we needed another example of this phenomenon, other than the re-election of George Bush, this global warming forum has provided admirably.
Character consists of doing the right thing even when the right thing is the more difficult option, and it is always the more difficult option.
Thanks for clearing that one up Elfuente - I'm on-message now. Roger58 * Free-thinking is ignoring your own ideas and agreeing with elfuente * |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by XbodhiX: Hi Heretic, Nice to see that you are having more success with this post than with the one in: http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/4290079457 in which you said quote: I HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP. I UTTERLY HATE AND DESPISE CENSORSHIP. What I call for is honesty and balance.
I have not seen much "balance" in your opinions so far. It looks very much one-sided to me.
Hi XbodhiX, I think debates should be balanced; we should look at the issues from all sides, and weigh the various arguments fairly. However, that doesnt mean we're can't come to the conclusion that one side is wrong and the other is right. Suppose the debate were between people who think the earth is flat, and those who say its spherical. If I were to say, "I can see there are good arguments on both sides... so I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle!" -- would you consider me balanced? quote: I do believe that global warming can/will have catastrophic consequences. Yes sea levels will keep rising and there is little that we can do. But that is exactly the thing, there is little that we “can” do, we cannot stop the earth from warming. It has done so before and it will do so again.
And I’m open for the idea that we contribute to this effect but some people seem to believe that we can significantly decrease the speed in which the earth is warming and that’s something I do not believe. The earth will keep warming and it will even do so without us on the planet.
No doubt it's comforting to believe that there's nothing we can do... no responsibility, no hard decisions! But you don't give any argument to back up your comprehensive rejection of climate science -- which tells us that there is much we can do. Greenhouse gases DO make a difference; we need to stop the present reckless growth of emissions, which is evidently driving global warming. quote: I’ve seen Al Gore’s take on the issue and now watched WagTV’s take on it and I have to say that I’m much closer to the latter. And both “documentaries” have fundamental flaws.
So, you can just take your pick, depending on which view makes you feel better? I prefer to try and figure out which is closest to the truth. quote: I think it’s proven time and time again that graphs are only as reliable as the source they come from and everybody can make their own view clear with their own take of the data provided and creating a graph that is tuned to their view.
What proves that? Another graph? This is a retreat into relativism. What you're saying is, this: "Everything is open to doubt and distortion, therefore everything is equally doubtful - and equally credible. There's no rational way of distinguishing good science from bad science; so I can choose to believe without giving any reasons." quote: All this doesn’t mean that we should not try to limit the amount of CO2 that “we” pump in to the air, the smaller the amount the better. But I just have not seen the science yet to proof that we play a big role in all of this.
If you really want to to know the truth, the science is out there - it isn't hard to find. quote: I would love to see this much attention going to the issue of water-pollution.
In my opinion an issue in which man’s contribution is much more severe than global warming.
No doubt WagTV could make a film using some very convincing graphs to suggest that water pollution is an insignificant threat, which has been "used" and exaggerated by those scary environmentalists for their evil purposes... Then, you might find out that the nice sounding "Water Environment Federation" used to be called the "Federation of Sewage Works Associations" -- and their primary business is selling the industrial/agribusiness benefits of sewage sludge, or, as they now prefer to call it, "biosolids." The environmentalists would show you their own graphs, sourced from academic ecologists -- indicating that water pollution is a very serious issue. But as you say, people create graphs to prove whatever they want, so how can we decide? Answer: we have to use our brains: examine the evidence carefully and figure out who's explanation best fits the facts.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
* Free-thinking is ignoring your own ideas and agreeing with elfuente *
You could do a lot worse. But I never mentioned agreeing with me. I am promoting using your own brain, and not listening to totally unqualified people espouse or reject what even they don't understand. Remember when we used to turn to scientists for understanding of issues like this? I wonder what happened to that. But now a question: Just how direct has your own own involvement in the scientific study of global warming been? If "not very" is your honest answer, then I assume you must be repeating somebody else's ideas. How did you choose that person? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elfuente:
Just how direct has your own own involvement in the scientific study of global warming been? If "not very" is your honest answer, then I assume you must be repeating somebody else's ideas. How did you choose that person?
This inquiry is open to everyone. Don't be shy! |
| |
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elfuente: I understand it perfectly. Whenever there is a contentious issue, whether political, social, religious, or now, oddly, scientific, the vast majority of people will latch onto whatever position makes them feel good, regardless of the evidence against it or the clear self-interests of its promoters. If we needed another example of this phenomenon, other than the re-election of George Bush, this global warming forum has provided admirably.QUOTE] Thanks elfuente. Couldn't have put it better myself.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
|
| |
|
|
Heretics United!
I'll be interested to see how many people here accept my last question(s). I have wondered just how many climatologists have been writing here. There is one physical chemist whose comments have been very enlightening.
|
| |
|
|
I have worked with models but not on scientific development, so I've learnt my understanding of climate science by osmosis from a lot of people some of whom I know very well. I'm a physicist, and a trained scientist, so I can use my experience to spot a rubbish argument (and I'm not talking about you lot  ) and know what questions to ask. I've used my own knowledge to evaluate anti-AGW sites, which is why I distrust them, and I've read a smallish amount of original research, again to confirm my general understanding. A couple of times I've made direct quotes from associates, but have said when I have done so. |
| |
|
|
So you know them well. I'm not discounting the importance of that. If we know someone well we should be able to take his/her word that the information given to us has been fairly and rigorously vetted and represents learned understanding.
But among these folks, are there any Nobel laureates? Do they get invited to present papers at the major conferences? Do they have tenure on prestigious faculties? Do they get paid a lot for their opinions, perhaps by the private sector looking to make a profit? (Now those folks don't want any public-consensus science, that's for sure!) Or do they work with people who have any such lofty credentials?
As a physicist, you know better than most people that there is no 100% solution to any problem. Why do you suppose that so many people are witholding judgement, or even actively opposing the majority of the world's climate scientists, until they get absolute certainty? Surely you agree that this is a misguided approach.
|
| |
|
|
quote: But among these folks, are there any Nobel laureates? Do they get invited to present papers at the major conferences? Do they have tenure on prestigious faculties? Do they get paid a lot for their opinions, perhaps by the private sector looking to make a profit? (Now those folks don't want any public-consensus science, that's for sure!) Or do they work with people who have any such lofty credentials?
My friends work for one of the top climate research organisations in the world, some of them get papers published in Nature, and their colleagues are IPCC drafting authors. Is that good enough? They don't get paid a lot, and are content with their status. quote: As a physicist, you know better than most people that there is no 100% solution to any problem. Why do you suppose that so many people are witholding judgement, or even actively opposing the majority of the world's climate scientists, until they get absolute certainty? Surely you agree that this is a misguided approach.
I think Nigel Calder made some crack on the programme about how he'd met scientists who were certain that black holes could not exist, and how they'd been proved wrong. But he seems to forget that into the late 70s and early 80s these folk stuck to their guns while the evidence built up. As a young researcher, I was on a course run by Prof Mike Disney of Cardiff who was one of these people. But really he was a professional contrarian. He gave us an entertaining lecture "proving" that quasars could be created without the existence of a black hole (which consensus thought was essential), and told us never to believe the consensus view without thinking for ourselves. So maybe such people enjoy being stubborn and notorious. I think the Swindle programme maybe had some people like this (such as the medieval warming guy, or John Christy). Some of the contributers are paid by the denier industry to promote denier arguments, and others (not only Wunsch) were probably quoted wildly out of context. That's a gut feeling though. |
| |
|
|
quote: Given these established effects of a global average temperature increase of just .54 degrees, the prospect of an increase of 3-6 degrees over the next century is obviously, very serious.
But this is my very point. I just simply don't believe models that show a 3-6 degree rise over the next century given that temperatures have only risen 0.54 degrees in the last 70 years and, in fact, only 0.19 degrees of that cannot be explained by a natural warming trend anyway. Remember that the temperature rose 0.25 degrees in a time period when there was little change in CO2 levels. Just to put you right on one point, the models used by the IPCC showed a range of 1-6 degrees. I don't dispute the problems associated with global warming, they are very serious. What I find hard to believe is that so much of this is down to our emissions of CO2 and that we are going to see rises in temperature of anything like the magnitude suggested. I fully understand the need to use temperature anomolies for scientific reasons, but I do not agree with the way these anomolies are shown in graphs with vertiginous upward curves where the change is actually not that far removed from the already apparent natural upward trend in temperatures. I agree that the comparison of percentage increases in CO2 levels with degrees of change in temperature is fraught with misconceptions. But the way it is often portrayed that global warming is down to our increase in fossil fuels then one might assume that an increase of 33% in the supposed main driver of global warming over the last 70 years has had such little effect in absolute terms so far. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elfuente: quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
* Free-thinking is ignoring your own ideas and agreeing with elfuente *
You could do a lot worse. But I never mentioned agreeing with me. I am promoting using your own brain, and not listening to totally unqualified people espouse or reject what even they don't understand. Remember when we used to turn to scientists for understanding of issues like this? I wonder what happened to that. But now a question: Just how direct has your own own involvement in the scientific study of global warming been? If "not very" is your honest answer, then I assume you must be repeating somebody else's ideas. How did you choose that person?
Elfuente, I'm pleased to see my thoughts about thinking inspired you - and awoke your curiosity. I have no direct or indirect involvement in the scientific study of GW. Neither am I repeating anyone's ideas but my own. It's called 'reflection' - you should try it some time and then maybe your posts would be less spoiled with tired clichés. I saw the GGWS programme and it inspired me, then I came here looking to be convinced by the pro-AGW argument. I've learned a lot here and understand the current scientific situation behind it. But nothing I've heard has shifted my scepticism - in fact it's only increased it... and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has increased the scepticism of many people who've visited here and read the messages. I know any 'reflection' on here is often jumped on as 'paranoia' (yet another one of those tired old clichés), but, on reflection, I've experienced very little genuine thinking going on at all here - just the science wrapped up in that incessant parroting other people's ideas. Oh - and that 'E' word (cliché number 3)... Education! It always makes me smile when I see pro-AGWers huffing that the great-unwashed will all become non-questioning fellow collaborators in saving the world once they have been... EDUCATED! - which of course really means indoctrinated and intimidated into auto-reguritating the same formulaic dogma as they do. I'll choose my own education thanks very much - and, as I say, I've learned a lot on here. The way I see it is - the scientists are holding a tiny thimbleful of real, genuine knowledge about the climate... and claiming it's the ocean! There's far, far more to discover, and then maybe we can navigate global warming wisely and without it being prematurely hijacked for political gain (by ANY side of the spectrum... including YOURS!). BTW: I didn't mean to be mean to TheHeretic - just wondering if he is aware of how paradoxically Conformist he is in his views. Still, I guess he's young, so why not? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: quote: Originally posted by elfuente: quote: Originally posted by Roger58:
* Free-thinking is ignoring your own ideas and agreeing with elfuente *
You could do a lot worse. But I never mentioned agreeing with me. I am promoting using your own brain, and not listening to totally unqualified people espouse or reject what even they don't understand. Remember when we used to turn to scientists for understanding of issues like this? I wonder what happened to that. But now a question: Just how direct has your own own involvement in the scientific study of global warming been? If "not very" is your honest answer, then I assume you must be repeating somebody else's ideas. How did you choose that person?
Elfuente, I'm pleased to see my thoughts about thinking inspired you - and awoke your curiosity. I have no direct or indirect involvement in the scientific study of GW. Neither am I repeating anyone's ideas but my own. It's called 'reflection' - you should try it some time and then maybe your posts would be less spoiled with tired clichés. I saw the GGWS programme and it inspired me, then I came here looking to be convinced by the pro-AGW argument. I've learned a lot here and understand the current scientific situation behind it. But nothing I've heard has shifted my scepticism - in fact it's only increased it... and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has increased the scepticism of many people who've visited here and read the messages. I know any 'reflection' on here is often jumped on as 'paranoia' (yet another one of those tired old clichés), but, on reflection, I've experienced very little genuine thinking going on at all here - just the science wrapped up in that incessant parroting other people's ideas. Oh - and that 'E' word (cliché number 3)... Education! It always makes me smile when I see pro-AGWers huffing that the great-unwashed will all become non-questioning fellow collaborators in saving the world once they have been... EDUCATED! - which of course really means indoctrinated and intimidated into auto-reguritating the same formulaic dogma as they do. I'll choose my own education thanks very much - and, as I say, I've learned a lot on here. The way I see it is - the scientists are holding a tiny thimbleful of real, genuine knowledge about the climate... and claiming it's the ocean! There's far, far more to discover, and then maybe we can navigate global warming wisely and without it being prematurely hijacked for political gain (by ANY side of the spectrum... including YOURS!). BTW: I didn't mean to be mean to TheHeretic - just wondering if he is aware of how paradoxically Conformist he is in his views. Still, I guess he's young, so why not?
I'm not familiar with this usage of "reflection". I can see how you might have chosen to believe the people that you reflected. Would it be possible for you to reference the work of their organization without compromising their privacy? I'd like to read what they have to say. But as you reflect their ideas, are you certain that you are following all of the rules of scientific investigation? And once you have reflected these ideas and made them into your own ideas, did they change in any ways that might put them at odds with your friends' ideas? I'm not making fun. I'd seriously like to hear this from somebody so close to firsthand research. Could you please point out my tired cliches? I have written here about the rules of scientific investigation. I am interested to understand how a problem concerning nature (which is what science is all about) could put so many people in conflict with a great many of the world's most accomplished scientists. Nobel laureates, tenured professors from the most prestgious universities, even some government scientists who have nothing to gain by accurately reporting their findings. How could they become the "enemy" in a public discussion of a subject in which they are so highly distinguished. And skepticism? One of the most important attributes of a good scientist. Really good scientists are vigilant about staying skeptical about their own work. Albert Einstein once said that he would consider his life's work a failure if all of his ideas were not eventually replaced by something better. All knowledge is tentative, pending further observations. A person claiming to be doing science without that rule in the front of his/her mind is finished before starting. There is no 100%. And education? I am an educator. I have taught 6th-12th grade science (primarily biology) in public schools, and I have taught in small colleges, and now I sit at home and write curriculum books. You'd be amazed at how many young adults, not to mention adolescents that I have encountered who had never been told that they should brush their teeth, or how to take care of a small wound, or anything about nutrition. If they auto-regurgitate the formulaic dogma that I taught them about such things for the rest of their lives, much has been gained. Also regarding education: Any person who becomes really knowledgeable about any subject or really good at doing anything is necessarily self-taught. Formal education is just the beginning. By itself, it means very little, at least for around ten years after graduation. At that point, every bit of knowledge that means anything to you has been learned on one's own. I'll close with a tired cliche. "If you don't trust scientists, or if you don't have any basis for evaluating their advice, why not set up your next surgery, should surgery ever be needed, with your auto mechanic or hair stylist?" |
| |
|
|
On the graphs that showed the CO2 rise lagging by 800 years after the temperature had risen; why didn't the positive feedbacks we are told we should expect from extra CO2 drive temperatures even higher instead of it falling back?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TheLastMan:
But this is my very point. I just simply don't believe models that show a 3-6 degree rise over the next century given that temperatures have only risen 0.54 degrees in the last 70 years and, in fact, only 0.19 degrees of that cannot be explained by a natural warming trend anyway. Remember that the temperature rose 0.25 degrees in a time period when there was little change in CO2 levels.
Just to put you right on one point, the models used by the IPCC showed a range of 1-6 degrees.
I'm aware of that; it's the upper range that alarms me the most, for obvious reasons. The reason why I take the models seriously is that they predict the current warming. If I'd seen these models in 1990 and placed bets on the 90s being the warmest decade on record, I'd have made a fortune! Furthermore, if you re-run the model with no increase in CO2 while keeping other factors (solar activity etc.) constant, the temperature curve flattens out. This tells us, unequivocally, that rising CO2 levels have been the dominant factor in the recent warming trend. Now that we've observed this temperature rise, it's clear that the models are, broadly speaking, on the right lines. Indeed, if anything, they've been shown to be too conservative; it seems that we're warming up a little *faster* than most of the models predicted. Obviously, climate models are far from perfect and there are all kinds of ways that researchers have been trying to improve them to take account of subtleties, feedback effects and local variations etc. but this gives us reasonable grounds for taking the model's predictions seriously. And what they predict is substantial temperature rises over the next 50-100 years -- if greenhouse gas levels continue to rise unabated. Futhermore, there are a number of positive feedback mechanisms which are not currently included in the climate models referenced by IPCC. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor would have a catastrophic warming effect. Methane is around 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than to CO2. Factor that into climate models and you get much higher temperature rises, in the region of 10 to 15 degrees over the next 100 years. What is not known for sure is how hot it needs to get before these methane sinks start to exhale. Estimates vary. Some have even suggested that we have already passed the tipping point; we're heading for catastrophe, and curbing emissions will make no difference. I think this alarmist position is unwarranted; the experts tend to be more conservative, suggesting that widespread release of methane will not take place until the global temperature rises by about 3-4 degrees. Perhaps they're right, but I hope its much higher than that. And whatever the tipping point is, I hope we don't get to find out -- by failing to curb emissions now.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
|
| |
|
|
quote: I know any 'reflection' on here is often jumped on as 'paranoia' (yet another one of those tired old clichés), but, on reflection, I've experienced very little genuine thinking going on at all here - just the science wrapped up in that incessant parroting other people's ideas. Oh - and that 'E' word (cliché number 3)... Education! It always makes me smile when I see pro-AGWers huffing that the great-unwashed will all become non-
| |
