Did anyone mention the weather was REAL REAL BAD in the Middle Ages?

You speak with such authority on the "inevitablility" and "wasting resources." On what basis do you make these statements. I can tell you that the top experts in the field are debating what is inevitable and what can still be prevented. Adaption is definitely something we need to consider, but we ALSO need to stop making the same mistakes that are creating the problem. We can't ignore that we CONTINUE to add to the problem, inevitable or not.

I just want to know how you can speak with more authority than the likes of Jim Hansen and other top researchers in climatology?

(My wife is a climatologist who knows Jim Hansan, by the way. So my discussing what the experts are saying comes right from the top institutions in the country).

I do not disbelieve that global climate change is occurring.
I do not disbelieve that human activity has an effect on this process.
I strongly support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and the development of environment-friendly energy sources.

I DO believe that to some degree this is a natural, and hence inevitable process, and that spending the vast majority of resources on stopping it is shortsighted.

I would very much like to see that we spend at least SOME of the resources on fixing some of the obvious problems (like substandard levees, an energy system that relies almost entirely on refineries located on vulnerable coastlines, nonexistent or poorly designed evacuation plans, etc, etc).

The point is, I am NOT an authority. I am, however, an individual who chooses to explore an issue beyond what mainstream media presents.
My main complaint is not with the scientists and researchers, but with the representation of their research by mainstream media. This phenomena is not limited to global warming, by the way.

Didn't mean to be too challenging, but you can imagine how frustrating it can be to hear the real insider talk and then hear non-experts discuss it.

There is definitely a chance that there is a natural component to warming. However, there is little clear evidence of that. There is, however, a much clearer correlation with human activity. All aspects of the phenomenon are unprecedented in the geological record when the time scale is taken into account. No natural phenomenon has happened so quickly barring things like comet strikes which, of course, are far faster. The rate of change is staggering and it matches very closely human activity.

My point is not to convince you of what you are largely already convinced of, but to point out that natural phenomena don't behave this way...though SOME natural component can't be ruled out. But the human caused aspect seems dominant. I wrote something about how unprecedented things are and how well correlated they are with human activities here.

I don't argue that we need to adapt. But many things we do to adapt would also help mitigate warming. Also, without mitigating what we are doing, our adaption will have to be running to keep ahead of an accelerating process (acording to most, though not all, models). Also, many things we can do to EITHER adapt or mitigate could be done in a way that our economy benefits. The right wing myth of "economy or environment" has been one of the most desructive myths they have come up with. We need to stop thinking in those terms and think economy AND environment.

By the way, if you want to see what the real scientists are saying, they discuss all this on Real Climate.

There is some sort of insecurity driven need to over emphasize agreement to one's own personal position. With all due respect, Mr. Gore likes to use the word "ALL" a little too often when making his case too.

I can't see why folks need to discredit an imagined differing view point if 100% agreement isn't assumed. Funny that in a lot of cases more agreement than guessed is just beneath the surface, but jumping to conclusions prohibited any real opportunity for "productive" discussion.

I was fortunate enough to learn from a "Real" insider that the climate in Antarctica cooling over all, and separately research shows the land based ice pack there is growing. This "Real Insider" information is fresh as of 12 months ago, of course "WE ALL" need to be willing to modify our understanding as "NEW" information "comes to light". I find it amusing that few of the "REAL" insiders seem to mention that if EVERY non-land based ice shelf at both the North and South Poles melt tomorrow, there will be more or less ZERO impact on sea level as they are already floating. We would of course have to have an informed conversation about ocean salinity and temperature stratification and potential impacts on weather and climate. I also find it amusing that the "REAL" insiders never mention the ratio of land based ice mass of Antarctica to everywhere else. It would be amusing if "ALL" the information was presented by the mainstream media so regular folks had a chance to participate in the conversation from an informed point of view instead of from non-science based media slide-shows with very little cited reference material.

I also find it amusing the Vinyl Siding Industries are still doing so well, given the history of climate change and the significant changes we already see.

One way to "pick up on a debaters" position strength is to see how fast they resort to insult, use of over the top "hype" type words, and use alignment with peers as validation methods, instead of just calmly staying focused on the material at hand.

(Welcome to your first day or two in the community Teach, and thank you for sharing your opinions and observations).

You are behind.

There has been not one single peer reviewed scientific paper that contradicts the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Not one.

The top scientists in the field say that about 95% of climatologists agree.

Local cooling is part of pretty much every model of global warming, though details vary. The average increase is undisputed.

One of the top ten scientific discoveries of this year according to Science is that the combined Greenland and Antarctic ice packs are losing ice to the ocean. That is important because unlike the break up of the ice shelfs which you cite, loss of ice pack to the ocean causes a rise in sea level. It is also a further progress in warming. Your claim that the kinds of scientists I cite don't discuss the ice shelf vs. ice pack and the previous (now no longer true) growth of ice pack overall indicates that you have not visited "Real Science" and aren't familiar with Jim Hansen. All these things are FREQUENTLY discussed by scientists. So what is your problem with the broad consensus of scientists I cite?

Many claims against anthropogenic global warming are based on old or false information, such as "not too long ago climatologists predicted an ice age," "scientists are still divided," "warming is caused by the eruption of Pinatubo (a Rush Limbaugh lie), and "mars is also undergoing warming so it can't be caused by humans." These all are false or used in a very misleading way, but remain circulated by the mainstream media and right wing sources.

You are talking as if I am not talking about real insiders. Given that I indicate who I am taling about (people at CUNY, GISS, NASA, Columbia are among them), I find that very interesting. You seem to be the one resorting to implication that somehow I am citing non-real scientists. And you cite the "aluminum siding" industry? Well I can cite the insurance industry, ski industry and the endangered Vermont Maple Syrup industry which are all VERY concerned with warming. But when you get right down to it it is the peer reviewed science that is telling us what is going on. And not one paper contradicting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal. That and the numbers are the bottom line, not the aluminum siding industry or local deviations.

If every piece I've ever written and every comment I've ever made is reviewed I don't think anyone will find that I suggest our fossil fuel activities in the last 150 years have not had an impact on climate change. So have clear cutting the broad leaf and pine forests of North Amercia, so have cutting down the rainforests in South America (and other places), so have building dams and flooding massive pieces of real estate on pretty much all the continents, and hundreds of other verifieable devasting consequances of our manipulations to the ecosystem all around the world.

Let's talk about the potential atmospheric consequances of the Argus experiments in 1958?

Show me ONE peer reviwed study that indicates ANYTHING we do will have a benefical impact on where we can expect our weather and climate to go in the comming humdred years?

If we had that kind of certainty about how well our predictions will hold up in the coming decades and given the historic documented social vulnerability to agriculture, food supply, shipping, and social stability then why are we not evacuating the major cities of NYC, Hong Kong and countless other seaside population centers?

It seems the logic falls flat at that point.

The relationship of amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temp is well established over some 650,000 years. We are adding considerably to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are seeing the expected temperature increase. To continue to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will clearly continue the trend while cutting our input will mitigate the problem. There are many peer reviewed papers that support this hypothesis. In a lot of ways all of this is simple physics. Where is the logical/scientific flaw in that?

As far as logic dictating political policy, where have you been? When has clear logic and science directly led to policy? New Oreleans would have had working levees if that had been the case. So I see your last paragraph as being out of touch with reality.

Now again, let me be clear that adaption is important as well...and often goes along with mitigation. But you seemed to (in your comment) be challenging the consensus model, inpugning the consensus itself and suggesting that global warming in general wasn't happening. I pointed out that your statement about local cooling was in line with many models and your statement about the Antarctic ice sheet growing is out of date. So I was directly addressing what sure seemed like inacuracies in what seemed like a denial arguement.

Many changes are needed. Denying the need for mitigation of our dumb practices and focusing predominantly on adapting seems very short sighted because eventually you will run out of time to adapt. Both are needed.

That's a lengthy essay speaking from a defensive posture with almost no relevance to anything I wrote, it seems more personal agenda validation driven. I might wonder how much of what I've written in recent years you are aware of (may I suggest very little) ?

Folks who earn a living analyzing data and applying statistical analysis understand the danger of jumping to conclusions with severely limited data points.

I used the term "real" to indicate that I too spoke to a real scientist, my comment FE Antarctica climate temperature trend is based on this meeting. You are not the sole beneficiary of these contacts. I might also suggest your statement "I am behind the times" is a grossly inadequate analysis of the state of my awareness of this conversation, based I might add on one step short of zero knowledge of my qualifications, experience or efforts to learn about the various interrelated issues we all face in this important area.

In reviewing my comment, I can't find where I spoke of the Aluminum Siding or Maple Syrup industries. You might clarify what "industry" references I cited because I can't find them. I might also ask what relevance Rush Limbaugh has to my comment as I didn't quote him, nor do I listen to him for that matter.

I do think OSB and vinyl siding is sadly lacking to protect the contents of a home during a high wind, hurricane, or tornado event. I also expect we will have more and more of increasingly strong severe weather events. It isnt the wind that hurst people, its what the wind is carrying.

As you indicate contacts in the Climate Modeling and Prediction business, I would like to know the extent of your knowledge or research about how much geothermal activity from the Mid Atlantic ridge, or the Pacific, or for that matter, and geothermal activity beneath the various continental ice packs has in not only the ocean currents but also the climate modeling?

My original comment was to someone else's comment regarding the inevitability and anthropogenic component of global warming not a comment directed at your diary. You then came in, which is reasonable in your diary, but it seems like my response to you was directly appropriate to what you said to me.

As to qualifications, I am judging based on what you say in this diary. You provide little indication of your qualifications. I provided precicely what I was basing my comments on and the fact that a very recent issue of Science highlights an earlier contradiction (or at least considerable modification) to your comment does indicate that you are behind on things.

Now, once again, you were the one who started the "real" challenge. So, why not start again, state your main point and what specifically you are basing it on and we can go from there. But questioning the broad consensus or questioning the "real" apsect of scientists like Jim Hansen won't convince me of anything.

My objection is to your rudely and abusively attacking someone who had a positive comment to make RE a historical reference I shared. In fact you seem to even attack her right to have an opinion about it if it doesnt agree with yours Your follow up comments to mine seem to make a lot of assertions and reference to things found nowhere in my comment(s). It seems more like you're running a canned pro "CO2 causes Global Warming agenda" of (which I didn't particularly challenge anyway), rather than speaking to subject matter on the table.

First off, my intention was never to be rude. I challenged what seemed like an assertion by 'Tude that things are inevitable and we are powerless to mitigate warming. I think that is fair since she seemed to be making an assertion of certainty in an area where there is no certainty among experts. I feel like she responded reasonably and all was fine. If I did indeed come off too challenging perhaps it is because I have dealt with too many members of the Denial Lobby, including some who turned out to be connected to the coal industry. I may have a hair trigger. I apologize to 'Tude if I came off too abrupt and challenging.

As to my responses to you, I directly responded to things you said in your comment to me that seemed out of date or overly stated. Again, if I came off too hard I apologize. But you did seem to be mixing claims of supporting the conensus view with claims that were outdated that challenge the consensus view. And you seemed to imply that I (and, for that matter, most scientists in the field) were ignoring the complexities like initial growth of ice sheets prior to shrinkage. I feel mostly I directly addressed things you said in your comments, separate from the initial diary.

Notice that my initial comment indicated disagreement among experts on the inevitability and the degree of natural components. I also throughout agreed that adaption is something to be considered AS WELL AS mitigation. Most of what I have said was addressing the seeming claim that came up in the comments (and you stab at that same point in another diary) that mitigation is worthless and we should merely adapt. I am sure your real views are more nuanced than that, but that isn't the impression I got from your writing.

I saw this tonight - from an academic blog "authority" of law-economics.

Thoughts anyone?

I should add that I am taking no position here on the other usual questions about global warming. I do not know if it is happening, although it seems likely enough. I do not know if, if it is happening, it is due to human action, although that again seems a plausible enough guess. And it is not all clear to me that, if it happens, it will be a bad thing, let alone a catastrophe.

The crucial fact for me is that . . . the next century is sufficiently uncertain so that it makes little sense to take expensive precautions against risks that far off. By the time the risk arrives, if it arrives, we may have already wiped outselves out in some other way. If we have not wiped ourselves out, our lives may have changed in a way that eliminates or even reverses the problem. . .

All of these are reasons why I think a persuasive case for doing something about global warming requires evidence, not yet available, of serious negative effects in the fairly near future. But that conclusion does not depend on whether whatever is happening to the climate is or is not our fault.

Thanks for shifting the tone of the first part of this discussion.

First, for the benefit of everyone who has an interest in this conversation (in some way, all of us), I have no beef with any of the suggestions that "we" are causing changes to our Weather / Climate via fossil fuel use (just to clear that up).

I have my doubts whether we have any certainty if it's 25, 50, or 75 percent of changes we are seeing every day. The comment "the physics are easy" falls down when you consider we can't predict the weather next week, or NOAA botched the 2006 hurricane season outlook QUITE BADLY.

The second part of that is its irrelevant anyway. We need to clean up our acts for lots of reasons, none of which I have ANY faith will make any difference for the world our children and grandchildren experience from a view toward weather and climate, agriculture and water resources, power generation and availability, etc etc on and on.

I'm not a fatalist, just a realist.

For that matter my "pointed comments above" were more directed at what I took as the suggestion someone had to have "authority to have an opinion in the matter" or "voice that opinion" that's not my view of how it is.

In the absence of open and safe dialogue - we're all doomed anyway for dozens of different reasons, anyone can review the free speech sections of the US Constitution / Bill of Rights and get back with me if they think different.

As far as what I actually think in the matter, in detail, I have over 600 essays posted on my MySpace page with easily 1/2 of them specific to what I think about Earth / environment science, weather and climate, environmental systems engineering, with a little bit on "Life on this Earth" tossed in for good measure (I'm building to a conclusion one of these days).

As far as the quote you summarize above, it seems VERY MUCH like a voice of reason to me.

Just for fun, a little trivia - China is bringing on-line one new fossil fuel electric plant per week, every week, and procuring nuclear generating plants as fast as they can order them too. Not to mention procurring gas and oil contracts with Russia, Middle Eastern suppliers and Venezuela (he who can pay, can buy).

Kyoto is a Joke. Our lunch is being eaten and we foolishly think other folks in the world will play fair in the event of a crisis?

As far as my overall position RE this extremely complicated conversation, this post was intended to be a start of what I hope becomes a lengthy exploration of the issues.

There are NO simple answers to any of it, but hopefully we can all share and learn something from each other.

I guarantee folks will hear see and explore things very few politicians talk about in public.

I have to run for now, but just for fun it would be cool if folks would explore the latent loads on air condition in the South and Southwest, with even a few degrees background air temp increase F - and the resultant EXTRA load on an already stretched thin National Electric Grid,

For research, www.gridwise.org

(I guess that was a hello intro to CultureKitchen)

Thank you for the question.

duplicate comment deleted.