Another global warming thread

#2
#2
i'm sick of global warming, its freezing outside, i thought we were goin to burn up and die
 
#5
#5
Don't you understand, cold weather is caused by global warming!

Ice caps melting.....hello!

:eek:hmy:
 
#10
#10
I understand the underlying concepts behind the fear of global warming... and the uncertainty that leads some to say (as is what this this article is doing IMO) that the human impact on CO2 levels and the resuling impact is unknown or not a problem. But...I really don't know the details...so New Year's resolution...I'm going to try to figure some out.

Unfortunately Prof. Lindzen is not a teacher of the course, but I am going to take a course this semester called Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy. It is offered by the co-directors of the institute's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Climate Change, Professors Prinn (atmospheric sciences) and Jacoby (Sloan School of Management - economics and policy). So, I hope that it gives me a better picture of the debate. I wish that Lindzen were a part of the class so that I could hear his $.02 as well....but that's not how they roll I guess.

It should be a good course though...I'm looking forward to it.
 
#11
#11
TennTradition said:
I understand the underlying concepts behind the fear of global warming... and the uncertainty that leads some to say (as is what this this article is doing IMO) that the human impact on CO2 levels and the resuling impact is unknown or not a problem. But...I really don't know the details...so New Year's resolution...I'm going to try to figure some out.

Unfortunately Prof. Lindzen is not a teacher of the course, but I am going to take a course this semester called Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy. It is offered by the co-directors of the institute's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Climate Change, Professors Prinn (atmospheric sciences) and Jacoby (Sloan School of Management - economics and policy). So, I hope that it gives me a better picture of the debate. I wish that Lindzen were a part of the class so that I could hear his $.02 as well....but that's not how they roll I guess.

It should be a good course though...I'm looking forward to it.
Click to expand...

OK...so the class finally met this week - and I'm pretty excited about it. Professor Prinn reviewed portions of the IPCC 2007 report (the portions detailing recommendations for policy makers). General comments were:

1) Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750

2) There is very high confidence (i.e., >95%) that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [0.6 to 2.4] W/m^2.

3) Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. At contintental, regional, and ocean basic scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed.

4) Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change: diurnal temperature range, antarctic sea ice extent, antarctice atmospheric temperatures, meridional overturning circulation of the global ocean, tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms (Professor Prinn noted that the lack of warming in the Anarctic is the most confusing....especially when compared to the Arctic)

5) Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (i.e., >90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

6) Analysis of climate models together with constraints from observations enables an assessed likely (i.e., >67% confidence) range of 2 to 4.6 celcuius degrees to be given for climate sensitivity for the first time.

7) Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centruies due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabliized.
 
#12
#12
I wanted to break this up...because the earlier post was getting a bit long. Prof. Prinn mentioned that there are some pretty interesting finding in the meat of the science in the new IPCC report, but he couldn't talk about those until May when the full report is issued.

He did discuss a little about how the IPCC assesments are generated...some information that I didn't know. There are no IPCC staff-scientists who conduct the research. They rely on the works of order~100 lead authors (he is one of these 100) who are publishing in peer reviewed journals about climate world-wide. Not only are these articles reviewed for the journal but there is a cutoff date such that all these articles have been open to debate for some time...with solicitations for response sent out by IPCC and author's replies to those responses...basically until the science is thoroughly vetted.

Also...he mentioned one other interesting point. When the IPCC issued their 1995 Global Climate Change assesment, it was said for the first time that their were "discernable" impact of humans on climate. Professor Prinn noted that many scientists (he and other many leading dynamic climatologists) who felt that there was not enough evidence to make that claim. He said the models were not that good, assumptions unjustified, and to make that conclusion was a stretch. After class, I asked him how he felt about that today...and he said there was no doubt about the issue of attribution any more (and by the time he was on board....pretty much everyone was because he approached the issue with a very scientifically skeptical eye). I asked him about the global concensus on that...and he said that there would only be one scientist in the world that he could think of that would still argue against antrhopogenic attribution ... and he wouldn't name him..but he did say that he was a member of his department....which made me laugh..it had to be Professor Lindzen who was discussed in the article that started this thread (sounds like he is pretty lonely these days).

He mentioned that we would discuss Lindzen's research some throughout the course - which I am looking forward to. Hopefully we will get to see some of the science on both sides.....and hopefully I can come to a more complete understanding of these issues.

Sorry for the long replies....I just wanted to post a follow-up.
 
#16
#16
volinbham said:
Sounds like an interesting class.
Click to expand...

I think that it will be a very good class. I was a little worried that it might be a lot of one-sided political mumbo-jumbo. But, after looking at the nature of our future homework, it is pretty science-based with policy questions about the science. Professor Prinn brings the natural science into it and Professor Jacoby will offer a lot to the social sciences..particularly economics..and this is certainly an economic issue.

Our course-reader is crazy-loaded with a lot of the lead authors' works as well as general information pieces in works such as the Economist..so I think that for no reason other than the huge amount of information distilled into the reader, I should learn a lot. Thank goodness they are supplementing the cost of the reader with Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change money, or I would be absolutely broke!!
 
#18
#18
TennTradition said:
I think that it will be a very good class. I was a little worried that it might be a lot of one-sided political mumbo-jumbo. But, after looking at the nature of our future homework, it is pretty science-based with policy questions about the science. Professor Prinn brings the natural science into it and Professor Jacoby will offer a lot to the social sciences..particularly economics..and this is certainly an economic issue.

Our course-reader is crazy-loaded with a lot of the lead authors' works as well as general information pieces in works such as the Economist..so I think that for no reason other than the huge amount of information distilled into the reader, I should learn a lot. Thank goodness they are supplementing the cost of the reader with Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change money, or I would be absolutely broke!!
Click to expand...

Just think of all the trees destroyed for those reading materials - trees that could have converted carbon dioxide to oxygen :)
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
Just think of all the trees destroyed for those reading materials - trees that could have converted carbon dioxide to oxygen :)
Click to expand...

it's true ... BUT ... if we assume that those trees were planted prior to Kyoto...then by getting rid of those and planting new trees in their place, we can count that toward our CO2 credit without arguing for inclusion of pre-existing forests into Kyoto (Article 3.4 of Kyoto, in fact, as I learned yesterday). That saves us further negotiation time, fewer plane trips, and therefore less GHG emission. These course readers could just save the world. :p
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top