Climate can be a pain in the ass to blog because most of the time it amounts to this or that news item reinforcing what most of us already know. People who understand the science more or less agree that dumping carbon into the atmosphere has the effect of warming the Earth. When reports come out underlining some new development sensible people will shrug their shoulders because we’ve been doing what we can do already. One more report of melting glaciers, or warmer minimum nighttime temperatures (a very important statistic) or an ice-free arctic sea won’t make us vote or donate any more than we already are. The “skeptics” (actual skepticism, as opposed to “skepticism,” implies a degree of open-mindedness that I don’t think fits here) will find some excuse to quibble. The major networks will predictably settle the dispute by giving equal time to some expert with impeccable credentials, and Michael Crichton. Surprise, people who don’t have the training to tell right from retarded figure that the problem is still up in the air when it’s not.
Democratic governments have a particular problem with climate because you can’t convince people that you have a problem until it’s already begun to manifest itself. By that point dealing with the problem has become prohibitively expensive, and it keeps getting more expensive the longer you wait. Even in the best of cases a sensible solution runs up against inertia, uncertainty and interested parties playing defense. Needless to say, this isn’t the best of cases. You can’t deal with a problem when your government is made up of “skeptics” determined to deny the problem by thumbing the scales.
Some folks have talked about an approaching tipping point, roughly ten years off, beyond which we can’t do a thing to forestall change. In my view that’s a simplistic assessment. Does anybody seriously think that we can shut off our carbon emissions in the space of a year? Of course not. Even in the best of cases any sort of change has a significant lead time over which it has to happen, e.g. ‘inertia.’ Taking inertia into account, and disregarding for a moment interested parties playing defense, I’d say that a ten-year window for total change is simply ridiculous. If a climatological tipping point is ten years out then sociologically-speaking we’ve already passed it.
With that out of the way, the latest climate bombshell features Greenland’s ice cap:
Greenland’s glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, the result of a warming trend that renders obsolete predictions of how quickly Earth’s oceans will rise over the next century, scientists said yesterday.
The new data come from satellite imagery and give fresh urgency to worries about the role of human activity in global warming. The Greenland data are mirrored by findings from Bolivia to the Himalayas, scientists said, noting that rising sea levels threaten widespread flooding and severe storm damage in low-lying areas worldwide.
James Hansen, the expert that NASA tried to stifle, comments in The Independent.
Our Nasa scientists have measured this in Greenland. And once these ice streams start moving, their influence stretches right to the interior of the ice sheet. Building an ice sheet takes a long time, because it is limited by snowfall. But destroying it can be explosively rapid.
How fast can this go? Right now, I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years – that is five metres in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.
How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.
Keep your eye out for similar reports from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). Unlike the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS), which is what Crichton is talking about when he simplistically declares that Antarctica’s “glaciers are growing,” climate models suggest that the WAIS could start sliding into the sea much more rapidly than it is now.
On the topic of government scale-thumbing the editor of Science has some choice words as well. I would only add that if the Deutsch-Hansen debacle set a high-water mark for beaurocratic stupidity, it won’t last. When it comes to making government run stupid these guys are pros.
***Update***
Am I too harsh on climate skeptics? There’s no question that I have a low opinion of folks on the other side of some “scientific” debates. During my training I’ve tangled with both creationists and climate skeptics, and both experiences have left me with the very unpleasant impression of dishonest people who intentionally confuse straightforward science for the purposes of a disguised agenda. That isn’t to say that people who doubt either field of science are necessarily dishonest, but rather that there exist well-organized and privately-funded enterprises to feed and manipulate that doubt. You can be sure that the Discovery Institute has literally dozens of well-funded parallels in the climate field. Of course environmentalist groups have their own axe to grind, and god knows they can manipulate science when it suits their interests. That shouldn’t discount science as ‘liberal’ or wrong when results fall disproportionately on the environmentalists’ side. We’re only allowed one set of facts, and the act of thumbing the scales (see above) is an excellent sign that you’re on the wrong side of them.
Lines
At least Canada will be farmable, since they’ve mowed all their tree’s down.
On the other side: Ann Coulter says its cold in New York, so there can’t be any global warming.
Andrew
While I’ll readily concede that I do not understand all of the science surrounding the global warming debate, I find it amusing that your cite for proof (understanding that you have doubtless laid out more detailed rationales at other times) is nothing more than the statement “People who understand the science more or less agree that dumping carbon into the atmosphere has the effect of warming the Earth.” In normal argumentation, this is known as ‘begging the question,’ as you have eliminated any possibility that skepticism is even warranted by asserting that people who understand know it’s happening, therefore implying that if one does not agree in the anthropogenic global warming model, it must be because you don’t understand the science. It is this debate style that contributes to my own skepticism on global warming. While the logic of the underlying model seems logical enough at a very simple level, the repeated insistence by those who already believe that global warming is anthropogenic that skepticism indicates either willful ignorance or political intrasigence suggests to me a certain lack of confidence in the underlying science. If the science is, in fact, sound, then legitimate skepticism will only help to buttress the data through more strenuous testing. And no amount of testing will help convince those who are emotionally invested in the belief global warming is either not occurring or is not anthropogenic (note the number of Marxists on university faculties for an example of this).
I point this out only to note that, if your goal is truly to convince rather than preach, that beginning your argument by stating that those who oppose your point of view ‘don’t understand the science’ is likely to turn off many readers who might otherwise consider your argument on the merits.
As a side note, I’d be curious what you think of the article in today’s TCS regarding the reports of glacial melting in Greenland.
SeesThroughIt
As you’re sort of hitting at, Tim, a big part of the problem is that science is bumping up against democracy, and perhaps the biggest flaw in democracy is that it matters not one bit whether you are right. The only thing that matters is that you get enough people to back you. That’s it. So, we have the vast majority of the scientific community warning us about a very real, very serious problem that will affect the entire planet. The opposition says, “Liberal indoctrinators! Liars! You just hate big business and, by extension, America!”
And guess what? The opposition–which has nary a shred of evidence, not that it offers any–is winning. This is what happens when you keep the populace fairly ignorant and demonize science as “un-Christian” and all this other bullshit our current administration does. It’s sad that these retards would drag the rest of us down with them, but that’s the situation we’re stuck in.
Tim F.
Andrew,
I can also beg the question by declaring that the Earth rotates counterclockwise when viewed from the North Pole without showing proof. It’s just as much a logical fallacy, and just as much a no-brainer in terms of the viability of contrary theories.
SeesThroughIt
This is true, but it’s also idealized. Remember, we currently live in a nation wherein Ann Coulter saying, “It’s cold in New York, so how can there be global warming?” is seen as legitimate skepticism–or even proof that global warming is “a hoax”–by many people. Lines was just making a joke, but the joke, ultiamtely, is on all of us in such a situation.
Andrew
Tim,
Got it. You’re not interested in convincing anyone, you just want to preach to the choir. That was all I was curious about.
Lines
Umm, Andrew, if you look at the TCS home page and one of their lead articles is “How to Get Condi Into Power” I think you are looking at a fairly partisan website that will go to any lengths to challenge science that doesn’t agree with their pre-made conclusions, no matter how many fancy numbers you throw at it.
Snow pack and early ice accumulation contain far less water than glacier pack, which I didn’t see taken into account in their challenges.
In short, I have no reason to EVER believe a thing that TCS puts out, and I would tend to side with any scientist that they disagree with.
Tim F.
Regarding TCS, these guys are what I’m talking about when I say ‘interested parties.’ Over an article about climate science you find…a blurb by Rannesh Ponnuru. Gosh, I wonder what angle they’re going to take. TCS has reliably misrepresented data to push their anti-environmentalist angle for years now.
For example they make the significant mistake (convenient for them) of assuming that the ‘ice’ that accumulates on the top of glaciers is the same density as what calves into the ocean. It’s not. The stuff that accumulates on the top of glaciers is snow, which takes a considerable time to compact down to become the stuff on the bottom.
Don Surber
One-third of North America was covered in ice 10,000 years ago
If those Neanderthals had not had SUVs, think of all the snow forts we could build
You need to work on that cause-effect thing, Tim
Don Surber
By the way, and this is not name calling but rather the consequence of science over democracy is — way, way, way down the line — fascism
Tim F.
I had a bet with myself about how long it would take a wingnut to whip out that strawman. One hour and four minutes…unders win!
Thomas
Wow Don, that’s brilliant. Nobody with a Phd in climatology ever heard of the ice age before. You just blew a hole straight through an entire field.
Andrew
Lines,
I am aware of TCS’s ideological bias, but if I’m going to start discounting everyone because of ideological bias, I’ll have a hard time finding anyone I can believe. Scientists who subscribe to the anthropogenic warming thesis come to the table with their own biases and preconceived notions. Can I dismiss them if I discover that they’re publishing their claims in known left-leaning publications? By your logic, I suspect a bit of research would allow me to dismiss everyone on both sides of the argument, which might reduce the amount of data I have to wade through, but would not move me any closer to getting to the facts. When I’m reading something, whether it is in TCS or the Nation or any other publication, the question I want answered is are the facts accurately laid out and what data is missing that might affect the conclusions. Tim’s note regarding ice density is helpful, because it points out an area that the TCS article failed to take into account, just as the TCS article pointed to data the original study failed to take into account.
It’s easy enough to dismiss an argument by deciding that it is tainted by the source, but that’s not critical thinking, it’s just a more extreme form of confirmation bias.
Tim F.
Refer back to, ‘interested parties.’ If you have to turn to National Review-approved sources for your science then you’re not looking to be ‘convinced.’ The natural-cycles crowd ranks up there with the hidden-planet theorists in terms of scientific credibility. But they can put a bunch of pretty graphs together, which is more than sufficient for the purposes of muddying the waters.
Here’s a useful test: tell me whether you think that James Hansen has an ideological agenda.
Lines
I read the original article with much less knowledge than Tim about climetology and I picked up on the density issue immediately, noted it above. Then I wondered “why did they leave out water density” and started looking through the site.
I had no idea they were partisan hacks until I found the homepage.
And I also assume that you would lend the label of “liberal” to any publication that challenged your viewpoints, therefore putting you firmly in the partisan camp. I tend to look for scientists where they are unclouded by political siding and just publishing information where it can be read. Not looking for publications that seek out people to write columns that agree with pre-conceived ideologies, which is what TCS is doing.
Hey, is that Hansen over there talking to the press? Better run off and shut him up!
Tim F.
Update: I should add that it’s perfectly fair to cite TCS and ask what’s wrong with their analysis. If I can’t find a flaw then I probably don’t know as much as I thought I did (which isn’t hard), or they might be right. My beef is that they’ve fudged their work before so I’m highly skeptical of anything new from them.
Lines
Tim, you’re more forgiving than I. I see their intentional deletion of snow-pack water density to be nothing more than willful misdirection in order to support an earlier work that they had agreed with. This is the type of pseudo-science that this administration is paying for with billions of grant dollars while real research studies across the US are drying up due to funding issues.
I want “scientists” like this to be driven from the profession and left to dry up on the side of the road.
kenB
Andrew, I have a question for you: assuming that you’re not a climatologist yourself, how would one go about convincing you? Obviously there are scientists in the field who hold opposing views on this question, and no doubt each camp has counter-arguments for all of the others’ arguments. Are you of the opinion that a layperson ought to be able to examine all the arguments on each side and come to a reasonable conclusion on his/her own? In my experience, laypeople tend to overestimate how capable they are of evaluating a scientific debate on the merits when they lack the appropriate background.
So, in a nonscientific forum such as this one, the debate necessarily turns less on the actual arguments and more on the perceived credibility of the sources, and questions of credibility are inevitably bound together with one’s biases and preconceptions. Which means that it’s extremely unlikely that TimF will be able to convince anyone who wasn’t already inclined to agree with him, no matter how many arguments he presents or links to.
mitch
This back and forth of who to believe is the whole problem – who has an agenda, who has the most accurate science, who is funding whom, etc, makes a rational discussion about this subject impossible.
Andrew
This is scientist Andrew speaking, not the TCS quoting know-nothing Andrew.
Read the following:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
On one side we have IPCC, AMS, AGU, AAAS, and NASA.
On the other we have Michael Crichton.
This is such a tough issue to decide!
Kav
Andrew, skepticism is a wonderful thing. I was a skeptic where man-made climate change was concerned. I thought that solar variations could explain all of the variations in temperature we were observing, the one draw back is that we did not have a reliable mechanism that linked the two sufficiently – we needed a way of boosting the energy input from the sun, some magnifying aspect, for some of the ideas or some way of explaining the energy transfer from the high thermosphere down through the stratosphere to the troposhpere. Cloud seeding by cosmic rays is one possibility, but one that is highly debated and still unrefined. Increases in the solar constant at certaing wavelengths are another. Large scale planetary waves in the ionosphere/thermosphere are another possible mechanism. But do you know what? At our best estimates at the moment these cannot make up the changes we see between them; there is another factor that we need to consider.
Quite frankly much of the evidence for man-made global warming is firming up everyday and the problem is that it is happening on a backdrop of increased energy input from the sun such that we are deviating from the cycles that so many point to as evidence that man has nothing to do with it. I have debated climate change ‘skeptics’ who switch tack from ‘it can be all explained by the sun’ to ‘it isn’t happening at all’. Suddenly they decide that the evidence that they were willing to pin on the sun just doesn’t exist anymore. That does not suggest true skepticism.
But I digress. I have to wonder why, if they have done such a good job of debunking the latest story whether Dr. Michaels has written this up properly and submitted it to Science, or Nature or JGR, or GRL or any other journal? Perhaps we should email him and ask.
I should note that if it came to me for peer review I would send it back and ask him to consider density differences throughout the glacier and ask him to show me numbers.
Also, at the risk of rambling, has anyone got any ideas (beyond Crichton) as to why all of us liberal scientists are so desperate for the world to believe us on climate change? What is our motivation, as I for one have no idea what my nefarious scheme is and I would quite like to know so that I get it right. Otherwsie, it could get embarrasing.
Andrew
Ken,
I concur that it will be difficult at best to convince people of something like global warming because it is such a complex subject. (For the record, I am not a climatologist, just a CDAT.) But my own suspicions are raised when people begin arguments with a statement that the science is settled when it is unlikely weather science is going to be settled in a matter of years due to the complexity involved. As I said, the basic concept of global warming seems sound to me, but there are so many other factors involved that to suggest that we can be certain of anything is to ignore everything we know about science.
How to convince me? I’m not really sure; at this point, I’m not sure that I can be convinced in either direction at this point. From what I have seen, it seems to me that each side of the debate is cherry-picking data in order to support the conclusion they favor (although, to Tim’s credit, I do not see any evidence of that in his case). I have no doubt that I may be overestimating my ability to weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion, but what else am I to go by? It seems that my options are to try to weigh the raw data as best I can to determine a conclusion, or throw up my hands and pick a favorite side and assume their conclusions are correct. As you note, there are scientists on each side of the debate, and without examining their arguments, I’m at a loss for how to decide which side is correct.
I concur that Tim is unlikely to convince anyone who has already decided, and perhaps it’s unlikely that he can convince anyone at all, since the amount of data is so large and the issue complex enough that nobody without an inordinate amount of time on their hands can wade through it all. The only objection I had was to Tim’s assertion that those who understand the science know that anthropogenic warming is occurring. That strikes me as an overly facile means of eliminating one’s critics: if someone is skeptical, it’s because they don’t understand the science, QED. In my case, that may well be true, but as someone who really isn’t sure where the facts are with global warming, it strikes me as unnecessarily dismissive of the argument.
mitch
My question for the folks who believe that anthropogenic activities impact the earth’s atmosphere to the point of cataclysm is this: How can you be certain of your data, when as Kav stated “… the problem is that it is happening on a backdrop of increased energy input from the sun such that we are deviating from the cycles that so many point to as evidence that man has nothing to do with it….”?
And given that most who believe the man-caused model, also appear to explicitly or at minimus, implicitly, advocate behavioral changes primarily government imposed, what concern do you have about the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Lines
Kav:
look at it this way, if we’re wrong about Global Warming and we only cause humans to be more considerate of the environment, then no harm was done and those that say this is a cyclical pattern are correct, but the earth is cleaner anyway.
If we don’t try to stop global warming, and we’re right, there may be no stopping it. We may even be too late already. The momentum of the thing may be too great for us to alter so we don’t turn our world into a barren landscape incapable of sustaining human life.
Right or wrong, we need to care for our environment better. I’d certainly like to be able to eat the fish I catch or the deer that I shoot without fear of poisons and mercury. I’d like to be able to see the sun, to not have to wear SPF45 on a cloudy day and to be able to breathe good clean air. I want this all for my children as well.
So I’ll fight every piece of junk science I find, and those that support and rely on it as well.
JWeidner
Just a question to throw out to anyone, as I don’t know the answer. Has either side managed to publish peer-reviewed and supported papers/articles?
To me, if one side consistently publishes legitimate papers, and the other is just engaged in writing up press releases to refute those papers, that says a lot about legitimacy.
But again, I don’t know enough about the published science of either side of this debate.
Thomas
Andrew, could you please give us an example of a climate scientist who is cherry-picking the data in order to show that climate change is anthropogenic?
CaseyL
Kay, it’s because we liberals hate capitalism, and GCC is nothing more than a communist plot to bring down capitalist industrialism and consumerism. Oh, and also because we liberals “love animals more than people,” which is why we get upset over trifles like drowning polar bears.
Really, you need to start coming to the secret meetings more often. That’s where the updated agendas get handed out.
Andrew
Read the following:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Andrew
Kav,
I have no interest in impugning the motives of the scientists who believe that anthropogenic warming is the correct explanation for the phenomonon we are observing. I think it is quite possible that it is the correct answer. I’m just curious enough that when I read various articles, I like to see actual debunking, rather than the argument that it’s wrong because the source is Michael Crichton or TCS or whatever. As I noted above, anyone can decide that they’re going to dismiss a particular source, but I’m not convinced that advances the argument. Contrariwise, I suspect that Ken and Mitch are ultimately correct, and that this issue is not going to be decided by science because it’s too complex for people to easily grasp.
I did not cite the TCS article because I was looking to debunk the Greenland question, I was simply asking Tim what his perspective on it was, since he seems to have some good knowledge in this area. And I concur that I would be curious to see what difference the density question would make (although I am also curious to see if he was accurate in his claim that the original article failed to take the glacier growth into account at all; even accounting for differences in density, am I wrong in believing that the growth would change the balance of runoff into the sea?).
Of course, all this omits the far more difficult and profitable question, assuming we stipulate that global warming is anthropogenic, what is the next step?
Andrew
Lines,
I’m not convinced that it’s as simple as you believe. Assuming that global warming is caused (or exacerbated) by human carbon emissions, shutting those emissions down to a level necessary to prevent the warming could conceivably cause more human suffering than global warming. Where are we going to get our power from if we eliminate fossil fuel usage (and how are we going to convince India and China to eliminate fossil fuel usage when it seems that even the nations that support the relatively mild Kyoto protocols aren’t going to achieve their goals)? I’m willing to stipulate that human activities are having an effect on global climate, but the solution to that problem seems to me to be somewhat more complex than simply improving the environment.
Thomas,
No, nor did I intend to refer to climate scientists. When I referred to both sides, I was referring to lay people who believe/disbelieve that global warming is anthropogenic. On the other hand, I suspect that given the large number of scientists there are in the world, it would not be impossible to find examples on both side of the divide cherry-picking data to support their hypothesis.
stickler
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
TM Lutas
As others have alluded, there is an alternative theory, that we’re undergoing solar warming. If there was, in fact, solar warming, you’d expect that the warming would also occur on other planets and our recent martain probes would have picked up a warming trent. Oh look, they did.
This doesn’t debunk the idea that global climate change is occuring and is human forced. It does put to rest that the science is settled and that there’s no actual controversy at all. Martian warming is pretty well known so not including that data does constitute cherry picking on the part of the anthropogenic warming model advocates when looked at fairly.
Lines – You’ve (no doubt innocently) said something so pernicious that it has to get debunked, and hard. Any cure for global warming is not going to be cost free. That’s just fairy tale economics.
By using up resources to sequester carbon, minimize methane production, and make all the economic and social adjustments necessary to actually create a measurable change according to current anthropogenic warming models, the world economy (optimistically)will take a hit of between 1-2 percent off of trend. That may sound like a small sacrifice and for the already rich, it might not be too bad. Unfortunately, at the margin, that moves the line between “barely making it” and “dead” in favor of enlarging the number of the dead each year, and by a significant degreee.
Even for the rich, it takes our three percent growth trend and turns it to 1-2 percent. The EU’s 1.5% growth trend goes essentially to zero and may turn negative. Stagnation and long-term economic retrenchment are what revolutions are made of if such trends persist for decades. More death, upheaval and destruction to contemplate.
Civilizations that do not grow and progress end up stagnating and regressing. Seriously fighting anthropogenic climate change makes the latter much more likely across the globe. The gain must outweigh the pain or we’re just better off in socking money away for adjusting to the consequences of the warming and letting the warming happen.
Lines
TM Lutas: I’m saying that waiting longer will increase the costs. Changing the trend earlier will be less costly over the long run. There are studies out there, and I don’t have time right now to find them and link them, but its more of an understanding. Stopping a bullet at the target is difficult, where changing the direction of the bullet at the source can be much easier.
And I’m not trying to be snarkish on Cheney with that.
Andrew
Lines,
Your analysis assumes that we have to stop global warming. That isn’t necessarily the case. It may be less expensive to live with the changes. Of course, that’s opening another scientific can of worms to pour on top of the current debate, but if we’re going to make an informed decision about our response, it seems that it’s an analysis that has to be performed.
TheRobot
On the question of whether Science is compatible with Democracy…
As a scientist (a grad student), I certainly think it is as long as politics is kept out of science and people are educated enough to be able to tell what is good science and what is rubbish funced by special interest groups. That is the real problem here – our education system does not focus on science (does it focus on anything at this point?). Out of all the graduate students in my department here only about 5% are American which is pathetic since we’re supposed to be the world’s leader in science. And on top of that you have looneys who want to teach the next generation of Americans that the world is 10,000 years old.
OCSteve
No one has yet shown me anything different is going on now than what has gone on in cycles for millennia. Here is a simple one. Forget about cycles many thousands of years ago. We have kept climate records for a couple of hundred years. So show me evidence that the Industrial Revolution – when factories all over Western Europe and America were burning primarily coal – changed the climate. Show me how WWII with entire cities burnt and a couple of nukes throwing crap high into the atmosphere changed the climate. Then show me how in the last century as we moved to cleaner sources of power, cleaner emissions for cars and factories, how the impact declined or reversed.
So I do tend to think a lot of it is hype, design to promote environmentalist causes. With that said, I put my money where my mouth is. Most of my life’s savings is invested in ocean front property. If I’m wrong and you are right then I’ll be among the first to let you know :)
JWeidner
That assumes that we can live with the changes. I’m not sure anyone could predict what the final outcome of global warming might be. Maybe it’s manageable change. But maybe it’s a catastrophic event that causes huge swaths of the earth to become unliveable.
It’s a gamble either way you look at it. You say it’s too much of an economic gamble to attempt to change, others can say it’s too much of an environmental gamble not to.
Andrew
OCSteve,
At the risk of demonstrating my own ignorance, I suspect that the amounts of carbon being put into the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution were a pittance relative to our current output, even accounting for cleaner technologies. There were perhaps two-three(?) billion people on the planet during the Industrial Revolution, and well into the 20th Century much of the world was still preindustrial. Now with the industrialization of a much greater percentage of six billion people, the level of emissions is markedly higher even if the rate per smokestack may be greatly lower.
Andrew
JWeidner,
Actually, I said nothing of the sort. I said it may be less expensive to live with the changes, and that we need to ask that question before we make catastrophic changes to our economy. I am the first to admit that I don’t know where the smart money is on this one. I’m just suggesting that it’s a question we ought to try to answer before we can make a rational decision on how to act.
JWeidner
Andrew – my apologies. Going back through the record, I noticed that I conflated yours and TM Lutas’ posts. That wasn’t my intent.
However, I think my statement remains valid (just not pointed in your direction).
OCSteve
Andrew:
That’s a good point. But all of those people heated and cooked with wood or coal. Trains crisscrossed the country burning coal, ships burned coal. Cooking and heating in much of the world is much cleaner today. On the other hand, now we have the automobile.
But we have the weather data for this period. Certainly 100 years of burning coal and wood for everything, private and industrial, should provide enough data to demonstrate a change if it is there.
Thomas
CO2 concentration rose from 280 parts per million to 380 ppm over the last 150 years. C02 is also a greenhouse gas, meaning that on paper, more C02 equals more heat trapped, which equals an increase in average temperature, hence climate change.
Scientists have spent the last twenty years or so figuring out what an increase in C02 does, if anything, to Earth’s climate because CO2 emissions have increased and because it is a greenhouse gas. The sceptic myth–that the direct correlation between CO2 and warming is a shot in the dark by scientists–is a direct and purposeful inversion of the elemental facts about climate change.
Wrye
It doesn’t need to be a 100-foot rise in sea level, just enough to cause global famine.
.There’s a map that shows…
what proportion of the Earth’s surface would remain suitable for agriculture if the average global temperature went up by 5 degrees C (9 degrees F). None of China is habitable (above desert population densities) except Manchuria. None of India makes it either, except the foothills of the Himalayas, and none of the United States except the Pacific Northwest.
when you put it that way, talking about growth and cars seems a little bit beside the point, arguing about property values while your house is burning down while you’re in it.
And as for the sun-warming theory, well, a significantly warmer earth could, and likely will, kill billions no matter how it happens. Arguing over cause seems to me a bit like the fat man aguing that his weight is the result of genetics, not cheeseburgers. Even if that’s 100% true and cheeseburgers have nothing to do with it, the heart attack is just as fatal, so hit the goddamn treadmill.
mitch
One biologist’s perspective – see his site for more info – http://nov55.com/gbwm.html. He is admittedly biased against the anthropogenic model and belives the proponents of that have a motive that precludes them from acknowledging what he perceives as “the truth”. Take it on face value.
++++++++++
It exists, but not due to greenhouse gases. Oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth’s core, which is the beginning of an ice age.
Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including water vapor which is a hundred times more prevalent than carbon dioxide. People don’t know this, because promoters of GW do so much lying.
The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide, though natural causes of global warming certainly can exist.
The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears.
The oceans are heating up drastically, and the atmosphere only slightly, as indicated by polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth’s core heating the oceans, not human activity.
Almost 20 thousand scientists signed a petition saying carbon dioxide is not creating global warming (http://www.oism.org/news/s49p725.htm).
Honest scientists knew from the beginning that CO2 in the atmosphere was too miniscule to create global warming, but propagandists jumped on it, and they prevailed, because corruption is prevailing in science due to lack of accountability.
Science Tutorial on Global Warming -http://nov55.com/tur.html
Thomas
That’s quite a link, Mitch. The guy’s like a super-scientist. I found out that the Mickelson-Morely experiment was wrong and there is an aetheric medium. Also, Einstein’s theories (both I guess, since he doesn’t say which) of relativity are incorrect. Who knew?
AkaDad
How can anyone think that there is even such a thing as Global Warming?
I suggest that the vast majority of peer reviewed scientists, get out of your factual evidence bubble, and start listeng to the small minority of unbiased, corporate funded scientists, who obviously have Americas interest at heart. Its astonishing to think that corporations would put their profits and short term interests before our best interests. Its frustrating for people to play the blame game and attack corporations, for the extinction of certain animal species, when theres overwhelming evidence, that those rougue species commited mass animal suicide, and those people ignore the evidence to this day.
Lets say that its all true, then I welcome global warming, because of the many benefits that comes with it. I hate shoveling snow because it takes a major toll on my back, and I suspect that many others like myself, have to suffer through this as well. Think of all the preventable back injuries global warming stops. Global warming will also prevent another ice age, which rarely gets mentioned. I can think of many more examples if I bothered to make em up, but I’m convinced I made a persuavive air tight case which makes that redundant.
All you global warming pessimists, need to look at the potentially wonderful aspects of global warming, and work with it, instead of fighting it.
mitch
Well, I said take it on face value. However, he does raise some interesting points. And that is the problem with the debate – everyone, and I mean everyone, has an agenda
Wrye
In the same way that the seatbelt lobby had an agenda of reducing traffic fatalities, I suppose…which is to say that not all agendas are created equal.
skip
At least I am sitting pretty. Rush promised us that Global Warming was pinko BS, and, thanks to him, I have my huge styrofoam compost heap in the back yard.
Bring ’em— or it— on!
Darrell
17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees signed this:
So can we please stop with the “People who understand the science have arrived at a consensus” regarding global warming effects of carbon in the atmosphere? As this petition makes clear, there is no such consensus among scientists, and it’s dishonest to assert that the matter is settled in the scientific community
Gray
No idea! Al Gore is stomping to fight it and to prepare for its consequences, so it simply can’t be true!
Brett
Free people are not to be ruled by the opinions of scientists, even when the opinions are cogent. A scientist’s political role is advisory only.
GTinMN
Nice try, but anything organized by Frederick Seitz, noted lying POS slimeball from Reynolds Tobacco, does nothing to bolster your argument, in fact, it proves once again that when you accuse ‘those on the Left’ of being ‘lying sacks of shit’, as is your habit, you are merely projecting.
Darrell
my my, so many on the left with anger management problems. And your link from an environmentalist smear site no one has every heard of is sooo convincing. Much more so than this description of Seitz, or this one, or this
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, etc, etc.
A real scam-artist charlaton, right kooks? And I’m sure he used his “slimeball lies” to con those other 17,000+ scientists into supporting his position regarding global warming effects of carbon in the atmosphere
GTinMN
Looks like you’re unintentionally on the money with that sarcastic outburst. Congrats!
Actually, Freddy’s fooled lots of people. He is both a past president of the NAS, and a real scam-artist later discredited by the same organization for the very petition you’ve been pimping.
Here’s background on the petition.
Impressive – the signatories included a TV ‘doctor’ from M.A.S.H. and a Spice Girl.
So, can 17000 scientists be fooled by some slick PR? Damn straight.
Darrell
Hello scumbag in MN, your link doesn’t match with your blockquote as no such quote exists in the link you provided. How convenient. Please provide the whacko kook source for your citation as we want to see your ‘credible’ source for information. You have a history on this site. Your side has no answer, so you smear without basis. It’s who you are. It says it all about your position. 17,000+ scientists were “fooled” by slick PR according to your position
Gregory Markle
The natural-cycles crowd ranks up there with the hidden-planet theorists in terms of scientific credibility. But they can put a bunch of pretty graphs together, which is more than sufficient for the purposes of muddying the waters.
Sorry Tim but one can say the same for the “experts” you want to claim are correct about global warming. How many of the earliest climactic models were debunked before they hit one the “seems” to fit? How many of them are the same people who, after a series of harsh winters in the early 70’s, were claiming that were headed towards a new ice age because of the same pollution that they now claim is causing warming? I’ve watched it all unfold and the only people who are to blame for me not believing in global warming are the members of the scientific community who presented a completely opposing theory in my youth and then presented a completely opposing theory which they initially supported with completely bogus and contrived data. Now they managed to finally concoct a data model which seems to fit…but I don’t buy it.
Why? Occam’s Razor…that’s why.
The simplest answer is always the best answer and the carbon theory is complex…and probably unnecessary. While the popular theory that carbon dioxide is the culprit is bandied about, they ignore the biggest “pollutant” produced by human activity and one which needs no complex science or physics to link it to global warming. What is that pollutant you ask?
Heat.
The pollutant that is warming our planet isn’t CO2, it’s simply heat. The population of our world has exploded during the period they are examining and, consequently, our output of heat has also exploded. Heat for cooking, body heat, heat from increased manufacturing of goods, heat from vehicles, heat from environmental control systems (both air conditioning and furnaces produce heat)…the list is immense and is FAR more than enough to produce the effects that are being witnessed. CO2 is simply a waste product of many of the processes that produce this excess heat,,,far be it from any REAL scientists to question the poet theory of the day though. Hmm, sounds like religion to me…do not question that which you are TOLD is true even if the proofs are questionable…and the “proofs” on CO2 and global warming are consequential at best.
Gregory Markle
Sorry about the typos…it’s late, I’m tired.
GTinMN
Sorry Darrell, you’re right, I included the wrong link, even though it also exposed the industry efforts to create FUD, here’s the right one.
Oh, and here’s a Wikipedia link about another BS petition involving Freddy on the same topic. It included signatures from people who claimed they’d never signed it or had never heard of it:
Link
Also,
SciAm did some vetting of 30 signatures on the petition you touted, and the numbers didn’t add up. The link isn’t working from the preview pane, it adds some junk at the end, “%E2%80%B3”, which, when removed, links to this info:
Kav
wow, complete misuse of Occam’s razor outlined above. As for the heat argument, pray tell what is stopping all the heat from radiating away? Follow the chain and you end up at …. greenhouse gases. Incredible.