Find Reviews by Make:
In 50 to 100 years. But don’t let that un-alarm you. The New York Times parrots—I mean reports—on a new study by the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program. The report predicts a list of bad, bad things that are going to happen thanks to “unequivocal” global warming. Hang on, are they implying that there’s another kind? Anyway, the Gray Lady points out that “Earlier cuts [in greenhouse has emissions] will be more effective than comparable later cuts, the document adds. Without efforts to limit emissions, the United States could warm 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Cutting emissions could hold that increase to just 4 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit.” Balmy, barmy or Barney?
113 Comments on “NYT: Global Warming to Submerge 2,400 Miles of Gulf Roads...”
Read all comments
I have just one thing to say:
“SURFS UP!!!!”
Just lie on your back and do everything the nice man from the government tells you to do.
So the demise of the dinosaurs was due to global warming caused by their… SUVs? I get it now!
I think that the problem with this kind of article is that they extrapolate from limited data using models that aren’t really proven to be valid.
Let me give an example:
“I gained 5 pounds last month! If this keeps up, I’m going to weigh 600 pounds before I’m 40!”
Anthropogenic global warming. OMG. Can we please talk about something less controversial, like religion or politics? Though I guess that AGW combines the two.
Answer to your question – definitely barmy.
I’m OK with sea level rise as long as it submerges the NYT building.
Just do whatever we say and in 500 years we’ll see just who’s right!
Trust us, we’re climatologists.
The debate is over and we declared victory.
Only deniers and idiots question Global Climate Change. Which one are you?
and my favorite……..
It’s For The Children.
1) I believe global warming is for real.
2) I welcome it, since I own a house in this freezing land called Alberta (Canada). I mean, if the temperature goes up 20 degree in one century. Most regions of the US would be unbearable. The flood of Americans into Canada will definitely push the price of real estates up.
Uh – Oh.
The game’s afoot.
Ugh. Farago, your thinly veiled conservatism is showing. Didn’t you just announce to your readership that their comments were becoming to policital? Then posts like this. Moving on…
Climate change is a complex debate. While you can’t believe every report you read that predicts a watery doom, sometimes the skeptics can be even more uneven handed than the zealots. Yes it may happen and yes the existing data and models don’t predict the evolution of this trend with any accuracy. However, I don’t see the naysayers making much of a coherent contribution to this debate except maybe an extra helping of sarcasm.
carguy,
Here, please go to this website:
http://www.weather.com/
Type in your zip code…and when you pull up your local area there is a “10 Day Forecast” you too can pull up.
Prove to yourself these ass-monkeys in power don’t know what they are talking about, ok?
If you cannot accurately predict 10 days out (which you can’t), then who are these jokers to say what’s going to occur in the next 80 years?
One may say “Well, it’s not about the daily fluctuations, but the overall “trend” which matters”. Well, again…they don’t know what they are talking about. In the 70’s we were in for another “ice age”, do you recall??
Fear sells- but who’s buying??
+1 for puppyknuckles on this one. You don’t have to agree with the NYT, but in that case, please state scientific data as well, rather than pretty empty arguments.
Well, here’s a start:
Since we’re speaking about Louisiana, why don’t you tell me how NOAA’s weather prediction for Katrina turned out???
Anyone???
The skeptics are for the most part scientists, not failed politicians or government employees who rely on tax dollars for funding. Read anything by Pat Michaels for the real story on climate change.
The Truth About Louisiana Roads…
(I’m trying to find something about a car here, but I’m not into pickup trucks with gun racks either).
Also, the June 3 edition of the comic strip “Non Sequitur” tells me all I need to know about this debate…..
This is the same Administration that is saving/creating 600,000 jobs this summer? The one that states it wants a “light” regulatory hand on the economy yet is the majority owner of GM and is attempting to pass a bill that allows them to seize companies as they see fit for the “good of the public.” Right, I thought so.
@carguy
the existing data and models don’t predict the evolution of this trend with any accuracy
and that’s the issue – proposing a solution to a problem that isn’t understood, may not be controllable (or mankind’s fault) and may not even be a problem
I’m writing from under a mile thick ice cap and I’m about 450 feet above sea level. Well, that was true 130 centuries ago. Now the ‘ice cap’ is a seasonal thing – a few feet of snow for a few months and even that doesn’t linger in those few months and I’m about 25 feet above sea level today. Wait! That means that the sea level has risen 3 1/4 feet per century during the geologic eyeblink represented by 130 centuries – except the last century rise has been measured in inches. Does that suggest a trend?
The cooling trend during the 60’s and 70’s was IIRC(largely) due to power plant emissions decreasing energy absorption of the upper atmosphere (remember the great acid rain hoax decried by conservatives at that time?) Well, cleaning up the smokestacks has allowed the warming trend to re-emerge … obviously we need more pollution, not less (/sarcasm)
Look at THIS people….a glacier REFUSES to listen to the United Nations Global EXPERTS(!!)- and continues to GROW…*DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING*:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31363631/ns/us_news-environment/
“Scientists just AREN’T SURE WHY!!!”.
The cooling trend during the 60’s and 70’s was IIRC(largely) due to power plant emissions decreasing energy absorption of the upper atmosphere
You believe that? Really? Cite please, and good luck finding one that’s not from a blogger.
Hey I got a car related thing. I bought a new car in January. I’m not 100% sure the A/C is working right. Why,you ask, b/c it hasn’t been warm enough to check.
For another TTAC first,I totally agree with a Rastus post. Ten days Mr Rastus? They can’t predict two days.
Yes indeed fear sells well.
Oh and your acid rain is the end of the world claim..
Here’s the result of one 20 year study…..
http://www.physorg.com/news143735620.html
a new study by the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program.
According to Wired ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/climatereport/ ), this is just a final version of a report commissioned by the Bush administration.
Key findings of the report may be found here:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings
Personally, and it makes me sad to say it, but in the absence of any cogent counterargument, I’m increasingly inclined to believe this report and others like it. This probably means that I’m going to have to stop being quite so selfish and start catching the train to work and start driving the family WRX, MS3 and RAV4 V6 a bit less (and probably get rid of one of them – 3 inefficient cars for a family of 2 + a 2yr old is hard to justify).
Forget the “crisis” sales pitch, and just take our money. You’re gonna do it anyway. Insulting our intelligence just makes it worse.
@lokkii try looking up the term Global Dimming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ might give you some reading material about pollution causing temperature drops.
If we really believe that sea level will rise, why the heck would we rebuild a city that is below sea level?
chuckR and rastus – I don’t doubt the limitations of computer modeling (in fact, it was my post graduate thesis) but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the climate is getting warmer and that carbon dioxide levels are increasing rapidly. There needs to be a debate but it will take more than a gut feeling “I don’t believe it” from the skeptics to drive policy on this issue. My challenge to skeptics is to move beyond that and maybe offer an alternative interpretation of the existing data or to offer an alternative causative mechanisms for the temperature increase. As yet I seen very little of that.
allythom:
Have you found a cogent argument in favor of GW? I have found a lot of speculation and data models that have been extrapolated to the extreme, but thats it. If you haven’t, then you are more guilty of lazy thinking than the skeptics you are criticizing.
On the other hand, if driving your family haulers less or getting rid of them makes you feel better, go for it. Just don’t expect everyone else to jump on the bandwagon so easily.
whynotaztec:
Because it has “culture”, or something.
Try reading the literature from ….NASA of all sources:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
Global Warming- it’s not just for EARTH anymore!!!
@Lokkii
Re. climate impacts of acid rain. A few minutes search found the following references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8835
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/960425SM.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
I don’t have time for further search at present.
BTW, could you point out where I said acid rain was the end of the world? I really don’t recall saying or even implying that.
The temperatures of the other planets are all going up, too. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t caused by Republicans and SUVs, and neither was the end of the last 10 ice ages on earth.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081204-mars-climate-cycles.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090309-mm-jupiter-great-red-spot.html
Global warming comes from two sources: 1)the sun, and 2)the hot air coming from gw crisis-mongers.
As for the road submergence issue, if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now. But it’s not there – has anyone lost a road?
And a question: Who’s to say that today’s temperature is the “right” one for earth, when it was so much warmer in the past?
“Balmy, barmy or Barney?”
Or perhaps just blarney.
If the U.S. reduces it’s emissions to zero, it won’t even amount to a fart in an auditoreum from all the crap the “emerging” countries will spew out.
One bicycle each will be replaced by one Tata. How do WE offset 40 gazillion of THEIR Tatas?
Ryan Knuckles :
June 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
allythom:
Have you found a cogent argument in favor of GW? I have found a lot of speculation and data models that have been extrapolated to the extreme, but thats it. If you haven’t, then you are more guilty of lazy thinking than the skeptics you are criticizing.
On the other hand, if driving your family haulers less or getting rid of them makes you feel better, go for it. Just don’t expect everyone else to jump on the bandwagon so easily.
Ryan
Have you read the report already ? The parts I have (and I will gladly stand up and say that I have not read it from begining to end) read make for a pretty believable argument.
I, unlike you, am not criticizing anyone.
Rest assured, I have no expectations from anyone I don’t know besides basic humanity. I meant no more than to say that I, an inveterate car enthusiast, am sufficiently convinced by the Climate Change argument to consider altering my behaviour by driving less and owning fewer inefficient vehicles. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at lightly, I *really* like driving and cars. You may think I am mistaken or you may not care. You can, and I’m sure will, do as you please in this regard. My remark was not intended to induce you or anyone else to follow.
‘Who’s to say that today’s temperature is the “right” one for earth, when it was so much warmer in the past?’
gslippy: fair point. Of course, “in the past” involves geologic periods of time (unless you’re a young earth creationist), and we’ve added what–six? billion people since then.
If and when GW creates significant effects on local climates and weather patterns, that does have implications for food growing, water availability, and overall habitation conditions for some areas of the world. None of those dependencies existed when the climate was significantly different in the past, at least at the scale to which they exist now.
All of these points can be argued, even without the namecalling and aspersions about intelligence that underlie so much of the debate, even here in ‘flame-free’ TTAC-land. But I tend to agree with those who say that the next major resource wars will not be over oil or gas, but over fresh water access.
vento97,
The change in sea level will probably outpace nature’s ability to build beaches suitable for surfing. It will be more like “Swamp’s up!” for quite a while.
—
dubtee1480: “This is the same Administration that is saving/creating 600,000 jobs this summer? The one that states it wants a “light” regulatory hand on the economy yet is the majority owner of GM and is attempting to pass a bill that allows them to seize companies as they see fit for the “good of the public.” Right, I thought so.”
You might give some thought to actually reading the article. The Obama administration is releasing a report drafted during the Bush administration. Bush suppressed if for a while, to the delight of Cheney’s oil and gas buddies, but then his party lost the election.
—
Rastus: “Look at THIS people….a glacier REFUSES to listen to the United Nations Global EXPERTS(!!)- and continues to GROW…*DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING*:”
Let’s read the entire first paragraph of that article together, shall we?
“Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.”
Let’s see, temperatures are rising and there are only a few ice fields worldwide that, oddly, continue to grow. Well, you know, rastus, sometimes it rains in the desert. It’s true. Of course, it’s still a desert but, there you are.
We’re getting warmer and this is, like rain in the desert, an ANOMALY in that process, not evidence that we’re getting colder and it’s also not evidence that people who put a lot of work and effort into learning and understanding the climate are still, somehow, clueless. It may surprise you but in their zeal to understand the climate and honestly develop science, climatologists and other scientists don’t start from a political argument but actually go out and measure things and then ask, “why does it behave this way?” Once they develop an idea, they will then ask, “What other evidence should support this?”
Climate involves a lot of factors, so the science is daunting and somewhat uncertain but the idea behind ACC comes from three simple things:
1. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2 is in the mix, the more heat is trapped. You can measure this in the lab. This was discovered 50 years before Al Gore was born, so you can set aside your protestations that Al Gore thought this up in his spare time.
2. CO2 levels, before we started digging up coal and burning it wholesale were about 285ppmv. Mauna Loa observatory began direct measurement in 1958 or so, at 310ppmv or so. We’re now at about 385ppmv. CO2 levels have increased by about a third.
3. The increase in CO2 levels are due to human activity. You can both look at the carbon budget (estimates of huw much CO2 plant activity removes, how much we dig up and burn, things like that, estimates that are under continuous review) or you can use isotopic analysis (fossil carbon has a different isotopic signature than biosphere carbon) to figure out how much is due to our activity. Both investigations lead to the same result: it’s us.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say these three things are absolutely irrefutable but, so far, no one has successfully challenged them. No Denier nutjob ranting that I have ever read has said, “no, the math in that isotopic calculation is wrong and here’s why.” No, the Denier Nutjob rantings that I read start from the premise that Liberals are evil and want to control us, so the science must be {wrong | politically motivated}.
These three things could be challenged, of course. Science is not a secret or a secret society. Challenge is part of the idea of science. When scientists come up with these ideas, after all, they publish them and put their ideas and calculations on the table for people to look at and challenge. Those three points have survived the test of time.
Now, if you’re clever enough, you can compute the general change in surface temperature due to the extra CO2 in the air. That calculation generally agrees with the observed recent increase in the global mean temperature although the existence of many other factors (global dimming – it’s real, too) mean that a much better atmospheric model is far more complex but also more precise. Probably most college physics majors graduate with enough tools to do this calculation, if they’re so inclined.
Some may find this thought-provoking:
NSIDC Glacier Photos
carguy
The foremost test of a predictive computer modeling system is how well it tracks reality. The wonderful thing about reality is that we have boatloads of it. If someone wants me to believe that their models are accurate a century from now, they need to start with the reality of 100 years ago and predict today. Not the exact weather today – chaotic sensitivity makes that unlikely – but the climate today, give or take a few years. If they can’t do that – someone would be shouting it from the treetops if they did – then they shouldn’t tell me they can predict a century from now. Because they ain’t all that. There are both validation and verification issues unresolved.
chuckR and rastus – I don’t doubt the limitations of computer modeling (in fact, it was my post graduate thesis) but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the climate is getting warmer and that carbon dioxide levels are increasing rapidly. Well, the number of pirates has decreased radically from past eras when it was colder. Do we need even more pirates than the Somalis are currently providing? ==> Coincidence does not equal causality. And if the relationship is causal, which way does the arrow point?
Global Warming to Submerge 2,400 Miles of Gulf Roads = SUV’s demise is premature due to ground clearance needed on Gulf coast roads.
There was a former thread on this blog about this, and it clearly demonstrate the level of fake evidence the deniers are concocting.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/omb-memo-criticizes-epa-co2-ruling/
It’s very informative, since you’ll find answers to assertions like this: “The skeptics are for the most part scientists, not failed politicians or government employees who rely on tax dollars for funding.” – because you’ll learn conclusively the leaders of the skeptics are frauds, the same deal as intelligent design.
–
Global Warming- it’s not just for EARTH anymore!!!
What’s amusing here about the ignorance is the only understanding is of words and not ideas connected to them. In this case, “Warming”, in places with entirely different atmospheres. Of course, they don’t realize the word is only used for ironic effect or as attention grabber for a headline, and thus they become easy targets for mockery subsequently.
–
if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now
Awesome reasoning, because hillbilly math demands all relations to be linear. That and some presentation by some former vice president represents all of science because that’s the only guy billies know about.
And by awesome I sincerely mean incredibly hilarious.
I bet I could prove, with a moderately funded research study, that over 90% of global warming believers are communists, socialists, or some closeted version of the two.
Not to imply that they are grasping at a means to control your lifestyle, but the degree of correlation would be…interesting, to say the least.
If someone wants me to believe that their models are accurate a century from now, they need to start with the reality of 100 years ago and predict today.
That’s actually exactly what they do, except they go back much much further. This is detailed in just about any site on global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ is a good place to start a science instead of ignorance-based education on climate change.
—
I bet I could prove, with a moderately funded research study, that over 90% of global warming believers are communists, socialists, or some closeted version of the two.
That 90% is wrong. It’s 100% since people who believe in science are defined as communists. Or H1tler.
OK. I am going to put a pool in the back yard and a beer fridge in the garage.
“As for the road submergence issue, if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now. But it’s not there – has anyone lost a road?”
As has been mentioned, sea level rise is predicted to be slower at first, but once the albedo (reflection of sunlight) of Greenland is reduced, the melting will increase rapidly.
Then Antartica starts, and the shite really hits the fan.
The irony is that Chinese materialism (learned from us) will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I’m a pretty good materialist myself, but I’m getting the message, and trying to reduce my
carbon footprint.
And I don’t even have children/grandchildren to give a crap about – but my sister does.
Good, all them damn roads get in the way of my airboat when I’m hunting allimigator.
The thing about global warming is that it will be bad for Europe, absolutely horrible for Asia, and pretty damn good for the US, except for Louisiana and Florida sinking. . . oh wait, that’s good for the US also.
Nuclear proliferation is spreading and some nuclear countries are destabilizing, only uneducated people in third world countries are breeding, productivity advancements (IT and robots) and offshoring are creating dangerous economic hardship and inequality in first world countries (except for government employees), and technology is putting acopolyptic biological warfare within reach.
And I’m supposed to worry about this?
I live in a cold, relatively high area of the Midwest, bring it on.
If you cannot accurately predict 10 days out (which you can’t), then who are these jokers to say what’s going to occur in the next 80 years?
If this is what passes for the skeptics’ idea of logic, then no wonder that it tends to make laugh.
Honestly, that sort of quip is rotten to the core. Anyone who believes something like that needs to take a class or six about science and logical reasoning, because this comment is pretty much bankrupt of any sense at all.
A basic application of random walk theory makes it obvious that it is far easier to make generalized observations about long-term trends than it is to predict specific short-term movements. The dynamics are quite different, with the short-term more random by nature, so there is no comparison at all.
Politics and science don’t mix, particularly when they are of the troglodyte variety. Hoping that something is true, and it actually being true, are two different things.
OMG, a swamp is going to become slightly swampier and we only have 100 years to react to that? We’re doomed.
Of course, if at some point in the next century the people living in the doomed areas, like, move, maybe we’ll be OK. I’ve moved 8 times in the past 12 years.
Then again, the brief run of global warming actually seems to have ended about 10 years ago, so maybe this is all bunk.
Bill H,
I’m pretty sure the question isn’t “which temperature is right for the earth”, but “which temperature and atmosphere is right for humans and the crops on which we depend?” The Earth will be fine! It’s us you should be worried about…
Everyone,
Just to inject some non-ideological data into this partisan d***-waving contest, I submit a study showing an observed sea level rise is around 3.1mm/year (about 1/8″ per year). This is a result of a large number of observations that have been run though a statistical process to weed out the affects of tides, storms, and other noise. This paper shows a higher number than some, but I chose it because it’s easy to get the PDF: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
(I’ve been on conference calls with staffers at UCAR. They generally have their stuff together.)
Here’s part of the author’s summary:
Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to 2003, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr–1. For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr– 1. There is high confi dence that the rate of sea level rise has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th centuries. Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially, and in some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.
There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and variations in extremes during this period are related to the
rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.
The rise in global mean sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability. For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, signifi cantly
higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950. It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase
in the longer-term trend.
This is an interpretations of actual observations, which is a lot better than just an opinion. There’s still a human element, of course, but it strikes me as many orders of magnitudes more objective than anything I’ve ever seen on TV.
There is a lot of detailed information later on in the article, particularly in “Appendix 5.A: Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems”.
It is worth mentioning to those who don’t make their living in Big Science a couple of things:
1. This paper is an overview. They have a huge bibliography for those who want to delve deeper.
2. That the author’s won’t try to prove every mathematical technique they use — they’re trying to give you an overview of what they did, and refer to well-established techniques. The bibliography is there, in case you’d like to go deeper.
These things saves a lot of time and paper, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of making research less accessible to the general public. (I assert that science is of limited value if it isn’t shared with the public.)
If folks start picking apart the argument in the paper (or any other paper), that will elevate this discussion to a very insightful level. Even if you just plain disagree, these kind of papers really are worth the read — you’ll need to understand how the other folks are thinking in order to undermine their arguments.
I’ve personally changed my mind on this topic over the last few years — but, then again, I’ve had good reasons to change my mind about a lot of things over the last few years… :-)
-Luke
P.S. One thing that doesn’t seem to be mentioned in this overview article is the ice core data. The composition of the layers of ice on the north and south poles can tell a lot about the composition atmosphere at that time. There’s also an awful lot that can be inferred from geological sources, like layers of mud and details of rocks. To those who assume that the data they’re using is only from the last 100 years or so since we’ve been keeping good meteorological records. The newer data is more precise, but the old data covers an awful lot of time. I agree that, if the models were only made using the last 100 years of meteorological data, they would be crap. However, without that ancient data, there’s simply no sane way to validate a model! A non-validated model wouldn’t produce results than anyone, especially people whose job-security is on the line, would take seriously.
It’s laughable to watch people cling to this theory.
I first encountered this idea in 1988 in an environment course. The prof remarked casually on several coffee breaks that increased carbon dioxide could lead to more rain, hence cooling. But then the lecture began again and there was no alternative, no variables. More carbon, more heat.
Also, we’d just spent weeks learning the environment was incredibly complicated so nothing should ever be changed because the outcome could not be predicted. That sounded logical, but apparently it’s possible to predict what added carbon will do, right down to a few degrees over a hundred years.
I quickly learned from that course that lying is acceptable, because you’re doing the “right thing”. I have severe doubts that even half the advocates really believe this nonsense, but a method of increasing taxation and regulation, plus limiting consumption, is ever so close and they’re not letting go.
If catastrophe is that imminent, then it’s too late because the biggest emitters are doing absolutely nothing about it.
During this Administration, 600,000 drops of sweat will be prevented or blotted with handkerchiefs.
Wow. A government report touting the end of the world due to global warming? What a real shocker there.
I guess we should limit our lives today, spend gazillions of dollars, to MAYBE save a few degrees? That sounds like a terrible idea…especially considering there is NO WAY IN HELL these models can be right 50-100 years from now. Hell, they can’t even predict which weather we’re gonna have with any semblance of accuracy until we’re just 2-3 days out. Why should we think they can do it with something as complex as the earth, for a century?
Unfortunately, I’m afraid we’re all gonna be forced to pay and pay and pay and pay, while some countries are allowed to keep doing what they’ve been doing and the overall benefit is light-years behind the costs. This is one cost-benefit analysis that doesn’t even come close to measuring up, yet we’re still gonna go full steam ahead?
Even beyond the debate over if it is/isn’t happening, is/isn’t good or bad, etc, the bottom line is that we are now seriously thinking of giving up a lot of what makes life worth living, and spending untold trillions (maybe hundreds of trillions over the coming decades?) on something like this? I suspect most of us can’t accept that. And we’re gonna do it to save the world’s poor, since they’re most at risk? How about educating them, creating a better economy, and bringing them out of poverty instead? I suspect that will be much more popular for them and for us than trying to save a few degrees and a few flooded beach areas. We’ll all be better off DESPITE global warming.
I did not expect it from this guy (Obama). But he is ruining this country more quickly, and possibly far worse, than any president I’ve ever known (I never thought I’d say that after the last president we had….).
Unbelievable.
Here, please go to this website:
http://www.weather.com/
Type in your zip code…and when you pull up your local area there is a “10 Day Forecast” you too can pull up.
Prove to yourself these ass-monkeys in power don’t know what they are talking about, ok?
If you cannot accurately predict 10 days out (which you can’t), then who are these jokers to say what’s going to occur in the next 80 years?
10 days? Hell, around here they can’t predict TOMORROW’S weather.
John
OK so global warming isn’t a absolute sure thing, although people, sorry communists, apparently, who study this sort of thing for a living and not since Exxon Mobil asked them to, overwhelmingly support the theory.
So why not reduce oil consumption because the US won’t be handing over a large chunk of $300- 400 billion to countries who use it to buy all of America’s worthwhile assets, and give the leftovers to terrorists?
Even Dubya could see the reasoning in that.
On the other hand, the Saudis will own all the water frontage in the US by the time global warming floods it, so who cares?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php
Two more squares, and I’ll have Bingo! Come on…
And some people on here need to learn the difference between “weather” and “climate”.
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html
Global warming deniers are in the same class as creationists: they simply cannot be swayed by facts. Their minds are designed to filter out evidence that contradicts their beliefs because their egoes would crumble if they had to admit they were wrong.
chuckR – I don’t even know where to begin. The current global warming theory is based on a mechanistic model which is backed up by observed data. It isn’t a coincidental correlation – there is a model that explains what is happening. Thus your non sequitur about pirates and climate is off base.
What skeptics have to do in order to be heard at the policy level is either propose a different mechanistic model to account for the observed data or get out of the way. Shouting “I don’t buy it” is not an alternative theory (however it may get you a job on the Kansas board of education).
Are there any solutions to global warming that don’t involve more regulation and government control?
Look up the Lesser Climate Optimum sometime. It was in the 1400s, during the recorded history period. The global temperature was 4.5 degrees centigrade warmer than today. When the vikings landed in North America they called Canada Vinland because of the grapes growing wild there. Today you have to go 2000 miles south of there to see wild grapes. The north of England was heavily farmed. Today even during the food emergency of WWII, modern farming cannot produce much there, it is too cold. The vikings were able to take boats the size of lifeboats from Greenland to Canada. Today nothing much smaller than a coast guard cutter goes in the North Atlantic in Winter. Today they predict that a 2 degree temp increase will doom Venice. In the 1400’s it was the Renaissance.
Global Warming is cyclical, and mostly natural. The human caused component of it is vastly dwarfed by nature. The current idiots who keep screaming the temperature has never gone up this fast just haven’t read history. This is nowhere near the fastest the temperature has gone up.
gslippy :
Are there any solutions to global warming that don’t involve more regulation and government control?
No.
I believe the global warming religion is being used as a way to justify putting limits on freedom and liberty.
It doesn’t matter whether global warming is true or not because a lot of people believe it is and it sells. What is true and really matters is Peak Oil which few believe or want to talk about.
The Obama administration has figured out that the things we need to do to deal with Peak Oil are pretty much the same things as are required by global warming. Global warming is an easier sell because nearly everyone experiences the weather everyday. So the powers that be are using it as an excuse for doing stuff made necessary by the Peak Oil dilemma.
Global warming is the cover story for the real problem we are experiencing which is Peak Oil. Americans don’t want to face the implications of Peak Oil, even though two automakers are in bankruptcy in part because of the run up in oil prices last year.
We are past Peak Oil and oil prices are headed up again. It will be very difficult for the auto industry to ever again return to peak pre crash sales. This will have a big effect on the future of the new GM or Chrysler.
97 Escort–
You THINK everyone would buy peak oil, but believe it or not we even have “denialists” who deny that we can ever run out of oil. They think more is naturally made in the earth in a short period of time. Seriously. You can look it up. I was couldn’t believe it at first, either.
But then I remember that 10% of Americans think we never landed on the moon, and that there is an actual Flat Earth Society, etc.
“I believe the global warming religion is being used as a way to justify putting limits on freedom and liberty.”
Anybody else find it ironic when a libertarian calls something else a “religion”?
It doesn’t matter whether global warming is true or not because a lot of people believe it is
All scientists who study this subject believe it’s true. This is the most accurate predictor of objective truth humankind has ever produced. By far.
But I guess to some, random undereducated folk “thinking” it’s not true has equal weight.
agenthex,
“All scientists who study this subject believe it’s true. This is the most accurate predictor of objective truth humankind has ever produced. By far.”
Did you per chance ask these scientists? :
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html
If you don’t like this particular source, find another…just google “scientists against global warming”. You will find plenty, trust me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I think your enthusiasm for ALL scientists is a bit off…just a little.
Besides, the term “Global Warming” has now been superseded by the term “Global Climate Change”…to cover all bases in the even the earth DOES begin to cool. Either way the temperature swings, the taxman gets his way.
Its criminal to even have this debate…that’s how far gone politicians have taken this issue….to introduce it and nurse it into the popular dialogue.
“Besides, the term “Global Warming” has now been superseded by the term “Global Climate Change”…to cover all bases in the even the earth DOES begin to cool. Either way the temperature swings, the taxman gets his way.”
That was done because in some places it will get cooler, in some places it will get warmer, even if the overall temperature goes up. Also it takes care of the LOLZ IF GLOBAL WARMIN IZ TEH REAL WHYZ IT COLD OUTZIDE 2DAY!?!?
The most accurate label would be “Climate Cluster!@#k.
Global Warming Denialism is the right wing version of the anti-vaccination or anti-GM food (Genetically Modified, don’t worry General Motors isn’t growing corn now!) food people on the left.
I highly recommend actually reading the prior thread here to minimize repetition (which deniers LOVE because it helps confuse the issue and produces an appearance of debate):
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/omb-memo-criticizes-epa-co2-ruling/
–
The short answer is that those scientists are at best peripheral figures in any actual research. You’re basically listing people who are poorly informed about a subject outside the bounds of their expertise. Of course, this also has to be contrasted with pretty much every person who’s been doing ANY research, and the massive ratio (let’s say orders of magnitude) of supporters to deniers in the scientific community in general.
You also need to realize where that trend has been going as the outsiders become better educated on the subject is not to the benefit of the ignoramous’ argument.
Your “facts” are way off. Vinland was discovered by vikings in the late 900s. By 1400, the Greenland settlement was gone, presumably killed off by cooling temperatures. Viking ships averaged nearly 90 feet long. And Vinland is more like 1000 miles north of Massachusetts, where grapes grow wild. That 4.5 degrees C warmer than now in the 1400s is nonsense.
But what’s important is not all your mistaken facts, but the strong evidence in favor of global warming. Go read what Kixstart has to say.
njdave :
Look up the Lesser Climate Optimum sometime. It was in the 1400s, during the recorded history period. The global temperature was 4.5 degrees centigrade warmer than today. When the vikings landed in North America they called Canada Vinland because of the grapes growing wild there. Today you have to go 2000 miles south of there to see wild grapes. The north of England was heavily farmed. Today even during the food emergency of WWII, modern farming cannot produce much there, it is too cold. The vikings were able to take boats the size of lifeboats from Greenland to Canada. Today nothing much smaller than a coast guard cutter goes in the North Atlantic in Winter. Today they predict that a 2 degree temp increase will doom Venice. In the 1400’s it was the Renaissance.
Global Warming is cyclical, and mostly natural. The human caused component of it is vastly dwarfed by nature. The current idiots who keep screaming the temperature has never gone up this fast just haven’t read history. This is nowhere near the fastest the temperature has gone up.
I prefer changing it from “Climate Change” to “Climate Clusterf!@*k”.
@njdave: The Lesser Climate Optimum, also known as the Medieval Warm Period, is a red herring frequently hauled out by climate change denialists. If you’re going to resort to that argument you should at least get your facts straight. During the Medieval Warm Period, temperatures were higher only in the North Atlantic region; the average global temperature did not increase. Overall temperature variations between the MWP, the “little ice age” that followed, and the historical average have been more on the order of one or two degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees you refer to. Recent temperatures in the North Atlantic have exceeded those observed during the MWP. During the MWP grapes could be grown as far north as southern England. Grapes are currently being grown in northern England.
The lesson to be learned from the MWP and the little ice age is how vulnerable we are to climate shifts, whatever their cause.
RF – you really suckered the crowd with this one, like raw meat in a shark pen.
Next, maybe we should discuss Sarah Palin’s views of the automobile industry. Heh.
agenthex
Here’s a little graphic of how well some of the GCMs agree with that pesky thing called reality.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/06/who_ya_gonna_be.html
Those plots link incident solar heating – solar radiant heating converted to flux – and sea surface temperature. How can all these wonderful models be wrong? Must be the measurements, right?
Just for fun, look at Lindzen’s ppt at Watts Up With That? (linked from the link)
@carguy
Where to begin, indeed. It’s too bad that a lot of people move to the political arguments or move to insulting those they disagree with. You said the predictions are based on based on mechanistic models. I agree and further suspect that they are deterministic, too. But in a 3+ decade career in computational mechanics, I’ve been schooled more than a few times by problems and simulations – which is all the GCMs really are – that proved wildly sensitive to initial conditions and by inference error bounds as well. Electro-chemical discharge of a battery cell is one example – the 19 PDEs came pretty quick, but the goddam initial conditions soaked up 95% of the development time. Another one was vertical axis rotating machinery. We had a perfectly mechanistic simulation, and it returned a classic Mandlebrotian chaotic response – which as it turns out is correct. We were pretty bummed until we ran it long enough to see the pattern re-emerge. Right now I’m working on a radiation heating/cooling problem – its tough even for a controlled and well-defined environment. Yet the processes the GCMs consider are all driven by radiation heating and a quick look at the above link leaves me unconvinced that their mechanistic models are reasonably accurate mechanistic models.
Those plots link incident solar heating – solar radiant heating converted to flux – and sea surface temperature. How can all these wonderful models be wrong? Must be the measurements, right?
Read the prior blog post I linked. Let me know if you wish to take the challenge I offered to tony towards the end.
First, you may want to find out what Richard Lindzen previous did for the tobacco industry which might illuminate his stance in this climate change business.
–
Yet the processes the GCMs consider are all driven by radiation heating and a quick look at the above link leaves me unconvinced that their mechanistic models are reasonably accurate mechanistic models
Of course, you’re the the one guy who’s figured it all out. Every single climate scientist (who generally have Ph.D’s) are all ignorant of PDE’s, which makes the massive amount of peer reviews all worthless.
You should put yourself on the wiki page Rastus linked above, for you are another well qualified individual whom we can rely upon to warn us of the certain pitfalls of modeling.
Well, this has certainly been entertaining. RF, not sure what the motivation for this was – but I did keep my word, and stayed OUT.
I thought there was a no flaming policy, agenthex.
Those are statements of absolute fact. By the clear lack of disagreement on the substance of those particular assertions, it’s quite evident they are not flames.
However, please suggest alternative terminology if you prefer more politically correct words to be used.
So…buy default…a “denier” is automatically labeled a nut job due to word association.
Nice try…
Absolutely. It’s used because it’s tremendously accurate. I just presented a fairly convincing point why your assertion is wrong, you ignored it and will no doubt repeat the incorrect assertion at some later time. This is how deniers are defined, and it absolutely applies in this case.
chuckR – I applaud your scientific approach. Let’s then use it to its best effect in the climate mystery but let’s refrain from the “I just don’t believe it” chorus which is neither a scientific argument nor theory to explain rising temperatures.
Creationists and Model Worshipers are closer than you think. I’m skeptical when approached by either.
I applaud your scientific approach.
This isn’t exactly a scientific approach. Lindzen has not published a paper on this since 2001 (which is now disproven, and he claims it’s unfair to judge him on that mistake) and will likely never publish another one again due to the generally unscientific and often willfully false nature of his claims.
–
Model Worshipers
From a man who doesn’t believe in scientific models no doubt. I doubt I’d get a reply if I asked what the preferred alternative was.
Models built from a small percentage of the possible varibles (many of which we probably don’t even recognize yet) are suspect. Torture the numbers, and you get the result you want (especially if your funding depends on it). AGW is is more akin to string theory than erecting a skyscraper.
I love scientific advancement, without them we wouldn’t have cars!
Torture the numbers, and you get the result you want (especially if your funding depends on it).
So essentially you’re claiming every single climate scientist, plus the far vast majority of all scientists, are willfully cooking the numbers (so systematically that no one can spot any significant errors), against all historical evidence to the contrary. I just want to make clear the depths to which deniers are willing to plunge.
Thank you tho for warning chuckR about tobacco “scientists” like what Lindzen did as a gig once.
–
I love scientific advancement,
Then you should love that EVERY scientist researching this topic is helping to advance our understanding!
Still waiting for the alternative btw.
Some of the “sceptics” here won’t want to fly in any modern passenger plane. You know, the ones modelled on computers and so on….
Somehow I think people are prepared to believe that ONE set of numbers/variables are fed into any model without care or consideration of the possible variation those numbers might give.
After processing your inputs within a RANGE, based on best available data, what you end up with is a CONFIDENCE level.
Confidence levels would suggest that the modelling is pointing in one direction, so now we have modelling of tertiary effects; ie. like the way the ocean surface might move and cause more local sea level changes.
I don’t care, as long as New York is flooded first.
The Earth is now cooling. the Sun has less Sunspots than in over a hundred years, there are cool cycles in the Pacifac and Atlantic and a La Nina. Algore had better hurry up.…
Uh, no. Even if you limit yourself to the US, areas that are warmer than normal outnumber cooler areas by a 2:1 ratio. I do agree with those who are skeptical of dire predictions, but that is different than questioning if man made warming actually exists. The real scientists that are not tied to industry have a worldwide consensus that man is indeed causing warming changes. That is no longer a really an issue anymore. Even ExxonMobil has softened its denial stance in the recent past.
The question now is what does it really mean and how will it effect life (not just people). That is where the debate should be.
RF: This topic is another right vs left lightning rod…good thing we can’t mix in guns and Fox news…
And as for the classical values website linked above, go to the main page where it says “greenie weenies don’t blog here”…that should tell it all. I wouldn’t expect the Sierra Club to post data that is contrary to the global warming issue, but I wouldn’t go there looking for an unbiased opinion on the issue. The CV website is no different.
I do agree with those who are skeptical of dire predictions, but that is different than questioning if man made warming actually exists. The real scientists that are not tied to industry have a worldwide consensus that man is indeed causing warming changes. That is no longer a really an issue anymore. Even ExxonMobil has softened its denial stance in the recent past.
The question now is what does it really mean and how will it effect life (not just people). That is where the debate should be.
Probably the best statement on this whole issue in the entire thread.
Rastus: “If you don’t like this particular source, find another…just google “scientists against global warming”. You will find plenty, trust me.”
Thanks for the links and the laughs. When one digs into those lists, one often finds real curiosities. Since the “New Zealand Climate Science Center” was linked in your second referenced article, I decided to check up on that likely bit of astroturfing and found that a Dr. David Bellamy was one of the founders. I looked a bit further into Dr. Bellamy’s background. He’s a botanist. Which isn’t a bad thing, if you look into the science of ACC, you find the strangest disciplines get involved. I was looking up something once, found myself reading up on marine worms or something equally unlikely and found that the marine biologists included a reference in their paper to global warming (as in, generally ACC was in accord with what they were seeing on the ocean bottom). What follows is from his Wikipedia entry. FYI – Fred Singer is another Denialist capable of really bad science.
“Dr Bellamy’s later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as “poppycock”.[citation needed] A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy’s original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer’s website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but no such article exists.[4] Bellamy has since stated that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times that he had “decided to draw back from the debate on global warming”.[5]”
I like that… Bellamy publishes an article that is clearly and obviously wrong, using, at best, dated observations of unkown origin (a real no-no, for which any Denialist would have ripped Michael Mann a new one) and he’s still one of the darlings of the Denialist movement, as in 2006, he gets invited to be a founder of NZCS. Eventually, he is so delightfully publicly exposed that he runs home with his tail between his legs. Which won’t keep Denialists from referencing his article and treating him like he has science of value. Here, for example:
The Price of Dissent on Global Warming
I’d bet a dollar “The Australian” is a Murdoch paper. Any takers?
As to the prinicipal list, I notice that many of the scientists on that list don’t study the atmosphere, that at least a couple are petrochemical types and that there’s a fair number of astronomers with outer-space theories, which isn’t surprising because if all of your tools are hammers, all of your problems look like nails. Or, if all you study is stars, stars sort of swell to fill your vision.
Oh, and the IPCC does pay close attention to insolation. In case you wondered.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, none of those astronomers (I’ve seen these lists before) has actually proved his theory; linked it in a realistic way to the changes in climate and used his theory in a model to describe our climate better than models that ignore his theory but which do include the greenhouse effect of increased CO2 levels. Which is an important aspect of science… to be worth anything and to be accepted, your theory has to make a prediction the other theories can’t.
Here’s a thought. What’s 2,400 miles of road worth? What’s New Orleans worth? The businesses? The ports? Whatever cropland and fishing industries they have? Miami? Charleston? Houston? Beantown? Cape Cod? Manhattan (curiously, the ocean will likely rise more in that region, due to projected changes in the Gulf Stream)? Washington, DC (the Potomac is nearly sea level)? Philadelphia?
KixStart:
What’s 2,400 miles of road worth? What’s New Orleans worth? The businesses? The ports? Whatever cropland and fishing industries they have? Miami? Charleston? Houston? Beantown? Cape Cod? Manhattan (curiously, the ocean will likely rise more in that region, due to projected changes in the Gulf Stream)? Washington, DC (the Potomac is nearly sea level)? Philadelphia?
You forget to mention the whole nation of Bangladesh.
The sea level rise mentioned is a worse case scenario. We should closely monitor sea levels – if they rise a lot in the next decade or three, go on a crash nuclear power program. That ‘The Controllers’ want to change everyone’s lives based on this worse case scenario is not cost effective.
Oh, I get it…the article is about the earth getting warmer (or maybe not), which means that the ice caps will melt faster (or maybe not), which means that the oceans will rise (or maybe not), which means that perhaps 100 years from now some existing roads could be covered with water (or maybe not) and, since cars drive on roads, this post is actually about cars (or maybe not).
We should closely monitor sea levels –
That’s only one of many outcomes.
More importantly, it’s also not necessarily easily reversible or controllable once underway.
–
The Earth is now cooling not warming. It is a normal cycle and has happened many times before.
Sort of funny that it’s the same argument from more or less same group of people regarding economic cycles. It’s what you’d expect hardcore traditionalists to say, but it’s also what the cavemen who didn’t survive the stone age said.
The Earth is now cooling not warming.
An oft repeated lie. 7 of the 10 warmest years recorded since 1850 have occurred in the last decade to 2008.
Plus the 14 warmest years have occurred since 1990.
Hot enough for ‘ya yet?
The custodians of such data are the World Meteorological Organization, the UK Meteorological Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Fred Singer is another Denialist capable of really bad science.
The mistake is in calling it “science”, when it’s clearly a package of straight up lies presented in a way to impress laymen.
Yes, look at these “studies” with all those numbers and equations in them, all the “credentialed” people supporting the cause against the evil that is al gore (ironically via the public internet).
The result is you get people proudly advertising the fact that they just got duped.
@ bluecon
So why was the winter so cold and the Spring is so cold and the Summer is going to be cold?
The extremes will be/are worse. Local Weather is not Climate.
We will all be here to see if this over exaggerated or not. Too bad that if it is true, it will be too late to do anything about it. Interesting to note is that the most ardent deniers are those who are on the hard right side of the aisle and who typically think of Me, Myself, and I. No concern for others. Only concerned with the relentless pursuit of one’s own gain with no regard to anybody else.
While the cost of acting is not free, the cost of not acting is likely to be a lot more. People like to talk about cycles and how it is happened before. Only difference it that we live in man’s time frame, not geologic time…
@ bluecon
You mean the warming GISS data?
Plus this commentary;
“Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”
Maybe NASA should be shut down; after-all they can’t even launch the Shuttle this week.
ihatetrees: “You forget to mention the whole nation of Bangladesh.”
Good of you to think of them. Is the whole nation that low? I was aware that they were at severe risk but don’t recall the specifics.
ihatetrees: “The sea level rise mentioned is a worse case scenario. We should closely monitor sea levels – if they rise a lot in the next decade or three, go on a crash nuclear power program. That ‘The Controllers’ want to change everyone’s lives based on this worse case scenario is not cost effective.”
Actually, that won’t work. Somebody on Science Friday summed it up nicely a few weeks back. I can’t recall his precise words but they were similar to “Cumulative threat plus human nature equals bad outcome.”
When you stop adding an extra 1-2ppmv CO2 to the air every year, we don’t magically return to ~300ppmv levels overnight. The program you suggest might help prevent further increase but the atmosphere returning to 300ppmv levels would take a very long time and the enhanced melting would continue for a long time and sea levels would continue to rise.
I’m not interested in controlling anything. But I think we ought to start pricing carbon-based fuels to reflect what they’re really going to cost us.
And it’s ludicrous to think that there’s some link between political goals of control and climate science.
Do you think Secret Agents of the Liberal Underground have been recruiting children of a liberal bent from high school into climate science for the purpose of gaining control over the general population’s lives? With sure-to-be-popular political messages like, “you have got to stop driving SUVs and give up your ski boats for the greater good?” Backed up by math that Joe Sixpack wouldn’t look at for free lottery tickets?
Yeah, I can see how people have been lining up for that. Of course, the only thing that has ever depressed SUV sales in the past 20 years is high gas prices, which have nothing to do with climate scientists. Look at the high regard in which the humble Prius is held. Ohhh yeah. The path to political power is in telling people inconvenient truths. Politically, the Creationists are doing better. Thinking about evolutionary dynamics is hard. Creation’s easy, just one short story to remember.
In fact, if you want to control a lot of sheeple, put your puppets into the pulpit and have them proclaim that Jesus wants His chosen ones to be rich in this world. Those churches are full.
Of course, it’s sometimes hard to figure who’s the puppet and who’s the master. One of the political payoffs of the previous two elections was to get a lot of the Religious Right’s zealous students from places like Patrick Henry into a lot of government internships.
Who’s really pulling the strings in a deal like that? Climate scientists? Evolutionary biologists? Sure… for the scientists, it’s all about political power.
Now I wonder why this board might have a higher than average quota of AGW deniers ?
@KixStart
Since the “New Zealand Climate Science Center” was linked in your second referenced article
Yeah, this crowd have absolutely no credibility in New Zealand – in fact they have admitted they are funded by coal and oil interests !
Someone recently posted, “The Earth is now cooling not warming.”
It’s amazing how often one hears this. It’s probably on Global Warming Bingo (checking… not precisely but “the Earth is not warming” is – this is in that spirit, for sure). You don’t find this claim on sites where people are doing real science but it gets repeated in public forums, as though it comes from some authority, and it continually amazes me that people can be so dedicated to ignorance and intellectual dishonesty that they don’t take the twenty seconds necessary to find something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
but prefer to repeat something which is absolute bunkum.
Global Warming Denialism is the right wing version of the anti-vaccination or anti-GM food (Genetically Modified, don’t worry General Motors isn’t growing corn now!) food people on the left.
That’s a more true statement than people realize. I’ve been on both those debates, and the junk science from both anti-vaccination and anti-AGCC is both predicatable and disturbing.**
It’s also the same tack that Intelligent Design proponents drag out, and boils down to two tenets, both intellectually dishonest:
1. Teach the controversy, not the facts. You’ll get a lot more mileage out of implying a lack of agreement than actually debating facts. Facts are hard to represent and harder for—and let’s be honest—dim or pigheaded people to digest, while saying that “some people do not agree” is easy and so much more effective. ID people to this relentlessly, and are assisted by the media and government, who have a pathological need to be “fair” to all sides and dodge conflict.
2. Selectively cite. Anti-vacc people are really, really bad for this, dragging up a British study that’s been discredited six ways from Sunday or creatively leaving out context (eg, saying that autism is on the rise since vaccination, but leaving out that in control groups without vaccination, the rate is also rising). Anti-AGCC people do the same thing (sunspots, confusing “weather” with climate, refering to studies that have no grounding).
Here’s the relevant points:
* Scientists have reached a consensus on climate change and are refining models, just as they reached a consensus on relativity or quantum mechanics, despite not knowing precisely every detail
* The net benefit to reducing consumption and promoting sustainable living is huge and universal—unless you make money from consumption.
Given that, why not hedge your bets and try to conserve energy? If not because Al Gore says so, than why not do it so’s that you can keep from sending money to people who align themselves Osama Bin Hidin’?
** If you want to poke someone in either camp into a frothing rage, tell them that. I’ve seen fellow pinkos go all squirrelly after being told they’re using the same tactics as a climate-change skeptic. It’s like alluding they’re like Hitler.
What a depressing chorus of chest-thumping. If you want to point out the limitations of current climate models (and every researcher does so in his/her journal articles) then I applaud you. But if you want to harumph and deny the reality of climate change because you don’t like the idea that the planet is growing warmer…then there really is nothing to debate here. It is like debating with a five-year-old who thinks he can’t fall off his bicycle because he didn’t fall off his bicycle the last time he rode it.
The climate is getting warmer. The evidence for this is overwhelming. It is not getting warmer everywhere all the time (there are still seasons, ENSOs, regional effects, etc), but the global trend is now extremely clear. Anyone who claims that the planet is getting cooler simply is not looking honestly at the data. Anyone who claims that scientists were hysterically warning about global cooling in the 1970s is simply lying. (I’ve hunted down the sources extensively–almost all of the coverage points to a single Newsweek story. I was also, well, alive in the 1970s, and I have some memory. Even in the 1970s climate researchers knew that increasing CO2 levels could lead to global warming, but they also noted a cooling trend associated with industrial aerosols. The scientific papers at the time noted that either trend could predominate but that the data were not yet conclusive.)
Are humans causing global warming? The very strong evidence is that yes, we are contributing significantly to it. The computer models are not foolproof, of course, but they represent a very serious and convincing best effort to account for all the variables (including solar variability) that affect climate. Here’s a key piece of evidence that the models are correct: Nobody has been able to make a climate model that accounts for past temperature trends without factoring in human-generated greenhouse gases. Include the human factors, and the models fit. Surely out of all those “scientists against global warming” one person would have been able to come up with a credible alternative model–so where is it?
Then there is the casual hostility to all the scientists who spend their lives researching climate problems, typically at rather modest pay for what is often tedious and difficult work. Hearing them derided as a bunch of fascists and boobs is deeply offensive. Think about how it sounds when you visit one of those nutty Greenie web sites and people there talk about how anyone who enjoys driving a car is basically a filthy planet-hating devil. Mmmm hmmm. That’s what the haters on this side sound like, too.
Finally, there is the matter of legislation. Why do safety people always call for more regulation? It’s a matter of collective versus individual behavior. As an individual I would like to drive without stopping, but I recognize the larger utility of traffic lights. Regulations have made cars vastly safer and cleaner than they were a century ago (and you can thank computer modeling for a lot of that, incidentally). The Earth doesn’t care if global temperatures go up 5 or 10 degrees. We are the ones who pay the price, in terms of coastal flooding, shifting rainfall patterns, ocean acidification, and the like.
I suspect that even on TTAC most people accept the utility of paying taxes to have someone come and pick up the garbage in front of your house. Same principle here. We’re dumping garbage into the environment, and now it’s a question of what we want to do about it. We could live with a warmer world, just as we could live with mountains of trash in front of our houses. I for one have no problem with the idea of paying a carbon tax to help shift consumption patterns and to pay for research into new energy sources that are cleaner and that, in the long run, may very well prove essential to this country’s continued economic success.
I repeat, the Earth has gone into a rapid cooling phase.
I don’t think just repeating yourself is helping.
In any case, the rant needs more commie and hittler.
I repeat, the Earth has gone into a rapid cooling phase
And we can cool it even more quickly by blasting tons of dirt into the atmosphere using simple little devices we have in quantity.
You know what’s horrible? That people are actually considering an artificial nuclear winter as a viable solution instead of curbing consumption. Makes you despair of humanity.
I repeat, the Earth has gone into a rapid cooling phase.
“Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the fourth warmest on record for May, the fifth warmest for boreal spring (March-May), and tied with 2003 as the sixth warmest January-May year-to-date period.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/may/global.html
bluecon :
Algore has a limited amount of time left before he is exposed as the greatest conman of all time. He will take his hundred million and go live in a cave with Bin Laden.
Sigh .. looks like bluecon is getting real close to invoking Godwins law.
It’s actually “Climate change” because the changes in climate trends affect different areas locally. More extremes in weather and all.
cpmanx: I’m with what you said.
A question to the more skeptical, if we become less dependent on fossil fuels (ie. less oil consumption etc) as a result of climate change legislation, isn’t that a good thing?
psarhjinian: “You know what’s horrible? That people are actually considering an artificial nuclear winter as a viable solution instead of curbing consumption.”
Geo-engineering gone mad.
One fellow, also on Science Friday, I think, said one of the simplest things we could do along the lines of geo-engineering would be to roof our buildings with white.
Hello…Carbon isn’t the problem. Carbon is a base material, we are not creating more of it (to all smother in soot). It was and will always be here. CO2 is the problem, right? Can we agree?
Why not plant 1 tree for every car you own. Trees are natural carbon scrubbers, thus releasing the big O (as opposed to the Big O – maybe it is the same to Gaia. I can never understand women.).
The problem isn’t cars. The problem is there are not enough trees left to scrub the CO2 created by humans with Planes, Power Plants, Factories, cows, excess chinamen, and yes…cars.
The problem isn’t cars. The problem is there are not enough trees left to scrub the CO2 created by humans with Planes, Power Plants, Factories, cows, excess chinamen, and yes…cars.
No. Well, sort of.
You need to understand the difference between locked and unlocked carbon.** There’s a naturally occurring amount of carbon in the biosphere, and yes, deforestation reduces the amount that can be sequestered by plants, but the problem is that we’re unlocking vast amounts of it that had previously been sequestered in petroleum deposits, more than the biosphere can compensate for even if we weren’t gutting it.
This is why carbon sequestration technology is such a huge thing: you’d re-lock the carbon, removing it from the biosphere and addressing much of the problem. It’s also why things like biofuels and non-carbon electricity generation are important: they don’t further exacerbate the problem.
It’s also why “stop breathing” and “what about the cows?” are nonsensical retorts to the climate change debate: they’re ignoring the whole concept of locked vs unlocked carbon.
** The reason we say carbon instead of CO2 is that carbon, when processed by living beings, broken down by decomposition or burned in an engine, will result in some CO2. Addressing carbon at the source is a smart way of dealing with it, rather than attacking the output.
One fellow, also on Science Friday, I think, said one of the simplest things we could do along the lines of geo-engineering would be to roof our buildings with white.
He’s got a valid point. I’ve heard the same extended to roads and tarmac (using concrete or light grit asphalt, which is grey/white, instead of black asphalt)
There’s a lot you can do with either expanding greenspace (even on roofs; I’ve seen this done and it’s nifty), doing geothermal heat exchange. You can also, of course, turn down (or up, as the case may be) the thermostat and drive a little slower. I did three recent power policy deployments at a few companies (basically, deploying an AD policy that forced desktop computers into deep sleep) that, when spread across fifty thousand PCs, cut energy usage significantly.
Little things matter. The problem is that these kinds of solutions, like California’s suggestions on more reflective paint, get labelled as Whacko Greenie Attempts To Infringe Upon My Freedom and are summarily dismissed.
So this is how GISS gets all those high temp readings.
Yes, notice how the problem was fixed.
On the other hand, you have people making mountains out of molehills, and never admitting to the fabrication of entire “studies”. You must’ve not read the prior thread on Monckton’s paper as instructed.
Think about the lesson to be learned here. No, really, THINK.
–
If all the AGW believers wore tinfoil hats that would help immensely.
Silly rabbit, only people who don’t understand flux and the faraday cage wear foil hats.
Look fellas, nobody’s gonna change their mind here. You’re torturing yourselves by going on like this. So I’m going to cast a different light here.
How many global warming believers are downsizing or no-sizing their automotive footprint?
I mean, if there’s all this irrefutable evidence out there, peer reviewed, provable beyond all doubt, and those of us who doubt are insane (as some of you have more than implied in your posts), then are you putting your money where your mouths are? Are you taking action in your own lives yet?
Or are you spending all your time and energy waiting for or encouraging government to yet again intrude on our lives?
I submit to you that it starts at home.
Have you moved to within walking distance of work? Do you take public transportation? Have you incurred the couple-thousand dollar premium of a hybrid car, or better yet, are you willing to live with the rather limiting distances offered by an EV?
Have you paid the tens of thousands of dollars to have solar panels installed at your house, or have you at least budgeted for more extreme ways to save or make your own electricity?
Or are you a minimilist who just bikes to work, and if so, do you only ride nice days? What’s your mode of transportation when it rains or snows?
I’m not a “believer” of global warming, but I have already done some of these things in my own life. My reasons are personal; more on that later.
But if you are a believer, would you tell us just how much “more” are you willing to pay in time and/or money to be green? And have you done it yet? Will you pay 25% more for a hybrid, or maybe just 10% more? Have you done it yet, and if so, what are you driving?
What would be your break-even point on putting solar hot water in at home? Have you done it yet, or have you at least researched the cost and installers in your area?
Are you willing to sacrifice 2X, 3X, or 4X your normal commute time to wait for the bus or train and to ride it all the way downtown before turning around and riding it outward in the direction you really need to go? How many days a week do you do this, or are you just talking about it?
Are you giving up meat, since meat production costs a lot in water or other natural resources? If so, what’s your alternate source for protein? Soy production is very expensive and is carries a high water demand. Maybe there’s a better alternative?
Are you giving up going out for entertainment or food, or at least restricting yourself mostly to walking distance? Have you already given up Sunday drives?
Are you strongly encouraging your kids to not commute to their jobs or colleges? Or is remote college education not quite “there” yet?
When you buy furniture, do you buy new, or do you look for lightly used, to avoid the environmental cost of manufacturing?
Assuming you live in a sunny climate, would you be willing to pay the initial cost and make your own PV energy at home even if there were no tax incentives? (Incidentally, I would be; I just cannot afford the initial cost at this time. Maybe in a couple years!)
I’m not being mean here, I’m very curious and I truly want to know just “how much” you believe all this.
It’s all fine and dandy to do your tit-for-tat here in a blog article about this study against that study. I am dismayed at the attempts to assasinate all character of anybody who is not a true believer. That’s not doing ANYTHING to change hearts and minds.
But more importantly, are you believers REALLY making changes in your own life? Are you paying the cost of “doing”, or are you just citing words by paragraph and study?
As I said, I have already begun to do some of the things I have suggested, even though I’m nowhere near beliving this global warming stuff. I just find it fascinating, and I’m all about the learning.
For example, I now know just how much water and fertilizer it takes to grow healthy and less-buggy vegetables. I understand a lot more about electricity. Do you realize how expensive a hair dryer really is?
As a result of my curiosity and my willingness to spend time and/or money to satisfy that curiosity, I have a (more) clear understanding of how long it takes to get someplace, about how my house functions, and about heat and cold and insulation. I am aware that the break-even point of a PV system at my house may take years or even decades to reach, yet I’m still interested in installing one.
So I’m curious, where are you on this?
I mean, if there’s all this irrefutable evidence out there, peer reviewed, provable beyond all doubt, and those of us who doubt are insane (as some of you have more than implied in your posts), then are you putting your money where your mouths are? Are you taking action in your own lives yet?
Or are you spending all your time and energy waiting for or encouraging government to yet again intrude on our lives?
These large problems are often systematic, which is exactly the type of huddle people started forming societies to solve in the first place.
For example, an individual cannot enforce sequestering at a source, but an agency which represents our collective interests can.
It’s not an either/or choice, if only because some members are simply not responsible. We have collective laws to protect from being terrorized by violent criminals, and effective PR propaganda to try to avoid the same enforcement on polluters.
The lesson here is that crime will pay if you have the cash to buy enough mindshare. Think about what the best value proposition is towards that end.
ZoomZoom,
Let’s see… I bike to work frequently. Not all the time; I’m certainly not doing it in the winter in MN, principally because I share my route with cars and I’m not doing that when ice is present. I made arrangements for changing at work, so that I can bike in more conditions. I often bike my errands on the weekends. It helps that I like to bike. I’m looking for an electric bike to extend my reasonable biking range.
Biking is frustrating, though, as sticking to a trail, which I like to do for safety reasons, usually involves a longer route than using the street. To change between certain principal trails nearby includes going over an extra, rather tall, hill. It takes time and, when the weather is at all warm, makes for a lot of sweat. The alternative is, basically, to bike on a highway. I feel lucky to have the trails we do have. As a bonus, some of them are converted rail trails and the grades are great.
We live within 3 miles of my workplace and within walking distance of elementary and junior high schools and my wife’s workplace. We chose this location very deliberately, partly to avoid excessive dependence on cars and commuting but also to spend more time with the children and to be available for them. A 5 minute commute means I can have lunch with the family in the summer time or even in the school cafeteria, sometimes. My wife didn’t work until they were all in school full time and she did not work summers and she found a local job, too.
We do have a minivan but we have 4 children, so it’s not like we don’t have a very regular use for it. Our other recent cars have been a variety of 4-cylinders, all used, which get good fuel economy. A Prius is probably next but we don’t drive all that much (typically 8K/year, which includes the family trips to the coast) and all of the cars work well, so there’s no rush to buy one.
For medium distance intercity trips (200-500 miles), we try to rideshare with others and the kids do that, too. We’ve used the intercity bus (there’s a treat). The price works out about the same as one person traveling in the car. The schedule’s pretty awful, though. If two of us are going, we use the car.
We don’t use air conditioning.
We insulated the house a few years back but solar, due to the way the house is constructed, really is not an option. We don’t have a Southern exposure that would serve well for any kind of solar installation.
Still, I like solar a lot. I find it frustrating that there’s so little of it here in this town. The size of the town has quintupled since we moved here 2 decades ago. The idea of conservation really should have been firmly implanted by that time but the Ray-guns years wiped out any consideration of energy conservation awareness that might have lingered from the Carter years. When the President orders the solar panels ripped off the White House, what message does that send?
In any event, 80% of the housing stock in this town is less than 20 years old and there’s not only practically zero solar heat/hot water, there’s zero consideration of siting for passive solar gain. Houses typically have enormous windows on the back side, whether they face North or not. People will pony up for a 3rd stall on the garage and granite countertops for their McMansions but they won’t spend a bit more to site and build a house, which will stand for 40 or 50 years or more, that gets a significant part of its energy budget from the Sun. In building this McMansion, they’ve committed to heating a massive space with natural gas for decades to come. They’d save money in the long run but, since we all flip houses every 3 to 5 years, the long run is meaningless, isn’t it?
As for using mass transit… what mass transit? I could take the bus to work but the bus trip takes 3X longer than it does to walk (which I have also done). I have been known to use it for some trips; I drive to a commuter lot and take mass transit from there. I recently looked carefully at taking the bus to a shopping center about 15-20 miles away and concluded it was quicker to bike. The kid’s commute is served by reasonably frequent mass transit, so he got a bus pass and only needs to walk about a mile and a half besides the bus trip.
We’ve cut down on the amount of meat we eat.
Of course, this all amounts to a pisshole in the snow, as my lower than average carbon fuel use helps depress prices which just encourages people who couldn’t care less about the possibilities of global warming to consume more.
So, really, what’s the point? Why don’t I just buy myself a nice luxury car, a speed boat, ATV and snowmobile and enjoy a life of recreational use of non-renewable fuel? The brunt of the troubles will be borne by future generations. The cumulative actions of all the others in my generation means my kids and grandkids are screwed, anyway, so why go to any lengths to fight it?
One point of contention about environmental issues is that some fundamentally do not believe in our ability to be destructive.
Take Chernobyl for example, a massively localized, biologically damaging radioactive release. However, given the absence of human activity in the interim period, the area and surroundings have grown to be a forest teeming with wildlife. Perhaps not exactly great habitation by modern standards, but also not exactly how most think of an unpopulated radioactive wasteland: map.
The lesson here seems to be that humans are worse for the enviro than somewhat toxic radiation levels.
To circle the prior post back to the topic in an ironic manner, nuclear is one of possible solutions to the climate crisis. New reactor designs are quite safe, in fact demonstrably less hazardous than pretty much any fossil fuel source.
But good luck getter the plebs to accept that when they won’t even touch “irradiated” meat.
GW is over! Ranchers have found a new additive
they are adding to cow feed to stop their
“Belching”. We are now safe, Back to Living.