Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
How Much Warmer Is It? Oh, About 0.4 Celsius (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit)
That's according to climatologist John Christy, who is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Centre (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). His group has been measuring the earth's temperature using satellite data since 1979. The UAH researchers report:
Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that - a full quarter of the globe - warmed at least one full degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C)...
Globally, Earth's atmosphere warmed an average of about 0.4 C (or about 0.72 degrees Fahrenheit) in 30 years, according to data collected by sensors aboard NOAA and NASA satellites. More than 80 percent of the globe warmed by some amount.
A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (when satellite sensors started tracking the climate) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.
This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.
The area of fastest warming is clustered around the Northern Atlantic and Arctic oceans, stretching from Arctic Canada across Greenland to Scandinavia. The greatest warming has been on opposite ends of Greenland, where temperatures have jumped as much as 2.5 C (about 4.6 degrees F) in 30 years.
During the same time, however, much of the Antarctic has cooled, with parts of the continent cooling as much as Greenland has warmed. But areas of cooling were isolated: Only four percent of the globe cooled by at least half of one degree Fahrenheit.
'If you look at the 30-year graph of month-to-month temperature anomalies, the most obvious feature is the series of warmer than normal months that followed the major El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event of 1997-1998,' said Christy. 'Right now we are coming out of one La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event and we might be heading into another. It should be interesting over the next several years to see whether the post La Nina climate 're-sets' to the cooler seasonal norms we saw before 1997 or the warmer levels seen since then.'
Virtually all of the warming found in the satellite temperature record has taken place since the onset of the 1997-1998 El Nino. Earth's average temperature showed no detectable warming from December 1978 until the 1997 El Nino.
Since 1979, average temperatures have been increasing at 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. To see the actual satellite data go here.
In other news, the United Nations' Poznan climate change conference should be sputtering out tomorrow.
|12.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#
What I find interesting is that back when I was in grad school ('01-'03) the common belief was that the strongest warming would take place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you'd expect the greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the equator. I guess it's back to the drawing board on that theory...
|12.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#
that seems like nothing. no real change in temperature. Not compared to the massive temperature changes that have occured throughout the earths history. 2008 is shaping up to be a very cold year. Get ready for the coming Ice Age.
|12.11.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Why do I get this nagging doubt like a tingle in my forehead
when I read articles like this?
I know. As a nation, we seem poised to do "something" about climate
change. We are so convinced that without regulatory action we are
dooming our planet to a carbon dioxide oblivion. In the process we
will likely do some things that harm economically and otherwise
without producing a lick of the intended results.
I feel many actions of our human made climate change debacle will
be failures and history will look at us like we were idiots. Of
course this is not a well-founded opinion, more of a gut reaction
to many of the proposals that lead the debate.
Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don't give me that
bull.
|12.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Tell me more about global warming as I listen to ice building up on my office windows from freezing rain.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Obviously the ice caps are melting due to magic.
Magic we can be sure is not in any way related to human
activities.
Look, it's cold outside! Shows you, science.
|12.11.08 @ 2:53PM|#
global warming as a meme will die a silent and obscure death within a decade. You wont be able to find anyone who will admit to having been the least concerned about it. CO2, global warming fanatics will be as hard to find as, well, libertarians.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#
global warming as a meme will die a silent and obscure death within a decade. You wont be able to find anyone who will admit to having been the least concerned about it. CO2, global warming fanatics will be as hard to find as, well, libertarians.
So the myth of global warming will die about a decade before a
trade route opens that passes over the north pole. Fascinating.
Seal|12.11.08 @ 2:55PM|#
*clapping flippers together barking agreement*
What Phalkor said.Let'em drown.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 2:55PM|#
correction: a northern passage. Not literally the north pole, just in that direction.
Elemenope|12.11.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don't give me
that bull.
(food) "Please God, let this bear be a Christian bear!"
(bear) "Thank you, LORD, for the meal I am about to
receive...."
But seriously, as to your larger point, I agree that if there is
something going on globally, it is likely too subtle to be affected
in the manner we desire by blunt instruments swung blindly.
However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same things
policy-wise anyway. Smog is bad for your lungs no matter what it
may or may not do to the climate. Trees are nice and help make
beautiful scenery, as well as provide habitation for many animals
which humans use for food or game or simply enjoy for their own
sake. Polluting aquifers seems like a stupid plan even if it didn't
affect algal blooms and Water CO2 carrying capacity, as fresh water
is pretty fucking rare on Earth all things considered.
</|12.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Smog is bad for your lungs no matter what it may or may not
do to the climate. Trees are nice and help make beautiful scenery,
as well as provide habitation for many animals which humans use for
food or game or simply enjoy for their own sake.
Typical clueless environmentalist....
CO2 is not smog which is caused by particulate matter.Trees like
CO2, didn't you learn that in elementary school science?
|12.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#
However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same
things policy-wise anyway.
Or how about the foreign policy risks created by our dependence on
oil? Hmm?
|12.11.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Polar bears are godless killing machines
No, I'm pretty sure they worship some sort of frost giants. Or
don't those count?
|12.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don't give me
that bull.
But they're cute on screen!
|12.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Marc,
FROST GIANTS ARE NOT GODS, YOU RETARD!
How many times do I have to tell people this in a day? I've
actually lost count.
(This post is intending for humorous purposes only and should not
be considered a serious suggestion that you have a mental
disability or that frost giants are not gods. Or that any of those
things I said about Epi when he was on vacation were true. Offer
void in Alaska.)
|12.11.08 @ 3:25PM|#
No, I'm pretty sure they worship some sort of frost giants.
Or don't those count?
FROST GIANTS ARE NOT GODS, YOU RETARD!
Sigh. The proper term is jötnar. I cannot believe
the lack of knowledge of old Norse around here. You're all
idiots.
|12.11.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Sigh. The proper term is jötnar.
I saw Jötnar open for Satyricon when they were touring the States
back in '97. Hell of a show.
|12.11.08 @ 3:33PM|#
I bet someone around here can explain how this morning's blizzard in Baton Rouge is the result of AGW.
|12.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#
jötnar, norse stuff. reminds me of Ice Age, you know it
right?
"Ach! Hans, run! It's the lhurgoyf!" -Saffi Eriksdotter, last
words
|12.11.08 @ 3:35PM|#
However, there are great *secondary* reasons to do the same
things policy-wise anyway.
Sure, so make the case for your policy based on those reasons, not
some hoked-up "we're all gonna drown" PR campaign.
And the fact that it appears there may be a "Northern Passage" now
that was not there during the Little Ice Age, not to mention before
satellite imagery and GPS navigation, leaves me profoundly
unmoved.
|12.11.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Polar bears are godless killing machines, so don't give me
that bull.
Even after they're dead.
DID YOU KNOW:
that the Inuit (eskimo) people hunt the polar bear for fur and meat but cannot eat its liver, since its high content of vitamin A makes it poisonous for humans? So, be careful if you run across polar bear on a menu - 500 grams of polar bear liver will deliver about 9,000,000 IU vitamin A to your diet - a very lethal dose.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Truly, there is no way to tell how old ice is without GPS and
satellites. We have to be skeptical here, people.
And remember, ice can melt by magic.
|12.11.08 @ 3:44PM|#
"In other news, the United Nations' Poznan climate change
conference should be sputtering out tomorrow."
Oh yeah - well my scientists can beat up your scientists any day of
the week!
From Sen. Inhofe website: The UN global warming conference
currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge
from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are
criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice
President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S.
Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650
international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC
scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has
added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400
scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting
scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52)
who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for
Policymakers.
|12.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#
And remember, ice can melt by magic.
No, no, it can only re-freeze by magic.
Ice can only be melted by the heat of man's dark and soulless
heart.
I\'malittleteapot|12.11.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I'll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about countervailing opinions being based on magic. Like all my lefty kindred, I'm about as deep as a mud puddle left behind from the entrails of a snowman killed by global warming.
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Nice to see the typical intelligent debate on this topic.
The lack of context for these numbers is impressive.
On their face they don't seem to be evidence against AGW theories,
as far as I can tell.
the common belief was that the strongest warming would take
place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you'd expect the
greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the
equator.
Seems like the data conforms to that generally...Greenland seeing
the largest warming.
|12.11.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"It is our belief that Tuvalu, as a nation, has a right to
exist forever," Apisai Ielemia said. . . . "We are looking to the
United States to step out of the dark ages of inaction and become a
leading light on climate change," Ielemia said."
I wonder what he wants the US to do ?
|12.11.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Seems like the data conforms to that generally...Greenland
seeing the largest warming.
Sort of... I don't have the software to convert the raw data into
an image, but from what Ron says you have the greatest warming
around Greenland and the least by the South Pole. I would expect
the greatest warming to be on the continental Northern Hemisphere
(think Canada and Siberia) rather than the coasts of Greenland,
which are relatively maritime (hence the name of Greenland in the
first place). Additionally, if you're going to see cooling anywhere
you would expect it near the equator, not Antarctica.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#
I'll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about countervailing opinions being based on magic.
If you think this article disproves global warming, you're
high.
PC|12.11.08 @ 4:04PM|#
How does the Sun getting warmer fit into this? How about if we
just pass a law that does not allow the sun to get warmer?
This seems to be a result of a lack of regulation allowing the Sun
do whatever it wants. The Sun's days of willy nilly free market
capitalism are over. Change has come to Washington.
|12.11.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Man, look at all the skepticism about this study's
conclusions!
It's skeptiriffic, I tells ya!
The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are now
telling me it's stopped.
'Kay. Gonna stick with the scientists, thanks.
|12.11.08 @ 4:08PM|#
*slaps forehead* The SUN!
Oh, fellas, if only we'd thought to look at the SUN! Jenkins,
aren't you supposed to be in charge of making sure really, really
obvious parameters get entered into the models? How could you
forget to mention the sun?
Sorry, sorry, everybody. I just, like, totally spaced on the
sun.
OK, everybody, add a new colum on your Excel spreadsheets...
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 4:09PM|#
On the basis of rational skepticism, I choose to believe that
there is a conspiracy hatched by radical environmentalists that
includes 95% of climatoligists, the scientific community as a
whole, the governments of Europe and a major U.S. political party,
and the U.N. The aim of this conspiracy is the bankrupting of the
United States. This conspiracy was hatched purely out of spite.
Also, because environmentalists are "wackos."
SKEPTICAL.
|12.11.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Wow, I didn't know that scientists did real science anymore. What a revelation!
PC|12.11.08 @ 4:11PM|#
"The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are
now telling me it's stopped."
Yes, the scientific community has been nothing but consistent
regarding its position on global cooling
warming climate change.
|12.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Neu, I think the context of this is that the computer climate
models for global warming don't agree with the observed temperature
changes, calling the validity of said climate models into
question.
the common belief was that the strongest warming would take place in the coldest air masses. If that were true you'd expect the greatest warming at both poles with less warming as you move to the equator.
Seems like the data conforms to that generally...Greenland seeing the largest warming.
That should be Antartica, shouldn't it? ;-)
You know I'm no AGW denier. You should also know I don't panic
easily (recession, Obama etc). Can we agree that the AGW issue has
not been placed on the same footing as relativity and evolution.
Can we also agree that, assuming it's fact as you and I do, there
is so much guesswork involved that predictions should be taken with
a heaping dose of NaCl?
scientists|12.11.08 @ 4:15PM|#
'Kay. Gonna stick with the scientists, thanks.
Get off my leg! stop that humping! We have nothing in common!
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:15PM|#
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Worth a read?
Or just ad hom?
robc|12.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Anyone who has read their Norse mythology knows the difference between Gods and Giants. For one thing, the Giants are gonna win.
I\'malittleteapot|12.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#
MAX HATS | December 11, 2008, 4:03pm | #
I'll just ignore the fact that the article is about an on going
scientific study and keep making sarcastic remarks about
countervailing opinions being based on magic.
If you think this article disproves global warming, you're
high.
It's Like, I don't care about nothin man,
roll another blunt, Yea (ohh ohh ohh),
La da da da da da La, Da Daaa,
La da da da, La da da da, La da da daaa
I was gonna evaluate some data until I got high
I was gonna get up and find the casuality but then I got high
my theory is still messed up and I know why (why man?) yea
heyy,
- cause I got high
(La da da da da da da da da)
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:19PM|#
That should be Antartica, shouldn't it? ;-)
Not really.
It ain't that simple.
|12.11.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Matthew,
Which biologists studying evolution? The skeptical ones or the
others?
Why, the vast majority that have concluded that the evidence points
to the existence of global warming and evolution, of course.
|12.11.08 @ 4:21PM|#
If you think this article disproves global warming, you're high.
I am high, and I think it shows just how little we know about how
this planet works. Instead of making broad suppositions about the
future based on hypothetical doomsday scenarios, perhaps we should
really start figuring it out.
Not that I'm not completely convinced we are fucking this planet to
death as fast as we can.
stuartl|12.11.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Ron,
Has the table of satellite data been put into a graphic anywhere?
It would be very useful to see it.
|12.11.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Worth a read?
Or just ad hom?
I'm not a climatologist.
Respected scientists sniping at each other over disagreements about
theories would not be unprecedented, would it?
|12.11.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Neu, don't go all *** on me here. You responded to my joke point and disregarded the questions I asked. That's not like you.
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:28PM|#
JsubD,
Context would look, at least, like this...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
|12.11.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Evolution and Global Warming:
It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has
occured, and that modern species arose from earlier ones. However,
the exact mechanism is hotly disputed. The theory that the ordinary
rate of genetic drift gives rise to adaptations which bestow an
advantage in given environments might have some problems. There
might not be enough time, given the rate at which random genetic
change occurs. One comopeting theory is punctuated equilibrium,
which, honestly, I don't understand very well, but seems to speed
things up.
The situation is slightly different for manmade global warming. It
has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is taking
place, but exactly how much has occured, and the consequences of
different levels of warming, are still debated. There is a range of
consensus on both those questions that account for the vast
majority of scientists' conclusions, but it's still relatively
broad, compared to what we know we know.
But to say that the incomplete understanding of the mechanism of
evolution raises serious questions about whether evolution occured
is just silly. The people claiming it does have other motives, and
really don't need to be taken seriously.
MAX HATS|12.11.08 @ 4:28PM|#
I am high, and I think it shows just how little we know about how this planet works. Instead of making broad suppositions about the future based on hypothetical doomsday scenarios, perhaps we should really start figuring it out.
Absolutely a lot is unknown. Absolutely global warming, while
certainly occurring, is not fully known as far as the mechanism
behind it (as this article shows), the future of it, etc. But this
article does not disprove or refute global warming. You can
challenge a model all day, you can be right in challenges to a
model, but that does not change the data.
robc|12.11.08 @ 4:35PM|#
MAX HATS,
I dont think anyone is saying this study refutes global warming,
but it does sya the following:
1. It isnt as extreme as extremists say it is
2. We dont really understand it, the models appear to be
wrong
3. Maybe global warming doesnt exist (will it drop to pre-97 levels
or stay above them?)
This leads to some other conclusions (by me, not necessarily the
study):
1. Maybe we should hold off on implementing drastic "corrections"
until we have some models that appear to model correctly
2. We need to study stuff a bunch more
3. Maybe the extemists should STFU for about a decade and lets see
where we are when we have 40 years of satellite data
Im all in favor of a moratorium of PUBLIC POLICY discussions of
global warming for another 10 years (scientists should continue to
discuss of course). At that point, the science should be about 10
years better. We might decide at that point to have another 10 year
moratorium because we need better science first.
Doc|12.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Um, for an AVERAGE yearly temp, that actually is a huge amount.
Sure, it sounds tiny but you're talking a huge amount in the annual
swings in high temps.
Do you know what the average temperature is for your area? In
upstate NY it's something like 47F. Going to 48F means a whole hell
of a lot of difference.
|12.11.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Context would look, at least, like this...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
Beyond my meager math skills.
neu mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Beyond my meager math skills.
Words tell you what they think the numbers mean.
|12.11.08 @ 4:46PM|#
This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the
major global climate models.
It's this statement alone that is all that is required for me. If
your models aren't predicting the correct values then how can you
stand up and say you know whats going to happen?
The situation is slightly different for manmade global warming.
It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is taking
place, but exactly how much has occured, and the consequences of
different levels of warming, are still debated.
Based on what? The models that are wrong?
Evolution, as opposed to AGW, has demonstrable physical evidence
that it happens. We also have a solid understanding of the
mechanisms that make it so. There is nothing remotely like that in
any global warming theories.
Egosumabbas|12.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#
@joe
The main difference between global warming and evolution is that
evolution can be deductively proven without empirical
evidence (see
here and
here)
The problem with global warming is twofold: (1) that climate change
is somehow unnatural (2) trying to use computer models to prove
that humans are changing climate more than what would be
expected.
Computer models are not the same as falsifiable experiments. Trying
to simulate the entire global weather system many years in advance
is an impossible task. Any computer model will be a clever hack,
affected by human bias and guesswork. Certain predictions will be
impossible to make in the model (volcanic eruptions, solar
activity), increasing the error in the entire system.
Currently our best weather models are effective at accurately
predicting weather no more than 10 days in advance. And I don't buy
the bullshit that climate is somehow separate form weather. It's
the same chaotic system.
tekende|12.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Doc,
Read the article again. It's talking about 0.4 celsius average
increase over the past THIRTY YEARS, not one.
"Half of the globe has warmed at least one half of one degree
Fahrenheit (0.3 C) in the past 30 years, while half of that - a
full quarter of the globe - warmed at least one full degree
Fahrenheit (0.6 C)..."
|12.11.08 @ 4:49PM|#
joe
Matthew,
Which biologists studying evolution? The skeptical ones or the
others?
Given the vast amount of empirical evidence for evolution against
the reliance on computer modeling for AGW, I would have to call
this a false analogy. As the other guy above me said, AGW and
evolution aren't really on the same footing in terms of
evidence.
Polar Bear|12.11.08 @ 4:50PM|#
"Phlakor",
By the beard of jatnor you have taken your last breath seal!
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:52PM|#
tekende,
Doc's point is that raising the average by that much is a large
difference. The time frame has to do with the rate of change.
Historically, I believe this still comes out as a quick change in
the average temperature.
Anyone with good numbers on rate?
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Regarding Evolution/Global Warming.
There is probably more raw physical evidence involved with the
development of Global warming than evolution. The theory is an
attempt to explain the vast amounts of data...which is why you use
a computer model.
Everything from ice-cores, to carbon dating, to fossil records to
sediments, provide physical evidence for global warming trends over
time. These data are very clear that the current rates of c02
increase are unprecedented and that when large co2 increases
occurred in the past (at much slower rates) there were big climate
consequences.
Egosumabbas|12.11.08 @ 5:02PM|#
@Neu Mejican
Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more extreme variations in
temperature than we have now happened
all the time.
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 5:03PM|#
And our understanding of the basic mechanisms involved in global
warming are better understood than the basic processes of
evolution.
The challenge is understanding complex systems which behave in ways
that are not always predictable from an understanding of the basic
processes involved.
Naive reductionism doesn't work in climate science.
The best analogy to climate science is economics. Climate science,
however, has the advantage of having well understood physical
processes at its core, whereas economics has suppositions about
human nature at its core...
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more extreme
variations in temperature than we have now happened all the
time.
I don't have a AGW bubble to burst. I said "quick" not
"unprecedented."
The reason for concern about AGW is that the c02 levels
are increasing at unprecedented rates. In the past,
smaller, slower changes in c02 had big climate impact. What is
special now that would make us expect smaller impacts from
the current larger and more rapid c02 changes?
Gilbert Martin|12.11.08 @ 5:14PM|#
"Anyone who has read their Norse mythology knows the difference
between Gods and Giants. For one thing, the Giants are gonna
win."
No, the Titans are gonna win. They are 12-1 this season so far vs
11-2 for the Giants.
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 5:15PM|#
btw, Egosumabbas
The first thing in the list of special things of this time period
is "particulate pollution."
Not like that hasn't existed in the past also...we just happen to
have a particularly strong correlation between the increasing co2
and smog...not unprecedented, but strong.
|12.11.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Regarding Evolution/Global Warming.
There is probably more raw physical evidence involved with the
development of Global warming than evolution. The theory is an
attempt to explain the vast amounts of data...which is why you use
a computer model.
Everything from ice-cores, to carbon dating, to fossil records to
sediments, provide physical evidence for global warming trends over
time. These data are very clear that the current rates of c02
increase are unprecedented and that when large co2 increases
occurred in the past (at much slower rates) there were big climate
consequences.
But no one knows how it all works together. Just because you have a
bunch of data doesn't mean you automatically know how to interpret
it. We know the mechanics of evolution. We know how the pieces fit
together. There are some gaps here and there but most of that is on
the margins. Climatology is nowhere near the level of understanding
we have about evolution.
Why? Because it is far too complex. There are potentially millions
of factors that can contribute to climate change. So not only do
you have to find and map all those potential factors, you have to
put them all together in the proper order to get anything near a
reliable prediction.
Egosumabbas|12.11.08 @ 5:19PM|#
@Neu Mejican:
"The reason for concern about AGW is that the c02 levels are
increasing at unprecedented rates. In the past, smaller, slower
changes in c02 had big climate impact. What is special now that
would make us expect smaller impacts from the current larger and
more rapid c02 changes?"
All that's been shown is that there has been correlation
between CO2 measurements and temperature. You know as well as I do
that correlation is not causation. I personally believe it's more
plausible that warming causes CO2 to released from being stored in
oceans/ice than that CO2 causes more thermal heating than
variations in solar output.
robc|12.11.08 @ 5:21PM|#
NM,
The economics comparison isnt bad. I also oppose the existent of
the Fed.
|12.11.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Pain makes a good point here. The science related to climate
change doesn't seem to do what we need it to do, which is reliably
predict the future based on models of past and limited data coming
from a variety of sources.
I think there would be a similar hoohah (even from us
mostly-evolution believing libertarians) if the government was
trying to use previous knowledge about evolution to make policy
relative to a prediction about future evolution trends.
Egosumabbas|12.11.08 @ 5:22PM|#
@Neu Mejican:
Smog is not CO2. Smog has been on the decrease for decades now
(well, except in China).
|12.11.08 @ 5:23PM|#
NM,
The big difference between evidence of evolution and evidence of
global warming (esp. of the anthropogenic variety) is that the
evidence of the former is understood much, much, much better than
evidence of the latter. One system is somewhat chaotic, the other
is crazily chaotic.
It's a terrible analogy, in any case. Back when I was taking my
second statistics class (and no, I'm not remotely an expert), I
remember that weather data were among those that most commonly led
researchers to fall victim to finding false correlations. And this
was way before anyone was seriously talking about AGW. We're
talking levels of complexity that remain beyond our ken in many
respects. But we'll get better at it, I'm sure.
Egosumabbas|12.11.08 @ 5:24PM|#
@Reinmoose
The government HAS tried to use evolutionary science for policy in
the past. It was called Eugenics.
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 5:25PM|#
All that's been shown is that there has been correlation
between CO2 measurements and temperature.
Sure, but the evidence that the c02 rise leads the temperature rise
is pretty strong.
warming causes CO2 to released from being stored in
oceans/ice
There is good evidence for this.
than that CO2 causes more thermal heating than variations in
solar output.
Both can cause significant heating. NO ONE is claiming a single
climate forcer.
MNG|12.11.08 @ 6:15PM|#
"We know the mechanics of evolution."
We do? Can you tell me what it is so I can publish it and become
the next Stephen J Gould?
This is hilarious. When the hundreds of peer reviewed studies
lending cofirmation to global warming come out everyone here is
like "that proves nothing" or "conspiracy of socialist scientists
from around the globe" or "hey my jackanape unqualified self just
looked at some data and I now conclude all those studies are
wrong."
Now this one from the venerable University of Huntsville Alabama
comes out and the GW deniers here go "see, we were right, we have a
study!"
Lowdog|12.11.08 @ 6:16PM|#
"Computer models are not the same as falsifiable
experiments."
I wish someone would tell astrophysicists that...
As for the study, and AGW, I agree that it's a fascinating topic
that deserves way more research, but that no real big policy
changes would be a good idea at this point.
Heck, they have found these areas of ionised particles that seem to
"shepherd" clouds that were totally unexpected, so IMO, the climate
is a lot more complicated than we think. Not that we haven't made
strides in modeling or that modeling is totally useless, but
science has been relying on it (modeling) too much in certain areas
lately.
MNG|12.11.08 @ 6:22PM|#
I'll make my standard claim when this comes up.
Since you guys who deny AGW know that the majority of scientists
are wrong, can you please tell me some other area where a similarly
large current consensus of scientists from around the globe is
wrong? I mean, if you guys are that good at peering beyond those
with much more education, training, equipment and opportunity for
study of this subject and seeing what's really going on in the data
and such then surely you've cracked similar wrongheaded
consensuses?
And for that matter, why haven't you guys published your results?
Or are you just siding with the scientists that say things that
make you feel more ideologically comfortable.
If the majority of scientists said there was no AGW I would be the
first to say it's bunk.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 6:23PM|#
It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has
occured, and that modern species arose from earlier
ones.
Joe, I agree with everything you say. Except (and really, correct
me if I'm wrong), there isn't a group of politicians crawling in my
front window, and another group of environmentalist NGO's crawling
through my back window, demanding that I change my lifestyle, and
at minimum start demanding I pay my 'fair share' for my footprint
on the basis of evolution.
There's no money in evolution. There is, however, lots of
money to be made on Global Warming. Boatloads of it. As such, it
pays for things to be blown out of proportion.
This is not to suggest that the planet isn't warming, or I'm a
"denier". Only the broadest predictions have been borne out: The
planet is getting warmer. How much warmer, where, what the effects
are and to what extent etc., have almost all been wrong.
So forgive us for steepling our fingers and frowning everytime we
hear that the end is nigh.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Since you guys who deny AGW know that the majority of
scientists are wrong, can you please tell me some other area where
a similarly large current consensus of scientists from around the
globe is wrong?
MNG, I'm not a denier, but allow me to respond.
AGW isn't a 'thing'. It's not like the rate of acceleration under
earth gravity, or the temperature at which water boils at
sea-level. Global warming... erh, Climate Change is an evolving
theory which generally places the thrust of said change at the feet
of increasing carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. After
that, it's a network of observed effects which are fantastically
complicated to empirically say are the "cause" of increased C02.
Unfortunately there are many non-scientists who take these effects
and use them as just such evidence. This politicizes the issue,
obfuscates the facts and stokes the fires of deniability.
As an example of one these individual effects, here's a case of
'scientific concensus' which turned out to be wrong:
Scientists had expected that over the coming century global warming would increase the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, as higher temperatures brought increased snowfall, but the new data suggest that it is losing mass.
The findings, from the satellites of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) begun in 2002, are a concern because the ice sheet would increase sea levels by as much as 45m (150ft) were it all released. The West Antarctic ice sheet, where the bulk of the melting is taking place, holds water that would raise the sea level by more than 6m (20ft). The East Antarctic sheet, which is eight times larger, appears to be more stable.
The result is a classic case of:
Ice sheets to expand due to global warming.
Ice sheets found to be shrinking, global warming to blame.
It makes one wonder, on a case-by-case basis, if there's any
observed effect that calls global warming into question. If the
market goes up, it's global warming. If it goes down, clearly,
global warming. If it stays the same, an obvious effect of global
warming.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 6:36PM|#
to empirically say are the "cause" of increased
C02
Should have read: are caused by increased C02.
MNG|12.11.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Paul
The factual questions of is GW happening, what causes it, what will
the consequences be, and what we can do about it are just that,
factual ones.
The normative questions about what should do about it, both in
terms of what can be done to combat it most effectively with the
least costs (and economic harm through regulation has to be a cost)
and most benefits, as well as what we can ask of everyone morally
in fighting it, are seperate questions. The wacky environmentalists
make this mistake by thinking certain answers to the first type of
questions mean their preferred programs in response to the second
type hold. Libertarians or anyone for that matter need not make the
same mistake. Most people tend to think broad scientific
consensuses are correct (for good reason!) and thus libertarians
who take the strategy of quibling over the first questions are
going to lose in the second area where its going to matter, because
they will be dismissed (quite rightly it seems) as not even knowing
or worse denying for ideological reasons the factual premises which
trigger the normative debate.
Libertarians denying the GW consensus because if it is true it may
lead to more government to combat it strike me as analgous to ones
who would deny that people are often aggresive towards one another
because to acknowledge that would mean we might have to pay a
police force with tax money...
MNG|12.11.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Paul
Let me ask you, why do most experts that study this area think
global warming is occurring and man made? I hope you do not think
it's some international conspiracy or something. These guys are
trained to carefully look over a broad variety of data and
critically examine it. And something is making most of them think
this way about it. What do you think that is?
|12.11.08 @ 6:44PM|#
We do? Can you tell me what it is so I can publish it and
become the next Stephen J Gould?
What are you talking about? Evolution is well understood and we can
see the results and even replicate the process to some degree. We
understand how genetics work on a general level and how the
environment effects change in species. It's not magic.
Can climatology claim anything even remotely close to that level of
understanding?
Paul|12.11.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Let me ask you, why do most experts that study this area
think global warming is occurring and man made? I hope you do not
think it's some international conspiracy or something.
Let me first say that I do not, nor have I ever thought that the
theory of global warming, or even its solutions are a 'global
conspiracy'. I tend to not believe of conspiracies of any
stripe.
However, I will say that the theory of AGW is tailor made for
interventions of many a dangerous stripe. This allows AGW to become
a political football. That's why the theory of large celestial
bodies hitting the earth don't get airtime that global warming
does. One is just as factual as the other.
As for why there's a scientific consensus on CO2 emissions causing
warming?
As a non-climatoligist, I have to believe that there is, under
laboratory conditions a link between increased CO2 and a
temperature trapping mechanism to come to the fore. I cannot stress
the words "laboratory conditions" enough.
|12.11.08 @ 6:53PM|#
There's no money in evolution. There is, however, lots of
money to be made on Global Warming. Boatloads of it. As such, it
pays for things to be blown out of proportion.
Not just money, but power. AGW via CO2 is the perfect rationale for
every leftist control fantasy: It's global! It requires
restrictions on businesses and farms and cars! It proves
vegetarians are superior to omnivores!
|12.11.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Pain, Matthew,
You both state that we do not have verifiable evidence that global
warming is happening, but in fact, the almost century-long pattern
of rising temperatures is well documented and inarguable.
Pain,
Why? Because it is far too complex. There are potentially
millions of factors that can contribute to climate change. So not
only do you have to find and map all those potential factors, you
have to put them all together in the proper order to get anything
near a reliable prediction. That is a valid statement
about how global warming with influence the planet.
However, not knowing how all the rocks will bounce down the
mountain is one thing; know that setting off a blast will cause an
avalanche in another.
Paul,
The truth and accuracy of climate science is wholly independent
from whether you find certain conclusions to be politically
convenient. I absolutely can understand why you would reflexively
reject reports that global warming is a problem. It would behoove
you to recognize that this reflex can bias your reaction to
scientific information.
Egosumabbas,
All that's been shown is that there has been correlation
between CO2 measurements and temperature. You know as well as I do
that correlation is not causation. The greenhouse effect,
whereby increased levels of carbon in an atmosphere increase the
amount of heat it traps, was discovered around the time of the
American Revolution.
Pro Lib,
Weather is not climate. The increase in magnitude in the number of
individual events actually makes climate predictions easier, for
the same reason that I can more easily predict how many homers
Manny Ramirez will hit in 2009 than in the first week of July
2009.
Sam Grove|12.11.08 @ 7:11PM|#
the subtle shift.
The people who used to tell me there was no global warming are
now telling me it's stopped.
Very few claimed there was NO global warming. The debate is over
the cause. No?
Mike Laursen|12.11.08 @ 7:14PM|#
The increase in magnitude in the number of individual events
actually makes climate predictions easier, for the same reason that
I can more easily predict how many homers Manny Ramirez will hit in
2009 than in the first week of July 2009.
joe, can you define what you mean by "event"?
|12.11.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Egosum wrote: "Sorry to burst your AGW bubble, but much more
extreme variations in temperature than we have now happened all the
time."
Great. Except there weren't 7 billion people living mostly in
coastal areas at the time.
Whether or not it's natural, it certainly behooves us to cut down
on activities that could exacerbate the problem.
|12.11.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Paul wrote: "However, I will say that the theory of AGW is
tailor made for interventions of many a dangerous stripe."
You mean like invading a Middle Eastern country, toppling its
government, incurring tens of thousands of American wounded and
dead, and hundreds of thousands of civilians in the target
country?
The environmentalists even said the war would pay for itself once
we started pumping CO2 into Iraq's wells!
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 7:31PM|#
How much warmer, where, what the effects are and to what
extent etc., have almost all been wrong.
Not really, as almost all have been about what happens over the
next 100 years or so.
I will point out (jump in here MikeP) that the climate models are
far in advance of the attempts to predict what the economic
consequences of climate change are...and yet, people often use the
predicted cost of addressing the problem as a reason not to address
the problem ("the reduced risk doesn't justify the cost").
That baffles me.
The worst case scenarios for AGW are not subtle in terms of
economic impact. These worst case scenarios should be easy to
avoid, but the do require actual efforts to avoid.
For example, if run away GW results in anoxic oceans we may (again)
see warming wiping out 98% of all species on the planet. At current
rates of c02 increase, we have 2 centuries to avoid this scenario.
Should be easy if we acknowledge the problem. MikeP will rightfully
point out that talk of "at any cost" is silly, but shit canning the
whole idea of reasonable interventions for small marginal costs
(2-3% of world gdp even) is similarly silly. What is the dollar
value for 98% of all life on earth again?
Neu Mejican|12.11.08 @ 7:43PM|#
The normative questions about what should do about it, both
in terms of what can be done to combat it most effectively with the
least costs (and economic harm through regulation has to be a cost)
and most benefits, as well as what we can ask of everyone morally
in fighting it, are seperate questions.
Good point, although I am not sure all changes to the regulatory
structure will have economic costs as many of the things that need
to be done to reduce co2 output are more likely to be economically
beneficial than harmful...and some involve reduced
regulation.
Upgrading to a more fuel efficient manufacturing process, for
instance, lowers you production costs whether or not you choose the
upgrade or had it forced on you.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf
Provides a nice discussion...
Complete with empirical examples of the economic benefits of
reducing energy usage.
|12.11.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Sam Grove,
Ron Bailey argued that there was no global warming until, IIRC,
2005. When he acknowledged it, many of the people now tell us that
the data indicate that global warming has stopped assailed him for
believing in "superstition" without evidence.
The "debate" is now about its cause, but pretty much is only
happening among those who, until very recently, denied it was
happening at all.
Mike Laursen,
In that sentence you quoted, "event" could refer to temperature
readings, the magnitude of storm events, average monthly
temperatures, or other proxies for the amount of heat in the
atmosphere.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 7:53PM|#
The truth and accuracy of climate science is wholly
independent from whether you find certain conclusions to be
politically convenient.
Joe, isn't that ultimately what we're talking about? There are a
series of scientific papers whose conclusions are vauge, but spun
into political grist for proving that global warming is "worse than
we thought". When if you read the paper, the real conclusion might
be (for example) more sea ice over here, less sea ice over
there.
There are other papers which make no conclusions about global
warming, but are seeing effects which could be interpreted
tangental to warming but then circulate through the lay media as
various and sundry smoking guns to global warming.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 8:00PM|#
MikeP will rightfully point out that talk of "at any cost"
is silly, but shit canning the whole idea of reasonable
interventions for small marginal costs (2-3% of world gdp even) is
similarly silly.
I've always been a big fan of low-hanging fruit. However, there may
be some differences of opinion as what constitutes low hanging
fruit. As you might guess, I think the low-hanging fruit largely
exists in the realm of what normal advancements in technology and
conservation are already bringing.
|12.11.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Simple question from a simple mind.
Query: What is the correct temperature of the earth?
MNG|12.11.08 @ 8:09PM|#
But Paul, the majority of experts in the relative fields are
from a variety of nations, organizations, ideologies. They've come
across all these papers which you term "vague" and "could be
interpreted tangental to warming" and then their professional
associations meet and declare fairly unequivocally that global
warming is occurring, is very probably partly man caused, and very
likely could have disasterous effects. They probably know more
about these papers and know about more of them than you, right?
They probably know more data than you, and better how to interpret
it, don't they? And they come to this large consensus. Why in the
world would that be?
I mean, drive down to your local university, locate the relevant
departments and ask the professors. Go to local climatologists in
local governmental offices or private foundations and ask
them.
Why would they lie? How possible is it that they are all missing
something that you have stumbled upon? How much more likely is it
that, since you admit accepting these facts would likely require
some "interventions" you are ideologically opposed to, you are
missing the point due to ideological reasons?
I mean really, pretend you are the third party here and I see folks
like yourself on one side and then all these experts on the other.
What would be reasonable for me to conclude here?
MNG|12.11.08 @ 8:15PM|#
I'm pretty liberal btw. But I'm not sure I would have anything
invested in buying into global warming. Contrary to some people's
fevered imaginations, I don't want to see government interventions
for the freaking sake of themselves. If there is no global warming,
if we are not in part the cause and/or if there is nothing we can
do to ameliorate it, then I most CERTAINLY don't want a single
rusty penny of mine to be spent "combatting" it.
I'm also a very, very pro-worker pro-labor union liberal (just
browse past threads). Accepting global warming and combative
measures is going to be a real, real bitch for my pet cause. Any
liberal who can't see this has some explaining to do imo.
But what can I do? Most of the people with the relevant expertise
really seem convinced and I don't have a spare ten years to get a
PhD in climate science and another 20 to devote to a career of
gaining experience examining and analyzing such claims. It seems
I'd be some kind of fool to not think they are right.
Note the fact that they are right doesn't tell us what and how much
regulation is morally acceptable or warranted or how much money
should be spent how and where. A climatologist knows no more about
that than you or I do, maybe less...
Kaiser|12.11.08 @ 8:18PM|#
I think the real question here is....
When the man made Global cooling
warming Climate Change church of Present Day
saints finally goes away for good in 10 or 20 years for a complete
lack of evidence. Will MNG post under "Crow Eating Dumbass" for a
whole year this time?
Simple question from a simple mind.
Query: What is the correct temperature of the earth?
Excellent question, and I have an answer for you. There isn't a
"correct" temperature. The climate fluctuates all the time, it gets
colder, it gets hotter, it rains, it shines etc. Many people forget
that just 30 or so years ago these exact same green house gasses
and human "evil doers" were being blamed for "global cooling." We
see how that panned out for these amazing scientists.
This reminds me somewhat of the economic debacle that is going on
right now. This mentality that "We can't let them fail, it's just
not an option." So we keep propping up these industries and
delaying the inevitable, and when it all does finally come crashing
down, it will be far worse than had we just let them fail to begin
with. Yeah we would have had a recession, but it would have only
lasted a year or 2, but now it is liable to last 10 years or
more.
The point here is people seem to think that the climate should
never change, and anytime it does, clearly we have fucked up.
MNG|12.11.08 @ 8:19PM|#
If I were a libertarian (there but for the grace of God go I) I would be thinking of the following: given global warming can harm us all, and that governmental action is sometimes warranted to combat harms of such a directe nature, what ways can it be addressed which maximizes liberty and minimizes restrictions on said liberty and respects property rights and individual choise to the greatest extent feasible in addressing the harm?
MNG|12.11.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Kaiser: "Argh, science stupid! Kaiser no listen to stupid
science, Kaiser SMASH puny scientists!"
Hey Kaiser, what other current scientific consensuses are bunk?
Surely someone with the scientific acument you must possess to
arrogantly dismiss the findings of so many varied scientists on
this issue and the ability to see through the GW ruse has a couple
of more gems you've noticed in your studies?
Or could it be that you don't accept only one scientific consensus
and it happens to be one that would provide support for
governmental action you ideologically oppose? Wow, that looks
pretty bad, doesn't it?
MNG|12.11.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Libertarian GW deniers remind me of leftists who refused (and still do btw) to accept the work of many IQ experts about ties of IQ to criminality and inequality and some genetic bases for IQ because to accept such would mean some of their pet policy stances might be less workable.
Kaiser|12.11.08 @ 9:05PM|#
I do not deny man made GW (keep in mind I always
qualify GW with a "man-made," to deny that the climate changes
would just be ignorant) because I am opposed to government
intervention. Obviously being libertarian I am opposed to that,
however if that were my only reason I would just say "Yeah sure
it's real, but I'll be damned if the government will make me do
anything about it." Or something along those lines.
You act as if every scientist in the world believes man
made GW is real and that, since it is real, we not only can, but
have a moral obligation to do something about it. This is just not
the case, there is a multitude of scientists who do not believe in
man made GW, and have excellent data to support their beliefs. I am
not going to link, nor quote any data here for one reason: Human
bias. It is far to easy to take data, and interpret it, or in other
words, skew it to say what you want it to. I learned this in my
younger years when first researching the effects of
marijuana.
I will say this though, the earth has been here for roughly 5
billion years. (it is more like 4.6 but I am rounding for evenness)
During that time it has been through many changes. Multiple ice
ages, plate shifts, violent eruptions, asteroid strikes, etc etc.
All of human life, let me repeat that, All of human life
has taken place after the last ice age, meaning another one is very
probable. Of course the climate changes, all I am merely saying is,
if it heats up, it will cool down again. The planet is kind of cool
like that.
I think it is very audacious to think that in this incredibly short
amount of time, humans have effected the earth is such a drastic
manner. Maybe if you guys had picked a different gas, then the one
that I exhale tons of on a daily basis I might be more willing to
believe. That combined with the fact that we as human are only
responsible for roughly 3% of all GHGs released into the air per
year. (Volcanoes are the #1 producer, followed by decaying plants
and animals)
Lastly I leave with this, IF man-made global
climate change is real, and IF it is because of
CO2, why don't we just plant more plants. Trees, flowers, grass,
vines, marijuana ffs. I mean it seems so simple yet everyone wants
to make these drastic changes. Plants use CO2 for food, and the by
product is Oxygen. So why not just plant more shit?
MNG|12.11.08 @ 9:19PM|#
"You act as if every scientist in the world believes man made GW
is real and that, since it is real, we not only can, but have a
moral obligation to do something about it."
Uhh, actually I explicitly de-coupled these two claims above,
didn't I?
"Of course the climate changes, all I am merely saying is, if it
heats up, it will cool down again."
Of course you realize that before when the earth's climate change
it was before the amazing changes and potential effects of our
industrialization. So if the past changes were natural and this one
is NOT your past assumptions about what will then follow would be,
well, unwarranted, right?
"there is a multitude of scientists who do not believe in man made
GW, and have excellent data to support their beliefs"
A multitude? You do realize that this multitude is a small minority
of the relevant experts, right? I mean, you do know that don't you?
Like you know that every relevant professional association has come
out with pretty strong statements opposed to what you are claiming?
What happened to your multitude at these associations, did they
forget to vote on the motions?
"I think it is very audacious to think that in this incredibly
short amount of time, humans have effected the earth is such a
drastic manner."
This always amazes me. Can you not look around and see the amazing
changes wrought by industrialization? I mean industrialization has
truly been wonderous. It has literally changed so much in so little
time it's very easy to believe that it may have caused some
negative effect.
Paul|12.11.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Why would they lie?
MNG, I never mentioned anything about lying.
Look, I'm no stranger to this online thing.
I was in an online debate about skid-plates on a 4wd vehicle. I
casually mentioned that while skid-plates are a really good idea,
they're not absolutely necessary depending on the off-road
conditions, how you drive etc.
By the third post down, I was accused of being "rabidly
anti-skid-plate".
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a global warming
'troofer'.
But this consensus that everyone refers to, while fine and I agree
it has a lot of clout, is all we talk about anymore. The Antarctic
was supposed to see the most warming. It has seen little warming-
and even cooling on much of the continent. "Consensus!!!" is always
the response. It's a bit like being told your shoe is untied
everytime you point out something that calls into question the
severity of AGW. Or simply call into question the reliance on
models
to set public
policy.
Kaiser|12.11.08 @ 9:48PM|#
I refer back to religion to answer one of your questions.
Something like 80% (if not more) of the world would tell me that
there is a God or some form of deity that rules over the world from
the heavens. Or maybe there is some life force that connects us all
that we just can see, but if we try real hard we can tap into it
and master it. Should I believe them just because they are the
majority, and hell a lot of them are "experts." So I guess I should
pick a up a bible or start to learn tai chi. Maybe I will setup an
acupuncture appointment in the morning, or find someone who can
realign my chakras.
But all of that is besides the point, I just mentioned that there
are many scientists who disagree, and there is. You still
failed to answer my simple question. Ok let us assume that
industrialization and human nature in general has taken a giant
purple dildo to the ass of the globe. CO2 being the main culprit.
Why do we not just plant more trees. Trees use CO2 during
photosynthesis to grow, and the by product of this process is
oxygen. As a matter of fact, if I remember my last history channel
documentary correctly, that is one of the factors that changed a
very carbon dioxide rich atmosphere into an oxygen rich one to
begin with. So why take all these drastic measures when we could
just take one simple one? Pretty soon there will be mandates on how
much we can breathe during the day...
idiotface|12.11.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I'm on board with this planting trees thing. I'm going to get paid for planting trees. Universal Service, suckas!
|12.11.08 @ 11:25PM|#
NM sez The best analogy to climate science is
economics.
Damning with faint praise? Or, if economics is the dismal science,
what does that make climate science?
Anyway, on a semi-related snark, I am shocked that no one has made
note of how uneven this warming is - clearly we need to share the
warmth with a little redistribution, call it climatic justice. We
can't have some hog all the growth in warmth while others are left
in the cold?
Mike Laursen|12.12.08 @ 1:25AM|#
...what ways can it be addressed which maximizes liberty and
minimizes restrictions on said liberty and respects property rights
and individual choise to the greatest extent feasible in addressing
the harm?
I've yet to hear a proposal that has a strong chance of avoiding
predicted bad effects of global climate change. Having said that,
the best ideas, I've heard so far are:
1. Mitigate the problems: for example, more spending on flood
control projects, both domestically and through foreign aid.
2. A cap and trade system. It would be consistent with
libertarianism so far as it makes greenhouse gas producers pay
costs that they currently get to externalize. Such a system is very
vulnerable, however, to being politically gamed to the point where
the original purpose of helping the environment is lost (same for
carbon taxes). Also, to be effective such a system would have to be
international, which means it's not just something that the United
States government, or group of nations, can impose
unilaterally.
Kaiser|12.12.08 @ 6:06AM|#
I still don't understand what is wrong with my plan....
Just plant more trees. Problem solved. Nothing to look at here
folks just move along....
MNG|12.12.08 @ 7:59AM|#
Kaiser
When 80% of the public have a consensus about something that is
different than when 80% of trained experts in the relevant fields
have a consensus about something. Climate science is a bit more
complicated than the Scriptures and you might be humble enough to
think you'd need a great deal of training, experience and access to
crucial data and measurement devices to adequately make sense of
something like that.
As to your tree idea, surely the experts have thought of that and
judging from their proposals it doesn't fully address the
problem.
Paul
Again, yes, it's good to notice a finding here and there which
seems to not fit. But again I point out that surely the "consensus"
knows about such findings and has good reasons to assume it does
not shake the basic, well, consensus. Maybe you still agree with
the basic consensus after reading such findings but just find them
interesting, but as you can see from this post many dudes think
such findings provide proof for them to resist any efforts by those
who buy the consensus to address it (which is what any sensible
policymaker should do, right?)
M. Simon|12.12.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Sun's
Magnetic Field May Affect Climate
And you know what? The Sun's Magnetic Field is Declining. And after
the Decline comes the Fall. In the summer.
M. Simon|12.12.08 @ 9:23AM|#
It took a while for the phlogiston consensus to die out.
Basically the guys who believed in it had to die off.
The fact that new information discredits an old idea may not change
the consensus for 40 years. Human nature.
Neu Mejican|12.12.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Or, if economics is the dismal science, what does that make
climate science?
The point, of course, was that climate science has a leg up on
economics because the underlying processes upon which the models
are based are well understood thermodynamics, chemistry, and
physics, while economics relies upon vague assumptions about human
nature and sociology.
The phenomena being scrutinized are starkly different because the
basic elements in the complex system that makes up the climate do
not have conscious agency. Whereas the basic elements making up the
complex economic system are themselves complex systems with
conscious agency.
This is the reason that climate modeling is making rapid progress
while economic modeling hasn't.
So, you should be more skeptical of the economist telling you that
the proposed plan to address global warming will ruin the economy
than you should be of the climate scientist telling you that doing
nothing will lead to consequence X.
Mike Laursen|12.12.08 @ 12:07PM|#
... climate science has a leg up on economics because the
underlying processes upon which the models are based are well
understood thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics...
That just doesn't lead to it being easy or even doable to make a
correct model of the climate. Computer circuitry is well
understood, but Windows is full of bugs. Building materials are
well understood, but buildings fall down. Musical scales are well
understood, but Sting still writes crappy music.
|12.12.08 @ 1:53PM|#
I'm pretty sure that tthe top scientists in the world know a
little more about the world's climate than egosumbas. All of them
agree that we must do something or their is a risk of huge
problems.
I can't wait to see what happens when the bitter clingers and bible
thumpers finally realize that their kind don't run the country any
more.
Unfortunately, Obama will save all the idiots from global
catastrophe with his common sense carbon agreements and once he
improves our world wide weather patterns the masses of rednecks
will point to the good climate as proof that they were correct all
along.
It makes you wonder why Obama would even stick his neck out and try
to save the idiots. No good deed goes unpunished.
|12.12.08 @ 2:47PM|#
I'm not a global warming denier, just a global warming
agnostic.
But I am a
government-should-have-the-power-to-make-you-do-something-about-global-warming
denier.
As we keep seeing, there is ample reason to doubt that science
knows what is really going on, other than (perhaps) a rough net
average movement of temperature up or down. The natives that
Columbus gulled could see whether the sun was going away or coming
back, but they did not know why. When the eclipse happened as
Columbus said it would, the natives took him to be a being of great
knowledge or power, and started treating him better. Our science,
while properly warning us to use caution and pay attention to the
ongoing climate situation, hasn't even enabled its priesthood to
perform as well as Columbus. So using it as the basis for public
policy still seems like a profoundly bad idea to me.
|12.12.08 @ 4:25PM|#
MAX HATS | December 11, 2008, 2:54pm | #
So the myth of global warming will die about a decade before a
trade route opens that passes over the north pole.
Fascinating.
Well there have been open routes north of Canada a couple times in
the last 100 years, read your history bozo, take a look at the
Amundsen expedition
|12.12.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Tombo,
your conspiracy theories intrigue me. I suppose it was the
Bilderberg group and the CFR that made these trade rotues you speak
of? Or was it Bigfoot?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245