Global Warming
I have recently discovered that there are a few regular participants on this board that either a) do not think Global Warming is being caused by mankind, or b) there is nothing we can do about it.
Personally, I am not an extremist in regards to Global Warming and its solutions, but I certainly believe humans are behind it and that we should at least try to mitigate it.
Therefore, let the fireworks begin... unless those of you that believe a) or b) above are afraid to engage in a REAL debate on this board. I will guarantee that you will get more discussion out of me than we seem to have been able to generate from the supposed "liberals" that we have tried to involve in this board. (Hell, we haven't even seen comments from them to gloat on recent successes?!)
posted by Carl Spackler @ 7:58 AM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
I feel directly addressed by Carl. And, as the starting arguments of what was formerly known in the scientific debate as “healthy skepticism,” I contend that:
1. Our planet’s climate has fluctuated widely, as shown by the geological record, through several hot and cold periods. Many of these periods preceded the appearance of mankind. And most certainly preceded the appearance of that most damaging of species, Americanus Suburbanite. Thus, I offer that change, not the lack of it, is the constant when it comes to climate.
2. When planning a recent trip, three days prior to departure, the best minds in the business could not approximate the temperature within 3 degrees nor tell me whether or not it would rain at my destination. Thus, I offer that models that predict temperatures 100 years from now may be somewhat less accurate. I am also less than comforted when told “…the planet is warming even faster than our models predicted….” In my humble opinion, this illustrates that the models themselves are flawed. I humbly offer the following Time article for the group’s review: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
3. I have a little, inexpensive GPS (who’d have thunk it!?!) that tells me with incredible accuracy my geographic position. NASA and NOAA deploy weather satellites which take measurements that, until those satellites were deployed, were impossible to take. The technology that is now commonplace (my GPS, digital thermometers) was not available 30 years ago. Which brings me to my pool: (1) the temperature fluctuates with time, as the sun warms it; and (2) the temperature fluctuates depending on where in the pool I take the measurement. Thus, I offer that the climate record, when taken and recorded with instruments less accurate than those available today, analog throughout most of the history of our subject matter, is at best less accurate the further back in time we look. So, while I know and trust that the temperature in Sitka, Alaska today was closer to the record low allegedly recorded in 1951 than to the average, I have a really difficult time thinking of that record low as a temperature as accurately measured as today’s. And this was half way through the 20th century already.
4. I agree that ExxonMobil and other so-called “Big Oil” companies finance studies whose results further their business interests. And I congratulate the press on their zealous pursuit of the truth. I offer, however, that GreenPeace and other members of “Big Green” (my term) have a built-in interest in the exact opposite position and yet, I have yet to see the press ever impugn their motives. A coincidence, indubitably.
5. Because I was born in a much warmer climate, and possibly because hot Latin blood curses through my veins and makes me dance uncontrollably when I listen to a good reggaeton, I am comfortable in a warmer climate. Thinking back on it, however, I also find a strange beauty in being able to write my name in the snow using an innate tool that now, again because of my age, is good for very little else. I, therefore, offer that I cannot tell the group what is an ideal temperature for me – it would largely depend on the activity. And I ask the group, if you accept that climate has changed through the ages, what makes you think we’re not approaching, rather than departing from, perfection in this latest change cycle?
Unlike the Green lobby, I encourage and invite dissenting opinions. Keep tuned for discussions on rising sea levels and shrinking glaciers.
Anyway, I would continue but I can hear Daddy Yankee starting another session, and the music has taken control of me.
One more item....
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
I'm going to address your points one at a time...
1. No disagreement there. I thing you should not be too focused on the term "Global Warming". I think it is more accurate to say that we are driving "Global Climate Change". There will be some areas of the globe that will become cooler if we continue on the current course. Also, as much as I believe we are affecting the climate, macro global factors such as the fluctuations you refer to will also continue to move Earth's temperature up and down.
2. Your study was from the 70's. Is your point was that scientists thought we were headed for another ice age in the 70's, and now they say global warming? If that is the case, there are a number of studies out there that also say that current global climate change driven by humans may actually be forestalling an ice age. As good as that sounds, I am always nervous about messing around with Mother Nature.
3. They may not have measured things as accurately as they can today, but don't underestimate the scientific knowledge or diligence of people for the last 300 years. They had instruments and knowledge sufficient to develop 98% of the theories of physics we have today. They were able to sail on wooden ships around the world with a compass, sextant, and hour glasses. They DID measure water temps all over the world. I do not doubt that most of these measurements was accurate enough to show trending.
4. Here we go with "the liberal press is out to get me" comments. I'm not going to get into that here. Greenpeace is on one lunatic fringe, and Exxon is on the other. I don't agree with either of them.
5. As I said before, I don't like messing with Mother Nature. For all of you guys living in Florida, you may be fine with warmer weather, but it may not matter after a few more category 5 hurricanes...
Correct, my study was from the 70’s and from the same people who last year had the cover page that read “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” Mother Nature is significantly more resilient than we credit it. And, in the interest of diminishing CO2, do not forget the pernicious effects that NOT BURNING fossil fuels has on the environment. I will stipulate to the point that we burn more fossil fuels per capita than just about anyone else on the planet. Is our environment, however, dirtier? Is our air more polluted? Are our waterways more infectious? Are we more victimized by infectious diseases? Is our quality of life lower? I submit that, for those of us who have had the opportunity to travel through less developed countries, enlightened (no pun intended) through burning fewer fossil fuels, their environments are dirtier, they’re more disease prone, their quality of life is worse, their waterways are untreated, etc. I also submit that progress and quality of life are directly correlated to using more energy – not less.
And finally, most humans want to live better. Now, thanks mainly to the people on this board, I have reached a standard of living that at once allows me to: (1) make capital expenditures to save energy and; (2) predict that my energy usage will be pretty stable, if not declining, for the next few decades (I will not be acquiring many more computers, TV’s, cars, etc.). If, however, I lived in Chiapas, Mexico, and looked to the North and saw that people in Mexico City have steel burros (I would not yet know what a car is), that they have electricity and running water, that their children go to school, that their houses are cooled by A/C, etc. and someone who has 6 computers and 8 TV’s in his house told me that I should not consume energy for the common good, I would probably be less than willing to listen. That’s correct; I, selfish Pancho, and my brother, selfish Lin-Chin from Schezuan province in China, would laugh at whitey’s suggestion.
3. I stand by my point that, given the accuracy of analog measuring instruments, both with respect to the temperature itself and the place where the temperature was taken, 1.7 degrees over 100 years does not show a trend that satisfies me. Especially when warmer periods are excluded from the evidenciary record in order to make a point. In fact, the Vikings farmed Greenland not long before Columbus discovered America (the present time in geological terms) and yet no one talks about the precipitous cooling of that part of the North Atlantic. I think the reason we don’t talk about that is because we can’t blame Americanus Suburbanite.
5. The point I was making here is that, before we humans had any influence on it, Mother Nature changed the climate often and rapidly. And that our species has thrived over the last 4MM years, evolving as needed. So, who’s to say an average of 10 degrees warmer, for instance, or 10 degrees cooler, will not have benefits that will more than compensate any harm they bring? The Vikings were not decimated by the abrupt climate change that froze Greenland.
And yes, I have heard of rising sea levels. But the extreme predictions of rising sea levels (I cannot entertain the 20’ Mr. Gore proses, but rather I will go with the 18” the IPCC predicts) are within the parameters of standard tides. And what of hurricanes? Ever since we’ve been keeping score, we understand that they work in 30 year cycles, more influenced by El Nino and La Nina than any other factor. William Gray, widely recognized as the world’s foremost hurricane expert, sees no correlation between the increased hurricane activity and global warming. BTW, now that I think about it, the world’s foremost experts predicted a very active hurricane season last year – something that did not come to fruition. Which makes me less, not more confident on any predictions of climate change.
We humans live and thrive everywhere, from Siberia to the Gobi desert, with temperature swings of 140+ degrees between them. Am I supposed to believe that 1.7 degrees are going to affect the ecosystems sufficiently to become a planetary crisis?
Wow. We need to call all of these scientists and let them in on your revelations! Look, I'm not a scientist, so I do not know how they take into account the factors you mention above. In an exercise such as this, I compare the quality and number of the scientists on both sides of the issue. Frankly, the people arguing on your side are few and far between, and they are arguing at the EDGES of the problem. They are not arguing that it is not happening.
Here are some conclusions from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (from Wikipedia):
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[12], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[13].
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4°C (2.0 and 11.5°F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years
Come on, Mr. Spackler. Read beyond the summary for policy makers and go through the details of the data.
If there is such a correlation between increasing levels of CO2 and temperature, why were temperatures falling between 1961 and 1975? This data comes from NOAA and is reflected in the IPCC report, but simply ignored as inconvenient.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html
If sunspot activity is at a 1,000 year peak, and Mars Southern pole is melting (I think a much clearer and cleaner correlation, in the absence of one of the purported variables (my car)), who do the Martians blame?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Why does the IPCC in its 2001 report make use of the so-called hockey stick? And why does it start in 1400? Why not 1300? The reason it does not start in 1300 or 1200 is because 1400 is the most convenient date for the IPCC to reach its pre-ordained conclusion. Namely, that climate is “abnormally” warming from a heretofore “normal” temperature.
It might be interesting to understand why the Vikings were farming in Greenland until 1400, when the planet cooled and the glaciers returned to those latitudes.
With all of these, I return to my primary points:
1. We’re confusing the ability to more accurately measure with the fact that we’re influencing the climate.
2. We’re not even bringing into the debate any areas that do not neatly fit the pre-ordained theory. Such as increased sunspot activity (probably because we have not yet found a way to blame America for it).
3. The IPCC’s 2007 report contradicts or scales back a significant number of items (such as the raise in sea levels and projected temperature increases) set forth as highly confident and/or very likely in their own 2001 report. Thereby tugging away at my confidence – although obviously strengthening others’.
4. The IPCC selectively uses data points to illustrate its theory. Such as the aforementioned hockey stick graph starting at the onset of the Little Ice Age.
5. The IPCC report glosses over two more extremely relevant items:
a. Man’s ability to adapt to change; and
b. The benefits of a warmer climate. Why is it that no one can tell me what is the normal, average, optimal, ideal temperature of the planet? If more people are going to die from heat exposure of an additional 2 degrees, would it not follow that fewer people would die from cold exposure of a couple of degrees less? Does it not seem that extended farming cycles may yield more, cheaper food? By that token, wouldn’t added CO2 in the atmosphere promote plant growth? Even the IPCC report concurs that there would be benefits in the short term but speculates (in my view, the further out the prediction, the more speculative it is), that it will turn around and be detrimental in the future.
Here's another fool who thinks that we probably should not be doing anything about global warming. Please read his argument so that you can have a good laugh....
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3229696&page=1
I am saving you the trouble of checking out the creds of this obviously political hack....
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html
Yet another indicator that Mr. Spackler is on the wrong side of this issue....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/31/bush.climate.ap/index.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home