Monday, May 27, 2013

Global Warming Revisited

Per Laurie's idea from the G2A Brainstorming Page, let's talk about climate change.  She gave us the following link as a starting point.  MJ 97% of Climate Scientists Can't Be Wrong

My first thought is that their logic is kind of funny.
"Of the roughly 4,000 of those abstracts that expressed some view on the evidence for global warming, more than 97 percent endorsed the consensus that climate change is happening, and it's caused by humans."
Isn't that kind of like saying that:
97% of those who support raising educational funding see high class sizes as the primary cause of the achievement gap?
Now remember.  I actually do believe that burning fuels and releasing a great deal of previously stored energy into our closed system will impact the environment.  However I also believe that the earth and system will adjust accordingly. 

For example, the core temperature may heat to a level such that we experience more large volcanic eruptions???  Which would then release a massive amount of particulate into the atmosphere and likely cool the system???

I mean us humans may not like the Earth's natural correction, however it has been apparently self correcting for a very very long time.  However, I would advise moving away from the low lying areas and the fault lines...  Thoughts?

One last thought, I could really use a little global warming right now.  Putting in the docks, boats and lifts on Saturday and Sunday was very cold and damp...  And now I have a head cold...

Skeptical Science
FOX Cooling
USA Today Sick Science
G2A GW Apr2013
G2A GW Mar2012
G2A EPA Aug2011

43 comments:

Laurie said...

This topic is really pointless on your blog as people's views on it quite set. I just liked the headline about 97% agreement among scientists.

As usual I have a link. This one is for an organization that I support:

NRDC Global Warmimg An Introduction to Climate Change

If a time comes when I am held to account for my life on earth at least I can say I tried to do something about global warming (including driving my Prious), but really it is far too little when I have some understanding of the severity of the problem.

John said...

Now if we can get you to dump that Toyota Prius for a Chevy Volt, then you will lessen your carbon foot print while supporting American workers and supporting the payment of more American taxes...

Life is complicated... By the way, yes I will read your link. Keep the hope, experts say most have to hear something 7 times before they truly learn it...

John said...

Laurie,
Just wondering. What do you think will happen if us fuel users do not change our evil ways?

Do you truly think that Mother Nature will not in some way make corrections?

Given the beliefs institution you belong to, I assume you are not a big creationist. Therefore you likely believe in hot times (ie dinosaurs, etc) and ice ages (ie mammoths, etc). Why is it challenging for you to see this as another age that will come and go?

The upside is that the earth is very resilient if it is truly as old as the evolutionists / big bangers believe. The earth will survive just fine.

And if there is no God and we are just some funny looking self aware animals that can think/speak, and not the very unique children of God. Then I would think you would be fine with us evolving into our next version. Let nature move forward.

Thoughts?

Laurie said...

You seem clueless as to the amount of misery global warming is likely to cause or else you are lacking in empathy.

Our Dangerous Mix of Climate Change and Resource Scarcity

John said...

So let me understand, you are worrying about global warming, and think the USA should spend less on world security and more on feeding the world's poor when this is what the Earth's current population growth rate looks like. Population Chart

What I am lacking in empathy I make up for in common sense. Asia and Africa need to slow their population growth rates ASAP or a lot of their people are going to die. And I am thinking we had best keep funding our national defense very well, or they may choose to try and take what is ours.

Per that uplifting Mother Jones source, maybe armegeddon will be here sooner than later. If so, then maybe the Religious folk will have the last laugh.

Laurie said...

As you so wisely pointed out the Earth will be just fine. To heck with all those unlucky "unique children of God" from Asia and Africa, our true neighbors are our fellow Minnesotans, and a milder winter will suit most of us just fine.

It seems to me the USA is rich enough to fund both a strong military and humanitarian aid.

On the topic of world population
growth this is an interesting read:

About That Overpopulation Problem

Of course we are going to peak out at a very high number and in the short term the situation is going to be very bleak for billions of people, with global warming contributing a great deal to the problem.

Laurie said...

this statement "they may choose to try and take what is ours" caught my attention, resulting in a brief search that led to this interesting fact:

The 12 percent of the world’s population that lives in North America and Western Europe accounts for 60 percent of private consumption spending, while the one-third living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent.

The State of Consumption Today

Maybe it would be morally right for us rich Americans to simplify and downsize our life style, at least a little bit.

Does being born into a rich family living in a rich country really make such a disproportionate share of the world's resources ours?

John said...

"USA is rich enough"... Are you forgetting that the USA is ~$16.75 trillion in debt. I guess I wouldn't call that rich.

Of course, unless you are assuming that everyone's private property is yours and the governments to spend as you feel is moral...

As I have always said, we are very very very lucky. And yet socialism on a global scale is not the answer. Somehow these folks need to transition from third world countries to the first world when their societies are ready for it.

Maybe this quote is appropriate here also... "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But,
under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program,
until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas (US Socialist Presidential Candidate)

As for climate change, your reading Mother Jones often is kind of like my Parents watching FOX often. The constant diet of gloom, doom and conspiracy theories must be exhausting.

Try these on and see if they lessen the anxiety.
Forbes Scientists Skeptical
Forbes Consensus Crumbles
WSJ No Need to Panic
Reuters Questions arise

John said...

I was just wondering,who is smarter? The folks at Mother Jones or the folks at FOX News.

I mean my folks would laugh and poo poo the Mother Jones article. And Laurie would certainly question any story on FOX that down played the human role in our planet's normal climate variations.

I mean one of these credible sources must be incorrect... Or is theresomething else?

Laurie said...

I guess we will find out over the next fifty years which news source, Forbes or Mother Jones, chooses the more knowledgeable climate experts and provides the more accurate information.

The left does not really have any news organization that I am aware of that is as inaccurate as Fox.

John said...

That's kiind of funny...

Since they would say that the Right does not have any news organizations that are as biased and inaccurate as CNN... And I am pretty sure they wouldn't consider MJ a news source at all.

It is amazing how rational people can look at the same picture and see images that are so different...

Holt said...

Why would increasing greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels have anything to do with the core temperature of the Earth? Besides ash from volcanoes only lasts in the atmosphere for several years at the most while the carbon dioxide from the volcanoes will stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, heating up the Earth even more. If you want to know the science behind climate change just ask me at the lake. I could keep providing you the science behind it all summer long.

John said...

So if you are absolutely certain that you know what causes it, and that it will lead to an endless cycle of temperature increases, climate changes and disasters of Biblical proportions...

What caused the ice ages? What is your rationale that this natural phenoma will not happen again?

Bonfire discussions welcome, as long as I have beer...

John said...

This document was buried as a link within one of the others. Org Studies

It is like psychology or sociology 700 for nerds. It seems to try and explain why "Experts" are landing on all sides of this issue. It is an incredibly painful read, however it is kind of interesting if you are interested in the perspectives, biases and factors that may be shaping the views of people regarding this topic.

Laurie said...

As studies show, people who watch Fox news are highly misinformed.

Fox’s misinformation effect

Re your last question, during the ice age we did not have 7 billion people on the planet needing to adapt.

In case you missed it earlier this month here is a link re the amount of CO2 we now have in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide reaches 400 parts per million concentration milestone

I think this massive CO2 experiment we are in the midst of is already having many impacts affecting people, plants and wildlife.

I might say more but my younger scholar is requesting the computer for homework.

John said...

Some thoughts regarding ice ages and their potential causes.

Ice Ages

Apparently my volcano theory is amongst them. Can you imagine that...

"Other atmospheric changes are also likely in play. Studies indicate that there may have been an unusually high amount of dust in the air during the Pleistocene Ice Age, which would have blocked the sun and kept the Earth's temperature cool [source: Skinner]. Similarly, volcanic eruptions emit ash into the air. Even after the dust settles, the chemicals produced by the ashes' interaction with water vapor also ­scatter the sun's radiation and prevent it from reaching the Earth's surface. It does appear that periods of intense volcanic activity preceded glacial ages."

Now what in the world would trigger ever increasing amounts of really really hot lava to expand and escape the earth's crust? I wonder...

Kind of like heating up something in the microwave and forgetting to open the lid first. Those rays keep hitting the object and warming the contents until POP !!!

Now if you have one those fancy combination oven/microwave units. Then the warming air surrounding the container in combination with the radiation may cause the container to POP even sooner.

In intro to engrg they posed the following problem to us. If a refrigerator is running with its door open in an enclosed well insulated room, will the temperature of the room decrease, stay the same or increase?

Some folks thought the room would cool... I mean the refrigerator door is open... Unfortunately they were wrong.

The answer is that the room would heat up because energy was entering the insulated closed room via the electric cord. And friction and inefficiencies caused some of that energy to be turned into waste heat. Which could not escape.

Holt said...

Again, I could spend the summer explaining all this. The best explanation for the ice ages is the Milankovitch cycle.

John said...

So there is no room for doubt that your hypothesis may be flawed?
Full Cup
G2A Mistaken?

Personally I don't think anyone can be certain regarding cause, effect, reactions, corrections, etc in this case... There are are just too many variables that are interacting very closely and continuously.

Personally I am not investing in any ocean front property, or property that is near fault lines or dormant volcanoes... Better safe than sorry.

Anonymous said...

The problem with 97% of scientists who form the "consensus" on global warming is that they aren't doing the most fundamental science. Having read many of the individual scientific papers referenced in the IPCC report, I can say that their errors are of one of two types. In the first case, a scientist observes that some portion of the globe is getting warmer, finds some effect of that warming, and then extrapolates that affect to project a truly disastrous scenario. For example, one researcher observed that birds twittered over in Africa were coming North two or three weeks earlier, because of the earlier spring. Unfortunately, the insect hatches that would feed them remained on the same cycle is always, and some birds starved. If that affect continued, supposedly, ALL of the birds would starve. But the scientist has no way of knowing that the warming trend will continue and, in fact, the warming STOPPED 17 years ago. Just saying that a trend will continue until it changes" is not a good scientific evidence any more than it is good stock market advice.

The other group of scientists START with the assumption that the computer models of climate are correct, and from that they speculate what all of the disastrous consequences might be. If the models are not correct, and the last 17 years proves that they are not, to about a 95% confidence level, that any speculation arising from the conclusions drawn from those models are without merit and should be ignored. It is even funnier, not necessarily in the ha-ha sense, when you recognize (having done some computer modeling myself) that most of these computer models ASSUME that carbon dioxide will continue to increase, and ASSUME that carbon dioxide is the principal determinant of global temperature. The first is simply speculation, and the latter is scientifically questionable at best.

I am still waiting for someone to apply some simple some simple fifth-grade math and sixth grade scientific reasoning to Al Gore's one piece of real scientific evidence – the 600,000 year Vostok ice core data. Al Gore says that this long, long chart of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global temperature "goes up and down together" but what he doesn't notice is that carbon dioxide goes up roughly 800 years AFTER temperatures begin to increase, and go down 800 years AFTER global temperatures start to decline. In other words, CO2 does not cause global warming; global warming causes CO2!! QED!

J.Ewing

Holt said...

First off I do not have a hypothesis on climate, if you would like to know about the theory of climate change (keep in mind a scientific theory is the best explanation for some naturally occurring event based on information that has been repeatedly tested and observed using scientific principles) I would be happy to discuss it. I just find these type of forums as poor places to discuss anything of substance. A little information is dangerous. Many people take a part of what scientists have spent years collecting and analyzing and jump to wild conclusions. These same people then post things here based on this superficial information and then try to act like they know what they are talking about. The last post is a great example.

John said...

It isn't much different than what people do when face to face. And the nice thing about G2A is that there is a pretty small and consistent group of us talking. Even if we rarely agree regarding anything substantial.

So if J had made the above comment at a camp fire, what would have been your response. Would you alluded to his comment in a condescending tone, called him a liar, tell him to provide sources, ignore his different opinion, asked him to explain further or other?

The nice thing about here is that you can provide web addresses to data, presentations or images that support your viewpoint. That's hard to do when talking around a fire...

John said...

You may have a point though. Here are some definitions to help ensure we use the correct word.

About Hypothesis vs Scientific Theory
Wise Geeks Hyp vs ST
Berkeley Hyp vs ST

Though I think J may disagree that it has moved beyond a hypothesis.

So to clarify: what is the theory the you believe in?
7 Theories
Wiki Climate Chg
Wiki Climate Chg History

Holt said...

There is one theory on climate change. Feedback loops, changes to the Earth's surface, .... are all part of a single theory. Breaking the theory up into 7 different theories is ridiculous. Where you get your sources and how they are used matter. J brought up the Vostok ice core data. It is true that in the past there were times when temperature rose and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere followed. This not new information, sometimes there are other drivers of climate besides greenhouse gases. Some of which have already been mentioned. A close look at some of the data shows that as the global temperature rose the oceans warmed and as a result were no longer able to hold as much carbon dioxide. The oceans released the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere warming the climate even more. But the Vostok ice data does not discredit the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which traps infrared radiation and when increased in the atmosphere warms the planet.

John said...

The one theory concept sounds a bit vague, simplistic and unscientific to me. (ie "feedback loops")

I have never heard of a comprehensive test that monitors so many factors over a long enough time period to prove or disprove anything at a macro level. What I have heard of are a bunch of relatively short term small scope tests that people have used to interpolate between and extrapolate out from. Which can be highly inaccurate and misleading, since the actual behavior is only known within the bounds of the experiment and it's controls.

I guess the upside is that we are monitoring many more factors in this modern age than ever before, so maybe in a 100+ yrs we will actually have some real robust data to analyze. We won't have to speculate over the timing, meaning, etc of ice core data. Even then I think it is going to be very hard to draw firm conclusions regarding "causation" and inter-reactions.

Of course if the feedback loop folks are correct, then a lot us may not be around to see the results. Next we will have to start talking about evolution. How will us humans adapt to deal with this changing environment. If we did come from cavemen, it will be interesting to see how we change during the future millenia...

Holt said...

From your comments then it sounds as though you would also disagree on the theory that smoking causes cancer (way to vague, simplistic and unscientific). The theory of climate change is main stream science and uses universally accepted scientific methods. The information put out by the Heartland institute is not something you would read about in a scientific journal. Again if you want to know more about the theory I could bring the software my brother and I developed to the lake. You can find it here on this web site: www.seeds2lrn.com

John said...

Great Software for Education Link
Info / Consequences Link

It looks interesting, I'll need to look at in more detail later. Right now I have a significant honey do list to get done before our Grad party in 3 weeks...

By they way, comparing cigarette health testing to Earth cycle testing has got to be one of the most foolish things you have said. The scope and schedules of these are about as unrelated as 2 things can be.

Many multiple tests, retests, variations on tests can be conducted with regard to the impact of cigarrette smoke on humans and other mammals within a span of months, years or decades. Also, one can have a control sample, use sampling methodologies, vary the contents of what is in the smoke content, vary the density of the smoke, adjust other variables, etc, etc, etc in an effort to prevent bias, interpolation, extrapolation, etc. In short one can truly test the theory to arrive at some facts.

Given the number of factors that are play on Earth and how slow things change, this simply is not possible. So scientists are trying hard to find data and analyze it, not knowing for sure what it means or what else could have been happening at that time that impacted the "results".. It is a worthy effort, but to imply certainty or factuality to it's findings seems a stretch to me.

Assuming we believe in the "feed back" loop theory, what proof is there that it will keep getting worse, and that Mother Nature won't self correct?

John said...

I am assuming this is what J was alluding to by the recent trend not continuing to increase per the original theory. Ideas why things are varying form the model?

NOAA Land Ocean Mean Temps
Forbes Cooling Jeopardizes Climate/Green Funding

Holt said...

Comparing the theory that smoking causes cancer with the theory of climate change is perfect because they both meet the stringent requirements required by the scientific community and they have been (smoking) or are being attacked by organizations in much the same way. Both theories have been or are being subjected to scientific denialism by organizations that have motives which only serve their narrow interests.

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism

1) Cherry picking
2) Fake experts
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
5) Conspiracy theories

I have seen and continue to see most of these characteristics posted on this blog. Your last post with the two web links (NOAA and Forbes) fits perfectly with the above characteristics. Anyone can select some carefully constructed data and come up with wild accusations about what it means but that is not how the scientific community operates. Anyway unless someone comes up with some real information to discuss that does not fit the above characteristics I will no longer respond.

John said...

Your choice, but ignoring the dropping mercury doesn't seem too scientific.

Holt said...

Cherry picking

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

John said...

A Tale of 2 Forbes Articles

So we have 2 distinctly different views within the same publication. Do the other G2A readers have thoughts as to who is correct? I am back to honey do's...

Holt said...

See scientific denialism in previous post, you cannot cherry pick data.

John said...

Following the "denialist" links it looks like a lot of "true believers" are open to reviewing the models. From my simplistic understanding, they are saying the models may have been too aggressive or another factor may be arising to offset the carbon. Do you think these "true believers" are cherry picking, or giving appropriate weight to all the data.

The Australian: Climatic Scientists Puzzled
CATO LA LA LA I Can't Hear You

And talking about looking at all the data, here are some folks who think they may be able to trump man made climate warming with a reduction in energy delivered from the sun. Mini Ice Age

One more thing, apparently Peter Glieck has some skeletons in his closet that are kind of interesting. And he may also have a bias since it looks like his organizations whole purpose and I assume funding has to do with keeping people scared. And I am sure he sincerely believes what he preaches, however I am thinking it would be hard to be scientifically detached and unbiased with that much passion and money involved. Thoughts?

By the way, I don't think you answered my question. Assuming we believe in the "feed back" loop theory. And I am okay with saying that humans burning carbon is one of many many factors that cause climate change. What proof is there that it will keep getting worse, and that Mother Nature won't self correct? (ie volcanoes, other gases, etc)

The green folks want our societies to spend trillions and trillions of dollars to change things, I am hoping they know what they are doing. The upside since I am an engineer, it should provide me with job security and a good pay check until I choose to retire!!!

John said...

Oops... Forgot this link...
It is an interesting organization after looking at the work it does. Definitely seems environmentally focused. Pacific Institute

PI Tools by Topic

Holt said...

You are cherry picking again, all theories are open to and actively reviewed.

The theory of climate change would not change as a result of changes in the sun, all the scientific principles would still apply only now we would have a reduction in energy coming from the sun. The carbon cycle, clouds, ... These feedbacks are part of the theory of climate change (see our climate model sometime). They are not separate. for example an increase in greenhouse gases traps more heat which in turn increases evaporation causing more water vapor to enter the atmosphere (a positive feedback) this in turn results in more clouds. High clouds would lead to additional warming (positive feedback) while low clouds would lead to a slowing of the warming (negative feedback) at the present time it appears that more high clouds will develop than low clouds but in either case clouds do not stop or reverse warming caused by additional greenhouse gases.
Many scientists would love to find evidence that burning fossil fuels DOES NOT trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere and impact climate but the truth is the theory has held up well over the last 40 plus years.
I cannot figure out why you imply a relationship between increasing greenhouse gases and an increase in volcanic activity. You have mentioned this a couple of times. No matter how hot the atmosphere got the atmosphere could not cause an increase in volcanic activity (which in the long run would add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere anyway). The atmosphere is a thin layer comparable to but thinner than the peel of an apple.

Most scientist would identify themselves as scientists most would not identify themselves as GREEN FOLKS I am not sure why you want to lump them in with all kinds of other groups. Is the national academy of science part of the green folks, NASA, NOAH, are all scientific journal green folks.

The real discussion should not be are humans having an impact on the climate (global warming). They are. The most important/beneficial discussions would be should we do something about it? Who decides? If we do something, what should be done? These would be questions that would have some value. Despite the present limits scientists have on PREDICTING warming over the next century. These discussions would still have value. World population will reach over 9 billion people by 2040, energy demand will definitely increase, humans will have a greater impact on the environment, many resources will be strained not just fossil fuels but clean affordable water and other important resources. We cannot continue business as usual. It would be completely irresposible to think that fossil fuels should be our best and main source of energy (as it is now) going into the next century.

John said...

The harsh reality is that the fossil fuels are still by far the cheapest energy option.

I am not saying that other sources should not be developed, however should a country who has serious financial constraints really pay 2, 3, 4, etc times as much for their energy for fear of global warming? Especially in a case where some of their citizens are starving or lacking adequate medical care?

Are you ready to buy a wind turbine for Africa out of your personal checkbook?

As for heating the core/crust, if the oven (ie environment) in which they reside gets warmer... Then they should also get warmer. Unless they have an AC unit running down there.

Climate and Volcanoes

I thought this was an interesting quote at the end of that article.

"Kutterolf adds that since the impact from man-made warming is still unclear, the next step will be to investigate shorter-term historical variations in an effort to understand the implications for the present day."

John said...

I'm assuming NASA and NOAA's leanings tend to shift somewhat with who is in the White House.

Though I do agree that they should be much less biased than the Pacific Institute.

Holt said...

Fossil fuels have been and continue to be a great benefit to our society. In order to meet future energy demands while reducing negative impacts on the environment we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Your comments about spending 2 or 3 times more for other forms of energy and buying wind turbines for Africa come across as very narrow minded in relation to ways of reducing our dependance on fossil fuels. Keep in mind in any comparison you have to calculate the true costs of fossil fuels? Our government subsidized and continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.

In addition there are many ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels that do not involve cost or would be less costly. Why is it not cool to own a highly efficient car? There is a car company startup (Elio motors) the car gets 84 mpg caries two people has three airbags and is supposed to cost $6800 goes into production next spring. Not sure if the company will be successful but count me as one who would buy it, perfect work car it would save me money and it is using present day technology. A guy in bloomington Mn had a similar idea in the 1970s and sold a car called the Freeway my neighbor had one. Unfortunately having fuel efficient transportation is not cool in this country, global warming is a joke to half at least half of all Americans. The attitude of many Americans is to divide and conquer. There are of course many other examples of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Things that can be done in our homes and communities.

The average global atmospheric temperature is 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in the ground increase with depth. The temperature of the ground increases at a rate of about 1 degree every 50 ft. The temperature of the Earth's core is over 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit (these are rough estimates, you can look it up if you want). Heat flows from the center of the earth out (we cannot change the laws of physics). No mater how warm the atmosphere gets the interior of the Earth is hotter and heat will flow from the core out.

An increase of volcanic activity leads to an increase in warming (volcanoes release carbon dioxide) short term ash and other particulates can cause some cooling however they do not stay in the atmosphere nearly as long as carbon dioxide. Now the particulates may have a more measurable impact on global cooling then the carbon dioxide from volcanoes has on the atmospheric warming but the effect from particulates is for a brief period time.

Not sure why you think Kutterolf's comment is interesting. Kutterolf does not argue against the theory of climate change he only makes a vague reference that the impact from man made warming is unclear. It appears you are cherry picking again. How much warming will occur is still unclear. Scientists predict that the Earth will warm somewhere from 2 to 6 degrees in the next 100 years. In either case there will be consequences. Should we just ignore the warming? Hope for some well timed natural phenomenon to reset the natural balance while we discredit scientists with misrepresentation and logical fallacies just so the results fit our own belief system meanwhile the important issues regarding the climate and our economy are never addressed.

John said...

Personally I don't want to discredit any scientist. G2A is about encouraging people on both sides of topics to consider other views, and to possibly learn a little more about themselves, what they belive and why they believe it in the process.

Regarding climate change, I think you nailed it on the head with these words. "the impact from man made warming is unclear" Personally I think people on both sides of the topic should talk with much more humility. It is going to be very hard for them to correctly collect, analyze, extrapolate and truly learn when their cups are so full.

I am sure this topic will be discussed here again. In fact your car comments have given me an idea for a post. Besides I am in the market for a car for my 15 yr old...

Holt said...

Unfortunately you missed the point, I give up.

John said...

I probably did. Though it seems to me that you will only be satisfied if I completely agree with you, and complete capitulation is not likely to occur when people are discussing such a broad, developing and far reaching topic.

My believing that humans burning fuel is impacting the earth's climate seemingly isn't enough for you. Apparently you would only be happy if I believe we are heading rapidly towards the destruction of Earth. And I am not willing to believe that based on what I have read. Sorry...

Anonymous said...

Holt, I DO know what I'm talking about. A theory is "the best explanation for observations of a natural phenomenon" and the "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" has not been observed at all, because it will happen 100 years from now! Furthermore, the warming predicted over the last 30 years has not been observed, either! See:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-alarmism-in-twilight.php

The "theory" is actually a "hypothesis" to use the correct scientific term, and cannot be the "best explanation" when there are any number of ways to prove it irretrievably false. The only reason we're still talking about it is because some politicians don't want to let a good crisis go to waste, even if it's not real.

J. Ewing

jerrye92002 said...

Let us set aside our skepticism, despite the mountains of scientific evidence, direct observation, simple math and common sense that argue otherwise, and assume for the moment that the alarmists are correct – that 100 years from now the world will be 6° C hotter than it is now (the upper range of estimates) and that the seas would have risen some 10 feet (not the highest estimate or speculation, but near it). The questions that follow this assumption have NOT been satisfactorily answered by the Global Warming acolytes. They are: A) is this amount of sea level and temperature rise catastrophic enough to warrant action? B) is this action best taken as a preventive or remedial? And C) what is that action, what is the cost, and to what degree does it solve the problem?

A) let us assume, again for the sake of exercise, that the predicted changes would wreak considerable hardship on humankind, in ways that have been widely explored in the scientific literature.

B) the Warmists insist that the action must be preventative, and consist of immediate and (at least somewhat radical) curbs on the production of CO2 by human activity. On the other hand, if we are able to adapt to this changing environment IF and WHEN it occurs, it would certainly be more effective, especially now that we have proven that rising CO2 is not the principal driver of global temperature.

C) the cost of curbing global CO2 has been estimated at some $70 trillion, while the cost of simply adapting to these changes, again IF AND WHEN they occur, has been estimated at some $7 trillion. It is also estimated that this lower amount would be sufficient to eliminate global poverty, so we have a choice of where to best spend that huge amount. Now the IPCC has already said that full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and its strict CO2 emission targets would decrease global temperatures by 0.02° 100 years from now. That's negligible! Furthermore, because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere, they say that immediate (1995) implementation of Kyoto would cause CO2 levels to "start down" some time after the year 2150.

That is what is so seemingly insane about this debate. Before we have any evidence, other than the ravings of a few lunatic computers, that we will HAVE a problem at some point after we're all dead, these True Believers want to propose a solution that will have huge and detrimental impacts on human dignity, freedom and economic development, while not making any significant impact on the problem at all! How anybody with two brain cells to rub together can justify this madness – this outrageous course of action – is simply beyond me

J. Ewing