Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

All those questions about AGW you raise sure can put some doubt on the cause of about 0.4'C of warming in 100 years.

Neither of those in any way are arguments for AGW. They in no way make AGW more true or provide any light on either side of the debate. The first one assumes AGW to be true, and the 2nd one is completely unrelated. (And it's also obvious you don't read the political forum - that is being greatly debated there. But I don't blame you for not reading that forum, it is a jungle in there!)

...

Again you're assuming your side is "right."

 

Going along with this, as I understand it, and I may be completely wrong, it seems the key study that said "for the last 30 years, humans are causing warming at a rate greater than that of solar irradiance" used a computer model to make this prediction. I can't find the study right now. The difference was like 0.4'C.

It's just nuts - all the computer model inaccuracies, all of the biased data, the wrong data, the manipulated data, urban heat islands, plus all of the other revelations from the CRU hack, and it just seems like "Well, we really better start over and look at this from an unbiased point of view."

 

RP,

"Neither of those in any way are arguments for AGW. They in no way make AGW more true or provide any light on either side of the debate."

I am not arguing that the injection of money in an attempt to cloud the issue in anyway proves (or disproves) the science. What I am suggesting is that this (in my opinion) deliberate, coordinated effort as been, at is core an attempt to (at best) obfuscate the reality, and at worst perpetuate a system that the coordinators profit from. (at the expense of the future!)

As for your second point, Of course I am assuming I'm right! But even if I am wrong, I see little or no down side risk. If I am right then taking action now will help later. If we institute CO2 controls/carbon tax (not cap and trade as we agree on that!) the corporate interests describe above, and you by extension claim we can't afford it.

The reality is that there has never been an broad based, industry wide environmental regulation that has A: cost as much as the naysayers claimed it would, and B: had a net/net negative impact on the economy. I have cited Cat Converters on cars, SO2 scrubbers on coal plants as examples.

Please tell me A: what is the problem with doing something now just in case I am right (aside from some small increase in your personal out of pocket costs)? And what do you propose to do if it turns out you are wrong, and in 20-50 years your grandchildren wake up and realize that you were wrong?

I go back to my conclusion that people are fundamentally selfish, and they just don't want to pay for anything, EVEN if it can be demonstrated to provide net/net cheaper cost over time. Too many people want someone else to pay for their choices.

PS:
"All those questions about AGW you raise sure can put some doubt on the cause of about 0.4'C of warming in 100 years."

Personally I think the .4C is significant in and of it self, but I think that most models (yes they are models!) predict an acceleration of warming, which intuitively makes sense to me. I think we are paying the price for CO2 emissions made decades ago, and indeed from the early part of the industrial revolution. Given the lag in climate change I would expect to see that curve steepen dramatically due to emissions from the mid part the the 20th century. Factor in accelerating CO2 emissions due to melting permafrost, and you will probably not see results on the curve of that event for another several decades. Does that mean we shouldn't worry about/do anything about it?

Currently, for example, in my northern Ontario home, we have had later freeze ups/earlier breakups on average in the last 20 years. (this is an anecdote not science) It does illustrate a point however. In early October this year we had temps that hovered ~+.5C. In years past temps might have been JUST A PINCH LOWER. On a day to day basis not much change, but in our world, later snow, and earlier snow melt, has a HUGE effect on our seasonal lives. The relatively unknown (by mid latitude dwellers anyway) is that clearing the ground of snow and ice cover even a few days earlier on average does two things. The first is it reduces the albido so that less sun light is reflected. The second is because dark earth absorbs heat, the acceleration of warming is exacerbated. So to claim that ~.4C is nothing misses the point I think.


I think that we tend to be very local-centric in our thinking (and our knowledge) about such issues. The simple fact is that climate/ecosystems are way more complicated than most of us can imagine. If you live in a temperate climate .4C means little, but other places it may mean much. We also have the tendency to confuse weather with climate.

 

I believe it's very foolish to enact legislation when we aren't even sure if there is a problem or if cap and trade will work, or how it will affect us as a whole.

Sorry, I'm not willing to give up my freedoms and pay more taxes due to something we aren't sure of. Before you permanently cripple me you better be sure the problem is legit. And after everything I've seen I am more than sure that AGW, as the IPCC would have you believe, is not legit.

This is the fundamental difference between us. You would rather pay taxes and let the government try to solve problems. I would rather not pay taxes and let the people solve the problems. We will never make the other budge.

 

RP,

An addendum to my previous. .4C probably isn't terribly important if your average mean temperature is far away from freezing, but if you have a climate (sub arctic) where the mean annual temp is NEAR freezing, a .4C difference is huge.

As for your next post:
"I believe it's very foolish to enact legislation when we aren't even sure if there is a problem or if cap and trade will work, or how it will affect us as a whole."

Didn't you read my comment that I AGREE WITH YOU ON CAP AND TRADE? Where I disagree is that reduction of CO2 emissions is critical.

"Sorry, I'm not willing to give up my freedoms and pay more taxes due to something we aren't sure of. Before you permanently cripple me you better be sure the problem is legit. And after everything I've seen I am more than sure that AGW, as the IPCC would have you believe, is not legit."

So what if you are wrong?


"This is the fundamental difference between us. You would rather pay taxes and let the government try to solve problems. I would rather not pay taxes and let the people solve the problems. We will never make the other budge."

It is not a question as to whether or not I wish to pay taxes or not. It is a matter of I am willing to pay taxes for the greater public good! Clearly, government is the only way we can solve this issue, not by direct action always, but by regulation/energy/social/policy etc. It is not always just a matter of taxes. Do you honestly believe that the environment would be as clean as it is if we had left it only to private industry to "do the right thing"?

I think you proved my point, you are seemingly unwilling to pay for the choices you make and are willing to pass the risk/costs on to your children and their children.
_______________

 

Right, but this is nature. The earth chances, climate changes, and things adapt. It's happened for billions of years. But don't forget 1) we've been on a downward temperature trend for the last 8-9 years, after a very strong El Nino in 1998, and 2) we probably had temperatures as high as now, if not higher, during the MWP.

What you have to keep in mind is that even if humans had never evolved, the earth would still be in a warming period right now.

I do not see any evidence that we are on a crash course to hell. Alarmists would have you believe if we don't make a decision *today* then the earth is going to be completely screwed. This simply isn't the case. The evidence does not support such a sense of urgency.

Again, this is one of the fundamental differences between you and I. I absolutely do not believe that the government running things is the way to solve this. I do not believe it is for the greater good.

It's interesting, because not only do I not believe we need to jump into passing legislation on this non-issue, I do not believe the government would ever be able to help fix it if it were or is an issue. Again, a fundamental difference, I do believe the private industry would self fix itself.

Believe what you want, but I do not believe that we are risk of anything, and I do not believe that taxing the people is for the greater good, and I do not believe the government running things and taxing thing is the issue.

Again, highlighting the differences, you look at me and think I'm selfish and unwilling to do my duty and pay more taxes and ignoring a potentially huge issue, and I look at you and think you are freaking out over nothing and I think you want to harm the average person by imposing more taxes on them while having an inefficient, slow, and idiotic government drive the country further into hell.

It's interesting how diametrically opposed our views are. Dinner would not be fun!

 

No one is arguing that - but many people arguing against AGW seem to think it validates their arguments.

There has been no cooling trend the past 8-9 years. The last decade has remained the warmest on record. Claiming that because the trend has slowed in a short period of time it will now reverse itself is wishful thinking and does not reflect reality. It is not statisically significant.

Most experts agree that any significant hot spots during the MWP were most likely localized in the Europe region and did not reflect temperatures globally.

Not likely. Before human intervention around 1850-1900, the globe was still cooling.

Does the record low ice levels in the Arctic region, increasingly rising sea levels and the acceleration of ice melt in the Antarctic not worry you at all?

On a basic level, the greenhouse effect is well recognized and understood. Does the fact that current CO2 and methane levels are well above any historic levels in the past 800,000 years mean anything?

Are there any other plausible explanations at all for all the recent warming at all?

Your true source of bias comes to light.

What did private industry do to regulate itself before the recent derivatives crash?

What did private industry do to significantly reduce smog which was choking our cities?

What did private industry do to significantly to reduce particulate pollution?

What did private industry do to significantly improve water quality?

What did private industry do to significantly improve automotive safety standards?

In every single one of those examples, it has taken government regulation to step up and force businesses to clean up their act or produce safer products.

If you'd prefer to live without those regulations, I suggest visiting a country that does not enforce them - try any third world country and you will quickly see the luxuries of clean air, water and safety we enjoy because of those government regulations.

If you think that private industry will self-regulate themselves to avoid a potential disaster 50-100 years from now - think again. They have consistently proven that they look no further than the next quarters earnings report - a year or two maximum when deciding what course of action to take.

Producing a product and doing so cheaply to maximize profits means that you take short-cuts. And since environmental damage is an externality - the company does not pay anywhere close to offset the cleanup costs of that pollution - they will take the cheaper, polluting route nearly every single time.

 

RP,

As the physician you claim to be, I believe you took an oath that stated in some measure,,,,"First, do no harm!" I contend that your bias against government and taxes has clouded your judgement to the point of doing harm.

As a potential leader in your community (because of your education and social position) you have vast potential to do good for the community as a whole. I see your selfishness having the potential to do great harm for the same reasons.

You think I am "freaking out". In reality, I have seen and experienced evidence of climate change for almost a decade, first hand. I have been aware of and been working on alternative energy strategies and projects for more than 30 years. When President Carter talked about an "energy crisis" and put on a sweater he was laughed out of the white house. The reality is if we had had a cogent energy policy, leading us away from both imported oil and oil in general 3 decades ago a number of things might have been different. (Coincidently, the goals of energy independence and global warming share common solutions). If more people had thought like me rather than though like you in 1974 perhaps we wouldn't have waged a couple of wars for oil. Perhaps we wouldn't be basing most of our foreign policy choices on that dependence. Perhaps, like the Chinese are now doing, we could have been at the forefront of the manufacture and installation of PV solar and wind.

No, it is people like you who have both brought us here, and have kept us here because of your selfishness and greed. (I'm guessing that you are not a Family care doc.)

Shame on you!

 

I was going to post something similar to dree's response. The past few posts have confirmed that denialists in this thread are just rationalizing the facts to match their political beliefs. It is clear that is would take our government, working together with governments of other countries and pay a few dollars extra in taxes to tackle this problem. This is an attitude that the libertarian and conservative mind can't wrap their minds around.

Libertarianism or the belief that freedom for corporations would be more beneficial than regulation has been proven false many times over as drees points out. Libertarias need to understand that corporations are for short-term profit only. Corporations have no interest or incentive in the welfare of individuals or country.

 

RadioPrius writes in a previous post #397:

"It's not. I actually used to think AGW was true. I heard everything about how all the scientists believed it, etc. But after climategate I started researching it, and everything I keep finding out just raises way too many questions. And I'm a total skeptic, I don't believe in a god, ghosts, alternative medicine, anything."


Are you honestly, with a straight face expecting us to believe that you have come to this epiphany in just the last couple of weeks, due to a few hacked e-mails (taken out of context) hacked from a second rate university? I find this stretches the limits of credulity!

______

 

I understand RP to be saying that he was ignorant before, and ignorant now. He has simply flip-flopped his beliefs.

 

This is a very important statement. The only prudent course of action is to decarbonize the economy. Besides potentially staving off what might be the end of civilization, it doesn't cost much (1% of GDP), and has many economic and national security benefits. An irrational fear of big government or fear of regulations is no reason to trump actions that could matter a great deal to future generations.

This is a no-brainer if there ever was one.

 

Fibb,

Be careful how you use the term "no brainer" Some might take it personally and try to get you banned again!

As to your point.

I have asked the question repeatedly, what (beside the short term tax increase or energy cost increase) is the down side to action now in the event that we are wrong? From my perspective, there is no downside, only an up side.

 

RadioPrius, in post # 404 you write:"

Before you permanently cripple me you better be sure the problem is legit".

First off, how is changing energy and climate policy going to cripple you? As it is, marginal tax rates across the board have NEVER been lower. Are you suggesting that ~5% more to battle climate change would "cripple" you? I suggest you live in someone less fortunate's shoes once in a while. You may not think you take home as much money as you think you should, but I would guess you do better than a significant percentage of Americans.

Are you afraid you might have to give up what to pay for the good of your grandchildren, your golf club membership? Beach house? Ski Chalet? Vacation in France?

Second, don't you think it would be equally valid for me to say, "before you poison future generations, and leave them an environmental debt they cannot repay, you better be damn sure you are right?"

 

Wow. The ignorance tonight is stunning.

Wrong. There is cooling. If it's not warming, it's cooling. The fact is we have no idea if next year will be a warming year or a cooling year.

Actually it's completely true. I even have old emails where I forwarded a google search about global warming to a friend, because he thought it was all BS and I thought he was a moron for not accepting it.

It's pretty funny - because all of your guys arguments are completely invalidated by the fact that I used to think global warming was just an accepted truth. You all think that I don't believe in AGW because I don't like the government (completely unrelated...) But your argument holds no water when I've already stated that I used to accept AGW, but no longer due once I looked at it critically.

Did you really just say that the emails were hacked from a 2nd rate university? Do you realize that they were taken from the Hadley CRU? The emails are not taken out of context. In fact they are completely in context, because we have the back and forth correspondence. Something tells me you have not read anything about the HadleyCRU hack. At all. And yet you are going to sit here and lecture me about it.

This kind of one sided ignorance makes it honestly not worth my time to reply to you guys.

Do not even attempt to insult my education.

In my opinion, putting more taxes on the general population, who can barely pay the bills as it is, is harming them. And trying to invoke the Hippocratic Oath while we lamely debate politics is about as useless as a picture of oxygen is to a drowning man.

Funny you echo drees. Still not a single original thought from you

BTW, your "confirmation" is busted by the fact I used to think AGW was a truth, or a fact, or whatever you want to call it.

 

RP,

Couple of thoughts in response to your comments.

Have you EVER considered why people have such a hard time paying their bills. Does it ever occur to you that in the last generation real income of middle class people, almost no matter how you define it has gone down, all the while the real income of the elite has gone through the roof? Does it bother you that ~80% of the total wealth in the US is concentrated in the hands of ~10% of the people and that percentage has done nothing but go up in that time frame? Might that be one reason why ordinary folks have trouble paying their bills?

Do you realize (and would you care if you did) that the tax breaks the elite have gotten in the last ten years on average is greater than the average income of the average blue collar worker?

The reason that folks are having trouble paying their bills is that we have had across the board tax policy that disproportionally benefits a few, at the cost of the many.


uote:
Originally Posted by drees
"What did private industry do to regulate itself before the recent derivatives crash?

What did private industry do to significantly reduce smog which was choking our cities?

What did private industry do to significantly to reduce particulate pollution?

What did private industry do to significantly improve water quality?

What did private industry do to significantly improve automotive safety standards?

In every single one of those examples, it has taken government regulation to step up and force businesses to clean up their act or produce safer products."

Your comment was:
"These are all useless questions unrelated to global warming. If you wish to discuss this kind of stuff visit the political forum. You wont bait me into an argument I'm not interested in having."

While they may indeed be unrelated to global warming, they are related to how business acts. I guess if you plug your ears you don't have to hear things that conflict with your world view.

"Do not even attempt to insult my education."

It is not your education I'm insulting,,,,

 

Actually, the MET office has predicted that next year will break records. It is very likely that 2010 will be hotter than 2009 (which will likely be about 5th warmest on record) and more likely than not that 2010 will be hotter than 1998 (the previous record holder). We'll see if their prediction is correct or not.

But for goodness sakes - how many times do we have to tell you - stop looking at the short term! And even then, there really has been no warming pause unless you start cherry picking data. And even then, you missed my point. There is natural variability of +- 0.2C - the last plots you posted which "proved" global cooling were well within that range if I remember correctly. Which means any "cooling" you are seeing is just noise.

So if next year is a record breaking year, will that change your mind about climate change?

Why? What natural event happened to coincide with the industrial revolution?

Yes. Arguments are best supported by research.

Yes, there are normal cycles of warming and cooling. However, the recent warming is abnormal. And the data supports it.

Solar irradiance is at an all time low. What other mechanisms are causing recent warming? Or are you just hand-waving? Show me the data.

Uh, did you just argue with your self here? Yes, general scientific consensus by experts in climate agree that there is less than a 5% change that the recent warming is caused by something other than man. 95% sure is about as good as it gets in the scientific community!

You completely skipped my earlier comment regarding the basics of AGW:

Do you not agree that there is scientific consensus on the principles of greenhouse gases? Do you not agree that the tons and tons and tons of fossils fuels we are burning have significantly altered the composition of the atmosphere?

 

More informative information on the "fact" of global warming.

No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JAMES KANTER
COPENHAGEN — The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday.
The announcement is likely to be viewed as a rejoinder to a renewed challenge from skeptics to the scientific evidence for global warming, as international negotiators here seek to devise a global response to climate change.
The period from 2000 through 2009 has been “warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on,” Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.
The unauthorized release last month of e-mail messages between climate scientists in Britain and the United States has provided new ammunition to global warming skeptics. Some of the messages seemed to suggest that some data be withheld from the public. Mr. Jarraud said the release of the climate analysis was moved up from year’s end to coincide with the international conference on climate change.
The data also indicates that 2009 was also the fifth warmest year on record, he said, although he noted that the figures for the year were incomplete.
The international assessment on temperatures from 2000 to 2009 largely meshes with an interim analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, which independently estimates global and regional temperature and other weather trends.
Yet it was the gulf between rich and poor nations, not the science of global warming, that dominated talks here on Tuesday as delegates fretted about different pieces of draft language for a new climate treaty circulating in the halls. A 13-page document that was said to have been drafted by Denmark, the conference’s host country, included language calling for mechanisms opposed by poor countries for delivering aid to them to help deal with the impact of climate change. The proposal includes more oversight by donor nations than the developing nations want.
Danish officials said in a statement that the document was in no way a draft for a new agreement and that many such papers were circulating as parties informally traded ideas.
Another document was said to be framed by Brazil, South Africa, India and China. It made no mention of specific commitments on their part and rejected outside auditing of projects to reduce emissions financed by those countries on their own.
A negotiator for a large bloc of developing countries meanwhile challenged rich countries to make far deeper cuts in emissions than they have proposed so far. The negotiator, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping of Sudan, said President Obama should be willing to spend far more to limit climate dangers in the world’s most vulnerable regions.
“We have to ask him, when he provided trillions of dollars to save Wall Street, are the children of the world not deserving help to save their lives?” he said.
Mr. Di-Aping spoke on behalf of more than 130 developing countries as well as China.
The European Commission meanwhile welcomed a decision by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to pave the way for imposing federal limits on emissions of carbon dioxide. The so-called endangerment finding by the E.P.A. was “an important signal by the Obama administration that they are serious about tackling climate change and are demonstrating leadership,” a spokesman for the European Commission said.
Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, the country that currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said in an e-mail message that the E.P.A. ruling “shows that the United States can do more than they have put on the table.” So far Mr. Obama has proposed a 17 percent cut in emissions by 2020 from 2005 levels and deeper cuts in later years.
A major reason that hopes have risen in recent weeks is the expectation that Mr. Obama, who plans to attend the final day of the conference on Dec. 18, will commit the United States to making cuts in greenhouse gases. The United States declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement on curbing greenhouse gases, because of strong opposition in the Senate and from the Bush administration. The refusal to ratify the protocol has left a lingering mistrust of the United States on environmental issues in parts of the world.
The finding by the E.P.A. is expected to allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem even while Congress remains stalled on broader legislation to curb global warming.
Tom Zeller Jr. contributed reporting from Copenhagen, and John M. Broder from Washington.

 

More informative information on the "fact" of global warming.


Global Warming is the single biggest threat to wildlife today.
Global warming is happening faster than predicted even several years ago, with many natural systems already seriously impacted.
Overwhelming scientific evidence supports reducing carbon pollution that causes global warming as much as possible and as quickly as possible.
National Wildlife Federation works to reach that goal by demanding climate change legislation that includes a cap-and-trade system and dedicated funding to address the impacts of global warming on America's natural resources. Visit the Climate Action Center today or read our report Investing in America's Natural Resources.
Pledge to reduce your energy use and be part of the solution today!

 

From the Union of Concerned Scientists!

Global Warming

Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.