Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The problem lies in your saying 'exclusive.' The vast majority of proponents of AGW believe that man-made factors are exacerbating natural cycles, not the only possible factor which is leading to warming.

One is a perfectly reasonable position - that the added stresses put on the natural cycles cause changes to a greater degree then we would see otherwise. The other is a ridiculous position which is not championed by any serious proponent of AGW: that the Earth is a steady state and only our output effects the environment.

Choosing to portray all proponents of AGW as if they held a ridiculous position instead of a sensible one is a risible tactic and really beneath you, George. You know that if challenged on this point, evidence would not support the position that the proponents of AGW believe in a steady-state environment such as you have suggested.

Cycloptichorn

Odd isn't it that the mass of propaganda spewing out of the varioius advocacy organizations, including that of the esteemed Mr Gore & his Hollywood backers, generally make no acknowledgement whatever of the recent natural warming and cooling cycles to which we were referring, or to the likelihood that we are due for a cooling cycle in the coming centuries. Indeed their "scientific" propaganda usually attributes ALL of the observed warming of the 20th century to AGW. What conclusion is possible other than that they discount all other variables?

It should be a trifling matter for you to provide me with quotes that support exactly this position, then - that, specifically, Gore and other proponents of AGW have affirmatively claimed that the Earth in fact is a steady state environment with no natural changes whatsoever, and that ALL changes in environment are due to manmade factors.

If you cannot provide me with such quotes, then what other conclusion is possible than that you are engaging in intellectual dishonesty?

Cycloptichorn

I didn't say that. I said they OMIT any reference to the other known factors and explicitly attribute all recent observed warming to AGW. That is clearly true and that is the logical equivalent of the denial they so carefully avoid making explicit.

I affirm that this is not 'clearly true.' I affirm that instead, it is a construct invented by you to make your opponents' arguments look worse. Your failure to provide any actual evidence to back up your position confirms my earlier assertion that you are Appealing to Extremes in terms of your opponents' arguments, a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Don't be an idiot. ;p

First, there's the question, "What's actually going on with the climate?" This is the data analysis portion - where we're refining our knowledge of what current (and past, to an extent) conditions are. The more we know about the weather and climate, composition of the atmosphere and other factors that can affect things, the more sure we are in the other elements of the climate debate. This is kind of important, because this is the data and the logic that goes into the model - if the data is bad, or the logic is bad, if we're fundamentally misunderstanding something important about how the climate works, then the model is -necessarily- full of crap.

People who are advocating that we reduce carbon emissions are doing so on the premise that (a) we can forecast climate change accurately, (b) we can expect a severe climate change in the near future, and (c) the effects of this change will be very, very bad, enough to justify us spending a tremendous amount of resources NOW to prevent (b).

It's no surprise that these same people aren't pointing out that (a) is, to put it bluntly, not true.

If we were really worried about climate change to the exclusion of other related factors, why haven't we embraced nuclear power? It offers unparalleled capabilities to change power infrastructure away from setting fire to things; it's a zero-emissions generation source where all the unpleasantness ends up in a brick instead of in the atmosphere. On top of that, we don't have to buy the fuel from people who'd rather kill us. And furthermore, we could do it -tomorrow-, or at least in the next two, three years.

I'm becoming skeptical of the claims that traditional hostility to nuclear power explains this, because frankly, we aren't still seeing a lot of the "nuclear power is bad and will kill us" propaganda these days. (Of course, it's ridiculous, but that didn't stop people back in the day when it was still ridiculous...) In fact, I get the feeling that the inadequacy of the nuclear power solution is precisely in the fact that it WILL work - that it doesn't force us to shut down tons of evil, evil industrial plants, which one starts to suspect that for a number of AGW supporters is the point in the first place. These aren't people worried about industry because it might cause AGW; they're worried about industry because of ideological opposition, and AGW is a handy fellow-traveler on the same road.

Bingo!

AGW is only the trojan horse.

Scoresbysund as far as I can determine, only had a (fairly substantial) Inuit population before Europeans came in the 18th century. And they exploited marine resources. To reitierate, the sagas talk of two Viking settlements of Greenland, and they were on the southwest coast, not the east. The southwest coast has the North Atlantic Drift passing by it, which moderates it. That's where all the Viking archaeological work that I know about has been done. From all acocounts, and the archaeological record, once again, the Viking economy was essentially pastoral, with some forage crops for the cattle and sheep grown. Possibly some legumes. And that was pretty much it. That is also what the Danish resettlers grew, from their reoccupation about 1750 (in the depths of the Maunder Minimum be it noted--so if that affected Greenland's southwest coast, you want to tell me how they managed?), in the same area the Vikings settled (and where they live today). In other words, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" and the "L:ittle Ice Age", and their relation to Greenland are not at all what the denialists claim. From about 1750 (during the Little Ice Age)to somewhere around the third quarter of the twentieth century, Greenland's climate and possible agriculture/pastorality seems from the documentary and archaeological record to be substantially the same as the Viking occupation. In the last couple decades or so, Greenland gardens have been cultivated significantly farther north than anything reported before, and land devoted to agriculture has more than doubled, due to moderating climate. In the last ten years the rate of melting of the Greenland ice cap first doubled over the historical average, and in the last couple years has tripled. Estimates are that at the present rate (which may very well be accelerating, but even barring that) of melting the ice cap will be gone by the end of the present century (and some estimates have it gone well before then. The ice cap has been there for at least 400,000 years--that's FOUR ice ages and interglacials. It hasn't melted in any interglacial before, not even close to it. Possible solar variability hasn't done it over those 400,000 years (not to say that anything changed before 400K years ago--it's just that that's the farthest back at this point that we can tell the history of the ice cap. It's about 600K years in Antarctica, and the same story goes on there).

So what's different this time around? Not solar variability--before the 60s everything there was proxy measurements, like the number of sunspots (the Maunder Minimum). Since we've lofted satellites (roughly lthe late 60s)with the (increasing) ability to get a more or less accurate reading of solar output, to my knowledge there has been no significant change.

What has changed is human output of CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is undisputed. CO2 has gone up by a third over its presence in the atmosphere any time in the last 600K years (six glacials and interglacials, counting the Antarctic record). Methane also has increased significantly. Both of these increases are anthropogenic for the most part. Their increase correlates well with the known amount of human production (you know--fossil fuels), minus the amount of carbon sequestration on land and sea (which is another problem entirely--some oceanographer described the oceans as beginning to resemble "salty soda", so much CO2 has been absorbed in the last couple decades. That is changing ocean pH, which means it seems to be beginning to affect marine life, coral reefs, and plankton--which form habitat and food for the food chain on which a large portion of the world's human population relies).

No denialist, and no one else, has come up with a convincing (or, indeed, as far as I am aware, ANY) acccount of where all that CO2 is coming from, if not human activity.

We've upped CO2 by roughly a third. That's only the beginning of the rise. It's not gonna stay like it is today, which is significantly warmer than 10 years ago (seven of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last decade). (And don't give me that old canard about the "inexplicable" slight cooling from about 1940-1975. The IPCC explicated it a decade ago: rapid indistrialization from WWII on led to huge increases in aerosols, especially sulfate aerosols, atmospheric pollution of various sorts, and ozone depletion, all of which had cooling effects. Anti-pollution laws and industrial changes from the late 60s on reduced that drastically, and aerosols particularly have to be continually replaced because they only stay in the atmosphere a couple of years, whereas CO2 is up there for a century or so, so that stopped became a much smaller factor in the 70s).

If you check back, you will find that at least as far back as the SAR the IPCC was calculating in possible solar effects, just to take one example of things the denialists cite (actually all the things they cite are already in the calculations back then), and even then it was a minor factor, dwarfed by anthropogenic effects. The certainty that it's manily anthropogenic has only grown greater in the last decade, as the evidence mounts up and the ice caps melt.

Glaciers reced. The Ganges, fed by Himalayan glaciers which won't be there in a couple decades, looks like it may be seasonal only by the middle of the century. And half a billion people rely on its water. You gonna condemn them to death, georgeob, because you want to keep the "freedom" to buy a gas guzzler (which of course also keeps up our reliance on foreign oil, and you know the damper that puts on our economy, right?)? It all ties together. Changes need to be considered now, so we don't crash and burn next decade.

This is not necessarily true, with respect to (a); you don't have to be able to forecast the exact result of change in order to see that change is coming.



What's so evil about an industrial plant? Just as there is a Republican tendency to group all America's enemies together into one cohesive mass, you do the same with those who argue against AGW; for every radical environmentalist you describe, there are twenty who just think it's a better idea to produce less waste and do something about the waste we do produce, instead of pretending that it doesn't exist or doesn't have an effect.

Cycloptichorn

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/06/peak-suburbia.html

Peak Suburbia - when the oil starts to run out, the way of life for millions of Americans is going to be absolutely f*cked.

Cycloptichorn

"Don't make me throw up. It's not science. It is not true."

Reed Bryson, the University of Wisconsin (Madison) professor emeritus who is known as the father of scientific climatology, didn't see Gore's feature-length cartoon, "An Inconvenient Truth." Bryson said last week on www.madison.com : "Don't make me throw up. It's not science. It is not true."

Bryson, 87, knows a little about climate science. He was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute of Environmental Studies there. He says we've "been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years" and that while the Earth has been warming, "there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide."

He calls man's contribution "tiny" and says it's "like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head." He says current warming hysteria "really isn't science because there's really no good scientific evidence."

These are not pawns of the oil companies. These are respected scientists, leaders, even pioneers in their fields. At the risk of both their reputations and their careers they are speaking out against the high priests of global warming who have had chilling effect on free scientific inquiry.

Tyrants, dictators and demagogues have traditionally invoked "foreign devils" to frighten, stifle and control their people and their countries. Now they invoke the threat of planetary doom spawned by unfettered capitalism.

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin would have signed Kyoto.

Like, say, Islamofascism?



Cycloptichorn

That about sums it up right?

Really, though? I mean, if the model isn't accurate over one or two years, why should we accept that it probably will be over twenty or fifty?

If I tell you, "I'm pretty sure it's going to rain tomorrow - I can't tell you how much, maybe a little, maybe a great deal," that can be useful information despite the lack of accuracy. But if I follow it with "therefore, let us build an ark!" you might be more skeptical about my claims. That's the shape of the AGW debate - we're being asked to build the ark on the basis of a forecast of rain.

That depends on your point of view, and on the stridency of the person making the argument.

For example, it would be logical to say 'perhaps we should start making plans to deal with tomorrow's rain, and plans to deal with ensuing rains which may be worse.' 'Perhaps we should make sure we can deal with the problems in the future, instead of ignoring them.'

Don't Appeal to Extremes!!!! The AGW crowd isn't a bunch of ark-builders. That's just how they are portrayed by those who don't want to see business profits decrease at all.

Cycloptichorn

ps. your example also neglects that, according to anecdotal evidence, the original 'let's build an ark! proponent was completely correct and those who pooh-poohed him all drowned!

"Reed Bryson, the University of Wisconsin (Madison) professor emeritus who is known as the father of scientific climatology, didn't see Gore's feature-length cartoon, "An Inconvenient Truth." Bryson said last week on www.madison.com : "Don't make me throw up. It's not science. It is not true.""

So the debate is over??

The actual analogy is more like:

"I'm pretty sure it's going to rain tomorrow - I can't tell you how much, maybe a little, maybe a great deal." ..... followed by ..... "Maybe I should close my window, buy an umbrella and a rain coat, and make sure I turn off the sprinklers so I don't over-water the grass."

The AGW crowd isn't asking you to build an ark, it's asking you to close your window, buy an umbrella and a rain coat, and turn off the sprinklers.

Just one tiny problem among many, by turning off the sprinklers I can only presume this means parking all cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and shutting down all factories, electricity, and so forth, which means our homes become dark and cold, .....or hot. Which means no jobs, no food, no nothing. I guess we go back to the caves, pick up our billie clubs and start hunting and gathering. But, remember, nobody would be allowed to cut any trees down to make their billie clubs. You might try to flake some flint for stone tools, but do not attach them to any wood cut down from trees or bushes, as that is totally prohibited. Also, you must have an environmental impact statement done before mining any rock.

Let the excitement begin.

No, that would be the equivalent of cutting off the water supply to your house, just because you're pretty sure it's going to rain tomorrow.

I the the equivalent to "turning off the sprinklers" would be switching to more fuel-efficient cars (like hybrid cars) in the short run, and switching to hydrogen or electricity (or a combination) powered cars and trucks in the long run, favouring more efficient means of transportation for cargo over less efficient ones (e.g. trains over trucks or planes), encouraging a switch to more fuel efficient planes by taxing kerosene just like gas, making sure that new factories and power plants are being built according to the current technology for e.g. carbon sequestration (rather than outdated but cheaper technology), encouraging alternative power (like wind, solar, tidal power) generation and investments by cutting subsidies for industries that will always be dependent and never be able to function based on national resources alone (like the oil industry), instead using short term subsidies to jump start that industries that will be able to supply power to Americans independent of Saudi Arabia or Venezuela...

And nothing of that is really radical. And while jobs will get lost, new ones will be created in different fields. That's how it has always been.

okie, I see you have a really rich fantasy life. And an almost complete disconnect from reality.

What ACTUAL people who say we have to take steps to counteract global warming say, as opposed to your fantasyconstructs, are things like the following:

The United States produces somewhat more than twice the CO2 per unit of GDP as other modern industrialized countries like Sweden or Japan, with comparable and perhaps even higher standards of living.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003829.html
It is clearly possible to reduce CO2 production while maintaining high industrial output. Other countries are doing it.
That's not fantasy. It's reality. It can be done. They're doing it. It hasn't wrecked their economies like the denialist doom-sayers here moan it'll do.

The US automakers bitch and whine and piss and moan that increasing CAFE standards will bankrupt them. They said the same thing about pollution controls forty years ago. They said the same thing about the first set of CAFE standards thirty years ago. They said the same thing about crumple zones and airbags until they found they were actually selling points and they could increase sales by bragging about the safety features they put in. In every case their predictions of economic disaster have been wrong. The Japanese car manufacturers, meanwhile, seeing how the wind was blowing, and considering the much higher price of gas in Japan have quietly done the research and TODAY their average fuel economy is within a mile or two per gallon of the standards the American automakers maintain are technologically impossible to meet in the next decade.

And you will notice both of these also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, one of the keystones of Bush's alleged anti-terror push, which for some reason he doesn't seem to be pushing anymore.

Climate change activists also support sensible steps like requiring energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs and energy-efficient appliances, particularly refrigerators, which use a huge amount of electricity compared with other appliances. And which also reduce dependence on foreign oil, as well as reducing America's carbon footprint. And which save consumers far more in energy costs over the liife of the bulb/appliance than the initial cost differential.

That's what people REALLY say. The only one who seems to be thinking we're saying back to the caves is you. Maybe you should get your hearing checked.