Options
Gorebull Warbling
webmost
Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
We still cannot accurately say what the weather will be next Tuesday. Yet
the Global Weather Alarmists and Carbon Tax swindlers insist that:
It is settled science that man made CO2 causes global warming which will bring epic disaster unless averted by drastic government action.
So...
______________________________
Background
I attended a high school so large that even after it was split in my junior year my graduating class was still over 3,600. One of the perks of such a large school was the wide choice of languages offered. I chose Russian. Texts were hard to get, so our teacher would subscribe to Pravda and The Journal of Atomic Scientists, for example, in Russian and English, then we would read the two side by side. Given the hysteria of the Cold war at the time, this method brought all sorts of trouble to our instructor; but that is another story. Suffice that the Journal of Atomic Scientists was about the only place a Russian could get published in the West, back then. A Russian climate scientist published a fascinating article in the Journal, proposing a dam across the Bering Strait. The idea was that Earth had been cooling rapidly since 1950, an ice age was approaching, and it would bring a litany of natural disasters, requiring drastic government action. Global cooling was the result of man made dust and smoke blocking the sun's rays, he said.
Here was his solution: Warm water enters the Arctic round Norway, then absorbs salt because it is warmer, and so gets heavier, allowing less salty colder water to rise even though cold water is more dense, until this colder water becomes fresh enough to freeze, creating sea ice and attendant albedo. He proposed a dam with a beveled top not quite breaking the surface, which would force warmer water upward while allowing colder fresher water to flow. Essentially, he proposed intentional anthropogenic global warming to counter unintentional anthropogenic global cooling.
This article became the seed of my first novel, an amateurish fanciful saga in which a group of Eskimo trekked in kayaks from the artificially thawed Arctic to the Antarctic in search of a habitat suited to their chilly lifestyle. It all got nowhere. But it left me with a lifetime curiosity on the subject. As part of the writing process, I researched everything from Peter Freuchen the Danish explorer of the early 20th century, to Arrhenius, the scientist of the late 19th century who first hypothesized that CO2 might be a factor in global warming. Before I leave this paragraph, let me not omit to note parenthetically that the fascinating Freuchen fathered an Inuit son who he named Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk. Had there been a Guinness Book at the time, both Freuchen and son ought to have been included; one for crossing the Greenland ice cap by dog sled, the other for owning a name most resembling quarreling dogs. Had to look that name up, I must admit, because I could not remember how to spell it.
All this transpired several years before John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul Erlich describing the coming global cooling apocalypse. Paul Erlich is a biologist notorious at the time for The Population Bomb, in which he predicted dire consequences from over-population, and proposed forced population control, a notion which only China took action on. John Holdren is an engineer from MIT. Neither author was a climate scientist nor had the science been invented yet. Yet Holdren predicted with certainty that global cooling would bring a litany of natural disasters: tidal waves, epic storms, drought, flood, sea levels rising fifty feet, and so forth.
A couple of decades later, I noted an article describing how a team of scientists had finally devised a way to test Arrhenius' hypothesis by drilling ice cores in Greenland. What they found was that, rather than preceding global warming, increased CO2 has always come after periods of global warming, as captured in the ice record. Thus disproving Arrhenius' hypothesis.
Three years after that, the IPCC report claimed the exact opposite. Arrhenius' disproven hypothesis was no longer a hypothesis, had skipped right past the theory stage, was now "settled science".
______________________________
I give you a series of questions. If any one of these questions is answered in the negative, then the Gorebull Warbling Alarmists are as ignorant and as unfounded as the flat earthers they accuse their opponents of being. Only if each and every one of these questions can confidently be answered in the affirmative should Global Warming be regarded as a genuine threat warranting immediate and drastic government action.
______________________________
1) Can we know anything?
Plainly not.
Baby steps. First, reliably forecast the weather next Tuesday. Then proceed to next June. Perhaps once you can reliably predict weather for a given month next decade, then it might be time to consider whether you have a firm grasp of approaching glacial epochs.
Examine this timeline: Earth, replete with weather, has been here like four billion years; life for three of those. A million years ago a couple monkeys fell out of a tree. Thirty thousand years ago Utzi thought a reed coat sufficient for his ill fated trip across the glacier. 2,500 years ago Aristotle deduced that four elements, fire, air, water and earth, created weather. In 1700, the French Philosophical Society decided Ari was full of it. Fahrenheit invented his thermometer in 1740. Matthew Fontaine Maury founded world meteorology by beginning to compile his wonderful wind and weather charts in 1853. The first Arctic weather station was manned about 1950. Tiros was launched in 1960. 1965, coolest year in the century, is taken as the base line measurement for global warming.
People, climatology is in its infancy. These time frames are less than the blink of an eye to a glacial epoch. We no more know why earth is warming than we can tell why the other planets are warming as well. That's right. Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, all those we have a measure of have warmed at the same rate as we have. There used to be a NASA page reporting this fact. I saw it. Either it has since been taken down, or I cannot find it. Instead, I only google up pages denying its existence. It was there. Maybe you can find it.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something. Then, the question becomes:
2) Can we rely on our sources?
Plainly not.
Forget, for a moment, Climategate, and the infamous faked hockey stick graph (which are examples of apophasis, mentioned elsewhere on this forum), and the spectacle of Al Gore swindling a billion. Focus purely on scientists.
Remember John Holdren? The engineer who predicted a litany of disasters resulting from global cooling? He is now Obama's science advisor, predicting the same litany of disasters from... global warming! I shet you not.
In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.
President Clinton cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Backed by a corrupt Arkansas politician.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something and we can trust our sources. Then, the question becomes:
3) Is it settled?
Plainly not.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." This petition was circulated by a former President of the American Academy of Science. They counted 50 times as many PhDs among them, IIRC, as the number of PhDs who signed the initial IPCC report. Plainly, there is no consensus. Even among the initial IPCC signers, two hundred some later brought suit in Britain to have their names taken off the report, saying they had quit the commission rather than sign, but their names were listed as signatories anyway.
But the best collection of alternative views from scientific sources which I have seen was linked on this forum just the other day. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
No, it does not matter one whit whether you can find one of those links and deride it; nor does it make one rabbit fart in a blizard whether you are able to contemn the BOTL who offered this link because of what he does for a living. The only point under consideration here is: Is it settled? It is not. There is not one broad camp of opinion and a handful of kooks; instead, there are two broad camps.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something. can trust what we know, and what we know is settled. Then, the question becomes:
4) Is it science?
No Effin Way.
The very phrase "settled science" is completely offensive to the fundamental notion of science. Anyone who offers the phrase ought to return to middle school and take some science. Here is how science works: A thinker dreams up a hypothesis. He, if he can, and others, over years, test and re-test his hypothesis, repeatedly, attempting to disprove it, while sharing their results with one another. If this hypothesis cannot be disproved, then it may be elevated to the status of theory until such time as it can be disproved. The scientific method is skeptical, always testing, never resting. Science does not prove theories so much as it attempts to disprove them. One failure makes the house of cards tumble, and then we must look for a new hypothesis. This is how we got to the moon. By contrast, the global warming alarmists counter every objection with "it's settled", attack the character and intelligence of anyone who disagrees, protect their datasets by invoking intellectual property rights, and beat their drum. This is not science.
Science does not settle. Dogma settles.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, rely on our sources, and it is settled science. Then, the question becomes:
5) Do we know that the climate is warming?
Plainly not.
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1965 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's. Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain-- maybe 1/3° C. Day to day, we see snow up the wazoo in one place while we get warmer in another place. The average diff, we are told, is alarming. Still, not nearly so warm, we are told, as during the Middle Ages, when it was no big deal. What is most surprising, however, is that for the last fifteen years, average temperatures have remained rather stable on average, while global warming hysteria has remained stable as well. This was accomplished by merely changing the name from Glocal Warming, which is not apparent, to climate change, which is always the case.
Last August, sea ice off Antarctica increased 2,600 times the area of Manhattan
in one day. Did you hear about it from Dan Rather?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science, and it's heating up. Then, the question becomes:
6) Do we know why?
Plainly not.
We have any number of candidates:
11 year and 206 year cycles of sunspot activity
21,000 year cycles of Earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 year cycles of the wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 year cycles in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
The real greenhouse gas: water vapor.
... as well as other cycles only recently discovered and little understood, as, for instance, cycles in the Gulf Stream. Do we blame any of these? No. Instead, we are to blame C02. Why? Common sense tells us this is the least of our worries. Science tells us 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. (Have you ever been to the tropics?) CO2 comprises 3.6% of greenhouse gas. Man-made CO2 comprises 3.2% of that. In sum, 0.117% of greenhouse gas is contributed by man. That smidge has been increasing by a fifth of a percent of itself per annum. Jeepers.
My friends, what could be less likely?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science, it is warming, and carbon is the culprit. Then, the question becomes:
7) Is it a bad thing?
Plainly not.
There are seven billion of us on this planet. I can remember when there were three. My grandchildren may easily see twenty. Nobody knows how to limit this number. They will all need to eat. What will feed them? Water, soil, warmth. Look at a map. If Northern Canada and Siberia could be thawed and tilled, my word! Not to mention the cost of heating oil. If it is warming, warming is far from a curse; it is a timely godsend. I really don't see how anyone can refute this.
Oh, and by the way, CO2 fuels plants which both we and meat eat.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, science is settled, we know it is warming, it's our fault for making so much nasty carbon, and change is bad. Then, the question becomes:
8) Can it be prevented?
Not likely.
North American CO2 emissions fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic growth. In China, the worlds biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel rose more than 9 percent in 2011. What? You're going to tell them wogs to knock it off? You're going to tell India and Indonesia "no productivity for you, boys, missed the boat, good times is over, you gotta stay stuck in the third world." Sure. That'll go over. Get a grip. If Nigeria wants a steel mill, they're not going to get one powered by solar panels. Realistically, unless you have a way to reverse population growth and the proliferation of wealth, all within the narrow window of time predicted, you flat out cannot do it. And, yes, daydreamers, there are things in this world that cannot be done.
This question is so ridiculous you just gotta laugh. In a world where we can't even eliminate nuclear weapons, we're going to achieve consensus on alternative energy and cow farts. What do these people think with.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, we know it's warming, we know why, it's our fault, it's a bad thing, and it can be prevented. Then, the question becomes:
9) Do we know how to prevent it?
Plainly not.
Who? Us? Now? Did I hear that right?
Show me baby steps. First, avert one tornado from one trailer park. Next, sweep one measly hurricane out to sea away from New York. Next vacation, I want all sunny days. When you can do any of that, then get back to me, as only then will I seriously consider the feasibility of altering a glacial epoch.
This takes silly to new heights.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume we can know something, our sources are good, science settled, it's warming, bad on us, bad stuff on the way, preventable, and we can do it. Then, the question becomes:
10) Should we prevent it?
Plainly not.
What do you do if there comes a flood? You go to higher ground. What do you do if you are attacked? You reach for your most effective weapon. Man has prevailed over millennia by adapting to conditions. We are adaptable. **** Getwiththeprogramus. That is our strength, our refuge, our higher ground. Not controlling the uncontrollable. Adapting to it. If some fearsome natural disaster really is staring us in the face, then now is not the time to change our nature; now is the time to employ our strength. Adapt.
Last week, global warming scientists finally quantified the rise in sea level they thought attributable to global warming: 11 millimeters in twenty years. Which do you think we could more realistically achieve: Adapting to 3/8" higher sea level or turning back the glacial epoch?
Anyone?
Perhaps some BOTL from Netherlands can chime in.
______________________________
Apocalyptic hysteria recurs time and again throughout history. It always goes like so: God shall destroy the earth with natural disasters because mankind has been wicked.
Sound familiar?
350 years ago, climate abruptly cooled. We call it the Little Ice Age. A glacier in Switzerland began descending the mountain toward the village of Fiesch, threatening to destroy the place. The village gathered a collection, sent it to the Pope in Rome, and hired priests to ascend the mountain side swinging censers, bearing idols, counting beads, and chanting prayers imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf and hold back the glacier. Last year their prayers were finally answered... in spades. The glacier is now melting so rapidly that Fiesch feels threatened by flood. The villagers gathered a collection, sent it to the Pope in Rome, and hired priests, who ascended the mountain swinging censers, telling beads, bearing idols, chanting a new prayer imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf. I kid you not. I kid you not. I am not kidding. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120810-glaciers-vatican-prayer-alps-science-gobal-warming/
How's this stuff gain credence?
Fiesch's priests wore white surplices, held crosses, and spoke Latin. Scientists wear white lab coats, hold clipboards, and make up new words from Latin. I know that, because I saw one on TV peddling a hair loss remedy. That's when I knew I could trust whatever he said.
It is settled science that man made CO2 causes global warming which will bring epic disaster unless averted by drastic government action.
So...
______________________________
Background
I attended a high school so large that even after it was split in my junior year my graduating class was still over 3,600. One of the perks of such a large school was the wide choice of languages offered. I chose Russian. Texts were hard to get, so our teacher would subscribe to Pravda and The Journal of Atomic Scientists, for example, in Russian and English, then we would read the two side by side. Given the hysteria of the Cold war at the time, this method brought all sorts of trouble to our instructor; but that is another story. Suffice that the Journal of Atomic Scientists was about the only place a Russian could get published in the West, back then. A Russian climate scientist published a fascinating article in the Journal, proposing a dam across the Bering Strait. The idea was that Earth had been cooling rapidly since 1950, an ice age was approaching, and it would bring a litany of natural disasters, requiring drastic government action. Global cooling was the result of man made dust and smoke blocking the sun's rays, he said.
Here was his solution: Warm water enters the Arctic round Norway, then absorbs salt because it is warmer, and so gets heavier, allowing less salty colder water to rise even though cold water is more dense, until this colder water becomes fresh enough to freeze, creating sea ice and attendant albedo. He proposed a dam with a beveled top not quite breaking the surface, which would force warmer water upward while allowing colder fresher water to flow. Essentially, he proposed intentional anthropogenic global warming to counter unintentional anthropogenic global cooling.
This article became the seed of my first novel, an amateurish fanciful saga in which a group of Eskimo trekked in kayaks from the artificially thawed Arctic to the Antarctic in search of a habitat suited to their chilly lifestyle. It all got nowhere. But it left me with a lifetime curiosity on the subject. As part of the writing process, I researched everything from Peter Freuchen the Danish explorer of the early 20th century, to Arrhenius, the scientist of the late 19th century who first hypothesized that CO2 might be a factor in global warming. Before I leave this paragraph, let me not omit to note parenthetically that the fascinating Freuchen fathered an Inuit son who he named Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk. Had there been a Guinness Book at the time, both Freuchen and son ought to have been included; one for crossing the Greenland ice cap by dog sled, the other for owning a name most resembling quarreling dogs. Had to look that name up, I must admit, because I could not remember how to spell it.
All this transpired several years before John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul Erlich describing the coming global cooling apocalypse. Paul Erlich is a biologist notorious at the time for The Population Bomb, in which he predicted dire consequences from over-population, and proposed forced population control, a notion which only China took action on. John Holdren is an engineer from MIT. Neither author was a climate scientist nor had the science been invented yet. Yet Holdren predicted with certainty that global cooling would bring a litany of natural disasters: tidal waves, epic storms, drought, flood, sea levels rising fifty feet, and so forth.
A couple of decades later, I noted an article describing how a team of scientists had finally devised a way to test Arrhenius' hypothesis by drilling ice cores in Greenland. What they found was that, rather than preceding global warming, increased CO2 has always come after periods of global warming, as captured in the ice record. Thus disproving Arrhenius' hypothesis.
Three years after that, the IPCC report claimed the exact opposite. Arrhenius' disproven hypothesis was no longer a hypothesis, had skipped right past the theory stage, was now "settled science".
______________________________
I give you a series of questions. If any one of these questions is answered in the negative, then the Gorebull Warbling Alarmists are as ignorant and as unfounded as the flat earthers they accuse their opponents of being. Only if each and every one of these questions can confidently be answered in the affirmative should Global Warming be regarded as a genuine threat warranting immediate and drastic government action.
______________________________
1) Can we know anything?
Plainly not.
Baby steps. First, reliably forecast the weather next Tuesday. Then proceed to next June. Perhaps once you can reliably predict weather for a given month next decade, then it might be time to consider whether you have a firm grasp of approaching glacial epochs.
Examine this timeline: Earth, replete with weather, has been here like four billion years; life for three of those. A million years ago a couple monkeys fell out of a tree. Thirty thousand years ago Utzi thought a reed coat sufficient for his ill fated trip across the glacier. 2,500 years ago Aristotle deduced that four elements, fire, air, water and earth, created weather. In 1700, the French Philosophical Society decided Ari was full of it. Fahrenheit invented his thermometer in 1740. Matthew Fontaine Maury founded world meteorology by beginning to compile his wonderful wind and weather charts in 1853. The first Arctic weather station was manned about 1950. Tiros was launched in 1960. 1965, coolest year in the century, is taken as the base line measurement for global warming.
People, climatology is in its infancy. These time frames are less than the blink of an eye to a glacial epoch. We no more know why earth is warming than we can tell why the other planets are warming as well. That's right. Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, all those we have a measure of have warmed at the same rate as we have. There used to be a NASA page reporting this fact. I saw it. Either it has since been taken down, or I cannot find it. Instead, I only google up pages denying its existence. It was there. Maybe you can find it.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something. Then, the question becomes:
2) Can we rely on our sources?
Plainly not.
Forget, for a moment, Climategate, and the infamous faked hockey stick graph (which are examples of apophasis, mentioned elsewhere on this forum), and the spectacle of Al Gore swindling a billion. Focus purely on scientists.
Remember John Holdren? The engineer who predicted a litany of disasters resulting from global cooling? He is now Obama's science advisor, predicting the same litany of disasters from... global warming! I shet you not.
In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.
President Clinton cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Backed by a corrupt Arkansas politician.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something and we can trust our sources. Then, the question becomes:
3) Is it settled?
Plainly not.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." This petition was circulated by a former President of the American Academy of Science. They counted 50 times as many PhDs among them, IIRC, as the number of PhDs who signed the initial IPCC report. Plainly, there is no consensus. Even among the initial IPCC signers, two hundred some later brought suit in Britain to have their names taken off the report, saying they had quit the commission rather than sign, but their names were listed as signatories anyway.
But the best collection of alternative views from scientific sources which I have seen was linked on this forum just the other day. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
No, it does not matter one whit whether you can find one of those links and deride it; nor does it make one rabbit fart in a blizard whether you are able to contemn the BOTL who offered this link because of what he does for a living. The only point under consideration here is: Is it settled? It is not. There is not one broad camp of opinion and a handful of kooks; instead, there are two broad camps.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something. can trust what we know, and what we know is settled. Then, the question becomes:
4) Is it science?
No Effin Way.
The very phrase "settled science" is completely offensive to the fundamental notion of science. Anyone who offers the phrase ought to return to middle school and take some science. Here is how science works: A thinker dreams up a hypothesis. He, if he can, and others, over years, test and re-test his hypothesis, repeatedly, attempting to disprove it, while sharing their results with one another. If this hypothesis cannot be disproved, then it may be elevated to the status of theory until such time as it can be disproved. The scientific method is skeptical, always testing, never resting. Science does not prove theories so much as it attempts to disprove them. One failure makes the house of cards tumble, and then we must look for a new hypothesis. This is how we got to the moon. By contrast, the global warming alarmists counter every objection with "it's settled", attack the character and intelligence of anyone who disagrees, protect their datasets by invoking intellectual property rights, and beat their drum. This is not science.
Science does not settle. Dogma settles.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, rely on our sources, and it is settled science. Then, the question becomes:
5) Do we know that the climate is warming?
Plainly not.
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing. Then from 1940 to 1965 temperatures were decreasing. Currently, temperatures are increasing back to about where they were in the 1930's. Overall, the total average annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual amount is uncertain-- maybe 1/3° C. Day to day, we see snow up the wazoo in one place while we get warmer in another place. The average diff, we are told, is alarming. Still, not nearly so warm, we are told, as during the Middle Ages, when it was no big deal. What is most surprising, however, is that for the last fifteen years, average temperatures have remained rather stable on average, while global warming hysteria has remained stable as well. This was accomplished by merely changing the name from Glocal Warming, which is not apparent, to climate change, which is always the case.
Last August, sea ice off Antarctica increased 2,600 times the area of Manhattan
in one day. Did you hear about it from Dan Rather?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science, and it's heating up. Then, the question becomes:
6) Do we know why?
Plainly not.
We have any number of candidates:
11 year and 206 year cycles of sunspot activity
21,000 year cycles of Earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 year cycles of the wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 year cycles in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
The real greenhouse gas: water vapor.
... as well as other cycles only recently discovered and little understood, as, for instance, cycles in the Gulf Stream. Do we blame any of these? No. Instead, we are to blame C02. Why? Common sense tells us this is the least of our worries. Science tells us 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. (Have you ever been to the tropics?) CO2 comprises 3.6% of greenhouse gas. Man-made CO2 comprises 3.2% of that. In sum, 0.117% of greenhouse gas is contributed by man. That smidge has been increasing by a fifth of a percent of itself per annum. Jeepers.
My friends, what could be less likely?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science, it is warming, and carbon is the culprit. Then, the question becomes:
7) Is it a bad thing?
Plainly not.
There are seven billion of us on this planet. I can remember when there were three. My grandchildren may easily see twenty. Nobody knows how to limit this number. They will all need to eat. What will feed them? Water, soil, warmth. Look at a map. If Northern Canada and Siberia could be thawed and tilled, my word! Not to mention the cost of heating oil. If it is warming, warming is far from a curse; it is a timely godsend. I really don't see how anyone can refute this.
Oh, and by the way, CO2 fuels plants which both we and meat eat.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, science is settled, we know it is warming, it's our fault for making so much nasty carbon, and change is bad. Then, the question becomes:
8) Can it be prevented?
Not likely.
North American CO2 emissions fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic growth. In China, the worlds biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel rose more than 9 percent in 2011. What? You're going to tell them wogs to knock it off? You're going to tell India and Indonesia "no productivity for you, boys, missed the boat, good times is over, you gotta stay stuck in the third world." Sure. That'll go over. Get a grip. If Nigeria wants a steel mill, they're not going to get one powered by solar panels. Realistically, unless you have a way to reverse population growth and the proliferation of wealth, all within the narrow window of time predicted, you flat out cannot do it. And, yes, daydreamers, there are things in this world that cannot be done.
This question is so ridiculous you just gotta laugh. In a world where we can't even eliminate nuclear weapons, we're going to achieve consensus on alternative energy and cow farts. What do these people think with.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, we know it's warming, we know why, it's our fault, it's a bad thing, and it can be prevented. Then, the question becomes:
9) Do we know how to prevent it?
Plainly not.
Who? Us? Now? Did I hear that right?
Show me baby steps. First, avert one tornado from one trailer park. Next, sweep one measly hurricane out to sea away from New York. Next vacation, I want all sunny days. When you can do any of that, then get back to me, as only then will I seriously consider the feasibility of altering a glacial epoch.
This takes silly to new heights.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume we can know something, our sources are good, science settled, it's warming, bad on us, bad stuff on the way, preventable, and we can do it. Then, the question becomes:
10) Should we prevent it?
Plainly not.
What do you do if there comes a flood? You go to higher ground. What do you do if you are attacked? You reach for your most effective weapon. Man has prevailed over millennia by adapting to conditions. We are adaptable. **** Getwiththeprogramus. That is our strength, our refuge, our higher ground. Not controlling the uncontrollable. Adapting to it. If some fearsome natural disaster really is staring us in the face, then now is not the time to change our nature; now is the time to employ our strength. Adapt.
Last week, global warming scientists finally quantified the rise in sea level they thought attributable to global warming: 11 millimeters in twenty years. Which do you think we could more realistically achieve: Adapting to 3/8" higher sea level or turning back the glacial epoch?
Anyone?
Perhaps some BOTL from Netherlands can chime in.
______________________________
Apocalyptic hysteria recurs time and again throughout history. It always goes like so: God shall destroy the earth with natural disasters because mankind has been wicked.
Sound familiar?
350 years ago, climate abruptly cooled. We call it the Little Ice Age. A glacier in Switzerland began descending the mountain toward the village of Fiesch, threatening to destroy the place. The village gathered a collection, sent it to the Pope in Rome, and hired priests to ascend the mountain side swinging censers, bearing idols, counting beads, and chanting prayers imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf and hold back the glacier. Last year their prayers were finally answered... in spades. The glacier is now melting so rapidly that Fiesch feels threatened by flood. The villagers gathered a collection, sent it to the Pope in Rome, and hired priests, who ascended the mountain swinging censers, telling beads, bearing idols, chanting a new prayer imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf. I kid you not. I kid you not. I am not kidding. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120810-glaciers-vatican-prayer-alps-science-gobal-warming/
How's this stuff gain credence?
Fiesch's priests wore white surplices, held crosses, and spoke Latin. Scientists wear white lab coats, hold clipboards, and make up new words from Latin. I know that, because I saw one on TV peddling a hair loss remedy. That's when I knew I could trust whatever he said.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
0
Comments
I have always said that if you took the sum total of all of the reliable data we have, it would be akin to less than one second in a 24 hour day. If you look at it that way, then the sun going down and turning to night would be a terrifying, unexplainable phenomenon.
Soo Mr. The Kid, I'll ask you again. What is your area of expertise in this matter. I suppose living on the Puget Sound would qualify you as being pre-programed, but surely not an expert.
Link
Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate Changesd. The Past is the Key to the Future
in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/easterbrook_geologic-evidence-of-recurring-climatic-cycles.pdf
Its' a bit long and well documented.
The climate changes. Yup it does. All you nay sayers are wacky cuz the climate does change. It was warm here yesterday and now it is cold. That sure was a change.
Global warming...... you bet....... happens all the time......
So what caused the warming long long ago? Was it all the cars? Coal fired industrial plants? Man made? Natural change? I would like your opinion.
(oh and for all you 'scientists' who say this chart is bogus cuz the thermometer didnt exist that far back and that there are no records, well, this data (which you may say is bogus) is based on other scientists who study global temperature proxies (sediments, boreholes, pollen, oxygen-18, stalagmites, magnesium to calcium ratios, algae, cave formation, etc. over a wide geographical range)
I particularly appreciate a couple points you made regarding our tendency to divide into two categories of kooks, and the point about "settled science". I see these things happening all the time. Seems everytime someone's hypothesis reaches the Theory stage, the masses are led to believe that "Now we know everything". Never gonna happen.
Like Beatnic, I remember being told in grade school, in the '60's, that by the turn of the century we'd all be living in igloos. New Ice Age.
Anyone remember "Acid Rain"? It was going to destroy us, too.
Still, I'd like us to behave responsibly as we can. Take care of what we can, preserve what we can. It would be easier if people would stop following the various Pied Pipers who either soothe us into inactivity with assurances that absolutely nothing's wrong, and government and industry have things well in hand, or, the sky is falling, quick, give all your money and your rights to "X" and we'll save you, or your grandkids, or someone down the line.
Again, I appreciate the time and effort you put into this post, Webmost. Also, all of those who contribute to these kinds of discussions. Whether I agree with you or not at the particular moment, I think that it's important for people like us to be engaged in searching for the truth in this and other matters. If both groups of Kooks will start looking for the truth with us, maybe we can all meet in the middle, somewhere.
I try to do this all the time, though short posts may not reflect the entirety of what I'm trying to say. During the Bush years, I found myself defending him against obnoxious and largely false attacks. I'd voted for Ron Paul. During the Obama years, same thing. Voted for Bob Barr & Gary Johnson. The answer to our problems must be found in the search for truth, reality, and reasonable responses to both. JMO.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Puget Sound, yes, pre programmed, no not really, Im not as liberal as you might think. However I have been moving more to the left as the Right has become more fanatical (tea party). Probably also because I am getting older (45) and with age comes wisdom and I realize the motives behind politics. I am not for bigger government and countless regulation but I dont believe the EPA is the subversive organization that the Tea Party believes them to be. Not a fan of the ATF if that makes you feel any better. Have a great day guys!!!
And yes, climatology is still in it's infancy - but if all signs are pointing towards a certain conclusion, i.e. the earth is warming/climate is changing, then I'm apt to believe that it is happening.
Does that mean we should stop and say "ok it's settled?" No.
But I think it gives us a good place to start when thinking about the future of energy/transportation/lifestyles.
While you're right that it didn't "destroy us all" - it certainly damaged the environment and effected animals and humans - with some of the long-term effects still being discovered today.
But I'd like to think that Congress' passing of the Acid Deposition Act in 1980 and Clean Air Act in 1989 helped keep acid rain from getting worse and causing more damage.
Agreed, whether you think global warming is happening or not - humans have the ability to change the earth in ways that no other species can ... and with that power, comes responsibility.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
1. Teach your children to become responsible, self reliant people
2. Leave the world better off than how you found it
Everything else is icing on the cake.
Where'd all the "you must be flat earthers" go to now? Nothing but crickets from that crowd. Don't be discouraged by facts and logic, guys... you never have been so far.
I was amused by Lord Monkton's latest prank. You guys see that?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2967149/posts
The British sure can be a comical lot.
But since you asked, going to re-read your post and put together a rebuttal. Give me a bit.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
*¸.·´¸.·*´ ¸.·*¨)*
*(¸.·´ (¸.·Thank you and have a great day!
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
(BTW haven't forgot about you webmost ... gotta get some other things done before I put my thoughts to paper, so to speak.)
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?fb_action_ids=389515117785331&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=246965925417366
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Well worth a quick glance.
Also, so please be patient as I work to transfer/reformat the text as I originally typed it in word and am trying to make sure all the quotes/links/line breaks come through ok.
______________________________
You're comparing apples to oranges. Predicting the weather next Tuesday and predicting long-term climate change are two, very different things.
First, let's define weather and climate.
According to the National Weather Service (NOAA NWS):
"Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure.
Climate is defined as the expected frequency of specific states of the atmosphere, ocean, and land including variables such as temperature (land, ocean, and atmosphere), salinity (oceans), soil moisture (land), wind speed and direction (atmosphere), current strength and direction (oceans), etc. Climate encompasses the weather over different periods of time and also relates to mutual interactions between the components of the earth system (e.g., atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions, changes in the earths orbit around the sun, changes in the energy from the sun itself, etc.).
Now that we've defined climate and weather, we can try to understand why predicting the climate and predicting the weather are fundamentally different.
Essentially, with weather prediction time and place are absolutely critical to having an accurate prediction. Also, equally important is are complete and accurate initial values to use in the computer model used to make the prediction.
In this case, even the slightest error in initial values will be magnified the longer the weather model is run into the future.
In other words - predicting whether it will rain ten days from now is hard because if any of the initial values are wrong, the "10-day forecast" will be completely wrong.
However, predicting climate focuses on spatially and temporally averaged conditions. So where weather predictions are critically dependent on having 100% accurate initial values, accurate climate prediction depends on getting the boundary conditions correct, many of which relate to the atmospheres energy.
Which makes it easy for us to predict that it will be warm in Chicago in July.
You can read more here, as Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of Dukes Nicholas School of the Environment writes:
Scientifically speaking, the difference between weather prediction and climate prediction is the difference between an initial value problem and a boundary value problem. Lets see if I can explain in English ...
Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere.
Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.
So, in conclusion - predicting the weather is very hard to do accurately because it is dealing with very specific atmospheric conditions at a very specific time. Climate is easier because it's about general trends over generally long periods of time, so modeling it is practical.
It's also important to keep in mind, scientists aren't warning people about Global Weather Change, they're concerned with Global Climate Change .
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
However, if you want to go that route and say that we can't trust any sources then we can not trust the deniers any more than we trust the alarmists.
Which would leave us to rely only on our personal experiences, and if that's the case, I can say with 100% certainty that climate change is happening based on my experiences.
So then that's it, the problem's solved, debate's settled let's all pack our bags and go home. Agree? :-D
..let me guess, you're not convinced since your personal experiences lead you to believe it's not happening.
Well $hit, now what do we do? Sit here and bicker back and forth until our final days? I'd prefer not to
so let's go back and take a look at our sources?
______________________________
Following the sentiment of your original statement, you're right - talk is cheap and there's always a few fringe articles that can be found to back any opinion, regardless of subject, or some off-the-wall scientist that will make absurd claims.
So let's not bother with the fact that the surveys of scientists' views on climate change have generally concluded that the majority of scientists are convinced that human activity is causing global warming.
And instead let's look at who's taking action to respond to the threat of climate change.
I hope that we can agree that someone who chooses to make a commitment to curbing greenhouse gases has very likely examined the scientific evidence and reached the conclusion that the risks of inaction outweigh the costs of action?
If we can agree on that, then let's look at a few of the organizations taking action right now:
How about the the Center for Naval Analysis? They convened a Military Advisory Board of eleven retired three-star and four-star admirals and generals to assess the impact of global climate change on key matters of national security the report recommended:
the U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects of climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Or The Department of Defense? When the DOD published its Quadrennial Defense Review which reports:
Climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.
As a response to increased global challenges posed by climate change, the Department of Defense has undertaken many contingency plans. To address the causes of climate change, the Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations.
Or The Carbon Disclosure Report S&P 500 that analyzed the disclosures of 339 of the largest U.S. Companies. The report revealed that corporate America is taking clear action to respond to climate change. UPS, Consolidated Edison and Dow Chemical were among the most active US companies, while companies with best carbon performance were Air Products & Chemicals, Alcoa, Bank of America, Cisco Systems, Clorox, Consolidated Edison, CSX, Ecolab, Lockheed Martin, Molson Coors Brewing and Morgan Stanley.
The report also found that the proportion of companies that have senior executive or board members overseeing their climate change programs jumped from 68 percent in 2010 to 87 percent in 2011. There was also a doubling of companies reporting climate change policies as an integral part of corporate business strategy, up from 35 percent of respondents in 2010 to 65 percent in 2011. Further, 64 percent of respondents are setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
And as of January 2012, several of the major global petroleum producers have publicly acknowledged the negative effects of greenhouse gases on Earths atmosphere and undertaken steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Below are a few quotes directly copied from their websites:
BP
Current forecasts underscore the size of the climate change challenge. BPs analysis suggests that CO2 emissions could rise by at least 27% by 2030, despite expected tightening in global climate policy. Even assuming that more aggressive policy changes are enacted, carbon emissions are likely to rise by up to 9% by 2030.
We support policies that we believe can address climate change while also making it possible for society to meet growing demand for secure and affordable energy.
ExxonMobil
Rising greenhouse-gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems. Since most of these emissions are energy-related, any integrated approach to meeting the worlds growing energy needs over the coming decades must incorporate strategies to address the risk of climate change.
Chevron
We recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the worlds energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methanein the Earths atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
A certain number of natural disasters in a week, sustained increasing global temperatures for 100 years in a row, when all of the sea ice and glaciers have melted, when the tropics are no longer inhabitable or agriculturally productive due to extreme weather and the Earth looks like the scenes from Waterworld starring Kevin Costner?
You know we will never get a purely scientific source saying the future is certain.
Probability is the language of science. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving - but in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new finding will drastically change things.
So let's look at how well established the greenhouse effect is...
Greenhouse effect theory is over 100 years old. The first predictions of anthropogenic global warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those groundbreaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations, and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken a million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match.
And let's examine the consensus about climate change, and see who is endorsing this consensus despite the fact there's: The concensus represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1) found that:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
So now that we know what the consensus is, let's see who endorses it:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
And, in addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASAs Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS), American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Institute of Physics (AIP), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), American Meteorological Society (AMS), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS).
So back to my original question, if this is not it, then what would settled science, or a consensus look like?
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
The EDF offers a nice summary saying:
"Scientists are certain the Earth has been warming for 100 years. Here's how they know."
And the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) reports that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s....(and) since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming.
There's also NOAA's indicators which include:
The Global Surface Temperature is Rising
U.S. Surface Temperature is also Rising
Sea Level is Rising
Global Upper Ocean Heat Content is Rising
Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover is Retreating
Glacier Volume is Shrinking
U.S. Climate Extremes are Increasing
Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased
And don't forget NOAA's borehole analysis which found that this record, totally independent of data and methods used in other studies, shows the same thing: the Earth is warming dramatically.
Then there's NASA which says that the evidence for rapid climate change is compelling. You can also Watch 131 Years of Global Warming in 26 Seconds courtesy of this animation from NASA.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
I guess its time to get rid of my winter jackets then?
My plan is to post a reply for each of your original 10 questions. I will let you know when they're all posted.
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *