backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by Doann.. on Jan 17 at 12:53 PM


A political cartoonist's take on the 'Gore Effect'
2008 sees a sea change in the face of the global warming debate.

When I began writing about global warming climate change, public outcry was tremendous.  Amid a sea of media stories about the sins of our wasteful lifestyle, no one wanted to hear about contradictory research, conflicting data, or skeptical scientists.

Now, over two years later, a funny thing has happened. The roles have shifted. My stories are the staid and ordinary ones.  It's the fellows predicting flood, famine, and disaster who are generating all the controversy.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. What happened? 

2008 was the year predicted to be the "hottest in a century".  Instead it became the coldest of the decade. It was the year the North Pole would "melt entirely, allowing you to swim to it".  Instead, nuclear-powered icebreakers became trapped in unseasonably thick ice. It was a year of record-breaking cold and snow, everywhere from Baghdad to the beaches of Malibu. It was the year the "Gore Effect" entered the public vocabulary, as whenever global warming protestors got together to march, they were met with blizzards and ice storms. Let's hope schadenfroh isn't a sin.

Polls are clear.  Despite the media's increasingly shrill tone and ever-more unrealistic predictions, the public has lost all faith in global warming. After all, how many times can you say that this time the science is now finally proven, without being laughed at?

In some respects, that's good.  It means less chance of implementing incredibly damaging policies, policies that will have disastrous impacts on standards of living, especially among the poor.

In other ways, it's bad. The overselling of inconclusive conjectures as "proven science" is leading some to distrust science itself. Given that, I think the year should conclude with a reminder of just what the scientific debate -- minus its alarmist media trappings-- is really all about.

As a moderately well known skeptic, I sometimes surprise people when I say I believe in global warming. If we define the term as, "man is having some impact on global temperatures", then the evidence is fairly clear. That statement in itself, though, means nothing. Are we impacting it enough to matter? Can CO2 cause catastrophic climate change?

That debate revolves around a single number, one so important we have a special name for it.

Climate Sensitivity
How much will the earth warm if we double the amount of atmospheric CO2, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases? That value is called climate sensitivity. If all else remains equal, it’s fairly easy to calculate: about half a degree C, a figure accepted by most proponents and skeptics of AGW alike. It's also a value far too small for concern. With that sensitivity, the planet would warm by maybe a quarter of a degree by the year 2100. Yawn.

But there's a wrinkle in that simple calculation. As greenhouse gases rise, other things change as well. Some are positive feedbacks, which lead to more warming. Some are negative feedbacks, which counteract the warming. Scientists in the modeling community tend to believe positive effects predominate; they bandy about sensitivity values from 2C all the way up to 6C or more. Observational earth scientists (primarily geologists, meteorologists, and some atmospheric physicists) tend to believe negative effects dominate, and that the actual value may be even smaller than 0.5C.

The problem is that no real evidence exists for strong positive feedbacks. Worse, they seem contradicted by the paleoclimatic history of the planet, which has never experienced runaway warming even when CO2 levels were ten or more times higher than they are today. Over geologic time, CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature, leading one to conclude that it's a very weak greenhouse gas.

There is other evidence against a high sensitivity. But the real point is this. Whichever side is right, the media (and a few researchers) have forgotten one of the basic rules of science. Until a theory can predict the unexpected, it should always be viewed critically. The ancient Greeks knew the stars moved, and they had a thousand theories to predict why it would keep happening.  Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence.

Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Very well put, Michael.
By Ordr on 12/30/2008 3:45:07 PM , Rating: 5
Despite the certainty of an onslaught of comments attempting to malign you and uproot your views, the simple fact of the matter is that objective science will always win out over populist hysteria.




RE: Very well put, Michael.
By geddarkstorm on 12/30/2008 4:33:02 PM , Rating: 5
Let's certainly hope so, and hope it stays that way. Or better yet, let's hope objectivity wins out before hysteria causes economic and other damages.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By reader1 on 12/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very well put, Michael.
By Ordr on 12/31/2008 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 5
What's FUD? The UN itself said that 10 trillion dollars will be needed to combat this so-called problem. How would that not cause any economic damage?


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By onelittleindian on 12/31/2008 2:11:43 PM , Rating: 5
Actually they said $45 trillion would be needed just to get started.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12030


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By Ordr on 12/31/2008 2:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for the correction :).


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By wjcott on 12/31/2008 2:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Is that in Zimbabwean dollars?!


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By FITCamaro on 12/31/2008 3:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
If it was that would be nice since $45 trillion in Zimbabwean currency is "only" $46.5 million USD.

But no. If I was a billionaire, I'd send them that much in Zimbabwean currency as a joke.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By reader1 on 12/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: Very well put, Michael.
By onelittleindian on 12/31/2008 4:49:59 PM , Rating: 4
A, 1.1% of everything the entire WORLD produces for the next 50 years is NOT a small amount. It's the size of all the military budgets of all the countries in the world added up together.

B, That's just what they estimate to get STARTED on reducing emissions. The total price tag is going to be even higher.

C, Besides the fixed costs, there's the recurring cost of making energy (and everything which depends on it, which is literally EVERYTHING) more expensive. Permanently. That's the biggest price of them all.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By Ringold on 12/31/2008 5:52:07 PM , Rating: 4
If you're that loose with money, why not toss me .0001% of global GDP? What's .0001%! Just like the 1.1%, it's not your money anyway, so you wont miss it.

I'd point out again that the cost to global growth would disproportionately fall on developing, poor countries as the rich world heavily throttled their demand growth for their products. Thats a curious thing for the left to desire when every once in a blue moon they pretend to care about the poor around the world, at least when it's fashionable (like Darfur, but apparently Zimbabweans don't matter).

There's also opportunity cost, which would compound over years.. but worthless to try to explain it.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By androticus on 1/5/2009 4:02:33 PM , Rating: 3
You know, if the UN existed circa 1492 they would have issued dire predictions about the economic cost to the world of colonizing the North American continent. It has probably "cost" "the world" vastly more than the "45 trillion dollars" to build up NA.

The egregious logical flaw in those kinds of calculations is to confuse the kind of spending that always occurs in any kind of dynamic system, with something that somehow never would have been spent. For example, 100 million people will build new homes in next 2 decades (say) -- if sea levels rise, most of them won't build next to the ocean -- if it got colder most wouldn't build in the coldest mid-west areas -- if oil shale gets cracked and Colorado gets rich many will build there, etc. etc. -- ANY theory can be used to show how building is done someplace and not someplace else, and then attribute the cost of all that building to the instigator of the incentive differential. The population of NYC isn't going to be moved inland in one go at the UN's expense -- it is only collectivist thinking that puts those type of pricetags on normal human activity.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By reader1 on 12/30/2008 6:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the simple fact of the matter is that objective science will always win out over populist hysteria.


I guess you haven't heard of religion.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By Ordr on 12/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Very well put, Michael.
By FaceMaster on 1/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Very well put, Michael.
By phxfreddy on 1/9/2009 7:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
.... like the religion of global warming.

I am an engineer. I am very good at sensing how things put together function. I can tell you unequivocally man is having no effect on climate other than cities being heat islands due to the concrete. And that by no means is effecting the globe as a whole.


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By marvdmartian on 12/31/2008 10:34:31 AM , Rating: 3
unless, of course, your name is Al Gore!


RE: Very well put, Michael.
By overlandpark4me on 1/6/2009 6:45:32 PM , Rating: 3
Not if the left wing media doesn't want them to.


Not over yet.
By Brian Valentine on 12/30/2008 10:46:21 PM , Rating: 5
Will someone please inflorm the new US President's hand-picked science flunkies about this?

And Barb Boxer. And Nancy Pelosi too, don't forget her.

And Al Gore. It's going to break his heart when he finds out he's not going to be as wealthy as Bill Gates as a result of carbon credits becoming a commodity - along with a host of other scams he cooked up to fleece the public.




RE: Not over yet.
By greenchasch on 12/31/2008 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
Gore's still doing alright. The Church of England just gave his investment company $200M to invest in his "green" scams:

http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsI...


RE: Not over yet.
By FITCamaro on 12/31/2008 4:01:17 PM , Rating: 5
Wow....the British really are getting dumber by the month.

Lets see for 2008 they:
1) Made police dogs wear booties in the homes of Muslims which are being searched so as not to offend them

2) Gave Islamic courts the ability to enforce Shariah law

3) Have stopped teaching about the Holocaust in schools with large Muslim populations since they don't believe it happened

And a host of other things.


RE: Not over yet.
By Ordr on 12/31/2008 5:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me the dog thing is a joke...


RE: Not over yet.
By FITCamaro on 1/3/2009 8:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
No.


RE: Not over yet.
By Ringold on 12/31/2008 6:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
Have you read anything about their proposed education reforms?

quote:
In January the government commissioned Sir Jim Rose, a former chief inspector of primary schools, to trim ten existing required subjects to give extra space to computing skills and to accommodate two new compulsory subjects: a foreign language and the now-optional “personal, social, health and economic education” (eating fruit and veg, refraining from hitting one’s classmates and much more). On December 8th he published his interim report—and many fear that, as well as losing fat, education will see a lot of meat go too.

Sir Jim proposes merging the subjects into six “learning areas”. History and geography will become “human, social and environmental understanding”; reading, writing and foreign languages, “understanding English, communication and languages”. Physical education, some bits of science and various odds and ends will merge into “understanding physical health and well-being”, and so on. His plan would “reduce prescription”, he says, and, far from downgrading important ideas, “embed and intensify [them] to better effect in cross-curricular studies”.


Thats an excerpt from an Economist article. The title had a picture of a cute little girl and the words "Please, sir, what's history?" That's what it's going to come to.. sad, sad. I bet the D-Day invasions will be mentioned, but probably along with a note about the environmental damage the Allies did to the pristine French beaches. :P


RE: Not over yet.
By FITCamaro on 1/3/2009 8:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.....just wow.....christ I hope we're able to stave off that stupidity here in the US. Our kids are dumb enough. I'm seriously considering home schooling for when I have kids.


RE: Not over yet.
By sweetsauce on 1/5/2009 6:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Judging from your history of comments, i never expected anything less from you. Be sure to shelter your potential kids from "the evil sinful world" and teach them your good, wholesome ideals...


RE: Not over yet.
By phxfreddy on 1/9/2009 7:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
get real. The guy has reasons to want to keep his kids out of public schools. Only a liberal robot could ignore them. And then only with other peoples children.

Even in the 70's when I was in grade school the teachers were pathetic. We would do better just buying each home a computer and telling kids to google it then with a public teacher ( essentially government er. I would way worker but they do not do any work )


RE: Not over yet.
By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 6:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
But isnt the ultimate use of ALL money to be used to consume earths resources?

And isn't consumption what were all agaisnt?

Its seems to me that the only useful thing that a solid "envirometalist" like Al Gore should be doing with the billions he's raking in on this scam is use it for wallpaper in one of the 20 apartments carved out of his present house that should be allocated for his use.


Great line!
By mdogs444 on 12/30/2008 3:46:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.


Either way is fine by me Michael. The problem, though, is that they keep changing the theory and the hypothetical outcomes EVERY time their "right now" trends do not happen.

Coldest year in a decade? Oops, doesnt matter, only the other 9 years do! So your statistic means nothing. Oh, the north pole didnt melt? doesn't matter, because the polar bears still cannot eat!




RE: Great line!
By Mindless Rambler on 12/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great line!
By whiskerwill on 12/30/2008 11:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
The difference here is that we don't try to portray the earth/air/fire/water theory as "proven science that all scientists accept".


RE: Great line!
By Mindless Rambler on 12/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great line!
By TheSpaniard on 12/31/2008 8:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
the problem with your comparison is that those theories were always up for debate. You had a better idea? prove it!

with global warming no such contradictory evidence would be had. you were either for or silent. And these "corrections" typically utilize the same model that predicted the wrong data, just add another data point and recompute. It will always churn out DANGER WILL ROBINSON! just at a different time


RE: Great line!
By omnicronx on 1/2/2009 10:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the problem with your comparison is that those theories were always up for debate. You had a better idea? prove it!
What history class did you attend? Not believing in the 4 elements was like not believing the world was flat, anyone who thought otherwise was discredited and made the laughing stock of the scientific community....

While I don't like the climate change flip floppers, Mindless is correct, theories always change, and statical data from one year is hardly proof that global warming is not occurring. Statistically speaking, 1 cold year out of the last 10 hot years would be considered an outlier.

The problem is not that theories are changing, but that the media is taking these theories and warping them beyond recognition. They could care less about the facts, as long as it fits their story.


RE: Great line!
By whiskerwill on 12/31/2008 10:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's good for theories to change, especially when they don't work
Yep its good for theories to change. But you didn't get Mdogs point. Whenever THESE theories change, they ignore it and just pretend they were right all along. It's like pretending the ancient Greeks understood the theory of relativity.

Do YOU understand now?


RE: Great line!
By Mindless Rambler on 12/31/2008 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the problem with your comparison is that those theories were always up for debate. You had a better idea? prove it!

with global warming no such contradictory evidence would be had. you were either for or silent. And these "corrections" typically utilize the same model that predicted the wrong data, just add another data point and recompute. It will always churn out DANGER WILL ROBINSON! just at a different time

Are you aware that the little "unbreakable sphere" theory for atoms lasted about a century before we discovered subatomic particles and how to break them apart? And contradictory evidence? Global warming and climate change have all kinds of contradictory evidence circling about them, just like other outdated theories did. Like those other theories, contradictory evidence didn't stop them from being propagated until some bold new theory tanked the hell out of them. Then of course an incorrect theory will churn out incorrect data again and again, it's incorrect. Since you seem content with dragging me into a global warming debate even though I was making a simple criticism, I'll go ahead and state that I feel that the current thinking of global warming will likely serve the future as a simple stepping stone into better theories offering a greater understanding of our climate, how it changes, and how we affect it.

quote:
Yep its good for theories to change. But you didn't get Mdogs point. Whenever THESE theories change, they ignore it and just pretend they were right all along. It's like pretending the ancient Greeks understood the theory of relativity.

Do YOU understand now?

So when and where did the AGW pushers change their thinking from "increased co2 causes increased temperature" to something else? I never saw Al Gore's movie, did he mention some bold new theory that I don't know about? Help me out here.


RE: Great line!
By FITCamaro on 12/31/2008 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
Well at least the content matches the name...


RE: Great line!
By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 6:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
I like the part of the theory that requires action, like burning the non-belivers at the stake.

OK maybe we dont have the stomach for that kind of entertainment anymore but we could at least tax them out of their homes and more importanly their cars.


The Sun
By Noubourne on 12/31/2008 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe some of you geniuses has heard of this big yellow thing in the sky that heats our planet. Lowest number and intensity of sunspots in over a decade.

Just because the global mean temperature doesn't indicate a steady warming doesn't mean our actions have not impacted the environment. There are a lot of factors. Some, like sunspots, we can't control.

Others, like using renewable energy and not releasing billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants, we can control.

Stop acting like climate change is the only reason to move away from fossil fuels.




RE: The Sun
By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2008 2:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "Maybe some of you geniuses has heard of this big yellow thing in the sky..."

After many years of attempting to convince people that the solar influence on climate has been dramatically understated, it's almost an eerie experience to hear the other side tossing out statements like this.

The salient point here -- and I apologize if the article didn't make it clearly -- is that climate models were calibrated with feedback values that assume GHG forcings were the primary source of post-industrial warming. Now, as the solar component is recognized as a much larger factor, those feedbacks will need to be reevaluated. . . which reduces the role CO2 forcing plays in climate.

> "Stop acting like climate change is the only reason to move away from fossil fuels."

What do you suggest we move to? Wind and solar are almost comically unsuited to baseline power generation, and expensive for any application. Nuclear and hydro would work-- but reactors and dams are two things environmentalists hate even more than coal power plants.


RE: The Sun
By Whedonic on 1/10/2009 10:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's something I just don't understand, nuclear plant designs are so clean these days. Though the objections to hydro plants are reasonable, they tend to have more environmental impact.


RE: The Sun
By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 7:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop acting like climate change is the only reason to move away from fossil fuels


Im sure there could be many but I have heard none except for some lunatics proposeing that we should abondon market based economies to those of command and control.

My problem with this idea is that these experments have already been performed by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and ever our dear Fidel Castro; the chief outcome of these command and control trials appears to the bathing of the planet in mega-gallons of human blood before impoverishing the survivivng victims.

Is this what you are proposing? A new trial for command and control with regard to energy sources?


By Delegator on 12/31/2008 11:31:19 AM , Rating: 3
I think the main lesson here is that we need to take a measured look at the question from BOTH sides. For example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/...

Funny how the gloaters now ignore the fact that 2008 was the 10th hottest year on record, or that it was predicted even by global warming (old term) researchers to be cooler than previous years.

Taking one year of data as proof or disproof of a long term trend is silly at best, bad science at worst. The point of science is the continuing effort to understand what is going on around us. The strength of science is its ability to correct mistakes over time. But, while that is a strength of the scientific method, is has historically been a weakness in individual scientists.

So, while alarmists on one side and critics on the other dig deeper into their entrenched positions, it would be wise for the rest of us to keep a level head and look at both long and short term data, and try to make sense of it.




By Jim28 on 12/31/2008 1:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the date of prediction. True the closer it got to 2008 the more you heard that 2008 would be cooler.

In 2006 that was not the case, nor in the firt half of 2007.

Hell in 2007 they said 2008 would be the year that the North Polar Ice cap would complete melt. Did that happen?

So far their level of predictive skill has been lacking, and they are constantly tweaking and fudging there models to get them to agree with observational data.

Some of their problems have to deal with resolution issues and computer power issues true. But saying they predicted 2008 would be cooler than 2007 while in the latter half of 2007 as proof of the prowess of their model's predictive skill is simply ludicrous. That is just as good the weatherman saying that tomorrow it will not rain. What about 10 days from now. Or in this context, what about 10-15 years from now. Looking at the data from the 1990s, nobody predicted that 2008 would be cooler than 2007 or that the general global warming trend would level off.


By Decoy26517 on 1/3/2009 6:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious, who are the "they" in: "Hell in 2007 they said 2008 would be the year that the North Polar Ice cap would complete melt" ?

I've never heard anything about the Ice caps melting completely. But a lot of people here are stating that it was supposed to happen because they said so.


By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 7:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny how the gloaters now ignore the fact that 2008 was the 10th hottest year on record, or that it was predicted even by global warming (old term) researchers to be cooler than previous years.


How do we know that? I dont know of any way to establish the earth's temperature today let alone 100 years ago.

I am aware of claims to the contrary; but then there are people who claim they can glean quite a bit of accurate information by reading chicken guts as a proxy. Sure they say they can see all sorts of stuff in those guts that we can't - does that mean that you and I should "believe" that they see stuff that we can't?

If so is this really "science" or is something more required of its practitioners?

Now I really dont mind them claiming they can see stuff I can't as long as they don't try to make me sacrifice my daughter or my freedom on the premise.


You have been struck by a sea of words
By fancypants phil on 12/30/2008 4:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Damage roll: 6d20.

Seriously though, global warming is so last year.




RE: You have been struck by a sea of words
By grenableu on 12/30/2008 6:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
DnD quotes are so ten years ago.


By FITCamaro on 12/31/2008 4:02:59 PM , Rating: 4
"<x topic> is so <y> years ago" comments are so last century.


Good article.
By GreyHobbyHorse on 12/30/2008 4:27:15 PM , Rating: 5
Hard to find such clear thinking about such an emotional topic.

If you go back to the very first IPCC prediction, I think that it was 1989, it is even more ridiculous how far off the mark it is. Computer models are not science.

It's all about a tax swindle -- Pay more in taxes to the government, so government scientists can pretend to control the weather.

And then there is the new corrected ice data -- down to 2.1 inch predicted sea level rise in 100 years. Most people with common sense see that as the noise level, not as science.




RE: Good article.
By geddarkstorm on 12/30/2008 4:35:55 PM , Rating: 2
Noise level indeed. That's another issue - what's the error ranges for all this? What's an actual significant change for the planet? Looking back through geological records, it seems "extreme" fluctuations are the norm.


By Grabo on 12/31/2008 3:44:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Climate Sensitivity How much will the earth warm if we double the amount of atmospheric CO2, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases? That value is called climate sensitivity. If all else remains equal, it’s fairly easy to calculate: about half a degree C, a figure accepted by most proponents and skeptics of AGW alike. It's also a value far too small for concern. With that sensitivity, the planet would warm by maybe a quarter of a degree by the year 2100. Yawn.


So +0.25C by 2100 = 50% increase in c02 or equivalents by 2100, by your notes (if 0.5C equals 100% add in c02 or equivalents).

Problem 1: Which 'most proponents and skeptics' say the climate sensitivity is half a degree?

-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity says the IPCC estimates it to be "2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C".

You certainly don't like the IPCC much, but the article also shows 5 other estimates of the climate sensitivity number, none of which is less than 0.9%, and the rest are higher. Don't trust the sources? Then explain why.

Problem 2: You insinuate the atmospheric levels of c02 will have increased by 50% by 2100. Source?

Problem 3: Who says a mean global temp of +0.5C is 'a value far too small for concern'? Most, eh, middle of the road scientists would never express themselves in that way, (or agree to that?) but whatever, I'm reading your post, so :p

quote:
Polls are clear. Despite the media's increasingly shrill tone and ever-more unrealistic predictions, the public has lost all faith in global warming.


Sigh, what polls? Media isn't increasingly shrill here, and what public are you referring to anyway?

quote:
As a moderately well known skeptic, I sometimes surprise people when I say I believe in global warming. If we define the term as, "man is having some impact on global temperatures", then the evidence is fairly clear. That statement in itself, though, means nothing. Are we impacting it enough to matter? Can CO2 cause catastrophic climate change?


Heh, so 'some impact' must be 'way too small to be regarded' or something like that, correct? 'Insignificant', yes?
Why must it be that or 'catastrophic' then?

quote:
Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.


Haven't heard or read that elsewhere.

It's just funny that Mick's latest post describes a somnewhat 'meet-you-half-way-let's-try-and-look-at-this-objec tively' approach ('A tale of two writers')
while you write sentences as sweeping and inflammatory and disconnected from the likes of NASA and the IPCC as ever.




By masher2 (blog) on 12/31/2008 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Problem 1. Which 'most proponents and skeptics' say the climate sensitivity is half a degree?
You've misread the article. My statement was that the base sensitivity is about 0.5C. The IPCC assumes the actual sensitivity, including positive feedbacks, is much higher.

quote:
Problem 2: You insinuate the atmospheric levels of c02 will have increased by 50% by 2100. Source?
The most-cited IPCC emissions scenario is that of the doubling of atmospheric CO2 by 2100. However, that doubling uses a baseline of 280ppm (preindustrial levels). At the current level of 380ppm, that equates to an additional 50% increase.

quote:
Problem 3: Who says a mean global temp of +0.5C is 'a value far too small for concern'?
Given it forces a rise of only 1/4 a degree over the next 90 years -- a value smaller and less rapid than the natural climate shifts we've already experienced in the past 100 years -- the conclusion is self-obvious.

quote:
Media isn't increasingly shrill here
When AP reporters ignore science and common sense to report that bitterly cold winters are "proof that global warming is accelerating", the tone is increasingly shrill.

quote:
Haven't heard or read that elsewhere.
Booker, the U.K. Telegraph, for one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/chri...


By Grabo on 1/1/2009 6:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You've misread the article. My statement was that the base sensitivity is about 0.5C. The IPCC assumes the actual sensitivity, including positive feedbacks, is much higher.


You stress 'base' here, but not in the article. You describe a doubling without any feedbacks, though. Anyway, 0.5C?
From the same wik-article I linked to previously:

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. "

So is 1C a cause for concern?
Well, from http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/effects/ ->
"So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?"<>
"One degree may sound like a small amount, but it's an unusual event in our planet's recent history."<>
"small changes in temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment."<>
"The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase."

quote:
The most-cited IPCC emissions scenario is that of the doubling of atmospheric CO2 by 2100. However, that doubling uses a baseline of 280ppm (preindustrial levels). At the current level of 380ppm, that equates to an additional 50% increase.


Most-cited?
Pre industrial levels baseline?

Everywhere I look they use 1990 as the baseline, and while they have a lot of different scenarios in regards to co2 increase,
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Fsr/?...
"The wide ranges of energy and industry-related CO2 emissions in the SRES scenarios reflect the fact that the "best" or the "most likely" quantifications are nearly impossible to identify. "

quote:
"Given it forces a rise of only 1/4 a degree over the next 90 years -- a value smaller and less rapid than the natural climate shifts we've already experienced in the past 100 years -- the conclusion is self-obvious."


Self-obvious to you maybe. (See above).

quote:
Booker, the U.K. Telegraph, for one:

Congratulations, you found one. The trouble is, you can always find that dissenting voice, and going from there to 'some pundits' and further to 'I call it the year rationality won over mass-hysteria' is just..well done.


Happened here too
By porkpie on 12/30/2008 3:55:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Let's hope schadenfroh isn't a sin.
Rofl, if it is, I'm going to burn. I laugh my *** off every time I hear about GW protestors getting snowed out.




i got a brilliant idea...
By meepstone on 1/3/2009 1:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lets stop wasting billions of dollars on research.

Why?

Because the Earth's temperature was never constant to begin with and if we raise the temperature .5C plus or minus it would make a friggin difference cus this crap has been happening long before we walked the Earth. Why dont we invest our time in something constructive or just go do something fun. this is seriously a waste of everyone's time and money.

LETS GET BACK TO LIFE..

thank you, i said my peace.




RE: i got a brilliant idea...
By meepstone on 1/3/2009 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
edit: it "would'nt" make a friggin difference...


Not hardly
By whiskerwill on 12/30/2008 11:56:32 PM , Rating: 3
Science has triumphed?? Have you turned on your TV the past year? 2009's going to be the year the US govt buys into global warming hypocrisy big time.




Very well put Michael
By Doann on 1/17/2009 12:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote: " Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence."

When someone states that things are "Facts", they had better be prepared to show me all that data they have, all the sources, all the instrument documentation, and all the parameters considered throughout the entire process. If they cannot back-up all of these requirements, - I consider what they have stated as "Junk Science"
Be prepared to give me access to all the facts - or be prepared to be "Cruelly Humiliated"




Mission Accomplished
By reader1 on 12/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Mission Accomplished
By grenableu on 12/30/2008 6:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really trying to say we're cutting back on gas because of global warming? Seen the economic news much? Seen the sales of SUVs lately, since gas prices tumbled for that matter?

You're right about one thing though. When Yo-Bama gets in office, we're going to see a whole lot more of these "save da enviroment" laws.


RE: Mission Accomplished
By reader1 on 12/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mission Accomplished
By onelittleindian on 12/31/2008 2:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL, that's rich. People were against the auto bailout because they don't want their money wasted. They would have been just as against a bailout of the toilet paper industry, or the blue jean industry.


RE: Mission Accomplished
By Whedonic on 1/10/2009 10:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing wrong with laws designed to protect the environment, only when policy is made without a rational thought process.


RE: Mission Accomplished
By Ringold on 12/31/2008 6:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've always sided with the environmentalists because I knew they couldn't be stopped. Just as I didn't oppose the Iraq War because I knew it couldn't be stopped.


Ah. So in China, you'd be a government dog? In Afghanistan, you'd be a Taliban sympathizer?

In other words, you're spineless. Is this what you're saying? ;)

quote:
Oil demand has plummeted. That appears to me that the environmentalists accomplished their goal.


As the other guy pointed out.. Global demand has shrank -- apparently in contrast to your ego, which may soon begin to have a substantial gravitational pull. In developing countries, where the big new marginal demand has been in the past several years, I hate to break this to you.. in fact, you'd better sit down before you read this. But they could absolutely not care less about what you or environmentalists say. They see the developed world has cars, so they want cars. When the economy was still decent in those places, they bought more cars and drove more miles. When it turned sour, they cut back. Pure economics, if you're familiar with economics (other posts suggest not).


One bright thing in the future
By ang sang on 12/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: One bright thing in the future
By cochy on 12/30/2008 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well since 99% of all species that ever lived on planet Earth have since become extinct, it's quite certain that in the "future" a lot more than "half" of all current species will be extinct as well.

Species going extinct is the way of the world. Just hope we can avoid this fate.


RE: One bright thing in the future
By Ringold on 12/30/2008 4:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and people are dying right and left


IPCC data doesn't suggest that would happen in a worst case scenario. The most pessimistic economic analysis done doesn't suggest that, again in the worst case scenario, that would happen. You have no basis to make the above claim beyond what some unfounded claims by extremists. If you do, then provide a link to a credible source, either a scientist from a relevant field or an economist from a respected institution, either academic or private. A claim made by a Greenpeace "scientist" funded by Friends of the Earth or whatnot does not count.

At worst, if the 'third world' remains undeveloped, they'll be adversely affected. Strangely, asides from better government, what they need most to advance to a point to reduce their vulnerability is cheap, reliable electricity. Simply because some species of frog goes extinct does not automatically mean massive human cost.

I doubt you'll do any research or place and faith in the more moderate, mainstream analysis though. You hold a view so extreme that I'd be pleasantly surprised if you're that flexible. A change from your position, where people should be killed for harming unintelligent inferior species, to a moderate one would be like the Pope suddenly becoming an atheist.


RE: One bright thing in the future
By ang sang on 12/31/08, Rating: -1
By Screwballl on 12/30/2008 5:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
Let me correct this for you from reality:

quote:
In the future when 3 or 4 more species are extinct and people are wondering how "man made global warming" was a lie right and left, apologists like you will be lined up and praised for your prevention of crimes against the environment and economy caused by damaging laws. More snow doesn't disprove global warming. If you knew anything, you'd realize the earth goes through normal heating and cooling trends and science has already found facts that man has almost nothing to do with it, yet lack of hard evidence to contradict it.


All fixed for the PS3 user wannabe without any scientific education.


RE: One bright thing in the future
By FITCamaro on 12/31/2008 4:08:49 PM , Rating: 1
No because I'll be dead in 2,000,000,000 AD when the sun is burning this planet to a crisp.


RE: One bright thing in the future
By Zshazz on 1/6/2009 12:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and the opposite will be true if the opposite is discovered.

"Whelp, we destroyed our economy and there's no technology anymore, and billions have died, and climate's still changing."

-- "Oh, well ... erm... it'll just take some time. Climate Change has an offset of about 20 years... it'll get better after that, though. I swear!"

"You're full of ****, you know?" *stabs with a rusty fork*

-- "Oh GOD... no ... tetnus... shot... because... it causes... CO2 emissions in transport.... *dies*"


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki