BBC notices that the world is not getting warmer
posted at 9:30 am on October 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When global-warming skepticism reaches the BBC, then it has become a major issue. This weekend, the BBC asked the question, “What happened to global warming?”, and then answered it with a balanced article that reported on the response from both sides of the debate to the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last eleven years, despite an increase in carbon dioxide release. Skeptics point out that the models never predicted it, while advocates say that massive warming is still just around the corner:
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. …
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. …
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
For the sake of argument, assume that the last statement is true. That in and of itself proves … nothing. It proves that the Earth warms at times, and cools at others. The question isn’t really whether the Earth has warmed over the last several decades — the question is whether that warming is anthropogenic, or man-made, through the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Clearly, as the modeling of the advocates has failed to predict a cooling cycle, the answer appears to be no.
Besides, weather cycles of this sort do not move in decades. They move in centuries, or millenia, or eons. Fluctuations from one decade to the next would be akin to determining that a hurricane is approaching because the wind shifted direction over the space of a few minutes. Meteorology is at best an inexact predictive science even at its basic level, precisely because the weather gets impacted by myriad factors whose interaction dynamics cannot be predicted easily.
Global-warming advocates have used higher temperatures in the 1990s as a “sky is falling” data point, but have been thoroughly unable to connect that to carbon dioxide release as a primary or even minor cause. Their predictive computer models have failed to predict actual temperatures for the last eleven years, which for any other “science” other than that which means tons of government cash for scientists and state control of energy production would mean the discrediting of the models and the hypotheses of their authors. Even the BBC has begun to notice that global warming, like its predecessor hysteria The Coming Ice Age, is little more than hot air from environmental activists.
Update: Just in case you thought Saturday was a fluke:
Update: Here’s the second clip I took this morning, and finally figured out how to upload in HD. This is the view from the back yard:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM
One small problem with this supposition. Actual, real world measurements, show that it isn’t happening.
For the scenario that you posit to play out, the upper levels of the atmosphere would have to be getting warmer.
Actual, real world measurements (as opposed to playstation simulations) reveal that the upper atmosphere is not warming.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The upper atmosphere isn’t warming, but it because of increased CO2:
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Checked back in after a couple of hours and still no reply? I am hurt. It took awhile to type all of my points in and you never really responded to any of my arguments.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 2:19 PM
One small problem with this supposition. Actual, real world measurements, show that it isn’t happening.
For the scenario that you posit to play out, the upper levels of the atmosphere would have to be getting warmer.
The real concern isn’t the average temperature in a given part of the world, such as North Dakota. It’s the temperature of larger ecosystems and critical environments, such as ocean temperatures and temperatures in the arctic and glacial regions. If ocean temperatures, in fact, have not risen over the past 11 years or have stopped rising, then global warming is not a concern.
But if ocean temperatures have risen and continue to rise, then we have a huge problem that will lead to massive disruptions and dislocations in every major coast area, from New York City to Houston.
And if glaciers continue to melt, then most of the world’s fresh water supply will literally vanish
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM
txaggie, there’s both historical temperature data going back to the 1700s and proxy data in the form of tree rings and ice cores going back for thousands of years that have given us an idea about past climates on Earth. As for humans having an impact on the Earth, you need look no further than desertification and overgrazing to see how humans have impacted the environment. It’s hubris on our part to presume that we can just do as we please without a thought to the consequences.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:24 PM
So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the “saturation argument” against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (untrue, the earth is a closed heat engine… convection and conduction are MUCH stronger forces than IR reradiation from gases)(b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2,(untrue, yes, you would have some sunlight heating at higher altitude, but that would be more than equaled by the closer to the ground black body radiation) (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2,(blackbody radiation, which drives most of this, in the CO2 absorbtion bands, absorbs virualy all of the radiation within 10 meters of the earth, what high level radiation are they talking about) and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models. ((really? then WHY does the warming of the upper atmosphere, which all your climate models predict, then fail to happen?)
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:25 PM
But what you posted above… said upper atmosphere levels SHOULD warm…
Which is it?
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Can we have an effect? Of course we can… just look at the heat island effects around cities…
But because we can effect the environment in one tangible way… does NOT mean that everything we do will affect it.
They want to destroy entire economies based on the scientific premise that CO2 can continue to increase the temp of the earth. Wouldn’t it be SMART to check their premise? BEFORE we muck up the economy?
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:32 PM
No “they” don’t. One of the things that’s telling about the denialists are the silly attempts to make climatologists out as anti-American boogeymen.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:37 PM
There will never be complete certainty or scientific evidence that conclusively answers the questions posed by global warming theory. It simply cannot happen as the science is too complex. That’s why this line of argument is so futile.
This comes down to risk management. Do we understand the consequences- economic and otherwise- that will occur if global warming occurs? Paying for any kind of insurance can ‘muck up’ your personal finances.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Have you bothered to read their books?
Most talk about Neo Luddite philosophies, where ANY human impact is bad. Where the West MUST use less energy of ALL types… where they say we have too many people?
There are the folks driving the Warmist agenda.
Please point out ANY Green law which HELPS the economy?
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Sorry, you last response confused me. I couldn’t tell if you were agreeing with me or not. I don’t believe anyone who is a skeptic on AGW ever said that the the climate never changes. We know how the climate was like for a good portion of the Earth because of the data you said as well as fossils and rock formations. That is why we are skeptic. We can look into the past and see how the Earth has both warmed and cooled over long periods of time. Out of all the posts I have read nobody disputes that. What everyone is disputing is the cause of the climate change.
Also no skeptic I have ever met has thought that the ideas behind environmentalism were bad. I highly doubt MarktheGreat or Romeo13 would be just fine with companies dumping their wastes in the river or setting up an old fashined coal smokestack. All things are good in moderation. What the AGW advocates want is a complete redistribution of all things in the name of the planet. It isn’t about the environment it is about punishing the West for perceived wrongs.
The two examples you gave happen both for natural reasons as well as man-made reasons. Before CO2 was even known the Earth’s climate was changing. The ancient ruins of Carthage and Egypt prove that the Sahara was much smaller during those times. Archeologists are constantly finding human settlements in places nobody ever thought to look because of our current climate. Man can change the local environment, but not the worldwide one. We can destroy whole areas of a country (i.g. The Dustbowl) but the Earth repairs itself remarkably fast. The Earth has survived an impact with an asteroid the size of Mars, and she is still here. We are nothing more than a blip in the grand scheme of things.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Bull… the Earth is an enclosed heat engine. Its a single system with known input, and output. We don’t currently know all of the internal mechanisms which move heat around WITHIN the system… but we are working on it.
Problem is that instead of spending our money trying to figure those mechanisms out through experimentation, where we could measure the potential impact of a change… we are spending all of our money rehashing and arguing about CO2, which at the levels in our atmosphere, is a MINOR player at best.
I agree, its about Risk analysis… problem is that you are going to spend all your money on Airline passenger insurance… when you are taking the Car on a Roadtrip.
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Have you bothered to cite any such books yourself? GMAFB.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM
So if global warming leads to mass flooding and the ‘extinction’ of millions of people, you’re ok with that?
There is no data that definitely proves or disproves global warming theories. There won’t be such data until after the fact. But more importantly, are you contending that there’s evidence of ocean temperatures rising at their current rate in the ruins of Carthage or Rome? No one is denying that temperatures on earth have fluctuated over time. The issue is whether humans can roll the dice and assume that the massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no impact on ocean temperatures and temperatures in arctic regions where large amounts of water are locked up in glaciers.
Without definite evidence, the global warming issue comes down to risk management. How much risk are you willing to assume given the cost of the consequences?
Anyway, if much of the cost of fighting global warming comes down to replacing oil that enriches our enemies with US made solar, natural gas, and nuclear, I frankly don’t understand why so many people have a problem with that.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM
bayam, we do know with certainty that the Earth is warming and that solar radiation as measured is not enough to account for it. We also have several “fingerprints” such as melting glaciers and warming ocean temperatures that indicate the recent warming is unprecedented and is related to the increase of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. How this warming will affect climate around the planet isn’t precisely known, but caution would advise we take steps now to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Yep…. longtime member of the Sierra Club. I’ve picked up more trash than most…
Heck… last week I pulled up behind a guy at a stop light… and he flicked a cigarette butt out his window…. I got out of my truck, picked it up…. made sure it was out…. and flicked it back into his car…
Guy was SUPRISED… but didn’t say a word… Lady who was with me was Horrified… but I was laughin me A$$ off…
I want effective policy…. like drilling HERE where we do it CLEANER than anywhere else (plus don’t use energy just moving oil here)…
Like reprocessing Nuclear fuel… instead of trying to store it…
Like Burying Power Lines (for which I was a LONG time advocate)…
Like researching the effects of Cellphone use on children (possible brain cancer link)…
Like BRINGING BACK DDT! Which was NEVER prooven to do harm… but without which Millions have died due to Malaria…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Sorry. not going to do your research for you… nice attempt to change the subject though….
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Earth is warming? Really? Please explain the last 10 years when we plataued… and now are cooling?
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Unprooven Hypothesis.
Did you bother to read ANY of what has been written here?
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Is there no myth that you haven’t bought into?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM
That’s true- and rising ocean and arctic temperatures will inevitably lead to higher ocean levels. This may sound like a minor inconvenience, but in reality a 2 inch increase in ocean levels is as close to a doomsday scenario as you can imagine for a large percentage of the world’s population. Just read about what that would do to NYC alone and terrorists pale in comparison as a threat.
If caution would advise action, that’s a form of risk management. And I agree, that’s the more interesting argument on the table. No one is going to definitively prove or disprove global warming theories in the foreseeable future.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM
You’re the one making the claim about all those books, not me dude.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:05 PM
The Argos probes have found that the oceans are cooling. Satellite measurements of the entire earth, have found that there has been no significant warming, even before the current cooling began 11 years ago.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Just in case anyone is interested, the ‘pressure’ that submariners experience is due to water column, not density increases (which are no teven remotely near 1:1 with the temp. decline from boiling point to freeze). A quick ref.:
http://www.lmnoeng.com/Statics/pressure.htm
To posit otherwise is, well, the stuff which TV captain’s logs are made.
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM
1) Tree rings do not, and cannot measure temperatures.
2) The ice core measurements prove that CO2 does not cause temperature increases. They show that CO2 does not start increasing until almost 1000 years after temperatures start rising.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Dude, we’re not cooling we’re just not warming as fast as we were back in 1998. The overall trend for over the past 100 years is that the Earth is getting warmer, not cooler.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
You need to listen to the people on your side more.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Over the last 100 million years, CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than they are today. Not only did these levels not kill everything, times of high CO2 coincided with times of abundant life. High CO2 is good for life on earth, not bad.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:10 PM
On the Argos buoy data:
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The reason I am skeptical that there will be massive flooding and millions of lives lost is that that has been predicted since I was a child. I remember when I was in elementary school and the teachers telling us about how terrible and hot the Earth is going to be because of pollution by the year 2000. Like all “End of the World” scenarios the date of the end keeps getting moved back. By doing this I can never prove you wrong. All one simply has to say is that the warming is happening it will just be here in 2015.
You are correct it is all about risk management. Now if the US would switch to entirely renewable resources (wind, solar, hydro) and swear off fossil fuels entirely we would have to go back to almost the stone age. All of the food production, medical advances, and technology we enjoy would vanish. I would much rather take a possible risk with a flawed theory then a certain risk with a collapse of the modern world.
I am not against any of those types of energy you suggested, but we can’t use them because of the environmentalists. We wanted wind but they hurt the birds. We want solar but they hurt the environment when you make them. You can’t have hydro because it messes up the rivers. You can’t use our current oil because of some endangered slug who happens to live nearby. Energy independence and global warming are not the same thing.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Actually, we know no such thing.
The surface temperature record is so badly contaminated that prior to satellite measurements, we didn’t know the temperature of the planet to within 10 degrees, much less the tiny fractions cited by the warmists.
We also know that there are multiple ways in which the sun can influence the temperature of the earth. Changes in TSI (total solar irradiance) is probably the smallest of these changes.
These fingerprints of yours don’t exist. Glaciers have been melting since the early 1600′s, which was the bottom of the little ice age. As I pointed out earlier, we have evidence that glaciers were smaller than they are today, 1000 years ago, and much smaller 2000 years ago.
As to the oceans warming, they aren’t. Not according to the Argos probes. The older measurements suffer from so many data collection issues that they are worthless.
The warming is not unprecedented, it’s still within normal bounds.
CO2 is a plant food. All plants grow bigger and stronger in the presence of elevated levels. Warmer is also good for both plants and animals. So even if this warming were occuring, there would be no reason to fear it.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM
When has he ever?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Tell that to the people who keep the records. The earth has cooled by over 0.6C over the last decade. Which by the way, is about 80% of the so called warming over the last century.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:19 PM
That’s simply not true. While the atmosphere has numerous feedback mechanisms that tend to hold it’s temperature relatively stable, higher temps in the oceans represent trapped energy that will eventually increase land temperatures. NASA’s Jet Propulsion laboratory estimates that somewhere between 80 to 90% of global warming’s impact is on ocean temperatures.
In focusing on atmosphere temperatures, you’re doing the equivalent of looking at the water level of a pond to predict rain instead of looking at the sky.
But it’s no surprise- this is a very common misperception. I’m not an expert and don’t claim to fully understand the mechanics of atmospheric science or the models developed by NASA.
times of high CO2 coincided with times of abundant life. High CO2 is good for life on earth, not bad.
Yes, great times for plant life.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Of course the claims of errors have been refuted by the people running the Argos program, but then dudlet only believes things that agree with his religion.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Last time I checked, we animals don’t do well without plants.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 3:22 PM
CO2 is a plant food. All plants grow bigger and stronger in the presence of elevated levels.
Have you heard about ‘deforestation’ and the global reduction in land that’s available for the type of forest growth that actually reduces CO2 levels? You’re referring to a feedback loop that doesn’t exist- unless you’re talking about the medical marijuana plants in your kitchen greenhouse.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I agree with you, but I was referring to the oft-made claims about “cooling” based on land temperatures. The ocean are indeed where most of the heat is ending up and the fact that there are oscillations that transport heat is only masking the overall warming that’s taking place.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Do you have anything to back your claim above up? That’s what I put more stock in myself.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Right, its just that CO2 increases are bad, and we must stop them. Right?
And what does it take to do that?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gYpql4XhhhJl3Bgk0XCu1j49izHg
80% CO2 reduction?
Or perhaps Al Gore’s call for…
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3083
90% reduction.
But that won’t kill the economy or anything.
So, do you cut CO2 90%, and destroy the economy; or do you fail to remove mankind’s CO2 increases in the atmosphere and let things keep getting warmer?
If you believe, as you do, that CO2 will make things increasingly warmer as CO2 increases in the atmosphere; then a 90% reduction in mankind’s CO2 emissions is the only way to stop CO2 and thereby stop the warming.
So, do you want to destroy economies, or do you not want to fix the problem? Or do you have some belief that a 90% reduction in CO2 won’t hurt the economy?
gekkobear on October 12, 2009 at 3:25 PM
And when I was a child in the late 70′s, people were predicting that the federal deficit would expand uncontrollably, leading to massive financial meltdown. Many other people also heard that warning and ignored the threat as $5 billion was added to the national debt over the past 8 years. Look at our bright future now. Do you really think that your line of reasoning has any validity?
And I’m sure there were fools who talked about a volcano in Pompeii for decades before the eruption.
So what?
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM
So, you’re saying that warming on land indicates warming, but cooling on land does not indicate warming? Got it.
Might it be possible that the oceans are just lagging behind the land when it comes to showing evidence of a cooling trend?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Dammit, Jim, it’s going to take a lot more than this twentieth-century Haldol to get this starfleet_dude thinking like a human being again! Who knows what all those Venusians did to him!
http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200609/tos-007-mccoy-sulu/320×240.jpg
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
And if I remember correctly the reconstructed temperature back then was roughly the same as ours. We could’ve lived back then if not for the higher concentration of oxygen.
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 3:29 PM
The presence of accurate predictions does not make any other prediction accurate. To argue that predictions about massive government spending makes global warming a fact is silly.
I’ll make a wager with you. In 20 years, we’ll meet in New York. If it’s under water, or if NY had to build dams to keep out the water, I’ll give you $1,000. If it’s not, you’ll give me $1. If 20 years is not the right time frame, we can make it 50 years.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM
gekkobear, limiting CO2 to 350 parts per million in the Earth’s atmosphere is estimated to cost one to three percent of global GDP. That’s not an economy-wrecking figure. Doing nothing will hurt the global economy more.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Dammit, Jim! I don’t care how long this voyage is! The data doesn’t lie! And giving me all your ‘Mars Merkin-Bators won’t change that! Give them to star_fleet dude- he spends all day in front of a data-screen anyway!
http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/hoskins/85/ep-42-06.jpg
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM
AGW is not happening. Man is an insignificant speck on earth, incapable of causing any long-term climate effects.
What I want to know is, why do environmentalists WANT to stop CO2 emissions? CO2 drives plant life, including algae. Plant life provides food for vegetarian animals, which provide food for carniores. Warm temperatures allow cold-blooded animals a greater range of habitates in which to thrive, and provide more opportunity for warm-blooded animals. More species exist in the oceans than on land.
So man-made global warming would actually destroy mankind, not the planet. According to this doomsday scenario, nature would thrive, jungles would cover the land, and oceans would rise up to erase coastal cities.
Sounds like an environmentalist’s dream. Why are they stopping it?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM
The oceans take longer to warm up, and oscillations such as the PDO that bring cooler water from the deep to the surface serve to moderate surface temperatures.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Soooo you’re saying I’m right, that the oceans are just cooling off slower than the land?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Damn it, Jim! There’s only one thing that can get starfleet_dude thinking straight again! And I’ve got a little bit of it right here!
http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Majel%20Barrett%20Roddenberry%20Nurse%20Chapel%20Dr%20McCoy.jpg
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
No, I’m saying that the oceans take longer to warm up and that their oscillations bring cooler water to the surface that partially offset the warming that’s taking place.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Kyoto would’ve delayed the worst results of Global Warming by about 5 years. Really think it is worth it to spend how many trillions of dollars to keep Bangladesh from flooding out for 5 years?
Wouldn’t it be more prudent to prepare for Climate Change?
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM
No, you don’t seem to get it. Warming oceans hold trapped energy which is eventually released into the atmosphere. Land temperatures tend to remain relatively stable due to numerous feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere and do not have any significant, future effect on overall temperatures.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Yes, my line of thinking is perfectly valid. You are comparing two entirely different systems and trying to make a coherent argument out of them.
Your example of the debt is not the same as the climate. The climate has an almost infinite number of variables and we have very little idea on how it all works. We still cannot run a model of last weeks weather and get last weeks temperatures. This is with known quantities.
You bringing up the debt is actually kind of humorous. First, the Federal deficit could be fixed within 10-15 years if we were serious about it. All that needs to be done is to stop spending and start paying the loans down instead of just servicing them. That’s it. There are no hidden butterfly affects there. If some guy spends a dollar in Salt Lake City the Federal government will not suddenly lose a trillion dollars.
Second, Cap and Trade is the surest way to add to the governmental deficit then anything I can think of. Taxing everything into extinction will give you a short burst of income until all your production moves to China or India where they won’t have it. If that isn’t an economy killer I don’t know what is.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Dammit, Jim! I’m only a doctor! Not a logician! I couldn’t save starfleet_dude!
http://threesixty360.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/800px-george_takei_chicago_gay__lesbian_pride_2006.jpg
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Displacing hundreds of millions of people from coastal areas around the globe has a tremendous economic as well as human cost, far more than the cost of lowering CO2 emissions.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 3:47 PM
You’re an idiot it you think that reducing foreign dependency on oil is a reason to treat CO2 as a pollutant.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Dammit, Jim! It’s infecting the whole crew! Who’d of thought it’d end with us all driving Prius’s!
http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/william-shatner-angry-with-george-takei-for-no-wedding-invite.jpg
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
You do not get it. They are going to be displaced in 2070 if we do nothing or five years later if we do what you adovocate. They are going to be displaced no matter what.
You are advocating spending trillions of dollars to give them a few years but not one red cent to prepare for the effects of climate change which are supposed to be Biblical.
All the predictions indicate the most tyrannical environmental measures including human extinction will not suddenly stop reverse trend. And policies like Kyoto will only delay if by five years while providing no incentive to prepare for the Biblical Flood.
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Drank any water from glaciers lately? Cooked with it? bathed with it?
Exactly where is this “fresh water supply” actually used?
oldernwiser on October 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Nobody is going to be displaced due to man made CO2 emissions.
Now, show me your plan for reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Tell me when your finished so I know when to start laughing.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM
starfleet_dude, what Holger is basically trying to say is that IF your theories are correct then we’re already doomed! The AGWers have shot themselves in the foot – they’ve made such dire predictions, that the situation is completely irreversible at this point (using their data). The only way to bring levels to supposed acceptable levels is to decimate the population of humans on earth.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 3:59 PM
In other words, AGW wouldn’t be reversed even if every American drove a Prius, recycled everything, stopped using air conditioning, and reduced thermostat settings to 62 in winter.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Most of the world.
Asia, Europe, South America, lots of cities in the Rockies get their water supply from rivers that are formed by run off from Glaciers.
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Interesting. The warmists (i.e. Leftists desperate to control the choices of others by any method that they think will work) have now changed the argument from:
“The science is settled and anyone who disagrees is ignoring it” to “No one will ever prove their theory definitively one way or the other, but we can’t take the chance of being wrong.”
This change in argument demonstrates the validity of the description in my parentheses.
JDPerren on October 12, 2009 at 4:05 PM
FWIW on the economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions: four research groups have modeled global scenarios that lead to 350 ppm CO2. One finds that in a world with unemployed labor and other resources, the stimulus from new climate investments might accelerate economic growth. The other three groups find net annual costs that are generally between 1 percent and 3 percent of world output. These studies are consistent with others that suggest achieving 450 ppm would cost around 1% or less of global GDP.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM
They broke the cycle? Idiots.
When I was a small child, in the 1970′s I was told if we didn’t stop all (or most, or a lot) of manufacturing emissions in the next decade, we were doomed. Oddly, later in teh 1970′s it was still a decade.
Then when I was a teenager in the 1980′s I believed that if we didn’t stop emissions in the next decade we were doomed. In high school… still a decade; and I still believed my teachers.
Then, in the 90′s when I went to college; I was a bit suspicious that we somehow still had exactly one decade in which to solve the problem… the same problem as 20 years ago.
Why aren’t they still calling for doom in a decade if they don’t get control to change things now?
Of course dad told me about learning of global cooling and the coming ice age when he was younger… any guesses how long they had to shut down manufacturing and end their emissions to avoid disaster?
If you guessed a decade you win.
So I strongly suspect we have 10 years to fix this problem before we all die of… whatever the current crisis du jour is. Because a decade is long enough out that we can maybe do something; but close enough to look scary.
And most of all, long enough that maybe people will forget they’ve heard “a decade before we’re doomed” several times in their lives already by voting age.
Sadly, my memory is good enough I’m tired of it.
gekkobear on October 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM
So if the earth stops warming it will cause the Glaciers to stop melting which means that all of Asia, Europe, and South American will stop getting enough water?
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Here’s a basic primer on glaciers and fresh water written for elementary students that hopefully you can understand:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html
As far as I know, that’s my personal argument and not an argument from the ‘Left’. I have a finance-business background and tend to view these problems in terms of risk management and believe that we’re making a mistake by arguing over scientific minutiae instead of examining global warming from the standpoint of risk management.
If you want to disagree with me, you can do better than name calling.
bayam on October 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM
But don’t try to check their stupid claims. They won’t release their economic model assumptions or the data being fed into them (just like the climate modelers).
What stimulus and what new climate investments????
I’m sure I could build a secret model to show 1% to 3%, too (it’s not difficult to have a model spit out any number you want). Then you could brag that FOUR other groups offer the same numbers.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM
No, you can melt ice with sunlight.
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM
starfleet_dude, 350PPM by when? Because the stabilization number (at which it quits increasing) is somewhere between an 80 and 90% reduction.
So either you think we can get an 80-90% reduction with 1% GDP; or you think that we can keep adding CO2 after a certain date without worry…
That or after meeting your first 1-3% GDP, we’ll have to meet the next one to avoid 400PPM by the next date/deadline.
Oh wait, the people who want control promised you they wouldn’t need more than 1 maybe 3% GDP at most… well you can trust them.
Their plan involves no more coal plants anywhere (how much do we need to replace all our coal plant with something else? What % of the GDP just got eaten?).
Step 2, massive reforestation. How much will the land cost? The costs of reforesting it? Aw heck, we’ll just steal it so the land will be free, right?
And we’ll still need carbon capture and storage for our other uses… anyone got a carbon magnet? Any cost-effective carbon capture methods up and running yet?
But don’t worry. We can switch over all the electrical grids in the US, revamp all of them to handle the different flow rates required by solar & wind, buy and reforest and entire state, swap out everyone’s car for an electric or hybrid, and capture tons of CO2 for a mere pittance… 1% of the GDP tops.
And if you act now, I’ll throw in this bridge I found absolutely free. Imagine, owning your own bridge. You could charge people to cross it. Bill people for taking pictures of it. Think what you could do with your own bridge…
gekkobear on October 12, 2009 at 4:21 PM
This isn’t emphasized nearly enough. The vast majority of the world’s water is undrinkable, and mass desalinization is a pipe dream. (pun intended)
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:23 PM
1. We’re not making a mistake of arguing the science. One side is making a preposterous claim and the other side is correctly calling them out on it.
2. You obviously don’t understand it enough to properly weight the probabilities involved, and there certainly aren’t any actuary tables to use.
3. You lose from a risk management perspective, too. If you disagree, then take the bet you’re being offered. $1,000 if NYC is underwater, and $1 if it isn’t. Pick the year. Certainly you must like the 1,000 to 1 odds.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM
What? Are you insane?
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Good thing there’s this thing called…well…you know…freaking…rain!
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:27 PM
And every study has indicated we will only delay the worse parts of global warming by a few years, a decade at the most. And the worse parts of global warming look more and more like the worse parts of the Bible.
It is too late to Repent so to speak.
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
ronsfi on October 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM
“Freaking rain”…hmm…that’s a new one. /sarc
In all seriousness:
http://www.watercampws.uiuc.edu/index.php?menu_item_id=155
Suffice it to say that we need a bit of a refresher course on applying the economic concept of ‘unlimited demand, limited supply’ to our natural resources.
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Do yourself a favor. Stop. Right now.
You are revealing yourself to be illiterate in freshman physics.
CDeb on October 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Spare me the whole the next war will be fought over water crap. Not everyone can live anywhere – this has been true since the beginning of time. Deep aquifer depletion is only an actual problem in a few, isolated locations in the world. And not all of these locations are areas with current surface water supply problems.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Actually, to his credit, he already conceded this issue. But of course, like any good AGWer, that doesn’t stop him from morphing his argument.
blink on October 12, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Tsk, tsk, people! Did you learn nothing from your years in the Village?
Questions are a burden to others.
Answers are a prison to oneself.
KyMouse on October 12, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Guess your comprehension skills aren’t quite up to the standards of your rhetoric.
Glaciers store about 75% of the world’s freshwater. Operative word there is “store”
What your elementary school level article does not mention is how much of that supply is actually used by humans vs how much of it melts into the seas.
Most of the fresh water currently available for human use lies underground. However the bulk of the water we use is surface water (rivers lakes,ice melt). Which means that there is a large supply of untapped water beneath our feet.
While its a fact that about 68-69% of the worlds fresh water is locked up in glacier ice,99% of that is located in Greenland and Antarctica. In other words the fresh water in glacier ice represents a minuscule amount of the water actually used by humans. If the ice all melted tomorrow fresh water would still be available.( of course if all the ice melted tomorrow there would be a hell of a lot less people to consume it)
oldernwiser on October 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Up here in Maine a couple of inches is a dusting not big time accumulation. Big time accumulation means fire up the sled and hit the trails. Nice try but what did you do with Ed, he would know that.
aceinstall on October 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I wasn’t going to insinuate it, buttwipe.
So much for libtard sites having a monopoly on idiots…
Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM
thanks blink, I do try to fess up when I’m wrong.
otherwise, what do you think about the diminishing snow pack of the Rockies and the corresponding loss of water in the Colorado River? It isn’t likely we’ll see as much precipitation in the U.S. West as the Earth warms, and that’s going to have significant economic and human consequences, for both the U.S. and Mexico.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I mention that plants grow better with more CO2, and you complain that people have cut down forests???
Logical disconnect here.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM
If the earth warms isn’t very likely that we’ll see more rain? Think about it.
Oh, how much of the Rocky Mountain run off makes it to Mexico? (percentage please)
oldernwiser on October 12, 2009 at 4:54 PM
You do love being wrong, don’t you.
The cooling is based on satellite measurements, as to the oceans heating up. Actual measurements are refuting your desperate attempts to believe things that aren’t true.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:54 PM
The higher concentrations of O2 wouldn’t have been a problem. Now T-Rex’s might have been a problem.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I hereby declare Global Warming is total BS. I’ll debate that fat loser Al Gore on here anytime. He’s scammed over a hundred million already from this crock. I remember as a kid in the ’70′s “There’s an iceage coming.” If I live another ten years, I’m sure I’ll be hearing that again. Probably coming from Al Gore’s son…
adamsmith on October 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
But which water source does large scale food production use now?
Do Indian, Iranian, Pakistani, Turkish, Chinese and South American farmers pump water up from the ground for their crops or do they divert it from a glacier fed river such as the Indus, Ganges or Yangtze?
Holger on October 12, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Reducing carbon useage by 90% is only going to cost 1 to 3 percent. Is there any other fantasy that you wish to pass off as reality today. You are up to 4 already.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:58 PM
1) The oceans are cooling.
2) The PDO does no such thing.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »