A new poll by Rasmussen sampled American opinion on Global Warming. With the overwhelming media coverage about the threats of Climate Change the numbers are not surprising. The poll also found that 63% of Democrats believe Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race.




The Telegraph had an article that pointed out that the costs of stopping Global Warming may be more than adapting to the changes.



Climate change is an inevitable part of life on Earth. In the future policy makers will have to define extreme climate change and what policy changes to make. These policies will have a profound influence on the economy and other aspects of life. There is an amazing amount of rhetoric about climate change so lets try to stay on topic. There are two questions that I would like to ask.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

The Little Ice Age finally ended in the Early 18nth century, and global warming began in the mid 18nth century (and CO2 emissions began around 1900). Our current rate of temperature ascension is about equal the rate of temperature descension that was in place at the beginning of the little Ice Age. Thus, it looks like the current warming trend is a merely the global temperature rebounding from the little Ice Age. When looking at the global temperatures that have existed for the past 10,000 years, the Earth right now does not seem particularly hot. CO2 currently makes up .00036% of the atmosphere (a.k.a 3.6 ten thousands of a percent, or 360 Parts per million), and before emissions, it used to make up .00025% of the atmosphere (a.k.a 2.5 ten thousands of a percent, or 250 Parts per million). One may argue the effect which such tiny concentrations of the atmosphere can have on the Earths temperature, is negligible. Roughly 55% of Climatologists are confident that the causes of Global warming are man made, 14% are unsure, and 29% think that it is not man made. Thus, there is no overwelming consensus. If (as I believe) CO2 is not the cause for global warming, then there is nothing we can do to stop it, because it is a natural event.

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

Because I don't think it can be eliminated, I would support the latter. The Earth isn't anywhere near warm enough yet to melt the Ice Caps, so what we need to worry about is agriculture in societys that lie near the equator. On the otherhand, global warming will help people who currently farming in agriculturally marginal cold places.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

I don't think that global warming can be stopped, assuming that the release of CO2 that had been locked up in the earth's crust for millions of years is the primary cause. How do you reabsorb CO2? Photosynthesis grabbed it out of the atmosphere to begin with, but can that process be accelerated, and what economic worth would the resulting chemicals have? Really none, because if burned, the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere. So can't sell the resulting food -- will have to store it, never to be used. Yeah right, tell the kids to keep out of the cookie jar, eh? No, it looks like we're stuck with global warming.

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

It does not look like the world's investors are very much interested in eliminating the problem, unless profit is to be made. Rather than trying to eliminate the problem, the use of alternative, clean energy would very likely stimulate investment to make profit. We could enforce investment in alternatives through government action (taxes --> R&D), as we did with NASA and other major initiatives (Internet, Interstate Highways, public education, REA). I don't think waiting around for the markets to fire up on their own is going to work, at least not soon enough to avoid making the problem worse than it is already.

I think it's wise to head in this direction to avoid making a problem worse, thus minimizing the effects of global warming.

As for adapting to a changing world, well sure. That will always happen because the human species is great at surviving. We might end up with less land mass due to the melting ice caps, glaciers and so on, but the species will figure out how to survive. Our only real threat to survival is the nuclear bomb. Weather changes haven't wiped us out, and they won't in the future either.

The population might shrink though, from several possibilities, including harsher storms, higher snow packs, floods and the sort. I'm looking forward to having waterfront property on this mountain! But the ten-foot snow storms might chase us away or kill us.

Yes it's a serious problem. To stop it I'd suggest several things:

1.) Shutting down all power plants that use coal and petroleum.

2.) Make driving cars that use natural oils illegal.

3.) Immediately and permanently cease all drilling and consumption of oil both foreign and domestic.


Only problem with that is that no one is willing to do that, and quite frankly neither am I. The only way to stop it is to cut off the head of the problem, humanity is too friendly with the problem and dependent on the benefits but the ramifications are catching up with us rapidly and we have little if no way to stop it.




I think AuthorMusician hit the nail on the head. If people become desperate and are willing to pay organizations and committees enough they'll move mountains to rectify the problem they originally created.

It is more logical to take steps to help contain and reverse global warming than trying to eliminate it in one all powerful burst of energy and resources.

You aren't thinking outside of the box, AM . Photosynthesis isn't the only means of carbon storage...it's also stored in the rocks, seashells, coral reefs, limestone....as calcium carbonate. Engineers are working on a process for capturing the carbon dioxide and turning it into bricks. It has been done, but isn't cost effective yet. I see potential for this type of thing in the future, which is my answer to the questions. I believe people will both adapt and take measures to curb the problem.

This is a falsehood. The instantaneous rate of temperature increase, based on the best available analysis so far, is about three times the fastest rate of increase known from ice cores. The averaged rate of increase is indeed not so great -- precisely as one would expect with an increase whose second derivative is high.



This is pure speculation on your part, with no empirical foundation.


By deliberately selecting a time interval that excludes the last ice age, you have produced a misleading conclusion.


One may indeed argue so, but one would have to be ignorant of the laws of physics to do so in good faith. What is the degree of your familiarity with emissivity/absorptivity rates for molecular species?


There is no consensus and there never will be, nor can the word "consensus" be correctly modified by an intensifier. Consensus means "unanimity". Moreover, this survey has been taken twice, and in the short interval between the first and the second survey, the percentage of those agreeing has increased, and the percentage of those disagreeing has decreased. The overall result is just short of two-to-one ratio of those in agreement versus those in disagreement. As you note, the degree of agreement is not overwhelming, but it sure beats Mr. Bush's definition of a "mandate". The statistics you cite clearly show that a majority of climatologists do believe that global warming is anthropogenic. Isn't that enough for you?

The debate about a consensus while amusing is quite pointless in this debate. Scientists have been in total agreement and been wrong many times. They are not infallible. There is still no chartable direct correlation between increased C02 and temperature change. From 1940 to 1980 the average temperature on earth did not change. So there is obviously more at work than simply C02. We also know that the Earth was warming during Roman times. All that aside I will get back on topic by answer my own questions above.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

I have seen a lot of policy ideas about taxing or using cleaner energy, but nothing about stopping the problem. So the simple answer is we cannot stop it.

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

Since it cannot be stopped it would be a waste of money to go down that road. If the warming presents problems I am sure the world will adapt to them. Statistics show that cold weather kills more people every year in the winter than does summer heat. So as long as the warming is not catastrophic this will have positive effects.

This is a falsehood. The instantaneous rate of temperature increase, based on the best available analysis so far, is about three times the fastest rate of increase known from ice cores. The averaged rate of increase is indeed not so great -- precisely as one would expect with an increase whose second derivative is high.

Yes, its the fastest rate of increase since the last Ice Age ended, but a mere few hundred years ago, we experienced a comparable rate decrease at the begining of the Little Ice Age.

This is pure speculation on your part, with no empirical foundation.

Temperatures spontaneously went down at a massive rate, entered a curve, and went go up at a massive rate. Consequently, its a rebound.

By deliberately selecting a time interval that excludes the last ice age, you have produced a misleading conclusion.

Ok ok, it is rather hot if you compare it to the last glacial period.

Let me rephrase what I said:
As far as temperatures in this inter-glacial period are concerned, the Earth is currently not that hot.

One may indeed argue so, but one would have to be ignorant of the laws of physics to do so in good faith. What is the degree of your familiarity with emissivity/absorptivity rates for molecular species?

In order for a photon to bounce off the atmosphere and hit the Earth, it has to hit a CO2 molecule. Since there are so few CO2 molecules out there, common sense tells us that the mass majority of photons will merely escape into space. Also, perhaps I don't know what i'm saying, but why should absorbtion rate matter? If a CO2 molecule which is already energized is hit by an additional photon, that doesn't mean the photon will go straight through the CO2 molecule. It merely means the CO2 molecule will absorb it, and get even more energized. Thus, the interval between the absorbtion and the emitence of the photon is irrelevant, because the CO2 can still absorb more photons during that interval.

There is no consensus and there never will be, nor can the word "consensus" be correctly modified by an intensifier. Consensus means "unanimity". Moreover, this survey has been taken twice, and in the short interval between the first and the second survey, the percentage of those agreeing has increased, and the percentage of those disagreeing has decreased. The overall result is just short of two-to-one ratio of those in agreement versus those in disagreement. As you note, the degree of agreement is not overwhelming, but it sure beats Mr. Bush's definition of a "mandate". The statistics you cite clearly show that a majority of climatologists do believe that global warming is anthropogenic. Isn't that enough for you?

A slim majority yes.

My purpose in presenting these statistics is merely to show that because this issue has not really been resolved, it is still up to debate.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

Global warming occurs when the level of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2, but also others) increases in the atmosphere and alters the amount of heat from the sun that is trapped within the earths atmosphere.

(Whilst a very small number of people disagree, the broad concensus of trained scientists support this idea, so I tend to, because I am not an atmospheric scientists and so I believe what the majority of atmospheric scientists tell me. )

I don't think stopping global warming is really the issue. Given the huge amounts emitted by fossil fuel combustion, we would be unlikely to remove all this CO2 from the air to go back to a 'pre-fossil fuel' (i.e. pre industrial revolution) era level of carbon dioxide in the air. In other words, the idea is to stop releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the world heats up enough (and it only take a few degrees) to cause large scale changes to climate patterns.

I think that we should assume climate change will happen, because we have no real alternatives to fossil fuels yet, simply because of the scale of their use. In which case, we need to start looking at ways to deal with problems as they occur AND also look for ways to reduce CO2 output, so that global warming remains at a manageable level.

Specific ideas - more energy efficient technology, most stuff we use is quite wasteful.
Nuclear power (to generate electricity)
Increased use of biodiesel
Increase the money spent on fuel cell research
Windfarms, tidal generators, geothermal generators

And we need more sensible economic ideas, such as carbon trading scheme.

I do not think it likely that our societies would accept large scale changes to their lifestyle, so although we may end up paying more to travel or for efficiency improvements, I don't think it likely that there would be any radical changes. (I.e. no one is going to swop their car for a horse anytime soon)

Erasmussimo

In logic, an appeal to belief (also called the appeal to the majority or the argumentum ad populum) is a logical fallacy that is committed when someone asserts that a proposition should be held to be true, or more plausible, merely because it is widely believed.

But my favorite is Cargo Cult Science, a term invented by Richard Feynman to describe research that is conducted experimentally and appears to be scientific, but produces results of questionable significance due to nonscientific factors like expediency or institutional bias.

'Everyone says it so it must be true!'

Of course, you are right, however, this particular case is one involving a large number of immensely complex factors, such as feedback cycles between CO2 levels and temperature, the chemistry of different greenhouse gases in different parts of the atmosphere, the solar flux from the sun, the astronomical precession of the earth etc etc.

And most scientists are expert in only one part of the whole picture and rely on the concensus of others to build on. The geophysicist works with the atmospheric chemist etc.

In some cases, the sheer complexity of the situation requires that you have to take what other people say for granted. In the case of scientific institutions, the level of this reliance is based on their reputation for trustworthiness and good science.

And this is true for most branches of science.

I doubt that anyone person is expert enough to be able to confidently say one way or the other, based on their own knowledge and nothing else, that climate change is happening or anthropogenically caused.
It is the concensus of a large number of respected scientists all working in their own individual fields and co-operating.

(Whilst a very small number of people disagree, the broad consensus of trained scientists support this idea, so I tend to, because I am not an atmospheric scientists and so I believe what the majority of atmospheric scientists tell me. )

So you then believe that 55% is a broad consensus? As I stated earlier, 55% of climatologists think we are causing global warming 14% are unsure, and 29% think we are not causing global warming.

Also, just because the world is a complicated place, does not mean we cannot form our own interpretations of it. Are all of our arguments about the economy automatically pointless, merely because we do not have degrees in economics?

But as I said earlier, it isn't the quanitity of scientists, so much as their general reputation and respectability of the institutions that they work in which causes me to accept their opinions.

Basically, if the chief governmental scientists of the major European states all believe climate change is a problem - then I accept that it is. If Oxford, Cambridge and the Ivy League all say that climate change is a problem - and they do - then I accept it is.

There are always scientists who disagree or who challenge ideas, which is why we progress and develop newer technologies - because no idea is ever accepted as gospel. But science is a meritocratic profession and all the top scientists think climate change is a problem.





Not at all - however, if we were (say) debating whether or not Americas deficit was a long term problem, then I might be inclined to take (say) Alan Greenspan's opinion a little more seriously than yours or my own. No offence to you or your understanding of economics of course - merely that I would consider Alan Greenspan to have a better informed opinion.

Can you provide me with an example from the last 100 years?


Yes, there are many factors at work. But this doesn't mean that you throw up your hands and declare it to be hocus-pocus beyond the ken of scientific analysis. In statistics, you do what's called a multivariate analysis. In climatology, you do something analogous: you carry out a complex analysis that isolates the variable you are most interested in. This has been done several times with clear results demonstrating the role of CO2 in global warming.


Indeed, the system has a huge delay factor built into it and, even if we halt all CO2 emissions, we can expect continued temperature increases due to previous CO2 emissions. However, while we cannot stop it, we can refrain from making it worse. You are arguing that, since the car is headed for a brick wall and is going to hit no matter what we do, there's no reason to hit the brakes.

ALHP: The problem with the word "rebound" is that it implies a causal connection between the previous drop in temperature and the current rise in temperature. There is no causal connection. If you logically connect one temperature change with a previous one, there is no reason why you can't use any previous temperature change. Hence, one could connect the current temperature increase with a previous temperature increase and assert that the warming trend is accelerating. It's all in the utterly arbitrary decision as to when you make your connection.


As Einstein said, common sense is a body of prejudice learned in childhood. Common sense tells us that what goes up must come down, but that doesn't stop us from sending rockets into space. Here's an analogy that might help you understand the physics: suppose we have huge crowd of people standing on a vast plain. Suppose that the density of this crowd is 360 ppm by area. In other words, if one person takes up two square feet of floor space, then in a million square feet of floor space (a square a thousand feet on a side), there will be 180 people. Now, suppose that we have organized these people into squares a thousand feet on a side, and we have lined up all those squares so that there are 1,000 such squares in a line, extending for a million feet (about 200 milles). Now suppose that I take a high-powered rifle with a range of 200 miles, stand at one end of the line of squares, and fire it through the crowd. What are the odds that I will hit somebody?

We can actually calculate those odds, but the full probabilistic calculation is very complicated. Look at it this way. Assume that the average person presents a target that is only one foot wide (actually, we should use 1.414 feet, but I'll round down for ease of calculation). With 180 people in every thousand-foot wide square, they'll present a net target of 180 feet out of a thousand feet, so there would be an 18% chance that I would hit one. If the line is two squares deep, then the chance that I would hit one increases to 33%. If the line is ten squares deep, the chance that I'll hit one is 86%. And twenty squares would yield a probability of 99%.

Does this not clarify how the physics works here?

You continue to claim that the question of anthropogenic global warming is debatable. Well, yes, it is debatable among climatologists, but that debate is rapidly ending. You prefer to cite the fact that only 55% of climatologists believe that global warming is anthropogenic. But remember, only 29% do not believe that it is anthropogenic. That's almost two to one in favor -- a very strong endorsement, don't you think?


No, this is an appeal to authority, not an appeal to belief. However, if you wish to address the proposition of global anthropogenic warming on its own scientific merits, by all means do so.

Hey Mrs. P,

That's a very interesting article. Wasn't aware of how geologists, chemists and engineers are working together on how to sop up excess CO2 and other industrial gases. Lots of brilliant ideas out there, eh? I'm not so crazy about just storing it without a transformation to rock. And of course, we will need energy to do the transformation in the first place, and so I'm still a big fan of geothermal and tidal energy sources. Both come from gravity -- zero pollution, zero atmospheric change, as dependable as the next sunrise.

Thanks, that gives me another bright star to pin on the environmental tapestry. We will have ways to regulate the earth's atmosphere! That might be the corner stone ( ) of not only survival, but survival in style.

I do not want to wander too far off topic here, but since you asked a specific example. You seem to know a lot about this topic so I assume you already have heard of Eugenics.



I do not want to get into the “is Global Warming happening” debate because I am sure it is adequately covered in other topics. People fall into two categories, skeptics and those that believe the consensus. There is no smoking gun or hockey stick for either side.

Moving back "on topic" it appears that the cost of preventing Global Warming is tremendously more expensive than adapting with the changes (from an economic perspective). In the long-run cleaner and more efficient energy is inevitable. Market forces will meet the challenges ahead. Carbon trading is a good start. Pollution permits have been very successful in the US in reducing pollution.

Yes, I agree that we are guilty of some topic drift here, but perhaps we can close this off quickly with the observation that eugenics was never a scientific theory, but a social policy. There wasn't any science to debate. Your link is to a source that is biased, using eugenics to disprove anthropogenic global warming just as you are attempting to do. Let's drop this line of argument -- it doesn't prove anything either way. Let's instead focus on anthropogenic global warming and how we can respond to it.


Actually, this topic seems to have the notion of anthropogenic global warming built into it as a assumption, so perhaps we should proceed on that basis. Given that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?


Well, that depends on what costs and what benefits we're talking about. Yes, if we were to ban all automobiles, the cost would be excessive. But what about a carbon tax? We could reduce carbon emissions significantly without an overly burdensome carbon tax.

But as I said earlier, it isn't the quanitity of scientists, so much as their general reputation and respectability of the institutions that they work in which causes me to accept their opinions.

Basically, if the chief governmental scientists of the major European states all believe climate change is a problem - then I accept that it is. If Oxford, Cambridge and the Ivy League all say that climate change is a problem - and they do - then I accept it is.

There are always scientists who disagree or who challenge ideas, which is why we progress and develop newer technologies - because no idea is ever accepted as gospel. But science is a meritocratic profession and all the top scientists think climate change is a problem.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2490.jsp#
"As David King points out in his contribution to the openDemocracy debate, the majority of scientists and science organisations endorse the view that humans are to blame for recent climate change. Nevertheless, this support is not universal. A number of distinguished scientific organisations – such as the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)or the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) – remain sceptical."

There are reputable people on both sides. As I said, there is no consensus (among professionals, or amateurs).

Not at all - however, if we were (say) debating whether or not Americas deficit was a long term problem, then I might be inclined to take (say) Alan Greenspan's opinion a little more seriously than yours or my own. No offence to you or your understanding of economics of course - merely that I would consider Alan Greenspan to have a better informed opinion.

The bottom line is, in a perfect world (where people were unbiased, and objective) we could just take specialists word on everything. However we don't live in a perfect world. Like Politicians, well educated scientists argue amongst themselves, and consequently we have to listen to their arguments and figure things out for ourselves.

Erasmussimo:

ALHP: The problem with the word "rebound" is that it implies a causal connection between the previous drop in temperature and the current rise in temperature. There is no causal connection. If you logically connect one temperature change with a previous one, there is no reason why you can't use any previous temperature change. Hence, one could connect the current temperature increase with a previous temperature increase and assert that the warming trend is accelerating. It's all in the utterly arbitrary decision as to when you make your connection.

Its not arbitrary, because this warming trend began almost immediately after the Little Ice Age ended. If we were to compare the current warming trend with (lets say) the medieval warm period, and say it proves temperature increase is speeding up, then that wouldn't make any sense, because the medieval warm period ended 450 years before this warm period began. Hence, there is a reason why you cant use just any previous temperature change.

As Einstein said, common sense is a body of prejudice learned in childhood. Common sense tells us that what goes up must come down, but that doesn't stop us from sending rockets into space. Here's an analogy that might help you understand the physics: suppose we have huge crowd of people standing on a vast plain. Suppose that the density of this crowd is 360 ppm by area. In other words, if one person takes up two square feet of floor space, then in a million square feet of floor space (a square a thousand feet on a side), there will be 180 people. Now, suppose that we have organized these people into squares a thousand feet on a side, and we have lined up all those squares so that there are 1,000 such squares in a line, extending for a million feet (about 200 milles). Now suppose that I take a high-powered rifle with a range of 200 miles, stand at one end of the line of squares, and fire it through the crowd. What are the odds that I will hit somebody?

We can actually calculate those odds, but the full probabilistic calculation is very complicated. Look at it this way. Assume that the average person presents a target that is only one foot wide (actually, we should use 1.414 feet, but I'll round down for ease of calculation). With 180 people in every thousand-foot wide square, they'll present a net target of 180 feet out of a thousand feet, so there would be an 18% chance that I would hit one. If the line is two squares deep, then the chance that I would hit one increases to 33%. If the line is ten squares deep, the chance that I'll hit one is 86%. And twenty squares would yield a probability of 99%.

Does this not clarify how the physics works here?

An admirable effort, but you've forgotten two things.

First, the atmosphere is 3D (though that only supports your case, because your accuracy rate would rise above a hundred percent).

Second, photons aren't all going directly up. They are entering a cube which contains 360 spaces which contain CO2 molecules and 999640 which do not, from all different directions. They aren't conviently shot off directly from one side of the cube to other in a straight line. If your logic was valid, then the Earth would be as hot as Venus (because photons would enter the atmosphere, at a much faster rate then they would leave it).

You continue to claim that the question of anthropogenic global warming is debatable. Well, yes, it is debatable among climatologists, but that debate is rapidly ending. You prefer to cite the fact that only 55% of climatologists believe that global warming is anthropogenic. But remember, only 29% do not believe that it is anthropogenic. That's almost two to one in favor -- a very strong endorsement, don't you think?

Well now were going to have to get into that objectiveness debate again....
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote04.html

While we are closing this off, you did not qualify your request by asking for a "scientific theory." In hindsight, we know that it was “social policy” and not science. That is precisely the point. At that time eugenics was heralded for is base in science.
Yes, the link is bias, but I was just citing where I got eugenics quote from which is indeed a correct assessment of that debate at the time.



If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

While a carbon tax would reduce carbon (tax would cause people to use less energy, especially cars) it would shift a higher burden on lower income people. If any type of policy is adopted in the US (while the House is Republican it will remain unlikely) it would likely be similar to the pollution trading system. Moving towards more nuclear energy would be a good start as well.

Michael Crichton sums up the "science" of Global Warming in his Caltech lecture of 17 Jan 03. He argues (quite convincingly to the open minded) the blame lies in the infamous Drake equation, which he points out is quite similar to that used in models offered as "proof" of global warming.

For my part I'm buying natural gas futures, not York Int'l stock
Yogs

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote04.html

You are deliberately obsuring the truth. Yes, there are reputable people on both sides -- but you know that there twice as many reputable people on the pro side as on the anti side. And you repeat the use of the term "consensus" so that you can make a denial. But remember, consensus means unanimity. There is no consensus that the earth is round, for there are people who believe it to be flat. Do you therefore conclude that the roundness of the earth is open to question? There are people who claim that the Holocaust never took place. Therefore, there is no consensus that the Holocaust took place. Do you therefore conclude that the existence of the Holocaust is open to question?

Let's just be honest about this: your own poll says that 55% of climatologists believe that global warming is anthropogenic, 14% are uncertain, and 29% do not believe that it is anthropogenic. That's a solid majority of opinion on the pro side and a two-to-one ratio in favor. Yes, it's not unanimity. Yes, there's some uncertainty. But if you want to make your decision based on the experts, the only rational decision you can make is that global warming is anthropogenic.


And how do you define the end of the Little Ice Age? As a continuation of falling temperatures? Of course not. You define the end as the the point where the temperature stabilizes or starts to warm. In other words, by definition the end of the Little Ice Age was coincident with some degree of temperature stabilization or warming. This is a classic example of somebody looking at a complicated graph and seeing all sorts of patterns that just aren't there. The Little Ice Age ended with some warming. But to project from there that the warming today is somehow a pent-up climatological temperature debt from 500 years ago that must now be paid off is an act of anthropomorphization, not science.


You know, I have used that story to explain physical phenomena to many students (yes, I taught physics once, and I really do know what I'm talking about here). That story never failed to clear up any misconceptions in the student's mind. Since you continue to object to it, I must therefore suppose that you have no desire to alter your conceptions. I presented this as a simplified example that would be easy to understand, but since you are the one citing additional complexities, I challenge you to back up your objections with the relevant calculations. Go ahead and carry out the same calculation in three dimensions. Factor in random incident angles. Feel free to use 36 ppm by volume or by mass or by molecule count and carry out the calculation for the real atmosphere.

I will address your last concern later, but I want to give you some time right now to carry out the calculation. I await your results.

You are deliberately obsuring the truth. Yes, there are reputable people on both sides -- but you know that there twice as many reputable people on the pro side as on the anti side. And you repeat the use of the term "consensus" so that you can make a denial. But remember, consensus means unanimity. There is no consensus that the earth is round, for there are people who believe it to be flat. Do you therefore conclude that the roundness of the earth is open to question? There are people who claim that the Holocaust never took place. Therefore, there is no consensus that the Holocaust took place. Do you therefore conclude that the existence of the Holocaust is open to question?

To begin with, holocaust deniers are much rarer then global warming skeptics. They also have agendas, and they are consequently unobjective. In addition, the evidence that the holocaust happened, is much stronger then the evidence that global warming is anthropogenic. As a result, your analogy is invalid.

Also, you seem to be claiming above that I am somehow trying to disprove global warming by pointing out that it does not have the support of a sizable portion of the scientific community. That is not my intention. I am merely trying to ward off the misconception that endorsement among scientists for global warming in unilateral.

Let's just be honest about this: your own poll says that 55% of climatologists believe that global warming is anthropogenic, 14% are uncertain, and 29% do not believe that it is anthropogenic. That's a solid majority of opinion on the pro side and a two-to-one ratio in favor. Yes, it's not unanimity. Yes, there's some uncertainty. But if you want to make your decision based on the experts, the only rational decision you can make is that global warming is anthropogenic.

Since you aren't ready to enter the objectivity debate, we cant really argue about this properly yet.

And how do you define the end of the Little Ice Age? As a continuation of falling temperatures? Of course not. You define the end as the the point where the temperature stabilizes or starts to warm. In other words, by definition the end of the Little Ice Age was coincident with some degree of temperature stabilization or warming. This is a classic example of somebody looking at a complicated graph and seeing all sorts of patterns that just aren't there. The Little Ice Age ended with some warming. But to project from there that the warming today is somehow a pent-up climatological temperature debt from 500 years ago that must now be paid off is an act of anthropomorphization, not science.

What goes up goes down, and what goes down goes up. Thats what fluctuation is, and thats how things have been working for the past 10,000 years. Its a dynamic equilibrium, and your not going to tell me that those aren't everywhere in science.

You know, I have used that story to explain physical phenomena to many students (yes, I taught physics once, and I really do know what I'm talking about here). That story never failed to clear up any misconceptions in the student's mind. Since you continue to object to it, I must therefore suppose that you have no desire to alter your conceptions. I presented this as a simplified example that would be easy to understand, but since you are the one citing additional complexities, I challenge you to back up your objections with the relevant calculations. Go ahead and carry out the same calculation in three dimensions. Factor in random incident angles. Feel free to use 36 ppm by volume or by mass or by molecule count and carry out the calculation for the real atmosphere.

Maybe I cant do that, but neither can climatologists, because if they knew how to do that, then they would know exactly how many degrees (or fractions of degrees) of the Earth will be warmed by (insert amount here) of CO2, and there would be no uncertaintys.

P.S:
The two links I gave might be a bit much to read, so just read the Crichton one.

OK, fine, I accept that you are merely trying to say that it's not unanimous. In fact, you have presented the data that the majority of climatologists agree that global warming is anthropogenic. So let's just accept your data as the basis for discussion, shall we? As in:




Would you expand on your notion of what constitutes "the objectivity debate"? Also, please explain why that debate makes your own data inapplicable.


Absolutely! Yes, there are all manner of fluctuations in the world. And to grab a single fluctuation, as you have done with the increase in temperature after the end of the Little Ice Age, and declare that it is only the natural, inevitable rebound from the Little Ice Age, is to assign causality that just isn't there. There were causes for that temperature increase; many causes. Your simplistic claim that there was just one cause, and that it was merely rebound, has absolutely no justification in physics or climatology.


I take it that you are unaware of the science of climatological modelling, or of the many climatological models that do exactly what you are saying can't be done. The tag line in your post reads "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"-Obi-Wan Kenobi, Episode 3". It would appear that you fall afoul of your own tag line here, because insisting on absolute certainty is unscientific. All scientific calculation admits of uncertainties arising from the myriad tiny factors that influence the application of a theory. Therefore, scientists possessed of integrity always cite the uncertainties in their results. Your refusal to accept the presence of uncertainty represents a profound failure to grasp scientific fundamentals.

We need to stay on this topic. Like I stated before the whole "is Global Warming happening" debate just goes in circles. For every climate expert that says global warming is exaggerated there are a wall of "experts" that disagree. The topic at hand here is what should be done if anything? There has been a lot of rhetoric about rising ocean levels that appear to be untrue. Still the idea that the human race is in danger persists. Some have speculated that the warming could make the world more prosperous. It is along these lines the topic is framed.

As someone living outside the US, what is especially interesting about the climate change issue is that everyone accepts it is a problem. It is quite strange to actually see the topic debated at all!

Everyone current EU government is on record as having agreed climate change is a problem (and the EU has instigated a wide rane of measures to reduce the amount of CO2 it's economies produce. Of course, one could argue that it is easy to reduce your CO2 output when all your manufacturers are going under, but thats a whole different story )
Certainly the official line is that global warming is a problem and needs resolution. Tony Blair has two aims for the G8 summit - to get agreement on climate change and to get aid for Africa.

I am not saying we should accept that climate change does or does not exist based entirely on an 'appeal to authority' - I know my logical fallacies as well as anyone, but I do want to point out that - the 'is climate change real?' debate is entirely within the US. For better or worse, the rest of the western world has decided it does exist.

Would you expand on your notion of what constitutes "the objectivity debate"? Also, please explain why that debate makes your own data inapplicable.

Basically this means that you go to, and read everything on the link below (which took me about 20 minutes). The objectivity debate (as can be expected) is about whether or not global warming climatologists are objective. If they are not objective, then that makes the two to one ratio irrelevant.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote04.html

Absolutely! Yes, there are all manner of fluctuations in the world. And to grab a single fluctuation, as you have done with the increase in temperature after the end of the Little Ice Age, and declare that it is only the natural, inevitable rebound from the Little Ice Age, is to assign causality that just isn't there.

As I said, this is a dynamic equilibrium. This means that while fluctuations are constantly occurring, opposite reactions (in this case hot versuses cold) cancel eachother out to ensure that the temperature never strays to far from the middle ground. This is why the Ice Ages are always fairly cold, and the inter glacial periods are always fairly hot, despite the fact that temperatures do not remain constant in either of them.

There were causes for that temperature increase; many causes. Your simplistic claim that there was just one cause, and that it was merely rebound, has absolutely no justification in physics or climatology.

While an event only takes one cause to occur, you are right in saying that, that does not mean it can only have one cause. By providing one cause however, I have proven that there are other explanations for our current warming trend, then just CO2.

I take it that you are unaware of the science of climatological modelling, or of the many climatological models that do exactly what you are saying can't be done. The tag line in your post reads "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"-Obi-Wan Kenobi, Episode 3". It would appear that you fall afoul of your own tag line here, because insisting on absolute certainty is unscientific. All scientific calculation admits of uncertainties arising from the myriad tiny factors that influence the application of a theory. Therefore, scientists possessed of integrity always cite the uncertainties in their results. Your refusal to accept the presence of uncertainty represents a profound failure to grasp scientific fundamentals.

Well I said this:
if they knew how to do that, then they would know exactly how many degrees (or fractions of degrees) of the Earth will be warmed by (insert amount here) of CO2, and there would be no uncertaintys.

So how about I rephrase it as:
If they knew how to do that, then they would at least have an approximate (and somewhat accurate) knowledge of how many degrees (or fractions of degrees) of the Earth will be warmed by (insert amount here) of CO2.

Due to the inaccuracy of their predictions thus far, I can gather that they don't.

nemov:

55% of climatologists think we are causing global warming, 14% are unsure, and 29% think we are not causing global warming. Thus for every climate expert who doesn't believe in global warming, theres one guy who isn't sure, and two guys who disagree with him. Hence, there is no wall.

Ptarmigan:

Maybe its just an isolated occurence, but RAS isnt American.

I'm not sure if anyone here is actually arguing that it's not happening... they seem to be debating whether it's anthropogenic or not. Most people I know, and I live in the US, accept that climate change is happening. The difference is that many simply get off the train at the stations of "we're causing it" and "we can have a significant effect on it".



I genuinely don't know... I'd kinda like to see scientists and economists team up and look at the costs and benefits of the approaches. After all... if putting billions of dollars into this isn't going to slow things down much, why not put that into raising the living stardards of people across the world?

You're quite right, and I apologize for going so far and so extensively off topic.

*Edited to remove belittling commentary*
So, on to the topic:

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?
We can't really stop global warming, but we can slow it down, and that is where our efforts should be directed. We need to pursue a broad spectrum of policies. The most obvious would be a carbon tax. Here in America the most cost-effective initial effort would be a phased-in tax of $1 - $2 on each gallon of gasoline. We have lots of demand elasticity left in gasoline consumption, as demonstrated by the huge number of gas-guzzling and utterly unnecessary SUVs on the roads. About six weeks ago, one of our correspondents posted a long and thoroughly researched item on some of these issues, and I am sad to note that it received little comment. I can't find it now.

[b]Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?[b]
The cost of adapting to the changes will be humungous. It's not just the rise in ocean levels -- although that's the most dramatic part. It's also the changes in rainfall all over the global. One Canadian study indicates that rainfall in the Great Plains will diminish markedly, dramatically impacting crop yields. How much is agriculture in the Great Plains worth?

The really scary possibility is alteration of ocean currents based on new temperature differences. If this plays out the way we fear it might, we could end up losing the Gulf Stream, which would dramatically affect the climate in Europe, cooling it and reducing rainfall there. Basically, agriculture in Western Europe would plummet, there'd be a lot more cold, and I think that there'd be a lot of very angry Europeans. Remember, Lisbon is at the same latitude as Washington. How do you think the Portuguese will feel if their climate shifts to match Washington's?

Here is at the root of the argument. It is not clear that reducing CO2 emissions would slow the warming of the earth. As I have stated before there is no direct chartable corellation between CO2 and Earth tempreture. Some kind of standard would have to be set before a tax policy could be implemented.



According to the article I quoted from in the intial post on this topic adapting to the changes would not be as expensive as you say. Mostly because the doomsday scenarios about ocean leves is bit far fetched. Surprisingly enough even my Earth Science professor in college taught that rising sea levels is not a real threat from Global Warming (for several different reasons).

It also is important to keep in mind that not all change is bad. The climate has been changing for millions of years. Global temperatures were higher in the Roman times when grapes were grown on British islands and Hannibal’s elephants walked through the Alps into Italy. Maybe I am optimistic, but I am not inclined to believe Malthus type predictions of doom. The changes that will take place if this occur are likely to be small and manageable.

Well the Romans didn't live in an area which contained annual hurricanes, but it is correct to say that not all changes are going to be bad. More rain means better crop production, and a hotter climate means more farmland. Generally when I think of a hotter climate, I think of droughts, however if it means more rain then is that really true? Also the fact that the world wasn't flooded in Roman times, proves that we've got a ways to go before the sea levels rise, though when/if that happens, it will be armaggedon (there wont be enough farmland to support the human race). However, im fairly certain the temperature will level off and reverse itself long before that happens. I'm a bit more worried about the coming of another Ice Age. Temperatures haven't been rising and plummeting at this rate during any other time in this interglacial period, so it may be a sign that it is ending.

I don't really know where to start Left-handed... your entire understanding of climate seems to be founded purely on generalities and assumptions, with no room for the complexities inherent in a climate system (or any complex system.)

Hotter=more farmland is about as weak an understanding of global warming as is possible without having never heard that term. It's no wonder you see no pressing need to ameliorate the conditions of climate change.

The fact is that it is not so simple as that. As has been mentioned earlier, climate shifts could move the jet stream, which would have a profound effect on Europe and Northern Asia. One issue which is usually relegated to the backburner is the process of desertification, which is influenced not only by temperature shifts both regional and global, but by the function of air cells and precipitation pattern.

I won't debate whether global warming is man made or not; and I won't get into whether or not it is a certainty... the fact is that it is a real possibility. That in and of itself warrants some consideration.

I don't really know where to start Left-handed... your entire understanding of climate seems to be founded purely on generalities and assumptions, with no room for the complexities inherent in a climate system (or any complex system.)

*sigh* Everyones out to get the heretic I suppose. If you want to debate me, debate the facts rather then just spewing out blanket statements.

Hotter=more farmland is about as weak an understanding of global warming as is possible without having never heard that term. It's no wonder you see no pressing need to ameliorate the conditions of climate change.

The fact is that it is not so simple as that. As has been mentioned earlier, climate shifts could move the jet stream, which would have a profound effect on Europe and Northern Asia. One issue which is usually relegated to the backburner is the process of desertification, which is influenced not only by temperature shifts both regional and global, but by the function of air cells and precipitation pattern.

Well, once again, it was much hotter then this during Roman times, and the Romans got along fine. The simple fact of the matter is, the world was much hotter then this 5000 years ago, and nothing particularly catastrophic happened.

Also, if global warming creates rain, wont that be a good deterrent for desertification (considering deserts right now only get rain about once a year)? Of course obviously it will also make things hotter, which will produce the opposite effect. Thus well have something that combats it, and something which supports it. I'm not really sure which is stronger though.

Additionally, it should be obvious that a hotter climate increases farmland, as it brings additional rain to to places that would otherwise be to dry to grow things on, and it brings additional heat to places which would otherwise be to cold to farm. You could argue that it will burn crops on the equator, but wheat was still grown in Northern Africa during Roman times. The only thing it would do which would decrease farmland would be desertification, which may in fact slow down with a hotter climate (due to more rain).

Again we have strayed off topic with the doomsday scenarios.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

Is there any evidence out there by economists that say it would be better to eliminate global warming or adapting to the changes? It appears so far in this debate that adapting to the changes ahead is economically the best move. Moving towards sweeping carbon taxes appears as a clever way for governments to make money while less CO2 will not slow down warming.

These side debates aren't really off topic. If your asking what we can do to stop global warming, then determining whether or not were causing it, is perfectly relevant. If your asking how we should prepare for the side effects of global warming, it is important to figure out exactly what those side effects are.

The main detriments to society that will be caused by global warming (as far as I can see), will be more hurricanes, more heatwaves, and possibly more desertification. What can we do about these things?

For hurricanes about all I can think of is building more storm proof buildings. Heat Waves may become more common, but I still think they'll be a fairly rare occurence. Nonetheless maybe people should made aware of public locations that have air conditioning, where they can go in the case of a heat wave (that way people without air conditioning at their homes can survive). Desertification is mainly a problem in the African Sahara, and I think a concerted effort by the first world may be capable of halting it through irrigation.

I am glad to see another global warming topic. At least it indicates that some are still willing to debate the subject. On the other hand, it is distressing to see that few pick up on the recent new evidence that supports the conclusions of the IPCC. (I am referring to the papers on global warming patterns in ocean temperature changes and the new analysis of satellite measurements of tropospheric warming). If you don't delve into the peer reviewed literature, one would hope that the recent joint declaration of all the G8 equivalents to the National Academy of Science plus those of China, India and Brazil (to the effect that global warming was too serious a threat to be put off action any longer) would get your attention.

I also have problems with the surveys of climatologists that are referred to in so many comments. Many climatologists are glorified weather men focussed on local patterns of weather forecasting. I'm confident that if you surveyed only the thousands of climatologists, geophyicists, oceanographers, glaciologists and the like involved in the study of long term patterns of climate change or the impact of recent man caused changes in the atmospheric concentration of gases, that the ratio of those taking climate change as a serious threat would be far greater than 2 to 1.

But I digress from the questions for debate.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?

Since these questions are inter-related, I will discuss them together. Why is it that those of you who vociferously question any kind of meaningful consensus on climate change, take one or two forecasts by consensus economists on the costs of reducing green house gases as gospel? Economics (my field of study)is less scientific than any field involved in the global warming issue, yet you seem to accept the conclusions of a couple of representatives of the current economic orthodoxy as absolutes.

The other related question is, why do you assume that we won't have to take some of these measures for reasons unrelated to global warming? Peak oil, the balance of current accounts deficits, and dependence on volatile areas of world with accompanying exorbitant military expenditures come to mind?

We can't stop global warming but we can prevent catastrophic GW. Jim Hansen and his coauthors made this build in lag of already induced change clear in their recent released study.
Hansen Paper

Therefore, I would argue that we will certainly have to adapt to some additional global warming but that it is essential for future generations that we begin now to drastically lower our release of greenhouse gases below the level of natural systems to fixate those already in the atmosphere. In the long run this will be quite expensive because it will mean reducing CO2 releases by 70 to 80%. However, drastic steps can wait until the problem is clear to everyone. What is essential for us to do now is to take the steps that are cost free or nearly so together with those that have offsetting benefits in mitigating other problems. A great deal can be done to improve energy end use efficiency that would be an economic benefit rather than a cost. 100 mpg personal vehicles are possible with current technology and at economic prices. Better building designs and modification can drastically reduce heating and cooling energy use. Just replacing all incandescent bulbs with alternatives would save at least 2/3 of their electrical use. Economically competitive renewable energy sources like wind also need to be put on at least an equal subsidy status as coal and nuclear. The problem is that these economically beneficial steps would hurt oil companies, utilities, and coal companies - hence the resistance and disinformation campaign. We also need to take immediate steps to stop the destruction of forest and other natural systems that are critical to the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. In the long run, we will need to provide incentives for coal fired power plants to separate and sequester the CO2 they release. It will also probably be necessary to substantially change our personal travel patterns, particularly the frequent use of airlines. Carbon taxes might be one way to let the market allocate available atmospheric carrying capacity but they could not be put in place until a substantial majority recognize the seriousness of the problem. If they were imposed so that they were collected on the basis of carbon use but rebated equally to all consummers so that the the overall effect was revenue neutral, it might be an easier sell.

I also have problems with the surveys of climatologists that are referred to in so many comments. Many climatologists are glorified weather men focussed on local patterns of weather forecasting. I'm confident that if you surveyed only the thousands of climatologists, geophyicists, oceanographers, glaciologists and the like involved in the study of long term patterns of climate change or the impact of recent man caused changes in the atmospheric concentration of gases, that the ratio of those taking climate change as a serious threat would be far greater than 2 to 1.

A weatherman is a meteorologist not a climatologist, thus he would not be included in the survey. I'm not sure what effect adding the other professions above would have on the overall results, but to say that it would dramatically push the poll in your favor, is to make use of wishful speculation.

Part of the reason it is so difficult to get excited about the new "ocean findings" is that at around the same time the long cited "hockey stick" model was debunked. It appears that over time we find inherent problems in the models that are often cited as the climate change "smoking gun." The IPCC has a troubled past in terms of being objective when it comes to climate change (just ask Chris Landsea).

I do agree however with parts of your economic assessment. Until we start observing some "catastrophic" events, no change is likely to take place. That was why there was IPCC pressure on Landsea to blame the Florida hurricanes on Global Warming. Melting glaciers aren't catastrophic events and given the unpredictability of weather it would take something significant to get the ball rolling.

nemov


The "hockey stick" graph summarizing the conclusions of the research of Michael Mann and others has not been debunked as you state. It was attacked by two papers which have themselves been "debunked". Von Storch, one of the editors of the publication in which one of the original papers was published, resigned and latter said, "“[Their conclusions] may be true, but it is not supported by evidence cited in the paper.”) Von Storch latter published his own paper essentially saying both Mann and his rivals were wrong. Mann has defended his work as have others. See NCAR Press Release. Unfortunately, the key controversy involves the application of a statistical technique that is beyond most of us so we are reduced to an evaluation of the background of those making the competing claims. The graph was used as a key illustration in one of the IPCC reports but the basic IPCC conclusions hardly stand or fall on this issue.

The Chris Landsea incident is indeed unfortunate. The IPCC does need better rules about the use of its name by individual participating scientists. Fortunately, the rift between Landsea and Trenberth seems to be healing. SeeHealing Hopefully the IPCC and participating scientists will learn for the experience. For those less familiar with the Landsea controversy, I offer this summary of the Landsea Incident Again, however, this hardly rises to the level of undermining the work of the IPCC.

LHP


Strictly speaking you are correct. A meterologist studies short term weather patterns and makes predictions. On the other hand, a climatologist studies weather and makes longer term forecasts. Until the modern era they were largely drudges working for the U.S. (and other) Weather Bureaus compiling statistics on past weather. They did valuable work and their statistics are invaluable in the study of climate change. My point was that there are still a number of the old school of climatologist around who tend to view climate as bounded by their accumulated statistics and who resist theories and evidence on human induced climate change. Any survey that doesn't try to differentiate between those engaged in research on climate change and those making traditional long term weather forecasts is flawed. As for the speculation about a broader survey of those engaged in research on long term climate change, I plead guilty.

Strictly speaking you are correct. A meterologist studies short term weather patterns and makes predictions. On the other hand, a climatologist studies weather and makes longer term forecasts. Until the modern era they were largely drudges working for the U.S. (and other) Weather Bureaus compiling statistics on past weather. They did valuable work and their statistics are invaluable in the study of climate change. My point was that there are still a number of the old school of climatologist around who tend to view climate as bounded by their accumulated statistics and who resist theories and evidence on human induced climate change. Any survey that doesn't try to differentiate between those engaged in research on climate change and those making traditional long term weather forecasts is flawed.

Ok, so old school climatologists are going to be biasedly for the old methods of climatology that they were taught in school. However, aren't new climatologists going to equally biased for the new methods of climatology they are taught in school nowadays? I fail to see how either group can be termed more objective then the other, because both of them have equal exposure to preconceptions.

nemov



I ran across these two posts on RealClimate. org that thoroughly discuss the hockey stick issue entirely supporting Mann's work and debunking his critics.

Hockey Stick Myths

WSJ Editorial Critique

This was mentioned above. I am waiting for the next round of debunking. That's how this always works. Someone says "hey that model you are using is crap." Then some Global Warming die hards say that assessment is baseless. Bjorn Lomborg went through the same cycle.

Fortunately for us scientists can make the Earth Saturn to protect us. /sarcasm

You are correct. Lomborg's "work" went through the same cycle and continues to be critiqued because it is full of distortions. As one small example see Error Examples Why do people continue to be impressed by this book? Because its long and purports to treat evidence statistically? So many errors have been pointed out in it that are easily verifiable that I would expect everyone to disassociate themselves from it.

A more comprehensive list of errors, flaws, and distortions can be found at Catalogue of Errors

Sorry, friends, but I'm still waiting for that Ice Age that I was informed would be happening sometime soon. Or so they told me when I was in my teens. Of course, I could suggest that instead of blaming all things industrial that we award all things industrial the Medal of Honor for saving us from our own little ice age, but I digress...

And, no, I am no expert, but from what I remember, the eccentricities in the earth's orbit and rotation, along with the variability of the sun's output [as it were] are the primary controls re the temperature. And what I will call human greenhouse gases, they contribute what, .2 to .3 percent to the overall volume of greenhouse gases? Another way of stating that is that 99.70% of greenhouse gases are not manmade. I wonder what the poll results would be in our good friends in the media had taken some science instead of kiddie lit and otherwise had the you know whats to publish the same.

And by the way, where are we measuring temperature change? On the ground, or via that satellite overhead? I ask that question because your groundbased temperature gauge just went haywire, and because it used to be out in the middle of some cornfield but now it's surrounded by asphalt. And while your groundbased temperature gauges are on higher mode [as it were], our satellite measurements show no significant change in temperature.

Then there's the fact that our current temp and CO2 levels roughly coincide with the temp and CO2 levels of the Eemian Interglacial Period [120,000-140,000 years ago]. And we are in an interglacial period, yes? And we were in this interglacial period long before the first human ever constructed a smokestack and otherwise invented the combustion engine, yes?

And back to percentages, why don't we ever hear that at 368 parts per million, that CO2 is a minor component of our earth's atmosphere, or should I say that CO2 is less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present in our atmosphere?

And never mind, apparently, that CO2 is not a poison but a nutrient and such explains why farmers and botanists wanting to increase plant growth increase the amount or supply of CO2.

Let me leave you with some quotes:

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming." Dr. Richard Lindzen

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it...I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." Dr. William Gray

Oh, sorry, one more, maybe the climatologists preaching fear, aka global warming, can ask our other friends what ever happened to that coming plague? But maybe not, since there's even more of our friends blaming a harmless passenger virus for the rather debilitating effects of poverty [malnutrition and lack of potable water] and repeated bacterial and fungal infections necessitating long-term anti-biotic use [I broke that down because anti- means, well, we all know what it means, and bios is Greek for life, so long-term usage of anti-life drugs, and no surprise that some were rather severely immuno-compromised and died, and hey, the administration of a DNA chain terminating drug was merely icing of that cake]. And maybe Dr. Gray should go drinking with Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis, and the rest. And maybe I'll join them, and remind them, if it were necessary, that the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. And nothing works better than fear.

The funny this is for all the abuse Lomborg has taken he believes global warming is human induced. It is not surprising there aren't a lot of scientists studying this issue to debunk it. Look at the heat Lomborg has taken for taking an economical approach towards things.

Sorry, friends, but I'm still waiting for that Ice Age that I was informed would be happening sometime soon. Or so they told me when I was in my teens. Of course, I could suggest that instead of blaming all things industrial that we award all things industrial the Medal of Honor for saving us from our own little ice age, but I digress...

When it comes to soon with Ice Ages, soon means somewhere in the next few thousand years. Anyone who claims it probable that it will happen in the next 50 is a fraud. Also, we started emitting CO2 about 50 years after the world started warming up (which marked the end of the Little Ice Age).

nemov


Pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, and outright deception is not abuse. Either these criticsms are true or they are not. If true, Lomborg's analysis is not credible. Of course Lomberg or anyone else has a right to make a case for adapting to climate change rather than slowing it but he is required to use a reasonable interpretation of the science and valid statistical mehods in his analysis if it is to mean anything. I happen to share the view that some climate change can't be stopped and we will have to adapt to it but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything possible to avoid even more warming that can be avoided.

Left-Handed Person:

Re the coming ice age, or so I was informed, I was not claiming that the ice age would occur in my lifetime, or even relatively soon thereafter. I was simply pointing out how the reports were of an encroaching ice age [as it were] sans any mention of this thing called "global warming."

KivrotHaTaavah, the fact that a few climate scientists in the early 1970s believed we were headed into another ice age has little bearing on the current status of the science related to climate change where thousands of scientists from different disciplines have conducted exhaustive observations and climate modelings and have concluded that temperatures are rising, it is largely human caused, effects are already discernable, another .6 degree C is already built into the oceans, and additional forcing may be very serious indeed. In the 1950s pronosticators also projected "power too cheap to meter" from nuclear fission and in the 1960s "unlimited power" from nuclear fusion within 30 years. Do you hold those views against our better understanding today? Do they void the remaining possibilities of these technologies?

started? So humanity burned nothing prior to 1750? If you wish to make points about the relationship between CO2 release and temperature increase, a simple-minded black and white statement doesn't cut it. CO2 release and temperature increase aren't yes-or-no propositions; they are numeric variables. Make your point in those terms.

If Global Warming is a serious threat to the human race how do we stop it?

Should the world invest resources into eliminating the problem or into adapting with the changes?


Global Temperature Change is the real issue, as we will have to adapt whether it gets a lot colder or warmer. We can't stop it. We can't eliminate a problem that we don't fully understand. What we do know is most likely some small percentage of what we need to know.
So we invest most of our resources adapting, and in some ways we already are.
Energy conservation has been a worthwhile effort for some time, likewise the reduction of pollution. We can do more in those areas.
We can still invest some resources studying the issue. A better understanding of global temperature changes in the past will better prepare us for what will happen to us in the future. But I think it is a wild eyed dream that we could possibly eliminate the problem.