As two very robust recent/ongoing threads illustrate, there's a fair amount of disagreement hereabouts on the subject of Global Warming, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming, aka Climate Change. Consensus is tossed about and countered with lemmings off a cliff, a variety of scientists are quoted, public policy sites are linked, etc, etc.

Why does this all matter? There are lots and lots of unsettled fields in science, what makes GW so contentious? Well, that's a pretty easy question to answer: those concerned about GW say we must "do something" about it, and they're talking a lot of something. And therein lies the rub. So, I'd like to get past all the dueling studies, quality and shoddy research, scientists who've built their careers on GW vs. scientists in the pocket of Big X, and look at what's got folks all riled up, and I think a good way of doing it is ....

The Worst Case Scenario

Now, there's a couple of ground rules I'd like to establish in order to keep on track. The first rule is no arguing about whether or not Global Warming is occurring. Each person's answer will simply posit their position on the occurence of GW, and that is not up for debate. What is up for debate is the effects of GW and the effects of our responses to it, or non-response as the case may be. I realize this may seem a bit unusual, but as noted, I hope to avoid rehashing what's being covered in the other threads.

So, in brief, the question for discussion is:

What is the Worst Case Scenario if the policies advocated by the "Other Side" are adopted, and their basic premises on Global Warming are wrong?

• Briefly state the premises as you understand them.
• Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them
• Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

Briefly state the premises as you understand them.
[Worst Case]
OMGWTFBBQ We are all gonna die !!!!!BIG OIL HALLIBURTON HALIBURTON HALLIBURTON....

thew world is heating up faster than a pig pit and we are all going to melt where we stand .
[/WC]

CO2 Levels (caused by man) are causing the earths temperature to rise will melt the polar ice caps ( lets forget glaciers are as far south as say ... indiana... 16,000 years ago and the vikings were cultivating greenland 1000 years ago )

Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them

Force the Industrialized world to lower it's "Carbon Footprint" by imposing government sactions for energy use, and goods production, alter western civilization to make us more "aware" of how we are to blame for the destruction of mother earth.

Excusing the third world and developing countries from these self same sactions.

Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

Businesses will either 1) Move even more production to those countries where such sanctions are unenforceable or unimpeded 2) reduce production ( thereby raising prices ) 3) close their doors.

this is an attempt to undermine the capitalist underpinnings of our economy.

Good topic, BD

As someone who believes global warming is happening, and that it is largely man-made, the "other side" for me are those who either deny it is happening at all, or that it is a largely natural phenomenon.

So, their premises, as I understand them, are that the observed increases in mean surface temperature are either not provable, or are within the tolerance of natural fluctuation. The rate of increase, which evidence suggest is out of the ordinary, is either ignored, explained away or dismissed altogether.

If temperature increases are accepted as real, and put down to natural cyclical (or other natural) change, the causative effect is usually put down to an increase in solar output.

Even among those that accept greenhouse gases as a mechanism for global warming (which is most scientists - the phenomenon is a widely known and accepted, but whether it is the cause of a current warming cycle is disputed), the role of man-made CO2 and agricultural methane are de-emphasised in favour of natural emissions e.g. volcanoes, vegetative decay, etc.

That water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and that more of it will be produced by normal evaporation from the oceans, reinforcing any warming, is not generally in dispute. Though, since water vapour is the other main by-product of hydrocarbon combustion as well as CO2, it's often ignored.

Policies advocated

They tend to be laissez faire. Among those who deny climate change is happening at all, this extends beyond simply letting "the market" decide into actively resisting any change which the market might make in response to any changes which are happening.

Mostly, however, all-out deniers have become less vocal (as evidence that the global climate is indeed warming has mounted). Those who deny a link to human activity, who I'd say are the majority of those on "the other side", generally put their faith in technological advances being able to ride to the rescue. The central concept being that consumer capitalism can carry on indefinitely, but that the (usually, but not always unspecified) technological advances will allow the human race to mitigate some or all of the effects of global climate change.

In support of this position, it is sensible to remind ourselves that historical doomsayers - notably Thomas Malthus - didn't not allow for human ingenuity in their predictions of doom. So we've long passed the point at which Malthus predicted we'd run out of food, because he assumed that non-mechanised agriculture would continue as he knew it, and didn't allow at all for any such things as chemical fertilisers, genetic modification, pesticides etc. Malthus can't really be blamed for this - if he'd made predictions at the time that relied on as-yet-unthought-of innovations, he'd rightly have been taken as seriously as a Scientologist as a Skeptics Society meeting.

On the changes which may happen before such a MacGuffin comes along to make everything in the consumption-capitalist world rosy again, technology is also assumed to take a role in reversing or even just mitigating change. For every African square mile that turns to unusable desert, a square mile of current tundra will turn from permafrost to productive farmable land.

Prediction of outcome

The technology will come, but it will come too late to change anything much in the short term. The 21st and early 22nd centuries wil be marked by mass starvation, not only in predictable areas such as the Horn of Africa and parts of India, but in all non-temperate parts of the world.

Those non-temperate parts will increase in extent, to include much of Southern Europe, the Southern USA, South East Asia (including southern China and the Korean peninsula), the whole Middle East region, Central America and the northern third of South America.

The starvation caused here will be on a massive scale, and the developed (and largely temperate) world will do what it can to help.

However, what will cause huge and unprecedented disruption for the developed world will be the massive migration of people. Historically, relatively small numbers of refugess from wars or famines have reached the West - mostly, the majority only get as far as the neighbouring country. But if the neighbouring country is just as much of a waterless dustbowl as your homeland, you're going to keep walking until you get somewhere useful.

Think of the huge numbers of displaced people in the American Depression of the 1930s. Multiply that by a factor of ten or more, then add into the mix that they'll be foreign nationals and "economic migrants" (there's another kind?) to boot. And multiply it further by the likelihood that who's taking their fair share will be largely moot, since Northern Europe, Russia, China, Japan, North America, Argentina, South Africa, and Australasia will be "swamped" by foreign immigrants on a scale that has not been seen in recorded history.

Sure, the flooding of lowland areas will feed into this mix as well, but that's just going to add to the pressure on remaining temperate land masses.

Also, bloodshed will likely follow such enormously stressful times for existing civilisations in the areas facing influxes of many new people. Countries in temperate zones will have greatly increased pressures on their public services, and there will be domestic political demand to get population growth from migration under control, or even outlaw it altogether. Some countries will be quite draconian, and will rather kill people desperate to escape from death and starvation than try to accomodate them.

The nation state itself will be put under pressure. It may well survive, but I don't know that for sure.

Ultimately I believe the human race will adapt and prosper in this new environment, but at the expense of vast swathes of the natural world as we know it, and of vast numbers of fellow humans dying from hunger, thirst or disease.

So, I don't think the extremists on "my side" are right either.

Their premises including that global warming is already out of control, is almost entirely generated by man, and will cause most of the effects I've outlined already even if we all go back to living in caves tomorrow. And if we don't completely "rethink" (code for "scrap") consumer capitalism, the Earth will become so ravaged by the effects of uncontrolled global warming that within a millennium or so it will look something like Venus, the oceans will boil away and the planet will be pretty much a lifeless a lifeless rock in a sauna-like atmosphere.

The policy they advocate appears to be that the entirety of consumer capitalism is immediately dismantled and we all begin living in some kind of agrarian idyll with internet connections, or else we're all doomed to extinction ourselves. While that is the ultimate fate of every species, I don't think it's at all imminent for us. (More than I can say for about 70-90% of our fellow creatures, I fear.)

And the outcome I predict is that they'll be half right, at best. The effects will be more or less as I outlined above, but, humanity is not facing its end. When populations (of anything - bacteria on a petri dish, viruses in an infected patient, rats on a new island) explode exponentially as humanity's has done, the crisis point at which they stop growing must be very traumatic, but the population drop is not at the same speed as its growth was. Rather, there's a sudden levelling off, followed by a sharp but short-lived drop, followed by a long slow decline.

From here on for the next 100,000 years, barring meteor strikes and supervolcanoes and the like, which really are beyond human control or influence, I don't really think there will ever be fewer than about a billion people on Earth. Quite a drop from the six or so we have today, but still more than there have been at any point before about 1850.

What is the Worst Case Scenario if the policies advocated by the "Other Side" are adopted, and their basic premises on Global Warming are wrong?

Okay, say we adopt the policies advocated by the GW side of things. There will be global trading of carbon credits in the quite capitalistic futures markets. That will keep the gamblers in suits happy. Our generation of carbon will go down due to the exploitation of alternative energy sources. That will make money and create jobs. Meanwhile, industrial CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere somehow.

But say the globe keeps on getting warmer anyway, what then? I guess we'll find out.

Briefly state the premises as you understand them.

1) Burning fossil fuels for energy production releases ancient carbon sinks into the ecosphere.

2) The development of alternative energy sources should be done now.

3) Free markets can be used to control carbon emissions.

Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them

1) Reduce carbon emissions.

2) Develop alternative energy sources.

3) Create free markets in carbon credit trading.

Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

The clever human race will figure this out. Old industries will die and new ones will take thier places. The world population will level out and even shrink as countries move out of the dark ages.

Or not. Things could go to hell in a handbasket too.

Briefly state the premises as you understand them.

The earth as a system has variables such as concentrations of greenhouse gases that lead to the day to day environment people inhabit. Through deforestation and fossil fule use humanity is slowly changing these variables, which through natural and understandable natural phenomena is slowly changing the environment.

Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them

Currently a mad rush like most things. Science understands the basic premise behind global warming and can show how humans can influence such via activity, but such of course is bound to become a political issue due to scope and gravity of it, and at that point it all gets rather fuzzy.

Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

It will get much worse before better. Its going to take global climate change to have serious and lethal impacts before humanity collectively wants a better future.

I can believe that the earth may be warming somewhat but IMO the jury is still out on the cause and the earth has warmed more in the past without “man” as the cause.

The “other side” claims that CO2 IS the cause and that the CO2 produced by industry and that we must immediately drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
To do this countries must make massive changes in the way power is generated, for example, to reduce CO2 emissions. This is estimated to cost the US 400 Billion per year.
The predicted outcome is this – even if we and others who have signed the Kyoto Treaty do as specified it will have virtually no effect on the rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This because the nations excluded, including China and India, will, within 10 years pass the US in CO2 output.
Thus if GW is caused by CO2 we produce then it will certainly happen (some scientists say it is too late to change now).
I predict global warming will continue and be dealt with just as we have dealt with other changes in the environment from day one. As we trasition to cleaner fuels over the next century CO2 level will drop and this may or may not effect climate. Only time will tell.

Well, I suppose I should weigh in on my own thread.

What is the Worst Case Scenario if the policies advocated by the "Other Side" are adopted, and their basic premises on Global Warming are wrong?

Briefly state the premises as you understand them.

1. The increase in "greenhouse gasses" as a result of human industrialization is responsible for the majority of the global temperature increase over the last 150 years.
2. The most siginficant of the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are carbon dioxide and methane.
3. Global warming will result in the following effects:
   • More violent and frequent storms.
   • Significant melting of the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps and alpine glaciers, resulting in substantial increase in sea level, flooding massive areas of densely populated lowlands.
   • Massive extinctions of animals and plants.
   • Widespread droughts and collapse of food production.
   • Massive expansion of tropical diseases.

Note that these are only the direct environmental effects. Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) variously predict massive starvations, mass floodings, mass migrations, widespread war as humanity struggles to cope with the changes wrought on Spaceship Earth by our wanton ways.

Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them
The policies come at the problem of AGW from essentially two directions. The first direction is technological. Huge investments in alternative energy sources and technologies. The second prong is restrictive. Limiting the outputs of greenhouse gasses. This will effectively limit the utilization of fossil fuels, and will likely be expanded to regulate other sources of AGW emissions.

Lay out your prediction of the outcome.
Global economic depression on a level greatly eclipsing the Great Depression. The massive investments in alternative energy will not be recouped, and the opportunity costs of all the forgone R&D will be incalculable. The restrictions on fossil fuels will prevent the developing world from developing, and as a result the problems affecting the Third World today will still bedevil it in a hundred years. Politically induced famines, endemic diseases, bad water, political corruption, etc. The regulatory regime created to enforce the restrictions will be quickly leveraged into a totalitarian world psuedo-government. Forced abortion and infanticide will be common under a global "One Child" policy. Forced relocations of suburban and rural populations will result in horrendous urban crowding and urban life.

If we DON'T do something about it- the same economic disaster will happen, and in the not too distant future- like, oh, ten years or less-

right now- the walrus and polar bear will probably become extinct in my lifetime. Why does this matter in the big scheme? These big apex animals pretty much are the bellweather of healthy enviroments- you see, overall food production near the arctic and antarctic shelves are HUGE- much bigger than you may think.

Food production is going to fall off drastically, through the weather changes- loss of fish stocks, in a wholesale and global scale- we are already seeing that here in Alaska- though we are heavily managed, not overfished, we are seeing SERIOUS declines in fish.

If man was primarily the cause of global warming, why would mars be warming up as well?

mars heating

we just came out an ice age 10-12000 years ago, which is nothing in geologic time. earth goes through cycles of warm and cold, warm and cold. it is folly to think in only 100 years of man made co2 is responsible. also we only started really measuring weather 50-60 years ago

global warming is natural and more then likely it's the sun heating up earth and mars

That's not what your link says at all.

Your link says that fluctuating solar radiation is hitting Mars (Mars, with no rotating core, has no magnetosphere to protect it) causing massive dust storms. These dust storms (NOT the sun) are causing a greenhouse effect warming the planet. The article even says that the dust is the equivalent of the greenouse gasses on earth, causing the same effect.

So unless the sun's fluctuating radiation is causing more greenhouse gasses to be released on earth, your links does not say what you want it to at all.



The rest of your post contained equally faulty information. We did NOT start measuring weather in the last 50 years, scientists can determine weather paterns for centuries past, and even further through a wide variety of means.

Why is it 'folly' to thnk 100 years of gas production could have an effect? We have had massive and enormous effects on the earth's environment in the last 100 years, we do it all the time. English pea-soupers were a microclimate that ws caused ENTIRELY by man and covered all of Northern Europe. Acid rain affected huge swaths of three continents. Flourocarbons damaged and destroyed huge swaths of the earth's ozone layer, in MUCH smaller amounts than the CO2 which has been released.

In fact it is 'folly' to imagine that dumping BILLIONS of metric tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere WOULDN'T have an effect.

A bit of info



The United States should do nothing to stop a trend that will actually produce a positive benefit for our nation. The rest of the world should act in their own specific interest just as the US should.

Exactly and this is how we know, as I have posted, that the MWP, ignored by liars like Mann existed and was far “warmer” than today. And the is no evidence a CO2 rise precipitated this event and certainly “man” cannot be blamed for it.

In fact many question the whole idea of a “global temperature” measurement.


http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/P...05mckitrick.pdf



http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Arti...oGlobalWarm.pdf

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703190012

God, its like arguing with a tape recorder. Ted every time there is a global warming thread, you bring up this same made-up coment, every time it is comprehensively destroyed, and then you cut-and-run: only to bring it up again in the next thread.

NOBODY is ignoring the MWP, in fact last time you made up that point about a specific report, claiming they ignored the MWP I quoted you several pages directly from the report dealing specifically with the period in question. sadly, when faced with this you cut-and-ran so we never got to hear an answer... I am not going to do this all over again every time if you insist on never answering evidence or direct question and cutting-and-running as soon as your contentions are disproven.


Firstly: Nobody has ignored the MWP. Secondly, it was a local Phenomenon to sections of the northern hemisphere, and was NOT a global event, and it WAS accompanied by a local rise in CO2. Thirdly, no clearly the MWP was not caused by humans... so what? How is that any way relevant to the debate?

Extinctions happened all the time in human history before humans came along, all caused by natural phenomenon. Does that therefore mean that mankind has not caused any extinctions?

And EVERY time Vermillion ignores my posts on the subject and give me you opinion. Address my posted links with data. Certainly the Mann graph ignores the MWP – if you think it is there show it to me please. So post data rather than the usual blah blah and personal attacks – PLEASE.

My links were not made-up sir and you have none to counter them so it is YOU who is making up things here. It was a global event – why do you keep disputing the point???


“The review, by a Harvard University team, examined the findings of studies of temperature proxies such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts that allowed scientists to estimate temperatures.
The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today's.

They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age set in about 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up, but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period. “
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/...9567563628.html

Because the point is made-up by you. The MWP was not a Global event, it was a Northern hemishphere event centred around the North Atlantic. If you have a scientific source that says otherwise I would be VERY eager to see it.

United nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33
Period of relative warmth in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere in comparison with the subsequent several centuries. (...) arguments that such evidence supports anomalous global warmth during this time period is based on faulty logic and/or misinterpretations of the available evidence.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth2


We have been over this Ted. You demand 'data', but when I post it you cut-and-run, then repost your assertions a while later and again indignantly demand 'actual data'. I see another stage in the cycle ongoing right now...

Even the harvard study you tout to the skies has been grossly misinterpreted, the core studies and samples the teams took were entirely from around the North Atlantic region: Northern Europe and the US. They never proved it was a worldwide phenomenon, in fact they never even CLAIMED it was worldwide.

But I'm sure you will repose the same assertion in about a month, as if none of this had never happened... again...

What is the Worst Case Scenario if the policies advocated by the "Other Side" are adopted, and their basic premises on Global Warming are wrong?[list]

Since global warming's Kyoto Treaty excludes China and India, all manuf and production will end up there; global companies could care less, as they make money regardless. We in the US will find our "local" economy even more in the dumper than it is now.

Global Warming is a scheme to achieve "global economic justice", i.e. equal distribution of resources. It will do what the Comitern could not.

[*]Briefly state the premises as you understand them.

Man burns fossil fuel; greenhouse gases are formed; they trap sunlight; world heats up; we all die.

[*]Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them

Live like we did in about 4000 BC--the "Simple Life".

[*]Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

Like gay marriage, which we'll have even though we all know in our hearts it is wrong, we'll go the way of global warming theorists and destroy our economy. For some reason, we think we are responsible for people 100 years from now, as if we can see the future and predict the technologies and patterns ongoing then. 100 years ago, our idea of flying was fabric and bailing wire, and skittering along at treetop height for half a mile. We went to the moon 62 years later, and space flight is commonplace today. Knowledge doubles every 10 years. Do we really have so little faith in mankind (if nothing else) as to think in the next 100 years similar changes will not be made? Man may manufacature his own climate on the moon by then. We are so short-sighted.

I can hear Chicken Little now....

I have posted this before and you just ignore it – this is the last time I do this for you.


Release No.: 03-10
For Release: March 31, 2003
20th Century Climate Not So Hot
Cambridge, MA - A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years

. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. The worldwide range of climate records confirmed two significant climate periods in the last thousand years, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. The climatic notion of a Little Ice Age interval from 1300 to1900 A.D. and a Medieval Warm Period from 800 to 1300 A.D. appears to be rather well-confirmed and wide-spread, despite some differences from one region to another as measured by other climatic variables like precipitation, drought cycles, or glacier advances and retreats.

The different indicators provided clear evidence for a warm period in the Middle Ages. Tree ring summer temperatures showed a warm interval from 950 A.D. to 1100 A.D. in the northern high latitude zones, which corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period." Another database of tree growth from 14 different locations over 30-70 degrees north latitude showed a similar early warm period. Many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

My reply to this topic at hand is that we have already done enough to go as far as to throw this planet into a premature ice age and raise sea levels possibly within the next 100 years. The question is how bad it will be and how soon. This planet has its natural cycles of glacial and interglacial periods and even without us this cycle will continue, but to introduce multiple new elements to a system that has worked on its own for billions of years is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

We have changed the surface of this planet through deforestation and the explosion in human development worldwide. Our planets climate however is strong and prominent, so any new elements we have introduced to such a large complex system are taking there time to have any significant impact on our daily lives, right now we see some early signs but most are in denial of whats headed our way. Glaciers are melting across the globe at staggering rates, two major ice shelfs have broken apart from Antarctica in the last few years, the biggest of the two "Larsen B" was over 3000 square miles of ice roughly the size of Rhode Island. As a consequence other glaciers previously held in place by these ice shelfs have increased there rate toward the ocean. The case is the same in places like Greenland and Alaska, or pretty much anywhere with glaciers. The introduction of fresh water to our salt water oceans is being said to be slowing the rate of the great Ocean Conveyor system, this is an ocean current that helps transfer warm water and weather from the equator to locations further north and south on the globe like North America. Changes our coming and there is little doubt of this.

I am a conservative republican, but choose not to politicize matters of science, so how this became a right vs left issue is beyond me, I just look at facts. Did you know the United States has lost about 25% of its forest in the last 300 years and this includes any regrowth? The story is the same or even worse in other countries. Everything being revealed says co2 levels are up, but those skeptical of our involvement in global warming point out that the burning of fossil fuels has only contributed to a very small percentage of this rise, and they may be right but I think the contributing factor is less of what it is we are actually adding directly to the atmosphere and more related to the forest we've destroyed, as we all know vegetation "particularly trees" directly convert co2 into breathable oxygen. I'm all for practical measures to reverse this process and I well understand our demand for wood, but our methods are sloppy, not enough of our wood comes from designated tree farms.

I believe the best case scenario is unlikely at this point, and its going to take far too long for all our systems to work in a non harmful manner toward this place we call home. The good news is that this up coming slap in the face our planet is about deliver us wont be enough to wipe us out because we are tough, in fact very tough we have survived Ice ages in the past. It will be however more than enough to clean up our act and I think this global event will do a lot to unite us as people because for the first time in the history of modern man a challenge will be presented that is so great that it takes all of our combined strengths and efforts to save as many as possible. Initially however it will result in all out civil unrest in most nations, most of North America and countless other places like Europe will become uninhabitable, so I hope those in Mexico who claim our border laws are not liberal enough are prepared for a little flip flop, and about 100 million Americans or more crossing into Mexico illegally,

In conclusion I'll say that what amazes me is how little so many know of some of the challenges those in the future will face, and this will probably be the first challenge. Ultimately despite the kayos and fighting it will cause, we as people usually unite when things are there toughest and the only good news is the lessons we will learn and the strength we will gain from this nearing global climate shift.




I think the difference you have to consider is the scale of what it is we as people have done today that wasn't the case in the middle ages. I don't know who told you that temps were SIGNIFICANTLY higher in the middle ages than they are today, but I don't doubt there is a study somewhere that strays from all the others, in science there always is, everything I've read about says the opposite, look at this line graph from wiki......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c..._Comparison.png
Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png

All the studies conducted here say just the opposite of what you stated and each line on this line graph here represents a different study and they all show that temps are equal or much higher today than they were in the middle ages not significantly lower, but in any case lets put that to rest and also consider that the little ice age has been, for one, related to abundant volcano eruptions at the time resulting in less sunlight, not human activity. The same goes for the warming trend in Mid Evil times in that there was no possibility of our involvement at that time, our numbers and activities were only a small fraction of what they are today. Today the most obvious finger to point for a change in climate is directly at us but could it just be a coincidence and its really something else contributing to the warming? Perhaps, but my question then quickly becomes whats the argument? That because there is a chance we may not be a contributing factor in recent climate change that we should not take an active interest in not only continuing to try and find out for sure, but do what we can to change our ways?

I'm a realist, I know we cant put multi millions of hydrogen vehicles on the road and stop all consumption of fossil fuels in the next 5 years. I also don't blame conservatives, for one I am one, lol, and secondly this issue has a much more global scale than the United States. More has been done in the Clinton and Bush administrations to address this, than most seem to realize. Not nearly enough, but its primarily foreign nations that fall behind here. For example countless nations, the closest being Cuba, use vehicles that mimic those that we drove in the 1970's in the United States. Deforestation in places like Nigeria make our methods for wood consumption look Godly! This will have to be a global effort, but we also have to continue our efforts here in the States as well, but I don't understand the blame game between political parties when we have done as much or more than just about anyone thought both democratic and republican presidencies recently.

Most people are egocentric - they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. Most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water.

There is great dispute about this graph and the MWP which some scientists say was warmer than today – and global – I have posted the links.

So to say “ALL” studies show anything is dead wrong. As this article shows there is lots of “evidence” on both sides and IMO the jury is still out. And those pushing the worst case scenarios do no one any good. The Keyoto Treaty is a rip off because of the start date and the whole thing is worthless without China in any case.

“State climatologist not jumping on global warming bandwagon

http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2007/05/...news/area01.txt
By Joey Vaughan

jvaughan@cdispatch.com
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:10 AM CDT
Many people who saw “An Inconvenient Truth,” a global warming documentary featuring Al Gore, immediately became very concerned about global climate change and impending weather disasters.

Don't count state climatologist Dr. Charles Wax of Mississippi State University as one of them.

“First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists,” Wax told the Columbus Rotary Club Tuesday. “Don't let anybody tell you there is.”

Wax spent much of his presentation telling the audience how the global climate is cyclical. It's always gone through periods of warming and cooling. As for cries of impending doom, Wax says there's tons of data on both sides - and man's ever-changing weather monitoring capability further clouds the picture.

“I wouldn't want to be called a skeptic,” Wax said. “I have been called non-reputable (by people who believe differently).”
The climate is changing, Wax admits - but it's always changing and always has.

“I don't know if it's going to rain Thursday or not. Certainly I don't know what the temperature is going to be in 2050,” he said.

Wax said political and policy confusion have fueled the debate over global warming, and changes in the way weather is tracked have added to the confusion.

“In 1957, all the thermometers (the government uses to track temperatures) were moved from fields onto airports,” Wax said. “It went from the Weather Bureau, which supported agriculture, to the Department of Commerce. Cities are hotter. (If you look at the numbers) you'll see a major climate change in 1957 alone.”

Wax showed Rotarians graphs of climate trends over 11,000 years, pointing out the cycles global temperatures have gone through. He said the rise of civilization coincided with a warming period.”

Briefly state the premises as you understand them.
Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them
Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

Blue: Humankind's use of fossil fuels is warming up the planet due to CO2 emission.

Red: Don't listen to these guys. It's a myth, or it's undetermined, or there's a hidden agenda.

Blue: Oh yeah? We got lots of scientists on our side.

Red: So do we.

Blue: You paid good money for them.

Red: So did you.

Did not; did too; not; too . . .

Blue: We should move away from using fossil fuels for our energy sources.

Red: We should explore for more fossil fuels and boost production.

Blue: Did you fall as a child and damage your brain?

Red: It's what the American people want.

Blue: >>> <<<

Red: >>> <<<

My prediction is for this pattern to continue throughout the forseeable future until a cold reality front finally comes along to knock everyone onto the same page. Senseless war didn't do it. Katrina did not do it. Three-dollar-a-gallon gas didn't do it. I'm not sure just how dramatic the cold reality front will need to be, but it'll be like nothing we've ever seen before. I'm pretty sure this is going to happen even if CO2 doesn't present a problem. It'll come from all the hot air emissions from flapping political mouths. When you think about it, CO2 is responsible for that.

The politics of the global warming debate is short-sighted; it doesn’t see beyond the next election. For the powers that be, the true test of science is not empirical evidence but political correctness. As to the latter, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political leaders would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese.

Very amusing – I liked your overview. And yes lots of hot air has been used and words on blogs. When you said "cold reality" above - how did you mean that?

I agree the pattern will continue until it is clear one way or the other the extent of the warming (if any). We went through this in the 70s when the fear was cooling. Certainly the Al Gore worst case senarios will not happen and do nothing but make the debate more rancorous.

And since there is nothing we can do to stop CO2 increases under the Treaty – even if the US did as requested – we should have an answer to the question of is GW real, and to what extent, in the next decade or 2.

Like I said, I'm very aware of earths natural climate cycles as are most advocates of human induced global warming. Yet studies show some frightening things about this particular warming trend. For one the level of Co2 in the atmosphere is believed to be higher today than its been in the last 20 million years, and many glaciers that have not been exposed for millenniums, even in previous warm periods are now melting. There is substantial evidence that shows that this warming trend has started off very abruptly and shows no immediate signs of slowing.

So again my criticism is this, what exactly are we debating here it doesn't make any sense. That because some scientist have other theories that don't include us contributing that we should not consider the possibility? When it comes to the health of the planet you call home why take chances, I really don't care if its us doing it or not but there is plenty of obvious signs that we are. I'm saying nothing for certain but in any case this is a problem and it needs to be addressed . I take the same position with global warming as I do with the war on terror, and that is we don't have the luxury of turning our backs on big issues such as these without consequences. The fact the we are not 100% sure this warming is human related should be nothing more than motive to take an active interest to find out for sure. However I don't side with those who are pointing fingers whether they be liberal or conservative.

More has been done in the U.S to address this than almost anywhere, but we have a long way to go. Ultimately however this will have to be a global collaborative effort, the earth does not need our help with the climate, its been doing just fine on its own. The result of adding new factors like poor wood gathering techniques that are leaving our planet more bare by the day, and the little bit of Co2 we have pumped into the atmosphere has both decreased the rate that Co2 is recycled into oxygen and increased the rate its being produced, what about that is confusing I'm not sure but I believe there is more than enough reason to suspect we have something to do with increased Co2 levels and temps in recent years.

I'm not about to march in Washington screaming save the trees, I frown upon protesters that point fingers at political parties when issues like these are much bigger than any one man or political party, but we have to start replanting everything we cut and develop more tree farms worldwide for our own good, and I think people fixated on emissions as the main cause for concern have vastly overlooked this. All and all this is probably the number one issue I can relate to with many democrats, but like I said, how a matter of science became a right vs left battle in this country is beyond be. I look at things for what they are without the political party spin as much as I can, but I agree that the differences made in some of these recent bills put forward will do little to help. The scale of this problem is large and worldwide, little fixes are not going to do it but we cant turn our backs to the overwhelming evidence that says, YES we as humans no matter how big or small can have an effect on the climate, I mean why not?? We have contributed to the largest impact on our own ecosystem since the asteroid impact that killed the Dinosaurs, we put a man on the moon, we build structures that soar hundreds or even thousands of feet into the air. We are capable of a lot more than some realize.

Hi eveyone. Here'e the deal with global warming..people are not paying attention to facts. The fact is the whole solar system is heating up...without man. The fact is C02 COMES from the heating of the planet NOT C02 CAUSING the heating of the planet. It's the whole chicken and egg thing. Is man contributing...of course...unless everyone wants to stop breathing.

I personally think the data is out on this and the rush to panic is a little pre-mature. IN the 70's is was the beginning of the end with another ice-age and today it's global warming. What will it be in another 10 years.....

I'll have to disagree with you in part here, most of the contributed co2 does in fact come from the planet, a very small percentage is the result of emissions from us, however what is being overlooked here is not what it is we as people have added directly to the atmosphere but what we have taken away from the planet itself. If you look at global deforestation stats worldwide the numbers are staggering. Our planet has simply lost the ability to recycle naturally occurring Co2 back into oxygen at the rate it did 200 years ago. I believe this accounts for the sudden incline in Co2 levels across the globe, more than our emissions. It only makes sense to me, America alone has lost an estimated 25% of its forest in the last few centuries and this includes any regrowth, the story is similar or even worse in other countries.

Most of this deforestation has occurred by our hands but is it so surprising to see the Co2 levels rise as a result? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I think people are looking at this problem very 2 dimensionally, considering our emissions have played such a small part here, but in any case I think we are more than likely to blame for the highly increased co2 levels, and in turn the rise in temps as well. We are probably still slowly warming as a result of coming out of the last ice age, however this rate has seemed to have accelerated at the same we as people have become so successful and widespread, I think we are speeding up an already warming planet that prior to the 1900's was warming very gradual with occasional cold periods that now occur less frequently.

The issue is why spend 400 billion on the theory that CO2 is the major driver of climate change without absolute certainty.

Add to that the fact that even if we spend the 400 billion a year it will have virtually no impact on the growth of CO2 output since China and India will swamp all decreases by us and the other industrial nations.


Meanwhile we have power plants belching out “real” pollution including heavy metals and various small particles that sicken and kill millions.


So I say spend the 400 billion on cleaning this up, funding nuclear power and energy independence rather than wast it on CO2 reduction than will do nearly NOTHING to lower world CO2 levels.

Get it?

What is the Worst Case Scenario if the policies advocated by the "Other Side" are adopted, and their basic premises on Global Warming are wrong?
Briefly state the premises as you understand them.
Briefly state the policies advocated as you understand them
Lay out your prediction of the outcome.

The premises of the global warming deniers are varied and change over time. Many began by claiming there was no such thing. Now most have accepted that there is warming. Some of these contend that it is not human caused and that we can do nothing about it. (The causes claimed range from natural variation to increase solar radiance to comic ray effects on cloud formation and beyond). Others claim that the warming is not serious and that we can adapt to it and may even benefit from it.

For the most part they advocate doing nothing but business as usual. A few accept the need for encouraging nuclear and other non fossil based energy alternatives.

If business as usual continues greenhouse gases will continue to build up in the atmosphere at an increasing rate to the point where global warming will be consistent with the upper level of the range projected by the IPCC in AR4 - above 4.5 degrees C or more than 10 degrees F. Within 10 years this scenario may become irreversible as the planet begins releasing more and more CO2 and methane from peat bogs and methane hydrates. Tropic areas will expand, temperate areas will move north (and to the south in South America), mass extinctions will occur, billions will die in famine and war, within 100 years substantial melting will occur in Greenland and Antarctica combing with the expansion of ocean water to drastically raise sea levels flooding substantial heavily populated coastal areas.

This is the worst case scenario which I think can be avoided with prudent policy initiatives now combined with more drastic steps as the situation becomes clearer to the public. However, no matter what, some additional warming is going to take place. Even if we immediately stopped releasing CO2 entirely, average temperatures would increase by .6 degree C (as much as has occurred in the 20th Century). It is unreasonable to think we can stop the release of greenhouse gases entirely so even with the best efforts future temperatures will probably reach at least 2 degrees C above current values. It will be a substantially changed world but probably one we can adapt to.

I'm just saying that there is plenty of reason to believe that man has played a part in recent climate shift whether it be from decreased vegetation or increased industrialization. I'm just looking at this from a scientific standpoint, most scientist think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that in higher quantities can cause a planet to warm, not many agree it does enough to block sunlight to counter this greenhouse effect although there are some. In any case Co2 levels are very high right now and on a steep incline and this more than anything else that is going on with our planet or sun is the most likely cause for increased temps, I'm sure you agree here. Like Ive said though it is possible its solar related and not our fault and anyone claiming anything for certain at this point has there head in the sand. The only way I think we can possibly lower Co2 levels though is to increase the amount of green vegetation, primarily trees, on the surface of the planet. For every century that has past the rate of deforestation has increased, I do think industry is playing a role here just not as big a role as deforestation.

Look at it like this example, remember what happened in Apollo 13?? There was an electrical short circuit forcing the men into the lunar module for the remainder of the mission while they cut power to most of the ships systems and pumped oxygen only into the lunar module itself to conserve what little oxygen they had left? The command module was sealed off and isolated, so now you had 3 men trying to get back home crammed in one little space breathing the same air in a confined area that only had enough Co2 filters to sustain 2 men for 2 days which was not enough time to get back to earth. What they ended up doing was trading the filters from the lunar module for the ones in the command module, it was a bit tricky because they were not easily interchangeable but it ended up working.

The point and relevance of this story is that Earth is like one big ship, the trees and plants on its surface are not only responsible for the oxygen in our atmosphere but they are also responsible for maintaining the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere while simontaniously decreasing the levels of Co2, I've read at Wiki that the United States alone has lost 25% of its forest since the arrival of the Europeans, and many other nations have even seen it worse than that. So in a sense you can say that in the United States if we originally had 4 gigantic Co2 filters in the place of trees that today we would only have 3 trying to keep up with the same build up of Co2 that is occurring both naturally and some of it even artificially by man. Fortunately for us the planet, unlike a space ship, is large enough for the Co2 levels to take its time increasing, but it is increasing, and I'm not surprised in the least to see it do so.

I agree and this is one reason I am against spending 400 B a yr.



The system is much more complex than any “ship” ( i enjoyed the movie too) and this is part of the debate. No doubt CO2 can contribute to GW – the question is “how much” – is it worst case – which now is about 4.4 deg C this century or a fraction of this. Who knows?

As for forest cover- it has varied. In New England I have read that in 1776 the area was 80% cleared land (lots of farms) and today it is 80% trees – so this varies by area.

My main point in all this is why do anything to reduce CO2 when you are sure to fail miserably. The current Treaty excludes China and India! China will pass us in CO2 output this year.

Lets use the 400 billion to build nukes and clean up the real pollution from our power plants. The nukes will reduce CO2 output AND give us the power we need.

Thats reasonable, solar and wind energy are also great alternatives.

Premises

A book, entitled "Rethinking the World" by Peter Pogany, clears up a lot of things for me. GW is not an independent phenomenon. It is symbiotically linked to the exhaustion of nonrenewable natural resources in an emergent, all-encompassing ecological disorder. At current levels of technology, the world is either very close to or has already reached the material limits of its demographic and economic expansion. The terrestrial sphere is undergoing a human activity-induced, open-ended, irreversible evolution that reduces certainty about any and all detected trends. The name of this phenomenon is accumulation of information entropy.

This is how it is explained. The terrestrial sphere is a closed thermodynamic system because it exchanges energy but not matter with its exterior. (Open is a system that exchanges both energy and matter, closed is a system that exchanges neither). Now, according to the second law of thermodynamics, a closed system accumulates entropy within its confines. “Entropy” is a difficult concept. One can think of it as a mathematically precise and complete coincidence among three seemingly unrelated processes: (1) losing free or available energy enclosed in matter (e.g., running down oil and other nonrenewable resources); (2) growing disorder in the terrestrial sphere (all the environmental problems we have discovered with more on the way); and (3) diminishing possibility for the human observer to know where individual molecules and atoms are and what they are up to. This third one is roughly the increase in information entropy.

The implication is that “this side” and “the other side” of GW will turn out to be an untenable dichotomy. Ecological disorder is growing and the environment is becoming more and more of a conundrum, the capricious producer of novelties. Other variables (at present unsuspected or half-ignored) will split both sides into sub-camps that will verbally attack one another through highlighting this and that aspect of scientific knowledge. This is exactly the consequence of growth in information entropy, a physically unavoidable consequence of nature’s basic mandate--the second law of thermodynamics.


Policies

Although the adherents of the environmental movement are my heroes and I believe that only globally equitable and publicly enforced resource and environmental strategies can ensure human longevity, I maintain that it is erroneous to engage in wide-sweeping action programs based on current climate-related data. We will have to face several new environmental revelations during the coming decades. Under these circumstances, if we allow the scientific consensus de jour to dictate structural transformations in the global economy, the world will develop a collective comportment similar to dementia in the individual.

Such action programs are also unworkable. Kyoto is a capital lesson. After the signatories had their fill of U.S. bashing, they inked the treaty with the expression “the future of humanity is in the lot” on their faces, then simply defaulted on it. Kyoto is on the trash heap of history and, as Martha Stuart would say, “that’s a good thing.” It could have wrecked the global economy if any major signatory seriously adhered to it.

The truth is far more inconvenient than Mr. Gore believes. Voting this way or that way, mustering our “political will and courage” are notions that should make Pollyanna (trained in ecological economics) shake her head in sad disbelief. I do not attach much hope to the gradual substitution of environmental-friendly, green limitations for GW-causing and other environmental-risk generating technologies. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the portion of renewable energy resources will remain virtually the same in 2030 as it is now, somewhere close to but below 10 percent. All the effort and the hype will result only to keep “green technologies” from losing out in an overall expansion dominated by the galloping economic growth of China and India. The number of automobiles is projected to increase from 600 million in 2000 to 1.2 billion by 2030. And then, based on the expanded car-manufacturing capacity, the output is slated to grow even faster. Does anyone believe that such accelerations in human activity can be reconciled with controlling GW? Has anyone ever thought of how much oil will be needed to replace oil? (Hint: An incredible amount. The list of goods and services not using oil directly or indirectly is extremely short.) There are several conservatively disposed (i.e., consciously non-alarmist) studies that show that the fix is in for our civilization naively believing that what worked in the past will also work in the future. We are in a predicament.

What to do then? We are doing what we can. We shall debate the environment for generations, encourage and applaud ecological consciousness, the development of new, environment-friendly technologies. Public pressure complete with clever market-oriented solutions (e.g., trading pollution permits) ought to be kept up on business to reduce the growth of GW and to spare the environment whenever possible but with a caveat: A business firm lives off the market place where it has to prove its fitness from quarter to quarter and the criterion of success is not how much it helped to control GW but how the shareholders view the performance of its management, what the price-to-earnings ratio shows. Impose an iota more command and control than profitability can take and the business goes belly up. If many businesses do that output and employment will fall.

Current economic expansion, the dynamic world-conquering business attitude, “the Cowboy economy,” will last as long as it can. It will not last one pico-second longer. Then the generation living in those interesting times when the need for immediate action will be on the table black and white will be equipped technically and morally to deal with urgent environmental and resource problems; it will be prepared to fall into the attitude required for a future global “Dutch economy.” (Holland with 40 percent of its territory under water lives behind dunes and dikes, always keeping a watchful eye on the threat of annihilation.)

Predictions

I think Member No 4789 (post #20) hit the nail on the head:
“Most people are egocentric - they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. Most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water.”

I have observed that people remember GW as a real problem only when the weather is very hot. When it is not, like on a cold winter day, they are inclined to joke about it. This is human nature at our level of mental evolution; short-sighted in space and time.

The sobering prediction (and here I repeat Pogany’s conclusion) is that to go from the above-quoted state of mind to the one required to live with the planet’s green limitations (to be “Dutch at home”) and to engage in a 500-year global plan aimed at capturing useful matter in outer space (to be “Cowboy away from home”) is very unlikely to be accomplished through slow and gradual transformation. However, once global society discovers itself and gets beyond its defining macrohistoric crisis it will become fitter for cosmic longevity than is now. This is the optimistic scenario. What we need is good luck. Lots of it.

I like you post and agree with most of what you say here. Where I disagree is in the issue of dealing with global warming and oil availability.

The beauty of capitalism is that it quickly reacts (relatively) to changes in the price and availability of raw materials. We will use less oil as the supply diminishes simply because eh price will rise. The price rise will spur additional exploration and extraction (shale oil etc.) and prolong the availability of oil. As the price continues to rise the material will be gradually replaced by more cost effective (and probably more ecological) alternatives.

The same goes for the potential of rising sea levels and other potential (and as yet uncertain results) of GW. No one has ever said or believes the temperature will rise dramatically. Instead if there is GW (some now say it could be cooling by the way – see link below) the world economies will have plenty of time to deal with the slowly advancing consequences including rising sea levels etc.

There will be no panic, no submerged cities, no mass death only resources dedicated to dealing with the effects and for poor countries this could include relocation of some people over some decades. Overall it will cost far less to deal with the consequences than wreck economies in a vain attempt to (if CO2 really is the cause) stop GW.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...8db11f4&p=4

The worst case scenario would be Earth turning into another Venus, but there is nothing remotely suggesting that now, particularly given the unique interactions we have between the biological and geologic world. 30 years ago I was pursuing a geology degree (nothing to do with what I am doing now), a surprisingly many of the theories explaining the cyclical warming and cooling cycles are still being used today, but perhaps with greater understanding. Besides orbital wobbles, a lot of attention back then was focused around how corals and carbonate-shelled plankton served as a CO2 sinks. Some even suggested the entire phenomena of alternating warming and cooling phases could be explained only with sequential changes in surface variables such as biologic activity, changing albedo from ice advancing and retreating, and volcanism all of which were interdependent in a complex dance.

Under normal circumstances if earth became overloaded with CO2 (using my ancient knowledge), the warming would cause plankton growth to spread more widely, bloom, much as other tropical areas may, thereby eliminating more CO2 causing a subsequent cooling. In the past, however, volcanism rather than human activity was associated with the CO2 build up. I think these are still the operating theories because just a couple days ago I read an article about the excitement caused when scientists realized that as the ice shelfs broke off, they created much more surface area for just such biologic life, perhaps slowing down the buildup of CO2. Of course, if there is a solar system-wide increase in solar radiation, that may possibly be a more serious problem. Pretty much all of it is speculative though on a quantitative basis. About all one can really say with certainty is we are undergoing a warming phase which will affect climate in very concrete ways.