Yes, our measurements on those planets are far more limited. In fact, it is ironic that some of the same people who had to be brought kicking and screaming to accept that the earth is warming globally (and have finally now mainly changed their tune to questioning the cause) are so quick to embrace some very limited measurements on other planets as showing there is a global change going on there.
As for attributing these changes on other planets to solar cycles, one has the problem that solar irradiance in recent times is being very accurately measured…so there it is hard to explain what sort of cycles you are talking about. For the most part, the solar cycles crowd has been embracing solar cycles having an influence on cosmic rays which in turn influence the nucleation of water droplets in clouds. There are problems with this hypothesis here on earth (the biggest being the lack of any significant recent trend in cosmic rays) but I don’t even see how one could even propose the same sort of mechanism on Mars, which doesn’t have clouds of condensed water vapor.
And, of course, another problem with the solar cycle hypothesis is that one is still left having to explain why the known forcing due to the radiative effects of increasing levels of CO2 is not having a significant effect, given that there is some pretty basic physics that suggests it ought to be (although there are no doubt considerable uncertainties in magnitude due to the complicated feedback effects in the climate system).
DrDeth: It is true that there are lots of uncertainties associated with sea level rise. The IPCC prediction is of something like a 0.1-0.9 m rise by 2100. These numbers correspond to most of the rise being due simply to thermal expansion, with increased snowfall in Antarctica and Greenland mainly offsetting the melting of the land ice there. However, it is important to realize that the uncertainties cut both ways: There are some people like James Hansen who think that the IPCC estimates for the increased melting of the ice sheets neglect the highly nonlinear effects that can lead to quite rapid disintegration of ice sheets (such as water pouring down underneath and providing lubrication that causes the sheets to slide) and that the disintegration could actually happen much more quickly. And, indeed, there have been some recent events supporting some of these ideas. At any rate, Hansen notes that we are rapidly approaching temperatures that the last time they were seen (during the previous interglacial) were associated with sea levels several meters higher than today, so it seems quite likely that we are committing ourselves to some significant rise even if it were to occur slowly over several hundreds or years.
My guess is the so-called “climate skeptics” aren’t really concerned about the facts of the debate, they’re concerned with how the concluisons impact their wallet. Hence, if the answers, in their estimation, don’t look as if they’re going to fatten it, they’ll be disinclined to believe them.
Hey, speaking of wallets, there was a discussion about future investment opportunities that that I bet could be quite interesting, and might possibly continue if we could give up the charade now, or at least if some can continue to pretend to be debating somewhere else.
I like Dr Deth’s ideas.
Nuclear looks like the best option at this point, actually. The old ideas are the best, sometimes. My only objection to it is what to do with the waste, but someone will come up with something, I’m sure.
If you look at everything else, what you get is some kludge related to mitigating the carbon footprint, exceptions to this being solar, wind, and tidal. All three of the latter are, to put it bluntly, boutique solutions. Nuclear is the only mass market solution to the problem.
That, and a stiff tax on gasoline in the USA, coupled with tolls on interstates. Stiff tolls. That exempt or heavily discount trucks, since they at least perform an economically necessary function.
What should you invest in? Telecommunications. Commuters are becoming telecommuters in response to rising fuel costs. Outsourcing is lighting up the lines between continents with unprecedented levels of traffic. When China finally stops throttling the internet habits of its citizens, which will happen sooner or later, we’re going to see a boom like we’ve never seen before. The firms specializing in global telecom, those pulling fiber bundles from the US to Australia for instance, are going to make a mint. Just wait till youtube.ch launches.
Well what is so ironic is how the ‘otherside’ automatically assumes that man is causing it, so quick to conclude that it is occuring absent of substantial evidence in the past and disregards any other evidence to the contrary.
Anthropogenic global warming is not an assumption…It is what was originally a hypothesis (and at one time a not particularly popular one) that has become to be accepted as the evidence in its favor continues to mount. If there was not substantial evidence for it and if there was serious evidence to the contrary, then one would expect to see a vigorous debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Instead, that literature is nearly unanimous and the debate is confined to the popular press, the internet, the political arena, and so forth.
The idea that rising CO2 levels due to the burning of fossil fuels could cause warming follows from basic physics and was first worked out in some detail by Arrhenius a century ago (following on some earlier ideas that dated back even years, perhaps decades, before). It remained a relatively unpopular notion for a long time largely because there were not good measurements of CO2 concentrations and, in the absence of such measurements, many scientists believed that the excess CO2 would be absorbed by the oceans and would not accumulate in the atmosphere. It was not until the late 1950s that good measurements were made. And, then there were additional issues to be settled plus the necessity for the signal to emerge from the noise before scientific acceptance became widespread.
Some people just seem predisposed not to accept scientific conclusions when they disagree with their prejudices, conflict with their religious beliefs, or tend to lead to policy solutions that go against their political philosophies and will have a negative economic impact on them.
That’s a pretty big misrepresentation of the way global climate science has been progressing.
Speaking of substantial evidence in the past, I read an article recently that said mankind has been causing global warming since the start of agriculture, and that the current trend is just an acceleration of what we’ve been doing since civilization was invented. Anybody else recall seeing that? Is that a credible claim?
There’s an entire niche of the investing world, Socially Responsible Investing, that specializing in aligning the investments of clients with their own ethical values and social concerns. Full disclosure: my husband is a fairly well-known figure in the industry. The Winslow fund that Loopydude linked to is one of many socially responsible mutual funds. Check out www.socialinvest.com , www.firstaffirmative.com , www.domini.com , www.paxworld.com , or just google “sri” or “socially responsible investing”.
That’s just as true of the “greens” as anyone else. I too remember Newsweeks “The Coming Ice Age” issue. The question then, as now, is not whether “climate change” exists - but whether because of or in spite of mankind, the earth is getting warmer.
In other words, who knows. A more plausible theory is more economic than meteorological. Polluting industries are exported to countries that have no EPA, OSHA, or other regulatory inputs.
This is a hypothesis due to Bill Ruddiman. He was given a forum to briefly present it here. I think what most people would say is that it is a credible hypothesis…although the evidence for it is mixed at best. So, it is still very much a hypothesis at this stage.
Ruddiman’s basic hypothesis is that in the absence of the CO2 and methane that humans released into the atmosphere through land use changes over the last 8000 years, we should have already started descending into another glacial period, i.e., ice age. This argument is based on the fact that this interglacial period has already been longer than most of the previous ones. However, the counter-argument to this is that the orbital parameters (that are thought to trigger these cycles) are rather different for this interglacial than many of the past ones and if you go back to what appears to be the best analogue, the so-called “Stage 11” interglacial of 400,000 years ago, you find it lasted even a longer time. Ruddiman has some counterarguments to this. And, so the argument on.
One of the ironies of all of this is that Ruddiman’s hypothesis has received some support from climate change contrarians, who like to use it to argue that we have actually done a wonderful thing by putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…i.e., we have prevented another ice age…and, thus, we need not worry about all the greenhouse gases we have been releasing into the atmosphere at a much more rapid (and still accelerating) rate since the industrial revolution. Of course, the obvious response to that is that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing: The fact that you will die without water does not mean that I ought to immerse you in it. And, in fact, in order to believe Ruddiman’s hypothesis, not only do you have to believe that greenhouse gases cause significant warming but it appears that you actually have to believe that the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases is on the high side of conventional estimates. This then implies that warming predictions toward the high end of current estimates are the most likely to be correct.
…which is why one should rely on neither the National Resources Defense Council nor Cato Institute (or NCPA or the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to name just a few) for the word on what the science is. And, one should also be skeptical of articles that appear in the popular press, such as Newsweek (although even there, it is strange that one single article from the mid 1970s is given as much weight as the thousands that we see each year now).
One instead needs to rely on what is being said in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, as reflected in reviews carried out (or statements issued by) the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth.
True, my figures are only the best they have right now. I don’t expect any mass flooding but I wouldn’t buy my “50 years from now” retirement cottage right at the oceans edge, either.
IF we ever see any real political will to take on this issue, I’d look at industries that manufacture items or provide services that conserve energy. For instance, if a government of some sort, be it federal or state or local, that would reimburse or somehow help pay for people to have their houses or businesses made as energy efficient as possible, there would likely be a number of companies that would provide these services and would probably do pretty well. Once the pump is primed, there it would likely take on its own momentum for a number of years.
Or invest in companies that make energy efficient lightbulbs, or Toyota which has its Prius. IF we start taking global warming seriously bold conservation standards would save consumers real money and could become a burgeoning market. It is probably the first step we’d take as most of it can be done today. It’s mostly a matter of getting on board before the volume of energy efficiency businesses start finding themselves in much greater demand.
On the other hand, at some time the boom will end and you’d need to be looking for the right time to get out as well.
NALFX (New Alternatives) is one. Don’t own it myself yet, but it looks good. Unlike many other socially responsible investment funds it focuses on the clean and renewable environment companies, and does not particularly concern itself with other politcal issues, therefore its investment choices may more particularly answer the op question.
Fuel cells may or may not play out but solid fuel cell companies are well priced right now if you ever want to place a long term bet in this sector (PlugPower does stationary fuel cells for indstry and eventually residential and may be closer to running a profit. It is also a play on our crumbling power supply infrastructure. Ballard is the biggest in fuel cell technology for cars.) You can find funds spreading out investments in that sector alone.
Biorefinery technology that goes beyond corn but looks at other sources and at utilizing the same sources for value-added plant produced products for use in other industries.
Somewhat related is the recent prediction in Science that the fishery industry may soon collapse. Of course their focus is on the loss of biodiversity from current fishing techniques, but some of the probable future collapse is also a result of acidification of the water as CO2 increases. The investment implication: find companies involved in aquafarming techniques - the world’s appetite for seafood will find ways of being satisfied and if commercial fishing won’t provide they’ll get it by farming the fish.
Flooding is the least of the coastal risks. In particular global climate change means weather instability, and as has been much discussed, more higher Cat 5 hurricanes on average. So how to play that for personal gain? A construction equipment company like Ingersol Rand? Or other construction related plays on the assumption that we foolish mortals will keep rebuilding coastal communities? But those plays have so much more to do with the global economy and overall building, which will likely take a sizable hit if predictions pan out … Makers of cheap modular replacement housing for disaster relief perhaps?
And hey, ski season is approaching. Resorts in currently colder areas that will keep their snow (like Mt. St Anne, Quebec, which is subzero midwinter) will do well. Buying vacation property there seems wise. And producers of snowmaking equipment to keep those that lose their natural snow in business will do well too.
