I am trying to protect the well-being of the Earth. Taking action to prevent further global warming may also protect my well-being, but the odds aren’t too good. While global warming does lead to stronger and more frequent hurricanes, those hurricanes typically disipate to relatively weak tropical depressions before they reach my home in central Tennessee. I may move at some point in the future, but it’s unlikely that I’ll be rich enough to own beachfront property, thus I’m not likely to get drowned out.
Of course, global warming affects me in other ways as well. For instance, it has already caused melting glaciers and reduced snowfall almost everywhere in North America. That hurts economically in places such as Alaska, Wyoming and Northern California. One business that I worked for two summers in Wyoming has shut down as a result. That’s certainly a reason to want to stem global warming.
Other than that, I can’t respond to your arguments, duffer, because I have no clue what they are. I suggest that you try writing correct English-language sentences, organizing them into paragraphs and presenting those paragraphs in a logical way. Then English speakers such as myself would actually be able to understand what you’re trying to say.
Now can all you fearmongering, “environmentalists” take a chill pill and stop being so over dramatic about this discussion?
Just asking, it is a free-speech board so go on with all your soap-box screaming if you have to but I doubt it is going to be listened to for much longer.
As I understand it, the real danger is not that the water now locked up in the icecaps will be released into the oceans; it is that the average temperature of the oceans will rise, causing the water in them to expand.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the sea level has risen more than 120 meters since the peak of the last Ice Age, 18,000 years ago. Since 1900 it has risen at a rate of 1-3mm/year. The IPCC expects it will rise from 110mm to 800mm by 2100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Future_sea_level_rise
I don’t think I would quite put it this way. It is true that most of the net sea level rise predicted by the IPCC for 2100 is due to thermal expansion of the sea water as it warms. However, I think to get the more catastrophic rises that could occur over the next several hundred years to millenia…and might even start to occur in this century since the melting and breakup of land ice is a highly non-linear process that may occur a lot faster than scientists initially predicted…you have to start melting the land ice. [The IPCC prediction for 2100 doesn’t give much net contribution from land ice because the models also forecast that warming will bring increased precipitation which means more snowfall on the ice. However, I think the view is shifting toward the melting and disintegration winning out…at least in the long run.]
Well, the numbers I have seen from Jim Hansen are a global climate change of roughly 5 C between the last glacial period and the current interglacial. And, considering that this marked the difference between the current climate we have here in Rochester and us being under thousands of feet of glacial ice, yes a rise of ~3 C, particularly over so short a time period, has me plenty worried!
The fact that we weren’t responsible for previous climate changes in no way disproves the well-established theory that we are responsible for the current one. In fact, the glacial–interglacial oscillations provide a good way of estimating the sensitivity of the climate to the known “forcings” that we are producing on the climate system by elevating CO2 levels.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, you are not entitled to have us share your opinion. And, give that we have your opinion on one side and the opinionof the National Academies of Sciences of 11 major nations (the U.S., UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, China, India, Russia, and Brasil) on the other, I know whose opinion I will put more weight on. Here is what they had to say:
Oh, another thing, Hansen says is that our global temperatures are currently only about 1 C cooler than they were during the last interglacial previous to the current one (around 100,000 years ago)…and with an additional ~0.5 C already in the pipeline as we equilibrate to the current CO2 levels. During that previous interglacial, the evidence is that the sea levels were about 5-6 m higher, which would be enough of a difference to put very large areas under water (I believe most of Bangladesh, most of south Florida, New York City, …)
Well, if the 3-degree temperature rise raises the ambient temperature in the region of the glacier in question from 30 deg F to 33 deg F, it will take exactly one 3-degree temperature rise to melt it.
As you know, I think his writers fucked up on this one. That he didn’t even mention parts per million concentration beggars belief.
See, this is what I don’t get. duffer asks a question, we try and answer it reasonably and honestly with reference to harming other people and the like, and we’re accused of all kinds of hysterics and doom-mongering. How would you suggest we say that climatologists consider too high a greenhouse gas concentration dangerous, without you mischaracterising it as “screaming”?
Given that the “dangerous” part of this discussion is the most contentious, under debate and least agreed upon issue, you could at least give reference to all those scientists that think it won’t be all that dangerous even if the high end temperature changes are reached.
Climatologists, not merely scientists, note. The sceptics you hear in the media are almost universally non-experts sounding off far outside their fields of expertise. And I said concentration, not temperature, but fine, let’s go with that for argument’s sake. The “Higher end” of the projected temperature rise is around 11[sup]o[/sup]C. Can you name a single climatologist who thinks this doesn’t constitute DAI? Failing that, one who thinks a concentration of 750 ppm wouldn’t constitute DAI?
In any case, why is the burden on those who agree with the overwhelming (if not unanimous) majority of climatologists (that DAI is a genuine threat) to “reference” this tiny handful, if they exist at all? Surely that creates a false “balance”, rather like the handful of scientists who deny evolution being phoned up for a quote every time it’s in the media?
Again, how is telling people what people like Jim Hansen say “hysterical”, “screaming”, “doomsaying” or any other strawmanising term?
I think that for those who vehemently disbelieve ACC, any mention of negative impacts falls under the heading of “screaming,” and nothing you or I might say will ever make a difference.
To be honest, I seldom come into global warming threads because I find them to be exercises in frustration with the confirmed naysayers. SentientMeat, jshore, I give you and the others huge credit for continuing to try.
duffer, I can recall at least one GD thread and one Pit thread where people spent a considerable amount of time trying to cover pretty much the same ground with you re global warming. It would be so much more productive for us all if, instead of tossing aside that previous discussion when you come across something new that puzzles you, if you would try to ask about the thing that puzzles you in the context of the past discussion.
I will guess that you heard something recently about Glacial Lake Agassiz that got you going again. May I humbly suggest that sometimes, it’s worth doing a little research before you hit the SDMB, so that your questions don’t potentially encompass such a broad range of material, and may in fact get you to catch your own errors before you post them?
Here is the North Dakota Geological Survey’s brief history of Glacial Lake Agassiz. To summarize: the weight of the Laurentide ice sheet during the last glaciation depressed the land underneath it; when the ice sheet melted back, that depressed area flooded in part to form a lake; when the heaps of sediment that created natural dams eroded away, the lake waters drained. Also, please note that the lowest elevation point in North Dakota is 750 feet above sea level, so you are incorrect in stating that where you live is at lower elevation than coastal cities like New York. In any event North Dakota would never be impacted by rising sea levels even if all the polar ice melted.
You recall incorrectly. There are three ice caps to consider with respect to global warming and coastal flooding - the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS), the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS). Of these the GIS and WAIS are probably most vulnerable to near-term catastrophic collapse, since they are smaller; each would contribute about 6 meters to global sea level. The EAIS, if it were to melt totally, would add another 66 meters to global sea level. So the total estimated sea level rise for all ice melting is 78 meters, roughly 256 feet.
If the work of hundreds of scientists, with many thousands of data points compiled into a summary statement (the IPCC reports on climate change), do not constitute “solid science” to you, then please be specific as to what you think would be. It would be most helpful in framing a response.
ACC evidence aside, there is absolutely no concrete evidence that ACC is going to cause global catastrophe. (Before you all start yelping about, please provide evidence of the global catastrophe it is causing right now or ACC has caused in the past.) All talk that it will is speculation. When talking of world wide, “dangerous” things that are speculated upon, it would seem prudent to disucss all sides of the issue.
The ACC fanbois do not want to discuss all sides of this issue. ACC is real, ACC is bad, do what we tell you to, change your economies because we tell you to, FEAR the future if you don’t, is all that seems to be coming out of that side of the debate from the zealots.
There are posters on the ACC side that, though they only post one side of the issue, are not fearmongers. jshore is a prime example. He posts the facts and nothing but the facts. I don’t agree with his side but I respect him and his debating style.
Ok and to be really fair I suppose y’all want me to look over my shoulder and see the crazies on my side of the isle. Lol. They are there but if I look them in the eye they will attack so I will just concede that my side conducts their meetings in a glass house as well.
This one sentence explains, I think, why you (and maybe xtisme, among others) are going to have a hard time accepting potential impacts of ACC as discussed here and elsewhere. Concrete evidence would presumably come from observations and measurements, which simply don’t exist yet for a future event because… well… by definition, the event has yet to happen. You are requiring the impossible (unless you have a time machine that you haven’t told anyone about yet), so there’s little chance we can have an impact on your thinking, unless you are willing to expand your viewpoint at least somewhat.
What you’re asking for here can’t be easily ascertained, particularly for the past. Why? Quite honestly, it’s because we don’t have enough historical instrument-based observations, over a broad enough area of the globe, going much further back than the 1950s.
That’s hardly true. There has been vigorous debate among climate scientists for literally decades now. That the debate hasn’t taken place in entirely in public (i.e., non-climate science fora) doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.
What is going on now, I think, is that non-climate science people, having become aware of the fact that there is an issue, ask questions which have already been debated and more or less settled among the scientists. Scientists respond with the conclusions that they’ve already agreed upon, as a community. Those who are skeptical view this as a sign that scientists want to stifle debate, when that’s not actually the case at all.
People try to make predictions all the time based on past data, do they not? You could be betting on the ponies at the race track, looking for a high-yield mutual fund, trying to win the office football pool… At a more sophisticated side of things, you have actuaries calculating risks and setting insurance premiums based on statistics. You take your data of past performance and try to project an outcome. Fundamentally, it’s all the same.
It’s no different for projection of ACC impacts. Climate scientists notice a trend in their data that correlate with certain human activities; it’s natural to be curious and try to project an outcome, to see how humans are influencing their environment. Since in this case the outcome could have socioeconomic impacts, policy makers want specific predictions, but because of the nature of the (climate) beast, that level of certainty isn’t quite achievable - the best we can do is provide estimates with error bars, which is honest but misunderstood by the general public as “waffling” somehow.
Please understand that the various predictive climate models may have different specific numbers associated with them, but the overall predictions are really not that far apart: continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, spurred on by human industrial activities, will drive the global average temperature up. That little fact right there is well supported by basic atmospheric physics. All the rest of the predictions follow from that.
If you think that “ACC fanbois” are getting strident, it’s probably because we get frustrated with folks who insist on niggling over model temperature differences of tenths of a degree and whether sea level would rise 15 centimeters or 50 by 2100, instead of looking at the broader picture and understanding that a serious risk to our way of life lies ahead if changes are not made, and soon. The insurance companies understand it; even petroleum companies understand it. They have their own science staffs that tell them essentially the same message as the IPCC is giving to policymakers, and they are preparing themselves accordingly. Why all the scorn?
I don’t expect to change your mind, GreyMatters, but I hope to at least make the scientists’ perspective a bit clearer. And if you dial back the derision, you might find people are more amenable to discussion rather than expressions of exasperation. Just a thought.
I am asking the impossible to point out that without evidence the doomsday scenarios are speculation. Not speculation just on the amount of ACC. Speculation on what will happen when even stipulating the worst case ACC projections.
I am unwilling to accept a Kyoto type “solution" to an event that is speculated on.
This is, in the end, about philosophies of action, not about science. Specifically, my personal disagreement with the Precautionary Principle (PP) as a viable philosophy of action on any subject. With PP being coupled with many other aspects of Liberal/Green/Environmentalist philosophies to “solve” this problem, it raises too many red flags that this issue is being used to push political agendas for me to just accept that 1) the assertation it will happen if nothing is done and 2) Kyoto is the correct course of action.
So, I will for a moment argue that the ACC impact is real and dangerous. If I accept that then the philosophies of action I adhere to would be the “best” solution. Which means free trade, better technologies and an economic model not resembling the Socialist economic model. (BTW, just arguing not stipulating)
I think the niggling over “evidence” that is supposedly telling us to completely change our economies, and do it now, is exactly what needs to be done.
Insurance companies are jumping on the bandwagon to charge you more money. This in-turn will cover their asses if it does happen and be a big payoff to them if it doesn’t. For them to accept it on the public front seems to be a win-win situation.
Petro companies are falling in tow with the popular opinion so that their profits won’t be hurt. If one company accepts it then it will get business that another will lose for not supporting it. When a Petro company actually reduces the amount of petro distibuted/manufactured/sold to reduce CO2 emissions then we can talk about it.
I provided many links to many scientists, some of whom are a part of the IPCC process, that do not agree with the statement “a serious risk to our way of life lies ahead if changes are not made, and soon.” Even Cecil Adams does not agree with this statement. I am of the crowd that thinks we need more time to gather more evidence so that the plausible outcomes of ACC are clearer before I support my philosophies dictated course of action.
The scorn is there because, to me, this seems to be a very, very important philosophical and political fight. On the one side we have a group of countries and people supporting solutions to this problem wrapped in Socialist dogma. I believe that Socialism is an unviable political, economic and social philosophy. I believe that any solution to any problem using this philosophy is bad for humans.
Kyoto is not a solution. 1990 emission rates are still not sustainable. We would still be driving forwards towards the DAI concentration, wherever that lies between today’s 380 ppm and the incontrovertibly dangerous 700+ ppm.
Kyoto buys us time for alternatives to emerge and replace high-emission industries or technologies. Concentrations are rising by 3 ppm per year: at this rate, we would be well into the region climatologists consider dangerous by the end of this century. What you are proposing is the equivalent of hoping against hope that the tech emerges (emissionless jet engine anytime soon, anyone?) and spreads in such a short timescale that we metaphorically skid to a stop just as the limit looms large in our windscreen.
If Kyoto is unrealistic, that seems just plain miraculous. But I hope it turns out that way.
Are you the type who won’t buy fire insurance on your house until it is actually burning down? We are not talking about the precautionary principle here. What we are talking about is the best evidence suggesting that we are facing a major problem. Sure, it could turn out that the effects aren’t quite as bad as what has been predicted…but it may also turn out that they are worse. In fact, things that we hadn’t even anticipated could happen. As has been said as analogy, what we know is that the earth’s climate system is an angry beast. And, we also know that what are doing to it amounts to much more than just a gentle prodding.
You seem to be implying that Kyoto is a “Socialist economic model”. Do you even know how Kyoto is being implemented? Do you know about the market trading in emission credits that has been set up? Do you know that George W. Bush goes about praising to death exactly the same sort of “cap-and-trade” mechanism when he wants to implement it to cut emissions of traditional pollutants (such as SO2, NOx, and mercury) from power plants? [The problem, by the way, from the point-of-view of most environmentalists in that case is not the method but the fact that he wants to set the cap so high that it amounts to a weakening of the current Clean Air Act. There are also some concerns in regards to the fact that these pollutants have local effects…unlike CO2…so the distribution of the emission matters too. Thus, if a cap-and-trade system is considered reasonable for these pollutants, it is clearly even better suited to CO2. It is strange then that Bush has strongly opposed the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Bill.]
Finally, how do you expect “free trade” to magically come up with better technologies in absence of any market mechanisms to put a cost on CO2 emissions? Markets don’t spontaneously solve problems that don’t exist from the market point-of-view (because the costs have been externalized). This is elementary Economics 101! The market won’t solve the problem until we start to charge people for the privilege of using the atmosphere as a sewer.
Well, there is a crowd that will always demand more and more evidence before being willing to take even the most reasonable actions! The point is that your “crowd” does not include the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the academies of 10 other major countries that signed the joint statement that I linked to above stating explicitly that the time to start taking action is now, that the remaining uncertainties in the science do not justify any more delay, and that further delay will only make actions more difficult and expensive in the future (and may even effectively preclude some mitigation steps)!
You seem to equate socialism as anything beyond blind religious faith in “free markets” even when elementary market economics tells you that the markets need to receive signals to correct for externalized costs.
I agree that Kyoto is an important step to “buy us time” but I think it is even more important from the point-of-view of forcing a cost to greenhouse gas emissions so that the technology gets developed to avoid producing them or to sequester them. What I would argue is that the technology is unlikely to simply emerge in the absence of the appropriate market mechanisms to encourage its development and implementation. (An alternative is to start massive government programs to research and develop these technologies, but this seems like an approach that would be even more distasteful to the “free market” crowd as they tend to note that the government usually does a worse job than the market of picking winning technologies…And on this, I tend to agree with them.)
I am sorry to disagree but this does sound a lot like the application of the PP to me. link
Let me point out the phrase “consequences of an action are unknown.” See you think the consequences are known so to you PP is not applicable. I don’t so it does. Pretty simple really.
Not according to a new peer-reviewed paper coming out. link
Whoever said I agreed with GW Bush on this or any other issue? I must say it gets very tiring to live in the USA sometimes. You do know that there really is more than 1.25 political philosophies in the world. (For clarification the 1.25 is a joke on how much the Pubs and Dems are more alike than different, in execution anyway.) Let me make it clear. I am Libertarian. Flame on.
Leave it to me to teach jshore something. Right on. Here goes:
Hmmm? The rich industrialized nations give money to poor non-industialized nations because they emit more CO2. They emit more CO2 because they produce more which makes them more rich. The rich industrialized nations give money to non-industrialized nations because they are poor. Seems like a distribution of wealth to me.
And, finally a definition of one of the main Socialist economics:
link
Wow, if that doesn’t hit the nail on the head then, well, you must be blind.
Is it just me or does market allocation sound a lot like the capping of CO2 emissions?
I really don’t understand why member’s of this board just can’t accept Kyoto is based on Socialist economics. It is a planned economy. It has the largest distribution of wealth system ever devised. It is the economy of choice that the main, core group of zealots support. Yet, they claim is has nothing to do with Socialism because credits are traded. If anything please learn this today jshore, Socialist economics does not mean things can not be bought and sold.
I don’t expect it to “magically” come up with anything. I also did not list any actual, specific mechanisims at all. Haven’t you been paying attention? I am not worried about this issue so why would I think of solutions to a problem I don’t think exists?
However, if I did think it was a problem then I would come up with solutions that don’t contradict my philosophies.
