President Bush still refuses to grasp some basic facts about global warming. While telling reporters last week that it’s a “serious problem,” he went on to assert that “there’s a debate over whether (global warming) is man-made or naturally caused.”
Sigh. Well, no, there’s no debate — not in the scientific community, anyway, which has overwhelmingly concluded that humans are playing a key role in climate change. In fact, just days earlier, the National Academies of Science concluded that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.”
Is the president even being briefed on science issues? Or is he just not paying attention?
The debate is now shifting to what nations can do to stop the warming trend and avoid catastrophic scenarios.
Memo to President Bush: You might want to see Al Gore’s movie after all.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- FORD1ST on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
171 Comments
When BushdaBum’s science advisor is an oil industry lawyer/lobbyist what do you expect?
By the way, some DOES now come from trees – when they dis and burn due to climate change induced changes in rainfall patterns. That is what is called a ‘positive feedback loop’ in regards to the carbon cycle and apparently was not considered in Gore’s movie.
As Gore was willing to accomodate the schedule of the “president” to show him his movie at the earliest convienience. And AS bush has not afforded the man who beat him in the 2000 election the opportunty to share his important information, I call (as I said I would when this matter was discussed earlier) CHICKENSHIT on the part of bush.
So bush is not only a chickenhawk but a chickenshit.
It’s pretty obvious that he has been hiding his head in the sand (half way around the world).Seems to be typical for a politician, deny anything that seems to be against the position your party holds and promote whatever your personal interests requires.
If human activity caused most of the global warming we are experiencing, why not elimate the problem…US!
I guess we are not fit to live on this planet.
Writing in the LA Times, Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert presents some credible ideas (with some nice humor injection) on why humans are not dealing with global warming: our brains aren’t designed to.
“NO ONE seems to care about the upcoming attack on the World Trade Center site. Why? Because it won’t involve villains with box cutters. Instead, it will involve melting ice sheets that swell the oceans and turn that particular block of lower Manhattan into an aquarium.
“The odds of this happening in the next few decades are better than the odds that a disgruntled Saudi will sneak onto an airplane and detonate a shoe bomb. And yet our government will spend billions of dollars this year to prevent global terrorism and … well, essentially nothing to prevent global warming.
“Why are we less worried about the more likely disaster? Because the human brain evolved to respond to threats that have four features — features that terrorism has and that global warming lacks.
“First, global warming lacks a mustache. No, really. We are social mammals whose brains are highly specialized for thinking about others. Understanding what others are up to — what they know and want, what they are doing and planning — has been so crucial to the survival of our species that our brains have developed an obsession with all things human. We think about people and their intentions; talk about them; look for and remember them.
“That’s why we worry more about anthrax (with an annual death toll of roughly zero) than influenza (with an annual death toll of a quarter-million to a half-million people). Influenza is a natural accident, anthrax is an intentional action, and the smallest action captures our attention in a way that the largest accident doesn’t. If two airplanes had been hit by lightning and crashed into a New York skyscraper, few of us would be able to name the date on which it happened.
“Global warming isn’t trying to kill us, and that’s a shame. If climate change had been visited on us by a brutal dictator or an evil empire, the war on warming would be this nation’s top priority.
“The second reason why global warming doesn’t put our brains on orange alert is that it doesn’t violate our moral sensibilities. It doesn’t cause our blood to boil (at least not figuratively) because it doesn’t force us to entertain thoughts that we find indecent, impious or repulsive. When people feel insulted or disgusted, they generally do something about it, such as whacking each other over the head, or voting. Moral emotions are the brain’s call to action.
“Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Kyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
“The third reason why global warming doesn’t trigger our concern is that we see it as a threat to our futures — not our afternoons. Like all animals, people are quick to respond to clear and present danger, which is why it takes us just a few milliseconds to duck when a wayward baseball comes speeding toward our eyes.
“The brain is a beautifully engineered get-out-of-the-way machine that constantly scans the environment for things out of whose way it should right now get. That’s what brains did for several hundred million years — and then, just a few million years ago, the mammalian brain learned a new trick: to predict the timing and location of dangers before they actually happened.
“Our ability to duck that which is not yet coming is one of the brain’s most stunning innovations, and we wouldn’t have dental floss or 401(k) plans without it. But this innovation is in the early stages of development. The application that allows us to respond to visible baseballs is ancient and reliable, but the add-on utility that allows us to respond to threats that loom in an unseen future is still in beta testing.
“We haven’t quite gotten the knack of treating the future like the present it will soon become because we’ve only been practicing for a few million years. If global warming took out an eye every now and then, OSHA would regulate it into nonexistence.
“There is a fourth reason why we just can’t seem to get worked up about global warming. The human brain is exquisitely sensitive to changes in light, sound, temperature, pressure, size, weight and just about everything else. But if the rate of change is slow enough, the change will go undetected. If the low hum of a refrigerator were to increase in pitch over the course of several weeks, the appliance could be singing soprano by the end of the month and no one would be the wiser.
“Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly. The density of Los Angeles traffic has increased dramatically in the last few decades, and citizens have tolerated it with only the obligatory grumbling. Had that change happened on a single day last summer, Angelenos would have shut down the city, called in the National Guard and lynched every politician they could get their hands on.
“Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn’t happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he’d return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem..
“The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain’s alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.”
This can be found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-gilbert2jul02,0,3492194.story
Oops, I forgot the title of Gilbert’s essay:
“If only gay sex caused global warming:Why we’re more scared of gay marriage and terrorism than a much deadlier threat”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/
Don’t Believe the HypeAl Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZENSunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore’s new film “An Inconvenient Truth,” we’re in for “a planetary emergency”: melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms–unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore’s gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush’s obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that “the debate in the scientific community is over.”
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this “debate” actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim–in his defense–that scientists “don’t know. . . . They just don’t know.”
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the “consensus.” Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore’s preferred global-warming template–namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore’s movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia–mosquitoes don’t require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can’t attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can’t think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended–at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas–albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous “summary for policy makers” reported ambiguously that “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument–e.g., we can’t think of an alternative–to support human attribution. But the “summary for policy makers” claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that “The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” This was sufficient for CNN’s Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a “unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.” Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration’s coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: “Case closed.” What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Good job Joe!
How about a cut and paste about the other 3 or so scientists who dispute global warming?
Over on the open thread, heartlander does a pretty good job of deconstructing Mr Lindzen.
There is definitely two sides to this issue, but truly no debate. The reason there is no debate is the proponents of the humans-are-causing global warming refuse to debate.
They would rather issue press releases to a biased MSM and conduct character assassination against anyone that dissagrees with them, regardless of their credentials or reputation.
Anyone that thinks Gore is not running for president and merely falling back on his environmental issues to gain public attention is as delusional as the old Clinton buttboy himself.
Run Gore run! (You might want to start in Tennesse!)
Hank
Hank – if you would read the scientific literature you would see that this issue has been fully discussed (debated) over several decades. Scientists are nowhere near as prolific at press releases as are the energy industry websites and their slick paid ads.
This from a paper a little bigger and more respected. This one makes money and people read it.http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Congratulations Jefferson; several people beat you to it. And J R had a good comment above about heartlander’s deconstruction on another thread.
Here is something interesting from the U.S. Senate Committee on Enviroment.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Well “Jefferson” that tin hat article was already linked just a few posts ago. Repeating crap doesn’t make it smell any better.
There is absolutely nothing to be lost and great side benefits to be gained by treating globlal warming as real and human caused. That is unless you are an oil rich nation or oil company stockholer. I kinda don’t care too much ’bout them.
So lets see…….possibly save the Earth and generate cleaner energy and technology. Or…..do nothing because it is easier to do nothing with possible cataclysmic consequences.
How can anyone even defend doing nothing? Anyone care to try?
JR! What makes you think we aren’t doing anything. We have gone a long ways in reducing greenhouse gases in the last 20 years. Especially CFC, R-22, catalytic converters, smokestack scrubbers, better efficiency and use, reducing 2-stroke motor use, cleaning our water and etc. Billions of dollars into alternative research intitatives (thanks to Bush) and the future is brighter.
The next 20+ years, most pollution will be coming from China and India. They get a pass because they are emerging? Or because they are not part of the Bush Administration? You point the finger at us and the oil companies, but they are a far cry from China and India. Is it still America’s fault?
WOW Joe Williams!
That link names 4 count ‘em 4 scientists critical of Gore! It also has multiple quotes from the not quite credibe Dr. Lindzen.
JR, what’s the big deal? If it doesn’t affect us right here right now, why worry about it? Just like the deficit, let future generations worry about it.
Never pay for it today when you can put it off for sombody else (our kids) tomorrow.
Hank,
“The reason there is no debate is the proponents of the humans-are-causing global warming refuse to debate.”
Today’s climate crisis debates (except for a few people like Lindzen) are when is the “tipping point”, and how bad will it get. Scientists are also finding positive feedback surprises.
You should study some of IPCC’s work, such as ‘2-2 Anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system for 2000 relative to 1750′ at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm
And do some research on AGW, Lindzen and his ilk,http://www.realclimate.org/http://illconsidered.blogspot.comhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/lindzen_in_wsj.php
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.htmlhttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
WOW JR
The AP article doesn’t name a single scientist in Gore movie, only list that 5 love it. WOW! Only 5 anonymous scientist (that are most likely not climatologist.). WOW!
Which is it, JR? First you guys say there’s “no disagreement.” When disagreement from highly qualified sources is noted you back-track to, “Oh, well, so there’s 3….hold it….4.” Well, which is it? None, or several?No wonder you love the French, JR. You act like them.Next!!
Well Joe, I haven’t seen Gores movie yet. I understand he adcvocates for the US to make the investment needed to make us the world leader in clean energy technology and transportation. China and India will buy the stuff if we make it.
Hey looky there! Another side benefit to being proactive. Decreased trade deficit! The US gets to manufacture and export goods again!
Uh Joe?
Nowhere on this thread do I say there is no scientific disagreement. I don’t think I have EVER said there is “no disagreement” You are invited to prove otherwise.
Hell there are still people who think the Earth is flat.
There is however pretty wide “concensus” that global warming is real. When ten men tell ya your house is afire and 1 says it aint, I gotta listen first to the ten!
Heh Joe Williams! (and Joe Blow!)
Do you really trust a politician from Oklahoma more than the huge # of peer-reviewed scientists at IPCC, and other groups?
You should read this carefully. Note the graph of ‘Observed Arctic Temperatures..’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/inhofes_war_on_science.php
Disagreement exists – just as it did when the tobacco industry swore to Congress that cigarettes were not harmful or addictive.
Read my said about posted link.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/
I don’t deny global warming and I think it is in our most important interest to reduce greenhouse gases.
From another blog:
“Jonathan Weiler raised a great point about the media after seeing “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Gore noted that in an exhaustive study of almost every piece of research published on global warming in scientific journals, a sample of 928 articles was examined.
Every single one of those 928 studies concluded that global warming was happening and that human activity was substantially responsible for it. In other words, as Gore has noted, the scientific debate about global warming and its sources, is over.
In a parallel study of 636 news accounts of global warming, by contrast, 53% suggested that there was no scientific consensus on the question of global warming and its causes.
Any questions?”
Blame it on the media and those who believe it all…
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
He’s not a scientist? There’s “no scientific disagreement?” JR, seriously, stop….I’ll die from laughing at your ridiculous arguments before a hole in the ozone get me!
Again mrblow. I did not say there was no scientific disagreement. I also did not post that Lindzen was not a scientist.
I DID refer you to the open thread. There, heartlander does a pretty good job at calling into question Linzen’s credibility.
mr.blow? I also challenged anyone to post as to how it could be anything but beneficial to address global warming as real and human caused. What are the “downsides” of being proactive on this issue? No one has picked that guantlet up. Care to give it a shot?
I’ll pick up your gauntlet JR. If you work for the fossil fuel or SUV industries in will not be beneficial to address the problem. Just like if you worked for tyhe tobacco industry it was in your interest to create “controversy”
Sadly, there has been no real debate about global warming. This is an issue hijacked by anti-capitalists who had been ineffective previously. They have convinced the media, but scientists do disagree. There have been subtle and dramatic climate changes throughout the history of this earth. They will continue. We need to be good consumers of all the earth has to offer, but the Al Gores of the world are nuts. We have had previous ice ages and will have future ice ages. Climate change has more to due with the activity of the sun than the emissions from an SUV.
Not true Bopbottle – the issue has been hashed out thoroughly ove the past several decades in the scientific literature. And NO, it has not been “hijacked by anti-capitalists” as you falsely claim.
You are correct about past ice ages etc; in fact it is by studying them that we have developed the understanding and models for climate systems. It is that study which lays the foundation for today’s warming concerns.
“Sigh. Well, no, there’s no debate — not in the scientific community, anyway”
Randy Schofield, ex-sportswriter for what long ago was a decent daily newspaper in a mid-sized Midwestern town
“Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky.”
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Bopbottle, you claim,
“Climate change has more to due with the activity of the sun than the emissions from an SUV.”
That’s true — *IF* you look at the emissions from only *ONE* SUV.
Let’s have a “real debate”. Where’s your PROOF that this graph is wrong?http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg
Solar is almost unchanged. CO2 is up 31%, due to SUV’s, coal-fired power plants, deforestation, etc. Methane is up 149% due to agriculture, etc.
I say Jack Straw = Joe Blow. Prove I’m wrong.
The more I learn about this Lindzen, the less I see him as objective let alone credible. That last quote of his that “Jack Straw” posted suggests an agenda not related to science and more of a political bent.
Heartlander said it better with this:
Richard Lindzen is the ALFREdP. SLOAN Professor of Earth, Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, which is to say, he gets a lot more money, as an endowed-chair recipient, than ordinary professors. If the name doesn’t ring a bell to readers, Alfred P. Sloan was CHAIRMAN OF GENERAL MOTORS 1937-56. Oops, there may be some bias on Prof. Lindzen’s part. An Inconvenient Truth has a great quote, which I hope I don’t butcher in paraphrasing: “It may be impossible to understand something when understanding something reduces your income.”
Jackstraw,
Have you read these comments, made by active, peer-reviewed climate scientists?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
And please provide some recent, peer-reviewed work done by Mr. Lindzen.
Not to mention who else paid him, and the organizations he belongs to…
FACTSHEET: Richard Lindzenhttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
Thanks for the links cosmos. Goos reading – a bit difficult at times but that is to be expected. Problem is, too many multi-syllable words – don’t make good talking points.
Follow the money:
“Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day “
JackStraw, if SUVs and coal fired power plants are the cause of increased CO2 levels, what caused the increases of CO2 during the most recent ice age? Solar activity is not unchanged.Satellites have recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind since 1970.
Yawn. You say there’s no disagreement, then when disagreement is clearly demonstrated you then argue, “well, that disagreement doesn’t count because of…..pick your reason here.” Can’t win with you people.What is the downside to picking up the gauntlet against global warming? Well, let’s think for two seconds here. By reallocating capital from its most productive use to fighting some phantom menace is unproductive just for starters. You’re a typical Lib, JR. You love the jobs, you just want to destroy the means by which the jobs are created.But what about you, JR. Got the AC going today? Walk to work? That’s what I thought. Hypocrite. As for me….crank up the AC up and valet….fetch my SUV!
“I say Jack Straw = Joe Blow. Prove I’m wrong.”
Umm…I’m not. But great minds think alike.
I was merely pointing out I’m more inclined to believe a professor of atmospheric science at MIT than a scribbler of lefty-enviro agitprop at the little old beagle-eacon who declares unequivocably that ‘the debate is over’. I don’t care who’s paying Lindzen or whatever his name is…that’s a bogus argument anyway. Sierra Club, Enviromental Defense, Earth First and the whole universe of tree-huggers funnel plenty of money to the fiddlers that play their favorite tunes.
I’m about as concerned about global warming as I am the birth the Antichrist (though if he actually shows up, I might get a little nervous).
My bad, I should have directed my last comment to Cosmos, not JackStraw. Sorry.
3:07 Joe Blow3:09 Jack Straw
Joe Blow = Jack Straw
I’m sorry for you blowjack that the credibility of one of the few “scientists” on your side of this issue has been pretty much destroyed here. (Well done cosmos!) I know you don’t have many others to cite.
And so Randy seems to have been pretty much correct. The debate as to whether global warming is real and caused by humans would seem to be over.The few scientists who express doubt about it seem not to be credible. Further, in our little debate here, no one has posted a downside to addressing this issue proactively. Despite my repeated calls for someone to do so. The creation of new technologies and power sources will create jobs and enrich our nation. It might even save it with valuable new exports. Yes the funds needed to get it going must needs come from folks who feel it is “better allocated” to personal valets and SUVs. I have trouble feeling sorry for them.
Oh and jackblow? I don’t take too seriously a charge of hpocrisy from someone who pretends to be two posters:)
bopbottle,
Warming ocean waters at the end of previous ice ages released CO2 — that’s a positive feedback.
We’re doing it backwards this time — adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and as oceans warm, more CO2 may be released, causing more/faster warming, and so on. Also positive feedbacks from thawing permafrost, loss of ice/snow, etc.
bopbottle,”Solar activity is not unchanged.”
Right, I said “Solar is almost unchanged”. Solar forcing is much smaller than from human-caused GHG’s. Did you Look at IPCC’s graph?
Positive feedback loops – both ice/albedo and carbon – are already taking hold to accellerate the current warming. CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the past million years – by far. Present CO2 levels are as much higher than a ‘normal interglacial’ as an interglacial is higher than a glacial period.
And the great experiment continues …
Jack Straw,
“Sierra Club,… and the whole universe of tree-huggers funnel plenty of money to the fiddlers that play their favorite tunes.”
Show us your proof that the “tree-huggers” paid for the decades of peer-reviewed science by the IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
and also paid the groups that agree with the IPCC’s findings,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.htmlAcademia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademié des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)Australian Academy of SciencesRoyal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the ArtsCaribbean Academy of SciencesIndonesian Academy of SciencesRoyal Irish AcademyAcademy of Sciences MalaysiaAcademy Council of the Royal Society of New ZealandRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)National Academy of Sciences (NAS)State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)American Geophysical Union (AGU)National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)American Meteorological Society (AMS)Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)—-You’ll also find the insurance industry on the side of the “tree-huggers” — storm and other weather related costs will rise.
You will even find that many forestry industry people are on the enviro side as they try to figure out what to plant.
Let’s ignore global warming for a moment. Let’s just look at CO2 levels. Roger Revelle first proposed the greenhouse gas theory.
I studied at UCSD (medicine) so call me biased. But here is an exerpt from Wikipedia about Dr. Revelle:
Roger Revelle (March 7, 1909 – July 15, 1991) was a scientist and scholar who was instrumental in the formative years of the University of California, San Diego and was one of the first scientists to study global warming and the movement of earth’s tectonic plates. The six-foot-four Revelle was often referred to as a “scientific giant,” both literally and figuratively. UC San Diego’s first college was named Roger Revelle College in his honor.[edit]Biography
Roger Randall Dougan Revelle was born in Seattle to William Roger Revelle and Ella Dougan, and grew up in southern California, graduating from Pomona College in 1929 and earning a Ph.D. in oceanography from the University of California, Berkeley. Much of his early work in oceanography took place at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, and he was that institution’s director from 1950 to 1964. He was also Oceanographer of the Navy during WWII and served as Science Advisor to Interior Secretary Udall during the Kennedy Administration. Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year in 1958 and he was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC).In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Seuss that suggested that the Earth’s oceans would not reliably absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a “greenhouse effect” that would cause global warming over time.[1] Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was “the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time.”[2] During the early 1960s, Revelle fought for the establishment of a University of California campus in San Diego. He battled with university regents who preferred to expand the University of California, Los Angeles campus rather than create a new campus to the south.”
“When at Scripps and while building UCSD, Revelle also had to deal with a La Jolla community that refused to rent or sell property to Jews. In addition to battling the anti-semitic restrictive covenant of La Jolla real estate, Revelle helped found a new housing subdivision for Scripps professors, partially because some of them would not have been allowed to live in La Jolla.Revelle left Scripps in 1963 and founded the Center for Population Studies at Harvard University. In 1976 he returned to UC San Diego as Professor of Science and Public Policy in the school’s political science department.”
UCSD named its science and engineering college, “Revelle College”. If you use a digital cellphone, you can thank UCSD professor Irwin Jacobs, founder of Qualcomm, who led a campaign for the CDMA standard to replace analog cell, so that the masses could have cellphones. I had an analog cellphone in 1990. It cost me $1200 in today’s dollars, $80/month just to be hooked up, plus $70/minute to make local calls. Let me put it this way: I used it for overwhelmingly for professional duties, only occasionally for personal calls.
UCSD is also a world-leading molecular biology center, which in large part (along with the Salk Institute and Scripps Research Institute) is why the Torrey Pines Corridor is the world’s leading biotechnology center.
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is named for Ellen Browning Scripps, a newspaper heiress (are you WE editorialists reading this?) It is the world’s leading center of physical oceanographic research, now a component of UCSD. The oceans cover three-fourths of our planet.
Without Roger Revelle, there wouldn’t be a UCSD, nor its Revelle College. We might now have a greenhouse gas theory, but it would only be preliminary at this point without Dr. Revelle’s genius.
Stepping back from global warming and just looking at CO2 levels, they are higher than for millenia. Plants take up C02, during the day. At night they release some C02, but less than they take up during the day. This includes photosynthetic oceanic phytoplankton. We are far beyond historic levels.
What does Al Gore recommend we do about the problem?
anon – that has been puyblished numerous times. There are a number of things to be done.
Now a question for JoeBlow etc – what is my motive for being an “alarmist” other then just keeping to the ethical code I signed as a scientist? I do not work for the nuclear industry (which is one of the solutions I advocate). There is no money trail connecting me to the ‘greenhouse’ lobby comparable to that which connects the skeptics to the fossil fuel industry. In fact, there IS no multi-billion dollar ‘greenhouse lobby’
War on climate change targets flatulent cowsBRITISH scientists are fighting climate change by reducing the harmful greenhouse gases produced by flatulent cows.
It’s not the humans, it’s the cows.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1903311,00.html
Ben, I have checked with the National Academy of Sciences and they were unable to verify that you signed the ethical code. Please verify.
As a licensed Geologist I am required to sign a code of ethics. I have also signed similar codes as a Registered Env Professional and as a Certified Haz Mat Manager.
Methan is definitely a problem. It is more effective at blocking IR radiation than CO2. The melting of permafrost will release more methan – another positive feedback loop.
Methan is another gas that has been measured in ice bubbles going back several hundred thousand years.
Anon,
A list of things you can is in Gore’s book, and at,http://www.read-the-truth.com/home/?page=/helpsolve/helpsolve.html
‘Right angle’ wrote,
“It’s not the humans, it’s the cows.”
Wrong, it’s both. Humans are responsible for the large #’s of livestock, and also destroying rainforests, etc to create grazing land.http://www.epa.gov/methane/rlep/faq.html
Just as humans emit more gas if we eat certain things so do cows. Feedlot food is much more gas-producing than range food.
If you take man out of the equation, global warming might still be present. However, man does exacerbate the problem with carbon dioxide emissions due to fossil fuel use, the “island effect” due to the vast areas covered with concrete, and the methane emissions of the herbivores raised as food.
There is not much we can do about the last two, other than live underground and become vegetarians. But we can do something about fossil fuel use. Even without global warming, it is something that must be done if for no other reason than making ourselves less dependant on foreign oil.
I have my doubts about New York City becoming a swimming pool, as I don’t think the seas will rise that high. I think the numbers being thrown around are to some degree exaggerations. There is still much to be learned about the phenomenon for me to jump to any conclusions.
As for the title of the thread: yes, some of it does come from trees. Young trees are great users of carbon dioxide. Older trees tend to give off more than they use.
JM – I think the likelihood of Greenland melting before the end of the century is high. That would make things VERY INTERESTING in New York, DC, etc etc
Ben,I’d make a wager, but, unfortunalely, we won’t be aroud to see if it does:-)
If you don’t see the movie, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Just got back from seeing it.
Don’t know whether to be mad at the idiot right-wing “leaders” who led us into this tar-pit while yelling, “there is no tar-pit! there is no tar-pit.”
Or to be madder at the Hank Price’s and ID’s and Joe Blow’s who will vote for these right-wing idiots.
Ronald Reagan tore the solar panels off the White House. W ridiculed Gore for offering tax breaks for alternative energy, the only tax break he didn’t like.
See the movie. Then we’ll talk.
If you don’t have the guts to see the movie, you’re not worth talking to.
BTW anon, Gore puts a number of ideas forward that will help reverse CO2 emissions to 1970 levels.
Unfortunately, people have to stop being willfully stupid and arrogant.
It’s like the fable of the island of Atlantis . . . how’d that turn out?
Demsrising….good nic, and welcome to the forum.
I’ve not yet seen Gores movie. I DO intend to.
The folks you mention, they will NOT see the movie. They’d rather cover their ears and eyes and go, “LALALALALALALALALA”
SO, what you have to do is take what you got from “An Inconvenient Truth” and hit them in the face with it with your posts here.
JR,A purple chicken flew from the coop today.
Actually, two of them did.
DD I’ve been cleaning out the chickenhouse today. I sent a purple chicken your way.
1. EVERYONE CAN USE LED LIGHTS TO SAVE ENERGY.
http://www.permlight.com/
06/02/2006 – Permlight Extensive LED Lighting Solutions Support New IRS Procedure that Enables Commercial Property Owners and Leaseholders to Qualify for Energy Efficiency Deduction
http://www.permlight.com/news/060206b.asp
2. EVERYONE CAN STOP TAKING THE NEWSPAPER TO SAVE ENERGY.
Seeing or not seeing a movie is not going to change someones mind. Gore’s movie might be correct, then again, it is a bit loaded on one side of the argument. I rarely see politically motivated movies, including Moore’s, just for that reason. Most of them are meant to incite, rather than educate.
I’ll read mainstream works by a variety of scientists, most of whom are involved in climate, to make my decision on global warming.
“EVERYONE CAN STOP TAKING THE NEWSPAPER TO SAVE ENERGY.”
Right: there would go this blog:-)
But we do need to lessen our uptake of paper and plastic products, and attempt to force manufactures to use recycled paper and plastic when we do use them.
“Solar activity is not unchanged. Satellites have recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind since 1970.” – bopbottle
The sun is cyclic and there are predictable increases and decreases in solar radiation. This is not new information. There are several cycles that the sun goes through and they all affect the solar radiation. What is being ignored by the disclaimers is that the evidence isn’t cyclic. The anti-warming camp’s claim that the sun has been getting hotter is not supported by evidence. These are known periodic changes in the solar output and would not cause the recorded temperature rise.
There is a definite rise in the average temperature over the last 100 years and this corresponds with an increase in pollution due to industrialization.
However if you have a link to any reputable source with posted evidence about the increase in solar output being the cause I would be very interested in it.
PS. Happy 4th everyone!
k,A link to a variety of articles on solar activity and global warming:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html
Ben, we don’t need your stinkin’ badges! A CERTIFIED Haz Mat manager? Wow. Chicks dig that? I’ll take an MIT professor over your “certification” any day of the week.JR-Fun destroying your argument again. Keep trying.
Joe,I would take Ben over an MIT professor in a hazmat situation any day. Having had over 40 hours of hazmat training, I fully understand the degree of expertise necessary to control a serious hazmat situation. I doubt said professor would understand the first thing to do, and would probably do that wrong.
What that has to do with global warming is apples and orangesw, but it does show that Ben does hold multiple degrees in various sciences. Something I think stands for his knowledge on many subjects. I still hold to the fact I disagree with him, though, on some of his conclusions:-)
Joe Blow,
So basically you prefer someone who:
* Writes bogus op-eds that are ripped apart by peer-reviewed scientists.* Still pushes his, un-proven, unsupported water-vapor theory, after publicly withdrawing it in 1991, and admitting he’d made an error.* Ignores the scientific theory (and common sense) that oceans delay the warming trend caused by GHG’s.
It seems you desperately want to believe the side not supported by facts, science, and common sense.
If we’re going to conduct an unscientific poll of credibility, and trust some judgments in the absence of being able to do scientific research ourselves, I’d have to take Roger Revelle over Richard Lindzen. Why?
Dr. Lindzen is an MIT professor and NAS member. Those two credentials alone are extremely impressive. But, as I pointed out in an open thread, much, and possibly most of his salary comes from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, i.e. it is money that was originally generated from automobile sales. Mr. Sloan endowed the MIT School of Management. He was an MIT School of Engineering grad. He led General Motors for more than three decades as CEO, then COB.
cosmos gave us links that appear to demonstrate that Prof. Lindzen also gets money from the oil-and-gas industry.
Some people may reject this, but I believe the old saw, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
Dr. Lindzen has stated in his own scientific reports that he is using simplifying assumptions. In studying complex phenomena, this may not be sound. Climate is extremely complex.
I personally consider greenhouse gas pioneer Roger Revelle to be more credible, not because a bunch of me-too sci-bots have taken his position, but because of a lifetime of extraordinary accomplishments on behalf of science, such as:
Serving as director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography from 1951 to 1961, turning it from a small set of labs into the world’s foremost center of oceanographic research.
Being one of the spearheading leaders of the International Geophysical Year 1957-58, a 67-nation exploration of our world’s geophysical phenomenon, a watershed event in the history of earth science.
Founding the Center for Population Studies at Havard University in 1963, which is still going strong 43 years later.
Spearheading, almost single-handedly at first, the creation of the University of California, San Diego, as a scientific-research-primary campus. Today, UCSD is a world-renowned research center, and is credited with transforming La Jolla from a sleepy resort and retirement town into a world-class technology center.
Revelle lured Nobel Laureate Harold Urey and two-time Nobelist Linus Pauling to UCSD. He knew that they were past-their-prime as researchers, BUT their names drew in YOUNG scientists, who would make their marks in the future.
In 1990, President George HW Bush, conferred the National Medal of Science on Dr. Revelle, the nation’s highest honor in science, “”for his pioneering work in the areas of carbon dioxide and climate modifications, oceanographic exploration presaging plate tectonics, and the biological effects of radiation in the marine environment, and studies for population growth and global food supplies.” . If there were a Nobel Prize for “lifetime achievement in science”, Revelle would have won it.
Revelle wasn’t just any scientist, he was a visionary. He was someone who inspired others to be scientists. He was a science statesman nonpareil.
More on him can be found in:
http://search.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/rrevelle.html
If Prof. Lindzen wants to give up his auto and gas money, and then do research without these financial binds, let’s see how he starts thinking.
PS. Ben Huie’s MIT degree should inform you he’s a very smart guy. But that was obvious from his posts before he said where he was educated.
Thanks heartlander. My days at the ‘Tute were a lot of fun – the biggest party school on the East Coast. With the class load we had we had to really blow it off on weekends to remain even slightly sane. I always claim that the movie Animal House was a documentary about fraternity life at MIT.
And Wierd Science is about CalTech. I recognized some of those guys and places too! (I love the scene at the end with the popcorn)
When all the Chicken Little, “the sky is falling” persons, stop all the hot air and start taking steps to solve their perceived problem, I may start to believe that they are serious. So far most of them still drive around in their, private cars and fly across the country in their private jet to make speeches on how to save the environment. They want the “little people” to use public transportation but they wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. If the Wichita Eagle was serious, they would stop using paper and go only on line. I didn’t see any of you offer to stop taking the newspaper to save earth.
Never mind the reality that there is very little we as individuals can do …
Never mind the reality that there is very little we as individuals can do …
Posted by: Ben Huie | July 04, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Ben, SURELY, YOU JEST. How about solar heating. Stop taking the print newspaper and read it on line. Use florescent light bulbs. Use pubic transportation or ride a bicycle. Raise the temperature in the house by a couple of degrees in the summer and lower it a couple of degrees in the winter.Did you not read the Al Gore link:http://www.read-the-truth.com/home/?page=/helpsolve/helpsolve.html
And after I do those things? Florescent – done. Temp up – done. Public transportation – doesn’t go there (I wish it did). My private jet – does not exist. My gas-guzzling SUV – does not exist.
Ben, I haven’t seen you riding a bicycle by my house on your way to WSU. I bet you still take the newspaper. Go to Al Gore link you can see what else you can do, but I was really referring to all the movie stars that preach but don’t practice.
Well, RA, since I finished my recent soursework at WSU some time ago that comes as no surprise.
Actually, RA, you raise some points. Things like transit would not only help with the greenhouse issue but also help relieve traffic congestion and perhaps allow the state to require that a person know how to drive before issuing him a license. There are a number of local initiatives that would help.
JW said:
Ben,I’d make a wager, but, unfortunalely, we won’t be aroud to see if it does:-)
Posted by: J M Walker | July 03, 2006 at 09:18 PM
I am Ben’s Son, I will take that bet with you and your children.
I will be here and so will my children.
I’ll hold the money.
No RA, I would rather have someone I trust hold the money
How about Gates?
Tony,I will be here and so will my children.Posted by: Tony | July 04, 2006 at 03:32 PM
Are you sure, did you not see the movie, The Day After Tomorrow?
I saw it… But if you paid attention, Kansas was still here and was evacuated south… ;-)
Viva la Mexico!
Ben, here is what you can do.
Take Action!The Stop Global Warming calculator shows you how much carbon dioxide you can prevent from being released into the atmosphere and how much money you can save by making some small changes in your daily life. It’s our hope that the calculator will promote action, awareness and empowerment by showing you that one person can make a difference and help stop global warming.There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.Use Compact Fluorescent BulbsReplace 3 frequently used light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $60 per year.Inflate Your TiresKeep the tires on your car adequately inflated. Check them monthly. Save 250 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $840 per year.Change Your Air FilterCheck your car’s air filter monthly. Save 800 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $130 per year.Fill the DishwasherRun your dishwasher only with a full load. Save 100 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.Use Recycled PaperMake sure your printer paper is 100% post consumer recycled paper. Save 5 lbs. of carbon dioxide per ream of paper.Adjust Your ThermostatMove your heater thermostat down two degrees in winter and up two degrees in the summer. Save 2000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $98 per year.Check Your Water heaterKeep your water heater thermostat no higher than 120°F. Save 550 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $30 per year.Change the AC FilterClean or replace dirty air conditioner filters as recommended. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150 per year.Take Shorter ShowersShowers account for 2/3 of all water heating costs. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $99 per year.Install a Low-Flow ShowerheadUsing less water in the shower means less energy to heat the water. Save 350 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $150.Buy Products LocallyBuy locally and reduce the amount of energy required to drive your products to your store.Buy Energy CertificatesHelp spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution by buying wind certificates and green tags.Buy Minimally Packaged GoodsLess packaging could reduce your garbage by about 10%. Save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide and $1,000 per year.Buy a Hybrid CarThe average driver could save 16,000 lbs. of CO2 and $3,750 per year driving a hybridBuy a Fuel Efficient CarGetting a few extra miles per gallon makes a big difference. Save thousands of lbs. of CO2 and a lot of money per year.Carpool When You CanOwn a big vehicle? Carpooling with friends and co-workers saves fuel. Save 790 lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.Reduce GarbageBuy products with less packaging and recycle paper, plastic and glass. Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.Plant a TreeTrees suck up carbon dioxide and make clean air for us to breath. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year.Insulate Your Water HeaterKeep your water heater insulated could save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $40 per year.Replace Old AppliancesInefficient appliances waste energy. Save hundreds of lbs. of carbon dioxide and hundreds of dollars per year.Weatherize Your HomeCaulk and weather strip your doorways and windows. Save 1,700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $274 per year.Use a Push MowerUse your muscles instead of fossil fuels and get some exercise. Save 80 lbs of carbon dioxide and x $ per year.Unplug Un-Used ElectronicsEven when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $256 per year.Put on a SweaterInstead of turning up the heat in your home, wear more clothes Save 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $250 per year.Insulate Your HomeMake sure your walls and ceilings are insulated. Save 2,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $245 per year.Air Dry Your ClothesLine-dry your clothes in the spring and summer instead of using the dryer. Save 700 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $75 per year.Switch to a Tankless Water HeaterYour water will be heated as you use it rather than keeping a tank of hot water. Save 300 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $390 per year.Switch to Double Pane WindowsDouble pane windows keep more heat inside your home so you use less energy. Save 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide and $436 per year.Buy Organic FoodThe chemicals used in modern agriculture pollute the water supply, and require energy to produce.Bring Cloth Bags to the MarketUsing your own cloth bag instead of plastic or paper bags reduces waste and requires no additional energy.
Tell me something I don’t already know RA. I already do many of them – others would require more energy as retrofits. I’m way ahead of you on this haveing done many of these for decades.
How about you?
I have not seen Day after tomorrow yet – at least not entirely. From what I know they compress the time frame for a Younger-Dryas event far to tightly.
Ben I apologize, I was under the impression you wrote this:
Never mind the reality that there is very little we as individuals can do …Posted by: Ben Huie | July 04, 2006 at 01:50 PM
Ben, someone must be posting using your handle. Agin, I apologize
Well Right, individually there IS very little we can do. COLLECTIVELY we can do a bit more using some of the suggestions you posted. All very good by the way and many in there I practice.
I’d like to add “shut off your engine at railroad crossings” by the way.
But for a REAL difference to be made, thecnology, infrastructure, and energy must change. That is only possible by government action or government assistance to encourage industry to take action.
Which I think the Gore movie is all about.
RA – yes, I did post that. The things you list help; but with all your Hummers out there they don’t do much. JR put it well.
YES, JR “shut off your engine at railroad crossings” is a very good one or anytime you are stopped and waiting for an extended period of time.
You are right, individually, (singular) there is little but as individuals (plural as used in Ben’s post) we can.
“I am Ben’s Son”
My God, there’s a mini-Ben out there?
Tony,First time I’ve seen you post. Welcome.
Actually, he is sort of a maxi-size. There are, however, three minis.
Going back to something I said above:
“Now a question for JoeBlow etc – what is my motive for being an “alarmist” other then just keeping to the ethical code I signed as a scientist? I do not work for the nuclear industry (which is one of the solutions I advocate). There is no money trail connecting me to the ‘greenhouse’ lobby comparable to that which connects the skeptics to the fossil fuel industry. In fact, there IS no multi-billion dollar ‘greenhouse lobby’”
Well, i have to admit that I DO have a motive – in fact I have THREE motives. A pair of 4-year-old twins and a 2-year-old. They will have to reap what we sow.
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. I think Gore’s film may be right on, however is he flying around in private jets? Is he just preaching or does he also practice. I don’t know.
And if someone can travel and light many candles?
Do as I say not as I do. Just like a liberal movie star. All you little people use busses while I drive in my Hummer.
Typical Rightie response “All you little people use busses while I drive in my Hummer.”
Ben, Are you calling Al Gore a Rightie?
No RA; you and your Hummer.
Sorry Ben, I see that I was not clear in my post. I was referring to Al Gore. I detest people who preach but do not practice what they preach.
Welcome Tony! Sorry I missed that earlier. I was doing a “drive by”.
If your Dad is any indication, I’m sure you’ll have great posts to share with us.
Gotta link on what Gore drives RA?
And even if it IS a large vehicle, it must be remembered that he is I think REQUIRED to travel with Secret Service. (I may be wrong) At the very least he has to have security.
I wanna see bush travel without security after he is outta office! Do ya think he’d dare?
Right Angle,
“I think Gore’s film may be right on, however is he flying around in private jets? Is he just preaching or does he also practice.”
He practices what he preaches,http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1786437,00.html“Beginning two years ago, I made a decision to live a carbon-neutral life,” he says, explaining that his family and businesses now do all they can to reduce their emissions and to “offset” the rest by giving money to carbon-reduction schemes in India and eastern Europe.—-Promotion of the movie was also carbon neutral.
And I hope you don’t believe CEI’s bogus attacks,http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/cei_exaggerates_by_a_factor_of.php
Does Gore drive a Hummer?
As for ” I detest people who preach but do not practice what they preach” does that include Limbaugh and family values, Bush and the rest of his administration and fighting in wars? How about all those preachers who get caught skimming the take and visiting prostitutes?
Ben was kind enough to send me an unpublished paper he had written in Dec., 2005 entitled:_The Carbon Cycle and Global Climate Change: Glaciation Cycles of the Quaternary_ .
I think his paper is approachable by lay-persons, me being one of those on this subject. It further outlines Ben’s thinking and what a summary of the literature has to say.
Ben sent it to me by email attachment. I think it is worth the time to read and I am going to go over it again before going to Gore’s movie.
Maybe Ben would offer sending an email copy to interested bloggers.
Thanks again Ben, for all you do.
Thanks DD – yes, it is available in MSWord. With some help from Tony I should be able to get the figures I had omitted scanned in (they are all from cited literature references.)
I’d like to see that too. But I cannot get “docs” with webtv. I will have a computer shortly and can read it then. Somebody who gets it hang onto it for me.
Thanks JMW
But let me clarify something…
The 3 mini’s Ben is talking about are my children…
In response to Right Wing, I mean Right Angle, I would like for him (and all others who belive as he does) to watch the Discovery Channel Special; Global Warming: What You Need to Know, with Tom Brokaw coming up here later this month. It is a purely scientific, no politics, look into the changes of the planet from all different aspects, areas and regions.
Find more info and showing times check out: http://dsc.discovery.com/tvlistings/episode.jsp?episode=0&cpi=25252&gid=0&channel=DSC
Ben, I believe that there is going to be a special place in Hell for those preachers who get caught skimming the take and talking widows out of there money.
But surely you as a person who likes Bill Clinton and would vote for him again would not criticize someone’s personal family values now would you?
Right A, you just said it your self, “PERSONAL FAMILY VALUES”.
What happened in Clinton’s relationship was between him and his wife. Not the rest of the world and of course he lied about it. I’d like to see a single man on the face of this earth tell the truth about cheating on their wife.
Personally, I’m quite proud of him, getting some in the white house. Hell, I’d do it.
You have to admit one thing. It proves he is gay… I mean, if he were gay, would that be just a travesty?
Oh, and using the term “family values” when talking about politics is plain useless. I would rather vote in a prostitute than a saint if the prostitute would balance the budget.
crap, i ment “Proves he ISN’T GAY”
OPPS…
Tony, your dad wrote “does that include Limbaugh and family values”. He brought it up, not me.
Thanks for the link cosmos. I found out all I have to do to be as good as Gore is puchase offsetting credits
RA – my point is that Rush and the rest on the Right preach these values and call anyone who differs “worthless dregs of humanity”. So, I am not attacking their pecadillos but rather their not “practicing what they preach.”
As for Clinton I still think my proposed punishment is the best – give Hillary Lorena Bobbitt’s knife and a pre-approved pardon. Then it is up to her what to do.
As for Clinton I still think my proposed punishment is the best – give Hillary Lorena Bobbitt’s knife and a pre-approved pardon. Then it is up to her what to do.
Posted by: Ben Huie | July 05, 2006 at 08:11 AM
Damn Ben, HOW TO HELL WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN IF YOU DID THAT?
RA”Damn Ben, HOW TO HELL WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN IF YOU DID THAT?”
O . . . me . . . pick me . . . One would listen to his speaking in a higher tone and decide from there.
Ben, your son may want to reconsider that bet. This is just in:
Jellyfish creature the answer to global warming?Transparent jellyfish-like creatures known as salps, considered by many a low member in the ocean food web, may be more important to the fate of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the ocean than previously thought.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/jellyfish-creature-the-answer-to-global-warming-10919.html
Carbon cycle – positive feedback loop …
Wildfires May Be Linked to Global Warming
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50201&id=2006070611210001086550
RA,
I’ll keep the bet…
Global Warming is the new theism and “mankind is the cause” is the mantra. There will be no questioning that global warming is caused by anything other than Americans driving SUVs. To suggest otherwise is high heresy!
The truth is the sun’s energy is now greater that at anytime in the past 1000 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
Mars is having global warming.
http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html
Jupiter is having climate change.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html
Neither Mars nor Jupter have Americans driving SUVs on them.
Global Warming caused by man is the result of junk science and the anti-capitalism politics of the EU.
Sorry. But them’s the facts.
“Wildfires May Be Linked to Global Warming”
Using the same logic, I could see where some people would say that: Global Warming May Be Linked to Wildfires
Very Interesting information LRB
Yes, RA, global warming is also linked to wildfires. It is called a positive feedback loop.
from lrb’s link
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth’s temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate “the natural factors involved in climate change”, he said.
… and “human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation” explains the measured climate change on Mars and Jupiter as well?
I don’t think so.
I was quoting from your link about Planet Earth.
You’re late to this one LRB. I may read your links later. They really are not relevant to my position.
Maybe you can do what all the other naysayers as to global warming posting here could not.
Just how would treating global warming as real and human caused and addressing that proactively have any downside? I say it would be nothing but positive.
The same sun shines on Earth, Mars, and Jupiter.
Look, I’m not saying man has no effect. What I am saying is that the evidence points to the sun but yet global warming “scientists” ignore this evidence. Whenever you ignore evidence to make a political point – bad things generally happen. Should mankind use less energy? Sure, why not. Would it make a differnce to global temperatures? Probably not.
But what is more dangerous is the shouting down of anyone who questions the new theism of global warming. George Orwell wrote a few things about these types of situations.
None of my fellow scientists ignore the effect of the sun. In fact, for a particularly interesting discussion of that effect over a LONG period see Sundquist&Broecker, 1985, The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archaen to Present, Geophysical Monograph 32, Amer. Geophys. Union.
Over the past 5 BILLION years solar insolation HAS changed significantly. Over the past 1 MILLION years it has not.
“Global Warming caused by man is the result of junk science and the anti-capitalism politics of the EU.”
Some people’s worlds must be very interesting.
“Over the past 1 MILLION years it has not.”
As a scientist I am surprised you would say that because you don’t have any supporting evidence.
But there is supporting evidence that the Earth has had wild temperature fluctuations well before man learned how to harness fire.
I’m starting to hear the drumbeat – man is bad, man is bad, man is bad, ….
“Some people’s worlds must be very interesting.”
Absolutely. Consider those poor beings on Mars who are seeing Martian global warming caused by … humans driving SUV’s on Earth. It must be very interesting.
I’ll have to make time to read your links to see better where you are coming from LRB.
The “Mars is warming too” is a Rush Limbaugh drumbeat by the way.
If your take on the planets extends any further than that then surely you must be familiar with the planet Venus.
Warming on Venus would be rather redundant. The temperature there is 900 degrees. Arguably responsible is the planet suffered a “ruanway greenhouse” effectinvolving the very greenhouse gases that we are discussing here. As humanity is among the top generators of greenhouse gases on Earth, I’d call concern about that generation of gases worthy of address.
I just love all these non-scientists who yell “junk science” at things like smoking/health and global climate change.
LRB – upon what do you make your bogus claim “you don’t have any supporting evidence”? There is a tremendous amount of evidence in the literature.
And we are quite familiar with past fluctuations; as I have described before we study those to understand the mechanisms of climate and change.
Try reading the voluminous scientific literature on the subject; you might find it interesting.
Rush Limbaugh …
This is why it’s hard to have a real scientific discssion on atmospheric changes. Within the first few minutes all logic and data get tossed in the recycle bin and politics takes over.
You are the one making the claim that the sun had not made any significant changes in the last one million years. Provide your own supporting evidence. Don’t expect your readers to do your work for you.
I am an Engineer with a graduate degree (Tau Beta Pi, WI Beta)- I’m not a “non-scientist”. As an Engineer facts matter, political correctness does not.
I posted one reference that backs up my position; there are many others. I am a scientist with an advanced degree.
As for “This is why it’s hard to have a real scientific discssion on atmospheric changes. Within the first few minutes all logic and data get tossed in the recycle bin and politics takes over.” I would note “Global Warming caused by man is the result of junk science and the anti-capitalism politics of the EU.” is a great example of that.
a few refernces:
References
Hays, James D., John Imbrie, and N.J. Shackleton, 1976, Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, Science, v. 194, p. 1121-2232.
Berger, Andre, 1988, Milankovitch and Climate, Reviews of Geophysics, v. 26, p. 624-657.
Berner, R.A., 1990, Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozoic Time, Science, 249 (4975) p. 1382-1386.
Berner, R.A., 1994, GEOCARB II: a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science, v. 194, p 56-91.
Lyle, Mitchell and Nicklaus Pisias, 1990, Ocean Circulation and Atmospheric CO2 Changes: Coupled Use of Models and Paleoceanographic Data, Paleoceanography, 5:15-41.
Sundquist, E.T and W.S. Broecker, 1985, The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2: Natural Variations Archean to Present, Geophysical Monograph 32, Amer. Geophys. Union. (various references therein)
Imbrie, John and Katherine Palmer Imbrie, 1979, Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery.
Bloom, Arthur L., 1991, Geomorphology, a Systematic Analysis of Late Cenozoic Landforms.
Robinson, Peter J. and Ann Henderson-Sellers, 1999, Contemporary Climatology.
Butcher, Samuel S., Robert J. Carlson, Gordon H. Orians and Gordon V. Wolfe, 1992, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Garrison, Tom, 1993, Oceanography.
Hassett, John J. and Wayne L. Banwart, 1992, Soils and Their Environment.
Crowley, Thomas J. and Gerald R. North, 1991, Paleoclimatology, Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No. 18.
Zepp, R.G. and Ch. Sonntag, 1995, The Role of Nonliving Organic Matter in the Earth’s Carbon Cycle.
Ciais, Ph. et.al., 2005, Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003, Nature, 437, 529-533.
Siegenthaler, Urs, et.al., 2005, Stable Carbon Cycle-Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene, Science, 310 (5752) 1313-1317.
Connor, Steve, 2005, Global warming ‘past the point of no return,’ The Independent 17:10.
Lemley, Brad, 2005, A New Ice Age: The Day After Tomorrow?, Discover (online).
Well LRB,
This IS a political forum. The topic of this particular thread IS global warming and whether humans are causing it.
I’m not calling you or the links and scientific desire for debate you bring irellevant. If the sun is warming there are ways to address that too.
But if human beings do have even the slightest capacity to significantly alter the climate of this planet……and that seems to be the trend of scientifc understanding…I say it is time to stop arguing and address the issue proactively.There is nothing to lose by doing so.
Then explain why Mars and Jupiter are seeing global warming yet have no biological component? Also explain why a measured increase in the Sun’s output would not cause a corresponding increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.
Take your time. I’ll wait.
I have not studied those planets; from what I have read the effects there are not global and are smaller than what we are seeing here.
As discussed by Sundquist&Broecker in their paper cited above an increase in solar output does have an effect; that effect is minor compared with atmospheric effects on the current time scale.
Posts will likely cross here.
I’ll go ya one further LRB. Even if the sun IS warming, it is posted above the effect of feedback loops.A warming Sun warming Earth further would increase the NATURAL release of greenhouse gases. So on second look your arguement for a warming Sun would seem only to further the need for us to mitigate our technological release of greenhouse gases to compensate.
“I say it is time to stop arguing and address the issue proactively.There is nothing to lose by doing so.”
If you don’t understand the cause how can you be sure the solution will do even more harm?
As recently as 1901 “scientists” trying to combat malaria placed potted plants around workers barracks in Panama believing that the plants would “absorb” the bad humors of the evening air. In reality the open water in the potted plants provided yet another ideal breeding ground for malaria carrying mosquitoes.
—
Step one: Understand the problem.
Step two: Address the problem.
Step three: Never ignore step one.
Step one: We do understand the problem
Step two: We have described how to address the problem
Step Three: We do not ignore Step One.
We have come a long way in our understanding of chemistry, biology, geology, etc in 100+ years. Back when I first took biology there were two kingdoms. Now there are five.
Reality Check Time …
An increase in the energy output of a star 870,000 miles in diameter located 93,000,000 miles from Earth with have more than a “minor effect” on the surface temperature.
The trouble with some scientists is that they have lost touch with common sense.
LRB–
Regarding your two (count ‘em) links:
1. The evidence that Mars and Jupiter is heating up is based on interpolations of data from telescopes and satellites. Not exactly definitive. Did you note all the “may”s and “possible”s in these reports?
2. Part of Jupiter’s atmosphere seems to be heating up, but other parts are COOLING DOWN. See this passage from your own link–
“This (change) will create a big wall and stop the mixing of heat and airflow, the thinking goes. As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.”
This is exactly opposite of how global warming is working on earth.
You’re taking a sliver of evidence and trying to build a castle out of it.
Sad to see that an engineering degree can lead to such sloppy thinking . . .
“You’re taking a sliver of evidence and trying to build a castle out of it.”
So, you admit the Sun is increasing it’s output. You admit other planets are increasing their temperatures. You admit the Earth if increasingn in temerature.
Yet you are politically unwilling to connect the dots.
As a scientists I rely solely on facts and don’t give a damn about political correctness. The magnitude of any solar-increase-induced warming has been considered in the literature. In the piece I cited they show a rather large such effect over the entire Phanerozoic but they further discuss that the effect is small in short time frames.
By the way – if I were concerned about political correctness then why do I support nuclear power? That is hardly PC in much of the environmental world.
“The evidence that Mars and Jupiter is heating up is based on interpolations of data from telescopes and satellites. Not exactly definitive. Did you note all the “may”s and “possible”s in these reports?”
Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
“Applying their long-term data, the Duke scientists concluded, “the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.”"
Your link still places the largest piece on atmosphere. It also suggests Mars and Pluto are planet-specific rather than solar.
From the same piece.
The new research mentioned by Michaels is the October 2 release of findings by Duke University scientists that “at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxin gas released by various human activities.”
This is a far more plausible explanation for the cause of global warming than US Soccer Moms driving their tykes in SUVs.
We get *ALL* of our heat from the sun.
Oh, swell, just what we need on this blog, another right-wing fact-denyer.
LBH, even assuming that the sun is getting hotter, your own sources say that accounts for only “10-30 percent” of the global warming occuring on earth.
What accounts for the other 90 to 70 percent if not CO2 and other greenhouse gases from burning coal, oil, and natural gas?
In fact, one of your own sources says this– “Baliunas speculated it is ‘likely not the sun but long-term processes on Mars’ causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.”
What we do know is that CO2 is higher now than it has been in the last million years or so.
Let’s work with what we DO know.
The unfortunate thing is that we on the science side of this issue do not have a lot of slick web sites that ‘filter’ things through their own ‘politically correct’ system. Heartland is such a political site. On these political web sites, as you said “Within the first few minutes all logic and data get tossed in the recycle bin and politics takes over”
“Health problems caused by cigarettes is the result of junk science and the anti-capitalism politics of the EU.”
LRB,
“We get *ALL* of our heat from the sun.”
Whoaaa! Do you believe greenhouse gases have zero effect on our climate?
Instead of relying on Heartland Institute http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41do your research at IPCC, the peer-reviewed scientific group working on “Step one: Understand the problem”.
A relevant graph,’2-2 Anthropogenic radiative forcing of the climate system for 2000 relative to 1750′at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics.htm
Also good, http://www.realclimate.org/ and http://illconsidered.blogspot.com
Our Earth can have BOTH natural AND human-caused climate changes.
Insisting GW can only be caused “naturally” is like insisting farmland irrigation by humans cannot work, because soil moisture varies “naturally”. Humans can make mud, and they can warm (or cool) Earth’s climate.
“”We get *ALL* of our heat from the sun.”
Whoaaa! Do you believe greenhouse gases have zero effect on our climate?”
I don’t want to get into basic astrophysics here … but … without the Sun’s energy the Earth would be a frozen rock in the dark of space.
“”We get *ALL* of our heat from the sun.”
Whoaaa! Do you believe greenhouse gases have zero effect on our climate?”
I don’t want to get into basic astrophysics here … but … without the Sun’s energy the Earth would be a frozen rock in the dark of space.
Okay, LRB, we’ll give you the astonishing conclusion that the sun heats the earth! You’ve convinced us all, enough said.
Now, moving on, you seem a little obtuse for a real engineer . . . what is your field, sanitation engineer?
And thanks for the links, Cos, but there’s no point in throwing the pearls of scientific fact at the feet of the right-wing swine.
“And thanks for the links, Cos, but there’s no point in throwing the pearls of scientific fact at the feet of the right-wing swine.”
Thanks for proving my point that global warming is the new theism.
No sense introducing contridictary facts, is there? Everybody already knows the answer. No need to think anymore. Yup, it’s all cut and dry.
“Okay, LRB, we’ll give you the astonishing conclusion that the sun heats the earth! You’ve convinced us all, enough said.
Now, moving on, you seem a little obtuse for a real engineer . . . what is your field, sanitation engineer?”
Try to follow along …
Fact 1. The Sun heats the Earth.Fact 2. The Sun’s energy in the greatest it’s been in 1000 years.Fact 3. The Earth is warming.
Therefore, Americans driving Ford Explorers are making the Whales fry.
Does this just about sum up your logic?
Jimi,
You’re right, some people are just incapable of understanding science — so I wont waste any more time on LRB after this post.
LRB,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming2.html“If there were no greenhouse gases or clouds in the atmosphere, the Earth’s average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (-0.4°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.”—–Not to mention Venus (as JR did earlier) – atmosphere is 98% CO2, and about 900 degrees F. That’s HOT!!!
LRB is the blog idiot. Tough job, but somebody has to do it.