WE Blog

How has a 1 degree rise in global temperatures in the past century “harmed human welfare?

Anyone who needs a good laugh today and needs assurance that they aren’t the only one who curses at the Gore toilet.

http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=1517

———————-
Stopping more EPA regulations might not be a bad thing. So far they have saved the snail darter and the spotted owl, cost many lumbermen in Oregon their jobs, delayed the construction of a hydro electro dam that would give thousand much needed electric and made us all paranoid when we flush in strange homes.

Long live the EPA!!

cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

outlander posted July 11, 2008 at 12:06 pm

“How has a 1 degree rise in global temperatures in the past century “harmed human welfare?”
————

The temperatures have not risen uniformly over the Earth.
——————-
Duh!

Latitude, longitude, geographic differences, natural oscillations, wind conditions and many other natural climate factors affect temperature.

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 11, 2008 at 12:46 pm

“Latitude, longitude, geographic differences, natural oscillations, wind conditions and many other natural climate factors affect temperature.”
—————–

Land warms faster than oceans.

The upper northern latitudes have more land area, and are warming faster.
=================================
And land and ocean formations are caused by man?

Thank you for proving my point.

Scientists say that ENVIROMENTALISTS HAVE CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING:

http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=83916

“London, July 10 : For past three decades, Europe has been following the trend of saying goodbye to air pollution and smoky chimneys but a new study has shown that cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun’s rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the global warming that has occurred.

“Average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1C since 1980, which is much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone.

For the study, Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period.

They found that aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre.

“The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years,” New Scientist quoted Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland’s national weather service, as saying.”

#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm

“And land and ocean formations are caused by man?”
———–

No, but higher levels of GHG’s are caused by man, and those higher levels of GHGs are causing warming.
—————————-
Except when it’s not as temperatures have been falling in the 21st century.

“EPA officials have said that the White House has censored or altered reports showing that global warming is harming human welfare,”

IS harming human welfare? IS? What happened to could or may or might? Hog and wash.

“What happened to could or may or might? ”

Fact is fact.

Global warming or cooling is out of man’s control.

Enviromentalists are harming human welfare.

I’ll bite. What is the harm to our welfare?

Come on, you people. It’s been over two hours.

Just one example of how “global warming is harming human welfare”

Just one.

‘Bush Hiding Truth: Global Warming Regulations Worth $2 Trillion Benefit»‘
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/30/bush-epa-suppression/
“Assuming gas prices in the range of $3.50 per gallon, “the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion” through 2040:”

H/T to http://desmogblog.com

‘Poison Ivy Itchier, More Plentiful With Warming, Study Says‘
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060530-warming.html
“Rising levels of carbon dioxide — a so-called greenhouse gas that traps heat within Earth’s atmosphere — can fuel booming poison ivy growth, a new study reports.

Even worse, the rash-inducing vines may become more potent.”

Ya hear that Fleetwood? The great threat to human welfare due to AGW: Poison Ivy….

“Assuming gas prices in the range of $3.50 per gallon, “the net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion” through 2040:” “

Well, there is that going beyond the ‘tipping point’ thing fleettwood.

BTW, how is your ‘tipping point?”

:D

“BTW, how is your ‘tipping point?””

It’s red and angry.

“Y’all get this figured out yet? Did anyone change their opinion?”

I have. I used to think the GW alarmists were dopes. Now I think they are idiots.

Rage on. You watch your Glenn Beck. The rest of America will study Boone Pickens’ plan to get us off imported oil and develop clean wind energy.

Rage on.

How much energy does it take to print newspapers?

Newspapers require that we cut down trees, trees that used to use up Carbon Dioxide gas.

Then, those trees are hauled by trucks, which emit pollution and carbon dioxide gas. (Not the same thing.)

Then, energy is used to make that wood pulp into paper. This also produced pollution, and carbon dioxide. (Not the same thing.)

Then, that paper stock is trucked to the Wichita Eagle, which again uses energy, causes pollution and generates carbon dioxide.

Then, after ink is added, (Which is also trucked in, after energy is used to create the ink. After pollution is created, to create the ink.) well, after the ink, the Eagle distributes the bales of Newspapers, all over the city. This also uses energy, and creates pollution and carbon dioxide gas.

Then, Newspapers are distributed all over the city, sometimes by people in vehicles, burning more gasoline.

Then, after some of these newspapers are put to good use, in bird cages and on the floor of dog kennels, the newspaper makes it to the landfill.

Of course, trucking the used Eagle newspaper, to the landfill, also burns up energy, and creates pollution and carbon dioxide gas.

Why don’t we outlaw the Eagle?

The Eagle is old technology.

We have cable TV.

We have the internet.

We have cell phones and mobile devices to keep us in touch, much faster than the old, antique Wichita Eagle newspaper.

Wichita should be the first “Newspaper free city!”

We can show the world that we do not, really, need a daily newspaper.

Of course, we should do this through a “cap and trade” system.

We should levy a tax of $1.00 per pound of newspaper produced, by the Eagle.

This tax money should be used to subsidize cable television and internet service, for everyone in Wichita. The homeless can be given cell phones.

This will allow EVERYONE to have equal access to MODERN information systems.

The Eagle can pay this tax, and stay in business, if it chooses.

However, in this way, the old, dirty, polluting Wichita Eagle can be put on a “level playing field” with new technolgies that do NOT pollute, and with new technologies that do not generate Carbon Dioxide. (Not the same thing.)

Why shouldn’t the Eagle have to pay the FULL cost of its business?

Why should taxpayers subsidize the damage the Eagle does, to the environment, at every step of its production?

Why shouldnt the Eagle have to pay the entire economic cost of its activities?

fleettwood posted July 11, 2008 at 5:12 pm

“We can’t drink our way out of thirst. We can’t eat our way out of famine.”
—————

And we can’t drill our way to energy independence and cheap gas.

But we can reduce energy consumption and prices, with higher energy efficiency.

. . . and the lunatics never stop!

The bush administration kicks yet ANOTHER problem down the road and leaves it for the next President.

What a….surprise.

bush’s whole administration has reminded me of the politico in “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”

Oooh he loves to dance a little sidestep

Now you see him now ya don’t he’s come and gone.

Dance a little sidestep lead the people on.

“Franklin, I will say again what I said about you before.

A liar is at least concerned about the truth. A bullsh*tter doesn’t care.

You are a bullsh*tter.”

From his very first post here, through his every post here, to date.

#
Agnatha
Posted July 11, 2008 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

The fact remains, those who are denying global warming do so for reasons clearly related to pre-existing poltical beliefs and conclusions. There has been and still is robust debate about global warming and human related activities, but the debate has moved from are humans contributing to it to how much humans are contributing to it.

Hopefully, the mindless coalition conservatism that equates the reality of global warming science with “liberalism” will continue to unravel the coalition, so that those who continue to go into denial (you know, those who argue that it isn’t happening, those who argue that it is happening but that humans aren’t responsible for it, and those-including many here-who are so clueless they’ll post one claim then the other, sometimes within the same post).
——————————
Are you a scientist studying climate?

Do you have peer reviewed papers in Climate Science?

Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted March 5, 2008 at 4:36 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/beware-of-global-cooling-hype/#comment-307608

“Ever did a measurement of co2 in an office building? On a street level entry point to an office building, co2 can go up in the range from 1000 to 2000ppm.”
—————

Maybe multi-nic’d ‘Regular’s theory for why global CO2 was 470 ppm in the 1940’s is that humans had built (leaky) office buildings and streets far up into Earth’s atmosphere then? Even over the oceans, which cover roughly 70% of the Earth.

And then humans quickly removed all of those building and streets from the atmosphere, causing Earth’s global CO2 level to rapidly fall.

Way to go Franklin…you can really get their goat.

The arrogance of the left’s AGW fanatics is a joke, thinking they can control the Earths climate by controlling it’s inhabitants and the economy.

You think prices are high now, wait until the EPA and others put MORE regulations on, then lets see what happens to the price of things.

Libs just can’t seem to understand that everytime you want to do something to make yourself “feel good” or look like you care, it just costs more money.

Out in Oregon, when the wackos demanded that Clinton do something for the spotted owl, he stopped logging on Federal lands and then said that the Guvment would give money to the counties of the State to make up the lost revenue to the tune of about 300 million. By the way that 300 million came out of the pockets of the taxpayers in the other 49 states.

Now that money has been stopped and 18 of Oregon’s 36 counties are having to lay off Police, Fire and Teachers to make up this difference. Two of the countys are contemplating having to file bankruptcy.

All this because the libs wanted to “feel good”. Now you can say that this was Bushs fault for stopping the welfare payments to Oregon, when the blame clearly falls on Congress, Clinton and the wackos.

Common sense tells me that if a spotted owl came back to his nest and found it gone, then instinct would have kicked in and the owl would just move on to another tree. But I guess according to the wackos, the owl couldn’t find its nest so it just landed and sat there waiting to be eaten by a predator. Animals have been around for millions of years, I think instinct and nature will be able to take care of itself.

“Way to go Franklin…you can really get their goat.”

And of course, “getting their goat” means he wins!

“The arrogance of the left’s AGW fanatics is a joke, thinking they can control the Earths climate by controlling it’s inhabitants and the economy.”

More reflexive empty headed conservatives are right, liberals are wrong conservative coalition taunts from Boxlock. These sort of taunts and pronouncements, of course, appear to be all that he has. No substantive arguments, he’s as predictable as Dick in a Dick and Jane book. The tragedy of this is 1) The effects of human activity have been and are observable on this planet. 2) The arrogance comes from making absolute pronouncements not by becoming familiar with the science, but because one makes the decision “I am a conservative, so this is my position”. And that is the tragedy here. A coalition of “free enterprise at all costs” (free enterprise equaling in this case the idea that corporate America shouldn’t be fettered amd disillusioned social conservatives formed in the late 1970’s managed to stand the status quo on its head by convincing its members that “environmentalism” was a “liberal” issue. This country has still not recovered from this nonsense (at one time, the majority of the memberships of the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club were, wait for it, Republicans).

Outlander, no one is saying that the climate is still not responsive to non-human events, or that current events like La Nina don’s significantly cool or warm the planet. The reality is, however, that as these events continue to occur, their effects can be measured against averages that existed during similar climatological events that have happened in the past. The difference can then be linked to the changes humans have wrought.

Cooling and warming climate due to non-human causes do not by themselves eliminate the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases or deforestation. Furthermore, these effects are longer term, and can be seen to persist even through shorter term fluctuations.

Interesting links. Thanks outlander.

If we enacted the entire Kyoto treaty, a treaty that even Bill Clinton and a Democrat Congress thought was stupid, and would hurt the economy, it would do what, exactly?

The Kyoto Treaty, even if full enacted and enforced, would have virtually no effect on global warming. Its proponents admit as much.

However, the Kyoto Treaty would ruin the American economy.

It is easy to see that leftits like Agnatha want to ruin the economy, since the stated aims of thier enviromental legislation clearly are not met by that legislation.

“Only political hacks like you make such rash, outlandish statements.”

Franklin, you calling me a “political hack” is the height of outrageous irony.

Here we go bullsh*t boy.

1) Climate is more than just measurement from themometers. Long term differences in average global temperature leave evidence on a global scale (see the little ice age that concluded in the 1810’s).

2) Multiple measurements of temperature, even using less accurate, pre-digital themometers still gives a reasonably accurate picture of termperatures.

3) Funny how you make your one line claims about scientists “wildly” disagreeing. How do you account for the widespread agreement among scientists in relevant fields as found in the most highly regarded scientific associations in the world (like the NAS)? Yes, scientists disagree and often talk about what they don’t know and need to find out more about. But what that simply means is this: When scientists in a fiel DO come to agreement about something, the public should pay attention, because the basis for that agreement is more stringent than the basis for more strident agreement among political, philosophical, or religious alliances.

But again, watch Franklin continue his performance like the above. Find what agrees with his view, attribute motives to those he disagrees with (such as the ludicrous claim that “leftists” like me” want to ruin the economy, and the usual performance of a bulsh*tter in the 21st Century (go online, type in keywords that support his viewpoint, and then relay what results).

Agnatha
You are ridiculous.
You wiggle out of the obvious fact that no precise temperature readings, over any useful lenght of time, are really available.
Then you shift to “climate” rather than
“temperature” — but how in the world do you measure “climate” without the imput of “temperature”?
And, with the very, very small increase in “global temperature” that the global warming religion wants us to believe in, these measurements matter a great deal.
At least a portion of that change is likely due to the method of measurement, and the changes in the method of measurement.
Show me a measuring device which has been in the same place, for 100 years or longer.

Now, even if you do “prove” that global warming is, in fact, happening, so what?

You have not proven that man CAN slow or change any such warming, even if we try.

You have not proven that it is WORTH IT, for us to change our way of life, as an offering to your Global Warming false god.

Agnatha
In your own words, you ADMIT that China and India are about to enter a period of “explosive” growth, and energy use.

Who are WE, in the USA, to tell China and India to let their people starve? Who are WE, in the USA, to tell China and India to cut back on “green house gases” so that our liberals, in America, can feel good about themselves?

Who are YOU, Agnatha, to tell the auto worker, the coal worker, the oil field worker to give up THEIR jobs, for the hopeless cause of fighting “Global Warming”?

Admit it! If the Kyoto treaty had been signed by every country, and every country followed the Kyoto treaty, to the letter, the experts all admit that it would have virtually NO effect, at all, on temperature or climate or “greenhouse gas” production.

The reality is that poor countries will not be bound by any stupid treaty on global warming.

They will sign up, perhaps, for any goodies that they can get. They will make promises, perhaps.

Then they will go about the business of feeding their people. That will take energy.

We can not get countries to live up to arms agreements.

We could not get Saddam to honor a cease fire agreement.

Wars happen when countries do not follow treaties.

Does anyone really want to go to war over “global warming”??

If you are not willing to go to war over this issue, it will NEVER, EVER be regulated by any international body.

econ101,

Do you know why you people have to call global warming science a “religion”?

It’s because you people can’t find any credible science to refute it. You can’t refute that human-added CO2 and other GHG’s have increased radiative forcing.
You can’t refute that aerosols cause cooling, masking the warming from the GHG’s You can’t refute that the oceans thermal inertia delays the warming, and the ocean heat content has been increasing.

You people can’t find any science to refute AGW, because there is not any science to refute AGW.

The big fossil-energy companies can’t refute it — all they can do is fund misinformation campaigns.

The bribe of a $10,000 award can’t refute it.

So you people have to lie about AGW science, and call it a “religion”.

There is huge scientific disagreement on this subject.
There is no one authority that everyone else agrees with.

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

Actually, economic growth tends to go hand in hand with reduced family size.
Rural farm cultures pretty much demand large families, as farm hands. Also, the risk of early death makes families have more kids.
Industrialization actually reduces family size, by natural choice of the parents.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

SPM, page 10,
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}”

“Very likely” equals > 90%

“Do you know why you people have to call global warming science a “religion”?”

We call it that because, like “religion”, it requires a leap of faith. A leap that cannot be proved, right or wrong.

If someone says there is a Supreme Being, they say so without any “real” proof. The beauty of it is it cannot be disproved, either.

Just like the GW crap.

cosmos
Dont be so arrogant.

The only way that you can “claim” a scientist is on a case by case, issue by issue question and answer process that has not happened.

There are scientists that, yes, agree that we are going through a warming trend. Many of those scientists HOTLY contest the reasons for that warming. Many of those scientists contest the harm that any such warming might cause.

It is perfectly acceptable to show that, even among scientists who agree that warming is happening, there is MUCH disagreement on details and on cause.
—–
By the way libs, see if you can get this done for me, ok?

Prepair a list of every person in the world who is educated enough, trained enough, to have a valid opinion on this matter.

Don’t cherry pick.

I expect a test such as, “What is your college degree”?

If you allow geologists on your side, fine, we can have geologists on our side.

If you allow Physics experts, on your side, we can have the same people on our side.

Actually, agricultural and travel industries have hired climate scientists for years.

Anyway, you tell us what DEGREE is required, or what fields of work, currently, qualify someone to have a valid “expert opinion” on the subject of climate.
—–
Then, we can survey those people.
Over the last 100 years, based on what you have studied and what you believe, would you say any of the following postions fits your view?

1.) The Earth is getting colder, and man is causing it, so man must spend money to stop global cooling.
2.) The Earth is getting colder, and man has something to do with it, but we can not afford to stop any such cooling.
3.) The Earth is getting colder, but man has nothing to do with it.
4.) I am not sure if the Earth is getting colder.
5.) The Earth’s temperature is pretty much constant, over the past 100 years.
6.) I am not sure if the Earth is getting warmer.
7.) The Earth is getting warmer, but man has nothing to do with that warming.
8.) The Earth is getting warmer, but this is nothing to worry about, no matter what the cause.
9.) The Earth is getting warmer. Man might contribute to this warming, but the cost of stopping man’s contribution might well be more expensive than any warming, and we might not be able to stop any warming, anyway. Any policy changes must be considered carefully, and balanced with a good cost/benefit analysis.
10.) The Earth is getting warmer, and man is causing it, man can fix it, and we must spend money and pass laws to change it, because this is a dire emergency. We can spare no cost to address this issue.
—-
Now, the libs on this Blog would have you believe that nearly every Phd in the world, with any study in the area of “climate” would check box #10.

The truth is, most scientists would find each answer a bit simplistic, and would resist being pushed into any of the 10 answers.

However, I sincerely doubt that answer #10 would rate very well, in any such poll or survey.

Again, only the liberal political hacks are really sure of themselves, on this issue.

The scientists, themselves, are much more reserved, restrained and reasonable.

China already has a one child quota, how are they going to limit beyond that? Forced sterilization ?

“Cosmos
Any agricultural economist is FAR more qualified than you, on the climate issue.”

Why would you say that? That’s like saying that a CPA who audits hospitals is far more qualified than some poster on discussing the efficacy of a cancer treatment.

Still a bullsh*tting shill.

So why do the scientists from the relevant scientific fields have more or less a consensus on the reality of global warming and the overwhelming probability that human activity is contributing to it?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[FE]Must be a bunch of Global Warming religious fanatics worshipping at the alter of the Goracle.[/FE]

#
Agnatha
Posted July 12, 2008 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

Once again, the “cosmos is not a scientist” argument is irrelevant as long as he is accurately representing the state of the science as represented by those who are indeed qaulified. That is the question, not cosmos’ personal qualifications, not to mention my own, Franklin’s, or yours. Cosmos backs up what he says. He does not argue it from his personal authority. The charge is specious, and I strongly suspect that you already know that.
————————
That’s the problem.

cosmos uses quotes from non-peer reviewed blogs.

He doesn’t use actual data from science journals that are peer reviewed.

I’ve read a lot of these journals and no where do scientists make the claims or put in terms of absolute certainty that something is happening.

Scientist deal in uncertainty and they use probabilities. A probability is not a guarantee of anything. It is merely a best guess on what could happen under narrowly defined circumstance. It is not a general sweeping statement on an entire scientific discipline such as climate science.

When cosmos learns to know the difference between hypothetical probability and blog opinion, then I’ll listen.

cosmos does not know the difference, he is a political activist with an agenda.

There is no science backing up his claims, he uses blogs and hyperlinks to opinion statements.