Global Warmers

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by creekster

Warming will have many consequences, some predictable and some not, which will include social and economic dislocation of the type suggested by Utahdan. THe problem is that it will not be as simple as driving to Saskatchewan to see the bread basket. Weather patterns will change; perhaps more rain in not-so-useful places, or less rain when we need it, etc. In general, there will still be places to live, but if it happens too quickly we will have a hard time adapting economically (not biologically).

Is the earth warming? It sure seems to be. Thw question remains what increment is caused by man's activities? No one knows, but there is probably some marginal effect. The problem is that if man's contibution to warming is significant, given the relatively small amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere compared to the overall atmospheric dynamics, we would probably have to stop almost all of our CO2 producing activities to make a difference. Given that the whole field is specualtive, no one knows for sure how much reduction would be required. IOW, cutting 10% or even 30% of our emissions might make us feel good, but we should probably still make plans to move to Canada whether or not we make that sort of sacrifice.

I would argue that we do know more than your argument seems to suggest, and there is a fairly significant impact from man and its cumulative. Also the response of the atmosphere is delayed, so what has already been done (increase CO2 from 270-280 to 380 ppmv) has just begun to have a response in the temperatures. Also I think more is known about what cutting will imply and there is of course an error bar around all projections but cutting of the growth will be needed, and its getting to the point that waiting 10 years for more data may be too late to prevent certain impacts (particularly in the arctice and along the low-lying coastal areas, e.g. Florida).

By the way I think the following are specious arguments...
1) you can't predict the tropical storms a year in advance so I don't believe decadal forecasts

These are fundamentally different problems with different approaches to solutions. It is much harder to predict the precise weather a week in advance or a month advance than the AVERAGE weather for a year over a large area. The former has a lot of timing and small scale issues involved. The latter has a lot of the stochastics averaged out and it comes down a lot to balances -- energy input vs energy refelcted + retained + emitted.

2) There were warnings of global cooling in the 60s that didn't pan out. Those forecasts didn't pan out because something was done to address the particulates that were causing those forecasts. Coal scrubbers and auto pollution standards being two of those things. There is a bit of a bump in the curves of global temperature that reflect that. Perhaps at the time the longer term upward trend was not recognizable. It is especially apparent in records after 1985.

3) There are natural cycles. Yes there are natural cycles. There will continue to be summers and winters, there will continue to be warm surmmers and cool summers. There are decadal tendencies in ocean circulations, there are El Nino and La NIna oscillating patterns, there is the sunspot cycle and the orbital precession. These are there and will continue (we hope the apple cart is not too upset, that is), but there is a lot of good science that has been done to try to filter that out and the warming curve is still there. Perhaps there are feedbacks that are not yet discovered and modelled, some of those feedbacks (like changes in albedo due to melting ice) could accelerate the process more than is currently forecast or make it less intense (perhaps some change in phytoplankton CO2 capture), but personally, I wouldn't want to count on the latter.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I would argue that we do know more than your argument seems to suggest, and there is a fairly significant impact from man and its cumulative. Also the response of the atmosphere is delayed, so what has already been done (increase CO2 from 270-280 to 380 ppmv) has just begun to have a response in the temperatures. Also I think more is known about what cutting will imply and there is of course an error bar around all projections but cutting of the growth will be needed, and its getting to the point that waiting 10 years for more data may be too late to prevent certain impacts (particularly in the arctice and along the low-lying coastal areas, e.g. Florida).

By the way I think the following are specious arguments...
1) you can't predict the tropical storms a year in advance so I don't believe decadal forecasts

These are fundamentally different problems with different approaches to solutions. It is much harder to predict the precise weather a week in advance or a month advance than the AVERAGE weather for a year over a large area. The former has a lot of timing and small scale issues involved. The latter has a lot of the stochastics averaged out and it comes down a lot to balances -- energy input vs energy refelcted + retained + emitted.

2) There were warnings of global cooling in the 60s that didn't pan out. Those forecasts didn't pan out because something was done to address the particulates that were causing those forecasts. Coal scrubbers and auto pollution standards being two of those things. There is a bit of a bump in the curves of global temperature that reflect that. Perhaps at the time the longer term upward trend was not recognizable. It is especially apparent in records after 1985.

3) There are natural cycles. Yes there are natural cycles. There will continue to be summers and winters, there will continue to be warm surmmers and cool summers. There are decadal tendencies in ocean circulations, there are El Nino and La NIna oscillating patterns, there is the sunspot cycle and the orbital precession. These are there and will continue (we hope the apple cart is not too upset, that is), but there is a lot of good science that has been done to try to filter that out and the warming curve is still there. Perhaps there are feedbacks that are not yet discovered and modelled, some of those feedbacks (like changes in albedo due to melting ice) could accelerate the process more than is currently forecast or make it less intense (perhaps some change in phytoplankton CO2 capture), but personally, I wouldn't want to count on the latter.

First, I don;t think I made the arguments you consider specious. Did I?

Second, I don't think anything I said is necessarily inconsistent with what you said. Does man have an impact? Yes, but how much? Who knows. You say a cut is necessary. Necessary for what? How much cutting will cause how much of a difference? If we cut CO2 emissions by 25% what will happen? I think no one knows. Do you disagree? The problem is saying that man has a "fairly significant impact", even if true, is a pretty vague premise for policy changes.

Third, the main point of my argument (which may not have been very clear) is that I think most people don't realize what is likely to happen as warming continues (and I think we can both agree that we are warming). There will be dislocation, but the precise effects, and what will happen in any specific location, are very difficult to predict. It is not as simple as the grain belt moving north a few miles. It could really disrupt patterns in ways we don't understand yet.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by creekster

First, I don;t think I made the arguments you consider specious. Did I?

Second, I don't think anything I said is necessarily inconsistent with what you said. Does man have an impact? Yes, but how much? Who knows. You say a cut is necessary. Necessary for what? How much cutting will cause how much of a difference? If we cut CO2 emissions by 25% what will happen? I think no one knows. Do you disagree? The problem is saying that man has a "fairly significant impact", even if true, is a pretty vague premise for policy changes.

Third, the main point of my argument (which may not have been very clear) is that I think most people don't realize what is likely to happen as warming continues (and I think we can both agree that we are warming). There will be dislocation, but the precise effects, and what will happen in any specific location, are very difficult to predict. It is not as simple as the grain belt moving north a few miles. It could really disrupt patterns in ways we don't understand yet.

Sorry, I was being lazy and replying to the entire thread in replying to you, I suppose I should have picked on someone else who had started to go down the road of one those specious arguments. Especially on your third point, we're in agreement.

There are estimates of what the effect of reducing carbon by X amount will do, its just that I don't have that info handy. The IPCC exec summary was released today and the big report will be out soon, with all the gory details. I would trust the numbers there as much as any. Yes, they are only estimates, as is any forward projection, but to do nothing is sort of like saying you won't save for your retirement because you don't know what your future rate of return will be.

As for specific actions, there are actions we can take (individually, legislative/tax policy) that have other benefits (long term cost savings, etc) so we should certainly focus on them first.

[Surfah]

Well according to the report that came out the wording is "very likely" that man has contributed to global warming. Another scientist came up with percentages for the wordings used and "very likely" apparently means 90% chance. How that definition is scientific is beyond me.

[Archaea]

Wow, what an astonishing conclusion.

These environmental fear mongers go to no end. In reality, we should all identify the economic interests involved and identify how we can profit from this fear mongering. Fortunately most of the results occur in 2100. No worries for me.

[Surfah]

Stranded Polar Bears

This is hilarious. Cropped photo and polar bears can admittedly swim per the article in excess of 100 miles. And that particular ice chunk has melted away so fast that the polar bears "cling precariously" to it.

Environmental fear mongers are right.

[il Padrino Ute]

I guess we ought to round up the remaining polar bears and put them in zoos. It would be their only real chance of survival.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I guess we ought to round up the remaining polar bears and put them in zoos. It would be their only real chance of survival.

Now that the RSL deal in Sandy is dead I know they're thinking about a Hogle Zoo expansion. Shoot with this months temps they'll feel at home.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by surfah33

Now that the RSL deal in Sandy is dead I know they're thinking about a Hogle Zoo expansion. Shoot with this months temps they'll feel at home.

I see where you're going; the biggest and bestest polar bear exhibit in the world right there in Sandy, Utah. That's a great idea.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

[Note: this is not a response to any poster, just a comment on the subject]

If you are not convinced there is a manmade problem by now, it doesn't matter, keep politicking away, you'll never get it. The politicians and media are the ones presenting this issue as a two sided one. Climate scientists are not divided on descriptives, just normatives and predictions, facets which often get blurred by politicians and the media (everyone who does science knows the difference between a theory and a prediction, the media focus on the predictions or normative implications and then debate the quality of the "science"--ridiculous). And about polar bears...please...why are environmentalists defined by a polar bear standing on an ice cube or an owl being more important than a human being? They are political moves, not designed to find the truth, but to posture through their portrayals of the "other side". If this issue were not so political in its implications everyone would have been on the bandwagon a long time ago.

This will be my one and only post on this subject since I know how fruitful arguing about it is. Hopefully people can move past the politics and wake up on this issue.