Global Warming is not the problem, we are

[kitkat]

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.

[ParanoiA]

Uh...isn't global warming solving that problem?

 

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

[Mr Skeptic]

Unless I'm mistaken, global warming isn't threatening the existence of human kind, but rather the existence of some kinds of humans.

 

Some of the more doomsayer folks are suggesting that global warming could exterminate humans or collapse civilization. Personally I think that's ridiculous.

 

Anyhow, global warming is but one symptom. We humans are greedy and messy and don't care much for future consequences, especially uncertain consequences. We're doing our fair share of habitat destruction and pollution as well, and using up resources as fast as we can exploit them. Still, I think we survive any mess we're likely to make. Other species won't be so lucky, what with the ongoing mass extinction that we are causing.

[CharonY]

I would like have a discussion point proposed here. Otherwise it is just a rant, and we do not do rants here.

[ewmon]

how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans.

global warming is but one symptom.

Such situations almost always involve various dimensions/variables. Here we have global warming, natural greenhouse gases, man-made greenhouse gases, a growing world population, countries that are developing or have yet to develop, etc. An adjustment to one or more variables could provide relief, but who wants to reduce emissions, have fewer kids than desired, halt/reverse development, etc? The cures involve some form of belt-tightening, and no one wants to be the only volunteer to do it. A global "keeping up with the Joneses" or "playing chicken".

 

For the most part, any relief must involve the entire world's cooperation, and on this, the various nations cannot agree, and individuals within a given nation cannot agree either.

 

So, how will we survive? By coming together and agreeing.

[swansont]

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.

 

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

[kitkat]

"Global warming is a natural cycle" is a flawed argument. Even it is natural, this does not somehow explain away the issue or shield it from scientific inquiry. We should still be able to investigate the nature and source of the energy imbalance that causes temperatures to increase (or decrease). If you want to make that argument, then have a pile of scientific papers which have done that, and identified the energy source(s). The problem is that scientists have done these studies, and natural variations do not account for the warming.

 

I am sorry but I didn't explain this correctly. Global warming in the past and in the present is caused from the biodiversity of life and its interactions with each other and the environment. It is natural in that no other species before us could be held responsible for its cause. Humans are aware of their interactions with the environment and are intelligent (hopefully) enough to take action before it is too late to fix it.

 

The problem is by the time every nation can agree to take responsibility and many measures simultaneously need to be in place globally including reducing population expansion at least until we can solve these problems it might be too late.

[iNow]

I thought this was a pretty great quote in context of the battle between the state of California and oil companies in Texas challenging their environmental regulations.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html

 

The real joke is thinking that if California suspends its climate laws that Mother Nature will also take a timeout. “We can wait to solve this problem as long as we want,” says Nate Lewis, an energy chemist at the California Institute of Technology: “But Nature is balancing its books every day. It was a record 113 degrees in Los Angeles the other day. There are laws of politics and laws of physics. Only the latter can’t be repealed.”

[lemur]

The problem is by the time every nation can agree to take responsibility and many measures simultaneously need to be in place globally including reducing population expansion at least until we can solve these problems it might be too late.

 

The problem with trying to control population on a per -nation or other per-group basis is that not everyone wants to submit to authoritarian control of their reproductive choices. The other problem is that when people do identify with a nation or other ethnic group, they often feel concern that their group will shrink while others grow. This causes people to reproduce in the interest of bolstering their group/national population vis-a-vis that of others. Then, they preach reproductive control to reduce population to try to get others to curtail their growth to maintain current demographic proportions. However, this benefits larger populations more than smaller ones. Anyway, it's all nonsense because it shouldn't matter whose ethnic group is bigger or smaller, but of course tell that to people who are getting systematically excluded from resources and wealth because they have the 'wrong' ethnic identity.

Edited October 7, 2010 by lemur

[Maximus Semprus Veridius]

Global warming (or more accurately called Climate Change) IS most certainly a man-induced problem. Look at the evidence. Also CC (climate change) is effecting more than just people, it could lead to far more indirect damage that could wipe out the massive populations of humans all over the globe. However that IS very unlikely (although not out of the equation), mainly due to population growth. Man's carrying capacity is very soon going to be exceeded (in fact it probably already has!) by a large enough margin to cause even the richest of countries to be drastically affected.

 

The indirect consequences are what people should be worried about though. CC leads to species destruction, and eventually food chain destruction. This COULD cause many many very consequencial problems (caused primarily by man). Although i've got to say all this is very circumstancial and I think man-kind, although stupid at times, does also have great and ingenious minds which can salvage the planet.

[pippo]

Global warming (or more accurately called Climate Change) IS most certainly a man-induced problem. Look at the evidence. Also CC (climate change) is effecting more than just people, it could lead to far more indirect damage that could wipe out the massive populations of humans all over the globe. However that IS very unlikely (although not out of the equation), mainly due to population growth. Man's carrying capacity is very soon going to be exceeded (in fact it probably already has!) by a large enough margin to cause even the richest of countries to be drastically affected.

 

The indirect consequences are what people should be worried about though. CC leads to species destruction, and eventually food chain destruction. This COULD cause many many very consequencial problems (caused primarily by man). Although i've got to say all this is very circumstancial and I think man-kind, although stupid at times, does also have great and ingenious minds which can salvage the planet.

 

Well, maybe, Max. Reminds me of Gore who won the peace prize. Probably the biggest champ of the GW (global warming) debate. One of his original arguments was that Kilamanjaro was getting less and less snow/precip (popularized in his movie for tha mass audience). But now, hes saying that this past winter's unusually high snowfall anmount does NOT mean GW is not real. Well, which is it? It was convenient to argue the Kilamanjaro stats but now its not convenient when snow's falling all over the US.

 

This is just one example of the hypocrisy. There are more. There still is no scientific evidence that proves GW (and calling it climate change- just arbitrary). For that, you need a control, as any scientist understands in doing experiments. The only "control" is another earth that would have been subjected to a climate without man;s influence. . There is no other earth, therefore, no control, therefore, no evidence based on the scientific method.

[SMF]

Pippo. Gore's information was vetted by climate scientists and he pretty much got it right. Why don't you find out what the science actually says before criticizing? SM

Edited March 24, 2011 by SMF

[pippo]

Pippo. Gore's information was vetted by climate scientists and he pretty much got it right. Why don't you find out what the science actually says before criticizing? SM

 

So, SM, this "right science" you refer to, does then the heavy snow indicate GW or not? My point was that Gore was /is still an influence, therefore, if its good for the GW argument (Kilamanjaro), then you cant use it against GW when the heavy/unusual snowfalls occur. Even though this may be irrelevant (more snow/less snow), the public gobbles it up, get it? Do YOU know the "right science" regarding Kilamanjaro's decline of precipitation? I have read and studied some scientific opinions on this.

 

You are assuming I am not an informed scientist, based on your accusation. You should choose your words more carefully before making accusations, SM, and not do such while hiding in the halls of anonimity in cyberspace. I dont believe (dont recall) I have done this to you.

Edited March 28, 2011 by pippo

[SMF]

Pippo, my estimation of your knowledge is based on the fact that you are repeating a denialist meme that has no basis in science. I recommend that you spend some time with the IPCC report, especially Working Group 1. This is an extensive literature review and, typical of this style of science writing, gives summaries and conclusions based on many studies and provides the references to the studies reviewed. This is unlike many lousy internet pop science sites that don't provide references so you can check the veracity of the review.

 

Gore's use of the Kilimanjaro glacier for his talk was a dramatic example of what science says is happening world wide to mountain galciers. Not all, but without a doubt, most. This fact is consistent with global warming. As for the other part, when the ocean warms this causes increased evaporation and the water has to go somewhere. Where it goes is greater precipitation in the form of rain and snow.

 

As I said, Gore ran his book and presentation by practicing climate scientists before he put it out, and the final version has been critiqued by practicing climate scientists. The conclusion is that it is pretty good, and the portions that are not exact are the result of the simplifications and compromises a teacher has to make to accommodate the scientific literacy of the audience one has. As a science teacher I am very familiar with this. SM

[jorge1907]

SMF - you infer that Gores book was a scientific text. It was and is not nd I'd like to see the proof that his work was vetted among climate scientists beyond a few who shared his immediate level of concern or those of Univ of East Anglia. i will note that one of the his fellow Nobel recipients noted that he did not agree with Gore's dire predictions, noting that he (the scientist) had often been wrong in predicting conditions that far in the future and thought it was unwise for Gore to do so.

 

Global warming/climate change - to the extent that it is and will continue to occur leave us as little more than observers. There has not been a reasonable stoichiometrically-relevant solution proposed short of, as Lee Thomas of EPA said once of remedying LA pollution in compliance with the 1st Clean Air Act provisions, "tearing the social fabric." In a global warming remedial sense, Prius', green buildings, new light bulbs, wind mills, etc, etc are little more than environmental fetishes.

 

And please don't think me unimpressed that you are a science teacher!! wow!

Edited April 6, 2011 by jorge1907

[SMF]

Jorge1907, I did not say or imply that Gore’s presentation was a scientific text. It is a presentation for the general public. Taking my caution about the problems of presenting complicated science at a non-expert level, the presentation is pretty much in agreement with the IPCC report which is the only scientific review of all current climate change/global warming research and it is performed by a large group of practicing (an important distinction) climate scientists. The only solution that is suggested by climate scientists is to reduce carbon emissions, how this is done is a political decision. Gore has taken a policy stand on these issues, but this is separate from the scientific evidence. If you wish to discuss the contentious policies being discussed for the solution to this problem, I suggest you bring it up in the climate change section of this forum for a rousing argument. I would like to discuss the importance of the various technological suggestions for making a sustainable human society that you suggest are fetishes. For example, I have a lot of personal real world experience with solar PV electricity.

 

If you wish to discuss the actual science presented by Gore you should stick to specific scientific claims because I, for one, can’t deal with “tearing the social fabric” because I think there is going to be a lot of ripping and tearing no matter what we all decide to do. What we should do is to understand what the actual science says and then decide on a course of action, not the reverse. SM

 

 

[JorgeLobo]

i love the pedantry of a science teacher - tell us and give mass balance - how "solar PV electricity" and your other fetishes will stop or even reverse global warming.. Let's not pretend that Gore is a scientist bringing science to the unwashed, his was a ;policy document.

 

Sorry the concept was too complicated for you, for one. Allow me to explain - Thomas meant that means to establish compliance may exist but were so draconian that they would disrupt society. Understand?

[SMF]

I thought this was a science forum. I am surrounded by silly Jorges. WTF? SM

[Marat]

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but just looking at the debate from the outside, it seems as though one of the major problems with any inferences regarding the cause and significant of current climate changes is that global warming on a much larger scale occurred in the past with absolutely no contribution from greenhouse gas production. I refer here to the fact that Greenland ca. 1000 was warm enough to support a large Viking farming population, as archeaological evidence shows. So if the world was clearly warmer then than now, what made it so warm in the early Middle Ages? Methane from cow burps? There were certainly many fewer cows then than now, just as there was no industrialization to generate greenhouse gases.

 

It seems to me that if there can be such large global temperature changes in the past independent of any contribution from industrial processes, then how do we know how significant those processes are amidst the much larger variations produced by non-industrial, spontaneous changes in global temperatures?

 

The evidence I have seen establishes that the world warms and cools on 30-year cycles, at least insofar as we can trace temperature records from the 1880s until today. So from 1880 to 1910 the world was cooling; then warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling again from 1940 to 1970, and finally warming once more from 1970 to 2000, which is what sparked the current concerns with global warming. In the 1960s, however, the world's worry was that another Ice Age was due soon and there were evidences of global cooling.

 

I'm also concerned that the University of Wisconsin environmental sciences professor who first coined the term 'global warming' doesn't believe it is a serious issue, and that an environmental sciences professor at M.I.T. doesn't believe it is a problem either. If 80% of greenhouse gas emissions cling to the Earth's surface and remain in the bottom of the atmosphere, they can't be having that much of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse effects.

 

Given that reconstructing the largely carbon-based industrial and economic world we now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be massively expensive and will no doubt impose serious economic hardships on vulnerable people already victimized for other reasons by the Neo-Liberal agenda, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that this huge self-inflicted economic wound to correct global warming influences is truly necessary before we act? I am particularly worried in this regard when I hear the British Green Party economist merrily chirping that this gigantic and wilful destruction of the world's economic base won't really matter because we can get used to valuing things other than traditional economic values, such as just rejoicing in clean air and fresh streams, rather than having enough technological capacity ever to cure cancer or enough productive power to provide adequate housing for the poor.

[Edtharan]

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but just looking at the debate from the outside, it seems as though one of the major problems with any inferences regarding the cause and significant of current climate changes is that global warming on a much larger scale occurred in the past with absolutely no contribution from greenhouse gas production. I refer here to the fact that Greenland ca. 1000 was warm enough to support a large Viking farming population, as archeaological evidence shows. So if the world was clearly warmer then than now, what made it so warm in the early Middle Ages? Methane from cow burps? There were certainly many fewer cows then than now, just as there was no industrialization to generate greenhouse gases.

Yes, there are natural cycles and variations, both long term and short term, of the Earth's climate. However, certain cycles are fairly regular, such as the interglacial/glacial cycles. According to these cycles, we should be entering into a glacial period at the moment. The Earth should be cooling (this is due to solar output, Earth's tilt and various other factors).

 

But we are not. Why? The natural cycles that climate change deniers use actually say we should be cooling, not warming. What is different now than in the last cycle (or the many before that?).

 

As for cause and effect, we know that climate change is occuring because of CO² and other green house gasses because of the conservation of energy.

 

Simply put: If you have a constant source of energy falling onto the Earth (and for the last 150 years we can consider it to be fairly constant), and the only way the Earth can loose this energy is by radiating it out into space (as we are in a vacuum), then the Earth will reach an equilibrium where the amount or energy radiated away will match the amount coming in.

 

Using waht is called Black Body theory, we can calulate the average temperature the Earth should have if there are no other effects involved. This is around -16^oc. However, the average temperature of the Earth is around +16^oc. SO we know that something is changing the simple effect.

 

Using conservation of energy, we know that if you slow down the rate that an object looses energy, then the amount of energy in that object has to go up. The restriction acts to store the energy in the object.

 

Greenhouse gasses restrict the amount of energy that the Earth can radiate because the Earth's surface radiates in the infra-red wavelength and the greenhouse gasses absorb and then re-radiate infra-red light. However, when it does this it does so in a random direction, and that means around 50% of the radiation that is absorbed (just a bit less actually, but close enough that for this discussion we can assume it is 50%) is re-radiated back down towards the Earth.

 

With the current levels of greenhouse gasses, this is enough to warm the earth by around 32^oc (to take it form -16 to +16).

 

However, if we increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses, then more of the radiation is blocked which leads to more infra-red light re-radiated back to the Earth, warming it up. This restriction means that a new equilibrium is reached, but one where more energy (and hence warming) is stored in the Earth's climate.

 

This is what global warming is. It is an application of conservation of energy.

 

What is uncertain is what the consequences of increasing the amount of energy in the climate systems of Earth will do. We do know two things that will occurs though, increasing the energy of something will either increase its temperature, or increase its velocity (ie make it more "energetic"). So increasing the energy in the atmosphere will either increase its velocities (more powerful storms) or increase its temperature (hotter weather melting icecaps, etc), or both.

 

It seems to me that if there can be such large global temperature changes in the past independent of any contribution from industrial processes, then how do we know how significant those processes are amidst the much larger variations produced by non-industrial, spontaneous changes in global temperatures?

Humans are more than capable of changing various aspects of the Earth. For example, we have actually caused the Earth to speed up its rotation simply by the number ans size of the dams we have built (and their locations). The locations of these dams have been in temperate latitudes, and the extra water stored there has come from elsewhere on the planet. This has caused a net shift in water away from the equator, and towards the poles. due to conservation of angular momentum, this has cause the Earth to speed up its spin. Although this is a very small amount, it is still detectable with accurate timing systems.

 

Now, this is not just the thin smear on the surface that is the atmosphere and oceans, but the whole planet that has speeded up. We most certainly do have the power to change the Earth, and have done so already. As for the climate, with the recent Icelandic volcano, the amount of CO² put out by the volcano was compared to the amount of CO² that would have been put out by the planes that were grounded because of the volcano. The amount CO² put out by the volcano was less than would have been put out by the planes. So in effect, the volcano was carbon negative (and volcanoes are generally though of as massive CO² contributors).

 

Not only that, the planes that were grounded were only a fraction of the planes that flew at that time, and planes are flying 24/7/356, where as the volcano lasted only a few weeks. This also doesn't take into account the CO² put out by cars and other transport which is greater than that of planes.

 

So, the amount of CO² put out by humans is certainly more than eneough to have a significant effect.

 

The evidence I have seen establishes that the world warms and cools on 30-year cycles, at least insofar as we can trace temperature records from the 1880s until today. So from 1880 to 1910 the world was cooling; then warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling again from 1940 to 1970, and finally warming once more from 1970 to 2000, which is what sparked the current concerns with global warming. In the 1960s, however, the world's worry was that another Ice Age was due soon and there were evidences of global cooling.

The last ice age (specifically the end of our interglacial period and the start of the next glacial period) should have started around 7,000 years ago. That's if the cycles continued as they should have (according to palaeoecological records).

 

Now, although there is a regular warming/cooling cycle that does occur, what has also been occurring is that each cycle is a little warmer than the one before. Think of it like this: When winter is turning into spring, you still get regular warming and cooling as day turns into night, but you know the weather is warming up and spring is coming because as this goes on the days and nights, even though there is a warming and cooling cycle going on, get warmer.

 

This is the same as what is occurring with the Earth's climate. There are many such cycles of warming and cooling, but the evidence shows that each one is getting a little bit warmer than the ones before it.

 

Although there is still variation where one can become slightly cooler, the over all long term trend is that they are getting warmer. This is a bit like how one week might have a cold snap, but the over all trend is still to warming as spring and summer approaches.

 

Not only that, if you take into consideration that we should be cooling, then what we are experiencing is autumn (fall) should be turning into winter and getting a longer term cooling trend, but it is instead getting warmer and seems to be turning into summer again.

 

If you had a year where autumn should have been turning into winter, but instead started getting hotter and hotter, you would start to worry. However, the position of the climate change deniers is like someone coming along to you and saying that we know in the past summer has been hotter than it is now, so we should be worried if it is getting hotter, as that occurs when summer comes along. But, the thing is it is not summer that should be arriving at this time, something must be wrong.

 

And this is the position of climate change supporters. That we should not be going into summer now, that the warming is not supposed to be happening. They are looking for the reason, and the one they found that agrees with all the evidence (ie conservation of energy, etc) is that the greenhouse gasses that Humans have put into the atmosphere is causing the warming (because all the other cycles say it should be cooling and this is the only force strong enough to cause the warming we are seeing).

 

I'm also concerned that the University of Wisconsin environmental sciences professor who first coined the term 'global warming' doesn't believe it is a serious issue, and that an environmental sciences professor at M.I.T. doesn't believe it is a problem either. If 80% of greenhouse gas emissions cling to the Earth's surface and remain in the bottom of the atmosphere, they can't be having that much of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse effects.

The term "Global Warming" was actually used in an attempt to ridicule climate change. So I'm not surprised that the person who coined the term doesn't take it seriously.

 

As it is the surface of the Earth that emits the infra-red radiation, then anything above that that can intercept it and re-radiate it back is enough to cause the warming effect. So even if 80% is in the lower atmosphere it is still going to cause an effect.

 

 

Given that reconstructing the largely carbon-based industrial and economic world we now have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be massively expensive and will no doubt impose serious economic hardships on vulnerable people already victimized for other reasons by the Neo-Liberal agenda, shouldn't we be absolutely certain that this huge self-inflicted economic wound to correct global warming influences is truly necessary before we act? I am particularly worried in this regard when I hear the British Green Party economist merrily chirping that this gigantic and wilful destruction of the world's economic base won't really matter because we can get used to valuing things other than traditional economic values, such as just rejoicing in clean air and fresh streams, rather than having enough technological capacity ever to cure cancer or enough productive power to provide adequate housing for the poor.

It was the construction of that carbon based industry that gave us the economy. So constructing a non-carbon industry can give us a better economy.

 

What it will mean, though, is the industries that don't change to the new economy and remain dependent on the old one will fail. Yes, this means that there will be businesses that will no longer exist (or not be as profitable).

 

As an example: Horse breeders faced a similar "crisis" when the car was invented. As people started using cars to get around, they needed less and less horses. Thus, for the Horse stables, this was an economic crisis that could cause the collapse of their economy.

 

So, yes. Petrol companies and fossil fuelled power stations are going to suffer. But, if these industries change their strategy to include the new markets and resources, then they will be able to continue.

 

The whole "economic problem" is caused by a sunk cost fallacy. History proves that this isn't the case. With the loss of horse stables due to the car, the loss of woodcut engravers with the invention of the printing press, and so on throughout history. Each time the people dependent on old was of doing things and who can't (or won't) change predict that the introduction of the new way will cause the collapse of the economy, and each time the economy has boomed after the change as the change created new markets and new industry.

 

Even if there was no climate change, developing the renewable sources of energy and low carbon technologies would be worth doing because it will create new stimulus for the economies of the world.

[SMF]

Again, this is in the wrong section of the forum.

 

Edtharan, good post. Here is mine-

 

Marat, you say:

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but just looking at the debate from the outside, it seems as though one of the major problems with any inferences regarding the cause and significant of current climate changes is that global warming on a much larger scale occurred in the past with absolutely no contribution from greenhouse gas production. I refer here to the fact that Greenland ca. 1000 was warm enough to support a large Viking farming population, as archeaological evidence shows. So if the world was clearly warmer then than now, what made it so warm in the early Middle Ages? Methane from cow burps? There were certainly many fewer cows then than now, just as there was no industrialization to generate greenhouse gases.

What you have suggested is that a regional warming in Greenland was global. The land around the southern tip, where the Norse colonies were, was and still is ice free and there is solid evidence that the glaciers that cover most of the continent have been intact for 800,000 years (http://www.scientifi...en-earth-warmer). Recent research shows some regional warming in the far north during the period of the Norse colonies (http://www.meteo.psu...alScience09.pdf), but not as warm as it is now. I wish I could get this article- http://www.sciencema.../6016/450.short, but I can't find it with full text access. There is also some interesting information in the Wiki article on Greenland regarding the settlements (http://en.wikipedia....nland#Etymology).

 

There are several known factors besides CO2 that can affect local warming including several ocean oscillations that change the path of warm currents, volcanoes can cause both cooling and warming depending on where they are, and water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. In the longer term, Milankovitch Cycles cause changes in insolation, but this is on a long time scale. CO2 works both as a forcing or a positive feedback, and all periods of past global warming show increased concentrations. There is a lot of research on this information. The best overall literature review of current climate information is in the scientific section (Working Group 1) of the IPCC report- http://www.ipcc.ch/p...n/contents.html

 

I presume your cow burp comment is intended to be humorous, but in fact natural methane that is part of the carbon cycle does not act as a climate forcer. The gas is produced from forage that was made from CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere. The methane degrades to CO2 in around 10 years to be made into plants again.

 

It seems to me that if there can be such large global temperature changes in the past independent of any contribution from industrial processes, then how do we know how significant those processes are amidst the much larger variations produced by non-industrial, spontaneous changes in global temperatures?

 

There are spontaneous changes in regional temperature, but none that are global. Provide a reference to some science.

 

The evidence I have seen establishes that the world warms and cools on 30-year cycles, at least insofar as we can trace temperature records from the 1880s until today. So from 1880 to 1910 the world was cooling; then warming from 1910 to 1940, then cooling again from 1940 to 1970, and finally warming once more from 1970 to 2000, which is what sparked the current concerns with global warming.

The forcings for slight cooling periods during the instrumental period are pretty well understood. Here are a couple of nice articles. http://www.skeptical...ry-advanced.htm, http://www.skeptical...termediate.htm. Even though they are on a blog most of their articles are written by scientists and so give links to primary sources so you can check what they say. I think I heard about a NOAA 20-30 year hurricane intensity cycle, but not any climate research. Do you have a couple of peer reviewed articles I could look at? There should be multiple publications if this is true.

 

In the 1960s, however, the world's worry was that another Ice Age was due soon and there were evidences of global cooling.

There was no scientific warning about eminent world cooling in the 1960's. The only climate science research that were investigating cooling were concerned with long term cooling related to Milakovitch cycles and the next solar minimum would be thousands of years off. The urban legend was started by a Time Magazine article. Read here- http://www.skeptical...termediate.htm. If you have a reference please provide it.

 

I'm also concerned that the University of Wisconsin environmental sciences professor who first coined the term 'global warming' doesn't believe it is a serious issue, and that an environmental sciences professor at M.I.T. doesn't believe it is a problem either.

Who do you think coined the term "global warming," this guy?- http://www.realclima...global-warming/

 

Finding two science professors (do they actually do climate research?) that doubt the consensus is not good evidence of an alternate view. There are many thousands of research articles that support the current global warming scientific consensus and many thousands of practicing climate science researchers worldwide that sign on to the idea. Here is a nice article about how 97% of climate scientists agree with the consensus and links are provided for the polling research- http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

 

If 80% of greenhouse gas emissions cling to the Earth's surface and remain in the bottom of the atmosphere, they can't be having that much of an impact on atmospheric greenhouse effects.

CO2 is a well-mixed gas throughout the atmosphere and doesn't cling to the surface.

 

The rest of your post is political. This is a science forum, and political arguments regarding what to do, both conservative or liberal (e.g. your neo-liberals and the British Green Party reference) should be informed about what the science actually says, and if the scientists are correct their will be plenty of problems for the "vulnerable people" to deal with along with the other big gorillas in the future survival room. SM

Edited April 8, 2011 by SMF

[Marat]

Thanks for that detailed exposition, though I still have a few questions and concerns.

 

First, everything I read about changes in the Earth's temperature maintains that the processes involved are extremely complex, so it is difficult for sincere and scientifically-motivated experts to distinguish changes which are occurring spontaneously from changes caused by greenhouse gases. Unless we can separate exactly how much is due to industrial activity from how much change would have occurred naturally, we may lack a socially justifiable reason for imposing on people all the dislocations that will come from changing rapidly to a non-carbon-based economy. Thus for example the time at which each new ice age 'should' appear is only very roughly calculable, so if it were to turn out that a new ice age began soon to supervene on present global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, drastic efforts to switch to a non-carbon-based economy might become unnecessary because of random factors we cannot perfectly calculate.

 

Second, with respect to human activity perhaps accounting for the world being much warmer in the year 1000 than it is today, I am troubled by how it then got colder, since the world's population continued to increase until the Black Death of the fourteenth century. Also, since Europe lost a third of its population after the Black Death, why wasn't there a sudden and dramatic cooling then? Why did it suddenly start snowing in New England in June during the mid-18th century in the course of what has been called 'the Little Ice Age'? Surely the effect of human activity, with its steadily growing population and the nascent industrialization of Britain at the time, would have been to warm the planet, and yet this entire effect was not only cancelled out but even overcome by spontaneous changes in the Earth's warming and cooling cycles, caused by complex interactions between ocean currents, winds, and temperature which we cannot accurately calculate.

 

I also don't think that the change to a non-carbon-based economy will be economically benign, given that it will be the first transition in economic form not based on the increased rationalization of productive forces, such as all previous transformations were, but it will be based on the desire to increase a resource which cannot be commodified, such as clean air or a cooler planet.

 

In terms of a simple example, the economic problem seems to be this: Today we employ 100 workers to produce 1000 widgets worth $10 each. We thus generate a product which sells for $10,000, out of which $2000 goes to reward the owner of the widget factory and $8000 goes to pay the workers $80 each. The cost to the environment is simply not measured on the balance sheet, since the environment is just expected to absorb this cost in terms of the global warming caused.

 

But if we decide to contain the global warming which this industrial process would normally cause, we now have to employ 100 workers to produce the widgets and 100 workers to cleanse the environment, so the wage of the widget producers has to be cut in half, the prodution of widgets has to be cut in half, the profit to the capitalists has to be reduced to try to prop up the wages of the workers, the price of the widgets has to be doubled, or some combination of these responses has to be made to respond to the fact that we now carry the environmental costs on the balance sheet, whereas before we just neglected them. This would represent a massive decline in the standard of living for the first time since the Black Death in 1346, and the way our economic and political system operates, that decline would probably be imposed exclusively on the most vulnerable people in society.

[SMF]

Marat:

 

First. All of the significant forcings that can affect climate (not weather) have been accounted for. How the greenhouse effect works is well studied and the amount of CO_² that society releases accounts for most of the current warming nicely. Also the amount of insolation change in the northern hemisphere from Milankovitch cycles is well understood, and enough cooling to just counterbalance current CO_² concentrations is not occurring, much less an imminent ice age.

 

Second. You are confusing local events with global events and weather with climate. These sorts of events are under intense study and will eventually be well understood and I think the science is advancing rapidly. There were not a lot of greenhouse gasses released until the last century because the level of industrialization and world population was relatively small. One interesting thing regarding the Black Death is that it has been estimated that the decrease in agriculture caused some regional warming because of decreased albedo.

 

The biggest forcings for the little ice age were decreasing sun output and increased sulfates in the atmosphere from volcanic activity, but other contributors are under investigation. The cooling was pretty much over by the mid-1800s and it was less than 1⁰ C at its mid point and may have had more effect on the northern hemisphere (probably because of the reduced insolation). For our current climate, we know that the sun output hasn't really changed much recently and the last volcanic eruption that caused noticeable global cooling was Pinatubo.

 

After this you shift back to your economic arguments for which one should first gain some accurate understanding of the science before speculating. I will make a couple of observations. A large group of competent scientists in many countries are saying that CO_² warming will cause some serious problems. Ocean biologists are telling us that increasing CO_² has a very serious potential to exacerbate the already seriously damaged oceans. Meanwhile we are passing peak oil and peak coal is not that far off. I just don't see why you don't think this combination is going to be very bad for the rapidly growing numbers of poor people in the world. All three problems require moving to a non-fossil carbon economy. Also, why is it that new wigits to save fossil energy won't stoke the economy? The people I know in the solar pv and solar water heating industry are making money hand over fist and can't get trained employees. Also China has pretty much taken over the worldwide PV market while we dither. SM

Edited April 8, 2011 by SMF

[Marat]

The problem for the real wealth of society overall with those in the environmental economy making profits is that the environmental economy is not producing anything of intrinsic consumer value. So a lot of money is changing hands from consumers of anti-global warming products and manufacturers of those products with no real value being produced, other than limiting global warming or cleaning up the environment, which are things which do not have a fungible commodity value or price, and which 'exist' for consumers only because the media tell them they exist according to the charts, tables, and data of climatologists, and because consumers are told that certain numbers going down on a table of data is a good thing. So profits in the environmental economy are like the profits which monasteries made in the Middle Ages for saying paid masses for the release of the souls of the dead from Purgatory. Money is exchanged but nothing is produced which has concrete value in itself.

 

I'm not saying that because we are running of out easily accessible carbon fuel sources or because of global warming dangers there will not have to be some drastic shift in the economy. But it will be a punishing shift if it has to involve the diversion of large numbers of workers and industrial processes to preventing planetary changes rather than producing commodities. Those productive resources are resources that will not be available to build adequate housing, to provide transport for people, to discover new cures for disease, or to alleviate malnutrition. And in our current Neo-Liberal political system, the pressure of this punishing shift will be fed by government policies onto the poor, probably through allowing massive environmental-protection surcharges to be built into the cost of products to siphon the costs of the transformation of the economy away from harming corporate profits.

 

There is also the problem of fixed infrastructure. During the 1950s and 1960s, most of the developed world invested a colossal amount of resources into building suburbs far away from where people need to work, shop, and enjoy recreation, and building highways to connect them with where they would have to go, all on the assumption that gasoline would always be cheap. If we now had to tear down the suburbs and the highway systems to concentrate the population in dense urban centers so as to avoid the greenhouse effects of using cars to link where people live to where they work, buy, and play, that would cost trillions. Even linking all these areas up by public transport will be hugely expensive and will still generate some carbon footprint.

[SMF]

Marat. I think you live on a different planet than I do. On my planet the manufacture of PV solar panels, inverters, solar water heaters, wind generators, house insulation, and so on, are real products with real value to everyone. Not only that they save money in the long run. Not only that they require people to make and install them. If you think this makes me a neo liberal then I embrace the label.

 

I think you should consider switching your concerns from politics to science and practical solutions because all those people worldwide that you are worried about are going to be having major problems as fossil energy costs go way up and food production suffers from environmental degradation. The sooner we get off of our fossil fuel habit the more likely there will be some of this precious stuff left for manufacturing plastics, medicine, and whatever instead of just burning it. SM