Late_Cretaceous

Alonzo Fyfe, what you say about fallacies is very true, and it works both ways.

We should strive to be as clean as possible, but always remember that every roll of toilet paper, SUV, cheeseburger, parking lot, garden, farm, house, road, dam come with an envronmental cost.

SteveD

I believe that global warming is real and that mankind is most likely contributing to it.
My question, though, is: is it necessarily bad?

As Liquidrage posted above, maybe we are just fighting off the next Ice Age.

Things are going to change one way or another eventually and the thought that it is within our control to keep the global climate stable over any period of time is laughable.

I could see that a slightly warmer earth could possibly be a better place. I would think that with a large part of the earth's landmass located very far to the north, a significant amount of land that is now rather inhospitable could become prime farmland and help feed the future additional billions that are on their way.

I think that we would have much more to fear from a colder world than a warmer one.

Please don't read into this that I approve of the squandering of the earth's resources or of us fouling our own nest. I just don't like all of the alarmism that comes along with the global warming message.

Steve

Alonzo Fyfe

Much of the issue is not whether a warmer climate will be better or worse in an absolute sense. It concerns the transition costs.

Consider, for example, what would have happened if human civilization had developed during the last ice age. We would have likely built our cities on the coast, just as we did in fact. Today, those cities would be sitting under 400 feet of water. We would have experienced a severe dislocation as people were forced to migrate inland. At the same time, we would have discovered that traditional farming techniques were no longer effective -- traditional crops simply were not suited to the new climate. Even cultural traditions which, in the ice age, kept people alive would instead cause death.

We are not expecting such a severe rise in sea level. Under extreme circumstances a 40 foot rise in sea level is logically possible -- but not likely enough to take serously. It's about the same chance as that of being hit by an asteroid large enough to wipe out human life. A 2 to 3 feet rise is expected. But this is still severe enough to wipe out 1 small pacific island country, inundate 40% of Bangladesh, and require hundreds of billions of dollars of expense to try to save low-lying coastal regions such as Cairo, Venice, most of Holland, and New Orleans (to name a few examples).

A more likely significant cost of global warming is a much colder climate in Europe.

(What! Global warming causes a colder climate! I knew these global warming advocates were nuts!)

The reason: Europe is warmed by the gulf stream. The gulf stream is powered by salinity of the ocean in the northern Atlantic. The sality of the ocean in the northern Atlantic is governed by the size of the ice cap around Canada and Greenland. A warmer climate over Canada and Greenland means (potentially) a colder climate over Europe.

Another cost of transition -- heat stress in the U.S. is expected to take about 7,500 additional lives per year in the United States alone for each 1 degree C increase in temperature -- almost exclusively in northern cities -- while its residents transition from a colder climate to a warmer climate (install air conditioning, acquire habits and traditions more suitable for higher-temperature conditions).

Much of the research presently being done by the International Panel for Climate Change has to do with predicting the effects of global warming under the idea that the sooner we are aware of the changes we need to make the easier and less costly the transition will be.

They work on an assumption called 2xCO2 (where CO2 levels are twice what they were in pre-industrial times, or 550 ppmv). They assume that 550 ppmv CO2 is inevitable. , so they look at the changes that will be required to save coastal development, in agriculture, health, civil defense (from natural disasters) and the like.

They are seeking, in short, to minimize the transition costs.

(Note: Though 2xCO2 is considered inevitable, 3xCO2 and 4xCO2 are also possibilities. It will take a great deal of effort to stop at 2xCO2. So, there is also research going on to look at the costs of not slowing emissions.)

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

The Resistance

So if global warming occurs it will dislocate people on the coast adn kill off northerners through heat exhaustion?

You realize that those area are disapproiately liberal compared to the rest of the country? Maybe it's God trying to kill off some of us freethinkers and give fundies control again.

I think that's the best argument I can come up with for fighting global warming.

Alonzo Fyfe

I think it may be Republicans (particularly big oil Republicans) trying to kill off some of us free thinkers and give fundies control again.

Sojourner553

The media has done a terrible job in discussing global warming.

TIME magazine was one important exception. DISCOVER magazine and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN -- ie science magazines are also wonderful exceptions.


Here are some facts taken from the Environmental Protection Agency’s website:
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html</a>

* " Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions , and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases."

[Note; the cow poop creates more methane – but even this is due to lifestyle. I recently gave up beef and pork – for HEALTH reasons.]

* “Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record.”


* “Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation.”


[About a a year ago the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasted that the global average surface temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade between now and 2100. If that projection holds up, it says, the change in temperature in the next 100 years will be larger than any climate change on earth in more than 10,000 years.

Five degrees centigrade is the difference between now and the last ice age, when most of North America was covered by thousands of feet of ice. ]


* “Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.”

[That is, the problem is not what the temperature is LOCALLY – The issue is what is the temperature at the poles – where the ice caps/glaciers can melt – raising sea level and flooding coastal cities!]


Icebergs are melting at an alarming rate:
On March 20, The Guardian of London reported that a piece of ice the size of Wales just broke off from Antarctica. This is an iceberg that weighs 500 trillion tons, according to the article. Ships in the Atlantic had lookouts to scout for icebergs. Several reports have indicated they have all melted in the last couple of years.


**********************************************

This information is from the Union of Concerned Scientist’s Site:
<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html</a>

“Changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records:

· mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

· the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

· the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

· there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . . .
As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives. While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts. Among the most severe consequences of global warming are:

· a faster rise in sea level,

· more heat waves and droughts, resulting in more and more conflicts for water resources;

· more extreme weather events, producing floods and property destruction; and

· a greater potential for heat-related illnesses and deaths as well as the wider spread of infectious diseases carried by insects and rodents into areas previously free from them.
If climatic trends continue unabated, global warming will threaten our health, our cities, our farms and forests, beaches and wetlands, and other natural habitats.

We can take action to reduce the threat
Fortunately, we can take action to slow global warming. Global warming results primarily from human activities that release heat-trapping gases and particles into the air. The most important causes include the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, and deforestation. To reduce the emission of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, we can curb our consumption of fossil fuels, use technologies that reduce the amount of emissions wherever possible, and protect the world’s forests.

We can also do things to mitigate the impacts of global warming and adapt to those most likely to occur, e.g., through careful long-term planning and other strategies that reduce our vulnerability to global warming.

Be part of the solution

Clearly, global warming is a huge problem. It will take everyone -- governments, industry, communities and individuals working together to make a real difference.

At UCS, we’re working to bring sound scientific information to policymakers and the public to educate them about global warming, its impacts, and about available practical solutions. We’re raising awareness of the need for action and working to create Congressional support for ratification of the Kyoto climate treaty.
But we don’t stop there. We’re also advocating policies that will combat global warming over the long term. Things like clean cars that run on alternative fuels, environmentally responsible renewable energy technologies, and stopping the clear-cutting of valuable forests.

[ie Clean cars and alternative fuels also means we are not starting wars in the Middle East for oil!]

Sojourner

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Global warming is thought to affect the following areas in the US:

" The low forests and farms are mostly in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Major port cities with low areas include Boston, New York, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans. The average elevation of New Orleans is about 2 meters below sea level, and parts of Texas City, San Jose, and Long Beach, California are about one meter below sea level."

I think thre are plenty of Democrats and Republicans spread out here -- don't forget Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans.

Source:
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts/coastal/" target="_blank">http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/impacts/coastal/</a>

This also ignores the rest of the world. Holland is obviously very unhappy as it is already at sea level. I read an article in NYT a few months ago that told of a Pacific Island that is expected to be inundated in the next 100 years. Lawyers were wondering if the populace could sue the US. It would be in the international courts of course.

Sojourner

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

SteveD

The posting of this topic has prompted me to do some research into global warming. My views on this have changed a bit. I now think that the whole global warming issue has been greatly overblown.

Some of the more significant points that I have come across are these:

1) The data commonly used as verification of global warming is taken from ground stations and ocean area sampling from ships and bouys. Most stations are located in urban areas and are subject to an environment that is anything but stable for establishing reliable trends.

Satellite and baloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures do not corroborate the ground measurements and in fact show a slight cooling trend.

A great site that explains this in detail is here: <a href="http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/tar-2000/ch-3.htm" target="_blank">Still Waiting for Global Warming</a>

This informtion is in rebuttal to the IPCC report "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis"

2) The commonly referred to scientific "consensus" on the reality of human caused global warming is a myth. I have seen many places where there is a reference to 2,300 or 2,500 scientists agreeing to it as a representation of this consensus. However this site:
<a href="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm" target="_blank">Global Warming Petition Project</a>

Has signatures from 17,100 scientists on a petition that states.

This site also has plenty of scientific data to back up their position.

3) Temperature trends correlate very well with the level of solar activity.



This chart comes from this site:
<a href="http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html" target="_blank">Global Warming, does it exist?</a>

4) To date, attmepts to model global warming have been very innacurate. See this site for details.

<a href="http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex2.htm" target="_blank">Greenhouse Scorecard</a>

My conclusion after looking into this stuff is that the small amount of global warming may actually exist is due to a long term increase that has been going on since the little ice age and any human attempts to control the climate are misguided, unpredictable and probably innefective.

Steve

Alonzo Fyfe

The so-called "scientific" case against global warming has a lot in common with the "scientific" case against evolution. Most of it is a sham.


(1) The Heat Island Effect. This objection states that the data on surface warming should be suspect because the temperature readings are taken in urban areas.

This makes it sound like the bulk of the scientific community are either idiots or involved in a grand (but very poorly planned) conspiracy.

The heat island effect has long been known, and is factored out of the measurements by comparing temperature rise in urban areas with temperature rise in rural areas.

It turns out not to matter much, because the temperature increase for global warming is being noted in rural arctic and subarctic regions.

(2) 17,000 scientists have signed a petition against global warming.

All that is required to sign the petition is a BSc degree in any field. The signatures were collected fraudulently by mailing a packet that made it appear that the signers were endorsing the work of the National Academy of Science -- which felt the need to publicly state that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The signatures are collected over the internet with verification procedures that are so lax that environmentalists have added fictitious names to the list that have yet to be identified and removed.

Using these techniques, how difficult would it be, for example, to get a list of 17,000 "scientists" on a petition debunking evolution, for example.


(3) Balloon and satellite temperature records do not show global warming.

Balloons and satellites measure temperature several kilometers above the surface of the earth. It is no surprise that, when you measure temperature in two different locations, you get two different temperatures.

The last time I checked, the bulk of the human population -- indeed, the bulk of all life on Earth, lives its life at or very near the surface of the earth -- so it is the surface temperature that is going to effect us.

Note: Early climate models suggested that the atmosphere several km above the surface would warm as much or more than the surface temperature. The balloon and satellite evidence suggests that these early models were in error. But, the process of correcting for this error suggests less upper atmosphere warming, and a correspondingly GREATER surface atmosphere warming.

That extra energy needs to be stored somewhere.


(4) Temperature change matches change in solar activity.

Should I be suspicious about the fact that this objection typically shows up shortly after the claim that temperature change records are inaccurate?

Greenhouse gasses are so classified because a spectroscopic analysis of those gasses show strong absorbtion lines that correspond to the Earth's emission spectrum.

That is to say, they absorb the energy that the Earth radiates.

If you shine energy of the type that the Earth emits through a region containing greenhouse gasses, those gasses can not help but aborb a portion of that energy. And, once absorbed, something has to happen to that energy. (One plausible option is that the average kenetic energy of the gas -- its temperature -- increases. But, if it does not increase, then what is happening to the energy?)

In fact, if solar emissions remain constant, the existing change in CO2 concentrations alone results in the atmosphere absorbing an additional 1.8 watts per square meter column of air.

If solar emissions rise, then that will combine with the effects of GHG absorbtion of the Earth's infrared radition to cause the atomosphere to absorb even more energy (about 4.4 watts per square meter).

This energy will be absorbed, and something has to happen to it. If not global warming, then what?


(5) Computer climate models are innacurate.

Therefore, what?

Therefore CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses do not absorb energy in those wavelengths that the Earth does emits, that would have otherwise been radiated out into space?

Certainly, that does not follow.

Most of the climate modelling is being applied to a scenario called 2xCO2 -- a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels -- which is considered inevitable. The purpose of these studies is to try to help reduce the damage that would come from this inevitable increase in greenhouse gasses.

Scientists make mistakes from time to time. Fortunately, they work in a field where theories are tested and mistakes eventually discovered.

The above arguments are not scientific mistakes. The problems with them are so egregious that they can only be taken as intentional deception.

You will not see these arguments published in professional peer-reviewed scientific journals; just as you will not see evidence debunking evolution in professional peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That is because they have no serious scientific merit.

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Corey Hammer

Well, if Yellowstone explodes soon. We won't have to worry about global warming for a while.