Global Warming: Bad Science?

[thebullet]

I'm in the middle of writing a little opus (Tales of the eKids) the background of which is the start of a new ice age caused by global warming. I have received many emails from conservatives, some of them very pleasant and supportive of my story, that reminded me that global warming is just bad science.

I have replied to these people (those who didn't write anonymously) with a quote off of the Environmental Protection Agency web page that acknowledges that global warming is happening and is a direct result of man's emissions.

Tonight there was a report on BBC World News about the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. Those islands are on average about 2 meters above sea level. For years the islands have been loosing land to the rising sea level caused by global warming and there are fears that in 50 years there may be nothing left.

My theory is that the Conservatives should go to the Maldives and tell those beleagured islanders that they are foolish to fall prey to Liberal propaganda about global warming. The islands aren't being inundated, that's just bad science. Maybe the Conservatives should also teach the islanders how to hold their breaths.

 

[shereads]

Maybe it isn't global warming. Maybe water is becoming puffier.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I shouldn't wonder if there are other explanation for the rising water level. Seems like nature's big enough to support more than just one single variable.

 

[neonlyte]

I have immense sympathy for the peoples of the Maldives. They are however relatively few in number, less than 350,000, and can be relocated.

The basic statistics are these. Temperatures globally have risen 0.6C in the last fifty years. Most scientists now agree that temperatures will rise between 2 - 6C in the next fifty years. This is irreversible, stopping emitting 'greenhouse gases' today will not prevent temperatures rising by 2C.

The effect is to increase the severity of naturally occuring phenonema, such as hurricanes. Within the hurricane belt live more than 150,000,000 people. These people cannot be relocated within the time frame of the predicted temperature increase. The frequency and severity of hurricanes this season may be an indicator of what can be expected.

The rising of the sea level is hypothetical at best, it essentially requires the melting of the Greenland ice cap, some studies show the melting icecap will lead to a diversion of the gulf stream plunging western europe into the Ice Age you are writing about, the effect of which is to 'lock' moisture into ice thereby reducing sea levels.

The Kyoto agreement, now to be implimented following Russian agreement provides for a 5% reduction in 'greenhouse gas' emmisions over a twenty year time frame. Since Kyoto was agreed in 2000 the US alone has increased global 'gg' emmisions by 20%. 85% of this increase is generated by SUV's.

It appears to me, and many on this side of the Atlantic, that Americans are being kept ignorant of the true nature of these facts, perhaps the increasing frequency of hurricanes will provide a reminder.

This is not a wish for harm to American peoples, just an observation that occassionally a 'kick in the pants' beats all explanations.

 

[Liar]

The Maldives are drowning because of global warmingmelting the polar caps. That's pretty easy to prove.

But what causes the ice to melt? SUVs? Chain smokers? Another party at the Playboy Mansion?

Or maybe just an ordinary climate change that seems to have happened all the time in earlier times?

Damned if I know.

#L

 

[Guest]

 

[rgraham666]

Either we do something about global warming, or it will do something about us.

 

[neonlyte]

The Kyoto Protocol would simply transfer manufacturing from those states subject to the limits, to those states not subject to them. Those states who would gain the manufacturing do not have the emission technology to limit green house gasses, nor do they have an incentive to invest in the technology.

It is overly simplistic to blame global warming on the United States, and fails to recognize the globalziation of the world economy.

I agree. Kyoto will solve nothing. That the US is doing nothing does not absolve them from the problem, indeed the problem may afflict the US economically quicker that any other nation, simply due it's line of path in the hurricane belt. How many years do by provide 100 bn dollars for reconstruction before in hits the pocket.

Global trade expansion is the problem, China will outstrip the US in 'gg' emmisions within 20 years and is similarly not a member of Kyoto.

Rising sea levels are something else altogether and should not be confused with Global Warming. It is not difficult to locate sites across Europe where sea levels were 3 metres higher 1000 years ago. Global Warming does not make it rain more, just more intensively where it does rain, other zones will become arid.

The confusion arises when people combine the potential melting of the Greenland Ice Cap, which would be caused by Global Warming, with rising sea levels that are part of a long term planetary cycle.

The case for the melting of the GIC is not proven, but IF it happened, sea levels might rise in the short term by 2 metres or more. This will not happen overnight - there will be time to run.

 

[Pied_Typer]

Try to forget the Maldives.

It far more comfortable to swallow the blue pill.

 

[shereads]

So far, the only science that disputes the fact of global warming seems to be science purchased by people who have a stake in the fossil fuels industries.

Even GWB finally admitted the fact of global warming, but not until he had used the alleged lack of proof to justify pulling us out of the Kyoto treaty and canceling his campaign promise to regular carbon monixide a pollutant.

What was lovely about his sudden insight on global warming was the way he used the speech as an opportunity to say that it's too late to do anything about it, so we're just going to keep on keepin' on. Later, he and Ken Lay no doubt had lunch.

Neon, you're right. The time to stop the damage was about thirty years ago, when "alarmists" first warned that we had to wean ourselvse off of fossil fuels before it was too late. What it's not too late to do is invest in oceanfront property in Nevada.

 

[thebullet]

neonlyte wrote:

The rising of the sea level is hypothetical at best, it essentially requires the melting of the Greenland ice cap, some studies show the melting icecap will lead to a diversion of the gulf stream plunging western europe into the Ice Age you are writing about, the effect of which is to 'lock' moisture into ice thereby reducing sea levels.

Neonlyte: There are, of course, short term and long term consequences of global warming, some of which seem contradictory. The water need only raise a few meters to seriously impact the shores wordwide. (As I said, the Maldives are only 2 meters above sea level.) If you had, ahem, read my stories, you would remember that I pointed out that polar meltoff was what would lead to the diversion or interruption of the Gulf Stream, lowering the average temperature in Northern Europe by up to 10 degrees farenheit and triggering the coming ice age.

Of course, once the ice age begins, with all that water locked into the North and South Poles, not only will we be able to reclaim the Maldive Islands (too late, I fear, to save the tourist industry), but also much of the land submerged by the infusion of water into the Medeterranean Sea. We'll probably find Atlantas. What do you do with all those marinas in Southern California and North Carolina and New Jersey and etc, etc, etc., when they are several miles insland? All those snotty-assed rich people with formerly beach-front property are going to be pissed. Then GWB will believe in global warning!

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Me: "Yes, yes, the Earth is going to Hell. Yes, me and the Big Man gave you all big warnings. No, we are not planning any stops upstairs for the "righteous". Now, if you would all calm down and tighten the seatbelts on your personal handbaskets, we can resume our non-stop spiral. There will be complimentary beverages later."

 

[BigAndTall]

I]It appears to me, and many on this side of the Atlantic, that Americans are being kept ignorant of the true nature of these facts, perhaps the increasing frequency of hurricanes will provide a reminder.

This is not a wish for harm to American peoples, just an observation that occassionally a 'kick in the pants' beats all explanations.

Except that we are not having more hurricans than normal.

In fact, from 1950-2000 we were in a normal and natural lull period. You have this backwards.

 

[cantdog]

I'm afraid this isn't amenable to politics. No political alignment can make it didn't happen.

Check out what happened to Mont Blanc. Check out how many glaciers there now are in Glacier National Park. The fact of it is beyond question. What is yet to be worked out is the effect of it.

Indeed, the worst case would be the interruption of the global ocean-current circulation system of which the Gulf Stream forms a part. We are able to chart much of it and show interrelationships, but we cannot yet model to everyone's satisfaction what might be sufficient to shut it down. It seems to depend on masses of cold water sinking below the warmer stuff and displacing the water that's there already. The rate of polar ice melt has indeed changed.

We have some observations and measurements dating back quite a way. It seems clear that the normal rhythm of ice ages was interrupted by the creation of the Gulf Stream system, which has the net effect of distributing the equatorial warmth and also the polar cold, mitigating both and inducing a stability which hadn't existed before.

Without this mixing, we would already have had an ice age; we'd be in one right now. Without it, the habitable zone for naked humans would be much smaller, whether there was an ice age or not. Nearly everyone sees the disruption of the Gulf Stream as pretty much having to trigger another ice age.

So far, so good. But how fragile is this thing? What exactly is required to maintain it, and where is it vulnerable? We see changes produced by global warming, and our models show us that more such changes are due. The power of our little spike in global temperature is almost certainly insufficient to affect the larger system of ice ages, but there are possibilities that it may be enough to mess with the Gulf Stream.

In the meantime, it seems clear that more energy in the system means more available energy to drive weather patterns. Southern life forms have moved their ranges north in some localities, more severe weather is being generated, climate patterns are unstable.

Nobody's climate is like it was. Many large ice formations have shrunk all over the world, many small glaciers have actually vanished. Nearly every week you see someplace with a record temperature, a record storm, a record drought. These things are subject to a lot of fluctuation anyway, and consequently they are easier to effect than ponderous systems like ice ages. It won't be warmer climate everywhere, of course, some places will "benefit" and some "lose" more than others.

But you can't wish the phenomenon away.

cantdog

 

[shereads]

As long as there is money to be made by irresponsible use of our shared resources, whether it's the U.S. using the lion's share of fossil fuel or Japan wiping out species by overfishing, there will always be a sympathetic politician who claims there's not enough proof and more studies are needed.

How many canaries have to die in a coal mine before it makes sense to accept that the air is dangerous? I can imagine the Cabinet meetings and Congressional hearings: "Why lose valuable hours of coal-mining time, panic the miners, and spend money fixing a problem that might not even exist? Maybe the canaries died of heart attacks. We need studies. We need post-mortems."

Anyone who says otherwise is an alarmist. Until it's too late.

You can't prove global warming or anything else to the extent that people whose wealth is threatened by a change in the status quo will admit that it exists. By the time GWB finally admits that global warming is real and probably disastrous, he can also argue that it's too late to do anything about it. Which is how he can justify continuing to postpone stricter emissions standards. Mission accomplished.

Years of redundant studies were nothing but a stalling tactic, and it worked. Some people got rich, the rest of us didn't have to give up our Range Rovers, and the people who will be hit hardest haven't been born yet. So who cares?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't know that its a Bush-thing. My uncle is a Democrat and a politicians and he says that he would put himself in the safe position of "re-electable" by saying "we need to know more" because its career-suicide to tell the people that they can't do what they've been allowed to do their whole lives.

I think he's like most all politicians.

 

[Xelebes]

Either we do something about global warming, or it will do something about us.

That is if we can do about anything it...

 

[Xelebes]

Have any of you seen the charts or graphs depicting the actual temperature of the globe over the last 1,000 years taken from ice sample cores from the Greenland's and Antarctica glaciers? If I can locate them, I will show them to you.

But until then, I shall have to describe them to you. As Liar can attest to, it is possible to analyse charts in the same manner as sound - that is responding variable over a manipulated variable (most often case here: time.)

Anywho, if you look at the chart you will see a sharp rise from 1860 and on. This is what we are currently worried about. I forget what the amount was for the rise - 1.6 C or something. Once I can locate the chart I can give you more accurate numbers. But take a look at the time before that and what you'll see is like a 0.2 - 0.4 C drop or something like that over 800 or so years. There is a peak around 1400 or something but then it goes downhill some more.

What does this remind me of? Sawtooth form with natural static. What is that comparable to in something a little bit more applicable? Listen to a violin playing a simple note, evenly bowed with the bow at a nice angle. Or for something even more practical, try plucking a guitar string. That is what I am thinking this reminds me of.

When you pluck a string, there is a force exerted on the string which is a slow push to a direction which it then releases to sharply return to it's previous state and then goes a bit further with the inertia involved. From the looks of the chart I saw, the cycle looks about to be a 5-10 milennia long cycle.

Of course, humans may be helping push it this time, but I certainly think the climate change would be interesting to note down as deserts might no longer be deserts anymore and might actually turn into very fruitful territories which in turn might cause some wars and such and such and such... the list goes on.

Now, to hunt down the chart and harass some people into helping me find that chart.

 

[thebullet]

Xelebes said:

deserts might no longer be deserts anymore and might actually turn into very fruitful territories which in turn might cause some wars and such and such and such.

Contrarily, desert areas may expand in many areas. If the climate change increases winds significantly, (and it looks like that may be happening), the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains may extend enough to create another dust bowl for an even longer period of time than the last one.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Xelebes said:
Contrarily, desert areas may expand in many areas. If the climate change increases winds significantly, (and it looks like that may be happening), the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains may extend enough to create another dust bowl for an even longer period of time than the last one.

This is not necessarily a good thing.

According to most speculation that's likely to be more the case. Deserts don't retract easily. They do expand easily, especially under global warming conditions. That's why a lot of deserts have been expanding for the last hundred years or so.

But why listen to a liberal about it? All of the climatologists and Earth Science professors at my school are all liars and frauds. People can do anything to nature and she doesn't care.

And it's true. Nature doesn't care. She'll live. Only we'll die.

 

[Guest]

 

[Weird Harold]

...reminded me that global warming is just bad science.

I have replied to these people (those who didn't write anonymously) with a quote off of the Environmental Protection Agency web page that acknowledges that global warming is happening and is a direct result of man's emissions.

Tonight there was a report on BBC World News about the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. Those islands are on average about 2 meters above sea level. For years the islands have been losing land to the rising sea level caused by global warming and there are fears that in 50 years there may be nothing left.

I think there IS a great deal of "Bad Science" about Global Warming on BOTH sides of the issue.

The Maldives are a good example of the kind of politicized doom and gloom "science" involved.

The question that immediately comes to mind is, "Why are islands in the Indian Ocean the most affected by Ice Caps melting half a wolrd away when places with similar elevations betwen those two points are not affected?"

For example: Macdill AFB is located on a penninsula inside the city of Tampa Florida. The highest elevation on base is 12 feet, and that is a man-made mound; MacDill's runway is at an Elevation of five feet MSL. The city of Tampa is't much higher in terms of average elevation -- nor for that matter is the entire state of Florida.

Why do we need to go to the Maldives for proof of rising sea levels when we have lower and more populated areas closer to home that should be in as much or more danger?


There is more than enough evidence that mankind can have a major effect on climate -- the current extent of the Sahara is traceable in part to the deforestation of northern Africa by ancient civilizations -- and there is more thn enough evidence that the world is warming up and has been since sometime in the middle of the second millenium and that the warming coincides with Mankind's increased CO2 emmissions.

The problem is, that "scientists" -- many with political agendas -- can't agree how much is coincidence and how much is cause and effect. Theories abound, but only those that positively assert that the coming doom is all mankind's fault are given publicity and credence. Alternative explanations are dismissed as "political maneuvering" or "ignoring the truth."

Global Warming is a fact. The explanations of why it's happening are Theories and many of those theories are being pushed as "facts" with little or no real evidence.

A couple of decades ago, floro-carbons were banned from airconditioning systems and spray cans (in developed countries) because they were "Destroying the Ozone Layer." The "Hole in the Ozone" is still there over Antarctica and doesn't seem to be healing very much despite the $500 I (and millions of others) spent to convert the A/C in my truck to an "Ozone-Safe refrigerant."

Granted, it took several decades of flourocarbon use to damage the Ozone Layer and it logically should take several more for the damage to completely heal. BUT flourocarbons have been out of use for long enough that we should be seeing SOME effect.

One thing I don't see in the debate over greenhouse gasses are proposals for removing any of them; I only see proposals for reducing the amount we generate.

Carbon Dioxide is fairly easy to "scrub" from the air -- mechanically, chemically, or organically -- but I don't see any proposals for planting large areas with greenery or proposals for seeding green algae in large bodies of water to convert the CO2 to Oxygen.

There is more than enough "Bad Science" on this issue -- and many others -- to cast doubt on the claimed causes and solutions for Global Warming. I'm still waiting for some "good science" and political support for real solutions.

 

[gauchecritic]

I agree wholly with Harold, science hasn't been around long enough to be able to measure the influence of man on the environment in terms of earth changing occurrences.

Someone said that the earth will survive whatever we do. This is also true, several fimbulwinters and glacial periods have done very little real damage to nature. Flowers will always be, as will micro-organisms and the insects haven't fared too badly in those eons either. It's only people that will disappear. (I shouldn't think even the "greens" are arguing for mother earth only our place in it)

The last I heard (possibly bad science) was that the hole in the ozone was always there and fluctuates naturally (or un-naturally), we didn't even know it was there (or not) before the middle of the 20th century. Hell, we didn't even know what ozone was 200 years before that.

OK so I'm an optimist, I won't believe there's a bus until it hits me.

As for Kyoto, this isn't going to solve anything. The agreement is to reduce projected increase by 5%, nothing more and we (you) can't even agree to that.

I've never heard the algae idea before Harold, it sounds pretty good to me. I'm sick and tired of telling people that it's not the rain forest that makes our oxygen, trees are (mainly) neutral producer/users of oxygen.

Gauche

 

[amicus]

Reading through this thread...some thoughts came to mind...and I am quite certain it will not be possible to make a clear point...the subject is too large....however....

Putting aside for the moment...Global Warming....Greenhouse Gases...and Ozone Depletion....let me add Conservation and Ecologists and those who advocate a pristine natural environment and those who desire to retrict the activities of man to protect water and air quality and 'endangered species' and such things....

The essentials of life...food, shelter and clothing...the basic things we need to live...are pretty much labor intensive...or have been and have become less so with mechanization.

Food has to be grown, harvested, processed, transported, bought and sold and distributed. Living space has to be constructed, timber harvested....concrete made...etcetera, the same with clothing...and again...just the essentials and in the beginning..just the 'bare' essentials....

In the early stages...there is little surplus resources to be shared or bought and sold or traded or bartered....

There was a time when almost every lamp in every home that had a lamp was fueled by whale oil. The reason being that whale oil burned clean and odorless.

There was a time when almost every habitable structure was made from wood...as were ships and bridges.

And then there was Iron ore...and steel and the world changed.

Add to that petroleum products....crude oil...and electricity....

All these things still related, in general, to those basic necessities of life, food shelter and clothing....

There was a time when all these 'industries' were cottage in nature, small....providiing for a local market and in the beginning, all scarce commodities with little surplus.

Add coal to that list....as I look back...and I am sure other things could be added....however....

There are two points I wish to draw attention to thus far: first, that in nearly every area mentioned, there has arisen controversy throughout every level from acquiring the raw material, to processing, to transportation...to distribution.

The second point is more difficult to explain and it may require a leap of faith for those who are by nature argumentative....

Once a surplus of those commodities deemed essential, basic...was achieved....a new class of people came into existence.

There is another level of 'needs' that follow those basic ones; namely medical care and education.

These and other areas of endeavor, require a different sort of 'person' to supply those needs. People who were not employed to the chain of production of those basic needs.

Specializaton and the division of labor are not just economic terms, they and many more are a natural evolution of the labor of man to produce goods and services.

Thus, over time, an entire class of people, more and more disassociated with the supply of 'basic' needs has arisen and more and more, came to occupy the 'metropolitan' areas in the gatherings of humanity.

Not to point fingers, but Thebullet and Shereads come to mind as those who have, perhaps, lost touch with the natural evolution or progress of man from primitive to modern.

Few question that deforestation and strip mining changes the landscape. That over harvesting of any commodity, eventually depletes that resource.

It is also a natural progression that those who have moved beyond those employed (at all levels) in the production of the basics....natural that those who do not produce but depend on those necessities...would wish to manage, control, regulate, restrict the production and the effects and that production.

What has troubled many, myself included, is the shrill outcry of yet another class of people who seem to have no connection with either level of those who supply goods and services at, above and beyond the level of basic necessities.

Although the depend on common man, the masses to provide sustenance for them...they disdain and demean those who work with their backs and their hands instead of their minds.

There is a tremendous amount of science being done concerning the environment of planet earth. Some amount of that is 'true' science...intended to discover the history of man and his natural environment.

Some of that science is politically motivated...we all know that...and we all know that some of the science is distorted and corrupted by those with agendas...from many directions.

After many years of being involved in political debate...I had hoped to find a forum in which one might discuss the essential issues beneath and above the political arena.

A few others here also make that attempt and that is when this forum becomes a pleasure.

There is much good stuff that one might think on....how to look forward to a world population that continues to increase. How to provide basic resources when demand increases and traditional supplies diminish.

I do not find population control and further restrictions on existing resources to be an avenue of resolve for these issues.

Well....perhaps in that ramble...someone might find something useful....perhaps not.....


amicus....

 

[thebullet]

Amicus says:

Not to point fingers, but Thebullet and Shereads come to mind as those who have, perhaps, lost touch with the natural evolution or progress of man from primitive to modern.

Amicus, you are in fact pointing fingers. You claim to have read my work. If you have you know that one of my primary interests is evolution. This includes the evolution of man as you put it, 'from primitive to modern'.

Do you believe that because we have always done things a certain way we must continue to do them that way, even in light of overwhelming evidence that we are seriously harming our environment? Is science merely political to you if you don't like the science? Amicus the only reputable scientists in the world who don't believe in global warming are those with an economic or political reason not to believe in global warming.

There is a plethora of 'good science' being performed by scientists around the world that establishes the validity of global warming. I suggest you go to the North Pole and measure the thickness of the polar ice that floats on the Arctic Ocean. Compare the figures you get with the figures obtained 50 years ago. Then tell me that global warming is 'bad science'.

You cling to your little economic model as if it were the only viable way to exist. Why must we consume our natural resources at a breakneck speed? Are there not alternative energy sources that could be developed RIGHT NOW that would provide the energy we need without depleteing natural resources and still maintaining economic growth?

Are you such a naturalist, Amicus, that you look forward to a Malthusian solution to our proliferate use of natural resources? Are you such a single-minded patriot that you just don't care that America consumes natural resources and spews polution at a rate far out of proportion to its population?

What has troubled many, myself included, is the shrill outcry of yet another class of people who seem to have no connection with either level of those who supply goods and services at, above and beyond the level of basic necessities.

And what troubles many, including myself is the condescending and overbearing attitude of the extreme Right, the historically undereducated know nothings who believe they are always right and everyone else is always 'shrill' and stupid or uninformed.

I truly have contempt for people who force their view of 'science' to adhere to their philosophic beliefs. Regardless of philosophy, science is inviolate.