Saturday, January 13, 2007


More Sure Signs of Global Warming

It's about 2 degrees now, heading for a high of 6 here in Denver. Perfect, and typical, stock show weather. There's a cold snap coming to the Los Angeles area with predictions of snow and record low temperatures (hope the oranges are all right). These are both evidence, we are told by the Warmies, that Global Warming (caused solely by human activity) is real and harmful. Just seems like Winter to me. Some Warmies, however, think Global Warming can cause an unnatural new ice age; so these record cold temperatures are more evidence of global warming to them.

I will readily admit that it is now on average about a degree warmer than it was in the mid-1800s. I will also admit that the yearly average of naturally fluctuating CO2 levels have risen since 1850 from 280 parts per billion to 350 at present. But we were coming out of a prolonged cold period by the mid-1800., That period even has a name, the Little Ice Age; so who is to say that we're not just getting back to an average temperature over the long term more close to normal? The Warmies look at 150 years of evidence and say the sky is falling because of a 1 degree rise. I say look at the long term before you go all chicken little. And look at the real science before you believe the Arctic and Antarctic ice are melting away.

Nothing like true science from a true scientist.......
I can't believe you're serious about this. Global warming amongst climate scientists is as uncontroversial as evolution is to biologists ( e.g. or
but I'll bet you can point me to a creationist site that will claim it's bunk. Now the economists are agreeing: quote: Simon Retallack of the UK think tank IPPR said "This [Review] removes the last refuge of the 'do-nothing' approach on climate change, particularly in the US." ouch!

Here's what I don't get. Sachs, of the Earth Institute at Columbia says: Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system will most likely kick in whnen carbon concentrations in the atmosphere are at 450 to 500 parts per million. the world's current trajectory of energy use, deforestation and industrial growth could easily take us to twice that range by the end of the century [note: taking the long-term view]...the consequences could be catastrophic: melting ice sheets, huge rise of ocean levels, massive crop failures..." The evidence for WMD in Iraq was chimerical, yet in we went; the evidence for GW is overwhelming and we plan to do nothing's actually pretty cold here today? ouch!

And what's with the "Warmies" - I believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection - am I an "Evolly" too?
Just to let you know, NOAA for the first time has admitted that greenhouse gasses are contributing to higher than normal temperatures.

A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases. This has made warmer-than-average conditions more common in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

Read more here if you dare.

I also want to point out that your use of the ppb reminds me of the spokesman at Lousiana Pacific's pulp mill in Eureka who said that only 40 grams of Dioxin were being released per year. Doesn't sound like much unless you consider that 1 ppm in water will kill you dead.

although 350 ppb doesn't sound like a lot, when you consider that we know the CO2 in the atmosphere keeps us warm and allows us to live, a 25% increase in that gas is going to have some effect. That is just common sense man.
Anon. I wish I could follow your comment but I can't, I'm sure it's my fault. Mark, I believe in evolution whole heartedly. Warming because of increased CO2 is not established, in my mind, and I've been interested in climatology since I wrote a paper on the Medieval Warm Period in Icelandic Literature class in graduate school in 1978. There was a time a long time ago when the CO2 in the atmosphere was many hundreds of times the current parts per billions higher and the earth was in the deepest ice age ever. Explain that to me and maybe I'll start to come around. The increase in CO2 can be absolutely overwhelmed by the real greenhouse gas H2O as vapor. The Earth gets warmer and then it gets cooler. We've had a series of ice ages recently with short warm interglaciation periods in between. We are at the end of the normal interglaciation right now. I think slight warming will be good because yet another ice age would be bad for us. Maybe I'm alone on that. I don't mind, if I'm right. Mike, do you really compare poisonous dioxin to necessary for life on earth, a lungfull contained in every minute of breathing CO2? Do you really think that's fair? And a tiny bit of dioxin does kill bunnies dead, but it's not as bad with us. There was a huge release of dioxin in Italy two decades ago and no deaths and no lingering problems. The guy in the Ukraine got a big dose, apparently, and didn't die (even though it messed up his complexion big time). Listen, we all know that weather predictions for tomorrow are often wrong. Predictions for last year's hurricane season were big time wrong. Why are you believing them about the absolutely unknowable weather 40 to 100 years from now? It is the worst form of hubris. Yeah, I agree that it makes sense that a 25% increase in CO2 will have an effect (If there was a one to one ratio of CO2 and average global temperature, but there is not). The system is too complex to know for sure what that sort of increase will do. Yes, you Warmies have a lot of scientific support because Warmies get money and debunkers don't. I'll read all the links and get back to you and Mark.
Thanks for your comments.

The point on Dioxin is simply that what seems like a little can really be a lot. Not trying to make any connection to CO2.

Yes, you Warmies have a lot of scientific support because Warmies get money and debunkers don't.

Yeah, Exxon/Mobile is almost bankrupt. I can see why they don't have money for their "sceintists."

Come on Roger.
Exxon Mobile has a ton of money, but they are not buying anti-Warmie science. They don't have to. Even the new politically correct vehicles run on gasoline. There will always be a need for plastic and macadam roads. The need for oil will not be diminished by Warmie feel bad the sky is falling hysteria. When the oil runs out we'll turn to hydrogen and then discover CO2 was nothing next to the warming effect of H2O mist. Not that I'm worried or anything.
No Exxon hasn't given $16 million to mislead the public because "they don't have to".

This reported in Forbes magazine, which the last time I checked was not exactly a hippy institution.

I'll say it again: come on Roger.
Mike, it wasn't Forbes saying it--it was Forbes reporting what the Union of Concerned Scientists said. The Union of Concerned Scientists is definitely serially chicken little and I have no doubt they are solidly dedicated Warmies. However, I hate to dismiss a report just because of past bias from the group making the report so I'll look into it deeper. Mark's links, alas, either led nowhere or to short on evidence conclusory reports.
I think it is pretty clear they are throwing some money at it, that is all.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?