Saturday, January 13, 2007
More Sure Signs of Global Warming
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.
but I'll bet you can point me to a creationist site that will claim it's bunk. Now the economists are agreeing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review 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 because...it'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?
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.
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.
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.