Global warming

[raleighfan]

Just a couple more links for those who are willing to open their minds on thr subject of global warming. And the intent is not to bash Gore (though I don't trust him)... it's just to say, "hey guys, this debate is most definitely not over."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=060806D

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[dmccall]

I'm absolutely sure that we can find evidence of climate changes since we started gathering data. The three real questions are:

* Are we basing a conclusion on too small of a sample size (any data extrapolated from before data measuring equipment was invented is up to debate)?

* Are we assuming that any changes that we see are the result of human behavior?

* Are we assuming that humans can create change to overcome powerful exogenous factors?

According to some, the earth was once a giant rock leaving an explosion. We got to this point somehow, and there's no reason to assume the Earth won't still continue morphing. I think there is plenty of room for debate of the facts, causes, effects, etc. (I should disclose that I have not seen the movie)

[raleighfan]

I'm absolutely sure that we can find evidence of climate changes since we started gathering data. The three real questions are:

* Are we basing a conclusion on too small of a sample size (any data extrapolated from before data measuring equipment was invented is up to debate)?

* Are we assuming that any changes that we see are the result of human behavior?

* Are we assuming that humans can create change to overcome powerful exogenous factors?

Remember, according to some, the earth was once a giant rock leaving an explosion. We got to this points somehow. There is plenty of room for debate: facts, causes, effects, etc.

Yes, good questions. It's just obviously hard to get at any real unbiased info because the issue has become so political. But it's out there...

[ChiefJoJo]

One other point. If all this global warming stuff is just made up and the science is not clear enough, then why have 163 nations signed the Kyoto treaty (absent the US and Australia) to pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions?

link

[dmccall]

One other point. If all this global warming stuff is just made up and the science is not clear enough, then why have 163 nations signed the Kyoto treaty (absent the US and Australia) to pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions?

link

I think that question has as much to do with worlwide economic politics as it does with science.

[raleighfan]

One other point. If all this global warming stuff is just made up and the science is not clear enough, then why have 163 nations signed the Kyoto treaty (absent the US and Australia) to pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions?

link

I don't think anyone is saying global warming is made up, just that the threat is potentially highly exaggerated. The quick answer to your question about why we haven't signed the Kyoto Protocol is that it would be dehabilitating to the economy (imagine the cost of reconfiguring, retooling, etc. all the various industries to comply with the protocol) and it's benefits are almost nil. Also, it's one thing for a country to sign on and "pledge to reduce emissions" but how many are actually doing it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062801248.html

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I think that question has as much to do with worlwide economic politics as it does with science.

Indeed. The rest of the world would love for the US to limited economically in some way and under the control of some worldwide authority.

[ChiefJoJo]

Perhaps Kyoto is not the be-all-end-all, but certainly we could do more than what we are doing now. We could start by drastically incresing CAFE (mpg) standards, funding many more transit projects, and maybe even not suppressing our best scientists!

[turbocraig]

Not to bash, and I'm certainly no scientist myself, but it's ironic to read the opposing comments because literally every counterpoint raised in this thread is addressed in the film (and don't ask me to recite them because my memory's not that good). Regarding the damaging economic costs with Kyoto compliance, well... I wonder how rosy our economy will be when large chunks of the eastern seaboard is under water. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'd just be curious to see if any minds are changed after seeing the film... if people have the inclination, that is. See it, then dismiss it.

[sax184]

I'm amazed by the global warming denial in society at large, but this is the Fox News America media culture, where it's all about showing two sides and the louder yeller wins.

The debate on whether or not global warming exists is over among people who contribute to peer-reviewed journals that are refereed by people in the top of their respective fields. It is not over at right-wing think tanks that represent interests whose short-term profits could be negatively affected by regulations and market mechanisms that take into account the long-term big picture.

As for benefits of signing Kyoto, yes, some existing industries will face costs. Of course, those industries will face costs because they've been given anti-environmental incentives for years and been allowed to dump the negative externalities of their economic activities into public sinks (air, water, land) for free. Change the incentives, and yes, there will be costs. Of course, there will also be technological innovation and new products and services that appear to respond to the new incentives.

In a Kyoto-adopted US, the guy who builds a better carbon scrubber for coal-fired smokestacks will be a big economic winner. The automaker that creates a lower-emission engine will be a winner. The technologies that are created to address these new incentives will have new applications found after their initial applications, and new industries may appear.

The fully free market is an illusion. There are all sorts of incentives, regulations, tax breaks, laws, and policies that led to the current state of affairs in all industries. Our laws already pick winners and losers. When the incentives change, we simply pick new winners and losers for different reasons.

[sax184]

This just in from CNN:

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

AND

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

Who is Boehlert? The only Republican in the House not running for re-election. Or, put another way- a man with no motivation but to tell the truth before losing his bully pulpit in January.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

1 degree during the 20th century.

Indeed.

I approach most of this alarmist science data from Marketing 101 - fear sells. It's all about money, what's going to get these people more money for their projects? "Global warming may make a few polar bears homeless" or "New York will be 20 feet under water". Most of the scientists that are spouting off this end of the world jazz are not climatologists but only see manifestations on their little plot on earth. Global climatologists are less sure on what is really happening and don't put all their stock into the doomsday global warming theory.

The fully free market is an illusion. There are all sorts of incentives, regulations, tax breaks, laws, and policies that led to the current state of affairs in all industries. Our laws already pick winners and losers. When the incentives change, we simply pick new winners and losers for different reasons..

Adding more regulation doesn't make it any more free.

Read this http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I know many wont and will say its just a conservative think tank bent on making money, but the same can be said for Albert and his lucrative speaking contracts. Believe it or not, there are intelligent people out there that believe Global warming isn't really what slick Al would have us believe.

[sax184]

Read this http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Mr. Milloy is a frequent advocate for free enterprise/free market principles and policies in conjunction with the Free Enterprise Education Institute. FEEI is supported by individuals, foundations and businesses, including ExxonMobil.

He's a paid partisan hack with no peer-reviewed work on his CV. This man is about as reliable as the "policy experts" at the John Locke Foundation. Folks like this are not advanced in their careers by the strength of their scholarship, but by the rigidty of their partisanship.

The difference between Al Gore and Steven Milloy is that Al Gore is using his fame to report the findings of others which are supported, AGAIN, in the news today, by the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most august scholarly bodies on earth. Milloy is in the pocket of the people who dumped millions of barrels of oil up and down the west coast.

[raleighfan]

Yeah, I saw that CNN article (actually an AP wire that all the "biggies" seemed to pick up). But what does it tell us exactly? That the earth is as hot today as it was at some point roughly 400 years ago (or is it 1000 or 2000 years ago? The article was kind of all over the place.)? Er, so what. What were we doing 400 years ago that made the earth hot? It's a scary headline (fear sells eh moonshield?) b/c the news organizations needs viewers but I'm not convinced it means anything. I mean the earth is billions of years old and has always had naturally occurring cooling and warming periods. I would like to see a study that incorporated a lot more than just a few hundred/thousand years.

[intcvlcphlga]

Why is it that the people who voice opposition or, excuse me, I guess the "talking point" phrase (forgive me, I neglected to consult the RNC or Fox News websites before responding) is "keeping an open mind" on this thread always take a shot at Al Gore? Are you against global warming because you like your SUV, are you against global warming because you're afraid it will affect your bottom line or are you against is because Al Gore is the spokesman for it? If George Bush were doing exactly what Gore has done with the issue would you believe in it then? There is no reason to drag Al Gore through the mud. Bush was named the winner in 2000.

People, this is NOT a political issue. Bush v. Gore is not the issue. Conservatives v. Liberals is not the issue. If anything, it's a moral issue. What kind of world are we going to leave to our kids and grandkids? The science of global warming is not in debate among 99% of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world. The National Academy of Sciences believes it is happening. NASA, the EPA, climate scientists at Columbia University and everywhere else in the world accept that it is happening. As far as the Kyoto Protocol goes, the only two countries that are party to the treaty that haven't signed it are the US and Australia. Every other country has adopted it. It's true that China and India are not signatories and third world and emerging economies need to be brought into the fold in some manner (keep in mind that China already requires higher fuel efficiency than Washington does) . That, however, is not a valid reason for not signing it. In addition to the moral imperative, there is also a tremendous economic opportunity here. This could very easily be the next Industrial Revolution or the next Internet/Biotech boom, if we could get our heads out of the sand long enough to recognize it.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

What about the 17,000 scientists who signed the anti-Kyoto petition?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Though that was in 2001...

That, however, is not a valid reason for not signing it. In addition to the moral imperative, there is also a tremendous economic opportunity here. This could very easily be the next Industrial Revolution or the next Internet/Biotech boom, if we could get our heads out of the sand long enough to recognize it.

That is a good point, there will be much opportunity. Though we can do it on our own without signing control of our country over to the Europeans.

[monsoon]

Today the National Academy of Science, under direction from Congress, has verified that Global Warming is occuring. And on top of that, they have concluded the Global Warming is occuring due to human activity, most notibly, the burning of fossil fuel which is releasing billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, they have verified that the last 3 decades have been the warmest of any decade in the last 400 years where reliable weather information exists.

I think this lays to rest any arguments that Global Warming is not occuring. It's very disturbing.

[turbocraig]

I know many wont and will say its just a conservative think tank bent on making money, but the same can be said for Albert and his lucrative speaking contracts. Believe it or not, there are intelligent people out there that believe Global warming isn't really what slick Al would have us believe.

You can not be serious. Are you saying that if there's a huge scale and on one side sits all the big oil companies and all the politicians that lube get their pockets lubed by them... and on the other side is Al and all those "lucrative speaking contracts" at the local Hyatt, than you think Big Al is the one not to trust? You'd take the word of Exxon-Mobil with their trillions of dollars at stake over Al Gore and whatever his "speaking fee" is? If there were billions and billions of dollars to be made in saving the environment, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. It'd be clean and green outside and that'd be end of it. There's only money to be made in maintaining the status quo and propagating doubt on a dubious public.

[raleighfan]

This is an interesting read on the new NAS report:

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/0...ing_scienc.html

I don't have the time to read the whole 155-pg NAS report but this guy did (or at least large chunks of it). There are a lot of qualifiers and uncertainties the report raises that the AP account completely fails to mention. Also, not mentioned in the AP story is the fact the NAS report describes the Mann-Bradley-Hughes "hockey stick" graph that alarmists have been using for years as iron-clad evidence of global warming as unreliable.

[turbocraig]

I'm not reading the 155 page report either, but I have to question the bias any site that repeatedly dismisses the opposition as "liberal bloggers" and is authored by someone that freely admits that he's "hot for Bush". I get the feeling that us 'alarmists' are people trying in vain to convince kids that eating their vegetables really is good for them, and all the while the kids have their fingers in their ears shouting "I can't hear you... I can't hear you..." It's clear that no one is going to change their views. I'm done.

[dmccall]

Here are a few facts:

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The Sun's surface temperature is around 10,000 degrees F.

The Earth and Sun are 93 million miles apart and energy from the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us.

It sounds like the movie states that by studying implied data of 0.000009% of the Earth's age, several scientists have noticed a climate change that is 0.01% of the temperature of the earth's primary energy source, the Sun. They say that a fluctuating energy source that is about 130X hotter than the most comfortable temperature of our climate, just 8 minutes away is irrelevant? Even though the daily loss and return of that energy source routinely accounts for 30 degree fluctuations in our atmosphere, human behaviors of the last 50 years are primarily to blame?

Could it be remotely possible that at some point before the 400 year microwindow currently featured, the Earth could have been warmer than now during a different period representing 0.000009% of the Earth's age?

I've heard about the hockey stick curve, but if one were sitting in front of a fire for 10 minutes, for instance, graphing the energy levels every microsecond, and we threw out 99.99999% of the data, couldn't he or she find irregular patterns in that data, too?

Don't get me wrong. I am for conservation simply for conservation's sake. I'd love to see everyone driving cars that use the minimal amount of fuel possible because I love efficiency and we really don't know how big the energy supply truly is. I hate Hummers as much as anyone here, but I just have a hard time believing that with all of the exogenous atmospheric factors, if I use 20% less energy this year and turn off a light occasionally that I will create a constant climate for centuries to come.

I'll play Devil's advocate: Suppose that we prove that a 20% reduction in use of fossil fuels actually drives a downward trend in temperatures of 1 degree per 100 years? What policies do we implement then?

[monsoon]

Could it be remotely possible that at some point before the 400 year microwindow currently featured, the Earth could have been warmer than now during a different period representing 0.000009% of the Earth's age?

It's very possible as Florida was once underwater and the planet was ravaged by fierce storms. At some point in the earth's history, the environment would not even support life as we know it. It has nothing to do with the fact that mankind it dumping carbon into the atmosphere over the period of a couple of centuries, that was gradually removed over hundreds of millions of years. If our goal is to reproduce the violent weather and flooding of the past then this is a good idea. Of course this isn't our goal, but arguments that state, "Oh the earth was warmer in the past" are misleading as they don't take into consideration the conditions that were present when this was the case.

The scientists, who were sanctioned by the Republican congress, have spoken and it behooves us to take their council into consideration or our children or grandchildren are going to inherit a world that is going to be a lot less hospitible than it is now.

[ChiefJoJo]

Could it be remotely possible that at some point before the 400 year microwindow currently featured, the Earth could have been warmer than now during a different period representing 0.000009% of the Earth's age?

If you watch the movie, the science examines temperatures from core ice samples going back several hundred thousand years (that scientists used to determine periods of the ice ages), so it's more like 400,000 years--not 400. Using that data, which predates human history, the earth has NEVER been hotter than it is at this point in time. That is an astounding fact, if you back up and think about it. It's really a perfect title to the movie, Inconvenient Truth. There are so many people with their head in the sand...

us 'alarmists' are people trying in vain to convince kids that eating their vegetables really is good for them, and all the while the kids have their fingers in their ears shouting "I can't hear you... I can't hear you..."

... hoping that this will all go away. How many posters in this thread have linked to right-wing blogs or other "non-partisan" websites that proclaim the science is hogwash, and Gore is not to be trusted. There is a telling photo in the movie that discusses the often posed debate of economy vs environment among global warming sceptics. On the left of a balancing scale are a stack of gold bars, while on the right is the Planet Earth. That moment for me solidifies the pure idiocy of the myopic sceptics in the global warming debate.

[DurhamDivaInRaleigh]

Seeing this movie made me think of something...when I was growing up in the eighties, it seems that every winter we had a good snowstorm or two. I remember the fun of getting picked up early from school, staying out a few days in an unexpected winter vacation, making snowmen, throwing snowballs, etc.

But it seems that for the past few years, there hasn't been a whole lot of snow or really, really cold weather. As a matter of fact, I don't think I wore my winter coat at all last winter. I didn't bother to order a load of firewood. It was almost springlike.

[monsoon]

I have noticed the same thing. In the last 5 years, I would say there probably has been very few opportunities to ski in good conditions in NC's Ski Slopes. It it wasn't for the fact they can make snow now in above freezing weather, I suspect they would all be out of business by now.