Jump to content

Bill Steffen and Climate Change


LA Dave

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Now, Bill is pushing the idea that because we might be headed to a period of low sun spot activity, we are headed to a mini Ice Age. Not.

A visit to the "Real Climate" blog turns up a link to a paper by two German scientists (Dr. Georg Fuelner and Dr. Stefan Rahnstorf of the Potsdam Institute on Climate Impact Research) who, assuming the conditions that led to the so-called mini Ice Age caused by a historically low sun spot period (the so-called Maunder Minimum) of the 17th century, determined that at best it would result in a very slight lessening of an overall warming climate. (A cooling of .3 degree C compared to overall expected warming of 4 degrees C by the year 2100.)

It appears that the original authors of the low sun spot activity paper never predicted a "mini Ice Age," but that this was the conclusion of some journalists in right-leaning British papers (The Daily Mail and the Telegraph), then to Fox News, and then to the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what's frustrating to me about this is that it has become a political one, when it clearly is a scientific issue.

The fact is: Most scientists support the theory of global warming

The fact is: Some well-intentioned scientists have said they don't

A few people on both sides have played dirty to present their side in a more positive light.

The left: Calls all deniers crazy and refuses to rationally engage the debate.

The right: Leans on a minority view to prop up maintaining the status quo (typically backed by interests in industry who stand to gain by inaction)

The cartoon someone posted above says it all.

The cost of action is significant, but will result in long-term economic and health benefits for our country; if climate change science is wrong we still reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, foreign oil and polluting activities.

The cost of inaction is significant: If climate change science is correct and we do nothing, there are long-term, potentially irreversable global ramifications for the economy and world condition that our children and grandchildren must endure; plus we continue to rely on a diminishing supply of fossil fuels and technology that results in pollution (if not climate change)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right that this comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Climate change, whether anthropogenic or not, is inevitable. That's exactly why there has been an attempted shift to swing the dialogue to "climate change" away from "global warming"--fighting climate change is another war without end. Fighting this war will be expensive, and bring enormous profits to those fighting it. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless the war is one that serves no purpose in the end. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what benefits would actually be derived from curtailing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The costs for those on the bottom of the ladder who are denied access to cheap energy, however, are quite clear. Although often overlooked, you've got to be willing to sacrifice a lot of lives and quality of life to jump on the AGW bandwagon. I'm not sure I can fault anyone who says we need a lot more proof before we go down that road.

The cost of action is significant, but will result in long-term economic and health benefits for our country; if climate change science is wrong we still reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, foreign oil and polluting activities.

The cost of inaction is significant: If climate change science is correct and we do nothing, there are long-term, potentially irreversable global ramifications for the economy and world condition that our children and grandchildren must endure; plus we continue to rely on a diminishing supply of fossil fuels and technology that results in pollution (if not climate change)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're exactly right that this comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Climate change, whether anthropogenic or not, is inevitable. That's exactly why there has been an attempted shift to swing the dialogue to "climate change" away from "global warming"--fighting climate change is another war without end. Fighting this war will be expensive, and bring enormous profits to those fighting it. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless the war is one that serves no purpose in the end. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear what benefits would actually be derived from curtailing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The costs for those on the bottom of the ladder who are denied access to cheap energy, however, are quite clear. Although often overlooked, you've got to be willing to sacrifice a lot of lives and quality of life to jump on the AGW bandwagon. I'm not sure I can fault anyone who says we need a lot more proof before we go down that road.

Well said. What I never understand is who is to determine that this climate that we currently have is to be the climate for all times or that this is the preferred global climate. Climate changes over time. Does not climate fluctuate? Why are we so confident that we can control the climate one way or another? If we believe our actions have such significant results why do we no just change the climate to our liking whenever we feel fit to do so. The arrogance is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.