patrick.net

DS,

No ice caps at all in the Jurassic? Is that true? (Astrid, don't worry. I'm not trying to antagonize, just asking. I'm frankly impressed with the exchange today. And I know Sean enjoy the ludicrous Pythonic abuse. No charge.)

It's hard to question cultural icons like GW. I certainly don't have the education for it. As I've said before, I am barely conversant in the fundamental concepts of C02 & the greenhouse effect. I get the theory, but I just keep reading pesky cranks with seemingly strong credentials who want to slow down the runaway train. I'm also concerned that, in assessing industrialization's effects on thousand year climactic trends, we are dealing with such a tiny sample size in terms of years. Hard to generalize from the industrial era -- a blink in time -- to geological time. Which moves at a "glacial" pace. (Sorry about that.)

Sean, you said causation is the "only" issue. It's certainly the most controversial and where the iconoclasts catch the most flack. But there are many other issues. E.g., whatever the cause, what is the precise degree of warming and how much more, can we expect, if any? What is the degree of probability for various outcomes on the thermometer? How accurate are the various measurement models? How does the placement of measuring devices in local urbanized areas (which are hotter) skew the global model, if at all? And most of all, assuming GW, what are the consequences for humans? For the earth?

No doubt, as Astrid says, watching icebergs calve and the ice caps shrink tugs at your guts. Both sadness and fear. But our emotions serve us best when we get above them at least a little. My backwoods version of zen is not to discount my guts, but to try to be aware and objective about them. Not easy, just a goal.

Crichton is interesting to me because, unlike me, he has scientific training and seems fairly intelligent. Also, I can't suppose he really has any axe to grind, he clearly spent a long time and effort studying the issue and he writes in small words even I can understand.

Crichton cite one study that the net economic effect of GW will be a plus. I can't vouch for it -- could be pure BS. And of course economics aren't everything. It's just an interesting counterpoint to the day after tomorrow hysteria. I also believe that from our narrow perspective the loss of snowpack on Kilimanjaro is achingly sad, but is it bad for the earth? Beats me. She doesn't return my calls. Something about I'm an evil R.

Assume that mankind comes to a reasonable consensus that global warming is occurring. We don't necessarily need to understand the specific causes to determine if and what actions we should take. In fact, I don't think we can prove causality with enough certainty to convince reasonable skeptics until we have many more centuries worth of data.

But, by that point it may be too late. I think of it this way. Let's assume it's the year 2400. We finally determine that industrialization, co2 emissions and all of humanity have no material affect on the environment. Nonetheless, oceans have risen by 100', the ice caps have melted, and the peak of 50bn people on the planet die every year of mass starvation. Who cares who caused global warming? That fact would be that we missed an opportunity to potentially do something about it.

If global warming is occurring, which trend evidence supports, then we have to make serious policy decisions now, or lots of people will die later. Maybe we can do something to slow or prevent catastrophic warming. Maybe we cannot, and instead we need to figure out a way to encourage a sustainable world population size and develop forward-thinking advanced agricultural techniques (probably with genetic engineering, to the chagrin of the crunchies) which will be viable in a changed environment.

This is just another case where I think the politics of the debate are little more than narcissistic theater. No one will ultimately care which side was right, only that we did or didn't do something when we had the chance.

Randy,

The problem is, as Yogi Berra said, “if you don’t know where you’re going you might end up somewhere else.” I can’t vouch for this article, but it is food for thought:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Daily Telegraph Op-Ed, Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research (9/4/06)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

More at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

***

Here's another Telegraph excerpt re GW claims:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.

The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.

Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."

In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died. It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
***
This article concluded that the IPCC disagreed. I certainly don't know who's right. I do know that responsible, legitimate scientists are trying to slow the rush to judgment in the face of a well established, massively funded international political movement to accept Global Warming as holy writ, and the IPCC is a political entity.

Garth,

It's not just my guts that these melting glaciers are tugging at. It's billions of people who depend on glacier melt water and/or live in low lying areas, those people are directly at risk. I'm pointing to them as the physical evidence of something changing, and changing very fast.

And if you want to conclusive evidence (backed by hundreds of years of high polluting activities) or a climate model for when Earth gets 5 degrees warmer, well, I can't provide that. You and I both know that is impossible. If you and the rest of the planet insist on ignoring the problem until you have conclusive evidence (when it'll be too late to do anything), then I'm awfully glad I'm not planning on children who might have to suffer the consequences of such inaction.

Anyhow, you and DS can duel it out. I don't have the stamina to try and convince either one of you.

stick with the blondes...this'll never happen to you.

OO says

Some guys may end up with a very pissed-off wife who determines his frequency of corporal pleasure if they don't own a home together

Whoah!! Astrid, OO (!!!), Different Sean, Randy H--I feel like a kid again!