Posted on 12/03/2009 4:29:52 PM PST by ikeonic
I've written little this year about my own personal views on climate change. Truth be told, I've been doing a lot of thinking and reflecting and wasn't ready to speak out again. But I've spoken out on this topic quite a bit in the past as evidenced by previous blog posts on climate change here.
I've concluded that the oceans are the best gauge we have for telling us if climate change is anthropogenic or not. The oceans are where the planet stores surface heat and it takes time for the oceans to store that heat. Thus hurricane season begins in June and not March and ends in November, not September.
Land is a very poor medium for storing heat, while the oceans can store vast quantities of heat. Anyone who has spent a winter night camping in the high desert knows how rapidly heat loss occurs on land. But the oceans lose and gain heat very slowly and aren't subject to urban heat islands and other erratic variables found on land. Anyone who has read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" knows how unreliable land temperature readings are. Therefore, the oceans are a much better barometer of overall trends in climate.
So what do the oceans tell us? There are two primary ways to gauge the oceans: sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea level.
First, let's address sea level.
Take for instance, this abstract:
The rate of sea level rise and its causes are topics of active debate. Here we use a delayed response statistical model to attribute the past 1000 years of sea level variability to various natural (volcanic and solar radiative) and anthropogenic (greenhouse gases and aerosols) forcings. We show that until 1800 the main drivers of sea level change are volcanic and solar radiative forcings. For the past 200 years sea level rise is mostly associated with anthropogenic factors. Only 4 ± 1.5 cm (25% of total sea level rise) during the 20th century is attributed to natural forcings, the remaining 14 ± 1.5 cm are due to a rapid increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Looks pretty convincing doesn't it?
Then you've got folks like Bob Tisdale, who does a great job analyzing Sea Surface Temperatures and discussing his theory about how El Nino and the Southern Oscillation (ENSO) drive global climate and sea level rise. Bob has some of the most detailed analysis I've seen and his blog is a gold mine of data and discussion about climate.
It's all a fascinating discussion, but so far I've read nothing from either the alarmists or the skeptics that I've found truly persuasive.
But I still come back to Ruddiman. A while back, I read William Ruddiman's theories on anthropogenic forces and solar radiation. I have written many previous blog posts on Ruddiman's writings.He closed his book with a chapter on resources. Ruddiman's warning is every bit as prescient as Ike's multiple warnings in his farewell address.
"Distortions come from both extremes of the global-change debate (chapter 18). Environmental extremists are mostly prone to alarmist exaggerations, while pro-industry extremists systematically attack or even deny basic knowledge coming from mainstream science. In my opinion, these trends are reaching the point where they may do damage to the integrity of climate-science research. [My comment: Wow... can you say Climategate???]Following up on Ruddiman's comments, here's what I wrote back in June 2008 with some editorial updating added today:Placed withing the larger framework of environmental and resource concerns (chapter 19), global science change does not rank as the largest problem facing humanity, even though the challenges are likely to be large. In the short term, many other environmental concerns are already more worrisome, especially major ecological changes. Over the longer term, humanity's concerns will probably shift to the gradual depletion of irreplaceable "gifts" that Earth has freely provided, including fossil fuels, groundwater, and topsoil."
Our climate has always changed and man has always adapted to these changes.
But as Ruddiman points out in Chapter 19, dedicated entirely to discussing man's consumption of Earth's natural resources, we have a long history of exhausting resources faster than they can be naturally replinished. It's not well known that deforestation and Rome's thrist for wood led to Rome's need to continually expand its borders and eventually to the fall of empire. 2000 years ago, long before chainsaws, man was quite proficient at felling forests on a large scale. Resource exhaustion is not a new problem but now it is an increasingly global problem that threatens to lead to mass famine and resource wars.It's time we grow up and realize that climate change is far from our biggest worry. Carbon is not evil. We can't be grateful enough for all the good things that have resulted from energy derived from fossil fuels. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not return to pre-1850 technology and I'm pretty sure we don't want to relive that part of the Old South. My grandfather was quite happy with John Deere and International Harvester equipment and never once wished he could farm the way his grandfather had to.
We're going to need energy in whatever from we can get it in the short term and in the long term we must move to sustainable sources of energy. Getting there will not be easy and will likely require a sacrifice by many, if not all of us. But it can be done... if we are willing to own up to the problem at hand and take a hard look at ALL the options on the table.Indeed. Time will tell who is right about climate change. In the meantime, we have 9 billion people on this planet who all hunger for food, energy, shelter and a quality life. The energy diet liberals want to put us on is a sure path to famine. But the head in the sand attitude of many conservatives is likely to have the same result, albeit on a different timeline.
Neither side seems to have any real plan to develop sustainable resource consumption policies. It's not just energy at stake, it's food, water and all the other resources that have made our standard of living possible. But we could start by stopping all this nonsense about carbon and having a real discussion about resources and national security.
It is a tragic irony that the nation that provoked the Japanese into declaring war on us by embargoing oil shipments (back when America was an oil exporter) now finds itself at the mercy of Islamic regimes that control 40% of the world's supply of crude. The Strait of Hormuz is all that stands between peace and prosperity and the collapse of the greatest economic and military power the world has ever known. Sadly, it will likely take another Pearl Harbor event to wake up Americans to action on energy. It's just human nature, I suppose. No getting around it...
Snow and Ice headed for the Heart of Texas.
Obama says he'll bankrupt coal industry
Joe Biden says no coal plants in America
Harry Reid says coal (and carbon dioxide) is making us SICK!
Pickens is a salesman, a con man looking to enrich himself. Wind power is a joke, as is solar. The way to go forward is to tap all resources available at market price...that means no subsidies....and let the chips fall where they may. More nuke plants, drill any and everywhere, convert coal to gas, more diesel cars, whatever. Doing NOTHING is the sin, drilling for oil is what needs to be done NOW. That is why every other country in the world is doing that.
T Boone is another Al Gore. He planned on profiting big time in natural gas, water and wind energy. He advised Obama on these and like GE he would be supported by taxpayer funding to create more wealth for him. T Boone and his land grabs should be taken out of the equation as should Gore.
Conservatives, Palin and others similar want what is good for America. T Boone and Gore are there to take advantage.
Pickens comes across with a good sales pitch but that’s all it is.
I remember a story a while back about Pickens digging up a concrete pad on someone elses property because he wrote his name in the wet cement as a kid. Unfortunately the owner hadn’t given permission to take it.
Snowing now here in Oil Patch, NM!
Because I liken Pickens to the Enron scheme - all for him and his cronies.
Enron had an impossible plan for managing energy where EVERYBODY was going to come out ahead. Sounds like Pickens, doesn't it?
So they assume that sea levels will rise continuously, without extra evaporation resulting from the alleged warming? It seems logical that the hotter the atmosphere gets, the more water will evaporate, result in more precipitation, and hence cause more SNOW and ICE to form in the polar regions, as a negative feedback that would counterbalance the alleged ice cap depletion.
But that would imply that Nature can compensate for warming on its own, and the warmists can't allow commoners to believe that. Only a few more trillion dollars in the progressives' pockets can reverse natural cycles that have gone on for eons. [/sarc]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.