Posted on 04/07/2005 7:32:05 AM PDT by cogitator
Boulder, CO, Apr. 4 (UPI) -- UPI's Climate was reminded the other day there is a broad spectrum of interpretations of the science behind global climate change.
Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder and the author of an excellent science Web log called Prometheus, took to task a recent column on adapting to warming, saying, "You equate 'climate skeptics' with those who support adaptation. Most climate skeptics do not support adaptation because it would mean admitting that there is a problem needing to be adapted to in the first place."
...
Among hard-core climate skeptics, there are also gradations of opinion, ranging from "nothing unusual is happening" to "something might be happening, but it is no big deal," to "human activity is not the cause," "humans will easily adjust without much conscious effort," and so on.
...
The hardest-core skeptics sometimes claim the satellite record shows no warming, but this also is not correct. The UAH team has measured an increase of 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit (0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade, while NASA surface measurements have shown a 0.22 degrees F (0.12 degrees C) increase per decade. The difference is significant, but the tropospheric record does show warming.
...
There are numerous other paleoclimate reconstructions that show more or less the same thing as the Mann graph, so it is something of a mystery why the skeptics have fastened on to Mann's. It could be because it is crisp, clear and was featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 1998. Its fame was assisted when Princeton University's Jerry Mahlman picturesquely called it the "hockey stick."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Even after reading the entire article, I am at a loss to understand how the author comes to this conclusion, which appears in the very last graf. There is no evidence presented for a causal connection between human activity and climate change, only a questionable survey indicating a warming that began in the 19th century. What's to say that the warming didn't cause an upsurge in human activity and productivity? This is a pathetic attempt at rejuvenating the same old propaganda with the more recent, "fake but accurate" excuse.
Sloppy. Very sloppy.
I would have expected that the self-loathing anti-capitalist fifth columnists of the fourth estate would have at least grown a bit more sophisticated in their efforts, but their manipulations grow more obvious and more desperate with every passing year.
We NEED a really good measurement of the Sun's actual historical energy output. There appear to be some methodologies being developed for doing exactly that, but as far as I know, these are not yet ready for prime time as far as provability and accuracy, and they most certainly have not provided the data we need yet. Once that honest data is available, then and ONLY THEN can we start to assess the utility of the GCMs that are being used now.
Not too many scientists I know would deny that the temperature of the globe has been rising a tad during the last couple decades, though it is certainly not able to be determined by the "temperature records" without doing large and controversial adjustments for heat island effects and technology changes. There is a great skepticism as to the major causes for that, as to how much humans could do to alleviate a rise, and whether that would even be desirable.
Let's work on getting the data first, and then interpreting it honestly.
Also, a cost benefit analysis should be implemented if gloabl warming is man-made. What are costs of doing nothing vs. the costs of cutting back CO2 production (i.e. energy consumption)? Should we gut our economies at a far greater cost that mitigating changes from global warming? The enviro-wackos want our climate to be static and unchangingly preserved, regardless of cost. The pragmatic amongst us can see that economic loss from climate change is likely less costly than even the poorly effective Kyoto protocol. Global warming may even be beneficial in many ways.
Agreed. Even IF there are human "causes" of warming, there is likely to be a case made to do nothing about it for one reason or another.
One possibility is that if we decide to address "the problem" that we stunt our technological progress in such a way as to forever render us incapable of truly solving it. Someone once gave an example of the question "When should we build a star ship to reach Vega as soon as possible"... if we start it now, we'll have to start over again from scratch several times before it was even launched ... if we start it a hundred years from now, possibly we could make something that would reach Vega, but be overtaken during the journey by a vessel we built fifty years later. Meanwhile, by wasting time, effort, and capital on the old technology we've slowed progress toward the ultimate goal.
It is quite likely that we don't yet have the technology we need to counter warming, and by slowing our progress globally by simply addressing the warming, we will lose out big time by suppressing the technology we will develop in the future that could deal with it.
We need more data, and more patience.
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.