Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth (straight talk)

Washington Post ^ | 07/05/2006 | Robert Samuelson

[cogitator]

Freely excerpting:

"The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious." ... "Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ... "No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding." ... "The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless."

[Paloma_55]

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere alters Earth's radiative balance such that a global temperature increase would be the likeliest outcome.

I think you should preface this argument with the html tags... [Speculation] and [/Speculation] Yes, CO2 is subtantially higher in the atmosphere and very likely due to human activity. However, you have no data that the "stable climate period" we are seeing is not due to that CO2. How does C02 affect climate dynamics?? This is pure speculation. For all you know, it could ultimately lead to a stabilization of temperatures. C02 levels typically lag global temperature, so we can conclude that they are not causal, and if anything, *may* be the cause of the downturn in temperatures we see when global C02 levels get close to 300ppm.

[slowhandluke]

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere alters Earth's radiative balance such that a global temperature increase would be the likeliest outcome.

From the graphs earlier, it is more likely is that the human activity is promoting an un-precedented period of stable temperatures, keeping us from the extreme decline usually seen when the world gets this warm.

CO2 follows warming in these charts, so it isn't a cause. You can't even show that the CO2 rise is due to some burning or oxidation process, or simply a release of C02 trapped in the ocean as the water warms.

[Always Right]

I am in full agreement.

I am too except the last part. Global warming is more of a natural problem than the scare-mongers want us to think, and all the engineering in the world won't be able to correct all that much. If we really tried to do some massive engineering to fix the problem, it would have many unintended consequences. We just aren't smart enough to be tinkering with it.

[RobRoy]

>.If we don't do something, every human will eventually die.<<

And as you can see here, nothing is being done: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236

This could be a catastrophy of epic proportions.

[Paloma_55]

The data for that chart comes from N.O.A.A. so it is based on good scientific data.

There are things we can conclude from the data, and things we cannot.

1) Global temperatures have been higher than now
2) Global temperatures cycle on a period of ~120,000 years
3) Global temperatures are very likely to drop again
4) Humanity has not caused the current heat cycle
5) Atmospheric C02 complies with 1,2,3 above
6) Atmospheric C02 LAGs Global temperature variation
7) Global temperatures drop after C02 reaches ~300ppm
8) Global temperatures rise after C02 drops to ~200ppm

Now 7 and 8 do not prove causal effect, but they do suggest that global warming/cooling, if caused by atmospheric C02, is driven to reverse itself, not increase itself.

[Paradox]

As a reasonable sceptic, even of GW, I think that if GW is a problem, and if we can have anything to say about it, it will be through technology, and not the Ludditism the Left wants us to go through.

[Old Professer]

One thing we keep forgetting, only carbon and hydrogen readily burn when mixed in the free air; where could we possibly store the CO2?

Carbon nanotube matrices?

[OrioleFan]

I believe the causes of global warming have to do with the orbit of the Earth (it ain't circular) and how it tilts in relation to the orbit. Other influences are the relationship with the moon and other planets. The effects of greenhouse gasses are probably insignificant.

Kyoto was an attempt to destroy American businesses more than anything to do with global warming, much like ISO standards.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Just heard on the radio this morning some report that the CO2 in the air was destroying the oceans.

Which seems kind of improbable, since according to some reading I did a while back, the oceans produce much of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere. Much more than mankind.

[MissAmericanPie]

Just in case no one is noticing our magnetic fields are weakening at an alarming rate. The inner core of the earth rotates at a far faster rate than the outer crust. Or did. No one seems to understand why the earth is bulging so much at the equator either.

I have to wonder if all our under ground nuclear testing had some effect on slowing the speed of the core. In any case the lessening of gas emissions will have little or no effect on global warming. If we all switched to bicycles tomorrow there would be no change.

Only the Sun has the power to heat the earth up and there is nothing to be done about that unless we can come up with a really big pair of sun glasses. Being a believer I know that at some point we will have some event that blocks much of the suns heating effect, be it an asteroid strike or a volcanic eruption the majority of mankind will be protected from global heating, only to face starvation at crop losses.

[MNJohnnie]

If we do something every human will eventually die.

[Old Professer]

One day somebody is going to realize that either we are measuring incorrectly currently or our proxy indices are flawed; the graph you show indicates to me that carbon dioxide appears self-limiting at 280ppm in ice cores while the free air levels have skyrocketed since we began measuring directly.

Why don't we flash freeze samples of air, compress them and analyze the CO2 levels in the lab?

[Robert A Cook PE]

More like:

Our 18 wheeler is slowing down every time we go up a hill; therefore, the democrat/liberal/socialists DEMAND that we MUST solve the problem NOW.

Now, the democrats/liberals/socialists want us to get out of the truck and start pushing.

But without looking at whether we are at the top of the hill, the bottom, or still going up. And first we (the USA) must put on the brakes, stop our truck, and watch all the other cars drive past as fast as they can.

THEN we can start pushing.

[Old Professer]

Except that, in the past, the temps were 4-6 degrees higher with an ice core reading for CO2 of 280ppm; why is that?

[Carl LaFong]

Hey, when you open your 'fridge door ,if you've got Great Lakes longnecks and fried chicken in there, I'll be over ;-)

[Old Professer]

Which makes an argument for using proxy estimates based on tree rings above the inversion layer that exists in periods of ground haze making surface thermometers useless as representations of atmospheric temperature.

We may have enough radiosonde data from 1940-1970 to look at the effect of aerosols, inversion traps, surface reports and CO2 data.

[free_at_jsl.com]

For a moment I thought your post was about the president. Please don't abbreviate Global Warming as GW. Thanks.

[Go_Raiders]

"...which would say global warming increases CO2, not the other way around..."

Which makes enormous sense if you think about it. Life thrives on warm temperatures. A warmer planet produces more life, and the balance of plants to animals would likely shift since animals on average reproduce more rapidly than plants.

More animals means more CO2.

[Old Professer]

Codge, the author of this piece accepts that we are currently "helpless" to reverse this, what is your proposal beyond sequestration?

[cogitator]

However, you have no data that the "stable climate period" we are seeing is not due to that CO2. How does C02 affect climate dynamics??

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been about 280 ppm for about 9,000 years since the end of the glacial period until about 1750, when it started to increase, probably due to land use changes. After 1850 the increase accelerated, due to industrialization and fossil fuel burning.

CO2 levels lag the initial increase in temperature at glacial-interglacial transitions -- these major transitions are likely caused by Milankovitch cycle solar forcing. Climate science indicates that the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere initiates a positive feedback cycle that drives temperatures higher.