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."

[cogitator]

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.

See post 40.

[Old Professer]

The theory behind using tree rings to infer temperature changes is based on the fact that trees grow better when sunlight is brightest which likely occurs on warmer days; trees also grow faster when they have an abundance of carbon dioxide which suggests a certain synergism once the two become coexistent.

[VRWCtaz]

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

Oh yea, prove it!

[gandalftb]

The only certainty is uncertainty. The earth is a very complex ecosystem, this factor causes cooling, that factor causes warming, there is no definitive trend.

However, there are intuitive trends. Mankind is burning more hydrocarbons every day than ever before. That has to upset our planet ecosystem, but relatively how much? We know that earth has a tremendous capacity to absord and dampen mankind's insults.

The scientific data is disturbing and we should use to force political change away from burning oil, muslim oil, radical muslim knocking-our-buildings-down oil.......

[cogitator]

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.

Yes, the glacial-interglacial cycles are driven by Milankovitch forcing, which is what yuu're referring to. Climate science indicates that Milankovitch forcing is amplified by atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The current rise in CO2 is occuring at a time when Milankovitch forcing is not a factor.

[appeal2]

If we something, every human being will die.

[Old Professer]

Another way to say this is that major increases began when direct measurement began; do we have an observer problem here? :)

[bigfootbob]

That's a more reasonable position.

BTW-How old are you?

Do you remember when everyone burned coal for heat, until the mid-'70's and how the burnt particulates littered every inch of the environment? We produced much more 'greenhouse gasses" per person then.

[cogitator]

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

We need the higher resolution graph:

Peak temperatures of each interglacial do briefly exceed the fairly stable temperature of this interglacial. Note the time-scale. It takes a long time for the global temperature to fully equilibrate with the increase in atmospheric CO2. Over scales of several thousand years, the full response of the system can be perceived. At this point I speculate that at a certain global temperature, some negative feedbacks kick in to start moderating the temperature.

Not much comfort for the current trends there.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

A warmer Earth is also a wetter Earth. A much better choice for living.

[jpl]

If you were an average American in the late 1800's who was somewhat environmentally concerned, your biggest fear probably would have been the increasing amounts of garbage and horse shit piling up in the streets.

The real "inconvenient truth" is that predicting the distant future is something of a fool's game, and as a result, the people who insist on doing it usually end up looking like fools.

In 100 years from now when we're all dead, the global warming stuff will likely be a distant memory, and our great-grandchildren will be grappling with a new set of issues we don't even think about today.

[cogitator]

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

There is no one answer. More nuclear power, certainly. As much biofuels as are economically (and agriculturally) feasible. Conservation -- I'd make that a patriotic duty, since our fossil fuel dependence is clearly a national security and economic issue. "Better efficiency through technology." Solar (a lot more solar panels on new and existing homes). Other "renewables" where feasible. That's about all I can suggest now.

[The Great RJ]

The whole premise that carbon dioxide is the culprit in the modest increases in global temperatures seen as of late is a stretch. World CO2 levels have been higher during the last Ice Age ...hardly a case for CO2 being the cause of global warming. What about solar output, certainly the sun isn't constant and is what we are seeing a result of solar changes not CO2? If massive amounts of CO2 cause climate change shouldn't we have seen a temperature shift during WW-II when whole cities were burning worldwide and coal was a major power source?

[Paradox]

I'm in my mid 40's. Having lived most of my life now in South Florida, the only stuff I recall people burning for "heat" was some cars and local businesses :)

[cogitator]

We know that earth has a tremendous capacity to absord and dampen mankind's insults.

In some cases. In other cases, relatively minor changes will cause significant damage.

The scientific data is disturbing and we should use to force political change away from burning oil, muslim oil, radical muslim knocking-our-buildings-down oil.......

Absolutely.

[tigtog]

The ESPN model is completly wrong, everyone knows the Redskins will win the Superbowl this year. ESPN thinks it will be either Carolina or New England. As for global warming, I'm all for it. Who likes to be cold???

[bigfootbob]

LOL!

What really amazes me about all this is, people don't talk about how clean America is today compared to the '70's.

We used to dump refuse directly into our water sources, septic systems consisted of a 50 gallon drum and several lengths of clay pipe to drain off the gray water directly onto the ground. We burned like I said, high sulfur coal for heat and power generation and tailpipe exhausts were dumping high concentrations of lead and other pollutants.

Hell, I remember as a kid in the '70's, not being able to eat the fish I caught in the Ohio River and later on in Lake Washington, in the Seattle area I moved to in the late '70's. Now, the water is pristine compared to then.

We must start using logic instead of emotion when dealing with issues like this.

[tpaine]

"-- The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. --"

cogitator wrote:
I am in full agreement.

"-- The scientific data is disturbing and we should use it to force political change --"

Absolutely.
cogitator

Cogi, don't you see a bit of conflict in your two statements above?

Which is it? -- Do you back a 'moral crusade' to 'force political change'?

Or not?

[gandalftb]

Very good point. Perhaps not claimed and counter-claimed by wagons full of scientists, but intuitively sensible.

[3niner]

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only one of a dozen or so factors that control the temperature of the Earth, and a relatively minor one at that.

Regardless of what we do, it's very likely that the next ice age will start within the next 2,000 years. In the mean time, it makes sense for mankind to continue to advance our technology. Right now, it makes sense to build a lot more nuclear reactors, and develop new energy sources. After all the oil, coal, and natural gas won't last forever.

Below are a couple of informative links. They summarize information collected by geologists and paleontologists. These kinds of scientists have the advantage of looking at hundreds of millions of years of physical history, while our alarmist climatologists are simply extrapolating from insufficient data.

Granted, the past isn't the future, but having a better grasp of what went on in the past can give great perspective about what's likely to occur in the future.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html