"Getting cold to spread global warming message"
Hundreds of people posed naked on Switzerland's shrinking Aletsch glacier today for US photographer Spencer Tunick as part of a Greenpeace campaign to raise awareness of global warming.As noted here earlier, the Aletsch glacier has been shrinking since 1870.
I blame Standard Oil.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 19, 2007 01:51 PM | Email ThisWell, well---they don't mention that part, do they? Doesn't fit too well with the agenda?
Seriously, it was even hotter than this between 1000 and 1400. Then we entered what is known as "The little ice age" til about 1800 or so. So it's no surprise that this glacier has been shrinking since about that time.
Posted by: Michele on August 19, 2007 02:34 PMSo that kind of begs the question: With all of the temperature fluctuations through the ages, which climate is the best? At one point they were growing wine grapes in Britain. At one point glaciers covered our (North America) northern tier. At both of these extremes mankind got along quite well as did animal kind. So, what makes this climate so important that it must be preserved at all costs? What makes the climate we have now the right one?
Anybody?
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 19, 2007 03:24 PMWhich is not to say that humans are the only cause of climate change, or the cause of the Aletsch glacier's receding, any more than smoking can be proved to have caused any particular case of cancer.
Posted by: Bruce on August 19, 2007 05:03 PMA first order comparison of historical events and climate reveals some interesting things.
1. Rome rose to become the paramount western civilization when the climate warmed.
2. Rome fell when the climate cooled and starving people from the colder regions of what is now Russia and the Ukraine overwhelmed the borders of the empire (note that the Eastern Roman or Bizantine Empire lasted another 1,000 years until the climate cooled again).
3. Medieval Europe (and Vikings too) flourished when the climate warmed again. The Vikings raided into Europe because it was fabulously rich and not very smart about defence. The Vikings also had a major population explosion (as did Europe) which was why they were looking for new places to live.
4. The "Little Ice Age" began with crop failures and plagues. About a third of the European population died during the several plagues that hit it during the cooler climate.
You can figure out from these simple facts whether warmer or cooler climates are better.
Or maybe they'd like to try doing that during the Little Ice Age of 1820?
the notion of global warming is that it started during the Industrial Revolution thus glacier shirnkage since 1870 supports the theory.
Meanwhile, the Russians belive in it enough to start going after the Arctic. Do you righties think we should let them get away with it, because "knowing" they and Al gore are wrong, we can just sit back and let them have the entire Arctic??
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on August 19, 2007 10:29 PMNow, for the first time in history, humans are causing much more rapid climate changes
Really? How do you know this, when the IPCC doesn't even know it? They refuse to state how much climate change is attributable to man, and indeed, they DO NOT conclude that man is causing ANY warming that has a "discernible influence on many physical and biological systems." They state it is 66-90 percent likely that this is happening, not that it IS happening. (Source: IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report, April 6, 2007)
So how can you state with such confidence what the IPCC can't?
Further, I question whether these changes are all that rapid, historically. We're talking about mere HUNDREDTHS of degrees per year. On the high end, the estimates (which I think are nonsense) are 11.5 degrees over 110 years beginning in 1990 (the lower IPCC estimates are a mere two degrees in that span). Historically, that's not all that unusual. It's the estimated rise in CO2 that is abnormally high, although the correlation with temperature increase is largely unknown at this time; hence, the debate rages on.
Posted by: pudge on August 19, 2007 11:01 PMThe reality is that there is no pressing need with respect to anything climate change. Resources should not be diverted away from other more pressing human problems. Al Gore's vision amounts to nothing more than a short term Marxist scare tactic for wealth redistribution.
And no matter how much folks like Bruce state false arguments that don't even match that of alarmist organizations like the IPCC, the average Joe is simply not going to care less about any of these doomsday scenarios. Because Average Joe can plainly see that at worst, any potential impact is so far in the future as to be totally immaterial to his life today.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 19, 2007 11:37 PMI fear the Global Warming Pod people may be winning. At Heathrow Airport in London they were trying to get us to cut back on flying and then quite altogether. Today in the Seattle Times there was a story about luxury hotels downgrading their service so they can be "green". Carbon credits first, then guests.
Think this hypothesis is overwrought? Well consider this. Have you noticed that the Global Warming Pod people all sound the same, have the same glassy-eyed appearance and instantly attack (verbally, at least for now) anyone they sense is not one of them? Without a doubt the slithery alien that took over the body of that poor human ,known as Al Gore, is their leader.
Posted by: Bill K. on August 20, 2007 12:10 AMWhen I was 5 in 1954, I liked Ike, knew that smoking was bad, & also knew that car exhaust was equally as bad. My story gives blind people hope. To see what a 5 year old kid understood in 1954, all blind people have to do is...open their eyes.
Posted by: litesong on August 20, 2007 10:40 AMWhen I was 5 in 1954, I liked Ike, knew that smoking was bad, & also knew that car exhaust was equally as bad. My story gives blind people hope. To see what a 5 year old kid understood in 1954, all blind people have to do is...open their eyes.
Posted by: litesong on August 20, 2007 10:41 AMhttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf
I encourage people to read it and decide for themselves. (Actually I've linked to just the draft summary, but you can find the rest on the same site.)
But a few things you mention need addressing. You use the term "degrees" without mentioning what type of degree; note that 1 degree Celsius = 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, you imply that it is foolish to act without certainty, but in fact, very little in life is certain, and it is often wise to act based on probabilities, and stupid not to. For example, it is mathematically wise to wear a seatbelt, even though in some small percentage of accidents, you are safer being unbelted and hurled through your windshield to safety.
Posted by: Bruce on August 20, 2007 01:18 PMThere is no basis for economy damaging action, and yet that is exactly what's being proposed.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 20, 2007 09:23 PMMoreover, this study casts doubt on what has been called undeniable consensus. So if there is undeniable consensus, than how can legitimate recognized climatologists be studying phenomena that sheds doubt?
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 20, 2007 10:07 PMBut even then, both reports are consistent, agreeing that they are 90% or more certain that man is causing some warming. WGI notes that they are 66 to 90% certain that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, and WGII notes that they are 66 to 90% sure that anthropogenic warming has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.
So, I am not sure what you disagree with, or where you think any IPCC report contradicts me. Note: "very likely" means > 90% probability, and "likely" means 66 to 90%, and "very high confidence" means 9 out of 10 chance of being correct. So likely is talking about predictions and guesses, and confidence is talking about assertions.
I modified the language somewhat to be more readable, in my opinion, because in fact, these things are not actually quantifiable. It's not like you can look at the data and get an actual probability for whether or not man is causing global warming: to do that, you would need to have a lot more information than we've got. So I think it's more accurate to call it a level of certainty rather than probability.
And the main point, of course, is that they are pretty darn sure that man is causing some warming, but less sure (though still more than 2/3 of the way there) that it is having a "discernible influence" or that such warming is "significant." That's what the IPCC is saying. But you state as fact ("humans are causing ... rapid climate changes") what the IPCC won't say is fact, and indeed, they have the probability of it is significantly lower than other claims (it's their *fourth* highest level of certainty, after "virtually certain," "extremely likely," and "very likely").
And again, I'd quibble with "rapid" anyway.
To you other points:
But a few things you mention need addressing. You use the term "degrees" without mentioning what type of degree; note that 1 degree Celsius = 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
I think it is fair that if left unmodified, then you should assume the local measurement, which in this case, being the U.S., is Fahrenheit (which is what I used). Not that you are complaining that I intended to bias anyone, but if I had chosen Celsius and left people to assume I meant Fahrenheit, therefore deflating the impact of the numbers, you'd certainly have room for such complaint; but since I used Celsius, the only potential mistake is that people would assume Fahrenheit, which would make my numbers look far worse than they are, and therefore hurt my argument.
Also, you imply that it is foolish to act without certainty
I absolutely did not imply any such thing. What I implied is that it is foolish to say something is certain, or a fact, when the science doesn't back it up. On whether we should act, I made no implication of any sort one way or another.
but in fact, very little in life is certain, and it is often wise to act based on probabilities, and stupid not to.
It's a cop-out to just say "we should act because it is likely the problem." You use a seatbelt argument; how about Iraq? It was more likely than not that Iraq had WMD in violation of Resolution 687 and following. Was the war therefore justified? I don't know if you'd agree it was, but I'd think the majority of the pro-warming crowd wouldn't.
Not that you are saying we should act merely based on probabilities, of course; you used the word "often." But that just raises the question: is this one of those cases? And to answer that, we need to look at other factors. There are many other probabiltiies to consider besides how many degrees we may increase over the next 100 years. Going back to the probabilities, even though it is likely that we will continue to see some increases, the probabilities are low for any particular increase, and even lower for what the overall, and in most cases local, effects will be. So while we can consider general action (that is, against global warming in general), specific action (to combat specific potential results) is not warranted by any probabilities.
And other probabilities must be considered as well, such as the potential economic impacts, not to mention the possibility that in stopping global warming we may be ushering in another ice age. Note that in Al Gore's infamous graph showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature, that in each case, we dropped both rapidly soon after a steady increase in both, and hit an ice age. We'd be due for one about now, by Al Gore's own graph. Isn't global warming preferable to an ice age?
I saw this ridiculous video of a guy -- who incidentally was so certain his argument was unassailably correct -- that used Pascal's Wager to prove we should act in regards to global warming. It is similar to your argument, but more specific: if God exists and you believe in Him, you win; if God does not and you do believe, you don't lose. If God exists and you don't believe in Him, you lose; if God does not exist and you do not believe, you don't lose. So therefore you should believe, said Pascal.
So this guy said the same thing about global warming: if you act and there is global warming, you win. If you don't act and there is global warming, you lose. If there is no global warming, he said, the consequences are not severe whether you act or not. But he was, probably unintentionally, grossly underestimating the potential ill effects from acting, and overestimating the likely ill effects from not acting, as well as grossly overestimating the liklihood we could do anything about any warming. He did give some handwaving to the potential negative economic effects of acting, but he ignored the potential negative effects on the climate; he acted as though it is far more likely that the effects of global warming will be negative than positive; and so on.
I am not saying we should do nothing, nor even that we shouldn't try to "stop global warming." I am saying let's honestly evaluate what we know, what we don't know, and what other possibilities and probabilities exist. Because the pro-warming crowd doesn't want to do any of that: they want to ignore what we don't know, pretend we know what we don't, and act without thinking of the potential negative consequences of doing so.
And that, I absolutely refuse to go along with.
We pollute so much that we foul our nest(earth) with a block of oil 1 mile long by 1 mile wide by 1 mile high per year. That is true.
Children have increasing lung disease & die, the closer to freeways they live or go to school. That is true.
Greenland ice mass is retreating, uncovering islands that were thought to be peninsula parts of Greenland. That is true.
Low lying populated islands are losing terrestrial area. That is true.
Vast antarctic ice shelves have collapsed, which never in human recorded history have collapsed before. Water flow under the deep Antarctic ice caps is increasing. Glaciers around the world are in retreat. It is all true.
People here state that we can adjust to the consequences. Only the rich can adjust. The poor can only die, like the increasing dead in inner city heat waves or increasingly powerful hurricanes.
As an educational sidelight, did you know that hurricanes are a tropical heat reducing mechanism to move heat out of equatorial regions to cooler regions towards the north & south poles. I think that is fascinating.
The Russians are staking claim, not to the melting Arctic icebergs, but to the land underneath the Arctic Ocean for oil & mineral rights, once the icebergs melt to make access possible. Hey, it'll be the Northwest Passage they've been looking for...& which the S.S. Manhattan bulldozed thru decades ago.
Jeff B...Don't want you to stop driving. But with the quick advancements of nano ultracapacitors for electrical energy storage, please consider the purchase of a small electric car, hopefully within the next 3 or 4 years...specially if you live in areas where electricity is increasingly produced by renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, there are alternative vehicle purchases much more environmentally friendly to the Magnum Belchfire Burpers one often sees on the road.
Posted by: litesong on August 21, 2007 06:28 AM
Where does the electricity that gets stored in the nano-capacitors come from? The solution is not going to come from electric cars, but instead a hydrogen economy.
On the right, we are focused on maintaining a great quality of life, while solving problems like the geopolitical implications of oil, rising electricity demand while generation has been blocked by environmentalists, etc.
If you think the right is campaigning for pollution, you are wrong. But the right also realizes that we can't just bankrupt our economy throwing money at vague future threats when there are real engineering and medical problems today.
All of the threats that you state are vague and with competing research that invalidates them as significant. Localized melting ice does not really mean much, and if you study the data, you will see that it might be melting in some places, but increasing more in others. But we really don't know to any worthwhile extent.
The rational will put their resources in to technology and calm, realistic solutions to more short and mid term problems as they arise, and keep their 100 to 1000 year panic horizon in check. The irrational, will fall for any doomsday scenario, as prophesied by any politician or demagogue.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 21, 2007 10:56 AMJeff B...As I said, the electricity should be generated by renewable energy sources(wind, wave, tidal, solar, our old stand-by, water, etc). Ingenious machines will tap wave & tidal energy simultaneously & wind & solar farms can work together. Boeing & others already have created solar panels of 40%+ efficiency.
Those nano ultracapacitors will not only run our EVs(& outlast EVs), but be able to be used as efficient stationary Electric Storage Units(ESUs) for our renewable, but interruptable energy generation plants. Even nano ultracapacitors in EVs will be used as ESUs in their non-driven hours in garages! Our Northwest generates equivalent Kilowatt to HP energy that only puts out 4% of the pollution of Internal Combustion Engines(ICE). With the Initiative approval last year of further renewable energy development, Washington state will drive pollution ever lower. With adoption of the Electric Vehicle(EV) which is 3+times more efficient than ICE in the future, pollution will be given a knock-out punch, since EVs at all times & around people give off far far far less pollution than ICE.
As for other states, let them look to our State, so they may drive their pollution to minuscule levels.
Vast Antarctic ice shelves have collapsed, which never in human recorded history have collapsed before. Water flow under the deep Antarctic ice caps is increasing. Glaciers around the world are in retreat. It is all true."
Let's just say that those two statements are true (which they aren't but that is a different post), in fact let's say all of your #25 post B.S. is true.
So what?
The last 1000 years of human habitation, it has been one hell of a lot warmer (by about 2x) and it has been a lot colder (according to IPCC figures) http://buildwithwood.com/bww/enviro.html. Recently, a retracted Swiss glacier revealed an abandoned silver mine. Tools left as if they walked away yesterday. So we know that retreating glaciers have existed in the past and, glory be! Mankind is still here. So is 99% of animal-kind as well.
The adult, real world reality is that climate variation is a normal, everyday/month/year/decade/century occurrence and man's measly 3% (-) carbon dioxide contribution means squat (hey, it's plant food). Man will adapt, animals will adapt, plants will adapt. Why? They will have to because anything mankind does will have little effect.
From Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin: "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
" 'Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,' declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research." More: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253
Just a guess but I think that this Bryson fellow knows more about climate than you do. All you are is a parrot who reads doom and assumes that it is truth, never bothering to look for the truth. Please remember that Global Warming™ is a 300 billion a year business and that makes for a lot of partiality in opinion. Those gloom and doomers have kids to put through college too my man. May I suggest that you get your Bullsh*t Detector fixed? It stopped working some time ago.
I do have one favor to ask. Could you read comment #4 (above) and post an answer to it?
My BS Detector is working well thru my BS in AA degree. I won't ever quote you.
Posted by: litesong on August 22, 2007 01:40 PM"BS" degree. It fits.
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 22, 2007 10:37 PM