Seattle weather --
Last March: 5 record lows, 0 record highs
This March: 7 record lows, 0 record highs (so far)
I'm just saying.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Email ThisI'm not saying that it isn't the case, but I'm saying that the the "case" Al Gore makes isn't solid by any means.
Whenever anyones says "the debate is over" you can be sure it means they are afraid thy are going to lose if the conversation continues. How many times has Al Gores said that this year?
Posted by: Johnny on March 27, 2009 12:11 PMIf you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of 2 degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?' That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.
Problem is, the ice chunks which have caused alot of the flooding by damming up creeks and causing the main river to overflow, are a result of colder than normal temperatures they have had there this winter. Of course, none of the reporters at the presser where he made that comment challenged it.
Posted by: Palouse on March 27, 2009 12:27 PM"Can't let a crisis go to waste" is the new mantra of the left.
Not only weather, but now we have Mexican drug dealers using smuggled US-made fully automatic assault rifles. I'd like to know how they were able to buy such firearms in the US when American's can't.
Any lie is justified, so long as it allows the agenda to be pushed along.
Posted by: deadwood on March 27, 2009 12:58 PMThis is the latest actual scientific symposium on what the real weather is like, then and now.
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
Take a look. First posted by the folks at powerlineblog.com a few days back. The graphs presented could not be any clearer.
BTW, the UN has just admitted that "global warming" is simply a ruse to take your money and "spread it around".
Was there ever any doubt?
Posted by: ChasW on March 27, 2009 01:39 PMEvery week, these guys present more real, credible and often peer reviewed papers that show that the earth is in no jeopardy, and that any minimal warming is not caused by mankind. It's all very simple, and often in very layman readable terms.
The bottom line is this, and it's obvious to anyone with even a general science or engineering degree:
When analyzing a system, you look for the largest inputs and outputs. The earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour, than mankind generates in a year. Some of that is reflected back in to space, but the earth is 2/3 covered by water, so what does get absorbed, largely gets absorbed in the oceans. And water has about a 40 times greater heat carrying capacity than do the gases that make up our air, and also a greater heat capcity than the land on the earth.
Wind patterns, etc. cause decadal and multi-decadal flows of water throughout our large oceans. Particularly the Pacific, and then the Atlantic. As upwelling and downwelling of warm water occurs in these decadal and multi-decadal oscillations, we see climate change. That's basically it, that's all there is to it, and humans have virtually zero ability to impact these earth-wide, and half earth-wide oceanic and solar forces.
Anyone who tells you different, is full of BS. And especially the faux science site run by Gavin Schmidt.
And Stefan is correct to note the record lows, because records show that the earth has been cooling, since the much hyped warm year of 1998. That one year has unfairly been used to paint a picture or warming armageddon, and yet there's been 10 years since where we have had cooling. Turnabout it more than fair play, and especially when so much other data shows that statistics were manipulated just to make 1998 and certain graphs paint a picture of human caused doom.
It's not happening, and over the course of just a couple more years, the alarmists will have zero credibility left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2009 02:15 PMAll anyone need do is read Anthony Watt's excellent WattsUpWithThat and Joe D'Aleo's also excellent ICECAP on a regular basis to see the real science.
Every week, these guys present more real, credible and often peer reviewed papers that show that the earth is in no jeopardy, and that any minimal warming is not caused by mankind. It's all very simple, and often in very layman readable terms.
The bottom line is this, and it's obvious to anyone with even a general science or engineering degree:
When analyzing a system, you look for the largest inputs and outputs. The earth absorbs more energy from the sun in an hour, than mankind generates in a year. Some of that is reflected back in to space, but the earth is 2/3 covered by water, so what does get absorbed, largely gets absorbed in the oceans. And water has about a 40 times greater heat carrying capacity than do the gases that make up our air, and also a greater heat capcity than the land on the earth.
Wind patterns, etc. cause decadal and multi-decadal flows of water throughout our large oceans. Particularly the Pacific, and then the Atlantic. As upwelling and downwelling of warm water occurs in these decadal and multi-decadal oscillations, we see climate change. That's basically it, that's all there is to it, and humans have virtually zero ability to impact these earth-wide, and half earth-wide oceanic and solar forces.
Anyone who tells you different, is full of BS. And especially the faux science site run by Gavin Schmidt which I am not going to link to, because it deserves no respect.
And Stefan is correct to note the record lows, because records show that the earth has been cooling, since the much hyped warm year of 1998. That one year has unfairly been used to paint a picture or warming armageddon, and yet there's been 10 years since where we have had cooling. Turnabout it more than fair play, and especially when so much other data shows that statistics were manipulated just to make 1998 and certain graphs paint a picture of human caused doom.
It's not happening, and over the course of just a couple more years, the alarmists will have zero credibility left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2009 02:19 PMSo, you think watching a propaganda film will sway me?
I have more than 12 years of undergraduate/graduate level science education and 30 years of work experience in the earth sciences within government and industry. That is more than enough to provide me with the knowledge and tools necessary to know the difference between fact and fiction.
Mr. Gore and his fellow catastrophic AGW believers use fear and ignorance as the basis of their movement. The overstate weak science and use fantasy computer models rather than facts to support their case.
You can believe whatever you wish, but don't think for a minute that all of us are sheep.
Posted by: deadwood on March 27, 2009 03:07 PMI probably wasn't accounting for the fact that Washington DC's already completely saturated with the stuff, though, so adding more won't make a difference.
Posted by: pudge on March 27, 2009 03:19 PMContinue with your paranoid ravings. Posted by demo kid at March 27, 2009 03:53 PM
________________
Yep, you would know.
Thanks for posting.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on March 27, 2009 04:23 PMAnd, it will require you to think for yourself, but you might learn something. There are plenty of ex-alarmists, even progressives, at these sites in the comments who have been persuaded by the much more rational arguments contained therein.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2009 04:39 PMWow, It took until comment 21 for DK to log in with the same old "Bumber Sticker" slogan. Yes, we know that one cool day is weather and not climate. The same is true for one cool week, one cool month, one cool year, even one cool decade. But at some point you have to smack yourself in the forehead and say "Yeh, perhaps the climate is cooling!
Posted by: Moondoggie on March 27, 2009 04:56 PMSo once again we find that the climate models the eco-facists are using are completely inaccurate (some more).
As has crossed these pages before, Climate Change™ (or whatever they want to call it) is nothing more than a scheme for any control that any angecy or entity wants to concoct. From what color you car is to what kind of light bulbs you use to how much manufacturing your country can do at any given time, they want the final say and you and me can go push a rope as far as they are concerned.
Well I ain't buyin' it. Scroom.
Posted by: G Jiggy on March 27, 2009 05:13 PMApparently demokid attended Al Gore's seminar on "how to debate global warming". Just claim the debate is over and scurry away onto the tarmac to catch your private gulf stream jet out of town before you have to back up your hysteria with real facts.
Famous cult leaders:
Jim Jones- The Peoples temple cult
Marshall Appelwhite- Heavens gate cult
David Koresh - Branch davididans cult
Albert Gore - Global Warming cult
Weather is what happens today; climate is what happens over time. Seems over the last year the climate has cooled, has it not?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 27, 2009 06:31 PMIf you REALLY want to dig into scientific details:
See the very extensive proceedings for the just-completed 2nd International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC (WATCH OUT: Do NOT confuse with IPCC) ) that was sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Total I downloaded is over 300 MBytes in PowerPoint and .pdf files (and more may have been posted since then), so better have a fast link if you want to get all of it.
In any case: There is some great stuff here:
ICCC-Proceedings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
In the meantime pass the steak sauce and crank up the lights!
Posted by: Vic on March 27, 2009 07:45 PMBest analysis of the global warming issue I have seen.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on March 27, 2009 08:10 PMFOLLOW THE MONEY.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 27, 2009 08:42 PMIts not the number of scientists that matters in science (even if the numbers appear to agree with your views). Its the facts, and they don't agree with Al Gore and his ideologues of the environmental left.
AGW had a good theory - until the facts began overturning its basic foundations.
The real science gathered since the mid-1990's supports natural processes, not mankind, as the cause of the warming that lasted from the late 1970's until the late 1990's. Since then the global climate has cooled.
Some places have continued to warm, but overall the planet has cooled since the late 1990's. Even the UN can't dispute this fact. As we can plainly feel and see here in the PNW, it is a lot cooler the last few years than it has been since the mid 1980's.
Yet, almost every day we hear another tale in the mass media about some computer model that predicts the dire consequences of further warming.
These are nothing more than the desperate rantings of the diehards (who are the real climate deniers) as the power they seek over every aspect of our lives slips from their fingers.
Posted by: deadwood on March 27, 2009 09:02 PMCliff Mass is the Prof at the U.W. and the top Weather guy in the area. Do not mistake local weather for climate change. Go to the blog, I doubt if anyone here knows more about weather then he does.
Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2009 09:25 PMCliff Mass is the Prof at the U.W. and the top Weather guy in the area. Do not mistake local weather for climate change. Go to the blog, I doubt if anyone here knows more about weather then he does.
Posted by: Jay on March 27, 2009 09:26 PMI agree with the link from Matt336.. Even George Norry's guest (a scientist) said the other night that it appears now that we will be entering several decades of global cooling based on the latest trends. The problem with these AGW kool-aid drinkers is that they ignore the affects of the sun and assume it constant, because they know that the world has become dumbed down and there more suckers born every minute than ever before. Al Gore doesn't merit mentioning because we know why he is afraid to debate anyone of sufficient scientific aptitude.
Posted by: KS on March 27, 2009 09:42 PM
It's a 40% increase year-over-year.
Jay,
Please define the difference between local weather and local climate.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 27, 2009 09:48 PMStefan has explained his reasoning behind these posts many times, but you have to be a long time reader to understand. You fell for it.
Go read the science. This is not a left / right issue. The science is heavily on the side of proving that climate change is natural and not man made. And cooling presents a much greater danger than warming. Humans have far bigger fish to fry. We can start with cancer. Every dime spent on climate change is a dime that is not spent on far graver and more present threats like cancer.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 27, 2009 10:41 PMIn truth, the debate over the validity of AGW has nothing to do with science, it has all to do with leftist government creating a pretext to gain control over private citizens and private businesses. Follow the money. I contend that followers of "Climate Change" don't know or care if AGW theories hold any water. The leftists merely want your money, and will use any phony-ass theory, mandate or law to steal private wealth.
The bumper sticker I saw on a local farmer's truck still says it best: "IT'S NOT ABOUT SALMON...IT"S ABOUT CONTROL"
Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2009 07:46 AMUnfortunately, credibility with the general public does not rest on facts. It rests on the 'news' which is relentlessly larded with the screeds and screeches of the alarmists. The fraction of the public which owns sufficient analytical and numerical and physical knowlege to comprehend even the popularized reports of scientists is so small that it has little effect on general opinion.
That is why the popular press, being far more influenced by organized politics than by science (I believe that reporters are even less numerate than the general public), is so vulnerable to mendacious logrolling by organizations with a 'cause' such as global warming. AGW is merely a tactic - the strategy is to gain control over the world economy, and human behavior with it.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 28, 2009 09:24 AMHere is the link confirming my comments about the UN and how they plan to try and screw us out on even more money to distribute to their "anointed."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html
Read the entire thing. Sickening.
Posted by: ChasW on March 28, 2009 09:53 AM"Lights illuminating the Space Needle, downtown high-rises and neighborhood homes (not mine) could largely go dark from 8:30 to 9:30 to mark Earth Hour, and international campaign against global warming.
The global warming scam is a worldwide effort by the left to take control. I bet this Earth Hour nonsense was pushed in every school classroom all last week. It's part of the left's effort to brainwash everyone. You can't turn on the TV, or the radio, or pick up the paper without being hit over the head repeatedly with "green" this, or "green " that or "we're going green". It's revolting and everyone just climbs on board because there is no one calling BS.
Every year the left keeps relentlessly pushing its agenda. They want to control our lives.
I keep hoping there will be a backlash.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 28, 2009 02:08 PMThe left can live in caves, survive on roots and berries and worship the earth to their collective hearts' desire. I will continue to worship the God who created us and thank Him for the bounty He provides for those who have entrusted their care to Him.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 28, 2009 02:47 PMDeprived of what evil capitalism has provided them for a short period of time would convert every one of them to sanity.
You notice not a single one of these jerks ever gives up jet travel, which has to be one of the biggest ozone ripping acts one can perform.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 28, 2009 03:01 PMGreen technology in moderation may be a good thing in that it will conserve and cause less pollution, but only if nuclear power is included. However, the politicians will never do it in moderation unless the public loudly demands it.
Posted by: KS on March 28, 2009 07:28 PMThe scientists out gathering and assessing this data don't want to be right about this, but as scientists they have to report what they observe and try their best to piece together what it all means. All of this started out of a need to predict weather with greater accuracy further into the future (from hours to days to weeks). The vastly complex behavior of fluids and the energy they store on the scales of our atmosphere and hydrosphere required ever-increasing datapoints and continual refinement of theories to match observed conditions and patterns.
The data over time has shown some clear patterns with strong correlations, between thermal retention and the composition of atmospheric gases and particulates. These correlations have been confirmed with geological evidence compared to air samples from ancient ice cores. The increasing turbidity in our atmosphere and additional thermal energy in the oceans is driving larger storms in some areas and moving larger air masses (cold and warm) in others. It is NOT simply this shift to extremes that draws concern, it's the rapidity of this shift compared to previous ("natural") periods in Earth's recent history that is alarming.
In the end it's all about numbers. How much carbon is released by burning how much of what fuel at what temperature is very well known...it's what drives how industry produces energy efficiently (compared to past, less data-driven and less efficient energy production) comes from the industries themselves as much as public research. How much methane is released by ruminants on a given diet is part of the data gathered in animal sciences to determine the best feed-to-meat or feed-to-milk combination for commercial livestock production. The history and strength of ancient weather events is researched by geologists for land surveys (and how weather changes land and thus influences geographic and sometimes political boundaries), and by archeologists and anthropologists for understanding our history. Climatologists look to the past for clues to current weather patterns. The basic sciences seek an understanding of the behavior of elemental and complex gases, both for general knowledge as well as for industrial, medical, and scientific applications.
All of these produce measurable, independent data that can be used across the disciplines for prediction, measurement, and interpretation. In other words, the data does not come from "the (alarmist) climatologists" alone, but from a broad spectrum of public and private researchers from many disciplines, using data originally intended for the betterment of other process (industrial, medical, civic, etc).
Add up all the numbers for volumetric and compositional contributions from burning fossil fuels and feeding large populations of animals of a known size (all very well understood thanks to industrial research) and you see how much of what is released into the atmosphere. Take the knowledge of energy and chemical characteristics of the gases and particles taken from both atmospheric and industrial sciences and you can quickly work out how much influence a given volume of gases or particulates has in a given volume of air under certain conditions. Scaling that to the complex fluid dynamics of our atmosphere is the next big challenge...and we're getting better at it as we refine techniques and theories and introduce more powerful computational technology.
Just looking at how much volume of these greenhouse gases and particulate pollutants go into the atmosphere...just visualizing how that volume looks as, say, a block, and it doesn't take much to imagine stacking those blocks one upon another to see how the atmosphere as a whole is filled by the influence. Look at the smoke from a large house fire and how it rises and grows so huge...imagine that from dozens of places around the area (say, the same number as factories and plants), and imagine that it burns with that intensity and smoke production day after day after day for years. How far would that smoke rise, how large an area would it cover, and how thick would the blanket get? Can you imagine how it would fill the entire area with smoke? That's what the cars and trucks and the engines of industry do every day, all day, all year, all the time. Tell me again how we're too puny to make such a difference? Volcanoes go off in big, ferocious blasts, and then they shut down. We may sputter compared to them, but we _never stop_...days become months become years become decades become centuries, and all the time we pump stuff into the atmosphere.
How about we follow the money? Who has the most to lose if GCC is real? The established industries producing the power and the products, if laws are introduced to force a change in behavior, stand to lose far more than "big tobacco". Thanks to the impact on the tax base, scientists and researchers end up with sparse funding resources by which to continue their work and so suffer as well, and yet they continue to speak the truth as they see it.
Who has the most to gain if GCC is real? Given the impact on fundamental natural resources (fresh water, arable land, et al) the usurpers and polarizers will have the greatest gains, leading to basic changes to the global political and power maps. The funding sources for the "doom-seeking researchers" will also dry up as the power and wealth flows elsewhere...they know that, and yet continue to speak the truth as they see it.
I look at this as I used to look upon the tobacco-to-cancer wars. If the scientists and doctors were right then "big tobacco" would lose billions, and the scientists and doctors fighting the cancers would be out of work, too! The medical side was working to retire themselves from fighting cancer...trying to put themselves out of work. If the medical researchers were after profit they would have looked for ways to "make tobacco safe" or to work on cures more than prevention, thus ensuring a steady flow of work. Instead, they have stridently, continually, and consistently fought to eliminate tobacco use, contrary to their own long-term economic interests.
100+ years ago America and the rest of the "industrialized world" talked about how they could reshape the Earth, and they set about doing just that...we owned the Earth and could reshape it to meet our needs. Now these industries beg off the notion of being so big they could reshape the Earth. This 180-degree turn should make their purely short-term profit-driven motives obvious, just like the tobacco industries' motives.
We're already too late to act for prevention of GCC, leaving only mitigation and preparation. The damage is largely done, and more is on the way from the rapid industrialization of China and India (and still other nations in the decades to come). The researchers and scientists closest to the larger picture no longer talk about changing to prevent...instead they now talk about changing to _survive_ and then perhaps lessen the impacts.
So, whistle as you pass the graveyard...someday you, too, will lie there, and it may be sooner thanks to what is in store.
Lemmings.
Posted by: yaddacubed on March 30, 2009 10:20 AMOK, next thing: You look like a smart guy (either that or you have an overactive Ctrl+C finger combination), so answer me this: With all of the radical temperature fluctuations through the ages, which climate is the best? At one point they were growing wine grapes in Britain. At another time they were skating on the Thames river. 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?
And please, try and keep your answer under 13 paragraphs.
Please explain the difference for us. Go ahead, let us know...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 30, 2009 09:09 PMSince I haven't started that 12-step group, yet, here's my 17-paragraph response!
The thing is, if you want answers, and want evidence, and want to weigh evidence, then you have to read. You can rely on pundits or, hopefully, competing scientists, for all your information, but depending on one source is a problem, even if that source is an aggregate source (a group of scientists and public policy folks). Witness how many relied solely on Bernie Madoff's forecasts by giving him all their money...he sounded great to the average investor, but many others knew he was a crook years ago.
For those of us on the "yep, it's real" side there is no solid answer...this is an evolving process. From the various sources I've seen over the years that all relate corollary experience from different fields I am left with no other choice than to acknowledge what the evidence says. Not just from climatologists...from many kinds of sources, even farmers who have seen dramatic changes when their grandfathers spoke of decades of little long-term change.
I don't take it on faith that changes are afoot. If it were only climatologists raising alarms then I'd ask why only they see a problem. I did ask, in fact, which is why I have paid closer attention over the years to how many different types of data are moving in step with the changes in concentration of greenhouse gases. Long-term shifts in things like the bloom dates of trees and plants, changing yields for various types of crops by latitude, various pattern shifts in local climate zones, oceanographic data on salinity, oxygen levels, populations of various marine species shifting just like the land-born plants.
Corollary evidence...not in perfect lock-step since each area of study works on different sets of variables at different levels of influence, but all following on longer trend patterns. It's like the having not just the doctor stand up and warn everyone, but then also the fireman, the farmer, the fisherman, the zoologist, the water utilities engineer, and so on. What gets my attention here is that so many different disciplines weigh in with their own observations and experiences and evidence, and from so many places around the globe, who do not all subscribe to the National Geographic Human-Caused-Panic Book-Of-The-Month-Club.
I'm an evolutionist in the larger sense (universal, planetary, biological, et al), so I do not feel there is a "best climate". I do know that changes are already under way at an unprecedented rate...very probably at a rate too fast for quick adaptation without the associated radical upheaval (social, political, etc.). I very much doubt we'll go extinct even with the worst-case-scenario. I do, however, know that history is littered with everything from tribes to nation-states to empires suffering death at the hands of calamities that started with climate change. To think we are immune to that upheaval as a nation is not just arrogance, it's blindness. We'll survive, but not as we are today, and perhaps not as something we want our children to inherit.
Now...the influence of tiny percentages. Fill a tall glass of water and take a drink and remember the taste. Now, refill the glass and put a tiny drop of vinegar in the with the water, stir, and then taste. Most folks will taste even that hint of vinegar, even though it's small. Put in another drop and taste...again many if not most would taste the difference between one drop and two. This little experiment I give here is not about the climate, but about how seemingly insignificant changes can give rise to noticeable and even significant differences.
Do the same test as a visual test, replacing vinegar with food coloring, with 2-3-4 glasses side by side, each with one more drop than the last...or half a drop...or less! The fact that you can see the difference between 1 and 2 drops is significant, even if one extra drop is tiny compared to the full glass.
Similar significant changes can be seen in the chemical sciences, where small changes in formulations create significant changes, such as burn rate in fuels at different air-fuel mixtures. Small changes can make a big difference, or no difference at all, or some difference. A .5% change can lead to anywhere from 0% to 100% change in some much larger factor...it just depends on the specifics of the case, not the numbers in the change.
It is wrong to say "there cannot be a difference between 2.8% and 2.9%...it makes no sense." You need to ask "what changes between 2.8% and 2.9%, and over what period of time, and does it scale in the same way when we go to 3.0%?" Observe, collect data, change a variable if possible or note the changes if not, and repeat the process. At the end assess the data collected and the changes noted and look for patterns. Document the whole process and methodology so someone else can assess your work and also try to reproduce your results. Then you can say how much difference some small amount can make.
Now then...you go to two, three, and even four oncologists, all backed with medical and lab staffs that know cancer, and they all say you have a tumor that can go cancerous and kill you rapidly, and then you go to one doc and his staff and he says it may or may not be a tumor and it isn't likely ever kill you, do you turn around and call the other four docs and their staffs idiots and fools? Do you ask "why does this _one_ doctor say otherwise?" Do you ask him to defend his diagnosis in a review with all the others, or just accept his because it sounds better than the others?
This is the core of the problem here for those who talk of lemmings and fools and screeds and the radical right and the whacko left. You have chosen to side exclusively with a group of people who want to discount all human influence, who also simultaneously say even though there is human influence it is not by definition bad (I'll buy the concept but not the result in this context). This is the same reaction documented from those who defended Madoff, or defended certain types of derivatives and securities...responding to those who even questioned with epithets instead of evidence, and denouncements instead of debate.
I did not come to my beliefs from only a handful of sources, or a group of sources concentrated in one common organization. I've read articles and seen documentaries and even assessed evidence where I can, and I have also learned to read past the data to who what presenting their data and why. I have heard researchers that plainly said "we all know X is true, and I'm hear to prove it"...they are the ones to question first since they have a motive rather than the desire to gather data and see where it takes them. There are lots of them out there...on both sides of the debate. I definitely don't take the word of those who make bare, plain pronouncements on one side or the other.
The ones I listen to are the ones who clearly love the data and love to see what they can find and are open to what it tells them, and are open to others with different interpretations, and are willing to debate yet still be open to evidence gathered by others and conclusions drawn by others.
At this time, after years of reading and seeing and thinking and listening to many diverse views from many ends of the spectrum I am left with my personal conclusion that human-cause global climate change is well under way. My question now is how we will respond to and experience the changes, and what those changes will mean to our children and their children and so on. The data that may predict the changes in one or another local or regional or whatever-scale environment is being gathered now, and is years yet away from the fine-grained forecasts we hope to achieve...that can help us prepare.
Humans are not aliens...we are, in a very real sense, the Earth. We have achieved the ability to change the planet on a grand scale, but not in a controlled way, and we certainly have not planned the changes we have made. We _can_, however, plan the changes we will make, or continue to make, into the future. With better data and understanding (knowledge) we will be able to plan change to our collective benefit, rather than be the victims of driving without our headlights on a road we made in the dark...or victims of the few lemmings who says the cliff is just fine and we'll be safe so ignore those who have peered over the cliff and assessed the risk and chosen not to go. I'm not following the blind "it's all fine" lemmings.
Posted by: Scot Harkins on March 31, 2009 03:08 PMName-calling is not discussion, and does not impress anyone.
Small, even microscopic, changes can cause dramatic outcomes. It's not the size of the .01%, it's the impact of the .01%. Impact may be nothing, or it may be immense.
Evidence from many sources should be considered. Right now the vast majority of data points to unprecedented change, and it is a small minority that says it's not real at all. That doesn't make the majority right, or the minority wrong. Those on the majority side, however, are diverse and still debating the scale, while the minority is not as diverse and holds a much smaller range of opinions.
Humans evolved on Earth and are not aliens, but now that we can influence the Earth and control our influence, why would we ever choose to carry on blindly? We can either steer the horse from the tail or from the reins...I know which one is more likely to work, and which one will get us kicked time and time again.
Posted by: Scot Harkins on March 31, 2009 03:20 PMAt a roulette table, will smiling at an honest croupier change the winning numbers? If the croupier notices someone smiling, he's unlikely to throw the ball in exactly the same way as he would have done if the person hadn't smiled, so in that sense it's very likely that smiling would change the result. On the other hand, the croupier would have thrown a bunch of random spins if someone had smiled, or a bunch of equally random (albeit different) spins if nobody did. There would be no way to look at a list of numbers picked by a roulette wheel and determine, based upon that list, whether someone was smiling at the croupier.
The Earth has a variety of feedback mechanisms to ensure that its climate parameters remain within habitable bounds. It's possible that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause part of a cycle to happen slightly sooner or later than it otherwise would have done, but there are many other random factors with a much bigger effect. From a statistical standpoint, the effect is essentially nil.
Posted by: supercat on March 31, 2009 11:06 PMExpanded specific answer - To the question of "what makes the climate we have now the right one?" Your point is quite correct; humans and our ancestors have survived a wide range of climates. We are descended from survivors that adapted to change.
Keep in mind, however, that the adaptation included those who lived and those who died before reproducing. The same would befall those in our times. We would be better able to survive thanks to our technology and our knowledge. We are more adaptable than ever, though not because we are physically stronger.
So we are back to what would be so bad? Well, farming will change, maybe for the better or maybe not. It's easy to say longer summers would actually mean more food, but winter is important in killing pests that plague crops. In many places winter snows provide summer water, so less snow would mean dry summers, less irrigation, fewer fresh-water fishstocks, changes in the composition of the flora, and thus the fauna.
Wildlife common in one area may find it impossible to survive. With our chopped-up landscape, with large areas where such life cannot cross (highways, cities), we might be able to relocate some populations to other areas, but what areas, and owned by whom? Do we pay them to stop using their land, or force them? This is all conjecture...what really will happen will be dealt with at the time in the context of the problem at the time. We will doubtless solve many but not all. Again...what's so bad here? We can adjust with some loss, but adjust nonetheless.
It comes down to who decides what changes will be made where. Who will decide? Who will have to adjust to that decision? Will it be the same people, or will one group require change of another? It could start with class-based forces such as we have today, where those with the gold win and those without the gold don't.
In a larger sense the concern is about increased stress on all nations, leading many to desparate measures, and others to isolation (or an attempt to be isolated). This could well mean more war, more suffering, and more death, at a time when we should be seeking more peace and prosperity. It can also mean the loss of some of our most treasured wonders, from great forests to ice caps to many coastal areas, perhaps leaving us with a world greatly diminished, more harsh, less tolerant to life...or maybe it'll be a new paradise.
No matter what things will change, and many of them things we don't want to see changed. Perhaps the best part will be the increasing population and decreasing resources to support them. Perhaps we need to think about limiting climate change and introducing population policies, but that would never pass here...until it has to at least.
If you are referring to natural changes that loop back to maintain something of a balance and minimizing the range of changes...would that include the sea level rise of over 400 feet in the last 20,000 years as a minimal impact?
I would agree that the Earth, as a living planet, would do its best to maintain an environment suitable to the life we have, but since that balance is really a function of the lifeforms on the planet, then perhaps our impact on the diversity and composition by way of reduction might upset even that balance, though nowhere near as much as, say, a large asteroid or colossal super volcano.
Posted by: Scot Harkins on March 31, 2009 11:30 PMHmmm, is THIS why they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change"??? The GW alarmists can't be wrong now. Now they can say "SEE...snow in April...It's CLIMATE CHANGE!" We HAVE to DO SOMETHING!!!
[url=http://www.buypenisenlargement.com]best penis enlargement pills[/url]
[url=http://www.buypenisenlargement.com/prosolutionpills.html]penis enlargement[/url]
