Author stokes climate change debate
Roger Coppock
By Rob Krier
STAFF WRITER, San Diego Union Tribune
April 5, 2006
Tim Flannery believes no one can know the future with certainty, but
the evidence is overwhelming that global warming will likely have
devastating impacts. The time for debate and discussion has long since
passed, he writes in his new book, "The Weather Makers: The History
and Future Impact of Climate Change."
"If . . . we wait to see if an ailment is indeed fatal, we will do
nothing until we are dead."
A noted zoologist and director of the South Australian Museum, Flannery
says our fate is in our own hands - "for we are the weather makers,
and we already possess all the tools required to avoid catastrophic
climate change."
We contacted Flannery, who will speak at the San Diego Zoo Monday, via
e-mail while he was on tour in Barbados.
QUESTION: What are the most devastating impacts of global warming now,
and what will they be in the future?
ANSWER: Many Inuit and Pacific Islanders are already suffering
devastating impacts. They've lost their homes, livelihoods and familiar
habitats already. The world's coral reefs are already substantially
damaged, and, of course, we've already seen extinctions as a result of
climate change.
In the short term, impacts will continue to be most severe at the poles
and among the coral atoll nations of the Pacific and Indian oceans, but
within a few decades, if we continue polluting with greenhouse gases,
severe impacts will become far more widespread.
I think it's likely that the Netherlands, for example, will see severe
damage from extra-tropical low pressure systems, floods and rising
seas, while damage will continue to mount in hurricane zones.
Fifty years out, it may well be that all low-lying regions of the
planet are under stress from rapidly rising seas. But honestly, the
possible impacts are so various that when we consider where the worst
damage will be in a century, it could be almost anywhere.
For a long time, the argument seemed to be that global warming either
wasn't real or that it wasn't being caused by man. Has the world seen
enough evidence now to move beyond that?
The argument you outline has been dictated by a small group of
skeptics, many of whom are paid by those who make money from polluting
and who don't wish to see changes to the way they do business. They've
gone through at least three stages of denial: first that climate change
doesn't exist; then that it does exist but it's not human caused; then
that we are causing it, but it's too expensive to fix.
Who knows what the next state of denial will be? And of course, ever
since the 1980s we've had sufficient evidence to justify gradually
increasing restrictions on the polluting gases.
How do you respond to those who say it's too expensive to fix?
This is the third stage of denial, and it's the flimsiest of them all
because its proponents never try to estimate the cost of letting
business go on as usual. The insurance companies, however, are doing a
pretty good job of keeping track of the cost, and they know that it's
not only sending them broke, but is growing so swiftly as to threaten
the global economy.
A few years ago, Swiss Re, the world's largest re-insurer (they take
the risk from the insurers), threatened to withdraw director's
liability insurance for directors of the worst polluting companies,
which gives you some idea of their mood.
What do you say to global warming naysayers who say climate-change
models are flawed?
The climate models all agree on one thing - the planet will warm as
greenhouse gases accumulate. They disagree on how much warming will
occur, but even at the lowest end of the projections, if we go about
business as usual, the changes will be immense.
Some have argued that global warming is a good thing - it allows
longer growing seasons, expands the range for some agriculture and
could increase the area where human habitation can be comfortable.
Is global warming a good or a bad thing? To answer that, we need to
know a little about the scale and rate of change, because big, fast
changes are very bad for almost everything adapted to conditions
prevalent before the change.
It turns out that even conservative projections of climate change to
2100 indicate a change almost as big, but 30 times faster, than that
which occurred at the end of the ice age. And that, even on a
geological time scale, is almost as fast and hairy as change gets.
How do you convince the potential losers to go along with a corrective
program?
As we switch to the low-emissions economy required to limit climate
change, there will be big winners and losers. The Danes, for example,
have already monopolized wind power and are set to do the same with the
enzymes needed to produce new biofuels. The Japanese have a huge head
start with hybrid engines and photovoltaics.
It really scares me when I look at my own country of Australia
squandering time on the idea that coal has a future, and not building
up its intellectual property portfolio in the renewables. As far as I
can see, the same applies to the U.S., which used to be a world leader
in wind and solar in the 1970s. I think both countries need to start
carving out their turf in the renewables now.
Should we fear the unknown - damaging consequences that are
impossible to foresee or pick up in a climate-change model?
Yes, it's certainly the things that we don't know that are most
worrying. Just consider two facts: The global climate system is full of
positive feedback loops that amplify small initial changes, and we
don't fully understand the system yet. That implies that our computer
projections are underestimates. And indeed, that's what we're seeing in
the real world. Shifts, such as increases in hurricane intensity, are
progressing decades ahead of the projections.
Greg Bell, at the Climate Prediction Center, argues that the recent
wave of intense hurricanes striking North America is part of a normal,
multi-decade cycle. Would you agree?
Bell seems to have confused regional and global trends. There is
cyclicity in regional hurricane activity, but overlain on this is a
sharp global rise in the energy expended in hurricanes (60 percent over
the past 30-odd years) and a big increase in the amount of that energy
going to category 4 and 5 hurricanes.
Does the American populace, in your estimation, still need convincing?
Americans, like everyone else, need to educate themselves more fully
about climate change, because big investment decisions, both personal
and corporate, need to be made. This applies regardless of whether you
are convinced climate change is real or not. I'm convinced that climate
change will soon become the only issue of global importance, and among
individuals, as with nations, those best informed will be the most
successful in dealing with the altered world.
What can and should the average citizen do to fight global warming?
It's simple: Reduce your emissions as close to zero as possible, then
encourage your business to do the same. And finally, never vote for
anyone who you are not absolutely convinced understands the issue and
will act in the national interest to combat climate change.
Having reduced my emissions substantially (with international air
travel excepted - which I'm working on), and having cut my museum's
emissions by 15 percent, I can tell you that it's economically sensible
and fun to do. In my case, solar panels were the obvious option and a
hybrid fuel car. In other parts of the world, other options may be more
sensible.
john fernbach
Jim McGinn
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
> Yes, it's certainly the things that we don't know that are most
> worrying. Just consider two facts: The global climate system is full of
> positive feedback loops that amplify small initial changes, and we
> don't fully understand the system yet. That implies that our computer
> projections are underestimates.
No, it implies that we don't know.
And indeed, that's what we're seeing in
> the real world. Shifts, such as increases in hurricane intensity, are
> progressing decades ahead of the projections.
>
> Greg Bell, at the Climate Prediction Center, argues that the recent
> wave of intense hurricanes striking North America is part of a normal,
> multi-decade cycle. Would you agree?
>
> Bell seems to have confused regional and global trends. There is
> cyclicity in regional hurricane activity, but overlain on this is a
> sharp global rise in the energy expended in hurricanes (60 percent over
> the past 30-odd years) and a big increase in the amount of that energy
> going to category 4 and 5 hurricanes.
It's ludicrous to suggest that Bell can't distinguish between a regional and
global trend.
Jim
Sport Pilot
What I don't understand is how GW can cause both an impending ice age
and increase huricaines? They want their cake and eat it too, but
maybe they are just burning the candle at both ends.
john fernbach
"greenhouse warming," as some people call it -- is that it's generally
warming up the earth more at the poles than at the equator.
Why is this important?
Basically the world's weather patterns are driven by a huge "heat
engine" which works by hot air rising into the air from the hot tropics
and flowing northwards (and southwards) towards the poles. While cold
air from the poles, meanwhile, moves southward along the ground towards
the tropics, creating a big loop of moving air that circulates air from
the tropics to the poles and back again.
Of course this is just the basis of a very complex system. When you
throw in the world's rotation on its axis, you start to get high-level
winds coming off the basis N-S flow of hot and cold air. Then when you
throw in the existence of oceans and land masses, which cool and warm
the atmosphere differently, and then you add big mountain ranges that
interrupt the flow of moist air from west to east, you've got a really
quite complicated global system that delivers very different kinds of
weather to different places -- the wet sides of mountains facing the
oceans, the deserts lying on the far sides of these same mountains, and
so forth.
Adding to the complexity of the system still further are ocean currents
like the Gulf Stream in the north Atlantic, which carries warm water
from Florida up past Greenland to Europe, while cold water from
Greenland and Iceland flows back towards the tropics again.
When "greenhouse warming" causes the Arctic to get warmer faster than
the tropics, however, the basic heat engine driving the whole weather
and climate system shifts gears.
With the basic flow of warm and cold air from north to south and back
changing in speed, who knows exactly what effects this will have on all
of the many fine details of the global weather system? Like the amount
of rain that falls on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevadas or the
Rockies, for example. Or the exact way that cold fronts and warm
fronts interact at any given location in the U.S.
You've changed the speed of the motor to a really, really complicated
system, and you can't easily predict just how every piece of the system
is going to respond.
As for the possibility of global warming leading to ice ages -- I think
this is no longer what climate scientists predict.
But I think that the basic model that some scientists used to promote
held that (a) warm air will absorb more water vapor than cold air (b)
therefore a rise in average global temperatures should lead to the air
over Antarctica or Greenland, say, containing more moisture than it
does doe, (c) therefore, a warmer climate may have the paradoxical
effect of causing more snowfall over Greenland and Antarctica, (d) more
snowfall should mean a greater buildup of ice in these places, so long
as the average temperature doesn't increase TOO much, and (e)
therefore, "global warming" could lead to a greater ice buildup that
will bring on another ice age -- paradoxical as that seems.
As for hurricanes and global warming, not all scientists agree that
Hurricane Katrina's destructiveness, for example, had anything to do
with climate change. Some supposed experts say yes; others say no.
But what the "yes" party argues is that (1) the total energy that gets
caught up in a hurricane is influenced by how warm the ocean water is
over which the hurricane is traveling, (2) The waters of the Gulf of
Mexico last year were significantly warmer than their long-term average
temperatures of, say, the last 100 years or so, and (3) arguably,
warmer Gulf of Mexico waters reflect the long-term reality of
greenhouse warming. Therefore (4) the destructiveness of Hurricane
Katrina partly reflects the growing heat of the oceans, which is an
artifact of global warming and/or global climate change; therefore
greenhouse warming "caused" the destructiveness of the Katrina.
Again, not all scientists agree. Some say that there's a normal cycle
of maybe 30-35 years of warmer and cooler waters in the Atlantic that
determines how powerful hurricanes become, and that long-term climate
change had nothing to do with what happened to New Orleans last fall.
But anyway, it's not necessarily foolish or illogical for certain
climate scientists to predict that global climate change will produce a
bigger ice cap in Antarctica, hotter winter and summer weather in
Oklahoma, flooding Europe, dryer weather in East Africa, and bigger
hurricanes along the American Gulf Coast.
The scientists might be WRONG, of course. But the seeming
contradictions in some of their predictions just reflect the extremely
complicated weather model they're working with.
You can get some sense of the complexities involved from the web site
of Michael Crichton, a popular author who's in bad graces with the
global warming alarmists and who has written a fictional account of
their supposedly manipulating the science to reach skewed results.
What Michael Crichton emphasizes in some of his recent speeches on
weather prediction, and indeed on all scientific prediction, is just
how complex the systems are that the scientists are trying to predict.
Immensely complicated systems, Crichton notes, just aren't simple and
"linear" in their reactions to change. Instead, they can respond to
human attempts at "management" in really unpredictable ways.
Crichton's argument is that because complex systems are so hard to
model well, the predictions of the most extreme environmentalists about
global climate are probably not very good. But Crichton's observation
can also be applied to the models of the "greenhouse denialists," the
people who say there will be little effect from our civilization
continuing to burn large quantities of fossil fuels. The greenhouse
denialists, too, are implicitly using a very simple model of the world
to predict the reactions of a highly complex system -- the global
climate and weather system -- to an externally imposed change:
humanity's release of large quantities of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere.
Using Crichton's own logic, then, it's worth suggesting that the calm
assurance of the greenhouse denialists is also resting on very shaky
grounds, logically and intellectually.
And what Crichton says about the complexity of the climate systems
suggests that whether Greenpeace or the oil and coal producers are
correct, we probably shouldn't expect "greenhouse" gases to have just
the same effect on the weather, everywhere in the world.
It makes sense that whatever happens as a result of greenhouse gas
building up in the atmosphere, the effects may look really different in
Oklahoma than they do at the South Pole, and maybe different in New
Orleans from what they will be in London, or Bangladesh.
Michael Tobis
to model, that is all the more reason we shouldn't be monkeying with
its controls.
The denialists try to say that we know almost nothing, but they have no
argument that we might be confident that the system is not influenced
strongly affected by greenhouse gas concentrarions. (To be fair, Dick
Lindzen tried to construct one in the 90s, but it's regarded as refuted
and he doesn't talk about it any more.)
So if we have reason to believe that the system is affected by CO2
concentrations, and we believe that the measurements of suddenly
accumulating CO2 are correct, we need no models or predictions to
motivate action to restrain that growth.
However, you got your 'global warming leading to an ice age' scenario
wrong. The closest thing to real science in that regard involves sudden
changes in the deep circulation of the North Atlantic ('the
thermohaline circulation'). The popular press seems to think this has
something to do with the Gulf Stream shutting down, which it doesn't. A
nice summary is here:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/library/earthmatters/spring2000/pages/page7.html
mt
Jim McGinn
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144423268.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> One surprisingly powerful feature of global climate change -- of
> "greenhouse warming," as some people call it -- is that it's generally
> warming up the earth more at the poles than at the equator.
>
> Why is this important?
>
> Basically the world's weather patterns are driven by a huge "heat
> engine" which works by hot air rising into the air from the hot tropics
> and flowing northwards (and southwards) towards the poles. While cold
> air from the poles, meanwhile, moves southward along the ground towards
> the tropics, creating a big loop of moving air that circulates air from
> the tropics to the poles and back again.
As I'm sure somebody will point out, this isn't exactly accurate. Currently
the planet is experiencing three Hadley cells per hemisphere. (In paleo
climates, let's say 70 mya, the climate had one Hadley cell per hemisphere,
in which case what you are saying here is accurate.)
Do a search on Hadley cells, climate, etc. I'm sure you will find it very
interesting.
<snip>
> the scientists are trying to predict.
> Immensely complicated systems, Crichton notes, just aren't simple and
> "linear" in their reactions to change. Instead, they can respond to
> human attempts at "management" in really unpredictable ways.
>
> Crichton's argument is that because complex systems are so hard to
> model well, the predictions of the most extreme environmentalists about
> global climate are probably not very good.
Well stated.
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144424175.247365.176710@
> . . . we have reason to believe that the system is affected by CO2
> concentrations, and we believe that the measurements of suddenly
> accumulating CO2 are correct, we need no models or predictions to
> motivate action to restrain that growth.
If the economic costs associated with reducing CO2 were zero or reasonably
low I would agree with you. These costs are not zero. The world economy is
dependent on cheap oil. Wars that extinguished the lives of millions of
people have been started over much less than the very dramatic impact that
even a moderate reduction in fossil fuel would produce.
> However, you got your 'global warming leading to an ice age' scenario
> wrong. The closest thing to real science in that regard involves sudden
> changes in the deep circulation of the North Atlantic ('the
> thermohaline circulation'). The popular press seems to think this has
> something to do with the Gulf Stream shutting down, which it doesn't. A
> nice summary is here:
>
> http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/library/earthmatters/spring2000/pages/page7.html
I don't dispute Broecker's conclusion. A reorganization *might* occur. And
AGW may serve as the trigger. And the consequences *might* be extremely
negative. Especially if they involve the recurrence of an ice age.
But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be in the
cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover, AGW
*might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
Might it be that a hundred years from now scientists are trying to figure
out way to keep more CO2 in the atmosphere?
Jim
john fernbach
I think my "global warming leading to an ice age" MIGHT apply to the
scenario that some climatologists briefly promoted in the 1960s, about
the possibility that the world was headed fairly quickly towards
another ice age.
I know what you mean about the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation,
though. Sort of. I thought it kind was the equivalent of the Gulf
Stream shutting down - guess I should look at your more sophisticated
explanation.
Again - Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tobis wrote:
However, you got your 'global warming leading to an ice age' scenario
wrong. The closest thing to real science in that regard involves sudden
changes in the deep circulation of the North Atlantic ('the
thermohaline circulation'). The popular press seems to think this has
something to do with the Gulf Stream shutting down, which it doesn't. A
nice summary is here:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/library/earthmatters/spring200...
mt
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1144424175.247365.176710@
>
>> . . . we have reason to believe that the system is affected by CO2
>> concentrations, and we believe that the measurements of suddenly
>> accumulating CO2 are correct, we need no models or predictions to
>> motivate action to restrain that growth.
>
>If the economic costs associated with reducing CO2 were zero or reasonably
>low I would agree with you. These costs are not zero. The world economy is
>dependent on cheap oil. Wars that extinguished the lives of millions of
>people have been started over much less than the very dramatic impact that
>even a moderate reduction in fossil fuel would produce.
So why wouldn't a switch to, say, 30-mpg vehicles be GOOD for the US economy?
First, more money would stay here to fuel investment, R&D, etc., instead of
going to pay for oil. Secondly, auto makers would invest in new vehicles and
new materials, also good. Thirdly, other nations would buy the technology
we've created, also good.
Is it a coincidence that one of the world's most profitable corporations is
also the leading maker of hybrid cars?
john fernbach
But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be
in the
cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover, AGW
*might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
Might it be that a hundred years from now scientists are trying to
figure
out way to keep more CO2 in the atmosphere?
------------------
Three replies: (a) I haven't seen anybody except Richard Lindzen offer
any good reason why major increases in greenhouse gas concentrations
WOULDN'T produce some kind of overall warming effect that should
generate global climate change. Unless the greater production of
clouds or the natural absorptive capacity of the oceans stands in the
way of such warming, that is.
The physics and chemistry of global climate science as I understand
them say that, everything else being equal, CO2 and methane and water
vapor and other Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere SHOULD cause the
atmosphere to hold more energy received from the sun, and SHOULD
normally cause global warming.
So when we see CO2 concentrations and methane concentrations rising,
and levels of other greenhouse gases like CFCs rising as well, the most
simple explanation is that there's a causal correlation, I think.
(b) All the sane global climate change people that I've read have
admitted that greenhouse gas concentrations are NOT the only factor
influencing the climate. They all readily acknowledge that the earth's
tilt on its axis, the eccentricities of the earth's orbit around the
world, and the prevailing levels of sunspot activity all have big
influences on climate as well -- in ADDITION to the influence exercised
by greenhouse gas concentrations.
But if a "reorganization" of the climate is now in the cards, and if
it's happening just at the time that CO2 concentrations are steadily
rising, as demonstrated by Roger Revelle and his successors, then --
sure, AGW "may" have nothing to do with the change. But Ockham's Razor
suggest to me -- well, I'm not a scientist, but I think it suggests to
me -- that greenhouse gas emissions are the likely explanation.
Because they're the simplest explanation.
(c) "Might" AGW serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age,
as you write?
I think so; I think you're absolutely correct on this.
(d) Is it possible that 100 years from now, or 500 or 1000 years from
now, scientists will be trying to increase atmospheric CO2 levels, so
as to head off the return of the ice ages?
Sure; I think it is. Call me a raving moderate -- which would surprise
my friends! -- but I think it's obvious that if the global climate
seems in danger of significant cooling, which might well be the case in
a century or a millenium, then the responsible thing for the scientists
to do will be to try to avert the cooling. Using CO2-induced global
warming if necessary. I'm a green, but I don't blindly worship
"natural forces."
If "natural forces" look like they're going to wipe out most of human
civilization by means of another ice age -- or if "natural forces" are
going to cause a huge meteor strike that will trigger a mass extinction
of species, again -- then I say let's fight like hell to block those
natural forces and save humanity. Because I'm part of humanity, and my
selfish DNA tells me that humanity is worth saving -- especially the
cute women.
But what MIGHT be happening 100 or 1,000 years from now, the danger of
a new ice age that MIGHT threaten us then - doesn't seem to be what IS
happening today.
Today, we've got significant melting of Arctic Ocean ice; we've got
glaciers in retreat in dozens of places around the world; we've got New
Orleans struggling to recover from near-drowning; we're got severe heat
waves and droughts affecting large areas of India, Africa and
Australia; something like 1,000 or more leading climatologists are
pinpointing global climate change, and civilization's emissions of
greenhouse gases, as the likely cause of a possible climate-warming
disaster.
Oh, and I forget the scientists who are worried about the melting of
the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia, and the likelihood that
this will change the earth's albedo and produce a feedback to the
warming we're seeing already, so that global climate change happens
much faster than anything previously predicted.
Under THESE circumstances, and looking at the near future rather than
the distant future, I think there's a powerful case to be made for
drastically slowing civilization's emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and
other greenhouse gases into the air.
But you're right on one point - let's NOT do this out of some crazed
religious zeal that suddenly declares all carbon emissions "bad,"
without undertanding why; and let's NOT do it with the idea that the
earth's climate is a fairly simple system where we can make a couple of
big, simple fixes and have done with the whole problem.
Let's NOT forget that while we're curbing CO2 emissions to face today's
threat of global warming, we also face the virtual certainty that in
the next thousand years or so, we may have to make almost the opposite
adjustment to head off a new ice age.
Let's pay attention to as much of the science as we can absorb and
understand, in other words, and not just run wildly around screaming
that the sky is falling. But if we take Michael Crichton's remarks on
complexity at all seriously, let's look at the major interventions
we're making in the climate now, largely without thinking about it.
And let's do our best to avoid creating horrendous future problems for
ourselves out of an inability or unwillingness to understand what we're
doing in an extremely complex system.
Jim McGinn
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote
> So why wouldn't a switch to, say, 30-mpg vehicles be GOOD for the US
> economy?
> First, more money would stay here to fuel investment, R&D, etc., instead
> of
> going to pay for oil. Secondly, auto makers would invest in new vehicles
> and
> new materials, also good. Thirdly, other nations would buy the technology
> we've created, also good.
You won't get any dispute from me on these points.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> Jim McGinn wrote:
>
> But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be
> in the
> cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover, AGW
> *might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
>
>
> Might it be that a hundred years from now scientists are trying to
> figure
> out way to keep more CO2 in the atmosphere?
> ------------------
>
> Three replies: (a) I haven't seen anybody except Richard Lindzen offer
> any good reason why major increases in greenhouse gas concentrations
> WOULDN'T produce some kind of overall warming effect that should
> generate global climate change. Unless the greater production of
> clouds or the natural absorptive capacity of the oceans stands in the
> way of such warming, that is.
I've never claimed otherwise.
>
> The physics and chemistry of global climate science as I understand
> them say that, everything else being equal, CO2 and methane and water
> vapor and other Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere SHOULD cause the
> atmosphere to hold more energy received from the sun, and SHOULD
> normally cause global warming.
Again, I agree.
>
> So when we see CO2 concentrations and methane concentrations rising,
> and levels of other greenhouse gases like CFCs rising as well, the most
> simple explanation is that there's a causal correlation, I think.
Again, I agree.
>
> (b) All the sane global climate change people that I've read have
> admitted that greenhouse gas concentrations are NOT the only factor
> influencing the climate. They all readily acknowledge that the earth's
> tilt on its axis, the eccentricities of the earth's orbit around the
> world, and the prevailing levels of sunspot activity all have big
> influences on climate as well -- in ADDITION to the influence exercised
> by greenhouse gas concentrations.
Again, I agree.
>
> But if a "reorganization" of the climate is now in the cards, and if
> it's happening just at the time that CO2 concentrations are steadily
> rising, as demonstrated by Roger Revelle and his successors, then --
> sure, AGW "may" have nothing to do with the change. But Ockham's Razor
> suggest to me -- well, I'm not a scientist, but I think it suggests to
> me -- that greenhouse gas emissions are the likely explanation.
> Because they're the simplest explanation.
Again, I agree.
>
> (c) "Might" AGW serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age,
> as you write?
>
> I think so; I think you're absolutely correct on this.
>
> (d) Is it possible that 100 years from now, or 500 or 1000 years from
> now, scientists will be trying to increase atmospheric CO2 levels, so
> as to head off the return of the ice ages?
>
> Sure; I think it is. Call me a raving moderate -- which would surprise
> my friends!
Me too.
-- but I think it's obvious that if the global climate
> seems in danger of significant cooling, which might well be the case in
> a century or a millenium, then the responsible thing for the scientists
> to do will be to try to avert the cooling. Using CO2-induced global
> warming if necessary. I'm a green, but I don't blindly worship
> "natural forces."
Again, I agree.
>
> If "natural forces" look like they're going to wipe out most of human
> civilization by means of another ice age -- or if "natural forces" are
> going to cause a huge meteor strike that will trigger a mass extinction
> of species, again -- then I say let's fight like hell to block those
> natural forces and save humanity. Because I'm part of humanity, and my
> selfish DNA tells me that humanity is worth saving -- especially the
> cute women.
Talk about benefits!
>
> But what MIGHT be happening 100 or 1,000 years from now, the danger of
> a new ice age that MIGHT threaten us then - doesn't seem to be what IS
> happening today.
>
> Today, we've got significant melting of Arctic Ocean ice; we've got
> glaciers in retreat in dozens of places around the world;
Yes, if I was a glacier I'd be very concerned.
we've got New
> Orleans struggling to recover from near-drowning;
Irrelevant.
we're got severe heat
> waves and droughts affecting large areas of India, Africa and
> Australia;
GW will only increase rainfall.
something like 1,000 or more leading climatologists are
> pinpointing global climate change, and civilization's emissions of
> greenhouse gases, as the likely cause of a possible climate-warming
> disaster.
And/or a climate warming benefit.
>
> Oh, and I forget the scientists who are worried about the melting of
> the permafrost in Alaska, Canada and Siberia, and the likelihood that
> this will change the earth's albedo and produce a feedback to the
> warming we're seeing
Yes, I know. But keep in mind that one of the factors involved with
increasing albedo (snow on ground that causes reflection of insolation) is
precipitation. And precipitation is necessary for snow. And precipitation
increases with GW. (IOW, GW may be a problem that solves itself through
albedo alone.)
already, so that global climate change happens
> much faster than anything previously predicted.
This claim, which is made over and over again, is impossible to validate or
refute since we have so little data on the rate of past climate changes.
>
> Under THESE circumstances, and looking at the near future rather than
> the distant future, I think there's a powerful case to be made for
> drastically slowing civilization's emissions of CO2, methane, CFCs and
> other greenhouse gases into the air.
What I think people don't realize is that any attempt by ourselves to
unilaterally decrease our usage of FF (fossil fuels) only makes it cheaper
for those that ignore our concerns. Poltical realities being what they are
the fact is that FF is going to be exploited whether we like it or not.
> But you're right on one point - let's NOT do this out of some crazed
> religious zeal that suddenly declares all carbon emissions "bad,"
> without undertanding why; and let's NOT do it with the idea that the
> earth's climate is a fairly simple system where we can make a couple of
> big, simple fixes and have done with the whole problem.
Very well stated.
> Let's NOT forget that while we're curbing CO2 emissions to face today's
> threat of global warming, we also face the virtual certainty that in
> the next thousand years or so, we may have to make almost the opposite
> adjustment to head off a new ice age.
>
> Let's pay attention to as much of the science as we can absorb and
> understand, in other words, and not just run wildly around screaming
> that the sky is falling. But if we take Michael Crichton's remarks on
> complexity at all seriously, let's look at the major interventions
> we're making in the climate now, largely without thinking about it.
> And let's do our best to avoid creating horrendous future problems for
> ourselves out of an inability or unwillingness to understand what we're
> doing in an extremely complex system.
Thanks for getting it.
Jim
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Well stated.
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Jim McGinn begin to spin the mortal sin of lies worn thin, his din of
has-been tactics herein a siamese twin of crooks, kissing kin of
pigskin, gets his foreskin pinned in a tailspin to his chagrin. He'll
never win, play the sad violin, he cops it on the chin.
Sparky @zig-zag.net wrote:
> http://snipurl.com/opq6
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" arrest warrant issued.
> http://snipurl.com/oppy
> Google Results: "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud.
> Does anybody know if this is the same McGinn that used to post on
> sci.environment? I always knew he would turn up bad in the end, all his
> association with organized crime figures.
> http://snipurl.com/opqb
> Google Results "Jim McGinn" connected to organized crime.
It looks like there are reports that Jim McGinn has been arrested for
fraud.
http://snipurl.com/oqp1
Google Results for "Jim McGinn" arrested for fraud
I looked up some other keywords on a hunch based on his displayed
morality. This is what I found...
http://snipurl.com/oqpb
Results for "Jim McGinn" arrest child pornography.
http://snipurl.com/oqph
Results for "Jim McGinn" fellatio OR "Koch-Sucker"
http://snipurl.com/oqpk
Results about 23 for "Jim McGinn" AND Organized Crime.
http://snipurl.com/oqpp
Results for "Jim McGinn" Accomplice to Crime.
http://snipurl.com/otsk
Results about 237 for After many reports of Jim McGinn collecting sperm
samples in park men's rooms.
http://snipurl.com/otsn
Jim McGinn loses lawsuit for child abandonment and non-support.
http://snipurl.com/otsq
Notorious usenet newsgroup spammer Jim McGinn was finally unmasked as
http://snipurl.com/otss
Usenet newsgroup spammer Jim McGinn busted on wire-fraud charges
http://snipurl.com/otsv
Thorough investigation of Jim McGinn's connections to Cato Institute as
a paid spammer
http://snipurl.com/otsz
former cellmate of Jim McGinn gave details on the career criminal
behaviors
http://snipurl.com/ott2
It was Jim McGinn's weakness for jailbait that finally caught up
http://snipurl.com/ott4
Results about 97 for the unnamed 12 year old girl identified Jim McGinn
in a line-up
http://snipurl.com/ottb
The evidence was discovered after a search warrant of Jim McGinn's Cato
desk and employee locker
http://snipurl.com/ottg
Results for "Jim McGinn" Cato Institute.
http://snipurl.com/ottk
Results about 279 for Jim McGinn associated with Cato Institute
Organized Crimes.
Coby Beck
news:DzyZf.65326$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144424175.247365.176710@
>
>> . . . we have reason to believe that the system is affected by CO2
>> concentrations, and we believe that the measurements of suddenly
>> accumulating CO2 are correct, we need no models or predictions to
>> motivate action to restrain that growth.
>
> If the economic costs associated with reducing CO2 were zero or reasonably
> low I would agree with you. These costs are not zero. The world economy
> is dependent on cheap oil. Wars that extinguished the lives of millions
> of people have been started over much less than the very dramatic impact
> that even a moderate reduction in fossil fuel would produce.
Even without the danger of GW, reducing the world's dependence on cheap oil
is an inevitable necessity. Cheap oil *will* run out, it is a non-renewable
resource. We are probably at world peak now.
Given that we *must* reduce consumption regardless of GW threats, *all* of
the costs associated with altering the economy to mitigate warming can be
discounted to 0$ as they are costs we *must* bear, regardless.
The sooner this process begins, the more time we have to make this
adjustment and the more cheap oil we will have available for the thousands
of other uses for it. The penetrating and unforgiving glare of history will
show that squandering this fantastic and precious gift of a natural resource
is the greatest technological folly humans have ever committed.
> But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be in
> the cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover, AGW
> *might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
All indications are that any return of an ice age is 30-40K yrs in the
future. It is insanity to ignore a clear and present danger in favour of
avoiding an far off and uncertain one.
> Might it be that a hundred years from now scientists are trying to figure
> out way to keep more CO2 in the atmosphere?
That will be a trivial proble to solve, seriously.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>> . . . we have reason to believe that the system is affected by CO2
>>> concentrations, and we believe that the measurements of suddenly
>>> accumulating CO2 are correct, we need no models or predictions to
>>> motivate action to restrain that growth.
>>
>> If the economic costs associated with reducing CO2 were zero or
>> reasonably low I would agree with you. These costs are not zero. The
>> world economy is dependent on cheap oil. Wars that extinguished the
>> lives of millions of people have been started over much less than the
>> very dramatic impact that even a moderate reduction in fossil fuel would
>> produce.
>
> Even without the danger of GW, reducing the world's dependence on cheap
> oil is an inevitable necessity. Cheap oil *will* run out, it is a
> non-renewable resource. We are probably at world peak now.
I agree.
>
> Given that we *must* reduce consumption regardless of GW threats, *all* of
> the costs associated with altering the economy to mitigate warming can be
> discounted to 0$ as they are costs we *must* bear, regardless.
Why not let the market make the decision for us?
>
> The sooner this process begins, the more time we have to make this
> adjustment and the more cheap oil we will have available for the thousands
> of other uses for it. The penetrating and unforgiving glare of history
> will show that squandering this fantastic and precious gift of a natural
> resource is the greatest technological folly humans have ever committed.
Hmm. Maybe the funds currently going toward AGW mitigation might be better
spent finding alternative sources of energy.
>
>> But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be in
>> the cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover, AGW
>> *might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
>
> All indications are that any return of an ice age is 30-40K yrs in the
> future.
I thought interglacial were only 10k.
It is insanity to ignore a clear and present danger in favour of
> avoiding an far off and uncertain one.
I agree. Let me know if you find one.
>
>> Might it be that a hundred years from now scientists are trying to figure
>> out way to keep more CO2 in the atmosphere?
>
> That will be a trivial proble to solve, seriously.
I feel better.
Jim
raylopez99
mimic the system, and since the models predict GW we should pay
attention, and now you say "if the system is too complex to model, that
is all the more reason we shouldn't be monkeying with its controls. "
I think the only monkey is you pal.
"Further research is needed on the GW = AGW hypothesis"
RL
Michael Tobis
demonstrated harmless.
Other substances must pass this test before they are emitted into the
environment. It is only sensible.
CO2 did not have to pass this test, essentially because it is obviously
harmless in less than enormous quantities.
Unfortunately, it's Mr. Shadow on the line. Enormous quantities is what
we've got.
mt
Michael Tobis
won't. Most of the fossil fuel inventory is coal, and preventing its
use or sequestering the carbon it produces is the big issue.
mt
Jim McGinn
"Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com> wrote
> The only reason not to pay attention would be if the stuff could be
> demonstrated harmless.
>
> Other substances must pass this test before they are emitted into the
> environment. It is only sensible.
It's true that CO2 has been proven to serve no useful purpose . . . unless
you're a plant.
>
> CO2 did not have to pass this test, essentially because it is obviously
> harmless in less than enormous quantities.
>
> Unfortunately, it's Mr. Shadow on the line. Enormous quantities is what
> we've got.
Do the numbers.
Jim
Jim McGinn
> Peak oil will likely take care if itself soon enough, but peak coal
> won't. Most of the fossil fuel inventory is coal, and preventing its
> use or sequestering the carbon it produces is the big issue.
I agree. And the coal resources in US alone are vast.
Coby Beck
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> Even without the danger of GW, reducing the world's dependence on cheap
>> oil is an inevitable necessity. Cheap oil *will* run out, it is a
>> non-renewable resource. We are probably at world peak now.
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> Given that we *must* reduce consumption regardless of GW threats, *all*
>> of the costs associated with altering the economy to mitigate warming can
>> be discounted to 0$ as they are costs we *must* bear, regardless.
>
> Why not let the market make the decision for us?
Because the market *reacts* it does not *plan*. It also optimizes for
consumption and profit to the exclusion of all other considerations.
>> The sooner this process begins, the more time we have to make this
>> adjustment and the more cheap oil we will have available for the
>> thousands of other uses for it. The penetrating and unforgiving glare of
>> history will show that squandering this fantastic and precious gift of a
>> natural resource is the greatest technological folly humans have ever
>> committed.
>
> Hmm. Maybe the funds currently going toward AGW mitigation might be
> better spent finding alternative sources of energy.
These are completely overlapping goals.
>>> But let us also consider the possibility that a reorganization may be in
>>> the cards anyway. And AGW may have nothing to do with it. Moreover,
>>> AGW *might* serve to mitigate the effects of an impending ice age.
>>
>> All indications are that any return of an ice age is 30-40K yrs in the
>> future.
>
> I thought interglacial were only 10k.
Another thing you don't know about the climate. Throw it on the pile!
Michael Tobis
KA, and one was much longer. The current orbital configuration, though,
is more like the long one.
Nobody really knows for sure. The mechanisms are not fully understood
and are subtle. The betting right now is toward a long interglacial,
but that's a recent shift in the conventional wsidom.
It's possible we'll never know for sure, because human forcings are now
completely dwarfing the natural ones. Any ice age that might have
started any time soon is definitely cancelled.
mt
Eric Swanson
Sorry, but human forcings are NOT "completely dwarfing the natural ones".
Human forcings ARE said to be larger than the VARIATION in natural forcing,
but the natural solar flux is still ongoing and is much larger than either
the natural or human caused variations. What we've got are small changes
to a big system with lots of inertia.
I agree with your statement that the conventional wisdom has now shifted.
But, we know that in past a shutdown of the THC produced colder conditions.
(I won't get into the question about whether increased CO2 will or will not
cause a shutdown of the THC, except to note that measurements appear to show
that to be occuring.) Can we say for sure that another shutdown of the THC
would not also produce colder conditions locally, even with increased CO2?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tobis
> Human forcings ARE said to be larger than the VARIATION in natural forcing,
Your statement is clearer to a larger audience, so I accept your
correction, though I was using common scientific vernacular.
(Subtracting out the mean state is a common trick in doing formal
analyses of these systems.)
> Can we say for sure that another shutdown of the THC
> would not also produce colder conditions locally, even with increased CO2?
To my understanding this cannot be ruled out, though the popular vision
of glaciers returning to England as a consequence is far-fetched in a
400 ppmv or higher CO2 .
mt