GW: THE TRUTH. AND WHAT THE TRUTH MEANS
Roger Coppock
debate in point-by-point detail. Worth the time to read It!
http://www.irawrites.com./Extended%20Political%20Essays/GLOBALWARMING.htm
There is an interesting line in this piece, which was written in
January:
"The only good points contrarians make are really marginal ones, such
as: uncertainty in the older data (as said), the heating hasn't been as
rapid as predicted, extreme weather events like great hurricanes
haven't happened as much as predicted, or that the computer models
involved have flaws. But is that it."
Well, it is now September and the great hurricanes are here!
The contrarians have one less marginal point.
owl
wrote:
>An excellent very well researched essay on the Global Warming
>debate in point-by-point detail. Worth the time to read It!
>
>http://www.irawrites.com./Extended%20Political%20Essays/GLOBALWARMING.htm
Second the nomination. Excellent article.
Make sure you take some happy pills before you wade through the last
3rd of it, tho.
Roger Coppock
Give the author a little literary license, he's earned it
in the first two thirds of the article.
Bush Grandpa Prescott was Nazi Thyssen's Banker 1926-1942
" I wish the global warming advocates are wrong and the
conservatives are right, because if the conservatives are wrong
humanity goes to a new place, and it goes there unprepared and naked to
face monsters. If global warming carries to its worst conclusion our
civilization will not stand, to be replaced by a different kind of
civilization, or something less than that."
" Listen to me. Here is the truth. About energy and
human psychology. It is harsh, brutal and realistic:
Whatever environmentalists and alternative-energy
advocates hope for, the human race will not go gently, or
intelligently, into its dark fuelless night. It will do whatever it has
to do to keep the party going, squeezing out as many extra generations
or even a few centuries of fossil fuel as it can, at whatever expense
of the well-being of 1,000's of years of humanity to come."
" Some scientists studying the past have come to the
conclusion Nature can change climate in a virtual eye-blink. In truth,
in climate Nature doesn't seem to do gradualism. It's here-- then
suddenly's a new reality. That's why I wrote earlier of "sudden
catastrophic lurches, nightmarishly quick changes, sick surprises." A
team of paleoclimatologists reported to the American Geophysical Union
that in their opinion the Younger Dryas ended in just 3 years, or maybe
even 1. That means that in Greenland the temperature would have soared
1F a month, to a 12F rise in a year."
" So now I must feel like a doctor who's given you the
horrible news that you have AIDS, hepatitis C and tuberculosis and, as
you stand up to go, shaken, has to shout "Sit down! I haven't told you
the worst."
The most frightening possibility of all is what's
called the "runaway greenhouse".
"
raylopez99
garbage. when Dr. Lindzen gets called "King of the Konservative
Kontrarians", you know the author simply has an ax to grind.
I found the most remarkable concession below, which basically conceeds
that GW --even if true--will have no real effect that humans have not
seen and adapted to before. THis is basically ahahaHansen's position
too.
RL
can hear the conservatives screaming: "You still haven't answered our
most powerful specific points!" Okay. Let's have it out. Their point:
Temperatures are still within the range of fluctuations of the last
3,000 years, so current heat may just be the result of one more natural
fluctuation. I say: Why limit the argument to just the last 3,000
years? Let's look over the 10,000 years since the most recent Glacial
Period ended and see just how high temperature went beyond the present,
and we'll take that as the natural limit of post-Glacial warming.
Post-Glacial heat peaked during what we call the Climatic Optimum (or
Hypsithermal). Different experts give different dates for the Climatic
Optimum, and of course the various regions of the world didn't peak in
exact sync, but basically we can take the period from about 5800 BC to
3000 BC as the hottest in the last 10,000 years. E.C. Pielou in After
The Ice Age (page 281) has temperature about 1.5C higher than 1991
around 3500 BC. Gina L. Barnes in China, Korea and Japan: The Rise of
Civilization in East Asia (page 72) has the average yearly temperature
about 2C higher than 1993 between around 5000 and 4000 BC. John Gribbin
in Future Weather (page 34) has European and North American temperature
peaking about 2-3C higher than 1982 between around 5000 and 3000 BC.
Herman Flohn in Climate and Weather (page 214) has 2C over 1969 as the
peak throughout previous Interglacial Periods. Interesting Web articles
from the Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History and from the Center for
the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change both have the Climatic
Optimum maxing out about 2C over the 1990's.(Conservatives also love to
proclaim the Medieval Warm Period from the 800's to about 1300 AD a
foretaste of the happy world we'll be enjoying in global warming. They
say: See, the Earth was hotter and crops flourished, vineyards grew in
England, cathedrals rose, the Vikings traveled to Iceland and Greenland
across less icy seas, etc. So why are you agitating yourselves? Some
scientists say world summer temperature in the period rose about 0.7C
to 1C above 20th Century temperature. But other climatologists now say
the warming was regional and inconsistent, and even the peak
temperatures were lower than today's. As for the vineyards in England,
one of the favorite chestnuts of the climatological right, there were
50 to 60 in the 10th and 11th Centuries, as opposed to over 350 today.
[David Hill, in his Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (page 113), shows 50
at most, and not as far north as today's.] The Medieval Warm Period
will no longer work as either weapon or comforter.) So it would seem
that if the world's average temperature now rises more than 2C over the
late 20th Century's temperature level it would show the warming isn't
natural. But, in truth, the temperature doesn't have to rise even that
much to prove it's man-made. After the end of the Climatic Optimum the
world's temperature tended, despite fluctuations, ever cooler. Even the
rise of near 0.7C since 1900 is strongly against the natural trend.
Also showing the power of global warming is that the world temperature
rose strongly against a 0.1% decrease in solar radiation between the
late 1970's and the late 1980's. And temperature has increased by at
least 0.2C in just the last 20 years or so, and now it's apparently
accelerated to at least 0.2C per decade. (In fact, a study released in
summer of 2004 by the European Environment Agency, "Impacts of Europe's
Changing Climate", has average world temperature now rising by 0.36C
per decade.) No doubt the last of the Conservative/Capitalist right
will resist until temperatures bust so high the climate's unnaturalness
can no longer be denied. The current scientific consensus has global
temperature rising somewhere between 1.4C and 5.8C (2.5-10.4F) by 2100,
so, yes, it could be a century or more before the last global warming
contrarian concedes defeat.
raylopez99
simply plays into the hands of the Anti-AGW lobby like myself--if
primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can survive a 1
degree change in temperatures.
If you want to get paranoid, why not worry about the apparent shift in
the earth's magnetic field, which some geologists are beginning to
detect, which will eliminate the earth's magnetosphere and create a
giant "ozone hole" giving us all severe skin cancer.
That's probably more scary than GW.
RL
Bush Grandpa Prescott was Nazi Thyssen's Banker 1926-1942
or "antisocial personality disorder". People like you -- that's much
more scary than Global Warming, because you are doing it deliberately.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Their point:
>Temperatures are still within the range of fluctuations of the last
>3,000 years,
Really? Who says so?
>so current heat may just be the result of one more natural
>fluctuation. I say: Why limit the argument to just the last 3,000
>years? Let's look over the 10,000 years since...
Why restrict yourself to 10 kyr? Why not go back to when the earth was
molten and conclusively demonstrate a long-term cooling trend?
>and we'll take that as the natural limit of post-Glacial warming.
>Post-Glacial heat peaked during what we call the Climatic Optimum (or
>Hypsithermal). Different experts give different dates for the Climatic
>Optimum, and of course the various regions of the world didn't peak in
>exact sync, but basically we can take the period from about 5800 BC to
>3000 BC as the hottest in the last 10,000 years. E.C. Pielou in After
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Eric Swanson
>
>In sci.environment raylopez99 <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Their point:
>>Temperatures are still within the range of fluctuations of the last
>>3,000 years,
>
>Really? Who says so?
>
>>so current heat may just be the result of one more natural
>>fluctuation. I say: Why limit the argument to just the last 3,000
>>years? Let's look over the 10,000 years since...
>
>Why restrict yourself to 10 kyr? Why not go back to when the earth was
>molten and conclusively demonstrate a long-term cooling trend?
But, didn't he do that already? Since Ray Loopie is probably a YE'er that
thinks that happened less than 10,000 years BP, the Earth must be cooling
at a very rapid rate.
Or, as the YE'ers claim, the Earth cooled "instantaniously" in less than 1
"day". Funny, thermal energy is a form of kinetic energy, thus an instant
cooling would likely stop all other kinetic energy as well, such as the motion
of the planets, etc. Either gravitational force also shut off, or the planets
fell into the Sun. A minor problem in a supernatural universe.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
raylopez99
advocate--I was merely agreeing with this passage.
In other words, the author himself is saying "let's go back 10k years,
and even if you do I can still prove today's global warming is a more
potent threat than anything that happened back then". ON this point,
the author FAILS. In other words, he fails to make his case that
today's GW is anything worse than faced by man years ago.
And let's not mention how the Younger Dryas may have changed (cold to
hot) in as little as 1 to 3 years (!), according to the latest
research.
If primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can surive
today's GW.
RL
Eric Swanson
raylo...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Eric and Dr. Bill-- you fail to realize this quote was from an AGW
>advocate--I was merely agreeing with this passage.
>
>In other words, the author himself is saying "let's go back 10k years,
>and even if you do I can still prove today's global warming is a more
>potent threat than anything that happened back then". ON this point,
>the author FAILS. In other words, he fails to make his case that
>today's GW is anything worse than faced by man years ago.
Today's agriculture and other life support systems did not exist in the
early part of the Holocene when things were said to have been warmer. For
example, you ignore the fact that the U.S. Great Plains was a near desert
back then too.
>And let's not mention how the Younger Dryas may have changed (cold to
>hot) in as little as 1 to 3 years (!), according to the latest
>research.
The YD event is a well studied situation which resulted from the melting
of the great ice sheets over North America. It began with a rapid cooling
which appears to have choked off the Thermohaline Circulation for many
centuries. The impact of the YD may have been limited to the NH, especially
the areas surrounding the North Atlantic. When it ended, conditions returned
to those similar to that which pertained before.
>If primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can surive
>today's GW.
Your assumption, not mine.
There are people surviving in the Saharah Desert. Would there be as many
people in Los Angeles if the climate thee were like that of the Saharah or
Death Valley, CA? If you think so, move to Death Valley and start a farm.
Coby Beck
news:1127756060.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> If primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can surive
> today's GW.
I think there are not that many who would predict that modern humans can not
survive a rapid climate change. But I would like to make a few points:
- How many humans survived the Younger Dryas? It seems that number is
somewhere between 5 and 10 million. If you want to reassure yourself that
the same number should have no trouble surviving today, that is not good
news for some 5 billion+ others, now is it?
- What percentage of the human population died or suffered? I know you have
no idea and I wonder if anyone has any ideas, but until you do know the
answer, I suggest you should not use this as a "climate change success"
story.
- How many cities over 100,000 thousand inhabitants survived? None.
- How much of modern civilization survived? None.
- How much infrastructure was involved in this adaptation compared to what
we have today? Not too much.
- Is survival, yes or no, the metric by which you assess all risks?
So I think before you continue trumpeting this tune...
"Further reasearch is needed"
-- Ray Lopez
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
raylopez99
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127756060.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > If primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can surive
> > today's GW.
>
> I think there are not that many who would predict that modern humans can not
> survive a rapid climate change. But I would like to make a few points:
Make your points but your first sentence conceeds the debate. I won.
>
> - How many humans survived the Younger Dryas? It seems that number is
> somewhere between 5 and 10 million. If you want to reassure yourself that
> the same number should have no trouble surviving today, that is not good
> news for some 5 billion+ others, now is it?
What was the population of humans in the days of Younger Dryas? If
that number is somewhere between 5 and 10 million, we have a 100%
survival rate, don't we?
>
> - What percentage of the human population died or suffered? I know you have
> no idea and I wonder if anyone has any ideas, but until you do know the
> answer, I suggest you should not use this as a "climate change success"
> story.
Why? And cede the high ground to your shrill scaremongering?
>
> - How many cities over 100,000 thousand inhabitants survived? None.
Because there were none, Bozo!
>
> - How much of modern civilization survived? None.
Id. Dumbo we're talking primitive man--there was nothing "modern".
>
> - How much infrastructure was involved in this adaptation compared to what
> we have today? Not too much.
Id.
>
> - Is survival, yes or no, the metric by which you assess all risks?
>
Not the only metric. Another metric is called "GNP".
CB--are you a troll like me? I've said I am a provocative troll, one
that makes good points, and sometimes I wonder if we're not in the same
camp.
RL
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck, who is a troll in disguise, wrote:
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1127756060.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > If primitive man can survive Younger Dryas, modern man can surive
>> > today's GW.
>>
>> I think there are not that many who would predict that modern humans can
>> not
>> survive a rapid climate change. But I would like to make a few points:
>
> Make your points but your first sentence conceeds the debate. I won.
You always win the debates in your head. The rest of us have serious
discussions to get back to.
Ray. You have to try a bit harder. When every point sails right over your
head, of course you think you win the debate.