Still More on Global Warming

hype7 writes "The Daily Telegraph is running a piece on the world's temperature. Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages: "A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""

Comments

you know, at one time...

[night_flyer]

there was vegitation in the artic circle, there are frozen remains of Mammoths up there with undigested vcegetation in their bellys (and there was enough of it to sustain a creature of that size as well).

Secondly, where did all the ice from the ice age go? surly mans discovery of fire didnt promote the end of that period in time...

25 years ago, it was Global Cooling

[sirshannon]

in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.

Global warming - an ecologist scam ?

[Krapangor]

Any mathematician knows that decent statistics can only be done with a decent amount of data.
However, we have weather data only for the last 120 years. All "data" before that comes from "environmental models" or ice cubes from Antarctica. Well, the models predict that the models are correct. A classical logic flaw - this problem was already discussed in the antics by Aristoteles and Platon. The data from ice cubes is very wacky, it's sometimes very difficult to say from which time the ice comes from and it's even harder to get it's temperature.
So, we don't really know if there is a global warming. Temperature changes of 0.5 degree celsius are within the error intervals of the estimators therefore totally meaningless.

There is no decent theory were this global warming should come from. Trajectory oszillations of earths orbit around sun might sound sensible, but the chaotic dynamics of the n-body systems are hardly understood, especially in 4 dimensions. So that's just a guess.
The ecologist ideology "CO2-pollution" is just rubbish. These guys say that global warming starts around 1903 were CO2-levels couldn't have any effects. The methane levels in the 35000 feet layers of the atmosphere can't also be responsible for the very same reason - modern highly methane producing cow breed were introduced after 1934 world wide.

So I think this is just a pseudo-scientific ecologist scam to scare people away from modern technology and to keep them in the dark without information to control them better.

CO2 sinks

[fridzappa]

I was surprised to learn recently that trees are not CO2 sinks--once they die, decay restores their lifetime of consumed CO2 to the atmosphere. There are only two CO2 sinks: - biological matter that is interred deep into sediment (which often becomes oil) -solid CO2 at the bottom of the ocean (where the pressure results in a higher melting point) That there are only two sinks of carbon on Earth makes me suspicious of fossil fuels, as much as my heart goes out to the pro-tech sentiments expressed here.

Re:CO2 sinks

[Jhon]

You are absolutely correct. The original information I was going on was from a Princston study done in 1998 which calculated the absorbsion of carbon sinks in the US. Searching for an internet link of that study I found there was a follow up study which recently re-calculated the figures to show that the US is in fact producing more CO2 than it takes in -- creating a net production of around 700-1000 million tons per year.

My information was outdated. Great catch.

Still, the article you cited seems to indicate that as soon as a tree is cut, the CO2 jumps magically back in to the atmosphere -- something which doesn't happen:

"When we chopped down the forests, we released carbon trapped in the trees into the atmosphere," says Stephen Pacala, a Princeton professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and the study's lead author

I'll need to track down the study your article points to and read up on it. I also dont doubt there's a followup to the study you cite in the makes. There's also still the problem of what effect, if any, human produced CO2 has on the climate over time.

Re:CO2 sinks

[mesocyclone]

When the scientific community cannot even find where 30% of the carbon flux goes, why should we believe any assertions about carbon sinks. This is one of the many reasons that Kyoto is bad policy - it is based on an infant scientific field with lousy data. That doesn't mean that the science is bad - it means that it is insufficient, by a long ways.

As far as Kyoto went, what nobody seems to mention is that it was a fraud and a trap. If you believed the numbers that the Kyoto framers themselves used, Kyoto would have resulted in an unmeasurable change in global temperature over the 100 year timeframe of its scope. Or, put another way, it would have delayed whatever warming there was by just a few years.

Kyoto was meant to do two things:
1) Hurt the US economically compared to Europe, by hitting us harder
2) Provide a start to a process that would have required drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - cuts that would have been politically impossible if called for in the first treaty, but cuts that would be necessary to achieve Kyoto's goals.

Without breakthrough technology and massive investment, those cuts would have been impossible. But there is no way to cause breakthrough technology - it is like pushing a rope!

The ultimate conceit in Kyoto was its assumption that its CO2 emissions rules could be maintained, world wide, for 100 years. That requires an absurd faith in the stability of international life that is unprecedented in history. If Kyoto had been put in place 100 years ago, is there anyone alive who believes it would have made any difference? Do the Kyoto planners really believe that the world will be stable... that monstrous regimes will not arise (which will give a fig about the environment - witness the USSR)... that unforseen technological innovations will not occur? After all, 100 years ago there were no airplanes, electronics, computers, antibiotics, totalitarian regimes, Naziism, Marxist-Leninism, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, etc.

Finally, one almost never hears any support for the cheapest, most reliable anti-CO2 emissions technology around: nuclear. France would have an easy time with Kyoto, BECAUSE 70% OF ITS ELECTRICAL POWER IS NUCLEAR. But US enviros have completely killed nuclear power, in spite of its free world history of ZERO deaths - the safest power ever invented.

This in itself is enough to make me strongly doubt either the sanity, education or honesty of almost every pro-Kyoto proponent!

Re:article credibility

[alkali]

Five years ago, the same authors argued that the sun was getting brighter, and that that was the cause of global warning. Whoops.

(Note that the Telegraph article refers to "a team from Harvard University." As everyone should know, Harvard as an institution does not designate a couple faculty members to check out this whole global warming thing and give the definitive answer; these researchers -- astrophysicists by training -- decided to investigate this subject of their own accord. It is not atypical for people associated with prestigious institutions to use the name of the institution to advance their views on a subject outside their area of expertise. This is why it is sometimes said that a Berkeley study proved that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed -- a professor of criminal law at Berkeley has written a number of books and articles so contending. All that having been said, it makes sense to wait and see what they have to say.)

We're Geeks right?

[subzerohen]

All studies I have seen on Global Warming seem biased so why not do your own study. What the enviromentalists seem to complain about is not that the temperature is so high but that it is increasing at a faster rate than before. Being a Geek I'd like to see this for myself. Does anone know where one could find the yearly mean temperature for say the last 2000 years?

Calculating the derivative of the temperature curve is, what, 6 lines of perl?

Re:Questioning global warming

[Baki]

It was with good reason that the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty.

How can you say such a thing. I agree that many environmentalists have too absolute claims about this, but it cannot be ruled out either. Scientific evidence is vague at the moment, but all scientists say that once it is 100% proven it is already too late. I would say: better safe than sorry.

Apart from that, saving some natural resources (oil, gas) for later generations does not hurt either. Some anti-environmentalists (I would not put myself on either side, but trying to be neutral/objective) just seem to be selfish to me, not willing to alter a wasteful and egoistic lifestyle that is parasitism on the rest of the world and on future generations.

From either perspective, it is very very bad that the US did not sign this treaty.

I still have (wishful thinking?) hope that there is no such thing as human induced global warming going on. But it is possible at least, probably likely if you look at the scientific facts, which are unclear at the moment.

Yes, in the past it has been warmer, then came a period of cooling which came to a very abrupt end in a quite good (though not perfect) correlation with rise of CO2 levels. Indeed there was some cooling (not very significant, but rather unevenly distributed over the world) between 1940 and 1975, but after that there has been an extreme warming. These processes are still badly understood.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[billysara]

I think that no-matter what the arguments as to whether we are causing immediate damage to the ozone/antartic/environment - the idea that we should be developing and using sustainable sources of energy stands.

A lot of green/environmental people I know argue along the same lines - we should be developing sustainable resources *because* they are sustainable, not bacause of some immediate apocolypse - but they don't get the press (or even /. attention) because it doesn't make good copy to read reasonable arguments....

Re:Questioning global warming

[blackpaw]

From the article (emphasis mine)

Ranking of the world's countries by 1999 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring.

That specifically excludes the largest source of greenhouse gasses - domestic animal farts, aka "methane", of which India & china are huge sources.

Its a such a significant problem that New Zealand is considering a genetically engineered bacteria that lives in a cow or sheeps gut that will reduce methane production by 30% - this pretty much covers New Zelands Koyoto commitments.

I wonder how the green party (part of the government in kiwi land) will cope with that ?

- reducing greenhouse gasses good ...

- GM bad ...

- Baaa! baaa !

They'll probably go with "GM Baaaad...", logical thinking and compromise is not their strong point

Re:Not a surprise really

[1029]

Sure, we're part of the ecology, but it dosn't mean to say that everything we then do in the ecology is a good, natural thing to happen.

Uh, what? If we are a part of nature (and I'd have to say we are) then EVERYTHING we do is natural. Maybe not "good" (who the hell decides "good" and "bad" here anyhow?), but it sure as hell is natural.

When a beaver makes a dam, its all natural and "good". When a man makes a dam, HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THAT ABNORMAL ABOMINATION! Get your head out of your ass. We are animals. The only difference between us and a shit flinging monkey is a few abstract ideas.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment. I am all for saving our biodiversity and keeping the air/water/earth clean. I don't want to live in a shithole. But that doesn't make anything we do unnatural, it just means we have a little bit of sense about what is going on and can choose to do things differently if we please. I bet if that beaver knew any better he'd make up some concrete and block the whole river. But the beaver doesn't know any better, and yet we do. Still, doesn't change the fact that we are both animals doing natural things that animals do.

In the end if we nuke the entire planet 100 times over, it is nothing but nature continuing on as it has for all of time.

Re:Trust? Truth? Perspective, please.

[TopShelf]

"Preservatives: when was our last famine?"

It's interesting to note that the thinking these days suggests that famines are the result of a widespread loss of income, whereby large groups of people simly cannot buy food, as opposed to a limit on the amount of food available.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[letxa2000]

The question is whether or not this (unverified) new science is reliable enough to bet our entire way of life on it.

So in other words we should CHANGE our entire way of life based on radical and unproven and disputed claims by environmentalists, but we shouldn't base our entire way of life based on growing evidence that we aren't witnessing anything out of the ordinary.

I'm sorry, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The environmentalists have been making exceptional cliams and prescribing massive changes to our way of life for more than a decade. Before we are expected to accept such far-reaching changes they better well produce exceptional evidence, which they haven't to-date. And this report is just one more thing they had better address.

Oh, and "well even if global warming isn't ocurring we should still reduce CO2 production because it's the right thing to do" is not valid. It's a cop-out, and it's one we're hearing more and more from the "environmentalists." I put that in quotes because if they are making a philosophical decision that reducing CO2 production and transferring wealth to 3rd world countries is the "right thing" in the absence of environmnetal evidence then they are a poltical group known as "communists," not a scientific group known as "environmentalists."

Truth is a beautiful thing, and confronting liars with truth is especially fun to watch.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[Martin Blank]

I think some changes are in order, but not because it's a good idea to reduce CO2 even if the climate isn't warming. I think doing it to reduce the *other* emissions is the better idea. I have always been a skeptic about global warming, but I've tried to keep my mind open about it. However, even as that is seen as a possible problem, issues like smog and acid rain are real problems that have been around for decades and longer.

While I realize the problems of storing things like radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, I also see the benefits of their byproducts (mainly steam) compared to the environmental damage done by coal, oil, gas, and hydroelectric plants. A single nuclear plant could store the waste from its lifetime in a relatively small location (compared to the area over which fire-based emissions spread), paid for by fees on the utility company, which is well-guarded, well-built, and well-sealed. Some of it could even be fed back into newer designs to be re-used until it's at an even lower radiation level. Continue work on fusion reactors, and bring them online as soon as is practical. Compare the damage done to the environment by a well-designed reactor to the damage done by a coal plant, and I think the tradeoffs are clearly more beneficial -- IMHO.

Barring this, require better scrubbers on the plants. One of the things that gets missed is that these scrubbers also create jobs in manufacturing and R&D, both of which are relatively high-paying, which is good for the tax base. Lower emissions (and still keep working on the fusion process), more taxes coming in.... It could work.

Re:Environmentalist = Communist in Drag

[jmv]

And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.

First of all, you forgetting that they have two groups of rats, one of which doesn't get the chemicals. This way, they can compare and see if there's a "statistically significant" increase in cancer. I agree that it's not always clear how well these things transfer to humans, but what do you propose. Stop testing and say that everythings's safe until you discover that millions have died because of some product? Test on humans? What?

In crimimal cases, you're innocent until proven guilty. For health-related issues, it doesn't work that way (if there's evidence that a drug might be dangerous, it's just not approved). Last think how long the cigarette companies have been able to stall things by repeating that there's no proof that cigarettes are dangerous and all. It might not be 100% proven that CO2 will lead to a catastrophy, but there are some signs... do you want to take a chance and discover too late that you were wrong?

Re:Not a surprise really

[Loki_1929]

You honestly believe we could eliminate every single bacteria in the world? To answer yes would show that you have a very limited understanding of biology and bacteria in general. Aside from that, when you look at the astroid impacts of this planet's history, remember that they would have caused something very similar to nuclear winter. Would nuclear winter wipe out all humans on this planet? More than likely, it would eliminate virtually every single higher life form. Would nuclear winter eliminate other life forms, such as bacteria? Hardly; there any many types of bacteria which would thrive in such an environment, and many others which would lay dormant for however many millions of years it took for the ecosystem to begin to reform.

You forget that life on this planet started in conditions that were staggeringly uninhabitable by today's standards. We could launch every single nuclear missile and release every chemical and biological weapon ever created and we'd still end up with tons of organisms surviving. Within a few million years, you'd never know humans existed.

"we could seriously fuck up the ecosystem beyond all hope of repair if we're not careful'"

That's just arrogant. Could we fuck it up to the point that humans could survive in it? Yes. But nature doesn't revolve around man - man's existence "revolves" around the center of the galactic toilet bowl, hoping nature doesn't decide to flush.

Re:More environmentalist garbage

[RedWizzard]

In other words, let's just assume it's caused by humans.

Still missing the point. It doesn't matter what the cause is, it only matters whether we can reduce it's effect.

While we're at it, let's focus on the costs that don't exist (the "what if" costs), and completely ignore the costs of proposals such as the Kyoto protocol that do exist.

The "what if" costs are very large. We're talking trillions of dollars. It's like Russian roulette. Ignoring the possible risk would be foolish in the extreme. Doing nothing now may mean that we are giving up our chance to act while the costs are low. Then again any action we take might be wasted. Basically what I'm saying is that people advocating either extreme are being very short-sighted, IMHO. I'm not advocating Kyoto, but I do think it would be prudent to take what action we can without undue cost.

Of Course It Was Warmer

[Brown Line]

Anecdotal evidence drawn from historical documents strongly suggests that the Middle Ages were warmer than our times. After all, Norse settlers grew wheat in Greenland - and just doing that today. Wine grapes were grown in England - ditto. And it's clear that the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were much colder - as shown by all those Georgian-era paintings depicting the Thames frozen solid.

It's clear that the climate changes, and we don't really know why. There are lots of good reasons why we should develop replaceable energy sources and stop burning fossil carbon as our principal energy source - not the least of which is that the fossil carbon is going to run out some day. But global warming caused primarily by human interference? Unproved, perhaps unprovable.

out of equilibrium

[kisak]

Probably one should not call it Global Warming (even though that is what the trend is at the moment), but instead human caused climate change.

The temperature has risen steadily this century, but that does not mean that it will continue to do so. But it means that we are leaving the equilibrum position that the global climate has been in since the last ice age. More over, this rapid change in the climate is claimed by a majority of climate scientist (or environmentalist if that is what you like to call them) to be caused by human energy consumption and other human activities.

When we leave the equilibrium that we have come to depend on, the system will at some point become unstabel. Such unstabel systems can be seen for instant in a simple pendelum with an external force out of frequency with the pendelum motion; the motion will become chaotic and the behavior of the system very hard/impossible to predict. The system will often come back to a new equilibrium position, but where it will end up is again very hard to predict.

The climate is of course a much more complex system than any simple mechanical model you can make in the lab. What we do know is if we get too far away from the equilibrium, the climate will become unstabel, and we will see some uncontrolable changes, before any new equilibrium, i.e., weather pattern set in. If the new weather pattern will lead to global cooling or global warming is anyones guess. But rapid changes in the climate on a global scale will definitly wipe out huge eco-systems and will probably wipe out the poorer parts of the world, if not also richer countries. The economic cost will of course sky rocket (think of the costs money wise if Miami and Manhatten suddenly are under the sea level , as one example).

There are scientific reasons to belive the earth has been into such externally driven climate changes before. Everyone knows of the theory of the dinosaurs being killed of by the climate change due to a meteorite. Similar changes have happened in the past when the sun has gone through changes. The resent change in the climate is most probably due to human beings, and therefore is unique in that we can actually do something about it.

I do not really understand the economic argument of Bush (and his oil friends). First, the cost will be much greater if these climate changes comes. Second, it makes sense to not be so dependent on burning fossile fuels, and to use energy sources that pollute less but equally importantly, are renewable. Third, what ever country or company develops the technology that makes sun, wind, waves, thermal energy competetive, or likewise, make burning of fossile fuels more effective or makes technology to not let CO2 out in the atmosphere, will have a technology that they can sell for hard bucks all over the world.

The Kyoto agreement will force industrialized countries to make investments now, that will cost some part of our budgets, but it is an investment in the future that one can hope will lead to a more stable climate, but for sure in more viable energy sources and useful technology. I think it is a more valuable budget cost than tax breaks for the rich 3% of the US population.