A Stark Warning On Climate Change

cliffski writes "In a report based on computer predictions, UK government advisor Professor David King said that an increase of even three degrees Celsius would cause drought and famine and threaten millions of lives The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. A government report based on computer modeling projects a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops, about 400 million more people at risk of hunger and between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress."

Comments

Wait just a second...

[StevenHenderson]

The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. Come on, now. Failure to sign Kyoto does not directly imply a direct refusal to cut emissions. It just prevents direct government support of such programs.

Also, we are lucky to be in a country where being green is good for business. I can think of some companies that are making a pretty penny off cutting emissions and helping others to do so.

A guess, even an educated one...

[GWSuperfan]

...is still just a guess. "A government report based on computer modeling..." So- a projection from the government based on a computer model says that this is what might happen if the global temperature were to rise 3 degrees. Of course, given that computer models are just themselves guesses about how the various systems that affect climate and weather interact anyway, I remain unimpressed. I'll be taking this with more than a grain of salt. Can someone pick me up a salt lick?

Re:A guess, even an educated one...

[Decaff]

...is still just a guess. "A government report based on computer modeling..." So- a projection from the government based on a computer model says that this is what might happen if the global temperature were to rise 3 degrees. Of course, given that computer models are just themselves guesses about how the various systems that affect climate and weather interact anyway, I remain unimpressed. I'll be taking this with more than a grain of salt. Can someone pick me up a salt lick?

I'm glad you are so confident. I am not. The models (the so-called 'guesses') have been developed and refined over decades, and based on data that goes back for millenia. Almost all scientific work is based on this sort of 'guess'.

Even if you still label it a 'guess', surely you should be concerned that so many guesses from so many who have studied this matter are pointing in the same direction.

What's the point?

[Luscious868]

Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are. Ultimately, our species is time limited on this planet anyway. Weather it is a large asteroid, nukes, the environment or the dieing sun, something is going to make this planet uninhabitable at some point. Let's spend less time fighting with each other and more time figuring out how we can get our species off of this lovely little rock and onto the next one because that's our only hope for survival in the end.

Re:What's the point?

[Billosaur]

Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are.

From BBC News: The scientists making the predictions admit that the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated that their calculations are necessarily uncertain.

This uncertainty has led critics to accuse them of either exaggerating the threats to the planet, or under-playing them.

In the end, as I've said many times, we know how bits and pieces of things work, but we don't know how the system functions as a whole. This is very true in medicine, but especially true when it comes to climatology or any planetary science. Listen, you can take the base principles of physics, chemistry, etc. and create any kind of picture you want as to how a mechanism works, as long as it doesn't violate those principles. It doesn't mean you understand how the actual system works -- you only have a theory which happens to explain it in gross detail.

Look at Venus: we know the CO2 level there is extremely high, that the planet is scorchingly hot and devoid of large amounts of water. We can extrapolate from that and from experiments here that the Greenhouse Effect may have caused current conditions there. We can further theorize that a similar catastrophe awaits us here if we don't do anything. The problem is, we don't know how Venus got that way, or really how long it has been like that. We haven't studied it in detail geologically, so we can't be certain that Venus hasn't always been like this.

Yes, CO2 causes the Greenhouse Effect to trap more heat and raise global temperature. According to current theories, the Earth's biosphere has a mechanism for dealing with this, but of course that mechanism is affected by the things we do to it. It's folly to think we're having no effect on the climate, but it's also folly to say we're pushing it to the brink of catastrophe. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. I for one don't see the harm in reducing our CO2 emmissions; it seems like a sensible thing to do, given the fact that we have technologies available that could eliminate our need to use fossil fuels. We really don't need a debate over climate change to see that this is a good idea on general principles.

Re:How could that be ?

[gEvil (beta)]

The difference is that humans are well adapted to large variances in temperature and climate. A whole lot of the other life on this planet isn't, including many of our favorite crops. If the temperature reaches a point where corn, wheat, rice, etc aren't able to tolerate it, it can have a dramatic impact on humans.

And something I never hear discussed.....

[King_TJ]

Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion, has anyone actually tried calculating the total amount of future "damage" possible to do by burning all of what's feasibly left to use?

It seems to me that most of the people spreading fear of global warming trends are acting as if, without new legislation and drastic changes, we'll keep on creating this pollution indefinitely.

In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway. The most likely alternatives for power generation are things like nuclear plants, and for cars, maybe hydrogen - which would nullify most of these concerns.

What about Canada?

[LWATCDR]

Canada actually consumes more energy per person than the US and also produces more CO2 per person.
Simple question is why wasn't Canada mentioned?
I am all for the US reducing Green house emissions. I think that we should start building a lot more nuclear power plants, use as much bio diesel as is practical, use solar where practical, and wind in the few areas where that makes sense.

Re:What about Canada?

[heli0]

"Canada doesn't get mentioned in these things because we look like the "good guys" because we signed Kyoto."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.h tml?id=2bb92ea7-3bb2-4826-a62e-7637bebb1323&k=5302 4

Under the Kyoto treaty, Canada is committed to a six per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Yet emissions have risen by 30 per cent. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the target is impossible to meet.

Would the US also get a pass if we ratified this treaty and then completely ignored it?

you're living in a dreamland

[penguin-collective]

Yes, the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy")

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow and boom, consume all the energy the like and spew unlimited amounts of who-know-what into the atmosphere, but America would have to shrink it's economy to comply.

The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[EastCoastSurfer]

In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency,

Good point. The problem is that those things cost money which you later admit US doesn't have much of anymore. Modernization of transportation is greatly needed, and the US is starting to move in that direction with more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, etc... What's really needed though is good mass transportation. The problem is that in the US there is a lot of ground to cover unlike many places in Europe. Something like high speed rail between cities would be great, but the costs are huge.

The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations

I agree totally. After 9/11 the gov. should've just let the US economy go through a recession and rebalance itself. Instead they lowered rates and China stepped in and started buying bonds so we ended up with a huge housing bubble and then the housing ATM. Eventually the recession that should've happened then will eventually come due.

I used to really worry about China owning so much of the US debt, and how they had us by the balls until I realized we have them in nearly the same situation. If China were to dump all it's US debt and force our interest rates to sky rocket, basically crushing the US economy, it hurts them just as much. They are killing one of their biggest customers at that point. I guess they could just say screw it and do something like that anyways and play the odds that they come out ahead at the end of the day.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[gerf]

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".

Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"

In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,

Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.

it would improve efficiency,

Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.

it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),

This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.

and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.

True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.

Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.

then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.

I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.

Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[khallow]

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

Why hasn't the US already switched away from oil? Because it's cheap compared to competitive technologies. Even adding in the war subsidy (a hundred or two billion dollars a year), I think you'd only add a dollar or so to the price of gas in the US (ignoring whether demand drops as a result). Also, despite all the talk of "modernizing" transportation, I have to side somewhat with the "peak oil" people here. I think a oil-based transportation infrastructure is more capable at current oil prices than the alternatives.

The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

Given that Japan and Europe which are far greener also suffer from the same problem, this indicates that the issue of national debt isn't related to oil consumption, but rather how governments borrow to fund regular spending.

Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

Then India and China should have chosen to be the advanced countries rather than be the ones catching up. China probably should get some slack since they are aggressively working on reducing their population.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[ScentCone]

everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere

Does that include all of the coal and wood that Europe burned for thousand+ years before they colonized North America? And, are you going to take into account the net increase in trees we plant in the US, as opposed the complete clear-cutting that's going on across all of Asia and Central/South America? How about countries that profit from exporting carbon to other places (say, Venezuela to China)? They're never going to burn as much as China, but their economy completely depends on it. I'd like to see the ledger sheet you've got in mind to take all of that, and the past emissions you refer to, into account. Oh... and "pay" to whom? At what rate? Do we pay (to whom, the UN?) for emissions 200 years ago at some rate equal to the per capita value of those emissions back then? Adjusted how, to current dollars? Do you adjust for changing life expectancy during those years? Please expand on that.

Re:you're living in a dreamland

[Dachannien]

(thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs

Okay, let me get this straight - public and private expenditure to meet environmental regulations is good for the economy, but public expenditure to maintain the military is bad for the economy? Military spending has historically been a big positive for the economy, as long as debt is properly managed. (Admittedly, the debt is certainly not being properly managed at the moment, but the drop in taxable income and the increase in public expenditure to meet new environmental regs wouldn't help that situation out any.)

those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon.

If the intent of Kyoto is to help the environment, then fairness shouldn't enter into it. The reason why China and India support Kyoto now is that it gives them a huge comparative advantage over the US, by letting them continue to emit high levels of CO2 at the expense of the environment. The US gets demonized for opposing such an arrangement, while China and India (which are already heavy polluters, and which release far more CO2 per dollar GDP than the US or EU) are defended for supporting an agreement that not only benefits them economically, but also allows them to continue harming the environment.

That's not fair. That's screwed up.

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[lbrandy]

The way things are going in America, what with the offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.

Not that the Chinese/Indian alternatives are necessarily better, but America is rapidly deteriorating.

This nonsense is never going to end. Do you realize this is the exact reason that public support isn't behind Kyoto here? It's because of people like you.... Because it is so easy to convince people that Kyoto isn't about climate.. it's about people who don't like America and want to punish it. When you bring up Guantanomo Bay in a discussion about Kyoto, every single rational person opposed to Kyoto is going to roll their eyes. Let's keep in mind those rational people are the ones that can be convinced, and make it happen... yet here I am.. having to listen to some guy ramble on about nebulous nonsense generalized into alamarmist and unrelated propaganda..

As to your other, weaker, point... congratulations.. no one is perfect. What does that prove? "Maybe" it should be stopped? And who fills that void... the next upcoming ideal nation? Then we can wait for the next centuries "utopia" to fail.. And we'll just keep destroying all the unperfect nations, one after another, until we finally get it right.

Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda

[Jearil]

I have to assume you don't live in the US, or if you do, perhaps it's in a major metropolitan area. You're probably one of those people from Europe, I'll guess the UK for my example, who feels the need to look down his nose at the vast majority of americans who don't use public transport or their own two good legs.

You see the thing is, the US is actually a rather large country. Depending on who you ask, it's between the 3rd and 4th largest country. Larger countries include Russia and possibly Canada and China (depending on if we're including in-land water or not). Now if you'll note, large portions of China is unpopulated. Most of the population occures along the coast. Canada has a very large portion of the country that is not populated as well. I have limited knowledge of Russia, so I just will not comment on it.

In the US, people are very spread out. Our rail system pales to other countries, especially ones with advanced modern rail systems such as Japan. Rail in the US is used mainly for freight shipping between distant parts of the country and not as much for passenger. I know for myself a round-trip train ticket from Albany, NY to NYC would cost around $150. The same trip would be equivilant to about $60 in gas. I'm all for the environment, but the cost of rail is not the way to solve it.

So the train is expensive; let's try one of your other suggestions. Walking is free, so there goes that difficulty. I mean I won't be walking to NYC, but let's think more local. Due to increased housing costs, I'm forced to live in a more remote area. I currently have a 30 minute drive to work each day; which is very unfortunate. A 30 minute drive equates to approx. 20 miles. The average human can walk at about 4 miles per hour. So, if I start walking at about 3am, I could make it to work on time to be at my desk at 8. Granted when I leave at 5 I won't be home until 10, but that does give me 5 hours of sleep before I have to put the hiking boots back on. Hmm, still not very effective.

Ok, last option: "drive there is something that gets double digit miles per gallon." So, the goal with this statement is to drive something that gets 10MPG. Well alright. This one seems the most feasable, but most likely the one with the biggest tongue in cheek if you will. 10MPG.. hmm. I'm not sure if I can recall the last vehicle that got less than 10. I think my uncle had a really large RV camper thing that got 8.. it was like driving a house, but when you're paying about 50 cents per mile, he ended up just leaving it at home. I actually don't know of a single car/truck/SUV that gets less than 10. The lowest I can remember seeing is about 17, and that's a guzzler.

Let's modify it to maybe cars that get 30. That's pretty basic for a regular gas-powered car. My car currently gets about 26MPG since it's 11 years old. So I'll conceed I have room for improvement there. However, I'm also not generating 2 tons of waste through buying a new car every 2 years.. I hear such things are popular in Europe.

The point is, public transport just isn't available in a very large portion of the US. I don't have the option for a bus or train. There isn't one anywhere near my house that would take me to work. A lot of Americans have the same issue. We would use it, if it was around, but it's not. The reason it isn't available is because the geographical distance is just too large to cover with an effective public transport. It's unfortunate, but how it currently is.

I do think that people in the US should start purchasing less SUV's and monster trucks and perhaps more compacts and hybrids. Pointless SUVs carrying around just 1 person most of the time pisses me off when I see them on the road. It will probably happen sooner or later, considering gas prices keep rising, but it takes time for things to get replaced.

In the meantime, consider that perhaps people in the US are not as lucky as you to be living in such a tiny country where public transport is readily available. Being tolerant of other people's cultures and having empathy for their situation may not be as satisfying as assuming they're wrong and placing yourself on a holy pedistool above them, but it really does help make you look like less of an ass.

Re:If you want Kyoto to happen...

[ezavada]

Imagine if someone did a study that showed that internet usage was linked to obesity.

This is an extremely flawed analogy, because the harm (obesity) falls on the actor (the internet user). Whereas with global climate change, the harm falls on everyone. A better example would be if pouring chemicals into the groundwater were linked to increased cancer rates in anyone who drank water. Strangely enough, the people affected in those cases tend to get upset and bring lawsuits that are extremely costly to the perpetrators. In some cases it's even outright illegal. That sounds fair to me.

broken window fallacy

[Russ Nelson]

There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D,

You *do* realize that you're pushing the broken window fallacy, right? I wouldn't want someone to attempt propaganda innocently.

Re:That's just economic naivetee

[lbrandy]

Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.

Ah yes, the classic per-capita-retort. Well, being a reformed student of statistics... allow me to go ahead and tell you why using "per-capita" pollution is also meaningless. First, and foremost, the US is not the #1 polluter per capita.... take at look at such irresponsible nations as Paraguay, Luxeombourg, Australia, and Canada if that is your metric... these obviously irresponsible polluters all put more junk into the air, per person, then the United States does.

More seriously, pollution can be viewed in economic terms. Per capita, yes, the United States pumps out alot more junk than the EU, China, and India.. by pretty sizable margins.. however, what do you "get" in return? Well... only 32% of the worlds GDP, for 25% of it's pollution. Given the contribution to the world economy, that makes the US one of the most effecient and least polluting nations in the world..

In fact, over the years, the US has become more and more effecient at creating GDP with the same amount of pollution. The average US person, by far, is the most productive and effecient machine for turning energy into useful things with the minimum pollution. In that respect, the US is the most energy effecient country in the world.

The bottomline here is me and you could go back and forth all day using different metrics to divide up the numbers (read: the blame) however we want... the CO2 molecules in the air don't have labels. The US pumps out 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, has 32% of it's GDP, and has 5% of it's population. Depending on how you slice it, the US can look either really good, or really bad... but it's still a numbers blame-game.

Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth

[misleb]

Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem.

Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.

The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.

As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.

Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."

-matthew

Freeman Dyson's take on Kyoto

[jmichaelg]

It's not just Freeman, but a lot of other scientists have problems with Kyoto. Their letter includes this comment:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

But heck, Edward Lorenz knew that back in the early 60's. He found that even simple non-linear models produce unpredictable output. Adding complexities to attempt to model the real world just aggravates the underlying modeling problem. Those of you who think computer models can see far into the future would be well served by reading his paper in which he writes:

When our results concerning the instability of nonperiodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic, they indicate that predictions of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.

It's worth noting that not one climate model that doesn't incorporate climate data from 1960 on has autonomously forecast the climate since 1960. And yet we have folks telling us what the next century is going to look like.

selection of quotes - dire

[tota]

In 10+ years of slashdot reading, I don't think I have ever read so many pathetic posts for one story!
Here are some of the best quotes:

1) Dozens of posts about how unfair it is to let China and India polute so much. Funny that one, since we are talking about a cumulative effect, anyone care to calculate the total polution per capita since the industrial revolution? Hint: China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.
But any excuse to blame it on others when you do/don't want to make a difficult decision works for some leaders.

2) "...absurd Kyoto Protocol..."
"..America would have to shrink it's economy.."
"..you cannot maintain economic growth and at the same time reduce your carbon.."
"..Countries in Europe are also failing to meet their targets.."
"..the Kyoto Accords are a socialist mandate.."
We have some Fox-news specialists at hand here, great!
FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth. Never mind.
We haven't found a perfect solution to an imperfect world, so let's do nothing and keep burning it. That makes sense.
Keep putting your head in the sand until you can't get out - no-one will hear you when the water rushes in!

3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one. As if we can just ride this or hope that we develop the technology to correct it in time. 3C average on the scale of the earth is gigantic. This is just a question of scale: how big is the Earth compared to your living room? How much energy does it take to warm (or cool) 1 cubic meter of water (1 ton)? How many tons are we talking about? Google around.

4) "The models are wrong" or "There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are" (...): implying that either the problem is not real or that the Earth ecosystem has been adapting for billions of years and will continue to do so. Maybe so, but the fact is that the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct. Dinosaurs are so 'last extinction event', we are so much more clever.
I won't try to pretend that we know for sure that the situation is just as serious, but all the signs are there.

5) Random:
(warming) "...more favorable to the growing of fruits and vegetables. Good for everyone"
"..would open up vast un(der)farmed plains in the northern Mid-West and Canada"
Silly me! Let's launch a 'freedom to polute' site.

"..African nations where slaughter of their own population is commonplace..." (as an excuse for not doing it here either)

"...it is simply just a natural phenomenon like the Northern Lights."
(someone who needs to do a bit more reading)

"This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot"
The good old conspriacy theories. There aren't any good slashdot stories without one of them.

"So essentially the 'models' 'predicting' global warming actually only predict climate CHANGE"
We are screwing with the climate but it could go either way. Well, here is the news: either way is bad. Any drastic change is bad, and that is what the data suggests.

Summary: lots of posts not making any sense and most of them using some off-topic reason for not doing anything.

Re:More recommended reading

[shotfeel]

It is certainly a good idea to read what people on both sides of the debate are saying. Personally, it disturbs me when I read articles like the one in the write-up. Lets begin with,

Scientists admit the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated their calculations are uncertain.

So we start with an uncertain model stating a potential 3 degree C increase in temperature with no data given on the reliability of that number -that's not science. For a model to be scientifically valid it not only needs to be tested and found reliable, one also needs to do the extra step in determining variablity in outcome. AFAIK that hasn't been done to a sufficient degree.

Then, based on the results from this model, we use a second untested model with unknown reliability/variability and make another prediction on how this 3 degree change will alter crops on a global level and further how this extrapolates to starving people. What are the assumptions being made? Are we assuming farming techniques are unchanged?

Then we take the results of that model and create policy. Anyone who works with computer modeling should be squirming uncomfortably in their chairs at this point.

I'm not saying its all bad. We do need to act on what our best data tells us, but we really need to know how much stock to put in the analysis. So far that has been sadly lacking. IMO it has a great deal to do with the current political climate where any uncertainty shown is enough to get some people to completely ignore the results. OTOH I think its misleading to be presenting these things as "given" without more information.

Can we get past this?

[TheNucleon]

OK, let's see if we can get past this...

The world is getting warmer. The world is very big, so a small change (e.g., 1 degree Celsius) is a big deal. About this fact, there is little to no dissent.

Mankind is contributing to this change. There is disagreement about how much, but don't be fooled - we are having an impact, and why shouldn't we? There are six billion of us, and rapidly growing. We think that our legacy of burning wood, coal, and now petroleum products, is going to have no impact, and that the exotic chemicals we have used (e.g., CFCs) have no role in this? Come on. Don't make me Google it for you, do the work.

This change IS going to make a difference. Did it cause Katrina? I don't know. Could it cause floods, rise of global sea levels, famine, thirst, and the loss of thousands of species? Probably. Is it already killing polar bears, bleaching coral, and melting permafrost? Yep. Already.

I want to move on to "how much _really_ is a result of our actions" and "what can we do now".

Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about. Our lives are on the line, and people are still engaging in lobbyist games and misleading science, just to, what? Get some more power and money for a generation, so the next one can perish? Do we have no conscience at all?

So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy. Tell me why we should ignore the problem because, of course, there's a big "scientific conspiracy". Tell me how it's OK, because India and China are doing it too, right? I mean, if other people are doing it, it's not "fair" if we can't. Tell me that the permafrost would have "melted anyhow". Tell me about the volcanoes, and that they put out more emissions than we do, which, of course, makes ours "OK".

And, please send all these arguments to /dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.

I am not an alarmist. I am not part of a left-wing conspiracy. There are people who know 1,000,000 times more than I do (and more than you do...) about climate change and our role in it. And many, many of them believe there is a real issue, one that could get deadly serious in the not too distant future. Maybe they have a point? Have you checked it out - I mean, really, with an open mind, and not through the filter of the talking points you heard on AM radio this morning?

Re:Can we get past this?

[Blakey Rat]

I seem to recall that every other time we (meaning mankind) have tried to "fix" an ecological problem, we end up making it about a dozen times worse. See Australia, for instance.

There's about 4 layers here:

1) Convince me that global warming is happening

2) Convince me that it's due to human activity

3) Convince me that it *can* be 'solved' or at least reduced

4) Convince me that working to 'solve' it won't make things worse like it has in the past.

Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.

Re:More recommended reading

[Doc Ruby]

I think it's worth noticing that there are more than 2 sides to the climate change debate - and there's more than one debate. But if we frame the debate as "if we reduce Greenhouse pollution, will the climate remain more stable than if we don't", there are 2 sides. One side has most of the experts, saying "yes". The other side has some experts, and most of the stakeholders in the factors most of the experts say contribute to the change. The side warning that the problem is imminent and dire has been right before about atmospheric pollution, including the acceptable economic costs of stopping the change by stopping the pollution. The other side has never been right about anything scientific except extracting the most money from the smallest investment.

And the stakes riding on that disagreement are human civilization, and survival of the species as we know it - as well as many other species.

So I encourage everyone to take as broad a look as we can. The proportions and facts are there to be found. I'm not as optimistic about the ability of billions of industrialized people to make wise decisions about uncertainty, but that's all we've got.

Re:More recommended reading

[mesocyclone]

Yes, if you don't have a good argument, attack the messenger ("professional network of Greenhouse deniers") using religious terminology and conspiratorial implications, not the message.

Issues:

There are serious climatologists who believe the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is worthless. This is not to say that it might not happen or be happening, but that the issue is driven by speculation (primarily in the form of models which canbot be calibrated due to dramatic problems with the historical temperature record - especially before 1850 when thermometers started to be widely used). Furthermore, it has become highly politicized, with non-specialists (some of whom are qualified non-the-less) jumping in on both sides. I know some of these scientists, and they either don't publish, or have jumped to industry because then they can do their science without the threat of losing their funding due to their conclusions.

As an interesting side note, one of these guys approached Enron to see if they wanted him to provide his global warming expertise on their side. Their reaction was that they didn't want skeptics - they expected to make money on the carbon trading systems and disruptions caused by CO2 emissions control! So don't assume that industry, even the energy industry, is one sided on this.

The climate record does show a significant amount of warming in the 20th century BEFORE most of the CO2 rise. The "hockey stick" graph has been at least partly refuted.

The system in fact *is* too complicated and, importantly, undersampled for reasonable predictions to be made now. The "good" data is of way too short a time period to even deal with the shortest of natural climate factors. New, major factors are discovered frequently on both sides of the argument. Climatology as a predictive science is in its infancy. Don't be fooled by what models are saying - they don't even represent current understanding due to their poor calibration data, low temporal and spatial resolution, and the presence of a large number of calibration parameters. Furthermore, almost all quotes from the UN commission (IPCC) come from the heavily politicized introduction, not the carefully guarded language and details of the main report (which has lots of ifs, buts qualifications).

Science magazine, in particular, brands as scientific heretics anyone who doesn't already agree with the conclusion that significant man-caused global warming is happening and about to get worth. Read their editorials and you will see. They are biased.

There is a built-in bias in the rewards system, as there is in many areas of human endevour. Global warming fears generate money for climatologists, as long as they don't rock the boat. More money than the field would get if alarmist predictions weren't getting lots of public attention. Naturally this leads to distortion in the scientific process. The good thing about science is that it will correct this. The bad thing is that it might take decades or centuries.

Watch out when you bash the US for not entering Kyoto, which is a fraud and a Trojan horse. Note that even the "environment loving" Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the treaty (I think the Senate vote was 99-0). Even using the models it is based on, it would not be possible, after 100 years, to measure the effect of Kyoto on global mean temperature. Its real purposes are two:

1 - improve European competitiveness over the US

2 - put in place a framework for much more drastic cutbacks - to about 60% of 1990 carbon emissions. With corrent or accurately forseeable technology, this would lead to world wide global depression (see next point), and would be impossible to enforce. Furthermore, not that the two largest and nations with very rapid economic growth (China and India) are not requireed to sacrifice for it.

The real killer in Kyoto or similar approaches is that it is hubristic and arrogant. To see this, imagine that we had tried to put this in place in a period of more global stability -

Re:More recommended reading

[jcr]

Lindzen uses his credentials to make Greenhouse denials in public.

Why does it sound to me like you're trying to lump him in with holocaust deniers?

His credentials, which you are dismissing, are directly relevant to climatology. He's come to a different conclusion than you have; why should I dismiss his opinion just because you consider him a heretic?

-jcr

Re:As I posted before...

[An Onerous Coward]

As someone who agrees that global warming is a problem, and that this R&D should be done, let me take the devil's advocate position.

The state of the economy shouldn't just be based on the GDP. The GDP is just a proxy for all economic activity, which basically means how well we're doing at getting the stuff people want to the people who want it. If carbon emissions weren't a problem, and we still spent trillions of dollars working on making sure that carbon wasn't put into the atmosphere, that would be trillions of dollars spent on something that people didn't really want, and those resources could therefore have been spent more wisely.

There would be some benefits, of course. More fuel efficient cars, more renewable energy capacity, more efficient appliances. Those are going to offset part of the money we put into it, even if we don't reap the benefits of a saner climate (which I think we will).

Everything's going to be fine!

[Spasmodeus]

All the alarmism about global warming, and also about "peak oil" has had me worried lately. But suddenly I realized there's nothing to worry about!

When we run out of oil in twenty years, we'll stop producing greenhouse gasses, and global warming will be abated!

Problem solved!