Global warming?

[SamIam]

From the same interview quoted above:

FC: We hear of sea ice decline but is it due to human-caused global warming?

MT: From what I have read, the arctic sea ice declines have been mainly due to natural causes although some authors have ascribed some fraction of it to CO2 without being specific about the mechanism. The arctic warming mechanism identified in the IPCC suite of climate models is atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 levels, not an unusual influx of warm Pacific surface water and unusually strong offshore winds in the eastern Siberia and Alaskan area which is what actually caused what is being called the “Arctic Warming Period”.

He pretty much states that he is not a climate specialist, but he has a different theory as to what is causing the arctic warming. Please note that his theory does nothing to explain ANTARCTIC warming. The man has gained notoriety as a result of having been banned from a meeting, NOT for his expertise on climate. I agree that it makes the organization which banned him look bad.

[Henry]

Remember the book and movie Never Cry Wolf? Excellent book, btw, by Farley Mowat. Anyway, it's a true story about when Mowat was sent by the Canadien gov't into the great white north to figure out what was happening to the caribou herds, whose populations had been dropping precipitously. The native innuit needed caribou to survive and were blaming the wolves for their decimation. Mowat found different, but his gov't wouldn't believe him - if not eating the caribou, what could the wolves possibly survive on? Having witnessed wolves hunting, Mowat proved a large carnivore could survive very well on field mice alone by using himself as an example - he ate nothing but mice for the winter. He also proved that wolves were only taking a small number of caribou, the old, sick, and weak caribou, which served to strengthen the herd, not decimate it. So what, then, was killing all the caribou?

Poachers. The locals, innuit and anglo, were overhunting the caribou and falsely blaming the wolves.

My point is: why do we never seem to see an accounting of how much poaching affects polar bear numbers? If poaching unnoticed by offialdom could drastically lower the population of herd animals of huge numbers, poaching could easily decimate the polar bear population.

There must be some prospective number assigned to poaching, but this brings another question: While you can know the number of times poachers were caught and perhaps extrapolate a poaching harvest number, how do you measure what you haven't seen, those you haven't caught?

My hope is that next year, the Senate will move ahead with a bill comparable to the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act that was passed by the House.

A good summary of ACES is here.

It will stimulate the development of new and cleaner energy resources; provide for (require) greater energy efficiency in automobiles, buildings appliances, etc; and address the issue of excessive CO2 emissions (the most controversial provisions).

And despite the "sky is falling" rhetoric from the opposition, IMO, the cost to taxpayers is more than reasonable..estimated by several sources (CBO, EIA, EPA) as between 25 cents and 50 cents per day or $83 to $175 per year..excluding the savings that consumers would see from the proposed energy efficiency standards.

We can keep debating the issue of polar bears, cow flatulence, and whether excessive man-made CO2 emissions impact the natural atmospheric/environmental balance and may or may not contribute to climate change...or we can act.

IMO, it is time to act.

[Undertoad]

NOTHING makes me more skeptical than this sort of "look here, don't look there" behavior.

Or we can just bury our heads and keep debating

I'm sorry. NOTHING, I mean NOTHING makes me more skeptical than people who say "the debate is over".

Firstly, in science the debate is NEVER over. If the debate is over, it's not science.

Secondly, of COURSE the debate is not over.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm sorry. NOTHING, I mean NOTHING makes me more skeptical than people who say "the debate is over".

Firstly, in science the debate is NEVER over. If the debate is over, it's not science.

Secondly, of COURSE the debate is not over.

At some point, debate (particularly rehashing the same arguments) does little other than prevent any action....a very effective stalling tactic by those opposed to change.

The fair question is if we have reached that point and decide its time to act. Or if not, when do we reach that point?

Should we debate for another 5 years...10 years...while we belch another 25-50 billion metric tons of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere? There will NEVER be 100% agreement....but there is currently overwhelming consensus among the scientific community.

And I agree, debate is never over, it just takes a different form...that is the primary reason we have Congressional oversight....to review the effectiveness (and/or necessity) of further action, or rolling back actions, AFTER legislation has been enacted.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But Tony, tw said the debate is over a long time ago. um, nevermind.


Dr. Taylor

From what I have read, the arctic sea ice declines have been mainly due... snip

SamIam

He pretty much states that he is not a climate specialist, but he has a different theory as to what is causing the arctic warming.

Taylor says up front, he gets his climate change information the same way you and I do. What he is, being there doing his job, is a first hand witness to the result of the warming's effect on the flora & fauna in the Arctic.
He's also one of the world's most knowledgeable people on the condition of the bears. To exclude him from a meeting about the bears is unconscionable.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I'm sorry. NOTHING, I mean NOTHING makes me more skeptical than people who say "the debate is over".

Firstly, in science the debate is NEVER over. If the debate is over, it's not science.

Secondly, of COURSE the debate is not over.

Not really UT. The debate over flat earth - pretty much over. The debate over evolution - also pretty much over (at least amongst scientists). Some things do get settled pretty much.

Not saying that applies to global warming. Just sayin'.

Here's the real question for you. Why don't we know for sure one way or the other? Lack of tools? Obfuscation of the data?

Is it impossible to know at this point? Isn't the question important enough to make a definitive exploration of the subject?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Isn't the question important enough to make a definitive exploration of the subject?

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's precisely why the debate is not over.

Bruce...you made the point earlier (#292) that "it's logical to conserve resources, try to keep the air and water healthy. And working on reducing our dependency on foreign interests is always the smartest thing to do."

IMO, that should be the focus of the debate. The impact on climate change will just be a plus if nearly all of the national and international scientific bodies in the world are correct in their overwhelming consensus and will certainly do no harm if they are wrong.

Should the focus be more on "drill, baby, drill" or developing cleaner technologies and improving energy efficiency? Or just do nothing while the climate change debate continues endlessly?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I stand by that statement 100%, always have. Deciding how to do that, we have to weigh the cost benefit ratio, and in many cases we don't know what that is. I'm not suggesting every project must have a direct monetary payback, but to try and weed out outrageous waste. So, while attempting to accomplish conservation and cleanliness, the investigation and debate about how we interact with the earth/climate, and it's effect, should continue.
There will probably always be more we don't know, than we do know. More knowledge is gooder.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... So, while attempting to accomplish conservation and cleanliness, the investigation and debate about how we interact with the earth/climate, and it's effect, should continue.
There will probably always be more we don't know, than we do know. More knowledge is gooder.

One thing we do know, with a very high degree of certainty and as near unanimity as can be achieved, is that spewing billions of metric tons of man-made CO2 (from autos and coal-fired power plants) into the environment every year has NO positive impact.

A very few credible scientists believe the impact is negligible and the overwhelming majority believe it has an adverse impact.

There is no reason not to act in an economically sustainable manner and in a manner that reduces dependency on an old (and finite - particularly if limited to US reserves) technology, stimulates new, cleaner energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies....other than the objections of the affected industries with an investment in the status quo.

I have yet to see an argument for not acting now, other than "lets debate it more" even though we know there is nothing positive that can said about the excessive man-made CO2 emissions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There is no reason not to act in an economically sustainable manner and in way that stimulates new energy technologies and improved energy efficiencies....other than the objections of the affected industries with an investment in the status quo.

OK, but the rub, for me at least, is how much, how fast, at what cost?

Example with numbers pulled out of my ass: you want cut CO2 emissions.
To cut 50% costs X dollars and a little social change (suffering, in some people's view).

To cut 75% costs 5X dollars and significant social change.

To cut 90% costs 25X dollars and radical social change.

To cut 95 % costs 100X dollars and revamping our entire way of life.

To cut 98 % I don't even want to go there.

By all means lets get started with the relatively easy/cheap part, but keep on investigating the actual costs, benefits and impact, so we can make more intelligent decisions/plans.
We want to be flexible enough to change directions when new information becomes available, without careening like a pinball every time somebody comes up with a new theory... that's the hard part.

[SamIam]

Agree with Redux. We could forget the entire climate debate and begin to make the change over to renewable energy simply as a matter of national security. Look at the price in lives and money spent on wars in the Middle East so that we can have secure access to petroleum. Even if we manage to corner the market on every petroleum source in the world, oil is still a finite substance. There are no dinosaurs and giant ferns dying away somewhere and undergoing the geologic process that ends in an oil field. It is time for every last one of us to wake up. Look at it this way: If the climatologists are wrong and there's no such thing as global warming, but we go to alternative energy, we will be winners any way. If they are right and we do nothing, we are going to pay a terrible price down the road. Our children and grandchildren will curse us for the chaos we will bequeath to them.

People need to stop treating climate change as if it were an article of faith in some obscure religion. It is real; it is happening now, and we need to act to insure that the world continues to be habitable place for species other than cockroaches.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by SamIam

snip~ We could forget the entire climate debate and begin to make the change over to renewable energy simply as a matter of national security. Look at the price in lives and money spent on wars in the Middle East so that we can have secure access to petroleum. ~ snip

That's what I said, over and over and over...

Self-sufficiency is security, personally, locally and nationally.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

One thing we do know, with a very high degree of certainty and as near unanimity as can be achieved, is that spewing billions of metric tons of man-made CO2 (from autos and coal-fired power plants) into the environment every year has NO positive impact.

The positive impact is elsewhere in the equation: to allow us to live, in numbers, in comfort, and to move around as necessary to drive the economy and improve the standard of living of the entire world.

I have yet to see an argument for not acting now, other than "lets debate it more" even though we know there is nothing positive that can said about the excessive man-made CO2 emissions.

Here are two of them:

Weakening the economy could prevent the massive projection of power, intelligence, influence and will, that will be necessary to get China, India, and Russia to go along with the plan.

There may not be enough general political will to embrace an environmental project aimed at helping something highly abstract, especially during a recession with a deep budget deficit and other big budget items on the table.