Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The heat is on
The Economist ^ | Sep 7th 2006 | The Economist

Posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:39 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way

FOR most of the Earth's history, the planet has been either very cold, by our standards, or very hot. Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming. Eighteen thousand years ago there was ice two miles thick in Scotland and, because of the size of the ice sheets, the sea level was 130m lower. Ice-core studies show that in some places dramatic changes happened remarkably swiftly: temperatures rose by as much as 20°C in a decade. Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress.

Man-made greenhouse gases now threaten this stability. Climate change is complicated and uncertain, but, as our survey this week explains, the underlying calculation is fairly straightforward. The global average temperature is expected to increase by between 1.4°C and 5.8°C this century. The bottom end of the range would make life a little more comfortable for northern areas and a little less pleasant for southern ones. Anything much higher than that could lead to catastrophic rises in sea levels, increases in extreme weather events such as hurricanes, flooding and drought, falling agricultural production and, perhaps, famine and mass population movement.

Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.

This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackling the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent it are, by definition, unclear. What's more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert an uncertain, distant risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?

If the risk is big enough, yes. Governments do it all the time. They spend a small slice of tax revenue on keeping standing armies not because they think their countries are in imminent danger of invasion but because, if it happened, the consequences would be catastrophic. Individuals do so too. They spend a little of their incomes on household insurance not because they think their homes are likely to be torched next week but because, if it happened, the results would be disastrous. Similarly, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the risk of a climatic catastrophe is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening.

And the slice of global output that would have to be spent to control emissions is probably not huge. The cost differential between fossil-fuel-generated energy and some alternatives is already small, and is likely to come down. Economists trying to guess the ultimate cost of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations to 550 parts per million or below (the current level is 380ppm, 450ppm is reckoned to be ambitious and 550ppm liveable with) struggle with uncertainties too. Some models suggest there would be no cost; others that global output could be as much as 5% lower by the end of the century than if there were no attempt to control emissions. But most estimates are at the low end—below 1%.

What Kyoto did The Kyoto protocol, which tried to get the world's big polluters to commit themselves to cutting emissions to 1990 levels or below, was not a complete failure. European Union countries and Japan will probably hit their targets, even if Canada does not. Kyoto has also created a global market in carbon reduction, which allows emissions to be cut relatively efficiently. But it will not have much impact on emissions, and therefore on the speed of climate change, because it does not require developing countries to cut their emissions, and because America did not ratify it.

The United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, though not for long. Every year China is building power-generating capacity almost equivalent to Britain's entire stock, almost all of it burning coal—the dirtiest fuel. It will shortly overtake America, and India is not far behind. Developing countries argue, quite reasonably, that, since the rich world created the problem, it must take the lead in solving it. So, if America continues to refuse to do anything to control its emissions, developing countries won't do anything about theirs. If America takes action, they just might.

Two measures are needed. One is an economic tool which puts a price on emitting greenhouse gases. That could be a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, such as Europe's Emissions-Trading Scheme, which limits how much producers can emit, and lets them buy and sell emissions credits. Ideally, politicians would choose the more efficient carbon tax, which implies a relatively stable price that producers can build into their investment plans. The more volatile cap-and-trade system, however, is easier to sell to producers, who can get free allowances when the scheme is introduced.

Either of these schemes should decrease the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of alternatives. In doing so, they are bound to raise energy prices. To keep down price rises, and thus ease the political process, governments should employ a second tool: spending to help promising new technologies get to market. Carbon sequestration, which offers the possibility of capturing carbon produced by dirty power stations and storing it underground, is a prime candidate.

Although George Bush now argues that America needs to wean itself off its dependency on oil, his administration still refuses to take serious action. But other Americans are moving. California's state assembly has just passed tough Kyoto-style targets. Many businesses, fearing that they will end up having to deal with a patchwork of state-level measures, now want federal controls. And conservative America, once solidly sceptical, is now split over the issue, as Christians concerned about mankind's stewardship of the Earth, neo-cons keen to reduce America's dependency on the Middle East and farmers who see alternative energy as a new potential source of energy come round to the idea of cutting down on carbon.

Mr Bush has got two years left in the job. He would like to be remembered as a straightshooter who did the right thing. Tackling climate change would be one way to do that.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: carbon; climatechange; economics; emissions; energy; floods; globalwarming; ice; oceans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last
This is the free for everyone leader that is on the website. There is a more in-depth story in for those with subscriptions.

The Economist generally does a pretty good job of putting debates like this in perspective in a fairly balanced way. Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.

The cost that would be associated with action in this Pascal's wager is far below the cost of being wrong.

1 posted on 09/10/2006 12:35:40 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

They've been promising us this and every winter ... the snow still comes


2 posted on 09/10/2006 12:39:01 AM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Now there is an ingelligent reply (/sarcasm)

Do you know the difference between climate and weather?


3 posted on 09/10/2006 12:43:02 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pfony1

ping


4 posted on 09/10/2006 12:43:47 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Well aren't we in a testy mood tonight


5 posted on 09/10/2006 12:44:59 AM PDT by Mo1 (Think about it .. A Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be 2 seats away from being President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The planet might go a little whacky...again. We aren't doing it; we can't stop it; it ain't Bush's fault.


6 posted on 09/10/2006 12:47:15 AM PDT by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Pascals Wager or, with India and China, Pascal's Flaw?


7 posted on 09/10/2006 12:54:21 AM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The comparisons to keeping standing armies or paying for insurance are way off base. In both those cases, the risks are much much greater than that of the purported manmade climate risk, and much more quantifiable. How many wars have we seen in the last ten years? The last fifty? The last century? How many houses have we seen destroyed by fire or wind or flood in the last year, let alone the last ten, fifty, or hundred? Now, compare that with how many manmade global warming or global cooling catastrophes we've seen over a comparable time period, or, if you wish, over all of recorded human history, or, in fact, over all of geologic history.

There is a much more cost-effective way to fight global warming that will have about the same effectiveness as the Kyoto accords - namely, a worldwide network of prayer circles led by shamans and wizards. In fact, at only a small marginal increase in cost, we could add tom-tom drummers to the prayer circles and boost their effectiveness by an order of magnitude. I guarantee you without fear of contradiction that it will have comparable results to Kyoto...

8 posted on 09/10/2006 12:55:17 AM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

What do you menan? I don't understand it exactly.

It seems to me that China and India are cultures that might very well be convinced to adopt technologies that allow them to continue their economic growth without compromising the planet's potential to sustain it.

But they arent going to take the lead. To say they won't play ball just as a reason to do nothing is pretty poor logic and incredibly reckless.


9 posted on 09/10/2006 12:57:30 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Sooner or later as we run out of oil and coal , some other source of energy becomes cheaper, problem solved. (It also has the nice effect of depriving the Islamic world of it's main source of income!)


Since we will still be using lumber , plastic and paper in that future world and probably just burying it after it's used the amount of carbon in the ecosystem in the real long run will more likely decrease making the world get colder! So enjoy our day in the sun rather than create some Gestapo like organization designed to stop it!

10 posted on 09/10/2006 1:01:01 AM PDT by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo

I do think the analogy is appropriate.

The Montreal Protocol is an example of preventing a man-made catastrophe.

The human economy has never been large enough to affect the global climate so there aren't past examples. Now it is. Comparing the past is like wondering why there was no fire insurance before humans discovered fire. Or why people living in mountains have no flood insurance.


11 posted on 09/10/2006 1:04:29 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Life is dangerous. I'm glad I have AC in the winter and hot water in the winter....and a place to stay out of the rain. I'm happy we use oil. Can you imagine what would happen if 7 billion people had to revert to cooking and heating with wood?


12 posted on 09/10/2006 1:11:58 AM PDT by Dallas59 (ISLAMOFASCISM!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I'll take an interest when someone proves to me that 0.04% of the atmosphere can produce more than a negligible warming impact on the remaning 99.96%.


13 posted on 09/10/2006 1:12:27 AM PDT by Outland (Socialism IS the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

AC in the summer...I mean..


14 posted on 09/10/2006 1:12:41 AM PDT by Dallas59 (ISLAMOFASCISM!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Outland
The sun is 0.2% more energetic and conveniently the planet's temperature is believed to have increased 0.2%.

But we can use this to fool the free world in to paying
a global TAX to create a Marxist global government.
Mankind needs to have his development arrested to keep the sky from falling.

Carl Marx must be so proud of the author of this article.
15 posted on 09/10/2006 1:20:52 AM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Outland

The earth's system is a balance. If you ever tilt a sensitive balance by .04% you see that it changes.

Good attempt to use a Rush /Exxon talking point though.


16 posted on 09/10/2006 1:20:52 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Can anyone here explain : what's wrong with summer edging out winter?


17 posted on 09/10/2006 1:22:20 AM PDT by timer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The system could right itself or spin out of human control.

Afterall, this is more about science and economics than about partisan politics.

ROTFLMAO!

Global warming is nothing but pork for scientists and poiticians. Prove it exists.

18 posted on 09/10/2006 1:23:31 AM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
I remain unconvinced. That precise argument could have been made in, say, 1930, or 1940, or 1950, and so on. Yet we experienced global cooling between the 1940's and mid 70's.

The Pascal's Wager applies equally well for the wizard example as it does for Kyoto and its variants. It's hardly a sound basis on which to make decisions of enormous import and impact. A better basis would be "first, do no harm"...

19 posted on 09/10/2006 1:24:45 AM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: timer

Are you seriously saying you don't understand the potential consequences of a signficant change in the climate?

Droughts, extreme weather, uncertain growing seasons, floods, just to start with.


20 posted on 09/10/2006 1:25:29 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Trteamer

You didn't read the article did you?

Dio you know what Pascal's wager is?


21 posted on 09/10/2006 1:25:56 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
"It's hardly a sound basis on which to make decisions of enormous import and impact."

Wat's the matter? Your not going to let the enviro-wacko's hold your wallet?
22 posted on 09/10/2006 1:28:51 AM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
I remain unconvinced.

I didn't expect to convince you. At the end of the day, powerful, level headed people are convinced and are taking action. Again and again I have written that we need a Republican solution to this problem that will be focused on solving it with the lowest cost and disruption.

Otherwise the left is going to implement a solution that maximizes their power.

The right is dropping the ball on an issue that will come to haunt it. Of that I am convinced.

Even if you don't buy the science the momentum is such that action is not going to be avoided. Regardless, at least using less oil is good for security.

23 posted on 09/10/2006 1:32:06 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"Dio you know what Pascal's wager is?

It pertains to belief in GOD, not enviro wacko's, rip-off phony scientists, and Karl Marx.
24 posted on 09/10/2006 1:33:01 AM PDT by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Global warming is a Political Discussion, not a Scientific, for legitimate weather scientists there is no connection of man to global warming. It is the socialist and fascist that are trying to convince people to give up their rights and money so that it can be redistributed. Watch UN get involved in exchanging carbon credits. They have been looking for a money source for ages. Remember that all Global Warming is based on computer models, so it’s junk in, junk out.


25 posted on 09/10/2006 1:33:52 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
We are all doomed. I feel this may all be a ruse to make the companies that make sunblock, boats, Ethanol, Hybrid Cars, Recyclers, Weathermen, Climatatologists, Astronomers and Halliburton to increase their sales.

/sarc

I digress, If anyone hasn't said it... It's Bush's Fault!

/end clever cliched analogy
26 posted on 09/10/2006 1:35:54 AM PDT by lmr (The answers to life don't involve complex solutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

I read the whole thing. What is certanly clear is that there is a socialist bias in the whole thing. After reading your bio, I conclude that you are also a socialist.

I don't buy what your selling. The sky is falling and it's all Bush's fault. What a load of bull.


27 posted on 09/10/2006 1:38:59 AM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Trteamer

Would you please point out the language you consider a "socialist bias". Also could you convincingly argue that there aren't a limited number of natural resources on our finite planet.


28 posted on 09/10/2006 1:42:24 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

"...Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress."

How does the author, who purports to understand the science and mathematics behind the global warming argument, justify his claim that a 10,000 year plateau constitutes a "lull" when the climactic temperature fluctuation periods he cites are millions of years long?

In other words, the Jurassic Period was millions of years long, and the Earth was hot the whole time through. If, during the Jurassic Period, a couple thousand years occurred here and there that were cooler than Jurassic average (i.e. equivalent to a modern-day climate), it would not move the Jurassic thermal average even slightly, nor would there be much paleontological evidence of such a comparatively brief cold spell.

So, he has no basis by which to assert that the 10,000 years we've been enjoying in this "midway" state are the result of some kind of delicate balance that's being shattered by human activity. Quite the contrary, it appears that he's stating that this temperate spell is more or less unnatural, or at the very least highly unusual, and we would be fools to assume that the Earth will remain in this state regardless of human activity. Rather, according to his argument, the natural state of Earth is to be either "very hot" or "very cold", and sooner or later it's going to revert to one of those two extremes. So we'd better be ready for it, because it's going to happen regardless of how many SUVs you take off the streets or how many cows you put diapers on.


29 posted on 09/10/2006 1:43:48 AM PDT by Omedalus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
The earth's system is a balance.

That's a bad assumption. The Earth's system is an ongoing fluctuation. This is a stupid article. Here's why:

"Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress."

Total crap. The flucuations didn't stop 10,000 years ago. Ever hear of the Little Ice Age? The Medieval Warm Period? Two major fluctuations in just the last 1,000 years. There are others during the history of civilization. Do some reading.

30 posted on 09/10/2006 1:45:03 AM PDT by Invisible Gorilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Invisible Gorilla

Did you read the world "wild" in the statment you then countereed with the "little" ice age and "minor" warming.

Reading comprehension my FRiend.


31 posted on 09/10/2006 1:46:38 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Omedalus

That is the point I take issue with as well.

In fact, the real point is the speed with which the current climate change is taking place, not that it is, in fact, taking place. If we were experiencing a very, very slow change than there would be no reason to suspect human interference. The fact that it is happening about 100 times faster than naturally and coincides with an exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere which just so happened to coincide with an exponential increase in human burning of fossil fuels is what leads me to believe that humans are affecting the change to some degree.


32 posted on 09/10/2006 1:49:05 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
At the end of the day, powerful, level headed people are convinced and are taking action. Again and again I have written that we need a Republican solution to this problem that will be focused on solving it with the lowest cost and disruption.

Leaving 'science' aside, your reasoning on the politics of the issue sounds uncomfortably close to acknowledging that 'we' have already lost and that 'our' only recourse is to accept defeat, but that maybe by jumping on the bandwagon we can mitigate some of the worst effects of that loss. That was the reaction of many to the supposedly unstoppable growth of worldwide Socialism and Communism, to the immigration issue, to the rise in Islamist extremism, to Democrat control of Congress, and so forth. Luckily, others have not accepted that those causes are or were lost, and this one shouldn't be surrendered easily either.

But I am going to surrender to exhaustion and get some sleep...

33 posted on 09/10/2006 1:49:12 AM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo

I gotta go too. But using more efficient cars, and alternative energy grown in-country and developing exportable technologies doesnt quite seem like the equivalent of surrendering to global communism. At least in my way of looking at things. Of course, if you are an Exxon executive, it could look different.


34 posted on 09/10/2006 1:53:39 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Dear Economist,



I am disappointed that you would print “The heat is on” - Sep 7th 2006.



So called Global Warming is a part of a socialist agenda. As stated by Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart. 'No matter if the science is all phony there are collateral environmental benefits.' ….” Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept.”



As reported in technology review the prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech



In more memorable words it the old junk in junk out computer model.



I can not believe that the Economist is not aware of this. So one has to ask why do you continue to ruin your reputation by continuing this myth, unless you too have a socialist agenda.



If you lie about this, what else do you lie about? As they say, once you find a cockroach in your salad, you don’t continue to look for more. You send the salad back.



I suggest you no longer publish garbage opinion pieces that push the socialist global warming lies. And start publishing TRUTHFUL articles.



All this talk about carbon is to make a market in world carbon credits, that will be controlled by the UN. They have been looking for a source of income, and this may be a start. Then they will have funding to destroy democracies and push the world toward a one world socialist government. As Lennon indicated, you have become a useful idiot.



Exton

San Francisco, CA USA


35 posted on 09/10/2006 1:56:03 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

To believe in global warming you have to believe the following:

1. That the earth’s temperatures regions were stable, and never changed due to natural causes.
2. That an ice age 16,000 years ago, was not natural, so that warming since then is not natural.
3. That over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years, were not naturally caused.
4. That the earth is dead. The oceans, rain forest, volcanoes, plant growth, or clouds have no effect on the environment.
5. Mankind in all omnipotent. Only we effect the environment. A few of us with aerosol cans will create Ozone holes, and global warming. An exploding volcano that spews more chemical is the air in one belch than mankind has done in its total existence has no affect on the atmosphere.
6. Only western cultures have any effect on the environment. Anything out of China, or a third world country is natural or has no effect.
7. That people have no memories about all the doom and gloom predictions that NEVER even came close to being a fact.
8. That raising the average temperature of the worlds artic Poles from, -60 to -40 will melt ice.
9. That raising temperatures is a bad thing, and has no benefit to any animal or plant. If temperatures rise and we use less oil to heat our home, or that Florida organs will never be ruined do to frost bite, are all bad things.
10. That mankind has more power over global temperatures than the Sun does.
11. That if you take all of the worlds green house gases and represent them by a column 1 mile high, mankind’s contribution is 3/8 of an inch. This contribution will raise global temperatures like urinating in the Ocean will raise the water level.

Those who proclaim Man Made Global warming are FRAUDS, SNAKE OIL SALESMEN. .


36 posted on 09/10/2006 1:57:52 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Did you read the world "wild" in the statment you then countereed with the "little" ice age and "minor" warming.

Reading comprehension my FRiend.

If those fluctuations were "minor," then any current fluctuation is nothing to worry about because the fluctuations you dismiss were bigger than anything that's allegedly happening now. You aren't my friend, you're itching for a pseudo-environmental dictatorship.

Try a dose of scientific comprehension.

37 posted on 09/10/2006 1:58:58 AM PDT by Invisible Gorilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Omedalus
Bingo.

GLOBAL WARMING PRIMER

38 posted on 09/10/2006 2:13:12 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Would you please point out the language you consider a "socialist bias"

"human control,

the risk of a climatic catastrophe is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening.

The Kyoto protocol

Developing countries argue, quite reasonably, that, since the rich world created the problem, it must take the lead in solving it

That could be a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, such as Europe's Emissions-Trading Scheme

California's state assembly has just passed tough Kyoto-style targets.

The human economy has never been large enough to affect the global climate so there aren't past examples. Now it is.

Good attempt to use a Rush /Exxon talking point though

Roughly 300 years after this "industrial revolution" he has managed to build a civilization that spans the globe and is capable of exploiting all available resources."

I don't buy what you are selling. It's all scare tactics to blame the United States. Scientists want grant money, politicians want tax money, and socialtists and communists want power. Global warming is a man made scheme to accomplish just that.

39 posted on 09/10/2006 2:14:59 AM PDT by Trteamer ( (Eat Meat, Wear Fur, Own Guns, FReep Leftists, Drive an SUV, Drill A.N.W.R., Drill the Gulf, Vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

We know the earth's climate has changed substantially many times in the past. It is pure folly (and a bit arrogant too) to think we have any meaningful control over it and that we can prevent these changes from happening again.

There's another "green house" gas that traps far more heat than CO2. There is also far, far more of it...

It's called water vapor.

Though rarely mentioned...

We'll simply have to adapt. And ultimately we need to get off this rock.


40 posted on 09/10/2006 3:03:26 AM PDT by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

FOR most of the Earth's history, the planet has been either very cold, by our standards, or very hot. Fifty million years ago there was no ice on the poles and crocodiles lived in Wyoming. Eighteen thousand years ago there was ice two miles thick in Scotland and, because of the size of the ice sheets, the sea level was 130m lower. Ice-core studies show that in some places dramatic changes happened remarkably swiftly: temperatures rose by as much as 20°C in a decade. Then, 10,000 years ago, the wild fluctuations stopped, and the climate settled down to the balmy, stable state that the world has enjoyed since then. At about that time, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, mankind started to progress.

I rather doubt that, unless of course you figure the earth is no longer in the same orbit it entered and has sustained for the last three million years.

 

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

 

In Figure 1-6, the 10 kyr years of agriculture and civilization appear as a sudden rise in temperature barely visible squeezed against the left hand axis of the plot. The temperature of 1950 is indicated by the horizontal line. As is evident from the data, civilization was created in an unusual time.

There are several important features to notice in these data, all of which will be discussed further in the remainder of the book. For the last million years or so (the left most third of the plot) the oscillations have had a cycle of about 100 kyr (thousand years). That is, the enduring period of ice is broken, roughly every 100 kyr, by a brief interglacial. During this time, the terminations of the ice ages appear to be particularly abrupt, as you can see from the sudden jumps that took place near 0, 120, 320, 450, and 650 thousand years ago. This has led scientists to characterize the data as shaped like a "sawtooth," although the pattern is not perfectly regular.

Figure 1-6 Climate of the last 3 million years

But as we look back beyond a 1000 kyr (1 million years), the character changes completely. The cycle is much shorter (it averages 41 kyr), the amplitude is reduced, the average value is higher (indicating that the ice ages were not as intense) and there is no evidence for the sawtooth shape. These are the features that ice age theories endeavor to explain. Why did the transition take place? What are the meanings of the frequencies? (We will show that they are well-known astronomical frequencies.) In the period immediately preceding the data shown here, older than 3 million years, the temperature didn’t drop below the 1950 value, and we believe that large glaciers didn’t form – perhaps only small ones, such as we have today in Greenland and Antarctica.

 

Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller* and Gordon J. MacDonald

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
by Richard A. Muller

Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning


Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.

***

Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.

 

 

There is evidence from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (ref 39) of a narrow dust band extending only two degrees from the invariable plane. The precise location of these bands is uncertain; they may be orbiting in resonant lock with the Earth (ref 40, 41). It is not clear that these bands contain sufficient material to cause the observed climate effects. We note, however, that even small levels of accretion can scavenge greenhouse gases from the stratosphere, and cool the Earth's climate through the mechanism proposed by Hoyle (ref 30). The dust could also affect climate by seeding the formation of much larger ice crystals. The accreting material could be meteoric, originating as particles too large to give detectable infrared radiation.

Data on noctilucent clouds (mesospheric clouds strongly associated with the effects of high meteors and high altitude dust) supports the hypothesis that accretion increase significantly when the Earth passes through the invariable plane. As shown in Figure 6, a strong peak in the number of observed noctilucent clouds occurs on about July 9 in the northern hemisphere (ref 41, 42) within about a day of the date when the Earth passes through the invariable plane (indicated with an arrow). In the southern hemisphere the peak is approximately on January 9, also consistent with the invariable plane passage, but the data are sparse. The coincidence of the peaks of the clouds with the passage through the invariable plane had not previously been noticed, and it supports the contention that there is a peak in accretion at these times. On about the same date there is a similarly narrow peak is observed in the number of polar mesospheric clouds (ref43) and there is a broad peak in total meteoric flux (ref 44). It is therefore possible that it is the trail of meteors in the upper atmosphere, rather than dust, that is responsible for the climate effects.


Fig 6. Frequency of noctilucent clouds vs. day of year, in (A) the northern hemisphere, and in (B) the sourthern hemisphere (ref 41, 42). The arrows indicate the dates when the earth passes through the invariable plane. The coincidence of these dates with the maxima in the noctilucent clouds suggests the presence of a thin ring around the sun. Peaks on the same dates are seen in Polar mesospheric clouds (ref 44) and in radar counts of meteors.

 

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

 

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006

High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

41 posted on 09/10/2006 3:25:43 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invisible Gorilla

Agreed.
BTTT


42 posted on 09/10/2006 3:38:57 AM PDT by mother22wife21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DB
It's called water vapor. LOL. Wanted to bump that.
43 posted on 09/10/2006 3:54:17 AM PDT by mother22wife21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Also could you convincingly argue that there aren't a limited number of natural resources on our finite planet.

The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment

44 posted on 09/10/2006 4:24:20 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

The volitile emissions of the ink required for this drivel is a major contributor. When combined with the poitical hot air from algore the gaseous compound rejects radiation.


45 posted on 09/10/2006 4:27:54 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. We will screw you inshallah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
a worldwide network of prayer circles led by shamans and wizards. In fact, at only a small marginal increase in cost, we could add tom-tom drummers to the prayer circles and boost their effectiveness by an order of magnitude.

I like your proposal and heartily endorse it. Now, if we can figure out a way for liberals to be exclusively taxed for this service.

46 posted on 09/10/2006 5:04:17 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (If DemocRATS are elected they are going to kill Christmas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Excellent information! Even I learned something. The real question is: Since the world gets hotter and colder all the time, what is the most desirable temperature? A little hotter? A little colder? My wife wants it a little hotter! For those that want it a little colder, a satellite at L-1 would do the trick. The climate is very sensitive to the intensity of the sun. Currently, I ascribe to the theory that methane has moderated the wild swings in temperature. So actually, man has made the climate better for man. If the world started getting colder in the future, how could we keep my wife happy and turn up the temperature? Good question! Nope, increasing CO2 wouldn't do it. Increasing the reflectivity of the moon might be an interesting though experiment.

Next time that you meet a rabid "the ice caps are melting" liberal, make a little money. Put ice and water in a glass and fill it right up to the brim. This is your very own North Pole ice cap. Bet them that when the ice melts, it will not overflow. (Unconfined ice displaces the exact amount of water as it would if it was liquid.)
47 posted on 09/10/2006 5:04:41 AM PDT by Revolutionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer




Bookmark Bump.

Good info; thanks.



48 posted on 09/10/2006 5:18:35 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Ho-hum


49 posted on 09/10/2006 5:30:43 AM PDT by Frwy (Eternity without Jesus is a hell-of-a long time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

Looks to me like it'll be an early and very cold winter here in MN. I had to drag out my sweatshirts already this week. If there's gonna be global warming, send me some!


50 posted on 09/10/2006 5:32:52 AM PDT by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson