Skip to comments.Chill Out
Posted on 01/22/2014 5:38:40 AM PST by Kaslin
The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress, says this year, there will be a major policy battle over "climate change." Why?
We already waste billions on pointless gestures that make people think we're addressing global warming, but the earth doesn't notice or care.
What exactly is "global warming" anyway? That's really four questions:
1. Is the globe warming? Probably. Global temperatures have risen. Climate changes. Always has. Always will.
2. Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is.
3. But is global warming a crisis? Far from it. It's possible that it will become a crisis. Some computer models suggest big problems, but the models aren't very accurate. Some turned out to be utterly wrong. Clueless scaremongers like Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Cal., seize on weather disasters to blame man's carbon output. After Oklahoma's tragic tornadoes last year, Boxer stood on the floor of the Senate and shrieked, "Carbon could cost us the planet!" But there were actually fewer tornadoes last summer.
4. If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it? No. What we do now is pointless. I feel righteous riding my bike to work. That's just shallow. Even if all Americans replaced cars with bicycles, switched to fluorescent light bulbs, got solar water heaters, etc., it would have no discernible effect on the climate. China builds a new coal-fueled power plant almost every week; each one obliterates any carbon reduction from all our windmills and solar panels.
Weirdly, the only thing that's reduced America's carbon output has been our increased use of natural gas (it releases less greenhouse gas than oil and coal). But many environmentalists fight the fracking that produces it.
Someday, we'll probably invent technology that could reduce man's greenhouse gas creation, but we're nowhere close to it now. Rather than punish poor people with higher taxes on carbon and award ludicrous subsidies to Al Gore's "green" investments, we should wait for the science to advance.
If serious warming happens, we can adjust, as we've adjusted to big changes throughout history. It will be easier to adjust if America is not broke after wasting our resources on trendy gimmicks like windmills.
Environmental activists say that if we don't love their regulations, we "don't care about the earth." Bunk. We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats' rules.
We do need some rules. It's good that government built sewage treatment plants. Today, the rivers around Manhattan are so clean that I swim in them. It's good that we forced industry to stop polluting the air. Scrubbers in smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars made our lives better. The air gets cleaner every time someone replaces an old car with a new one.
But those were measures against real pollution -- soot, particulates, sulfur, etc. What global warming hysterics want to fight is merely carbon dioxide. That's what plants breathe. CO2 may prove to be a problem, but we don't know that now.
The world has real problems, though: malaria, malnutrition, desperate poverty. Our own country, while relatively rich, is deep in debt. Obsessing about greenhouse gases makes it harder to address these more serious problems.
Environmentalists assume that as people get richer and use more energy, they pollute more. The opposite is true. As nations industrialize, they pay more attention to pollution. Around the world, it's the most prosperous nations that now have the cleanest air and water.
Industrialization allows people to use fewer resources. Instead of burning trees for power, we make electricity from natural gas. We figure out how to get more food from smaller pieces of land. And one day we'll probably even invent energy sources more efficient than oil and gas. We'll use them because they're cost-effective, not because government forces us to.
So let's chill out about global warming. We don't need more micromanagement from government. We need less.
Then free people -- and rapidly increasing prosperity -- will create a better world.
It is NOT warming, and it is NOT my dang fault.
One thing that I have noticed is that the more of those damn “wind farms” they put up, the worse these storms are. I think the windmills are causing all of this bull****.
If we cause warming, how can we make it get warmer today?
The very best rebuttal to global warming hysterics is to demand that they present a negative case, that does not use circular logic.
Simply put: “Using measurable conditions, what would we see if global warming was *not* taking place? If you were utterly wrong, what would prove it?”
The MMGW hysterics are *desperate* to avoid naming *any* condition that could prove them wrong. They want the idea of MMGW to be magical, not scientific, in character.
They insist that MMGW is “proven” by everything, extremes and means, highs and lows and all in between, with religious fervor. MMGW means that they get power over others and wealth; more government control and the restoration of an elite over “the masses”.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.’ — Humpty Dumpty, in Through The Looking Glass
Man Made Global Warming is like that. It is, precisely because they say it is, evidence notwithstanding. And those who disagree are evil and to be damned, and oppressed if at all possible. It is just another snake cult, led by wannabee Thulsa Dooms.
This sums up my feelings on the issue exactly. I am not a “Denier”, whatever that really means, but I am a skeptic. What I DO deny is the scare mongering and the catastrophism of the Left and this subject. Its the greatest attempted power grab EVER.
But this means that, so long as the global economy is based on capitalism and private property and corporate property and competitive production for market, we're doomed to a collective social suicide - and no amount of tinkering with the market can brake the drive to global ecological collapse. We can't shop our way to sustainability, because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require local, reigional, national and international economic planning to reorganize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends. I conclude, therefore, that if humanity is to save itself, we have no choice but to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a democratically planned eco-socialist economy. [emphasis mine]
We really don't know. Even a thousand year time span is far too short to measure these things. Measurements for the last 200 years are distorted, tainted, and unreliable.
2. Is the warming caused by man?
This is impossible to prove one way or the other.
3. But is global warming a crisis?
Only in the same way that everything is a crisis these days.
4. If the globe is warming, can America do anything about it?
No. Absolutely nothing. If America disappeared tomorrow with its carbon footprint, there would be no measurable change in global temperature (see answer to #1)
The error made by the AGW fear-mongers (almost certainly intentionally) is looking at data from only part of a cycle and assuming / promoting the idea that this is a long-term trend.
Here's a fun fact for people to chew on. Most of the trends "discovered" by the AGW crowd are a few tenths of a degree C over the span of a century or so. Did you know that the historical data used as input into these models has to be adjusted and scaled to account for changing accuracy and precision in measurement techniques and equipment; adjusted and scaled for population changes in the vicinity of the monitoring stations; adjusted and scaled for changes in land use in the vicinity of the monitoring stations etc. These biases and scaling factors are themselves estimates of how such things as population, land use, etc. affect local weather patterns and readings. So they use estimated numbers to adjust the historically inaccurate data (eg. many older readings came from mercury thermometers of questionable calibration via the mark-1 eyeball of even more questionable calibration) The kicker in all this? These adjustments and scaling factors are at least one order of magnitude larger than the very trends they purport to have found in the data! Change your mind on some of the scaling factors a little bit and suddenly you think we're headed for an ice age...
Or if you are a less than scrupulous "researcher" you carefully pick the date you begin your trend analysis on. Pick it in one of the downswings of the global climate cycle and gosh, everything looks "up" from there - we're going to fry! Pick your start date in in one of the upswings of the cycle and everything trends down from there - wow, we're all going to freeze! As they say, the fun thing about statistics is you can work with them and show any dang thing you want to show.
The article was spot on.
#1 is true, a fact during the times of the Roman empire, they were growing grapes for their wine in Scotland of all places and there is ample evidence that Greenland got its name because it was green and not white. His point is that the climate changes all the time and there aint a damned thing any one of us can do about it and furthermore the earth doesn’t even notice or care, period.
If you want further proof, go stand on the edge of the Grand Canyon and for the first time in your life discover your own utter insignificance (that was taken from the GC Lodge visitors book penned by a female physician on her visit in 1898). That blown up volcano next to Flagstaff, along with its caldera in between, had more to do with what we see than most even know.
#2 is actually correct in that he says evidence, not proven fact about AGW. The problem is that assertion is only based on very bad computer models that in no way account for the effects of fluctuations on the sun and the frequency pattern of solar flares.
His main point is that AGW is a giant farce based on assumptions and not peer proven scientific fact, just unproven theory.
A very big case in point was the debacle of the ice patrol last month around Antarctica. The so-called scientific fact finding trip found the wrong facts and damned near killed all the pointy headed fools who embarked on it.
I also think 1. is likely wrong, and 2. is definitely wrong.
What I want to know, as a technical/scientific type of guy, is why some physicists haven’t simply compared the amount of heat that comes to the earth from the sun per year, and compare it to the amount of heat generated by man?
It seems to me that the amount generated - in total - by man would have to be the tiniest fraction of what comes from the sun.
And even idiots know that the heat output from the sun varies.
What am I missing? Yeah, greenhouse gases trap heat, but how much? And where’s the proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
#1 and #2 are both lies... I quit reading this tripe when they opened with a lie.
This is absolutely the case. Hard to care about pollution when you don't know where your next meal is coming from.
Problem is that the left has politicized the science of climatology so much that we'll never really know what's actually happening. This is bad, IMHO.
As for man-made warming (or cooling, whatever), that's some serious hubris on AlGore's part. 'Tis the reason why I pay attention to him, it makes me feel all-powerful..."Conservatives are ruining the weather! Conservatives are ruining the economy!" and so on.... :-)
There’s a meeting of world “leaders” in Davos today...Their topics are world economics and Global warming. ..
They want total control!
One of the researchers traveled to the area where it was found, now a place so cold that snow covers it for 3/4 of a year.
Said scientist wondered why a wooly mammoth would be that far north in such a harsh climate. He reckoned that during the time of the animal's short life, the area was a steppe and the moderate climate supported all sorts of animals no longer with us.
Without missing a beat, my 13 year old boy stated that it must have been warmer back then and that the climate change to colder weather there ultimately had a hand in the extinctions of many animals that depended upon area.
I'm glad something so obvious is understood by my son, and that the man-caused climate change b.s. being thrown at him in school is going in one ear and out the other.
I later told my boy that I'm going to lobby for a government funded grant to study how long ago T.Rex was killing all those cute polar bears which then forced the smart penguins to swim from the Arctic to the Antarctic for their safety. He laughed and said that sounds about as real as humans causing the earth to warm.
Then you missed a good article.
Stop it, Mr. Stossel!
Feeding them FACTS only enrages them!
Correct. It is a religious cult; it is not a scientific movement.
Will you please read them again, very carefully, and then point out the lies for those of us who can not find them?
The ban on atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons spelled the beginning of the end for all humankind.
The particulate matter such testing spewed in to the upper atmosphere was helping to keep global warming at bay.
Following the ban, it took more than 50 years for the positive effects of atmospheric nuclear testing to dissipate; but now that they have diminished to near zero the planet will be so hot as to be unlivable by the year 2050. If want to save the earth we MUST bring back above-ground testing of nuclear weapons!
That is my theory. I LOVE my theory. I shall entertain NO arguments against it, no matter how factual they may be, and no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented!
CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas, and according to geologic record it increases in the atmosphere 400-800 years AFTER the warming.
I believe you but I also know that globull warming is just an organized scam against man... the largest ever conceived and its end is one of the transfer of wealth and power to one class of ruling elite.
#1 THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN THE PAST 17 YEARS
#2 IF THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN 17 YEARS, MAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY CAUSE IT
Sorry, still don’t see any LIES.
What exactly is “global warming” anyway? That’s really four questions:
1. Is the globe warming? *******Probably********(Lie). Global temperatures have risen**********(Lie). Climate changes. Always has. Always will.
2. Is the warming caused by man? Maybe. There’s decent evidence that at least some of it is*********(Lie).
"Maybe. There's decent evidence that at least some of it is" qualifies as an expression of opinion. Sort of like YOUR opinion that "man could not possibly" cause it.
I believe the truth of hard evidence and all hard evidence points to weather stations placed so as to increase the temps that they record, data massaged for the same end (hockey stick East Anglia) and peer reviewed data that is based on all falsified data. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe but even the head climatologist from MIT is calling out these criminal con men.
Thank you for bestowing my freedoms on me.
If you read my postings here, you might find that I am, for the most part, in agreement with you - uo to the point where you called John Stossel a liar.
Which I am more than free to do. I bestowed nothing... I just do not want to argue with you over this... you will not change my mind and I am not going to change yours. Therefore I see no reason to continue in a circular argument. We can see things differently and still be fellow FReepers. My name is not Cuomo.
Good! Neither is mine.
Have a nice day.
You too my friend.
I think our point is that had you read the rest of the article, you would see that essentially, we are all in agreement with the conclusions in the article. Stossel is on our side!
Which, of course, is exactly what the liberals want to do. They would rather rant about climate change than explain how they plan to deal with the national debt or Obamacare.
Ok, I’ll go read it as soon as I get home from work. Thanks.
To say some scientific claim is a "lie" means there is "proof" which automatically means it is not science, but dogma.
Good points. We can’t really do anything about greenhouse gases without draconian measures. And we shouldn’t really try to. If there is any warming, or sea level rising, whether it be of natural or man made causes, we should adapt.
So far, we haven’t see anything like what the models predict.
Don’t give up your freedom to a bunch of liberals who want to rule the world. They’re not half as bright as they think they are.
” We can love nature and still hate the tyranny of bureaucrats’ rules.”
The head Climatologist at MIT says we are not warming any longer and have not been in 17 years. You need to get with this "Climate Change" mantra... we are now going to freeze to death. I wonder if the goracle still thinks the Earth has a fever of "millions of degrees"? Here is just one such study. I cannot believe that there are gullible people on FR that still buy into this communist plot. You do know that the head of the UN says that COMMUNISTS are best to handle GLOBULL WARMING?
"Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year pause to the cooling since 2002
Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling: Russias Pulkovo Observatory: We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years
Sun Sleeps: Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declares global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning enjoy global warming while it lasts
Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns global COOLING is almost a slam dunk for up to 30 years or more
Australian Astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Suns activity significantly diminishes
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJune 15, 2013 2:55 PM
Climate Depot Exclusive Round Up of Global Cooling predictions
Professor Judith Curry of, the chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, on June 14, 2013: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year pause to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the climate shift circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr pause.
Climate Depot Note:
Many scientists in recent years have noted the recent global cooling and predicted many years to decades to centuries of more global cooling. Below is a sampling of scientists and studies on global cooling.
UW-Milwaukee Professors Peer-Reviewed Study Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling January 2010: A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor is making headlines for his work suggesting the world is entering a period of global cooling. Now were getting a break, Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UWM, said in an interview with the MacIver Institute. Tsonis published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years."
However your references are correct about the potential for global cooling, The sun primarily warms the oceans (unlike additional "back radiation" from additional CO2). As the solar activity decreases the oceans start to cool albeit unevenly since the sun and clouds are uneven. That cooling is essentially "in the pipeline" but masked by leftover warmth from the historically high solar activity in the 20th century. Here's a chart:
Looking at the chart, what is most likely to happen is cooling in perhaps 6-10 years. Looking at the last century, the cold period peaked around 1918 and it warmed steadily from 1920 to 1940. Even the global warming advocates admit that the warming from 1920 to 1940 was at least 1/2 natural. I think it is more. Likewise a large portion of the warming that we saw in the 90's was natural and can be explained by looking at the chart. A rough formula is solar activity plus a 10-15 year lag and continuing temperature drop as long as solar activity stays low.
But while cooling is likely, none of that invalidates the science behind the "warming ability"* of CO2 nor the near certainty that all the "extra" CO2 is manmade.
*Note: Extra CO2 does not "warm", it only decreases cooling. The earth is always cooling since only the sun provides warmth.
The CO2 boogie man science is just that. Core samples do not back up hansen’s claims. This is one explanation from 2009. More recent data is out there. No sense arguing... I do not think that I will change your mind nor will you change mine. I do research and believe what I see to be the truth. The truth as I see it is that those that claimed that the fish in the seas would be dead by now, Arizona would be the new California and that snow and ice would be a thing children read about in the History books are part of a organized con greater than any ever conceived by man. I do appreciate your civility in the discussion that we have had.
CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages
Posted on January 30, 2009 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony English is not Franks primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that its the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Carbon dioxide is plant food. The more of it we release into the atmosphere, the easier it is to grow more food to feed humanity.
It shows you how ignorant the left is
That's true. The earth starts warming from solar changes, then CO2 is released from the warming oceans. But look at that chart:
It shows a 50 ppm rise in CO2 for about each 3-4 C rise in temperature or about 15 ppm rise for each 1 degree rise. Following the Little Ice Age which peaked in the late 1800's the earth has warmed about 1 degree (less in the oceans but let's assume they warmed 1C also). That would produce about 15 ppm rise in CO2. In the 1800's CO2 was at 280 ppm. Now it is about 395ppm, a rise of 115ppm. The "extra" amount of rise (100 ppm) is almost certainly from manmade CO2.
There are other possibilities like volcanic origin, but scant evidence for them. The largest volcanoes might emit 100 of MT (Pinatubo was 42) and manmade CO2 is 9000 MT. Another possibility is that some other natural flux is involved. There is a large natural flux of 100's of 1000's of MT each year. But that is mostly released in fall and absorbed in spring by dying and growing plants in the northern hemisphere.
The main problem with suggesting a natural origin comes form the graph. Current CO2 is higher than previous periods as shown by the thin red line on the top right. But it is also true that each increase in CO2 has less of an effect than the previous (a logarithmic rise) So the warming from doubling of CO2 alone will be a very modest 1C subject to possible positive or negative feedbacks.