Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth (straight talk)

Washington Post ^ | 07/05/2006 | Robert Samuelson

[cogitator]

I am in full agreement. Also for consideration:

Acid Oceans

I also agree with this one.

[AppyPappy]

If we don't do something, every human will eventually die.

[RightWhale]

Contrast the planning for terraforming Mars to the planning for terraforming earth. There is a major disjoint, both in who is planning and in what they think they can accomplish.

[Paloma_55]

I have a problem with the suggestion that global warming is subject to "engineering changes".

Greenhouse gasses? Yes, I think we could do something about them if in fact, we determined they mattered...which has not been proven.

But global warming is currently unproven to have a humankind component to it. Prior global temperature rises were higher than the current one, are periodic, and appeared long before human activity.



This is similar to suggesting that we have to solve a flat tire by re-engineering the car..when the flat tire has nothing to do with the design, it has to do with a nail that we had no control over.

[MrConfettiMan]

If we don't do something, every human will eventually die.

I agree.

[Paloma_55]

Ya know, everyone complains about global warming but nobody does anything about it.

I think we should all open our refrigerator doors on Friday at 2pm PST. This rapid surge of cold air into the environment will probably do the trick.

At least its an effort...nobody can say we didn't do something!

[Mogollon]

The inconvenient truth for the environmentalist whackos is that there is no correlation between rising C02 emmissions and the 0.7 degree C rise in global temperature.

The CO2 level was rising between 1940 and 1970 but the average global temperature dropped during that period.

[cogitator]

Prior global temperature rises were higher than the current one, are periodic, and appeared long before human activity.

Certainly, but the key area of the plot you posted is the area subsequent to the last glacial period termination. Even though the resolution of this graph is coarse for that time period, it should be discernible that temperatures have been fairly stable. In fact, since the last glacial period the temperatures for this interglacial have been abnormally stable for the Pleistocene interglacials. That's why human activities, which have forced the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere about 80 ppm higher than the natural peak values seen in the data (the red line in the plot) are adding a perturbation to a stable climate period. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere alters Earth's radiative balance such that a global temperature increase would be the likeliest outcome.

[Armando Guerra]

I've seen that graph posted before. Looks to me like global cooling will be the bigger problem longterm.

[Paradox]

These are engineering problems which, if implemented, could be a GREAT boon for conservative processes. Nuclear Energy, combined with renewable fuel sources (Ethanol, if we could bioengineer something with a much more favorable conversion ratio, it would be a great start), plus carbon sequestration. I am of the opinion that the only practical hope for us is Technology.

[Paradox]

Hey, MCM, how are you! Good to see you post :)

[cogitator]

The inconvenient truth for the environmentalist whackos is that there is no correlation between rising C02 emmissions and the 0.7 degree C rise in global temperature.

See post 5. Your assertion is not scientifically supported.

The CO2 level was rising between 1940 and 1970 but the average global temperature dropped during that period.

Post-hoc analysis of this period indicates that the cooling was likely a combination of natural variability and sulfate aerosols introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of coal.

[Publius6961]

the IEA [International Energy Agency] simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent." ...

What part of GIGO do these clowns continue to refuse to understand?
In order to "predict" anything, the penomena and all their nuances must be fully understood. I continue to believe that, even in 2106, that will not be the case.

[cogitator]

I am of the opinion that the only practical hope for us is Technology.

I am in accord with your opinion.

[Publius6961]

I also agree with this one.

I don't. At least not in the alarmist sense in which it was intended to be delivered.

Whatever happened to "adaptation"?

[bigfootbob]

"I am of the opinion that the only practical hope for us is Technology.

The only hope for us is to grow a backbone and stop being scared of our shadows. We are not causing this problem, if it is a problem.

[wjcsux]

Kitten bait?

[cogitator]

In order to "predict" anything, the penomena and all their nuances must be fully understood.

Just think for a second; of course that's not true. I've been watching ESPN Sportscenter just about everyday, and they're doing this thing called "The Ultimate NFL Depth Chart", and they're "predicting" who'll make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. One major injury, and I'd throw that whole framework onto the trash heap. (Even without a major injury, football is unpredictable enough that there's no way it will play out as they "predicted". That doesn't stop them from making predictions, does it?)

What you may be trying to say is that the only way that a prediction will have 100% certainty, all of the influences must be understood perfectly. There's a name for that: Omniscient God. The rest of us are operating on incomplete knowledge, but that doesn't mean we can't make informed predictions.

[Ditto]

Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere alters Earth's radiative balance such that a global temperature increase would be the likeliest outcome.

As I read the chart, CO2 tracks temperature. There is a very pronounced lag between periods of increased temp., and increased CO2 which would say global warming increases CO2, not the other way around.