Bush Says Yes To Global Warming

[- Groucho -]

Lets clear away a few misconceptions. Some excellent data is available at http://www.ems.psu.edu/info/explore/...ing/intro.html which I have gleefully pilfered.

First, Atmospheric CO2 ...





The data for the first graph was taken from ice-core samples at Law Dome, Antartica by Etheridge et al. (1998). The data in the second represents direct CO2 measurements taken at Mauna Loa by Keeling and Whorf (1998).

No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities. So we can all agree that atmospheric CO2 is rising rapidly.

Now for temperature ...



This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period. Although the difference is relatively small, the average temperature is clearly increasing.

What effect will all this extra atmospheric CO2 and rising temperatures have? There is no universal consensus but the overwhelming majority of researchers say that the evidence we've got shows that we are impacting the environment. Unlike other surveys with nameless participants, a group that Wraith cited, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a panel of over 2,500 scientists), has published a report that states that the Panel believes that "... the balance of evidence suggest that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." The official summary report is here. I'll let interested parties read it rather than post a bunch of quotes out of context.

Needless to say, it doesn't support Wraith's position. He seems to think that because a handful of participants have disagreed with the final product means the whole thing should be ignored. But that is the problem, isn't it? When 2,400 scientists say "there is an issue here" people who don't want to hear that anything is wrong will concentrate on the 100 dissenters. (I'm not sure how many dissenters there were, if any, but I thought I would be generous)

I'm with Roland. Human activities are increasing atmospheric CO2 at a very fast rate and are affecting the climate. Rather than DanS's "lets see what happens" approach, I think prudence dictates that we stop experimenting on the only planet we've got.

And ditch the SUVs.

[DanS]

May I direct the court's attention to the fact that those are biased charts.

[Ned]

Let us for a moment assume that the US government reports are accurate and that the average temperture in the United States will rise by 2-5 degrees C in the next 100 years.

The report identifies some positives and some negatives.

The positives are that the temperature rise is almost all due to shorter and milder winters and longer growing seasons that will lead to doubling of agricultural output and an increase in GNP. The negatives are the loss of some habitats and some coastal flooding. (There may also be an increase in disease due to the milder winters.)

Why don't we discuss these points rather than simply "assuming" that global warming is something that must be avoided at all costs - i.e., that it will lead to catastrophe. The official reports paint an entirely different picture.

[Jon Miller]

umm

about those temperature charts

you know that we were in an ice age don't you??

we were suppose to get warmer

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

The report identifies some positives and some negatives.

Well also add some negatives to Climate Change. You've already seen the increases in exremity of El Nino. Also if the temperature rises by 5 degrees Centigrate, there is a good chance that the Gulf Stream will stop, thereby plunging Europe into an ice age, destroying international crop yield. This also has the oppertunity to disrupt other area's temperatures as well, such as the ending of monsoon rains over India, which the agriculture is dependant on. The negatives are very scary.

[Ned]

Imran, Perhaps. But I really doubt it. The world was much warmer in the past than it is today. Did the gulf stream stop then? No.

What evidence is there that the gulf stream will stop other that pure speculation?

[Ned]

On a slightly different point, let us assume for the sake of argument that Canada, Scandanavia, and Russia (keeping the US out of this for the moment) will all benefit greatly due to global warming -- while India will be harmed.

Do we have the moral right to assist India while causing harm to the other nations?

[Tuberski]

Does anybody remember the 70's?

Back then they were worried about another ice age.

[Wraith]

Wow, this thing is still here?

--"First, Atmospheric CO2 ..."

A fine example of "how not to make a graph", thank you. Most numbering systems start at 0, not 270.

--"No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities."

Here we get the absolutes again. Sorry, but yes there are.

--"This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period."

Yes, there's that whole selective endpoints problem. You also didn't say anything about how those graphs were derived. Surface measurement? Satellite records (not likely, given the supposed span)? Magic 8 Ball?

--"a panel of over 2,500 scientists"

Now, see, here's where you're wrong. Very wrong. There are almost no actual scientists on the IPCC. They're just a political body created for the purpose of dealing with the report. Now, the report was created by scientists, but not 2,500 of them. And it is largely being ignored by the panel itself, which is working soely from the summary, which has become so highly politicized and bias that the actual scientists are complaining about it.

Now, if you just follow the mainstream media, you'd never know that. Ah well.
I seem to recall one of the major papers a few months ago giving a quote about global warming attributed to a "top UN scientist". Only, when someone bothered to track to quote down, it was something said by an appointed official. One with no science degree. This is very typical of the coverage.

--"You've already seen the increases in exremity of El Nino."

I would love to see some sources backing that one up. El Nino is named because it has a notable effect on weather patterns in the first place.

In any case, this likely my last post on this thread. I do not have the time to rehash the same arguments we've gone over and over and over.

Wraith
Not only do I not care if you smoke, I don't care if you burst into flames and die.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ned
On a slightly different point, let us assume for the sake of argument that Canada, Scandanavia, and Russia (keeping the US out of this for the moment) will all benefit greatly due to global warming -- while India will be harmed.

Do we have the moral right to assist India while causing harm to the other nations?

The fact is Russia, Canada and Scandinavia are all perfectly happy with things the way they are now. You would not be causing harm to us.
So you have the moral obligation to help India.

[- Groucho -]

Come off it, Wraith. You kvetch but offer nothing in reply but Fox-worthy quasi-rebuttal which is all pundit no proof.

Originally posted by Wraith
A fine example of "how not to make a graph", thank you. Most numbering systems start at 0, not 270.

A fine example of not actually adressing the issue. Sure the origin isn't zero. So what? Have you got any actual figures to dispute these measured increases in atmospheric CO2?

--"No one seriously argues that the increases shown are due to anything other than human activities."

Here we get the absolutes again. Sorry, but yes there are.

A fine example of an absolute. Any examples of a serious explanation for the rising CO2 levels that has an attribution other than human acitivity?

--"This graph shows global temperatures over a 150 year time period."

Yes, there's that whole selective endpoints problem. You also didn't say anything about how those graphs were derived. Surface measurement? Satellite records (not likely, given the supposed span)? Magic 8 Ball?

And I suppose you have alternate data available to show that these endpoints were picked to skew the data? No? I didn't think so because these endpoints aren't arbitrary. The endpoints were picked because this graph attempts to show direct observational recordings. No one was systematically recording temperature prior to the 1850s. For more info on how the UK's Climatic Research Unit derived these figures, see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep93/globtemp.htm

--"a panel of over 2,500 scientists"

Now, see, here's where you're wrong. Very wrong. There are almost no actual scientists on the IPCC. They're just a political body created for the purpose of dealing with the report. Now, the report was created by scientists, but not 2,500 of them. And it is largely being ignored by the panel itself, which is working soely from the summary, which has become so highly politicized and bias that the actual scientists are complaining about it.

Now, if you just follow the mainstream media, you'd never know that. Ah well. I seem to recall one of the major papers a few months ago giving a quote about global warming attributed to a "top UN scientist". Only, when someone bothered to track to quote down, it was something said by an appointed official. One with no science degree. This is very typical of the coverage.

This kind of mud-slinging at the IPCC has been attempted by the head in sand types so many times that Dr. Charles F. Keller of the The Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the Los Alamos National Laboratory wrote this just to convince guys like you, Wraith. Hope it works.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Richelieu


The fact is Russia, Canada and Scandinavia are all perfectly happy with things the way they are now. You would not be causing harm to us.
So you have the moral obligation to help India.

Richelieu, Just so we understand each other, the assumption is that global warming is real and that the world's temperatures will rise 2-5 degrees C.

When you say the Russian's, Canadian's and the Scandanvians are happy with the way things are now, what do you mean? For the way the things are now, these nations will be a lot warmer in 100 years, have milder winters and much longer growing seasons. The climate in the North will be similar to the climate experieced in the days of the Vikings.

Also, I have seen posters here from Canada actually applauding Global Warming.

[Clear Skies]

But that's only a potential change. You can't possibly justify a detrimental change to one nation's climate just because there's a beneficial change to some others. Increasing one nation's welfare by decreasing another's is morally indefensible. Making India's climate worse by doing nothing is wrong no matter what's on the other side of the equation. Nothing balances such an act. How would you make the definition? What if the detrimental effect were to your beloved USA and the beneficial to, say, Afghanistan? Would you be so quick to give up your climate then?

[Garth Vader]

Also, I have seen posters here from Canada actually applauding Global Warming.

That was probably Asher. He doesn't count.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
But that's only a potential change. You can't possibly justify a detrimental change to one nation's climate just because there's a beneficial change to some others. Increasing one nation's welfare by decreasing another's is morally indefensible. Making India's climate worse by doing nothing is wrong no matter what's on the other side of the equation. Nothing balances such an act. How would you make the definition? What if the detrimental effect were to your beloved USA and the beneficial to, say, Afghanistan? Would you be so quick to give up your climate then?

Clear Skies, for the sake of this argument alone, I am assuming the correctness of the predictions. We really don't know what will happen, do we?

But as it stands, if we do nothing, the North will see a huge benefit to Global Warming, while places like India will suffer. If we act to reduce greehouse gasses, and our actions are successful, we will deny this benefit to the North while helping India.

It really depends on how one looks at this, doesn't it?

Let's take a slightly different approach for the moment. We move the clock ahead 100 years. The North is now warm, growing seasons are longer and agriculture is at 100% of 2000. India in contrast is at 50% of 2000.

Now there is a proposal by the Indian government to reduce CO2 output of America in order to change the climate so that their agricultural production doubles. But the consequences would be to halve the agriculture of the North.

Why would we choose to help India when our actions will hurt the Northern Countries?

Now, suppose you are president of Russia 100 years from now. India has asked for your support to reduce CO2 emissions to boost its agricultural production by 100%. Your scientists say that this action will reduce Russian agriculture by 50%. What do you do?

Again, I am just assuming the preditions are accurate. Some countries will actually benefit from Global Warming. Other countries will be hurt. We should understand that asking countries like Russia to support reductions in CO2 is actually asking them to harm their country for the benefit of others. Why would they do that?

The problem with the debate over Global Warming to date is the black and white nature of the debate. There is a lot more grey here than advocate on each side of the issue admit, as one should expect.