Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Before I start, I’d like to remind readers that as a guest poster, the opinions I voice here are not those of Anthony Watts, and should not be taken as having been endorsed by Watts Up With That.
I am going to propose an idea based on my position as a Lukewarmer regarding climate change. I fully expect to get a lot of criticism from commenters here, and I welcome it. My idea is new (at least to me), and if it is a good idea it will be sharpened by your criticism–and of course, if it is rubbish, best to know quickly, right?
I think the debate on climate change needs some new ideas and criticism too. So blast away–but please bring your A game. I neither need nor want to see the equivalent of ‘you suck, dude.’
Families, businesses and yes, even governments, need to make plans for the future. Those plans used to include assumptions about the physical environment, although most of those assumptions were passive acceptance of the status quo. However, it is now difficult to make assumptions because various theories of climate change and its effects have people wondering if their homes will be threatened by sea level rise, drought, hurricanes or floods.
Because of the competing number of possible futures (the IPCC has many scenarios and many more have been pulled from the science fiction rack and offered up to us), people are somewhat paralyzed by too many choices. I think it is time to recognize that all of use engaged in the debate about climate change are not doing the rest of the world any favors. We are making their life more difficult because they cannot make plans with any confidence.
If there is one dataset that I trust regarding the Earth’s climate, it is the measurement of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. It has been freely available for examination, it is replicated by measurements in more than one site, and in my mind survived criticism from people such as the late Ernst Beck. I trust the numbers.
The numbers show that concentrations of CO2 were 315 ppm in 1958, when Mauna Loa started measuring. Concentrations now are 390 ppm. That is a rise of 19%. The central question in climate change is, ‘What is the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2?’ Is the atmosphere easily influenced by CO2, producing more water vapor and adding to temperature rise, or is the atmosphere largely indifferent? Despite protestations from both sides, the honest answer is we don’t know now, and we are not likely to know for another 30 years.
Temperatures appear to have risen globally, although the accuracy of the data is not yet fully determined. The rise since 1958 appears to be about 0.5 degrees Celsius.
If these were the only statistics available to us, we would quickly conclude that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to all human-related activities might well be 2.5 degrees Celsius. This would lead to the supposition that, if concentrations of CO2 rise to about 600 ppm, which certainly seems possible, that the Earth’s temperature will rise about another 2 degrees C. Since it’s based on measurement of temperatures, it can be presumed to include all the effects we are having on temperatures, not just CO2.
And I am arguing, no–proposing, that we do exactly that. Attempts to refine models and measurements have been unsuccessful and have served to heighten suspicion and muddy the debate. I have seen very credible arguments for sensitivities that are both higher and lower, but these arguments are based on data or models that have much higher levels of uncertainty associated with them, ranging from differing ways of measuring tropospheric temperatures to analysis of varves from Finnish lakes.
I don’t see undisputed data that will allow us to do better than the 40 years of good data we have now. So I think we should provide a ‘rough and ready’ estimate of 2 degrees C climate change this century to the public, business and politicians, so they can start making plans for the future.
It should obviously come with an asterisk and error bars, and should be presented as ‘crude, but the best we can really do at this time.’ Much like earlier and simpler climate models have often done better in handling projections of future climate, our rougher and cruder metrics may serve us better for now.
We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.
We also need not to be distracted by elements of the debate that have only served a political purpose. Current temperatures are not unprecedented. There was a MWP and a LIA. Sea level is rising at 3 mm per year. The ice caps are not going to disappear this millenium.
None of that really matters. Temperatures are rising, and more quickly than they have often in the past. (Yes, they have risen this quickly on occasion.) It is the speed of change and the numbers of people those changes will affect that are actually of more concern than the total temperature rise. The people in developing countries are actually more vulnerable than the last time there was a big quick rise–hunter gatherers didn’t have homes and could just move out of harm’s way, and they were few enough in number that they would not have been labeled ‘climate refugees.’
So, I call for all those involved in the climate debate to throw down their weapons, embrace this practical solution as being of use to the rest of the world, climb aboard the Peace Train and sing Kumbaya. Right.
No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.
Again, I’d like to thank readers who have made it this far for listening to a different side of the debate in a forum where you are more comfortable seeing the failings of your opponents exposed. If you find the gaping flaw in my logic, my idea can die quickly, if not quietly. If you see merit in my proposal, any indication of such would be warmly welcomed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I haven’t slogged through all the posts so I apologize if I say what has already been said.
I do not think it will be possible to get a broad consensus from the skeptic community on your 2.5 control because most of us are skeptical of mankinds ability to manage the climate. I am in favor, however, of seeking out actions which both camps can agree to even though each camp has a different reason for that agreement. For example, I am all in favor of drastically reducing the burning of fossil fuels. My reasons are numerous from stopping the funding of madrases to the conservation of the materials for better uses like fertilizers and plastics. If the other side wants to do it to reduce CO2 that’s fine with me. I would not be in agreement, however, to waste huge amounts of money on geo-engineering projects. I am a huge supporter of solar hot water systems they make economic sense, especially for people with electrical hot water systems. I would like to see a lot of people getting on this band wagon and proposing things which can be supported by majorities in both camps and which could be implemented quickly with minimum government involvement.
I have seen temperatures outside my house as low as minus 10C and as high as plus 30C. If the average were to change by 2C I doubt I would even notice it.
Thomas Fuller,
With all due respect, if you fail to answer the simple question posed to you at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/20/the-league-of-2-5/#comment-512109
then my due respect will have to be withdrawn. Answer the question please. If you don’t know then state that you don’t know. That will satisfy me as to your position on AGW.
i dont agree at all on the connection “increase of CO2, therefore increase of temps, then 2C more in a century”, the reasoning is deeply flawed because there is no proven connection between rise of temperatures and rise of CO2.
but my question is always another.
we routinely deal with temp changes of 50C and more between seasons, not to mention massive sea level changes (tides, weather etc) and so on.
why a 2C increase in avg temp should cause the disasters some people predict and require massive and extremely expensive social engineering on a global scale?
Joanne Nova has an excellent series about climate change at her website.
http://joannenova.com.au/
She really connects the dots and explains everything perfectly.
A fast read can be found at the site of Burt Rutan
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Have a read at it Thomas.
The problem with your approach to create a consensus between the proponents of AGW
and the Skeptics is that we loose the war.
And believe me a war it is.
Therefore the entire proposition is as stupid as it can get.
This is not a discussion, this is a waste of time.
I’m out of here.
tom says:
“Remember, I’m not only a Lukewarmer (hiss….), I am also a Democrat living in San Francisco. Can you tell me what conservatives are willing to listen to/ accept as reasonable/ work with?”
tom –
i’m a sceptic and a democrat equivalent, and i know many democrat equivalents who are sceptics, so why ask a question that is such a meme in the MSM at present?
12 Oct: NYT: Ross Douthat: Why Don’t Republicans Believe in Climate Change?
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/why-dont-republicans-believe-in-climate-change/
Salon reinforcing the NYT argument with an even more ridiculous headline:
13 Oct: Salon: Andrew Leonard: Why do Republican politicians hate science?
http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/?story=/tech/htww/2010/10/13/republicans_and_climate_change
17 Oct: NYT Editorial: In Climate Denial, Again
They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy. ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon1.html?_r=1&hp
18 Oct: Atlantic Wire: Max Fisher: Why Republicans Deny Climate Change
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Why-Republicans-Deny-Climate-Change-5422
19 Oct: Washington Post: Joe Frontiera/Dan Leidl: Don’t get fooled again: The Baby Boomers’ leadership failure
Let’s take a look at how Boomer leaders have butchered trust in four key areas…
1. Environment
Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the pending fall-out of climate change, influential baby boomers like the billionaire Koch brothers have stated that man-made climate change is a farce. Also part of this anti-science crusade, the Republican Party is the only major political party in the developed world that is dismissive of climate science. In fact, of the 20 GOP Senate challengers that have taken a position on climate change, 19 believe that the climate science is inconclusive or just plain wrong. Their stance is reminiscent of when the Church found Galileo “suspect of heresy” after he asserted, and proved, that our planet was round and orbited the sun.
Can young people afford to trust that these politicians are right and the science is simply wrong? While aggressive lobbying against cap and trade legislation might afford short-term benefits for the oil and gas industry in the US, it is also promoting finite resources while decreasing funding to long-term clean energy research. As this funding becomes harder to secure, China forges ahead with aggressive government’s subsidies that have created a 1 million -employee workforce that is already far ahead in the clean energy market. We can’t simply turn our backs on the long-term economic ramifications and trust that the unknown environmental consequences will be minor
http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/leadership_playlist/2010/10/dont-get-fooled-again-the-baby-boomers-leadership-failure.html
tom, your post is just as partisan.
what we need for now is to restore the scientific method to its rightful place in climate science.
the so-called remedies of the IPCC and the rest don’t even have “good intentions” to help the poor to recommend them.
Believers use the term “greenhouse effect” to try and convey the idea of how increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes global warming. This is analogous to saying that thickening the glass in a greenhouse will make the green house warmer. This is not true.
Believers could say that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere helps close holes in the greenhouse. But although there is very little CO2 in the atmosphere the molecules are so tiny and so spread out that it is almost impossible for a ray of light to reach earth without encountering a CO2 molecule. This is why increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have little or no effect.
The warmest temperatures on earth occur where there are the least amount of greenhouse gasses; arid regions.
Thomas, this is not a dispute between two reasonable scientific schools of thought. With Climategate and the revelations since, it is clear that the CAGW side has adopted the outcome and then skewed research to fit it, throwing out stuff that doesn’t give them the outcome and censoring contributions that do the same. They came up with the 2.0C+ and you can be sure that with the palette of proxies and their ranges and other researches, where there might be a choice between choosing higher or lower heat, they will always choose the higher. They have shown the shakiness of their case by the need for manipulation, scuttling efforts of opponents to publish, taking stuff from the PR departments of WWF and Greenpeace as scientific studies on glaciers, tropical forests, etc and if they ared talking about 2.5 -3 degrees, it is safe to say that 1C is more likely. In fact, in NA, the temp since the 1880s has increased on 0.7C. I would go with 0.7C at the outside for 2100. A temp rise of 2C anyway is not something that we have to worry about over most of the earth. The sea has been rising a 30cm a century since the LIA so lets see what a foot will do by 2100. Climateologists have either lied or they don’t in fact know that the coral atoll islands grow with sealevel rise and the dead coral root underneath is 130m deep from this growth since the last Ice Age. Similarly, deltas rise with sealevel rise, the water encroaching upstream causes it to slow and dump its load keeping pace with sealevel rise – that is why the old lower Mississippi gravels of the Ice age river are now buried under 130 metres of delta mud. I would worry about these places if it started to cool and sealevel fell. The deltas would be washed into the sea and a 100 mile stretch upstream of the delta would disappear. Cooling is the biggest worry. Let it warm up a bit.
AGW is a sledge hammer black eye to the scientific method. Why should we let the charlatins get away with a 2 Degree C pass on their improper methods?
The equivalent in astronomy would be some mid-level astronomer saying “I found heaven and God is talking to me now and he wants you to give me research funds. No YOU can’t look through my telescope to confirm it, build your own and find my conclusions independently”.
The only way Science can recover credibility is to expose the poor methods and the people using them. Some heads need to be cracked before trust in climate science will be restored.
Provide the raw data and methods so we can discuss the science rather than discussing opinion and politics.
You can have my 2 cents but I’ll keep my 2C and my integrity.
Thomas Fuller, I do congratulate you on this post, the fact you are reading responses, the fact they are allowed. I do agree with your point, and Judith Curry, that more debate is necessary
Here is an example of how climate “misinformation” seeps into the minds of the people in very subtle ways. Here is an Associated Press piece about a door that was discovered in Switzerland:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/20/swiss-archaeology-oldest-door-europe/
There is one little sentence in that article that is absolutely wrong:
“Harsh climatic conditions at the time meant people had to build solid houses that would keep out much of the cold wind that blew across Lake Zurich, and the door would have helped”
Think about that wording. It implies that the climate was colder then than it is now and people needed to build more solid structures than in more recent times to keep out that cold wind. The door is dated to around 5000 years ago. That is the time of the Holocene Climate Optimum when temperatures were about 2C warmer than they are now. It was the mildest climate period of the entire modern interglacial. But subtle wording such as that in articles like this serve to reinforce in the minds of some people that the farther back you go in time, the colder it was. That is simply untrue.
You suck, dude.
i suggest you float this over on realclimate web site and let us know if they are willing to let by-gones be by-gones. Let us know if they are willing to lay down their arms. If they do, then it will be even easier to drive the stake in the heart of AGW.
As the US goes on limiting CO2, so will go the world. And after nov 2nd, there is no chance for many years to pass any legislation to curb CO2. If congress could not do it these last two years, there will never be stomach for it. This has never been about climate change, but all about power. If you understood that, then you would stop posting such drivel (meant in a nice way).
The EPA will be made impotent if they try to legislate CO2 by bypassing congress. Congress still holds their purse strings and they know it. With pubs in control, there will be no tolerance of EPA shenanigans.
I think I agree with what you (Fuller) are trying to say.
There would appear to be two almost-certainties
Firstly, it would appear that global temperatures have been rising (and have been doing so since the Little Ice Age) and that this is offset some-what by a sixrty year osscillation. It would be nice to understand what causes these, but it is not essential. Since we really dont understand what casues these there isn’t anything meaningful that we can do to prevent this continuing.
But lets pretend for one moment that all the temperature rise is related to rising atmospheric CO2. So, that leads to the second almost-certainty. From your (Fuller) previous bloggs, atmospheric CO2 is rising and, since the construction of every new coal-fired power station implicitly builds in a degree of coal consumption, this isn’t going to change. Since there is nothing we can do to change that, short of some sort of physical intervention with China and India, there is nothing meaningful that we can do to prevent this trend from continuing. Given that most of the West’s CO2 reduction strategies involve moving industries to India and China, this seems obvious.
Therefore taking measures purely for the purpose of altering the climate are largely counter productive. Global warming is no longer a valid excuse for implementing a de-carbonisation policy.
Given these two almost-certainties, forward planning needs to be done on the basis of a rising (2.5C/century if you like) trend. That is, to concentrate on adaptation to the rising temperature trend.
“No, have a look at this–tell me if it’s remotely possible that the skeptic community could sacrifice its current temporary, but very real advantage in the debate and agree that a rough metric that acknowledges warming but puts sane boundaries on it would be of use to the rest of the world.”
Thomas, that old joke comes to mind: What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don’t know, and I don’t care. That is, I have seen nothing that would indicate there is any significant warming other than what natural variation would cause, so I don’t know if your initial thesis is right or wrong. On top of that, I don’t care to put “sane boundaries” on something that is so far beyond our current capabilities that it is quite humorous to even try to discuss it soberly.
As a person of nearly 60 years of age, I have seen and heard about disasters nearly every year of my life. As a child we did duck-and-cover in a room that had a full wall of windows (most of the injuries in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were from flying glass), and even as children we knew we were toast if those windows broke. I will not enumerate every frightening scenario and disaster-waiting-to-happen that I have been exposed to, but I could list scores of them. It reminds me of an old story, told by a rabbi: If you are planting a tree, and someone comes to announce that the Messiah has come . . . finish planting your tree, and then go greet the Messiah.
In my humble not-a-climate-expert opinion, I think we need more carbon dioxide, perhaps up to 2000 ppm. We need warmer weather. This two things will open up fertile lands that are currently locked in ice, and allow more area for food to be grown, as well as providing the plant fertilizer that carbon dioxide is.
You see, Thomas, the problem is not whether we are ignoring any warming. The problem is whether we think it would be bad. In my nearly 60 years, I’ve not seen a single prophesied disaster that actually appeared, but I’ve seen a lot of money spent in curtailing disasters, that actually caused worse problems than the disaster would have caused. We now have excessive malaria deaths because of DDT being banned, bedbugs because of lead paint being banned, solder that doesn’t work as well because there is no lead in it, light bulbs that are too expensive and are a hazardous waste, refrigerants that are not as efficient, toilets that require more water than ever because one flush doesn’t work, washing machines that don’t clean or rinse very well, cars that are flimsy so they can get better gas mileage, faucets and showerheads that barely put out enough water to wash with, and in Bangladesh the people have arsenic poisoning from the wells put in to give them fresh water. We have not run out of oil or natural gas. We are not practicing cannibalism or starving because there are too many people. We keep finding animals that had supposedly died out. There are some whales that are so abundant that they are elbowing out the ones that aren’t. The great epidemics are not materializing. A new ice age has not started. We are all getting really obese, but in spite of that we are living longer and healthier than ever before.
I understand that you are concerned, Thomas. As an older (and perhaps wiser) person, I would recommend that you stop being concerned, and start just enjoying life. You will live longer, and be more productive. Eat well, play well, and think well. We all die too soon to let these petty things get in the way.
I agree with many of the comments already posted.
To be fair, I don’t like the term Lukewarmer though – it’s almost like an abstention because of poor data (which you accept will take another 30 years to verify) but seemingly ignoring the very real issue of natural climate variability.
Basically we know full well that the climate varies a lot naturally – and over many many millenia – we also know that we don’t know why ! So, until the research, data and analysis (I wont use the term ‘models’) meld together to describe natural climate variability to a reasonable degree EVERYTHING else is just speculation – it has to be, because the data for any other kind of analysis, simply isn’t there. Taking a nominal natural average temp variation of 10 deg C (in and out of ice ages) and then superimposing all the PDO’s, TSI’s, Cosmic rays, etc, etc – variations on top – how does anyone really seriously expect to ‘pick’ out and identify a little bit of human influence.
I, like many others, do not doubt that there is SOME influence – but it is far more likely to be swamped by natural variation.
Moreover, and here is the antithesis of your main thrust – any action(s) against CO2 would equally be impossible to determine as effective or not against the same backdrop of probable natural variability. So, therefore, spending the next 30 years, collecting data AND reducing emissions may still not render a ‘result’ – and indeed, could seriously throw a spanner in the works of the anthropogenic influence identification stakes.
Pragmatically, and I am meaning from a scale perspective here – I feel we are just only scratching the surface of understanding the climate. Moreover, this is entirely based on ‘global’ assessment and ‘averages’ etc – regional variation, as we all know – is far more extreme and for even more uncertain reasons!
As a scientist and an ex-warmer – fed the media and headline grabbing hype – I seriously believed the published ‘facts’ – and only when I started to question the reality of the ‘findings’ and look further into the field did I realise how ‘bad’ the situation was. Thats not a criticism of all the climate scientists – just my personal observation – and it struck me that anyone making serious decisions on such clearly UNSETTLED science was rather foolish.
The science has been politicised and ‘mixed’ and thats bad also – but to basically play Russian roulette with the world and its peoples is really taking the biscuit!
Even a metric assessment of 2deg warming this century comes from where, exactly? what are the temps doing now? why is that? is the data good (slight smirk!)? etc etc
such minor points are the mainstay of the antiAGW argument – and as far as I know, still perfectly valid.
I like the way a case for rising temperatures is being made along with a call for real workable solutions suitable for a range of different outcomes and confidence levels is being made. I also like the way “skepticism” of the underlying facts is used to avoid having to have any actual solutions to anything and instead a position of “but the warming records have all PROVEN to be false and feedbacks have all PROVEN to be negative (because someone said they are) and anyway the real risk is another ice age”.
The reason I like it is this post and the reaction to it is a perfect microcosm of the real policy debate. Anytime an attempt is made to even discuss possibilities it’s immediately overwhelmed with a thousand contradictory reasons why the problem doesn’t exist at all. “The warming records are false!”/”We’ve been warming for thousands of years!”, “CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas!”/”We need more CO2 to cushion the next ice age!”,”Feedbacks are negative so any temperature change will be cancelled out!”/”Climate has always changed and gone up and down ” (where are these negative feedbacks then?)
“I am a huge supporter of solar hot water systems they make economic sense, especially for people with electrical hot water systems”
I am in favor of nuclear power generation and the recycling of the fuel to make electrical hot water systems cheaper than solar.
Tom,
You’re missing here the real climate problem.
We know, from innumerable peer-reviewed scientific papers, that interglacials are roughly ten-thousand-year interludes between hundred-thousand-year ice ages. The scientific consensus on this is — to coin a phrase — incontrovertible. And we’re all living on borrowed time now; the Holocene is at 12,000 years and counting.
So I know, Tom, I can count on your help. Please encourage the Saudis and the coal companies and your local utility to pump out as much of the plant fertilizer CO2 as possible. What will you be able to tell your grandchildren when they ask, “What did you do, Grandpa, to keep New York from being buried under two miles of ice?”
This is a great post, looking at the broader issues.
I especially like
“We need to stop throwing sci-fi fantasies out as plausible outcomes. We need to provide a range of outcomes based on measurements that we trust.”
I would go further. The science may pose a potential problem. But this is not a purely academic exercise, as it is used to justify broad-sweeping policies. The question that should be answered is “By taking action, is there, on the balance of the evidence, an expectation that the future state will be improved?”. This involves not just making a balanced scientific case, but also justifying an effective and cost-efficient policy, given the political compromises and the poor policy delivery of big projects without clear targets.
I have just posted on a very crude grid, that may help formulate and answer to this question.
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/greg-craven%e2%80%99s-grid-extended/
In BC we have had something like 14 million ha of lodgepole pine killed by an insect outbreak. The insect was normally controlled by periods of intense cold weather which haven’t happened lately. There is some evidence that such large outbreaks have occurred in the past but our decision makers blithely overlooked the possibility that such things might occur again, and so made assumptions about how much wood we could produce based on a uselessly short historical record. It seems to me that our current view of the stability of climate is a predictable outcome of our species inability to remember the weather last year, let alone two generations ago. This last little warming spell has caused us to suddenly be aware that big changes in climate can and have occurred for reasons that we don’t entirely understand. Faced with a realization like that, isn’t it more rational to prepare for the possibility that the temperature might go up by 2 deg, as well as the possiblity that it might go down by that much. It seems to me that the certainty caused by a simplistic projection of current trends is not much better than model based fantasizing about various warming scenarios, when the real issue is that we don’t know enough about climate systems to predict what is going to happen. Wouldn’t it be better just to acknowledge that climate is more variable than any 50 or 100 year time span suggests and so we need to have adequate food reserves, alternative energy supplies, or whatever mechanisms we need to be able to respond to the sorts of fluctuations in climate that we now know have happened in the past. The hockey stick graph is perhaps one of the most counter-productive things that could have been done to this “learning moment” for humanity because it tried to give the illusion of stability up to recent times. We need to recognize that civilisations have fallen in the past because they were unprepared to adapt to climatic and other changes and so if we want to avoid that fate, we need to have adaptability built into our social structure. Can we actually do that? Not if we base our decisions on convenient but unverifiable assumptions as opposed to acknowledgement that we just don’t know.
Tom seems to have a predetermined out come and nothing will change that. Makes me wonder if he reads information from other posts.
The simple and verifiable facts are these:
-The planet has not been warming for over a decade and has been cooling for almost a decade.
To attribute any causal agent to a “warming planet” is quite frankly nuts.
Man nor CO2 can be the cause of warming that is not occuring.
If all of the above is true, and it verifiably is, then the global warming “debate” is not a debate at all. The issue itself has always been a lie.
Globalony is an IQ test. If you believe in fairy tales you fail.
Globalony is a genuine Orwellian hoax being propagated by our own government.
We catch NOAA, NASA, and Algore in lie after lie. We catch them lowering past tempuratures and raising current tempuratures. We catch them reporting 600 degree days in Wisconcin. We catch them lying “warmest years on record.” They lie about hurricanes, floods, and high pressure heat waves. We catch them lying about melting glaciers growing before our eyes.
The biggest and most obnoxious lie the government is telling us is that if we give the government the power to tax the air we breath then the government will lower the planet’s tempurature.
Give me money and I will give you nice weather.
What is needed in this “debate” is honesty. It is honest to say that the warmist in and out of government are liars.
I agree with Ronald. Call me crazy, but to see a difference of 0.5 degrees C on average, I only have to drive about 30 miles north of where I live (colder by 0.5 degrees) or 30 miles south of where I live (warmer by 0.5 degrees). Quadruple the distance to get a 2.0 degrees C temp difference. Are you saying those people to the south of me are in trouble just because their climate is warmer than where I live by 2 degrees? I doubt it–
And really, the big argument isn’t whether you’re a “warmer”, “luke-warmer”, “colder” (someone like myself who is looking for the resumption of the next Ice Epoc), “denier”, “skeptic”, “dissident” or “realist”. The big argument is whether there’s such a thing a catastrophic tipping point–something I believe they’re trying to influence the public with by using terms like “global climate disruption”, which is akin to saying “bad weather”. I can’t remember how long it’s been since I’ve seen a post here refuting the idea that the Earth is warming–or has warmed. However, whether we’re facing a catastrophe from this relatively mild warming is a completely different issue.
Thomas, what you have presented here is an interesting attempt at compromise. However, I would like to look at the CO2 “problem” from a different prespective. Most scientists, and I exclude Al Gore, do not consider a slight increase in “global” temperature to be deleterious. So, let us set aside the whole issue of “global warming,” about which we have little concensus, and look at the data we do agree upon: the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
According to an article published by Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson and Willie Soon (“Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, OISM.org.pdf) during the 50 years from 1950-2000 U.S. forests have increased 40%. They also present data that show that increased CO2 under dry conditions is more effective in increasing wheat yields than increasing the moisture levels.
Much of the developing world, which includes most of sub-Saharan Africa, does not produce sufficient grain to meet their needs, not because of poor soil, but because of poor moisture. If increased atmospheric CO2 levels would increase grain output of resource-limited and stressed wheat, this should be greeted as a boon, not a disaster.
I think we should move the argument away from global temperatures, for which there is little hard scientific data, and concentrate on the effects of atmospheric CO2.
Dr. Daniel M. Sweger, Ph.D. Physics.