Global Warming - How Real Is It?

[dominique355]

Recently I came across this article I would like to share with TV readers. I don't want to comment on it, just information for the moment:

Why Global Warming is a Crock

By Dr. James Lewis, Ph.D

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hyper complex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hyper complex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles - because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word - "hypothesis.")

OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's why it exists.

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true. For example:

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest source of "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious passing’s of gas of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

Or should we just go and blow it at the dog races?

So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up, instead.)

Remember, in the ‘70’s the mantra was that we were entering another Ice Age. No empirical evidence – no Ice Age. Drat! Must be those variables at work again. Pay attention, Al.

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

[fxm88]

BREAKING NEWS: Gulf sea level 'unlikely to rise'

Global warming will not cause sea levels to rise in the Gulf of Thailand, a leading hydrologist says.

...

"The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand. We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets [for sea levels to rise]," Suphat said.

...

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/23...es_30032457.php

[uptou]

i am not fanatical about this subject,but as far as doubting global warming goes,how do you explain the polar ice cap melting at an alarming rate,& rising sea levels,floods.do you think this is cyclic?? ,or there is an agenda,& the boffins are making up the satalite photos of the decreasing ice .

[altman]

Also how much has the sea level risen over the past hundred years of industrialisation, There are trig points on the cook islands that were put there by captin cook 200 years ago to record the sea level , they still show the sea at the same level now.

i do not doubt that these water level indicators exist, but in order to learn more about them i did a google and came up with naught. do you have a (web) reference for them?

[altman]

and as far as trees not growing above the 'tree line'. having grown up in a mile high city i can tell you the reason for that is not lack of co2. it is the lack of oxygen. (or so i was taught many long years ago, and continue to believe today. pending authoratative science to refute it)

Not sure what your saying here, are you saying trees produce their food from Oxygen? Cause if you are thats not what I was taught a long time ago, try this instead....

Trees like all plants carry on the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants utilize the energy from the sun to make sugar from carbon dioxide in the air. The next time you look at a tree think about the fact that what you see was once nothing but a bunch of carbon dioxide gas. The general equation for photosynthesis is pretty simple:

CO2(carbon dioxide) + H20 (water) ----------------> C6H12O6 (sugar) + O2(oxygen)

Which is why any one with green fingers talks to their plants, the plant takes in the CO2, and produces O2, good int it.

if you think you can grow a tree, or any other plant (that i know of), without oxygen ... try it.

[jamesc2000]

_{Another fact: one lives in a large twenty room house using so much energy the monthly bill is larger than most people's McMansions yearly bills - and another is living in a small four bedroom house with amazing technology that is eco-friendly and taps into its environs for its energy needs.}

_{One is owned by Gore the other is by Bush Jr. - who owns which will surprise you!}

Please surprise us!

Surely Bush Jr who lives in the White house lives in "a large twenty room house using so much energy the monthly bill is larger than most people's McMansions yearly bills."

And Gore lives in the "small four bedroom house with amazing technology that is eco-friendly and taps into its environs for its energy needs."

And is the surprise is Bush Jr is no longer Pres and its now Gore?

[larvidchr]

Recently I came across this article I would like to share with TV readers. I don't want to comment on it, just information for the moment:

Why Global Warming is a Crock

By Dr. James Lewis, Ph.D

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hyper complex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hyper complex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles - because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word - "hypothesis.")

OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's why it exists.

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true. For example:

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest source of "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious passing's of gas of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

Or should we just go and blow it at the dog races?

So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up, instead.)

Remember, in the '70's the mantra was that we were entering another Ice Age. No empirical evidence – no Ice Age. Drat! Must be those variables at work again. Pay attention, Al.

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Brilliant post, thankyou.

[Gerontion]

Wrong. It's an awful post that relies on the laughable argument, which unfortunately gets dragged out every time someone wants to deny the reality of climate change, that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing; stated as baldly as that, it's clear just how fallacious it is. The analogy with dice - the only attempt at anything approaching a fact - is just ridiculous. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to 380ppm. Similarly, levels of CFCs, HCFCs, methane and other greenhouse gases have also rise; the dice are very much loaded. If you want to argue with the following quotation, then go ahead. I presume you have more than one PhD relating to the science involved.

“A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.”

[Ulysses G.]

Recently I came across this article I would like to share with TV readers. I don't want to comment on it, just information for the moment:

Why Global Warming is a Crock

By Dr. James Lewis, Ph.D

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hyper complex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hyper complex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles - because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word - "hypothesis.")

OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's why it exists.

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true. For example:

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest source of "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious passing's of gas of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three. How many billions of dollars in Kyoto money are we going to spend on that chance?

Or should we just go and blow it at the dog races?

So all ye of global warming faith, rejoice in the ambiguity that real life presents to all of us. Neither planetary catastrophe nor paradise on earth are sure bets. Sorry about that. (Consider growing up, instead.)

Remember, in the '70's the mantra was that we were entering another Ice Age. No empirical evidence – no Ice Age. Drat! Must be those variables at work again. Pay attention, Al.

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

Brilliant post, thankyou.

Agreed.

[jamesc2000]

Wrong. It's an awful post that relies on the laughable argument, which unfortunately gets dragged out every time someone wants to deny the reality of climate change, that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing; stated as baldly as that, it's clear just how fallacious it is. The analogy with dice - the only attempt at anything approaching a fact - is just ridiculous. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to 380ppm. Similarly, levels of CFCs, HCFCs, methane and other greenhouse gases have also rise; the dice are very much loaded. If you want to argue with the following quotation, then go ahead. I presume you have more than one PhD relating to the science involved.

"A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources."

Very well said!

[jamesc2000]

Don't cigarette companies still claim there is absolutely no scientific studies linking smoking and cancer?

[Ulysses G.]

Don't cigarette companies still claim there is absolutely no scientific studies linking smoking and cancer?

No, they don't.

[churchill]

Wrong. It's an awful post that relies on the laughable argument, which unfortunately gets dragged out every time someone wants to deny the reality of climate change, that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing; stated as baldly as that, it's clear just how fallacious it is. The analogy with dice - the only attempt at anything approaching a fact - is just ridiculous. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to 380ppm. Similarly, levels of CFCs, HCFCs, methane and other greenhouse gases have also rise; the dice are very much loaded. If you want to argue with the following quotation, then go ahead. I presume you have more than one PhD relating to the science involved.

"A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources."

Very well said!

So given the conclusions that most people accept - what can be done to minimise the impact - surely we must act now to limit or adapt the changes to the benefit of future generations - our children !

[larvidchr]

Wrong. It's an awful post that relies on the laughable argument, which unfortunately gets dragged out every time someone wants to deny the reality of climate change, that not knowing everything is the same as knowing nothing; stated as baldly as that, it's clear just how fallacious it is. The analogy with dice - the only attempt at anything approaching a fact - is just ridiculous. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from pre-industrial levels of 280ppm to 380ppm. Similarly, levels of CFCs, HCFCs, methane and other greenhouse gases have also rise; the dice are very much loaded. If you want to argue with the following quotation, then go ahead. I presume you have more than one PhD relating to the science involved.

"A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change.

We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources."

Very well said!

So given the conclusions that most people accept - what can be done to minimise the impact - surely we must act now to limit or adapt the changes to the benefit of future generations - our children !

Sure we can use kyoto + 30 that is what it takes to completely eradicate man made co2 pollution, that is somthing like 60% of the Bnp in the whole world every year from now til year 2100. We can be modest and only implement kyoto at a cost of 2% of Bnp for the whole world, then the temperature by year 2100 will rise with 0.15 degree centigrade less.

But we can also use 1% of the worlds Bnp ( half the cost of kyoto ) that is the cost of adapting to the higher temperatures in the whole world, dikes, relocation, changes in farming aso. aso.

And then use another 1% of Bnp to eradicate, starvation for 680 mill. ( 20.000-30.000 children dies everyday) people every year, . Give clean drinking water to the whole world, and with that save 2 mill. lives every year and half a billion seriusly ill from polluted water. We can make sure that everybody in the whole world learns to read and write. Combat a long line of serius deseases much more effective, among them is HIV we could afford free medicine to all suffering that desease. aso.

And then we could carry on reducing our emissions as we allready are doing.

Now it is just up to people to choose how they would rather like to se their money used, Investing in "the future of humanity" or dealing with the problems we have here and now today, and preparing for the changes that will come kyoto or not.

[Gerontion]

You can put down your copy of “The Sceptical Environmentalist”.

So how does Bangladesh adapt to the loss of most of their country? Come and camp in your garden? That’s very generous of you to offer. Or what about the collapse in crop yields? Or the spread of communicable diseases? Or the loss of homes through floods? Or the disruption to water supplies? Or the desertification of farming land?

The choice isn’t between dealing with starvation OR global warming. Every one of the problems you mention is going to be made massively more severe by climate change.

Of course, neither of the problems will be dealt with so it’s clearly a pointless argument. Self-interest will rule until it’s far, far too late to do anything about it.

[britmaveric]

Of course, neither of the problems will be dealt with so it’s clearly a pointless argument. Self-interest will rule until it’s far, far too late to do anything about it.

Ok then stop blathering about it and enjoy yourself.

[larvidchr]

You can put down your copy of "The Sceptical Environmentalist".

So how does Bangladesh adapt to the loss of most of their country? Come and camp in your garden? That's very generous of you to offer. Or what about the collapse in crop yields? Or the spread of communicable diseases? Or the loss of homes through floods? Or the disruption to water supplies? Or the desertification of farming land?

The choice isn't between dealing with starvation OR global warming. Every one of the problems you mention is going to be made massively more severe by climate change.

Of course, neither of the problems will be dealt with so it's clearly a pointless argument. Self-interest will rule until it's far, far too late to do anything about it.

All your questions are delt with in the book you mention, so dont ask me read it.

But just to mention one or two, disruption in watersupplies, I think if you look at a map of the earth and you focus your eyes on the blue bits, you will find that there are enough water for everybody for all time to come, it is a very simpel proces to desalinate seawater.

Food, we are every year producing more and more food, we allready have more food than the whole world need, but if in Africa crops will be less because of draughts crops will rise in the part of the world where farming allready are vastly more efficient because the the higher temps. will allow for increased produktion.

Banghladesh, they will just have to relocate or drown, it is that simple, and that will not be the first time in histori where mass migrations have happend, how do you suppose the Americas was populated? poor farmers from all over europe left for the new land because their living conditions where intolrable.

And last I do agree with you that it is far to late to significant reduce the co2 before the ill effects set in. But I strongly desagree that we can not deal with the starving today, give me the keys to EUs surplus stockpiles and I will start tomorrow, all the things you mention in fact is, pure and simple a question of money, but they can be dealt with, the co2 is a question of money to, we can spend fantasitrillions and get almost no result in terms of a cooler earth.

It looks however like this is what is going to happen, old scientist and politicians are going to waste a hel_l of a lot of money so they can say to themselves their children and grandchildren "I tried" and thus relive their concience, you se they dont feel bad about the millions dying today, they are sort of used to that, and they are not family.

Edited April 25, 2007 by larvidchr

[skipvice]

Fuzzy Climate Math

By George F. Will

Thursday, April 12, 2007; Page A27

In a campaign without peacetime precedent, the media-entertainment-environmental complex is warning about global warming. Never, other than during the two world wars, has there been such a concerted effort by opinion-forming institutions to indoctrinate Americans, 83 percent of whom now call global warming a " serious problem." Indoctrination is supposed to be a predicate for action commensurate with professions of seriousness.

For example, Democrats could demand that the president send the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate so they can embrace it. In 1997, the Senate voted95 to 0 in opposition to any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but that would involve no "specific scheduled commitments" for 129 "developing" countries, including the second-, fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia). Forty-two of the senators serving in 1997 are gone. Let's find out if the new senators disagree with the 1997 vote.

Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases such as infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's " Global Warming Survival Guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-oz. T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

Newsweek says most food travels at least 1,200 miles to get to Americans' plates, so buying local food will save fuel. Do not order halibut in Omaha.

Speaking of Hummers, perhaps it is environmentally responsible to buy one and squash a Prius with it. The Prius hybrid is, of course, fuel-efficient. There are, however, environmental costs to mining and smelting (in Canada) 1,000 tons a year of zinc for the battery-powered second motor, and the shipping of the zinc 10,000 miles -- trailing a cloud of carbon dioxide -- to Wales for refining and then to China for turning it into the component that is then sent to a battery factory in Japan.

Opinions differ as to whether acid rain from the Canadian mining and smelting operation is killing vegetation that once absorbed carbon dioxide. But a report from CNW Marketing Research ("Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal") concludes that in "dollars per lifetime mile," a Prius (expected life: 109,000 miles) costs $3.25, compared with $1.95 for a Hummer H3 (expected life: 207,000 miles).

The CNW report states that a hybrid makes economic and environmental sense for a purchaser living in the Los Angeles basin, where fuel costs are high and smog is worrisome. But environmental costs of the hybrid are exported from the basin.

We are urged to "think globally and act locally," as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has done with proposals to reduce California's carbon dioxide emissions 25 percent by 2020. If California improbably achieves this, at a cost not yet computed, it will have reduced global greenhouse gas emissions 0.3 percent. The question is:

Suppose the costs over a decade of trying to achieve a local goal are significant. And suppose the positive impact on the globe's temperature is insignificant -- and much less than, say, the negative impact of one year's increase in the number of vehicles in one country (e.g., India). If so, are people who recommend such things thinking globally but not clearly?

My opinion is we better learn to live with it as we are not going to stop it.

[mogoso]

One is owned by Gore the other is by Bush Jr. - who owns which will surprise you!

I believe Gore has three of those large homes, but says it's ok as he buys carbon offsets. Interestingly he travels around making his speeches in a private jet, rather than utilize commercial aviation.

[dumspero]

Another poster made an excellent point on another post: Those who care about the environment tend to prove it by the personal choices they make.

[a2396]

Of course, neither of the problems will be dealt with so it’s clearly a pointless argument. Self-interest will rule until it’s far, far too late to do anything about it.

Ok then stop blathering about it and enjoy yourself.

It is probably to far gone already. The effort required to slow the current trends would be on the scale of international cooperation that has never been seen. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Anyway, the "Good Christians" say the world will end eventually. So, why get in the way of God's will. One Bible thumping preacher I hear once said we "should be fruitfull and multiply. Fill up the earth." No doubt he has some followers amoung the "doubting Thomases" in the U.S. Congress who think global warming is not happening.

[shochu]

Bush Jr. owns the very small environmental home.

[Naam]

I believe Gore has three of those large homes, but says it's ok as he buys carbon offsets. Interestingly he travels around making his speeches in a private jet, rather than utilize commercial aviation.

Al Gore uses a solar-powered jet

[Ulysses G.]

I believe Gore has three of those large homes, but says it's ok as he buys carbon offsets. Interestingly he travels around making his speeches in a private jet, rather than utilize commercial aviation.

Al Gore uses a solar-powered jet

I heard that it was a bull-sh*t powered methane jet.

[longway]

Hydrogen powered cars are being developed as a replacement for petrol driven ones. Though these don't directly produce CO2, they do produce water vapour. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas. So how is this more eco-friendly than the petrol engine. Does anybody know? Serious question.

Hydrogen is also extremely flammable. Are hydrogen cars safe in a collision? I guess the same question applies to the LNG powered cars too.

[jumnien]

Yesterday in Tak it was a recent record of 44 degrees. If you go back to 1960 in Thailand, before industrialization, it was 44.5 degrees. Global warming?

[larvidchr]

I believe Gore has three of those large homes, but says it's ok as he buys carbon offsets. Interestingly he travels around making his speeches in a private jet, rather than utilize commercial aviation.

Al Gore uses a solar-powered jet

I heard that it was a bull-sh*t powered methane jet.

[chevykanteve]

I'm hesitant to copy the entire article (its fairly long) due to TV policies on length of newspaper articles. Hope the link still functions in another day or so. Read the whole article if you can. It's truly awesome. And it begs the question for us here in Thailand: what computer models exist regarding global-warming effects on Thailand, and how do we access information on those models??

SPECIAL FOR THE NATION

Raising the alarm on the greatest threat to global security

Margaret Beckett, Foreign Secretary, writes about the concern on global warming in an article for The Nation.

The Congolese representative spoke about half-way into the Security Council debate. "This will not be the first time people have fought over land, water and resources" he said "but this time it will be on a scale that dwarfs the conflicts of the past". The French called it the "Number one threat to mankind". The Belgian said that in response to that threat we had to do nothing less than rethink from top to bottom how we thought about our security: we could not afford to fall into the trap that has cost the world so dear throughout history and assume that the future will look like the past. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, said the scenarios facing us were alarming.

What was the focus of all this concern? Climate change. Our increasingly unstable climate is no longer seen as primarily an environmental or economic issue...

[Jai Dee]

BMA tackles global warming more seriously

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) encourages people to grow trees on rooftops of buildings to reduce temperature and trap dust in the atmosphere. BMA has also worked with relevant units and environmental networks to push for the enforcement of laws addressing the prevention of global warming.

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayodhin (อภิรักษ์ โกษะโยธิน) reveals after BMA’s executive meeting that he has instructed district directors and chiefs of relevant units to focus on the prevention of global warming. He has told them to help BMA inform the general public of global warming and create an energy-saving awareness in the society.

The governor says further that BMA will hold a meeting amongst the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and environmental networks at the beginning of May. The meeting's main agenda is to form a pact to tackle global warming more seriously. BMA expects to bring the pact to international meetings in the future.

Regarding rain storms in Bangkok during this period, the governor says he has requested all districts to ensure that large billboards are strong enough to withstand gusty winds and construction sites are properly covered by canvas.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 27 April 2007

[Doza]

As posted, the BMA is onto climate change and energy policies now. Also there is this interesting article Kingdom one of 10 countries most at risk from natural disasters, says study

Whatever you choose to believe, there is enough evidence to suggest that man made CO2 (principally) emissions are leading and acclerating climate change - a phenomenon that could have devastating impacts in human civilsation over the next 100 and more years.

There may be flaws in the science. But we would be mad to do nothing - reducing fossil fuel consumption, reducing GHG emissons, protecting forests, planting more trees, etc etc CAN ONLY BE GOOD in the end anyway!

I personally have seen enough links between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures so I believe that it has a significant impact - and I know for sure that since the industrial age man has increased CO2 levels by 100PPM or so. I see the link and I am pleased once-sceptical governments and companies (USA/Aus/Exxon etc) have seen the link now too and are taking action.

But I accept sceptics and extremism on either side is stupid. I just think we would be dumb to ignore evidence and do nothing about global warming!