Baseless Speculations Involving the Consequences of Global Warming

[Exsubmariner]

Thanks for the links. I have read quite a bit about ice ages and am generally familiar with the theory.

One thing that comes to mind about the increase in ocean temperatures leading to more water vapor in the air is that as clouds travel north and snow, they may check the regression of glaciers as ice would build up at the poles again.

Are there any studies that you know of which concern themselves with rainfall on a global stage in relation to CO2 concentrations?

[hawk59]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not unreasonable to say that there might be negative feedback that will mitigate the warming we see. But the big problem is this: the world works for us the way it is right now. It is beyond our power to predict the real effects of significant climate change. So climate change will take us from a situation that we KNOW is good for us, into a situation where we really don't know what we can expect. That is why it is better to be safe than sorry.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I agree with this line of reasoning. It's like saying let's keep the candlestick because the light bulb is a threat.

I am speculating that there may be unforseen positive results that happen with global warming. It is human nature to assume the worst and be cautious. Perhaps this predisposition influences the present scientific thinking and it is not getting the whole picture.

Just a thought....

[/ QUOTE ]

Ex,

A week or two ago there was an article on the front page of the WSJ about the effect of global warming in Greenland. And global warming has been a huge benefit to them, their growing seasons are a few weeks longer now then they were a couple decades ago and every year things get a little bit better for them. They have never been able to grow enough food to support themselves and have relied on subsidies from Denmark to get by, but now there is talk that in a couple more decades they might actually become self-sufficient which is exciting to a lot of people there.

So what I am saying is that obviously there will be benefits, especially for people at high latitudes. There will probably be other benefits that we can't predict. But there will also be negatives that we can't predict, and there is no way to know if the negatives will outweight the positives. So given that state of affairs I think the only rational way to go forward is to do our best to mitigate human warming. You can't just hope that everything will be ok, when in reality nobody knows what the results will be.

I recommend you read "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" by Ruddiman. It's a very apolitical book that barely touches on the current state of global warming, but instead does a good job explaining the science behind climate cycles and it made me a think a lot differently about both sides of the debate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A week or two ago there was an article on the front page of the WSJ

[/ QUOTE ]

The WSJ's journal reporting on science can only be described as criminal. They report entire groups of scientists that quit in protest due to ethical reasons and political censoring as being "fired" or "layed off". They give an insane amount of airtime to "pundits for hire". They also twist facts beyond belief and just about every science blog spends a considerable amount of time documenting this. The WSJ simply can not be trusted regarding scientific stuff.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to imagine that with so much water on the planet, that all the land mass is doomed to dry out and become a giant desert in the event of climate change.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exsubmariner,

This shows that you simply don't understand what is going on. Many areas of the planet will dry up but others will get swamped. Malaria is expected to become common in the US while china dries up. The ocean is turning acidic and James Hansen says 50% of the planets species are expected to go extinct in our lifetime. The entire country of Bangladesh could go completely under water. Compare that to smalleys 5 cent gas tax. I guess that's politics though..... I really don't have the will to write more.

[TomCollins]

If you guys give me $.05 per gallon of gasoline, I'll solve your problems.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
This shows that you simply don't understand what is going on

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone? Seriously, do you? I've been bomabarded about global warming. All I really can conclude is that it's a PR campaign by a bunch of science types to increase their government grants. To me, it holds no more weight than Nuclear Winter or similar equations that have been produced with all the variables convieniently undefined, even with magnitude in relation to each other.

I am going to ask you, too wacki, what I asked phil. Do you know of any climate studies which seek to correlate rainfall or other negative feedback mechanisms in the climate to the concentration of CO2? I know about 200,000 years ago, CO2 was in higher concentration than it is today. What happened? Why didn't the planet bake back then?

These are all valid questions that go unanswered. The mantra is the ole CO2 has a correlation to atmospheric warming. That's all that matters, apparently.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Notice how many countries signed. That is a LOT of National Academies of Sciences.

also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...the-consensus/
Not a single paper doubts anthropogenic global warming.

[ QUOTE ]
All I really can conclude is that it's a PR campaign by a bunch of science types to increase their government grants.

[/ QUOTE ]

gee, must be a worldwide scam then.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it holds no more weight than Nuclear Winter

[/ QUOTE ]

Carl Sagan was crazy back then, and he was crazy when he died. You need to start quoting the National Academies not the crazies.

[ QUOTE ]
I know about 200,000 years ago, CO2 was in higher concentration than it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong and by a wide margin.

Tons of CO2 charts here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/climat...ange_intro.htm



[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, after reading thousands of articles I know the skeptics are consistently wrong on a wide variety of subjects. People like Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are always right. So I know who to trust.

This topic has been beaten to death countless times and all the questions can be answered at www.logicalscience.com or realclimate.org.

[Exsubmariner]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but you really didn't answer my question. Have there been any studies which correlate CO2 concentration with the presence of negative feedback mechanisms in the environment? For example, cloud formation reflecting sunlight back into space?

It looks like I missed by 150,000 years. If you look at the chart in that link you gave me, you can see a spike at about 325,000 years ago with a CO2 concentration higher than today.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's possible but near to impossible to quantify and thus not actionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the classic default for your camp.

By your logic, say it's nearly impossible to *quantify* the effects of small doses of a toxic poison on your kids, does that thus make it non-actionable to stop admisitering the posion to them? Even though you know qualitatively that its no good for them?

Of course not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any analysis of costs and benefits requires at least reasonable and quantified assumptions to balance. I'd assume you're smart enough to understand that. 'Course I might be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is the sort of rubbish usually spouted by weak management and bean-counters. 'if we can't measue it we can't manage it' what tosh.

chez

[Exsubmariner]

I remember something about "Be careful what you manage for, you may get it."