My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by REASON

With this in mind, we should be making preparations to try and stabilize the conditions before they reach the dreaded "tipping point" at which it will be beyond our ability to control. These preparations should include, but not be limited to, the development of artificial CO2 sequestration methods, and the promotion of government policies that encourage, if not require, increased fuel economy standards, alternate sources of clean energy, recycling, and green development practices.

It simply makes sense to do these things anyway if we are to be good stewards of the only environment we have to live. The technology is available.

Stabilize?

The historic proportions of CO2 (as I understand it) indicate this current ppmv is an anomaly in the averages of the earth and quite low for what is the 'average' over the history of life on earth itself. I am unsure where this 'tipping point' exists.
Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additionally, it appears the whole of human development occurred during one of these unusual cold snaps and to try to attempt to alter the big picture of what is normal for the earth based a limited perception of what we think is best seems quite impossible and likely a waste of resources. Climate change happens whether or not we are here to observe it personally.

Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:65 Myr Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ate_Change.png

If you really want to talk about 'tipping points' I would suggest that occurred around the time we hit 4 billion people (and rising).

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Stabilize?

The historic proportions of CO2 (as I understand it) indicate this current ppmv is an anomaly in the averages of the earth and quite low for what is the 'average' over the history of life on earth itself. I am unsure where this 'tipping point' exists.
Image:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additionally, it appears the whole of human development occurred during one of these unusual cold snaps and to try to attempt to alter the big picture of what is normal for the earth based a limited perception of what we think is best seems quite impossible and likely a waste of resources. Climate change happens whether or not we are here to observe it personally.

Image:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:65 Myr Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ate_Change.png

If you really want to talk about 'tipping points' I would suggest that occurred around the time we hit 4 billion people (and rising).

I'm not exactly sure what your argument is Cedars but it seems like you are trying to justify an increase in concentrations because of historic levels. Is this correct?

[InfiniteNow]

It's not so much the overall concentration that matters as it's the rate of increase. Slower increase means that natural mechanisms can adjust. Rapid increase (which we are in right now) means that the natural mechanisms simply cannot keep up.

Even if we stopped inputting 100% of our CO₂ today, the effects on the climate would continue for a few decades.

So... uhhh... let's stop our inputs and contributions as a goal, and more pragmatically, work as hard as we can to reduce them now through every possible means.

Why is this still being cast in the dim light of false uncertainty?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by REASON

With this in mind, we should be making preparations to try and stabilize the conditions before they reach the dreaded "tipping point" at which it will be beyond our ability to control.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Stabilize?

The historic proportions of CO2 (as I understand it) indicate this current ppmv is an anomaly in the averages of the earth and quite low for what is the 'average' over the history of life on earth itself. I am unsure where this 'tipping point' exists.

IMHO, much of what drives rational arguments for “stabilizing” or “preserving the climatic status quo” is the lack of certainty about and confidence in climate model predictions.

A review of the history of climate modeling is highlighted by unexpected discoveries about its limitations (eg: von Neuman’s optimistic and incorrect predictions, Lorenz’s 1960s work, which can be considered the origin of modern chaos theory), and significant failed predictions of both the “good news” (eg: the North Atlantic current not “stalling”, despite high volumes of polar melt water) and “bad news” (eg: much faster than expected melting of Artic Ocean ice) kind.

On one hand, “global warming deniers” argue that this indicates few or no measures should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the other, “global warming alarmists” argue that catastrophe involving unprecedented loss of human life is imminent. There is, IMHO, a significant third point of view, “global warming conservatives”, who conclude that as we lack confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of significant differences in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, we should attempt to arrest and reverse the last century’s increases, because if there are not significant changes in these and other climate-effecting factors, climate model predictions are no longer of great practical significance.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Additionally, it appears the whole of human development occurred during one of these unusual cold snaps and to try to attempt to alter the big picture of what is normal for the earth based a limited perception of what we think is best seems quite impossible and likely a waste of resources.

This “seeming” is more properly, IMHO, the domain of mathematical risk analysis.

Consider, given the uncertainty of climate models, the range of probabilities (“error bars”) of various climate change scenarios, and the associated costs in terms of resources financial, political, and humanitarian, and I believe you’ll find that the expected value of cost of unchecked global warming far exceeds the cost of proposed measures to check it. For example, a scenario in which there is an unexpectedly great rate of sea level increase on the northern European coast, resulting in great loss or heavily developed, very valuable real estate in countries like Denmark and Holland, can yield practically incalculable bad financial and political consequences – a scenario I like to call “lots of [formerly] rich, politically powerful refugees”.

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

I wonder if Cedars' concerns are primarily around an increase in government policy/bureaucracy, law making, and regulations directed at private industry. Based on previous posts of hers that I've read, any additional government intrusion into our lives represents another thorn in our backsides.

If this is true Cedars, I don't completely disagree with you. But considering the motivations of increased profit and control of losses, I don't believe private industry will do the right thing and properly regulate itself when it comes to operating in an environmentally friendly manner. There have been too many instances in the past where industry was perfectly content to polute the air and improperly dispose of toxic chemicals in local water supplies in order to avoid the financial burden of having to deal with these issues in a way that is environmentally conscious. Thus, we have the EPA.

I can't help but agree with Craig and suggest that the resistance to jumping on the global warming bandwagon is associated with the fear of more government regulations which can be so easily translated into more financial costs, for everyone. But what are the long term costs of doing nothing? Does protecting profit always have to be the number one priority? Is there really no way to encourage industry to modify their practices without some form of government regulation? Is there no way to make it profitable long term? This is a total lack of vision.

It's interesting to compare the alarmism associated with global terrorism to the alarmism associated with global warming, and the current responses to each by our government and its corporate masters. To me, it is clear that the former is treated with utmost importance, not because of national security, but because of the ability, through financing the so called "Global War on Terror," to funnel so much profit to the private sector and the military industrial complex. The latter, on the other hand, is rejected because dealing with Global Warming appears to only represent costs.

In my opinion, treating both of these issues in the manner that we currently are, is leading to yet unrealized costs that are far greater than we are apparently willing, with our obvious lack of vision, to consider.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm not exactly sure what your argument is Cedars but it seems like you are trying to justify an increase in concentrations because of historic levels. Is this correct?

Not justify, just point out in the big picture the current (and what we call normal) CO2 levels are on the whole remarkably low rather than the oft used term "unpresidented in history". The 'norm' for the planet seems to be twice the amount as is current.

And the temperature measurements, based on O18 also indicate we havent neared what is 'normal' for the planet.

The current 'global warming' hype is based on a cooled earth average and bears little resembalance to the averages on the whole, which MUST be taken into account when trying to conclude anything about global climate.

[freeztar]

What about (as IN pointed out) the rate of increase Cedars?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by CraigD

IMHO, much of what drives rational arguments for “stabilizing” or “preserving the climatic status quo” is the lack of certainty about and confidence in climate model predictions.

Although complex social predictions are the domain of a discipline even more uncertain that climate modeling, I’m of the strong opinion that much of the reluctance of economically and politically individuals, businesses, and governments to commit to large expenses in the result of “lack of vision in boardroom accounting” – that is, unwillingness to incur costs “on our watch” to avoid greater costs years later, “on the next poor guy’s watch”. This lack of financial and political vision may, I fear, prove a bad thing on a par with the decline and fall of the Roman empire and the subsequent European dark ages.

I hated to snip any of your post Craig, but the basics of the issue (for me anyways) is until you reduce the number of people gathering the limited resources, the end of the story will remain much like the cycle of lemmings. Delay it until theres 20 billion people fighting over the last drops of oil and you create more carnage than addressing the real issue. Create all the kyotos politicians can stammer out, but as long as the majority of people are exempt you create no gain as china has overtaken the us in co2 output. Whats going to happen when they all have cars to drive around in?

Adapt to the environment or become extinct.

But please dont move to Minnesota to avoid rising waters. I have enough trouble with the yuppies moving out of the cities with their delusions of country life (meaning they move out here and drag the city with them, cant get a one of them to shut off their outside lights at night).*

NOTE: This comment is not directed at Craig, and it should have been noted that it is a general comment much like the "tourists go home" pun t-shirts.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

...the basics of the issue (for me anyways) is until you reduce the number of people gathering the limited resources, the end of the story will remain much like the cycle of lemmings. Delay it until theres 20 billion people fighting over the last drops of oil and you create more carnage than addressing the real issue.

Adapt to the environment or become extinct.

Ah Ha! Let the Earth go ahead and get a fever and maybe it will wipe out a significant portion of the already overly abundant human population on the planet.

My, how diabolical.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

What about (as IN pointed out) the rate of increase Cedars?

I have seen no ill effects related to the increase of CO2. There is nothing going on now that hasnt happened before, including melting of arctic/antarctic ice, deserts expanding/contracting, droughts of varied magnitudes, etc. I posted a link long ago to a study being done on past high waters (in a different thread) showing the antarctic was open 800K years ago and supporting tropical shelled creatures (currently they live in tropics around samoa iirc). I have seen no indication in the long run any life suffers via increased co2.

Most currently are tidbits leaking out about rethinking the ozone damage and cycle of damage and just how much is natural i.e. Is it normal to have an ozone hole over the antarctic.

You bet I am skeptical of man's influence on the temperature of the earth and whether this current phase is long term or short term, on the global climate scale and whether or not anyone can assign any probability to the impact of man and keep a straight face while insisting such things.