The great Global Warming debate of ‘08
I see that my last column didn’t make it here to B&S, so I will rectify the oversight.
It’s called, “The great Global Warming debate of ‘08.” In in, I take on the GW debate.
I conclude:
The Global Warming apostles would like for people to not ask questions and blindly accept their solutions for our planet’s alleged problem. One should never trust people who don’t welcome questions.
I welcome your questions.
Go to widigest.com and read JJ’s comments on this and the new research that shows exactly the opposite of global warming.
Sign up for the weekly Wisconsin Consrvative Digest weekly email newsletter at widigest.com.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2008 at 2236 hrs
Conservatives ask questions? Like what. When is my next shearing sir?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 0706 hrs
Nice way to engage in meaningful debate, Keith. Is that the famous liberal open mind that I keep hearing about?
Posted by Owen on January 29, 2008 at 0757 hrs
We start the dialog. Owen, your assumption that liberals don’t question things is just plain wrong because as you know, we question things to a fault. Or put another way, running the Democratic party is like herding cats. Republicans on the other hand are notorious for following orders from the top. As Chris Matthews put it, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Democrats (not all) tend to like to deconstruct and find out how things really work. Since many Republicans (not all) have authoritarian personalities they want the facts to fit around their preconceived notions. That’s why you tend to find fewer conservative personalities in journalism because this career takes a personality that does not stop at what hits them initially but rather like to dig deeper.
You can come at supporters of global warming how ever you like. But to charge them as being unquestioning is slapping the perspective of many conservatives on a liberal mind.
If the glove don’t fit you must acquit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 0932 hrs
Their research conclusions are based on research from one entity, the IPCC. Can they show any other research body that supports their claim?
They show a historic time line that shows the correlation between warming and CO2 in the atmosphere. They show it as being simultaneous when the actual results show that CO2 elevations in the atmosphere go up as a result of warming. Why do they stand by this deception?
Posted by silent E on January 29, 2008 at 0939 hrs
I apologize for the digression, but I thought Keiths analysis was worthy of a comment:
your assumption that liberals don’t question things is just plain wrong because as you know, we question things to a fault. Or put another way, running the Democratic party is like herding cats. Republicans on the other hand are notorious for following orders from the top. As Chris Matthews put it, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Democrats (not all) tend to like to deconstruct and find out how things really work. Since many Republicans (not all) have authoritarian personalities they want the facts to fit around their preconceived notions. That’s why you tend to find fewer conservative personalities in journalism because this career takes a personality that does not stop at what hits them initially but rather like to dig deeper.
I two have thought this about the dicotomy between right vs. left. The one area where I think this is most observable is religion. Liberals tend to reject dogma while conservatives lap it up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1051 hrs
whoops, that is I too… There is only one of me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1053 hrs
A very well thought out and reasoned column, Owen! The only problem I have is the last graph where you throw out the strawman argument. Who are these “apostles” who demand that everyone accept their views without question?
Scientists ask lots of questions and are constantly reevaluating and defending their conclusions. What is frustrating is when you have a massive conglomeration of scientists from around the world (the IPCC is NOT just “one entity”) agreeing in principle about some basic facts of global warming, only to have them rejected outright by people with no scientific background who base their conclusions on predetermined dogma (either that or whatever Rush Limbaugh said).
My position on global warming is to let the scientists do their jobs and quit trying to inject politics into it. If they come out tomorrow and say there is no global warming, I’ll be fine with that. But that is not what they have said and in the meantime I think we need to take them seriously and hope that we can still do something to change things.
As you note, there may be some positive results from a slight warming, but it’s not as simple as someone turning up the global thermostat a few degrees. The fear is that it is going up and won’t stop at the ideal temperature we would all like to see.Posted by Mike Thomas on January 29, 2008 at 1147 hrs
Owen, isn’t your conclusion hitting a straw-man to some extent? I always chime in on this because I think that both sides ignore the important bits.
Conservatives fall too easily into outright denial, which ignores the question of what, if any actions should be taken.
Lefties, too often, preach that any warming will be catastrophic.
Once you fall into any of these, all debate is pointless. These are straw-men, and should be avoided.
The theory of global warming is that:
1. CO2 traps heat, which makes the earth warmer.
2. We release CO2 faster as technological progress increases.
3. Ergo, we make the world warmer.
This, and only this, is settled science. The degree of warming, and the consequences of warming are still very much up for debate. What, if any steps we should take are up for debate.
If you want to deny warming completely, you need to come up with some theroy that would offset the theory above. This is possible. The earth does adjust to things like this. However, there is evidence that some of the larger carbon absorbtion mechanisms of the earth are either at capacity, or have not changed their rate of absorbtion sufficiently to capture the excess, which is why warming is still predicted.
Lastly, it is possible that there is warming caused by nature, and not man. Conservatives often like to cite the fact that Mars is warming as well (which is true). And indeed, the sun does and has caused warming before, for instance, in the Medieval Climate Optimum from about 900 AD until about 1300 AD (at which point we had what is commnly known as “the little ice age.”
But just because nature is doing the warming does not mean that we should let it happen. IF warming is harmful, we need to learn to fight it regardless of the cause. The same goes for cooling.
So, there are some jumping off points for constructive debate. I would start by saying that conservation aloen will not make a lick of difference to stem global warming, especially given that China and India will shortly surpass the US as the largest contributors of greenhouse gases. Investment in clean energy generation would cost less and have a more global impact than would draconian conservation policies, many of which would retard scientific progress.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 29, 2008 at 1154 hrs
Paul, your theory of global warming is flawed.
1. The earth warms
2. CO2 emissions increase
3. CO2 is an effect, not a cause.Even Al’s graphs show this.
Posted by silent E on January 29, 2008 at 1204 hrs
If GW is really as big a problem as some think it is and we do nothing our ancestors will rightfully be able to label us the “worst generation”.
If GW turns out to be basically bunk, but we still go green and invest in alternative energies we will still be doing a service to future generations. Green technologies will take a substantial initial investment, but that investment will start to pay dividends fairly quickly and insulate us from the swings of global energy markets that are out of our control.
The extremists on either side of the GW debate have vested interests. If you are going to call the motivations of the GW proponents into question you should be fair and look at the other side as well. The GW deniers are funded by special interests that wish to keep the status quo in place. This was blatantly evident if you look at the ad campaign that was waged against California’s proposition 87 (‘06).
With that said we should not adopt any policies that will immediately put us at a substantial competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world. Reducing our dependence on petroleum will be a competitive advantage and is something we should have started 8 years ago.
If we sit on our hands, do nothing and allow the energy industry to dictate our energy policy we will find ourselves left behind. Our competitors will be realizing the benefits of their green investments while our military struggles to keep the peace in the regions that control the market for natural resources we are dependent on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1215 hrs
Conservatives have no problems going green. Market it, don’t mandate it by using theories that don’t hold up to scientific method. Don’t raise my taxes because you believe that I’m causing global warming. Raise my taxes because you can ABSOLUTELY PROVE that I’m causing global warming. You can’t prove it and with the science that is out there now….You won’t.
Posted by silent E on January 29, 2008 at 1222 hrs
Everyone seems to forget that, if you took botany, you found out that CO2 is the building block of plants. You make more co2, you get more plant growth having a cooling effect.
Before this became political I read all of the data that I could find about global warming and concluded that anyone that comes up with a conclusion that is based on science is nuts. The scientific method that we follow in chemistry, botany, physics and all other hard sciences says that you simply cannot tell for sure what is going to happen.
There was a great article in Discover magazine a year or so ago that said that the prominet climatologists believed the political scientists that have concocted this theory, of global warming, are nuts. and it is political, an extension of the growth, no growth debate.
Meteorologist and State Rep. jim Ott says that he doesn’t know what is going to happen.
There are very many reputable scientists that claim that sun activity will determine our future climate and that the things we do are so pitifully small compared to what happens on the sun that they do not matter.
Absolutists in an area like this, especially those with little knowledge of science need to be believed only a little. My father said: “believe half of what you see and none of what you read and you will do just fine”.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1223 hrs
1. CO2 traps heat, which makes the earth warmer.
2. We release CO2 faster as technological progress increases.
3. Ergo, we make the world warmer.
Wow! How incredibly simplistic and misleading. But, I’m not surprised. First, CO2 is one of a few gases that trap heat, and it’s not the most significant. The second point is true, but to what degree and to what affect is still of much debate. Also, there is a tendency to ignore that with advancing technology, we also improve our ability to advance in a more ecologically friendly way. Cars are a good example. They emit FAR less pollutants than they did 10 years ago. Same applies to many industries. Ergo . . . nothing. The earth is warming. If you’re so convinced of catastrophic events, buy land in West Virginia or Nevada.
Posted by jimi on January 29, 2008 at 1237 hrs
Silent, you are correct that the chart in question does show that CO2 follows climate increase, however, this is, to some extent, separate from my theory posted above. Temperature does not cause an increase in HUMAN produced CO2. That is caused by industry, and by poor people escaping from subsistence farming. And we know that CO2 does cause warming. It is one of the properties of CO2. It is not controversial. So while warming may cause CO2 by some other mechanism, that’s not what I was talking about above.
Incidentally, I’m not a fan of that portion of Gore’s presentation, but it’s worth mentioning that the positive feedback loop alleged by some global warmign alarmists and computer models is based on this info. I would argue that these are separate phenomenon, and that feeback loops of this type tend not to survive in nature as they are destabilizing. It is more likely that the correlation in Gore’s graph is correlative. My theory, however, still holds. Unless you can make a case tha CO2 does not in fact trap heat.
Mr. Dohnal, I don’t care what you read a year ago in a magazine. Clearly, most scientists accept that some warming is happening, but I’m trying to stay away from arguments from authority. Science is enough. Also your father’s saying is really, really stupid.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 29, 2008 at 1244 hrs
Jimi, thank you for reading the first two sentences of my comment while ignoring the rest. Skimming is really the way to go when you want to offer feedback.
I said that I did not believe in catastrophic events. My syllogism is in no way misleading. Can you explain how it is misleading?
I also stated that i am in favor of a plicy of technological advancement over conservation, something that you apparently agree with. So what’s your issue there?
You also ignore India and China, about to enter their own industrial revolutions, offsetting basically all of our current tech improvements in one fell swoop.
But seriously, thanks for that example of poor reading comprehension, (or laziness). It was illuminating for everyone.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 29, 2008 at 1303 hrs
The increase in CO2 shown on the charts take into account ALL CO2. The graphs followed the same paths before, during, and after the beginning of the industrial age. As temperatures increased, CO2 increased at the same rate. The spikes are relative and virtually identical during all periods.
Posted by silent E on January 29, 2008 at 1309 hrs
My humblest apologies if I misread your own stand on the issue. Your “theory” of global warming is often cited by others as the cause and effect end all . . . and end of discussion. That’s simply not the case. It ignores all the many other factors that make up our climate, short and long range. Again, if that’s not your position, I apologize. I believe we agree there is a middle ground.
We also agree that technology should not be trumped by policy. As a result of this discussion, technology will improve and should move forward always.
Posted by jimi on January 29, 2008 at 1319 hrs
Silent, yes, and that is precisely the problem, because lumping them together hides two very different phenomena, and the reactions to these two different phenomena.
Jimi, sorry if I was overly harsh. I think most of what you wrote was right on.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 29, 2008 at 1325 hrs
Always willing and wanting to prove we can be civil.
Posted by jimi on January 29, 2008 at 1336 hrs
I like this statement: “I’ll believe its a crisis, when they people claiming it’s a crisis, start acting like its a crisis.”
As it is now I see a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the global warming movement, for example, the Global Warming summit in Bali, how much CO2 was spewed into the atmosphere for every attendee of that conference to fly to Bali? Certainly the majority of pro-global warming scientists aren’t based anywhere near south-east asia? Why didn’t they have a teleconference and use technology to save on CO2 emissions instead? If the people telling me to change my life because of global warming show no change in their own life, what do you think I’ll believe about what they say?
Posted by Matt on January 29, 2008 at 1402 hrs
Excellent article and one of the best practical explanations on the issue I have seen. I find it so amazing that we can’t predict the weather accurately for more than a few hours, and people put all their eggs into someone who claims they can predict what it will be like decades from now.
I wonder how the “global warmers” explain the ice ages we had in the past (long before man) somehow the ice melted and then formed again and then melted again. Doesn’t this tell you 1) global temperatures vary widely without man’s influence, 2) global climate changes are measured in thousands of years and not ten or one hundred?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1556 hrs
Weather is not cliamte. Predicting weather is like predicting a specific car accident. Predicting climate is like predicting how many car accidents will take place next year. With such large samples prediciton becomes easier, not harder.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 29, 2008 at 1622 hrs
But, how many days or weeks samples would you need to make a generalized “guess” as to how many accidents will occur on, say, a 4th of July weekend 10 years from now? Would a one hour sample do? Probably not. Which is like trying to convince me 50 to 100 years of years of inaccurate data somehow represents a “pattern” over the course of 4 billion years. I don’t think we’ve reached that sample yet.
Posted by jimi on January 29, 2008 at 1647 hrs
When watching Bono and Al last week, Al said that the polar icecaps will be gone in 5 years.
Doing some simple research, this would mean that the east coast and the west coast would be under water. Ocean front property somewhere in Ohio, and Utah..
There are more unanswered questions than answered. So why is Al in such a hurry to get this crap stuffed down our throats?
So how can you believe this crap?
What happen to the Ice age of 1975?
Why did the global temp on Mars go up just about the same amout as Earth. The two lunar units cant be causing global warming on Mars, can they Al?
And there are over 500 scientists that say this is crap, these scientist are not part of the IPCC, and Mr. Gore has tried several times to silence them. Hasnt worked.
Last point, I would like Mr. Gore to answer this question.
How much money has your company made on carbon credits?
And how much of that has gone into real research?
I want to see bank statements, and reciepts.One guess is I wouldnt get any answers… (Cricket noise here…)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1705 hrs
Paul - Yes, weather is not climate, but you still don’t measure climate in terms of ten years - you measure it over very long time spans. Ten years is not a large sample when you take into account the earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old.
Temperatures on earth have varied widely over that time frame, and we’ve only been around for the last few thousand years.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1740 hrs
If the artic ice cap would go it would not affect the ocean levels any more than ice does when it melts in your drink. if the Antarctic ice cap would go and the one on Greenland we would have some changes, but last article I read was that cold weather froze over the Artic sea again.
if the Artic ice cap would go the result would be more snow and it would linger over the whole continent meaning that the water would evaporate and move to the North Americna and Russian land areas.
Any way if we just cut the east coast off and float it out to seas as Barry wanted we would never miss them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1747 hrs
If man can reverse GW by conservation and other measures, then man has the ability to cause the next ice age by conserving too much. When would we know if we have conserved too much? How would we reverse the effects of over conservation? Indeed, what is the “correct temperature” for Earth? How will we know when we have reached that mark?
Posted by Jim the Fireman on January 29, 2008 at 1811 hrs
your assumption that liberals don’t question things is just plain wrong because as you know, we question things to a fault.
Now this is just strictly an observation on my part.
But no Liberals (for the most part) DO NOT question. They argue, and try to wear the opposition down.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 29, 2008 at 1833 hrs
1. The weather people have a hard enough time telling us what the weather will be in 5 days. Why should we believe that they can tell us with any degree of certainty what the earth will be like in 50, 100, or even 1000 years? -and no I am not trying to be snarky, when I pose that question-
2. The temperature has dropped 23 degrees at my house in the last 25 minutes. I sure hope global warming gets here soon.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 29, 2008 at 1845 hrs
In #27, that argument about the melting ice cubes in a glass of water displays a high level of simplemindedness along with blind adherence to conservative talking points and has been used by the very respectable Rush Limbaugh.
The melting ice cube turns into water vapor which dissipates into the surrounding air in the room and even out into the room.
Ice caps are much bigger. When the vapor hits the atmosphere it reconstitutes into water and raises the ocean level.
I love it when a global warming “debate” breaks out on this site. Either the arguments are lame attempts at humor or just plain imbecilic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 1901 hrs
Keith:
Whats to say that the Arctic ice caps are not/do not undergo
freeze/thaw cycles not unlike we do in say Wisconsin? (bad example I know, but I’m trying)Ice caps are much bigger. When the vapor hits the atmosphere it reconstitutes into water and raises the ocean level.
And how do we know what the “baseline” ocean level is? Because you do need a baseline in order to get an average.
your assumption that liberals don’t question things is just plain wrong because as you know, we question things to a fault.
If you question things to a fault…why am I the one asking the questions?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 29, 2008 at 2000 hrs
The melting ice cube turns into water vapor which dissipates into the surrounding air in the room and even out into the room.
Wow, that’s amazing. Tell me then why there’s a big puddle if an ice cube is put onto a table, or counter top and left to melt. Are you seriously saying that if an ice cube melts in a glass of water, it will displace more water that if it were a solid? Really?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 2025 hrs
From a USATODAY article:
In its 2001 report on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that melting all of Antarctica’s ice would require global temperatures to be about 36 degrees F (20 C) higher than now.
This is more than three times the greatest warming seen as possible this century and is “a situation that has not occurred for at least 15 million years and which is far more than predicted by any scenario of climate change currently under consideration,” the report says.(Related: The 2001 IPCC report)
Warming of the Arctic has been very much in the news recently with publication of an international report on how the climate there is changing. (Related: Report warns of rapid Arctic warming)
The report says quite a bit about Arctic ice melting. The big concern is about Arctic sea ice, not land-based ice like the Greenland Ice Sheet, which would increase sea levels if it melted.
Since sea ice is already floating on the ocean, it does not raise sea levels when it melts, but this does not mean we shouldn’t worry about it.
For one thing, less sea ice means that the ocean absorbs sunlight that the ice would have reflected away. This warms the water. Also, as the report points out, less sea ice means animals such as polar bears and seals have a harder time.
Keith says:
The melting ice cube turns into water vapor which dissipates into the surrounding air in the room and even out into the room.
Ice caps are much bigger. When the vapor hits the atmosphere it reconstitutes into water and raises the ocean level.
I don’t see how either premise is possible. First, an ice cube meting in a glass of water does so so quickly as to make measurement of it’s dissipation in to the air negligible.
As for the second premise . . . where is the extra water coming from raising the levels? Magic? Water vapor hits the atmosphere . . . uh, all the time. We’d need drastic land ice to melt before anyone needs to worry about catastrophic ocean rise. Even the IPCC report doesn’t believe that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 2232 hrs
Saying that melting ice cubes go to water vapor is an incredible ignorance of liquids in a physical and solid state. There would be more evaporation from the surface water around the ice cubes than there wouild be from the ice cubes. There is far more molecular activity in water and that kicks out water molecules. 20 credits of physics and 46 credits of chemistry tell me that.
To prove it, put ice cubes in warm water, mark the water level and then put plastic over the top of glass. The water level will actually go down slightly when the ice melts as the ice obviously has to displace more water than the weight of the cube or it would not float. Water in lakes would freeze from the bottom up and kill everyhting in the lakes.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2008 at 2233 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).