Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[waldo]

oh snap! Nice drive-by there Argus...

What I'm not for is spending tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, to try and "reduce carbon emissions" when there's absolutely no likelihood this will significantly deter global warming - presuming some part of that warming is caused by us to begin with.

absolutely no likelihood Argus? On the Argus scale, what's the ppm level of CO2 where we should take notice and actually adapt/mitigate... not just think about it, but act upon it? Any considerations toward acting during the lead-up time to the Argus ppm level? Given your resolute certainty, your absoluteness, you must have that figure handy, right? Absolutely right, right?

Even if by some miracle of environmental activism global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday.

The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Global Warming not reversible

you stated there was absolutely no likelihood that reducing carbon emissions would significantly, as you stated, "deter global warming". By linking to that article are you suggesting there's no point in doing anything... are you looking at the referenced retention time frame and inferring, "what's the point of doing anything at all"? Wouldn't that apply equally to your aforementioned acceptance towards efficiencies... "what's the point of doing anything at all"?

after several opportunities, since you won't clarify further, one should explore your linked article and it's underlying study/paper. It is refreshing to see you coming around Argus... I can certainly accept the premise you present with your linked article/study... clearly, unabated CO2 emissions to the atmosphere will have climatic consequences that will persist "for a thousand years". Equally significant in your linked article/paper, is the emphasis on the need to act immediately to ensure the current CO2 concentration (@ 385 ppmv) doesn't reach the projected peak 450-600 ppmv levels... so we don't need to deal with those irreversible impacts. Good on ya, Argus! Thanks for bringing this point... your linked article and it's underlying referenced study forward - "Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions"

Abstract: The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.

Over the 20th century, the atmospheric concentrations of key greenhouse gases increased due to human activities. The stated objective (Article 2) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Many studies have focused on projections of possible 21st century dangers (1–3). However, the principles (Article 3) of the UNFCCC specifically emphasize “threats of serious or irreversible damage,” underscoring the importance of the longer term. While some irreversible climate changes such as ice sheet collapse are possible but highly uncertain (1, 4), others can now be identified with greater confidence, and examples among the latter are presented in this paper. It is not generally appreciated that the atmospheric temperature increases caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations are not expected to decrease significantly even if carbon emissions were to completely cease (5–7) (see Fig. 1). Future carbon dioxide emissions in the 21st century will hence lead to adverse climate changes on both short and long time scales that would be essentially irreversible (where irreversible is defined here as a time scale exceeding the end of the millennium in year 3000; note that we do not consider geo-engineering measures that might be able to remove gases already in the atmosphere or to introduce active cooling to counteract warming). For the same reason, the physical climate changes that are due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere today are expected to be largely irreversible. Such climate changes will lead to a range of damaging impacts in different regions and sectors, some of which occur promptly in association with warming, while others build up under sustained warming because of the time lags of the processes involved. Here we illustrate 2 such aspects of the irreversibly altered world that should be expected. These aspects are among reasons for concern but are not comprehensive; other possible climate impacts include Arctic sea ice retreat, increases in heavy rainfall and flooding, permafrost melt, loss of glaciers and snowpack with attendant changes in water supply, increased intensity of hurricanes, etc. A complete climate impacts review is presented elsewhere (8) and is beyond the scope of this paper. We focus on illustrative adverse and irreversible climate impacts for which 3 criteria are met: (i) observed changes are already occurring and there is evidence for anthropogenic contributions to these changes, (ii) the phenomenon is based upon physical principles thought to be well understood, and (iii) projections are available and are broadly robust across models.

Advances in modeling have led not only to improvements in complex Atmosphere–Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) for projecting 21st century climate, but also to the implementation of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) for millennial time scales. These 2 types of models are used in this paper to show how different peak carbon dioxide concentrations that could be attained in the 21st century are expected to lead to substantial and irreversible decreases in dry-season rainfall in a number of already-dry subtropical areas and lower limits to eventual sea level rise of the order of meters, implying unavoidable inundation of many small islands and low-lying coastal areas.

[August1991]

Because there aren't enough threads on climate change?

Argus, in case you drop by and see this, I started this thread about two years ago. It popped up in one of those "who's on line now" lists. I completely forgot what I had posted.

Flipping through the thread quickly, I was astonished to realize that it has taken two years for parts of the MSM (Rex Murphy, Wente et al) to notice this issue. There is something sad about that. (In the same way that it is sad when TV and radio journalists advise listeners to go to the web for latest updates. Do these journalists understand how pathetic they sound when they say that?) In a similar vein, outside of the anglosphere, I feel like I am in a time machine back to 2006 or so.

I decided to bump this old thread to the top for fun.

Edited February 17, 2010 by August1991

[William Ashley]

Although my opinion has not changed that polar melt is a real occurrence - and that climate change is real - the Armageddon that it implies I am not so convinced of, although I have no doubts it would cause some global issues, especially at low lying coastal areas and/or around bodies of water - such as the great lakes for example buffalo and toronto and chicago to name a few of those already mentioned such as Newyork Manhatan, halifax, vancover etc.. But it also has me worrying about my own home a hundred or so meters from a river and very large lake. I can only imagine if the river and lake were expanded by only few feet that there could be substantial flooding (even with dams controlling both major rivers feeding into the lake. (oddly though lake levels are decreasing so no worries there - I hope)

None the less my point was that I'm finishing the last couple pages of a book called "bronze age america" by Barry Fell, it is a very good read and I highly recommend it - the book is actually about european landings in north america in the B.C. era but at the end it mentions and substantiates that there were two favorable periods where the polar ice melted once in 700 A.D. and the other I would guess around the time between 2000 and 1000 b.c. It mentions that since 1200 A.D. the planet has cooled down or a growing cycle year cycle. I think if anything that this natural cycle has been hyper stimulated what was previous an over 1500 year lapse in wwarming turned into since 1200 ad a 700 year gap - perhaps it is a natural cycle that has been sped up by humankind... who knows - fact is it is real especially in the polar north... things like it have happened in the past - the book comes to mention the vineyards of william the conqueror dying out due to climate change - there are many other examples such as portions of land now being submerged and vice versa.

Climate change is a real event - what is the issue to this and the thing that the real debate is about is - what will the effects be -- we already know that the polar ice will melt and surface temperatures will increase causing speciation - what we don't know is what the total effect is going to be - it is doubtful that a total human extinction will occur, but it is fairly certain that in 50 to 100 years if we don't technologically adapt the planet will be devastated - so it does address technological accessibility - but there is one problem with adapting - that the ecosystem will be devastated.. speciation right. - If in 1960 people said the planet would be uninhabitable by non technologically assisted people today - do you think any attempts to stop it from happening would occur - now what would we think today if we did nothing. We are in that type of situation.

This is why I'm not incredibly concerned with the environmental effects - I am concerned with the effects on the geopolitical landscape because the planet is going to be fornicated.

I don't have much confidence in government to meet the crisis - but I do think any move towards making the air cleaner won't be bad for us.. even if it means cities fry from lack of photochemical smog-- at least we aren't breathing it in.

For the zealous out there - god said we would not be destroyed by flood again - he made no such promises about smog.

Edited February 17, 2010 by William Ashley

[Battletoads]

There is an element of proselytizing in global warming believers. Even the term "global warming" has undergone the Leftist baptism to be renamed as "climate change".

Climate Change was a term popularized by George W.b Bush because it sounded less threatening than global warming. Try harder.

[August1991]

Climate Change was a term popularized by George W.b Bush because it sounded less threatening than global warming. Try harder.

Maybe. But what was George W. Bush doing in 1988?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

IPCC

----

To be more exact, maybe we're both wrong. The term "climate change" predates both "global warming" and Bush Jnr.

Edited February 17, 2010 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies,

Questions over business deals of climate change guru

Yes, the Carbon Trading fiasco deserves to be published and heard everywhere. It is a mess. And Pachauri seems to be at the centre of a corrupt system.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe. But what was George W. Bush doing in 1988?

IPCC

----

To be more exact, maybe we're both wrong. The term "climate change" predates both "global warming" and Bush Jnr.

Bush Jr. was born after 1989... I knew it !

[Battletoads]

Maybe. But what was George W. Bush doing in 1988?

IPCC

----

To be more exact, maybe we're both wrong. The term "climate change" predates both "global warming" and Bush Jnr.

Is the word popularized really that hard to grasp? Should I dumb it down a bit?

[waldo]

But what was George W. Bush doing in 1988?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezBqEOuZrOA

[William Ashley]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Permafrost+rapidly+deteriorating+northern+Quebec+Study/2577610/story.html

another canadian situation

this is what I'm concerned about

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Arctic+warming+reverses+long+term+cooling+cycle+triggered+wobbles+Earth+orbit+study+shows/1961506/story.html

Edited February 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[waldo]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Permafrost+rapidly+deteriorating+northern+Quebec+Study/2577610/story.html

another canadian situation

on that one point, the MLW naysayers have already welcomed the warming of Canada's north - great opportunities ahead, hee haw!

at least we can say the lame mainstream press reported on the study referenced in your linked article; however, as is typical, the impacts are not even mentioned within the article. We've touched upon this in an earlier MLW thread, where the microbial decomposition of organic carbon in thawing permafrost will, in itself, significantly increase CO2 emissions (a fine feedback mechanism on rising temperatures!)

Bad Sign For Global Warming: Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool

Permafrost blanketing the northern hemisphere contains more than twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, making it a potentially mammoth contributor to global climate change depending on how quickly it thaws.

Thawing Permafrost Likely To Boost Global Warming, New Assessment Concludes

A new assessment more than doubles previous estimates of the amount of carbon stored in permafrost, and indicates that carbon dioxide emissions from microbial decomposition of organic carbon in thawing permafrost could amount to roughly half those resulting from global land-use change during this century.

[Keepitsimple]

We've touched upon this in an earlier MLW thread, where the microbial decomposition of organic carbon in thawing permafrost will, in itself, significantly increase CO2 emissions (a fine feedback mechanism on rising temperatures!)

Bad Sign For Global Warming: Thawing Permafrost Holds Vast Carbon Pool

Thawing Permafrost Likely To Boost Global Warming, New Assessment Concludes

There's a lot of "ifs" in your link - the biggest having been omitted - and that is "if the earth warms to the upper extent that the IPCC claims".....because the article's claim is that CO2 release COULD be double what was thought. In any event, it's also interesting that the CO2 comes from previous organic compounds - trees and vegetation, proving that it used to be warm in the Tundra....and around and around we go. It's called Climate Change.

Schuur and his colleagues acknowledge many difficulties in estimating carbon dioxide emissions from permafrost regions, which hold more carbon in the Arctic and boreal regions of the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. Data are limited, and emissions are influenced by the amount of surface water, topography, wildfires, snow cover, and other factors. Thawing, although believed to be critical, is hard to model accurately.

Some warming-related trends in Arctic regions, such as the encroachment of trees into tundra, may cause absorption of carbon dioxide and thus partly counter the effects of thawing permafrost. But Schuur and colleagues' new assessment indicates that thawing is likely to dominate known countervailing trends.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Guest American Woman]

Just read an interesting comment regarding Global Warming:

'I don't get into these Global Warming arguments because I am not a scientist. However, I will tell you this, my first summer here was in 1984, no way we could have taken a ship this size back then into the areas where we have just been [in Antarctica]. There was so much ice then that even a consideration of doing so would have been ridiculous.'

(Retired Coast Guard Captain who had captained the ice breaker, the Polar Star, on scientific expeditions in the Antarctic for years, speaking on board the the Star Princess cruise ship.)

This is someone who can see first hand that Antarctica is melting.

Edited February 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Hey hey now, this is all clearly a leftist conspiracy. Don't try to muddle things with actual facts . Seriously though, I'm pretty sold on the fact that the climate is changing and that the average temperature of the planet is rising...I'm just not completely sold on the cause (I think we are partly to blame though) or the solution.

[Guest American Woman]

The cause is most likely a number of things, to my way of thinking. As to the solution, it makes sense to try to do something about the possible causes where we are able.

I sure think the temperature of the planet is rising, too. The winters we have now are mild compared to when I was a kid and snow all winter long was a given. Now I complain when we have what used to be a normal winter.

[Wild Bill]

The cause is most likely a number of things, to my way of thinking. As to the solution, it makes sense to try to do something about the possible causes where we are able.

I sure think the temperature of the planet is rising, too. The winters we have now are mild compared to when I was a kid and snow all winter long was a given. Now I complain when we have what used to be a normal winter.

Is what happened since we were kids really significant? To Mother Nature that's not long enough to blink an eye, let alone define a cycle.

What always makes me smile is reading how when the Vikings discovered Newfoundland and Labrador it was warm enough to grow grapes! My poor relations on the Rock! Been waiting all these centuries to get warm again!

[jbg]

Is what happened since we were kids really significant? To Mother Nature that's not long enough to blink an eye, let alone define a cycle.

Another theory is that the dramatic winters are better remembered. I live in the NYC area and there were plenty of winters I got maybe one or two days sledding.

Even the 1960's, which were on balance snowy, some winters were notably unsnowy, such as 1965-6 (a few snow to rains so the stats don't look so bad), 1967-8 and 1969-70 (Montreal got buried, we went to rain after 6" in the most dramatic storm on Decmeber 26-28).

The 1970's, except for 1977-8 and 1978-9 were almost snowless. Ditto the 1980s (one mega storm in February 1983 and a few in January 1987), and the 1990's, except 1993-4 and 1995-6. To the surprise of many global warming nuts, the snows have returned this millenia, as has, for a few winters, serious cold.

[eyeball]

Is what happened since we were kids really significant? To Mother Nature that's not long enough to blink an eye, let alone define a cycle.

It sure feels significant given it's happening all over the globe as predicted. The comments I hear from people who visit my region from around the planet indicate we're all experiencing and reporting the same thing. I've spent more days in tee-shirts outside this winter then I can ever remember. It's not so much these or the sheer overwhelming abundance of sustained expert scientific consensus that's sold me on the need to act as if our lives depended on it. Deep down my belly-feel is also based on a lifetime's worth of personal experience, for me the real acid test is this, if the right wing is so opposed to taking action, then taking action is probably the best course of action.

Keepitsimple wrote

In any event, it's also interesting that the CO2 comes from previous organic compounds - trees and vegetation, proving that it used to be warm in the Tundra....and around and around we go. It's called Climate Change.

When it's warm enough in the tundra for civilization to move there I wonder what'll be compelling it to move away from the temperate and equatorial regions it occupies now?

[Guest American Woman]

Is what happened since we were kids really significant? To Mother Nature that's not long enough to blink an eye, let alone define a cycle.

It's an observation that goes along with other observations around the world, such as Antarctica, as I posted.

What always makes me smile is reading how when the Vikings discovered Newfoundland and Labrador it was warm enough to grow grapes!

That's hardly an accepted fact; in fact, it's quite the opposite.

[eyeball]

To the surprise of many global warming nuts, the snows have returned this millenia, as has, for a few winters, serious cold.

This doesn't seem surprising in the face of hotter summers - expect more of what you're accustomed to seeing is a prediction I recall hearing years ago.

Why is it not surprising that we're still seeing serious warming in the coldest parts of the world, also as predicted?

[wyly]

What always makes me smile is reading how when the Vikings discovered Newfoundland and Labrador it was warm enough to grow grapes! My poor relations on the Rock! Been waiting all these centuries to get warm again!

1st it's comeplete BS that the Vikings found grapes in NFLD, there is no archeological evidence for that, pure myth...

2nd I grew grapes when I lived Sask, short summers bitterly cold winters...warmth is not the key for growing grapes it's dependent on sunshine and variety...

[wyly]

Another theory is that the dramatic winters are better remembered. I live in the NYC area and there were plenty of winters I got maybe one or two days sledding.

Even the 1960's, which were on balance snowy, some winters were notably unsnowy, such as 1965-6 (a few snow to rains so the stats don't look so bad), 1967-8 and 1969-70 (Montreal got buried, we went to rain after 6" in the most dramatic storm on Decmeber 26-28).

The 1970's, except for 1977-8 and 1978-9 were almost snowless. Ditto the 1980s (one mega storm in February 1983 and a few in January 1987), and the 1990's, except 1993-4 and 1995-6. To the surprise of many global warming nuts, the snows have returned this millenia, as has, for a few winters, serious cold.

here's a little weather education for you, winter snow is dependent on two things, a the Jet Stream to push dry Arctic air south and warm moist air coming from the south...an increase in precipitation(rain and snow)indicates higher humidity/warmer temps in the southern areas as artic air brought by the jet stream doesn't contain significant moisture...To the surprise of the dwindling number of denier nuts weather is not climate...

[Wild Bill]

1st it's comeplete BS that the Vikings found grapes in NFLD, there is no archeological evidence for that, pure myth...

2nd I grew grapes when I lived Sask, short summers bitterly cold winters...warmth is not the key for growing grapes it's dependent on sunshine and variety...

http://www.athenapub.com/vinland1.htm

"Two types of evidence exist for Norse contacts with North America: written sagas and archaeological findings. Vinland, southernmost of three North American coastal areas described in Icelandic Sagas by Norse explorers, was said to be rich in grapes, timber, and a self-sown "wheat." Archaeological investigations in the 1960's at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland discovered proof of an early 11th century AD Norse settlement, defining both a Viking outpost in Canada, and contact with North American natives called "Skraelings." "

These next two came up from a simple google:

"1000 AD - 'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there.'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there. During the “Little Optimum”, Edinburgh enjoyed the climate of London, while London enjoyed the climate of the Loire valley in France, a difference of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit—the equivalent in modern American terms of ...

Show more

Show less

From The 'Great Global Warming Swindle' debate - Related web pages

creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle ..."

"1000 AD - I read an old Farley Mowatt book a while back called "West Viking". It's all about the Viking exploration in Canada around 1000 AD. They overwintered in Newfoundland and grapes grew wild there as climate was much milder there than it is now so apparently these temperature ...

From Global Warming Article . - REVscene.net - The Northwest's #1 Automotive, … - Related web pages

www.revscene.net/forums/global-warming-article ..."

After reading these links I understand why your post is so vehemtly against the idea. It supports the idea of there having been mild spells during the Middle Ages, which apparently amongst the "anti-denier" crowd is rankest blasphemy which should never be spoken!

Edited February 21, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.athenapub.com/vinland1.htm

"Two types of evidence exist for Norse contacts with North America: written sagas and archaeological findings. Vinland, southernmost of three North American coastal areas described in Icelandic Sagas by Norse explorers, was said to be rich in grapes, timber, and a self-sown "wheat." Archaeological investigations in the 1960's at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland discovered proof of an early 11th century AD Norse settlement, defining both a Viking outpost in Canada, and contact with North American natives called "Skraelings." "

These next two came up from a simple google:

"1000 AD - 'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there.'The northerly retreat of icebergs and pack-ice under the impact of warmer temperatures is a plausible explanation of why Lief Eriksson was able to sail round the top of the Atlantic as far as Newfoundland in or about the year 1000, and why he found vines there. During the “Little Optimum”, Edinburgh enjoyed the climate of London, while London enjoyed the climate of the Loire valley in France, a difference of 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit—the equivalent in modern American terms of ...

Show more

Show less

From The 'Great Global Warming Swindle' debate - Related web pages

creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle ..."

"1000 AD - I read an old Farley Mowatt book a while back called "West Viking". It's all about the Viking exploration in Canada around 1000 AD. They overwintered in Newfoundland and grapes grew wild there as climate was much milder there than it is now so apparently these temperature ...

From Global Warming Article . - REVscene.net - The Northwest's #1 Automotive, … - Related web pages

www.revscene.net/forums/global-warming-article ..."

After reading these links I understand why your post is so vehemtly against the idea. It supports the idea of there having been mild spells during the Middle Ages, which apparently amongst the "anti-denier" crowd is rankest blasphemy which should never be spoken!

Given the environment we are in with these issues, it's probably better for us to reject anecdotal tales of how warm it was, or how cold it was in the past. We have enough problems, even in those cases where we have data and/or proxies.

[William Ashley]

1st it's comeplete BS that the Vikings found grapes in NFLD, there is no archeological evidence for that, pure myth...

2nd I grew grapes when I lived Sask, short summers bitterly cold winters...warmth is not the key for growing grapes it's dependent on sunshine and variety...

I highly suggest you look for a book called bronze age america --- it is a really good book, and presents some startling evidence about both vikings and celtic groups in american in the era before christ. While you may be all like, what a scam, the guy is a harvard professor

http://www.amazon.ca/Bronze-Age-America-Barry-Fell/dp/0316277711

It is a very good read.