Like I have been saying: No matter what the weather, it is global warming in GWH Land. Thus, in the wake of the great UK freeze, even though only a few years ago climate scientists were predicting that by now we would see little snow in England, we were told the deep cold was really caused by the deep warm. And now again, with great Northeast Post Christmas Blizzard, we again see defensive confident assertions that the cause of the all the cold is–ta da!–global warming. (When trying to figure all of this out, remember this rule: It’s climate if it can be somehow tied to warming. It’s merely weather, if it can’t. The House always wins.) From the story:
The loss of Arctic sea ice helps accelerate the warming of the atmosphere in the far north, thanks to what’s known as the albedo effect. White ice reflects sunlight into space, cooling the air, but when ice melts and is replaced with dark ocean water, the effect is reversed and more of the sun’s heat is absorbed. As the Arctic air warms, it raises the altitude of discrete areas of high pressure, which can then alter wind patterns. This, in turn, can weaken the jet stream, allowing more cold air to seep out of the Arctic and into Europe and the eastern U.S. As the authors of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s recent “Arctic Report Card” put it, “There is evidence that the effect of higher air temperatures in the lower Arctic atmosphere in fall is contributing to changes in the atmospheric circulation in both the Arctic and northern mid-latitudes.
Oh really? Nice theory.
Now, let’s get into our time machine and dial back four + years to October 2006, when we witness the political advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and some university academics warning that the Northeast would experience ever less snow. From the story:
October 4, 2006 (ENS) – Global warming will cause major changes to the climate of the U.S. Northeast if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, scientists said today. Warmer annual temperatures, less snow, more frequent droughts and more extreme rainstorms are expected if current warming trends continue, the scientists said in a new study, and time is running out for action to avoid such changes to the climate. The Northeast’s climate is already changing, the report said, as spring is arriving sooner, summers are hotter and winters are warmer and less snowy.
Oops. Oh, well, we’ll have a warmer winter than usual at some point, and that will be blamed on warming, too. You see, being a GWH means never having to say you’re sorry. Whichever way the wind blows, literally, global warming is to blame.
By the way, the last time a storm like this hit the Northeast was 1947. Wat that warming too? Or was it merely weather?
HT: Climate Depot
December 28th, 2010 | 11:29 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and others. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria: 2006–Expect Less Northeast Snow: 2010–Blizzard is Global Warming! http://bit.ly/h5Ggll #tcot [...]
December 28th, 2010 | 11:33 pm
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: 2006–Expect Less Northeast Snow: 2010–Blizzard is …First Things (blog)Like I have been saying: No matter what the weather, it is global warming in GWH Land. Thus, in the wake of the great UK freeze, even though only a few …Holiday Blizzard: More Signs of Global WarmingTIME (blog)Blizzard blues? Relax: it's hotter than everPeople’s World [...]
December 28th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
The laws of physics have not been repealed. Even though it snowed out east, the Earth continues to warm. This is a fact. It is not in dispute.
Wes: You claim to only be interested in the mitigation policies that might arise from global warming, yet you only post the same, tired denialist nonsense. What gives? Thousands of climate researchers understand the long-term implications of global warming and you find the occasional oddball who misspeaks and promote that. Very dishonest. Brrr.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:13 am
The mantra . . .
” . . . the Earth continues to warm. This is a fact. It is not in dispute.”
The first of the “Chicken Little Triplets” has reappeared. Can’t wait for the other two to show up, and entertain us some more.
:-)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 1:16 am
jb: Be nice. Thanks.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:24 am
‘K
No prob. More fun to watch the show now.
December 29th, 2010 | 8:32 am
jb,
Is the Earth warming?
If yes, then why are you clowning?
If no, be so kind as to explain the temperature record.
Thanks
December 29th, 2010 | 11:36 am
Did Cameron Wake and his fellow climate scientists make predictions that have not come true, or not? Are they the sorts of experts we are supposed to be listening to and were supposed to be listening to in 2006, or not? Is the failure of their predictions evidence against global warming, or not? It’s actually a pretty simple matter. If people like Jeffery would have had us listen to climate scientists like the authors of the report in 2006, and if those scientists are turning out to be _wrong_, then that should be evidence against their theory.
December 29th, 2010 | 12:53 pm
Lydia,
People’s opinions and statements are not evidence for or against a theory. If your complaint is that some (even scientists who should know better) exaggerate, conflate and misspeak, than you have a good point.
Is the Earth warming or not? If it is, is it because of man-made greenhouse gases? If it is because of greenhouse gases, what, if anything should or can we do?
Those are the important questions. The blast of blizzard stories that pop up in the conservamedia every winter rarely raise important questions. The NE US seaboard makes up less than 0.02% of the Earth’s surface but drives 100% of the Earth’s media. When it snows in NYC, people listen! How can the Earth be warming when we just had record snow on 42nd Street??
There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is warming. 97% of climate reseachers are convinced the warming most likely results from greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere and see no mechanism for the natural climate cycles to stop the warming. Reliable models (disparaged here without facts) predict an increase in average surface temperature between 2C (with vigorous mitigation) and 7C+ (with business as usual) by later this century. There is little argument in the science community.
Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the Earth (continents and oceans) which re-emits this energy back into space (otherwise the Earth would burn up!). Solar radiation is subject to several natural cycles of activity (and is currently “cooling” slightly, even though the Earth is warming). The Earth’s orbit also undergoes natural cycles that can modulate the amount of radiation reaching Earth. The ocean currents also contribute to the re-distribution of heat from heat-rich regions to heat-poor regions (God IS a socialist!). These ocean currents can change over millions of years because of the movement of land masses (continental drift). All these changes can change the climate over the short- and long term (geologically speaking). But currently, the primary driver of climate change is likely the increased greenhouse gases we’ve added that disrupt the balance between the amount of energy received from the sun and the amount of energy the Earth re-emits to space. This imbalance can and will lead to climate changes, regardless of 20 in of snow in Manhattan this past week.
Greenhouse gases (CO2, water vapor, CH3 etc) absorb some of this emitted infra-red energy and re-emit to space and back into the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases “trap” some of the heat energy. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases lead to more energy released into the atmosphere and less into space, warming the Earth further. Did you know it’s highly likely the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling? What to make of that?
We ban secondhand smoke to protect our children from a slight risk, yet we can’t even discuss CO2 mitigation and the almost certain despair it will cause our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Good luck.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:30 pm
Here’s my problem with the Global Warming theory – it can’t be falsified. I mean, if a theory makes a prediction, and the prediction turns out incorrect, then doesn’t that make the theory invalid? But predictions have been made, and they haven’t come true. So now the *opposite* effect is considered part of the “evidence” for the theory. Bizarre.
Jeff – how do we know that the Earth is warming and going to *keep* warming? How do we know that the Earth wasn’t warmer before, got colder, and now is warming up again? How do we know that any warming isn’t a *good* thing – after all, archeological evidence suggests that plant growth is best during long periods of warm weather, and didn’t we have a couple of ice ages? Nobody has suggested anything to me that makes me feel that the Earth warming up is horrible. If there was a sudden rapid cooling of the Earth (aren’t we between ice ages?), would that be better or worse for humanity? Would another ice age be better or worse for us as we are right now?
And finally, if the Earth *does* warm up, what is the eventual consequence? The water level rises, right? So won’t the planet eventually go back into an ice age anyway? We’re interglacial – that implies that eventually there will be another ice age. Won’t the Earth end up balancing itself out as it has all those times in the past, such as when the dinosaurs were killed off? Didn’t the Earth balance out then, when it had more pollution in the air because of that meteor hit than we’ve put into it in our lifetimes?
December 29th, 2010 | 3:50 pm
[...] I promised Wes I would do as he requested. On his site, of course. I am being nice. [...]
December 29th, 2010 | 4:48 pm
Tabs . . .
I am offering you some very serious advice here, and doing my best to honor my promise to Wes to be nice . . .
You did not say or use the orthodox words that the priests of climate change have authorized for proper worship.
You need to re-orient your thinking so as not to upset the righteous of the Holy Temple.
Pay homage as is due, repent, and work diligently to believe and live correctly.
jb
December 29th, 2010 | 4:59 pm
The rather large elephant in the room that the global warming enthusiasts (for want of a better term) repeatedly ignore is the mounting evidence of “data massage” and falsification, as well as suppression or disregard of contrary evidence. Have we forgotten the East Anglia e-mail controversy so soon? The “realignment” of temperature data from numerous Earth resources and meteorological satellites that suddenly showed warming after all when none had been evident from the unmanipulated data should be cause for profound skepticism.
The data are not being made available to the great unwashed public shivering in the massive 19th Century–style blizzards and snowstrorms that have occurred recently. Can we even trust what the global warming scientists are saying when so many seem to have an extreme leftist—I would say (and have said here) Leninist–Stalinist—agenda that would require oppressive impoverishment of mankind for a socialist ideal, even without “climate change” as an excuse?
Where Jeffrey gets the 97% figure is unclear if it’s not from thin air. A number of global warming skeptics among respected scientists have signed newspaper ads, etc., to denounce the mounting hysteria but have largely been ignored by the warming-advocacy media. It is strikingly similar to the great press that Stalin’s ironfisted “reforms” and the Soviet Union itself received in the 1930s media during hard times similar to today’s. The media then also ignored contrary evidence about that unfortunate country. Communism was seen as a “scientific” theory of governance, and who were the rest of us to question science, especially when so many actual scientists were advocates of such a system?
Soviet defectors have warned us repeatedly that the environmentalist cause is riddled with fellow travelers. Viktor Suvorov said that Soviet intelligence agencies viewed such people as “watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside, and oh so tasty for the socialist agenda!
More disturbing is claims in some quarters that the People’s Republic of China has taken over the former Soviet role with many of the greenies. If the US and other Western nations were to be hamstrung by global warming–inspired restrictions while China remained exempt or chose not to comply, so much the better for that country long term. Especially if some of the global warming enthusiasts among scientists just happened to be receiving some funding from China, and if they are willing to falsify things to fit the agenda…
I’m no fan of conspiracy theories, but global Communism had huge conspiratorial elements as anyone familiar with the espionage alone would have to admit. In the Great Global Warming Show I see all too many elements of the same, complete with useful idiots who insist that scientists can do no wrong and would never, ever play with data and findings for a greater cause. And that greater cause would include those same scientists being given loads of power over the rest of us. In their position, what’s not to like about perpetuating what seems a lot like either premature judgement or even a blatant hoax?
December 29th, 2010 | 6:25 pm
Tabs,
You raise a good point about whether a theory is falsifiable. The theory of global warming does not depend upon any individual local temperature. That’s why an especially cold winter in NY does not falsify the theory. Even a cold year like 2007 doesn’t falsify the theory. The theory predicts that as greenhouse gases accumulate, radiant energy absorbed by the Earth will not radiate back into space as efficiently. The temperature record is not a perfect representation of the total heat energy retained by the Earth’s surface. Ocean currents (cold water from deep, mixing with surface water and vice versa) can influence the temperature readings worldwide. This is why, if one looks at the temperature record, it’s obvious that some years are warmer or cooler than others, although the long-term trend is a temperature increase. For example, this decade was warmer than last decade etc. In fact, this is the warmest decade in the past 2000 yrs, and it’s likely to continue to increase.
The temperature record tells us that the Earth is warming now. The oceans are warming too. How do we know it’s not “natural”? The sun is actually in a cool phase now and the greenhouse effect is a fact. There is no other credible explanation for warming at this time. How do we know it will continue to warm? We do not. We can only predict based on our knowledge. It is very likely that we will continue to warm.
The Earth does not cool and warm by magic.
Yes, it is likely the Earth will enter another glacial period, but not soon, perhaps 1000 to 10,000 yrs. Global warming is occurring now and will get worse in the decades and centuries ahead will change the climate in which human existence and social development evolved. The cost of mitigation is low but not negligible, the potential risk of doing nothing is catastrophe for humankind. Your question should be, “Why wouldn’t we act to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”? Mr. Smith knows why we shouldn’t act but will not tell you the truth.
jb, Your self-pity and clowning aside, could you answer, “Is the Earth warming?”. If so, what is your explanation why? If not, how do you explain the temperature record?
If you prefer to clown, mock and ridicule (It snowed in New York in winter!!) that which you do not understand, by all means continue, I can take it. I would just prefer that you discuss something relevant.
December 29th, 2010 | 8:14 pm
[JB-take another run at this without the profanity and name calling, please. I am old fashioned.]
December 29th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Jeffery
My name is Jeffrey . . . the same in a way, but far different. Not merely the placement of the “r”.
Sir, you are a more fervent believer in the Global Whatever Theory (mind you–you and yours keep changing the terms), than am I, who believes that the Lord God runs this whole show, and to imagine mankind’s “pollution” (Co2 is not a pollutant), is measurably LESS than one volcanic eruption in the Pacific Rim, leads me to believe that you really believe what you say.
I do. Jeffery. I do believe what you say you believe. You have voiced it so often as your belief that I accept that.
I just don’t believe as you do. Quote all the goofs that got caught cheating on their figures as you might, the earth is flat-line in recent years, and probably less (colder) given the weather you recognize, but refute.
Look, Bubba, neither you nor the idiots (greek for “self-absorbed”) that are the mythical 97% out there trying to pry tax dollars from gummints and taxpayers, have convinced me one whit. I have lived through 40 years of yours (and others) bull-fecal-matter (read that, science), all the while watching the dollars flow from taxpayers to doom-sayers, not to understand what is really happening. I do.
Perhaps you are just a “true believer.” To that extent, I understand, and I extend my sympathies. But if you think the expletive, horse expletive-expletive expletive is correct, then sir, you have my sincerest sympathies.
I have dealt with social-marxist communists since you were pissing your diapers. Believe me, you have hardly moved beyond your goofy predecessors. You make accusations (snow in NY–gee–yuk, yuk).
Look, you left wing wizard (and I am not a Republican so you better guess real well before you key your next line of scatological nonsense) . . . you wish to find something relevant about which to speak, you should try another subject. The whole climate bull hockey crowd, you included, so precisely excluded yourselves from rational discussion that further discussion is like arguing with members of Green Peace.
I take that back . . . Green Peace—they are more rational. And for the record, you sir, have clowned, mocked and ridiculed everyone on this site who does not bow down and profess allegiance to your heresy. Heckers . . . PETA is more rational than you and the other two MAGI are!
You have convinced almost no one thus far, because you offer nothing of which to be convinced. And I did say the earth is warming, every time you exhale Co2 and speak.
Before you jump at me about relevancy, sir, find something relevant about which we might talk. The climate theory that has jumped from every foxhole and funding source and label for the last 30 years is neither relevant, nor . . .
True.
If, as evolutionists say, the earth is between 4-6 billion years old, then your figures are stupid, even before they are irrelevant.
If this is a young earth (10,000 years or less), you arguments are still stupid.
You have no basis for comparison, a critical component of the science you claim as your god. Go drill holes in the Antarctic, and get back with me with what YOU YOURSELF CAN AUTHENTICATE AND VERIIFY. I don’t have to prove a negative, Dude. Git yer cowpies straightand in order
Otherwise, leave us poor mortals to suffer our fate)s) as per your DICTATES. God knows we need elites like you to guide us along the path.
In other words . . . cotton wad in the cannon.
One more note: Self pity? What, in your entangled, snow-bound brain-trying to defrost quickly to prove your point, came up with that piece of absolute crap???
You are the one begging everyone else to believe in your new religion. One thing I am pretty much immune to, is self-pity. Trust me, Wizard, you are not remotely close to having the capacity to evoke “self-pity.” Pity for you, yes, but for me?
I don’t deal in that marxist currency.
(Wes . . . I was nice!)
Anyway . . . Sports Fans, this is how a Marxist who thinks you should do what he says, thinks.
History makes a fool of their thinking, but they are like roaches, always surviving somehow. That does not make them any more welcome, but hey, what can one do.
Wes . . . profane implies bad language toward God. I did none of that.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
jb: You can still do better. Re profane: Okay, you used what is known as a cuss word. Please don’t. When in doubt, be charitable. Thanks.
December 29th, 2010 | 8:57 pm
Wes–
Which “cuss” word? I will refrain from whatever you find objectionable . . . it is your site and we share the Faith.
I am being charitable. I have invited these guys to come blow off steam at my site (I haven’t even begun to argue with them, and I have not used any of George Carlin’s Seven Deadlys . . .
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
As I recall it was a synonym for urinate. Here’s the thing: I try to keep things relatively cool here. I allow sharp elbows and sarcasm, but not too sharp–unless directed at me, in which case it is anything goes so long as it is not one of the Carlin deadlys, outright defamation, or a threat. I have sometimes let things go a bit too far in debates among SHSers, resulting, I have been told, in people’s feelings being hurt. So, I am trying to prevent that if I can, whilst allowing a robust exchange. I give the balance of the doubt to free exchange. I appreciate your courtesy in this. And welcome.
December 29th, 2010 | 9:15 pm
Then . . .
Would you do me a favor? I am both Irish and Lutheran (ain’t that a mix?)
If I slip past your boundaries (and I promise I will try not to do so), then edit me. As I said, it’s your site, and I really do like how you delve into matters, so I do not want to be your troll.
I can’t disagree, my wife is always censoring me as well. I am passionate about my faith and my gummint (such as it is . . . sigh). It comes out, and sometimes, when idiocy abounds, I just say what every other man would say when confronted with sudden idiocy.
Mea culpa.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
This site doesn’t have trolls because of views. Only because of how those views are expressed, and right now there is only one, albeit he seems to be mending his ways. Thanks. You are most welcome here.
December 29th, 2010 | 10:54 pm
Dear JB -
“You did not say or use the orthodox words that the priests of climate change have authorized for proper worship.
You need to re-orient your thinking so as not to upset the righteous of the Holy Temple.”
You know, some Global Warming enthusiasts do come off as religious, but I think a lot of them have faith in the science they’re quoting. I’m having trouble with it – I believe in pollution causing problems, but I don’t know that things are as bad as the GW group suggest, because all my anthropology courses (which I took because I thought it was a better elective for a Lit/History major than Creative Writing, go figure) talked about how archeology has shown that times of warmer weather were better times geologically, and that they appear cyclical. I don’t have enough scientific background, but I know that a lot of scientists disagree with GW. That makes me suspicious. (By the by, I won’t be able to change religions – I’m too Catholic for that, heee!)
Jeffery,
I appreciate your up-front answer. I know the Earth doesn’t warm and cool by magic, but I also know that the Earth has an uncanny way of self-correcting, and that we have had very cold periods in the past – such that there is evidence of humans who froze to death as far south as Florida thousands of years ago – and very hot periods – such as during the age of the dinosaurs, when the weather was hotter than it is now and plant life flourished. I’m also not sure what you mean by the sun being in a cool period – I realize it fluxes just as the weather on Earth does, but this is one that I haven’t heard put forth much by Climate Change proponents.
I’m still skeptical, and will probably be until more solid information is put in front of me, but at least I understand where you’re coming from, and appreciate your forthrightness.
December 29th, 2010 | 11:23 pm
[...] Posted on December 29, 2010 by jbiii Genuinely nice guy. As he requested and I agreed . . . his site—his call. End of [...]
December 29th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
[...] images of a dangerously warming world, it doesn't mean that climate change is a myth. …Global Warming Hysteria: 2006–Expect Less Northeast Snow: 2010–Blizzard is …First Things (blog)Blizzard blues? Relax: it's hotter than everPeople’s [...]
December 29th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
Posting this because . . .
Because . . .
*************************
← Older posts
Okie Dokie
Posted on December 29, 2010 by jbiii
Genuinely nice guy. As he requested and I agreed . . . his site—his call. End of subject.
I wish, in some ways, I could hold to his standard. I will do so on his site, per his request. Some 8 years ago, when I was cooking online, I would not have cared (profane is a theological term referring to a “dissing” of God, not merely any word that offends others). Think about it . . . what words, in this day and age and political climate, are or are not “profane” according to the powers that be?
History. Geezopete, history always sticks it nose in, like a camel does a tent.
Richard John was an LCMS pastor when I was finishing up at an LCMS Sem. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Rome. I always was fascinated by what he wrote. I still am. He understood the crises faced by American Catholics/Christians (no diff, just the usual denominational bantering).
One from the Roman side could fuss at me, except the baptismal records at St. Joe’s in Cleveland would prove far more efficacious than would the Bammster’s birth certificate in Hawaii.
While everyone is a theological animal, to one degree or another, I am a star-gazer. Though I was less than legal age, I knew John XXIII was onto something that hadn’t invaded the Vatican since Trent. I was not even into double-digits year-wise, but I was more than aware—I was able to chant the Mass in Latin. I still wonder what might have been had Jovial John lived another 10 years and Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini not ascended to the bishopric of Rome.
JPII was special in ways most RC’er’s know nothing about. Although he was a premier Fatimist (about which I must insist I am sola scriptura), he understood the battle in the world. He even admitted Rome was wrong about my best bud, Marty. That took some nads. Malachi Martin, who I admire for his writing abilities, was incapable of donning eyeglasses and getting past his Luther hatred. Luther had his faults, but I must confess I am more than amused at watching Catholics and the Orthodox and (especially Calvinists and those Lutherans masquerading as Calvinists) admit that Luther “might have” been right all along. He was right all along. Politics (I mean raw, down in the gutter politiics) prevented Luther from being “right.”
And that, Sports Fans, is all there is to the theology of the matter. It is way more detailed than you think, thanks to Aquinas, who went off on a journalistic nut (oops, but true). Luther tried to simplify matters so we/us/the poor sap in the pew could have a clue (what in Orthodox or Catholic worship present day does that?) Paddy7 Neither. Choirs lead us, minimalistic sermons instruct us, and the Sacrament mystically solves all and absolves all of the Church’s miscues?
Nah . . . Patrick . . . I know you know that doesn’t wash.
The Greeks/Antiochians/Ruskies will also disagree. I understand perfectly why they disagree, and oddly enough, I agree with them. The baptized should feed—really old territory for me and Marty. But Luther picked up the banner of the West left on the battlefield, and as a man and a Christian, carried it forth till he died, with nary a regret. The “church” that rejected their own son in Luther, could only stoop almost 500 years later—to acknowledge their mistake in JPII. Martin Luther was a “catholic” in all that the word means, or the word has no meaning. Galileo and Copernicus, far greater “heretics” than Marty, got breaks galore while the insider Catholic like Martin Malachi calls Luther a syphilitic.
Where was I going with all of this?
Oh yeah . . . sometimes the wrong words are the only ones that fit the moment.
Saying someone is full of shyte is INFINITELY more honest than worrying about the verbal sound emanating from between one’s lips. Nothing about Heaven is predicated upon any word except those which accept/deny Christ’s Incarnation and His Sacrifice. Or that of the Spirit.
Open one of Ireland’s finest (Guiness) and sit a spell . . . there is so much beyond the everyday to discuss.
jb
December 30th, 2010 | 8:47 am
[...] what the weather, it is global warming in GWH Land. Thus, in the wake of the great UK freeze, Read more hopfeed_template=''; hopfeed_align='LEFT'; hopfeed_type='IFRAME'; hopfeed_affiliate_tid=''; [...]
December 30th, 2010 | 8:54 am
[...] what the weather, it is global warming in GWH Land. Thus, in the wake of the great UK freeze, http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/12/28/global-warming-hysteria-2006-expect-less... December 30th, 2010 | Category: [...]
December 30th, 2010 | 9:13 am
jb,
I apologize for phrasing a question that you found so upsetting. I was just trying to set a baseline for the discussion.
In your mind, is the Earth warming or not?
The current scientific record says the Earth is warming and that this particular episode of warming is most likely driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am trying to understand your objections.
And I do understand the strategy of mocking and ridiculing issues and people with whom you disagree. It’s a successful strategy on several levels. It personalizes and emotionalizes the issue. It distracts all from the issue that one prefers not to address. It diminishes the “opposition”. It’s easy. And as Homer Simpson says, “And fun, too!”
If you want to trade insults, I can do that, although today is a busy day for me. Also, I should warn you that I’m pretty good at it!
Tabs,
You are absolutely correct that the Earth has had past cycles of warming and cooling.
‘This particular episode of rapid warming (geologically speaking) is most likely driven by the accumulation of man-made greenhouse gases and will most likely have profound effects on future human societies.’
That sentence is a capsule of what’s happening. The recommended response is to start reducing fossil fuel use (coal, oil and natural gas are all converted to carbon dioxide when burned).
Whether one calls carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant or not is irrelevant and a distraction.
Whether one calls the current episode warming or change is irrelevant and a distraction. (The IPCC formed in 1988. The CC stands for Climate Change. 1988 was 22 years ago.)
There is no evidence of any falsified data, data manipulation, dat
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 30th, 2010 at 10:22 am
No trading of insults. Thank you.
December 30th, 2010 | 12:22 pm
Tabs,
Here’s a graphical representation of reconstructions of temperature, CO2, methane and solar irradiance over the past 420,000 years (taken from ice cores).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
The peaks in the red (temperature) curve illustrate the interglacial (between ice ages) periods, one in which we now live, the Holocene (far left on the graph) which has lasted the past 12,000 years or so. When the Holocene started the entire world population is estimated to have been less than 5 million. The development of all human civilization occurred during the Holocene within a very narrow average global temperature range. Regardless of our actions, it’s very likely the Earth will warm 2C. It’s even more likely that the Earth will warm 4-7C over then next century. That would be, by far, the warmest Earth in at least 420,000 yrs. CO2 is already higher than at any time during the last 420,000 yrs. And instead of impacting a few million humans it will impact close to 10 billion and the civilization we’ve built the past 10,000 yrs or so.
One final point. The average global temperature is not only about living in a hot or cold environment; humans are adaptable; but about catastrophic changes to civilization, such as a gradual (in human terms) rise in sea levels of several feet, extremes in regional weather events, floods, typhoons, storms, droughts, heat waves. We are looking at massive migrations of humans around the globe (there are billions of us), changes in agriculture, fresh water supplies, distribution patterns of plants and animals and changes we haven’t imagined yet.
Think about how humans are co-existing now. Imagine twice as many people in an environment 10 times more challenging.
Why wouldn’t we at least consider reducing CO2 production?
December 30th, 2010 | 1:26 pm
I do not understand jb’s hostility and vitriol. Facts, science, truth are not evil. [Me: We are all playing nice now. Bygones are bygones.]
December 31st, 2010 | 12:05 am
Dear JB -
I disagree with you on some of your points, but I am very much impressed with both the fun way you talk about your faith and the fact that you’re so up-front, and I like you very much. And I’m not just saying that because you’re a nice person who has been sweet to me. :)
Dear Jeffery -
Thank you for the information. I’m going to study up a bit more, though I’m still a bit skeptical. I’m going to have to look up information from some of the anthropological sites I used to have links to, so that we can discuss in further detail. And I’m enjoying talking to you. :)
December 31st, 2010 | 12:07 pm
Tabs,
Thank you, as well!
Being skeptical is good.
Happy New Year.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact