My colleague Peter Wehner’s two posts (here and here) on the question of conservatives and climate change were, as we have come to expect from him, thoughtful and the result of serious contemplation. It behooves all those who venture an opinion about the subject of the environment and the debate over global warming to examine the question as carefully as he has and to express themselves with as much circumspection and respect for opposing views as Peter has done. It is no small compliment to Peter that the numerous responses to his posts we have published have, for the most part, been both intelligent and serious attempts to engage on the issue.
Nevertheless, I think it is unfair to blame conservatives for playing an obstructionist role in the debate about what we now call “climate change” rather than the more inflammatory “global warming.” If, as Peter would like, there is to be a constructive discussion about efforts that would supposedly ameliorate a potential problem, what is needed from those promoting the theory of global warming is the same level of sober reflection and suggestions rooted in evidence that he would like conservatives to adopt.
Peter is right to say it is foolish for conservatives to adopt a position that the globe cannot be getting warmer and that it is impossible for humans to be contributing to this situation. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of life on this planet during just the last 2,000 years of recorded history knows that climate change has occurred several times during this period. And it is certainly possible that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activity might play a role in any warming in the last century.
But given the apocalyptic scenarios routinely put forward by warming hysterics such as Al Gore and the level of invective that the political left has consistently spewed in response to even the most reasonable of questions about their assertions, it has been difficult for conservatives to avoid responding in kind. Because so much of the talk about warming has been coached in terms that are the stuff of science fiction rather than real world science in which competing interests can be weighed against each other, it’s also been hard for skeptics to get too worked about a problem they know isn’t as bad as Gore or the worst of the screamers about the issue claim. The planet may be getting a bit warmer, but the notion that it is melting or that life here will be made substantially worse for the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants is not only not proved, it may be more of a case of wishful thinking by some warmers than anything that can be termed science.
Even more to the point is the fact that many of the warming polemics have been motivated not so much by “science” as by an ideological predisposition by some to view capitalism and the prosperity-producing economic activity that it has generated as inherently sinful. Some on the right may be in denial about the possibility of warming. But it is the pseudo-religious spirit always lurking behind so much environmentalist rhetoric that has provoked most of the skepticism about their theories. Their inflexibility and willingness to either doctor the evidence or simply lie about it has undermined their credulity, a factor that has understandably led the public to doubt the truth of their assertions about what science really says.
Moreover, they also know the prescriptions for fixing warming are primarily focused on restricting the market and economic freedom. The ideological fervor of the warmers smacks of previous attempts by intellectuals to dictate economic practices and the basic organizing principles of human activity. Because we know those efforts were the product of the hubris of the intellectuals and led inevitably to sorrow and often slaughter, it is little wonder that, as Peter says, many prefer to simply shut the door on the possibility of a repeat of such miseries. The vagaries of nature may be awful but so, too, are those of humans when in the grips of ideological passions. That is especially true as even the environmental lobby can offer no guarantee that warming will cease even if we adopted every one of their extreme prescriptions.
Since none of the solutions that have been proposed seem either practical or politically feasible and are rooted more in a neo-socialist belief that First World economies and capitalists must be made to pay for their sins, few can be surprised about the unwillingness of many Americans to simply bow to the dictates of what they are told is the unalterable verdict of science.
Just as troubling is the notion that warming is an inherent evil. In the past, a warming climate has led to greater food production and periods of growth and prosperity while cooling was associated with poverty and scarcity. While there may be a case to be made that warming will hurt more people the next time, it is rarely, if ever, presented. Like so much else about the case for global warming alarm, the dangers are more assumed than proven.
Rather than the onus being on conservatives to bow to the dictates of warming science, it is the responsibility of those who wish to convince skeptics to make their case in a more accountable fashion. The problem with the debate about warming is not so much a matter of denial or hyper-skepticism on the part of conservatives as it is with the warmers’ tendency to transform theories and computer models into a catechism. The environment hasn’t just been politicized. It has become a pseudo-religion with intellectual high priests who treat themselves as a Magisterium that may dispense absolution (cap and trade) and punish non-believers. Instead of engaging with skeptics, warmers have treated those who question them as heretics to be ostracized and/or rhetorically burned at the stake.
So long as that is the case, the assertion that conservatives are playing the role of obstructionists won’t advance the debate. Rather than waiting for conservatives to find a way to accommodate warming theories to the principles of a free society, the onus remains on the environmental alarmists to present more reasoned and truthful interpretation of their data and practical suggestions not based in ideologies that have nothing to do with science.
Science is, inherently, at its core, skeptical so that what is settled science today may not be settled science tomorrow. More to the point, if CO2 has been increasing, if humans are cause of this increasing CO2, and if the CO2 increase has caused, rather than been correlated, with earth's temperature, what, if anything, has been the negative effects of this man made global warming? n nAs far as I can see, Peter Wehner nor any of the commentators has asserted that there are any negative effects. In fact, given the rise in standard of living in past 200 years, one could make a superficial argument that man made global warming has had a benefit to man. n nThe scientific merits are, to some degree, beside the point. Man Made Global Warming has become a political and economic issue relating to transfers of wealth from USA to other areas of the world which, it seems to be claimed, have been injured by American Capitalism. n nLike Darwinism, a materialist explanation for human beings who seem to have no purpose but to survive, Man Made Global Warming has morphed from a scientific issue to a political and economic issue with the purpose of undermining US economic power, or imperialism as some call it.
re: Darwinism. Am I reading this right? n nAre you saying that evolution — the foundation of all modern life sciences, including medicine and biotechnology — is yet another conspiracy "with the purpose of undermining U.S. economic power?" n nHow, pray tell, does modern biology undermine the US economy?
No, you are not reading it correctly. Darwinian evolution is unrelated to the economy as far as i know. My understanding is that Darwin did take some of his ideas of random mutations from Adam Smith's ideas of free market where order emerged spontaneously, without design. n nIsn't chemistry the foundation of life sciences; biology is chemistry, I am told.
classic denialism… n n
It is not the job of skeptics to prove AGW is wrong, indeed it is the job of AGW proponents to prove it is right. I state with impunity that the God of the entire universe lives inside a quark within Jupiter. Prove me wrong. n nI have studied this subject for a decade and AGW predictions are based upon computer codes with complex feedback systems and arbitrary constants adjusted to anchor the codes to past climate data. There are numerous codes, most of which disagree, and most of which have an atrocious record of predictability. Remember that future long term code predictions also must include not only an excellent model of the earths carbon cycle (which is near impossible) but emission predictions for every nation on this planet for every year. n n Imagine the sensitivity that these codes must have for CO2 concentrations when water vapor comprises about 95% of all global warming gases, and CO2 (predominantly) the remaining 5%. Most importantly note that man contributes around only 5% of that total CO2. It would be interesting to see a statistician do a realistic error analysis not only on the data that enters the codes, but on the code's output. n nI am a physical chemist (PhD) and initially believed the consensus, but the more I investigated the subject the more incredible AGW became. It is also a sad commentary that if I voice my opinion to a stranger about this subject I am often not allowed to discuss it in detail, for "anyone who is anybody knows the consensus" and therefor I must be a Ludddite on the subject of AGW, when in actuality the reverse is often the case. n
This annexation of science by politics reminds me of the of the nuclear winter craze of the Eighties, which conveniently dovetailed with the nuclear freeze movement. The most extreme and speculative nuclear winter claims were seized upon and relentlessly promoted in an attempt to build popular support for the strategically dubious nuclear freeze policy. Al Gore & Co. are employing the same game plan. Just as nuclear freeze skeptics were smeared as genocidal warmongers, now those of us who express skepticism about the alarmist claims of the Greenshirts are compared to Holocaust deniers. Whatever this it, it isn't science.
Tthe "annexation of science by politics" is a concise critique of Anthropogenic Global Warming movement which seems to be a pretext for political and economic policy change adversely affecting successful USA economy and reducing American power in the world. n nIf it AGW were not political, we would be having the debate at Scientific American, not Commentary.
All predictions are based on models by definition. However, those climate models are based on fundamental physics. You increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect increases, and the planet warms. In fact we know to very high precision how much energy is trapped by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. That doesn't require climate models – it's basic physics.
As a matter of implacable logic, we know that anthropogenic global warming or climate change, if you prefer, then more people, the warmer the globe gets. Therefore, as a matter of implacable logic, fewer people, less global warming. n nCoincidentally, the last mass killings o humans occurred about 65 years ago at end of WWII at the same time that globe began to warm dramatically evidencing the correlation and coincidence of more people; more global warming. n nI think the solution, then, is obvious, the world needs fewer people if people are not to die as a result of scientifically predicted catastrophe of a warmer globe.
Mass deaths is the consequence that we're trying to avoid. That's not a funny joke. If you don't want to engage in serious discourse, then I don't know why you're wasting peoples' time here.
Mass deaths? I didn't see that in your link of positive and negative results of global warming. Mass deaths in the 18th 19th 20th century have been anthropogenic not climate caused. n nAs to negative consequences, these seem localized rather than universal. For example, the US has not experienced negative economic consequences from global warning or, whatever negative consequences they were far outweighed by other factors, like subprime mortgages and bank meltdowns. n nHave deaths from heat waves actually increased in US or Europe as a result of global warming. Has Malaria and Dengue increased in US? Europe? I thought Malaria had been eliminated in Western Hemisphere because of DDT spraying. Only Africa has experienced an increase because DDT was outlawed by hysterical overreaction.
bob, please pay attention. You were the one who suggested "mass killings". The result of mass killings is mass deaths. n nAnd yes, deaths from heat waves have increased. And no, DDT was never outlawed for vector control.
Conservatives who are also scientists are not the problem. They understand the science. I am a scientist (PhD, Geology, Columbia) who is somewhat to the right of Attilla the Hun, but the science is indisputable. The problem is the 99.99% who have no scientific training. The only ones of my friends that I can convince about AGW are physiicians who took enough physics in college to comprehend the truth of the matter. The rest are impossible. It will will take many more weather disasters before they are convinced. The only thing they read is the Wall Street Journal and the WSJ says the thing is a hoax because of their Big Oil advertising revenue. Same with Forbes, etc. Also, there is no point even discussing the thing with those who object for religious reasons.
The piece could also have mentioned the jackboot tactics of the US Justice Department in trying to intimidate skeptics into silence. It's been reported on a number of sites that WordPress, a blog host that includes several skeptics in Canada and the UK, has received letters from the DOJ regarding skeptics' accounts. A blogger in the UK, Tallbloke, even had his house searched and his computers seized. All this because an anonymous whistleblower, FOIA, uploaded the Climategate 2 emails to his WordPress account. n nSome are speculating that the actions of the DOJ, and other constabularies, are less concerned about the current and past crop of emails, but are really worried about what has yet to be released. n nOf course, the Left is rife with hypocrisy. Whistleblowers are usually the things of fairy tales to the OWS crowd and their Fellow Travelers. That is, as a long as their targets are politically acceptable to the Nomenklatura. Not so for those who dare blaspheme against the God of Warming.
Let me try to understand. You believe in "law and order," strict law enforcement, lawbreakers being brought to justice and protection of privacy. Right? n nBut you oppose legal investigation of people who break into other peoples accounts, steal their emails, and spread selected tidbits on the internet. So long as its for a good cause, and the victims are people you don't like. n nIs that it?
and your point? the Global Warmers did not obfuscate the truth for political purposes? It seems, unquestionably, that they did. One has to wonder why if they thought their "science" was compelling. n nStealing is wrong for a a good cause or bad cause as Leftists need to be reminded.
It seems unquestionably that they did? Based on what? Some quote-mined comments taken out of context from some stolen emails? n nNine separate investigations have found the climate scientists guilty of no wrongdoing. Investigations that actually looked at the whole emails and their context. You're wrong.
I'm for all of those things. In fact, I'm not a big fan of whistleblower laws due in large part for my respect of the very things that you listed. But, if we're going to have laws that protect the whistleblower, they should be meted out evenly. Not based on political considerations. Those who support the White House's positions are whistleblowers, those who do not, criminals. n nFurthermore, speaking of privacy and private property, the person whose house was searched and computers seized, is certainly not the leaker. How much latitude do you think any police force should be given in its search for a leaker?
Whistleblower laws don't apply to thieves.
It sure does. That's the point of Whistle Blower laws to protect those who breach confidences on private information.
If you steal and are a whistle blower at the same time then it is OK? Can you name an instance where this would be a good thing.
It's idle to deny that progressive politics play a major role in the "climate change" debate. What could be more convenient for the Left than a crisis which demands action on a global scale, including detailed regulation of the economy, the suppression of national sovereignty and a summary transfer of power from democratically accountable institutions to some shadowy transnational bureaucracy? The vitriol with which the climate change mob greets even the mildest expression of skepticism about the magnitude of this crisis derives, I believe, from a deep-buried realization that their mission to save the planet is just an adolescent power trip.
Bravo Mr. Tobin! Very well done! n nWhether I accept that AGW analysis is accurate (as best as can be measured) it is still an act of faith on my part. n nThe language many of its promoters use, like John Kerry, is resolutely suspect. n nThe common citizen who loves her Country and doesn't think of it as a construct that needs deconstruction should pay special attention to their language because, IMO, it's dispositive of a baleful collectivism that every free spirit should reject. n nIMV, all projection begins with presuppositions. And careful attention to language can help reveal cultish tenedencies. It can also help a person understand pressing issues. n nThank you for articulating many of my thoughts and apprehensions so well.
n n nPeter Wehner is to be commended for getting the discussion going, and Jonathan Tobin for grappling with it. n nAnybody seriously interested in discerning the truth about climate science should simply ignore the shrill voices — on all sides — and pay more attention to the more careful statements by actual working climate scientists. n nThere's still plenty of uncertainty and argument about details, but, as Peter Wehner points out, nearly all climate scientists — plus all the world's Academies of Science that review their work — now agree on the basics: n n1) the world is warming, n2) the major cause is human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, and n3) destabilizing the climate carries serious risks, especially for global agriculture and coastal cities. n nThey arrived at these conclusions not through computer modeling, but from 60 years of research from many independent sources, yielding measurable, observable data. They've laboriously tested all the alternative hypotheses for explaining the warming — changes in the sun, natural cycles, cosmic rays, the oceans — and find they just don't fit the evidence. n nOnce we get past pretending that it's not happening, or reacting emotionally to messengers who we don't like, we can then turn to the really hard work of finding prudent solutions. Commentary can play a major role in the development and evaluation of conservative, market-based solutions. n n n
I think logic tells us that if human activity increases greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, and that destabilizing carries serious risks, and likely catastrophes, then only answer is less human activity and, a progressive scientifically minded person would think that an effective way to reduce human activity is to reduce number of humans on the globe. n n Fewer humans; less global warming. Fewer humans; fewer catastrophes. No humans; no catastrophes. How can that be a bad thing?
How about less co2 impact per human. There are lots of ideas on the internet about just that. Renewable energy can replace most of the energy in the United States. When the maximum is reached there will be a lot of less need for carbon sequestraion. Again there are lots of ideas on the internet written in very thoughtful form. Read up and come to the table to create a future.
Huh? Tobin starts out praising civility then stomps all over his own message. n nFirst, he correctly praises Wehner for expressing himself with "circumspection and respect for opposing views." So far, so good. n nNext, Tobin upbraids environmentalists for "spewing" "invective" and treating skeptics as "heretics to be rhetorically burned at the stake." OK, at least there's logical consistency so far. n nBut then Tobin pops off on a wild spree of name-calling, accusing the "warmers" of worshipping a "pseudo-religion, " branding them "intellectual high priests who treat themselves as a Magisterium" " determined to "punish non-believers." n nThen he hauls out the heavy artillery, accusing the "warmers" of harboring "neo-socialist beliefs." And finally, he drops his nuclear bomb: n n "The ideological fervor of the warmers smacks of previous attempts by intellectuals to dictate economic practices" which "led inevitably to sorrow and often slaughter." n nSlaughter? Suddenly, anybody worried by what the scientists are saying has morphed into a neo-Stalinist salivating to herd anybody who gets in their way into communist gulags and killing fields? n nIf this is Tobin's idea of "circumspection and respect for opposing views," I wonder what he's like when he loses his temper! n nSo much for civility.
I applaud this discussion, but have several major issues with Mr. Tobin's article. n n1) If there is a fire, and somebody shouts "fire!", by your logic we should not listen to them because they are being alarmist. Sometimes alarm is justified. You seem to be operating under the assumption that alarm is not justified because….because it's alarm? Because it doesn't *seem* like it could be justified? What is it, a gut feeling? It doesn't appear to be based on science. How do you know there's not a fire in the next room? n n2) Your main argument seems to be that some people are ideological polemics. Okay, maybe some people are…so what? How about you discuss the issue with those of us who aren't? n n3) You say the proposed solutions are based on restricting economic freedom. That is exactly wrong. The main proposed solution involves putting a price on carbon emissions. As it stands right now, carbon emissions do economic damage which is not reflected in their market price – that is an economic externality and a market failure. Putting a price on those emissions solves that economic failure. It's a free market solution. n nHow best to achieve this is a worthy debate – carbon tax, cap and trade, etc. And you should be participating in that debate. That was Wehner's main point, and an excellent one. n nFrankly the main problem with your article is that you don't seem to understand the proposed climate solutions. But even if you don't like or understand the proposed solutions, that's no reason to reject the science.
It is very, very difficult to predict the future. and I think the issue is not "Climate Change" which no one can doubt, it is "Global Warming" which is in contention. To use the phrase "Climate Change" belies the certainty of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and, as I recall, the change in phrasing was made because of numerous, inaccurate predictions. n nTo predict the future, scientists use, as I understand it, computer models with multiple variables which interact with one another in unexpected ways. Darwin's insight that life evolves randomly, spontaneously and, therefore, unpredictably, does seem to have great practical implications. n nLehman Brothers and BearStearns and other many very smart Wall Street investors used computer models for economic predictions and Long-Term Capital Growth were Nobel level economists using the most sophisticated models who nearly tanked the entire economy. n nIt may seem supercilious but if computer models were so good, how is it that we can't predict next week's weather accurately. n nFriedrich Hayek wrote, compellingly, of human ignorance and its intractability. Hayekian Ignorance is the reason that planning is so imprecise. Or to be supercilious, again, the great philosopher Yogi Berra said" "Predictions are very hard, especially about the future." and the US Securities and Exchange Commission reminds us that "Past performance does not predict future results." Good advice for stock market investing which is far less complex than "Climate Change" and good advice to scientists who, as I pointed out, are inherently skeptical; the future cannot be proved. n
I'm not sure what your point is here. Predicting the future is hard – yes, and? n nHonestly it's not hard to predict the overall consequences of continuing to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The planet will continue to warm, and the climate will continue to change. Our entire society is based on a stable climate (cities and agriculture rooted in place). If you would rather take the chance that we're lucky and can cope with the consequences of climate change rather than addressing the issue before it causes major difficulties, I would suggest you're not very good at risk management.
You seem to contradict yourself: Predicting the future is hard and "it is not hard to predict…" I am confused. If you can predict the future, I think you would be the first in human history but maybe not, I don't know everything. n n nCould you point to any adverse effects or global warming in the past sixty years? I a am not clear if are conceding that even with global warming and climate change, the climate has remained stable otherwise we would have experience the Apocalypse that you foresee from not addressing and remedying anthropogenic global warming. n nAs to your insult about my risk management skills, I admit that I don't know how to manage the climate or the weather. Do you? Does anyone? Please do not use these kinds of snarky comments again. n n
Bob n nLet me give you an analogy n nYour swimming pool's water level is low so you toss a hose in and start filling it. But it will take some time. Meanwhile your family are still using the pool, splashing around, getting in and out, even spalshing water out. So can I predict what the level of the pool will be 58 seconds from now in the north corner? No, of course I can't. But can I predict that running the hose for 12 hours will raise the level of the pool by 6-8 inches (I am not sure of the low rate in the hose)? Yes. Prediction into the future is possible when you are looking at the effect of broad forces. n nAs for your comment about apocalypses etc, by asking about events in the last 60 years. We aren't discussing the last 60 years. We are considering the next 60 years. Another analogy: You leap off a 110 story building and as you pass the 50th story ask 'what bad has happened so far?". Is that grounds for assuming that the next 60 stories will be just as uneventful? n nGoing to your first posts you make repeated references to the US.With all due respect, how parochial a view. That is the point of Global Warming. Its Global. Not about lesser issues like national concerns. I for example are writing this in Australia, another country like America with high CO2 emissions and an economy that exports a lot of coal and gas. But we will have to adapt as well. n nThe projections for temperatures towards the end of this century will be warmer than at anytime in the last few million years. Since these would be sustained for centuries at least, all of the Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets would melt, raising sea level by 65-70 metres, large sections of the ocean would be almost dead due to low oxygen levels in the warmer water. Significant parts of the world would be turninhg to desert and food production will be hugely lower. n nSo as to how to manage the Climate. Best that we don't try to. But that is exactly what we are doing without understanding what we are doing.
Managing Climate Change is like managing Evolution or the Economy; the forces at work are too complex, too interactive, and too hidden to make this feasible.
Bob n nRefer back to my swimming pool example. Predicting the height of the water at any point at any instant is complez. Predicting the overall rise in the water level over 12 hours isn't. n nWhat many people don't understand is that in some ways, Climate is simpler than Weather. Since we know what the effect of CO2 is on the radiation balance of the planet for example, it is actually, relatively, straight forward thermodynamics to work out how much the oceans and air will warm as a consequence to restore that balance. What is more comples is determining what the local and regional changes will be and what will occur on the path leading to equilibrium which, if we stopped emiting CO2 today, is decades or centuries away. n nMany people try to critcise the short term changes as 'not matching the models' – not correct by the way. But that is like saying that I am driving from Chicago to Washington and expect it to take about X hours. But as I am still driving through Illinois, some skeptic with a calculator is saying – your calculations are all wrong, you aren't ever going to get to Washington. n nAnd most of the forces affecting the climate aren't that hidden at all. Its just that the lay public don't get to see much of the masses of data the scientists work with.
Why do you use term "Climate Change" rather than Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Bob n nI tend to unconsciously slip between all three since to me they are all the same thing.
My point about effects of Global Warming in the US was not parochial but was meant to show that although the US is part of the same warmed globe, it does not seem to suffer adverse consequences that other parts of the world do. n nI don't think the US is exempted from the laws of physics and chemistry so there must be some other explanation. n
Bob n nYes there is. n nCurrent climatic conditions in the US are governed by, among other things the Nortern Polar Jet Stream. This is a band of high speed air that circulates generally to the north of the US. It fluctuates around a bit but tends to move within a certain latitude band. n nIt forms a natural barrier between the Temperate mid-latitudes and the Polar air masses. The main energy source that powers this flow is the temperature difference between the tropics and the polar regions. As Global Warming has started heating the Arctic faster than the tropics, the temperature difference between the two has dropped so less driving force for the Jet Stream. So it has become slower and is meandering more. At times it even stops meandering for a period of days to weeks. n nTwo effects we have seen. so far. The Russian forest fires a couple of years ago happened when the jet stream stopped meandering at its northern extreme and left part of western Russia south of it for a protracted period, allowing warmer air masses to move in from the south. And the recent severe winters in the Eastern US happened for a similar reason. The Jet stream stopped meandering at its southern extreme leaving the US exposed to flows of cold air from the Arctic.. n nHowever, as the warming of the whole globe proceeds we can expect to see major changes in the patterns that determine local weather. One expectation is significant increases in desertification in the US SouthWest, including sustantial parts of California. n nAn important impact on the US is starting to happen. As snow fall in the Rockies etc change, and melting happens earlier, you loose an important benefit the snow pack gives you. It iis like having a lot of dams that you never had to pay for. With warming, as more and more of the precipitation falls as rain, it flows down the rivers immediately. You start to need more dams to act as replacement storages. And you need more of the capacity of your dams devoted to flood mitigation, rather than just simple storage. n nJust because the US has been spared more severe impacts for now doesn't mean that will continue into the future.
Is the earth warming evenly or are some areas warming faster than others, i.e. temperate areas and polar areas. n nIt seems the impact of global warming is spread unevenly.Why is that? n nWhy do you use phrase "Global Warming" and others "Climate Change" ? n n
Bob n nSome areas warm faster than other for a whole range of reasons. And that is during the transition to whatever future climate we have. Then some areas will have warmed more than others when we have finally reached the new stable point – decades or even centuries from now. n nReasons for the variation. Polar regions tend to warm more than the tropics – this is called Polar Amplification. For example in past warmer periods the Arctic was much warmer, as indicated by crocodilian fossils found in Alaska and tropical Breadfruit Tree fossils found in Greenland. The current warming we are seeing in the Arctic is in line with expectations. n nAntarctica isn't warming as much as expected, except in the Antarctic Peninsular which has seen substantial warming. However several papers over the last couple of years have explored what appears to be the reason for this – The Hole in the Ozone Layer. Since around 10% of the energy coming in from the Sun is Ultra-Violet which is absorbed by the Ozone in the stratosphere, the Hole is causing less energy to be trapped in the stratosphere over the Antarctic, and conversely more being absorbed at lower levels. As a result a circular wind flow around the Antarctic given the unfriendly name of the SAM – Southern Annular Mode – is stronger during the southern Spring/Summer, tending to isolate Antarctica from weather systems and energy flows from the north. n nAir over the oceans warms less than over the land due to the moderating influence of the oceans. n nHeating in the oceans is uneven depending on which regions absorb more heat but also where major ocean currents flow, upwelling and downwelling regions etc. n nWarming also tends to shift things like the latitudes at which major rainfall occurs. This can alter regional patterns of heating & cooling due to rain. n nThere are other factors as well. n nBut overall, globally, warming is occurring. n nSo to your comments previously about complexity. Working out the details of which regions warm more or faster is the more complex part. But determining the broader global average results is easier. n nAnd phrases such as Climate Change, Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming & Anthropogenic Climate Change tend to be used interchangeably. Why your concern about distinctions in terminology? n
Climate change” is now the accepted version of what used to be called “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” followed by “Anthropogenic Global Warming” and then “Global Warming”, the latter term requiring subsequent Newspeak because of those irritating early winter snowstorms in Britain and elsewhere. So what does one make of the indubitable increase in global temperatures that occurred during the latter part of the previous century? Firstly, they have leveled off (to offset howls of protest, just go and look up NOAA temperatures yourself). Secondly, even if manmade emissions are a major factor, US contributions are decreasing while those of China, India, Russia and Brazil are skyrocketing with zero likelihood of any immediate reversal. So we are left with “climate change” and not much that can be done to make any difference. Acceptance of this might accurately be termed the intelligent conservative rejection. But there’s more. From the most recent IPCC statement issued in Kampala just last month__“CLIMATE EXTREMES AND IMPACTS_Confidence in projecting changes in the direction and magnitude of climate extremes depends on many factors, including the type of extreme, the region and season, the amoun_and quality of observational data, the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models. Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios(5) generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain. For projected changes by the end of the 21st century, either model uncertainty or uncertainties associated with emissions scenarios used becomes dominant, depending on the extreme.”
Denialism? From the IPCC?! Mr Tobin has it about right.
Here is what we know as a definite fact. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today, sea level was 200 feet higher than it is today. The only uncertainty with regard to the models is the time element, i.e.how long it will take for the ice sheets to collapse. We do not know if sea level is going to rise 6 inches or 6 feet in the 20 years.
re: 6 inches vs. 6 feet. When faced with low-probability but catastrophic risks, we usually take out some insurance. Isnt' that just the prudent thing to do? That's why we have fire insurance.
While you make a good point that drinking one glass of water is benign, even healthy, trying to drink a lake would, likely, result in drowning. n nNevertheless, you did not specify a single adverse effect of global warming in past sixty years. I pointed out the correction and coincidence of global warming with a higher standard of living. In fact, the world's population of human beings has dramatically increased in past 60 years along with that improved standard of living, including a longer and healthy life. n nPlease point to adverse consequences of Global Warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, or Climate Change if you prefer..
I did. Try reading the link I provided.
This contention by Tobin really is awful. Holy crap. It's so full of inuendo and so lacking of content. I can't believe someone with a role in improving communication (Tobin) could condense the scientific fact of anthropogenic global warming (supported by every major National Academy of Science) into "apocalyptic scenarios routinely put forward by warming hysterics such as Al Gore?". No wonder conservatives are having a hard time developing a realistic interpretation and response to this issue — editors of the premier magazine of opinion and intellectual voice of neoconservatism choose to throw mud at characatures of fringe elements rather than get intimate with the facts and wrestle with core problems.
CO2 emissions affect the radiative balance of the planet (causing warming) and contribute to ocean acidification. To reduce these effects some cost has to be applied to emissions. Alternatively, money will have to be spent on adapting to these effects. The best strategy will involve doing both (since it is already too late to prevent warming and acidification) in a manner consistent with other economic forces. We know that having no strategy increases the likelihood of more severe (freedom infringing) responses in the future. There are a lot of choices that need to be made, soon, so that the market can adapt smoothly. By refusing to focus on core problems now, conservative leaders are promoting a greater threat to conservative ideals in subsequent government initiatives.