Guess What Another Global Warming Article.

[Justin24]

Why So Gloomy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

 

[INDY500]

there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right.

Gaia denier!

 

[Irvine511]

it's true, guys. it snowed this weekend ... in DC ... April! it's ALL a hoax!

continue to drive your cars and run your air conditioners and wash your clothes in warm water. hey, you have a president willing to invade whole countries in order to make sure that oil remains cheap and accessible, so act fucking grateful.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel so much better now...

He does not receive funding from energy companies and of course, energy companies have no sway over his benefactor; the US Government...

Of course not!

 

[Justin24]

Well how could any scientist then be credible? For all we know Gore could have paid the researches with his own money, or money from the studio that financed his film.

 

[BVS]

Well how could any scientist then be credible? For all we know Gore could have paid the researches with his own money, or money from the studio that financed his film.

You do know global warming was an issue far before Gore started talking about it...

Researchers make public where there funding is coming from, you can often tell the motivation behind the results given who's giving the money. If you're receiving research funded by Greenpeace or Shell oil, you may want to be weary.

But it really doesn't matter, this is all a Marxist conspiracy.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Let's face it, both sides exaggerate, or understate, lie, leave out facts, stress other facts...

 

[Justin24]

Let's face it, both sides exaggerate, or understate, lie, leave out facts, stress other facts...

Ok so then is it safe to say that Global Warming Does not Excist and that it's just the cool thing now in Hollywood and all of this really has to do with Oil and thats why people are buying the Prius left and right and Green is the the new King?

 

[Justin24]

But it really doesn't matter, this is all a Marxist conspiracy.

Funded by you local ACLU, and Not in our name.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Ok so then is it safe to say that Global Warming Does not Excist and that it's just the cool thing now in Hollywood and all of this really has to do with Oil and thats why people are buying the Prius left and right and Green is the the new King?

Black and White?

 

[Justin24]

So really why are we getting all worked up? Is this a ploy for Gore to say he is running in the next few months and crush the competition?

 

[Vincent Vega]

You mean that the UN, the EU, the single European states, Australia, new Zealand, the African countries, the Asian countries and the South American countries as well as Canada and Mexico take measure, seek for solutions, prepare and invest time and money for Al Gore's possible Presidential campaign?

 

[Diemen]

So really why are we getting all worked up? Is this a ploy for Gore to say he is running in the next few months and crush the competition?

Are you being serious?

 

[BVS]

Ok so then is it safe to say that Global Warming Does not Excist and that it's just the cool thing now in Hollywood and all of this really has to do with Oil and thats why people are buying the Prius left and right and Green is the the new King?

No!!!

How do you get that from Vincent's post.

 

[BVS]

So really why are we getting all worked up? Is this a ploy for Gore to say he is running in the next few months and crush the competition?

I won't even respond.

 

[Justin24]

How can we trust scientist anymore who get paid by donars who want them to show results in their light?

How can you trust one persons science over another, if both show results.

 

[BVS]

How can we trust scientist anymore who get paid by donars who want them to show results in their light?

Not all funding has an agenda.

 

[Justin24]

Not all funding has an agenda.

Can you name some and it still dosent prove if it's for an agenda or not.

 

[BVS]

Can you name some

Funding comes from all over the place. It should be pretty obvious which ones are going to be biased or not.

and it still dosent prove if it's for an agenda or not.

It's like this. The company I work for does research on it's own products, they use this research to improve the products and what not. But I don't ever approach the surgeons and doctors with this research, that would be useless.

But clinical papers are being written all the time comparing technologies. To see what meds have the least side effects, what technologies heal bones the quickest, etc. These clinical papers are done by scientists with no ties to any of the products. They have no motivation to bend, stretch, or manipulate the facts. I use these papers all the time. These papers are convincing for there is no agenda behind them.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

How can we trust scientist anymore who get paid by donars who want them to show results in their light?

How can you trust one persons science over another, if both show results.

Has it ever occurred to you that regardless of who is paying the scientists that you should care about global warming?

I don't really care if they are making up half the stuff they say, shouldn't it be enough to want to do something better for this planet?

Are we all so greedy and self-involved that we would rather continue to harm the environment because the alternative costs more or is an inconvenience?

Really?

 

[Justin24]

Funding comes from all over the place. It should be pretty obvious which ones are going to be biased or not.



It's like this. The company I work for does research on it's own products, they use this research to improve the products and what not. But I don't ever approach the surgeons and doctors with this research, that would be useless.

But clinical papers are being written all the time comparing technologies. To see what meds have the least side effects, what technologies heal bones the quickest, etc. These clinical papers are done by scientists with no ties to any of the products. They have no motivation to bend, stretch, or manipulate the facts. I use these papers all the time. These papers are convincing for there is no agenda behind them.

I see your point, but tell me who is behind Gore? What are his or their agenda? Is this a scare tactic like Y2k?

 

[Justin24]

Has it ever occurred to you that regardless of who is paying the scientists that you should care about global warming?

I don't really care if they are making up half the stuff they say, shouldn't it be enough to want to do something better for this planet?

Are we all so greedy and self-involved that we would rather continue to harm the environment because the alternative costs more or is an inconvenience?

Really?

I do care about the environment, but the way Gore puts it, he is making it into a scare tactic. Have we ever thought that maybe the planet goes through cycles like the one we are in now, ever several thousand year or millions?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Some think it's better to get proven right or wrong in the future than doing something about it beforehand.

I see your point, but tell me who is behind Gore? What are his or their agenda? Is this a scare tactic like Y2k?

So because Gore might have his own agenda and uses scare tactics we have to dismiss the whole global warming?

I do care about the environment, but the way Gore puts it, he is making it into a scare tactic. Have we ever thought that maybe the planet goes through cycles like the one we are in now, ever several thousand year or millions?

It's too much a coincidence.
We have our share in it, and we are responsible to decrease this share.

If it really was a cycle we are in now is it really useful to accelerate this warming?

 

[BVS]

I see your point, but tell me who is behind Gore? What are his or their agenda? Is this a scare tactic like Y2k?

Who? is behind Gore? Not sure what you're asking.

I think Gore genuinely is concerned about the environment. Now do I think he may be exagerating the urgency? Yes, but I think that's to get people to react and start doing something now. It's just like people who set their watches 10 minutes fast so they get there on time.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Have we ever thought that maybe the planet goes through cycles like the one we are in now, ever several thousand year or millions?

Do you really want to take the chance and wait it out? And if this is the case and we are in some sort of "warming cycle"

a. How long do you think is a good time to wait?

b. Is it responsible to bury our collective heads in the ground and continue to allow emission levels to increase?

 

[Justin24]

So because Gore might have his own agenda and uses scare tactics we have to dismiss the whole global warming?

No. I think though they should study the climates of past time and see how they compare to his urgent need to stem it now?

 

[BVS]

What do you think they've been doing?

 

[Justin24]

Who? is behind Gore? Not sure what you're asking.

I think Gore genuinely is concerned about the environment.

If he is then whats up with the enormus electric bill? We have been recycling and trying to improve better. Why dosent he help poorer countries which have little or no regualtion on evironmental standards?

 

[BVS]

If he is then whats up with the enormus electric bill? We have been recycling and trying to improve better. Why dosent he help poorer countries which have little or no regualtion on evironmental standards?

The bill has been refuted, do you not read the threads?

Recycling some old newspapers isn't going to do anything. Why you always try to distract from the real issue by mentioning other countries I will never know.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

If he is then whats up with the enormus electric bill? We have been recycling and trying to improve better. Why dosent he help poorer countries which have little or no regualtion on evironmental standards?

Electric bill? Not that crap again...

The only way to "help" poorer countires is to lead by example...