More on Global Warming

Remove all ads!

Well the ozone part you're mostly right about. The problem with greenhouses gases is that you can't just ban carbon dioxide emissions the way we did CFCs. Well we could, but every animal on the planet (including people) would be in Violation of the EPA.

 

A reduction would be the rule which leads to a secondary question -- would reducing carbon dioxide emissions or regenerating carbon dioxide into oxygen be better? Would planting a few billion trees be more beneficial in the long run? My vote is actually both.

 

Global warming isn't a myth, but it is often grossly exaggerated. From the data, it's clear that we are currently inside a warm period, which needs to be taken into account (you can't just look at the last 50 years and scream bloody murder). Obviously, we are having an effect on the climate, but the extent of that is uncertain at best. That is not to say we shouldn't take steps to reduce the harm we're causing. Reforestation and overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions can only ever be a good thing.

Of course, this is all just fanciful musing of the people living in the developed part of the world.

 

I love it.

 

Haven't been back as recently as I'd like to be as I've go other stuff to do but I'm glad I dropped in for this particular moment as it gives me a chance to point something out.

Should anything Investor's Daily puts out be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to Global Warming?

They do a pretty good misrepresentation of what was said.

Take the first paragraph of the editorial Snook linked to.

"It was eight years ago this month that the United Nations said we had eight years to do something about global warming. If not, the planet would be in trouble. Well, here we are, and no climate disaster has befallen Earth. And none is on the horizon."

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...ars-to-fight-global-warming.htm#ixzz3aePCRX8c
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Notice the implication that a disaster was supposedly going to hit the Earth within 8 years. So if 8 years pass then no problem right?

Wrong.

First I would point out there are already a list of things going wrong and made worse during the past several years by Global Warming but lets stick with the implication civilization has to collapse, an entire major nation (not a few islands in the Pacific) has to sink under an ocean, or something else really big and obviously world map changing has to have happened or else Global Warming isn't happening.

And within 8 years..

Lets look at what Investors' Daily Editorial (note editorials are not something the newspaper can be held accountable for a lack of accuracy) referred to..

"The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/may/05/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment

So if there was no problem in the past 8 years it took to reach 2050 then we are good.. err.. wait..

But 2050 is in 35 years??!

2015 Was the point we were supposed to do something by. 2050 is when we pay the price by (though it can still get worse than huge water shortages after that according to the article).

The problem is buy now & pay later. And the editorial is claiming if we don't feel most of the problem right after we have bought then there isn't one.

Are most problems behind you or don't exist if you buy something on credit, are enjoying it, and have yet to pay most (or any) of the bill?



Put differently-and someone who drinks more often than me can correct me if I'm wrong-most people don't have a hangover in the middle of their 1st or 2nd drink. Even after they have had several and are drunk the hangover is really noticed when they are sober later.

This editorial pulls something like a bait & switch.

 

But, but, but this can't possibly be true. I thought all the polar bears were drowning.

updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Sorry, I normally like to post the text of the article, but Forbes has disabled copy and paste (the bastards).

 

It is an "editorial". That way the writer can lie all he wants and then claim it is only his opinion.


Gotta love this bit which I take the time to quote.

Compare it to a different quote from somewhere with more integrity & probably more data too.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now I don't even trust that the Forbes guy has the right numbers but I would point out that if he did it is likely because Antarctic & Arctic sea ice are in 2 different situations. Global Warming can help increase the amount of Antarctic sea ice (say if land ice becomes sea ice-decreases the amount of the former while increasing the latter). But it pretty much has just decreased the amount of Arctic sea ice.

And the data shows Arctic sea ice is below a real average (put together a few decades from 1981-2010).

So it looks like the Forbes guy snookered the Snook here.

 

Simple test to think about how this may happen.

1. Put an ice cube on a table.
2. Slide ice cube off table edge.

Question: Has the amount of ice on the floor increased while the amount on the table decreased?

 

The response to the article can be found here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/