The price of fighting global warming
By Vindu Goel
Monday, December 24th, 2007 at 11:59 am in 10 MOST POPULAR POSTS, Business, Cleantech, Columns & Extras, Public Policy, Technology.
Digg this 
del.icio.us
Except for a few persistent naysayers, there’s a broad public consensus that we need to take action against global warming. We’ll see how well that resolve holds as we start learning about the upfront costs of changing our carbon-spewing lifestyles.
In my Sunday column, I talk about some of those costs.
For the economy as a whole, the impact of mitigating carbon emissions is expected to be rather small: something like one-tenth of 1 percent of annual global output, according to a report this year by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, some economists, such as David Roland-Holst at the University of California-Berkeley, argue that technological innovation related to global warming could actually boost the California economy.
But specific changes will cost a lot more money. To bring U.S. cars to an average 35 mile-per-gallon fuel economy, cars will probably cost from $1,500 to $7,000 more upfront, according to the Los Angeles Times. Even thought compact fluorescent bulbs use less energy and last six times as long as old-fashioned incandescents, they cost six times as much up front, says the New York Times.
The California Public Utilities Commission estimates that electric rates in the state will probably rise 30 percent by 2020 as utilities are forced to buy more renewable power and reduce carbon emissions from existing plants to meet the requirements of AB 32, California’s landmark global warming law.
And that’s just a sample. For an overview of how state global-warming regulations could affect a variety of industries, check out the first reports on the “scoping plan” presented Dec. 14 by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. You’ll find discussion of everything from tax incentives to encourage more housing near public transit to how planting more trees might help the state absorb some carbon emissions.
Hopefully these costs won’t lessen the public commitment to fighting climate change. But in my experience, it takes a lot to convince live-for-the-moment grasshoppers to become sacrifice-for-the-future ants.
Al Gore won’t be able to retire to a life of venture capitalist leisure quite yet.
[Both comments and pings are currently closed.]
December 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
One question that is rarely if ever asked to those who express prohibitive concern on the costs of preventative measures is “What is the cost of doing nothing and the global warming ’skeptics/naysayers’ are wrong?”
In our house, my family is using wood to heat (and we are saving money compared to oil), we bought a used 2003 Prius (42 - 62 mpg, saving on gas money), use a reel lawnmower for cutting the grass (no gasoline, simple maintenance), buy our veggies from a Community Supported Agriculture (local and organic, saving transportation fuel), use compact fluorescent lights (save on electricity), have solar hot water (saving oil for hot water- burned only 1/8th of a tank since June 2007), and use a clothesline to dry our clothes (saves wear and tear, smell fresh, and they are not wrinkled if they are out too long).
We have and do everything that everyone else does, with the exception that we are burning less than half of the carbon of an average American, and we are saving money. Costs? Perhaps some upfront costs, and a little time- but the savings makes up for it.
Give it a try, if you are concerned- our politicians cannot do anything, because they represent the fossil fuel companies. If everyone acted, that would be a national policy.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Not all politicians are representing special interests.
Might I remind you of Mr. Dennis Kucinich?
http://WWW.DENNIS4PRESIDENT.COM
http://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/DENNISKUCINICH
http://WWW.KUCINICHCANTWIN.COM
December 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Christian Nielsen e-mailed to tell me about the virtues of natural-gas-powered cars.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Except for a few persistent naysayers, there’s a broad public consensus that we need to take action against global warming.
You left out the part about how this “broad public consensus” has been forged out of scare-mongering by politicians and irresponsible journalists relying on agenda-science emanating from the United Nations.
December 24th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
There are far more than a “few” who disagree with the hyped disaster themes of the Al Gore Kool-Aid-Drinkers.
Tell your sad tale to the one million who were out of power because of an ice storm. Keep trying to seel the “global warming” fraud to people who have really looked at this scam and realize that it’s the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown Man. The difference is the cost. If the American people really understood what this will cost them, they’d throw the hucksters out of office and end your columns by not reading them.
Coli
December 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Although the future costs of continued warming will be astronomical, it’s worth considering that we have already been paying substantial costs. Some of these come from environmental damage due to carbon emissions, warming, and its consequences (e.g., sea level rise that has resulted in many thousands of deaths in coastal areas from heightened storm surges). More prosaically, U.S. taxpayers are subsidizing the oil industry in the form of tax breaks. If these were eliminated, carbon utilization would be reduced, revenue would be generated to develop alternative energy sources, and funds would also be available to help repair the existing environmental damage. Many citizens appear agreeable to adopting this perspective, and the trend is likely to increase over the next few years.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
One good example of upfront costs vs. long term gains is solar water heaters. Depending on avariety of factors, solar water heaters will cut your annual energy bill by about 20% of the cost of the heater, complete with new tank. At first glance, some people might think “Why make an investment that takes 5 year to get my money back?” However, turn it around and think of it as an investment. The water heater will cost about $2,500 and last about 30 years. If you have $2,500 to invest, can you find a CD that will pay you 20% tax-free (since there is no tax on money saved)? Plus the tank (which lasts 30 years), will save you the cost of 2 electric water heaters (which last about 15 years and cost about $600 each). All told, you will get about 8 times your investment back, and that assumes no major increase in energy costs. Not a bad investment for your $2,500.
A similar arguement can be made for some of the other high return energy investments, like compact fluorescent bulbs. They pay off several times their cost. The payback is much more than if you put the money into a CD and then used the interest to pay your electric bill.
December 24th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“Except for a few persistent naysayers, there’s a broad public consensus that we need to take action against global warming.”
A Few!? What Broad consensus? I still don’t see single sign of global warming. These people are just as dumb as the scientists who predicted an ice age in the 70’s. Also, if CO2 is a pollutant, so are you. You breathe out CO2. If I want to reduce CO2, I will kill you.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
There are many “naysayers” in the science community who disagree with the left’s view of AGW, to varying degrees. Any warming and ice melting that has been observed is not outside of what that has been observed in the past. The major differences between the warming of 1900 to 1940’s is that we have the information age today (the internet and 24 hour news)and since 1979 we have satellite images. Even so, 1930s era newspapers talked of arctic melting and the end of the polar bears. The calls for devastation due to warming are based on computer models that cannot even take know data and reproduce what happened in the climate and weather. To you older people (40+) out there, do you remember GIGO from your college days (garbage in and garbage out for you younger people.) I think more energy efficiency, dependence from foreign oil and a cleaner environment are worthy causes, but the AGW lies are not the way to accomplish these goals because they are based on juke science. The “naysayers” will be proven correct in the future because not matter what the US, Canada, and Europe does to cut C02 emissions, the developing world will bring atmospheric C02 levels beyond the “point of no return” levels being sold by the lefties at the UN and in Washington. In conclusion, be as green as you feel you need but do it for the right reasons and not turn you children into suicidal idiots because they think the world is going to end because your neighbor drives an SUV.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
If we find out Global Warming is not real and we develope new clean sources of energy and learn to make less of an impact on the Earth what is the damage? If we find Global Warming is real and we do nothing then what. It seems to me the price of doing nothing will cost us a lot more no matter what the outcome.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Whenever an environmental regulation is proposed, there are estimates over what the economic costs of these regulations will be.
In almost every case, whether it is industry or independent groups doing the analysis, the cost is overestimated. It is really amazing to look at the track record on this.
Here is a great article summarizing past studies and why we usually overestimate the costs of environmental regulation:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=4757
December 24th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
James, Global Warming is real and Global Cooling is real. Nothing that has been observed since global cooling ended in the 1970s has been out of the realm of events that have happened before. The scare mongering is based on computer models that have serious issues because the variables and there effects are not yet known with any measurement of reliability. One of the biggest proponents of global warming today, Dr. Hansen of NASA wrote that C02 produced by humans would produce the next ice age in the 1970s when we were in a period of cooling. As for new sources of energy, they are inevitable, do you think oil will last forever? Do you think that carbon offset funds will create new sources of energy? I see these funds as the next Enron.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Rather than argue about specific costs of cutting emissions, the general strategy of mitigationing global warming by cutting emissions and waiting for a damaged world to lower the CO2 level in the air will very likely be too little, too late to avoid catastrophe.
A rapidly growing population and world economy will very likely increase emissions, not cut them so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.
When the carrying capacity of the Earth lowers, we won’t have the available resources to do anything but crisis management. Furthermore, in a warming world, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters, not only reducing the ability to nature to remove our emissions from the air, but also natural emissions will increase, overwhelming any cuts we make to our emissions.
Instead, any planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing CO2 from the air-I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration (seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean). Otherwise, there is a practical mechanical method of removing CO2 from sea water.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Bob B, Of course oil won’t last for ever. Buying carbon offsets is a joke. It is like buying energy credits. It doesn’t create new energy, it just shifts usage from one to another.
If you have ever read accounts of John Muir’s time spent in the Sierra Nevada there is a huge decline in permenate snowpacks since the turn of the last century. I do beleave there is Global Warming. There has never been a time recorded in Human history when a sailing vessel could pass thru the Northern Passage that was not an icebreaker until this summer.
We all know the Earth has cycles of Ice Ages and periods of warmth. The problem is the speed at which this change is occuring. I would rather not take a wait and see approach. It is better to be safe than sorry. And as I said, developing clean sources of renewble energy now would not only help reduce CO2 but it would also create less pollution. If CO2 is increasing Global Warming, then great, if not, we are still cutting down on pollution which is a real problem.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
To Bob S.- Events of the last 30 years are outside the natural realm - the fingerprint of human activity on the environment is getting stronger on a broad front of observations and measurements. Your statement about the models and the variables is false (starting with the primary requirement to match historical data); your claim of scare-mongering belongs with the people advocating non-response. Hansen was not a proponent of global cooling; the proponents of global cooling measured the effect of SO2/aerosol dominance, not CO2. There was never a cooling consensus - it was a controversial anomaly that lasted less than a decade and didn’t stand up to scrutiny.
December 25th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Global warming is real, but Working Group 1 of the IPCC is not as clearcut about the degree of human impact on global warming as many would have us believe.
If we did not have a significant impact, then no actions we can take will reverse things, no matter how much we spend.
If we humans did have a significant impact, then the measures currently being proposed are not nearly drastic enough to reverse things. The draconian measures needed would not be socially or politically acceptable.
The best we can do is make all the easy reductions that can be made at a resonable cost. The Pareto principle applies 20% of the actions will give 80% of the possible reduction in human effect on global warming.
Global warming is a trend since the last ice age and will continue with or without our contribution until the climate reaches the tipping point which will send the world (and maybe us) into the next ice age.
December 25th, 2007 at 8:59 am
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
December 25th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I’ve studied global warming for quite some time, so here are some reponses to the Senate report that I hope will clarify things. Remember that one should err on the side of caution in preventing global warming since once it takes hold it may be very difficult to reverse. Therefore relatively low cost measures make common sense (analogous to buying car insurance or something like that).
POST #1
1. Yes, extreme climate changes have occurred in Earth’s history. However they haven’t occurred during the history of civilization. Natural causes have triggered past climate changes. This case is different in having man-made cause. There aren’t any obvious natural mechanisms to explain the warming this time around, in contrast to past climate changes. It’s a moral question as to whether humans should “play God” in allowing ourselves to become an agent of major change in the Earth’s climate and biosphere.
2. The natural glacial/interglacial cycles actually are at an ebb at present since the Earth’s orbit is in a relatively circular state. These Milankovich cycles would currently point to a modest cooling - something we are thus overriding with man-made greenhouse gases (and land use changes).
3. Cosmic rays are an interesting factor, though I’ll bet the effects aren’t large enough to explain current warming.
4. It’s true that water vapor gives us more greenhouse effect compared with CO2. This misses the point however, since it’s the CHANGE in CO2 (and methane, etc.) that triggers the warming. Also, since warmer air holds more water vapor, more water is evaporated into the atmosphere (maintaining the relative humidity), and this amplifies the initially more modest warming significantly. In other words, adding more man-made CO2 also adds more water vapor (a leveraging effect) to increase the warming.
5. Both the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere are warming. There might be some cooling of the upper atmosphere, related to a second issue of ozone depletion.
6. Even if the Medieval Warm Period is found to be slightly warmer than end of 20th century temperatures it would pale in comparison to the expected additional warming as more greenhouses accumulate in the atmosphere. Solar radiation changes that could explain some past changes aren’t presently big enough to explain the present warming rate (or the greater future warming).
7. As for warming on other planetary bodies, Pluto is currently moving closer to the sun to warm it. Triton (Neptune’s moon) is having some local warming related to changing seasons. Mars has long term climate changes due to changes in its rotation axis tilt, and in its orbital eccentricity.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am
What a Joke,
Show me one, just one long term effect of Global Histeria. Yeah, listen to the movie stars, they know everything.
God what a bunch of flakes!
The environmentalist’s need to get real and quit skewing the data to support what they want. Just tell the truth over a hundred years or more. You cannot take a snapshot of a glacier dropping into the ocean and claim the world is going to end.
Frankly I am sick of hearing this crap. I wish you all would just go away and do something useful for the world like move to another planet and screw it up.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:22 am
There are many effects talked about at the website below.
http://www.climatehotmap.org/fingerprints.html
The CO2 increase is more than just a blip as the current level has been proven to be higher than any time in the 650000 year ice core record. It is at risk of rising much higher yet.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Here a better link to the “hotmap” site:
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
December 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I agree with the need to reduce our CO2 emissions. But I fear that we will also need to do something more radical to put global warming on hold. There is a process called climate change geo-engineering which can with high probability put global warming on hold. But discussion of this process is largely censored by the IPCC, the environmental community and most of the press (with some leakage). In one implementation the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions is emulated by placing long lived particulates into the upper atmosphere. Studh to understand the issue has been endorsed by prominent scientists over the past 30 years or more. If you are truly interested in putting a hold on global warming and not just in changing the world’s energy base (a noble cause), ask me for more info at Somarl@msn.com
December 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I would be cautious about placing particles in the stratosphere. Besides preventing aesthetic views of the stars, cutting sunshine would reduce evaporation and rainfall. I would think that photosynthesis and plant growth (and even solar power) would also be reduced.
The type of geoengineering I might favor is something like “biochar” that uses agricultural soil amendments (derived from biofuels) to actually reverse global warming by storing carbon in the soil long term.
December 25th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
sir
wonder if in 2008, you can write about and interview me about my idea of Polar Cities for survivors of glo war in year 2500 or so. see my blog here and interview me i am in taiwan Tufts 1971, serious about this. dan
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
maybe a feature story on several people doing odd things like this for adaptqatuio?
December 26th, 2007 at 1:14 am
The CO2 level in the atmosphere has increased dramatically due to our burning of fossil fuels and due to deforestation. But about a third of the CO2 emissions have been dissolved in the oceans, slowing the greenhouse effect and the atmospheric warming. That sounds lika a good thing, but even the oceans have a limit to their ability to take up CO2. Dissolved CO2 will lead to ocean acidification. Now, anyone who has by misstake used an acidic detergent on a marble floor knows that acids don’t mix well with calcium based materials. And the effect of ocean acidification on coral and other crustaceans is that they will not be able to form their exoskeleton. So besides the temperature effect of CO2, business as usual will have a detrimental effect on life in the oceans. Scare mongers? Yes, maybe we need to be scared into action!
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
December 26th, 2007 at 6:25 am
I agree that the most desirable approach to the global warming problem is to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere AND to take out the excess we’ve already put in.
But when I look at the whole world, I just don’t see it happening in a time frame to stop serious ocean level rise and incresed severe weather.
And so I see a need to seriously consider the use of geo-engineering - including but not limited to the possibility of particulate in the upper atmosphere. My cry is not for a specific solution but for study of all the options, INCLUDING THE PRACTICALITY AND COST OF EACH OF THEM.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
The “cost” of not doing anything could be very high. Odds are not in favor of this being true, however, so it’s a game of probability - are the economic costs of taking a statistical roll of the dice to “stop” global warming (there is no guarantee these steps will work or help) worth it? Or is it better to take a step back, assume some of the cost-effective measures that exist (something Bush HAS done) are worthwhile and move toward them while continuing the investigation into the worthiness of the IPCC claims (which the IPCC itself admits is not 100% scientifically accurate)? I’d say taking the chance on increased global warming while finding more economically viable solutions in the short term is very much worth it.
I am not in bed with the Gore folk. They act like the Spanish Inquisitors with their rhetoric and calls for punitive activity to “stop” Global Warming. There may be a very big chance it can’t be stopped because it may very well be a natural event, not man-made.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Don’t forget that at the same time (and almost the same rate), the global ice caps on Mars also have been reduced. Hmmm…. maybe it’s my lightbulb. Somthing to think about.
And it’s not true that the caps have been this low or receded this much in recorded history. Right now in Greenland, they are studying archeological finds of farms that just reappeared from the ice that have been covered since the middle ages — when it was much warmer. — and no, Miami wasn’t covered in 20 feet of water at that time.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
US Senate report?
Nope, it wasn’t a US Senate report at all. It was a report prepared by the minority (Republican) chairman of a single committee. To title it as a “US Senate Report” is at best disengenuous and at worst a flat out lie!
I’m not going to argue the merits of global warming one way or another, but I’m sure as hell not going to take the word of someone caught lying about what a report represents. (Jim Inhofe, R-OK is the one putting out this report and he knows damned good and well that his opinion and report does not in any way represent the US Senate as a whole.)
December 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Another thing about the ‘lightbulb’ story. How much energy does it take to create one of these new bulbs and at what cost.
If they break, they are highly toxic with high levels of mercury and other toxic metals and chemicals.
Personally, I am more worried about poisons and pollutions than stupid CO2.
Look at the charts, we’re at what looks like a peak of warming. In fact, the warmest year was 1998, we haven’t warmed since and the temperatures look to have leveled. Also, these studies rely on “surface” temperatures. We need more info than that.
I am almost not concerned with warming. We’ve been warmer before and will be again in hundreds of years. We may make it worse, slightly, but the dire predictions of Florida being underwater are hysteria. Won’t happen like that.
While everyone out there is worried about CO2, the rest of us are worried about lead and mercery in our food and water & air. Something a bit more important right now.
If only the ‘greenies’ would have allowed nuclear power, we wouldn’t be in this predicament and would be ahead of the game like France who gets 87% of their electricity from nukes.
And please stop about “Electric” cars. Where do you think the electric comes from? Yep, coal and oil fired plants. They may be more efficient (good), but they’re NOT pollution free as they draw electric from fossil fuel burning plants.
December 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Yup, my favorite thing to bring up about “global warming”
are the farms in Greenland.. which means that at some point in the past, Greenland which is pretty much covered in ice was in fact capable of supporting agriculture. No CO2 issues then. We just don’t have the data to support GW right now, period. We can make models and charts and graphs, but with only 300 years of accurate(sort of) information, we really have no idea what the world does cyclically. It is quite more highly likely that the warming we are experiencing right now is a result of the sun and increasing solar activity than anything we can do. It’s hard to say that we’re having any impact on the planet from our emissions at all. Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Oh wait, it fixed itself, even though we’re polluting more now than ever.. admittedly with less CFCs in the US, but not other places.
If you want to argue with me, address the farms in Greenland and the hole repairing itself in the ozone layer in your response, otherwise you’re using charts and information from people who have something to gain, and I can use the charts from anti GW people, which basically contradict your charts and we end up at a standstill. Of course feel free to comment on what you want, but get a grip people, if you’re not a climatologist who doesn’t receive grants from the government I don’t want your opinion on charts and what the news feeds you. When was the last time you saw a picture of a falling glacier? Oh yeah, that’s not happening right now..
December 26th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
CO2 has never been definitively linked to an increase in the surface temperature on Earth. These are THEORIES, and bad ones. Until we have a better understanding of how the atmosphere works and it’s effect on the temperature a simple grade school diagram of earth + co2 +sunlight = higher temperatures should cannot be relied upon. California has already passed draconian co2 laws, lets wait for them to fail before we force the greatest economy on earth to adhere to the same. Normally, legislation is not passed to enforce scientific theories — there is no “plate tectonic” movement tax, Darwin evolution belief tax, Physics String theory prevention tax, and there shouldn’t be a “CO2 MIGHT warm the earth tax”….
December 26th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Why do some people not believe this? Sure there are 400 scientists who disagree, but how many AGREE? 40,000?
Here’s the deal. If you live in a big city, you’ll understand that emissions NEED to be reduced. Even in smaller cities with paper mills, power plants, etc. Do you think these aren’t effecting your health?
Even if they don’t effect the earth and the temp, we can still spend a little bit of money to make things cleaner. How much money do we waste on wars, social programs, etc that are wasteful?
The earth did have an Ice Age on it’s own after all. But who’s to say we can’t speed things up? Better to be cautious than not. It’s not that we’re all being asked to ride a bike to work and turn off air conditioning. Really… just get off your “I call BS” high horse and do something pro-active
December 26th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“There has never been a time recorded in Human history when a sailing vessel could pass thru the Northern Passage that was not an icebreaker until this summer.”
I wasn’t aware that with a few exeptions starting in the 1700’s that anyone was looking for a Northwest Passage. Apparently there is a secrect source of recorded history that I am not aware of. Perhaps James would be willing to share his sources of the 1000+ years of history where men were actively looking for it.
December 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Well meaning people doing the wrong things. That’s all it is.
Buy a hybrid but what about the batteries? And the people who drive them average a lot more miles than those who own a Hummer. Buy local produce so we can make it harder for agriculture to prosper in Africa, South America, etc., let alone neighboring states. Buy CFLs so China can continue to produce more pollutants than any other nation. Coal fired power plants with little regulation for emissions are going online weekly there. And don’t forget about their water problems . . .
Let’s take food away and produce ethanol instead. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from it. It’s much more corrosive so it’s harder to store and transport. It’s harder on an engine so we’ll be replacing motors more often or just junking cars with shorter lifespans instead of the direction we’ve been going with longer lasting and lower maintenance vehicles.
As it becomes more economically feasible, energy use will change. When we can extract hydrogen easily on a massive scale, we’ll use more of it. When solar energy collection becomes more efficient, we’ll use more of it. When nuclear fusion plants become cost effective and we develop the technology to build them, we’ll use them too. Most of these things will be a reality in 25 years or less. No need to panic, just shut up and wait.
It was 30 years ago one of those UN scientists predicted the coming Ice Age. Just wait.
I believe you should turn off lights when leaving a room, keep the thermostat below 68, plan your trips as efficiently as possible, etc. Use what you need in a careful and conservative manner. There is nothing wrong with that. But carbon taxes, energy credits, and all the rest of that is ridiculous.
The cures for global warming are much worse than the (supposed) disease. And when will we stop panicking the children in our schools? It is simply brainwashing and nothing more. That’s the saddest part of all this.
And as far as the article is concerned; sometimes people are successful (lucky) early in life and then spend the rest of their time telling others about how everything really ought to be.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
The global warming lies are impressive, and, to those prone to think as they are told by liberal authority figures, very persuasive.
But, they are lies. Magnificient lies. A pyramid of lies. There is no indication of warming, only the desire for middle-eastern and Russian oil producers to sell for higher prices. They pay huge amounts to legislators (President of France just retired with 60 million in Japanese accounts) in the form of campaign contributions. So, the lies keep on being told about global warming, and they just keep getting richer. They’ve stopped nuclear energy, for instance, which works, and turned it into another liberal bogeyman. At catholicfundamentalism.com, we encourage prayer for global warmers.
December 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
We could slash human contributions to global warning by 25% very quickly. Just kill 25% of the population. Voila!
December 26th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Sad that for those who believe in global warming, there is absolutely no solution. If all fossil fuels were prohibited from use today, it would take approximately 300 years to reverse the effects of supposed global warming. Since cessation of use of fossil fuels is impossible, there is but one true solution, and that is to exterminate approximately one fourth of mankind, immediately. Since that isn’t going to happen until WWIII, it is best just to forget about global warming since there is nothing anyone can do about it. Grow up, get real, live with what you have, appreciate today and stop ruining life for everyone by complaining about a problem that has zero solutions.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Fred Moolten Says:
December 24th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
(e.g., sea level rise that has resulted in many thousands of deaths in coastal areas from heightened storm surges).
————————
sea level rise? Resulting in 1000’s of deaths??? Since we entered into this era of global warming - like the last 20 years or so?
Could you please cite links with factual data to back this up? Not the 1000’s will die, everyone panic!!! stories. But hard core data from reliable sources to back your statement up? I would like to read these facts for myself. And do not attempt to bring the Hurricane Katrina deaths as proof since this was a problem with a city built below existing sea level with improperly built and maintained levies.
Thank you for your help.
December 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Global warming is REAL. At least, until you take into account the glaring mistakes involved in maintaining the temperature measurement sites which contribute the data we use to decide whether it’s real or not. Up until you start messing with those truly inconvenient truths, it is quite “real”…we’ve managed to validate, with this faulty equipment, between 1 and 1.5 degrees of mean temperature increase over the last century.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good scare.
We’ll see how well that resolve holds as we start learning about the upfront costs of changing our carbon-spewing lifestyles.
Forget the costs, Vindu. What about the benefits? That’s the real question. What kind of closing window of opportunity to we have? What control do we have over the environment now, that we risk losing if we don’t do anything? How much control will we lose? How quickly?
How do we know this?
Once we know exactly what it is we’re trying to achieve, then we can deliberate about costs. What you wrote, above, doesn’t even begin to address this. Neither does anything else for that matter, grandstanding hyperbole aside.
And that should raise a huge red flag, the size of ANWR, with anybody who truly has an open mind about this.
December 26th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emission so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.
Instead, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing CO2 from the air. I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean.
Any cuts we make to emissions will be too little too late, as a warming Earth leads to carbon sinks becoming carbon emitters, not only completely overwhelming any cuts we make with increased natural emissions, but also reducing the amount of CO2 removed from the air by nature.
If we don’t reduce the excess amount of CO2 in the air soon, we will rapidly return to the hothouse climate of 55 million years ago when most life died.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“But specific changes will cost a lot more money. To bring U.S. cars to an average 35 mile-per-gallon fuel economy, cars will probably cost from $1,500 to $7,000 more upfront, according to the Los Angeles Times. ”
Blatant Scare bullshit courtesy of Detroit. Yeah, if you want a 3 ton Hummer to get 35 mpg while carting your 98 pound trophy wife around, it’ll probably cost you. But 4 cylinder sedans that comfortably held 5 six footers were getting 35+ mpg 20 years ago, thankaverramuch.
Why to do it? National Security. Burn Oil, Feed a Terrorist. It’s just that simple.
December 26th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I am not worried about so-called Global Warming because I believe in a God who has everything in control and His Word says that the world is reserved for fire when He is ready to destroy it this time. Last time He used water, but this time it will be fire, probably nuclear fire when He releases His control of the atoms which any good scientist will tell you are held together be a power that they don’t understand. I believe that God Himself holds all the atoms together and that when wants to destroy this world with fire all He will have to do is release the atomic energy contained in all the atoms and this world will become the biggest atomic bomb that mankind has ever thought about. If God is in control, then anything done by man is insignificant and useless. Of course, if I didn’t believe God was in control, I would probably be in a panic and hysterical like the “true believers” in global warming. Thirty years ago the hysteria was the coming “ice age”. Prior to that was the “overpopulation” scare. Fifteen years ago the ozone layer was “disappearing” and now the scare de jour is global warming. I say follow the money and see who is trying to make a “power grab” as a result of the scare-mongering about global warming. We will “have to have” a group with a higher power than any national government to enforce the new laws and to collect the new taxes to offset global warming. Do you want the Useless Nations organization to do this? How well are they handling their current responsibilities? What makes you think they will do any better with more money to give to tin-horn dictators and waste on extravagant life-styles for the UN bureaucrats? With the money the UN wastes, we could probably lift one small country a year from poverty. All nations will lose their sovereignty and have to follow laws made by people who are jealous of the American way of life and will therefore take out their frustrations on the United States.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:58 am
I simply cannot believe there are still people who think there’s a debate to be had. Anybody ever drive by an oil refinery? See that black smoke rising up out of it? Where does it go? Go burn some oil in your house, and see what it does to your ceiling. Or go look at the sky over Los Angeles. Or Dallas. If you don’t think industry is screwing up the biosphere at this point, you must be a fool. What about all the mercury in the seafood? Burning oil and coal give off hellish, toxic black smoke, and if you think it’s harmless, go stand in it for five minutes. Give Mr. Emphysema my regards.
The bottom line is, it’s a problem, everybody knows darned well it’s a problem, we are going to do something about it, and as we do so, where the expenses specifically add and subtract is a good and pragmatic perspective to bear in mind, but it doesn’t change anything.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:00 am
I wish all you Tree huggers would just shut up and point your boney fingers at the real polluters here….China, other third world countries…All this global warming scare is a money grab by a few people who used to be in the communist party….The “carbon offsets” that hollow headed people think is going to make some sort of diffrence…just how did the last ice age end?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Senator Inhofe’s minority report indeed quotes many leading scientists (400 he says) who have studied the issue and say that the warming between 1975 and 1998 was natural, the cooling between 1940 and 1975 during the maximum increase in CO2 shows CO2 has nothing to do with it, and global temperatures have not increased since 1998. Yes, places on earth have warmed recently, but some cooled too. Relying on temperature measurements in urban areas is like looking at a thermometer in the sunlight. And, today’s scare mongering Press reports only on the warming.
The scientists say reducing CO2 will do nothing to control the climate, and common sense tells us this is true because of climate statistics of the period of 1940 to 1975, and because of the lack of any warming since 1998.
But, even if CO2 was the problem, it can only delay the problems not fix them.
Making CO2-emitting-fuels much more expensive will run into the problem of inelastic demand. Will people heat their homes less, will people drive less, will electricity use decline? Yes, to be sure, but how much?
In the UK, taxation makes fuels very expensive and the behavior of the English is not very different from the Americans, except everything is far more expensive. But, the rail services are prohibitively expensive. And, the British have “Green” taxes aslo, which are not used for “Green” projects.
And the British often say “How are we to live, the Government is taxing us so much, and making the rails and buses so expensive that we cannot afford them either!” And, asking people to use bicycles is not practical for grocery shopping, old people, mothers with children, in inclement weather, and for those outside of big cities. Is it any wonder that the British see the Global Warming patter-song as so much rubbish.
If there were non-carbon emitting fuels on the market it would be one thing, but fuels like these do not exist, and even if we covered a large fraction of the US with solar panels or windmills it would not be enough, and electric cars are not the answer.
The reason the UK was able to meet the Kyoto Protocols was because of Margaret Thatcher’s shut down of the coal industry and the coversion of UK power to natural gas and the de-industrialiation pattern of companies leaving the UK for cheaper countries, a trend which can only accelerate in the future.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:00 am
My suggestion as a first step is something that costs absolutely nothing. I’d like everybody to take this test and post the results. Starting with Vindu and commenters #25, #33 and #43.
It’ll help get to the bottom of things real quick.
Oh but it won’t remove any carbon from the atmosphere. Then again, I never said it would, did I? I just said it would be costless, and it is. Compared to half the solutions that have been tossed in our direction the last three years, therefore, it’s a real bargain (and doesn’t remove any less carbon than they do).
December 27th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Well, I’ve been an operational meteorologist for 24 years. I work 40 hours a week looking at meteorolgical models constantly. I have to tell you the stuff I see is making me nervous about how fast the earth’s climate is changing now. I’m starting to see some positive feed back loops winning. (less ice in the arctic bringing a lower earth albedo etc etc). I’ve read all your posts above. I cannot believe how obviously political this debate has gotten.
Fact. The atmospheric composition has changed. We are breathing 30 percent more CO2 right now than any person since humans have walked the earth.
Fact. The volume of arctic ice is 50 percent what it was in 2004. There will be regional climate changes once its gone in the late summer just a few years from now.
Fact. Once the ice is gone, there will be ocean currents in the arctic that have never existed since humans walked the planet. And since ocean currents drive regional climates. What will this do and where? That is the big question.
Fact. There a tremendous increase in temperatures north of 60 degrees latitude since the 70s.
Whether you believe the above is caused by humans or not. You need to be prepared for the inevitable changes that will occur. With 6.7 billion people on the planet that need to be fed, anytime the earth burps, humans feel the pain, somehow.
And if you think I’m some tree hugging liberal, think again. I know a lot about atmospheric physics. I’ve never been so disgusted by so many people trying to BS about something they know nothing about. I really can’t believe your biased political ignorance. Where do you get your information from? Garbage from BS ers on other blogs.
Why don’t you actually try and read the research papers from the scientists that actually know what their talking about. Not the media. Go to NASA and NOAA dot gov and see the research for yourself.
Meanwhile, just like my dad prepared me for the “what if a nuclear war broke out?” 30 years ago. I’m preparing my family for the what is the earth going to when all the arctic ice is gone in 5 to 20 years. The earth will do something. I just don’t know what. But whatever it does I have a plan to keep my family safe and fed.
If you think I’m just scare mongering, well, after what I’m seeing and what I know, I’m scared. My poor kids.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:32 am
I’m taking Glenn Beck’s advice and doing nothing until some real, concrete, feasible solutions come to the table. I already conserve like the dickens, and that’s about all a citizen can really do, except plant more trees.
The real solutions have to come from an industrial level–fuels, solar and wind-driven electricity, flex-fuel cars, even more efficient appliances, whatever the “solution of the day” may be. To have each and every one of us erect our own version of grid replacement is the most wasteful thing we can do for both us AND the planet, because too much of it relies on the very oil we seek to replace!
This whole global warming thing is really a power play anyway–to see who can exert the most pressure on society on a certain direction based on faulty evidence and crooked logic. “The Reverend” Al Gore managed to ride it all the way to trophyland, satisfying nothing but his own ego and possibly paving a path back to the White House. He’s a born-and-bred politician…and we’re supposed to believe HIM? He couldn’t even get facts from a U.N. report right, yet he made a fearmongering movie about it anyway.
Want some big-time recognition? Simply switch 23 inches with 23 feet, and you’re King of the Environmental Movement. People like Leonardo DiCaprio and Ed Begley Jr. will carry the hem of your coat wherever you go–even if it’s to the bathroom.
Remember–these environmentalists are what got us INTO this problem by denying us drilling in Anwar, permits for erecting nuke plants, offshore drilling/windmills, and mining for coal in Colorado (the Saudi Arabia of coal). They’d rather we used oil-based products like solar panels, windmills, hybrid cars, and the like, and this makes no sense–use oil to eliminate oil need? Huh? Then there’s the incredible htpocrisy that goes along with this issue: do as I say, not as I do. Reverend Al is a prime example of that.
Oh yeah–math and science BAAAAD, emotional blackmail GOOOOOD. Only in the Land of Liberal La La. I’ve taken to calling I-5 the road to serfdom, and I think Hayek would agree with me.
Glenn Beck says to do nothing, and that’s what I’m going to do beyond what I’m already doing…now excuse me, because one of my 10-year-old CFLs just burned out. I must go change it.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:01 am
I got a question: if Reverend Al Gore’s sea level rise predictions are right, and most of Florida will be under water, why do so many celebrities still own homes there (and on the CA coast as well)? You’d think they’d be the first to move, seeing as how they could easily afford to do so.
As you can see for yourselves, there is no massive migration of movie stars, or celebrities of any kind–especially in this down real estate market. Well, okay, maybe Suzanne Somers is moving, but that’s because her last two homes got destroyed by WILDFIRES, not floods.
There’s a real big difference between 23 feet and 23 inches, Al.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Fluorescent bulbs last 6 times longer? BS. I tried CFL and they lasted 10 times LESS in the hall.
The traditional long fluorescent bulbs have worked great where we have them in the kitchen, but the CFL have been horrendous
December 27th, 2007 at 8:34 am
A few years ago we were “loosing” the ozone layer and going into an ice age. After “scientists” rode that horse as long as they could they decided we were going into a “tropical age” so they could get more grants. The earth has had ice ages and tropical ages throughout its history and well before man started burning fossil fuel. How long will this scam carry on?
December 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
If you click on my website above it should give you my overview on global warming (from the perspective of someone with an atmospheric science degree).
The solutions are relatively inexpensive (kind of like buying insurance), compared with the likely cost of inaction. It is much easier to reduce global warming ahead of time than to try to reverse it after the fact. Let’s be optimistic about some of the solutions, such as thin-film solar panels now being produced that are competitive with coal power. Use of “biochar” to sequester carbon in the soil is another wedge that can work. Even nuclear power, both fission and fusion, could play a role. If we add all these things up it should help and still be a reasonable cost.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Some interesting information for those of you that have a great desire to blame the U.S. for everything.
Link to article: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html
The important part:
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
* Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
* Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
* Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
* Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
We in the US are still one of the highest CO2 emitters per person in the world. The rest of the world is catching up some in emissions as they develop their economies. This is one of the core issues in how should wealth and emissions be squared as we moved forward. For example, if there is to be equality in the world, if the world as a whole cuts emissions by roughly 50-70%, we in the US would actually have to cut by 90%. So we have a lot more to go actually.
I will give George Bush one good debating point. It is a good question philosophically as to whether CO2 emissions should be evaluated on either a per person or a per dollar basis. Thus issues of rich and poor nations do become entwined with the global warming discussion.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Here’s a good paper by James Hansen on why sea level rise may be underestimated by the IPCC. I think the IPCC itself removed their upper limit to sea level rise in their 4th most recent report of 2007.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/2/024002/erl7_2_024002.html
December 27th, 2007 at 10:52 am
You people need to just shut up and send Al Gore money!@!!!!!
December 27th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Here’s a good website for all those arguing for non-action. Watch and learn. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=92EE5DBE2987982F
December 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Nice YouTube video from Jeffrey with a good perspective on the risk management aspects of global warming…
December 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
What is the correct temperature of the Earth? Figure it anyway you want, mean, median, mode, whatever. Northern Hemisphere temp, Southern, Eastern, Western, slice and dice the globe anyway you want. What temperature of the Earth should we try for?
What is the correct/ideal average annual temperature of Planet Earth? Is the ideal temperature the average temperature of the 1970s, 1960s, 1930s, 1880s, 1750s, 1620s?
When you can determine what the ideal temperature is, and why that is so, then all you have proven is that based on some arbitrary standard we should try to manipulate the global climate to meet a man made standard. The average temperature has been higher, it has been lower and it will continue to vary as long as the Earth orbits the Sun.
Belief in man made global warming shows most of the characteristics of a primitive religious cult. I for one will remain an infidel until there is actual scientific proof, not a consensus of politicians and politically manipulated science-like studies.
Science is the opposite of consensus. Present one case of proof and debate is over. Proof can examined, tested and verified, but there is no proof, so true believers claim that the science is settled, claim that all the honest scientists are of the same opinion (opinion is not fact or proof), and that those who do not believe must do so because they are ignorant or selfish or greedy.
I want the Earth to be a pleasant, inhabitable place with clear blue skies, clean water and clean land for my children, and their children yet to come, but I do not want to see industrialized nations’, especially the United States’ economies ruined in order to tranfer wealth to the non-industrialized under the false pretense of saving the planet.
Provide PROOF that mankind’s actions are actually impacting the climate and that any resulting changes will be detrimental to human beings and the debate is over. Until proof is provided I refuse to join the Church of Man Made Global Warming.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
As the YouTube video humorously points out, even gravity isn’t explained in science by the type of proof you apparently ask for. The major warming in the arctic already going on is consistent with a greenhouse gas cause, and isn’t consistent with other possible causes. If you wait until say the Greenland ice cap melts for your proof it will be too late to do anything about it. Why not take prudent steps to prevent this, kind of like buying health insurance or car insurance?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
The author of this article forgets to mention that the increased cost of fuels and consumer items is another good way to reduce emissions. By raising costs of items that pollute, people will think twice about taking that extra trip or buying items they do not need. The added cost is necessary to curb emissions as United States citizens clearly do not care enough to change their lifestyles on their own.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Global warming is an absolute scam. The logic is faulty. Scientists who question the flawed data are attacked. More info about this scam here: http://erichufschmid.net/Global-warming/Carbon-tax-con-artists.html
December 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Couple of quick points in the above post. The measurements of solar radiation recently (from Earth) show it to be too constant to account for warming on any planet over the past few years or decades.
It’s true we should preserve vegetation to fight global warming. This is about 20% of the total effect, so every contribution helps.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Seriously, I cannot read this post with that HUGE face staring me down. C’mon, it’s HUGE. You’re freakin’ me out, Vindu.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Steve A: Sorry, I’m not a scientist, but could you please explain how radiation measured over just a few years (tiny drop in the bucket geologically speaking) can indicate radiation is constant?
December 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Jack B, how does the current warming different than the arctic warming that took place between 1900 and 1940? I have read that the arctic region warmed more and a faster rate than the current warming trend. Unfortunately, satellite images of the regions were not regularly taken until 1979 but there are written accounts of the Northwest passage being clear of ice on several occasions in past couple of centuries, long before AWG.
December 29th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Robert, I’ll have to check on some references. The gist of it though is that global temperatures have risen pretty sharply over the past 30 years while solar radiation measured over this period is pretty constant. It’s true that past modest climate change (such as the little ice age) was probably connected with solar radiation changes, judging from the lack of sunspot activity in the Maunder Minimum. Today’s situation is different though with rising temperatures in the face of steady solar radiation.
In very ancient times (perhaps a billion or more years ago) the sun was much fainter and greenhouse gases at that time helped to keep things warmer.
There is a good summary of solar radiation at this Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
December 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Oops, pasted in the wrong link, it should be this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
December 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
If the religion of Global Warming would look at 1900 to 1940 temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere, including the Arctic and Greenland, the Religion would be dead. During that period, Arctic warming was greater than the 1970 to present warming. Look at historic temperatures on the NASA website and the debate is over as is the AWG Religion.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Perhaps Bob B. there are religious aspects on both sides of the scientific global warming debate, particularly when one connects the dots to various observations. I’ll try and restate what I’ve mentioned about the past century in light of what you’re mentioning.
Early in the 20th century there were actually some solar radiation variations (judging from the sunspot cycles). There was a temporary warming in the mid-20th century associated with this. I’ve seen that in Greenland, the warming in the mid-20th century was close to that at present. On a hemispheric and global basis though I think the present warming is greater. Perhaps we can trade links to specific graphs we are looking at. Overall I see no contradiction with present warming being mostly caused by human activities. As I’ve alluded to above, how can one explain the warming in the past 30 years during a period when solar radiation was measured to be constant? The most plausible answer to that is the greenhouse gas increases.
Even if there is a few percent uncertainty in the confidence of the global warming theories, are you willing to gamble the planet’s future that your assessment is correct? Recall that greenhouse gases are projected to increase quite a bit further in the coming decades. Are you sure this will have no important effect on the climate? Better to be safe than sorry - that’s my (prudent) religion.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Here’s one graph of interest. Both for the northern hemisphere and globally, the present warming is shown to be much greater than the mid-20th century warming.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
December 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Steve A, have you been to Greenland in the winter?
Keep looking in NASA’s records and you will find that Greenland was warmer and warmed at a faster rate from 1900 to 1940 than the current warming phase from 1970 to 2007. Both periods look like a classic bell curve that we studied in statistics, but the 1900 to 1940 period was a much larger bell curve.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m still waiting for Jack B, the expert, to comment. His qualifications are much beyond anyone who has commented thus far. I am a skeptic, but not a member of any religion and I have a very open, and educated. mind.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Larry Says:
December 26th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Larry said:
“There has never been a time recorded in Human history when a sailing vessel could pass thru the Northern Passage that was not an icebreaker until this summer.” Larry, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULKKKKKKKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH{{{{{{{{{{. There have been several recorded passes through the Northwest passage, in the last 200 years. The difference today, and since 1979, is that they can be verified with satellite images. (Such images began in 1979.) You are part of the Global warming religion and no matter what the facts are you will not concede. As more than 100 of the top climate scientists, including lead writers from the IPCC wrote, nothing in the last 100 years is outside the natural realm. 1900 to 1940 saw greater and faster warming in the arctic than the 1970 to current warming. Look at NASA data, all of it not cherry picked, and you will see the light (my religious pick from Hank.)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
Happy New Year Bob B. FYI, I’ve been a meteorologist for around 23 years and have a master’s degree in atmospheric science. I work where lots of climate research is done, though I do stuff mostly on weather forecasting.
I’ve never been to Greenland. How about you answering some of my questions too?
Though I’d like to see an exact link where you are looking, it’s true that Greenland has some local temperature variations that buck the global trend. Remember the main topic being discussed is the average global warming. I think though even Greenland has started warming in the past decade or so, and the next decade should show more conclusively whether Greenland reflects more of the global trend. Its proximity to the slower warming waters of the North Atlantic ocean may help slow the warming in Greenland - let’s hope so for the sake of the rising sea levels.
I agree that Greenland say in the 1990s had a fairly stable ice cap. It has started to stir with some overall melting in this decade though. We can be fairly confident that sooner or later, the “rising tide” of global temperature increases will start to impact Greenland more noticeably. Note that the last time global temperatures were 2-3C warmer than today (being 120000 years ago), sea levels were several meters higher, implying a significant ice cap melting (some combination of Greenland and Antarctica).
Regarding your comments to Larry, even if the rate of warming was greater in certain “local” regions in the mid-20th century than today, that has little bearing on the overarching facts of today. Overall global (and even average arctic) temperatures today are higher now than anytime in the last century. And today’s more rapid global increase is happening at a time of constant solar radiation (unlike the mid 20th century). Isn’t that the more important take-home message?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:33 am
Steve A, As an expert on the subject matter you might find this rebuttal to the Lockwood and Frohlich paper on the sun’s effect on current trends: http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view