Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

That is, how does the strict environmental mandate affect others, especially those with less money or fewer opportunities. My views, my intent,  have not been opposed to a cleaner environment. We could do better, GW or not.  But I would caution about drastic measures, costly measures, especially when such actions cause inequitable harm across the socioeconomic spectrum.

The notion of "external costs" are important to keep in mind. Sure, a rural community could keep harvesting the last of the old-growth forest and feed its children for a few more years, and this would clearly make sense as a local decision when only factoring in the cost/benefit to these families. But silt from the logging shuts down a fishery, another group bears the cost. I don't know enough about the mine in Romania to know if there were external costs in play or if this was the action of some fringe folks (there are of course extremests on all sides of any issue). The article made it sound like a case of good intentions gone bad, where the costs were largely local/internal. But it's clear that the folks who benefit from staying the course on carbon emmissions see more benefit than cost from the status quo, yet their actions have large external costs.

As for overall economic efficiency, past experience has shown that "going green" can save companies money (use less energy and materials = pay less $ in the long term). There are EPA studies going back to the late '70's showing that environmental regulations yield a net increase of employment, so playing the "jobs" card is a little suspect as well (though of course the jobs may shift from one spot to another, which something that happens in many ways, even in heavily planned socialist states. I'm not saying we should implement regulations freely with no careful thought as to negative impacts, but I want to be clear that taking the Romania story as a parable for how to deal with Global Warming understates the external costs and the possibility of regulating with net positive impact.

Exactly, I think we can safely say that the earth's temperature would be rangebound somewhere between conditions on Mars and conditions on Venus, with allowances for the law of inverse squares for the differences in solar radiation between Venus, Earth, and Mars. But life would not be feasible - at least many of the more complex forms of life we know - outside a much narrower range. For instance body temperature maintenance, for humans probably 98 to 104 or 105 degrees, and then there is water, and ice. The fact that ice even exists on earth is something of a miracle because ice allows for the storage and release of water during the summer, and summer is a good thing because much of our plant life finds summer necessary so that it can grow. Sure things can adapt, but the question is how quickly?

That is an excellent question! So we know very certainly that forcing the system (the atmosphere) in a certain direction (increased CO2) will have some effect, but how much? Given H20 and CH4 are more opaque to infrared radiation these will have a larger effect on warming. But again, what are the feedbacks? I've noticed as computing power increases and the models increase in sophistication the higher the predicted temperatures are becoming.

I admit my research tends to lead more towards the stars than the atmosphere. How quickly can life adapt? I would think this is a difficult subject to research. Admittedly the magnitude of this sort of thing isn't precedented in human history, but what about geological history?

As for the Earth becoming Venus, we do have the luxury of being a bit further from the Sun, so we won't have the magnitude of radiant energy to lead to that extreme of an outcome. But the content of Venus and Earth are the same, so it is somewhat of a warning of potential negative feedbacks from increased warming.

Matt

I wasn't going to add anymore to this thread, but an article came out that is too excellent to pass up. I've cut'n paste a section that is my favorite and below it added a link to the entire article...its a long read, but the best, most comprehensive article on the subject I've seen in a long time.

---

MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES

There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.”

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled “Fire and Ice” from the Business and Media Institute. www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/...ndice_timeswarns.asp

MEDIA COVERAGE IN 2006

Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today’s sensational promoters of global warming?

You be the judge.

---

Full Article
epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Like I've said before, I've observed and I think I can see the effects. In 1895 the signature of global warming were just beginning to manifest itself. What was the population of the earth in 1895? What is it now? How about cars, and jets, and power plants...more in 1895 or more today? By a little or a lot?

I think a better question is who will be the last scientist, who will be the last person to cling to an antiquated viewpoint. A few still believe the world is flat. Some think it was created some 4000 years ago. I was at the Grand Canyon today and I find the latter hypothesis a little hard to believe. I've stood on mountains and looked out to see what appears to be a curving surface, so I doubt the former as well. So do astronauts. As to global warming the convergence of observations by me and obviously a host of people and scientists around the world seem to be supported by models. Pielke's living in a dream world. Any good scientist or observer would have learned by age nine that it's warmer near a building or on the south side of a house, cooler at night in hollows.

The earth will have another ice age. The question is whether mankind at anything like the population of today will be around to see it. Most likely it will be caused by geologic or solar output events, something over which we have no control......unlike green house gases, over which we obviously have a huge effect. Now whether or not mankind will be diligent enough to exercise control, and whether that will happen soon enough, that's another question.

I am curious... Did computer models predict Katrina? And did computer models predict the paucity of huricanes this year?

I am curious... Did computer models predict Katrina?   And did computer models predict the paucity of huricanes this year?

What the models missed was the jet stream pattern. Even now the deep trough over the east coast causes wind shear to limit tropical storm development.....but only in the Atlantic. Just take a look at a satellite loop to watch this happen.