Add to your metaphor that the people pushing the vegan lifestyle are, themselves, gorging on steak every night.

I could not have put it better!!!!

PCHiway wrote:

Minister X wrote:I'd like to compare notes with you on this, not by way of hostile competition but just out of curiosity.

Sure thing X.

The first thing I should point out is that I actually do think we're in a warming period and are due for much warmer temperatures worldwide.

Cool. (No pun intended.)

First, let me suggest that we reserve discussion of mitigation (or preparation) vs. prevention for a different time and thread. I happen to agree with nearly everything you wrote about that, and mentioned my reasons many pages ago. They were: any success the first world might have in reducing carbon will be more than offset by the billions in places like China and India who would like to (and will) approach Western levels of energy use per capita. [And adding to that... I've since seen a story somewhere - sorry - about a new theory regarding how long the CO2 we've already added will persist. Much longer than we thought just a few months ago.]

This makes our differences somewhat irrelevant from a public policy standpoint. Somewhat. You say we're in a natural warming period and can't prevent warming. I say humans are responsible and we can't prevent warming. I suggest we first tackle that which most differentiates us. One: it will be more fun. Two: it will be more interesting to everyone else. Once we've explored natural vs. man-made we might be in a better position to talk about timing and magnitude of change and thus our responses to its imminence.

to be continued...

agreed. Once we get to the second point I'll be using and offer for your enjoyment(in honor of the sharks vs. fish link you provided a few days ago) an uber-cool graphing program.

The Gapminder Flash graph is a really fun little page on which you can graph any of your favorite indicators against any other and see how countries stack up. Crime vs. education? GDP vs. urbanization? All there. Where it gets really fun is when you hit 'play' at the bottom and animate the results to see your country's progression (regression) through the years.

But back to man made vs. natural. In the interests of full disclosure I'll say that leading climate scientists have dismissed the Greenland and Antarctic ice core results as regional. "Just because Greenland was hotter back when," they maintain, "doesn't mean that the same conditions applied worldwide." That's certainly possible, and I lack the scientific mojo to say how likely/unlikely that statement is. It does seem unlikely to my layperson brain, however, that only Greenland could have been that much hotter for that many centuries as an outlier.

Machiavelli wrote:Four big houses (each more than 10,000 square feet), flights hither, tither and yon aboard private jets to have his chakras released, limosines from door to door...

That is not what I asked you about, but it seems that the answer to my first question is yes – you are making an assumption. Very sloppy, and far from scientific, but consistent I suppose.

You can guess all you like, but the carbon footprint is measured by the net emissions of CO2 and other GHGs (converted to an equivalent value) caused by someone or something. He may have a big house or four, but are they energy efficient? Do they take energy from the grid, or from other sources? Are they shared with a large number of residents, or for him alone? While he may travel, does he do anything to offset those emissions?

I asked if you had actual figures. It seems not, or you might have given some indication as to what they are. Do you even know what your own carbon footprint is?

I'm pretty comfortable that I'm in compliance with my pledge.

And I’m pretty confident that you would have no idea whether you actually are. Maybe Gore has a net emission total of zero? How can you be sure, without checking the facts? Or is this why you have a problem with science – that the idea of checking out whether a theory is true by looking at the facts, rather than simply using ‘common sense’ assumptions is an anathema?

In short, when Al starts taking this global warming stuff seriously, I will.[/quote]Cool! So let us see the figures. If your net emissions are higher than those of Gore, will you accept science? Or will you perhaps wriggle out with some excuse?

By the way, it is irrelevant to the science whether Gore does or does not live up to the ideals. It is relevant to whether or not he's a hypocrite, but that is pretty much all.

PCH. I do understand your position. Mine was similar to that of Min X until about 15 years ago. Bjorn Lomborg was in a similar position until very recently.

So it will be interesting to see you and Min X debate your difference. I do hope for your sakes that it doesn't get derailed by the yahoos too much.

I'm glad you like Gapminder, by the way - I linked to it a while ago on the old site after someone posted a video which used part of it showing GDP/cap vs Life Expectancy over time. Question - do you trust their data more than you do that of Climate Scientists?

Drat! I thought I'd be able to reap all the kudos of introducing Gapminder to the boys.

Do I trust Gapminder's data over the Climate Scientists? Are the two mutually exclusive?

No, I'm just wondering whether you trust them or not, seeing as you don't trust Climate Scientists.

continuing discussion with PCHiway about natural vs. man-made warming...

One more thing before getting around to the question of what causes warming. There's a meme out there running around, particularly popular with certain types of climate skeptics, that goes something like this: temperature change is part of earth's natural order of things and we're over-reacting to something the planet will surely take in its stride. Here's how you put it:

But I've heard for years how a temperature increase, even a small one, will result in environmental catastrophes the likes of which we've never imagined. Well...that increase is coming so we should be talking about mitigation should we not?

But we aren't, we're talking about prevention and maintaining equilibrium. Two completely bogus goals in my opinion. The earth has never been at equilibrium. Ever. Ecologies have shifted and species have gone extinct long before humans showed up.

You don't quite take the next step, which would be to say that there's thus nothing to fear, but it's not clear to me what you meant. In any case, many might interpret you in that way, since the meme that runs that way is out there. So let me address the meme.

Conditions on the earth have indeed swung this way and that in ways and with magnitudes much more impressive than what the IPCC is talking about. But we are not the earth. We are the human race. Three facts make all that natural swinging about irrelevant to our current situation, or at least no source of comfort. First: it seems that the temp increases we're seeing now are occurring MUCH faster than natural changes occur. Natural responses to past changes were also slow. There's lots of evidence that the natural environment is going to be unable to respond nicely to the fast changes we're seeing or will see. Second: the natural earth is no garden of Eden. Just because life on earth has survived past fluctuations in climate doesn't mean it did so without a lot of pain and suffering. As you say, "species have gone extinct". Indeed they have, sometimes in droves. I don't think we'd like to experience a mass extinction; the fact they've occurred in the past is no comfort. Third: humans have arranged things to the point where we've pretty much maxed out how much sustenance we can extract from the planet while allowing our population to increase to that carrying capacity. We are now experiencing some unprecedented types of problems with both food shortages and the supply of fresh water. Our productivity is tied with incredible closeness to conditions as they are. We live near fresh water (except for some arid cities in the USA) - what will happen when precipitation patterns change? What would happen if growing regions shifted 300 miles poleward in the course of 40 years? Would we be able to continuously increase production to meet the needs of a continuously growing world population?

Bottom line: change ain't fun. The fact that the planet survived past changes doesn't mean it will be any less unfun.

to be continued...

And now, finally, to address your theory about warming being natural. Your main bit of evidence was a graph showing Greenland ice core data for the last 10,000 years. I will not dispute the accuracy of the data or the calculations that turned the proxy readings into temperatures. I accept that the graph shows temps in Greenland accurately. And despite your admission about some scientists saying so what if Greenland did X maybe the rest of the planet did Y, I'll even accept that the Greenland graph is a perfect proxy for the planet as a whole.

What's critical is not that we're COOL relative to the last 10,000 years but that we're cool relative TO THE LAST 10,000 YEARS. What will things look like if we examine different time scales? I post below graphs not too dissimilar to yours, covering, in order, 120 years, 2 thousand year, 10 thousand (your graph), 450 thousand, and 5 million years. On your graph we seem to be at a "below average" temp, but "average" differs with time period. Are we "below average" on the other graphs?
















Is there a reason one time period should be more relevant than another for determining cyclicality and our position? What would make one cycle more determinative than another? Are we or are we not, in any case, experiencing a rate of temperature increase that seems divorced from natural phenomenon?

Gapminder seems to fit the yardstick that I set for science in general which is testable assertions. If the GDP for the Seychelles in 2008 is something other than Gapminder says, I expect they would change the data after being shown the error.

But I reserve the right to be sceptical of scientists' findings whose dabbling into public policy is downright embarrassing.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/ ... rians1.pdf

And X, no I don't mean to say that we have nothing to fear. Humans are the planet's latest top-o-the-food-chain wonder. More physically resilient species than ours have fallen prey to changes on the globe. Change is not usually fun for those benefitting from the status quo...like us.

Though another difference I'm detecting in our approaches is how we seem to look at humanity. I look at humanity itself as a vast pool of potential solutions rather than a massive amoeba of consumption. Your other post tastes of Malthus. I suppose this deserves another thread as well...I have a great personal rant of how Silent Spring is one of the most deadly books ever printed...

I don't dispute that a quickly changing climate is harder to adapt to than one progressing more sedately. Is the argument then that cutting emissions will slow the inevitable warming and give us more time to come up workable scenarios? Again, what I'm not seeing in the policy sphere is a reasoned approach to how we manuever through the inevitable changes. The Developed World simply isn't going to give up its per capita energy expenditure and the Developing World will march up that curve as swiftly as they are able. Availability of energy impacts every facet of human existence. The more available it is the longer you'll live, the more money you'll have, and the smarter you'll be. That fact is not lost on anyone.

So how do we keep using lots of energy and save ourselves from the coming changes? Humanity has changed its approach to society and energy before...but never on so massive a scale as the next change will inevitably be. So, rather than muddling through as we have before I fully support a directed plan for the future. But that is precisely what I'm not seeing anywhere.

Let me throw something back to the AGW proponents. How many of you believe that, through our actions, we can preserve a climatic status quo? Is that the goal? Or is it the slowing of the inevitable warming? What is it you want to have happen exactly?

I'll tell you precisely what I want. I want the USA to come up with the Next Big Energy Breakthrough and use it to maintain economic and political dominance for the next millenium. With the money and flexibility it would give us we could mitigate the social and ecological upheavals that are coming (X is right to point out fresh water which is becoming a flash point in many places). Not very PC I suppose but I'm allowed to let my hair down on Redscape.

And X, is your contention that we've never seen temperature changing as quickly as we're seeing it now? Your graphs belie that statement.

Ah, but if the point is that the temperatures haven't changed with such ferocity with humans around...that's a different point entirely. It looks like one could make the case that temps changed pretty drastically in the lead-up to the MWP...but I'll go along with that we're seeing a sharp...but not historically unprecedented rise in temperatures.

PCHiway wrote:Gapminder seems to fit the yardstick that I set for science in general which is testable assertions. If the GDP for the Seychelles in 2008 is something other than Gapminder says, I expect they would change the data after being shown the error.

Even if it is accurate for 2008, how did they get the GDP for the Seychelles from 1820?

I hate to break it to you, but Gapminder is run by Swedish sociologists and is part of their aim to contribute towards UN development goals.

Does this alter your trust in them?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm

PC, the theory about increased sun activity being a forcing agent is actually counter to the solar activity. Since about 1960 solar activity has been decreasing so we should be in a cooling period. (see above)

The idea that heating and cooling is "natural" is wrong. There is always a forcing factor that causes heating or cooling. Are volcanoes natuiral? Okay. But they were a forcing factor.
Is increasing sun activity "natural" . Okay. But we can still identify the forcing facor that causes the warming nor cooling. There's nothing "magical" called natural...There is always an identifiable reason for the change.
In the case of right now....the only identifiable forcing factor for the icreased warmth in the last 100 years is greenhouse gas accumulation.
Can we stop the warming? The latest models indicate that even if we could stop adding to greenhouse gas accumulations, the climate will continue to warm for 100 years...based on the current accumulation of gases. Apparently plants will have a mitigating affect for about 30 years, at which case they then reach an equilibrium. The oceans will continue to slowly take carbon out of the air, and the process of geological carbon sequestering is even slower, and the only permanent fix.... The Norwegian and Canadian attempts at sequestering CO2 in low pressure oil fields hasn't been particularly encouraging....
I'm generally of the Lomborg view. Do the sensible stuff, because it has economical benefit...Producing domestic green energy makes more sense than purchasing foreign fossil fuels... When the change makes economic sense the market is the best place to make the change...
There is, by the way, a great hope that there is a new engine developed that actually runs on co2 and produces the equivalence of a fossil fuel as a by product.

Heh, Mrs. Hiway would be quite put out if I had problems with Swedish sociologists... Sorry Dan, I have no UN conspiracy monkey on my back.

ricky, I'm sorry if my high falutin' language confused you. A careful re-read of my post will show that I also think we're in a cycle of lower solar activity...it forms part of the core of why I think we're bound to get hotter.

But I'm interested in your contention that warming is always driven by something. And cooling too!? What are some of the drivers of climate change past?