freeman3 wrote:RJ points out that there may be positive benefits from global warming...which is true but any positive benefits get outweighed by negative ones if the temperature rises more than a few degrees.
The crucial step is agreement that the earth is warming due to human activity (meaning burning of fossil fuels). That is why I posted the ratio of 138:1 of scientific papers in support of that proposition
So you can analyze it like this:

(1) The Earth is growing warmer,
(2) The Earth is growing warmer due to high carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere

Scientific consensus


(3) Carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing largely due to burning of fossil fuels

This point does not seem to be controversial.

(4) Carbon dioxide concentrations will increase unless something significant is done with regard to carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels

Again, not a controversial point

(5) therefore, from above, the earth's temperature will continue to rise, but it is just unclear how much

It could be a modest increase in temperature and the effects are mild and the feedback effects don't impact that much ...or there could be a tipping point in carbon dioxide concentration where there are catastrophic effects on weather and ocean levels...
Once it is conceded that the earth's temperature is rising due to the burning of fuels...it is an awfully big gamble to assume that the effects are mild. Something as complex as the earth's temperature is going to have many different things impacting it and there is going to be a lot of conflicting data...but the key issue is whether higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause, all other things being equal, higher temperatures on earth. Once that is established then to do nothing is to simply hope that the timer on the ticking bomb is a very long one...and somehow in the future we will figure out how to defuse it...

NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.

“The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped,” the Associated Press reported yesterday.

Actually, the fact that temperatures remain flat even as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is a devastating rebuke to assertions that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing a global warming crisis.

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.lobal temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

Anyone in academia or politics who does not fully toe-the-line is the "enemy."
This is not science. It is the most fanatic, fundamentalist religion we have, short of radical Islam.

but the key issue is whether higher carbon dioxide concentrations cause, all other things being equal, higher temperatures on earth. Once that is established then to do nothing is to simply hope that the timer on the ticking bomb is a very long one...and somehow in the future we will figure out how to defuse it...

rickyp wrote:fate

Anyone in academia or politics who does not fully toe-the-line is the "enemy."
This is not science. It is the most fanatic, fundamentalist religion we have, short of radical Islam.

Of course. Its always a conspiracy isn't it?

Understanding the timing is critical because you have to layer in the timing of scientific progress over the relevant period. If the major negative consequences are still 86 years away (as Ricky inadvertently suggests) then we should just focus on basic research since scientific progress will be unimaginable in that time period. However, if the major negative consequences are 10 years away (as the alarmist incorrectly suggest) then more draconian policies will make sense. I suspect our real time horizon is about 25 years.

rickyp wrote:Fate quotes an oped from Forbes that says:

NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.lobal temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

And he's wrong.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/g ... mperatures

Fate if you'd read some of the comments below this oped, you'd have seen that he is corrected by qualified scientists.

rickyp wrote:ray

Understanding the timing is critical because you have to layer in the timing of scientific progress over the relevant period. If the major negative consequences are still 86 years away (as Ricky inadvertently suggests) then we should just focus on basic research since scientific progress will be unimaginable in that time period. However, if the major negative consequences are 10 years away (as the alarmist incorrectly suggest) then more draconian policies will make sense. I suspect our real time horizon is about 25 years.

Because the eventual sea rise of 3 feet is at the end of the century?

Storm surge was responsible for the destruction of Galveston at the turn of the century.

At what point does it become fiscally irresponsible to rebuild ?

Consider that Florida is only 6 feet high.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Storm surge was responsible for the destruction of Galveston at the turn of the century.

It's always good to not be on the same side of the issue as Ricky. He has a way of undercutting his own arguments.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

Storm surge was responsible for the destruction of Galveston at the turn of the century.

It's always good to not be on the same side of the issue as Ricky. He has a way of undercutting his own arguments.

Or you could just ignore him and deal with the realists?

freeman3 wrote:RJ,

Your points are all very reasonable and cogent. I would only add that we have to keep assessing the data to see what kind of timeline we have, but for now 25 years seems prudent enough.

I found a blog that has some interesting data.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... ain-really
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyR ... trynum=220

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.