Global Warming ended in 1998? Earth is cooling?

[RedBullNation]

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

...

More on This website.

Al Gore's got something to say I'm sure.

[Harijan]

anyone who wants a comprehensive, intelligent background in the global warming (not climate change) debate needs at least two books.

1. Michael Crighton "State of Fear". This is actually a novel (decently written) that uses a great deal of real source data as the back drop for the book. There are several decades in the last 100 years where, if used as a reference point, the earth is actually in a cooling trend.

More importantly, there is almost no correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and an increase in global temperatures.

2. Bjørn Lomborg "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming"

Non-fiction. Al Gore has had public debates scheduled with this guy 3 times and has backed out each time. Unlike Al Gore, Lomborg rides a bike everyplace, only flies on public airplanes and lives in a 1,200 square foot apartment, as opposed to Gore's 12,000 square foot mansion.

Lomborg lays out an argument that:
1. No one really knows how bad global warming (if it is even a man-made trend) is going to be.

2. The cost of controlling the potential causes of global warming, such as CO2 emissions, is not worth the benefit. For example, even if the entire world were to cut CO2 emissions by 50% starting tomorrow, global temperatures, on average would decrease 1-2 degrees F over the next 100 years.

The cost of that CO2 reduction would be in the trillions of dollars, and no one can say if a 1-2 degree temperature decrease would affect any organism or ecosystem significantly.

Lomborg proposes an alternative and uses this analogy:
Declining polar bear populations have been blamed on global warming for some time. Over the last 10 years 44 of the 46 tracked polar bear populations have either increased or remained at constant population levels. Of the two populations that have decreased in numbers only 2 bears have died of starvation (the claimed problem caused by global warming).

In that same 10 years, on average 63 polar bears a year are legally killed by hunters.

So, instead of spending 3 billion dollars to save the polar bears from global warming, Pass a law against shooting polar bears and soon Canada will be swimming in the damn things.

(all paraphrased of course).

I do not doubt that we are going through a period of rapid, world-wide climate change, and I believe that global warming is one aspect of that climate change.

But I am not convinced that human activity is responsible for a significant portion of the climate change. It is possible, and on a micro level it is certainly true, that humans are responsible for changing weather patterns, but it is also possible that changing weather patterns could be caused by any number of other inputs.

I have seen immense amounts of rhetoric concerning global warming, but very little hard, defensible data.

More importantly, I see people that cry out that our global ecosystems are on the verge of total collapse from global warming are utter idiots.

Yes, some important ecosystems have been heavily damaged, many possibly beyond repair, by human activity, but not global warming.

In addition, no one knows what global warming is going to cause.

More rainfall? Thats great for those of us in the southwest. I would gladly have temperatures hitting 130 as opposed to 125 as long as it means we get more rain each year.

Shorter winters? That increases productivity in fertile areas such as the American midwest, and increases arable land that is currently too cold for agriculture (Northern Canada and Northern Asia).

The fact of the matter is that no one knows what global warming and climate change is going to do to the world. For every climatologist with a doomsday model, there is one with a rosy, "all is well" model.

The panic and mass hysteria that infects so many concerning climate change is a phenomenon that Orson Welles would enjoy were he around to see it.

[Neoteny]

I'm actually a massive Crighton fan, and I was fairly disappointed with State of Fear. He's right in that we don't know what effects we will have on the environment, but he gives the impression that we don't need to change anything that we are doing. Regardless of if we are causing global warming, or any kind of climate change, we are pumping enormous amounts of stuff into the environment that doesn't need to be there. He himself mentioned that our attempts at "repairing" nature tend to be utter failures, but that is when we are actually trying. Imagine if we aren't. Anyhow, the things that could possibly harm the environment in long-term unpredictable ways need to be curbed, period. This, of course, doesn't justify the scare tactics of eco-freaks like me, but it certainly doesn't mesh with the perspective of, if not Crighton, many of his supporters hold. However, I read one of the most clever lines I've ever seen in that book:

"Everyone has an agenda, except for me."

That's priceless. I even try to throw it into conversation.

My main beef with anti-global warming proponents (for lack of a better descriptor) is that the majority tend to not be climate scientists. Bjørn Lomborg, for example, has his degrees in political science. Crighton is a M.D. This, of course, says nothing of their knowledge of the subject, but they are quick to criticize the current chain of thought of climate scientists, people whose life's work it is to investigate these phenomenon. Of course, climate science is not as hard as physics, but the familiarity with the complexity and unpredictability deserve a bit more respect than is often given by these non-specialists. And the scientific consensus as an ideal is one that I respect immensely.

I haven't read Lomborg's book, but a quick investigation into it shows that it's a lot more economically based than scientifically based, as in "it would be better to do things this way..." So I can't comment on that.

Finally, your projections for the possibilities of global warming are no less valid than mine, but seem to me rather short-sighted. I can think of no better place to use a slippery slope argument than in cases of ecology. We just don't know how strongly these effects will impact the environment, but they will, almost without a doubt, be harmful in the long run. Anyhow, there's my two cents on climate change...

[GabonX]

I believe in global warming and I'm all for it. Everyone who lives on the coast or some cannibal island can suck a fat one, I want beaches in Pennsylvania!!!

[muy_thaiguy]

I believe in global warming and I'm all for it. Everyone who lives on the coast or some cannibal island can suck a fat one, I want beaches in Pennsylvania!!!

I wouldn't it being a tad warmer in the winter time here, along with nearly everyone else in the Mid West.

[GabonX]

I believe in global warming and I'm all for it. Everyone who lives on the coast or some cannibal island can suck a fat one, I want beaches in Pennsylvania!!!

I wouldn't it being a tad warmer in the winter time here, along with nearly everyone else in the Mid West.

I'm assuming you meant to say you wouldn't mind...Who would?

Seriosly though, global warming is real. I hear alot of right wingers (whom I generaly agree with on more issues but realise that they are dead wrong on this issue) who claim that there is no evidence that global warming is real while every scientist or environmentalist I have heard speak about the issue sais that it is. I'm sorry but El Niño is just not an excuse that can be used to explain high temperatures every year.

I have also noticed it myself. Where I live it used to snow alot when I was a kid but now not nearly as much. I think it snowed all of two times this year. Also between Christmas and New Years Eve of 07 I heard frogs croaking in my neighbors pond next door. That HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Bullfrogs do not normaly come out of hibernation in December in PA, it's unnatural.

If you do not believe in global warming thats fine. You will be PROVEN WRONG in 20 years or less. Then you will be pretending that you never didn't believe that it was happening just like you pretend that you didn't vote for President Bush in the last election today...

[Serbia]

Gabon I don't know where you live, but here in Detroit we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record. Is Global Warming real? Yes. Do I think it's man-made, or of ANY concern? Not at all. Global warming and cooling are BOTH cyclical. They've been happening since the very beginning. Last year in Detroit, on March 26, we had 81 degrees (27C). This year? 40 degrees (4C). Shall I push the panic GLOBAL COOLING OH NOEZ!!!11111!!111!!!!!!!1 button yet?

[Snorri1234]

Gabon I don't know where you live, but here in Detroit we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record. Is Global Warming real? Yes. Do I think it's man-made, or of ANY concern? Not at all. Global warming and cooling are BOTH cyclical. They've been happening since the very beginning. Last year in Detroit, on March 26, we had 81 degrees (27C). This year? 40 degrees (4C). Shall I push the panic GLOBAL COOLING OH NOEZ!!!11111!!111!!!!!!!1 button yet?

No, but that's because using anecdotical evidence like that is silly.

It's pretty likely global warming is at least helped along by man. This is of concern because whether or not it's cyclical has no bearing on whether or not we'll survive it.

[reminisco]

Crichton wrote an essay about Exorcism in which he attempts to describe it scientifically.

in it, he states that in order to appreciate Exorcism, one must be willing to not disbelieve anything.

which of course just means that he will believe anything.

and that follows the empirical method how?



fact is, when a theory can't be proven as law, it is the consensus of the scientific community that dictates the best idea to operate under, until something better comes along. it's got to be the most democratic process in the whole world.

so, even though evolution is only a theory, it's simply the best one out there. same thing with the idea of global warming. which again, has inherent semantic issues.

the debate is not over global warming, but over the greenhouse effect. because people confuse those two terms so frequently, the whole thing gets mired into a stupid politically tainted argument.

the globe IS warming. of course there are peaks and valleys within the graph, but the trend on a long enough timeline clearly shows an upward trend in average temperature. the question is not even whether this is just the cycle the earth normally follows, according to the archaeological record (periods of warming followed by ice age), but rather if what we are doing is speeding up the process through the "greenhouse effect".

so if you're going to argue about this, at least argue the proper concept.

[Harijan]

If a new server farts, and no one is there to smell it, does it still annoy users?

[Harijan]

1. There are three different issues being discussed here that are all very different, very related, often misunderstood, and criminally interchanged by stupid journalist.

A. Global warming - just the simple question - is the average temperature globally increasing, if so by how much, how fast, and is this different from historical patterns.

B. Greenhouse effect - A scientific theory concerning the impact of increased levels of C02 (and other gases) on atmospheric temperature.

C. Climate change - Are local climates changing at a rate that is higher than historically observed, and what is the long-term impact of these changes.

When debates like this one start, there tends to be copious amounts of sloppy arguments in which all three issues are discussed without laying our limitations and relationships. So here I go at laying a ground work for each one.

A - Global warming

1. Yes - it is happening, but at this point the temperature increases are so small, and the data set so limited in time and uniformity that even climatologist admit that they cannot tell how much global temperatures have changed for more than 25 years (since satellites started reporting data).

2. Yes – it is very probable even to a point of certainty that a global warming trend will cause widespread climate change. But we do not know the extent or nature of these changes.

3. No - there is not a consensus in the scientific community on what is causing global warming. Opinions among climatologist include, but not limited to, (in no particular order):

a. Greenhouse effect
b. Higher energy outputs from the sun
c. The natural pattern of global temperature change

4. No – There is no way for us to know how much the earth is going to heat up. Climate forecast models range from a few degrees to 20+ degrees (keep in mind these are the same guys who cannot accurately predict the temperature 3 weeks from today). And furthermore, we have no idea what impact this will have on the environment, or climate change, but as Neo pointed out, the popular opinion right now is that nothing good will come from global warming.

I strongly disagree with this popular opinion. Not only do we not know what the impact of global warming will be, we are succumbing to media rhetoric on the issue. It is entirely possible that global warming could be the biggest travesty to occur since the last ice age, but it could also create millions of square miles of usable land. The fact of the matter is no one knows, and our efforts at this time should be focused on understanding the issue before we act on it.

Neo brought up the horrid track record scientists have when they try to repair ecosystems. The primary reason we almost always fail to fix damaged ecosystems is because we simply do not understand the entire ecosystem before we start meddling with it. So lets dump billions of dollars into understanding global warming before we dump billions of dollars into fixing global warming. Current popular opinion concerning global warming is akin to hiring a lawn-mower repairman to fix your BMW. We just don’t know enough to get the job done right.

B – Greenhouse effect

Yes – the family of gases termed “greenhouse gases” (primarily Carbone Dioxide and methane) have been causally proven to trap heat in the atmosphere.

Yes – the greenhouse effect is contributing to global warming, which in turn, contributes to climate change. However, in an interesting twist, the established causal relationship between increased greenhouse gases and global warming is not well supported by a correlatory relationship. The logical conclusion of scientist is that there are other things also contributing to global warming, and those other things are having a greater impact on global warming than greenhouse gases.

Yes – the increase in greenhouse gases is caused by human activities. The top two greenhouse gas producers (again, in no particular order) are:
1. Livestock
2. Fossil fuel consumption (both coal and oil)

There are all kinds of terrific reasons why we, as a species need to move away from fossil fuels and meat. I am fully in support of outlawing meat consumption and fossil fuel consumption tomorrow on a world-wide basis, but that’s not going to happen.

C – Climate Change

Yes – macro climates around the world are changing at an increased rate.

No – not all macro climates are getting hotter, some are actually cooling off.

No – there is not a single macro climate that is in danger of collapsing or disappearing as a result of global warming.

Yes – there are a handful of species that are now endangered as a result of climate change (Polar bears are not one of them).

No – Climate change is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, climate change is the one constant in this whole argument. It is ludicrous to suggest to any ecologist or climatologist that climates and ecosystems are constant or stable. These things are always changing and adjusting to different inputs. Species are always dying out and thriving as a result of climate change. Climates and ecosystems have always, and will always change at varying rates in ways that we perceive as good or bad, but really, climates and ecosystems just change.

Climate change has always been here, and will always be here, and we have no way of separating natural climate change from climate change caused by humans. If we can’t even answer that basic question, how in the hell are we going to “fix” the human factor in the climate change equation?

I am all for protecting the environment. I do my part, keep footprint to a minimum, contribute to my ecopreservation groups, I even do more than just give money, I go out and actually work on community ecology preservation projects. But before we dump billions or even trillions of dollars into stopping the greenhouse effect (which as remi astutely pointed out is all we are really talking about doing) why don’t we fix some of the more pressing problems like deforestization, and marine ecosystem destruction, both of which are beyond critical states, both of which would should decrease the greenhouse effect, and both of which are problems scientist actually understand.

This is essentially Lomborg’s argument as well as mine.

[static_ice]

Gabon I don't know where you live, but here in Detroit we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record. Is Global Warming real? Yes. Do I think it's man-made, or of ANY concern? Not at all. Global warming and cooling are BOTH cyclical. They've been happening since the very beginning. Last year in Detroit, on March 26, we had 81 degrees (27C). This year? 40 degrees (4C). Shall I push the panic GLOBAL COOLING OH NOEZ!!!11111!!111!!!!!!!1 button yet?

I don't think using personal experience as evidence works very well in this argument, but yeah, it was a lot colder in Chicago this year than any other in recent memory. We had 4 or 5 snowdays; the most snowdays we've ever had before in a single year was 1. We broke a few records for specific days being the coldest ever reported and it even snowed once in March.

[reminisco]

just wanna drop this in real quick:

Harijan, your most recent post was very good. props on a clear yet concise outline; your interest in and concern over the issues at hand is apparent.

i'm tempted to address your post line by line, but instead, a few quick thoughts:

Livestock -- even just switching from cows to buffalo would drastically reduce the toll on the environment on both local and global levels. Buffalo (or Bison as is the proper name) require less resources to grow to maturity (they flourished on the Great Plains for a good reason) and provide a far healthier meat, being very flavourful while being very lean. if any of you out there who eat red meat haven't yet had Buffalo, look for it in your local grocer. remember to cook it a little bit rarer than you would beef, since it is intrinsically leaner.

on the question of dealing with environmental problems that scientists actually understand, i couldn't agree more. with marine ecosystem destruction, here's a case in point about how the media distorts reality.

back in the 80s, when medical waste was washing up on the Jersey Shore, people began heavily criticising ocean dumping (even though that medical waste was coming from a faulty New York City sewer system, and a superiority complex from surrounding areas about how dirty Jersey is), it brought more research to the issues surrounding the practice of ocean dumping.

it was found, believe it or not, that when trash was dumped out beyond the continental shelf, it had either no impact or a positive one on the ecosystem into which it fell (much of the trash was consumed by microorganisms which in turn supplied food up the chain in a manner that did not overburden either areas local to the dumping or elswhere. when dumped before the continental shelf, it fucked up everyone's day.



another interesting fact that many misguided environmentalists don't wish to acknowledge is that it requires more fossil fuels (and money, btw) to recycle any materials besides aluminum and corrugated cardboard. of course, to combat this problem, there is quite a bit of research going on to cheaply and efficiently convert methane gas in LNG (which burns cleanly) to provide the energy requirements of recycling processes. the benefit of methane is it's generous supply -- constantly being created by sitting landfills.

of course this refers back slightly to the issue of ocean dumping, which does not create methane.

[Snorri1234]

Livestock -- even just switching from cows to buffalo would drastically reduce the toll on the environment on both local and global levels. Buffalo (or Bison as is the proper name) require less resources to grow to maturity (they flourished on the Great Plains for a good reason) and provide a far healthier meat, being very flavourful while being very lean. if any of you out there who eat red meat haven't yet had Buffalo, look for it in your local grocer. remember to cook it a little bit rarer than you would beef, since it is intrinsically leaner.

I wonder if I can get it here.

[Harijan]

Good post Remi.

On the livestock issue, Buffalo and Ostrich should have replaced the cow and the chicken 50 years ago if our food system was based on efficiency.

My big problem with meat is its inefficiency as a food source. It takes (on average) 10 lbs of plantstuff to produce 1 lbs of meat. That is gay.

And no, I am not a vegetarian. I wish I could do that, but I love meat.

Snorri, next time you go to Fuddruckers (if you ever go) they have a buffalo burger standard on their menu. It really is good meat.

[Snorri1234]

Snorri, next time you go to Fuddruckers (if you ever go) they have a buffalo burger standard on their menu. It really is good meat.

Well I'm going to the US this summer. So I'll try.

Seems every country but mine sells exotic meats.

[muy_thaiguy]

Not really exotic when you live where they are. Still taste good though.

[Snorri1234]

Not really exotic when you live where they are. Still taste good though.

Well I meant belgium and france and stuff, there are no bisons there I believe. (At least non-imported ones.)

[static_ice]

Gabon I don't know where you live, but here in Detroit we had one of the coldest, snowiest winters on record. Is Global Warming real? Yes. Do I think it's man-made, or of ANY concern? Not at all. Global warming and cooling are BOTH cyclical. They've been happening since the very beginning. Last year in Detroit, on March 26, we had 81 degrees (27C). This year? 40 degrees (4C). Shall I push the panic GLOBAL COOLING OH NOEZ!!!11111!!111!!!!!!!1 button yet?

I don't think using personal experience as evidence works very well in this argument, but yeah, it was a lot colder in Chicago this year than any other in recent memory. We had 4 or 5 snowdays; the most snowdays we've ever had before in a single year was 1. We broke a few records for specific days being the coldest ever reported and it even snowed once in March.

Whoa, within the last hour it started snowing and right now it's getting pretty heavy. But the real shocker is that I sit right beside a window yet I didn't notice the snow for a while, being used to it and all.

[RedBullNation]

This snow story reminds me of a time it didn't snow all winter but snowed 4 inches in the middle of may.

I haven't had snow day this year, but that's expected of my town. We don't get snow days with a foot and a half. Always the only one open on Long Island and the city.

[reminisco]

This snow story reminds me of a time it didn't snow all winter but snowed 4 inches in the middle of may.

rather conclusive proof, of course, that Al-Qaeda controls the weather!

[reminisco]

i just came back to this now, and realised i forgot to include an important piece of information in the below quoted paragraph:

another interesting fact that many misguided environmentalists don't wish to acknowledge is that it requires more fossil fuels (and money, btw) to recycle any materials besides aluminum and corrugated cardboard. of course, to combat this problem, there is quite a bit of research going on to cheaply and efficiently convert methane gas in LNG (which burns cleanly) to provide the energy requirements of recycling processes. the benefit of methane is it's generous supply -- constantly being created by sitting landfills.

i meant to say that it requires more fossil fuels and money to recycle any materials besides aluminum and corrugated cardboard than to just make them new. so glass, plastic, paper -- recycling them all, at present, uses more resources than just the new manufacture of those products.

sorry about that, if it was confusing.

[CoffeeCream]

Al Gore has had public debates scheduled with this guy 3 times and has backed out each time.

I can't understand why people view Al Gore as a legitimate source on this issue. I really don't know enough myself to say whether Global Warming is really happening or not, but I know that Gore doesn't like it when people disagree with him and claims that there is no more debate. Obviously there's a growing number of people who study the issue seriously who doubt his conclusions.

[badlouie]

Fuddrucker's has a Buffalo burger? Rock & Roll!

I worked at a grocery store years ago and there was a big push with buffalo meat & ostrich...circa '99. Obviously, it didn't take. At the time, the cost differential between standard ground beef and ground ostrich or buffalo was pretty significant-I'm sure that didn't help. There wasn't a big ad campaign for either meat, and more than a few consumers are simply creeped out by ostriches a bit. I know, chickens aren't exactly cute, but people are weird. For the record, I did try and enjoy both, but they aren't available at all in any of the big chain grocery stores near me.

But since i DO have a Fuddrucker's 2 miles away, I shall dine on buffalo meat again very soon!!

[reminisco]

Fuddrucker's

just don't get the chili cheese fries unless either:

a) disgusting food appeals to you

b) you are looking forward to a post meal heart attack