Sha-zam

[Lyion]

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level.

Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science.

There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes.

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.


© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

[AndyM]

What do you expect from Lindzen? He's been in Exxon's pocket for years.

Andy

[Lyion]

This is an article from Newsweek from a professor at MIT. I have no idea if any corporation is funding him, but if you have good sourcing and facts showing this, please post them.

His points are pretty strong in my opinion, although there seems to be plenty of opinions and no sort of consensus among scientists.

I couldn't get anything from his wikipedia entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

[ClakarEQ]

There was a good analogy I read though. It went something like, if you piss in an olympic sized pool, it ain't no big thing, you could piss in it your whole life and probably not have a "huge" impact, but if everyone in your neighborhood pissed in the pool, over time, it would have an effect.

As I've said before, even if global warming is a big hoax, the fact remains that we are parasites on this planet, we consume more than we return, that in of itself is reason to consume less as one day something will break, science has proven this outside of global warming. Host or parasite, one of them is required to "pay", it is only a matter of when. Use global warming as a hoax catalist, it doesn't matter, the change is required regardless.

[Lyion]

As I've said before, even if global warming is a big hoax, the fact remains that we are parasites on this planet, we consume more than we return, that in of itself is reason to consume less as one day something will break, science has proven this outside of global warming. Host or parasite, one of them is required to "pay", it is only a matter of when. Use global warming as a hoax catalist, it doesn't matter, the change is required regardless.

Amen.

[Harrison]

I don't believe in the whole "parasite" hippie bullshit myself.

We are not above nature, so stop assuming so. The same goes for those who think we are above hunting simply because we can buy food at a store. Humans are not above nature.

[araby]

I don't believe in the whole "parasite" hippie bullshit myself.

We are not above nature, so stop assuming so. The same goes for those who think we are above hunting simply because we can buy food at a store. Humans are not above nature.

Yes we are- and the reason we are is because we have the power to destroy nature. what clakar was saying is that if you take, you have to put back. It makes perfect sense. The earth, and all of nature, provide a place for humans to live. If it's not cared for, then we will suffer.

[Lyion]

We are not above nature, so stop assuming so. The same goes for those who think we are above hunting simply because we can buy food at a store. Humans are not above nature.

This requires its own thread, and the vast huge argument of why humans are not the same as 'animals'.

I do like the Agent Smith human analogy from The Matrix.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

[Harrison]

We came from the same place everything else on this planet did, we aren't above that.

I don't think destroying the planet is a good thing either. But, I will not place myself outside of nature simply to create a false moral standing above the rest of the planet's inhabitants.

I find that arrogant and foolish.

Edit: I knew someone was going to post that quote Lyion.

[Tossica]

We came from the same place everything else on this planet did, we aren't above that.

I don't think destroying the planet is a good thing either. But, I will not place myself outside of nature simply to create a false moral standing above the rest of the planet's inhabitants.

I find that arrogant and foolish.

Edit: I knew someone was going to post that quote Lyion.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Evermore]

I don't believe in the whole "parasite" hippie bullshit myself.

We are not above nature, so stop assuming so. The same goes for those who think we are above hunting simply because we can buy food at a store. Humans are not above nature.

simply by the ability to upset nature's balance we are above. Tho we are also subject to Nature's wrath and consequenses of our own actions

[Arlos]

I'm not sure what in hell he's talking about either.

Human beings are part of and are effected by their environment. Just talk to those people from Love Canal if you want to learn firsthand what happens when humans despoil the environment and still try and live there.

Even if you don't believe in global warming at all, how can you possibly believe that pouring out tons and tons of waste and toxins into the air, ground and water we live on is good or healthy? Arguing about not cleaning up because someone else is worse is also patently ridiculous. You deal with what you can control, then you can put pressure on the other guy to get his shit together. But deal with what YOU can control first. Technology exists to refit coal plants to stop them from emitting the vast majority of the CO2 they do, and it exists right now. The energy companies simply don't want to pay for them, no matter how good their profit margins are.

-Arlos

[Harrison]

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not saying pollution is healthy as you put it.

I am simply saying, humans are not above nature.

Human beings are part of and are effected by their environment.

It would appear that you agree with me.

I don't like when people place themselves outside of nature simply to assert they are "better". We are a part of this planet just the same as anything else is. We are just aware of this relationship.

[Arlos]

A NY times article on the recent SCOTUS decision on the EPA's role in all of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washi ... ty5jsj9mLg

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

The vast majority of the coal business wants to see those kinds of plants go in, I can tell you that firsthand. Like you said, its the power companies that won't do it due to costs. Hell, they can capture, store, and scrub something like 95% of emissions, theres a plant in North Dakota that does it now. My family have been coal miners and in the coal business since the early 1900's, and we know that if those kinds of plants arent implemented, we are going to be finding a new kind of work before too long with all this global warming rage.

[Arlos]

*nod* If the power companies would actually put in those kind of plants, so that they were effectively 95% emissions free, I'd be all for coal. But the power companies only look at THIS quarter's profits, not long-term impacts. Damn short-sighted bastards. Just think of the marketing potential for the first energy company to fully convert their plants...

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

Ive always wondered why the government cant try to provide more money to help convert plants, instead of trying to get away from coal together altogether. Why get rid of whats already there if theres a pretty damn good solution, as far as I can tell, to the problem? Am I missing something because I dont know much about politics and they cant do that?

[Markarado]

A bit off topic.

I'm doing my best! I'm distributing biodegradable plastics, resins, lubricants, PLA films, etc.. to manufacturers in Malaysia. Tiz my new job =) ..... I'm still trying frantically to educate myself on the industry. Oh yah.. doing sales and marketing.

[kinghooter00]

I don't believe in the whole "parasite" hippie bullshit myself.

We are not above nature, so stop assuming so. The same goes for those who think we are above hunting simply because we can buy food at a store. Humans are not above nature.

are you serious?

[Harrison]

Very...

[kinghooter00]

hmmmmmmm, i guess i could probably agree now that i've thought about it.

[ClakarEQ]

Harrison, I think you've missed it. I agree we are not above nature and nature finds way's of taking care of its problems. We are in fact a parasite (aka problem) and nature will find a way to resolve its issue, be it famine, flood, global warming, ice age, etc.

For you not to agree we are parasites is illogical. A parasite by defenition is what our relationship is to earth. We live here, here is our home, our host, we consume things that our host provides, yet we give nothing back in comparison to what we consume. This isn't hippy bullshit, I'm not talking peace love and all of that. I'm saying we are parasites and mother nature has in fact proven it can handle parasites, it does one of two things, it kills the parasite or it kills the host, end of story.

One advantage we have however is we can in fact screw with mother nature. We have created new breads of all sorts, from dogs / cats, to insects, plants, etc. No other known entity has the ability for this. We can overcome anything mother nature attempts to throw at us, by shelter, drugs, science, etc.

I could even go so far as to say, HIV "could" be a control put forth by mother nature in attempts to control the parasite (yeah that is a stretch). However "super germs" or retardent illness's to known cures, this IMHO is mother nature attempting to control a parasite through it's only known mechanism, evolution.

Think what you like, I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm not trying to prove anything to you, or "convince" you. You just go ahead and keep pissing in the pool, just know one day you (or your kids) will have to drink that same water.

This may upset some folks but unless you are a parent, you can't know what it is like to wish so badly that the legacy you leave behind will be an overall gain for your offspring. No one wants to leave behind a shithole unless they are completly cold and non-caring (i.e. selfish, greedy, etc). I'm guessing that the nay-sayers here have no "known" kids
/book off

[araby]

Harrison, I think you've missed it. I agree we are not above nature and nature finds way's of taking care of its problems. We are in fact a parasite (aka problem) and nature will find a way to resolve its issue, be it famine, flood, global warming, ice age, etc.

For you not to agree we are parasites is illogical. A parasite by defenition is what our relationship is to earth. We live here, here is our home, our host, we consume things that our host provides, yet we give nothing back in comparison to what we consume. This isn't hippy bullshit, I'm not talking peace love and all of that. I'm saying we are parasites and mother nature has in fact proven it can handle parasites, it does one of two things, it kills the parasite or it kills the host, end of story.

One advantage we have however is we can in fact screw with mother nature. We have created new breads of all sorts, from dogs / cats, to insects, plants, etc. No other known entity has the ability for this. We can overcome anything mother nature attempts to throw at us, by shelter, drugs, science, etc.

I could even go so far as to say, HIV "could" be a control put forth by mother nature in attempts to control the parasite (yeah that is a stretch). However "super germs" or retardent illness's to known cures, this IMHO is mother nature attempting to control a parasite through it's only known mechanism, evolution.

Think what you like, I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm not trying to prove anything to you, or "convince" you. You just go ahead and keep pissing in the pool, just know one day you (or your kids) will have to drink that same water.

This may upset some folks but unless you are a parent, you can't know what it is like to wish so badly that the legacy you leave behind will be an overall gain for your offspring. No one wants to leave behind a shithole unless they are completly cold and non-caring (i.e. selfish, greedy, etc). I'm guessing that the nay-sayers here have no "known" kids
/book off

In my mind, this is why Al Gore was nominated for the NPP..posts such as this one give me faith in humanity. I hear people talking like this more and more every day. people are becoming more aware all of the time.

[Jay]

I dunno Fin, I mean, I think we are above nature because 1) we can manipulate it, 2) we can control it (to an extent) and 3) we could nuke the earth into oblivion if we all collectively chose to.

As far as the hunting thing is concerned, hey, I'm all for game hunting if the animal has an equal opportunity to kill you too. Otherwise, eat what you kill, kill what you eat or kill before it kills you.