About Omniclimate
( last updated: May 11, 2008 )
RSS feed for this blog: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/feed
I do not “believe” in the IPCC, in the AGU, in the Hadley Centre, in 2,500 scientists and experts, in Svensmark, in Lindzen, in Crichton, in yourself, in SciAm, in American Scientist, in any skeptic or AGW believer.
I take everybody’s remarks as a step forward in the discussion and in the understanding of this or any other issue.
From that, I extract, polish, and sometimes destroy my own opinion.
(following text is by Willis Eschenbach. Republished with the author’s consent)
I also think that increasing GHGs [greenhous gases] will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantitative results” regarding that question [...] …
Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question: is a warmer earth better or worse on balance?
The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing.
So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occurring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.
And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz: If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to land-use changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?
Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming.
The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today - floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occurring as I write this.
Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds.
I really love your blog and think you might be interested in wranked — an exciting new community of passionate people who create and share “Best of” lists on any topic. We’re inviting just a few experts to get in on the ground floor, and I would love to invite you to our private beta if you are interested.
Send me a note and I’ll fire off the invite…
Thanks!
Jackie
Isn’t a warmer Earth invariably going to lead to a mass disruption of life? Or isn’t the mere risk that it could lead to a mass disruption of life reason enough to avoid it?
Do you provide a RSS feed of your blog posts? I don’t see a link anywhere.
The RSS feed is http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/feed
Carissimo …
Hai vinto un premio online
Qui per maggiori info: http://peppecaridi2.wordpress.com/questo-blog-ha-vinto-il-premio-arte-y-pico/
Eric, you say:
“Isn’t a warmer Earth invariably going to lead to a mass disruption of life? Or isn’t the mere risk that it could lead to a mass disruption of life reason enough to avoid it?”
The scientific and other materials I have read to date do not appear clear that warming will create mass disruption of life on Earth (as I understand your question). There are arguments each way on this issue, but I seem to recall seeing materials on ecology and so forth when I was in university studying environmental engineering (more than 20 years ago) that there has generally been greater diversity in times of warmth. I also seem to recall seeing information that indicated larger creatures tended to be more prevalent during cold (glacial) periods as a means to better maintain body heat. Then too, there’s also the issue of physical space. How many creatures are well-equipped to live in exceptionally cold climates? If a glaciation occurs, and glaciers advance, with conditions becoming too cold for many species to survive in those areas, cold-sensitive creatures will likely migrate elsewhere, to warmer areas. If so, conditions become a bit more crowded and competition for more limited food supplies would seem to possibly become the limiting factor. It would seem that the reverse situation would provide potential for greater food supplies for all creatures, starting with plants and small animals. For example, in the past several decades, as hunting is restricted year by year (whether I don’t approve or do means little), we see increasing numbers of deer struck by cars on the roadways, and we also see increasing numbers of near-starving deer eating [expensive] landscaping close to homes during relatively harsh winters. This is presumably due to overpopulation and overcrowding of their ranges, as well as human infringment on large tracts of undeveloped space, forcing the deer to forage farther.
[...] by suesam on June 26, 2008 An insightful post from Maurizio Morabito’s blog. A recommended read to anyone questioning the AGW dogma, as is Anthony Watts’ [...]
I like your questions and stance, but believe there’s an even more important one behind all this, which is:
When will we start doing proper science?
As far as I can tell, each side clings to its position, will not release data for open study, spends much of their time on ad homs, and generally acts like a politician.
This can only be bad for ALL science, not just climate….
Co2 is not a pollutant despite the way it is portrayed to the general public, it’s a vital part of life on this planet.
Some people think that manmade Co2 is the ‘primary’ cause of global warming… the debate still rages… science has not settled this question… and the argument has been substantially weakened over the last couple of years as new data has emerged.
However it is the political dimension which I find concerning… I’m very much in favour of us becoming more energy efficiant, and moving towards renewable resources, it makes sense. But is it fair to cap the co2 emissions of 2nd/3rd world countries whose co2 output per capita is substantially less than 1/20th of ours?
Some of these countries have yet even to develop into a self-sufficiant agricultural economy. Once again they are going to be denied the chance to develop by 1st world countries. That is, I believe, what is behind the political pressure to get a treaty in place throughout the whole world…
…frankly it doesn’t matter what you or anyone else say… the powers-that-be will force through this treaty over the next couple of years, irrispective that the scientific community is still researching the matter. Cap-and-trade will become a world reality… peoples of the 2nd/3rd world will be denied the chance of cheap energy… and the opportunity to develop…
That was always the point… limit their development, limit the growth of their populations.
What has happened to Fred Singers web site at http://www.sepp.org
It appears to have gone?