What Global Warming!

[Ross812]

A friend and I just had a chat about this over a beer the other night. I approach the question like a geologist looking at trends over long periods of time. My friend is a chemical engineer and approaches the climate debate from the air chemistry side. Below is an email chain between the two of us continuing our discussion the next day. It's a little hard to follow coming into the middle of the discussion but it does sum up two points of view pretty quickly. Moral of the discussion is maybe we should just talk about sports instead!

 

Chemist view:

 

OK – After speaking with you some last night about the your assertion that volcanic activity produces 9-10 times the CO2 emissions annually compared to fossil fuel consumption is wrong!  I realize that there are other CO2 breathing emissions by exposed rock formations that science has not completely quantified, but as we understand it now, current volcanic activity is dwarfed compared to anthropogenic carbon emissions.

 

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

 

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011eo240001.pdf

 

However, you were right that solubility decreases with increased temperature of water (except when CO2 reaches supercritical fluid stage under extreme high temperature and pressure). (I should know better than that)  Unfortunately, the solubility does not significantly decrease over the projected temperature changes within the ocean. (Only 2-3 Celsius) However, the acidification of the ocean from adsorption of increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere is killing the coral reefs across the world, which will affect the entire aquatic food chain going forward significantly.

 

I would also like to point out that CFC’s, NOx, and Methane are significant sources of heat trapping gasses (20-10,000 times more potent at collecting photon energy from the sun) which are all directly related to human activity. Methane has natural leaks, but every time we continue to frack open wells we leak additional methane that would not otherwise diffuse into the atmosphere.  Also, areas like Siberia where methane gases below the surface are now escaping, which had been trapped below the surface for centuries/millennia until the thaw of permafrost; we will have significant atmospheric warming from that massive release of trapped methane gas there too.

 

 

 

Earth’s atmosphere has an approximate mass of 5.15×1018 kg compared to the mass of the earth 5.97 x 1024 kg, thus earth’s atmosphere represents 8.6x10-7 of its total mass or less than 1 ppm by weight. (equivalent to the thickness of a piece of paper wrapped around a basketball)  If you think that that human activity of the past 125 years has not had a significant effect on the 0.04% of the atmosphere that drives many temperature and weather phenomena, that is naïve.  If you think the large scale deforestation of the world’s rainforest (carbon sinks) and rapid expansion/use of fossil fuels has not dramatically changed the rate of natural climate change and the preindustrial carbon cycle, that is naïve. 

 

I realize that the earth’s natural cycles will cause dramatic changes in sea level over 10’s of thousands of years due to small variations in earth’s orbit, solar radiation output, and volcanic activity.  But large changes in a small portion of our atmospheric chemistry will accelerate changes in the mean air temperature.  If the glacial cycle can be affected dramatically by changes in CO2 of 200-280 ppm and temperature ranges of 6-10˚ Celsius , what does the new glaciation cycle look like when we move to 400 ppm – 500 ppm – 650 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere? What does it look like when we increase the global atmospheric temperature by an additional 3-6˚ Celsius over the next 2-3 centuries? Faster than any rate ever

 

 

Geologist view:

 

 

Lets first look at sea level rise in the passed 100 years. The trend is up but I fail to see an increase in slope with increased carbon emissions.

 

 

Now lets look at sea level changes over the last 9000 years. As you can see the trend was up until about 2k years ago. Now notice how sea level in the same area changes by as much as +/- 2m over 1000 year periods. In the passed 100 years we have seen sea levels increase by 0.2 meters, but an increase of 2m (which is what is projected) is not abnormal, and would reverse coarse with a mini-ice age.

 

Now for temperature:

 

 

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

 

(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.

 

(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

 

(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.

 

(light turquoise 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

 

(green 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

 

(yellow 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

(orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

 

(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

 

(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

 

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

 

 

All the people hyping global warming use this graph though:

 

 

The above graph is  a cherry pick of data from a relatively cool period in the 1800's to a warmer period now. On a whole, a 1C doesnt seem strange at all over a 200 year period.

 

[Kraven]

Some good topics for discussion:

 

1.  Which is the best religion?

2.  Who is a better driver, men or women?

3.  Coke or Pepsi?

4.  Which Darrin was the best on Bewitched?

5.  What is the best music group ever?

[rukawa]

Do you also have personal theories about epidemiology and quantum physics? I'd love to hear those.

 

Sure. I consider the basic paradigm of QM to be largely settled and very solid. This is because there is spectacular agreement between experiments and predictions. And there are thousand upon thousand of really nice experimental predictions. Also every single prominent skeptic was forced after loudly kicking and screaming to admit that QM is correct!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell. Bohm hated QM and you can read his book on QM to see him poke holes in it. Jaynes hated QM so much that he came up with an alternative "less quantumy" theory to explain photon emission and absorption. These guys spend their lives attacking QM and coming up with alternatives. But the evidence was too much for them and both conceded defeat.

 

This is NOT true for climatology. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and of course many of the greatest forecasters the world has ever known, weathermen, are prominent skeptics.

[rkbabang]

Do you also have personal theories about epidemiology and quantum physics? I'd love to hear those.

 

Sure. I consider the basic paradigm of QM to be largely settled and very solid. This is because there is spectacular agreement between experiments and predictions. And there are thousand upon thousand of really nice experimental predictions. Also every single prominent skeptic was forced after loudly kicking and screaming to admit that QM is correct!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell. Bohm hated QM and you can read his book on QM to see him poke holes in it. Jaynes hated QM so much that he came up with an alternative "less quantumy" theory to explain photon emission and absorption. These guys spend their lives attacking QM and coming up with alternatives. But the evidence was too much for them and both conceded defeat.

 

This is NOT true for climatology. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and of course many of the greatest forecasters the world has ever known, weathermen, are prominent skeptics.

 

+1

 

How about dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.    Yes, I know the evidence, but I still don't buy it.  It just doesn't sound like the right explanation to me.  Although I'm sure this is exactly how the anti-quantum mechanics people felt.

 

[yadayada]

Some good topics for discussion:

 

1.  Which is the best religion?

2.  Who is a better driver, men or women?

3.  Coke or Pepsi?

4.  Which Darrin was the best on Bewitched?

5.  What is the best music group ever?

actually after reading about it some more, it seems almost all credible research comes from the side that says global warming is legit. Also almost all the credible experts are on the side of it being legit.

 

So im not sure if they fit into your discussion topics.

[yadayada]

Do you also have personal theories about epidemiology and quantum physics? I'd love to hear those.

 

Sure. I consider the basic paradigm of QM to be largely settled and very solid. This is because there is spectacular agreement between experiments and predictions. And there are thousand upon thousand of really nice experimental predictions. Also every single prominent skeptic was forced after loudly kicking and screaming to admit that QM is correct!!!!!!!!!!!!.

 

I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell. Bohm hated QM and you can read his book on QM to see him poke holes in it. Jaynes hated QM so much that he came up with an alternative "less quantumy" theory to explain photon emission and absorption. These guys spend their lives attacking QM and coming up with alternatives. But the evidence was too much for them and both conceded defeat.

 

This is NOT true for climatology. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and of course many of the greatest forecasters the world has ever known, weathermen, are prominent skeptics.

 

+1

 

How about dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.    Yes, I know the evidence, but I still don't buy it.  It just doesn't sound like the right explanation to me.  Although I'm sure this is exactly how the anti-quantum mechanics people felt.

I like this quote from feynman, I think he played a pretty big role in the whole QM thing.

 

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything"

 

 

[APG12]

I'll just leave this here...

 

Are observations, dramatic model predictions, and complex political decisions really all on the same scientific footing?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/

 

:-X

[RichardGibbons]

This is NOT true for climatology. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and of course many of the greatest forecasters the world has ever known, weathermen, are prominent skeptics.

 

Nope, climatology is decided almost as well as anything in science.  At this point, being a man-made climate change skeptic says more about the person than it does anything else.  To me, the fact that some people still believe there's a debate is pretty good evidence of the influence of the media on the minds of even relatively smart people.

[Orange]

Some good topics for discussion:

 

1.  Which is the best religion?

2.  Who is a better driver, men or women?

3.  Coke or Pepsi?

4.  Which Darrin was the best on Bewitched?

5.  What is the best music group ever?

 

The answer to all those questions is either "none/neither of them" or "the first Darrin"

[clayroad]

Nope, climatology is decided almost as well as anything in science.

 

That's probably true but somewhat disappointing, considering what the leaked climatologists' emails revealed about their approach to science.

 

[Parsad]

Some good topics for discussion:

 

1.  Which is the best religion?

2.  Who is a better driver, men or women?

3.  Coke or Pepsi?

4.  Which Darrin was the best on Bewitched?

5.  What is the best music group ever?

 

The answer to all those questions is either "none/neither of them" or "the first Darrin"

 

That's incorrect.  A Coke is definitely better than a Pepsi!  Hands down.  I do agree about "the first Darrin."  Cheers!

 

[txitxo]

Do you also have personal theories about epidemiology and quantum physics? I'd love to hear those.

 

I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell.

 

 

I am another Jaynes fan. He wrote the best book ever on probability. All investors who can handle the math should read it.

 

  The scientific consensus on climate change is crystal clear: science says that the Earth is warming because of man-made CO2 emissions. Nothing to argue about there. So I would frame the discussion in different terms: Which are the odds that the climate science community is wrong?

 

  Looking at how science works in general, it is very unlikely that they have screwed up so badly. It is true that after WWII, there have been a few cases in which a scientific area has been proven embarrassingly wrong. One of the best recent examples is the Clovis-only paradigm. Nutrition will probably be next. But it happens quite rarely, and usually in softish sciences. One of the best (and funniest) ways of making your bones as a scientist is proving that all those old professors don't know squat about something important. Of course they fight back like ailing dictators, and will deny grants, positions, recognition, etc. to dissenters; the incentive system favours conformity. But nobody would become a scientist if they cared about incentives, so there is always a significant fraction of the community plotting against mainstream doctrine. That continuous fight is the reason why science gets it right most of the time.

 

  I agree that the evidence is not so compelling as the one we have for evolution, let alone QM. For instance, if you look at the historical record, at least in Europe, we've had climate changes not so different in amplitude to the ones we are going through now without any CO2 increases. However, the current warming does coincide with a spectacular rise of the CO2 concentration. So yes, climate scientists are comparing apples to melons, correlation is not causation, etc. But absent certainty, one has to bet on who is right, and climate scientists look by far like the best option.

 

 

 

 

[jeffmori7]

Do you also have personal theories about epidemiology and quantum physics? I'd love to hear those.

 

I have a special place in my heart for QM skeptics like Bohm, Jaynes and John Bell.

 

 

I am another Jaynes fan. He wrote the best book ever on probability. All investors who can handle the math should read it.

 

  The scientific consensus on climate change is crystal clear: science says that the Earth is warming because of man-made CO2 emissions. Nothing to argue about there. So I would frame the discussion in different terms: Which are the odds that the climate science community is wrong?

 

  Looking at how science works in general, it is very unlikely that they have screwed up so badly. It is true that after WWII, there have been a few cases in which a scientific area has been proven embarrassingly wrong. One of the best recent examples is the Clovis-only paradigm. Nutrition will probably be next. But it happens quite rarely, and usually in softish sciences. One of the best (and funniest) ways of making your bones as a scientist is proving that all those old professors don't know squat about something important. Of course they fight back like ailing dictators, and will deny grants, positions, recognition, etc. to dissenters; the incentive system favours conformity. But nobody would become a scientist if they cared about incentives, so there is always a significant fraction of the community plotting against mainstream doctrine. That continuous fight is the reason why science gets it right most of the time.

 

  I agree that the evidence is not so compelling as the one we have for evolution, let alone QM. For instance, if you look at the historical record, at least in Europe, we've had climate changes not so different in amplitude to the ones we are going through now without any CO2 increases. However, the current warming does coincide with a spectacular rise of the CO2 concentration. So yes, climate scientists are comparing apples to melons, correlation is not causation, etc. But absent certainty, one has to bet on who is right, and climate scientists look by far like the best option.

 

Good comments txitxo. What particularly intrigue me about the skeptics is the lack of scientific studies proving their points. It is easy to point flaws in the modelling (which is incredibly complex) but to propose something else is a lot trickier. So should we blame scientists for at least attempting to explain it and improving their models over time, or could we also blame deniers who most of the time do cherry-picking and/or use esoteric explanations without much scientific work behind to support their thesis?

[txitxo]

Good comments txitxo. What particularly intrigue me about the skeptics is the lack of scientific studies proving their points. It is easy to point flaws in the modelling (which is incredibly complex) but to propose something else is a lot trickier. So should we blame scientists for at least attempting to explain it and improving their models over time, or could we also blame deniers who most of the time do cherry-picking and/or use esoteric explanations without much scientific work behind to support their thesis?

 

Thanks. Most of the deniers are just bigots, anti-evolution, anti-science in general, motivated by right wing ideology. So they are not high on  intellectual honesty. But it is legitimate to point at problems with the modelling, as long as they have an empirical or racional basis. For instance some of the problems that rukawa mentions above are real issues. But every theory has them, and they don't outweight all the evidence pointing on the opposite direction. If someone could built a solid model which explained global warming without resorting to CO2 emissions, he or she would receive a deluge of grant money and resources, may be not from public sources (because other climate scientists control that spigot), but certainly from many private foundations. Mainstream climate scientists can not be so dumb when nobody has managed to do so in a meaningful way. And there are many people trying every day.

[twacowfca]

Global warming can actually lead to more snow because there's more evaporation over oceans (snow = precipitation, not cold. As long as you're below freezing, more precipitation = more snow even if things are warmer than usual).

 

Let's also not forget that global warming is GLOBAL, so looking at regional weather doesn't tell you much (ie. colder than usual over north-america this winter, but record heat in Alaska, russia, etc). Here's more global data:

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/29/new-video-if-theres-global-warming-why-is-it-so-cold/

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12

 

http://qz.com/106814/if-youre-under-the-age-of-28-youve-never-experienced-a-month-of-below-average-global-temperature/

 

Hmmm,

 

Global warming=more snow

 

Extensive global warming=ice age ???

[twacowfca]

Global warming can actually lead to more snow because there's more evaporation over oceans (snow = precipitation, not cold. As long as you're below freezing, more precipitation = more snow even if things are warmer than usual).

 

Let's also not forget that global warming is GLOBAL, so looking at regional weather doesn't tell you much (ie. colder than usual over north-america this winter, but record heat in Alaska, russia, etc). Here's more global data:

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/29/new-video-if-theres-global-warming-why-is-it-so-cold/

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12

 

http://qz.com/106814/if-youre-under-the-age-of-28-youve-never-experienced-a-month-of-below-average-global-temperature/

 

Hmmm,

 

Global warming=more snow

 

Extensive global warming=ice age ???

 

Seriously, The latest (last few thousand years) global warming period is now getting long in the tooth. We all know how fractal phenomena eventually reverse with a vengeance in a relatively short period of time.  The latest few Ice Ages were all preceded by periods of global warming, more or less in a cycle matching the 22,000 year cycle of the wobble of the earth about its axis, leading to differential heating from the sun 's radiation and volatility of climate change as the angle of the earth's axis to the sun measured at a particular point in its orbit changes.

 

I think man has contributed a lot to global warming in the last few thousand years. If it were not for that, we should already be well into a new Ice Age, according to the period of past cycles.

 

 

 

[Guest deepValue]

Global warming can actually lead to more snow because there's more evaporation over oceans (snow = precipitation, not cold. As long as you're below freezing, more precipitation = more snow even if things are warmer than usual).

 

Let's also not forget that global warming is GLOBAL, so looking at regional weather doesn't tell you much (ie. colder than usual over north-america this winter, but record heat in Alaska, russia, etc). Here's more global data:

 

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/29/new-video-if-theres-global-warming-why-is-it-so-cold/

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/12

 

http://qz.com/106814/if-youre-under-the-age-of-28-youve-never-experienced-a-month-of-below-average-global-temperature/

 

Hmmm,

 

Global warming=more snow

 

Extensive global warming=ice age ???

 

Seriously, The latest (last few thousand years) global warming period is now getting long in the tooth. We all know how fractal phenomena eventually reverse with a vengeance in a relatively short period of time.  The latest few Ice Ages were all preceded by periods of global warming, more or less in a cycle matching the 22,000 year cycle of the wobble of the earth about its axis, leading to differential heating from the sun 's radiation and volatility of climate change as the angle of the earth's axis to the sun measured at a particular point in its orbit changes.

 

I think man has contributed a lot to global warming in the last few thousand years. If it were not for that, we should already be well into a new Ice Age, according to the period of past cycles.

 

 

No, twcacowfca, the science is settled: Armageddon is upon us! Deniers are bigoted ideologues who will be swept up in a great flood for their non-belief! The Koch brothers have triggered the end-times!!! 

 

**And don't forget: deniers can be saved from the global flood by donating to Al Gore's Climate Reality Project

[onyx1]

Most of the deniers are just bigots, anti-evolution, anti-science in general, motivated by right wing ideology.

 

It was bad enough when Al Gore called me " immoral, unethical and despicable".  But now I learn I am a bigot!  Damn, what a bad week I'm having!  Oh well, it will all be over soon:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/

[txitxo]

 

It was bad enough when Al Gore called me " immoral, unethical and despicable".  But now I learn I am a bigot!  Damn, what a bad week I'm having!  Oh well, it will all be over soon:

 

 

Well, I do not expect to find many bigots here, regardless of their position about global warming. Bigotry harms investing returns. But according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.". The irrationality and the hatred displayed by most global warming denialists squarely fits into that definition.

[rkbabang]

Most of the deniers are just bigots, anti-evolution, anti-science in general, motivated by right wing ideology.

 

It was bad enough when Al Gore called me " immoral, unethical and despicable".  But now I learn I am a bigot!  Damn, what a bad week I'm having!  Oh well, it will all be over soon:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/

 

I'm in the camp that there is global warming and that the evidence shows that it is anthropogenic, but Al Gore (as are many of the global warming people) is very much motivated by political ideology rather than science.  Anyone who is going to make a short or medium term projection about the weather, temperature, or sea level on the order of a decade is an idiot not a scientist.  Even the smartest investor on earth can not tell you what the S&P500 will be in ten years, and that would be an easier task with fewer variables.

 

[rkbabang]

The other problem with the main stream global warming people that I have is not only are they looking to advance their own political agenda (whatever gives the government more money and power is exactly what we need to save the world), but there is always an underlying thread of anti-humanism going through everything they do and say, a lot like the neo-Malthusian population alarmists and environmentalists in general.  Some going as far as publicly wishing for the mass deaths of innocent people.

 

"As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow. The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence. Cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need."

[Orange]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/105-climate-science/

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/climate

 

I'm not trying to stop the debate on this thread, but in addition to the debate here, you guys should take your concerns with climate science to these forums. I think it would be healthy to hear from some people who actually work in the field.

[txitxo]

The other problem with the main stream global warming people that I have is not only are they looking to advance their own political agenda (whatever gives the government more money and power is exactly what we need to save the world), but there is always an underlying thread of anti-humanism going through everything they do and say, a lot like the neo-Malthusian population alarmists and environmentalists in general.  Some going as far as publicly wishing for the mass deaths of innocent people.

 

"As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow. The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence. Cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need."

 

  Sure. But this is not a discussion about good and evil. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming exists and it is likely caused by human activities. For an intelligent, rational person, which is the probability that the whole climate science community is wrong on this issue? What kind of solid, comparable evidence do people have against their point of view? Think about it as a bet, and take into account the corresponding outcomes. Even if one does not absolutely believe 100% in the conclusions of the climatologists, the odds are such that it makes investing sense to spend a few % of the world's GDP to avert or a least slow down a possible catastrophe.

[Otsog]

I'm in the camp that there is global warming and that the evidence shows that it is anthropogenic, but Al Gore (as are many of the global warming people) is very much motivated by political ideology rather than science.  Anyone who is going to make a short or medium term projection about the weather, temperature, or sea level on the order of a decade is an idiot not a scientist.  Even the smartest investor on earth can not tell you what the S&P500 will be in ten years, and that would be an easier task with fewer variables.

 

I think we're in a range' data-ipsquote-timestamp=' and it's a big zone always, of reasonableness. But stocks ought to be higher every 10 years.There's a plow back of earnings that goes back year after year. Stocks will become worth more decade after decade, not in any precise manner, not in an even manner or anything of the sort. But 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, stocks will be worth more than they are today.[/quote']

 

 

[rkbabang]

I'm in the camp that there is global warming and that the evidence shows that it is anthropogenic, but Al Gore (as are many of the global warming people) is very much motivated by political ideology rather than science.  Anyone who is going to make a short or medium term projection about the weather, temperature, or sea level on the order of a decade is an idiot not a scientist.  Even the smartest investor on earth can not tell you what the S&P500 will be in ten years, and that would be an easier task with fewer variables.

 

I think we're in a range' data-ipsquote-timestamp=' and it's a big zone always, of reasonableness. But stocks ought to be higher every 10 years.There's a plow back of earnings that goes back year after year. Stocks will become worth more decade after decade, not in any precise manner, not in an even manner or anything of the sort. But 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, stocks will be worth more than they are today.[/quote']

 

Yes, but the time scale for stocks is different than for climate.  A year in stocks is like 100+ for climate.  So looking at it over a decade is just noise.  It's like saying stocks went down over the last 30 days so that will be the trend from now on.  In reality we don't really know what the effects of the high CO2 levels are going to be exactly, which global processes will dampen or accelerate the changes, how and exactly when real irreversible problems will all take place (some people claim that it already has and we are already doomed), and how much technological changes in the mean time will allow us to stop or fix the problem in the future.  So far many of the short term predictions have been wrong. This is used by the deniers to say the whole thing is bunk, but the global warming activists continue to trumpet gloom and doom short term predictions that they have little real basis for, cheering every time there is a month warmer than average, while the other side cheers every time we have a cold winter.  Some progress is being made with renewable energy and I expect this to increase.  Things like fusion energy or nanotechnology may actually be around the corner (15-50 years).  The only thing I am certain of is that if this is a problem that needs to be solved, and it probably is, government is the last place we should look for its solution.