Global Whatever - The Big Risk

[Orangutan]

For some reason or other have become reinterested in this here global warming farce.

I say farce because it sure seems that way to me, especially with these carbon taxes, disguised as some kind of asset.

Anyway, while looking at dissent sites, videos and the like, I am struck by how often, when faced with the fact their info is wrong, flawed or outright outrageous, how often the warmies fall back on the "risk" stuff.

It goes something like this:

A. If the warmies are wrong and we don't act, no biggie.
B. If the warmies are right and we don't act, we're DOOMED!
C. If the warmies are wrong and we do act, well.. no biggie huh?
D. If the warmies are right and we do act, we're SAVED!

Firstly there are many things wrong with this argument.

A. wrong, but no action, no biggie - correct, though it ignores the cost of taking no action, which today has become considerable, with people losing their jobs or funding for refusing to go along with the party line. But we'll accept this as correct(ish).

B. Right, no action, doomed. Firstly we cannot say this is by any means proven. The world has been hotter before, for example the bronze age, and if anything mankind did BETTER, with more grazing land, more lush vegetation, fruits, less energy requirements etc.

I'm by no means convinced that a few degrees of warmer weather and/or more CO2 is necessarily a bad thing.

As such there is an extra element we must consider - that the warmies are right about the CO2/warming, but by following their advice we MISS OUT on all that lovely heat and plant food..

C. They're wrong, we act, no biggie. To this I say 'BS!'

The massive costs of charging, implementing, paying and administering these taxes and 'credits', not to mention the built-in bubblicious bubble-headed risk of yet ANOTHER speculative BUBBLE, is far, far removed from 'no biggie'. It's a HUGE cost, which among other things will cripple compliant 3rd world countrys' development, lower the standard of living everywhere and for what? Nothing! Except channelling ever more volumes of stolen wealth into the waiting maws of Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and other crony capitalisfacists.

The moment I noticed that the "I of IPCC stood for "inter-governmental" my BS meter went "BZZZ!" Upon noticing that Gore already owns a "carbon credit" company and that Goldman are keen on this faux market, which will be largely unregulated and they're already set to exploit it, made it go "BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!"

Frankly, it stinks worse than yesterday kippers.

But here's the Biggie.

The BIG Biggie, but first a quick point - we know from all those graphs that Earth's climate goes up and down a lot and if anything we're supposed to be due for a drop, right? Right. So, back to the Big Biggie that no-one seems to be talking about...



SUPPOSE the warmies are right? Suppose we reduce our tiny percentage of the CO2 total, a total which is less than 4% of the air we breath anyway, and it DOES bring about global cooling, by reducing the effectiveness of our "greenhouse gases"?

Or via any other system the warmies propose?

That outcome, should it occur, IS NOT RISK FREE!

Face it, we are not, by any means, 100% certain of this science, we're still at the stage where global warming models cannot fully account for water vapor and clouds, which are much more 'greenhousey' than CO2.

Now, seems to me, if we currently had some giant shutter thing, that was only half-way open, then sure, we could try closing it a bit more, to reduce the sun's heat.

But we don't.

Our current climate is as it is, with 100% sun-power. We have NO means of increasing the sun's power, only blocking or reducing it.

We are already at 100% solar maximum, the shutters as wide open as they can possibly be, because there aint any.

So tell me, WTF are we going to do if the planet starts cooling too fast?

If we break whatever natural cycle is keeping us warm, temperatures start dropping, the sea starts absorbing current and existing free CO2 and other such gases, the frozen areas grow larger and reflect heat back while also trapping greenhouse gasses, and our planet plunges towards a lethal and permanent ice-age.. what are we gonna do?

Turn the sun up?

Try and get CO2 levels back up again, faster than the (70% of the planet's surface) cold water can absorb it?

Sure, we can do all manner of funky stuff like spraying particles into the upper atmosphere to block the sun's rays but how exactly do we turn such things off or raise the temperature back up again if we realise we've gone too far?

Far from "we're saved!" we could, if the warmies are right about CO2 and warming, be bringing about a rapid and devastating death-spiral of ever lower temperatures, killing off all human life before the planet recovers.

Familiar with Krakatoa? One volcano, when it blew it covered the upper atmosphere in fine ash particles, reducing the sun's energy, bringing death and famine all around the agriculture-dependent world.

We can survive a mild increase in temperatures, in fact would benefit from faster plant growth and longer seasons with more C02. We are not, however, prepared or able to cope with a rapid ice age. We have no defense against that. We cannot "turn up the sun".

Maybe I'm well off base, maybe this has been discussed till people are sick of it but if so, I've never heard any such discussion. In short, if the warmies are right and they do bring about a loss of heat retention, how do we know they won't f&*( it up and bring on too great a loss of temperature?

Computer models? Don't make me laugh.

Look at the graphs. Zigs and zags, up and down. We've gone up, we're due a 'go down' but that's not happening. Warmies cite this as a bad thing.

What, exactly, is so good about ice ages? What, if any, contingency plan is there, if we find we screwed up and the temps drop too low, too fast?

Mmm?




O.

[viper]

You know I was actually thinking about that recently. By their hypothesis of CO2 affecting climate, why wouldn't it work the other way? I applaud you for posting against the 'consensus' as well, now lets see how long it takes before we're called heretics eh?

[Orangutan]

Well, it may be against the consensus but truly, I haven't heard this discussed?

Only the other day on the main GW thread did someone claim the climate is due a cooling period but we've somehow broken this usual cycle via carbon dioxide.

Well if so, why is that a bad thing?

Seriously, what is good about an ice age?

If, perchance, we ARE staving off what should be the beginning of an ice age, via greenhouse gasses, who's to say that's not a good thing?

Seems to me (S2O) that a scientific theory is only valid upon testing it, right?

Well since the industrial revolution we have indeed been testing this "more CO2 released makes the planet hotter" thing, by releasing drastically more of MANKIND'S contribution. Not necessarily CO2 levels in general but we've certainly increased our bit.

Yet from the graphs I've seen, temperatures were rising anyway and our little contribution has not changed that overall upward curve?

Let's suppose every graph I look at is some false graph by someone secretly being paid by oil companies or whatever, and we HAVE made temps rise faster, or, as was pointed out to me recently, somehow prevented the expected drop towards the next ice age or cold period.

Cold periods are lethal to mankind, far more dangerous that hot periods.

If sea levels rise we can move away from the coasts (and higher altitudes will be warmer and more habitable). What do we do or where do we go if the whole country is frozen?

What do we do when struck with global crop failures from cold snaps or shorter growing seasons?

I'm not raising this point to be awkward or combative, surely this is a serious concern? If we are to believe mankind's CO2 emissions are preventing the planet cooling, then what's so great about letting the planet cool?

How do we know our actions won't trigger something much worse, such as a full blown ice age?

See, we already did the "release massive volumes of C02 compared to ever before" thing, not much happened except, perhaps, we've staved off the next cold period. To me, that's either neutral or a good thing.

We've never done the "do everything in man's power to reduce the temperature!!" thing before.

My own view goes something like this - CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, mankind's contribution of total CO2 is itself minor, the climate goes up and down anyway without our help, climate scaremongors have been wrong before, 3 times out of 3 this century alone, so I need a great deal more convincing.

But if they're right, what's the control mechanism?

If you argue that the world will naturally stabilze itself, then we don't need the warmies and their scary stories anyway.

If we CAN bring about major feedback loops of catastrophic warming via increasing CO2, how do we know a reduction won't do the opposite?

Suppose, right now as I'm pecking this keyboard, we're in a growing ice age that hasn't happened, because we're holding it off with CO2?

So to me, the risks look more like this:

A. If the warmies are wrong and we don't act, no biggie.
B. If the warmies are right and we don't act, we're DOOMED!
C. If the warmies are right and we don't act, we might all be much better off, with lush growth of crops, animals an' everything
D. If the warmies are wrong and we do act, well.. the cost will be massive, and certain cronies will make out like bandits at the expense of the rest of us suckers
E. If the warmies are right and we do act, we're by no means sure our little percentage of a little percentage of greenhouse gasses will make the slightest difference, so we could be doomed anyway and will face the problem whilst impoverished, ie worse than if we hadn't acted
F. If the warmies are right and we do act and it does make a difference, we could be triggering or releasing a catastrophic ice age, against which we have no defense
G. If the warmies are right and we do act, and it does make a difference, then, at huge financial cost, we may avert a serious problem, though there's no way of telling, beyond some people getting rich and telling us they were right and our poverty is/was worth it, really it was/is, truly, really. Trust us.

Does this 'risk' argument still look so compelling?

Trust government scientists and their crony clingons from Wall Street, salviating over a new speculative trading market, immediately after they just f&&&d up the last one, along with the global economy?

Talking of relying on computer models and global melting:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/maga...urrentPage=all

"And it became so deeply entrenched—and was making people so much money—that warnings about its limitations were largely ignored."

Mmm. But we should gamble with the climate, because these government experts and their cronies know what they're doing right?

And now, for the first time in recorded history, they're not acting out of a desire to nosh on the short-term corruption and capital made available, but actually give a &^%$ about anything beyond the next election cycle?

Why?

If there has ever been a large group of humanity that history has repeatedly proven CANNOT be trusted, it's politicians and their cronies.

Right now, and one presumes they DID see this depression from an imploding housing market coming..

(Note: the head of the treasury, claiming to have not seen it, was CEO of Goldman Sachs, who were shorting the market on subprime mortgages, proving it was indeed highly visible to him. Note further these are the same subprime mortgages his company was enthusiastically advising and selling to suckers)

.. governments and their cronies are short of cash, tottering on the edge. Tax revenue is petering out, they've overborrowed, they're skint, they screwed up, big time.

But now, these same people tell is we have to open up this whole new "speculate on tax credits" market, cos if we don't, we're facing Warming of Mass Destruction, which will be BAD n stuff?

No, I aint buying it.

The choices again:

A.No biggie
B.Doomed
C.Miss out on high crops and lush forests
D.Poverty for no reason
E.Face global warming anyway, while impoverished
F.Freeze to death by releasing or triggering an ice age/cold period
G.Give scads of our money to the least trustworthy people on the planet, on the faith that.. nothing much will happen?


So suppose we end up with a freakin' ice age, do we get a refund?



O.

[tengers]

Aside from the idea of Global warming, which may be driven by CO2 or the sun or some combination of both, there is still the overall air pollution issue, acid rain and so forth. It is worth reducing CO2 emissions for that reason. Increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and using clean energy may cost a buck or two, but for clean air and water, it's worth it. Anyway, why burn up all the oil now, save some for future generations.

[Orangutan]

CO2 is NOT pollution. It's essential for life and perfectly natural.

The more CO2 the faster and better plants grow.

Actual pollution issues "and so forth" are irrelevant and a diversion from this issue, namely suppose the warmies are right and they make the planet cool too much?

Increasing vehicle effeciency already has a financial incentive.

Clean energy? Sure, when we have some, let's use it.

Saving oil for future generations - this, from corrupt western governments already putting future generations massively in debt? We should put ourselves in even more debt?

None of your points answer the question - how do we control this cooling idea if it does work? How do we know we're not currently holding off a serious drop in temperature, which we cannot control, should we cease releasing enough greenhouse gasses?




O.

[gallo]

Quote by: Orangutan CO2 is NOT pollution. It's essential for life and perfectly natural.

Arsenic is perfectly natural, even medicinal in some cases, but you don't want to live (and in fact can't live) in any environment permeated with arsenic. Of course, iron, copper, and zinc are all perfectly natural and essential for life. But too much of any of them is damaging at best.

The more CO2 the faster and better plants grow.

And you are a plant? Of course, if you increase the % of CO2 in the atmosphere you also reduce the % of other gases, like O2. O2 is also natural and essential for life.

Actual pollution issues "and so forth" are irrelevant and a diversion from this issue, namely suppose the warmies are right and they make the planet cool too much?

Pure claptrap. The point isn't to cool the earth, it is to counter the effects of warming. I'm sure that you aren't aware of this, but the environment has been warming for many years. I once lived above the Arctic circle. Going from the main base to the outlying units involved driving over a series of moraines (ridges caused by the advance of glaciers). In this case, it was the Greenland ice cap that had caused the moraines. In the years that the US military has had a presence there, the ice cap has never advanced, but rather, has been in constant retreat. One of our outlying units was at the foot of the ice cap. From pictures I have seen recently and from satellite pictures it appears to have retreated a mile or more.

There is no question that the earth is warming. Whether that is because of some sun cycle or an orbital cycle, the increase of greenhouse gases that trap heat can't help. By the way, CO2 is one of those gases.

Increasing vehicle effeciency [sic] already has a financial incentive.

Were you trying to make a point? Let me guess. You will be willing to reduce pollution if it has some financial incentive. I think that you have made a good point. That seems to be the general attitude.

Clean energy? Sure, when we have some, let's use it.

But of course, you aren't willing to develop clean energy if it costs you. And, you are probably opposed to nuclear power because it is so dangerous.

Saving oil for future generations - this, from corrupt western governments already putting future generations massively in debt? We should put ourselves in even more debt?

I'm not aware of anything from any government that proposes a policy to save oil for future generations.

None of your points answer the question - how do we control this cooling idea if it does work? How do we know we're not currently holding off a serious drop in temperature, which we cannot control, should we cease releasing enough greenhouse gasses?

How utterly silly. There is no such thing as a "cooling idea." No one proposes to cool the earth. The point is to stop warming. In fact, if warming melts the polar ice it will change the ocean currents. Several studies indicate that if that happens it is possible that a new ice age will be triggered. I know that you won't understand that, but if the flow of the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift) is disrupted, then the balmy summers in Europe will be a thing of the past.

I'll be OK, way down here on the Gulf coast. Maybe I'll get a dusting of snow in the winter. But the summers in the north won't be much better than the winters today - if the land isn't covered by ice. It will certainly solve the problem of pollution by humans.

[Orangutan]

Oh, was that it?

I come back today, hoping someone may have some answers, and all I get some some arrogance and snide comments, calling such concerns "silly"?

Silly?

Do you have any understanding of how destructive a period of cooling would be?

No one proposes to cool the earth. The point is to stop warming.

Yes, but seeing as scientists cannot 100% agree on any specific model or method, and never will, to what extent shold we "stop warming"?

How much is too much and what the heck do we do if we DO decide "Opps, too much"?

If the climate starts cooling, where do we draw the line?

How?

If it's taken us a couple of hundred years of industrial output and gas-guzzling cars to reach this level of CO2, how are we gonna do it again if the planet cools?

We don't even know for certain we can stop it heating up, yet somehow we're oh so certain we can stop it getting too cool?

Temps start to plunge, no problem, call the A Team, they'll just... what, exactly?

See, back in 1938 I think it was, there was 'scientific consensus' that the world was heading into a deadly ice age. One guy had an idea, though he was considered a bit of a crackpot at the time - he suggested thing would probably be OK because our output of CO2 would act as a "greenhouse gas" and hold off the coming ice age.

Now you're telling me that crackpot was right, but we'd be "silly" if we didn't cut back on CO2 and allow the cooling to begin?

You know exactly by how much?

The temperature of this planet never has been stable, but concerns you might not know what you're doing and might make things worse, why that's jus' 'silly'?

Look again at those graphs, up dow up down up... and you want us to help it go down? When, historically, it should be plunging anyway?

But with your help, the temperature will drop to, what, just the right amount?

So answer my simple question, what is the contingency plan if it drops too far or too fast?

What IS too far or too fast?

At what point do you put the plan into action and just what the heck is the plan?

If you think that's a "silly" question then you make the most die-hard sceptic look open-minded.




O.

[Orangutan]

So, no worthy response to the question then, beyond calling it "silly" or "claptrap", while spouting the 'science' from a science fiction movie?

Am I to presume there HASN'T been any discussion or planning for an overshoot of "reduced warming"?

Heck, is there even any agreement on just what the "correct" temperature is supposed to be?

We're supposed to trust you wamies, because you know what you're doing, right?

So what are you doing?

What's the plan if or when temperatures DO follow the usual pattern and we get the sharp drop we were due back in the 70's, that made consensual scientists scream about a coming ice age?

Hello?


O.

[gallo]

I see nothing that merits a response.

[Orangutan]

So the climate doesn't change and/or mankind's actions don't affect it?

Thanks for clearing that right up.



O.

[Nono]

Quote by: O Thanks for clearing that right up.

This reminds me very much of your Japan Innocent argument on another thread. You draw a series of absurd conclusions on the basis of feeble factoids, then when people roll their eyes and decide there are better things in life to do than refute your claims, you say "Hey, I won!"

[Orangutan]

"Japan innocent", an interesting choice of words, which I never used in reference to anything other than civilians.

So, "silly", "claptrap" and ad homs.

Oh, and "pollution is bad", because obviously I'm somehow, in some twisted manner, arguing in favor of pollution, rather than asking a reasonable question.

See, I'm partially agreeing with, or at least entertaining, this man-made global warming notion, and taking it to its logical conclusion.

You see it's one thing to proclaim yourself a self-righteous warmie of good intentions, but have you actually thought through your position and what it implies?

If man CAN influence the complex heating of this planet, to the point of making it dangerously hot, then by definition he can make it dangerously cold.

What safeguards, reassurances or even a contingency plan, do we have?

How, in good faith, can you dismiss as silly claptrap the notion that man's actions can have a dangerous effect on our climate, when your position is that man's actions can have a dangerous effect on our climate?

To quote Eminem, "Which is it, b****?"

Let's clarify shall we: do we, or do we not, have a real chance of altering our climate by altering our behavior?

At this stage, which is somewhat akin to pulling teeth, a straight Yes or No would suffice?



O.

[Orangutan]

Well, eventually:

"A Snowball Earth could be re-created, in spite of greenhouse warming. For example, a nuclear war would generate a pall of dust, reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. Also, a proposed technological fix to global warming - launching a mass of tiny sulphate aerosol particles in the atmosphere - could be overdone with the same result. Barring these horrors, we are left with the physical reality of greenhouse warming, despite the vagaries of our wonderfully capricious British weather.

best wishes,

Ian

Ian J. Fairchild
Professor of Physical Geography "


Let's not 'bar' such horrors from debate. So my question stands, do the people proposing such schemes or any similar, have any kind of contingency plan should they realise they've gone too far?


O.

[Nono]

Quote by: IJF We are left with the physical reality of greenhouse warming.

Which could be very nasty indeed.

So you're driving down the street and a child runs out in front of your car and you jam on the brakes only to find that your own child sitting beside you has somehow undone his seatbelt and is being catapulted against the windshield.

Do you have a "contingency plan" for this eventuality? What exactly is it?

The fact is that the earth's climate is an incredibly complex phenomenon that we don't fully understand. And we've buggered it up in terms of a survivable environment for six billion people.

I'd say it's time to apply the brakes.

[Orangutan]

Your analogy is amusing but in essence I'm asking "Where are the seatbelts and do we have any brakes on this thing?"

Take a lookee here:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

27 computer-model published GW predictions, 27 wrong answers.

Frequently they got the opposite result of what was expected.

Seems to me this science is by no means settled or sure, yet we're to just trust they know what they're doing when attempting to alter the planet's climate?

I would, until recently, have said I'm all in favor of reducing pollution but extremely sceptical about deliberate attempts at interfering or "geoengineering" the climate or weather.

However now it seems the excuse as to why the Earth has actually cooled in recent times is "global dimming", caused by pollution. So the more we reduce pollution, the more we get global warming?

Well right there, if true, that's an unintended consequence of well-meaning plans, innit?

We've had an exceptionally low level of solar activity lately. Normally it's in 11 year cycles; we've had 14 years of low activity. That alone is a warning sign of a rapid cooling period. Look at the graphs and we see from the usual up and down zigzag that we are due a rapid and major cooling either now or relatively soon.

I've even seen it said, on this forum, that the lack of cooling is itself a symptom of the greenhouse gas effect.

So can you not see the seriousness of what I'm pointing out here? Our efforts to prevent warming could lead to something far more devastating, rapid cooling.

Correct me if I'm wrong but cooling is far more dangerous to us, especially for food production, than warming?



O.

[Nono]

Quote by: O Correct me if I'm wrong but cooling is far more dangerous to us, especially for food production, than warming?

It depends on how much, where, etc. We just don't know.
Anyway, warming might well bring a spell of brutal cooling (google "thermohaline circulation").

Do we have any brakes on this thing?

Dunno. Try that pedal on the floor.

[Orangutan]

What pedal?

The ocean thing is certainly interesting but from what I've seen the science is even less certain about that. Even the warmies accept that movie was way over-hyped and at least one theory suggests it would have the opposite effect, sending warm water to Europe etc.

Fluid dynamics are tricky at the best of times and we've only recently started really measuring globally - but again changes to sea level and acidity that have been predicted by models got it wrong.

Easing back on our production of CO2 seems harmless enough, and allegedly should help, unless you consider the pollution cooling thing, whatever, but anything beyond that seems suspect to say the least. Then again we'd be missing out on all that lush vegetation..

I'm far more concerned that idiots WILL end up spraying stuff or some similar action, leading to runaway and uncontrolled consequences, than I am about a relatively mild increase in temp/CO2.

Certainly I think there should be more discussion about the dangers of going too far. Certainly the track records of these 'experts' isn't reassuring.



O.

[Judicator]

I think one of the faulty ideas about global warming of 2 degrees is that temperatures everywhere will rise 2 degrees. I think the models only predict a worldwide average increase of 2 degrees. This might mean in some places you get an increase of 10 degrees (catastrophic) while others experience very little. The melting of the polar ice caps will be bad news for anyone in a costal areas.

On top of that, there is ocean acidification associated with higher atmospheric c02. This threatens pretty much anything with calcium carbonate shells/skeletons.

Nevertheless, you raise a fair point that it is extremely costly and perhaps not worth it to combat global warming.

[Nono]

Quote by: O Even the warmies accept that movie was way over-hyped.

What movie??? I'm talking about respectable scientific observation. Look it up, O, it has happened many times in the past during warming periods.

Thermohaline Ocean Circulation

About 12,000 years ago, as the Earth was beginning to warm near the end of the Wisconsin glacial, a tremendous cold spell gripped the high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. For roughly 1,300 years at least some northern regions returned to peak ice age conditions. The onset of this return to frigid conditions was relatively sudden; the transition apparently occurred within a century or less.

And what do we have now? The humungous Greenland glacier melting like crazy, and cheek by jowl with the northern extremity of warm current. Good luck, eh?
Over-hyped my ass.

[Orangutan]

That "Day After Tomorrow" movie, I think it was called, the one that popularized the idea.

On Wiki:

"There is some speculation that global warming could, via a shutdown or slowdown of the thermohaline circulation, trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic and lead to cooling, or lesser warming, in that region. This would affect in particular areas like Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain that are warmed by the North Atlantic drift. The chances of this occurring are unclear; there is some evidence for the stability of the Gulf Stream but a possible weakening of the North Atlantic drift; and there is evidence of warming in northern Europe and nearby seas, rather than the reverse. The future is undecided, as studies of the Florida Current suggest that the Gulf Stream weakens with cooling and strengthens with warming, being weakest (by ~10%) during the Little Ice Age and strongest during 1,000-1,100 yr BP, the Medieval Warm Period (Lund, Lynch-Stieglitz,and Curry, Nature (2006) 444: 601-604)."

Like I said, the science on that is by no means certain. This links explains more about that uncertainty:

Thermohaline Circulation - Fact Sheet by Stefan Rahmstorf

The humungous Greenland glacier melting like crazy

Yeah but as a sceptic I note that while the north pole is losing ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg

the south pole is gaining ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg

So even "melting glaciers" doesn't do it for me. You could just as easily be arguing we're heading for an ice age because "glaciers are growing!'

I dunno, I'm trying to make sense of it all. As I say, soon as I hear one thing, I seem to hear something that counteracts it.

A long-standing claim from the sceptics is that solar activity perfectly mirrors climate change. That's settled. So to me, that suggested, as was evidently intended, the notion that climate change is driven by the sun, not CO2 - but now it seems there IS a change in CO2 and also a change in the rate of temperature change. However what worries me is that the change is of a lack of cooling that would be expected.

Hastening a global cooling sounds far more dangerous than global warming, especially if it's poised to tilt that way anyway.

We could be accelerating a catastrophe whilst trying to prevent one.

More disturbing, few if any people seem to be considering this? I see far too much confidence on both sides, frankly.



O.