Random Thoughts About Global Warming
 

So with a climate summit going on in Stockholm and my daily guilt in driving to work instead of taking the Metro, I've been having a number of random thoughts about global warming.

Whether you believe it's man made, or something within our control I can't help but think we're going through Kubla-Ross stages 1) Denial that it is even happening 2) Anger (3rd world to 1st) 3) Bargaining - Carbon offsets, carbon reduction agreements, cap & trade, etc. - I wonder when we'll get to acceptance and start planning for the warmer whether, rise in sea level, etc. I hear so much about trying to curb carbon emissions, but nothing about dealing with the consequences - perhaps that's not as sexy to the media

These deals between nations - NPR mentioned Spain exceeded it's commitment to carbon reduction despite it's investment in alternative power. The problem it seems in the increase in population and personal wealth. Makes me think these deals by nation mean nothing and we should be looking per-capita by nation. Then comes the ugly truth that poverty is the best way to combat the increase in carbon emissions.

I recall awhile back global warming was seen as a potential for world conflict in the future as issues of water rights, displaced agriculture make people desperate (and angry). I wonder what those potential hot-spots are? Should we preemptively invade Canada? Or are we looking okay in the current predictions? Will Siberia become the worlds food basket? OR closer to home, how many years do I have before my home is swallowed up by the mouth of the LA River?

We know Polar Bears are toast, but what species are looking to thrive? Snakes and cactus? While this mark the slow evolutionary return of the Dinosaur? Will Monsanto be able to reengineer their corn fast enough to meet the new climate challenges?

Anyway, I wonder about these things, and I support ideas that promote efficiency, better use of resources, etc. but I wonder what we are missing as we focus on trying make it stop, when it's not clear that we can.

It's all a bunch of Hoo-Ha.

Open a window....

You leave my hoo-ha out of this!

We can't just blame the Chinese.

That would be Hu-Xia.

I have been following the stories of the hacked emails. I don't support hacking, of course, but what was turned up is quite interesting for a skeptic such as myself.

These so called scientists were violating their nations freedom of information laws......so I have no sympathy for them as victims of hacking.

I fear some people will still be denying climate change even as they sink beneath the rising waters.

^A member of the "consensus" of "top" climate change "scientists" writing to another of the same...sigh.

Unless you believe that our vast carbon emissions and other pollutants are actually doing positive things for our global environment it seems to me the entire global warming man made/not man made, exists/does not exist debate is moot.

Clean up dirty industry, change the habits of billions, invest/invent new cleaner forms of energy and living. Then when the sky is clear and the rivers run clean if warming is still an issue we can talk about it then.

Interesting news out of Seattle this week.

When Bush was busy not signing the Kyoto agreement, Seattle went ahead and committed to the plan themselves. The results?

Mixed.

While they have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions overall to below 1990 levels, the goal outlined in the Kyoto agreement, those gains are on pace to be wiped out very shortly by continued increases from transportation as population grows. They're unlikely to keep below 1990 levels through 2012, the end-date for the Kyoto protocol measurements.

But still, if they can go it alone and make some pretty significant progress, that bodes well for what might be accomplished if everyone is on board and cities receive support from the feds. It also emphasizes why there is so much focus on the auto industry. Take transportation out of the picture in Seattle and they're doing stellar, every other segment is on the decline in terms of greenhouse gasses. If we can reverse the trend in transportation as well, I think we can really start to see a difference.

Well said, Moonliner. There are so many good reasons to pursue alternative energy, promote clean air, restore natural habitats and so on, even if humans are not causing climate change.

I've read about the hacked emails. I see that one researcher stepped down from his post for suggesting a "trick" that skewed data - something I agree is best brought to light. Bad science is bad science. But much of the fuss is simply about attitude. The emails contained insider chat in which global warming skeptics were called idiots, and so on. Totally irrelevant to the actual science. (Such name-calling takes place out in the open, in comment sections on websites on all sides of every issue, for instance.)

I have a long way to go before I can even pretend to have a grasp on earth science and the data supporting or not supporting climate change. Ultimately, the facts will speak for themselves. Real science has great self-correcting mechanisms. Public discourse and private chatter, not so much.

Except if you dig beyond the one-liner that was cherry picked out, he wasn't doing anything that falsified data or affected the conclusions of the research in question. He was just talking about selectively graphing the data that most clearly demonstrated the conclusions of the research.

Would it have been better to print the entire raw data (again, going past the one-liner, that's exactly what his colleagues replied to him with)? Perhaps. But boy do I understand where the dude is coming from. When facing people who walk outside in January and say, "Look, it's 32 degrees today, take THAT global warming!!!" I can appreciate the urge to avoid printing a graph that might, to people who don't have a grasp of statistics, appear to show a downward trend in temperatures.

No, it's not good scientific reporting. But it doesn't change the reality of the data behind it. It was just one guy trying to avoid having to justify his conclusions from spurious misinterpretation of the data by masking out the bit that could be misinterpreted. The guy is still an ass, but it's hardly a smoking gun that brings down the entire theory of global warming.

No, not in any sense a smoking gun. ( I saw it somewhere referred to as "not a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud!" roll eyes)

Had a cool and relevant video to link here, but I've lost it. Be back soon.

If you want to discredit and dismiss decades of climate change research from scientists all across the globe just because of some unfortunate emails from one organization, then, by the same logic, we need to abandon the free market system because of Bernie Maddoff.

this is what trouble's me the most - population keeps growing, and not only that take a look at the 2 Billion people of China and India who are both developing a carbon consuming middle class and I think we're focusing too much on prevention and not enough on adaptation as I wonder what we could morally do to curb population or prevent people from leaving states of poverty.

But that said, NPR had a nice piece on what Florida is doing to prepare for potential rises in sea level and flooding that may ensue

Colonize Mars.

D'oh, and I just bought beachfront property here!

In Phoenix?

The notion of island cities connected by elevated motorways seems very tomorrowland though

AP's review of emails.

Sigh, sometimes I hate being right.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256.html

This is why weaker-willed people have the urge to pretty-up the data. Even 100% conclusive data showing global warming WILL have bits that, read by someone who doesn't grasp the concept of statistical trends, "contradict" the conclusion. So it's tempting to look at it and say, "I know that the entire data set supports my conclusion, but people without the analytical training I have are going to misinterpret the full data set, so why don't I just tailor the data I publish so that to the untrained eye it matches the conclusion which I know to be right."

Again, it's a bad decision to make. The doffuses who succumbed to this temptation were correctly called out for it. But if you have to continually start each conversation by contradicting idiots that think a snow storm negates global warming, you'd start to really really wish the snow storms would stop.

They could just change the words "global warming" to "extreme climate change" and I bet the reactions would be different. Or if they did it from the start.

What did you mean to link? That's the Google buzz article.

Daily Show and Colbert Report had some great segments on last night and ripped on the morons who see the current snowstorms as evidence against the warming trend.

Oops. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343948...ew_york_times/

I think The Daily Show deliciously illustrated this last night. Check out this clip, starting at the 4:45 minute mark. (The beginning part is funny too, but not directly related to this topic.)

Not that this kind of response will do any good, but glad to see someone trying to explain it to the nimrods:

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/dylan-ra...ls-glenn-beck/

Pwned!

I just can't wait for all the retractions from the skeptics based on the lack of snow in Vancouver.