[ExI] Global Surface Temps Unchanged Ffrom 98 to 08?

Kelly Anderson kellycoinguy at gmail.com
Mon Jul 11 05:03:33 UTC 2011


On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:15:50PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:
>
>> The global warming apologists claim that the lack of a change in
>> global warming over this decade is explained by the increased
>> particulate matter emitted by China in their dash to use coal on a
>> massive scale.
>
> I'm sorry, this has has got to be one of the stupidest things you've wrote
> in a whole long while.

Saying that politics doesn't belong on this list.... well, that's one
of the stupidest things you've written in some time. ;-P  We talk
about politics ALL THE TIME here! You've never complained before.

> You have a beef with climate science models, you go straight to the
> primary peer-reviewed publications. Politics doesn't belong on
> this list.

Let me be VERY clear. Personally, I tend to think that global warming
is highly likely to be human caused or at the very least human
exacerbated. Certainly, there is no denying that CO2 levels are very
high now, and that is human caused, and that is likely to have an
effect on climate. I am not a global warming denier, nor am I willing
to throw away the world economy trying to fix a problem of unknown
size, length and impact.

So, is global warming a fact? Yes, in my mind it is a fact.

Is global warming human caused? Yes, at least partially, it is human
caused. So is the temporary global cooling, if you read the paper.

What is the proper response to global warming? This is where I diverge
significantly from Al Gore and friends.

Your post makes my point that there is an aura on both sides of this
particular argument that REEKS of religion. You seem to have fallen
into your religious view here, as pointed out by your violent
outburst. What I would encourage you to do is to lose the religion,
and deal with this on a basis of simple pure science. Both climate
science, and more importantly political science as to what to do about
it all.

Also, if you want to reach global warming deniers, starting the
argument by calling them stupid and uneducated is a pretty bad way to
get what you want.

Science is supposed to ALWAYS be open to new facts. To my mind,
climate science is so new and so incompletely understood, that it is
silly to say there isn't more to be learned about what is happening,
and what will happen.

For example, are there automatic systems that will compensate over the
long term for what we're doing to the planet? Just one possibility is
that algal blooms and other small plants in the oceans may (over the
long term) absorb much of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Darwin
teaches us that evolution will fill ecological niches, and there is a
huge ecological niche being created right now for organisms that
benefit from higher levels of CO2. Right?

Thus, it seems possible that life in the oceans may begin to consume
the CO2 at a higher rate by reproducing faster in the now more
favorable environment (for that kind of plant life). This is not
likely to be good for the oceans, because it will result in huge
numbers of jelly fish, algae and other microscopic plants. Now, this
may not happen, but it seems to be consistent that it COULD happen.

"good" in the previous paragraph is open to question. The changes to
the ocean that excess CO2 may eventually cause are changes, but
calling them good or bad is a political statement. Is it bad that the
oceans might adapt to mitigate climate change? That's a value
judgement. I think it is good that the planet may be self regulating
through the processes of life. Even if the ocean changes
significantly, the planet itself and life on it may be saved. But who
knows, this is just a hypothesis. The first step in the scientific
method.

I have never heard any serious scientists discuss whether this might
be the case. Just as there are stories you will never hear on CBS,
NBC, ABC and CNN, there are scientific studies that climate scientists
will never investigate because they can't get funding for those
studies.

This is really the planet of bacteria, not people. Bacteria may have
more to say about CO2 concentrations than we do, over the long term.
We just don't know all of the variables. The science is too new.
Asking this sort of question does not make me a global warming denier.
I just think it's good science to keep asking questions, rather than
state categorically that "X is a fact, and there are no mitigating
contextual facts." That is unscientific.

Calling it global warming is also problematic. I tend to agree with
those who call it climate change, because we don't know if warming
will continue, or whether there will be a careening out of control
that leads to a new ice age... Some models seem to indicate that is
possible too.

Finally, solving our energy problems will likely help solve the global
warming issues. I think I have made my position as a fan of
alternative energy projects very clear. Not BECAUSE of its effects on
global climate change, but because it's the right thing to do
politically and economically. I would not propose building up
alternative energy JUST to avoid global warming, but since it happens
to coincide with other good goals that I do support, I end up
supporting just the things that end up mitigating global warming.

The story on CO2 sequestration has also not yet been written. That
could turn out to be very interesting. In this case though, you have
to do it for the sake of global warming, not because there is some
other good reason to do it. I think that's one reason it hasn't gotten
a huge amount of traction yet.

I look forward to continuing a scientific, and not a religious,
conversation on these topics.

-Kelly



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list