OldManOnFire

I thought we were discussing whether or not it was going to get warmer in MI?? Yes we were talking global issues, but I was trying to point out that the generalized global models, on a day-to-day or year-to-year basis will not necessarily or accurately represent weather in all locations. They will bounce all over the place which is one of many reasons why people in general have a hard time understanding global issues. They see it be colder and wetter and immediately ask 'how can there be global warming?'. And this is one of the reasons why using the term 'global warming' actually causes more confusion. People think it's going to get warmer every day when this is not the case. I believe the topic would have been better accepted by the general public if more media used 'global climate changes' and stressed that the GreenHouse affect is not only about warming, but also about a plethora of dynamics.

Stupid people will approach this topic from a political viewpoint. Although I consider myself very liberal, I also try to be a realist...at least within the knowledge that I possess. There are some hard economic factors that cannot be ignored in this discussion. It is a fact that life will be grand at some point in time when the US and it's citizens stop their dependence on oil products. It is also a fact that in order to get to this point, other than the necessary paradigm shifts that are required, boat-loads of money will be required. Individuals today are trying to find two dimes to scrape together. US businesses can barely compete on the global playing field. Now ask both of these sectors to invest boat-loads of money to achieve the grand idea of oil independence and as a by-product do our part in the global climate issue, and most will say it can't be done today. They will find the money, but it will be found over decades of time. Global climate pundits are constantly sounding the alarm bells, and it's not that the alarm is not real, it's that everyone is looking at the other person wondering how they can help when they barely have their heads above water today. And then there's the Cry-Wolf syndrome, where we keep hearing how horrible the situation is becoming, and the warnings, and the sensationalistic endeavors like The Day After Tomorrow--then people walk outside, look around and everything seems fine, then they give no further thought to the issue or the alarms. Now we have a federal government with no money for practical things; just money for war mongering and wasteful endeavors. It's also a government that will lie to it's citizens instead of sharing the cold hard facts about things.

It is no wonder to me why most people, most businesses, and our government are so confused about an issue that 'might' be catastrophic...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

No problem...I was talking about the disruption and potential consequences of this Arctic freeze. In some ways, I can imagine the disruption of the MOC, resulting in extreme and unbearable cold above a certain latitude, which might develop over tens of years or more, but from time to time, as this cold air would be temporarily pushed into lower latitudes, and depending on the duration, those lower-latitude areas might simply freeze solid, basically destroying most living things. Of course this would not happen in seconds, but it would only take a few days of this type of weather to change life as we know it. Unless we already live in some of the extreme cold regions of the US, quite frankly, I don't believe the people or the infrastructure will be prepared to deal with 5, 10, 30 or more days of steady cold in the (-50C) ranges.

No offense TC, but the comments above in bold are not absolute. There is no certainty of anything other than quantifying the average annual Earth temperature and the incremental increases of CO2. No one knows the full root cause of the warming. No one knows what percentage mankind has influenced this warming. No one knows if any reactive measures can slow it. There exists agreement that certain things will probably happen, but how can anyone quantify a process we have never experienced and also believe absolutes from certain actions?

When I speak of point-of-no-return, I mean the point in time when no matter what is done by mankind, the monster will remain on it's course. It is very important, IMHO to understand this. Why? Because all the actions that will be required to 'try' to slow or stop global climate changes will require tremendous sacrifice and resources. It would be foolish to go through this process if it's already too late. Instead, we would need to spend our resources on preparing to 'deal with' the consequences.

You missed the point TC...this is not about Forbes. It is about the millions of people like Forbes, who for whatever reasons, do not share the same beliefs as many climate scientists. This means someone has not done a good job at communicating the issue, or it means the rest of us are trotting down the wrong path?? This creates confusion, which creates procrastination. Further, I believe the American public only wishes to hear the truth if and when it does not greatly affect them. But some of us know that actions towards global climate change will require major changes in our lifestyles, and we all know how people hate changes--why...because it affects them. So, until there is credible consensus, and this issue has been effectively communicated to the masses, and the masses fully understand their role, little can be accomplished. I wish it was different but we can see daily how Forbes and millions others, perhaps billions on a world scale, simply have not been convinced...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Titanium Cat

Originally yes that is what we were discussing. And I said that Michigan would get warmer, more so in the winter than in the summer which is what the regional projections indicate. You were the one who switched it to global issues.

I just pointed out that such a generalization was incorrect, that colder regions are not expected to get cooler but in fact warm the most.

But GCM’s are not made for or used to make day-to-day predictions or even year-to-year predictions of weather. They predict climate and typically do so using 10-20 year intervals for their projections, nothing on a short scale whatsoever. They don’t include short term cycles and forcings which is why they make their projections on a decadal scale as those factors tend to balance out.

You are correct about there being a lot of confusion and that the earth’s climate is complex and dynamic, but you are confusing GCM projections with on going weather events. The GCM’s aren’t bouncing all over the place, it’s weather that is erratic. Climate change can lead to more extreme weather which might confuse people, but that’s part of a volatile climate system with more overall energy in it.

Okay well I agree with much of what you say. This is one of the reasons I oppose the kind of sensationalistic scenarios that The Day After Tomorrow presents, it makes a lot of people more inclined to think the entire issue is science fiction. There is no need to exaggerate the difficulties that will occur from unchecked climate change, they will be bad enough.

The economics of making the switch to clean renewable energy are not nearly as bad as those on the right portray it to be. The longer we wait though the more expensive it will become. In 2006 the US spent more money on the Iraq war than the entire world did investing in renewable energy. When you start putting things into perspective you realize it’s more a matter of priorities than absolute spending.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Titanium Cat

But you are worrying about an unlikely event that if does occur won’t occur until the Arctic is dramatically warmer than it is now. By 2100 temperatures in much of the Arctic are projected to be about 5˚C warmer overall and 7+˚C in the winter. There would no longer be a permanent ice pack and the effects of regional cooling would not be as severe as you are saying. Quite frankly if it gets to the point where we have a rapid melting of the Greenland icecap to disrupt the MOC, I think the danger from fast rising sea levels will be a much greater problem.

Come on, my use of the expressions “I think” and “fairly certain” clearly indicate that I am not claiming they are absolutes. Few things in science are absolutes. There are hundreds of drugs on the market today which aren’t proven to work or be safe, but have instead passed statistical tests of studies which indicate that they are likely to be. Yet people still take those drugs. We can rarely know for sure, but rigorous research and analysis can give us a very good idea what the primary causes of the warming are and roughly how much will happen and the consequences of that change. CO2 radiative forcing is not a new concept, it’s almost 150 years old and much of the physical science surrounding it is well understood. Most scientists think the warming can be limited to a level that won’t cause excessive problems. Are they certain, no. But there is much greater risk in waiting and doing nothing and then just trying to mitigate the problems encountered. We can’t know for sure but we can evaluate risk and choose the path which attempts to minimize it.

Climate change isn’t binary though, there will always be a level at which it approaches equilibrium. If that level is low enough the damage will be minor to moderate. It’s not too late to at the very least reduce that maximum limit. There would be a huge difference in problems created between a 2 degree warming and a 4 to 6 degree warming.
No I don’t think that I missed the point. Forbes and many people like him don’t share the same beliefs as the vast majority of scientists do simply because they don’t want to, it has nothing to do with the science or a failure to communicate it. There will always be those who prefer selfish choices.

Which is precisely the plan that right wing “think” tanks and politicians owned by the energy industry have implemented. Confuse and delay. The longer the better.

I don’t think that makes Americans much different than anyone else. What is probably different in the US is the overall political process which is much less responsive to change and easily hijacked by special interests. The economics are also somewhat different as well, look at countries like Japan, Germany, France, Italy etc., they have very little domestic fossil resources so moving to clean/renewable energy makes even more sense for them.

But you see this isn’t necessarily so. I think from a personal level it will be several small changes rather than a few big changes. The country should start changing how it plans its cities and suburbs and the infrastructure that supports them, but that will be a long process that will change how future generations live.

Again there is a credible consensus in the scientific community. Forbes is not convinced because he doesn’t want to be convinced. The message is getting out as more and more state and local level politicians sign on to reducing emissions. But there is still a long way to go especially on the federal level. Bush & company have spent seven years playing a shell game with the issue, pretending that they think it’s serious but at the same time working in the background to minimize the issue and any meaningful changes to combat it.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

OldManOnFire

We've had great documentaries on global climate changes, we have Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for global warming, we have movies like The Day After Tomorrow, we have something in the news almost daily about global climate changes, we see big chunks of ice falling into the oceans, we hear all the horror stories, and with all of this...the topic is just about forgotten.

Just like everything else in the US, when we find ourselves in desperation and 100% reactive, and the poo has already smacked the fan, first we will blame everyone else for the crisis, then we'll demand that our government do something to fix the issue.

And to think we call ourselves an advanced civilization...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

I'm not worrying about anything...just having a discussion.

And where will the danger come from? Some will come from things we sort of predict. Some will come from total surprises. No matter the models, no one knows precisely what is going to happen and when. All we can do is watch, and each time there is another event, hopefully it will provide more validation to the models, and somewhere down the road more than six people will actually care.

I disagree...when someone says 'fairly certain' this is not an absolute but it is a solid statement not having much wiggle room.

Sounds fine...but no one knows exactly 'what' to do, 'how much' to do it, and 'when' it must be done. And I don't care what anyone says, without a global consensus and all the major CO2 contributors working in tandem, it won't make any difference what I do in my little corner of this world.

You missed the point again...no matter, there are millions of people like Forbes and until these people can find some interest, it will be nearly impossible for any appreciable efforts to be achieved.

Too bad the American public is not smart enough to read, research, and decide on their own.

All countries have oil dependence issues except in different extremes. All of us have the same choices.

This is like every other major issue that faces the US. We have been talking about this stuff forever and we will continue to talk about it forever. Not a single major issue has been improved to the satisfaction of a majority of Americans. We have SS, health care, the debt, Iraq, crumbling infrastructure, etc. etc. etc. and all we do is talk about these issues. We seem incapable of finding consensus, therefore we cannot unite, therefore we cannot accomplish anything.

There is so much that can be done at the individual level, from actually taking steps to be more sustainable, to understanding the issues, to contacting their representatives. I live in a great area, rural, professionals, business, and yet today I see in the newspaper they are having sales for the Prius car. Now if my area cannot understand the need to do better, and buy these types of cars, then it will be a century or more before others pay attention...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

Obviously there are millions of US citizens who will agree with Mr. Forbes on this issue. And this statement is not about some guy named Forbes, it is about the beliefs that all of us posses on the topic.

How can millions believe one story and millions more believe an opposing story...supposedly on one of the most critical issues ever facing mankind??

How can there be such a divergence in opinion when we are supposedly talking about SCIENCE??

If we are to assume that all issues will be deeply politicized, where science and facts or math or whatever empirical evidence might exist are tossed aside, then this sort of indicates we are not dealing with reality, and if we can't deal with reality, then how will we ever create the necessary changes to combat whatever horrific issue we might wish to discuss?????

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Titanium Cat

It’s just about forgotten in the current debate because all the candidates pretty much agree with it. It’s not forgotten on the state level where various states are implementing strategies to combat emissions (like California) and are trying to block the development of new coal burning power plants. It will be a more important issue in the congressional races, particularly the senate, where you have a significant amount of politicians who are openly against climate change initiatives.

Unfortunately that is the nature of the beast. Of course if we wait until shit really starts hitting the fan there will be nothing that anyone or any government will be able to do to stop it by then.

Yes, our technology advances considerably faster than our “civil intelligence” does.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Titanium Cat

Okay, well you were discussing an event that I don’t think will likely be one of the bigger problems caused by climate change in the future.

You seem to dwell on the unknowns and uncertainties. Yes they exist, but there is also quite a bit that we do know and are fairly certain will happen to a specific degree. What we know is very likely to happen is bad enough, so let’s concentrate on preventing as much of that as we can while we expand our knowledge of the rest as we go along.

But a little wiggle room implies it is not an absolute. Seriously though I stand by both statements. If we make significant reductions in emissions it is almost certain that we will slow the process. Will we slow it enough to prevent many of the worst effects, probably yes but no we can’t be absolutely certain. My statement I think most scientists would say we are not there yet isn’t really an absolute, but a sound claim. Most do think that we can stop the warming at level where all hell does not break loose if we stop procrastinating now and seriously start reducing emissions.

Read the reports though, some very good scientists have spent a great deal of time working on the issue of how much and how fast and have laid out timetables for emission reductions that need to followed in some reasonable fashion to sufficiently decrease the warming. You are right, individual action alone will not solve the problem; it will take a collective world effort to solve a collective world problem.

No you don’t see my point. Forbes and many like him, followers or leaders, won’t be coming along. Millions won’t for whatever reasons. History is full of times where millions of people didn’t want to come along whether it is issues like civil rights or ending wars. But people still made progress and got things changed. You won’t be able to convince everyone so concentrate on those you can.

Perhaps that is part of it but I attribute more of it to moral indifference, that they would prefer the science to be wrong because it suits their politics and lifestyle.
Yes but the extremes can be… extreme! I wasn’t just talking about oil, coal is probably a bigger issue. The US has by far the largest coal reserves in the world and plenty to last well into the next century. With half of its electricity generated by coal and many states having large coal mining operations, it’s a more difficult political battle than in countries that lack fossil fuel resources.

You are right about some of those issues but again I think you look at them in too binary of a fashion. I don’t think it’s possible to reach a real consensus on many of those issues and there will always be a significant divide. You can only hope to make a larger majority happier with such things. One of the problems is as you point out, there is a lot of talking about them because that’s what politicians prefer1. They are wedge issues used to get elected after which serious action often invites more danger than benefit politically so little gets done.

I don’t discount the fact that individuals can contribute significantly by reducing their own emissions and becoming better educated on the issue. But that will not solve the problem by itself, there will be too many people that don’t. There has to be a financial penalty attached to harmful emissions that makes renewable energy a more economically viable choice.

__________________

Where have you gone, Environment Man?
Our message board turns its lonely eyes to you.
What's that you say, EvilMonkey?
Crazy E-man has left and gone away.

Titanium Cat