The United Nations has issued a report warning that, unless the world takes radical action in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, climate change/global warming will become disastrous and irreversible. The deadline is 10 to 15 years. The thing is, we were told the same thing 15 years ago.
Climate Change Rapid Response Team
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
33 Comments. Leave new
Let’s get the bets down now. The weather services are predicting a less-severe hurricane season than usual. I say that even if a Category 5 washes Miami out to sea, even if Katarina II goes straight down Bourbon Street, we will still have “first, we’ll hear from a climate ‘skeptic’ then we’ll give a scientist 15 seconds during which the ‘skeptic’ will interrupt at least four times” on the evening news.
I saw a snowflake this winter, that disproves the global warming myth right there.
If you truly want to get started on a positive and meaningful plan of action on macro-environmental issues, I suggest you Youtube Alan Savory’s TED talk on Desertification and planned grazing as a method to reverse the process, while enormously increasing the food supply in some of the most violent and poverty stricken parts of the planet.
But alas….that takes effort, and caring about “those other people”….and empowering them to be self sufficient . . .that that shit’s dangerous….best to just stick with our Colonial capitalist model of extraction and exploitation…..the death of humanity as a species is the White Man’s Burden.
It’s actually very simple. Every single climatologist and meteorologist on the planet is in on the Global Warming Hoax. Why are they in on the hoax? To cash in on the grants, of course. Why don’t the majority who don’t get the grants let the cat out of the bag? Because they might get a grant next year, of course.
Who’s giving out the grants? Why, duh gubbmint, of course. Why are they giving out the grants? So they can collect carbon taxes, of course. Then why haven’t they actually enacted a carbon tax? Oh! Look at the time, gotta run…
Congratulations! Satire at its best! 😀
I often work with climate change scientists, and their general opinion is that we are screwed (that recent Onion article, “‘It’s Not Too Late To Reverse The Alarming Trend Of Climate Change,’ Scientists Who Know It’s Too Late Announce” was passed around and joked about by nearly everyone at a conference I attended when it came out). But they think that we could be slightly less or slightly more screwed based on our actions now, and they also think that the best way to be slightly less screwed is to hold out a (false) hope for fixing the problem, since the public in their estimation doesn’t have the stomach for the grim work of making a terrible situation slightly less terrible. There are some ethical issues with that kind of science communication (which is the area I work in), but that doesn’t mean they might not be right.
Not to worry, Ted – when the sky at last does fall in on Chicken Little and the effects of anthropogenic warming make themselves felt across the whole globe, our species will react with its characteristic wisdom and unleash a thermonuclear conflagration which will block the sun’s rays for years and years, thus nicely balancing the rise in temperature. Who said we couldn’t walk blindfolded on a slack rope across Niagara Falls and survive ?!!…
Henri
Welcome to the distopian future of global warming.
We already know how the oligarchical government will react to warnings of it and to its actualities: see New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
I said, shortly before Katrina, that I hoped the storm destroyed the city. Not because I hate New Orleans but because anything less than the whole city simply wiped off the map would not get people to start discussing climate change seriously in this country. And, well, we all saw the coverage: it went from “Oh, the humanity” to “New Orleans is back and better than ever!” pretty damned quick, didn’t it?
New York dodged a great big watery bullet with Sandy. The damage was severe but workarounds were managed. But the “R” train? The tunnel was so severely damaged that it’s STILL under repair. They’ve got a fix for it, but what happens next year, this year, three years from now when a storm comes along and floods lower Manhattan again? Or washes over Miami? How about Washington D.C.?
But don’t worry. The Times will surely tell us about what these violent weather surges will mean to the California vineyards and this year’s Broadway season!
Not to worry, alex_…, when things really get hot (pardon the pun !), the US government will no doubt send in the resource of last resort, the Navy Seals and a couple of helicopters….
Henri
Perhaps they’ll put the climate whistleblowers in Gitmo. Torture them until they come around to the right way of thinking?
«Gitmo» ? Wasn’t that the facility that during the 2008 US presidential election campaign Mr Obama promised to close within a year of his assuming power ? Don’t tell me it hasn’t been closed yet !…
Henri
You know, I have no actual clue where Ted is on this issue, though the comic is funny. Thing is, I’m a scientist (well, mathematician). Almost no one who talks about this, certainly in any mainstream press, is anywhere near the real story. Best as I can figure, here’s the scoop –
1. Greenhouse gasses do cause warming.
2. How much, no one really knows. The global models everyone in the business uses are clearly wrong. You can see this not just from the “pause” in the last 15 years, but even in the last 150. If you use the assumptions they use, we should already be way warmer than we are.
3. Regardless, we should do anything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, since they suck for all sorts of other reasons.
4. If you really believe things are as bad as the climate models say they are, then you should be screaming to the rooftops for geoengineering. Spray aerosols into the atmosphere, put up giant mirrors, whatever. If it really is that bad, it’s our only hope, and we can figure out how to deal with other adverse consequences. There is no possible way mitigation of CO2 emissions can help in the slightest.
My guess, we’re looking at another 1° C over the next 100 years, not great, but easy to reverse even with CO2 mitigation going the way it is now. Hell, if China keeps pumping money into solar, it’ll be over in another 20 years.
And I was an advocate of solar energy more than 30 years ago, writing my (Texas) Congressman to introduce legislation. Guess what kind of response i received. How naïve can you get? 😀
You want a funny story? When I was 15 a friend of my parents, who was publisher of Environment magazine, took me my friend his son down to DC where he was testifying before a House subcommittee on alternative energy. This would have been 1976. The committee had in the neighborhood of 30 members as I remember, there were never more than 3 there at any time. There was quite a lot of testimony about solar, geothermal, wind, tidal, all sorts of things. No one ever did a thing of course, even the three guys who were there couldn’t be bothered to pay any attention.
«My guess, we’re looking at another 1° C over the next 100 years, …» Pray tell, suetonius17, what model – superior no doubt to all those used «everyone in the business» – are you using to come up with that figure of «1° C [increase in mean global temperature] over the next 100 years» ? Surely, if you possess a model which better agrees with observation than those inadequate ones used by people «in the business», you should make it available (while, bien sûr, claiming suitable compensation for your efforts) ?….
Henri
Never claimed to have any model, clearly said it was a guess. Based on what the current models do say, and on what the recent research into climate sensitivity to CO2 is indicating. Way too many variables to make anything resembling a good guess really. Not sure it’s possible to really make a good model, not without a much better understanding of the climate. Worth checking to see if anyone has tested their model historically, or run it backwards (which should work, all the models currently are based on time reversible processes that I know of).
«Never claimed to have any model, clearly said it was a guess. … Way too many variables to make anything resembling a good guess really.» Indeed. But a «guess», which even its author acknowledges is not a «good guess» and not based on any model at all, is hardly an acceptable alternative to the results of current climatological models, which are hardly perfect, but which are continuously being refined to better accord with observation. After all, refining the models is what, along with performing the observations themselves, the science of climatology is all about. I have no way of knowing what your accomplishments in the field of mathematics may be, «suetonius17», but as one who once – albeit briefly and more than half a century ago – did work in the discipline, opposing one’s gut feeling («1° C over the next 100 years») to the result of calculations based on current models hardly sounds particularly mathematical to me. Perhaps a modicum of modesty is in order here ?…
Henri
Henri,
Actually, nothing wrong with a guess, and my point about the models is that from what I can tell, reading in both technical and non technical sources, indicates that they have much if anything to do with reality. You can call anything a model, but a real model should make verifiable predictions, and current climate models don’t seem to. Current global temperatures are essentially outside the 95% range for the IPCC models. I think it would be great if climate scientists worked out a model, made some predictions with it, and then tested those predictions against reality. Its certainly possible some variant of some of the models might end up working, but I guess the simple version of what I’m saying is that the current models aren’t any better than a guess anyway. I’m nothing like what would be called a “climate sceptic” as I said originally I do think CO2 causes warming (as do various other things), but as a scientist I also think you have to test your models against reality.
As for math, I have a number of papers in top journals, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion, math doesn’t get tested against reality, it’s a self contained system.
«… but as a scientist I also think you have to test your models against reality. …» Which is, of course, precisely what climatologists do, but obviously not to your satisfaction. On the other hand, regarding, as you do, mathematics as a «self-contained system»,it is a bit disingenuous of you to call upon those poor climatologists – and the mathematicians with how they corroborate – for better climatic models (by which I presume you mean mathematical models) ; what does mathematics to do with physical reality ? But it is, indeed, comforting to hear that you recognise that «[increases in atmospheric] CO2 [concentration] causes warming», although it’s difficult to know how you, without a model (kindly provided by Svante Ahrrenius back in 1896), reached that startling conclusion, and that the increase in global mean temperature over the next 100 years will be limited to 1° C. I feel cooler already….
Henri
Well, as long as guesswork is an acceptable alternative to science (in this discussion), allow me to say that I guess that Earth’s global temperatures will increase 50 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 25 years. That’s based upon the political cartoons and commentaries I read on a daily basis. 😀
Now, now, Herr Doktor Doktor Lehrer, you’re using «models» (political cartoons and commentaries), again- don’t you realise that a true scientific position is only to be attained, in particular with respect to matters occurring 100 years from now, by appealing to one’s gut feelings ?… 😉
Henri
Oh….
Je m’excuse pour ma stupidité.
OH, ha ha, how clever. Might have more impact if you actually addressed the issue I was talking about, which is that the climate modelers have made predictions, and when those predictions have turned out to be wrong they haven’t done the scientific thing and admit that the original predictions were wrong. What they have done is adjust the baseline every few years to restart the clock, unfortunately for them to no avail, since the more recent predictions are still wrong. Try googling “IPCC predictions 1990’s” or equivalent if you are actually interested in the science. If you want to do science you have to live by the rules.
There would have been no discussion, «suetonius17», had you confined yourself to addressing the issue, which is how closely current models can approximate observation. Instead you choose to put forward your own estimate of «1° C [increase in mean global temperature] over the next 100 years», which you furthered claimed was not based on any model at all, while appealing to your position as a mathematician to show that you know more about the «real story»than ordinary mortals who merely read the«mainstream press». Alas, argumentum ab auctoritate works as poorly in mathematics as it does in the physical sciences ; perhaps you missed your true calling and should have studied theology instead….
But I am pleased to see that you possess a sense of humour….
Henri
You folks are losing me with this back-and-forth stuff that has no basis in fact nor substantiation by means of documented sources. (Science backed by “guess” doesn’t get it for me.) In my experience, “Google it” has proved to be a cop-out that escapes the onus placed upon someone who has made an unsupported assertion. I try always to provide a link to a reputable source that supports my statements, and I expect no less from others.
.
On the other hand, since I’m a visual learner, perhaps y’all could provide some pictures? (As in cartoons, etc.)
.
😀
derlehrer,
Sorry, did the Google thing since I assumed Henri would make some snarky comment about things if I picked my own sources. And why he thought I was implying I was “superior” I don’t get, I never even vaguely implied any such thing.
Here are some sources
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/09/global-temperature-trends-and-ipcc.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought–computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/
You can find plenty more. You can also find the actual IPCC reports, but I don’t know if you want to dig that much, they’re pretty dense. The thing is there has been essentially no warming for about 15 years, why, no one seems to really understand. Could be all sorts of things.But it puts the temperature outside the 95% confidence region, which is supposed to mean that in all likelihood the models those predictions are based on are just wrong. Doesn’t mean no one can come up with a model that works, just means no one has yet, me included.
Now, no more, “don’t feed the trolls” or whatever. I most certainly never meant to imply I was in any way better, smarter, or anything than anyone else, but I’m guessing Henri already knows that.
Derlehrer, you might find this brief article, with quite a lot of graphs despite its limited length, of interest :
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
We shall have to see if continued work on climate models can not only enable them to explain why observations look as they do, but also give them greater predictive power. Others, as we have seen, will prefer to use no models at all, while pretending to inform us how things will change over the next hundred years…. 😉
Henri
I am totally out of my venue here, being a retired teacher of various languages rather than a scientist or mathematician, but I’m always willing and eager to learn, so I’m delving into this “study” to see what new things I can discover.
suetonius17, your first source gave me this: *The first IPCC report in 1990 chaired by Prof. Houghton made a prediction for a rise in global temperatures of 1.1 degrees C from 1990 until 2030.* When I clicked on a link provided there, I saw that the chart wasn’t far off the mark in 2011. It remains to be seen what 2030 will reveal. Another link provided there yielded this quote: *Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries.*
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Thus, I am led to believe that even educated “guesses” are not of much value.
Your second source was a blog from a writer who was so obviously biased from the onset that I distrusted anything he had to say (Roger Pielke, Jr.). The negativity in the first couple of paragraphs was an obvious attempt to discredit those with more expertise in the matter, so I stopped reading after recognizing the predetermined conclusion. It made me think of those who say, *It’s the truth because I say it is.* That isn’t a valuable contribution.
The third source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought–computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html) presents this argument: *… Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.*
Notably, that article also contains the following: *Prof Allen said: ‘The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future.’*
Note: That does not equate with substituting “guesses” for the best estimations of the IPCC, nor does it require the absolute rejection of those estimations.
Your final source contains the following: *Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean.*
*It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.*
In my opinion, when a contributor must resort to obviously unsubstantiated ridicule, the comments and conclusions are worthless.
*
mhenriday – I like the link you provided; it had a lot of pictures! 🙂
@derlehrer
Thanks for doing the assigned homework. Would you mind if I copied your notes? 🙂
It’s easy for someone to include links that supposedly back up an argument, most of the audience-at-home will never bother to click on ’em anyway.
Nobody gets excited over the numbers usually cited, often in the single digits – three or four degrees over the next X years.
But a mathematician should certainly appreciate the concept of an ‘average.’ It’s not that every day will be exactly three degrees warmer in every location on the planet. If one place is 97 degrees colder, and another is 100 degrees warmer then we’ve achieved that average.
And yes, global *warming* can make some places & times *cooler*, a fact lost on many deniers. (Don’t believe me? Then kindly explain how a propane refrigerator works)
Well, yes, of course. And this has to do with what I posted why? Although if you look at the IPCC reports they do make an attempt to break things down by region. The usual biggest issue among climate scientists seems to be the difference between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, since there is much more land in the Northern hemisphere.
> And this has to do with what I posted why?
Because you claimed to be a mathematician and predicted a one degree change.