Another Demonstration of Why Government and Education Are a Toxic Mix

Climate Change Education Agenda

Share this

I think the two comments

I think the two comments (thus far) on the linked site show just how far the idea will get...

Interestingly enough, there

Interestingly enough, there was a program on History Channel tonight that touches on this problem. It suggested that from the 14-mid 19th century, there was an "ice age" during which global temperatures dropped - causing all sorts of global problems - the potato famine, unseasonal winters throughout europe that led to the black plague, and other problems - even the famous "year without summer"...

Taking that into consideration, the current trend of warming may just be the "normal" temperature, no?

Doinkicarus, it's certainly

Doinkicarus, it's certainly true that there have been large climatic changes in history, including a cold spell in the 19th century. That's not evidence, though, that humans are not now affecting the climate via co2 and similar chemicals.

It sounds nice to say that we're just making up for the ice age, but glib comments don't really add to understanding. If you read some of the more middle of the road research (rather than the extreme scare tactics that give climate scientists a bad name), I think you'll find that the evidence is pretty good that there's a problem, and we should at least be thinking about what to do about it.

I've been wondering about

I've been wondering about something: all the carbon that we're releasing now was taken out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago, right? And the earth wasn't exactly uninhabitable when it was all still there. So what's the problem? Is it just that our civilization is optimized for the current climate, and certain areas on the margin will become unsuitable for the purposes for which we currently use them?

What exactly should we do

What exactly should we do about it? Enforce some sort of political regulations on a global scale? Perhaps similiar regulations on a national scale? Will either of these actually do anything at all in the long or short run? Are they logically and logistically sound actions? If not, If they're just feel good gestures towards "doing something". Then they're good for shit. I don't honestly think that the worlds human population will suffer all that much from global warming (which also has many positive benefits) before it simply advances enough to avoid heavy polluting. This advancement is largely slowed by various regulations, especially environmentalist inspired ones. Enforce Kyoto and whatever other plans the U.N and others come up with, and humanity actually will suffer, not from environmental damage, but from the condemnation of billions to slowed economic development, due to the restrictive environmental regulations.

CO2 becomes marginally less

CO2 becomes marginally less "effective" the more you have of it- around the Triassic or so, CO2 levels would vary from 1400-2000 ppmv, and global average temp was 22c. Currently we're at 342 or so ppmv. Back in Ye Olden Tymes, CO2 concentration in the Ordovician was something around 7000-8000 ppmv, and the global average temp was... around 22c. Seems like a magic number, just like Mars' 6mb atmosphere that stays perched on the triple point of water, suggesting a strong buffer effect from water ice on keeping the atmosphere stable (at, granted, a teeny tiny density).

The downside is that the historical record says that we have a great deal of wiggle room as far as our global avg temp goes- global average is somewhere around 12-13c right now, so it would seem that we have 9-10c of increase available before the countervailing effects swamp out CO2...

Another thing to consider is that only two other times in the geologic record have CO2 levels been as amazingly low as they are now, and there were hundreds of millions of years ago (and coincident with icehouse conditions globally). The average seems to put us in the ~1000ppmv range for CO2. SO it would seem that its not a matter of IF but WHEN and while surely there is a manmade aspect to GW, it is an open question of how much and if it even matters given the overall trend. What we know *isn't* true is that we'd have a stable temperature profile absent AGW.

Brandon Berg asks: all the

Brandon Berg asks:

all the carbon that we’re releasing now was taken out of the atmosphere hundreds of millions of years ago, right? And the earth wasn’t exactly uninhabitable when it was all still there. So what’s the problem?

Name the ecologically and commercially important species which were abundant those hundreds of millions of years ago.

If they're going to do that,

If they're going to do that, I recommend that they include **all** of the relevant science. I hereby nominate The Ultimate Resource II as the official textbook. Can I get a second?

Also, someone needs to explain to these junior scientists what the hydrologic cycle means, and how much of the pre-AGW greenhouse effect is caused by water. 98% seems like a big number to me, so why is it consistently ignored?

E-P : Trick question. There were *no* commercially important species a hundred million years ago. All commercial importance appears after man stops hunting and gathering, i.e. not so long ago. What do I win?

Yup... It may be time to

Yup... It may be time to separate school and state.

...or did I say that already?

That’s not evidence,

That’s not evidence, though, that humans are not now affecting the climate via co2 and similar chemicals.

Then again, the burden of proof doesn't run that way.

Seems pretty simple to

Seems pretty simple to me.

We've put tons upon tons upon tons of CO2 into the environment.
The CO2 level has gone up since then.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

therefore, i.e., ergo, there is/should be anthropogenic global warming. THe devil, as always, is in the details.

Eric H. writes: There were

Eric H. writes:

There were no commercially important species a hundred million years ago. All commercial importance appears after man stops hunting and gathering, i.e. not so long ago.

So you are saying that man's commercial activity created the species which yield all our food and much of our fiber and building materials?

Are you also claiming that a shift in climate toward conditions prevailing 1E8 years ago wouldn't affect the viability or productivity of these species, or would create others just as suitable for us?

What do I win?

A coupon good for one clue.