Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
Wall Street Journal – April 9, 2007
Interesting article on the global warming problem. Can we change it if it is the fault of humans? I have read some extremists on the subject that say that we need to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere. Some say that this decrease in carbon dioxide would need to be in the range of 50% in 5 years. The current proposals in Congress are more conservative – 4% increase in fuel economy per year for 10 years (which is about 34% in 10 years).READ MORE
Wall Street Journal Online – April 2, 2007
This article is relevant to all people, if you believe in global warming or not. Regardless of your beliefs, there are very strong geopolitical reasons to break the liquid fuel monopoly that oil has on the modern day human population. Efforts to create a viable source of liquid (or gaseous) fuel that can be used to fuel our insatiable transportation needs are very important in the world economy. It would be great if that alternative liquid fuel would be more eco-friendly causing less pollution and it wouldn’t hurt to have it spit out more CO2 regardless of whether carbon dioxide is affecting climate change or not.READ MORE
Breitbard.com – March 26, 2007
This study analyzes what the world would be like if global warming continues unabated until 2100 using the scenarios described in the recent IPCC report. It doesn’t do an analysis on the probability of this happening or the possible effects of massive ice melting and the consequential raising of ocean waters. Instead, the study details the effects of changes in local temperature to various parts of the world.
Many of the world’s climate zones will vanish entirely by 2100, or be replaced by new, previously unseen ones, if global warming continues as expected, a study released Monday said.
Climate Science – March 14, 2007
This is a very good article. I strongly urge everyone to read it. Mr. Pielke runs a great blog and I hope that this site does as much justice to this topic as his does.
The article is guest written by Hendrik Tennekes. There are no credentials given for Mr. Tennekes but he appears to be authoritative on the issue. I won’t be able to convey all of his material in this entry so please click on the link at the bottom and read his original article.READ MORE
BBC – November 9, 2007
This is a heart wrenching article that should cause everyone to feel sad. Whether you believe that global warming is real or not or if it is caused by humans, really doesn’t matter when you read this article. It is obvious that these people are suffering due to the current weather trend in their part of the world.
Efforts to help developing nations adapt to the impacts of climate change have been called “woefully inadequate” by a UN-commissioned report.
The report, called Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, says climate change “now poses what may be an unparalleled threat to human development”.
RealClimate – February 16, 2007
This is a moderately technical blog entry discussing an article in Climatic Change. It is not too in depth though and the average interested reader should be able to understand it. The premise of the article is a hypothesis that there needs to be more than just changes in the Earth’s orbit to trigger the entry into or out of an ice age.
Martinson & Pitman III’s hypothesis states that the fresh water input works in concert with the Milankovitch cycle and the albedo feedback. They conclude that ‘major’ terminations can only follow from glacial build-up of sufficient magnitude to isolate the Arctic, inhibiting the inflow of fresh water to the point that salinity buildup in the surface layer from slow but continuous growth of sea-ice, causes overturn of the Arctic (through the effect on the atmospheric circulation and the ocean currents). The vertical overturning brings warmer water up from below, setting conditions that are more favorable for ice melting.
Harry Clarke – February 20, 2007
This is an interesting blog entry. The article discusses the costs of preventing a catastrophic danger. It starts out with a discussion regarding a theoretical asteroid hit that might happen in 3 decades but then starts to deal with the costs of avoidance of preventing global warming.
What the entry does not explore is the concept of lost opportunity cost. If the global economy spends 1 trillion dollars preventing or reversing global warming, what could we have done with that money and was it as good of an investment. To continue that thought, what good would occur if we only spent half of that money? Would that be enough to do 90% of the 1 trillion? Difficult issues, I grant you, but issues that must be discussed.READ MORE
AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News – January 9, 2007
This is a very good blog entry that discusses the exaggerations that can happen on both sides of this issue. I especially find outrageous that someone actually wrote that billions will die if we don’t make massive changes to our human output. This blog (nor the article) makes reference to how many people will die by diverting billions or trillions of dollars to new methods of energy use and distribution.
The headline grabbed my attention – stating that “Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012.”
Heck, if that’s the case, I might as well go right down to the GM dealership and buy a Hummer. What difference will that make?