I got the graph below from a global warming blog called “factcheck.” The blue line on the graph below shows Greenland temperatures, constructed by Vinther et al. (2009) using data from six ice cores smooth to 20 year steps. The black line at the right are observed temperatures from Berkeley Earth, with a 20-year smooth applied. To make the graph, the observed temperatures, and ice temperatures were aligned over the 1880-1960 period. According to many this shows a disaster that we caused, and that we must reverse by stopping US industry. I’m not so sure.
It is seen that theGreeland temperature has risen 1.5°C over the last century, or 4°C since 1710. The first issue is that the rise since 1710 to 1810 is rather substantial, about 1.3°C and the level of world industrialization was a lot less, but more importantly, when I look at this curve, the part that worries me is not the spike at the right, but the bit at the left. I’m far more comfortable with another degree or three of Greenland heating, than I am with an ice age and the 50°C drop that entails.
As for stopping US industry to cure the rise, that too seems like a bad idea since most of the carbon dioxide comes not from us, but from China, with quite a bit from India. If we stop our poroduction, we merely hurt ourselves while moving production, and CO2 to China. I suspect that those behind this are Chinaphiles — Sinophiles.
Robert Buxbaum July 28, 2020
Pingback: When was America great last? October 24, 1945, United Nations Day. | REB Research Blog
Pingback: When was America great last? October 23, 1945. | REB Research Blog
I tend to agree. I do feel that global warming is happening, but (like Freeman Dyson) question that it’s going to be a terrible thing. And I have approaching 0% confidence that the whole world is going to unite to “fix the problem”, especially since, as you point out, this is a notion of the developed world. We’re wealthy enough to take action, but that action will have little effect, completely aside from the question whether it makes sense at all. Our interest is in preserving the status quo; India and China’s interest is in raising themselves out of the most abject poverty.
Developed nations will be able to preserve their status quo in the face of rising sea levels by means of macroengineering projects, at least in many locations. Recall that The Netherlands is 50% below sea level, and the sea is kept out of the polders by means of dikes. Some of this will likely happen here.
There are other macroengineering strategies that could be carried out, such as stratospheric shielding by means of injection of reflecting particles.
As far as power generation goes, it’s obvious (as it is to some environmentalists) that the nuclear option is the most promising, if we wish to limit the consumption of fossil fuels. And since fossil fuels will no doubt run out eventually (though we have plenty of coal), that is likely to come in any case.
It looks to me like the skin is what’s burning, though I’m willing to accept a gasoline fire may have gotten things started.