The Atlantic has an interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling (hat tips to Climate Depot and Tom Nelson). Not only is Schelling an economist, but he’s a first-rate climate alarmist.
It’s becoming increasingly common for climate alarmists to not only lie and exaggerate about their imagined consequences of man-made global warming, but some will even admit that they are doing so, e.g. Al Gore (see the top of this blog’s right sidebar) and Clive Hamilton.
It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious.
But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
We are in an interglacial oscillation period no different than other interglacial periods over the last million years or so. The fluctuations we see are natural and have clear precedence in previous interglacial periods. What we do not have is a low level of plate tectonics, but a relatively rapid rate of movement and an isthmus that creates two major ocean basins while having continents dispersed over the globe instead of in a Pangea arrangement. When you get one continent and one ocean, you have low tectonic movement, water over lowland areas which allows heat to be absorbed by that mass of water and raise global temps.
When we had over 20 times the amount of CO2 in ppm in the Carboniferous we also see a lot of water vapor, methane and increased oxygen levels, but no runaway greenhouse effect. As each of those are major ‘greenhouse gases’ any theory on climate must be able to model that atmosphere and tell us why it did not happen then. The globe was warmer, yes, but that is the natural condition of Rock 3 from the Star Sol: we are 13 or so degrees below normal, steady temps when there is low tectonic activity. Thus the planetary atmosphere and biosphere have a set limit on temperature without major changes in solar activity. For all of planetary history we are in a very low point in CO2 and a very high point in tectonic activity. Between those lows and highs are the standard operating temperature of the planet given similar solar output (and that has changed, with most of that in the early history of the planet).
If we could burn all the fossil fuels on the planet we would not reach the levels of CO2 seen in the Carboniferous. Why? Carbonate rocks. A telling feature of that period was not only coal and oil bearing rocks, but limestone and dolostone (along with non-fossil fuel yielding shales, siltstones and sandstones). Thus, by CO2 release and accumulated release via volcanic activity, we cannot reach those levels as all other periods demonstrate carbonate rock deposition to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (by organic and inorganic means).
These factors are not addressed by AGW proponents and cannot be explained by AGW theory as there is NO good climate model for these periods which would be a necessary precondition to model our current condition and then the low point of atmospheric concentration of CO2 would still need to be considered along with tectonic activity and global water circulation models. No single factor plays into climate. With a biosphere there is an interplay between them, but even without there was still an interplay as seen in the deposit of iron bearing sediment before we had an oxidizing atmosphere.
Measuring data points from weather is interesting, but weather is not climate but is a result OF climate. Climate, itself, has multiple factors beyond any single point source beyond the sun that any change IN that point source will yield drastic change in the climate of the planet (though not necessarily the weather, which would just see slow shifts over the globe). Secondary factors to the Sun have a major interplay from the Sun as seen at times of Maunder Minimums. Likewise volcanic activity (such as Toba and Yellowstone) are outside of normal graphing as they have sudden, global effects that are not easily predicted (Yellowstone has moved from flood basalts in WA and OR to megacaldera eruptions, yet it is the same point source but going through different materials).
If you want to talk weather, talk to the folks at the local weather station.
If you want to talk climate, contact a geologists.
Geologists are now speaking up against people who have no idea of what climate is. It takes us awhile. We adore field work, hate politics and prefer a magnifying loupe to a cocktail party. Beer wins over wine, hands down, as it tastes better in the dusty field. Only archaeologists get more inebriated after work than geologists… but then they have to be resupplied more often.
Tom Schelling’s words are very, very revealing.
Am I surprised? No.
But this part is beyond the pale:
sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change.
Really, he’s wishing for lives lost! And all to promote a lie.
A Jacksonian,
Excellent comment!
I learned a lot and got some information to use next time I get into a discussion with my neighbor, who was sucked into Al Gore’s propagandist movie as the truth. This neighbor is normally rational, so I can sometimes reason with him.
They also have yet to properly explain the global warming that happened on Mars at the same time.
A Jacksonian,
Interesting reading, thanks; it is interesting how easy it is to actually ignore real science.
In simple terms, from what I understand, we are possibly at the intersection of several phenomena, suns output, normal glacial cycle (earths tilt/distance from sun) and earths magnetic field. Each one in/entering phase that would indicate cooler trends in our future.
It would appear the Russians and Chinese are already heeding the warnings and are looking and leasing/buying land closer to the equator to produce food for their people.
We, well we are hell bent on turning the food we have in to fuel.
It also has to be mentioned that the last year crop production was DOWN, and early estimates suggest the world wide harvest will be down again! A lot of land in the N. US, Canada, Russia, and China was late to plant this spring, in some cases VERY late.
Several points from all of this:
We need the middle east nuke free, that could be our bread basket in 20 years, same with Mexico.
If our current administration gave a rats ass about our future, we would be in a mad rush to greatly increase our investments in nuclear technology, we would need 100’s of smaller power plants, to provide energy and waste heat for heating residences, business and hydroponics.
It makes one think, maybe the string pullers actually know all of this, when few geographic regions will be able to produce food, borders would get in the way.
In the case of the North American Union, and the big HWYs they want to build from Canada to Mexico, maybe they realize that TX, FL, NW, AZ, CA, and Mexico will be the next bread basket for North America, supplanting the western provinces of Canada, Dakotas, IOWA and such????
It also makes you wonder if the Kissinger/Bilderberg group believe that planet could only support 500 million based on an [mini] ice age, and not the current climate?
Sadly, as to ShotRat’s comments, the proof that we are correct may come at the expense of millions starving to death as the bread baskets around the world fail …..
AJ – you rock.
(Pardon my blowing the trumpet of one of your commenters, BZ!)
Your mini-discourse is a fine example of why I enjoy reading your works. You take a subject, present it with the important facts and some of the technical info (well explained) in a way that a high-school reading level person can understand it, and you do it in a fashion that does not appear to be dumbing anything down. Your audience enjoys reading it, gets well informed from it, and walks away knowing that they learned something they can use later.
You rock. And, you are right on the money with your analysis, as usual.
As for the post – Schelling is a tool, one that fits nicely in Algore’s toolbox, and one that can be used toward any end Algore needs – much like a crescent wrench with a heavy handle.
My thanks to all!
Just a simple bit of logic is needed to ask: where did fossil fuels come from? The answer is, of course, various periods in Earth history, but the most well known is the Carboniferous. All of the carbon of that era did not go into formations that yield fuels. You can’t burn limestone too easily, nor dolostone. Shales with carbon in them that do not have a high concentration are not ones that yield oil. Our biosphere continues to remove carbon from the atmosphere, reprocess some via subduction, convert a fraction into fossil fuels and much gets to sit in formations that don’t yield anything to CO2. We still get some CO2 from the depths of the planet, but by now most of that has moved outwards by heat and pressure.
Where are we supposed to GET all that CO2 if we are nowhere near the atmospheric concentration of the Carboniferous? You can’t. Even if you did you don’t get runaway greenhouse effects. CO2 does not come from nowhere and tracing it back to when it was in rock formations and finding out when they were formed then tells you what to look for… simple, easy. Alarmism need not apply.
I am always willing to look at the numbers… and put them in context. No one has put forward that we will burn all that is burnable any time soon, and when the easy stuff runs out we will go to something cheaper… if we still have an economy LEFT after trying to ‘save the planet’. I prefer space based energy source: the sun. Clean, efficient, easy to get and cheap to get… if we could just get government out of the way we would HAVE cleaner sources of energy.
40 years since we were on the moon… 40 years we should have encouraged industry to utilize space, create a new economy based on cheap energy and easy to get resources, and shift industry out of the atmosphere. 40 years of government control of space access.
40 years of continuous failure to use our technology productively.
If government can’t figure out how to do THAT then I don’t trust it for much of anything.
AJ: holy cow, you should both teach classes on the issue AND speak before Congress!
AOW: excellent point, and how insane is that?
Shop: wasn’t aware of that. . .
LoneRider: you hit it; wasting all that corn for ethanol is tragic and senseless.
Cary: you gotta admit, AJ is pretty damned amazing!
BZ