Boston Globe anti-climate change propaganda op-ed

[midnight armadillo]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/01/hollywoods_fake_take_on_global_warming/

Hollywood's fake take on global warming

By James M. Taylor | June 1, 2004

IS THIS WHAT it has finally come down to? Rebuffed by science and ignored by the public, global warming alarmists are desperate enough for political relevance to trumpet second-rate Hollywood sensationalism as a "teachable moment" for the complex science of climate change.

The author is the publisher of "Environmental and Climate News" put out by the Heartland Institute. They're funded by such kind folks as ExxonMobil, BP Amoco, the Walton Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute.

This op-ed is a bit of obfuscating crud. No one argues for abrupt and catastrophic climate change...

[Southsideirish]

1. This movie has gotten extremely vitriolic reviews and why?

Because it involves global warming and Bush is so vulnerable on environmental issues that Rove & co. enlisted the "chorus of a million morons" to trash it. By doing so they put the "baby out with the bath water"and, thereby, nailed the topic of global warming, itself, as "crazy" and "junk science".
The movie is in no way supposed to be a scientific treatise on global warming it just addresses the issue in a typically over the top Hollywood way. I really feel that many reviewers were afraid to do anything besides absolutely howl against it lest they appear to be hated "liberals"

[midnight armadillo]

2. Agreed

But I also must say that ALL of Emmerich's movies (Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla) have sucked, bigtime.

[phantom power]

3. While watching the movie, I was interested to see that

they actually got the main points correctly, namely:

1) the ocean currents keep the northern lattitudes warmer by pumping heat from the equator

2) global warming is increasing the salinity gradient; northern waters are becoming less saline due to melting icecaps, and southern waters more saline from increased evaporation

3) increasing the salinity gradient could shut down the current.

4) if the current shuts down, then then northern lattitudes will become colder, and it will happen over a period of years, not centuries.

To my knowledge, no climatologist disputes these four points. On the other hand, my knowledge is pretty limited.

[Lenape85]

4. Passenger Pigeon

You've all probably heard the story of the passenger pigeon; it used to be the most common bird in North America, but it went extinct in the early 20th century due to overhunting. In fact, this September will mark the 90th anniversary of its extinction.

I learned in my environmental history class that the passenger pigeon's extinction could have had an effect on global warming. Since they were major seed dispersers, they helped to plant trees, and since they went extinct, there has been more carbon dioxide in the air.

Amazing how people do not realize how much of a desperate situation we are in in terms of global warming.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. That's close enough for horseshoes ... and climatology

Good explanation.

There are, of course, hundreds of other factors at work. I think part of this isn't caused by humans, but we were the "factor" that got things rolling.

I've been reading this stuff for years. It's amazing how fast it's starting to "click" now. The thing that really harshes on my mellow, though, is how fast the northern polar ice is melting. Something like ten or twenty times faster than they thought it would as recently as 1999.

A couple more hot summers, then stock up on snow shovels! :)

--bkl

[Oggy]

6. It has been well known about for years

my view is that we have caused it. Even if you class us as being the catalyst, we in my view are the cause. I agree there are many factors though.

That how ever is not why I was replying, more just to emphasize your point of "I've been reading this stuff for years". 15 years ago I was studying Climatology as one the modules I took in my Geography degree. My main piece of work was the influence of polar regions on greenhouse warming ( as it was back then ). While I don't remember everything about that piece of work, I do remember that the sources I used were in some cases quite old even then, and that my conclusion was the process of melting and loss of albedo was a very strong positive feedback loop that once it passed a certain trigger point it would not stop until all the sea ice and ice caps had melted!

I guess I am as at fault as much as anyone for not using this knowledge more at the time, but I am trying now to educate friends and take responsibility for reducing the amount of Carbon I personally cause to be released in to the atmosphere.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Catalyst vs Cause, and this-and-that

Well, they're both problems that we seriously avoided for years. Although I'm sometimes accused of being pro-Industry when I make the argument for catalyst, that really isn't the case.

Humanity has (collectively) never given a thought to the environment. Even the proto-Native Americans burned half the trees down in North America and wiped out the native horses and possibly the elephants, as well. Maybe the more modern peoples we think of as Native Americans became as pro-environment as they are because their ancestors learned their lessons the hard way. I occasionally wonder whether the Younger-Dryas episode wasn't catalyzed by massive burning and deforestation in America and Asia.

The work you did in Climatology sounds interesting, and I've also seen references that go back decades before Wallace Broecker started his own studies. Could you have ever guessed that the northern polar ice would be melting as fast as it is now? This has even taken me by surprise. The Earth's albedo has swung wildly since the middle 1980s, and planetary cloud cover is currently increasing as rapidly as the ice is melting.

The development of the massive temperature gradient between ground and stratosphere is likewise troubling. Ironic, ain't it, that the same Apocalypse Surfers who rightly fear climate change haven't been able to see that the increase "chemtrails" may be an artifact of high-altitude "explosive freezing" that wasn't common years ago? What was once a slowly-freezing condensation trail is now flash-frozen vapor boil-off. It looks cool, too.

At this point, I'm pessimistic about the climatological outcome. I think we hit the trigger point either around 1960 or 1985, looking at the weather data -- but that's just a wild-ass guess. What we now call the PDO -- Pacific Decadal Oscillation -- may be the pre-stadial climate "flicker". It fits in well with Broecker's data and his idea about climatic "flickering".

But take anything I say with a pound of salt, since I'm a layman who is prone to pessimism anyway.

Still, as happy as I am about being "proven right" -- if either term applies -- it's frustrating to watch as we waste the few remaining decades we have left before a) the climate becomes much harsher, and b) the Age of Oil winds down. It's like we're living through a fine Indian Summer that's about to be ended by a series of Nor'easters.

We've known about the oil situation since 1956, and the climate situation since the 1970s. We've laughed ourselves hoarse at suggestions that we might have to "suck it up" someday.

WWBKLD? Well, if I Ruled The World, I'd initiate "Manhattan Projects" aimed at developing decentralized, renewable, large-scale energy generation; and for studying the climate. At least those two projects! We also need to figure out how to sustain a progressing world culture without an energy use increase of at least 2.5% per year. Planning for the prospective evacuation of Canada, Northern Europe and Northern Asia would also be a good idea. And keeping an eye on other potential sources of trouble -- Near-Earth Object collisions, supervolcano activity, the stability of Cumbre Viejo in the Canaries, and a hundred other minor worries -- would be a source of low-cost "insurance", too.

So what's going on instead? War and religious fanaticism. Once again, maybe ancient people weren't so different after all. Fire, ice, gravel, and the war of the Gods during Ragnarok sounds similar to what we're facing now.

But this is all just so much ranting on my part. I plan to see the movie tonight or within the next few days, and I won't be surprised if we get a few more scorching summers, followed by a climate flip-flop. And if Team Bush retakes the White House, the Nor'easter will be arriving early.

--bkl

[phantom power]

7. I would guess it's more accurate to say we accelerated it

The last few hundred thousand years appears to consist of cyclic periods of warming followed by renewed glaciation. We've been moving through a warming trend, and I assume that it would culminate in a new period of glaciation eventually, with or without our help.

But accelerating it is bad! Suppose we moved it up by 100 years. That represents a huge difference in technological development for us. 100 years from now, who knows what technology might be available for us to cope with such a problem?

But if it happens early in this century, our options are certainly limited.