Global Warming

[jordan_o]

Alright, I have a question about global warming. I want to know if it is fact as serious as all the environmentalist people keep saying it is. Listening to all of it makes me skeptical, it sounds like a lot of alarmist ********.

However, truthfully I've never really studied it, and I'm afraid if I do a google search I'll just end up reading environmentalist websites that will be far from unbiased on the issue.

So I am asking, is it really that serious? Is the Earth warming up? I'm wondering if it is as doomday as they say it is, or is my gut feeling right that there is really nothing to worry about, or at this point there is not enough known to be sure about it.

 

[Rolfe]

Jordan has just lit the blue touchpaper. I now intend to retire to a safe distance and observe developments.

Calling Diamond and the other usual suspects....

Rolfe.

 

[jordan_o]

What are you talking about?

 

[allanb]

So I am asking, is it really that serious? Is the Earth warming up?

Well, here's my starting point: there is reason to believe that the temperature of the earth fluctuates. Therefore, at any given time, it is getting warmer, or it is getting cooler, or it is changing from one to the other. Therefore the fact (if it is a fact) that it is now getting warmer is not in itself a cause for concern.

Perhaps we should be worried, and perhaps we can do something about it; but I'm not convinced that either of these propositions has been proved. What disturbs me is the number of people who seem to believe both as a matter of faith, and react to any doubt or dissent in the same way as religious people react to heresy.

 

[Diamond]

Jordan has just lit the blue touchpaper. I now intend to retire to a safe distance and observe developments.

Calling Diamond and the other usual suspects....

Rolfe.

Come on! That was never 5 minutes!

 

[Diamond]

Jordan_O: Try this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-2113244,00.html

 

[Dragon]

What are you talking about?

You have much to learn, my child. There are (at least) three ways to start an unseemly row on this forum -

1. Gun Control
2. Arab/Israeli conflict
3. Global Warming

- you'll see ...

 

[varwoche]

Here is a summary of what the experts have to say focusing on studies that have been published in the past 5 years.

 

[This Guy]

From what I read on various science sites, newspapers and all, the fact is that we are in a period of global warming. The ice shelves have decreased. Sea levels are rising. I know from my own observations that where I live, we get much less snow during the winters than we did when I was young, and the winters have been much milder over all, for some time now.

The question in my mind is - How much of this apparent warming trend is human induced, and how much is some natural, perhaps very long, cycle?

Some links of interest -

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0330_060330_antarctica.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Can't post links, so copy/paste and throw a h t t p:// in front without the spaces, or don't ;-)

Yes, they are all from National Geographic. But those were handy

There are other links out there, but would take me longer than I have availabel to dig out. I'm sure others will have some.

(I'd like to see some contrasting links if folks have them!)

Knowing that it hasn't been that long ago, in the age of life on earth, that we had an ice age, I have to wonder if some of what we're seeing isn't a natural cycle.

From some of the things being reported, it seems certain to me, that we are at least partialy to blame.

I'm inclined to believe that we have a large share of the blame, but have no proof I can point to.

It's certainly a hot topic (no pun intended). And with the rain forests being destroyed, China with it's huge potential, at the start of it's own Industrial Revolution as it were, I think the prospects are low that we'll be able to do anything to turn the trend back anytime soon. Assuming we're to blame, and could anyway. (not assumptions I firmly stand behind)

I don't think we're in "The end times" as some might say. But we could have some interesting times ahead.

As with many things, time will tell.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

Do we really need the spectre of global warming to convince people that polluting the environment is a bad idea???

 

[Diamond]

Here is a summary of what the experts have to say focusing on studies that have been published in the past 5 years.

Unfortunately most of what you linked to has been debunked in the last 5 years.

Especially the crowning glory of the IPCC TAR, "The Mann Hockey Stick", which has been conclusively shown to be a product of bad statistics and is without any merit.

So the answers are: yes generally its warming for the last 30 years (apart from some areas like the bulk of Antarctica where its been cooling quite rapidly for the last 50+years), this is a continuation of a warming which began in the early 17th Century. Yes rain patterns are changing, but then they always have. Yes we are utterly powerless to stop "climate change" via economic vices like the Kyoto Protocol and even its protagonists agree that it wil make no measurable difference to future climate. No, nobody knows what future climate will be like and even the IPCC admitted that the task is impossible. No, a warmer climate does not mean more extreme weather, but in fact, less extreme weather (a fact borne from basic meteorology and physics).

As far as the debate on global warming is concerned, its really a religious debate about religious beliefs concerning the future. As Matthew Parris writes in the article I cited in the Times:

Religion in this case is probably only the messenger. So rooted and insistent is the nagging fear (and secret pleasure) we take in seeing signs in the stars, the weather and the natural world, that sinful man is heading for apocalypse, that I suspect there is something buried in the collective unconscious of every age, feeding the glee and the gloom. Perhaps the world’s religions tap into this, using it as a recruiting sergeant.

In the still of the night everyone knows what it is to fear that we are heading for some half-sensed and ill-defined disaster. In the still of the night everyone knows the vague guilt that comes with a recognition that we are selfish. In the still of the night we know the gnawing resentment that there are others more selfish than we — yet who do not seem to be punished.

Guilt, resentment and apocalypse. Prophets have since the dawn of history recognised the power they can unleash by linking these three. Elijah told of earthquake, wind and fire; Jeremiah of disasters unnumbered. Ignatius Loyola, Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys, Moses, Mohammad . . . and countless other seers, ayatollahs and divines, have called upon us to bail out of whatever version of Sodom and Gomorrah it has pleased them to paint, before those cities burn.

The prophets of climate change are their inheritors, reclothing new belief in the metaphor of the old, reconnecting it to those ancient drives. The Archbishop of Canterbury has sensed as much. Dr Rowan Williams told politicians this week that they would face “a heavy responsibility before God” if they failed to act to control climate change. He described the lifestyle of those who contribute most to global warming as “profoundly immoral”. Asked how God would judge our age if we fail to act, Dr Williams said: “If you look at the language of the Bible on this, you very often come across situations where people are judged for not responding to warnings.”

So there you have it. The Friends of the Earth are Elijah’s latest recruits. Eco-apocalypticism is the new religion.At once I hear you protest: “But climate change is true.” And it may be. So may the Book of Revelation. Accept, please, that I am not urging upon you the truth or otherwise of any of these claims, religious or scientific. I am simply pointing out that as a belief system — scientific or otherwise — eco-apocalypticism runs powerfully with the grain of the collective human unconscious. It has its sheet-anchor down into a powerful current in the history of belief.

Because it is a religious debate (rather like those other two tinderboxes on the JREF, gun control and Palestine/Israel) much more heat than light is produced. Self-proclaimed skeptics on most other issues become at a stroke, polemicists and heretics in a religious debate, whose underpinnings are not the utility of climate models or the sensitivity of trees or coral to temperature change but are in reality reflections of our internal beliefs about the world around us.

 

[Amapola]

I think for a lot of people it comes down to "Will this affect me personally?" And since it IS affecting me personally, I'm inclined to go with the evidence showing the earth is warming up. (Such as oceanic temperature being higher.) I live in the middle of a dying forest. Although some have told me this is "anecdotal evidence" the fact is the trees are a lot older than I am and they have been here a lot longer than I have. And the trees think that this used to be a good place to grow, but now it isn't. They no longer recieve sufficient water to live, which means that the climate in my part of the world has changed.

Can global warming being caused by humans be proved conclusively? That is pretty tough for science to do, because people just don't live long enough to see how the life of a planet works. For the most part it is not one singe piece of evidence but many small things that add up to point to global warming. Even then, scientists are correctly cautious.

My personal opinion is that even if it were proved beyond doubt that humans caused global warming, most people would not care and would continue in whatever it was they were doing. There are an awful lot of us on the planet, with more every day. I remain skeptical that a sufficient number of humans would change their ways, given how many of us there are.

 

[Oolon Colluphid]

This BBC webpage has lots of links to climate change info.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2004/climate_change/default.stm

 

[varwoche]

Unfortunately most of what you linked to has been debunked in the last 5 years.
[unsupported opinions snipped, leaving nothing]

Perhaps you will cite evidence of this mythical debunking of the recent studies from NASA, Scripps, Woods Hole, Harvard, Stanford, Livermore Labs, etc, etc.

I'm hoping for something better than an op-ed piece btw.

(Incidentally, you are claiming that studies released as recently as two days ago have been debunked. Either you outdo the early bird or else a hearty LOL!!)

 

[.13.]

No, a warmer climate does not mean more extreme weather, but in fact, less extreme weather (a fact borne from basic meteorology and physics).

It is my understanding that the most extreme weather is caused by temperature differences between colliding air masses.

If the climate warms evenly is there no change in extreme weather?
If warmer areas warm more than cooler areas is there more extreme weather?
If cooler areas warm more than warmer areas is there less extreme weather?

More information on basic meteorology and physics please (regarding warming and extreme weather ofcourse).

 

[.13.]

I think for a lot of people it comes down to "Will this affect me personally?" And since it IS affecting me personally, I'm inclined to go with the evidence showing the earth is warming up. (Such as oceanic temperature being higher.)

In my opinion that is not a good reason to "go with the evidence". You don't find the evidence convincing enough on its own merits?

I live in the middle of a dying forest. Although some have told me this is "anecdotal evidence" the fact is the trees are a lot older than I am and they have been here a lot longer than I have. And the trees think that this used to be a good place to grow, but now it isn't. They no longer recieve sufficient water to live, which means that the climate in my part of the world has changed.

Just to be thorough: Have you checked from your local weather history how the average rain/year has changed over time?

 

[strathmeyer]

Here is a summary of what the experts have to say focusing on studies that have been published in the past 5 years.

Well, nobody's debating that the average tempearture of the earth might be changing. It may be warmer today that it was yesterday, that doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. How come you can't post a single link that proves that humans are causing measureable climate change? Why do these arguments have to go on and on for pages with nobody learning anything?

 

[This Guy]

It is my understanding that the most extreme weather is caused by temperature differences between colliding air masses.

If the climate warms evenly is there no change in extreme weather?
If warmer areas warm more than cooler areas is there more extreme weather?
If cooler areas warm more than warmer areas is there less extreme weather?

More information on basic meteorology and physics please (regarding warming and extreme weather of course).

While some disagree with the causes involved, and disagree that there is even a trend, there are those that say the warmer ocean temps are having an effect on hurricanes

Link of interest -

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0316_060316_hurricanes.html

(add the h t t p //)

If you go to the archives of NG, and look at what was being said a year or so ago, there were predictions of a harsher season last year also.

Again, some disagree with the studies involved, and the findings produced.

I don't know. I use a weather rock. It sits outside my door. If it's wet, I know it's raining. If it's cold I know the temp is low. If it's hot, the temp is high. That's all I know about weather ;-)

The below link is the Environment News section for National Geographic. At the bottom you can select a page for more headlines. One of their sections went up to like 70 or so. Had articles from 2003 or earlier as I recall. Not sure how far back the environment section goes.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/environment.html

If you browse through though, you'll find article after article talking about the effect the warmer temps are having. From animals to weather, things are happening. How many are actually due to global warming? I couldn't say. But some folks that seem to know what they are talking about think it has something to do with it.

 

[Bikewer]

I listen to Science Friday (NPR weekly program) religiously, and over the last year or so they have had several round-table discussions on the global warming phenomenon, featuring working scientists in the various involved fields. All of the participants in several different of these discussions were firmly of the opinion that global warming was a reality, and that the conclusion that human activity is strongly involved is inescapable.

Why would this be so controversial? Because the economies of most of the industrialized nations of the world are, at present, strongly tied to the consumption of fossil fuels, and the attendant profusion of carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) in the atmosphere.
There is a general feeling amongst world leaders that efforts to "do something" would ruin economies and topple governments. Of course, inundated coastal cities (within the next century) may well have a similar effect...

I listened to an Aussie climatologist on "Fresh Air" last week (The Weather Makers) who apparently started out as a skeptic but has been convinced by the data. His opinion is (and shared by others) that large-scale investment in alternative energy technologies would be benificial to the world economies.
One could cynically note that they might not be good for the world's petroleum industry, and further note the strong involvement of said industries with world governments in general...

 

[Diamond]

Perhaps you will cite evidence of this mythical debunking of the recent studies from NASA, Scripps, Woods Hole, Harvard, Stanford, Livermore Labs, etc, etc.

I'm hoping for something better than an op-ed piece btw.

(Incidentally, you are claiming that studies released as recently as two days ago have been debunked. Either you outdo the early bird or else a hearty LOL!!)

Published studies do not mean that they are true, unfortunately. As Steve McIntyre discovered, many many studies cannot be replicated, and the ones that he has investigated are riven with mathematical problems which invalidates their conclusions.

I'm afraid that your belief engine is over-revving on this. Some of the studies you quote have already been shown to be faulty, and some of the more recent ones reproduce the same flawed statistical methodology that infested "the Hockey Stick".

Which reminds me, are you going to retract your remark about Steve McIntyre being involved in the fossil fuel industry (which appears to be the favoured conspiracy theory amongst envirnonmentalists) when I pointed out that he wasn't? Or will you run away again?