NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=5&u=/041230/photos_sc_afp/041230170832_kpvloan4_photo0

I think there's a lot more to Global Warming that people understand.

It's too much of a first for me to really consider it all that much, if such a situation repeats itself for a few more years, then I'll be mildly stunned.

Take that, environmentalism.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=5&u=/041230/photos_sc_afp/041230170832_kpvloan4_photo0

I think there's a lot more to Global Warming that people understand.
:headbang: I really dislike it when people take the term Global Warming literally. The science has been proven; Global Warming exists. Deal with it.

They must have stolen Wisconsin's cold. It's OVER FOURTY DEGREES F here right now. At the end of December. It isn't supposed to be that warm here in winter. Actually, we should be getting into the COLDEST time of year. Of course, it(both the situation in the link given, and the situation here) could be an anamoly, like getting lots of rain in a desert, or getting snow in Flordia.

It's going to be 60 degrees farenheit here in New Jersey today.

It's going to be 60 degrees farenheit here in New Jersey today.


I can assure you when this BRUTAL cold spell we are having here in alberta floats alogn the jet stream and hits the NE you will not be thinking "gee global warming!!"

Global warming does make some places colder. E.g. It would make Britain colder because it would divert the Gulf Stream, which it a warm air current that goes towards Britain.

It snowed here in New Mexico in November. And it's 40 degrees right now, so I have no idea what the hell is going on.

where all gonna die arghhh

Day After Tommrow if it snows in the UAE or somewhere else we might get a gigantic vortex over the UK freezing me to death and the rest of europe you americas should forget about the northern states run to mexico there chlli should warm everyone up :p

They must have stolen Wisconsin's cold. It's OVER FOURTY DEGREES F here right now. At the end of December. It isn't supposed to be that warm here in winter. Actually, we should be getting into the COLDEST time of year. Of course, it(both the situation in the link given, and the situation here) could be an anamoly, like getting lots of rain in a desert, or getting snow in Flordia.

Seriously. It's been a ridiculously mild winter in Chicago, and it snows in the friggin' United Arab Emirates?

Seriously. It's been a ridiculously mild winter in Chicago, and it snows in the friggin' United Arab Emirates?

You are not kidding man. Here on the east coast, it's 15, 20 even 25(!!!) degrees above normal! And now snow in the UAE!!! WTF! It's like God got high and flipped all the temperatures! Today, it is 66 degrees outside. Thats jeans and tee-shirt weather on Dec. 31. Either God found some quality stuff, or we're seeing the vanguard of a Global warming issue.

Global warming is junk science that is only belieed by the lunatic fringe left environmentalists.

:headbang: I really dislike it when people take the term Global Warming literally. The science has been proven; Global Warming exists. Deal with it.
That's why I prefer the use of climate change--it's more accurate and it takes away the ridiculous "if there's really global warming, then why is it snowing in blah blah blah" argument.

You guys are all idiots. Global warming is not going to make it stop snowing anywhere or make it hot in the winter. It is a process that takes a long time to cycle. The point of most scientists is that we need to start now to stop it from damaging anything if it is going to happen in a major way. The planet goes through trends through the periods of time. Sometimes it takes 100,000 years, sometimes only thousands. :headbang:

Global warming is junk science that is only belieed by the lunatic fringe left environmentalists.
Are you a scientist? Did you spend year after year obtaining doctorates in this field? Did you then spend years researching this? If so, then maybe you can make that claim. Until you do, I'd suggest you listen to the scientists.
That's why I prefer the use of climate change--it's more accurate and it takes away the ridiculous "if there's really global warming, then why is it snowing in blah blah blah" argument.
Makes sense. Clearly something is screwing up with our weather, if all of these weird weather occurances are occurring.

Well, I think the weather is now a bit warmer than usually. For an example, the temperature up here in Finland is right now about -5 degrees Celsius. Usually in New Year's eve it has been -30 degrees. Think about that.

It's not only global warming. It has to do with the earthquake as well.

With the sudden move and high waves outwards causing strong winds, the clouds are being redirected, as well as the usual hot air and cold air flow are disrupted.

Global warming is a slow process as well.

yea, if global warming continues at this rate, in a million years the temprature will rise 10 degrees :eek:

heh, dont people realize that the earth moves in a cycles of warmth and ice age, right now where moving away from a ice age, eventually the heat will reach its peak then it will start getting colder, slow process though

*sigh*
Global warming would make the worlds average temperature rise when viewed over a few years. Do realise that in the meantime some places may temporarily get colder due to changes in the gulfstream (as mentioned), an increase of rainfall, etc. As well as that the bulk of the earth is water - which heats up slowly compared to land.
And that an average increase of 5 degrees is quite enough to destroy a lot of our ecosystem.

*sigh*
Global warming would make the worlds average temperature rise when viewed over a few years. Do realise that in the meantime some places may temporarily get colder due to changes in the gulfstream (as mentioned), an increase of rainfall, etc. As well as that the bulk of the earth is water - which heats up slowly compared to land.
And that an average increase of 5 degrees is quite enough to destroy a lot of our ecosystem.
That's what the naysayers fail to realize--that a slight change globally can and will have devastating effects locally.

Global warming was the term used before scientists undertood what it would do. Its now been shown that after a warming period, there is a much cooler period.

Global warming is junk science that is only belieed by the lunatic fringe left environmentalists.
Then quote me, with a link, one scientist with a PhD in this subject who denies the world is under going climate change. You don't even need a PhD to realise it from looking at the data. The ostrich does not survive longer through burying its head in the sand.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=5&u=/041230/photos_sc_afp/041230170832_kpvloan4_photo0

I think there's a lot more to Global Warming that people understand.
You have to remember that "Global Warming" has nothing to do with the impending Ice Age. ;-)

New science update:

Global Warming exists and has been proven to have caused the last Ice Age, which wiped out the remaining dinosaurs on the planet, giving rise to the mammals.
Excess flatulence on behalf of the dinosaurs created a major greenhouse effect which warmed all the ice on the planet to melting temperature and raised the ocean levels 8 feet, at which time the dinosaurs died of asphyxiation. The temperature then dropped radically causing what one survey called "a Really cold autumn in Alaska."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=5&u=/041230/photos_sc_afp/041230170832_kpvloan4_photo0

I think there's a lot more to Global Warming that people understand.

The problem as I see it is they just didn't pick a good name/term for it. Global warming wasn't exactly accurate. It should of been called "Extreme climate change" but it's just not as catchy.

The problem as I see it is they just didn't pick a good name/term for it. Global warming wasn't exactly accurate. It should of been called "Extreme climate change" but it's just not as catchy.
Funny thing is that the people who try to discredit global warming science actually have worked toward changing the discourse toward "climate change" because they felt it wasn't as scary as "global warming." This may be the one time that they were actually more accurate in their attempts.

I am sure that when the ice age ended thousands of years ago Global warming occured. Think of all the pollution that must have caused that! (sarcasm) . Anyway, I am old enough to remember the first "earth day" in the 70's and all the talk about Global cooling ( yes, cooling !!!) back then. It was a "fact" that the Earth was getting colder and we would all freeze. You will find it in all the old literature. The blizzard of 78' did not make anything look better either. By the way, now that it is global warming some people can't seem to remember those days. I do. If man can ever equal the destructive power of nature I will give credit where credit is due. But it will not happen.

To the concerns voiced in the first three responses (and one from farther down), I haven't read farther yet because I'm lazy, I say this:

I've been seeing similar climatic oddities for the last few years since I first really heard about Global Warming, and they've all been toward the cooling side, not warming.

The science has been proven; Global Warming exists.

This quote just makes me laugh so hard. That's like saying that the future evolution of humanity is proven science, you can't take a theory, extrapolate it into the future and call it proven just because it fits your understanding of the current state of the system. Humanity's base of knowledge from scientific investigation is large and growing, but we are far from perfect and we cannot predict the future. In other words, the fact that certain gasses have been found to reflect the rays of the sun to keep them on the Earth longer rather than allowing them to escape the atmosphere means that things are likely to change dramatically, but the precise way in which that happens is still almost impossible to guess.

Stephistan (the "other" poster) got my basic message, which is that Global Warming is the wrong name for the predicted climatic changes we have caused. Also, I believe that the Earth as a homeostatic system is a lot stronger than we give it credit for and things will occur to counteract our greenhouse pollutants before things get too far out of hand.

If man can ever equal the destructive power of nature I will give credit where credit is due. But it will not happen.

Nuclear weapons? Heck, any nuclear reactor meltdown.

Massive deforestation of North and South America?

The hunting to extinction of most herd animals in North America? (BTW, that was done by the paleo-Amerinds, not Europeans, with buffalo being the exception.)

I'm sure there are other examples of "human" destructiveness that could equal nature.


And yes, "climate change" is a better term.

The fact that in the 70's everyone "knew" about global cooling, and now we know better just shows that science and the popular media don't really work well together.

Climate change needs to be studied, and studied carefully. Humans are affecting the environment, from the primitive tribes scattered around the world to the most high-tech of high-tech cities in the world, humanity is affecting the world around it. The effects of this on climate should be studied. And, where necessary, corrected for.

Nuclear weapons? Heck, any nuclear reactor meltdown.

Massive deforestation of North and South America?

The hunting to extinction of most herd animals in North America? (BTW, that was done by the paleo-Amerinds, not Europeans, with buffalo being the exception.)

I'm sure there are other examples of "human" destructiveness that could equal nature.


And yes, "climate change" is a better term.

The fact that in the 70's everyone "knew" about global cooling, and now we know better just shows that science and the popular media don't really work well together.

Climate change needs to be studied, and studied carefully. Humans are affecting the environment, from the primitive tribes scattered around the world to the most high-tech of high-tech cities in the world, humanity is affecting the world around it. The effects of this on climate should be studied. And, where necessary, corrected for.

The Earthquake that caused the recent tsunami released the same energy as a million atomic bombs, we're still a ways behind.

The fact that "proven facts" change as understanding changes does mean that we should not take things entirely at face value just because supposed experts say so. I don't think I need to go over the list of things that experts insisted were a certain way which we now believe to be another way.

To your last paragraph I agree entirely.

Global warming? Climate change? I too remember the global cooling craze.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm

Are you a scientist? Did you spend year after year obtaining doctorates in this field? Did you then spend years researching this? If so, then maybe you can make that claim. Until you do, I'd suggest you listen to the scientists.

Makes sense. Clearly something is screwing up with our weather, if all of these weird weather occurances are occurring.

The scientists don't support the idea of global warming. Pundits do. POliticians do. Scientists don't. Check into it.

Look, something is happening, alright. For all we know, our last hundred years of relative stability could have been a fluke, or a pause between the cycles of crazier weather. We just can't say. For now, I'll stick by what the scientists performing the research are saying, because I haven't been the one doing said research.

:headbang: I really dislike it when people take the term Global Warming literally. The science has been proven; Global Warming exists. Deal with it.

Just call it Climate Change, and you'll reduce the media / public misinterpetation.

Look, something is happening, alright. For all we know, our last hundred years of relative stability could have been a fluke, or a pause between the cycles of crazier weather. We just can't say. For now, I'll stick by what the scientists performing the research are saying, because I haven't been the one doing said research.

Not ALL of the scientists support the global warming/man-made climate change theory. The majority do not. The ones that do are the ones whose research is being funded by environmentalist groups who push the theory. Does it seem logical that they would say there is no global warming?
No global warming = no funding = no job. duh

Not ALL of the scientists support the global warming/man-made climate change theory. The majority do not. The ones that do are the ones whose research is being funded by environmentalist groups who push the theory. Does it seem logical that they would say there is no global warming?
No global warming = no funding = no job. duh
Prove it. I've yet to see a single shred of proof to these claims.

The scientists don't support the idea of global warming. Pundits do. POliticians do. Scientists don't. Check into it.
nearly all scientists support the idea of global warming
it definately exists, not one sane scientist (and very few mad ones) doubts that
the question is whether if it poses any threat to the world; that is yet unknown

i will agree that pundits do as well
but politicians, especially the rightwingers absolutely hate it, for its bad for business

Prove it. I've yet to see a single shred of proof to these claims.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

www.globalwarming.org is an excellent site for filtering out the myths and realities of Global Warming. I love how they attack bad science and boil crap down to the basic realities.

The basic realities are this:

Human beings are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
THere is no way of knowing yet with any certainty how this will affect global climate.
The average global temperature has increased about 1 degree since 1880. There is no way of knowing if this is significant or if this trend will continue.

That's about it. Everything else is guesswork.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

www.globalwarming.org is an excellent site for filtering out the myths and realities of Global Warming. I love how they attack bad science and boil crap down to the basic realities.

The basic realities are this:

Human beings are contributing to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
THere is no way of knowing yet with any certainty how this will affect global climate.
The average global temperature has increased about 1 degree since 1880. There is no way of knowing if this is significant or if this trend will continue.

That's about it. Everything else is guesswork.
Thank you; I concede to you the victory of this debate. After all, unlike most people here, I recognize when I've lost.

Prove it. I've yet to see a single shred of proof to these claims.

Google global warming and check out the funding on the organizations that support the theory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/wglob14.xml

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=57

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2004/dec_15_04.htm

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200409%5CNAT20040915c.html

There seems to be a tiny increase in average temperatures since the 1940s. This same minor warming trend was noted in the late 1800s also. Maybe buffalo farts caused that one.

Thank you; I concede to you the victory of this debate. After all, unlike most people here, I recognize when I've lost.

I concede that earth's global climate is changing. I also concede that the actions of human beings has had an effect and will continue to.

I just don't think we know enough to even guess HOW we're changing the environment, nevermind whether it's a bad thing or not.

I'm more alarmed by our lack of environmental knowledge than with global warming.

:headbang: I really dislike it when people take the term Global Warming literally. The science has been proven; Global Warming exists. Deal with it.
The science has been proven... By who I may ask? Global Warming is a THEORY! The world is flat was also a THEORY! Unproven, just a theory.

Not ALL of the scientists support the global warming/man-made climate change theory. The majority do not. The ones that do are the ones whose research is being funded by environmentalist groups who push the theory. Does it seem logical that they would say there is no global warming?
No global warming = no funding = no job. duh

First, IRL I'm a water quality engineer, but my Masters Degree was in Drought Physics. In particular, I used a global climate model to simulate atomspheric water content in the Western United States via a Monte Carlo process (meaning I ran a "metric ST" worth of simulations based on a La Nina atomspheric pattern in the Pacific, and then developed a simple two-stage linear programming model to optimize the basic reservoir storage rules for one of the San Francisco Bay-Area's largest water suppliers (EBMUD). This was just an academic exercise and thesis project ... but it did give me an opportunity as an engineer to work with oceanic data, under the guidance of atmospheric science faculty and then to take NOAA's NCAR data and put it into the climate model and then turn around and work with engineering faculty and public sector engineers. I think I have a pretty good understanding of climate modeling, at least for a dude who doesn't work at Scripps or for NOAA. ;)

That said, be careful in how you say things!

What most scientists think about "climate change" isn't that it is or is not possible, but that they'd like to collect more data to confirm if anthropogenic sources are contributing to the variable in the Earth's climate.

"Not ALL of the scientists support the global warming/man-made climate change theory. The majority do not."

Having talked with most of the top names in climate change in the Western United States at conferences, including the annual American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco, I can tell you first hand that this "majority" will tell you off the record when asked, "Is the human race impacting the Earth's climate?", that their response will almost universally be, "How can it not!"

But when they are later publishing papers on the subject, they are a bit more conservative than that.

First, let's look at what the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to say about climate change:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

The billion dollar question literally is:


Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend.

Which brings to asking, "How can we really find out then?"

An once again, NOAA has the text book answer:


What about the future?

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.

I'll translate: we use models to recreate historical conditions. If they work, we then start using the models to ask what if questions. The assumption here is that we've managed to correctly capture the physics of the Earth in our models, and thus as we change various parameters we can see how the planet behaves. This is incredibly easy ... it only takes a few years of a grad students life. ;)

The atmospheric cycle we tend to know the most about is of course carbon, in particular the impacts of carbon dioxide. These computer models will often do what we call a "carbon doubling" scenario, and that is where you often hear the gloom and doom stories about global warming and temperature increase.

Now the models are coupled to other models, and we also begin to look at changes in precipitation and sea level rise (things that tie into my current work, as my job is to provide technical support for California's water supply -- I'm one of many engineers doing this).

So while you aren't going to see too many scientists or engineers immediately dismissing natural variability, I think that you will actually find many who are convinced that humans have a significant impact on the Earth's atmosphere and energy balance.

Here is just one of many papers that actually attempts to account the anthropegenic sources of carbon (human contribution):

http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html

Jump down to their summary (this is how engineers tend to read things, we jump to the last page and work backwards). ;)

In summary, the atmospheric concentrations of the principal anthropogenic greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC-11, and CFC-12) have increased significantly during the industrial period.

Basically they are saying the concentration of gases we know humans release into the atmosphere have increased.

Global mean temperatures have increased between 0.3 and 0.6° C during the last 150 years. This change has not been monotonic, but it is unusual in the context of the last few centuries.

All in all, I'd characterize this paper as being cautious and complete. But it does not sound like this group of scientists is dismissing the idea of global warming. If anything they are saying, "Gee, let's study this some more!"

www.globalwarming.org is an excellent site for filtering out the myths and realities of Global Warming. I love how they attack bad science and boil crap down to the basic realities.

http://www.globalwarming.org/about.htm

"This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition."

and the national consumer coalition appears to be composed of a bunch of "free" marketeer groups.
http://www.consumeralert.org/ncc/members.htm

i think i'll go with what the peer-reviewed journals say on this one.

It's nice to know Global Warming will keep your foot warm. I was at first skepticle about global warming since I'm an old booster of a coming ice age. Strangely enough this can actualy happen with global warming.

It all has to do with shifting ocean currents and salinity levels.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_keigwin.html


You know acording to the ice record derived from core drilling we are due for another ice age. Dress warm kiddies.

Google global warming and check out the funding on the organizations that support the theory.

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=release&ID=57



That is an interesting editorial, but despite the articles claims, it reads more like a blog entry than a peer-reviewed paper:


One example of how the impact of moderate global warming may well be beneficial is that the estimated CO2 growth over the next 100 years is likely to lead to crop yields increasing by between 10% and 30%.

I'm quoting this, because there is no reference to the study. There is no accountability here.

Though even this source includes the following:


Global warming is occurring and it is likely that anthropogenic (man-made) warming is a cause of global warming.


If you would like to read what some scientists whom work for the USGS are currently publishing with respect to climate change, the following link is written by a number of men I've met and whos opinions I happen to trust:

http://www.baydeltaconsortium.org/downloads/pdf/dettinger.pdf

The focus of this organization is to identify the impacts of climate change on the water supply system for California. The Bay-Delta is the key component of both the State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project, which move water from California's water rich north to the south for urban and agriculutural use.

Anyways, Mike has a slide (I'm hoping it is there) where he shows the work of many independent climate forecasting groups. His slide shows an ensemble of these results and points to general increases in temperature. But his first slide is directly talking about human impacts.

Goodie, it is there, slide #2.

The Earthquake that caused the recent tsunami released the same energy as a million atomic bombs, we're still a ways behind.


Fair enough. I concede that point.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

Ummm...did you actually check out the Marshall group? Their chairman wrote papers supporting Reagan's Star Wars program! And he's PROUD of it! He actually put that up as one of his "selected readings"!

I'll say it again, just in case you missed it....

He supported the STAR WARS program! :gundge: