Global Warming/Climate Change

[angelatc]

Global warming isn't the real issue.

foul air is, the asthma epidemic is.

.

Our air is much cleaner now than it was in the 60's and 70's, and yet respitory diseases are spiraling upward.

 

[BenIsForRon]

but that's not what you originally posted and it's an important distinction.

yeah, I know it's an important distinction, and I meant the same things in both posts, that the warming is being significantly accelerated by humans. This has been the consensus by most scientists for a long time.

This accelerated warming is wiping out ecosystems and displacing populations all over the world, that's why I'm passionate about it, even though Ron doesn't usually like talking about the environment because it's a difficult issue for a lot of libertarians.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

Global warming isn't the real issue.

foul air is, the asthma epidemic is.

Cars, power generation, it's all to blame, and something has to be done about it. Lawsuits are our best option.. and if that doesn't work, direct action.

Hey! We agree on something!

Global Warming and pollution are two different issues. The eco-communist Global Warming argument revolves totally around CO2. We need CO2 in the atmosphere. We can inhale CO2 without damaging ourselves as long as we get oxygen too. Plants need CO2.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

 

[Capitalism]

Knock down government buildings and plant trees in their place.

 

[Broadlighter]

You wouldn't want a heart specialist to deliver a baby, now, would you?

Need any evidence of highly qualified and credible scientists who challenge the Al Gore global warming orthodoxy. Check this out:

Global Warming Deniers

Look at the links and read some of the articles they jump to.

To say that the debate among scientists is settled on this matter is about as disengenuous as it gets. I used to work for a university with a pretty strong science emphasis and believe me, getting all scientists to agree on anything of the magnitude of Al Gore's Global Warming 'consensus' is like trying to lead a herd of cats. Go figure.

And to argue that scientists from many disciplines agree on Global Warming doesn't make the argument more credible. I'll trust what MIT's leading meteorologist and Alabama U's leading hurricane scientist say before Al Gore or any botanist for that matter. The other earth scientists who don't specialize in meteorology are not adequately qualified to tell us about global warming. They may be able to tell us of its effects as it relates to their field, but not on the big picture.

 

[lucius]

The best thing we can do to "fight global warming" is to stop giving it creedence. It's a bunch of socialist, globalist bullcrap designed to scare people into believing limiting their freedom will "save the planet".

Eliminate the silliness surrounding "pollution controls", jobs increase because government gets out of business' business.

If someone is truly polluting, treat it as a property crime issue.

Well put!

 

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Our air is much cleaner now than it was in the 60's and 70's, and yet respitory diseases are spiraling upward.

Yes, this one is easy.

Our lifestyles have changed dramatically. I'm certainly not arguing for less air conditioning, as I sit here in Charlotte, with a predicted high of 103 today, but don't you think the fact that everywhere is air conditioned has something to do with the increase in respiratory diseases? Clean air can magnify the problems of bad air.

I'm also sure the changes in our diets have something to do with it as well. If you eat a diet consisting mainly of processed foods, I think it may affect your health.

I'm pretty sure our constant rushing around contributes as well.

And, as I believe the way you feel is a reflection of what you hear, the nonsense weather reports on the local news cause people to panic over a few days of ridiculous heat.

 

[MJ777]

As for what Ron would do, he would get to the root of the problem and not penalize the people. He would cut environmentally harmful GOVERNMENT spending, and enforce property rights to make sure that you cannot pollute your neighbors air or land or water. That is much more effective than a carbon tax or other wonderful plans that will not only not do anything, but will simply line the pockets of the central bankers while the "problem" does not improve.

While I do think that man has had a negative effect on the planet, I also understand that some climate change is part of the natural processes. We may not be 100% in agreement on how much man is responsible, but we are in agreement on the solutions!! I agree Kyoto is BS, I don't think gov't will solve the problem, and I think all this carbon tax crap is a big scheme. We can't even find out where our tax money goes (or weapons in Iraq); who is going to keep track of where the extra money the power plants charge US for this "carbon tax" is going? Just because I have looked at this issue and decided it to be real and important personally, doesn't mean I buy the SOLUTIONS being offered by Gore et al.

 

[MJ777]

I guess my point is, there are alot of people out there concerned about the environment for various reasons. Telling them they're just wrong does our cause no good. We still have evolution deniers and people who believe the earth is the center of the universe. I am not here to sway opinion. I think it's important that we point out how much better R.P.'s freedom from gov't stand would be for the environment than more big gov't treaties, regulations, taxes, etc. Otherwise they just gravitate to the Dems and we know how bad that can be!

 

[fj45lvr]

more warmth and higher CO2 is a great thing for the planet and leads to lush and expansive plant life!!

I go camping all the time in valleys that were created by glaciers but they melted...it really makes me panic.

Just FOLLOW THE MONEY......the GW movement is all about the money....I especially find it funny when some criticize science people for being "skeptical" as if they are ALL corporate stooges when the majority of "funding" is by far on the other "side" of the hysteria.....when you REALLY get down to the nuts and bolts all this really is being ramped up for is a MASSIVE NEW TAX SCHEME (FOLLOW THE MONEY).

 

[angelatc]

Apparently the data had a Y2K bug in the alogrithim, and the change is significant.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

This is huge, IMHO.

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

I guess my point is, there are alot of people out there concerned about the environment for various reasons. Telling them they're just wrong does our cause no good.

You know what? Everyone is concerned about the environment. I don't think you can find a single soul who wants to swim in a polluted lake or breathe dirty air. Pollution has nothing to do with the Global Warming debate, but the MSM accuses sceptics of wanting to destroy the earth.

You don't believe that human activity causes global warming therefore you want to pollute the earth = You don't agree with the Bush plan to combat terrorism therefore you hate America.

 

[sorianofan]

GW is on defensive after recent scientific findings

Myth: Surface temperature records, though corrupted by urban heat islands, with proper methodology are made to be accurate and thus accurate measurements of global warming. Attempts to debunk global warming by citing faulty weather station placements are...faulty.

Realclimate.org

[Update 1/9/07: NOAA coincidentally has announced today that 2006 was officially the warmest year on record for the U.S.]

There is nothing wrong with increasing the meta-data for observing stations (unless it leads to harassment of volunteers). However, in the new found enthusiasm for digital photography, many of the participants in this effort seem to have leaped to some very dubious conclusions that appear to be rooted in fundamental misunderstandings of the state of the science....However, the actual claim of IPCC is that the effects of urban heat islands effects are likely small in the gridded temperature products (such as produced by GISS and Climate Research Unit (CRU)) because of efforts to correct for those biases. For instance, GISTEMP uses satellite-derived night light observations to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data. Other techniques (such as correcting for population growth) have also been used....As discussed above, each of the groups making gridded products goes to a lot of trouble to eliminate problems (such as UHI) or jumps in the records, so the global means you see are not simple means of all data (this NCDC page explains some of the issues in their analysis).

Fact: Those annoying guys with their digital cameras forced GISS to recompile their surface date records, resulting is a vastly smaller degree of warming than previously measured.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

Remember, the United States has the best stations on Earth (or up there). The accuracy of land based temperatures is highly suspect. Just recently, the whole country of China's had their measurements called into question:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/urban-heat-islands-fabricated-papers.html

Two papers,

Wang et al., Urban heat islands in China (GRL 1990)
Jones et al., Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (Nature 1990)

seem to be based on fabricated data such as data from China that were claimed to come from the same stations even though the location of most stations was changing many times by as much as dozens of miles (which is, of course, a huge problem for any analysis of the urbanization effects).

The paper by Jones et al. (1990) is important because it is used by IPCC AR4 to resolve an apparent contradiction: the paper argues that the urbanization effects are 10 times smaller than needed to explain the observed 20th century warming trend. Douglas Keenan has used some observations of Steve McIntyre (climateaudit.org) and himself and filed a formal complaint of research fraud regarding this work:

Myth: Aerosols are covering up the true degree of global warming, and they created the cooling between the 40s and 70s.

Realclimate.org

aerosols provide the dominant negative (cooling) forcings. Hence, the aerosol currently in our atmosphere is acting to mask some of the greenhouse gas-induced warming.

Fact: Aerosols cause increased, not decreased warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291906,00.html

A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures — precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Man_Made_Soot_Contributed_To_Warming
_In_Greenland_In_The_Early_20th_Century_999.html

New research shows that industrial development in North America between 1850 and 1950 greatly increased the amount of black carbon--commonly known as soot-- that fell on Greenland's glaciers and ice sheets. The soot impacted the ability of the snow and ice to reflect sunlight, which contributed to increased melting and higher temperatures in the region during those years.

Myth: Sun spot intensity does not positively correlate with temperature change in recent history.

Realclimate.org

We have already discussed the connection between solar activity (here , here, here, and here), and this new analysis does not alter our previous conclusions: that there is not much evidence pointing to the sun being responsible for the warming since the 1950s.[/equote]

Fact: Even a recent pro global warming paper concedes that net solar intensity strongly correlates with temperature in the last 50 years.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526164.800?DCMP=
NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19526164.800

Tung and colleague Charles Camp, both of the University of Washington in Seattle, analysed satellite data on solar radiation and surface temperatures over the past 50 years, covering four-and-a-half solar cycles. They found that global average temperatures oscillated by almost 0.2 °C between high and low points in the cycle, nearly twice the amplitude of previous estimates (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2007GL030207).

Myth: The lack of ocean warming does not matter.

Realclimate.org

Now it seems as if there is a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling [in ocean data] has disappeared....Ocean heat content changes are potentially a great way to evaluate climate model results that suggest that the planet is currently significantly out of equilibrium (i.e. it is absorbing more energy than it is emitting). However, the ocean is a very big place and the historical measurement networks are plagued with sampling issues in space and time.

Fact: Before the results came out that the ocean was not warming, scientists were touting that the ocean can very well be the best mode of measurement.

Realclimate.org

The advantage of the ocean heat content changes for detecting climate changes is that there is less noise than in the surface temperature record due to the weather that affects the atmospheric measurements, but that has much less impact below the ocean mixed layer....When this is done, will it really provide the 'final proof' of man-made global warming? As I indicated above, the preliminary work by Levitus, Barnett, Hansen and others has already demonstrated that this is a good approach. Thus it is more a question of refining the details, rather than suddenly 'proving' global warming. If the latest round of models compare better to the data than they did before (as claimed at the AAAS), and if the result is robust to some of the remaining uncertainties (in aerosol forcing, ocean model components etc.), then it will certainly add to the 'balance of evidence' that man-made global warming is already here.

Myth: The models are remarkably accurate.

RealClimate.org

My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model's consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get.

Fact: They got cloud cover all wrong, meaning that warming does not increase positive feedback mechanisms, but actually the opposite.
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=875

The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

Now we know the following just now: Surface records are positively biased and need to be improved globally, aerosols are actually increasing warming*, the sun is actually strongly correlated to recent warming (we already knew it was correlated to past warming), the oceans is not warming (and most of the world is the ocean and there are no UHIs in it), and that the models' readings of feedback mechanisms was totally wrong (so we need not fear disastrous predictions about the future). Take this into account with the ice core record shows no CO2 cause and effect correlation, and I ask you, where's the beef? Where's the evidence on global warming? Why aren't these climate scientists being called out for being wrong so often?

*This is a very complicated topic, because I personally do not think the climate is settled. It appears that soot in aerosols may descend and settle on ice in the himalayas or greenland, and this causes localized melting of the ice (which is often used as an incorrect measure for proof of GW.) I have actually visited and walked on glaciers before, and depending on where you are, they can be quite dirty, often covered with the sediment of the mountains they carve through, so it is all very complicated. The net effect of aerosols on temperature globally is probably negative in my honest opinion. Recent research (Mischenko et al., 2007) shows a decrease in net aerosols globally since the 70s, and during this time we have experienced a net warming. The correlation between this and warming is much stronger than CO2.

Aerosols go down, temperatures go up.

Net aerosols

Global Temperature (UAH)


To me, it definitely appears that net sunlight and sun intensity are the true components regulating global temperature, though we cannot discount the effects of cosmic rays, localized aerosols, and urban heat islands...but none of this makes for an interesting news story before a heat wave or Al Gore Presidential run.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Apparently the data had a Y2K bug in the alogrithim, and the change is significant.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.

This is huge, IMHO.

Oh come on, I'm so disappointed. Certainly you could have come up with some kind of conspiracy theory twist to make it more entertaining!

 

[MJ777]

You know what? Everyone is concerned about the environment. I don't think you can find a single soul who wants to swim in a polluted lake or breathe dirty air. Pollution has nothing to do with the Global Warming debate, but the MSM accuses sceptics of wanting to destroy the earth.

You don't believe that human activity causes global warming therefore you want to pollute the earth = You don't agree with the Bush plan to combat terrorism therefore you hate America.

I'm not someone who believes in such absolutes when dealing with complex issues. I don't have a political agenda for my thoughts on this. I have tried to listen carefully to both sides for quite sometime. I watch alot of Science and Discovery channel, so I have an understanding of the natural processes. I'm no scientist, but IMHO, I have to say I've been somewhat swayed to the idea that we are contributing and possibly making things happen faster than they might otherwise. And whatever the cause, we are going through a period of climate change and we need to start making plans for what we are going to do when coastlines start disappearing and neighborhoods are swallowed by the sea. This is already happening in places around the globe.

Many of the same chemicals & processes, mostly (but not all) related to our current methods of energy production, are both sources of "alleged" warming and of pollution. If the "global warmers" turn out to be wrong, at the very least we've done alot to clean up the environment and spur the global economy with new technologies. Instead of mining coal & working on oil rigs, etc... workers will be employed in safer, non-toxic environments producing a wide range of eco-friendly fuels and everyday products. If they turn out to be right, we'll be glad we got started before waiting for 100% concensus. That is my hope.

 

[MBA2008]

It seemed like there was some discussion over what there was consensus on and what there isn't.

Every article, every study, and every bit of research I've read has shown the following:

1) There is little disagreement that warming, to some extent, is happening.

2) There is significant disagreement as to the extent of warming, and to what extent it will continue.

3) There is significant disagreement about the causes of warming.

4) There is significant disagreement about the impact of warming.

These disagreements are not beetween scientists and lay people. They are between scientists and scientists, meteorologists and meteorologists, climatologists and climatologists.

The sooner we stop fearmongering, name-calling, and refusing to listen to others and start pursuing the truth, the sooner we will unravel the global warming knot.

I immediately ignore anyone who says that they know for certain what the causes and impact of GW are. I also regard as highly suspect those who make unqualified predictions about the future.

"Surround yourself with those who seek the truth. Avoid those who've found it."

 

[Broadlighter]

You encapsulated the gist of my earlier post

Well put.

I used to work at a university that had a significant scientific emphasis.

One of the things I learned was that trying to get scientists to agree on anything as far-reaching as Global Warming is like trying to lead a herd of cats.

Al Gore said two things that caused my BS meter to peg out at 11:

1. The debate is over. There is a concensus among scientists that Global Warming is man-made and we need to do something about it.

2. It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. (Funny, isn't that what George W. Bush said about keeping our troops in Iraq?).

 

[Hook]

Well, in about 30-40 years oil will have run out to the point where it is so expensive that people will go to other means of energy production. You won't have to do anything about it then.
People aren't going to go move into caves to prevent some hypothetical problem, so any kind of solution involving using force is going to fail anyway.
Just remember that all the CO2 that is being put into the atmosphere was all originally in the air during the reign of the dinosours. The plants and animals absorbed the carbon and then sequestered it when they were buried. I myself wouldn't mind living in the lush vegitation that was around and required to feed all the dinosours. Plants love CO2, so therefore I do too

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Well, in about 30-40 years oil will have run out to the point where it is so expensive that people will go to other means of energy production. You won't have to do anything about it then.
People aren't going to go move into caves to prevent some hypothetical problem, so any kind of solution involving using force is going to fail anyway.
Just remember that all the CO2 that is being put into the atmosphere was all originally in the air during the reign of the dinosours. The plants and animals absorbed the carbon and then sequestered it when they were buried. I myself wouldn't mind living in the lush vegitation that was around and required to feed all the dinosours. Plants love CO2, so therefore I do too

another scare monger policy of the elite make it seem limiited get more money and something else to scare people with. Almost every country in the world where they drill for oil they get. Russia is now out producing Saudi,
millions of barrels per day. only countries producing over 2 million a day 2004 report
. Saudi Arabia 10.37
2. Russia 9.27
3. United States 8.69
4. Iran 4.09
5. Mexico 3.83
6. China 3.62
7. Norway 3.18
8. Canada 3.14
9. Venezuela 2.86
10. United Arab Emirates 2.76
11. Kuwait 2.51
12. Nigeria 2.51
13. United Kingdom 2.08
14. Iraq 2.03
shale oil in the west has more oil than the whole world, Alaska has untaped huge reserves same with Gulf of Mexico, off shore of Vietnam are also more and the list can go on. Wow the sky is falling. True it's a pollutant but with new tech it is pretty clean and will last till something comes up.

.

 

[BenIsForRon]

^ you couldn't be more wrong. By most accounts we are at peak oil right now. Alaska only has about a years worth of oil in ANWR, and its production will peak at about 900,000 barrels of oil a day, hardly putting a dent in our consumption. Shale oil is a joke, its not the same as conventional oil. You have to spend almost as much energy to extract the oil as you actually get from the oil, so it's hardly economical.

It seems very few people on this forum understand the severity of the energy crisis we are about to enter. FOR EVERY CALORIE OF FOOD YOU EAT, IT TAKES TEN CALORIES OF OIL TO GET THAT FOOD TO YOUR PLATE! This shit is serious, and there is no easy solution the problem. The global economy is completely based on constantly increasing oil production. If we don't change how we live and do business, mainly by lowering consumption, we will enter the darkest time in human history.