Global Warming

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Okay. How about:

The Earth appears to be warming, and this is possibly due to a combination of natural cycles and human influence

I am the Queen of Waffling.

And I am the Countess of Quibbling

I would say: the Earth appears to be warming, and this may be caused or amplified by human activity.

To me the conclusion is that we seem to be in a hole and the first thing we need to do is stop digging!

But if the hole isn't caused by digging, but natural subsidence...?

[Primula Baggins]

But if it's a hole, and you're sinking in it, and there's something you can do to make it shallower. . . ?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

But if it's a hole, and you're sinking in it, and there's something you can do to make it shallower. . . ?

Quite right! I am hoist by my own 'too clever by half' petard!

[eborr]

Hmm I am in danger of being in violent agrement with GBG and Voronwë, let me clarify the position on Neanderthals, conventional wisdom is the sub-species of Neanderthal seperated from modern man approx 500,000 years ago, and seemed generally to have been able to adapt quite well to the northern area during the glaciation. They were supplanted and by modern man comig from Africa at approximately 30,000 ago. The explanation was that due to global warming modern man came up from Africa and was better adapted to the post-glacial world than the Neanderthals, who couldn't adapt to the changing world. Convention also held that Neanderthals couldn't speak, had very crude tools and didn't make art. Neanderthals and modern man did not cross-bread

This position is incorrect, there is incontrovertable evidence that there was coupling between modern man and Neanderthal as western europeans, and some groups of Asian origin carry Neanderthal genes, Red hair being the most obvious hang over.

There is also the issue of the making of fine stone tools and art, conventional wisdom had said that Aucheulain hand axes and "venus" carvings in Neanderthal deposits were a consequence of "falling though" the earth caused by the activities of small burrowing annimals, but these excuses have proven to be untrue, and it would seem that the Neanderthals should have been given more credit, after all their cranial capacity was greater than ours.

The importance of the re-dating of the jaw bone is really two-fold firstly it points to an extended period of c-ohabitation of western Europe of a period of 15,000 years by modern man and the Neanderthals, secondly it tells us how sensitive we are to climate change.

[Impenitent]

This may not be the optimal thread but I couldn't think of an alternative.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Qmz6Rbpnu0

12-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki speaking at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Not much as changed in 20 years.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

James Lovelock, author of the "Gaia hypothesis", has been one of the most vociferous 'champions' of AGW. For this reason, I think it is interesting to note his recent equivocation on the issue, confessing he has been 'alarmist'. Here he expresses his surprise at the divergence between atmospheric CO2 concentration and recorded global temperature.

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

Is there something wrong with the GW model...?

ETA I did quite enjoy this fluster generator. Those dastardly anomolies!

Previous estimates had suggested the Himalayan mountain range as a whole was contributing about 0.04 millimeters per year to sea-level rise. These numbers now need to be adjusted to account for the anomaly of the Karakoram region, and are probably more like negative 0.006 millimeters per year, the researchers say.

[axordil]

The data have to support the hypothesis. If they don't, you look at the hypothesis. You also generally look at the data, if other data muddy the water. Science does not consist of carving things into large stone tablets.

OTOH, Lovelock is a public polymath, not a climate specialist in any way, and his numbers weren't generally accepted. They were thought alarmist at the time he promulgated them in a lot of AGW camps.

Here's another view on the same story from inside science:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/201 ... easons.ars

[axordil]

http://www.theopennotebook.com/wp-conte ... 00x209.jpg

As an aside, I really want this on a tee shirt.

[Inanna]

I

http://www.theopennotebook.com/wp-conte ... 00x209.jpg

As an aside, I really want this on a tee shirt.

I love it.

[Lalaith]

This is an interesting article (that came out of the one ax linked to awhile ago):

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4 ... /fulltext/

The conclusion? (Although, hal may love all the number stuff!)

This analysis confirms the strong influence of known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including ENSO, volcanic aerosols and to a lesser degree solar variation. It also emphasizes that LT temperature is affected by these factors much more strongly than surface temperature.

Perhaps most important, it enables us to remove an estimate of their influence, thereby isolating the global warming signal. The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades. The close agreement between all five adjusted data sets suggests that it is meaningful to average them in order to produce a composite record of planetary warming. Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal.

Its unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate.

Why am I digging this up? I got into an argument recently about whether global warming was true or not, and I kept saying that we needed to listen to the scientists not the politicians or the political pundits. Anyway, I realized that I hadn't done any research into it in a long time. So here I am, doing some research.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The pattern of glaciation/interglacial/stadial/ and interstadial is fairly consistent, even if it's measured in 10's of thousands of years. You just need to look at the historic data.

For the current batch of climate change proponents, this is just an inconvenient truth, which they would rather ignore.

We live in a world where glaciation/meliting is a constant naturally occuring process, generally governed by forces much more powerful than we can create.

And by the way, I don't don't like unecessary waste, plastic packaging or landfill sites, nor do I much like the way politicians use the excuse of global warming to further other far more insidious agenda's

Yes, but current patterns of both temperature rises and glaciation do not follow those consistent patterns! There is something very anomalous going on, and there is near total consensus amongst climatologists that this is primarily a result of human-facilitated greenhouse gas emissions - CO2, black carbon, and extreme short-lived climate forcers such as HFCs and methane.

These "inconvenient truths" you speak of are not truths. They are simply cherry-picked events in geological time randomly appropriated for use in a fallacious argument.

Politicians are not "using" climate change to advance an agenda. Climate scientists are showing them the evidence, and they are trying to do something about it!

After all, why would American politicians, first and foremost, risk political death by calling for action on climate change?

We have had conservative politicians such as Bob Inglis (R-SC) lose an election to a Tea Partier because of his call to action on climate change, and we have significant numbers of bi-partisan foreign policy leaders (including Reagan's team), and serving and retired military officers, expressing the need to combat, and adapt to, climate change. Here are links to these realities:

http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=560

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... press.html

What are their political motives?

Sorry, but your argument for a conspiracy does not hold up under even cursory scrutiny. Liberals and conservatives alike are aware of anthropogenic climate change.

[Passdagas the Brown]

We are looking at global warming from a perspective of human terms, and as humans that is understandable. Yet if you go back and see the turmoils the earth has been through (and will go through again) then I think we can gain a different perspective.

Barring dropping all of our nukes at the core of the earth, I really don't believe there is much we can do that will affect the long term natural progression of the planet. Some day in the distant future, there will probably be one super continent. And someday perhaps there will be massive volcanic eruptions and earthquakes and ice ages.

The earth is going to go through its cycles no matter what we do. We may speed things along a bit or temporarily alter small portions of the life cycle, but I really doubt that we will ever have a lasting effect that cannot be or rather won't be erased by natural progression.

That does not in any way shape or form alleviate us from being responsible and attempting to take care of our surroundings, but that purpose is for us and our immediate relatives.

No matter what the planet is going to go through its cycles and our affect will be small in comparison to the eons of time.

These are separate issues here as I see it and honestly natural disasters are going to occur no matter what we do.

Unfortunately, that just isn't true. If algae was able to essentially create our current atmosphere, I think it safe to say that billions of technologically-advanced humans living primarily intense agricultural, industrial and electronic existences, can have a significant impact, and those impacts can indeed be "large" even in comparison to the eons of time.

Our level of civilizational development, and our population, is an unprecedented event in the history of the Earth, and it is currently very, very likely that this is leading to unprecedented changes in the Earth itself.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Just thought I would ask again what the political motivations of these retired flag officers of the U.S. military might be for highlighting the security risks of global warming?:

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... press.html

One of the greatest lies we are dealing with in the United States is the assertion that concern over climate change is driven by special interest environmental activists.

I'd like to see how the proponents of such a myth would explain the rationale for the U.S. military to take climate change so seriously.

[River]

I'd like to see how the proponents of such a myth would explain the rationale for the U.S. military to take climate change so seriously.

Clearly, the military has been taken over by activists.

In all seriousness, the skeptics are an ever-shrinking but very vocal minority. Unfortunately, they also have some wealthy backers in the fossil fuels industry.

[Passdagas the Brown]

A buncha granola-eating tree huggers, those four-star generals and admirals!

And yes - a vocal but very wealthy and powerful minority.

[Túrin Turambar]

I don't actually think it is a wealthy and powerful minority, in the fossil fuels industry or otherwise (eg. see BP's climate change policy). Rather, it is a number of conservative journalists, radio hosts and writers, and the broad base of those who follow them. The same type of people who make up the Tea Party in the U.S., for example.

[Passdagas the Brown]

L_M,

I agree. I don't think it's the fossil fuel industry leading the skeptical charge anymore (though they did in the 90s). BP and a few other industry leaders are actually taking some real steps in the right direction (though not enough, IMO).

But the group you mention (including the Tea Party) is heavily financed by a very powerful minority (the Koch Brothers) and strongly backed by a very wealthy and powerful news organization/ propaganda machine, called Fox News.

It's a very wealthy and powerful minority pushing the disinformation campaign, and IMO it's one of the more morally reprehensible elements of the far right in America.

I don't mind disagreeing on the grounds of philosophical differences on subjects such as taxation or healthcare. But when a political movement attacks science and objective truth with such callous vigor, especially when it ultimately serves to prolong a global crisis, I think it's unforgivable.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The United Kingdom's Environment Agency:

“England faced the wettest January since 1766, and with the ground already saturated, further rainfall is increasing flood risk across the country, especially in the south. Successive bands of rain which have been affecting the country all week are expected to continue until at least Tuesday, causing river levels to rise along the River Thames, the Severn and the Dorset Stour as well as across most of the south west, central southern and south east England.”

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/151870.aspx

All OK where you are, Elentári?

[Impenitent]

In Aus, senior members of government (ie the PM) are climate change skeptics. Makes it difficult to move forward.

[narya]

So what ever happened to the hole in the ozone? We don't hear about that anymore, here in the northern hemisphere. And if it is still around, do your senior members of governement "believe" it is there?