Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Thiele]

We had our 3rd hottest October day on record the other day, 38 degres C, rainless Winter, now dead crops, we're on the toughest water restrictions ever, and it's only the middle of Spring, AND I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING

 

[GT Pro]

Talk about random weather changes.
That day was far too hot for an October, but sadly, expect more like that instance.

 

[Kylehnat]

We had our 3rd hottest October day on record the other day,.......AND I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING

If it was only the 3rd hottest October day on record, that means that in the past, there were hotter days than that one.

ONE DAY/MONTH/YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. This point is lost on a lot of people. We had a very dry and hot summer here this year. It must be global warming, yes? No. The summer followed a very cold and wet winter. Besides that, there was a drier and hotter summer back in the 60's, and another hotter and drier still, way back in the 30's. If this type of weather continues for another 10 years, maybe there's something to it. However, I'm betting the farm that next year, our summer will be "normal".

 

[Touring Mars]

Granted, you shouldn't read too much into a single observation, but looking at the general trend is far more informative. According to the United Nations World Meteorological Organistion (WMO), 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have happened since 1995, and the rate of temperature increase has tripled since 1976.

 

[Kylehnat]

The term "on record" leaves much to be desired, though. Here in Seattle, records go back only 110 years or so. That's not enough to really map out our "normal" climate cycles, which are thought to cycle through every 30-40 years. Note that in my previous post, the summers I mentioned (well, the news mentioned, and I regurgitated) are roughly 30-40 years apart. That's an interesting coincidence, though it doesn't concretely prove anything one way or the other.

My point is that people are too quick to blame global warming. They also blame it for EVERYTHING. Too hot, too cold, too many hurricanes, too much rain, not enough rain....it's all global warming? People need to think. On Thursday, we set a record high temperature for October 12. A blistering 72 degrees it was, besting the record set 5 years ago by two degrees. I'm sure a couple of idiots in this area mentioned to their friends that this was due to global warming, conveniently ignoring the fact that the temperature here has been within a couple degrees of "average" for the last six weeks.

This year is shaping up to be an El Nino year. If it is, we will have a warmer and drier winter (while California will get soaked ). Somebody will mention global warming, and scores of idiots will start parrotting it back, ignoring the fact that this happens every 6-7 years.

I'm sorry, but I just can't stand blind ignorance.

 

[Touring Mars]

My point is that people are too quick to blame global warming. They also blame it for EVERYTHING. Too hot, too cold, too many hurricanes, too much rain, not enough rain....it's all global warming?

Indeed, it's quite counter-productive when people make spurious claims or make unwarranted associations - although in the case of global warming, the reasons behind the 'sharp rise since 1976' (as the WMO put it) are not fully understood, so a little 'ignorance' on the subject is easily forgivable... blaming everything on global warming is no doubt the wrong approach, but ignoring it completely or denying that global warming is having some tangible effects already is also wrong.

For the record, the WMO cite studies dating back to 1850...

 

[FoolKiller]

And unfortunately, Foolkiller, the fact that your article is from Fox News (oh no!) is probably going to make most global-warming theory supporters dismiss it.

Yeah, I was aware, but I hoped that anyone willing to bring up the "Fox News is pure EVIL" banter would also know the definition of a syndicated column. If they didn't I would quickly redirect them to junkscience.com where they would find the original article with references to the original research. Of course then they would say that Steven Milloy works for the CATO Institute which is worse than Fox News, and I would then have to find and link the original research and hope that actaul research in an actual scientific journal would be enough for them.

The true question should be, why is Fox News the only major news outlet giving any form of report on this study and anyone who wanted to be intellectually honest would ask that instead of ranting about Fox News.

Granted, you shouldn't read too much into a single observation, but looking at the general trend is far more informative. According to the United Nations World Meteorological Organistion (WMO), 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have happened since 1995, and the rate of temperature increase has tripled since 1976.

And according to these resaerchers 85% of global warming reported by the WMO can be attributed to their theory on cosmic rays. A theory which has been tested in a lab and can be replicated in lab testing, which is the standard for science, not temporal coincidence.

My point is that people are too quick to blame global warming. They also blame it for EVERYTHING. Too hot, too cold, too many hurricanes, too much rain, not enough rain....it's all global warming? People need to think.

Global Warming is the cause of everything, don't you know? If it is hot and dry, global warming. If a boat crashes into a dam and it explodes, flooding the town of Beaverton, it is global warming (WE DIDN'T LISTEN!).

Last year we had a hot and dry summer. Everyone talked about global warming, except for one local meteorologist who showed that the Farmer's Almanac predicted it (as a joke), but didn't mention global warming. Everyone kept predicting this year would be worse, it would be insufferably hot, there would be massive droughts, Famine, pestilence, pretty much the worst parts of the Bible. Guess what the weather was like this summer. Mostly mild and cool (although the ocasional hot day brought about global warming talk) and it was wet all the time. A gas satation I use frequently lost their sign twice in storms and then just left it until about two weeks ago when they felt it was safe to put it up again. I couldn't mow when I needed to half the time because it was wet. Oh, and the meteorologist that didn't go off about global warming, but instead liked to reference the Farmer's Almanac for fun, he predicted a wet year that farmers would love, unless it got bad enough to flood the fields. It is sad that the Farmer's Almanac is more accurate than any scientists. Oh, and every wooly bear worm I saw was mostly black, predicting a wet summer.

The other prediction was how the hurricane season was going to be horrible. It was supposed to be worse than last year. They were taling about 14-18 named storms, 7-10 coming ashore, and damage like we have never seen. We got what, two hurricane rated storms that came ashore and maybe seven named storms? YAWN.

Global warming was supposed to do all of this horrible stuff because that was what the climate predictions showed. Tricky things about climate predictions: We can't predict a 5-square mile area for a 24-hour period with any relative accuracy, predicting the entire climate for years ahead is guesswork at best.

Indeed, it's quite counter-productive when people make spurious claims or make unwarranted associations - although in the case of global warming, the reasons behind the 'sharp rise since 1976' (as the WMO put it) are not fully understood, so a little 'ignorance' on the subject is easily forgivable... blaming everything on global warming is no doubt the wrong approach, but ignoring it completely or denying that global warming is having some tangible effects already is also wrong.

I will be the first to admit that there is definitely a trend of warming. However, I find that politicians, celebrities, and scientists walking around acting like we completely understand everything there is to know about the climate and global warming is reckless and unforgivable.

Funny thing, every time something goes wrong with my wife's 97 Corolla it seems to be some "less pollution" technology part and I just want to punch someone. I usually just call my environmentally crazy brother and blame him, who has curiously ignored this article after I sent it to him.

 

[Thiele]

If it was only the 3rd hottest October day on record, that means that in the past, there were hotter days than that one.

ONE DAY/MONTH/YEAR IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING. This point is lost on a lot of people. We had a very dry and hot summer here this year. It must be global warming, yes? No. The summer followed a very cold and wet winter. Besides that, there was a drier and hotter summer back in the 60's, and another hotter and drier still, way back in the 30's. If this type of weather continues for another 10 years, maybe there's something to it. However, I'm betting the farm that next year, our summer will be "normal".

Well we didn't have a wet Winter, we had a NO Winter, it probably didn't go below 10 Degrees, and it is still far too hot for October, most Winter nights go down to about 5 here, no rain, no nothing.

 

[niky]

Even if you can partially explain Global Warming (oooh... capitals) with cosmic rays, does that make the effect of human activity on global climate any less relevant?

Seeing both sides of the debate, I still don't understand the rationale behind denying Global Warming... what would it hurt us to limit CO2 emissions, or pollutants? The degradation of urban climate and air quality has been a big issue for a long time, (I used to live in the Metro in the 80s, can't now, as the air there gave me a chronic cough and skin allergies when I went back a few years ago) and proposed solutions to combat global warming benefit society in other ways, too...

So, what's wrong with a little hysteria?

 

[FoolKiller]

Even if you can partially explain Global Warming (oooh... capitals) with cosmic rays, does that make the effect of human activity on global climate any less relevant?

If 85% of global warming can be attributed to cosmic rays then it would mean that we are definitely over-reacting and it isn't a far reach to assume there are other natural cycles that might at least partially account for the other 15%.

Seeing both sides of the debate, I still don't understand the rationale behind denying Global Warming...

Hey, I'm not denying Global Warming. Yep, the Earth's temperature appears to be gradually increasing. Judging by teh fact that we know there have been multiple ice ages I would say it isn't the first time. If it were the first time then we would still be in an ice age and just starting to thaw out.

My problem is blaming every minor natural event on Global Warming. Everything from an unusually warm day to hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis have been blamed on Global Warming almost as much as Pat Robertson blames them on sinners. Both claims have the same intellectual quality as far as I am concerned.

Then I also have qualms with using temporal coincedence to try and blame an entire climactic change on humans. We aren't able to overcome localized weather patterns but we can affect the entire global climate?

what would it hurt us to limit CO2 emissions, or pollutants?

You mean aside from slowing economic growth and technological progression?

The degradation of urban climate and air quality has been a big issue for a long time, and proposed solutions to combat global warming benefit society in other ways, too...

If you wish to clean up localized air quality around urban centers then go at it, but don't try and tell me, living in rural Kentucky, that I am killing the Earth by driving 80 miles every day. I like to drive and I can afford the gas so let me have at it. (NOTE: I'm not accusing you of this, but this is the sort of thing I hear from my Prius-driving brother.)

So, what's wrong with a little hysteria?

The end result is never positive. Environmental groups are using fear-mongering and hysteria to make people jump to action without stopping to wonder what the cost will be on their budget or wonder if they can afford that hybrid. It attempts to make those that do check their finances first feel guilty for not making the sacrifices necessary to cough up that extra cash.

This kind of thing preys on the weak and reactionary and is utterly despicable. People like Al Gore are fully aware of what they are doing, judging by his past statements, and willingly creating a false hysteria should be nothing short of criminal. Orson Welles does it in less than an hour and they practically round up a lynch mob, Al Gore does it over years of planning and he gets applauded.

 

[Zrow]

There's the political side too; politicians that aren't fighting tooth-and-nail for the "cause" are labeled unsympathetic conservative douchebags who care nothing for our environment and future. That really kills me, that being skeptical about global warming automatically labels you a conservative these days. Since when is being SKEPTICAL a trait of the conservatives?

 

[Touring Mars]

Even if you can partially explain Global Warming (oooh... capitals) with cosmic rays, does that make the effect of human activity on global climate any less relevant?

I'd say not... we cannot do anything about solar variability anyway. We can do something about CO2 emissions. The Svensmark paper experimentally verifies their proposed mechanism for how cosmic rays influences cloud coverage, and it has already been established that cloud coverage plays a significant role in global temperature regulation. But so does CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that has long been a known 'fact' as well...

I think a better way to put it is perhaps this:- of all the possible contributions to global warming, we should only really worry about our contribution... what of the warming that is attributable to our emissions, whatever percentage of the sum total it may be?

Besides, the percentage of global warming attributable to decreased cloud coverage as a result of increased cosmic ray flux is not what has not been experimentally verified, but merely inferred (and not by the authors of this research). This research may explain a mechanism behind the relationship between cosmic rays and clouds, but it doesn't mean (nor do they even suggest) that cloud coverage levels are completely dependent upon cosmic ray flux alone... the suggestion that cosmic ray flux differences may account for up to 85% of the warming reported by the IPCC is an inference made by other people and isn't mentioned in the Svensmark paper at all...

I think it is always unwise to put so much emphasis on just one avenue of research. Even if it was as significant as some analysts think it is, isn't it a bit like saying "you might as well keep smoking since you have cancer anyway"?

 

[Danoff]

I think a better way to put it is perhaps this:- of all the possible contributions to global warming, we should only really worry about our contribution... what of the warming that is attributable to our emissions, whatever percentage of the sum total it may be?

If it turns out that our contribution is tiny, what's the point in worrying about it?

 

[Famine]

I think it is always unwise to put so much emphasis on just one avenue of research. Even if it was as significant as some analysts think it is, isn't it a bit like saying "you might as well keep smoking since you have cancer anyway"?

Hmmmmm, not really. With cancer you can watch it - even predict it - through its stages and at the end the host organism dies. We don't know if the Earth is getting hotter, if it's supposed to be getting hotter, what it'll do next or what the end result will be...

 

[UnoMOTO]

I guess the 2 FEET of snow in bufflo, New York last week was because of global warming too. If this warming thing keeps up we will all be covered in snow....wait...um...Oh crap...here comes the ice age caused by global warming!

 

[Famine]

I guess the 2 FEET of snow in bufflo, New York last week was because of global warming too. If this warming thing keeps up we will all be covered in snow....wait...um...Oh crap...here comes the ice age caused by global warming!

A global temperature rise is perfectly consistent with a distal ice age.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Exactly...its all part of the earths cycle. No petty little humans will prevent or create warming or cooling.

 

[Famine]

Exactly...its all part of the earths cycle. No petty little humans will prevent or create warming or cooling.

We most certainly can do it, willingly, and have effects for quite some measurable time - whether we are doing it, and unwittingly, is another question altogether.

 

[Danoff]

We most certainly can do it, willingly, and have effects for quite some measurable time - whether we are doing it, and unwittingly, is another question altogether.

You're thinking nuclear winter right? Not only can we alter the climate with nukes etc., we're actually capable of altering the Earth's orbit (slightly) with nukes.

 

[Famine]

You're thinking nuclear winter right? Not only can we alter the climate with nukes etc., we're actually capable of altering the Earth's orbit (slightly) with nukes.

Imagine burying the whole lot in one spot - in Western Australia, where no-one will notice - and just letting the buggers go.

Wow...


*cackles*

 

[Sage]

Too much work – I know your other plan…

 

[Thiele]

that's funny, did you make that yourself with photoshop or something?

back on topic, i think global warming is taking effect here, it's been far too hot for October, and it has been for sometime now, and as far as i'm concerned, global warming is to blame

 

[Kylehnat]

Did we not just discuss this on the previous page?

 

[FoolKiller]

that's funny, did you make that yourself with photoshop or something?

back on topic, i think global warming is taking effect here, it's been far too hot for October, and it has been for sometime now, and as far as i'm concerned, global warming is to blame

Wait, let me get this straight. It is warm in Australia, so it must be global warming? You know I was within a few degrees of record lows a few days last month. So was there global cooling last month? You know next week it may actually get below freezing here, but it is still October. I also had flooding about a month back, does that mean that there is global wetting?

Do you see my point? Just because you are warmer than normal it does not mean global warming is doing anything to your region. It just means that localized weather patterns are causing you to have warmer than normal temperatures.

Did we not just discuss this on the previous page?

Yes, but we all got caught up in the image of Famine destroying the Earth while casually drinking his tea from a GTPlanet mug and forgot to read one page back to at least the beginning of the current discussion.

 

[Jay]

back on topic, i think global warming is taking effect here, it's been far too hot for October, and it has been for sometime now, and as far as i'm concerned, global warming is to blame

I don't believe it for a minute, high's, low's, drought's, floods have been coming and going long time before Europeans stepped on Australia's soil.

Last couple years our summers have been quite cool, none of this weeks of 40 degree straight weather like some summers.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wait, let me get this straight. It is warm in Australia, so it must be global warming?

That said, the WMO annual statements which show that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have happened since 1995 do specifically refer to global mean temperatures...

The term global is obviously significant, but so is 'mean'... it is a popular misconception (I think anyway) that 'global warming' means that the whole globe must be warming otherwise it's not 'global' warming... but this is not the case. As a case in point, consider the (long debated) example of the effect of Arctic polar ice cap melting... the water around would actually get cooler - straight away we have an example of 'localised cooling' despite a global mean increase. Similarly, theoretical studies suggest that an effect of Arctic ice cap melting would be to push the Gulf Stream in the North Eastern Atlantic ocean further south... bad news for the temperate westcoast of Scotland, which currently experiences a beneficial warming by being bathed in the warm Gulf Stream waters. Shifting of the Gulf Stream further south would almost certainly result in the west coast of Scotland experiencing a net drop in temperature... this is but once of any number of localised examples of cooling despite a general global trend of temperature increases...

Just to add - this is not so much a 'specific example' or a statement of an actual point of fact, but an attempt to explain how, in theory, global warming and areas of localised cooling are not necessarily mutually exclusive, even if it appears counter-intuitive on the surface...

 

[ledhed]

In winter global cooling is comming . Just thought I should mention that . in case you still are wearing shorts .

 

[UnoMOTO]

Why is it so hard to believe that the earth goes through cycles. The temp of the big blue ball has either been warming or cooling since its creation. It has NEVER been a constant. We need to get off this chicken little..."the sky is falling" junk. Of course we still need to be responsible about what we do to this earth. yeah...a big nuke would be very bad.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why is it so hard to believe that the earth goes through cycles.

Nobody is disputing that. The reason that there is a debate about global warming at all is because the pattern of global warming since the 1970's is inconsistent with any cyclical global climate change. Indeed, hardly anybody (save for the most ardent global warming deniers) disputes the fact that global warming is happening, it is the cause of the warming that is at issue... Cyclical global climate change can, does and is happening, but the pattern of global warming observed recently can be considered as superimposed on top of this (longer term) pattern of global climate changes.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Based on what? We haven't had a written record of these things much passed the 70's. These things are much bigger then the last 40 years. To say that there is a pattern I would need a much longer history. I don't have the scientific backround, only good common sense!