Global warming - what to think ???

[Gatortailale]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070203/D8N1T3GO0.html

 

 

By SETH BORENSTEIN

 

PARIS (AP) - Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that nations will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios.

 

They tried to warn of dire risks without scaring people so much they'd do nothing - inaction that would lead to the worst possible scenarios.

 

"It's not too late," said Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued Friday. The worst can be prevented by acting quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

 

The worst could mean more than 1 million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs by 2100, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, one of many study co-authors. He said that adapting will mean living with more extreme weather such as severe droughts, more hurricanes and wildfires.

 

"It's later than we think," said panel co-chair Susan Solomon, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who helped push through the document's strong language.

 

Solomon, who remains optimistic about the future, said it's close to too late to alter the future for her children - but maybe it's not too late for her grandchildren.

 

The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found:

 

_Global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.

 

_If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

 

_But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control - something scientists say they hope can be done - the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

_Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

 

Sea level rise could get worse after that. By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would be inevitable and the world's seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet, Bindoff said.

 

That amount of sea rise would take centuries, said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada, but "if you're in Florida or Louisiana, or much of western Europe or southeast Asia or Bangladesh ... or Manhattan ... you don't want that," he said.

 

The report spurred bleak reactions from world leaders.

 

"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution" to save the planet.

 

"While climate changes run like a rabbit, world politics move like a snail: Either we accelerate or we risk a disaster," said Italy's environment minister, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio.

 

And South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said failure to act would be "indefensible."

 

In Washington, Bush administration officials praised the report but said they still oppose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem can be addressed by better technology that will cut emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

 

About three-fourths of Americans say they expect global warming will get worse, according to a recent AP-AOL News poll. However, other recent polls have found they don't consider it a top priority for the U.S. government.

 

But doing nothing about global warming could mean up to a 10-degree Fahrenheit temperature rise by the end of the century in the United States, said report co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona.

 

Elsewhere, the projected effects of global warming would vary on different parts of the globe.

 

Temperatures would spike higher near the poles, according to the report. Within 22 years - whether greenhouse gases are controlled or not - most of the Northern Hemisphere will see more high temperature extremes, the report showed. Places like Northern Africa will get even less rainfall.

 

This climate change "is just not something you can stop," said Trenberth. "We're just going to have to live with it. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

 

People experience the harshest effects of global warming through extreme weather - heat waves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes - said study co-author Philip Jones of Britain's University of East Anglia. Those have increased significantly in the past decade and will get even worse in the future, he said.

 

Given all the dire predictions, why are scientists nearly all optimistic? They think their message is finally getting through to the people in charge.

 

United Nations environmental leaders are talking about a global summit on climate change for world leaders and they hope President Bush will attend.

 

"The signal that we received from the science is crystal clear," said Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a multi-national body that tries to change policy to fight global warming.

 

"That makes it imperative that the political response that comes from this crystal-clear science is as crystal-clear as well.

 

"I sense a growing sense of urgency to come to grips with the issue," de Boer said. "I think the major challenge is to further the negotiating agenda in a way that makes major players feel safe to step forwardly on this issue."

 

The major player that has at times been absent is the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

 

"The world cannot solve the climate change problem without the United States," Achim Steiner, who heads the UN Environment Program, told The Associated Press.

 

"The world is looking to the Bush administration and to the United States and how it has to be a key part" of solving global warming, he said.

 

De Boer was optimistic, there too. In an interview, he said that despite U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increasing 16 percent since 1990, change is afoot.

 

Citing congressional interest and carbon dioxide emission limits requested by top industry CEOs, de Boer said: "I see a very important momentum building throughout the country."

 

---

 

Science writer Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report

 

VS

 

 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

 

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

 

Monday, February 5, 2007

 

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

 

 

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

 

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

 

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

 

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

 

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

 

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

 

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

 

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

 

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

 

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

 

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

 

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

 

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

 

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

 

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

 

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

 

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

 

 

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[jason the filter freak]

I'm replacing all the bulbs in the house this week end with compact florescents, well except on my tank, little steps can go along way to stop a big problem.

[Caribbean Jake]

saddley... but we are DOOMED... if not us, our children and grandchildren

[flowerseller]

You're bringing up global warming this week?

[Caribbean Jake]

please tickle me...

[VicSkimmr]

I feel like its a bit arrogant of us to believe that we can have this big of an effect on the Earth.

 

It should be noted that these same scientists that are so vocal about global warming were predicting that in the 60's we were entering a new ice age.

 

 

The earth's temperature is cyclical. Yes, its warming now. 30 years ago it was cooling. I'm really surprised that they think they can predict what the temperature will be like in the year 2100 when so far scientists have failed to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow.

 

 

Now, I'm all for reducing pollution, but using scare tactics like this to get the job done is not the way to do it.

[dzekunoi]

I feel like its a bit arrogant of us to believe that we can have this big of an effect on the Earth.

 

It should be noted that these same scientists that are so vocal about global warming were predicting that in the 60's we were entering a new ice age.

The earth's temperature is cyclical. Yes, its warming now. 30 years ago it was cooling. I'm really surprised that they think they can predict what the temperature will be like in the year 2100 when so far scientists have failed to predict what the weather will be like tomorrow.

Now, I'm all for reducing pollution, but using scare tactics like this to get the job done is not the way to do it.

 

People thought the same way about water pollution too - until rivers and lakes, including Great Lakes, were trashed so much you could not even swim in them. And all this happened in less than 100 years.

 

There were reports already about "scientists" being lobbied to post reports against global warming. Guess who stands behind it? All mighty oil companies. Too much money on stake. It's just the same reason why alternative energy sources recearch is not supported as is should be. That's where all the against global worming propaganda comes from.

 

And again, even if there is a mistake in global worming calculations - is it this bad to cut on pollution and abuse of mother nature?

 

AND I do think it's arrogant of us to pollute and pretend nothing bad happens.

[BeltwayBandit]

There were reports already about "scientists" being lobbied to post reports against global warming. Guess who stands behind it? All mighty oil companies. Too much money on stake. It's just the same reason why alternative energy sources recearch is not supported as is should be. That's where all the against global worming propaganda comes from.

 

And that is a favorite bit of propaganda from the environmental lobby. Skepticism of AGW is not some sinister plot by energy companies. There are serious flaws and shorcomings in the AGW theories. In terms of money spent on the issue, environmental organizations are spending far more than the energy companies on this issue. The problem is that the ideologues on the extremes have poisoned the debate so that no useful discussion can take place.

 

Here is an interesting piece that was in the Post yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

[Caribbean Jake]

and in the event some measure is put in place.. how many thrid world countries willm comply? heck, how many 1st and 2nd world countries will comply? USA alone?

[VicSkimmr]

I'm not sure if we can post links to different forums, but NR.com has a great ongoing discussion about this.

 

http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?...=global+warming

[cabrerad]

When looking at these point-counterpoint comparisons, I think it is usefull to keep in mind the source of the information. This is definitely not an even match up:

 

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A Panel made up of hundreds of scientists, governement officials and other experts to assess peer reviewed literature (i.e. research that has been completed, submitted to a journal and accepted for publication based on its scientific merit) on climate change as well as industry reports and traditional practices.

 

IPCC

 

Timothy Ball: He has a PhD and taught at the university level. Dr. Ball states he has "an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. "

I did some searches on him and he appears to have only 5 scientific publications, two of which seem to be his master thesis and doctoral dissertation. That leaves only three peer reviewed scientific articles, published in 1984, 1986 and 1994 (an this paper is in an economics and policy article, not actual climate change research). His papers have been cited a whopping 4 times. This is an exceptionally poor research record considering his varying claims to have been a professor at Winnipeg for 20+ years. Also, there has been a heck of a lot of research on climate change since 1994. He is far from credible.

 

Also, Dr. Ball needs to go back to school as indicated by his statement:

 

"A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. "

 

Actually, scientists porpose hypothesis to test their research. A Theory (in scientific usage) is a far more rigorous term describing a framework supported by a large amount of research by many different scientists.

 

Bandit: US thinktank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report

 

VicSkimmr: Current climate science research and modeling takes into account natural cyclical variation in temperature. The current temperature changes and projections cannot be explained by this natural variation. The degree to which anthropogenic impact, is, however, not completely clear.

 

I wish it were true that we could not have such a great impact on the earth, but several examples support this ranging from the extinction of the passenger pigeon (it was not thought to be possible to eradicate them as there were once 5 billion), to a hole in the ozone layer (also Dr. Ball apparently says CFC's don't do anything to ozone either, though it is a well describer chemical process).

 

 

 

As for what to do about, this is indeed a complicated question where short term economic loss from dealing with the problem now should be compared/contrasted with the cost of dealing with this problem later where the costs are projected to be far higher...

 

 

David

Edited February 8, 2007 by cabrerad

[dzekunoi]

Thanks David, wonderful outline.

[VicSkimmr]

VicSkimmr: Current climate science research and modeling takes into account natural cyclical variation in temperature. The current temperature changes and projections cannot be explained by this natural variation. The degree to which anthropogenic impact, is, however, not completely clear.

 

David

 

I understand that, but it all depends on the data they're using to project these models. How far back can they possibly pull data from, and on a geological scale, is it really enough to make an accurate prediction? I find it hard to believe that this isn't a natural cycle considering that the global temperature is just now catching back up from the "Little Ice Age" that started around the 1400's.

 

Also, were these the same scientists that predicted that 2006 would have one of the most active and destructive hurricane seasons humanity has ever seen?

 

 

 

Climate is such a complex system, there's no way that a model could accurately predict what is going to happen 60-100 years in the future. There are just too many variables that come into play.

Edited February 8, 2007 by VicSkimmr

[BeltwayBandit]

Bandit: US thinktank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report

 

 

Yes that is the Guardian/Greenpeace spin on the story. The Post ran a story that clarifies the issue. Its a policy paper, not science paper.

 

The AEI paper is not seeking to rebut the IPCC report, it is seeking policy alternatives. Read the two articles, you get a very different perspective on the story. Yet another example of how the activists try to spin the story and manipulate the discussion. As far as Tim Ball goes, he is one of many scientists who disagree. You could just as easily have put up Richard Lindzen or Bill Gray. (Either one of which is probably a better example from the skeptic side).

 

Bottom line, the debate has become entirely too politicized and the science has suffered for it.

[BeltwayBandit]

I was a believer in the global warming debate at one point. I was concerned, so I educated myself. What I found was not a reinforcement of what I had been told, but instead was a realization that the problem is greatly overstated. Here is a very good summary of the basic problem with AGW from CO2 and with the GCMs in general from a much longer paper:

 

http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf

 

"The current scientific and political dispute boils down ultimately to the following:

is the additional energy that is responsible for the centennial temperature

rise of ≈0.6◦C due principally to GHG or is it due to some external factor, such as

the Sun? Note that we are not dealing with mutually exclusive scenarios. Climate

models would respond in a similar way to the addition of energy from any source

and it is only the relative importance of these potential

[Gatortailale]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home

 

 

Minority page blog: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...12-a7d789b0be77

 

Senator Inhofe Press Release (2/2/07)

Inhofe Calls UN IPCC Summary For Policymakers

[rsarvis]

I don't know really know what to believe, but I am a bit skeptical of chicken-little-ism, and the political agenda of a lot of the chicken-littles is quite frankly scary to me. That being said, I will join in the mass bloviation...

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A Panel made up of hundreds of scientists, governement officials and other experts to assess peer reviewed literature (i.e. research that has been completed, submitted to a journal and accepted for publication based on its scientific merit) on climate change as well as industry reports and traditional practices.

 

What exactly is the breakdown of these hundreds? I have *no reason* to believe government officials have any idea what the global climate is doing or that they should be on these panels. The same people who think that government officials who disagree with them must be captive of corporations and the like are happy to assume that government officials who agree with them are objective and expert and can't be bought. Moreover, people who go into these government jobs tend to have a certain world-view predisposed to the belief that what we need is government to solve whatever problem, even to come up with problems to solve. Additionally, there's a pretty strong track record of bureaucracies searching for issues so that they can expand their bureaucratic empire and power.

 

Who are the "other experts," and what is their expertise in? Are scientific or academic advisors of Greenpeace "experts"? Is Al Gore an expert? (Please.) Are the AEI folks who supposedly are offering to pay people to criticize the report "experts"?

 

As for the scientists, I have seen a fairly interesting article by a climatologist who said that it is true, "scientists" generally support the theory of human-caused global warming, but among scientists *who specialise in global climate,* it is very much open to question and debate. with no settled answer. An astrophysicist moonlighting as a climatologist may not be much more credible than a proctologist moonlighting as a neurosurgeon.

 

I just think people too easily rely on "Oh, but he's a *scientist*"

 

Ball may have far from sterling credentials, but that doesn't say whether he's right or wrong, though it does admittedly affect how a non-expert decides whose opinions to rely on with regard to data analysis and such. Even if Ball loses that fight based on credentials, it seems that comments about problems with the way the conventional wisdom became or are kept conventional remain important.

 

Bandit: US thinktank offering cash to dispute UN climate panel: report

 

What is the standard practice regarding honorarium? That seems to be an important consideration. If it's standard practice, then this would just be really horrible journalism. If it's not standard practice, it's a reasonable point to bring to light.

 

I read a while back that temperatures on Mars have trended up slightly over the last decade or two, and generally some say that the sun may be responsible for some of the warming. I am willing to believe some is due to man, and some is due to normal cycles and such. But even if a large portion is due to man, what to do about it is not at all clear to me. And the very radical solutions are just mind-bogglingly precipitous. I remember reading one climatologist who believes that we're not in an ice age now because man for the past several thousand years has been heating the planet; also that the warming of the planet may increase crop yields.

 

I don't know, it's fun to debate, but governments and government panels don't do science very well. I remain skeptical. I don't necessarily believe that man has had no impact on warming, but I am skeptical that it is something to try to begin trying to correct -- at enormous cost -- in the immediate or short-term future, or that we can at all predict the long-term future.

[Gatortailale]

http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650

 

[lanman]

I wish it were true that we could not have such a great impact on the earth, but several examples support this ranging from the extinction of the passenger pigeon (it was not thought to be possible to eradicate them as there were once 5 billion), to a hole in the ozone layer (also Dr. Ball apparently says CFC's don't do anything to ozone either, though it is a well describer chemical process).

David

 

And what ever happened to that hole in the ozone layer that was going to irradiate all of us?

 

bob

[BeltwayBandit]

And what ever happened to that hole in the ozone layer that was going to irradiate all of us?

 

bob

 

 

Larger than ever in 2006...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:160658m...E_large_350.jpg

[cabrerad]

VicSkimmer,

 

Analysis of ice cores and sediments cores among other things can provide data from extremely distant time periods. I have seen many of these papers in various journals including Science and Nature. Also there are obviously various scales of climate change and flux. The shorter time periods are also harder to predict. There are now some very robust models that have accurately modeled climate variation when provided the raw data.

 

 

While there is some uncertainty in predicting short scale temperature changes, there is a large majority consensus that the models predicting temperature increase over the next century are accurate. How much this change will be is indeed uncertain.

 

As for predictions of hurricanes, I believe the general idea is that global warming results in higher surface water temperature in regions prone to hurricanes. This in turn provides more energy for the formation of more intense hurricanes. As for the apparent hyperbole about 2006 I don

Edited February 9, 2007 by cabrerad

[Guest Larry-T]

It's pretty apparent to anyone with basic knowledge of science and some statistics that the trend over the past 30+ years has been a warming cycle more intense than can be detected throughout history. The added heat energy will have several potential effects on the planet, but the long-term trend is for growing instability leading to another temporary (in geological terms) equilibrium that will not be in the best interests of our current civilization.

 

First of all, it's apparent that the swings have been wider from year to year and there has been an overall increase in severe weather events. This is due to the added energy in the Earth's weather systems. Some of the events include:

 

Major hot spells AND major cold spells

Torrential rains and severe droughts

 

In the mid-term (1-3 decades) we can expect a rise in sea level which will either be gradual, or (if either Greenland or Antarctica lets go) sudden. In any case, we can expect that large coastal areas may become uninhabitable (they will be uninsurable first) and some island nations may cease to exist. If this continues into the long term, the Gulf of Mexico can easily double in size and the state of Florida will be completely under water.

 

Another possibility is that the increase in water vapor will lead to a rapid build-up of the cloud cover resulting in an increase in the Earth's albedo (reflectivity) to the point where there is a sudden DROP in temperature, leading to a series of events that could trigger another ice age.

 

The whole point of the debate, from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint (which leaves out the neo-con ideologues at the AEI) is that the increased energy we are pumping into the Earth with our modification of the heat absorbsion characteristics of the atmosphere have lead to increased instability which can result in long-term catostrophic results.

[modelrr]

http://www.americandaily.com/article/1128

[BeltwayBandit]

It's pretty apparent to anyone with basic knowledge of science and some statistics that the trend over the past 30+ years has been a warming cycle more intense than can be detected throughout history.

 

Two points. First, the use of so-called 'weasel words' to introduce your position is not consistant with your later admonition to leave the debate to the Scientific arena. The "Its pretty apparent to anyone..." bit serves no purpose to bolster your scientific argument, it either stands or falls on its own merit. With self serving commentary like that you are more likely to get lumped into the ideologue camp. As far as your claim that the last 30+ years is more intense than anything that we can detect, that speaks more to our inability to reconstruct the past climate to form an accurate baseline than it sounds the call for alarm. Lets attack this problem methodically, carefully, Scientifically. It should not be based on knee jerk alarmism based on half truths and political rhetoric.

 

"The added heat energy will have several potential effects on the planet, but the long-term trend is for growing instability leading to another temporary (in geological terms) equilibrium that will not be in the best interests of our current civilization."

 

What we do know of the past climate shows that there is no steady state equillibrium temperature for the climate. On the policy side, how is sacrificing virtually the entire economy to stave off this catastrophe in the best interest of our civilization?

 

 

First of all, it's apparent that the swings have been wider from year to year and there has been an overall increase in severe weather events. This is due to the added energy in the Earth's weather systems. Some of the events include:

 

Major hot spells AND major cold spells

Torrential rains and severe droughts

 

I guess the American Meterological Society Disagrees with you.

http://www.agci.org/publications/eoc98/articles/BAMS_2.pdf

 

Once again a peak behind the curtain reveals that the theory is hampered by a lack of data. This is a common theme in the scientific literature regarding AGW.

 

Lack of long-term climate data suitable for analysis

of extremes is the single biggest obstacle to quantifying

whether extreme events have changed over the

twentieth century, either worldwide or on a more regional

basis (Easterling et al. 1999).

 

As far as attribution of trends, both in mean values

and extreme events, one of the most critical issues

relates to the hypothesis that with greenhouse gas

[HowardofNOVA]

The fear of global warming may loom large to some environmentalists, but for most people it is a far off and improbable event. In fact, the dire predictions of problems for the United States may come to nothing - certain areas of the country may even benefit.

 

The above is a quote that IMHO, summarizes the whole thing and this was someone in the know!

IMO and I'll probably ramble!

#1 They say the earths avg temperature has gone up 1 degree in the LAST CENTURY!

-Come on, they can't tell the temperature is going to be tomorrow, let alone WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS, CENTURIES in the future!

#2 Green houses are growing, but to what extent they will effect us is ANYBODYS guest!

-I was raised in Pittsburgh during the steel mill days, smog was everywhere (might explain things!)

...but after fuel emissions, gov't knock downs of smoke from factories, etc, the skies are now clear and beautiful!

#3 NorthPole will melt and waters will raise and beach front properties will be available soon in Culpepper!

...well that's the word on the street!

#4 And about the 1 degree temperature change melting the Poles: THINK ABOUT IT??

North Pole 10 Day Weather Forecast ....yes, it's a heat wave this week!

 

I'm sorry gang, I think we have alot of issues! (IMO, These are 95% political/5% Fact of folks looking for either VOTES or FUNDING!)

 

A wise person said (in not so many words) Wisdom is the ability to know what you can control, know what you can't and to distinquish between the two.

 

Things, I'm 100% sure, We need to be better stewards of our land and do each and everyones part in keep the world Cleaner, Proper methods of trash disposal, cleanup are rivers & streams which will end in our oceans, conservationist in the way we act towards anything environmental.

IMO: