New Data Validates Global Warming Projections

[Biochemist]

Antarctic shelf breakup is large and measurable, and the data shows that many more Antarctic glaciers are receding that growing, although there clearly are some that are growing. "Acceptance" is the issue:

The issue is whether there is a net loss or net gain of polar ice. This is the issue that I believe has no general consensus.

Unfortunately in this debate, there is no way to *absolutely* prove that "man is causing global warming".

Who mentioned absolute? I was merely thinking about credible evidence of causality. Sure these systems are complex, but that does not mean that we should skew data to support a "scientific" conclusion.

Due to the complexities of the systems being observed, the only thing that can be done is to define percentages and probabilities, thus allowing anyone who does not like the conclusions to say it is "not proven."

And if only there was agreement on those. The "range" of potential global warming over the next hundred yeras is (as I recall) between 0.7 degress and 11 degrees. The impact of 0.7 degrees is small. And as I recall, the likelihood of the change falling toward the "lower end of the range" is high. We have time to figure this out. The Kyoto solution was poorly concieved. Kyoto was as rational as Cuba and Sudan sitting on the Human Rights committee within the UN. And it was formed with a similar genesis.

[Buffy]

The issue is whether there is a net loss or net gain of polar ice. This is the issue that I believe has no general consensus.

Out of all the scientists out there studying the Arctic, only a few are arguing its growing (thickening actually): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

 

And there are those who say that growth in the arctic ice could in fact be completely consistent with global warming: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/PolarParadox/

 

In addition, massive retreat of Antarctic glaciers has been in the news recently with much evidence to back it up (although as I've said a small minority *are* increasing): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4471135.stm

 

How much more evidence is needed? I don't know. I'm concerned. I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme, but the current administration does not even want to work with anyone on the issue: it seems that the policy is to disclaim the validity of any evidence opposed to laissez faire industrial policy. Sad, scary and just as extreme as the sky-is-falling-nuts at the other end of the spectrum...unfortunately for our grandkids, the nuts may be right...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

How much more evidence is needed? I don't know. I'm concerned. I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme, but the current administration does not even want to work with anyone on the issue...

Your last phrase would be another thread.....:(

[cygonaut]

Out of all the scientists out there studying the Arctic, only a few are arguing its growing (thickening actually): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

 

And there are those who say that growth in the arctic ice could in fact be completely consistent with global warming: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/PolarParadox/

 

In addition, massive retreat of Antarctic glaciers has been in the news recently with much evidence to back it up (although as I've said a small minority *are* increasing): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4471135.stm

 

How much more evidence is needed? I don't know. I'm concerned. I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme, but the current administration does not even want to work with anyone on the issue: it seems that the policy is to disclaim the validity of any evidence opposed to laissez faire industrial policy. Sad, scary and just as extreme as the sky-is-falling-nuts at the other end of the spectrum...unfortunately for our grandkids, the nuts may be right...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

There is a strong anti-environmentalist frenzy on the internet.

 

They are, however, generally interested in saving money at the pump and reducing dependence on foreign oil, as is probably most everyone else.

 

And some of these folks are interested in converting their cars to run on other fuels such as ethanol and propane or a mix of fuels.

 

This is good and I can post some helpful information on these things.

 

On global warming though, yes, they are really out of step.

 

It's the scientific consensus, on all the climatological .gov sites (even the somewhat politically subdued EPA site), and there's materials for teachers and it's being taught in schools across the country and has been for some time.

 

.

[paultrr]

There is a strong anti-environmentalist frenzy on the internet.

 

They are, however, generally interested in saving money at the pump and reducing dependence on foreign oil, as is probably most everyone else.

 

And some of these folks are interested in converting their cars to run on other fuels such as ethanol and propane or a mix of fuels.

 

This is good and I can post some helpful information on these things.

 

On global warming though, yes, they are really out of step.

 

It's the scientific consensus, on all the climatological .gov sites (even the somewhat politically subdued EPA site), and there's materials for teachers and it's being taught in schools across the country and has been for some time.

 

.

 

Its a behind the public eye conversation at NASA also,especially when it comes to sound reasoning to find other resources. I'd call them a rather scientific minded bunch of people and they see global warming as valid.

[b.j.visser]

Can anyone tell me the amount of the "manmade"-Co2 emissions, related to the total Co2 emissions?. I heard that only 3to 4 % of the total CO2 production is caused by the human activities. I cannot find anywhere the exact amounts.

B.J.Visser

[Qfwfq]

I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme,

:hihi:

 

Extreme? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what would be necessary. As for seemingly paradoxical effects, you might also look up that on the North East Atlantic lands. Tormod's in for a chill, and it's already happening.

[pmaust]

I appears to me that whether humans contribute to climate change or not, sudden and dramtic temperature spikes up or down happen. One can only conclude that all past events were non-human caused. If the climate history repeats itself and there is no reason to believe that it won't, many millions perhaps billions of people will die off and the impact on the climate caused by humans if there is one will be mitigated. I have been struggling with this issue for a while now. I have not seen any convincing evidence that we can control the weather or influence global climate. I personally do not have an issue moderating any behaviour I have that might contribute negatively to global climate. Having said that, if it can be demostrated that we can control the climate, it would be nice if it were a titch warmer than it is now. We could save tremdous amounts on heating energy cost, extend growing seasons, et cetera.

 

On a side note, I found a little article recently that stated a Russian astronomer is predicting that we are due for a mini ice age beginning in the next 5 to 6 years. That is what is so frustrating to so many of us. What do you believe!?!?!?!? On a science forum I hope it doesn't just come down to that. :Waldo:

[b.j.visser]

Thanks for your reaction.

It seems to me too that in a science discussion we should try to get first the figures. So I try to get the figures about the natural CO2 production and the non-natural CO2 production.

If 97% is natural and 3% is caused by human, what is than the influence of the heavy subsidied, wind-mills, solar energy and biomass on that figures? Is it possible to influence the changing climate by only decrease that 3%. In my opinion is it much more better to influence the natural emissions, beeing 97%?

Anyhow I am looking for the figures.

Bauke Visser

[cheetah]

Like b.j.visser and pmaust, I doubt humans can have any significant effect on Earth. While we may be responsible for a mere 3% of CO2 emissions, http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html claims that of ALL greenhouse gasses, we are responsible for a microscopic 0.28%! So, with the Kyoto Accord in full effect, we might be able to drop that to... 0.24%?

 

Anyway, I've also read Michael Crichton's controversial "State of Fear", which argues against the idea of global warming quite convincingly and with tons of notable references. For instance, termites outWEIGH (not outnumber) us 1000 to 1, and release methane gas, a much more potent greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide emissions we're so worried about.

 

I strongly recommend reading this book, and, barring that, reading the speech Crichton gave at the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy at http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html .

[InfiniteNow]

What if we're just asking the wrong question, and it has nothing to do with a warming effect? Maybe, we're just making the air carcinogenic... Although, I personally do not think this is the case at all, and that warming is a factor too...

[HydrogenBond]

Global warming is definitately occuring, however, the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. The extrapolation from this normal cyclic pattern to human intervention is not conclusive, although it may still be a useful political tool to push for cleaner air, reduced emissions, and a change within energy generation. But I also believe that science needs to stay pure and not let itself be tainted with politics.