Global Warming

[Emil Miller]

At risk of starting a debate with potential for closure, I think this subject is serious enough to warrant
some responsible input from forum members.
Here in the UK we are experiencing unprecedented rainfall leading to widespread flooding. On checking the weather
for the USA, I noticed that 65% of the USA is under snow and that the long-running drought affecting California is about to be broken by rain coming down from the Northern states which are also experiencing massive
snowfalls. There have been similar notable weather patterns around the globe recently and clearly something is causing
it but the argument rages as to what. Global warming is pretty much admitted by the scientific community but is it a temporary development in line with known weather variances of the past or is it a phenomenon directly connected to human activity?

[YesNo]

It is certainly cold enough here that you can hear people say things like, "Where's global warming when you need it?"

One person told me this cold weather is all in line with global warming theory since it is wild swings in temperature that characterize the change that is going on. I don't know to what extent that comment even makes sense.

I assume climate will change without human involvement since the past ice ages came and went without much input from us, but the question today is whether our activity is affecting the weather. I don't know. I do know that it did snow again yesterday. The snow is piled so high in places I will probably takes some pictures of it later today.

[blank|verse]

The overwhelming consensus on climate change is yes - it's happening, and yes - it's 'very likely' caused by mankind and the production of greenhouse gases.

Here's a link to NASA's website (http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus) which neatly sums up some of the world's leading scientific bodies and their conclusions. It's worth noting that 97% of all scientific bodies who have studied climate change are in agreement.

This debate has been won. Climate change is real and is happening now and we are to blame. Some people find that unpalatable, but that doesn't make a difference in the face of scientific data. What we need to do now is find some politicians with the guts to take on fossil-fuel industries and make some real changes instead of fiddling while the world burns.

[kev67]

I was speaking to a friend last night. She has had to move out of her house. It has not quite been flooded but she cannot run any water or flush the toilets, and the roads are flooded. She said when she was buying her house and looked into its history. It was 118 years old or so and had never been flooded before. I have never seen the River Kennet so high. The car park to the cinema multiplex near the edge of town in almost completely underwater. The crossroads next to it has been closed. A near by half marathon was cancelled this morning because part of the course is under water.

I tend to believe the climate scientists rather than their detractors myself.

[Emil Miller]

I was speaking to a friend last night. She has had to move out of her house. It has not quite been flooded but she cannot run any water or flush the toilets, and the roads are flooded. She said when she was buying her house and looked into its history. It was 118 years old or so and had never been flooded before. I have never seen the River Kennet so high. The car park to the cinema multiplex near the edge of town in almost completely underwater. The crossroads next to it has been closed. A near by half marathon was cancelled this morning because part of the course is under water.

I tend to believe the climate scientists rather than their detractors myself.

The river Thames has burst its banks in West London and some people are being advised to leave their homes as there is a danger to life. I think the last time the Thames overflowed and drowned some basement dwellers was during a tidal surge in the 1930s long before the Thames barrier was built. I'm glad I live on relatively high ground.

[YesNo]

I wonder how long it will take us to use up all the economically available fossil fuel causing the greenhouse gas and the erratic weather patterns.

If the politicians can't get it under control, running out of this fuel should put an end to it. Alternatively, an economic depression should get things under control as well.

[HSPS]

I think most of the opposition to the conclusions of climate scientists is because of money, not wanting to put in the work that is required to solve the problem, fear, or all of the above. Assuming that the data I've seen since I was first introduced to the idea of climate change are correct, and considering that most of the opposing arguments that I have heard or read were weak or simply illogical in the face of those data, I don't see much reason not to believe it.

[The Atheist]

At risk of starting a debate with potential for closure, I think this subject is serious enough to warrant
some responsible input from forum members.

The science is solid, and just today, there has been an explanation of the pause in global temperatures over the past decade (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11199353). It isn't that the warming stopped, just that the heat is being driven lower into the ocean.

That's no comfort, since the changes it will make to the oceans won't be positive, with further explosions of algal bloom and jellyfish likely, both of which stop plant plankton from mitigating carbon dioxide build-up.

The problem the planet faces is the complete lack of action by governments. We started to make progress pre-GFC, but that has drained budgets worldwide and removed any incentive to act now.

Government budgets for climate change research and action have been slashed or removed entirely.

Australia has not just reduced spending, but also disbanded the agency charged with monitoring change (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/he-called-climate-change-crap--now-australias-new-prime-minister-abolishes-watchdog-8827627.html).

UK slashes climate budget by 41%. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-climate-scepticism-blamed-as-owen-paterson-slashes-spendingon-global-warming-9086397.html)

Japan has vastly uncreased targets for CO2 production to 3% more than 1990 levels by 2020. (http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/15/uk-slams-japans-decision-to-slash-climate-target/) (ironically being slammed by UK for doing so)

Even New Zealand, which was an early leader on climate action, has slashed research by $10 m. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895428)

We're doomed, but it'll take a century or two, so forget about it and party on dude!

If there's anyone left to write histories in a few centuries' time, I imagine the people left will laugh ironically at a time when people apathetically considered money right now more important than the survival of the actual species homo sapiens. I do already.

[Emil Miller]

I dont know if this will work as it only mentions sharing with facebook and twitter, but the measure of flooding
is indicated in this video.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26113056

[108 fountains]

I've done some work related to climate change, especially during a period when I lived in Korea from 2009-2012. I met several times with a Korean scientist who does collaborative research on global warming with U.S. scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). He showed me a paper he wrote 30 years ago saying that one of the effects of global warming would be increased water vapor in the air (from increased evaporation from the ocean). The higher amounts of H2O in the atmosphere would lead to increased precipitation (rain and snow) and more severe storms (hurricanes and typhoons) - a pretty good prediction, I would say. He also has a video he made from hundreds of still photographs taken from a U.S. satellite over the north pole over a 20-year period. The video made from these photos show the arctic freeze and ice melt over successive seasons. It's quite striking to see how in the 1980's very little of the arctic ice melted over the summer seasons, but by the 2000s, nearly all the ice melts in the summer months. Korea is particularly worried about climate change because of its geography - a peninsula with its southenr coast just around 35 degrees latitude. Over the past several years, Korean fishermen and scientists have noticed a significant change in the fish species and fish migration patterns around the peninsula, with increased numbers of "warm-water" fish and fewer numbers of "cold-water" fish. Also, Aedes albopticus, a mosquito most commonly found in tropical countries, has been detected in the southern part of Korea only since the 2000s. It could possibly have been present on the peninsula earlier and simply escaped detection, but the point is that climate change is real with significant average increases in temperature in the past generation (despite wide fluctuations), and is already having effects, including more frequent and severe precipitation events and gradual changes in animal habitat and migration patterns.
I'll try to find the video of the arctic ice melt and post it here - it's compelling to see.

Well, I no longer have the video I mentioned in my previous post, but here is a link to something very similar, a NASA-produced video from satellite imagery that appears to be computer-enhanced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8

[Emil Miller]

It would seem fairly obvious that the introduction of a market economy to one fifth of the earth's population
and its massive expansion within 30 years must be having some effect on the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
If we compare it to US industrialisation which took approximately four times as long, not to mention that of various European countries, China's phenomenal industrial growth rate must surely be at the forefront of the reasons for accelerated climate change.
Given this scenario, there seems little hope of reversing the increasingly adverse weather conditions we are now witnessing.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don't know what to think and I think much of that comes from the endless spin on this topic. There are some good links provided in this thread and opinion that global warming/climate change is linked to human activity, but then I wonder if the naysayers could also provide links to prove it is not?

I watched and remember the Al Gore video several years ago. Then I saw the reaction links to the Al Gore video criticising his conclusions. Then you had the reaction to the reaction of the Al Gore video etc, etc, you see what I am saying, then it all just becomes a roundabout...and this is just one example I am giving. The whole issue seems full of reaction and counter-reaction and in the end I don't really know what to believe any more.

[The Atheist]

... but then I wonder if the naysayers could also provide links to prove it is not?

No.

They try, but all of their arguments are scientifically inaccurate or straight-out lies. We had an interesting court case here recently when a denial group took on the crown climate institute and lost. They could not back up their arguments.

Another guide is the amount of money oil companies have thrown at deniers and their organisations. If it's not real, why would the polluters be trying to deny it with lies?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

The fact that many quite rational people are sucked into climate "scepticism" is disturbing evidence that it's working, however.


... I don't really know what to believe any more.

Unfortunately, Al Gore probably did more harm than good, because he used inaccurate information and scare tactics instead of straight facts. Facts aren't sexy enough.

I find the best way to show what's real and what's not is to use this graphic:

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/climate_zps1a53661d.jpg (http://s150.photobucket.com/user/TheAtheist/media/climate_zps1a53661d.jpg.html)

When science shows 99.8% confidence in something, it's real. It's unfortunate that deniers have co-opted some very famous and popular people as their public faces, so stick to the science and you'll be fine.

[LitNetIsGreat]

You are no doubt correct or at least the true facts may speak for themselves, but there are a lot of people out there (general public?) who don't read up on such things and are easily confused or led astray, it only takes one or two doubts an article here or there, the Al Gore thing, whatever and people will reject the whole thing or already have. Many people just think climate change is either nonsense or a result of natural change and not caused by human action.

[The Atheist]

You are no doubt correct or at least the true facts may speak for themselves, but there are a lot of people out there (general public?) who don't read up on such things and are easily confused or led astray, it only takes one or two doubts an article here or there, the Al Gore thing, whatever and people will reject the whole thing or already have. Many people just think climate change is either nonsense or a result of natural change and not caused by human action.

Yes, and it's understandable why - a combination of apathy, selfishness and complication.

The matter is straightforward in terms of the fact that the planet is warming and humans are to blame, but there's no consensus on what the results will be. Take sea level as a guide; there are claims & counter-claims about how far the seas will rise, but it's all conjecture until it happens and it's going to happen really slowly. Nobody who doesn't live on a Pacific atoll isn't too worried yet.

In an instant gratification age, people find it extremely hard to think of the climate in 100 or 200 years from now.

That situation is made much worse by the situation requiring immediate solution, the effect of which would be to take 5-10% of everyone's income to fight it. To institute fixes right now would probably cost 5-10% of global GDP, and that's a price politicians won't consider, because they know that people will not give up their treats today to save the world tomorrow.

[Calidore]

They try, but all of their arguments are scientifically inaccurate or straight-out lies. We had an interesting court case here recently when a denial group took on the crown climate institute and lost. They could not back up their arguments.


Something similar happened with intelligent design a little while ago in Pennsylvania. Some parents sued when a school board tried to introduce intelligent design into science classes, and after a trial, the judge not only ruled against the IDers based on "overwhelming evidence", but also blasted them for "time and again lie[ing] to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.



Unfortunately, Al Gore probably did more harm than good, because he used inaccurate information and scare tactics instead of straight facts. Facts aren't sexy enough.

Michael Moore has the same problem. He exaggerates and lies outright because he's "right", and therefore it's justified. But not when the other guys do it, even though they are mostly thinking exactly the same way. Thus the public ignores everyone because they can't actually trust anyone.

[The Atheist]

Something similar happened with intelligent design a little while ago in Pennsylvania.

Excellent analogy, starting with calling evolution "a theory" in a manner that suggests it's not real science.

Your sig is saying the same thing, as I'm sure you know.


Michael Moore has the same problem. He exaggerates and lies outright because he's "right", and therefore it's justified. But not when the other guys do it, even though they are mostly thinking exactly the same way. Thus the public ignores everyone because they can't actually trust anyone.

Another excellent example. Seth MacFarlane once had a superb episode of Family Guy, where Moore takes off his outer skin, only to be Rush Limbaugh underneath, then another Moore under that, and so on.

Just to go to advance planning again, I have a classic example happening outside our house right now, as the city council is paying for an upgrade to the area's water supply.

This is in Auckland, one of the western world's fastest-growing cities. Ten years ago, this area had no houses at all on the land, being a mix of swamp & farnland. At that time, the city planners had budgeted for a further 100,000 residents in the area over the next 25 years.

So, what do they do for water supply? INstall enough for 50,000 residents in the safe knowledge that it would do for now and be a problem for someone else to fix at a later date. Right now, they are digging up roads & footpaths to install the upgrade, creating needless expenditure in the millions of dollars.

With that kind of attitude prevailing in officialdom, what chance is there that they'll ever act on something that is a couple of centuries in the future?

As I keep saying, the problem with that approach is that there is starting to be a consensus that there will come a time in global warming where it is irreversible. Nobody knows when that will be, or what level of CO2/methane it sits at, but it's there somewhere.

Won't bother the cockroaches.

[AuntShecky]

From a strictly personal standpoint, this winter is similiar to those we suffered through when I was a kid. There were mitigating factors back then -- we heated with a highly-inefficient coal-burning furnace, we didn't have high-tech outer garments, little was known about insulation, etc., and nobody ever heard the term "wind chill factor." Even so, it was downright cold. The summers, as well, were sweltering, just as the last 10 or 15 summers have been. 2013 was one of the hottest summers on record.

One thing we didn't have back then -- and what we have today at an alarming rate is melting glaciers. Polar bears in the Arctic are rapidly losing their habitat. Other species, especially cold-water fish and other forms of marine life, are diminishing in numbers. The videos from Alaska, Greenland, the Himalayas are thorougly frightening, as are the data which researchers have found from taking "core samples" from the Antarctic ice shelf.

The term "global warming" is a misnomer, although increased oceanic temperatures are certainly a factor. "Climate change" is more accurate, since an undeniable clue is the frequency and intensity of storms and droughts.

Greenhouse gases from a little more than a century of burning fossil fuels is a prime culprit.
Another factor is methane, produced in the waste products of animals raised for food. Clearing of the rain forests for construction and development vastly diminishes the production of oxygen, which is a natural by-product of photosynthesis in plants. All of these destructive activities are of course man-made.

But what difference does the cause make? It is imperative that the world --led by the industrialized West-- take positive steps to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The United States should be a leader in this effort, but political and especially corporate pressure has made progress toward this aim sluggish and half-hearted.

Even if climate change is -- as some like to believe--not man-made-- if we make some inroads against pollution, at least the world's population can have hope of breathing cleaner air.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Actually yes Aunty made a good point there, the label 'global warming' has been an unfortunate word slip of the scientific community. I'm sure we have all heard someone mutter in the cold weather 'what about all of this global warming nonsense?' or playfully announce 'we could do with some of that global warming right now...'

Yes I agree Atheist, people and companies are extremely short sighted and as usual profit is the driving factor.

[kev67]

I don't know what to think and I think much of that comes from the endless spin on this topic. There are some good links provided in this thread and opinion that global warming/climate change is linked to human activity, but then I wonder if the naysayers could also provide links to prove it is not?

I watched and remember the Al Gore video several years ago. Then I saw the reaction links to the Al Gore video criticising his conclusions. Then you had the reaction to the reaction of the Al Gore video etc, etc, you see what I am saying, then it all just becomes a roundabout...and this is just one example I am giving. The whole issue seems full of reaction and counter-reaction and in the end I don't really know what to believe any more.

I have a similar problem. Basically I believe the climate scientists, but to a degree it is on trust. I cannot entirely understand the science because I have not the training, the intelligence or the time. Scientists have been pretty consistent about the danger since the late 80s, when I first remember hearing about it. However, when I look out the window, I cannot help wondering where the desert is, whether somehow a mistake has been made, or whether it could not all be some giant conspiracy. I found it easier to believe when we had a run of about a dozen mild winters when it never snowed or really got cold, but then we had three cold winters with a lot of snow. Right now half the country is under water, but next year it will probably be back to normal. Certainly I believe CO2 is a green house gas, but I could not say how much extra CO2 in the atmosphere would have what effect on the climate. Every explanation I have seen has been slightly inadequate or a simplification that raises more questions. However, based on the uncertainty, I would do what climate scientists have done: a) form a committee of world experts to review and collate the scientific evidence, b) look for evidence in the geological record to check how the climate has changed with CO2, and c) write some computer climate models, test them with historical data and see whether they agree about the future. Computer model wise, it is basically a massive fluid mechanics problem with a lot of extra physics, over a very wide area and over a long period of time.

[The Atheist]

I tend to go the other way and prefer "global warming" to "climate change" - and I know I'm at odds with the scientific community on it - because the problem is not so much the climate changing, but the globe warming up.

Yes, some places will be colder, notably UK, but the average temperature of the planet and oceans is increasing and that's what will cause all the problems.

I don't see any real advantage in one name over another, because even climate change opens the door for people predicting another ice age, as happened as recently as last month: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html

[LitNetIsGreat]

The label doesn't matter in itself, but to the general public the term 'global warming' doesn't make any sense if faced with record freezing temperatures that month or season. The science may mean that GW/CC does mean that some places will be colder as a result, but most people are not going to read into that and the term just doesn't match what many people may be experiencing. So if scientists/environmentalists are trying to convince people of this issue the term is somewhat counter-productive.

'Climate change' may not be perfect either, but my guess is it is a better general fit than global warming. It is an issue though that undoubtedly the climate changes significantly without human activity...though not to say human activity hasn't impacted negatively...really you see, it just feels a bit of a confused mess, like the rainforests that were going to disappear in ten years, twenty-five years ago. People cannot trust the science or the way it is spun. That article you posted for example uses scientific backing "Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep'" so is that true as well? My point of course is that people just do not know what to believe any more and you can't really blame them. It is all a bit 'the boy who cried wolf' I fear, but all the same, we know what happened to him!

[108 fountains]

There is a lot of research going on that addresses various aspects of the problem - carbon sequestration and carbon sinks, development of all sorts of alternative energy sources (nuclear reactors are touted in some quarters, but they scare me more than increasing CO2 emissions), smart grids, etc., etc., but one low tech and effective method is simply to plant more trees/green leafy plants. Trees are natural carbon sinks that absorb CO2, emit oxygen, and provide other useful products, as well. For sure, more trees are not the only solution, but they can help mitigate the problem. The ultimate solution will be some mixture of alternative non-fossil energy sources. As much as I have been involved in the issue over the years (I've done some work on the government policy side) it always surprises me that the simple idea of planting trees is so often left out of the equation.

[The Atheist]

Excellent piece in today's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/storms-floods-climate-change-upon-us-lord-stern

Noting something not mentioned in the thread yet - the danger of methane escaping from thawing permafrost. No doubt it's going to happen, and nobody knows quite how much methane might be released, other than "a lot".

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes good article, I read it when you posted it earlier. Just watching the news currently pretty unbelievable stuff - it feels like half of England is under water...and storms and more rain on the way tomorrow.