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 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. 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.

UK slashes climate budget by 41%.

Japan has vastly uncreased targets for CO2 production to 3% more than 1990 levels by 2020. (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.

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/ar...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:



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.