Global warming and anti-evolutionism

[Deamiter]

Hey, if the Canadian Conservative government admits to global warning and feels the need to do something about it sooner than later, there must be something to the science.

Hey even Bush's State of the Union address mentioned climate change and our need to do something about it! I can't help but think that given his history on the subject, it's giving a little on that issue to be able to claim he's working with the new Democratic majority, but I won't look a gift-horse in the mouth!

Environmental policy that preserves our precious Earth should be a no-brainer bi-partisan issue no matter what the state of the world-wide climate is! We're not going to go bankrupt spending a bit more for our cars and electricity, and as many companies have realized, using less energy can save a ton of money! Cleaning up the environment will never be as easy or as cost-effective as trying to prevent pollution in the first place.

 

[Jadis40]

Climate change is just that, climate change.

I think it's pretty arrogant for humans to think that they can stop the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet that have been going on for billions of years.

The 16th Century was one of the coldest on record, and led to severe drought over a vast expanse of the North American continent:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000208075420.htm

While that article was written in 2000, it still illustrates that cyclical changes are completely natural, and take place without greenhouse gases and the activities of mankind even being a factor. That's not to say there can't be terrible results.

Then there's the flip side of volcanic activity that can have the opposite effect.

Take the 1815 eruption of Tambora volcano in Sumbawa, Indonesia.

The following year, 1816, was directly affected by that eruption:

http://www.fascinatingearth.com/stories/The%20Year%20Without%20a%20Summer.htm

A prior eruption of Huaynaputina in Peru in 1600 had the very same effect in 1601.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaynaputina

I also think that more attention needs to be paid to solar activity, as mentioned in this article:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html

I'm referring specifically to this quote:

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."

He mentions the past 100 years, but what I think is even more fascinating is the Little Ice Age, which spanned from approximately 1600 to the 19th Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

What's even more telling is that scientists really don't know how much the sun contributes:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html


I found this site, which was rather fascinating too:

http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm

 

[Mallon]

I think it's pretty arrogant for humans to think that they can stop the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet that have been going on for billions of years.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that's what we do.
Rather, the focus is on stopping the recent human-induced warming trend that has resulted from pollutants.

 

[gluadys]

Climate change is just that, climate change.

I think it's pretty arrogant for humans to think that they can stop the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet that have been going on for billions of years.

But in this instance, most of the change is not natural. It is the consequence of human activity---especially the rate of change. Natural cycles do not account for what we are seeing.

While that article was written in 2000, it still illustrates that cyclical changes are completely natural, and take place without greenhouse gases and the activities of mankind even being a factor. That's not to say there can't be terrible results.

Yes they do, but the natural changes have already been accounted for. They are not sufficient to account for the rapidity or intensity of the climate change that is occurring today.

I also think that more attention needs to be paid to solar activity, as mentioned in this article:

http://www.livescience.com/environme...un_effect.html

I think the first paragraph says it all.

Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.

Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists say.​

So what is responsible for the other 70-90% of global warming?

The article also indicates that this factor is already known and being incorporated into the lastest models, yet the Fourth Assessment Report still concludes that most of the global warming we are seeing today is generated by human activity.

what I think is even more fascinating is the Little Ice Age, which spanned from approximately 1600 to the 19th Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

A good article, which shows, among other things, that solar activity as a contributor to climate change, is being studied.

The Little Ice Age was indeed a subject of scientific controversy in the field for some time, and has been intensively studied for that reason. But the conclusion is still that the current global warming is mostly human generated. We are not dealing with a solely natural cycle today.


Obviously you have read a fair bit of popular literature on this topic. But have you read the Assessment Reports of the IPCC? (They are created for politicians, so they are not difficult.) Have you looked at the data on which they are based? What makes you think you have sufficient scientific data, and understanding of it, to second-guess the conclusions of the world's best climatologists?

 

[Jadis40]

Obviously you have read a fair bit of popular literature on this topic. But have you read the Assessment Reports of the IPCC? (They are created for politicians, so they are not difficult.) Have you looked at the data on which they are based? What makes you think you have sufficient scientific data, and understanding of it, to second-guess the conclusions of the world's best climatologists?

I look at it as a two-sided coin...on one are those who are fanatics about the whole thing: Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace etc. They make anyone who doesn't agree with their position (including Al Gore) out to be the villains in the whole debate.

As mentioned in one of the articles I linked to, they think the sun contributes about 10-30%.

According to this site http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Humans contribute only 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account, and 5% if not. It runs through a whole lot of math showing how they come up with those figures.
So, basically, I feel that we're being lied to about how much human activity actually contributes to global warming.

 

[Deamiter]

And on the other side of the coin? People who claim that pollution is totally fine and don't care at all what we do to the environment as long as we're comfy and our goods are cheap?

The vast majority lie in the middle, but interestingly enough it is HARD to find a climate scientist (that is, somebody who spends their life researching the climate) who says we have a minimal effect. Or are you one of those from the "other side of the coin" who are convinced that the vast majority of scientists are conspiring to some unknown agenda?

Your site is also rather misleading. Yes water vapor has a major effect, but it's not anywhere near the 98% of total absorption it seems to claim. It's more like 60-70% that you'll find in peer-reviewed journal articles. CO2 adds another 25%.

Interestingly enough, the 25% effect of CO2 is magnified when even a small global temperature increase causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere. The relatively small effects (though again, not nearly as small as websites lacking accountability might claim) are magnified by the very thing you bring up.

For a better understanding of the role and AMOUNT of absorption attributed to water and other gasses by scientists, you might check out the site by Physics World:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7

 

[gluadys]

I look at it as a two-sided coin...on one are those who are fanatics about the whole thing: Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace etc. They make anyone who doesn't agree with their position (including Al Gore) out to be the villains in the whole debate.

But the "one side" in the matter of global warming are not a bunch of radical environmentalists, but serious and qualified (and conservative) scientists. The "one side" is not Earth First or Greenpeace, etc. Most members of those organizations are scientific amateurs. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist, though I think he does a good job of presenting the science simply for a lay audience.

So stop listening to the fanatics on both sides and find out what the scientists on the front line of research are saying. And more importantly, why they are saying what they are.

Go to the source. Go to the material published by the scientists, not by advocacy groups.

As mentioned in one of the articles I linked to, they think the sun contributes about 10-30%.

According to this site http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Humans contribute only 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account, and 5% if not. It runs through a whole lot of math showing how they come up with those figures.

Just because they have a lot of math on the site doesn't mean you understand it. And the fact that they do not cite the arguments of those who disagree with them (a standard practice in scientific papers) and explain why they take a different approach suggests they are not providing the full picture.

Every argument you can find on the web has already been raised by scientists at the IPCC and researched for its validity. Much research is still ongoing. But after 20 years of continuous monitoring, the consensus is firmer than ever.

So, basically, I feel that we're being lied to about how much human activity actually contributes to global warming.

Oh, indeed you are. By oil companies and others who don't want to adjust to the new reality of climate change. You are being lied to by those for whom a profit today is worth the sacrifice of tomorrow.

 

[Smidlee]

Hey, if the Canadian Conservative government admits to global warning and feels the need to do something about it sooner than later, there must be something to the science.

No doubt there something to it but is it more political or more science. Some scientist (including a one in Canda)believes it's very much political.

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.

 

[Deamiter]

No doubt there something to it but is it more political or more science. Some scientist (including a one in Canda)believes it's very much political.

Indeed, it's become MUCH more political of late. Some independent research groups have done interviews of scientists in government organizations and have found that 40% of the scientists claim that they have faced pressure to remove terms like "climate change" that might counter the current administration's political stand.

We've seen scientists being paid to express a particular opinion by politicians, scientists having their jobs threatened for mentioning climate change and scientific advisors being chosen on political, not scientific merits.

Indeed, these debates have become much more political, but it's largely the fault of the Bush administration, not some huge scientific conspiracy!

As to your article, I love how it presents absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that we have nothing to do with climate change. It's a pure opinions piece which might be worth a read, but isn't good for much else.

 

[Smidlee]

As to your article, I love how it presents absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that we have nothing to do with climate change. It's a pure opinions piece which might be worth a read, but isn't good for much else.

How much influence does Bush have in Canada that you can blame him for their actions? I believe it good to be skeptic when politics is in the middle of any fight.
Michael Crichton does gives examples of how badly the environmentists got it wrong during the Gulf War. None of their doomsday predictions came true.

 

[Deamiter]

How much influence does Bush have in Canada that you can blame him for their actions? I believe it good to be skeptic when politics is in the middle of any fight.
Michael Crichton does gives examples of how badly the environmentists got it wrong during the Gulf War. None of their doomsday predictions came true.

Where was I blaming Bush for anything? I'm currently living in America so I find myself following American politics.

Of course you should be good and skeptical when politics is in the middle of the fight. Of course when the "fight" is over scientific conclusions and only one side is repeatedly not only editing conclusions but actually changing the evidence that is submitted to congress... Excuse me if I don't take a popular author's word over that of the global scientific community.

 

[gluadys]

How much influence does Bush have in Canada that you can blame him for their actions?

Way too much, especially on the Conservative government. The Conservatives have borrowed a lot of their policy, and even some of their political language, from the Bush administration.

 

[Mallon]

Michael Crichton does gives examples of how badly the environmentists got it wrong during the Gulf War. None of their doomsday predictions came true.

So you believe everything Crichton has to say on issues of global warming, yet nothing he has to say about evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

So you believe everything Crichton has to say on issues of global warming, yet nothing he has to say about evolution?

No I don't believe (nor know) everything Crichton says but I do remember the predictions made in the Gulf War. Kind of like the Y2K scare.

 

[laptoppop]

Interesting article relevant to this discussion:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/275tmktp.asp?pg=1

 

[Deamiter]

I did indeed find the article rather interesting. I'll have to do more digging, but it suggests that the claims of impropriety are unfounded.

Here's another relevant article that discusses the sources and errors in many skeptics claims that inveriably get circulated around the internet (for example, the paper on tropospheric cooling).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875760,00.html

 

[gluadys]

Interesting article relevant to this discussion:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/275tmktp.asp?pg=1

Well most of it is the propaganda one would expect from a right-wing think tank.

The following claim interested me:

The IPCC has actually lowered its estimate of the magnitude of human influence on warming, though we shall have to wait for the full report in May to understand how and why.​

I will be looking for this when the May report comes out. Meanwhile, whatever the magnitude of the impact, the summary clearly increases the consensus that there is a human impact. While the 2001 report said a human impact was probable, the 2007 report said it was "very likely", a phrase which the media reported as equivalent to 90% certain.

I don't understand all the hype about China. Does no one opposed to Kyoto on this ground understand that Kyoto is a first step and that China and India are to be included in the post-Kyoto phase beginning in 2013? The negotiations for the post-Kyoto phase have already begun (at Montreal in 2006), and nations which are cutting themselves out of Kyoto are not likely to have much influence on the post-Kyoto negotiations. So if it is important (and I agree it is) to start cutting emissions in China and India and other industrializing nations, being part of the Kyoto accords is an important first step.

I haven't heard anything from the Bush administration, (or the Canadian Harper government) about participation in the post-Kyoto phase of greenhouse gas reductions.

 

[laptoppop]

Here's another interesting article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

[gluadys]

Here's another interesting article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Hmmm. An op-ed piece by an interested party does not inspire confidence.

He may well be right in terms of the natural fluctuations of temperature.

But he does not discuss at all why the current levels of CO2 are so much higher than in any past time, both cool and warm. Nor does he discuss the close correlation of atmospheric CO2 with temperature.

So even if he is right about one of nature's impacts on climate, he is leaving out a big part of the picture. After all, climatologists have never said that there are no natural fluctuations involved in the current global warming. What they are saying is that even when you take the natural fluctuations into account, it does not add that much CO2 or other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And the known consequence of additional CO2 to the atmosphere is a rise in global temperature.

He is also a bit misleading when he says:

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.

Most people assume that global warming means uniform warming everywhere, but that is not the case. I mentioned recently that one near-future consequence of global warming could (ironically) be a significant cooling of Western Europe. Why? Because the additional fresh water in the North Atlantic from the melting of icebergs could disrupt the Gulf Stream which keeps Western Europe warmer than similar latitudes in Canada and Siberia.

What the climatologists have been emphasizing is that a rise in global mean temperature means more extreme weather. That includes unusual frosts in California as well as longer and more extreme summer droughts.

 

[laptoppop]

One correction - this is in the news section of the London Times, not the op-ed section.