Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 12:08am PT
|
Strictly speaking, 2000-2010 isn't "all" of this dataset either. The RSS series is based on satellite measurements that began in 1979, with the most recent monthly update in April 2010. Here's the whole thing, which (because I'm honest) is exactly what I posted on the previous page of this thread, before going off on an Easterbrook tangent.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 12:17am PT
|
I say we start focusing on positive solutions on how we as a species can adapt to the changes and not ponder on the negatives or how we can fix/stop the ever present cycle of change, regardless of cause.
Chief, you're missing the whole point here. Isn't it better to try preventing a fall than to adapt once we've broken our legs?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 12:19am PT
|
What was the avg temp on this planet's surface for the first, oh, 3 billion years or so before we humans ever should up?
I don't think that's really your question, but again, I've got no clue what is.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 12:39am PT
|
If the climate was just slowly changing on it's own, then of course we should focus our efforts on adapting.
But the evidence demonstrates that humans are causing the climate to change much more rapidly than it otherwise would.
And that is key. Rapid change is much more difficult to get 7 billion people to adapt to.
Much better in this situation to do all we can to limit the human effects that are causing the more rapid changes.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 12:43am PT
|
My point is that this ISN'T the first time that the climate has shifted on this planet. Nor will it be the last.
Of course not! No scientist on the planet believes otherwise.
What most do believe is that right now, the climate is visibly changing mainly because all those long-running natural dynamics are being goosed by about 7 gigatons of CO2 per year that human activities are injecting into the system.
In a very short time, we've managed to raise atmospheric CO2 levels to a point not seen in hundreds of thousands of years. All of the paleoclimatologists I know consider that alarming, and they're the ones who understand the most about how past climates have behaved.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 01:04am PT
|
Okay, you help the Bangladeshis adapt--when their country is underwater I'm sure you'll have room for them.
You're right that the majority of people aren't going to change their behavior until they have to--whether it is adapting or emitting less.
Either way it is going to have to come through government carrots and sticks or climatic cataclysms.
We can pass laws and fund programs to help the clean technologies become a boon and not a burden. We can do it now. The only obstacles are misinformation and wilful ignorance.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 01:56am PT
|
More people have perished in this country and globally, in the past 20 years, from naturally emitted Radon caused lung cancer, than AGW ever will come close to killing. Fact.
If there is a fact there, I don't see it.
Why aren't you all doing something to fix major issues that ARE killing people, and not trying to stop something that we do not know for certain what the end results might be.
I don't think we should just roll the dice when our whole civilization might be what we're betting; we don't know what we're betting.
Maybe we're just betting a "few" hundred million lives, maybe we're betting ourselves into another dark ages, or extinction, we don't know exactly how bad it will be, but it has the potential to be cataclysmic.
Yet based on nothing--no contrary evidence at all--some of you are too ready to say, "oh, well it might turn out to be a good thing".
And when you talk of radon and lung cancer or other things that ARE killing people instead of climate change it is a false choice. We can do both, we can do many things at once.
Just as we can work to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and decrease the chance of a civilization ending thermonuclear war and work on reducing lung cancer.
We reduced chloroflourocarbons and the ozone hole is repairing itself and we can do this too.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
|
Maybe we should start looking at what we can do in order to adapt and create a positive outcome. Instead of pondering in the negative potential that you so assuredly share that have absolutely no assurance of actually happening. If we ponder on the negative outcome, than we shall have a negative future.
Abusing drugs is good for me, (everybody focus now), abusing drugs is good for me, (I think I'm getting the hang of it), abusing drugs is good for me...
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
May 24, 2010 - 06:02pm PT
|
Chief wrote: Who is "WE"?
The major contributors to your so called "Dooms Day" future climatic catastrophe, are the billions of humans that I speak of that live for today, as that is all they have time for.
Wrong. Those who are in the best position to know what they are doing, are, by far, the worst.
So many here in the comforts of the spoiled U S of A just don't understand the concept of surviving on a day to day basis... literally.
Which is why change should start with us.
How do you even plan on going to the corners of this world with your saving grace mentality and informing all these far below poverty billions that they now have to cease what they do daily in order to survive.
What viable options are your scientist elite going to give all those billions when you insist that they do as you tell them to?
Hold on a minute. A scientist's job is to study the natural world, and to contribute to the understanding of what is happening.
So scientists should quit their jobs - no more of this actual studying reality nonsense that you find so irritating. Instead they should take up advocating that everything is going to be just dandy, and all we need to do is think positive.
Maybe this is the beginning of the end for the species known as homo sapien. Just as all the other millions of other species that once roamed this planet. Some many millions of years longer than we have.
Here's what none of those other species had - not one: Scientists who could see beyond their simple day-to-day lives, and rather than merely considering what their narrow group needed to do to survive - we can look into the future and consider what we as a species need to do to survive. Unfortunately, narrow-minded folks like yourself would rather spit on the grinding work done by scientists, just because it's easier to bury your head in the sand and ignore the treasure that our species has - intelligence and forethought. Go ahead and keep living day-to-day, thinking only about your near and dear, while our house burns all around us.
GO
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
May 25, 2010 - 12:51am PT
|
Our house. Our = humanity. House = planet Earth and all the things it needs to sustain us.
I don't need to paint you as narrow-minded. You do that fine all by yourself.
GO
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Thought I'd check in to see how the State of Virgina's investigation of possible wrongdoing by Mann was unfolding.
In a nutshell, UVA has "lawyered up" and is trying to stonewall the investigation by refusing to comply with the State's request for documents.
If they've really got nothing to hide, I imagine they'd turn over the documents (perhaps with some grumbling) and than bask in glory when the documents showed no wrongdoing.
But the refusal to turn over the documents suggests something more sinister is afoot.
I imagine "scientists" budget requests going forward will include funds for paper shredders, hard-drive erasers, etc. :)
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/education/article/uva_fights_inquiry_by_cuccinelli/56663/
|
|
cowpoke
climber
|
|
given my lack of expertise on the topic, I won't contribute to the line of discussion on this thread...i.e., here comes a thread-drifty comment:
just saw a keynote by Jorge Sarmiento that was aimed at non-geoscience folks like me. as someone who loves data and clever/elegant data presentation in figures, gotta say: geoscientists interested in climate change -- including causes and consequences -- have it goin' on.
case in point? check this paper out:
http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/ngruber/publications/gruber_etal_gbc_09
figure 5 rocks!!!
edit: the link allows you to download the paper pdf (which is available on the author's web page), but if you prefer, here is the citation to the article:
Gruber, N., M. Gloor, S. E. Mikaloff Fletcher, S. C. Doney, S. Dutkiewicz, M. Follows, M. Gerber, A. R. Jacobson, F. Joos, K. Lindsay, D. Menemenlis, A. Mouchet, S. A. Mueller, J. L. Sarmiento, and T. Takahashi, Oceanic sources, sinks, and transport of atmospheric CO2, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 23, GB1005, doi:10.1029/2008GB003349, 2009.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
Your link wants to download something, no thanks.
|
|
yosguns
climber
Durham, NC
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html
1.How are the terms climate change, global warming, and global change different?
The term climate change is often used as if it means the same thing as the term global warming. According to the National Academy of Sciences, however, “the phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures.” Climate change refers to any distinct change in measures of climate lasting for a long period of time. In other words, “climate change” means major changes in temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind patterns lasting for decades or longer. Climate change may result from: natural factors, such as changes in the Sun’s energy or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun; natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation); human activities that change the atmosphere’s makeup (e.g, burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., cutting down forests, planting trees, building developments in cities and suburbs, etc.).
Global warming is an average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface and in the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Increases in temperatures in our Earth’s atmosphere can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming is probably the most talked about climate change we are experiencing, but is just one of many changes along with precipitation levels, storm intensity, etc. Global warming can be considered part of climate change along with changes in precipitation, sea level, etc.
Global change is a broad term that refers to changes in the global environment, including climate change, ozone depletion, and land-use change.
Source: EPA Climate Change Basic Information
2.What is the greenhouse effect?
The Earth’s greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of our planet. When the Sun heats the Earth, some of this heat escapes back to space. The rest of the heat, also known as infrared radiation, is trapped in the atmosphere by clouds and greenhouse gases, such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. If all of these greenhouse gases were to suddenly disappear, our planet would be 60ºF (33ºC) colder and would not support life as we know it. Human activities have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) causing the Earth’s average temperature to rise. These additional greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil to power our cars, factories, power plants, homes, offices, and schools. Cutting down trees, generating waste and farming also produce greenhouse gases.
Source: IPCC “AR4 WG1 FAQs” 2007 (PDF) (128 pp, 10.9MB, About PDF)
Source: EPA Climate Change Basic Information
3.Are human activities responsible for the warming climate?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists believe that it is very likely (greater than 90 percent chance) that most of the warming we have experienced since the 1950s is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
Source: IPCC “AR4 WG1 FAQs” 2007 (PDF) (128 pp, 10.9MB, About PDF)
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2007: WGI Summary for Policy Makers (PDF) (18 pp, 2.9MB, About PDF)
4.How do scientists predict future climate change?
The Earth’s climate is very complex and involves the influences of air, land, and oceans on one another. Scientists use computer models to study these interactions. The models project future climate changes based on expected changes to the atmosphere. Though the models are not exact, they are able to simulate many aspects of the climate. Scientists reason that if the models can mimic currently observed features of the climate, then they are also most likely able to project future changes. For more information, visit the State of Knowledge page on EPA’s Climate Change site.
Source: IPCC “AR4 WG1 FAQs” 2007 (PDF) (128 pp, 10.9MB, About PDF)
5.How much will the Earth warm if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise?
If humans continue to emit greenhouse gases at or above the current pace, we will probably see an average global temperature increase of 3 to 7°F (2 to 4ºC) by 2100, and greater warming after that. Temperatures in some parts of the globe (e.g., over land and in the polar regions) are expected to rise even more.
Even if we drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, returning them to year 2000 levels and holding them constant, the Earth would still warm about 1°F (0.6ºC) over the next 100 years. This is due to the long lifetime of many greenhouse gases and the slow cycling of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. For more information, visit the Future Climate Change page on EPA’s Climate Change site.
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
6.Is our planet warming?
Yes. The global temperature record shows an average warming of about 1.3°F (0.74ºC) over the past century. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Within the past 30 years, the rate of warming across the globe has been approximately three times greater than the rate over the last 100 years. Past climate information suggests the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years in the Northern Hemisphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the Earth’s climate system is now “unequivocal” (i.e., “definite”). The IPCC bases this conclusion on observations of increases in average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and average sea level across the globe. For more information, visit the Recent Climate Change page of EPA’s Climate Change site.
Source: IPCC “AR4 WG1 FAQs” 2007 (PDF) (128 pp, 10.9MB, About PDF)
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2010 - 05:05pm PT
|
Warmists are just foolish tools of Al Gore's Cap & Tax global
conspiracy that want to steal billions from hard working people.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
|
Ed wrote:
In doing so, they should also keep in mind the relative youth of Homo sapiens sapiens and the possibility that its success may have been due to the relative stability of the climate in the last few hundred thousand years.
OK, I'll keep that in mind for a minute.
Then I'll remember that humans spread out of Africa to populate essentially the entire earth, in areas with hugely differing climates, including climates that exhibit lots of variation from year to year.
So Ed, while there may have been "relative stability of the climate," there sure was NOT relative stability from the point of view of humans who were constantly moving from one area to another.
Ed, if you actually want to learn something (I know this will take some time out of the scientists favorite pastime of insulting other people), why don't you consider how long it took humans to spread from Alaska, after they crossed the Bering Strait, down to the tip of South America.
Then consider the climates the humans had to cross to do that.
Then explain why we should be so worried about a change of a couple of degree.
Do your homework! ha ha ha
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2010 - 01:40pm PT
|
Ed, if you actually want to learn something (I know this will take some time out of the scientists favorite pastime of insulting other people),
Actually Ed and a few others have been extraordinarily patient explaining things to you.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2010 - 01:42pm PT
|
why don't you consider how long it took humans to spread from Alaska, after they crossed the Bering Strait, down to the tip of South America.
Then consider the climates the humans had to cross to do that.
Then explain why we should be so worried about a change of a couple of degree.
It took them thousands of years.
The changes that are occurring now will occur over decades.
They were hunter-gatherers; they were nomadic; their populations were small.
Our agriculture based civilization is vast, and a metropolis cannot just pull up stakes like an aboriginal village and move to greener pastures once the supply of wooly mammoths is depleted.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!