What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Take a trip to California or Nevada next week and you'll have all the warm pools you could dream of (including one made of your own sweat).
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/26/historic-heat-wave-in-the-us-west-next-week/?utm_source=widgets
[quote who="petrossa" reply="99" id="3375837"]'Stewardship' is an insult to the 80% of the world on a subsistence level by comparing your mighty fight for humankind to their suffering.
The cognitive dissonance is stunning.
To the people in denial of AGW, do you also hold a skeptical view of things like evolution, or other areas where there is an overwhelming scientific consensus? The same kind of cherry picking goes on there...
As far as what can be done on an individual level, having fewer offspring, not flying around the world on vacations or business, biking/public transit more often, and supporting local politicians that back positive changes as well are some steps. Ultimately, it is government policy changes that will make the most difference - what gets subsidized, greenlit and invested in vs. what doesn't. There really is no debate any more amongst the scientific community - despite repeated efforts to undermine their message - the "controversy" only exists in the public imagination and media. So when asking "what are you doing as an individual?", one of the first and most important things is "are you muddying the waters and furthering more false "debate" about whether it is happening or are you in support of getting past the basic hurdle of "is it or isn't it?" and moving on to "ok, so what should we do?". Nothing will change without political will and leadership and constituents' support for policy intitiatves is part of that. So - how do the Americans here feel about Obama's speech and plan on climate change?
Gah..hopefully you can figure out my mangling of the multiple quotes and failure to edit them.
Relying on politicians, kings, dictators, deities for inventions necessary to advance the human population has never worked. Better to let natural processes take hold which will likely be fossil fuels rising high enough in price to result in new energy sources being worth the investment of the private sector. Even if you take AGW as a fact it's not an eminent emergency by any stretch of the imagination.
The study of Evolution does not always lead in the same directions either in the scientific community. Even Darwin proposed Evolution as a fact and Natural Selection as a theory to be proven or disproven.
Do you mean eminent or imminent? Very important or happening quickly? Assuming the latter, any adaptation or mitigation efforts also happen slowly over decades so this isn't a reason to just twiddle thumbs currently. As you probably know, there is no reversing AGW anyway - even if greenhouse emissions were magically cut to zero overnight it's already been set in motion. It's more a question of what long term plans to put in place so it doesn't exponentially spiral even more. As trite as it sounds, it's more about considering "future generations" than current imminent emergencies (although there will be localized climate change disturbances bringing plenty of those as well).
I mean my spelling sucks when I'm not really paying all that much attention to it. I'm waiting for the technological singularity so I can have my personal assistant help me with such matters.
OK. Enough. I'll only say you have demonstrated your inability to even read, let alone comprehend. You accuse me of not understanding science. You can't understand English.
The skeptics, like me, have pointed out since the start that the earth's climate is very very complex and there are a lot of moving parts involved. Humans certainly have an impact on global climate. It wouldn't be the first time an organism on earth has done that (thank goodness because I really appreciate the oxygen in the atmosphere that cyanobacteria put there). What is disputed, however, is the amount of impact humans are having and the means we are having the most impact.I worry less about CO2 than I do about methane and deforestation in terms of having an impact (humans, through their food production, indirectly put a great deal of methane into the atmosphere).
Umm, it was. There was already a link provided earlier in this very thread. It wasn't by everybody, no, but coming down on climate scientists because their models can't precisely predict the seasonal variability and chaotic system that is our earth in the short term is silly at best and fallacious at worst. AGW has never been about short-term surface air temperature predictions, but long-term trends in climate. That trend is still very much on an upward slope. I know you have a problem with earlier temperature recordings from one of your first posts, and you mention that data has been more carefully collected recently and that we're better about factoring out the UHI from the readings. If that were true, shouldn't those urban center temperature readings before satellites and UHI be even lower(colder), showing a much greater overall warming trend?
As for the IPCC report, you referenced the 2001 version (AR3) earlier. I suggest (if you haven't already) taking a look at the updated 2007 IPCC Report (AR4). We'll probably have the 5th installment sometime next year that will shed even more light on the situation. I also don't think any AGW proponent is going to disagree with you that the Earth has a very complex climate and that there are a lot of factors that go into how it changes. That has never been an issue.
I've never seen An Inconvenient Truth, actually. It does have a cool movie poster, maybe I should put it in a Netflix queue. I'd also love to be able to have the resources to purchase an electric car, solar panels and a geothermal heating/cooling solution. Alas, I walk/bike to work and take the bus to school while trying to pay off these undergraduate student loans, and drive a decently efficient 90's sedan when I have to (usually around a tank of gas/400 miles every 2 months or so).
It's a great thing that you've taken the initiative with those technologies and I do wish more people would take an active stance in thinking about how they can change their lifestyle in small ways that would really make a big difference. Hopefully future technological advancement will be able to make renewable energy sources cheap, efficient, accessible and easy to integrate. Ideally, every skeptic out there (and AGW proponent too!) would take your stance towards renewables and do something to help out.
^This
Sums it up quite nicely.
Global Warming was a construct made by man in order for certain lobbiest and interest groups to turn a profit. Now, I'll not say that the temperature of the earth will never or has never risen. The concept of Climate Change could very well be a reality we face, but it is a natural progression in which the human element bears VERY little impact to the overall state. A single volcano erupting will have more impact that all the CO's man has EVER belched out across our short lived civilizational history.
Personally, I'd love it if it were a little warmer. I live in Northern Canada.
It can get quite chilly up there in Northern Canada. Although not in Northern Canada, I was up in Calgary a few years ago and the other day saw a picture in the paper of downtown Calgary & the Saddledome flooded. Yikes!
Also, I see this floated around a lot that "1 volcano eruption emits more CO2 than all of the CO2 man has ever produced". That is just absolutely false. It gets repeated often enough, though.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
It would take 3500 Mt. St. Helens eruptions to produce the CO2 we produce in a year. It only takes us 2.7 days to produce the amount of CO2 that all the combined volcanoes on Earth do in a year. Maybe if we had the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupt, then it would be true... but if that thing goes, then we're all screwed anyways.
And it will. Only a matter of when.
As an economist once told me, we will never run out of oil...the last barrel will simply be so expensive that it will be kept in the Smithsonian...
If you are looking for verifiable facts and science, look elsewhere....but if you are looking for a piece of art in the field of propaganda, I highly recommend seeing it (note that propaganda is not inherently right or wrong, only inherently biased and persuasive)...regardless of your stand on the issue, it is an extremely polished and well crafted political message, and I respect it on that measure alone as I would respect any piece of art (whether it appeals to me or not)...
Both the depth of solar cycles and year to year weather events are chaotic processes. Chaotic processes are, by definition, difficult to impossible to predict.
Short term, impossible to predict, effects like this happen. That's why all these sources say that you CANNOT DO WHAT YOU ARE DOING - you can't take short term effects (and ignore the long term effects) to attempt to falsify the theory.
What you can do is look at long enough time scales where such unanticipated things get averaged out by other unanticipated effects. Once again, thats why your own sources indicate that your premise (that the temperatures over the last few years falsify climate change theories) are not valid.
You are.
Scientists consistently and repeatedly refer to climate change (and AGW) as "theories". To assert that scientists are wrong and unable to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory in their own field is to accuse them of gross and open incompetence.
The beliefs (ether etc) that you mentioned were wrong, but they were indeed legitimate theories. Even in the unlikely event that AGW is incorrect, it was still a legitimate theory.
Actually, thats kind of what scientists do quite a bit.
My background is from astrophysics, so I'll explain how it often works from that perspective:
Let's say that I am trying to model the evolution of a star. It would be impractical for me to write a program to predict the future behavior of that star and then wait around to compare the future state of the star to what my model predicts. The relevant time scales will be hundreds of thousands to billions of years.
So, what scientists end up doing in such long term situations is to create a model that tries to predict the present day state of the object. So, you put in all the right physics, then put in reasonable initial conditions, and see if your model correctly predicts what we see today.
As long as you don't fine tune your model by telling it what the current day state is ahead of time, this is a perfectly honest thing to do and a great way to try and falsify a model.
The results of such models are still called "predictions" because the model is predicting some behavior without knowing the answer ahead of time.
Incorrect theories will not be able to predict the current state of things given the initial conditions. For example, Newton's laws can't predict the formation of an existing stellar mass black hole because they are not really correct in that circumstance. So they can be falsified there. Einstein's general relativity will correctly predict such things.
Of course it is.
Those effects were predicted ahead of time (ice melt really was predicted years ahead of time). If reality matching up with predictions isn't evidence in support of a theory, I don't know what is. Especially since there are no real competing theories that hold any water.
Also, the glacier thing is a GLOBAL problem (thats why I was saying "global glacial retreat"). Glaciers in non arctic places like the Himalayas are also melting. Ocean acidification is also global. So no, its not some weird regional problem.
Also, you are ignoring (as you have all throughout this thread) the references to peer reviewed journals that I have cited which indicates that your fundamental premise (that temperatures have leveled off) is dead wrong.
If you want to complain about me, you had better at least acknowledge things that are inconvenient to your argument. I have repeatedly acknowledged your point about the temperature level off, but you are systematically ignoring my citation to scientists who disagree with the premise to your entire argument.
Yes, Methane and deforestation are also big parts of AGW. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, and deforestation is a human effect that causes less CO2 to be removed. So if you are worried about those things, you are worried about AGW.
The existence of man made climate change is a scientific question. What should be done about it is a political question - something completely different. As we have seen in this thread, people repeatedly conflate political and scientific ideas (for example, complaining about scientists when it comes to carbon taxes, which are a political beast).
I think that the first step in the problem is to convince people of the scientific theory, then move on to political consequences. So, in conversations like this, I stick to the science and don't get into the politics.
Also, the rules post that you wrote at the top of these forums say I shouldn't talk about politics.
I don't know where it goes wrong, but there's often such a huge disconnect between science and public perception. I don't know if the media, education system, or lack of personal inquiry or all of the above is most responsible or if scientists are just really poor at communicating with the public but I see the same canards trotted out for AGW, for vaccines causing autism, for GM foods being dangerous, etc. all the time. There often seems to be some kind of inherent world view bias guiding the conclusions though.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
OK, then. I'm on board with that accusation.
You clearly have an agenda to claim the armor of science without earning it.
There is no 'theory' of climate change, let alone of AGW. There is lots of evidence that the Earth's climate has changed dramatically innumerable times in its history but absolutely no predictive theory attempting to explain how and why that has been the case.
CO2 based AGW is an hypothesis as yet unsupported by evidence.
The problem is you do know the 'answer' ahead of time. And the AGW hypothesis explicitly predicts future states.
It's quite simple really...the vast majority of humanity, regardless of their stance on this issue (if they even have one) will ultimately be basing their beliefs on faith...
There is science that can shed truth on this issue, but most people simply cannot personally confirm or properly interpret such science...this is not because most people are stupid or ignorant, but because most people are not experts on climate, the weather, solar output, etc...anyone can look at someone else's model and read about how some research group has evidence to show blah blah blah...but very few people actually could look at the data/research themselves, understand it all, and make a proper evaluation of it...
Even for the scientists among us, the best that most people can hope for is to look at what others say about the research....and that's where the problem is, because the debate becomes more focused on credibility than actual science...unless you are a climatologist (or similar thing) yourself, you are basically forced to side with whoever you deem most credible and believable....
This thread is proof of this...continually we see posts containing links to others' conclusions or research or explanations...this is not the fault of any poster, but rather an unfortunate aspect of reality...very few (and probably no) posters in this thread actually have the expertise in the proper field to do much more than post links or give second-hand thoughts on the issue....
Want more proof?
Even a thoughtful and well-explained post (by Krazikarl) on scientific methodology is completely misunderstood...if scientists encounter this problem when discussing scientific methodology, how are they supposed to convince non-scientific people about more complicated matters?
This subject is controversial for the same reason that evolution, religious scripture, and economic policy are controversial...the vast majority of people, no matter how educated they may seem on the issue, are at best simply forming opinions based off of the conclusions and explanations of others...we can only hope that those we deem most credible happen to be on the side of truth...
But the model doesn't know the answer ahead of time - it only knows initial conditions. Thats the whole point.
Let's say that I create a model where I supply the exact state of the atmosphere in 1880. I then provide the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere each year and run the model up to the present day. If the model correctly predicts the temperatures of earth up to the present day (or more accurately, you will have some sort of stochastic processes in your model and end up averaging over many runs, but thats a detail), the model is extremely believable and has been tested. Therefore, we have strong reason to believe that the model will be effective at predicting future behavior.
This is fairly standard scientific methodology.
Good, then you have answered Frogboy's question.
People can now choose whether to believe thousands of professional scientists and the National Academy of Science of every first world nation, or some guy on the internet.
Wat? So, these guys: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html are just totally wrong and pulling their evidence out of their nether regions, despite being the most qualified people in the world to evaluate the subject. And you have come to this conclusion how?
@Sel,
Yes, that's why people should listen to what scientists have to say when there is a massive global consensus on a subject. Because a consensus like that is not arrived at easily - it's not like a political party - we're talking about scientists from countries all over the planet from all sorts of institutions. The idea that all of them are somehow all in on some conspiracy to hoodwink people is insane. This is why science is so esteemed. Because it is constantly questioning itself and testing itself and not bound by dogma or political biases - and when it is, it gets called on it and chucked out the window in favour of something more rigorous and truthful that comes along.
Yes, this is a good point. Anybody who has spent much time around academic scientists knows that they don't easily agree on things and love to argue about stuff. But you still get these consensus because the data are there, and scientists can be convinced by data and well constructed models.
Indeed...a compelling reason to incline one's faith in that direction....
Amen to that!
A thoughtful and well-explained post by someone who fails to read or comprehend plain English is not very compelling to me.
Evolution is a theory for which compelling evidence exists. Can't begin to compare it to the AGW hypothesis which as yet has no supporting data - its predictions have not yet been shown to be correct. Maybe in another 50-100 years we'll have sufficient data to make a compelling case for the computer modeling on which it is based. You'll excuse me if I'm skeptical of our ability to 'know' the point at which 'initial conditions' existed. And if you arbitrarily pick 1880 as your starting point, 130 years is a ridiculously short time frame upon which to base conclusions and predictions of climate. You don't have to be a scientist to doubt the wisdom of basing the 'proof' of an hypothesis, even in part, on the growth rings of 8 trees in a single forest. And you don't have to be an academic scientist to understand that there are far more variables and moving parts to the problem than we can realistically get our arms around.
Maybe compelling evidence of AGW will be documented. I'll be fully on board if its predictions prove reliable. Claiming academic authority is not sufficient. Even conceding that we can predict the underlying trend, there's simply no indication we can reliably predict how higher CO2 concentrations will impact that trend. We just don't have clue about all the Earth's homeostatic capabilities yet.
What to do about it, assuming CO2 accumulation is indeed an issue demanding a solution, is a whole different discussion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-4.html
I love how this argument is based on already known to be falsified data...
The only thing still being argued by rational people is whether the monitoring agencies doctored their results intentionally to further the environmentalist ideology that lead to them bothering to study climatology in the first place, or were just the typically incompetent government employees that we like to hire thanks to race and gender norming resulting in anyone but a minority female with a perfect score being passed over for someone dumber.
Did you guys know the president of The Flat Earth Society has endorsed AGW? You should probably start skipping those comments. Anyone interested in actually educating themselves should start studying the data origins, and stop getting their information second hand from political hacks like the IPCC and internet trolls from skepticalscience.com that have a long history of being caught lying through their teeth. Not that I mind, really, this thread has given me hours of amusement so far.
The gold standard for CO2 monitoring stations is the one on Mauna Loa right next door to two regularly erupting volcanoes, is it even accumulating? I haven't ever seen the raw data from the global station network, just the end results after they adjust them for "interference" based on a handful of "pristine" locations, all as hilariously placed as that one is.
Brad .... all we can do is much what you have done with your place - being energy independent.
What do I want govts to do about it? Pay MORE than it costs for energy returned to the grid...as an incentive for ALL to adopt your approach.
Govts around the world have tended to 'con' people into the idea of being paid for producing energy....then drop the process...or devalue it to become next to zero incentive.
I was disillusioned here [in Oz] with theie approach so refused to adopt solar....and as for rainwater tanks?...there was a time not that long ago when it was actually PROHIBITED to have/use them in Melbourne....how effing stupid is that? I tried to have the legislation changed... but it took another drought to bring it on.
What did I do instead? I bought within reasonable walking distance [a few kms] of the CBD...with3 separate train routes within easy walking distance. My car is 22 years old and still ot in landfill ... and does less than 5000km a year.... low carbon imprint.
I have 'a few' bikes as alternative transport - perhaps lycra fumes entering the atmosphere may be problematic...
I have the 'advantage' of working from home so there's no 'commute'. Anything recyclable - is. Old 'stuff' is passed on to a 'thrift shop' for resale.
One day I may yet go electric [car-wise] but am waiting for superior tech than is current .... and then I'll rethink the solar.
Professionally.... in Architecture terms...I concentrate on redesigning existing housing stock to accommodate people's modern requirements...rather than contributing to 'urban sprawl' [the greater Melbourne is the same area as the greater London....but London has about 4 times the population]. A few pointers about Australia.... it has the world's largest average house size....[almost double England's] ... and has more miles of road per capita than anywhere else on the planet.
And yes [to someone several pages ago] Architects and Architecture students came together from the entire Asia-Pacific region in 1973 to discuss the future of Cities and Urban sprawl/decentralisation...all sorts of socially/environmentally aware subjects....FORTY YEARS ago.... and I was there, too.
To others reading .... Frogboy's approach is the RESPONSIBLE one [and sets an example] in that IF you have a desire/opportunity to have a large property you also consciously adopt processes to make it carbon-neutral. That monster of mine [for a client] of 80 squares has some pretty tricky construction/material details to make it pretty conservative in energy demands...eg every window is triple-glazed [there are 48 of them] .... and is plumbed for alternatives of grey-water use...tanks...town water...etc.
One of the biggest 'solutions' to conservation in urban design is increasing urban density....the EXACT-SAME thing that every man and his dog objects to so vehemently.....and Architects spend their lives in VCAT [civil tribunals] arguing the process.
Mankind is just too stupid most of the time to know what's important. We have people whinging about our desalination plant....just because its completion coincided with the end of the latest drought. Bunch of morons....Australia is the second driest continent on the globe...only because it's too cold to rain in Antarctica .... and they forget the National Museum actually purchased a lawn sprinkler for its collection...because they were being prohibited. I had my latest car for 2 years before it ever got a wash....and only then was it during rain [just add soap].
What do we do?
What we can.
If that means voting out one govt vs another so be it.
Trouble is....any/all govts are more interested in 'the bottom line'...
We humans are affecting this planet. It is impossible (not improbable) that our existence on this planet would leave this planet unchanged (notice I did not say unscathed, as not all change is necessarily bad change). Without entering into an argument about how much we effect change; wouldn't any human with a level of (as I referred to it earlier) 'responsible intelligence' choose to ensure such change be as least damaging as possible?
So you might say, how do I know that any of our human-effected change will even prove to be damaging to this planet? Some conclusions one doesn't need 'raw data' for. The same way I know that if I ingest drain-cleaner my body won't be a happy camper, this planet doesn't like all of the poisons we humans have and continue to feed it through some (many) of our actions. Do we know what those poisons will do to our planet? Maybe, maybe not, but that is the beauty of my point. We don't have to know, or even care. I propose that I care about doing (as much as I can for) my part that someone with a reasonable amount of 'responsible intelligence' might be able to do to effect as little damage to their environment around them each day.
I don't waste (and should I ever waste something I welcome being chastised for it.....none of us are perfect).
I don't litter, idle vehicles, dump chemicals in trash etc. etc.
I compost, recycle and reuse everything I can think of.
I repair (sometimes multiple times) before ever considering replacement.
I walk before I drive.
These and other reasons are why I consider myself a steward of the things in my life to which I may effect change. I approach each day with the perspective (even if not positive) to at the very least minimize any negative effect on my environment. Is it unreasonable to expect all humans to share this desire? Absolutely. Is it unreasonable to expect others to understand my sense of global responsibility? No.
the current problem with global warming as an issue today is that both sides of the argument have become so overly political and entrenched its become hard to find any real objective stats data or information that hasnt already been through pr propaganda spins and financed by either side. both sides of the argument have extensive data and each argue and dismiss each others strongly leaving it hard to appreciate any clear outstanding truths to the laymen voters. which side we take or prefer or believe. sadly it is becoming as political as blues think this red think that. we all lose out to this thinking
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
