Weather and global warming

[TomD]

Well said Don.

[Mountain Doctor]

Here is a list of 31,487 scientists who signed a petition against the concept that global warming is induced. 9,029 of the scientists are PhD level and above. I don't know how many MD's are on the list, but I can speak for at least one:

http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php

With that said, this will not be settled by a vote. It is unlikely to be settled as the evidence is incomplete, and as I contest, largely irrelevant.

Until we can control the heat output of the sun, and/or our distance from it, we are unlikely to be able to control our climate, and it is a poor use of resources to try.

Also as I contest our resources are God given, and He expects us to be good stewards of our planet. In no way are we to 'love' it, but take care of it as the gift that it is. This means wisely utilizing and enjoying its resources.

To do my part I think I'll fly to the coast this weekend and go for a walk on the beach with my friends.

[chris erasmus]

I am still confused, is it getting hotter or colder?
Are we approaching a new ice age or not?
What's the timescale for these events?

[cs409]

As i stated earlier, just follow the money...............................

[DonLindsay]

Mountain Doctor. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but that petition is utter BS. First, it was done a lot of years ago, when the evidence was more tentative. Second, the petition was done badly: they didn't verify that any of the signers so much as existed, and some of the entries are clearly phony. Third, that's actually a tiny number, not a large number. The number of scientists who've said that Global Warming *is* happening, is 'way bigger that that.

I still prefer to argue this in email.

[Mountain Doctor]

I still prefer to argue this in email

Nothing to gain by arguing. Neither one of us will change the other's viewpoint, and that's OK.

For me this is not really an important topic. I care little about global warming/cooling, or whatever. If the weather continues to warm up here in Washington, and California finishes drying up, so be it. I don't think I could change it if I was so motivated.

Next year it may rain all winter in California, and go below freezing here. No way to tell, but it will be what it will be.

I chimed it late in this thread because I thought it would be more fun to watch. It was fun to contribute but ultimately does not matter. As Solomon said in Ecclesiastes, it is 'chasing the wind'.

[Wyflyer]

I'd like to know the logic behind the creation of the "carbon credits" currency?
Remember a few years ago when Al Gore was proposing carbon credits could be traded on the stock market?

Imagine if you had the power to create a new currency or commodity from nothing, control it, and sell it on the global market.. No overhead, no production costs, no handling or shipping fees, just a 'concept', and you and your friends owned all the stocks in the IPO. Then legislated it into existence and force everyone to buy and sell it. Genius, absolute genius plan.

[51598Rob]

And the whole selling point for your new currency? Fear mongering the concept of "global warming". We humans are such fools!

I think Don, being a real scientist, you have missed the gist of this conversation. Most of us don't like being the sap to any natural phenom by reaching into our pockets (or having another reach in our pockets) so someone can get filthy rich without even pretending to solve the problem.

The question most of us worker bees have is not that global warming or cooling exists, but rather how it affects us, and if we really can, or should, do something about it?

[crbnunit]

Hey Don, all of the argue in me for this topic was used up a long time ago and I'm not singling you out for target practice. You say it is getting cooler and that winter is coming. Why? If you look at the winters here, where it supposed to be cold, compared to the winters further South lately we can see the weather pattern has certainly been different but an overall shift to colder temps? I'd really be interested in the data that backs that up. Seriously. PM me if you like but these are smart guys. I think everyone would like the opportunity to discuss this in a civilized manner.

We certainly need to reduce our impact on the planet regardless. There are just too many of us not to start paying attention and doing our part. Do I advocate halting all industry? No, but we need to do it responsibly. There needs to ba balance in our decisions. Right now we are fighting against a giant open pit mining project called Pebble that will be established at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Am I anti mining? Of course not. Am I anti Pebble? Yes, I am. The risk of loosing a multi billion dollar renewal resource that feeds people is too great. Protecting it is more important than a big hole in the ground that will benefit few.

Reduce, reuse and recycle. It is easy, takes little time and keeps resources out of our landfills. We recycle EVERYTHING we can and made a run just yesterday evening. We have taken pains to make our home more energy efficient, we consolidate trips out to get as much done as efficiently as possible and drive our most efficient vehicle for such trips. We use pretty much everything we have until it is unusable and then re-purpose it until it is no longer usable in its new capacity. My only real vises are flying and shooting!

Point is, if each of us do what we can, the world will be a better place. I can see a point in the not too distant future we will be mining our dumps for resources and that will just be nasty.

Agreed on the whole carbon credit thing. A scam to fleece money from people. Clean up you industry or do not but don't try to blow smoke at us.

[aero101]

Follow the money, this is huge business without much proven data. Hell, they can hardly make an accurate model of WX for tomorrow's forecast, yet you want to convince science is about to accurately model warming trend? Using conflicting data, account todays info just not technically possible just a few years ago. Remember the global cooling forecast is 70's I believe it was? Human produced carbon just small piece of total picture, what about all the methane being released from earth itself in ocean and land? Volcano's, forest fires, and list goes on and on!!! Then when it comes to Al Gore, you ever seen where he lives, eehhmm, wonder what his individual carbon footprint looks like compared to average middle class everyman? Bottom line is we don't have enough accurate data, time frame being looked at is nowhere near sufficient, and scientifically we still have a lot to learn regarding weather patterns!! Anyone can make a model, but if you're inserting bad information, or not enough information, that model is not accurate. I see now they sometimes try to blame all bad weather such as tornado's, hurricanes, snow storms, etc on global warming? This is utter nonsense, some years just worst then others, and historically it all cycles thru!! Bottom line, I have much more urgent stuff in my life to worry about rather then something which can't be said for sure to even be happening. It would certainly be interesting to look back at current position on this in 50 or 100 years when science becomes better on this issue. We may find that we looked awful stupid, hard to say one way or another. For me, I prefer to worry right now about things I can address, not some far fetched theory which I can do nothing about be it right or wrong!!

[Andy Young]

Well, I’ve been trying to decide for a while if I wanted to jump into this thread. As I think someone already said, we are unlikely to change each other’s minds, and since I genuinely enjoy our interactions about Maule subjects, I wondered if it was worth the risk of perhaps alienating someone. However, a few of the recent posts have compelled me to add my perspective.

Before I start, I’d like to reiterate that I do enjoy interacting with you all on here, and I enjoy the mutual respect that is almost always present. I have certainly enjoyed the time I’ve spent with the few of you that I’ve met in person. I’d like to think that we can differ on some of these sensitive topics, and still respect one another and continue to enjoy our interactions. Nothing here is meant as a personal attack or a challenge; just good intellectual discussion and debate.

I’m not a scientist, though I have spent much of the last few decades working closely with many scientists, from a wide variety of disciplines, in Antarctica and Alaska. Many or most of these scientists are doing work that is either directly or indirectly related to climate change (Biologists, for example, study how changing climate alters species distribution; geologists look at past climate record, and so on). This has given me the opportunity to speak with them directly about their research, and to see how their perspectives have changed over many years, as more and more data has come in. As I said, I’m not a scientist myself, so those of you who are can certainly chime in and let me know where I might have something incorrect.

One thing I’ve noticed, in the discussions here as well as elsewhere, is that people tend to confuse weather with climate. They are different things, though of course they are connected. In the case of climate change, a warmer earth overall will mean that some places get colder, and some will get warmer; some will get drier, others wetter. Also, climate change is a long-term thing, not necessarily observable in the year-to-year fluctuations of weather. It IS widely thought that long-term climate change is likely to bring greater swings and less predictability to weather in the short term.

Yes, the earth has gone through extreme climate swings in the past, for a variety of reasons. There was a time when it was much warmer than now. That doesn’t mean that its “normal” for it to be warming up at this time. The long-term geological and glaciological record indicates that we should be in a cooling trend now, but we’re not. The reason that there was all that talk about global cooling in the 1970s was because the long-term climate record predicted that we should be heading that way. When they started looking at the more recent data however, something didn’t jive; against the long-term pattern, things were getting warmer. This was where the whole global warming thing came from. It was science at its best: Scientists make a prediction based on the data, then check the prediction against reality, find that reality doesn’t follow the prediction, and they study some more to see why they had it wrong.

Seeing that one glacier is retreating while the one next to it is advancing does not mean the whole argument is bunk; there are often good, logical reasons for this: Two glaciers that have their terminuses (termini?) right next to each other often have source areas at very different elevations. As climate changes, the elevation of maximum snowfall often shifts, causing a glacier that used to get little snow feeding its source area to now get a lot, and thus advance, while another that used to get a lot of snow, now gets more rain. This is a simple example; there are other, more complex possibilies.

It may seem unlikely that humans could have enough of an effect to change such a large system. The key to understanding how this is possible is to think in terms of balance. In your airplane for example, on a calm, smooth day, you can make it climb, descend, or bank just by shifting your body a few inches, even though the airplane weighs many times what you do. This is because the airplane, trimmed for straight and level flight, is in a delicate state of balance. You shift a few pounds a few inches, and now the balance is lost, allowing a very small weight shift to have large effects. It’s the same with climate. The climate is in a delicate state of balance, and while the amount of carbon we’ve added to the atmosphere is small in comparison to the atmosphere itself, it seems to be enough to shift the balance. At at least one point in the past, this balance was shifted by an upswing in volcano emissions. Other times, other natural phenomena similarly swung the climate one way or the other. Sometimes, you get a positive-feedback loop, and get a run-away condition, analogous to an unstable airplane when you bump the yoke. One current example: warmer temps are melting the perma-frost, which releases methane trapped in said perma-frost, which leads to even more warming, and so one. Just because nature has caused big swings in the past, doesn’t mean that we can’t be contributing significantly to one now.

Yes, most scientists are, in one way or another, government-funded. The only other option is corporate-funded. Government-funded includes most everyone working at a university. Also, the national science foundation funds researchers both directly, and through universities. This does not mean that they work directly for the government, or vet their findings and conclusions through the government. Scientific papers are peer-reviewed, sometimes brutally. Step too far beyond the past consensus, and you are likely to be ridiculed and marginalized by other scientists. This dynamic actually makes scientists very, very conservative with regards to embracing new, controversial ideas such as climate change. They certainly did not all just jump on the bandwagon; there is overwhelming consensus now, but it was long and slow in coming, and only did so in the face of enormous amounts of supporting evidence. Corporate-funded scientists, on the other hand, ARE more likely to answer directly to those funding them and to have their results massaged (or supressed) to meet the corporate agenda. In any case, percentage-wise, there are now very few credible scientists who question the major themes of climate change.

Someone (maybe a few people) mentioned that we only have 100 years or so of data. This is true in the case of weather. With climate however, we have excellent data going back hundreds of thousands of years. Climate leaves indelible records in the rocks, the fossils (as someone else mentioned) and the glacier ice. I’ve personally worked on ice core drilling projects, and watched them collect the data. That doesn’t really mean anything of course, but it was pretty cool .

Carbon credits: Yeah, not sure I like that one either. Seems like a way for the wealthy to pay their way out of cleaning up their act.

I’m not going to get into the debate about God’s perspective on all this or our role as stewards of the earth within the religious paradigm. It’s just too far outside my own personal realm of experience and expertise. At the risk of offending a few, however (though I honestly intend no disrespect), here is a humorous take on it that I really like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrahQpIWD08
Disclosure: There is swearing in this piece, and an comic’s interpretation of God’s reaction to the actions of humans. Some may find this inappropriate, and should refrain from watching.


Finally, let me just say that this isn’t really about saving the earth. The earth has been through far more cataclysmic changes, from ice ages (and possibly a snowball condition) to major hothouses, to huge meteorite impacts. Species come and go, and the earth continues on. No, this isn’t about saving the earth; its far more selfish than that. It’s about keeping it as a place where humans can continue to thrive. If we fail to do so, humans will suffer greatly, new species will rise, others will fall, and the earth will continue to circle the sun.

[Mr. Ed]

Andy,

Well said, bravo. I'm very much in agreement with what you've said. Lots of hype out there on both sides of the debate. In the end, isn't it better to error on the side of caution. Yup, climate is changing so I'll modify my behavior to lesson my impact. Does that mean I sell my car and walk everywhere? No. It does mean that I opt to drive the high mileage vehicle when I can.

I travel over a significant portion of the globe and see first hand what unregulated industry does to the local environment. It's ugly.

As posted previously, the earth will continue circling the sun no matter what we do. The question is: will we be around to enjoy the ride.

Carbon credits? I think the same folks that cooked up that scheme also came up with Bitcoin. Fictitious currency, held in a fictitious bank, that can be purchased with real currency. I wish I had thought of that one. The only one that I've seen that was more creative was the guy selling post Rapture pet care contracts! Brilliant!!

[22Tango]

I am new to the forum, but have looked in occasionally in the past. This is my first post....

Interesting to see how this thread has developed. I am an ecologist and have worked closely with climate change issues for the past 20 years (including 3 years in Antarctica with the team that discovered the ozone hole). From what I have seen, the evidence for climate change is overwhelming. Change is expected, but not at this rate or extent. It is frightening and the accelerated rate appears man induced.

It seems the scientific community have failed to state their case on climate change clearly enough to "Joe Public". To a certain extent, the climate change message is complex and is usually heard from (and over simplified by) politicians. Perhaps, as the messenger is distrusted, so is the message?

I am not particularly interested in debating this here (I prefer to lean how to fly, land and fix a Maule), but share my perspective for what it is worth, and lend support to what Andy & Don have said.

[Wyflyer]

I appreciate those who take time to express their thoughts and experiences with this topic.
I was a criminal investigator in a prior occupation, and place high value on giving/receiving information without creating an emotional response, or having one myself. Considering the size and scope of the internet, I don't consider this thread as being highly contentious.
I weigh information by the credibility of the source, the reconciliation of other info, and the "smell test' of common sense. I give special credibility to sources like Andy Young who has earned my intellectual trust.

So I've been listening to the climate debates for most of my adult life, mostly through media and government releases, and i'll state I trust very little information the government releases, and as a consequence I have trust issues with the government funded scientists who are on their payroll.

Maybe the science is sound but by the time the message gets to my ears the real message is lost. Or maybe the real science got diluted by too many special agendas like radical environmentalism or alternate political agendas.
I do not have a sophisticated understanding of climate science but I do recognize media snake oil salesmen and recoil when someone tells me the sky is falling and I should blindly trust political party X or Y to fix it for me.
I have a great appetite for unbiased data but most data is packaged with a variety of other political leanings i'm not comfortable with.

Mankind is handicapped by our egos which confuse intellect with understanding, and science for knowledge. In matters of climate prediction I give a large margin of error. Just like the stock market, past performance does not guarantee future results and result can vary. As in, something that's supposed to be happening now could also occur in a million or billion years, or not at all. Our egos are so giant we believe our first comprehension of global science is finite and definite and the science is settled. So did medieval doctors who had some dubious methods because they had all the confidence and non of the science that we have now. Anyone who tells me climate science has it all figured out gets my skepticism, but heck i'm that way with mechanics, doctors, lawyers, and insurance salesmen too.
The best is yet to come, wish I could be here to see it.

[cs409]

did they ever fix the hole in the ozone? before this gets out of hand, it was a pun(a funny, etc) after all, we all know it wasnt a hole.