DISQUS

warren kelley · 2 years ago

Ken, I have similiar feelings about the case that's been made for "Global Warming." What gives me some pause is the case that's been made for pollution (air, water, and else wheres and the efforts being made to clean up the place). I'm certain you agree with me there.
Agreed that the connection between pollution and global warming is fraught with questionable data, but the one argument I more or less side with is: better to err on the side of caution, than to do nothing...How about That?

Warren

David · 2 years ago

If global warming brings about highs in the 70's in August, I'm all for it. I can't stand days like today, "seasonably hot and humid". Ick!

Terrence Robertson · 2 years ago

It'd be nice to think that nothing unusual is going on except that when one looks beyond just the weather, there's also other evidence of warming. I grew up on the Texas Gulf coast. Banana trees are not native to that region of the world. And when I was growing up there, winters were simply too cold for them to survive. We'd have "hard" freezes, several days where the temperatures wouldn't climb much above freezing and overnight lows in the 20s, there several times each year. But that region over the past five years hasn't seen a single "hard" freeze. So now banana trees grow in Galveston County.
Look elsewhere around the country and you'll see the same phenomon. Fauna a flora that were normal south of one latitude are now being spotted 400-500 miles north of where they were formerly seen. And there's another little thing I noticed when I was last down there. Along the harbor where once rocks, laid down to prevent erosion, were well above sea level at high tide are now awash at low tide. This might be a time to reexamine elevations above sea level in the tropics to discern just how high sea levels have risen.

jacrlsn · 2 years ago

I have always doubted the global warming theory. In recent years. however it seems to me that the weather has changed somewhat. It seems that the weather is more violent in its extremes. i.e. thunderstorms, rain storms, snow storms wind storms etc. Having said that, however I remember hearing and reading in my early life about snowstorms in the midwest, where they had to fly food in to the cattle after snowstorms, so the animals wouldn't starve to death. I also remember severe floods from both the Mississippi and Missouri rivers which don't seem to happen in the more recent past. My skepticism is also aroused when the government revises a formula that supposedly verified Global warming and all of a sudden, it wasn't as bad as they thought.. I have emphysema and when they started blaming the propellant in my inhalers, I was made to feel that I was personnaly responsible for global warming. Governments have long lost their sense of prioriities. At all levels, they are trying to be all thing to all people and they can't be.

Wendy Sholds · 2 years ago

Does anyone remember approximately 30+ years ago we were supposed to be entering another "ice age"??? The same environmental fascists were telling us our grandchildren would be up to their ears in glacial ice if we didn't change our ways.

What happened to that??
Did "they" make a mistake??
If so, how do we know they're right now??

Or is it because no one listened to their foolishness back then either??

Tennis Lilly · 2 years ago

Ken,

I’m not sure who is worse on global warming issues; you or Taylor Armerding. At least Taylor sounds like he accepts the well established science; he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. I’m not sure what the point of your rant is though I’m glad you sound like you know the difference between climate and weather is. It’s a point I keep making in these “debates”. I’m at a loss though to find any fact based reasoned argument in your commentary. You complain about people pointing to any extreme weather event as proof of global warming yet scientists do not do this. If anything, my experience has been just the opposite, that global warming deniers use single events or seasons or localized anomalies to attack climate trends.

As for your comments on the lack of a trend, I’m not sure what figures you look at or where you get your graphs but the only way to look at global mean temperatures, weather going back 300years, 1000 years or 800,000 years and not see a trend is to have a preconceived idea if what such a trend should look like. The graphs from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA all clearly show a marked warming trend well beyond anything we’ve experienced during the current geologic era. While were on that subject, it should be pointed out that it is climate trends in the current age were concerned with. What the climate was like 5 million, 50 million or 500 million years ago is irrelevant. The earth was a vastly different world then and there is nothing anomalous in the climate during the age of the dinosaurs and the current climate. The fact that there have been far more dramatic shifts in climate over the earth 4 billion year history is irrelevant.

Finally…the “embarrassing revision of temperature data” by NASA was the result in a calculation error when blending 2 sets of ground station data in the U.S. The revisions resulted in a slight rearrangement of the 10 warmest years based on instrument readings in the US and an adjustment in the US mean temp of a few thousands of a degree. The impact on GLOBAL mean temps: zero. The well documented trend thanks to global warming is about 1.8 degrees celsius, hardly a fraction of a degree or insignificant. If global warming is not happening, perhaps someone should let the glaciers or the ice sheet in Greenland know, they’re both disappearing at rates not seen in over half a million years. Perhaps THAT is a trend you can see.

You should visit www.realclimate.org , site run by the climatologists at NASAs Goddard center before you comment again.

Yours,

Tennis Lilly
trhggr@yahoo.com

Tennis Lilly · 2 years ago

Wendy,

I’m not sure who "they" are (is) nor am I familiar with the term "environmental fascists” but let me try to shed some light on your (very common) misunderstanding.

First, scientists NEVER claimed that we were on the verge of a new ice age, at least no credible scientists in published, peer reviewed journals. That's where REAL science is found, in journals that are subject to peer review and open scrutiny.

So...how did the so called ice-age scare happen? This quote from grist magazine (online) explains it far better than I can:

"It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison. "

As for your backhanded slap at environmentalists, the next time you breathe clean air, drink safe water of get to walk through a national forest, remember that without the environmental movement, those things might not have been protected.

You’re welcome...

Wendy Sholds · 2 years ago

TL,

You have proven my point in spades which is who to believe? I, too, can find research to support the theories of the anti-global warming crowd as well.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983 has published the following statistics in their global warming primer. As early as 1997, under the Clinton administration, the NCPA has been studying global warming and has been publishing its findings in regards to this issue.

Only 58% of climate scientists worldwide believe that global warming is caused by human intervention. This by no means convinces me that global warming is imminent. I can find 58% of people that believe the Red Sox will win the World Series. Just because they believe it doesn’t mean it will happen or is true.

Global warming is expected to cause a significant rise in sea levels because the glaciers will melt. There is no disputing the fact that ice has melted and thinned along in Greenland and Antartica. However, sea levels have only risen 2/16” annually since 1961, which is far below the historical average. Research has shown that the interiors have actually thickened, and the ice melt has contributed only .8mm to sea levels.

Despite the Kyoto Agreement, greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase even though developed countries such as the U.S. have dramatically cut CO2 emissions. This is happening because burgeoning countries such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, and Indonesia are not bound by the Kyoto Agreement yet they are expected to contribute approximately 85% of greenhouse gasses withing the next two decades.

Several other points are discussed in the primer, but time and space prohibit me from posting them.

I appreciate the spirited exchange, TL! I suppose we can at least agree to disagree.

Tennis Lilly · 2 years ago

Wendy,

Thanks for your reply. You forgot to leave out that the NCPA was established (DURING the Clinton administration, not UNDER it, implying government affiliation or support) to promote private alternatives to government and regulation. The NCPA is NOT a scientific organization and while it may, technically be "non-partisan" that doesn't mean its objective (clearly it is not) or doesn’t have an ideological agenda (clearly it does).

The "primer" they offer or course is not a scientific publication and so full of holes, inaccuracies and false arguments there is no room to list them in detail. Suffice it to say that I trust scientists and peer reviewed science. The opinions of our own National Academy of Sciences, NOAA, the EPA and the IPCC are clear and supported by vast amounts of data. The IPCC 4th assessment on Climate Change is the most thoroughly vetted and reviewed document human science has ever produced. The "Primer" put out by a policy group you use is full of common and easily discredited arguments.

The state of science isn’t determined by surveys, the state of science is determined by surveying the published studies and research. As for the claim about Greenland’s ice sheets, yes they are gaining thickness in the center, but are LOSING 2 cubic miles of mass annually (more than double the rate 20 years ago). Your sea level claims are inaccurate also.

I'm also not clear what the comments about Kyoto have to do with the legitimacy of climate change theory but its worth noting that a. the US never ratified Kyoto and b. Kyoto was never meant to stop global warming, it was merely a first step under the Montreal Protocol (that the US DID ratify). It was understood from the beginning that China and India would pass the US in emissions (that’s the biggest reason why it was never ratified).

Please visit www.realclimate.org or check out the article in Wikepedia on the IPCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assess...

Happy to chat with you Wendy, this is fun,

Rebecca Veilleux · 2 years ago

I don't think scientists are arguing whether global warming is occuring, as much as, how it is. Some argue that it is just a cyclic occurance that happens from time to time throughout the history of Earth. Other scientists believe that this cycle has been accelerated by the amount of greenhouse gases (namely CO2 and methane, among others) emitted by humans. There is a natural cycle of these gases occuring on earth, but since the Industrial Revolution that amount has dramatically increased.
I believe we are wasting our time arguing about climate change. Scientific evidence shows it is. We can't change history, and we probably can't stop it from happening. What we can do is change our paradigm. We need to respect our natural resources and continue to manage our forests responsibly. We need to stop the use of fossil fuels and start using alternative sources of energy (wind, electric, biofuels). Conserve and recycle, etc... Changing the way we, the consumers, live our everyday lives will allow our future generations to live happy and healthy lives.

Tennis Lilly · 2 years ago

Well said Rebecca.

Just a follow up on this thread regarding the consensus:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/1/12556...