Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[Joshua Nall]

I didn't mean to suggest that global warming is not occurring. The earth has a history of both cooling and warming. My main point in posting that article is to show that not all the data matches and in this particular case NASA's data was manually altered to make it more "scary"...
What I've read (from the experts) seems to indicate that satellite data is the most accurate and in the last couple decades it has shown an at least stable temperature, down from a high to near where it was in 1878 and 1941, unless I'm misunderstanding it. Here is another article that elaborates on data collected by satellites and concludes that global temperature has actually come down a bit in the last couple decades: http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
But you will never hear this in the mainstream.... at least I have not.

The experts seem to think human activity at least has the propensity to cause global warming... I'm not smart enough to argue with them. But it annoys me hearing all the reports coming out now about how much the proposed new legislation will cause global temperature to drop... something like a 10th of a degree in 20 or 30 years. But that is only a best guess, based on an assumption that the warming that has taken place is actually due to human activity.

I don't even know what the current stance is at the AMS or NOAA, I'm just going off of what I'm hearing all the time in the mainstream media... you know, TV/radio/magizine type news stories that your average person looks at. Especially the young that just trust and don't question things as much as adults.... or as much as they should maybe.
Is no one else bothered by the fact that the incandescent light bulb is going to be phased out at the insistence of government. I've tried these fluorescent bulbs... cost 10 times as much and I have yet to have had one last longer than a standard light bulb. I'm a pretty frugal guy. I own a house... my gas and electric bill combined is not usually over 60 dollars a month. I'll try anything to use less energy, save a penny. Yet the powers that be have decided I won't be able to purchase an incandescent light bulb in order to fix a problem that may not exist.... and probably not lift a finger to do anything themselves. Lets quit all the outrageous claims... and quit believing them... that's all I'm saying.

And I have an idea, a quick fix for the rising oceans that are going to drown Florida. Aren't there a bunch of sponges down in there? Couldn't we do something to increase their numbers. Maybe we could have an adopt a sponge campiagn, to make sure they are all healthy, breeding and multiplying at full capacity

 

[Greg McLaughlin]

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3054

The two photos taken seven years apart shows the dramatic meltdown of the glaciers. In the not too distant future, we will see the once majestic mountain peak without its snowy shroud.

This is the same kind of "smoking gun" evidence Al Gore uses in his presentations on climate change. This was the third coldest on record in the U.S. Thank God....um I mean man for global warming. I would hate to think how cold it could have been otherwise.

 

[Greg McLaughlin]

The experts seem to think human activity at least has the propensity to cause global warming... I'm not smart enough to argue with them. But it annoys me hearing all the reports coming out now about how much the proposed new legislation will cause global temperature to drop... something like a 10th of a degree in 20 or 30 years. But that is only a best guess, based on an assumption that the warming that has taken place is actually due to human activity.

I have a hard time trusting their numbers. I guess when the GFS and NAM start accurately predicting 48 hours out I will maybe consider the temperature forecasts by these "experts" for 20-30 years down the road.

 

[Darren Addy]

In some sense I admire people who have the guts to display their ignorance, particularly if it is in an effort learn something by publicly admitting how much they don't know. (Those who seem to revel in their ignorance and don't want to be confused with the fact or use logical fallicies I don't personally admire so much).

Threads like this area good way to figure out which camp people belong in, but not good for much else. As a forum full of weather-interested chasers, you'd think there would be less ignorance than in the population at large, but these threads don't seem to indicate that. Perhaps that only indicates that there is a corrolation between the willingness of the ignorant to be vocal, or that more intelligent people realize it is a waste of time to talk to the willfully ignorant.

For those who do not consider themselves willfully ignorant and are open-minded enough to examine the facts, perhaps UCAR would be a site you could bring yourself to trust (you know... the one that deals in DATA and doesn't just look out their window to make conclusions about the global environment):
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp

 

[Joshua Nall]

For those who do not consider themselves willfully ignorant and are open-minded enough to examine the facts, perhaps UCAR would be a site you could bring yourself to trust (you know... the one that deals in DATA and doesn't just look out their window to make conclusions about the global environment):
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp

I love truth, I love facts and information, and searching out what is right. If I read all the info on the UCAR site about global warming I would definitely deserve a smiley face sticker.

I read the FAQs section, but I still have questions....If greenhouse gasses are increasing (and everyone agrees they are)... why has it been cooler most of the years since 1998? I know the answer... it's because other factors are at play. Now these other factors, to what degree do they effect the temperature of the earth? Do we even know what they all are? How can we tell the earth is warmer now than it should be, if there are other factors causing the warming and cooling of the earth? Wouldn't we have to know how these other factors come in to play before we can make assumptions about CO2. Are we 1/100th of a degree or 1 degree hotter? Your average person probably thinks 5 degrees. Further more, what percentage of the overall increase in temperature, if there is an increase beyond "normal", is attributed to CO2? I've read several articles summarizing studies that say cows pose a much more significant threat than human CO2 production.... and they used science, and they were "experts". But regulating the number of cows is not where the money and control is, there's no satisfaction in regulating the activities of a few cowboys. Besides most of these control addicts probably enjoy eating steaks. I never eat cow meat, well maybe once in a blue moon I'll eat a whopper (there is beef in there, right).... so it would be no big deal to me if there where no cows... lets just get rid of the cows and then I can continue to use my light bulb... single light bulb in most rooms, by the way I greatly admire the beauty of the earth and I want it to stay that way, I've never littered, not once. Just trying to show that I do care about the earth.

I figure your average person thinks CO2 is the only greenhouse gas there is, but CO2 is an extremely tiny piece of the puzzle. Most average people are some what ignorant on the subject... that is why they are mislead by preachers like Al Gore. Have you seen him give a speech on the subject?.... put him in a southern Church of Christ, and replace his global warming doctrine with fire and brimstone, and the whole church would be getting rebaptized.

Sure there is cause for concern, but there are lot's of experts that disagree. Lot's of conflicting data, and some data has been shown to have been altered for greater impact. Your right though, this thread won't accomplish much (except give an outlet to express views, thought that is what forums are for)...or in your case a chance to label everyone that is not in your "camp", ignorant.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

In some sense I admire people who have the guts to display their ignorance, particularly if it is in an effort learn something by publicly admitting how much they don't know. (Those who seem to revel in their ignorance and don't want to be confused with the fact or use logical fallicies I don't personally admire so much).

Threads like this area good way to figure out which camp people belong in, but not good for much else. As a forum full of weather-interested chasers, you'd think there would be less ignorance than in the population at large, but these threads don't seem to indicate that. Perhaps that only indicates that there is a corrolation between the willingness of the ignorant to be vocal, or that more intelligent people realize it is a waste of time to talk to the willfully ignorant.

For those who do not consider themselves willfully ignorant and are open-minded enough to examine the facts, perhaps UCAR would be a site you could bring yourself to trust (you know... the one that deals in DATA and doesn't just look out their window to make conclusions about the global environment):
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp

You're right I give up... It's hard to explain why the earth should be warming, when people don't understand what can affect earth's temperature. I'd be surprised if people understood what the EM spectrum is, and how it applies to earth in the context of discussing earth's temperature.

Since most people don't want to spend the time to learn about this, it all boils down to how much people trust the individuals making the case for or against global warming. Most people who don't want to think global warming is occurring, usually say something to the effect, how can we trust people that say the earth is warming when their jobs depend on it. Hey here's a quote from this thread of someone saying this...

but I have a hard time excepting conclusions drawn by folks who's career and lively hood depend on what sort of conclusions they come to....

Here's the surprising thing. If you look back in journal's 40 years ago (i.e. before global warming was even widely discussed), you find people who do rough estimations of how earth's temperature might change if the CO2 content might change.

I'll give you a hint, the earth is still suppose to warm. This was before individuals' careers were on the line when stating this, so sorry your individual bias argument will fail again.

Then again why the hell try to explain this to people, when I'm sure the TV commentators know more.

 

[Greg McLaughlin]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted a link to this site. It has excellent sources for both sides of the argument.

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

 

[James Langford]

Could someone please comment on this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html

Several things mentioned in here are what I have always struggled with in trying to accept some sort of man caused global warming. Volcanoes introduce far more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses than I would think we as people could in a lifetime. Aren't there several hundred active volcanoes all over the world? And when there is an actual eruption, don't those gases reach far higher into the atmosphere than those we release at the surface? Also, how do we conclusively know that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled over the past 200 years?

Struggling with these things.....

James

 

[Darren Addy]

Volcanoes introduce far more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses than I would think we as people could in a lifetime.

One might think so, but one would be wrong. As the U.S. Geological Survey says:

...catastrophic eruptions like those of Mount St. Helens or Mount Pinatubo, understandably cause people to sometimes think that human-caused effects on the biosphere are small compared to volcanic ones. But, as the saying goes, "it ain't necessarily so."

Further corraboration to the article linked above...

There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

- source Scientific American

Naturally, one would want to read both articles in their entirety - but I pulled out these quotes.

Also, getting news from the Telegram of London isn't far from getting it from the Weekly World News. (Alright... the Telegram has better web designers).

It also pays to check sources in other ways... for example Ian Plimer.

He's on the boards of three mining companies (Objectivity? Check!)
And he holds some "interesting" theories on the weather:

Plimer holds some unusual views on a variety of weather-related topics. He believes that El Niño is caused by earthquakes and volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridges.[30] This contrasts with the view held by the meteorological and oceanographic communities, which is that El Niño arises from dynamical interactions between the atmosphere and ocean.[31] Plimer told Radio Australia that Pacific island nations are seeing changes in sea level not because of global warming, but due to "vibration consolidating the coral island sands", extraction of water, and extraction of sand for road and air strip making.

 

[Darren Addy]

If I read all the info on the UCAR site about global warming I would definitely deserve a smiley face sticker.

Yes, reading is hard work, particularly if one's goal is comprehending the subject matter. However one's reward would be infinitely greater than a smiley face sticker: Knowledge.

It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it and therefore he that can perceive it hath it not.

- Jeremy Taylor (1613 - 1667)
​

 

[Joshua Nall]

You're right I give up... It's hard to explain why the earth should be warming, when people don't understand what can affect earth's temperature. I'd be surprised if people understood what the EM spectrum is, and how it applies to earth in the context of discussing earth's temperature.

Since most people don't want to spend the time to learn about this, it all boils down to how much people trust the individuals making the case for or against global warming. Most people who don't want to think global warming is occurring, usually say something to the effect, how can we trust people that say the earth is warming when their jobs depend on it. Hey here's a quote from this thread of someone saying this...

Here's the surprising thing. If you look back in journal's 40 years ago (i.e. before global warming was even widely discussed), you find people who do rough estimations of how earth's temperature might change if the CO2 content might change.

I'll give you a hint, the earth is still suppose to warm. This was before individuals' careers were on the line when stating this, so sorry your individual bias argument will fail again.

Then again why the hell try to explain this to people, when I'm sure the TV commentators know more.

But even you do not know what all effects earth's temperature, you are anyone else. That is exactly my point. And even if someone could say they have identified every component that has anything to do with shaping earth's climate, they could not say with certainty what role each one played. We can do tests and experiments, collect data, and make hypotheses and form theories... but earth's climate is so much more complex than all of that. Data is constantly being collected proving us wrong.

The concept of the earth warming due to our increased greenhouse gas output has been around for a long time, I realize that. As CO2 increases, theoretically the earth warms. Very few people including myself will argue that point. I have stated that I am not smart enough to argue with the experts, it makes perfect sense to me. But I have been consistent in my argument, and it's this... since we don't know the degree to which all the variables effect the temperature of the earth (This is evident by predictions that have been wrong... heck, we don't even know what all the variables are) there is no way to tell to what degree the earth is warmer now, than it should be. Therefor you really can't validate any of it. I've never even stated that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring, but maybe it's near zero. How can we tell?

 

[B Ozanne]

I was lucky enough to climb to the top of Kilimanjaro in 1999 and saw no shortage of snow and glaciers. I don't contest that the glaciers will soon disappear, they've been shrinking for thousands of years and like an ice cube, it appears to shrink the fastest right at the end. But, when the glaciers disappear there will still be seasonal snow on Kilimanjaro. When the media shows photos of the glaciers they always show them in the dry season when there is no additional snow cover...it adds to the drama. When I was there the entire mountain was capped in white.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but the glacier melt on Kilimanjaro is not a result of warming. It has more to do with a drier climate. It is just not snowing as much as it used to. And the glaciers aren't melting, they are sublimating. I think it was somewhere between -30F and 0F when we were climbing to the top.

 

[David Wolfson]

You've lost me, Josh. There are many independent measurements that show to a high level of probability that the Earth is warming, very much in accord with predictions. If indeed there are unaccounted factors inhibiting this trend in the last few years, it's actually cause for greater alarm. Unknown factors are just about as likely to flip one way as the other, and when/if they do the positive anomaly will make it more likely to trip a runaway process somewhere in the complex system.

 

[CZandbergen]

What I find the most interesting about the argument that there is no such thing as global warming is that it is based on the notion that the science must be wrong, yet at the same time there seems to be very little science but a lot of speculation that there is no such thing as a global warming phenomenon.

Public sources estimate that something north of 21 billion tons of CO2 is added to the atmosphere every year due to fossil fuels. Something like half of that can be absorbed by normal biological processes. The rest is just left to float in the wind. I think what brings it home to me is just thinking about mass. My car has a 10 gallon tank. I fill it up once every couple of weeks as I don't drive that much commuting. Unleaded is ~6lbs per gallon so figure 60 lbs per tank. That mass is going somewhere and a great deal of it is out the exhaust pipe. 60 lbs of fuel doesn't seem like much. How much volume does 10 billion plus tons of CO2 represent in terms of volume? I could work it out, but I think we could all agree it is a substantial amount of mass even in the context of the atmosphere.

What is really interesting to me is that there is no debate on whether CO2 can cause warming. The debate seems to be around whether it is actually affects climate change. This to me is like acknowledging that cigarettes can cause cancer but ignoring the causality between increased cancer rates and smoking. The science says one thing but you can pick it apart if you want.

The question I would ask is why even go there? You may be right, but if you find out you were wrong you will be dead wrong climatologically speaking. Anyway, just food for thought...

 

[Joshua Nall]

Yes, reading is hard work, particularly if one's goal is comprehending the subject matter. However one's reward would be infinitely greater than a smiley face sticker: Knowledge.

- Jeremy Taylor (1613 - 1667)
​

That is a really good quote there. Here is another from Jeremy Taylor-English prelate (1613 - 1667):

"Mistake not. Those pleasures are not pleasures that trouble the quiet and tranquility of thy life."

Like reading Stormtrack

How do you do those quote boxes anyway?

I reckon we are all ignorant about some things.

I just looked at a bunch of graphs that show the earth, over the last 5 thousand years or so, has been significantly warmer than it is now. How can we justify our conclusions about anthropogenic global warming if the earth has been as warm or warmer than it is now, several times in recent history? What if the same thing that caused the earth to warm then is causing it to warm now? If there is an answer to this I admit I'm ignorant of what it is.

Again, how "too hot" are we? 1 degree.... 1/100000 of a degree?