Global Warming Article in TIME

[Scott Olson]

I don't think there is any debate as to whether global warming would not have a negative effect on most of the worlds population. As far as tornadoes im not sure I see the coorelation, some simulations show increased drought in a large part of tornado alley. The GFDL simulations of 3x carbon show a significant increased in the upper bounds hurricanes but I don't think that there are any respected hurricane chasers who would hope for an increase in violent hurricanes.

So how much of an impact do we have? Well considering you drive a mid-sized vehicle, do some chasing so lets say 20,000 miles a year. We get somewhere around 20,000lbs of CO2 released, then lets add energy for your home, thats easily that much. Then materials, energy needed to produce food. Okay, so let's say somewhere around 50,000lbs of C02 per person per year as our example average. Now multiply that by nearly every person in the industralized world and see what number you come up with, doubtful it would be so insignificant as to not have an effect.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

No offence, but I beg to differ. It's clearly got a strong agenda, and their science seems shaky at best. Consider this quote, and the accompanying graph. (This was the first article I read.) http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...onoftheweek.jsp

This issue's Temperature Record of the Week is from Circleville, OH. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward, Circleville's mean annual temperature has cooled by 1.13 degrees Fahrenheit. Not much global warming here!

"Golly, Homer! Not much GW going on here! Yuk, yuk, yuk."
Even IF this city was truly cooling, it would NOT be anything more than a single data point in the big picture. GW is/will be about large scale climactic changes - the temp in any given Podunkville is largely irrelevant.

Now, look at the graph they trott out as proof... see anything funny?

They take a best linear fit, being careful to include the cooling trend that ran up to ~1970. Clearly, the last 30 years have shown a marked upturn in temps. Is this recent slope increase GW? I don't know, and neither do they! (IMO, it's quite possible. The same 30 year surge IS largely global in scope.) That doesn't stop them from ignoring a strong trend and (ab)using that data to support the desired conclusion. :angry:

If that one piece is any indication, the site is junk, IMO.

-Greg
[/b]

You also have to remember that while mean global temps may rise you may have regions of heating or colling based on local climate. For example siberia I think if the mean temp of the earth were to rise 2-3 degrees it would rise around 5. I maybe wrong but I also believe that la ninas occur more during warm periods, which is the cooler water portion of the cycle.

 

[Damon Poole]

Part of the uncertainty that a lot of people have about Global Warming, is that some of the climate data used in the models may or may not be complete, and some may be skewed. Many times, changes in weather instruments, observing location, and even human error can skew even the most meticulously kept records. Also, the records of a century or two can only go so far in revealing patterns, even with tree ring and ice core samples. This leaves plenty or room for questioning, especially on the actual amount or degree of direct human influence. This is where the media and politicians so often miss the boat by completely misunderstanding and misreporting what actually occurs. Plus, as we all know, sometimes media, politicians, and even some ecologists tend to use scientific information for their own financial and political gain.

The trick is to be able to debunk the false science that is so often over-reported, and educate people about the real situation, using the real science of climatology, including the very real uncertainties that actually exist. That's how you stop the sensationalism.

Damon Poole

 

[Pat Palmer]

I read an article, in the 3/06 Playboy of all places! The author claimed the the northern pennensula of Antarctica, near S America, was turning green. This was, of course, not backed up with any empirical evidence like sattelite photos, but touches on what I have believed for years.

Evidence of global warming will not be accurately seen in any WX obs, Records have not been kept long enough in my opinion. The evidence will be seen in plant life. The Antarctic penneinsula would be a good indicator, if true. If spanish moss was seen to be migrating north from its current boundary in central South Carolina, that would be a good indicator.

It's very easy to spin data. If you want to show how quickly the polar ice is melting, only use summertime observations.

I give no creedence to the hole in the ozone. This hole was only discovered when we developed the technology to detect it. Therefore, there is not nearly enough data to be conclusive.

If global warming is occurring, and it's as bad as some claim, there are only three things we can do; find a way off the planet, evolve as a species to tolerate it, or die.

Remember, this planet is not as fragile as we think. We could unleash every single nuclear device in existence, and in 35,000 years you would never know it even happened. Some other species would step up in our place.