Global Warming

Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
644
Location
Colorado Springs
What is everyone's consensus on global warming? Do you think it in fact is from man made greenhouse gas emissions or natural climate cycling??? I know there's many meteorology students here along with a few meteorologists who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.

The debate it seems has become far too political with each extreme dominating the debate and muddying legitimate argument. As of this date, it seems a majority of scientists think it's from man made causes but the folks who lean to the right then get into the whole "science is religion" type deviation.

Thanks :)
 
Andrew,

Please see this thread: http://stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9830&highlight=global+warming

As of this date, it seems a majority of scientists think it's from man made causes

It may be true that a majority of "scientists" believe in human-caused "global warming" but, based on numerous conversations, it does not appear that a majority of meteorologists believe it.

but the folks who lean to the right then get into the whole "science is religion" type deviation.

I have no idea what you mean by the above, but it is probably inappropriate to bring religion into the discussion on this board, which is science-based.

Happy '007 to you!

Mike Smith
 
Both sides have it wrong. An ultra-secret society within the government is responsible for all global warming since the 1940's in an effort to create a favorable climate for the alien race which will soon replace us. At least I think that's what I learned from X-Files. :p

Seriously though, this topic was discussed at some length in 2005 (see Stormtrack links below), but there are many new faces to Stormtrack these days.

EDIT: I see Mike got the links in before I did. Kudos.

Personally, I certainly believe there is ample evidence to support cyclic warming/cooling, but there is certainly plenty of evidence to support man's contribution. Nature seems to have some failsafes in place and is rather resillient. That said, if humanity can find ways to limit its direct impact on climate, it probably should seek to do so. It only takes rather tiny climate changes in isolated areas to affect the entire world in rather unpleasant ways. Some of those changes and cycles are inevitable; history clearly supports this. But imagine large changes on a global scale. I don't care who the experts are. No one knows the impact. I am not a big fan of either the Al Gore folks or the ignore-it-&-it-will-go-away crowd. Some kind of reasonable discussion has to take place before anything positive is accomplished. I AM happy that, whether I agree with their position or not, there are such individuals who care passionately enough to act on their convictions. Learn all you can and do what you can. Take some responsibility. Oops, I'm preaching, and I haven't even taken a side. I don't really know if there is even two cents worth here, but it is what it is.

Global Warming Intensifying Hurricane Activity?

Science debates:global warming...

Maybe we'll get it all figured out before the aliens come. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no idea what you mean by the above, but it is probably inappropriate to bring religion into the discussion on this board, which is science-based.

My apologies................my point was some people throw peer reviewed science out the window claiming it's just as much a belief if you will. Had nothing to do with religion per se.

But thanks for the links fellas. I did a search but couldn't really find a long thread where quite knowledgeable members here duked it out for 10 pages. That's what I was looking for! Everything you find online is politically swayed to each extreme of the issue; it's hard to find a good debate between truly knowledgeable folks with some civility and reason.
 
But thanks for the links fellas. I did a search but couldn't really find a long thread where quite knowledgeable members here duked it out for 10 pages. That's what I was looking for! Everything you find online is politically swayed to each extreme of the issue; it's hard to find a good debate between truly knowledgeable folks with some civility and reason.

I see UKww carries a link to Stormtrack so they shouldn't mind me posting this...

I moderate a very active climate forum here with scientists & members from around the world. You would be most welcome.

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=30
 
More evidence of global waming!

Can you imagine how cold this would be if global warming wasn't already taking place...? In honesty, this has been a remarkable pattern as of late, ontil the other day, the North American continent has been the only place where temps have been substantially below normal in the entire northern hemisphere.

After my chase party (sat. 1pm here at my farm in Piedmont, OK..refer to Announcements header) I'm hoping to make a trip up to the U.P of Mich. and Minnesota for that next week. Hopefully, I'll be enjoying my 10 below and 2 feet of snow.. which was pretty much standard fare for me before moving here to Okla.

I think after that trip... I'll be ready for that sloshing dryline and 70 dewpoints!!:D

Rocky&family
 
If it's hot -- global warming.
If it's stormy -- global warming.
No tornados? Global warming.
If it's very cold -- global warming.

Everything in weather is -- global warming!
 
Wrong answer. Global warming is real - claiming specific effects vs. that of regular weather is a farce.
 
Wrong answer. Global warming is real - claiming specific effects vs. that of regular weather is a farce.

Wrong again. There's no such thing as 'regular weather'. And while i think one can go overboard (aka media hype) by fingering specific events, if the statistics make it more favorable for an extreme event to occur, then i think it's fair to blame the thing that has shaped the statistics.
Anyhow, tis gonna be really cold if the extended globals pan out, looks like international falls might finally get back to real winter conditions--minus 35 at 850--brrrrr.
 
I think looking into the solar cylces of our sun is worth looking into. I think this may have to do more with global waring than any believe. Not that this is the only cause but I believe it needs to be addressed. With a weakening atmosphere due to global warming it would be wise to thik about the effects the solar cycles will have on us. The next big solar cycle occurs in about 5 years. It should be a big one to. We are not even into the peak of the cycles and we are already seeing an increase in solar activity.
 
A cooling world by 2015 ? Some very interest reading about solar cycles and climate in the next decades:

http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

http://bourabai.georisk.kz/landscheidt/new-e.htm (Highly Recommended)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20516

A very interesting paper:

ABSTRACT:

The precisely dated isotopic composition of a stalagmite from Spannagel Cave
in the Central Alps is translated into a highly resolved record of temperature
at high elevation during the past 2000 yr. Temperature maxima during the
Medieval Warm Period between 800 and 1300 AD are in average about 1.7°C higher than the minima in the Little Ice Age and similar to present-day values.
The high correlation of this record to d14C suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.

fig3.jpg


Mangini, A., C. Spötl, and P. Verdes. 2005.
Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr
from a d18O stalagmite record.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 235, Issues 3-4, Pages 741-751,
15 July 2005. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.05.010

Data from this paper available at NCDC's NOAA website:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/speleothem/europe/austria/spannagel2005.txt

Media and global warming:

anglia10.JPG
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are skeptics in a country of believers:

REUTERS

8:02 a.m. January 29, 2007

OSLO – Thirteen percent of Americans have never heard of global warming even though their country is the world's top source of greenhouse gases, a 46-country survey showed on Monday.

The report, by ACNielsen of more than 25,000 Internet users, showed that 57 percent of people around the world considered global warming a 'very serious problem' and a further 34 percent rated it a 'serious problem'.

Advertisement'It has taken extreme and life-threatening weather patterns to finally drive the message home that global warming is happening and is here to stay unless a concerted, global effort is made to reverse it,' said Patrick Dodd, the President of ACNielsen Europe.

People in Latin America were most worried while U.S. citizens were least concerned with just 42 percent rating global warming 'very serious'.

The United States emits about a quarter of all greenhouse gases, the biggest emitter ahead of China, Russia and India.

Thirteen percent of U.S. citizens said they had never heard or read anything about global warming, the survey said.

Almost all climate scientists say that temperatures are creeping higher because of heat-trapping greenhouse gases released by burning fossil fuels.

The study also found that 91 percent of people had heard about global warming and 50 percent reckoned it was caused by human activities.

A U.N. report due on Friday is set to say it is at least 90 percent probable that human activities are the main cause of warming in the past 50 years.

People in China and Brazil were most convinced of the link to human activities and Americans least convinced.

The survey said that people living in regions vulnerable to natural disasters seemed most concerned – ranging from Latin Americans worried by damage to coffee or banana crops to people in the Czech Republic whose country was hit by 2002 floods.

In Latin America, 96 percent of respondents said they had heard of global warming and 75 percent rated it 'very serious'.

Most industrial nations have signed up for the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which imposed caps on emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from factories, power plants and vehicles.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of Kyoto in 2001, but said last week that climate change was a 'serious challenge'.
 
If it's hot -- global warming.
If it's stormy -- global warming.
No tornados? Global warming.
If it's very cold -- global warming.

Everything in weather is -- global warming!

Agreed. Summer 2005 was the 3rd coldest on record here in central Illinois. Nothing said. 2006 is one of the warmest summers on record... THE EARTH IS BEING DESTROYED. :)

Sorry, I really haven't researched the issue as much as others, just poking some fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed. Summer 2005 was the 3rd coldest on record here in central Illinois. Nothing said. 2006 is one of the warmest summers on record... THE EARTH IS BEING DESTROYED. :)

Sorry, I really haven't researched the issue as much as others, just poking some fun.

Part of the issue is that global warming does not necessarily mean that EVERY single point on the world will get warmer. The climate system is extremely complex and highly non-linear... There's some evidence that parts of the world may become colder with time, even though the average global temperature may rise with time.

The studies I've seen have noted that increases in solar luminosity may be aiding an increase in mean global temperature, but that alone isn't not enough to account for the observed increase in global temperatures.

This is a difficult debate since many folks seem to have made up their minds already. For example, a family member of mine laughs at the idea of an anthropogenic forcing (i.e. human activities contributing to global warming) based almost entirely on some radio interview she heard by a "scientist" who said that humans are too insignificant to affect the global climate. However, if you actually run through the math and data, there's pretty significant evidence that this is not the case -- human activities can affect the global climate. As Chris noted earlier (I think it was Chris), the fact that politicians have picked up on global warming in the past 5 years may actually be hurting the legitimacy of pro-global warming arguments in that some look at it and, neglecting the science, say "Huh, crazy tree-huggers". Just because some politicians, or Hollywood, are backing an idea does not make that idea inherently "nonsense" as I've heard some (not here, but around) argue.

The new IPCC report is due out on Friday, and some scientists are complaining the report is not worded strongly enough... For example, the sea temperature rise forecasts do not take into account recent melting of some of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (based on a draft report several months ago, so the final report may account for this), which, some argue, may lead to higher-than-forecast rises in sea level through 2100. Further model revisions have narrowed the range of various forecasts (such as sea level rise), and some of the forecasts have been revised downward (which I'm sure will be used by some to argue that this is junk science). I'm not saying that I think with 100% certainty that human activities are significantly contributing to the observed rise in mean global temperature, but I do think it's more likely than not.

It's right to be hesitant, and it's right to scientifically explore all possible explanations and aspects of global warming -- that's the way science work. But it's also important to realize the evidence that exists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the reason there is such a strong opposition to the idea of human-caused global warming and the implications thereof is due to the degree that the 'crisis' GW scenario is being pushed. It's not GW itself, its the alarmist tone of it. For me, it's not so much a 'GW is a farce', it's 'hey guys, cool off a little - lets think rationally about this!'. It's all the doomsday-clock-changing, AMS-certification-stripping, sky-is-falling, we're-all-going-to-die stuff that makes me resist. I think the conclusions have been made too soon and without sufficient data to prove that GW, as it stands, is or will be a crisis for humankind. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction - I really think the opposing push is more of a reactionary thing to the sudden, fanatical GW alarmism. When you see the guy on the street corner screaming that the world is going to end, it's hard to take that seriously or expect people to jump on the bandwagon. The initial reaction is to dismiss such radical propaganda.

I think that what the public believes about this isn't relevant. We all know how uninformed non-weather types are about even basic meteorological subjects. If you conducted a survey of what people should do if a tornado is approaching, 88% of people are probably going to say 'open the windows and go to the southwest corner of the basement'. Public opinion on a complex subject like global warming shows nothing more than which side is shouting the loudest.
 
There's some evidence that parts of the world may become colder with time, even though the average global temperature may rise with time.

As Chris noted earlier (I think it was Chris), the fact that politicians have picked up on global warming in the past 5 years may actually be hurting the legitimacy of pro-global warming arguments in that some look at it and, neglecting the science, say "Huh, crazy tree-huggers".

Both of these are excellent points to consider. There has been some talk within some scientific communities that the UK and parts of Europe might get colder as fresh water from melting Arctic ice enters the thermohaline circulation segment of the Gulf Stream and disrupts the flow. This is such a large and difficult system to explore, that it's hazardous to jump to conclusions about the possibilities.

It isn't difficult to imagine that the political agendas that have embraced global warming have found it to be a very powerful lobbying tool, and have tainted legitimate scientific argument in the process.

Whenever corporate and political interests become intertwined with what should be logical debate, you can be certain there will be three inescapable conclusions: the Pro side, the Con side, and the Truth.

John
www.skywatch7.com
 
Based on the data I've seen, I think global warming is probably happening. What the real debate is, is how much of a factor is human activity? While I think human activity plays a signficant role, I'm not sure if it's more signficiant than natural factors such as the solar cycle and Earth's own cycle of climate shifting.

The problem is public perception. Most non-scientists hold the view of global warming = human activity. I try to explain to people all the time that hey, if the Earth is warming after an ice age that's also "global warming." Since the environment is a very politically and emotionally charged topic, it's hard to keep those biases out of the studies.

And with sensationalistic media reporting, it's easy to point any perceived "extreme" or "anamoly," such as the 2005 hurricane season, to global warming. I mean, you have to admit, it's a whole lot easier to just scream "GLOBAL WARMING" as a cause than trying to explain multi-decadal climatology to John Q. Public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The new IPCC report is due out on Friday, and some scientists are complaining the report is not worded strongly enough...

Actually, that's not quite true. The following is from the Associated Press:

They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on Feb. 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.

The full report will be issued in four phases over the year...


Secret? The summary will be written before the report? Government officials as opposed to scientists doing the writing? The IPCC clearly puts politics ("policymakers") ahead of science. This is why many don't trust the IPCC.

I don't wish to rehash the whole global warming science which has been done in previous threads.
 
The free for all debate surrounding the apparent causes of what is understood to be global warming clouds the issue with political mudslinging dressed up as science fact. Hence the subject is fraught with emotional press ganging and accusations of denial etc. It's a great pity it's got to this. A meteorologist colleague of mine recently was shocked by my apparent 'denial' when I said I had an open opinion on warming.

I remember in the 1980's there was a serious scientific fuss about an imminent ice age on the way.

In Shakespeares day, the 17th century, you could catch malaria (the dreaded Ague) in England because it was so warm.

In the 10th century Vikings sailing past Newfoundland found it to be fertile and warm. At the same time they were cultivating grapes in Iceland.



So the climate is always changing. Just how much of it is due to industry etc is up to you.


My only fear is that a warmer climate will lead to less tornadoes in the US and where I am, right?
 
I remember in the 1980's there was a serious scientific fuss about an imminent ice age on the way.

O Estado de Sao Paulo - Most Important Newspaper in Brazil
Edition of June 30, 1974
Headline: Earth towards a new glacial era


estadao1.JPG


Second headline in the same page: Winters are turning colder in article written by the Chief Meteorologist of the Sao Paulo University

estadao8.JPG
 
censorship of scientists on global warming

A week or two ago, Heidi Cullen of TWC took quite a beating on this list for trying to censor meteorologists who do not believe in global warming. Now it turns out that censorship has actually occurred, but the other way around - against climate scientists who DO believe in global warming and in a human influence on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html

Here's what one climate scientist had to say (quoted from the report linked above):

"Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research, though NASA's restrictions have been eased.

"Prior to the change, interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed, said Shindell. He described how a news release on his study forecasting a significant warming in Antarctica was "repeatedly delayed, altered and watered down" at the insistence of the White House."


A key difference between Heidi Cullen and the White House, of course, is that Heidi has no power to actually impose censorship on scientists. The White House, unfortunately, does. Science should not be censored by anyone. It is frightening when our government does it.
 
I always have to laugh when scientists complain about being "censored" when they are appearing on "60 Minutes." Give me a break.
 
Back
Top