Global Warming

[Jeff Snyder]

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.

 

[Dan Robinson]

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.

 

[John Hudson]

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

 

[Chris Nuttall]

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.

 

[Mike Smith]

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.

 

[MJ Poore]

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?

 

[Alexandre Aguiar]

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

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

 

[John Farley]

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.

 

[Mike Smith]

I always have to laugh when scientists complain about being "censored" when they are appearing on "60 Minutes." Give me a break.

 

[Mike Smith]

An essay well worth reading:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...ity-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes/#comments

 

[mrobinett]

Im just glad you at least hear from the other side on this issue lately, for years the "global warming" "scientists" have had carte blanche with the media, its about time any and all opposition to the GW theory have finally come to light and been able to be heard.
Its all about money, plain and simple. Most things today are, not just the GW debate.

 

[mrobinett]

An essay well worth reading:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...ity-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes/#comments

Yes it was, thank you for posting that.

 

[MJ Poore]

I'd say that's nigh impossible to answer with our current understanding. No convincing signal seems to have shown up so far with our given data sets. Given, in an extremely rudimentary sense, tornadoes are largely a function of the convective instability and the vertical profile of wind, it is easy to imagine that shifts in tornado climatology are possible with changing global, and especially, regional climate. In a 0th order sense, a warming climate usually translates into much more elevated warming in polar regions relative to the entire earth, which may in fact decrease baroclinic instability and associated storm systems throughout key parts of the climatological tornado season? Also, this may mean a northward (southward) shift and seasonal shift of tornado maxima in the NH (SH), with more tornadoes in the US during more winter months. But more interestingly, what does global warming mean for regional climates in the US and South Africa? If there is a stronger subtropical ridge that encompasses the US/South Africa climatology, that would mean key ingredients for tornadoes would be statistically less likely. Next, how does global warming affect ENSO and other interannual activity across the globe? Such activity modulates the large-scale wave patterns which impact regional weather, as we've seen this winter in the US. Much of what I have said is obviously extremely speculative, but I think this is interesting to consider.

Related to this thread, in reality, we do have a scientific consensus, but obviously we don't have a Stormtrack consensus , that anthropognic (manmade) forcing is looking to be a significant factor in the observed global warming. This is fairly good insofar as average global temperatures go. However, climate models have little confidence in their ability to simulate regional climate. Therefore, I think it will be some time before we determine whether tornadoes in the US plains and South Africa are impacted significantly by global warming. In the meanwhile, expect large interannual variability, much of which is natural, in both locations to continue.

BTW...I do not buy the logic that because of the Ice Age predicted in the 1970s that this is in any way an argument which proves that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is garbage. Anthopogenic global warming is much more well studied, rigorous, and from what I know, a lot of the 1970s hype was by the media (much like in the situation of global warming), however I do recall a couple/handful of research articles, which Dr. Gray showed me, that maybe suggested an ice age? Please refresh my (lack of) memory. Also, the ice age argument against anthropogenic global warming would only be a valid argument if (a) our science has not progressed since then, (b) the imminent ice age was largely a scientific consensus based on current scientific understanding, and (c) the media represents scientific knowledge. Since (a), (b), and (c) are not true, we cannot conclude that the 1970s example discredits current scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change nor can we conclude that because the media is unreliable, that when they somewhat accurately state the scientific consensus on global warming, we can therefore reject the scientific conclusions because of the media's general unreliability.

Chris, I think you're trying to put me in position where I have to defend the scientific veracity of the Ice Age theory . I cant, but some still believe in it in statistical terms. We are going to be tilting one theory to disprove another which as you are saying is a Mexican standoff before it begins.

And thank you to Alexandre for providing the news clippings.

I am merely illustrating the wide variety of theories that do exist to highlight my point that the climate is extremely variable and that attaching political intrigue is only human, scientists included, they need to get their funding from somewhere. Blaming the media is just shooting the messenger and getting off the topic. You can't say there is no hype to GW? Big industry have their interests in the matter, so do the greens, and individual scientists.

But we should be aware of these motives and retain an enquiring outlook. I personally am very suspect about 50 year model outlooks, not even to mentional seasonal ones.

As regards tornadoes and warming I have noticed that there seems to be less tornadoes in the US during hotter years. Is this right? In South Africa, we get more or bigger tornadoes in the years that are cooler and drier.

 

[Chris Nuttall]

Well, as I'm sure everyone has heard, the IPCC released their report.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

.....
The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others.

It also said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

That's a contrast from the 2001 report, which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Every the 2005 hurricane season is linked to global warming, I cringe. In contrast to the IPCC report, I found this report written by Dr. William Gray at Colorado State to be interesting. I haven't had the chance to read the full report, but I really liked the abstract. I really like it when people stick to their convictions in science, especially when they are in the minority against the "popular" belief.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/465.pdf

 

[Alexandre Aguiar]

From the IPCC report:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms.