Something has gone wrong with the global weather pattern...

[Bill Tabor]

Originally posted by David Wolfson
Uh, Bill, the current atmospheric CO2 concentration is over 380 ppmv.... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png and look at Chris' graph again....

I see the CO2 graph far left top, 0 age as just over 280ppm. Am I reading the chart wrong?

Edit: Oh, maybe I wasn't seeing the second broken link. Is that what you mean?

Whew! Guess the end is coming soon.
:lol:

 

[John Farley]

Originally posted by Chris Rozoff


Anyway, back to the thread to be on topic, to blame global warming for this year's very unprecendented (in terms of written records in the US regular met data) weather is not scientific either. It could be related to climate change, but it also could be a very unique and stable configuration of the global wave pattern forced by natural variability. I look forward to learning more about what led to this year's dangerously dry and warm conditions over the states.

Chris

If it were just this year, Chris's argument would be very valid. But it is not just this year. Worldwide, most of the warmest years in our short worldwide record-keeping period have been in the past decade or so. Thus, it is not just this year. What is worrisome is that most of the warmest years have occurred recently. Now, if you add that to the data on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - rapidly increasing - along with what is known about the likely effects of CO2 - it is hard to argue that either 1) this just happens to be a warm year, within normal variation, or 2) there is a warming trend, but it is nothing but a normal fluctuation. By far the most likely explanation is a combination of 1) a pattern that favors a warm year in the U.S., 2) a natural cycle of warming, and 3) additional human-induced warming due to carbon dioxide. We humans play no role in 1 or 2, but we do play a role in 3. And the longer we debate - in the face of more and more convincing evidence that we do play a role - the worse things will get, because the debate is being used as an excuse for doing nothing.

I like to think about it this way: The costs of being wrong about saying there is not human-induced global warming are a lot greater than the costs of being wrong about saying there is. Add that to the preponderance of evidence in support of human-induced global warming, it seems to me that making an effort to address the human factors contributing to global warming is a real no-brainer. It is pretty obvious we are better off if we make efforts to address it than if we don't.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

I would just like to add a bit to the conversation. First off I do believe global warming mainly by human causes is occurring. By no means do I call my self an expert, but I have at least been in a few lectures about global warming. The process to determine their conclusion is quite convincing. They match computer simulations to what has been directly observed or deduced from other 'natural' records (tree rings, coral, I think someone tried cactus). The simulations generally agree with what is 'observed' in the past. From this, simulations have been run from what would have been the 'natural' CO2 levels and the human produced CO2 levels. It shows convincingly that the temps are higher than what should be occurring because the error in the model with the 'natural' CO2 levels compared to the real world observations are greater than to a degree ever than with any other century. The simulations with the CO2 levels as actually observed match the mean temperatures that exist today. The only question that you really have to ask to verify this process, are CO2 levels higher than what they should be? Eventually I believe quite easily you'll say yes.

Now we have all heard that we should recognize that global warming is occurring and take steps to curb are CO2 emission. I'll ask the harder question now, what are these steps that we can feasibly take and convince the world they should take them too? I think this is the harder question to ask because allot of solutions that have been provided are too costly and most have byproducts that are of a concern themselves.

 

[Bill Tabor]

I admit that graph of Chris's is pretty convincing. We've been between 180 and 280ppm CO2 for 400,000 years (assuming this is accurate data). Now we are at 370ppm! That seems pretty extreme. On the other hand I'm not qualified to determine if this is a reasonable conclusion without knowing if there might be other explanations. For instance - what happened the previous 400,000 years, or the past 2 million? Anyway it sounds like there may be something to this man made argument though.

So what was the average global temp during the CO2 ranges of 180ppm to 280ppm - is that the temp scale on the chart? How does that compare to todays temps. Just guessing from the extreme increase in CO2 seems like our temps should be MUCH higher. They are a bit higher but not extreme.

What global temp is required for the release of the oceans methane deposits? I'd say that's a line we don't want to cross.

 

[Robert Dewey]

Yeah, where's the higher resolution graph dating back millions of years? Perhaps there were also data spikes then as well?

Ah, either way... Earth will go on with or without us - we won't destroy her, she will destroy us first.

 

[j_scheerer]

Originally posted by rdewey
Ah, either way... Earth will go on with or without us - we won't destroy her, she will destroy us first.

Finally someone gets it. lol

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Just thought these were some cool facts concerning January 2006 (from MSNBC.com):

*Warmest on record in Oklahoma, South Dakota, Green Bay, Wis., Kansas City, Mo., Riverton, Wyo., and Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Neb. It barely missed tying the record for Iowa.

*Second-warmest in Maine and in Milwaukee, Wis.

*Third-warmest in Memphis, Tenn., and Detroit.

*Fourth-warmest in New York’s Central Park (tied with January 1913), in Greensboro, N.C., and Louisville, Ky.

*Eighth-warmest in Denver, and the warmest since 1986.

*10th warmest in Baltimore.

*Warmest since 1950 in Buffalo, N.Y., and Nashville, Tenn.

*12th-warmest in New Mexico.

*Minneapolis and St. Paul had the warmest January in 160 years. Ice sculptures at the St. Paul Winter Carnival melted and broke up nearly as quickly as they were carved, and several big ice-fishing contests in Minnesota were canceled or moved because of thin ice.

-----------------------------------

Sounds like the early spring party will be ending soon - so get out and enjoy it while you can - - It's a gorgeous, sunny 63 degrees for February 2nd in Kansas City. Lots of golfers out during the last month -

 

[Scott A. Kampas]

Stark warning over climate change

Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts than previously believed, a major scientific report has said.

Scientific assessment: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

Debate on Climate Shifts to Issue of Irreparable Change

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.
[...]
The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth's average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would "imply changes that constitute practically a different planet."

"It's not something you can adapt to," Hansen said in an interview. "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something."

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Nature

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Front page of MSNBC today is running an article concerning the protection of polar bears by the Bush administration by moving them to the endangered species list ... this follows a report by the Center for Biological Diversity that the bears could become extinct by the end of the century due to polar ice melt.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11233316/

the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, NASA and the University of Washington said last fall that there was a “stunning reduction in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer.â€￾

 

[fplowman]

And what graphs do we have from a million years ago to compare it to? Would we not need data spanning over at least say 100k years to say rather it is an upward trend due to the mehcanization and industrialization of society causing this.

Otherwise using reasonable deduction from my limited knowledge as that is what all of us have at some degree or another. We could say it is just the ebb and flow of the natural process flow.

 

[David Wolfson]

There is quite a bit of data and inference from a million years ago. But you're right -- it could be the result of a natural process having nothing to do with human intervention. That's the null hypothesis that is tested in every scientific study investigating the issue.

It would be great were it to be so. One less Big Thing for the world to worry about and spend money on. Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.

 

[Scott A. Kampas]

There is quite a bit of data and inference from a million years ago. But you're right -- it could be the result of a natural process having nothing to do with human intervention. That's the null hypothesis that is tested in every scientific study investigating the issue.

It would be great were it to be so. One less Big Thing for the world to worry about and spend money on. Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.

It varies on exactly what is the claim, or how large the effect, but the confidence level is 99% that there is anthropogenic influence on global warming. The numbers and studies are there, including various to a million years ago (a new ice core now under study was recently found to be 0.97 million years of age), read 'em.

Of course, active interference in science helps no one:

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006) Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his resume on file at the agency asserted.
[...]
Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/ .

 

[Robert Dewey]

Of course, active interference in science helps no one:

A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness (Feb. 4, 2006) Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his resume on file at the agency asserted.
[...]
Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/ .

I thought Big Bang IS a theory?

 

[David Wolfson]

Here are Deutsch's own comments:

"... The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

The issue of labeling every reference to the Big Bang as a "theory" was secondary to his whacked-out (IMHO) confusion of theology with science, which he also engaged in with respect to "global warming".

Well, yuh. Nothing is certain in science. But theories are proposed answers to unexplained phenomena. At some point theories become principles and remain that way until and unless paradoxes and inconsistencies crop up. That's what happened with Newtonian physics. I guess the NASA webmaster should make sure all mentions of gravity refer to it as the "theory of gravitation". :roll:

 

[Justin Turcotte]

Unfortunately, the weight of scientific evidence accumulating from many independent studies indicates that the human factor is very probably real.

Humans are putting CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. To deny that there is a human impact is to deny CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The BIG question is how much of an effect does the human contribution make? Perhaps it is significant or perhaps it is a minute. Of course believers in choas theory know that a very small change in initial conditions can create large changes with time (one reason forecast models are not that great beyond a few days). Less known are the feedback machanisms that follow a change in atmopspheric composition. Unfortunately the whole question of global warming has taken on too much political baggage. It no doubt is a political issue but it seems the science behind the debate is tucked under the rug in order to garner more political favor. If only "Average Joe Voter" would educate himself beyond the editorial section of the New York Times or Washington Post.