Global Warming: Fact or Fiction

[Gary Childress]

"Climategate" has no doubt damaged the credibility to some extent of the whole global warming hypothesis among media viewers. There are also reports of NASA fudging numbers. Still the IPCC maintains that its data and conclusions are fundamentally sound.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

Has the press overblown the whole affair? Is it that big a deal that some numbers were poorly construed? Does it undermine the whole hypothesis that there is global warming and/or that it is man made? It's almost like the press couldn't wait to jump on something negative regarding global warming. According to F.A.I.R. the press overwhelmingly adopted the viewpoint of those who deny the existence of global warming instead of giving due voice to the scientific community.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4006

And what of the scientific community? Do we ignore the apparent consensus among scientists that global warming is real and that it is man-made?

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Is the scientific community lying to us? Is it all a big conspiracy on the part of scientists to somehow exploit the public in some way?

What do you believe?

 

[madviking]

I'm of the opinion that global may-or-may-not be real, but either way we should stop what we're doing to the environment. I don't know where that puts me in the poll...

 

[Gary Childress]

I'm of the opinion that global may-or-may-not be real, but either way we should stop what we're doing to the environment. I don't know where that puts me in the poll...

Sounds like "undecided" would be your best choice.

 

[Kennigit]

Spoiler :

Fo Sho.

Maybe there is a bit of a warming cycle anyways. But, iirc, the sun isn't going through one of its warmer phases right now (forgot some of the terms; but the sun does periodically warm up and whatnot). But man-kind contributions have greatly sped up the warming of parts of the Earth, and certainly have contributed to global warming and melting polar ice caps.

Now, it won't inherently be warming in all places. But mankind is causing current changes and other climate changes that can pose problems, whether it's drought or other forms.

I should study up on things like soil deprivation too. Even if global warming doesn't cause as much damage as predicted, humans are causing plenty of other environmental problems too.

I think the U.S. media has been overwhelmingly supportive of the global warming is fiction idea. The media might not embrace it, but they often act as if both sides are valid. The media will portray the side that says the ice caps have not changed along with the scientific evidence clearly indicating they have and pretend the arguments are 50-50 (same thing in the past with evolution vs intelligent design; ID has absolutely no scientific basis, but the media portrayed it as a viable opinion).

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I am a believer in anthropogenic global warming.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Alright, time to see some arguments based on political points instead of research data.

 

[emzie]

It's not my field to weigh in on, but I trust the scientific method.

 

[Abaddon]

Humans are causing the earth to warm at a rate greater than can be expected naturally.

 

[Camikaze]

I have absolutely no reason to dispute a broad scientific consensus. That is, option A.

 

[kulade]

I am a firm supporter of global warming.

 

[kosiosko 1]

I believe A to be true

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yes, because I willing to trust "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence".

I love the FSM

 

[Gustave5436]

It is a fact that the consensus theory is well supported by the evidence. However, theories cannot be truly "proven" in science, particularly with so many impossible to control variables as the climate.

Poll is invalid as global warming is neither fact nor fiction, it is a theory based on a wide range of collected evidence. Compare to natural selection or general relativity, as opposed to the observable phenomena of genetic mutation and gravitation.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Poll is invalid as global warming is neither fact nor fiction, it is a theory based on a wide range of collected evidence. Compare to natural selection or general relativity, as opposed to the observable phenomena of genetic mutation and gravitation.

Gravity's a theory.

 

[Berzerker]

The world may have warmed 1-2 F over the last 150 years. But before that, much of the northern hemisphere was getting hit by a cold snap (4-8 degrees in places). So we are coming out of the little ice age, 1-2 F aint all that much. I'd expect us to warm up after a cold snap, the ice core record shows this happens over and over and over. So how much of that 1-2 F is because of us and how much is a natural rebound? I'd think a very close examination of prior cold/warm/cold sequences would show if these smaller shifts in climate are in the 2-3 degree range. We do know sea levels were ~20 ft higher about 130 kya, so unless we're gonna blame the Atlanteans, we are well within natural parameters.

Every 41,000 years the Earth's tilt is at its maximum of ~24.5 degrees, and it takes 20,500 years for the tilt to go from that maximum to a minimum of ~22 degrees (the last minimum is believed to hit 21.5). We're warmer with the larger tilt (with respect to ice ages), the higher latitudes get more sun while equatorial regions see a slight cooling. The Earth's tilt was at its maximum 133,000 years ago, and more recently, 10,700 years ago. This is why the Sahara expands and shrinks, it follows the Sun. When the Sun moves back and forth across the equator, "Hadley Cells" follow it bringing the monsoons to the higher latitudes. Its possible Egypt was born when the river and delta became the new home of peoples living in what is now the Sahara desert. The rains migrated further south as the Earth's tilt went from 24.5 to 23.5 degrees (just 1 degree).

There should be a lag time in the growth and retreat of ice sheets just as there is a lag in temperatures as we progress from winter to spring and summer to fall. For example, we're warmer on the fall equinox than the vernal equinox because the northern latitudes are naturally warmer coming out of summer. It takes longer for us to warm up after winter than it takes to cool down after summer. The ice ages work the same way, the Earth's tilt was at its maximum 8700 BC, that means the Earth's tilt was equal to today around 21,000 years ago - the last glacial maximum. By our annual calendar us northerners are in mid August.

 

[warpus]

on average the world has been getting warmer over the years, so of course there is "global warming"

It's partially "man made" and partially caused by nature, so I can't vote, cause you don't have an option that corresponds to my sensible views.

 

[Icekommander]

After having seen both "The Inconvenient Truth" and the "Great Global Warming Swindle" (Which is unfortunatly banned in America, it has some good counters to Gore's points) I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. Humankind needs the world to stay warm, no matter if we're doing it or nature's doing it, it's going to suck just as much when Amsterdam slides into the sea. Now if nature is doing it, it may be impossible to stop, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent it.

Edit: I also believe that it is happening of course. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

 

[emzie]

Screw the Netherlands. A warmer Canada is a more prosperous Canada. Sorry, Amsterdam. I do think you're a nice city.

 

[Gustave5436]

Gravity's a theory.

Yes, that is what I was implying by saying that climate theory should be compared to general relativity (i.e. gravity theory), rather than a simple observable phenomenon (such as gravitation).

After having seen both "The Inconvenient Truth" and the "Great Global Warming Swindle" (Which is unfortunatly banned in America, it has some good counters to Gore's points) I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter. Humankind needs the world to stay warm, no matter if we're doing it or nature's doing it, it's going to suck just as much when Amsterdam slides into the sea. Now if nature is doing it, it may be impossible to stop, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent it.

Edit: I also believe that it is happening of course. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

We need the Earth to be in equilibrium. Cooling would be bad, but we can't exactly shift the continents to stop ice ages from happening. Warming, on the other hand, can be prevented since, while on geological timescales it is inevitable due to the Sun's increasing luminosity, on human timescales it comes down solely to human activities.

The world may have warmed 1-2 F over the last 150 years. But before that, much of the northern hemisphere was getting hit by a cold snap (4-8 degrees in places). So we are coming out of the little ice age, 1-2 F aint all that much. I'd expect us to warm up after a cold snap, the ice core record shows this happens over and over and over. So how much of that 1-2 F is because of us and how much is a natural rebound? I'd think a very close examination of prior cold/warm/cold sequences would show if these smaller shifts in climate are in the 2-3 degree range. We do know sea levels were ~20 ft higher about 130 kya, so unless we're gonna blame the Atlanteans, we are well within natural parameters.

Earth was even warmer in the Mesozoic, that doesn't mean that if the sea suddenly rose 6 meters and global average temperatures increased 5 degrees everything would be fine. Even mild temperature increases could contribute to significant desertification, while sea level rises would be disastrous for human populations near the coast (i.e. the majority of all humans).

It is also disingenuous to write off the currently increasing temperatures as mere rebounding from the little ice age, unless the rapid increase in nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane, etc. levels in the atmosphere can be explained as being caused by the end of that cool period, rather than rapid human industrialization.

 

[sophie]

I believe A is true.