Global Warming Theory Received Coolly.

[Berzerker]

the atmosphere aint made up by equal amounts of water vapor and CO2

 

[Holycannoli]

It's like some people aren't reading the article.

No one has been ignoring the Sun. It's a complete strawman to suggest people have been

It's not a strawman. Until recently it was all about man-made global warming and other inconvenient truths. I remember posts even here on this forum where people were insistent on global warming (a more accurate term is "climate change") being man-made, and that it was crazy and irresponsible to think otherwise due to all the evidence.

It's a recent thing that people are starting to accept other causes for warming, and that maybe it's not a dangerous warming trend that will drown us all but just a cycle the earth goes through all the time.

 

[Dragonlord]

It's like some people aren't reading the article.

As well, you'll note that sunspots are at a cyclical low, as detailed in the article. This will cause a lower amount of heat. And yet, despite this, we've just experienced the hottest oceans in the last 100 years.

I think you and the journalist missed this: Sun activity is very low at the moment. The last time it was this low it was really cold. It isn't really cold right now. This is very alarming. That means that the current warm climate is actually very cold for the current conditions. That means once the sun activity picks up again it is going to be very very hot.
Sadly the article (in order to find evidence for Climate Change hype) gets this totally wrong: This means that the effect of CO2 is even higher! If it wasn't for the sun giving us a break right now, it would be even warmer!

I was going to make the same point. Strange that the journalist doesn't see this himself.
(Bolded above) is my conclusion also.

 

[Holycannoli]

It isn't really cold right now? It was an unusually cold summer, and I don't remember it being this cool this early in September. Right now morning and daytime temperatures were what I remember as a kid in the early 80s...kinda cool with a crispness in the morning air. Wasn't like this last September, or the September before, or going back further than that. It was still damned hot when school started. I wondered why, since I remember the first day of school being kinda cool 20-something years ago. This September it's now what I remember.

This whole summer I used my brother's pool a total of 2 times due to a few days of a heat wave where temps reached the 90s. That's it, all summer. It's pretty bad when an entire summer goes by and you barely get any good pool days.

I remember as a kid needing at jackets on Halloween, but for the past few years even Halloween was warm enough that kids would be out with no jackets. Only at night did it get cool enough to need them.

Is it not that cold in other parts of the world?

 

[Dragonlord]

It's not a strawman. Until recently it was all about man-made global warming and other inconvenient truths. I remember posts even here on this forum where people were insistent on global warming (a more accurate term is "climate change") being man-made, and that it was crazy and irresponsible to think otherwise due to all the evidence.

It's a recent thing that people are starting to accept other causes for warming, and that maybe it's not a dangerous warming trend that will drown us all but just a cycle the earth goes through all the time.

Oh, please. That argument has been around for the whole global warming debate. The skeptics eagerly seize on any indication of natural warming and use it as 'proof' that man-made global warming is a myth.
The truth is that it has been acknowledged for years that yes, there are natural cycles at work also, but that the warming trend for the last 100 years or so is far beyond that which could conceivably be natural, and that the difference can only be accounted for as man-made, with CO2 the main culprit.

Also, you're sneaking in another strawman: the warming trend will not 'drown us all' and no one says it will. A rising sea level will affect coastal regions, yes, but the rest of the world will also be affected in different ways. It's too much to go into here, I'll just say any rapid climate change will be a huge stress factor for agriculture.
By no means will every place in the world become warmer, BTW. There is a very real possibility the Gulf Stream could fail or change course, for instance - in which case the eastern US and Britain would become much colder.

The main danger is reaching 'tipping points', where the warming trend becomes self-sustaining and accelerating, by melting the methane in the oceans and the permafrost, for instance.

Grasping at every straw to 'debunk' global warming isn't helping. It's happening. Why nitpick about how much is man-made and how much natural? The question is: What do we do about it?

 

[Dragonlord]

I remember as a kid needing at jackets on Halloween, but for the past few years even Halloween was warm enough that kids would be out with no jackets. Only at night did it get cool enough to need them.

Is it not that cold in other parts of the world?

No, it isn't. We had quite a hot summer here in southern Germany. We're also having a very warm Indian summer ATM.

Not that that proves anything. Get it through your head that we're talking about a global trend - local conditions will continue to vary from day to day and year to year.

BTW, you made my point for me: as you say, it's been warmer on Halloween the last years. Wouldn't you say that points to a warming trend?

 

[Holycannoli]

Why nitpick? Because now it might not be our evil consumption of fossil fuels that's dooming our planet.

Maybe you haven't been hearing the kinds of global warming arguments I've been hearing. I got so sick of people saying our cars and trucks and factories are causing our polar ice caps to melt and dooming the poor polar bears.

Global warming is a myth (using the popular definition of global warming and not the literal definition). Climate change is not. Humans are not causing the earth to warm, and it's not some dangerous thing that will melt our ice caps, drown our coasts and create deserts. We may not be helping it, but we aren't causing it, just like we didn't cause it when it happened at other points in history, like the Renaissance.

It's like the old ozone layer fears of years ago. Remember when using hair spray caused the ozone layer to disappear?

Let me stress that just because the earth is warming does not mean there's global warming, because I define global warming as the popular alarmist definition of man-made emissions and pollution causing it. That's what people around here think when they hear that term. It's also why the term climate change is being used more and more instead.

 

[Dragonlord]

Global warming is a myth (using the popular definition of global warming and not the literal definition). Climate change is not. Humans are not causing the earth to warm, and it's not some dangerous thing that will melt our ice caps, drown our coasts and create deserts. We may not be helping it, but we aren't causing it, just like we didn't cause it when it happened at other points in history, like the Renaissance.

It's like the old ozone layer fears of years ago. Remember when using hair spray caused the ozone layer to disappear?

Nice to hear .. ... it would be even better for proof. The United Nations say global warming is predominantly man-made, the majority of scientists says so, most governments say so - but you say it's not, just as if that were a commonly accepted self-evident fact.

And the ozone argument is REALLY shooting yourself in the foot. The danger to the ozone layer caused a world-wide ban on FCKW (almost total - there were some who wouldn't go along, I know) with a massive reduction in its' use. The result was that the ozone layer has been regenerating for years. The reason you don't hear much about it nowadays is because basically the problem was solved.

So, actually, the ozone layer argument is for, not against, supranational agreements to combat global warming: it shows that it is possible to cooperate and have an effect.

 

[PiMan]

Is it not that cold in other parts of the world?

Australia had one of our hottest ever summers this year, and we've just come out of a winter that was well above average. In February this year, Melbourne experienced the hottest temperature ever recorded in an Australian capital city (46.4C/116F).

 

[El_Machinae]

Water and carbon dioxide absorb at different wavelengths. Not a fair comparison.

To the best of my knowledge, and this is from a report this year, the water vapour changes due to CO2 changes effectively double the greenhouse effect of CO2. For every degree the CO2 will raise temperatures, new water vapour will also raise the temp a degree.

This is just the GHG effect of water, though, and does not include the albedo effect of clouds. To date, it seems that clouds will not increase in albedo at a sufficient rate to prevent heating.

It's not a strawman. Until recently it was all about man-made global warming and other inconvenient truths. I remember posts even here on this forum where people were insistent on global warming (a more accurate term is "climate change") being man-made, and that it was crazy and irresponsible to think otherwise due to all the evidence.

It's a recent thing that people are starting to accept other causes for warming, and that maybe it's not a dangerous warming trend that will drown us all but just a cycle the earth goes through all the time.

No, it's a strawman. We've known about cycles for decades now, and the scientists are always happy to find new cycles. If we can explain a portion of any change in temperature with a cycle, it's happily thrown into the model. Everyone knows it would be foolish to ignore El Ninos, sunspots, albedo, etc. when discussing temperature trends. I pointed out a public access graph from 2001 (over 4 years before the documentary by Gore) that discussed sunspots and its suspected effects.

Global warming is a myth (using the popular definition of global warming and not the literal definition). Climate change is not. Humans are not causing the earth to warm, and it's not some dangerous thing that will melt our ice caps, drown our coasts and create deserts. We may not be helping it, but we aren't causing it, just like we didn't cause it when it happened at other points in history, like the Renaissance.

Let me stress that just because the earth is warming does not mean there's global warming, because I define global warming as the popular alarmist definition of man-made emissions and pollution causing it. That's what people around here think when they hear that term. It's also why the term climate change is being used more and more instead.

No, the term 'climate change' is being used because it more accurately describes the local effects. The Earth is warming, in that it's retaining more heat. But that does not mean that each location will get warmer, because climate is more complex than that. Global warming is causing climate change. And it's climate change that is the problem.

As far as this article goes, they're saying that sunspot cycles cause changes in temperature. That's perfectly fine. But what they're NOT saying is that previous 'unnormal' sunspots are causing the current unnormal heating. They cannot, because the sunspot history of 34 years ago is 'normal'.

Now, if you're only arguing with strawman conceptions of global warming concerns, you're easily going to find holes in those conceptions. But keep in mind that the scientific consensus is likely not the strawman you're envisioning.

It's like the old ozone layer fears of years ago. Remember when using hair spray caused the ozone layer to disappear?

You mean the ozone that was rapidly disappearing, and then rapidly slowed its disappearance once we globally got off our butts to reduce CFCs? That ozone layer?

 

[Narz]

I think you and the journalist missed this: Sun activity is very low at the moment. The last time it was this low it was really cold. It isn't really cold right now. This is very alarming. That means that the current warm climate is actually very cold for the current conditions. That means once the sun activity picks up again it is going to be very very hot.

Sadly the article (in order to find evidence for Climate Change hype) gets this totally wrong: This means that the effect of CO2 is even higher! If it wasn't for the sun giving us a break right now, it would be even warmer!

Yes, and don't forget global dimming.

It isn't really cold right now? It was an unusually cold summer

August here in South Jersey was miserably hot with temperatures in the high 90's many days. Even now, in early Sept. it's still very warm.

 

[KaiserElectric]

Not sure if this was stated before, but to my knowledge, the fossil fuels that we burn in our factories let off about 3% of the gasses that cause global warming. (Not sure if that statistic is entirely accurate, but oh well.)

I know I'll get blasted as a heretic here, but I personally believe that, while global warming is real, it is not as dangerous as many people say it is.

It always seemed to me that the left-leaning politicians who are fighting against global warming are incredibly fanatical about the topic. Probably why we haven't seen an answer to Mr. Gore's "Inconveniant Truth".

 

[Berzerker]

I think its a good thing, locking up 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the world's freshwater in ice sheets does not make a better world

 

[Cutlass]

I think its a good thing, locking up 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the world's freshwater in ice sheets does not make a better world

Sure it does. All that ice reflects sunlight back into space and moderates temperature. Melting it will certainly hurt humans, society, and the economy. Because the fact that all that ice is turned into salt water just means that the oceans will be higher. It has no positive effect, because it will not be available for humans to use. It cannot be expected to fall as rain in useful places. So, more floods, more coastal destruction, more violent and destructive storms, less water for agriculture and human use, that's what you'll get.

 

[Berzerker]

Sure it does. All that ice reflects sunlight back into space and moderates temperature.

reducing arable land and freshwater supplies

Melting it will certainly hurt humans, society, and the economy. Because the fact that all that ice is turned into salt water just means that the oceans will be higher.

Introducing more freshwater into the oceans reduces salinity inducing more evaporation and precipitation

It has no positive effect, because it will not be available for humans to use.

Read up on hydro cycles

It cannot be expected to fall as rain in useful places.

Is there some force field denying rain to places that need it? The over all effect should be more rain...

So, more floods, more coastal destruction, more violent and destructive storms, less water for agriculture and human use, that's what you'll get.

More floods but less rain? More violent storms even though warmer latitudes reduce the contrast with equatorial air masses which fuel stronger storms? Every documentary I've seen on the subject claim storms were worse during the mini ice age and during the ice age. Greenhouses help stabilize climate, not produce wild swings.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The oceans under most ice caps aren't arable land.


Reduced salinity could also be bad for some of the more sensitive sea creatures. Or, it might just not be enough to significantly increase evaporation.



The winds, rain shadows, etc., that make some areas not get enough rain while others get too much likely won't change much, so the extra rain is most likely where there is too much rain already.


Less water for agriculture =/= less rain. Agriculture works best with a slow steady water supply, not the flash floods induced by heavy rain. Snow is better for agriculture as the frozen water melts gradually throughout the year and keeps river levels fairly constant.



Ice ages are actually supposed to have had quite mild weather. Cooler summers were balanced by warmer winters, with little precipitation due to limited evaporation.

 

[Berzerker]

The oceans under most ice caps aren't arable land.

Really? How about all those lands in the N Hemisphere that are under ice or permafrost? How about the millions of sq miles of land in the N Hemisphere in need of a little more warmth to become productive?

Reduced salinity could also be bad for some of the more sensitive sea creatures. Or, it might just not be enough to significantly increase evaporation.

Sea creatures living near melt have been dealing with that for eons. And "significant" or not, warming will increase evap and precip.

The winds, rain shadows, etc., that make some areas not get enough rain while others get too much likely won't change much, so the extra rain is most likely where there is too much rain already.

So more rain is bad, not enough rain is bad - there's no satisfying the global warming crowd. Its bad I tell ya

Less water for agriculture =/= less rain. Agriculture works best with a slow steady water supply, not the flash floods induced by heavy rain. Snow is better for agriculture as the frozen water melts gradually throughout the year and keeps river levels fairly constant.

Snow and crops dont usually mix well, you know, like freezes etc? But around here the snows are long gone by the time crops are growing. Rains keep our rivers flowing thru the summer, not melt.

Ice ages are actually supposed to have had quite mild weather.

Where did you hear that? When ice sheets cover land they dont slow the wind down much, they provide cold dry air masses with a massive platform from which to propel down onto lands people live on, and they increase the contrast between air masses that fuel storms.

Cooler summers were balanced by warmer winters, with little precipitation due to limited evaporation.

You call a mile thick ice sheet covering NYC "balance"?

 

[MrPopov]

Of course there are other reasons for limiting emissions than just global warming/climate change

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Where the rain falls and how quickly is a major concern.


Snow upstream from the fields is highly beneficial. I'm not saying crops grow best when covered by snow, but when there is plenty of snow in the mountains to serve as a reservoir that slowly releases the water into the streams that irrigate the crops.


The milder temperatures in the ice age was something I learned in an earth and atmospheric science course I took here at Georgia tech 2 years ago. Weather in Canada or New England may have been harsher, but here in Georgia an Ice Age would be very pleasant. The contrast between air masses should be smaller in an ice age, as there would not be so many warm moist air masses. One key factor in ice ages (or at least glaciation periods) is a smaller tilt in the earth's axis, making the earth warm more evenly and reducing the temperature differences that drive winds.



(I'm actually somewhat skeptical about global warming, and tend to think that adapting to the new environment is a more reasonable course of action than trying to stop it. There are other environmental problems I see as much more important. I prefer taxes based on the externalities of population rather than caps.)

 

[Dragonlord]

(I'm actually somewhat skeptical about global warming, and tend to think that adapting to the new environment is a more reasonable course of action than trying to stop it. There are other environmental problems I see as much more important. I prefer taxes based on the externalities of population rather than caps.)

A reasonable POV.
IMO, there is no question of being able to stop global warming anyway - BUT we should do all we can to slow it and keep it from getting out of hand. That minimizes the disruptions we'll experience while adapting - and you're right, we will have to adapt to changes.

It will make a huge difference, though, whether we adapt to, say, a 2 degree C warming in the next 100 years or a 5 degree swing in the same time frame.