'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

[portisizzle]

Yes, that is difficult to grasp. I'm a lil dumb, care to explain how Global warming and global cooling can happen at the same time even though they are opposite events?

It's either warming, cooling or staying the same. You cant conveniently say every single weather event is a "problem" caused by humans and expect rational people to nuy into it.

Please note: I dont doubt we are trends of climate change, but what I do doubt is that it is a "problem" caused by man more than by nature.

or the sun.

[Coach Williams]

or the sun.

The sun IMO is part of nature

[The Evil Genius]

Yes, that is difficult to grasp. I'm a lil dumb, care to explain how Global warming and global cooling can happen at the same time even though they are opposite events?

It's either warming, cooling or staying the same. You cant conveniently say every single weather event is a "problem" caused by humans and expect rational people to nuy into it.

Please note: I dont doubt we are trends of climate change, but what I do doubt is that it is a "problem" caused by man more than by nature.

From my rudimentary understanding, sulfates will limit how much warming occurs in certain areas. Other areas, will also see a cooling primarily because they will be under water (as many coastal cities are predicted to be if the polar ice caps continue to melt) or due to drastic changes in weather patterns as a result of other areas continuing to warm.

Try this is if you want something to rack your brains (I won't pretend to understand all the scientific talk).

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q3

[cjcdaman]

How can we belive that humans are causing global warming? How long have records been kept of the earth's weather? I'm guessing that number will not compare to the life of Earth.

[Coach Williams]

How can we belive that humans are causing global warming? How long have records been kept of the earth's weather? I'm guessing that number will not compare to the life of Earth.

A good example in case you care is that the city of HONG KONG has 37% less sunlight than it did in 1950.

hotter temps mean more evap.= more clouds for certain climates......other places will get cooler but overall the Troposphere is what is getting hotter.....

[No_Pressure]

Do we even know why the various ice ages happened? The planet went from a hot, tropical climate, to a frigid one over a long period of time. Why did it suddenly cool down so much? What made it heat back up again? We have been recording weather trends for such a short time, how can scientists say with 100% certianty that pollution is the direct or only cause of the planet's temperature change?

It may be a contributing factor but the earth may be in a warming stage already which inflates the actual percieved effect of pollution.

Im not saying global warming is impossible and im not saying liberals or conservatives are right or wrong, but shouldnt we be a little more knowledgable on the subject before making proclaimations and spending billions of dollars to change the way we live?

[SnyderShrugged]

Do we even know why the various ice ages happened? The planet went from a hot, tropical climate, to a frigid one over a long period of time. Why did it suddenly cool down so much? What made it heat back up again? We have been recording weather trends for such a short time, how can scientists say with 100% certianty that pollution is the direct or only cause of the planet's temperature change?

It may be a contributing factor but the earth may be in a warming stage already which inflates the actual percieved effect of pollution.

Im not saying global warming is impossible and im not saying liberals or conservatives are right or wrong, but shouldnt we be a little more knowledgable on the subject before making proclaimations and spending billions of dollars to change the way we live?

very well thought out post. I share your view.

The simple story is that we do not know if man is causing significant additional problems for the earth in terms of climate and there is no "smoking gun" that indicates the validity of that stance.

aby time I see a "consencus agreement" I know its no longer science but morphed into politics. I would accept valid scientific exidence if such existed, but for now it's too he said, she said, for carte blanche global policy to be implemented at the expense of liberty

[Coach Williams]

The holes in the OZONE caused by our pollution is enough for some. I don't think we need a deep explaination of anything. Just the possibility of it getting worse DUE to us is enough to act on. Even if everyone in the world is wrong and this ozone thing is actually being caused by something else such as cat burps our world will at least have better air. Do an image search on the phoenix air pollution and you'll see what I breath all day.

[The Evil Genius]

The holes in the OZONE caused by our pollution is enough for some. I don't think we need a deep explaination of anything. Just the possibility of it getting worse DUE to us is enough to act on. Even if everyone in the world is wrong and this ozone thing is actually being caused by something else such as cat burps our world will at least have better air. Do an image search on the phoenix air pollution and you'll see what I breath all day.

That's the real kicker - it will the increasingly worse breatheable air that will kill most of us before global warming does.

Of course, decreasing emissions helps with both problems.

[SnyderShrugged]

The holes in the OZONE caused by our pollution is enough for some. I don't think we need a deep explaination of anything. Just the possibility of it getting worse DUE to us is enough to act on. Even if everyone in the world is wrong and this ozone thing is actually being caused by something else such as cat burps our world will at least have better air. Do an image search on the phoenix air pollution and you'll see what I breath all day.

I know this is crass, but the pollution in phoenix should be addressed IN PHOENIX, not some global UN socialism drive of fear.

It's one thing to say, hey we should try and be cautious and not pollute. It's another to impact entire economic systems by over regulating the very few actual "producers" of jobs and products left in our world.

Social responsibilty is voluntary

[Johnny Punani]

That's the real kicker - it will the increasingly worse breatheable air that will kill most of us before global warming does.

Of course, decreasing emissions helps with both problems.

Yep. However, we don't know how much it will help global warming.

[No_Pressure]

The holes in the OZONE caused by our pollution is enough for some. I don't think we need a deep explaination of anything. Just the possibility of it getting worse DUE to us is enough to act on. Even if everyone in the world is wrong and this ozone thing is actually being caused by something else such as cat burps our world will at least have better air. Do an image search on the phoenix air pollution and you'll see what I breath all day.

I was in phoenix on sunday, nice weather this time of year, Flagstaff is more fun IMO

The ozone layer is closing, it is possible that it was a natural occurance and it is possible that the limitation and ending of usage of CFC's is what is allowing the earth to heal itself. We were pretty certian then. Global warming is different however. We do not know enough about the weather patterns of the earth to say with complete certianty that pollution is making the planet hotter, we cant say it isnt either, we just dont know enough about it.

The changes we would have to make if global warming is proved beyond a doubt to be true would be massive- on a scale we have never seen before. So much in our world would have to change and who would lead that change? The U.S.? We are talking trillions upon trillions of dollars in research of better alternate fuels for cars, factories, power plants, etc. to change those things would take years of work and we want to put all of that on our plates while we have been watching the earth's climate for such a short time? If we are putting all of our eggs into one basket we better be sure its the right thing to do, that requires more research.

[The Evil Genius]

Yep. However, we don't know how much it will help global warming.

True. But, in order to find out, one has to try right?

[The Burgundy Rhino]

There will be people who believe that humans are impacting the world environment through the pollution we create.

There will be others who just don't.

Hell, there are folks who think Aliens built the Pyramids, and folks who think the Earth is only like 5000 years old. So, it takes all kinds I suppose.

Personally I believe global warming is very real and that its going to really mess with our children, and their children. I hope a solution is found soon and its made in the best interests of the air we breathe, and not how much shares are going for with a certain company or industry.

[SnyderShrugged]

True. But, in order to find out, one has to try right?

not at the expense of the american people as long as its not proven as a real solution

[The Evil Genius]

not at the expense of the american people as long as its not proven as a real solution

Speaking of expense. What's the expense if you are wrong, SS?

[Predicto]

Cmon, you have to understand this. If the planet gets just a couple of degrees warmer, there will be a change in weather and ocean patterns (those patterns arise from heat differentials). This will cause some places to become cooler. One possibility is Great Britain, which is really far north but is currently warmed by the Gulf Stream. Other places are likely to get more or less rain then they used to get. Of course, if a lot of rain falls on the Sahara instead of India or China or Iowa, the Earth doesn't really care, but billions of Hindus, Chinese and Americans certainly do.

The point is meaningless that we can't know exactly and precisely what will happen. The point is that things clearly will change a lot faster , and as a species, we are not in a good position to respond to those changes. We currently live in cities on the coast, we currently occupy lands where rain falls abundantly and soil is rich.

For those who like to point out that weather changes as part of a natural pattern, and we have had warm periods and ice ages in the past, this is of course true. No one ever denies it. The question is not whether global climate change will ever occur - the question is whether we are ACCELLERATING global climate change.

Look at it this way: if the next big change was going to happen sometime over the next 4000 years but due to our industrial emissions we are making that change happen over the next 40 years, we have bought ourselves a world of hurt that we are not ready to handle.

For those who like to point out that a few well-known scientists doubt whether man is causing weather changes, please remember that with any scientific theory, there are always doubters, sometimes very famous ones. Albert Einstein denied the possibility of quantum mechanics until the day he died. The semiconductors that power our modern computers prove Einstein was wrong. Werner Heisenberg (the great German physicist) did not think that a working atomic bomb could be built with 1940s technology. The crater at Hiroshima proves Heisernberg was wrong.

For some reason, it has become an article of faith among many conservatives that global climate change must be some sort of a fraud, (probably because all of those damn environmentalists and Democrats and European-types believe in it). I do not believe that this is a realistic point of view any longer - the evidence to the contrary is too uniform.

Of course, what to DO about it (or whether anything really can be done at all) is a topic for legitimate debate.

[The Evil Genius]

The question is not whether global climate change will ever occur - the question is whether we are ACCELLERATING global climate change.

Thought that needed to be highlighted...

[Johnny Punani]

People also need to think about the people/groups that are using this to further their own political/economic/social agendas.

The Kyoto treaty reeks of Marxism and those pushing global warming the most are from Marxist/Socialist backgrounds. One of the main ideals of advancing Marxism is a global revolution by way of a legit/false global problem. Whether that be war, disease, or some other problem such as global warming.

[Johnny Punani]

True. But, in order to find out, one has to try right?

Are you going to bet on 100 year climo models? Would you bet your life on a 7 day forecasting model?

Life will be drastically different in this country if we followed what is being suggested. Are you willing to take that risk? I wouldn't.

[No_Pressure]

the question is whether we are ACCELLERATING global climate change.

And my point was how can we know if we are accelerating it or not? We dont know enough about our past and we cant say for certian that pollution is accelerating it, we also cannot say for certian that it isnt. I was saying in my post that before we make world wide gigantic changes we should be 100% sure we are right. Humans have been wrong in the past. We think we know everything there is to know and have a good grasp on science when we are really primitive. Look at how people laugh at those who said the world was flat or the universe revolved around the earth.

We are farther along but we still have too many unexplained events in science to make declarations such as this without totally knowing in and out how our planet and climate work.

Again, im not saying pollution isnt a danger and a problem, I know what air pollution is like and that is a definite concern. I am in favor of protecting the environment but before we go to great lengths to do so I want us to be as knowledgable as we can be on the subject, which we arent. We like to think we are but we arent.

[Predicto]

People also need to think about the people/groups that are using this to further their own political/economic/social agendas.

The Kyoto treaty reeks of Marxism and those pushing global warming the most are from Marxist/Socialist backgrounds. One of the main ideals of advancing Marxism is a global revolution by way of a legit/false global problem. Whether that be war, disease, or some other problem such as global warming.

I agree with you, somewhat. Kyoto is just silly, especially in how it ignores China.

But just because Kyoto is a bad treaty does not mean that man-made global climate change is not a real problem as a scientific matter. To say that "those pushing global warming the most are from Marxist/Socialist backgrounds" assumes a hell of a lot about a hell of a lot of scientists from every political background in every advanced country on this planet. Shockingly, most scientists are not Marxists.

In fact, I would say such a blanket statement says more about you and whether you are at all open minded on the question at all, rather than saying a thing about the motivations of the scientific community at large.

[Predicto]

And my point was how can we know if we are accelerating it or not? We dont know enough about our past and we cant say for certian that pollution is accelerating it, we also cannot say for certian that it isnt. I was saying in my post that before we make world wide gigantic changes we should be 100% sure we are right. Humans have been wrong in the past. We think we know everything there is to know and have a good grasp on science when we are really primitive. Look at how people laugh at those who said the world was flat or the universe revolved around the earth.

We are farther along but we still have too many unexplained events in science to make declarations such as this without totally knowing in and out how our planet and climate work.

Again, im not saying pollution isnt a danger and a problem, I know what air pollution is like and that is a definite concern. I am in favor of protecting the environment but before we go to great lengths to do so I want us to be as knowledgable as we can be on the subject, which we arent. We like to think we are but we arent.

Ok, what would constitute "knowing" for you? I guess, as a philosophical matter, we are never 100% rock-ribbed certain about anything until after the fact. Is the overwhelming concensus of the scientific community not enough? Some people still claim that it is not "proven" that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer (especially people who happen to be funded by the tobacco industry).

The "debate" about whether or not man made global climate change exists has been created almost entirely by Exxon, through a circle of think tanks that it has funded for the past 15 years. It really is no longer a credible argument.

I would link a bunch of articles that demonstrate this, but you probably would dismiss them as being from "liberal" publications or orgizations. So I'll link this press release from Senator Snowe (R-ME) instead.

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9acba744-802a-23ad-47be-2683985c724e

Again, I admit - what to DO about the problem is a lot harder question. But the problem is real.

[Johnny Punani]

I agree with you, somewhat. Kyoto is just silly, especially in how it ignores China.

But just because Kyoto is a bad treaty does not mean that man-made global climate change is not a real problem as a scientific matter. To say that "those pushing global warming the most are from Marxist/Socialist backgrounds" assumes a hell of a lot about a hell of a lot of scientists from every political background in every advanced country on this planet. Shockingly, most scientists are not Marxists.

In fact, I would say such a blanket statement says more about you and whether you are at all open minded on the question at all, rather than saying a thing about the motivations of the scientific community at large.

I'm not talking about the scientific community so much as the politicians/individuals that are pushing this. The Scientific Community has a problem with the adaptation/changing of ideas once a theory is on the table. However, a majority of people in my line of work don't believe everything that is being said about climate change.

Those in the scientific community who talk the most about global warming seem to have political motivations. Dr Heidi Cullen who recently said that Meteorologists who do not agree with global warming are some how unfit to be Meteorologists and their AMS certification should be stripped. That sounds a lot like how the Communists would label people as being mentally ill and ship them off to Siberia for holding different political/social viewpoints from Communism. If she felt so strongly about the evidence to support global warming then why the need to silence critics. Makes you think huh?

Recently, I read Dr Cullen's blog and she states that she keeps the science of global warming separate from politics but recently she interviewed Ted Turner about global warming. Does that sound like keeping politics out of scientific discussion? Nope. Also, if she feels so strongly about her views and has the evidence for it why interview someone about global warming that will offer no counter view?

I plan on reading the report in full when it comes out and come to my own opinions. Why don't you do the same?

[Predicto]

I'm not talking about the scientific community so much as the politicians/individuals that are pushing this. The Scientific Community has a problem with the adaptation/changing of ideas once a theory is on the table. However, a majority of people in my line of work don't believe everything that is being said about climate change.

Those in the scientific community who talk the most about global warming seem to have political motivations. Dr Heidi Cullen who recently said that Meteorologists who do not agree with global warming are some how unfit to be Meteorologists and their AMS certification should be stripped. That sounds a lot like how the Communists would label people as being mentally ill and ship them off to Siberia for holding different political/social viewpoints from Communism. If she felt so strongly about the evidence to support global warming then why the need to silence critics. Makes you think huh?

Recently, I read Dr Cullen's blog and she states that she keeps the science of global warming separate from politics but recently she interviewed Ted Turner about global warming. Does that sound like keeping politics out of scientific discussion? Nope. Also, if she feels so strongly about her views and has the evidence for it why interview someone about global warming that will offer no counter view?

I plan on reading the report in full when it comes out and come to my own opinions. Why don't you do the same?

I will try, although I admit that 1600 pages is a pretty big haul.

Again, however, I note that you are using one person's actions using it to project similar motivations upon the entire scientific community. There are always those who overstate things. I am sure that some people got very frustrated by the 30 years that the tobacco industry obfusticated the connection between cigarettes and cancer, and said stupid things. Didn't make their "side" wrong, it just made that individual a jerk.

The present stuation is no different.