Global Warming.

[Nine]

- Noticeable changes in temperature, atmosphere, sea levels, etc.

- Humans negatively impact the world in various ways.

 

I believe in both of the above, and whether or not the two are correlated does not matter to me so much as finding a solution for #2. Polar bears and walruses are extremely threatened by the warming of their climates, yeah, but if we can cut down on #2 perhaps we can save millions more species in addition to the walruses and polar bears. Focus on the bleeding wounds, worry about gangrene after.

 

As far as massive climate changes, we'll know things are really bad when California splits off and ends up near Hawaii. Alaska will probably be over there too.

[Chiaki]

Point is, they look bad to some within the scientific community not because of a political smear campaign but because of their own methodology. Ergo, it was not all a smear campaign perpetuated by politicians taking a phrase or two out of context. Scientists can disagree with one another for real, substantial reasons.

Scientists disagree with each other at every opportunity and about everything. What they would have done different, why their work is wrong (especially if their work disproves their own).

 

Just because a few people within the scientific community disagrees with your work, it doesn't make it wrong.

[Princess Artemis]

Scientists disagree with each other at every opportunity and about everything. What they would have done different, why their work is wrong (especially if their work disproves their own).

 

Just because a few people within the scientific community disagrees with your work, it doesn't make it wrong.

It does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does mean that the fact that climate scientists are disagreeing with one another over methods that came to light due to the so-called Climategate e-mails getting out is not because the disagreements are all politically sourced smears. If they are disagreeing with one another, I'd wager there is a good, honest reason for it, not because a politician took some words out of context.

 

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying they are wrong, I am saying not all criticism leveled at CRU because of their e-mails are political smears. I am saying that some of the criticism is coming from within the scientific community, some within the discipline, and should be credible to anyone who cares to look for that reason since that's how science works.

[Sundew]

Real, but not much of a concern to me. If the world could actually pull itself together to slow it down, that'd be fantastic. But is that going to happen? I say no. For most people, or at least most Americans, it's all talk and no work. Not "easier said than done," but actually "Oh, they'll take care of it, they always do." I'm one of these people, someone who isn't going to lift a finger to stop it. If I could clap my hands and slow it, I would, but I can't, so I won't. If humans become extinct, there'll be a chance to actually let the world heal itself a little, give a chance for some other species to take over.

Now don't get me wrong; I would like to see it stop. But it's happened before, and creatures who were much more powerful than us didn't survive, so what are the chances we will, especially when it's happening so fast? This isn't something we can hide behind our silly machines and "intelligence" to escape. Some species will survive, some will fall. And I firmly believe that you can't stop that, no matter how many plastic bottles you recycle.

[Kai]

dear ab613

 

You seem to be thinking about climate cycles that have been observed to occur in the past. Unfortunately the issue everyone is concerned about is antropogenic global warming, that is, climate change caused by humans. That's why "creatures who are much more powerful than us" doesn't really make sense. If we are causing climate change then we should be able to halt or reverse it.

 

Best Wishes

[Asteris]

It does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does mean that the fact that climate scientists are disagreeing with one another over methods that came to light due to the so-called Climategate e-mails getting out is not because the disagreements are all politically sourced smears. If they are disagreeing with one another, I'd wager there is a good, honest reason for it, not because a politician took some words out of context.

 

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying they are wrong, I am saying not all criticism leveled at CRU because of their e-mails are political smears. I am saying that some of the criticism is coming from within the scientific community, some within the discipline, and should be credible to anyone who cares to look for that reason since that's how science works.

I've met a couple of the men involved in this....for the life of me I can't remember which but they were at a GSA conference

 

 

 

I can't say I got the impression that any of their peers at this particular gathering had anything critical to say about them. It was treated more as a laughable situation not understood by politicians and the general public than anything to be critical of them about.

[Dragoness32]

Yes, it is real. The water level is increasing, in some parts of the world is getting hotter, natural disasters etc. It is getting obvious. Last year on July it didn't rain and the temperatures almost reached 40 degrees. Even this year we will notice some climate changes.

[Kestra15]

I can't say I got the impression that any of their peers at this particular gathering had anything critical to say about them. It was treated more as a laughable situation not understood by politicians and the general public than anything to be critical of them about.

This, very much so.

 

The criticism over their methods wasn't "OMG you got it all wrong," it was "oh, we wouldn't personally have used that method, we would have rather used Greenberger's Matrix Converstion." Everyone still agrees on the results being valid.

[Princess Artemis]

I've met a couple of the men involved in this....for the life of me I can't remember which but they were at a GSA conference

 

 

 

I can't say I got the impression that any of their peers at this particular gathering had anything critical to say about them. It was treated more as a laughable situation not understood by politicians and the general public than anything to be critical of them about.

I've got a link somewhere to an hour-long YouTube presentation by Dr. Muller, a physicist and climate scientist who head(s/ed) the BEST research project. In it he pretty clearly informs his class not to do what Mann et al did re: clipping off the end of one of their trends to deal with the divergance problem in one of Mann's papers (or maybe it was the IPCC; it was something that Mann, Jones, Briffa, etc. had worked on). That is one thing that came out clearly because of the e-mails, something that might not have been found until the information was finally released through freedom of information. He couched it in fairly strong terms; do you believe a working scientist would teach his classes that what another working scientist has done should not be repeated due to its inherent decietfulness because he thinks the matter is not a real problem and is actually rather laughable? Remember this is a person in the field who, presumably, is not incompetent to understand what others in his field do.

 

Judith Curry is also a climate scientist and has some pretty level headed criticism to make on these matters.

 

I never once said that all of the community are critical of this particular group, nor even most. But I did say some are, and the reason they are is not, apparently, because they are politicians participating in a smear campaign. And hell, maybe those that are do think most of the brouhaha is laughable.

 

Based on what I know, it does seem to be much less of an issue than a lot of people think it is, but that doesn't mean the criticism isn't real nor that the signal in the noise is also politically motivated smears.

 

Really, I'm not saying that the reality is that everyone in the sciences hates Jones et al. and that everything they do is tainted but everyone else just can't see it. I am saying some in their field have real criticisms that came about because of the e-mails and they are not politically motivated smears that twisted one or two words out of context. That's it.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Asteris]

I would have to disagree. I have had the displeasure of recognizing that criticisms by one scientist may be based on little more than personal grudges, jealousy, etc and hypocrisy runs rampant. I've met those who would do everything they can to discredit another just to boost their own research in the eyes of others.

I'm not saying that all of the above is applicable, but I find it difficult to say, well this person knows their field, so obviously any advice or opinions they give is solid and without prejudice.

[Kestra15]

Much as I hate this phrase, I think we're all at an 'agree to disagree' stage here.

[Chiaki]

I agree with both Asteris and Kestra, but it's this sort of disagreement which means nothing gets done. I fear that even if someone does come up with some piece of irrefutable evidence for global warming and it's negative effects, people will always take the easy way out and just ignore or try and invalidate it somehow.

[SPQR]

Even if it's not strictly global warming, we really do have some serious issues with the environment. People need to recognize that, and really start taking serious action.

[Princess Artemis]

I would have to disagree. I have had the displeasure of recognizing that criticisms by one scientist may be based on little more than personal grudges, jealousy, etc and hypocrisy runs rampant. I've met those who would do everything they can to discredit another just to boost their own research in the eyes of others.

I'm not saying that all of the above is applicable, but I find it difficult to say, well this person knows their field, so obviously any advice or opinions they give is solid and without prejudice.

Of course, that stuff happens, no denying it. Though if one gives no benefit of the doubt to those who express criticism, one cannot logically give any such benefit to anyone involved; they too may be hypocrits in the clutches of politics. So what does that leave? The work, the criticisms, the source of the criticisms which are not all politicians, therefore, the criticisms are not all smears from politicians.

 

It does seem to be a 'agree to disagree' moment as Kestra said, if we cannot agree on that.

[Stripey]

Is the climate changing? I'd say yes.

Is it humanity's fault? I'd say no.

Why do I say no, because the climate changed many, many times in the past, and some of those times were of a far greater magnitude than we are currently undergoing.

For example: the PETM, which didn't happen that long ago geologically.

 

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM),  also called Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum (IETM),  a short interval of maximum temperature lasting approximately 100,000 years during the late Paleocene and early Eocene epochs (roughly 55 million years ago). The interval was characterized by the highest global temperatures of the Cenozoic Era (65 million years ago to the present).

 

Although the underlying causes are unclear, some authorities associate the PETM with the sudden release of methane hydrates from ocean sediments (see methane burp hypothesis) triggered by a massive volcanic eruption. The onset of the PETM was rapid, occurring within a few thousand years, and the ecological consequences were large, with widespread extinctions in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Sea surface and continental air temperatures increased by more than 5 °C (9 °F) during the transition into the PETM. Sea surface temperatures in the high-latitude Arctic may have been as warm as 23 °C (73 °F), comparable to modern subtropical and warm-temperate seas.

 

Following the PETM, global temperatures declined to pre-PETM levels; however, they gradually increased to near-PETM levels over the next few million years during a period known as the Eocene Optimum. This temperature maximum was followed by a steady decline in global temperatures toward the boundary between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs, which occurred about 34 million years ago. Evidence of this global temperature decline is well represented in marine sediments and in paleontological records from the continents, where vegetation zones moved toward the Equator.

 

As far as massive climate changes, we'll know things are really bad when California splits off and ends up near Hawaii. Alaska will probably be over there too.

 

O.o California splitting off and heading to Hawaii? Not going to happen, not even in the least bit. The San Andreas Fault isn't a type of fault that will split California off and send it away from the mainland. It is a right lateral fault, which will eventually result in most of California being located further north than it is.

[7Deadly$ins]

No one really argues that it's entirely humanity's fault, just that we're a contributing factor.

[XxdragicexX]

Is the climate changing? I'd say yes.

Is it humanity's fault? I'd say no.

Why do I say no, because the climate changed many, many times in the past, and some of those times were of a far greater magnitude than we are currently undergoing.

For example: the PETM, which didn't happen that long ago geologically.

 

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

 

 

 

 

O.o California splitting off and heading to Hawaii? Not going to happen, not even in the least bit. The San Andreas Fault isn't a type of fault that will split California off and send it away from the mainland. It is a right lateral fault, which will eventually result in most of California being located further north than it is.

Yes but that happened naturally and we don't even know the real cause of the high temperatures. We know that we are making the Earth warm up because we burn fossil fuels. No other race before us as burn fossil fuels. As we burn them, we release Co2 that was locked away millions of years ago back into the atomosphere. Slowly turning Earth into its natural state during the dinosaurs; in which every place had the same weather conditions, hot and humid.

[Stripey]

No other race before us as burn fossil fuels. As we burn them, we release Co2 that was locked away millions of years ago back into the atomosphere. Slowly turning Earth into its natural state during the dinosaurs; in which every place had the same weather conditions, hot and humid.

True, no other race burns fossil fuels, but there are some fuels that can start themselves on fire. Coal is one huge example. Natural faulting can expose coal deposits to oxygen, which can start the whole seam on fire. There is evidence of these fires from way before humans were around, and many are going on today, spitting out tonnes of CO2 naturally.

 

As for the weather conditions all being the same, hot and humid, during the time of the dinosaurs, I have to laugh at that. The three geologic periods when the dinosaurs roamed the earth were all filled with varying climates, like today's time, but with different distributions due to the different way the continents were arranged.

 

Much of the Triassic had warmer climate, yes, but dryer, especially in the interior of the land masses. The Jurassic was mostly the typical hot and humid, while the Cretaceous began with a cooler climate, much like today, growing warmer due to increased volcanic activity (loads of nifty Cretaceous rocks which support the increased volcanism).

 

All in all, throughout Earth's history, the climate has gone from warm to cool with varying levels of humidity. Methane from herbivore flatulence and volcanic sources have had far grander effects on the climate than ever we have had. That is why I say we are not the cause of the change.

[Chiaki]

True, no other race burns fossil fuels, but there are some fuels that can start themselves on fire. Coal is one huge example. Natural faulting can expose coal deposits to oxygen, which can start the whole seam on fire. There is evidence of these fires from way before humans were around, and many are going on today, spitting out tonnes of CO2 naturally.

If natural faulting is still occurring then that's only adding to the massive amounts of CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere by mining other coal and oil deposits. Never in Earths history has this amount of fossil fuels been burnt so quickly. How can that not have an effect on the atmosphere?

[kerrikins]

I prefer climate change to global warming, simply because climate change is a more accurate description of what's actually going on. Weather is getting more *severe* all over the world, but it's not necessarily getting warmer everywhere. There are fiercer storms, colder winters in certain parts, hotter summers in others... You have to look at the big picture.

 

I don't understand why people say that it doesn't bother or concern them, though. :/ Countless species in the oceans and in the arctic are being affected - the polar bears and seals are an example.

 

What's worse is that people don't seem to acknowledge or turn a critical eye to the fact that the companies who are the worst culprits - the ones who have massive factories, mines, oil rigs - hold a tremendous amount of power in politics and also through various relationships with the media, etc. If people don't stop to wonder whether the outcry against climate change being a result of human behaviour is at least in part fuelled and motivated by the profits of those company, that's very foolish.

 

Not to say that there isn't natural climate change or warming - there is - but I do believe that human behaviour is accelerating it. The difficult part comes when humans have to acknowledge that behaviour and try to change it - a task that we, as a species, have proven to find difficult. (Just look at the species that have been hunted to the point of endangerment or extinction for an example.) We like our lives and the prices we pay for fuel and other things, and a lot of us don't want to give that up. Change is difficult.

 

The saddest part is that we're too busy sticking our heads in the sand to realise that in reality, we are the species with the most to lose. Earth has survived losing up to 99% of its population through mass extinction and rebounded. The question isn't whether or not the Earth will go on, it's whether we will. I actually wish that this was a bigger factor in pushes for change and fundraising - a lot of people won't care about animals or oceans or trees, sadly, but if you tell them that *their* butt is in danger, that changes things.

Edited January 8, 2012 by kerrikins

[skimboard808]

I believe we're in a natural warming period right now, but we humans are unfortunately making matters worse with out constant dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Edited January 8, 2012 by skimboard808

[Nine]

O.o California splitting off and heading to Hawaii?  Not going to happen, not even in the least bit.  The San Andreas Fault isn't a type of fault that will split California off and send it away from the mainland.  It is a right lateral fault, which will eventually result in most of California being located further north than it is.

It was a joke, and while I didn't really expect anyone to get it, a tiny part of me hoped.

[Asteris]

If natural faulting is still occurring

erm...

 

 

of course it is..

[XxdragicexX]

True, no other race burns fossil fuels, but there are some fuels that can start themselves on fire. Coal is one huge example. Natural faulting can expose coal deposits to oxygen, which can start the whole seam on fire. There is evidence of these fires from way before humans were around, and many are going on today, spitting out tonnes of CO2 naturally.

 

As for the weather conditions all being the same, hot and humid, during the time of the dinosaurs, I have to laugh at that. The three geologic periods when the dinosaurs roamed the earth were all filled with varying climates, like today's time, but with different distributions due to the different way the continents were arranged.

 

Much of the Triassic had warmer climate, yes, but dryer, especially in the interior of the land masses. The Jurassic was mostly the typical hot and humid, while the Cretaceous began with a cooler climate, much like today, growing warmer due to increased volcanic activity (loads of nifty Cretaceous rocks which support the increased volcanism).

 

All in all, throughout Earth's history, the climate has gone from warm to cool with varying levels of humidity. Methane from herbivore flatulence and volcanic sources have had far grander effects on the climate than ever we have had. That is why I say we are not the cause of the change.

Yes in the time of the dinosaurs it was mostly made by volcanic activity and burping algae. But there hasnt been a supermassive volcanic explosion in millions of years. Yes, there is one in Yellow Stone, but the last time it erupted was eons ago. I know that volcanic eruptions happening today chip in a part of the global warming, but that chip is probably like 5%. We humans probably make 70-80% of that circle. Other is made by farts and other pollution.

[JOTB]

It was a joke, and while I didn't really expect anyone to get it, a tiny part of me hoped.

End of ze world?