Global Warming

[ASCLEPIADES]

Some positive aspects of the anti-GW fight:

 

California expected to benefit from anti-global warming plan.

 

"LOS ANGELES, Sept. 19 (Xinhua) -- California's ambitious anti-global warming plan would boost the state's expected 2.6-trillion-dollar gross product by 4 billion dollars, the Los Angeles Times said on Thursday.

 

The plan would also create 100,000 additional jobs and increase per capita income by 200 dollars, the state Air Resources Board said in a report published by the paper.

 

"These are good-news numbers," board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "We are not claiming this is the way to economic salvation. But making our state more energy-efficient and less reliant on imported oil . . . will have a net positive effect."

 

California is poised to adopt the nation's most comprehensive plan to slash emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which come mostly from burning fossil fuels."

 

READ MORE

[caldrail]

The earth is going to warmer whether we burn fossil fuels or not. That part of climate change is natural. We haven't helped I suppose, but the effect of greenhouse gases is overstated and in any case the earth has previously coped with levels of CO2 something like six times what they today. Further, as I indicated, the current rise in CO2 began tens of millions of years ago.

 

Ooh.. A link. Try wikipedia articles on paleoclimate. There's some eye-opening info there.

[ASCLEPIADES]

A good advice is a good advice.

 

Regarding the last thousand years, the "Paleoclimatology" article on en.Wikipedia sends you by a quick link (on the "SEE ALSO" section) to the "Historical climatology" article (SIC: "the study of climate over human history (as opposed to earth's)":

 

A relevant and representative quotation:

"Evidence of anthropogenic climate change

Through deforestation and agriculture, some scientists have proposed a human component in some historical climatic changes. Human-started fires have been implicated in the transformation of much of Australia from grassland to desert. If true, this would show that even a primitive society could have a role in influencing regional climate. Deforestation, desertification and the salinization of soils may have contributed to or caused other climatic changes throughout human history.

For a discussion of recent human involvement in climatic changes, see Attribution of recent climate change"

 

Here comes the heading of this last article (SIC; emphasis is mine):

"Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for relatively recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the upper atmosphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity. They are:[1]

 

increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases

global changes to land surface, such as deforestation

increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report have concluded that:

 

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2]

"From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."[1]

"It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.[1]"

 

The quoted references are:

1. "Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change". IPCC.

2. (2007) Working Group I: The Physical Basis for Climate Change (Summary for Policymakers). IPCC. ISBN 978 0521 88009-1.

 

But of course, it's far better if you actually read the quoted articles.

 

That's what happens when we discuss on scientific evidence; I couldn't agree more.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

 

If the more than 200 previous posts on this thread have proven something, is that politics, stinginess and /or indolence can make some people absolutely blind to even the most indisputable evidence.

 

Anyhow, posting a little more couldn't hurt anyone (emphasis is mine):

 

 

1875 image, photographer unknown, is courtesy H. Slupetzky, from the University of Salzburg archives.

 

 

Gary Braasch photo made Aug 14, 2004.

 

"The Pasterze, Austria's longest glacier, was about 2 kilometers longer in the 19th C. but is now completely out of sight from this overlook on the Grossglockner High Road. The Margaritzen-Strausee, a dammed artificial lake, now is in the place where the glacier terminus was in 1875. Measurements of the Pasterze began in 1889 and it has been pulling back the entire time, in approximate step with regional temperatures that have been increasing. The glacier is now about eight Km long and loses about 15 meters per year. However in 2003 the Pasterze decreased 30 meters in length and 6.5 meters in thickness".

 

CHECK ON MANY MORE EXAMPLES

 

(NOTE: in an alternate reality with no GW, we must admit this would be a remarkable coincidence).

Edited September 20, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Faustus]

Below, an engraving from the Little Ice age, about late 17th century

Above, a modern photograph middle of the 20th century

 

These "pictures" seem to prove that since the last Ice Age, there have been cooling and warming cycles, and more recently since the Little Ice Age, a warming cycle.

 

Which extreme exacts the most harsh living conditions on humankind and it's societies?

Most likely warmer climate is more hospitable to human cultures, while cooler weather with late and early frosts, can be more harmful, endangering food supplies.

 

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea. From The Little Ice Age in Europe

 

Cheers!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, F

Below, an engraving from the Little Ice age, about late 17th century

Above, a modern photograph middle of the 20th century

 

These "pictures" seem to prove that since the last Ice Age, there have been cooling and warming cycles, and more recently since the Little Ice Age, a warming cycle.

 

Which extreme exacts the most harsh living conditions on humankind and it's societies?

Most likely warmer climate is more hospitable to human cultures, while cooler weather with late and early frosts, can be more harmful, endangering food supplies.

 

Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples. The colder weather impacted agriculture, health, economics, social strife, emigration, and even art and literature. Increased glaciation and storms also had a devastating affect on those that lived near glaciers and the sea. From The Little Ice Age in Europe

 

Cheers!

Both the Little Ice Age and the ongoing anthropogenic Global Warming are well established facts.

 

The images from my previous post (#216) are real pictures from almost the same spot. Check the dates; the change can't be explained by the Little Ice Age.

 

Now, if we admit that your XVII century engraving is accurate and from the same spot as your XX century pic (and if the dates are right) such change can be perfectly explained by the modern anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

On the other hand, most of the pairs of oics posted in the LINK from my last post can't be explained at all by the LIA; for that, we require the modern anthropogenic Global Warming.

 

For example, Mount Hood at Oregon:

 

 

1984

 

 

2002

 

But of course, you must be aware from long ago of the overwhelming evidence that substantiates (or "seem to prove", if you like) GW.

 

Nowadays, denying its existence would be at more or less the same scientific level as Creationism.

 

Then, I suppose thousands of pics wouldn't change your mind either; we may always find an alternative explanation if we really want to ignore the weight of the available evidence (as we may do regarding evolution too).

 

But as I said, it didn't hurt.

Edited September 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

BTW, I would like to know your opinion about this lecture (February 2005) by BJORN LOMBORG from the Copenhagen Consensus on setting priorities to the greatest global problems (warming, poverty, diseases and so on).

 

(Basically, Mr. Lomborg rates quite low GW on his own score).

Edited September 21, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

The comparison pics are all very well, but that proves what? That the earth is too warm to sustain these glaciers? No argument at all, the same thing is happening around the world. Trouble is, its all happened before. The earth warms and cools to suit itself, not us. Its a dynamic and complex enviroment in which the amount of atmospheric CO2 is only another influence on climate. In any case, one small wobble in the earths orbit and I don't think you'll be lamenting the lack of glaciers.

 

We humans like to point fingers. We want a culprit for these changes, someone or something we can blame. So we blame the internal combustion engine because the exhaust gases contain CO2, a (gasp) known greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouses gases too. Methane for instance, many times more potent than CO2 for a greenhouse effect and a by-product of grazing animals. There are worries that methane trapped in the siberian tundra will be released into the atmosphere in the near future. That would be 'not be a good thing' for human beings and their fragile modern world.

 

Who is Bjorn Lomborg? Never heard of him.

Edited September 21, 2008 by caldrail

[Germanicus]

I must admit that I tend to go along with global warming as a man made phenomenon, mostly due to seeing Al Gores inconvenient truth. Also every scientist I see on TV or read about in the paper confirms that what is happening is predominantly man made, and those eggheads know way more about this than me.

 

I also figure that what the hey, even if it is bullshit and it's just a natural phenomenon, what do I have to lose by doing my bit....and what do we have to lose by finding alternate non polluting energy supplies and making them viable. I live in a city, and carbon monoxide really sux. Cutting down our dependance on meat and that massive amount of greenhouse gas the increased livestock pumps into the atmosphere, and the unsustainable farming practices associated would also be a good thing.

 

Sadly, any small individual effort I make tends to be canceled out by the massive industrial powerhouse continuing to re-invent itself in China, every time I decide not to drive a car, they put another 200 on the road.

Edited September 21, 2008 by Germanicus

[caldrail]

Well... you stand to lose certain freedoms, not to mention more of your wallet, as people extract what they want from you under the guise of ecological responsibility.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks to a quick link in an ongoing thread by Lady N on the 2008 Presidential Candidate Responses to Scientists and Engineers for America:

 

John McCain

"We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all, the need to avoid the consequences of global warming. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly".

 

Barack Obama

"There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively. First, the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a growing, prosperous economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050".

 

It seems the worldwide Global-Warming-faking conspiracy is truly all-encompassing.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here comes another graphically evident consequence of Global Warming.

 

"Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 20 centimeters (8 inches) per century, or 2 mm/year (Bruce C. Douglas (1997). "Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination". Surveys in Geophysics 18: 279-292).

 

From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1] Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1

[Northern Neil]

The comparison pics are all very well, but that proves what? That the earth is too warm to sustain these glaciers? No argument at all, the same thing is happening around the world.

 

Who is Bjorn Lomborg? Never heard of him.

You strengthen the opposing argument by confirming that this is happening all over the world. Temperature fluctuations have of course come and gone, but we are talking here of the rapid shrinkage of glaciers which have been around for tens of thousands of years, in the space of a few decades. Warm and cold periods recorded by people interested enough to notice over the past 2000 years have not had any marked effects either way on these glaciers - but global warming over the last 50 years has.

 

Bjorn Lomborg is an environmentalist whose sceptical views on man made global warming run rather similar to yours - in fact, I have at times assumed you were influenced by some of his ideas on some of your previous posts on this subject!

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, NN

Who is Bjorn Lomborg? Never heard of him.

Bjorn Lomborg is an environmentalist whose sceptical views on man made global warming run rather similar to yours - in fact, I have at times assumed you were influenced by some of his ideas on some of your previous posts on this subject!

Almost but not quite...

 

If you check the lecture on my posted link, you will see Mr Lomborg actually accepts GW (hardly surprising).

 

His goal is other; based on some figures, he considers that even being real, GW control shouldn't be among our global priorities.

 

That's why I'm interested in your opinion.

[caldrail]

The comparison pics are all very well, but that proves what? That the earth is too warm to sustain these glaciers? No argument at all, the same thing is happening around the world.

 

Who is Bjorn Lomborg? Never heard of him.

You strengthen the opposing argument by confirming that this is happening all over the world. Temperature fluctuations have of course come and gone, but we are talking here of the rapid shrinkage of glaciers which have been around for tens of thousands of years, in the space of a few decades. Warm and cold periods recorded by people interested enough to notice over the past 2000 years have not had any marked effects either way on these glaciers - but global warming over the last 50 years has.

My point is that 'global warming' isn't necessarily human sponsored (though I do think we haven't helped, buts because there's too many of us, not because we like V8's) but that the change is predominantly a natural event. Such rapid changes aren't unusual in earths history. The end of the last ice age saw a rise of seven degrees in fifteen years - and thats not messing around is it? To the bst of my knowledge, ice age man wasn't driving 4x4's nor had the polluting industry to build them. It was a wobble, a change in the earths orbit, something that caused the freeze in the irst place and something that driving a Gee-Wizz is't going to influence in any way at all, whatever the lobby groups and governments tell you.

 

Bjorn Lomborg is an environmentalist whose sceptical views on man made global warming run rather similar to yours - in fact, I have at times assumed you were influenced by some of his ideas on some of your previous posts on this subject!

ActuallyI don't like being influenced by one person - its inevitable I suppose - but to do so risks ignoring evidence from other sources.