Thank the Deity we are in global warming!

[schlot]

Deny it all you want. Merchant and naval ships kept detailed records of their observations of all types. These were later transcribed and recorded at various institutes of learning in all the countries that could be considered advanced in those days. This information was invaluable and essential for the expansion of commerce and empires.

Science is capable of correlating old and new data, including compensating for known errors in the old data. We progress because of science, despite the vigorous attempts of those who deny science in the name of politics, religion, profit, and ignorance .

No we progress because of our willingness to do so as mankind. Science is a tool in which we explain and understand what's around us. As an engineer it would sound self righteous and wrong to say the world's improvements are do to engineering (a form of science). It is do to man and his creativity and inspiration to do so. Engineers use science, whereas others use art and other ways to improve their surroundings.

 

[WhitePine]

No we progress because of our willingness to do so as mankind. Science is a tool in which we explain and understand what's around us. As an engineer it would sound self righteous and wrong to say the world's improvements are do to engineering (a form of science). It is do to man and his creativity and inspiration to do so. Engineers use science, whereas others use art and other ways to improve their surroundings.

Science has been under attack, thus the emphasis on the subject.

 

[Highbeam]

The science that I question here is very specific. I find it weak, and a stretch, to try and use 1880 era water temp records to prove a point about a global temperature difference of less than a degree. I know about precision and accuracy and how these things determine the final results. Ever hear of significant digits? You can't use a pirate thermometer that is labeled with round numbers (at best) to report to the hundredth or even tenth of a degree as the original graph does. Worse yet, the data was not collected globally but rather on trade routes or wherever the ships happened to be vs. a specific effort to determine global temperatures as we can do today. The error in pirate thermometer technology can just as easily make the warming trend worse as it can make it less. I question the method of collection, not the results. This particular graph is bunk but surely there is better information out there actually collected and reported by real scientists that know about data collection and computations.

Whatever you are trying to prove, you must do so using good data for it to be valid. Pirate measurements made with ancient technology are not enough to prove the very small change that can have such a huge effect on the earth.

I'm with Fossil on this one. I do believe that the earth is warming for the period in which we have good records. Not sure I know why, how, or whether we can or should try and stop it.

 

[Highbeam]

Science has been under attack, thus the emphasis on the subject.

Science as this thread begins with should be under attack. It is science like this that hurts the credibility of actual science.

 

[TradEddie]

I'm with Fossil on this one. I do believe that the earth is warming for the period in which we have good records. Not sure I know why, how, or whether we can or should try and stop it.

You can't cherry-pick the data; the overwhelming consensus of independent experts in the field is that the earth is warming AND that this warming can only be explained by man-made influences. I'm not saying they are right, or if the problem could or should be fixed, even without the politics and special interests. You don't have to believe the scientists, but you can't accept one half of their findings and reject the other unless you present an equally compelling scientific counter-argument.

I haven't studied the data, but my take is that if the huge resources of the fossil fuel / energy business can't find any substantial flaw in the scientific data, and have to resort to conspiracy theories, I'm not likely to find any either.

TE

 

[semipro]

I'd say it does matter, because if we do have a hand in it, we can cease and desist and thereby mitigate the effects.

Ehouse

I get what you're saying. Admitting you're part of the problem is the first step towards improvement. We humans aren't always so good at that.
However, many deniers have a more basic belief that the world was given to them to do with as they please.
You can't appeal to those types by placing blame.
One can appeal to the selfish instincts of these types by making it about them and their needs rather than the needs of the many and the ecosystem.
I think its more important to realize that whether we caused the problem or merely exacerbated it, we humans like the climate the way it is.
Regardless of cause, we should make changes to avoid catastrophe even if this means counteracting what might be natural trends.

Some might say this is unnatural, that we'd be working against nature.
I'd argue that an asteroid taking out the earth is "natural" and that we should still try to redirect it.

 

[Highbeam]

That's a great cartoon.

 

[Ehouse]

I get what you're saying. Admitting you're part of the problem is the first step towards improvement. We humans aren't always so good at that.
However, many deniers have a more basic belief that the world was given to them to do with as they please.
You can't appeal to those types by placing blame.
One can appeal to the selfish instincts of these types by making it about them and their needs rather than the needs of the many and the ecosystem.
I think its more important to realize that whether we caused the problem or merely exacerbated it, we humans like the climate the way it is.
Regardless of cause, we should make changes to avoid catastrophe even if this means counteracting what might be natural trends.

Some might say this is unnatural, that we'd be working against nature.
I'd argue that an asteroid taking out the earth is "natural" and that we should still try to redirect it.

Glad to see somebody else reads "Funny Times".

 

[oldspark]

"Some might say this is unnatural, that we'd be working against nature"
That's rich, man has been working against nature since the begining of time.

 

[macmaine]

Yup I love that cartoon thanks for posting!!

Regarding the idea that this is all a hoax and those geeky scientists are wrong....
As Fossil said you cannot ignore some of these major changes.
Melting over 1/2 of the NORTH POLE does really mean we have global cooling
(3.5 million km squared Sept 2012; normally 8 million km squared)
No other way to melt that ice than to COOL the globe down.

I guess NOAA NASA and all of those glaciologists are in on a sick joke?

If you have not read this, enjoy. I think .
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

 

[oldspark]

That makes sense, its cooler because of the cold air coming off the ice melting.
That is one great cartoon.

 

[Highbeam]

Regarding the idea that this is all a hoax and those geeky scientists are wrong....

Did anybody say this? I certainly think that the graph was crap but only that particular graph and it could be wrong by underestimating the amount of warming.

 

[blades]

2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. As it stands it is more of an effort to create another cash cow for a few. I have yet to read articles that take into consideration volcanic activity.

 

[semipro]

2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. .

I"m glad you spoke up on this as I"m curious to get a better understanding of the reasons behind views like yours and others.
If you found out tomorrow with 100% certainty that global climate change was directly due to man's activities would you then support some sort of action?
I think its been shown before that mankind's activities can affect earth's systems and that we can also effect positive change (e.g. DDT, ozone depletion, etc.).
I guess I'm trying to get a better handle on why so many are disinterested in this issue when it could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever or is that an example of the kind of hyperbole that turns people off?
Is it because its so contentious? Is it because the warnings are coming from scientists? Political reasons? Other?

 

[macmaine]

"Did anybody say this? I certainly think that the graph was crap but only that particular graph and it could be wrong by underestimating the amount of warming."

HighBeam:

I was responding the OP confusing weather with climate change : YES it is cold in Maine this week, NO this does not override all the data scientists spend decades collecting showing warming globally

Blades:

? Volcanoes?
Yes they have studied them

(broken link removed to http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/)

Look at the 18-25 minutes of this video:

Check out this video there is 400,000 years of ice core data,
They even show an ice core with a Icelandic Volcano dust smudge on it!
They address your very question regarding the Volcanoes contribution at minute 35
CO2 is 180 ppm and 280 ppm has been natural variation for last 400,000 years.
We are now at 390 ppm and rising like a rock star.

(broken link removed to http://www.pbs.org/programs/earth-the-operators-manual/)




Tom

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Just my 2 cents.
I have to agree with the folks that are saying let's slow down/curb our pollution. Old farts like me have a hard time believing that all the mess we create goes nowhere & does nothing. Just cant fathom why so many non science folks spend so much time alleging that science is wrong. While offering no proof of any kind, just allegations. Other than money & not wanting to do without anything of course.

 

[blades]

I am not saying that man kind is not part of the problem, I just cannot and will not get behind a horse that is being created by a few for personal gain at the determent to 95% to the rest of us. Me I'm just an old fart also, but not senile enough to not remember the conservation fiascos ( in my mind ) of the mid 70's. Nothing wrong with the conservation effort as a whole, just the effect it has on my wallet due to rising costs, The bulk of us can not with stand another round of exponential cost increases of staples due to the kind of thinking being promoted ( carbon credits)

 

[Jags]

I
I guess I'm trying to get a better handle on why so many are disinterested in this issue when it could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever or is that an example of the kind of hyperbole that turns people off?
Is it because its so contentious?

My guess is that it is probably some of this. To formally state that this "could be the single biggest challenge to humankind ever" is inherently wrong (that would have been fire). Blanket statements and fear mongering of the warming crowd disenfranchises the other side of the fence, or possible even turns off some of the fence sitters. I think it is the "method" of the message that gets people all fired up.

Can we prove that the earth is warming? Yes.
Can we prove all of the elements that are causing this? No - not yet. We have our fingers on a few. Some are pretty well known, no doubt. Some are swept to the side (on both sides of the argument).

My point - blanket statements hurt both sides of the argument and does nothing to advance our knowledge about it.

Also - the approach to curbing stuff...you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Carbon tax?? How about an incentive to do the right thing? Why does everything have to be a punishment? (payment). I have heard of a dog that even had that figured out.

 

[jharkin]

2 cents worth, If and when the talking heads quit blaming mankind as the sole propagator of "Global Warming" I just might pay closer attention. As it stands it is more of an effort to create another cash cow for a few. I have yet to read articles that take into consideration volcanic activity.

A cash cow for what "few" exactly?

The real cash cow is the one the oil/gas/coal industry is riding that depends on us doing nothing to change our current consumption. If you want to find ulterior motives for either side of the debate that is the first place I would look.

 

[TradEddie]

I am not saying that man kind is not part of the problem, I just cannot and will not get behind a horse that is being created by a few for personal gain at the determent to 95% to the rest of us

Once upon a time we threw our toilet waste out the window into a drain down the middle of the street, and I bet people said the exact same when asked to run pipes into their houses. After that we had factories pouring so much chemicals into our rivers that they caught fire, and I bet the factory owners said the same thing then too.

 

[schlot]

Once upon a time we threw our toilet waste out the window into a drain down the middle of the street, and I bet people said the exact same when asked to run pipes into their houses. After that we had factories pouring so much chemicals into our rivers that they caught fire, and I bet the factory owners said the same thing then too.

My paltry two cents.

There is inherent good behind not dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere, to not dumping so much into landfills that could be recycled, to not using fossil fuels where renewable energy can be used,etc. But I think many people resist these efforts because the push to reduce emissions/etc. is tied so closely to preventing global warming instead of stating waste/etc. is not making us good guardians of the world around us.

I think part of the problem with tying it almost solely to global warming is that we all know the world's weather is cyclical. Ice age followed by warming followed by ice age/etc. People (especially conservatives) do not want to pay for something that may do nothing (if you believe it's just part of a cycle) to fix the problem. Throwing money at problems is very seldom a good solution.

That being said, the cartoon encapsulate how I feel. We shouldn't need a global warming scare to say we need to curb excesses that do NOTHING good for the world around us. We do need leadership to step forward and say...."even if this doesn't stop global warming, what we are doing is bad for our world."

Also, someone said something about religion standing in the way. As a Christian, I believe we are directed to be good stewards of the land. So simply lumping religion into one side is not accurate and sounds short sided to say so.

Ok, I'm done now.

 

[Highbeam]

Why should I care about global warming? Really, don't tell me about polar bears because I don't eat them. Don't tell me about the sea rising three feet because I live 700 feet above sea level. Yes, it is selfish but this is how the world runs. One of the challenges in getting the population on board with this is convincing us that any of this matters. Right now, it's just a bunch of marketing and we've grown accustomed to people trying to convince us to do something with advertising as the ads on the bottom of this screen.

I'm an engineer and a natural skeptic. I have seen and believe data that shows warming but we're talking a couple of degrees. Why should I care?

 

[jharkin]

Because that couple of ft rise will destroy the homes of millions or billions worldwide. People who will draw on insurance or govt disaster relieve to move or rebuild - a cost that hits us all. And that couple degrees temp change will cause droughts and crop shifts that will threaten the food supply of millions more. Plus more frequent storms like Sandy and Irene causing more billions in damage.

 

[Highbeam]

Oh good, I see this as the problem. Insufficient drawbacks

A couple feet of additional sea water won't bother any place that I've ever been in my entire life, certainly not where I live. All the coast locations that I've visited, none of them were within 2 feet of being damaged, maybe 10 feet. I don't see this being a significant problem, if you live on the ocean then maybe you feel differently or maybe you will adapt.

A couple of degrees cause droughts? That seems silly since the year to year and day to day temps swings are much more than that. I could use a couple more degrees to help my garden and all of the places that are too dry to grow crops might now be more feasible. The glass is 98% full.

I had zero effect from either of those storms you mentioned. If not for media, I would not have known they even happened.

So, got anything else? I am not yet convinced that the population should care.

 

[woodgeek]

Highbeam, the best theoretical work currently being done is conclusive that a few degrees of GW will significantly increase the incidence of drought. While this seems counterintuitive, its actually not. All the (net) rainfall that lands on the continents evaporated from the ocean. The amount of vapor leaving the ocean and falling on the land is sensitive to the temperature difference between those two locations. The models suggest that GW will heat the land first, and the ocean will take a couple centuries to catch up. Moreover, the warmer land will dry out faster, requiring more rainfall to maintain the same soil moisture, when in fact it will get less on average.

Middle of the road prediction is that non-irrigated agriculture in most of the US 'breadbasket' will not be feasible under current CO2 projections before 2100.

This really points out how useless the historical record is....slowly increasing GW....midwest becomes a jungle, same amount of GW faster...a desert.

Since the current rate of CO2 increase far exceeds anything in the historical/fossil record, we can only rely on models to predict the outcome. If you don't like models, then ok, but what should we do if history cannot provide a guide??