Global Warming - From Inside the Globe

Bill Kendrick writes "The National Post reports that a team of American and Canadian researchers has found evidence of real global warming: the temperature of the Earth's crust is increasing at a remarkable rate. What's really interesting is that heat absorbed by rocks slowly permeates into the earth. By boring holes in the ground, they can tell how hot the earth was years ago, in a 'reading tree rings' fashion."

Comments

Oh god, not again

[Sc00ter]

Can we all just please realize that humans have been on the earth such a short period of time that we really have no idea how global climate is over a long period of time, so we have no real reference to figure out if humans are the cause of this "global warming"

Re:Oh god, not again

[letxa2000]

Possibly, but let's look at some things we DO know. The earth's temp. is rising NOW.

We don't know that. In fact, we know that in the last 23 years, for which there is a global satellite temperature record, there has been no noted warming whatsoever.

We're pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere - which is a closed system .

And the plants thank us for it and give us more oxygen in return.

Now, it's perfectly logical to draw a correlation between the two.

Well, assuming there was global warming (which there hasn't been at least in the last 23 years), the best you could do is try to draw a correlation.

Mind you, a correllation is not proof, not by a longshot.

There might be a correlation between the amount of farting going on due to there being more people on the earth, but you'd be hard pressed to conclude that the increased farting is causing global warming--even though a strong correlation may exist.

#1: we continue to pump billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - If there is a correlation, we're killing our planet. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.

Again, bad assumption.

You assume that a rise in global temperatures is bad. We have no proof of that. It may cause more rainfall in Africa and allow that continent to actually feed itself. That'd be a good thing. Those that automatically believe that global warming would be bad are certainly over-estimating their own ability to know what is good and bad for this planet.

Also, BTW, there is no proof whatsoever to suggest that a rise in temperature will cause sea level to rise. In fact, there is plenty of information to suggestion the opposite--that an increase in temperature will cause more evaporation from the oceans, causing more clouds to rain upon Antartica, causing more ice to form and reducing the sea level somewhat.

#2: we stop pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment - if there is a correlation, nothing bad happens. If there is no correlation, nothing bad happens.

Nothing bad, except millions of unemployed people worldwide, increased poverty because poor countries aren't able to become industrialized, more unhealthy people in the world because people in industrialized countries will be thrown out of work and unable to get medical attention for themselves and, at the same time, rich countries will be harder pressed to export "free" health aid to third world countries.

If you don't care about the wellbeing of people, sure, nothing bad happens.

So from a risk management point of view, it would be pretty stupid to continue to pollute the planet. There is no reward if you're right, but we're all dead if you're wrong.

While I'm not pro-pollution, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of making drastic cuts to address an unproven theory at the cost of the health and wellbeing of millions--possibly billions--of people worldwide.

To suggest that "we're all dead if you're wrong" is extremist propaganda. If there was ever proof of what you're saying, believe me, countries and individuals would both be willing to make sacrifices. But neither countries nor persons, in general, are going to make that sacrifice to solve an unproven problem.

But by the time we WILL have reference, we'll all be dead if we are the cause. Therefore the only logical course of action is to stop.

Again, that's extremist environmentalist propaganda. Don't buy it without thinking.

The human race will change its ways before it kills itself. But it will only change its way if there is convincing evidence that there is not just a correlation between one, but a direct relationship. That evidence does not currently exist.

Re:Oh god, not again

[nomadic]

Those that believe that humans are causing global warming fit into the same group of people that, hundreds of years ago, thought you'd fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far and that the sun circled the earth--both very "human-centric" ways of thinking. They had no proof of either, but it was a part of popular culture nonetheless and to suggest the world was round was considered rediculous.

The fact that humankind has a definite effect on the environment is an established fact. The only people who don't believe it are the scientifically illiterate, and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.

Earth changed constantly over billions of years before the global warming club appeared. They definitely need to get a grip on reality and realize that the world--not even the environment--revolves around humans.

This makes no sense, yet it appears on every global warming story. Non-human factors can effect global climate, therefore human factors never will be able to. Do you see how silly the argument is? There's a huge difference between "A can affect B" and "A and only A can affect B".

The scientists say there's global warming. The business world says there isn't. Now who should we believe? The scientists, or the people who benefit financially from saying there isn't?

Fine, you say, there's global warming, but it can't be industry (again, because there wasn't industry in the past; it still makes no sense). What exactly do you think happens to all the CO2 and other pollutants we pump into the atmosphere? They just disappear? Well we see one effect already in acid rain (or do you think that's a myth, too?) Again, proof that humanity can indeed cause large-scale adverse climate change.

Re:Oh god, not again

[God! Awful]

Climate change happens. Ten thousand years ago a good part of North America (and Europe) was under a mile of ice. I suppose humans take the blame for melting that?

Oh, you people are so ridiculous, snatching at whatever random fact that appeals to your self-serving opinion. I remember a Christian Science lecturer once told me that the ice age is what allowed the animals from Noah's ark to walk across the ocean and settle on the various continents. I don't think your argument is that bad, but you're still being willfully ignorant.

Scientists believe that a number of factors contribute to large scale climate change:

1. The gradual warming of the sun.
2. The gradual cooling of the earth's core.
3. Large volcanic eruptions and meteor impacts, which pollute the atmosphere with dust.
4. The reflective nature of the polar ice.
5. The population cycles of plants and animals, which change the composition of the atmosphere.
6. The thinning of the ozone layer.
7. The bulldozing of the rainforest.
8. Commercial farming.
9. Atmospheric pollution.
10. Human power consumption.

So the fact that the first 5 elements have caused periodic climate change over the course of Earth's existance does not prove that the industrial revolution is not causing global warming. Furthermore, we have evidence that the effects of mankind are causing climate change to occur much faster than they were previously. On top of this, we have scientific models (based on chemistry and physics) which can accurately predict the warming trend. (We have the examples of the planets Mars and Venus, which provide further test vectors.)

This doesn't mean that there won't be little blips in the data. In fact, a volcanic eruption in the mid 90s caused a 2-3 year disruption in the warming trend (source: the Smithsonian Institute). In the past, large scale climate changes have caused the extinction of large numbers of species. So far, the temperature has always returned back to comfortable levels.

However, the danger of global warming is that several of these factors exist in an unstable equilibrium. As the Earth gets warmer, the polar ice melts. This causes the Earth to reflect less of the sun's energy and more of the ice melts. This results in a 'snowball' effect (to use an inappropriate term). Perhaps in the past, this runaway warming has been quenched by a catastrophic effect like a giant volcanic eruption. Therefore, the equilibrium would be unstable, but chaotic enough to always return to the balance point. There is no guarantee than man-made climate change will have the same effect. Some of the natural factors (e.g. the plant-animal arms race) have a buffering effect, which tends to restore the equilibrium. Man-made factors will get worse as the population increases; they may bias the controlling equations and cause the equilibrium to never be restored.

-a

Re:Oh god, not again

[Anonymous Coward]

and those who are so invested in ideology that they just can't believe in it.

Hello, Pot, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Kettle.

Get over yourself. There isn't any shortage of ideological blindness on "your side" of this issue either.

shhhhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

what you're saying is very unpolitcally correct and has not been supported by hollywood.

You've GOT to be kidding me...

[the_skywise]

Heat from 150 years ago is 100 metres below ground? (Depending on the rock). Sort of like tree rings...

"Tree Rings" are the result of bark cycles of the tree. This is *not* the same thing... We're talking about rock that has never seen the light of day... so we're talking about radiation permeating the surface and being stored there like a BATTERY...

What about temperature cycles? Can he "see" the great cold snap of '78?

What about dispersal patterns? Does radiation permeate equally?

And does that mean that the caves that have a constant temperature of ~60 degrees WERE the temperatures thousands of years ago?

What *we* do know... is that its science that makes for good press, politics, and money...

Um, no.

[Perdo]

Drilling a hole generates heat. Sometimes harder substances generate more heat, sometimes less. While the "heat tree rings" may exist, as seems logical, the act of attempting to observe them corrupts your data.

Using extremely old holes could mitigate this somewhat, but then you have no measure of the geological composition, and therefore thermal properties, of the rock the hole was bored through.

This makes any measurements made of core earth temperature so speculative as to be worthless, except as a very "scientific" expensive way to spread fud. There are quit a few "scientific" methods to measure global warming that are in fact just pseudo scientific pawns in the politically charged arena of environmentalism.

To imagine that we have had no impact on global warming is obviously false. Any argument contrary to what should be painfully obvious to the most casual observer is pure political bullshit.

Global Warming isn't a problem

[lkaos]

We are not going to destroy the planet by global warming. The earth has endured a great deal of meteorological change and life goes on. The fact is that temperatures are going to change whether we like it or not. I almost think that whether we are making the planet warming by .01 degree is irrelavant because natural changes are probably making it warmer by .5 degrees anyway.

There are better reasons to not cut down forests and to reduce emissions. When people argue global warming, they just pollute the issue and reduce their credibility.

Some issues with the article

[Herger]

Some issues worth thinking about:

The article states that 150 meters down corresponds to about 100 years ago. However, the thermal conductivity of the crust at each site should be different, meaning that local adjustments need to be made to temperature readings.

The process of drilling generates frictional heat which will affect local temperature readings. Even if the holes are old, wouldn't air or water passing through affect the temperature?

Speaking of water, did the authors do a thorough seismic survey to check for aquifers, geothermal vents, other activity which might affect the temperature?

What's the relative standard? To assume that the surface temperature is the current temperature is dangerous, since it is more affected by daily solar heating, cooling from precipitation, etc.

616 bore holes seems like a lot until you consider that the land surface area of Earth is 148 million square kilometers. If you picked out , say, 616 members of the U.S. population, there is a (significant) chance they will all be engineers, but it's incorrect to assume from this observation that everyone in the U.S. is an engineer. Site selection will have a big impact from reasons previously stated.

Granted, the full article has not been printed yet, so all we have is a journalist's take. But I will be watching for the full article.

Re:The evidence accumulates

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish people would realize that there is a difference between the earth getting warmer, and what has come to be called 'global warming'.

It is getting warmer, but no solid proof exists that 'global warming' is happening.

Confusing yes, but i guess just like most left wing arguments, the argument is in the wording.

Hrm.

[autopr0n]

I wonder how many "sciantists" you could get to sign a "anti-evolution" petition. A lot, probably.

The number of "sciantists" who sign an online petition isn't proof of anything.

Please explain to me this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you talk to Europeans, they accept that the Earth is warming up and think that something must be done to prevent it from messing up the balance of nature.

If you talk to people from the USA, they come up with who knows what explanations about why the Earth is not warming up. Why is it so? Do they teach you at school that the Earth may not warm up and thus it is perfectly safe to pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere?

There still is an ozone hole. The Earth is warming up. Okay, the ozone hole is not so large as it was a few years ago, but this was because ozone-layer eating gasses were banned.

Think about it, if everyone had thought "what a bunch of hippie communist propaganda, ozone-schmozone, ha" things would be different now. In that scenario you had better not go to Southern Australia for a vacation.

So, please explain what drives especially people from the US to close their eyes from the facts and cite corporate spin doctors who offer "proof" about why the planet is NOT warming and hence it is safe NOT to invest in expensive modifications of manufacturing plants or environmentally friendly technology.

I would love to create stockholder value, but I'm constipated right now.