Humans are Causing Global Warming

Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "

Comments

An idea

[gowen]

Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things :

i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.

If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.

Kyoto is only a start

[Sgs-Cruz]

The Kyoto protocol (Which I'm sure you've all read too much about over the last couple days) in my opinion is only a start. It'll reduce human-caused temperature forcing by something like 5% if fully implemented. Which of course is taken as an argument by many (read: a lot of the USA, and a lot of conservative/business types here in Canada) as a reason to not do anything.

It's funny when you read the articles arguing against Kyoto, though: they always end with "Kyoto is fatally flawed, and it'll cost too much to cut CO2, so we should wait to do it." Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?

The funny thing about all of this is that Canada stands to make out really well. Our four-month growing season will probably become more like the American midwest's 6 -8 months, and our boreal forest ecosystem will shift to a St.Lawrence-Deciduous style forest, which is much more habitable for humans. Also we have a ton of oil here.

Of course, there's the problem of Prince Edward Island probably being under water by then. And oh yes, countries like Bangladesh or the Maldives which will be entirely under water if Antartica (i.e. Ross Ice Shelf) starts to melt. My view is that the best thing to do as an individual is a) bike to work (which I intend to do for the first time this summer), b) keep your house colder than you normally would, and c) evangelize energy efficiency. I don't really see that I can do anymore (aside from reading everything I can) as an just one person with no government connections.

Not millions, but here is 400,000 years worth

[skintigh2]

Not that facts often change politics-based opinions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Re:Not millions, but here is 400,000 years worth

[Jerry]

mmm... If that last graph indicates anything it says we are heading toward another ICE AGE, not global warming.

But, unless you believe that man's activities on Earth influence the behavior of the Sun, then the following URL should prove interesting:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun -on-earth/glob -warm.html
It shows a direct correlation between solar activity and global temperatures.

"Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is becoming more well documented and seems to be accepted by many scientists and people now as fact. Generally, this warming is attributed to the increase of green-house gases in the Earth's upper atmosphere.

Some solar scientists are considering whether some part of global warming may be caused, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

What is the Problem?
What is the evidence for global warming? Certainly, there are considerably more green-house gases (e.g. carbon dioxide) in our atmosphere than in previous times. And there appears to be some evidence that global temperatures are rising. But, how accurate and correct are our global warming statistics? And, do we really know what role, if any, the Sun might play in any global warming patterns?

These issues are currently being debated, and may significantly affect you for the rest of your life. Would you like to do some research to find out more about global warming?

We suggest here some research topics and places to begin looking for information. But these are all controversial issues, and there are no definitive answers (yet). As an informed, and voting, citizen of the next millenium, you will need to keep listening, looking, and being alert to new research and evidence.

The following are key questions in your research on global warming:

* What is global warming?
* What is the evidence that global warming exists? How reliable and accurate is this evidence?
* What are the projected effects of global warming? How many of these projections have, in fact, been realized?
* What is the evidence that global warming might be caused by greenhouse gases?
* What is the evidence that global climate change might also be affected by solar variation?
* What can or should be done about global warming, at least that portion caused by pollutants and emissions?
* What can or should be done if there is also global climate change being caused by solar variability? "

Re:Flame Away!

[Kainaw]

If about scientists, i think the majority of scientists claim global warming is happening and it's likely to be caused by humans.

The phrase "caused by humans" is dangerous to use in this topic. It implies that global warming is directly caused by humans. However, many scientists believe that global warming is indirectly caused by humans. For instance, we eat a lof beef, so we raise a lot of cows. The cows fart and burp a lot - creating greenhouse gasses. Then we get global warming.

Ice Before Christ

[LanMan04]

Kind of off-topic, but what the heck...

I have a friend who worked as support staff at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and he said the scientific staff had an "Ice Before Christ" party, where they used ice from some core samples that were dated to several thousand years ago to make margaritas and use in their cocktails and such. Kinda neat, if a little silly.

Re:Indeed...

[phyruxus]

>>There are no fossils "billions of years" old.

Archaean and Proterozoic fossils are billions (with a B) of years old.
Archaean & Proterozoic fossils on Google.

Re:Indeed...

[shawb]

While I do consider myself an environmentalist, I am cautious about using the phrase "Carbon Dioxide increases cause global warming." In fact, so cautious that I instead use the phrase "Carbon Dioxide is correlated to global warming."

While there is a model in which carbon dioxide can lead to global warming, there are also several models in which global warming leads to increases in carbon dioxide levels.

1) Permafrosts thaw, allowing the built up organic matter (of which there is quite a lot of under tundra) to decay rapidly, releasing CO2 and CH4.

2) Increasing the temperature of water will decrease the solubility of gasses in that water, therefore increasing the temperature of the oceans will decrease the solubility of carbon dioxide in them, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

While this sounds like I am saying not to worry about CO2 emissions, it does bring about a third possibility: Both models are right. 1)Greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere by humans causes global warming. 2)Global warming releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, leading to... more global warming. Uh oh... we found a potential positive feedback loop in which crossing a certain threshold of greenhouse gas emissions will push us past the point of no return.

Then I like to go along with the idea that messing with something you don't know about ends up with that thing broken. What happens if that thing is essential to your life???