Image: NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
How can we cope with global warming and the challenges it poses? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just completed its fourth assessment of the science of climate change, its impacts and possible solutions. The panel of 2,500 scientists and other experts declared manmade warming "unequivocal" and wrote that it could lead to climate changes that are "abrupt and irreversible."
Next week the world's governments are set to gather in Bali to begin negotiating an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will succeed the much-debated Kyoto Protocol. The science is clear that the earth is heating up and will continue to do so—with potentially catastrophic consequences—unless we change our ways. What is unclear is how best to go about reining in our globe-warming pollution. Some argue for a fund for future clean technology while others prefer to focus on reducing pollution from present sources.
This special report explores the latest findings on the impact of human activity on Earth's climate—from the melting of Arctic ice to the potential spread of disease. It also explores the more pertinent question of where we can go from here.–The Editors
State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario
Earth in Heat: 10 Views of a Warming World [Slideshow]
Climate Change Impacts [Interactive map]
Clash: What Will Climate Change Cost Us? [Q&A]
10 Solutions for Climate Change
Scientific American's Climate Change Coverage
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add CommentThe dire warnings in this pieces have now been repeated ad nauseam since the 1980s. Only as disaster touches each individual life, will attitudes change. The overwhelming trait of our hominid species is denial when facts conflict with self-interest. Even Al Gore burns up more energy than a dozen families.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDave you don't sound so amiable. The argument that it takes a disaster to motivate human action is a depressing one, though it may be correct. Many have claimed that the reason for the present concern over climate change can be traced not to Al Gore or the IPCC but to Hurricane Katrina devastating New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Paired with the cyclone damage in Bangladesh (neither of which storms can be directly attributed to global warming mind you) or the wildfires in California or the drought in Australia or collapsing fish and amphibian populations worldwide or many other potential examples, perhaps we have enough ongoing disasters to motivate us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgood grief. the notion that the world will be warmer in the future is pure science fiction--it may come to pass, it may not, and we have no way of 'knowing' what the future holds until it arrives. using models to predict the future is a total disregard of the scientific method and its requirements, however tedious they may be. where is the scientific evidence that co2 is responsible for any warming we might observe? anyone with a slight understanding of thermodynamics and atomic physics knows that any small effect of co2 is completely swamped by water vapor in the atmosphere and by those gases, like methane, which are not so transparent to IR radiation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific american has officially jumped the shark.
its sad. what will SA have to say if the world cools significantly, despite the unavoidable increase in co2 emmissions?
What is clear is that the planet is warming up. What is not clear is why. Mars is warming at approximatly the same rate, suggesting solar activity is responsible. I believe we can have an impact by making changes but we cannot stop it. We must make plans for changing our pollution and for the coming impact to life on earth. One more thing, is the trip to Bali necessary? Why can't they conference over the internet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince water vapor makes up 70 to 90% of greenhouse gases why is this component never discussed? Moreover all the alternative energy sources generate significantly more water vapor without considering consequences to greenhouse effects and global warming. It seems that merely focuing on a few of the green house gas constituents ignores the larger picuture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefer http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf and http://mclean.ch/climate/SPPI-disband_the_IPCC.pdf to understand what credibility we should have in the IPCC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment by Mjaria is compelling ... IS Mars also warming up ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRICHARD SHEPHERD
Whew. A lot to answer for:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) Water vapor is primary but in balance with the Earth's average temperature (and therefore trending upward). The CO2 and other greenhouse gases are trapping more of the sun's energy as anyone with a basic understanding of absorption bands (and thermodynamics) will tell you.
(2) Dismissing the IPCC is a choice to dismiss the best advice of scientists arrived at via arduous negotiations with government officials. But that's an individual choice.
(3) Mars is experiencing a regional climate change driven by the impact of dust storms and its orbital wobbles. And don't forget a Martian year is two earth years. It remains unclear whether this is a long-term regional trend (Mars is subject to "great" winters and summers) or not. What is clear is that there is, if anything, a negative trend in the amount of solar radiation hitting Mars (and the Earth). Given the lack of correlation between that change in solar radiation and the observed warming (which no one disputes) it is hard to blame the sun for the present climate change on either planet.
(4) What will we say if the world cools? What every scientist would say: we were wrong. But I'll take that chance.
david, you are willfully ignoring, along with the entire IPCC, the requirements of the scientific method. not only that, but co2 is mostly transparent to IR across the entire IR bandwidth (very narrow bands of absorption), whereas h20 and c4 are both opaque to IR across most of the bandwidth. most of the IR passing through co2 neither raises the temperature of the gas, nor is the majority of the IR bandwidths able to be absorbed and re-emitted back towards earth by co2. this is fundamental.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour assertion that co2 is 'trapping' heat is based on the false analogy to a 'greenhouse', which is not at all how our atmosphere works to moderate radiative energy loss.
there are also a very large number of credible atmospheric scientists and physicists who disagree with the IPCC, and their skepticism is well founded in adherence to the requirements of the scientific method.
where is the experimental evidence that is required!?!? there was once a widespread consensus on an ether, too, but one simple experiment by michaelson and morley dissolved it in an instant.
the value of consensus among speculating scientists who possess non-experimental and crude models, theories, and plenty of hot air is exactly ZERO.
why is this lost on you?
i propose that Scientific American be renamed Scientific American Folly.
toreador you are indeed hallucinating. if you need a primer on absorption try this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=000F22D3-EBEF-14C0-AB7083414B7F4945&topicID=10]If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?[/url]
as for the experimental evidence try this (to take but one example):
[url http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024680.shtml]Direct retrieval of stratospheric CO2 infrared cooling rate profiles from AIRS data[/url]
what appears to be lost on you is that the ipcc is not relying solely on models but rather the entire cumulative body of expermental evidence in the scientific literature. in fact, the only thing that body leaves out is the most recent research.
and if you don't believe the experiments, repeat them and seew what you find.
The stages of global warming denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Global Warming Denial
2. Global Warming Doubt
3. Acceptance but not human caused
4. Human Caused but nothing we can do about it or it will be beneficial. I will get a better tan.
5. Too late now, should have warned us sooner.
6. Call my layer, somebody is going to pay.
10 years from now, we will wounder how so many people were fooled by bad science. The earth is always in change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solar constant is 1366 Watts/sqmeter with fluctuations of 6.9%, i.e.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this94.254 Watts/sqmeter. The increase of solar absortion due to human activities is
1.6 Watts/sqmeter, i.e 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the fluctuation of the solar constant. it is hard to believe that such a small increase in absorption can produce significant climate change.
david, i'm not laying out $9 for the full study, and the abstract is sorely lacking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor the sake of the arguement, let's just assume that the earth is warming and it is driven by co2.
now, if it weren't for co2 increases in the atmosphere causing the earth to warm slightly, what would the current trend be, and what would the preferred trend be for all you global warmingists?
since the idea of a static climate is ridiculous, and since the warming trend is really quite slight, it seems from all the fear mongering and nearly paranoid predictions of disaster put forward, that you and brethren would prefer a cooling planet.
surely, you cannot seriously be proposing that a cooler planet is less disastrous than a warming planet, when all historical records show that life flourishes during warm periods and that cool periods experience the exact opposite effect.
the planet has experienced periods of time much warmer than our current state, and during those periods, we know that is when we saw explosions in the level of bio diversity on the planet. the cooler periods have been disastrous by comparison.
why is the warming scenario scary? it seems vastly preferable to a trend in the other direction.
btw, we are likely already entering a predictable cyclical cooling period, and all this concern over co2 will seem silly in hindsight.
In reply to posting (9) by dbiello:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth your posting and the article to which you give a link seem to rely on two assumptions:
1) If we remove the non-"greenhouse" gases from the Earths atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, argon), the greenhouse effect on the surface will be unchanged
2) If we remove all the "greenhouse" gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide + clouds), Earths atmosphere will become transparent to infrared radiation
Unfortunately, BOTH of these assumptions are scientifically INCORRECT. Here's why:
In any planetary atmosphere there are – from an infrared spectroscopic point of view – three different regions. They are, in descending order:
The region of 'Doppler broadening' spectra. High up in the atmosphere, molecular collisions are rare. Here, only classical "greenhouse" molecules (principally water vapour and carbon dioxide on Earth) intercept infrared radiation. These interceptions produce sharp spectral lines beloved of astronomers ascertaining the composition of planetary atmospheres, but they play ESSENTIALLY NO ROLE in the heat balance at the planetary surface because this atmospheric region is so insubstantial (above about 0.1 mbar pressure, 80km altitude on Earth).
The region of 'collision-' or 'pressure-induced line broadening' spectra. In the middle atmosphere, the molecules become closer together and start to interreact. Here, infrared radiation is intercepted when a classical "greenhouse" molecule (water vapour, carbon dioxide) is hit by a bulk molecule (nitrogen, oxygen and argon make up 99.7% of the atmosphere by mass) at the same time as the infrared photon is passing. These interceptions cause so-called Van Vleck-Weisskopf spectral lines. If the "greenhouse" gases were removed from the Earths atmosphere, these lines would disappear. But they would ALSO essentially disappear if these gases stayed and we removed the non-"greenhouse" gases.
The region of 'continuum absorption' spectra. In the lower atmosphere, molecular collisions become so common that the relevant energy levels of the different TYPES of molecule, whether "greenhouse" or non-"greenhouse", overlap. Here, infrared radiation is intercepted when ANY bulk molecule is hit by ANOTHER bulk molecule at the same time as the infrared photon is passing. The vast majority of these collisions involve nitrogen, oxygen and argon. These interceptions produce so-called Ben Reuven spectral profiles (we cannot call them lines because they are so spread out). The "greenhouse" gases play essentially no role in these processes.
This phenomenon is known in the scientific literature when it comes to study of non-terrestrial atmospheres, for example this paper on Saturn http://www.ericweisstein.com/research/papers/satph3/node20.html which STARTS OFF by considering hydrogen-hydrogen and hydrogen-helium collisions before it even discusses "greenhouse" gases, or this paper on Titan http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/275/5300/642?ck=nck which mentions that the greenhouse effect there is 'dominated by the collision-induced absorption of' (the supposed non-greenhouse gas) nitrogen.
Unfortunately, although the laws of science are the same on Earth as on Saturn and Titan, the 'laws of politics' work out a bit differently and there is a dearth of literature on the contribution of nitrogen and oxygen to the infrared opacity of Earths atmosphere. Nevertheless, here is a paper which gives a description http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/isam/isam.html.
A crucial clue to the real importance of continuum absorption by the gases that make up the bulk of Earths atmosphere is to compare the atmospheric profiles of Earth and Venus. Each planet has a characteristic 'bolometric temperature'. This temperature represents how hot the planet looks to an outside observer, how much heat it is emitting in the form of infrared radiation. The bolometric temperatures of Earth and Venus are 255K and 238K respectively (Venus has a lower bolometric temperature than Earth even though it is closer to the sun because its clouds reflect more sunlight).
We can identify a layer of each planet's atmosphere that corresponds to the bolometric temperature. Conceptually, it is this layer from which a 'typical' infrared emission is taking place. Now the Earths atmosphere is at 255K at an altitude of about 6km (halfway up the troposphere). At this altitude the pressure is about 0.5 atm (half the pressure at sea level). For Venus, because its surface is so much hotter, the atmosphere is at 238K at an altitude of 62 kilometres above the surface. At this altitude, the pressure is about 0.45 atm. So what I call the 'bolometric pressure' of the two planets is almost identical.
But this is on the face of it rather astonishing when we consider that Earths atmosphere has only 0.3% by mass of so-called "greenhouse" molecules, whereas Venus has 96.5% carbon dioxide. This fact strongly suggests that the opacity of a planetary atmosphere in the infrared is a function of atmospheric BULK but NOT of atmospheric composition. This implies that continuum absorption is responsible for a substantial (if not predominant) part of the greenhouse effect on Earth (since the other two infrared interception mechanisms rely, at least in part, on the presence of "greenhouse" gases).
From this, we would tend to conclude, contrary to the opening assumptions, that:
1) If we remove the non-"greenhouse" gases from the Earths atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, argon), Earths atmosphere will become transparent to infrared radiation and the greenhouse effect will disappear
2) If we remove all the "greenhouse" gases (water vapour, carbon dioxide + clouds), the greenhouse effect will be weakened but certainly not removed. The difference may even be insignificant.
--
Edited by Daveman at 12/06/2007 5:37 AM
I agree, IPCC data is inaccurate, untrustworthy, and biased with no consideration of the other side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by amadwolfgang87 at 12/07/2007 1:00 PM
Heck, satellite readings show no temp. increase since 1997. Most current data is based off of inaccurate ground thermometers. It is natural for temperature to oscillate. In the Medieval Warmth Period, just before the Little Ice Age and industrialization, temperatures were much warmer than today's. Furthermore, in the Cambrian Period, CO2 levels were 11 times higher, yet the temperature nearly matches today's. CO2 has no SIGNIFICANT impact. We can only prepare for what will inevitably happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by amadwolfgang87 at 12/07/2007 1:02 PM
Stackoturtles, you are offensive and ignorant. I was once a heavy supporter of man-made climate change until last week when I bothered to do some research. Maybe if you bothered to search up the real facts, you will see the propaganda behind GW beliefs. Go to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
--
Edited by amadwolfgang87 at 12/07/2007 2:18 PM
Would that I had the time to refute the misinformation in these posts. Bringing up the Medieval Warm Period is equivalent to bringing up the fact that it's cold in South America when it's hot in North America. What does that tell you about the climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd nobody's arguing that climate change isn't a natural state of affairs, just that we are perturbing the system. And when you perturb a vast and vital system, you are asking for it.
Anyway, check out this site for comprehensive answers to all your concerns:
[url http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11462&feedId=climate-change_rss20]
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed[/url]
CAN WE NOT SCAVENGE THE CARBON IN ATMOSPHERE BY SOME NANOPOROUS POLYMERS THAT SELECTIVELY ABSORB CARBON DIOXIDE TO CONVERT TO UREA LIKE SUBSTANCES THROUGH AN AMINE GROUP REACTION [PRESENT IN THE POLYMER.THE MATERIAL CAN BE AERODISPERSED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisREDUCING EMISSIONS IS NO SOLUTION IN THE MEDIUM TERM
SURESHKUMAR,SCIENTIST,NIIST,RRL,TRIVANDRUM,INDIA
dbiello, I would like to know if you agree on the following statements:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. the earth temperature in 1998 was identical to the temperature on 1934
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
2. Since 1998 the earth temperature has not changed
These two findings seem to contradict the IPCC latest report
--
Edited by Florentine at 12/10/2007 6:40 AM
1934 and 1998 tie for hottest year, no argument here. The problem is that the years around 1998 all rank among the hottest ever (and generally getting hotter, a positive linear trend) while those around 1934 do not. Everywhere on the planet's average temperatures are warmer now than they were in the 1930s, on every continent (except Antartica, which is probably warmer, but records don't exist.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Indeed. Yet even Lindzen has softened his position from global warming is not happening to [url http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004228]global warming isn't going to be so bad[/url] [see 6th paragraph]. I wonder which part of the repetition got to him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislets go...hit america and they stupid habbits...whe are a hostages of 300 milion people...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdbiello are you and Sci. Am. going to reports J. Christy's latest study that shows that your Global Warming models are not in tune with reallity? Or are you going to conveniently ignore that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets see how scientific is Sc. Am.? Or is it Sci. Politician now?
If any of you want to see the real data on ice cores check this Journal Nature article from 1999. I bet dbiello and Sci. Am. have never reported on it. Or you can look up in Wikipedia: Lake Vostok Ice core
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPetit, J.R., [i]et al[/i], 1999, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica," [i]NATURE[/i], Vol. 399, pp. 429-36.
--
Edited by jrtorres at 12/14/2007 9:50 AM
how does this relative to physics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto my point that we are entering a cooling period...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYear of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007
Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.
Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
For an organisation whose name and objective is to promulgate good science, I am amazed and dissapointed at your apparantly complete acceptance of the IPCC, Al Gore view of Climate Change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven a cursory, but open minded, look at a more comprehensive range of climate related science will quickly show that the science is not 'settled' and that the latest science is indicating that the relatively mild warming we are experiencing is predominantly caused by natural events that have been occurring for millions of years. A good place to start would be the work of Henrik Svensmark but there are hundreds of reputable, peer reviewed papers on a comprehensive range of climate change matters that at the very least challenge the currently widely accepted view.
I am not asking you to accept what I am saying, but rather do some homework yourself and come to your own conclusions.
This is too important a matter, not to be open to new discoveries, facts and understanding.
Ian McClintock
Global Warming is a myth and a hoax, perpetuated upon the people of the world. Natural climate changes have happened over the last thousand and million of years. This is a bogus stroy. Dennis Cavenah
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the piecemeal solutions so far taken by the most richest countries won't solve global warming. They have got to be seriously involved. The have to cut down on their high standards of living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Chellumben
I cannot wait until it is clear to all what idiots those were who believed in Al Gore and the IPCC. Here is a hint: The major "proof" of anthropogenic warming in the 1990s was that the ocean was warming. Well now the ocean is cooling so, to be consistent, we have to admit that we are experiencing global cooling. Yet CO2 levels are still going up, up, UP! What is up with that? You people who still are a bit slow realizing you have been hoodwinked by climate change alarmists need to go back and read Al Gore where he openly admitted that he believes it is OK to lie to you to motivate you - AND YOU STILL FELL FOR IT! I think, though I avoid this usually, a LOL is called for here!
EXAMPLE: Everything in dbiello post #1 on page 1 (Katrina, CA fires, etc.) was 100% natural in origin. I guess he never heard of the concert for Bangladesh either. Must not be a musician. Alarmists are quick to claim every disaster is a result of anthropogenic climate change when the fact is that these disasters are just more of the same of what was going on well before anthropogenic climate change became the new looming world catastrophe back in the 70s and 80s.
Hat tip to Ian McClintock. But homework is not the answer. Coming back to reality, ignoring the hype and getting the facts (well yeah I guess that will take a bit of work, especially for those so used to being spoon fed admitted lies by Al Gore and his ilk) is what they need to do. Folks, climate change is normal, natural, inevitable. Get used to it. Disasters happen. I am actually suprised dibiello left out the earthquake and tsunami as being caused by man - you know there were some idiots who lumped them right in there with Katrina as allegedly being man-made!
It is refreshing to see that there are people who are aware of the farce that anthropogenic warming alarmism is today.
Still how is it people can be so STUPID as in dibiello post #9 on page 1:
He says that water vapor is trending up due to global warming implying (correctly, in fact) that increased water vapor in the atmosphere is due to the fact the planet is warming. But he cannot accept the same for CO2 while in fact evidence clearly shows that rising CO2 in the atmosphere is an EFFECT not a CAUSE. Coincidence is no proof of causation yet people like him claim otherwise. They insist that since the temperature is going up and carbon dioxide is going up then gee, carbon dioxide must be the cause.
As for dismissing the IPCC, turnabout is fair play. The best scientists (the ones who happen to be right on this issue) were dismissed by the IPCC as their conclusions were written before the first real scientists submitted word one to them. Here is what a real scientific expert thinks of the IPCC:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
in this same post (9, page 1) dibiello says he will admit it when he is proven wrong. Well in the 1990 decade a warming ocean was "proof positive" that we were experiencing global warming. Now post 2000 the ocean cooled - there is no doubt. It is official. So, by the same logic, we are now experiencing global cooling even as CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. How do you take your crow?
Toleana post 27 on page 2 speaks for itself:
"lets go...hit america and they stupid habbits...whe are a hostages of 300 milion people..."
Guess he did not get or maybe just can not read the memo that CHINA is the #1 polluter in the world, the #1 source of GHGs. It is a fact, you can look it up.
Here is a classic lie by dibiello from his post 26 page 2:
"even Lindzen has softened his position from global warming is not happening to global warming isn't going to be so bad"
This is the usual lie that people are denying that the Earth is warming. It has been warming for 10,000 years. Despite this we are still in the tail end of the last ice age and if we are really lucky the Earth will warm another degree or two at least instead of going back to much of North America, Europe and Asia covered with miles of ice. The only denial evident is dibiello when he denies that Lindzen always admitted global warming was a fact. The issue was and is the CAUSE not the existence.
From dibiello post 24 page 2: "
1934 and 1998 tie for hottest year, no argument here."
What about alarmist arguments that it has never been this hot? That this was unprecedented and therefore could not possibly be natural?
As for the other "hottest years" that is the urban heat island effect, hand massaged data and besides, dibiello must have missed the memo (or read the following excuses and BS) that once the data was corrected (for the umpteenth time) several of the "hottest years" went back to being in the 1930s (it turns out they never really left, people just lied or made mistakes), not just one.
Ever notice how they make a big deal about how the Northwest Passage may soon be open.... AGAIN. The key word being "AGAIN" of course.... and what about how they mention loss of ice up north as if it means something but curiously avoid talking about how fast & far it refroze subsequently or how as ice was melting to record levels up north it was freezing to record levels down south.
Hmmm.
And hey, Dan Chellumben, every time you spam that post of yours global warming gets worse. Why don't you take your own advice, get rid of all your modern conveniences and go wear nothing but animal hides and live in a cave somewhere then we will accept that you (unlike Al Gore) mean what you say and say what you mean and, MOST IMPORTANT, practice what you preach. Until then learn how NOT to spam!--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 2:13 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
I note a lot of posts on climate change like this one report 1998 as the hottest year on record and say the atmosphere hasnt warmed since then. Actually this is from a USA meteorological study and isnt global as it excludes the arctic. The NASA study is truly global and includes the arctic and has 2005 as the hottest year on record. But regardless of which study you use the trend is upwards. So there goes the argument that global warming has "stopped" since 1998.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNigel and David B.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, so far this winter, Asia has already experienced the coldest winter in 100 years, and much of Europe and North America are in the grips of record setting cold conditions, too. The southern hemisphere just experienced the coldest winter in a generation...I guess CO2 also causes global cooling, since concentrations continue to increase, yet the planet surface, stratosphere, and oceans have been cooling lately. Neat.
I bet if you asked most of Asia if they prefer a warming planet or a cooling planet, they'd answer the former, but then, thousands and thousands have frozen to death, so they won't be able to respond.
Yet another glaring FAILURE of the crystal ball, er, computer models.
When will they release the code!?!?
Question: during the carboniferous period (aprox 55 million years) the CO2 content of the atmosphere was approximately 140,000 ppm or 14%. Today it is about .00380% or about 382ppm: During this entire period of history, the earth was COLDER than it is now. IF getting to 400pppm or 1000ppm is so catastrophic, why didn't the earth see a much greater catastrophy during the carboniferous? Yes, it appears that the earth is warming: from the evidence I have seen, it has been warming for about 18,000 years and is simply getting back to the mean temp historically. It appears to me that the Global Warming crowd have a much different agenda than any real threat to the planet by this warming trend. Follow the money!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything is inherantly cooling. Absolute cold is the be all and end all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have thought that naturally occuring events such as volcanos and sunspot activity are far more destructive/influentual than mans contribution. The release of methane gas through the melting of permafrost regions has caused ice ages in the past and is likely to occur again regardless of what man does. There has been several ice ages in the past due naturally occuring phenomena. i dont think mans influence can stop the naturally occuring juganauts. In other words, scare tactics are being enployed to muster up new areas of business. It's all a pretence (govt is pretending that it cares, scientists have got hiden agendas and biases and environmentalists are making money out of it various ways).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere we have it. Mars is warming at the same rate so a huge amount of evidence is out there to support the fact that we are at a lucking Phase in earths Cycle where by we benefit from a warmer climate. there is also a Wealth of evidence to suggest that Global warming Fear Media government corporates all use What ever they can to get what they want from the General public. We are however polluting and ruining earths natural beauties making things unpleasant for us and future generations. we are an ignorant species and in our attempt to get one up on a neighbour we are only hurting ourselves. The Truth: we need a climatic change or something absolute and catastrophic to occur before we will sort ourselves out and unite. so if it is to happen (Climatic Madness) i say bring it! at least we wouldn't have to debate it any longer. But the real problem we face as a race is the way in which we treat each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne contributor mentioned that the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is barely referred to in relation to climate change studies. Water vapour cannot be treated as a standard greenhouse gas as it can be sequestered as water or ice within days or weeks. It rapidly disappears from the Global system. So its effect is not cumulative, unlike the othere greenhouse gases. The analysis of ice cores reveal a historical relation between CO2 concentrations and climate change. Thus the IPCC conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell aren't we a tad behind, and denying that all your information was fraudulently obtained, and even more deliberately hidden from peer review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've spent how many colums on climate change and global warming and the information gathered isn't worth the paper it was written on. All these so called experts colluded in shaping an "earth event" so that they could prosper at the expense of science.
You and your info mag are just as cupable as the bad science and fraud that went into the climate change agenda.
But are you willing to admit your participation was driven by the fraudulent submissions. Your papers are still top loaded with man-made climate change and that environment is in peril.
Stop the crisis stuff, because the ship has left the dock on that one now. Your scam of deceive the common person is over. No need for all the high brow long terminology baffle science too. The public is now aware that your social activism took over the environmental movement. Carbon taxes were a ruse to de-industrialize our North American continent. There are no "Green jobs", and there are no "Green industries". But we are green from the neck up on fakery where strangulation of industries cause thousands of jobs to be moved off-shore to Third World countries that didn't have green regulations stifling opportunity.
Most of the people who feel the way you do, have not really read enough technical articles carefully enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are all going to have to make changes we don't like. It's the consequences for polluting the earth so badly.
Articles based on personal opinions...don't waste you time, they don't
count.
hallucinogenic toreador,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should admit your mistake! Springfield, MA...It's December 8, it's been fifties and sixties. Where's the cold and snow? We get a cold day here and there, but overall it's warming. Where's the dates on your information? I haven't even been wearing a coat. Are you being honest?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to share my interest as one 0f the principals of Royal Wind, we have designed an Ocean Temperature Regulatory System using our revolutionary turbines to power cold water pumps. Our system is designed to pump large amounts of cold water to the surface of the ocean to create cold water thermoclines. We believe that widespread use of our system worldwide would result in a much desired global temperature regulation and reduction. The health of our oceans and the increased carbon sequestration are linked to global sustainability. We feel that without intervention the oceans are in danger of collapse. The health of our oceans is crucial to the maintenance of oxygen levels in the atmosphere. If the oceans die, we will struggle to survive. It’s all connected: ocean health, carbon sequestration, and global temperatures. Here’s the plan:
To install our ocean-current powered cold water pumps in strategic locations worldwide, creating cold water thermoclines, increasing the sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Our system will also be used to build the polar icecap back to a more acceptable year-round base level which will also ensure the continued function of the thermohaline and of the North Atlantic drift. Our system will also be used to create cold water barriers to hurricanes. We can solve the Earth's problems with the right effort. We must if we plan to continue living on this Earth.
Check it out!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. His work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAs Aqua satellite. He provided congressional testimony on global warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Maybe the trend is shifting. As temperatures rise, as 2010 is one of the hottest on record, and Europe is getting colder, why? The gulf stream is weakened due to the glacial melts from Greenland and the Artic Ice Cap which dumps fresh cold water into the North Atlantic and weakens the natural currents known as the Gulf Stream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone leaves this out of projections and models, but it is happening as we speak but here is a more recent scientists addition: http://www.geographicadventures.co.uk/articles/scotland_severe_winter_of_2010.html The gulf stream even shut down for 10 days in November of 2004 http://u3aclimatestudy.pbworks.com/w/page/5216354/Gulf-Stream-Weakening That would mean near instant ice age if it were for an extended period of time. You don't know what your messing with here, and it is no game, or scheme or hoax: http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/the-climate-change-hoax-hoax/
http://greenplanetethics.com/wordpress/climatic-changes-from-global-warming-results-in-completely-new-climates/