Global Warming - interesting stuff

[coldcat 0]

I thought you may find this interesting. It was on the Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

[Rag-Doll 0]

Interesting article - there seem to have been a few of this type in the media recently. I wonder how many fervent believers in global warming actually understand the scientific debate about the subject or even the science behind the idea of global warming. Beyond the simplistic head line stuff there seems to be a lot of room for conjecture. I don't understand even a tenth of the discussion but irrespective of whether the world temps are going up or not, it's a pity that keeping our environments (both natural and man made) clean and healthy isn't of itself sufficient reason to reduce pollution and our dependency on coal and oil. Are we so desensitized these days that nothing short of a global catastrophe will motivate us?

[SnowJapan.Com#3 0]

Good timing, we've just put a new article online:

 

http://www.snowjapanforums.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/7102.html

[skidaisuki 0]

Rag-Doll - global warming is a reality. The debate is over what its cause is and whether human activity is at least partly responsible for it. That is very difficult to prove. My layman's view is that the earth has only been industrialised to any real extent over the past 100 years or so, and it seems highly probable that burning fossil fuels to the extent that we are doing is having some negative effects. Connect this to the fact that we are using up irreplaceable resources and must find alternatives (whether or not we are causing global warming) and you'll see why this needs to be addressed.

 

Personally, I don't fancy having to fly to Sakhalin to find powder....

[thursday 1]

[coldcat 0]

I am actually in favour of finding clean alternatives to coil, petrol, etc... and using them. But not because of global warming, but because is better for our environment and the air that we breath. I am quite skeptic about humans being able to alter something so powerful and complicated as climate, especially when you consider that our emissions account for such an small percentage of the total CO2 emitted by other organisms.

 

One of the things that I find most amusing is that 30 years ago the hype was not on global warming but on global cooling. It seems that somebody is really interested in making the public believe that the apocalypses is near.

 

It is not so true that all glaciers are retreating or not growing, they are retreating in some parts of the world, and they are advancing in others (New Zealand for example). It is not true either that the temperature is going up everywhere; in the antartic the temperature is going down (it's becoming colder!) and the ice cap is thickening. To some extent the same is occurring in Greenland although this is probably caused by the increase of wetness in the atmosphere.

 

Anyway,my humble opinion is that climate changes naturally. It changes from year to year,decade to decade, etc ... Climate is not an accurate science. Some years are colder and some years warmer. Indeed, as the article says the earth has been much more warm than now during the Middle Ages.

 

Of course, I'm not saying don't care about the environment, what I'm saying is don't care for the wrong reasons.

[skidaisuki 0]

On a slightly more trivial note, I remember some speculation last year that due to less ice in the Sea of Okhotsk, there was more evaporation, resulting in higher snowfall in Hokkaido.

 

So perhaps we should be in favour of it!

[Rag-Doll 0]

Skidaisuki,

 

Mate, I'm not saying the GW isn't a fact. I can't say that because I simply don't understand the science or the relative validity of the arguments for and against it - do you? If so, please explain to me why the consequences of the gulf stream stopping never seems to make it into the popular media - as recently as 2003 this event was expected to herald a new ice age for Western Europe (so much for melting glaciers and failing ski resorts!). Why doesn't the massive deforestation that has occurred in the past 50 years and its adverse effect on rainfall get a mention when the popular media talks of GW induced drought. Drought in Aust is a big thing at the moment and the Murray Darling river system is about buggered. The Murray Darling system does occasionally dry up - it did around 1900 and it nearly did again in 1980 - but now it's drying up because of global warming,...mmm I wonder, if maybe we didn't cut down all the ****ing trees we'd get a little more rain occasionally and maybe if we didn’t insist on growing cotton and rice in the desert we wouldn’t need so much bloody water in the first place. I reckon it is very difficult for any lay person to develop any clear understanding on this matter and a little skepticism is healthy otherwise we end up with a global form of mob rule.

 

I'm with coolkitty about the uncertainty of atmospheric science - it's one of the biggest impressions I get from the GW debate - there is a fair bit of guess work going on here. This is problematic for a popular culture that demands everything to be quick, clean and easily digestible – there isn’t really the appetite for understanding complex and, sometimes, confusing detail. To be fair there probably also isn't the capacity to understand many of the principals in dispute. Not all contrary views are motivated by reactionaries and self interest – some undoubtedly are, but not all. Science has been wrong many times in the past and voices in the wilderness have sometimes been the precursor to the overturning of scientific paradigms that have prevailed for generations. At other times those voices have deservedly remained on the fringes.

 

Maybe GW is legit and its opponents will eventually be converted, maybe GW is a fad that has benefited from some astute politics and sensationalist media – I don’t know…. But I do know that it's a pity we need something like GW’s worst case scenario to motivate us to clean up the planet. From my window in HK I can see the horizon maybe 10 days a year. The rest of the time it's lost in a lung choking grey haze. A clean and healthy planet should be motivation enough to reduce pollution.

 

I understand that many if not most of the signatories to the Kyoto Treaty haven’t met their obligations – Japan included. It may be just political BS, but I read somewhere the other day that Aust (a naughty non-signatory country which the world is “furious” at apparently) is (or is close to being) on track to meet its obligations. Go figure.. maybe signing/not signing really hasn't made that much difference after all.

[Ocean11 0]

I'll certainly be tuning in next week to find out how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

[Go Native 70]

 Quote:

It is not so true that all glaciers are retreating or not growing, they are retreating in some parts of the world, and they are advancing in others (New Zealand for example). It is not true either that the temperature is going up everywhere; in the antartic the temperature is going down (it's becoming colder!) and the ice cap is thickening. To some extent the same is occurring in Greenland although this is probably caused by the increase of wetness in the atmosphere.

Just a note about the advancement of glaciers in New Zealand. Somewhat amazingly the advancement is explained because of increasing temperatures not because of increased snowfalls. Basically the increased temps is allowing the ice to slide down the mountain at an increased rate thus the terminus of the glaciers have advanced. But whilst this has happened the total snow and ice depth in the neve of the glaciers has decreased meaning it probably won't be long before we see a rapid retreat of these galciers.

Also the decrease in temps in Antartica is not uniform as there has been marked warming along the Antarctic peninsula. The decreases are mainly attributed to cooler summer and autumn temperatures. Maybe this is because of increased cloud cover due to warmer temps near the fringe of the continent? Not sure on that one...

[coldcat 0]

Go Native, I disagree with you. The glaciers I'm speaking about are not advancing because of sliding, they are increasing in volume.

 

In New Zealand this year they have had huge amount s of snowfall. Even in Australia they've hit temperatures below 0 in places where it is unheard of. I'm really interested in your theory that the glaciers are advancing because of an increase in temperature, so I'd appreciate if you can give me some references.

[coldcat 0]

As for your theory on the Antarctica I think is flawed. It is a scientific fact and you can read in the article about that the Antarctica has been constantly cooling down for the past 30 years.

[moloneb3 0]

I just wonder now that the UK and America are dependant on foreign sources of energy they are beginning to bleat about this (especially Tony Blair). Look back to the cold war and the constant propoganda that governments produced. Conversely oil companies stand the most to lose so generating doubt in peoples minds will delay any action, necessary or not. I think humans have an impact on the globe, it is naive to think otherwise (6 billion of us and growing). Unfortunately our information is taken over the last 50 years which in geological terms is nothing. What impact we are having we will not know fully until perhaps it is too late!! If we do something about global warming it will benefit the globe and humanity. If those reasons are based on propogandist information by governments trying to reduce dependance on foreign energy, the benefits should still be positive. Means to an end and all that!!!

 

In this instance the means may not be fully justified but the ends seem justifiable.

[coldcat 0]

moloney, you have a point, but I don't believe there's any justification for lying to the general public. Whatever the reasons behind it. And I doubt that any good can come from lying to people.

[moloneb3 0]

Oh I completely agree. I am not saying that lying to people is good, what I am saying is that with hindsight in 100 years those lies, however misplaced today, could do some good!!! They lie to us anyways, maybe this time for a good end. The perfect example, in my opinion, was the dropping of the atomic bombs here in Japan. That so reviled people to the effect of a-bombs the positive hindsight effect is that there have been no bombs dropped on any country since then. 'MAD' (mutual assured destruction) as it was called was enough to stop people wanting to drop the bombs on each other knowing the obliterating effect.

 

Please don't mistake that comment as justifying what happened to Japan, I am not. But some crazy decisions now have effects far greater than their intended purposes.

[skidaisuki 0]

Coldcat: "a little skepticism is healthy"

 

Totally agreed. I am healthily skeptical about those who argue against global warming when their research is funded by oil companies, whose interests are not served by everyone cutting oil consumption 50 percent tomorrow.

 

I agree that it is a very complex issue and talking about one or two seasons in New Zealand when glaciers get bigger shouldn't be enough to distract anyone from the long term issues.

 

I personally don't want mankind to take chances on being wrong. Short of a killer meteorite hitting us, he very future of the earth may depend on it.

[coldcat 0]

Science is about being objective, and is based on facts, not on what somebody thinks is good for the future of the world. The facts when they are facts can never be wrong, but somebody's perception of what is good for the future is very subjective. I am not arguing we shouldn't care for the environment, I am just saying scientists should be more honest about what they know, instead of just scare the heck out of people for the "greater good". In my opinion it is just not ethical.

[skidaisuki 0]

Coldcat - once again, agreed. The trouble is, the potential costs of doing nothing are far greater than those of taking action. Either course may be the wrong one, but I know which one I would prefer.

 

Science is indeed about being objective, which is why I tend to go with the consensus of scientists who have looked at GW and concluded that it is a real phonomenon that needs to be addressed. How, not whether, we address it is the question.

[coldcat 0]

Consensus is when ALL scientists agree, which is obviously not the case with global warming. It seems that sometimes when the media repeats the same thing over and over, it magically becomes true. Who said there is consensus on global warming?

 

Anyway, I agree with you that we need to do something, but I think we have a right to know what's really happening. Or at least a right to know that in fact they don't really know what's happening.

[Rag-Doll 0]

> I am healthily skeptical about those who argue against global warming when their research is funded by oil companies, whose interests are not served by everyone cutting oil consumption 50 percent tomorrow.

 

Skidaisuki,

This is a good example of fact being somewhat clouded by popularism. GW is about a build up of greenhouse gases. CO2 is one greenhouse gas and oil is one source of CO2 in our environment, but so is coal (it is why Australia gets such a hard time) and so is natural gas and so is the destruction and burning of forests. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is not produced in anywhere near the amounts of CO2 (hundreds of millions of tons as opposed to billions) but is 20 times more a potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. GW is also about the destruction of CO2 sinks like trees. The GW debate isn't only about oil usage and it is a mistake to view all dissenting views on the matter as representing vested interests, particularly those of the oil industry (a euphemism for the US). Perhaps you're not saying that all dissenting opinions are funded by oil, but that is the impression I get from your post.

 

There is also an underlying leftist anti business/industrial sentiment in the environmental movement just as there is a conservative big business capitalist sentiment on the business side which informs how the issues are debated. Getting a truly balanced and I mean completely objective and unbiased, view is very difficult. Of course this problem isn’t limited to the GW debate but pervades just about every aspect of our lives. Popular consensus when the vast majority of participants aren’t in a position to make a determination for themselves doesn’t carry a lot of weight IMHO – it all sounds a little to much like “She’s a witch! She’s a witch! Religion is a great example of widely held beliefs based not on what people know but on what people are told and want to believe.

 

Skepticism is only healthy if it goes botth ways.

 

Frankly, I feel that it is entirely possible that we’re messing up the global weather. When you think about just how much junk we pump into the environment and the large impact we’ve had on the landscape it seems entirely reasonable that it would have an effect – it doesn’t take much after all. Even single events like a large volcano can impact the weather - they have in the past. Decades of pumping billions of tons of CO2, Methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while turning rain forest into desert is probably going to have an impact.

 

It is interesting that some well informed climate scientists are asking for the GW catastrophic predictions to be toned down – to me that says something about the relative accuracy of those predictions.

[skidaisuki 0]

"Consensus is when ALL scientists agree, which is obviously not the case with global warming"

 

Coldcat - sorry, that's not correct. Perhaps you misunderstand but the definition of a consensus is not 100 percent agreement between all members of a group, but the general balance of opinion:

 

"General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action."

 

It is said that there is a consensus on Global warming amongst those scientists. There are always going to be some scientists with an opposing view. Who's wrong and who's right is another debate, but I tend to accept the majority view on this.

[Rag-Doll 0]

"General agreement" - but does this actually exist in respect of GW? I would suggest it doesn't.

[coldcat 0]

The current situation does not even satisfy the definition that you have taken from wikipedia. There's no general agreement, there are plenty of voices who don't agree, the problem is that they don't make it to the headlines as often. We can't be naive.

 

In my view, there's consensus that the earth is round, and things like that. That's what I called consensus, you won't find any serious scientist who argues against it. But you will do find scientist arguing against the current mainstream view in the media regarding global warming.

[coldcat 0]

The article that I submitted is just an example that there's no consensus. I recommend you read it, just to have a different opinion to contrast.

[skidaisuki 0]

Coldcat - sorry to be pedantic, but you stated that for a consensus, ALL scientists have to agree. That's not what a consensus means.

 

There are people arguing, stupidly, that the earth is flat. That doesn't mean that there's no consensus on the matter, I agree with you. Just because some scientists are arguing against global warming doesn't mean that most accept it as demonstrable fact.

 

A completely separate question is whether, and to what extent, human activity is contributing to it. I believe that we are having an impact, and this also ties into questions of how we use the world's natural resources.