New Study: All Warming Is Not Created Equal
New Study: All Warming Is Not Created Equal
The National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization created by Congress to provide scientific guidance, has released an important new study. The AP leads with the Academy’s conclusion that the “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.” It’s an alarming fact, but ultimately, not the most significant. An excerpt from the study:
It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.
Why is that? Because there are other things beside increased carbon dioxide emissions that can cause temperatures to rise. These factors “include volcanic eruptions, variations in the intensity of incoming solar radiation.”
Here is the really important point:
In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
In other words, the Academy factored in the natural variations in temperature -– volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. -– and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
Climate skeptics routinely point to other periods of time where there were temperature changes — the early 20th century, the “medieval warm period” -– as “proof” that global warming isn’t real. This fundamentally misunderstands global warming science. The scientists have taken natural variations in temperature under consideration and concluded that the current warming trend is different. Human activity is driving it.
Fight back with the facts. Pledge to see An Inconvenient Truth.
[inconvenienttruthwidget]
(Note: Even if you’ve already seen the film, make sure to pledge and be counted.)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I'm no grammar expert or anything, Judd, but shouldn't the headline be: New Study: All Warming Is Not Created Equally?
Just wanted to get that out before the wingnuts arrive...
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pmIt's a play on 'All men are not creted equal". Equal is correct - as it is an adjective decribing men and not an adverb describing the process by which they were made.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:45 pmSo now Congress's own scientific study agrees with the fact that human have a big role in the current cycle of Global Warming. Whatever will they do? Ad hominem attacks no doubt...
It's sheer common sense that if you put CO2 into the atmosphere, there will be an effect. Actions beget reactions.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pmThese right-wing Weathernistas are descendants of the same ilk that thought human flight was nonsense. It's their right to drive gas-guzzlers and to blow secondhand smoke in your face.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:55 pm.. And, according to Tracy in a prior thread, to demand English be spoken here at all times, and in France when he visits... Egocentric is an understatement.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:03 pmThe 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:04 pmtpjudd fundamentally misunderstands global warming science. Why? Because he ignores the fact that scientists don't understand all of the external factors that can contribute to climate change. The IPCC even discusses this problem in their report.
The influence of external factors on
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pmclimate can be broadly compared using the concept of
radiative forcing. Here is the level of scientific understanding for some
of those external factors, but the understanding of most of the external factors
is very low.
Statospsheric ozone - Medium
Sulphate - Low
Black and organic carbon from fossil fuel burning - Very Low
Solar - Very Low
6. Very insightful, but way too intellectual for the simple minded.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pmRead the Real Inconvenient Truth
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:10 pmhttp://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
wanna be hippie with a pistol - Judd isn't just spouting stuff off the top of his head, dumbshit - do you even link to anything in his posts???
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm#9 yeah that is the same site that claims DDT is good for us. Yeah, right..... Try linking to a reliable source.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pmRegarding the Junk Science website and its owner, Steven Milloy
How Big Tobacco Helped Create "the Junkman"
http://prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:16 pmAnd Hippie, There's actually a large body of studies which have been able to detect the "signature" of CO2 as the agent behind warming:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
That's why when Bush commissioned his NAS scientists to study the issue in 2001 (and the science has grown stronger since then), they concluded:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:18 pmAntagonist,
For real and observable proof of the effects of carbon diaoxide in the atmosphere - study the planet Venus.
It is roughly our size, not that much closer to the sun, and it has a thick mostly (96.5%) CO2 atmosphere that causes surface temperatures to get hot enough to melt lead. This is Greenhouse Effect in reality.
The weight of the atmosphere also makes it impossible for life to exist because anything that did manage to thrive without sun (nothing does by the way), would be squashed like a bug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_(planet)
"A terrestrial planet, it is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet", as the two are similar in size and bulk composition. The planet is covered with an opaque layer of highly reflective clouds and its surface cannot be seen from space in visible light."
"The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance."
"Studies have suggested that several billion years ago Venus' atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. Venus is thus an example of an extreme case of climate change, making it a useful tool in climate change studies"
.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pm#2 - Thanks. :}
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 pm#14
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 pmIf what you say about Venus is true, then it was caused by something else and not humans.
#12
So what you're saying is; Phillip Morris and smoking are causing global warming.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:42 pm#16 Exactly, but it also took THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
What we're doing has happened in less than ONE HUNDRED YEARS.
Understand the difference?
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:43 pmSo what you’re saying is; Phillip Morris and smoking are causing global warming.
Comment by Antagonist
No, but reading your comments has cured my constipation...
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:45 pm# 17-- No, what I'm saying is that Steve Milloy and his tobacco-paid shills are causing global disinformation.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm17. So what you’re saying is; Phillip Morris and smoking are causing global warming.
they appear to be able to read, but I don't think they understand what's being said.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:47 pmIf what you say about Venus is true, then it was caused by something else and not humans.
But in our case, it was caused by us. CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Consequently the concentration in the atmosphere has gone up 30%.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:50 pmI wonder how the Repugnican noise machine will swift boat the National Academy of Science over this one....lets see....Bill Clinton appointed someone as janitor in the NAS building and he edited all the pro-Bush information out of the original and replaced it with all this scientific mumbo jumbo. THATS it...thats how they'll swift boat them...blame it on Clinton. It always works.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmIf the humans were originally of Venus and the few pre-hell temps survivors moved to Earth? Um, very coherent with the christian theory: We were expelled from the Paradise when our ancestors ate the forbidden fruit, the one of the Tree of Knowledge. Were they doomed by their knowledge and technology?
Well, sorry to the fact based community here, I'm trying to convince some rightards using their same arguments...
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pmI often get the feeling the trolls are a bunch of high school drop-outs. Because either their position is never properly supported, or they rely on name-calling, or, they're just plain IGNORANT.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:52 pmThanks. :}
Comment by Zookeeper — June 22, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Thereal thanks goes to my 12th grade English teacher. She was the only one in 12 years who was able to made sense out of the rules of grammar. :)
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:53 pm# 25-- Probably Fox News watchers. Isn't TP a favorite whipping boy of Bill O'Reilly?
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:55 pmIf what you say about Venus is true, then it was caused by something else and not humans.
Comment by Antagonist — June 22, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
Hey, it's not my information - I've never been there. But I do believe the scientists who've studied it.
That's NOT the point. The point is that a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to Greenhouse Effect, which leads to heat gain. It's a lesson to not add massive quantities of CO2 to the existing system, or look what could happen...
I really don't get how your mind works. Know it's mutual, but this is like trying to convince someone the sky is blue who insists that it isn't his fault...
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pmbut this is like trying to convince someone the sky is blue who insists that it isn’t his fault…
Comment by unbelievable
Excellent analogy. Those in denial are the most vehemently offended by even suggesting Global Warming exists. Truly mindboggling.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pmNo, but reading your comments has cured my constipation…
Comment by DieNowForPeace — June 22, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
Hilarious!
And thanks for confirming it's not me... I joke that the human species is evolving into two new directions based on brain usage, and some times, the comments from the right just make me wonder if it might be true...
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:04 pmWere did it say why the scientist beleive today's warming isn't like the last few times it got this hot? It just says on this website that they are assuming it is different. Seems very unscientific.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:31 pmGoat/Antagonist (#31):
It's not that different from the last time it was hot. Look at this graph and the correlation between CO2 and temperature over time:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
The difference this time is that we put the CO2 in the atmosphere.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmGoat -
They extracted a 600,000 year old ice core from Antartica. It showed the contents of teh air during each phase of Global Warming. The prior periods were all relatively similar to one another in terms of quantity of CO2 in teh air. The current amount of CO2 in the air now is significantly higher than at atnytime over the last 600,000 years.
The ice doesn't lie...
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pmThe ice doesn’t lie…
Comment by unbelievable
But the republicans do, if they tell the truth, it was by accident.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:52 pmKinda like the trolls here.
Tweaking Science for Consensus...
The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the "hockey stick" graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for o...
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:59 pm#33 So what your saying (as that linked chart) is that this type of temperature has happened many times throughout history. This time Co2 levels are higher then the other times it was this hot. Wouldn't that mean that Co2 has no correlation to climate change? maybe I misunderstood.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:00 pmKinda like the trolls here.
Comment by Wayne — June 22, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
I've told this before, but I don't know if your were around, so I'll tell it again...
I used to hang out with a group of people in my mid-twenties that were similar to the group in here. There was this one guy who was very conservative. Neocon conservative. And he would get into debates with the more liberal guys about damn near everything. He would make-up stuff constantly so he would look 'right'. Except that the guys were on to him and would occasionally invent subjects to argue with him about - just to watch him lie.
I've lost track of them all now. My final straw with that guy was the incessant barrage of ethnic jokes after the start of the war in Iraq. It was actually his wife who was my friend, but after having three kids, she didn't have time for anything else, so he would speak for them both. Even though she was rather liberal. I never knew what she saw in him. Still don't.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:03 pmThe ice in Antarctica, in some places is 9000 feet thick, quite a sample can be taken. And the more it melts, the more acces we have to history. But let me guess, that ice has been hijacked by the left? The core sampler is partisen?
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pmOh no, not Seixon again.
Seixon, I always link my sources. You should as well. This quote is from the site Illconsidered. You should visit this site before posting comments because it deals with all the objections you've ever raised at TP.
On the hockey stick it says this:
Illconsidered discusses briefly some of the back and forth rebuttals that went on because of it. And then it adds:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.html
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:14 pmSo what your saying (as that linked chart) is that this type of temperature has happened many times throughout history.
Yes. There are warming periods in between the ice Ages brought on by natural increases in CO2. It's a natural cycle that occurs over thousands of years.
Humans putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a higher rate than nature normally does has led to a very speedy and abnormal heating. It's causing all kind of damage because it has exceeded what is normal - and as a result, has delayed the next Ice Age - another natural process.
This time Co2 levels are higher then the other times it was this hot.
Exactly.
Wouldn’t that mean that Co2 has no correlation to climate change? maybe I misunderstood.
Comment by Goat — June 22, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Opposite - it's caused natural systems to speed up and it's over heating them.
Basically, our extra CO2 has made the cycle speed up and over heat when nature is not ready or able to handle it - and it's causing the icebergs to melt. This impacts so many lifeforms who are used to adapting to slow and moderate cycles.
Does that help?
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:14 pmSeixon's little trackback almost seems passive-aggressive. Just leave a stupid message and not be available to respond.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:16 pmAnd the more it melts, the more acces we have to history. But let me guess, that ice has been hijacked by the left? The core sampler is partisen?
Comment by For Truth — June 22, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
They are now extracting ice back to 2 million years ago! I think it is amazing! I can't wait to see what they find. I think Science is fascinating when people don't tryto look at it through their Jesus glasses.
I'm surprised we haven't heard those arguments yet either. But, now that you've helped them out, I'm sure we will ; )
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pmTweaking Science for Consensus…
The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the “hockey stick†graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for o…
Trackback by SEIXON — June 22, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
cherry pick little bits of information, that's right....here's the actual news release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years;
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:19 pmLess Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600
I've stopped reading Seixon's nonsense. I don't even know what he said, but I'd guess it was obscure and extremist...
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 pmThis time Co2 levels are higher then the other times it was this hot. Wouldn’t that mean that Co2 has no correlation to climate change?
No, it shows that temperature and CO2 concentration go up and down together. Over time, when the CO2 level goes up, the temperature does as well. The graph shows that they follow each other.
In this case we have added 30% more CO2 to the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels, so it's one piece of evidence that the temperature will go up with the carbon dioxide concentration.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:24 pmThis is how the AP covered the NAS's report:
Earth's Temp May Be at 2,000-Year High
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006
(06-22) 11:37 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.
"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.
Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.
The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.
The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.
Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:36 pmThis time Co2 levels are higher then the other times it was this hot. Wouldn’t that mean that Co2 has no correlation to climate change?
It correlates, but the temperature does lag the CO2 concentration, as one would expect if trapped heat builds up.
So give it another few decades if you need more convincing. Then tell your grandchildren how you debunked the junk science back in the golden age of habitable climate.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm[...] Now, in the second major global warming study released today, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found: Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor. [...]
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:37 pmAh, so Seixon was doing a trackback... Kind of like a driveby comment.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:39 pmunbelievable,
What you wrote did help, but I still have a few more questions. If the earth heats up to these levels every so often, how does anyone know if this time the earth is increasing in temperature any faster then the times before? That linked chart someone posted seemed to show the that this time doesn't look any different then the past. I goota admit, I don't know much about this and I seem to think Global warming is here and a problem. Just trying to better understand.
Here is that link someone else posted before:
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ wg1/ fig2-22.htm
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:39 pmSo skeptics are comparing this warming to previous ages which had volcanic or other natural activity that increased greenhouse gases. Are they suggesting such a thing is happening now and no one noticed massive volcanos?
OTOH, if our power plants are increasing CO2 by 30% we're gambling that such natural activity will not occur for the entire future of civilization.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pmThe fact that we are even having to argue this any more is evidence to me that we are all totally f&cked. Humans are clearly too stupid a race to collectively fend off an utterly preventable and long-understood global threat that we ourselves are causing.
The only thing that gives me pleasure is knowing that the dumb-ass people of this world that just don't get it will all melt/starve/drown with the rest of us. That will be sweet.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:55 pmI hope TPJUDD reads this report carefully. It debunks his ridiculous claims about the radiative forces that are causing glaciers on Kilimanjaro to receed. Looks like Professor Balling was right.
"Although warming in recent decades is an important factor driving glacier recession on Mt. Kenya and the Ruwenzori summits, the much higher altitude glaciers on Kilimanjaro may be shrinking primarily as a continuing response to precipitation changes earlier in the century. The magnitude and importance of recent warming are still being researched."
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmGoat--
CO2 has the property of trapping heat. It acts as a blanket. In the right concentration this is good, because it keeps the earth at its normal temperature. But with more blanket it gets warmer. What the graph shows is the temperature tracking to the CO2--just as a person got under a blanket, the temperature inside the blanket would rise.
The difference in this case is that we've increased the level by 30% over a short period of time. So you will get a temperature increase. Not a 30% temp increase, but even a small temp increase world wide can make a major difference for a number of things.
An insurance company called Swiss Re did a study a while ago on the potential effects:
http://www.climatechangefutures.org/pdf/CCF_Report_Final_10.27.pdf
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:04 pmIt debunks his ridiculous claims about the radiative forces that are causing glaciers on Kilimanjaro to receed.
Hippie: Why would those claims be "ridiculous"? Are you saying that the glaciers melting worldwide is an illusion?
Remember, even the National Review admitted the following:
The National Review went on to argue that most of the warming was due to natural causes, but Judd debunked their science they used quite conclusively.
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:14 pmheres an inconvenient fact:
There have been times when CO2 levels have been much much higher than today and we were in an ice age.
here is another inconvenient fact:
There have been times when temperatures were much much higher than today and CO2 levels were very low.
There is NO absolute correlation between CO2 and temperatures.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:00 pmFactman--
Yes, over hundreds of millions of years, things like continental drift and long term changes in the sun are more important to climate than CO2. So that's something to if I was trying to predict what the climate would be like in 100 million years.
But the graph I link to above is more recent history, which is much more relevant:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:07 pmOn the energy front, if we use the root mean square method and approximations, for each planet's distance from Sol, for each eleven units of energy from the sun that the Earth receives, Venus nets 25 and Mercury, 100. On that basis and the Kelvin scale, The temperature on Venus should be 155 degrees centigrade, all other things being equal. Unfortunately, Venus drew the short straw in atmospheric composition. The carbon dioxide molecule is a bit heavier than the oxygen molecule and settled to the bottom of the stack in the Solar System. The end result was that Venus garnered a surplus of CO2 and Earth was spared the fate of a hellish environment. Mars had a different problem - its mass was not enough to contain the gasses the would normally support life as we know it. If Mars were of Earth's mass, it would most probably contain aliens. The outer planets tend to consist of lighter elements simply because they are further out.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:12 pmNow, if the human race manages to use enough carbon dioxide generators to superheat the world, it will have to relocate to another one. None are available in the local area. Wouldn't the best choice be to preserve our current residence? Relocation to a new star system would involve some sacrifices. Who goes? Who does not?
Idiots like Factman will still be refuting Global Warming when Alaska becomes the Bahamas of the America's.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:29 pmWhen he can water ski in Minsk, he'll still be denying it.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:31 pmIf the earth heats up to these levels every so often, how does anyone know if this time the earth is increasing in temperature any faster then the times before?
Because the ice core showed consistent levels in the past. It's always possible that there is an anomoly. But rarely are those expections to the rule without mitigating factors. Meaning, that there are additional factors. In physics, the rules don't change unless there are catalysts introduced. So, we have to see what is different now than in all those other relatively equal periods of time. The answer is human generated pollution. It's the one thing we know did not exist at any of the other times in history. Could other things cause this? Yes - such as volcanos. But we don't presently have any super volcanos erupting on a scale large enough to produce this kind of accelerated effect.
That linked chart someone posted seemed to show the that this time doesn’t look any different then the past. I goota admit, I don’t know much about this and I seem to think Global warming is here and a problem. Just trying to better understand.
I taught physical Science last year, so I read a lot from valid scientific websites. I think it's commendable that you're asking questions rather than just believing in things blindly. Unfortunately too many people don't take the time to do research and come to their own conclusions.
Here is that link someone else posted before:
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ wg1/ fig2-22.htm
Comment by Goat — June 22, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
That site seems to have a lot of good information about the impact of Global Warming at such an unnaturally fast rate. Nothing is having the chance to adapt. We'll be very lucky if we don't wind up with many species of planst and animals going extinct (polar bears are already being impacted with the rapid melting of their habitat by drowning while searching for food - or turning to cannibalism to eat). Penguins are expected to be impacted in similar ways. Artic tundra is melting - which disrupts a whole other type of egosystem there as well.
When the glaciers melt further it will upset the balance of salt water in some areas and kill certian creatures that need specific salt-water ratios.
I guess the basic nhe notion is that we've put more logs on the fire of this natural warming cycle than mother nature had ever intended to do - and we've dumped them all on at the same time - creating a raging bonfire that is melting things that were never supposed to melt - and as a result wreaking havoc on the planet. Sad..
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:44 pmmadashell,
Stop reading the propaganda the media and the liberals are giving you. Try, you know, actually reading the report for yourself. Or would that be too much work? You said that I was cherry-picking, yet that's exactly what the AP did while ignoring the entire purpose and conclusion of the report. Oh well, suckers like you fell for it, just as usual.
JJ,
Yes, a trackback is something we who have our own blogs do...
unbelievable,
I’ve stopped reading Seixon’s nonsense. I don’t even know what he said, but I’d guess it was obscure and extremist…
You can't stop something you never started. As for "obscure and extremist", I think that's what you called the German intelligence agency.... No, that is what you called them. LOL@unbelievable
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:46 pmUhh sexion?
Your room house on the Pacific coast is ready.
Unfortunately its in Utah.
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:21 pmWorfeus,
It would be really sad if you actually think that's going to happen... Please tell me Al Gore didn't take you that far down the rabbit hole...
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:33 pmYes, I was aware of that Seixon and I'm glad you chose to comment directly.
Now if you would like to hear a real climate scientist talk, listen to this interview with NASA scientist James Hansen:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/06/20060621_b_main.asp
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:03 pmWorfeus,
It would be really sad if you actually think that’s going to happen… Please tell me Al Gore didn’t take you that far down the rabbit hole…
Comment by Strapon — June 22, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
If I were you slappy, I wouldn't be worried about what I think.
Instead I'd be worrying about what the entire GLOBAL scientific community is thinking.
And saying.
And publishing.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:30 pm[...] Now, in the second major global warming study released today, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found: [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:40 amIf indeed CO2 from automobile emmisions is THE cause of this current global warming, then you're panicking over something that cannot change anytime soon---probably not even in our life time. Without a replacement source of energy, developing countries like China and India will only massivley add to the problem. What is everyone to do? Stop driving their cars? Stop developing their economies? That won't happen unless the world is bombed back into the stone age. Here's a great bumper-sticker idea...Nuclear Winter---The Cure For Global Warming.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:46 am# 70, Antagonist-- The car is not the source of CO2 emissions, but it is a source. And as the Prius has demonstrated, we can change the paradigm for the automobile pretty quickly (although we're probably going to be still running on gasoline for the quite a while).
I disagree with you that things like this can't change in our lifetime. Look at all the countries that signed and ratified Kyoto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
And in my view we can address problems like this. That's why I'm on this site-- I'm a progressive.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:04 amNo JJ, you're a fascist.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:04 amIf indeed CO2 from automobile emmisions is THE cause of this current global warming, then you’re panicking over something that cannot change anytime soon—probably not even in our life time.
Instead of funding Iraq, the government could be spending those $300 billion dollars on cleaning the air (itcan be done).
It's not just cars. It's industry. But - atleast you're even willing to consider it could be human exaserbated - so I'll see that as a giant step toward a solution. We can't fix the problem until enough of us admit thatt here is a problem. It's why we are speaking out.
Without a replacement source of energy, developing countries like China and India will only massivley add to the problem.What is everyone to do? Stop driving their cars? Stop developing their economies? That won’t happen unless the world is bombed back into the stone age. Here’s a great bumper-sticker idea…Nuclear Winter—The Cure For Global Warming.
Commnt by Antagonist — June 23, 2006 @ 7:46 am
Not all solutions are extreme.
First, we have to acknowledge the problem.
Public transportation systems that actually work would be a great way to reduce our dependence on cars.
There are a lot of people working on this problem. The oil and automobile industries are fighting them. It's hard to make significant progress without the funding - but even harder when companies are spending milions to stop you.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:34 amNo JJ, you’re a fascist.
Comment by sugar magnolia — June 23, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Go back to your coloring books.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:35 am#70 JJ
I agree that we can and should address this problem, but all we've seen thus far is baby steps. Granted it's a start, but how much more can we really do? Just because most of the world's politicians signed the Kyoto Protocol doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. First of all, because of the U.N.---it's guaranteed to be ineffective. Secondly, it's only a "commitment" to reduce CO2, and other greenhouse gasses. Do you really believe that most countries will honor their commitments? Finally, unless there are some real break-throughs in technology, not much is going to be accomplished. People in general are not going to settle for a Prius while there are better perfoming cars to choose from. I have an example for you; I live in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The local TV stations run public awareness commercials all the time for water conservation. They encourage individual households to choose desert landscaping instead of grass and other vegatation requiring a lot of water. Meanwhile, urban sprawl continues unabated, and at a frantic pace. More and more and more, and still more homes---with swimming pools, landscaping, car washing, dishwahers and washing machines. There are communities with man-made lakes, and golf courses. There are literally hundreds of golf courses here, all requiring lots of water. My point is this; The Phoenix metro area preaches water conservation, while opening the floodgates to a couple of hundred thousand new residents a year. I should use less water so that someone else can use more. The same goes with any consumer product designed to save energy. You buy a Prius while your neighbors buy SUV's. What do you gain?
Sorry JJ, but I just can share in your optimism. Change will either have to come radically, or by gradually changing a culture's mindset over the course of generations.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 amUntil then, I'm just not going to worry about it all that much.
No one said it was an easy problem. I don't know all the solutions. Listen to this interview with James Hansen has some ideas to offer (although I don't really feel qualified to say whether or not they'd work):
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/06/20060621_b_main.asp
I think you need to lose the fear of using some creativity on this problem.
First of all, because of the U.N.—it’s guaranteed to be ineffective. Secondly, it’s only a “commitment†to reduce CO2, and other greenhouse gasses. Do you really believe that most countries will honor their commitments?
International commitments are always high maintenance. That doesn't mean they're not worthwhile.
People in general are not going to settle for a Prius while there are better perfoming cars to choose from.
So much for your stereotypes. The Prius is actually fairly peppy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/prius/performance/0,,1122244,00.html
Until then, I’m just not going to worry about it all that much.
There are a lot of people like you. That's why you have us progressives. We happen to care enough to get involved. Of course, the right always dismisses us as do-gooders. It's always been that way. But look at all the historic high hurdles this country has been over--it's been the progressives. Nothing gets done by magic.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:43 am#75
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not criticising the efforts---I only doubt their effectiveness, and no I don't have any better ideas. I also wasn't being a defeatist when I said I wasn't going to worry about it all that much. I have a family, a job, and other responsiblities and involvements. I have only so much capacity for things to fret about. I simply do not have the time, nor the energy to worry about global warming. I'm grateful that there are people who do worry about it, I just can't.
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pmWell there are a lot of "Antagonists" out there. (Some of them do it professionally-- just look at posts 9 through 12.) I think this is why I write comments on this site. Just trying to do my part to counter the disinformation out there...
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:19 pmLike it or not, it is happening, so what do we do about it? Can anything be done, remember it isn't the end of the earth just the latest experiment in mammalian evolution and opposable thumbs. didn't turn out too well did it?
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm[...] In fact, the report specifically states that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Moreover, as ThinkProgress noted, the report factored in the natural variations in temperature — volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. — and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:53 pm[...] Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists. [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 10:43 amThe degree of accuracy claimed by the people who advocate global warming about temps from a 100 years ago are are impossible. We were still shitting in outhouses 100 years ago. For me the jury is still out on global warming. IF we have a cat 6 hurricane,maybe then I will believe. Its all about grant money and liberals trying to tell other people how to live their lives. And another thing, if second hand smoke is so dangerous why do only 5-10% of smokers get lung cancer?
June 27th, 2006 at 4:40 pmQuote #1: So now Congress’s own scientific study agrees with the fact that human have a big role in the current cycle of Global Warming. Whatever will they do? Ad hominem attacks no doubt…
It’s sheer common sense that if you put CO2 into the atmosphere, there will be an effect. Actions beget reactions.
Comment by unbelievable — June 22, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Quote #2:
"These right-wing Weathernistas are descendants of the same ilk that thought human flight was nonsense. It’s their right to drive gas-guzzlers and to blow secondhand smoke in your face.
Comment by Badmoodman — June 22, 2006 @ 1:55 pm"
Summary:
July 5th, 2006 at 8:08 pmLiberals are the first to complain about ad hominem attacks.
Liberals are the first to USE ad hominem attacks.
Conclusion: Liberals are their own worst enemies.
The article ends with: "Fight back with the facts. Pledge to see An Inconvenient Truth," a statement made popular by Gore and his movie.
Someone should explain to Gore that his use of a jet to fly back and forth all over the place, as often as he does, is a massive contribution to greenhouse gasses.
Gore should lead by example and walk, or take a bike.
Oh, but wait - what HE does is important. I see, so it's not really about the greenhouse gasses, its about what *some* people think is important and about imposing those opinions upon others.
July 5th, 2006 at 8:14 pm"IF we have a cat 6 hurricane,maybe then I will believe."
Why would a cat 6 hurricaine (I don't think there is even such a rating) convince you? That seems like a worthless piece of anecdotal evidence. So you don't want careful examination of the climate, you want a big honking piece of impressive circumstantial evidence. Noted.
"Its all about grant money."
Do you think climate scientists are rich? ANd what about the opponents. Seems there's more money to be made jetting off to right wing think tank conferences instead of drilling ice cores in the Anarctic.
"liberals trying to tell other people how to live their lives"
Like whom to marry and whatnot?
"if second hand smoke is so dangerous why do only 5-10% of smokers get lung cancer?"
_only_ 5-10%? Do you know how many people your "only" encompasses? SO what would be the acceptable level of second hand smke death? .3%? .05%? Esecpially since second hand somke is not a choice made by those affected by it.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:57 pmGlobal warming: the rising temperature between your butt cheeks as you once again prepare for the gay agenda chant "bend over here it comes again".
July 14th, 2006 at 10:57 pmSo CO2 is the cause of global climate change? Educate yourselves:
September 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pmI think that Michael is very hot and sexy. He has all the element that a guy should have. Hes brave, fierce, and hot. I hope he ask me out on a date. He is also an awesome basketball player. He is on the varsity team. Go JW~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI think that Michael is very hot and sexy. He has all the element that a guy should have. Hes brave, fierce, and hot. I hope he ask me out on a date. He is also an awesome basketball player. He is on the varsity team. Go JW~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am Faith, the really hot chick
November 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pmI think that Michael is very hot and sexy. He has all the element that a guy should have. Hes brave, fierce, and hot. I hope he ask me out on a date. He is also an awesome basketball player. He is on the varsity team. Go JW~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am Faith, the really hot chick
November 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pmMichael is the first azian with a 10 inch dick i have seen. I get so wet arround him
November 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pmI want to get a blowjob from Michael.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pmplease read your comments ... they are getting a bit nasty.
http://dumpdorrell.com
January 10th, 2007 at 4:59 am[...] that natural causes cannot explain the unprecedented warmth over the last 400 years. Rather, “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming,” the report [...]
February 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmFor all you global warming skeptics, here is something to chew on...a casual glance through Google will demonstrate that the vast majority of top scientists who believe global warming is a serious issue are the ones out in the field conducting the actual research. A second casual glance at the "scientists" who are skeptical about global warming are well paid by energy companies and sit around in offices debunking years of work. Steven Milloy is a hack writer. CEI.org gets money from ExxonMobil. AEI.org gets money from several "unnamed" sources. Patrick Michaels gets money from Western Fuels. The list goes on. Sorry, skeptics...it's not about the money. It's about making a livable world for our great-great-grandchildren.
Liberals want to tell you how to live your life??
You're kidding, right?
Why is it then Conservatives want to;
get rid of same sex marriages,
get rid of alternative religous viewpoints(Bush's WMD war turned into Xian vs. Islam) (Xian=Christian)
force you to live despite the costs to your family when there is no reasonable prognosis for recovery,
make higher education so expensive only the "haves" can afford to go without being in debt for the rest of one's natural life,
I could go on and on, but here is a summarizing quote I found (I don't remember where) when that lady was on life support for 12 years after having a stroke (or somethingbad happen inside her brain...she was anorexic) and the Republicans refused to allow her husband to pull her plug....
"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, now, die, I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."
February 15th, 2007 at 4:50 am