Global Warming...3rd time in the last 1000 years?

[mountainclmbr]

In a previous thread the ice core sample data was questioned. The following analysis shows correlation from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica as well as ocean sediment cores from all over the world. These samples largely correlate with the record of grape growing success in the British isles which show we are in the beginning of another warming cycle, but it is not as warm as it has been in the past. Here is the link to the paper:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279a.html

[Standing Wolf]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We need to throw away all the commoners' civil rights to keep the sky from falling, and even then, it may be too late?

[Leatherneck]

I think a lot of the hooplah over global warming is originating from the enviro-wackos on the left side of every cause imaginable. And unfortunately, they seem to have coerced the majority of weather forecasters onto their side of the issue. I don't deny that the earth seems to be developing hot spots in un-normal places, but I think the bulk of the warming can be explained by normal cycling of the atmosphere. I acknowledge that some (small) part of it is attributable to man's emissions. But only a small part.

TC

[Art Eatman]

Let's skip the issue of people being any large amount of causation.  For me, several separate, non-scientific observations give credence to the idea of warming.

Bits and pieces, such as flowers blooming earlier and farther north in England.  Expansion northward of a certain caterpillar, in Michigan.  The several-hundred-mile northward expansion of nesting of whitewing doves in Texas.

Then we have the NOAA photos of the melting of the Artic sea ice. 

From what I've read, at one time Greenland was green enough to earn that name; Vikings could establish some residence without modern high-tech for survival.

As far as horrible effects, I really don't care about any coastal loss of real estate.  That's basically just money.  Too many people all wadded up in the wrong place.  After all, Hurricane Andrew wasn't any stronger a storm than Hurricane Celia of 1970; it just hit a more valuable area.  People have long known of the hazards of coastal living.

I do have concern about any changes in weather patterns as regards rainfall and farming.  From a temperature standpoint, warming expands the area for production of food grains.  But any reduction in rainfall could obviate this benefit.

Too soon to tell...

Art

[Iain]

I probably speak for many, and many who don't begin to agree with me on this issue, when I say that this is getting boring.

A few questions though - do you even begin to understand anything in your link enough to question it? Do you know who the NCPA is and why they are certainly an interesting source on this issue, but perhaps should be questioned as they have an overt political bias (NB - I'm not saying that those who advocate AGW don't, you should question them too)? Check some of their funding while you're at it.

Here's a hint - you're not going to find a link to the magically authoritative end of all debate website/article/opinion that you are looking for. It doesn't exist in the real world of science, but whatever reinforces your 'beliefs' and what you 'think' is probably going to keep being posted. I note no-one has mentioned the IPCC report yet.

[Gewehr98]

Well, the Weather Channel is pushing the concept full-steam-ahead, with "Dr." Heidi Cullen calling for revocation of AMA certification for any meteorologist who doesn't fall in lock-step with her global warming theory.  I watched the Weather Channel's "Climate Code" last night, they were discussing the fragility of the Florida Everglades were sea levels to rise due to global warming and subsequent ice cap melting.

Duh. The Everglades have been in serious decline for the last 60 years or more, and it ain't global warming that's the culprit.

The Florida Everglades ecosystem got into that dire predicament when their feedwaters were reduced in 1948, thereby drying up huge areas of the former wetlands and allowing residential development. Only now is there a $7.8 Billion/30 year plan in effect to restore and preserve that ecosystem. 

Is it getting warmer?  Certainly.  Did the English have some nice vineyards in the Middle Ages?  Yup.  Are they finding Viking settlements in Greenland that were previously hidden by glaciers?  Yup.  Is the sky falling?  Nope.  Are we poor stewards of the environment we inhabit, particularly since the Industrial Revolution?  Of course.  Is the sky falling?  No.  But there are some Chicken Littles I'd like to grill up and serve. 

[Manedwolf]

Then we have the NOAA photos of the melting of the Artic sea ice. 

You want to see "alarming", look at the photos of the sudden disintigration of the entire McLaren ice shelf. Greenland is showing the same warning signs it showed...and now they know that such a sudden melting isn't like an ice cube, it's more like the sudden cascade failure of a material's structure. VERY sudden.

And whatever the "cause" is, the effects could be globally destabilizing in a very bad way. Many of the most important cities on the planet, due to trade and the need for water, are built ON THE WATER, on coasts or rivers.

Picture the Yangtze and other rivers in China backing up and flooding. Millions, perhaps even a billion people would be displaced from the lowlands and likely have to push up into a warmer Siberia, which Russia is not likely to tolerate. The same for India, where New Delhi and other places filled with masses of humanity would be sunk. Picture New York City, our financial capital, starting to flood. If the North Atlantic Conveyor were to shut down, Europe would become very cold and inhospitable, resulting in more refugees.

It's not "what caused it" anymore, IMO. It's "How should we be ready, in case?"

I can't fathom, for example, why they're not yet even considering how they might build something like the Thames Flood Barrier or the Holland high-tech flood barriers around Lower Manhattan before it's too late for such measures.

[Ron]

It's not "what caused it" anymore, IMO. It's "How should we be ready, in case?"

I agree.

We need to spend more time adapting vs arguing about causes. Not that causes aren't important.

[MechAg94]

If things change, it will be over a 100 years or more.  There is time to adapt. 

Does this mean yankees might get the pleasure of fire ants?   

[HankB]

JUST IMAGINE the tizzy global warming alarmists would be in if they had satellite photos dating back to the last Ice Age, when a continuous sheet of ice covered North America from the pole down to Iowa . . . and sea levels were some 400 feet lower than they are now. 

In more historic times . . . aren't there an awful lot of cities (including a good part of ancient Alexandria) around the Mediterranean that were submerged by rising sea levels centuries before the Industrial Revolution?

[lee n. field]

Global warming my ass.  The weather thingee on the Gnome launchbar says It's minus 8 good old American Fahrenheit degrees out there right now.  It doesn't get that cold here but once every 5 to 10 years or so.

[mtnbkr]

Global warming my ass.  The weather thingee on the Gnome launchbar says It's minus 8 good old American Fahrenheit degrees out there right now.  It doesn't get that cold here but once every 5 to 10 years or so.

And a few weeks ago it was 70degrees here in Northern Va.  I don't know what it was last year at the same time, but it was certainly not 70deg.  Folks around here had trees blooming that don't normally bloom till April or so.

So, if your unseasonably warm weather means global warming is a myth, does our unseasonably warm weather mean it's true?

No picking a side either way, but let's not point to one region's temporary weather fluke as proof of anything other than the fickle side of Mother Nature...

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Saying "well, it was cold today!" is remarkably shortsighted.

REAL, hard science, based on hard data, says that sea levels are likely to rise significantly, either over the next century, or sooner. That would, at present, be a global disaster that would wreck economies and destabilize entire regions, with mass refugee situations and wars. OUR economic and trade centers are all on the water.

Now, do we continue to argue over what the cause might be, or do we prepare for what Bad Things Could Happen, the exact same reason a lot of us have a stock of ammunition and emergency food supplies? Protecting a coastal city from rising water takes a lot longer to plan and execute than buying a thousand rounds of .223! Other nations are a lot better prepared already, with some of the northern European nations having computer-controlled floodgate systems and locks around their harbors, and even the UK having the aforementioned Thames flood barrier to keep London from having the seasonal floods it used to suffer. What are we going to do? Argue whether it's real till taxis are floating down Fifth Avenue and Wall Street is wrecked, till there's refugees from elsewhere pouring in from all sides? If that's not SHTF for our economy, I don't quite know what would be.

Grasshopper or ant time, IMO.

[richyoung]

I note no-one has mentioned the IPCC report yet.

THAT politics-driven pile of rubbish?!?!?!?

[Antibubba]

Weather is not climate.  It's a small part of climate.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

It's about money, and control, and power.  That's all it is.  Yes, the earth is getting warmer.  Big friggin' deal.  It does that some times.  In a hundred years, it'll probably get cold again. 

[MechAg94]

No picking a side either way, but let's not point to one region's temporary weather fluke as proof of anything other than the fickle side of Mother Nature...

AGW supporters need to stop doing that as well.  Every time it is warm, all you hear about it global warming. 

[MechAg94]

Saying "well, it was cold today!" is remarkably shortsighted.

REAL, hard science, based on hard data, says that sea levels are likely to rise significantly, either over the next century, or sooner. That would, at present, be a global disaster that would wreck economies and destabilize entire regions, with mass refugee situations and wars. OUR economic and trade centers are all on the water.

Now, do we continue to argue over what the cause might be, or do we prepare for what Bad Things Could Happen, the exact same reason a lot of us have a stock of ammunition and emergency food supplies? Protecting a coastal city from rising water takes a lot longer to plan and execute than buying a thousand rounds of .223! Other nations are a lot better prepared already, with some of the northern European nations having computer-controlled floodgate systems and locks around their harbors, and even the UK having the aforementioned Thames flood barrier to keep London from having the seasonal floods it used to suffer. What are we going to do? Argue whether it's real till taxis are floating down Fifth Avenue and Wall Street is wrecked, till there's refugees from elsewhere pouring in from all sides? If that's not SHTF for our economy, I don't quite know what would be.

Grasshopper or ant time, IMO.

Mannedwolf, if it happens over the next 100 years or longer, it is not a disaster and we will adjust over time.  The stuff showing shorter durations are mostly scare mongering brought about by worst case scenario climate models that were done solely to get headlines.  Last reasonable estimate I saw at 6 degrees in 100 years.  I think it was only a few feet increase in sea level.  Not a disaster.  You have to remember that this won't all happen tomorrow.  I think anything that can be done could be done in less than 10 years anyway so there is no reason to get in a hurry.

Even so, what would be your solutions?  Do you really want to prepare for a disaster in 20 years when we can't really prove it will happen?  Something also tells me that most of those preparations in Europe have dual purposes like the floods in London.  We have flood prevention stuff around New Orleans also, it just didn't work too well against a hurricane. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No picking a side either way, but let's not point to one region's temporary weather fluke as proof of anything other than the fickle side of Mother Nature...

AGW supporters need to stop doing that as well.  Every time it is warm, all you hear about it global warming. 

Any time the weather is anything unusual you hear about global warming.  Heat wave?  Global climate change.  Cold spells and blizzards?  Global climate change.  Hurricanes?  Global climate change.  No hurricanes?  Global climate change.  It's actually kind of clever, from a marketing standpoint.  Start with something you know is going to change often (the weather), and then claim that those inevitable changes are proof-positive of global warming.

If there's one thing you can count on about weather and climate, it's change.  The climate, like every other natural system, has been fluctuating ever since the earth was young.  Of course there's global climate change, it just isn't the catastrophe change that the alarmists and fearmongers would have us believe.

The global warming alarmists have been crying wolf for decades.  I'm not aware of any prediction they've made that has come true.  Yet they still insist, despite their zero-accuracy track record, that they know what's going to happen in the next 30 or 40 or 100 years.

Dasmi is right.  This is all about power and control and money.  The environment is incidental.  Note that the alarmists universally demand that we renounce our technology and industry to save the planet, rather than harnessing it to solve any potential problems.  Modern technology and productivity could be the greatest boon to environmental protection mankind has ever known.  Yet the global warming proponents want us to eliminate this boon. 

It's always anti-capitalism, never pro-environment.

[Art Eatman]

The politics is about what to do about global warming.  Not about whether or not there is a rise in average temperatures. 

The increase in CO2--the "hockey stick"--is a set of data points.  How much of that is attributable to human activities is subject to argument.

Note that the projections are basically threefold:  First, the nightime lows will be affected much more than daytime highs.  It ain't gonna get that hot at midday.

Next, there will be some rise in sea level.  Ergo, don't live near sea level. 

Then there is the change expected in weather patterns.  Drouth here, mildew there.  Stronger storms are possible. 

Adapt?  Sure, to some extent.  Mainly, move away from cities.  Move away from seacoasts.  Move to an area with ample groundwater, and figure out about gardening.  IOW, basic preparations for an uncertain future.  No biggie.

Art

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The politics is about what to do about global warming.  Not about whether or not there is a rise in average temperatures...

That's not entirely accurate.  The only thing we know conclusively is that atmosphereic CO2 levels are rising.  There's still plenty of debate and rational challenge to the notion that average global temperatures are rising.  There isn't really even conclusive understanding of how to measure mean global temperatures. 

Do you measure global average temperature by surface weather stations?  Do those weather station readings need to be corrected for urban sprawl and urban heat bubble effects?  If so, how much correction, and how do you know you aren't over- or under-correcting?  Do you give each station equal weight when computing the average, even though most of the stations are clumped together in North America and Western Europe?  If not equal weighting, do you leave any weather stations out of the computations?  If so, how do you decide which stations to leave out and which to retain?  What do you do about the lack of surface weather data over most of the Pacific Ocean and polar ice caps?  Do you rely upon the much more accurate satellite readings of atmospheric temperature?  If so, do they show an average increase or decrease in temperature?  What do you do if your satellite data contradicts your surface data?  What about global ocean temperatures?  Is the purported temperature rise observed in other systems, such as ocean levels or biomass densities?  Do you correlate your temperature data against growth in industry?  Against increases in solar output?  Against long-term climate trends?  Does that "hockey-stick" trend really indicate something unprecedented is happening?  Do our anthropological climate records retain sufficient resolution to know whether or not any previous "hockey-stick" trends ever occurred?

And the biggest question of them all:  If the temperature really is rising, and it really is mankind's fault, is it actually a good idea to try to reverse the trend?

None of these questions can be answered conclusively.  Not yet, anyway.  Even the biggest and best report on global climate change to date, the one released to the UN recently, admits that previous estimates and reports overestimated mankind's impact and future risk by at least 1/3. 

[Art Eatman]

I don't have a clue about the specifics of measurements as to where and how, for these claimed higher temperatures.  I find the NOAA data on the Arctic Ocean ice rather convincing that it's warmer over those gazillions of square miles than in the past.

I've commented before on ancecdotal stuff; northward movement of critters and of earlier blooming of flowers.

Iv'e no clue about how severe it could be.  Since I don't see what really can be done about it within any couple of generations of effort, if not more, I'm certainly not going to get excited about it.

Since I don't really like cold weather, at this point I'm not particularly whelmed by the whole deal.

SFAIK I'm among the first, years ago, to comment about the increase in land areas for grain production.  (Stipulating adequate water, of course.)

I guess I could write a book--but I won't--about "cures" for The Problem.  That is, much of what's proposed about cutting back on energy use of all type strikes me as wise and intelligent--but for the government fiat nature of it all.  E.g., big SUVs are unwise investments to begin with; beyond "personal satisfaction" they rarely fulfill any particularly useful purpose.  Dumb use of moneyin my opinion.  Hummers and Escalades are like cocaine:  God's way of telling you that you have too much money.  But, I don't like using the law to inculcate common sense into people.

I'm a Depression Baby.  I think in terms of savings and looking toward independently creating a secure old age via my own efforts.  "Instant gratification" is a very, very small part of my motivations.  Since I'm not eat up with a roaring case of the I Want, "less is more" is not an insult, to me.  I'm more into quality of life, not quantity of toys.  But I don't want the government involved in the decision-making process.

The big However, seems to me, is that people ARE eat up with the I Want.  People DO want their instant gratification.  The bottom line is that when people in general abdicate personal responsibility, some level of government steps in to extend its power.  The truthful, the factual causal relationships always succumb to the perceptions.

Art