Posted on 12/02/2004 10:33:15 AM PST by Marine_Uncle
Our society is turning toward more and more needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer.... Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species.
This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.
— Jacques Cousteau
UNESCO Courier (French language edition), November 1991
Thank you for a beautiful off-topic reply based on a typographical error. I learned something.
Kabar, I have been intrigued by (and even assisted in a minor way with research on) deep-sea volcanism. The fact of this matter is: there is a lot of deep-sea volcanism, much as yet unmapped. But the vast volume of the oceans precludes deep-sea volcanism from being a significant source of heat/warming in the oceans.
Dimples, a quick precis: In the 20th century, temperatures warmed slightly (perhaps a continuation of warming out of the Little Ice Age, a slight increase in solar activity, and a contribution from land-use change) from the turn-of-the-century into the 1930s. Then temperatures dipped from the 1940s to the 1970s -- the 1970s were quite cool. From the 1980s on, there has been a more rapid warming trend. The marked increase in the warming trend starting in the 1980s is what has been pointed to as climate change that is being caused primarily by human (anthropogenic) factors.
So when I made my unequivocal statement, I meant there has been measurable warming in the 20th century, and a marked warming trend at the end of the 20th century continuing to present.
I don't know if scientific evidence supports such a contention. Obviously, the information provided in my link says otherwise. Something is affecting the temperature rise in the oceans.
We’ve forgotten that this isn’t the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age.
As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began.
We are living in a period of vastly increased volcanism, said Dixy Lee Ray in her 1993 book Environmental Overkill, the greatest in 500 years.
Eighty percent of all volcanism (say experts at NOAA) occurs underwater. Therefore, underwater volcanism should also be the greatest in 500 years.
The problem is that it isn't a hoax. (See the reply that is probably just above this one, to Dimples.) Every single model that can be made of the current climate system, incorporating the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, finds warming as a consequence, and because this is due in part to the increasing CO2 concentration, the anthropogenic contribution is not negligible. The marked increase in global temperatures beginning in the 1980s bears the "fingerprint" of anthropogenic factors.
For an alternate opinion, I will provide Dr. Patrick Michaels, one of the most outspoken climate change skeptics in the current debate:
Revised 21st century temperature projections
"ABSTRACT: Temperature projections for the 21st century made in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate a rise of 1.4 to 5.8°C for 1990-2100. However, several independent lines of evidence suggest that the projections at the upper end of this range are not well supported. Since the publication of the TAR, several findings have appeared in the scientific literature that challenge many of the assumptions that generated the TAR temperature range. Incorporating new findings on the radiative forcing of black carbon (BC) aerosols, the magnitude of the climate sensitivity, and the strength of the climate/carbon cycle feedbacks into a simple upwelling diffusion/energy balance model similar to the one that was used in the TAR, we find that the range of projected warming for the 1990-2100 period is reduced to 1.1-2.8°C. When we adjust the TAR emissions scenarios to include an atmospheric CO2 pathway that is based upon observed CO2 increases during the past 25 yr, we find a warming range of 1.5-2.6°C prior to the adjustments for the new findings. Factoring in these findings along with the adjusted CO2 pathway reduces the range to 1.0-1.6°C. And thirdly, a simple empirical adjustment to the average of a large family of models, based upon observed changes in temperature, yields a warming range of 1.3-3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C. The constancy of these somewhat independent results encourages us to conclude that 21st century warming will be modest and near the low end of the IPCC TAR projections."
This is a published, peer-reviwed paper. So one of the most prominent climate change skeptics indicates that the warming range expected for this century lies between 1.0 and 3.0 degrees C, with the "best value" 1.9 degrees C, which is three times faster than the rate of warming in the 20th century -- and at least some of this warming in the 21st century will be due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations -- meaning human factors are implicated.
The argument should center on whether or not global warming in the 21st century will be a problem. If Michaels is wrong, and the warming is twice what he thinks is likely (the "low end of the IPCC TAR projections"), then it will be. There's a paper out right now in Nature in which two different groups find that the European scorching summer of 2003 will be the normal summer weather 50% of the time in 2050 (but they do use one of the more outlandish projections of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, so I tend not to believe it will be that bad). However, it would be less-than-ideal of a summer like 2003 happened once every five years.
I could not find a specific site in your post or in the article. So I looked on Google and found the following:
Global Warming: Glaciers and Ice Caps
Read those articles and see what you think. I have not seen any recent references to glaciers growing or the Arctic ice cap getting larger. All of the references that I've seen in the past five years have indicated that glacial recession is the norm (though they are still some glaciers advancing), and the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.
I am convinced as has been stated elsewhere in these treads that the sun has more to do with crustal and atmospheric warming then anything mankind could be found guilty of. If the sun is pumping out huge amounts of IR etc. due to increase sun spot activities the earth is going to become warmer. Period.
You're right, if the Sun is becoming more active, then this would be true. But for the past 25 years or so, this apparently does not apply, and the Earth is still getting warmer.
The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change
Thanks for the reference sites. Here is one for you if you are interested:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_27b.html
I found it contains some rather interesting articles as how biased certain groups have been on the global warming issue.
Interesting article on Krill verse ice pack in the Orkany Island chain north of Antartic mainland. Another on the supposed air temp increases north of N62 deg.
I wish I could find where I read something recently on mis-reporting as to the thickness of certain areas of the north polar ice cap, supposedly shrinking, but upon carefull investigation, it was found to be misleading. That is, the areas measured by one of our subs, reported X thicknesses in given location. Upon returning to same area later, the thickness diminished, but then it was found that the ice simply shifted a bit, and the conclusion was that there was no loss of ice in that area. Just to much stuff comes out only to be later refuted by someone else.
At any rate, thanks for the hyperlinks.
Ah. Here is a site that talks about the "growing size of glaciers in north america". Here is the reference.
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Interesting. I am reading about the Himalayas's problem with shrinking glaciers from the the site you share above, then see an opposite situation in what I read concerning north america.
Both are probably accurate un-biased reports. And climatic changes in Europe show a positive temperature rise. Then we can go down to the Antarctic and find colder surface/air temps on the main continent, resulting in increased polar cap thickness. Then we can according to some find that the north pole ice cap is actually growing in size rather then shrinking. We can read one scientific research report that negates the findings of another due to many reasons such as not including known reliable data taken from other similiar investigations. I can read in one report that the projected air temperature rise globally may be 1.7 deg C./ year, and in another report find it will differ.
I for one only would expect honest scientific research to be conducted then reported. But I realize the many reasons why this is a pipe dream. And honesty does not neccessarily indicate that one is presenting the "facts". Often the most conclusive research often can be found quite flawed.
This is one reason I have not delved into the global warming issue up to this point. It only bothers me when certain elements try to use it to extract American dollars for third world nations etc., weaken the ability of industry in this country to produce goods, based on erroneous research.
STUDY SHOWS POTENTIAL FOR ANTARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE
"Findings from the study, conducted by researchers Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), New York, appear in this week's Geophysical Research Letters. Shindell and Schmidt found depleted ozone levels and greenhouse gases are contributing to cooler South Pole temperatures."
"Low ozone levels in the stratosphere and increasing greenhouse gases promote a positive phase of a shifting atmospheric climate pattern in the Southern Hemisphere, called the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). A positive SAM isolates colder air in the Antarctic interior."
"In the coming decades, ozone levels are expected to recover due to international treaties that banned ozone-depleting chemicals. Higher ozone in the stratosphere protects Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation. The study found higher ozone levels might have a reverse impact on the SAM, promoting a warming, negative phase. In this way, the effects of ozone and greenhouse gases on the SAM may cancel each other out in the future. This could nullify the SAM's affects and cause Antarctica to warm."
A reference to the study you are describing above was provided in another thread I participated in, probably in the last month. Googling... here's one reference to it. The study you mentioned was conducted by Holloway.
In response to that, I found a reference that indicates something even more complex is at work. Googling again... and may I say Google is darned amazing at times, it found the FR thread:
Arctic sea ice not melting: new research
The weird thing I noted when I saw this was that the initial article was dated 2001. Not exactly new. The key posts in the thread are 15, 16, 19, 23, and 25.
This brief exchange demonstrates one of the things that I know about science, which I think many people don't always realize -- to whit, that it's rare to ever "settle" a contentious issue in science. A new piece of data or a new way to analyze it can completely flummox the existing "understanding" and push it in a whole new direction. Hard certainty is hard to come by in science. Sooo... there are a lot of data indicating that the Earth has been a relatively rapid warming state since the 1980s, and an increasing number of climate scientists are stating that this is probably a warming "signal" with an anthropogenic component. There are very likely natural factors involved as well, which can both contribute to or detract from the present and future warming. What really needs to be done now is to concentrate on getting a much-improved handle on what's most likely to happen in the next 50 years or so, so that useful and expedient responses can be formulated, and implemented when necessary.
And I don't think that restrictive and punitive methods such as those used by the Kyoto Protocol will ever be useful and expedient.
To believe that mankind can have any lasting impact on the earth (positive or negative) is the height of arrogance.
The human species will suffer the same fate as all the others that have gone before. Entire civilizations have vanished, and yet the earth remains. Mankind invests billions of dollars and millions of manhours each year, just to preserve what little marks we have made, yet the earth will eventually make all of that effort meaningless. Everything that man has built will decay and disappear, yet the earth will remain.
You are making my point. Temps from the PRIOR interglacial period (125,000 to 130,000 years ago or so), crested higher than temps today. It would seem, that even without the dreaded anthropogenic CO2, the climate is quite capable of warming.
If one only goes back to the 1400's, one finds a climate warmer than today.
One might be tempted to view 20th century warming as a recovery from 19th century cooling.
The problem, as I see it, is not warming or cooling (Climate Happens;)it's the notion that HUMANKIND is responsible for it.
You have admitted in prior discussions that we do not know if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a CAUSE or an EFFECT of warming. To presume CO2 is the cause is to build subjective bias into the models.
Which takes me back to my other point: what agenda is at work behind the "Global Warming is all man's fault" crowd?
The debate about whether warming is happing is but a diversion from the real issue. Warming happens, Cooling happens, Ice Age happens. There is no "normal" nor "ideal" climate unless you accept constant change as the norm. The real issue is whether science will continue to be the "useful idiot" of those who either wish to cripple the US or just don't think humankind belongs in nature.
No, I'm not making your point, you're trying to make yours. There are various rates and magnitudes of climate change. Sure, temperatures have been higher in the geological past -- but the climate system was different. The Earth was different. Rates are different; the mechanisms that change global temperatures over millions of years are different from those that change temperatures over thousands of years, and those are different from the mechanisms that change temperatures over hundreds of years or decades.
You asked about how "global warming" was defined. I told you. In the present debate, it's basically about now and the past 150 years.
If one only goes back to the 1400's, one finds a climate warmer than today.
That's a debatable point, but yes, the 1400s were warm. The absolute magnitude vs. today is less important than how long it took to get there. The data appear to indicate that the warming into the 1400s started roughly AD 1000. And cooling off from 1400 to the depths of the early 1800s took, obviously, 200-300 years. The changes being observed over this century are 2-5 times faster. That's critical to the attribution of the mechanism that can drive such changes.
One might be tempted to view 20th century warming as a recovery from 19th century cooling.
Maybe the case can be made for the late 19th century and very early 20th century. Not after the 1930s.
You have admitted in prior discussions that we do not know if atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a CAUSE or an EFFECT of warming. To presume CO2 is the cause is to build subjective bias into the models.
There's no doubt that atmospheric CO2 affects the overall radiative balance. There's a lot of feedbacks involved in what happens after, so calculation of the overall effect is not straightforward. In glacial-interglacial transitions, a warming ocean released CO2 -- warmer waters can hold less dissolved CO2 than colder waters. This is why temperature increases drive CO2 at those transitions. But global climate models which model the Pleistocene glaciations incorporate the radiative effects of CO2. There have to be "override" mechanisms such as Milankovitch forcing that counter the CO2-climate connection.
Which takes me back to my other point: what agenda is at work behind the "Global Warming is all man's fault" crowd?
A totally different question. Addressing the political motives of those for and against the global warming response is different than a scientific assessment of what's really happening.
There is no "normal" nor "ideal" climate unless you accept constant change as the norm.
I disagree somewhat with that. Stating as a given that there is some contribution of anthropogenic factors to climate (noting that one recent paper indicated that climate effects can even be discerned at the advent of human agriculture) -- there is a theoretical mode of climate absent all anthropogenic forcing, and there is the real mode of climate which includes anthropogenic forcing. Since humans are present on Earth, "normal" is present-day climate. Ideally, humans would act to limit the deleterious effects of anthropogenic forcing as much as is possible. But ideal conflicts with reality when including economic and social factors. We can't deny a decent standard of living to those who don't have it now just because we don't want them to do the same things to the environment that we did to get where we are now, and we shouldn't have to hurt our own standards of living, either, especially when climate change outcomes are so poorly defined. So the alternative is to try and figure out what's going on, and to do what can feasibly be done to reduce the potential bad effects.
"A reference to the study you are describing above was provided in another thread I participated in, probably in the last month. Googling... here's one reference to it. The study you mentioned was conducted by Holloway."
Then you included two addtional links, one you participated at Freeper Site (Holloway) the other on the Thaw Observations on Thin Ice.
Thanks. Interesting. I really enjoyed examining the charts indicating where the subs took readings, and how some areas gained more ice while others lost due to wind patterns and perhaps ocean currents. Obviouse there was not to much total loss as has been reported elsewhere.
No response neccessary. I think I need time to just go through all the new sites found, and absorb a bit better what has been offered.
For example I was working with an endangered rattlesnake. My research showed that the decline was due to habitat loss/degradation. In the park I work at, several wetlands (the hibernacula for this particular snake) were ditched prior to the park formation. While it would be irresponsible to say that the ditch itself is responsible for the decline, the subsequent loss of proper wetland habitat clearly is. The data shows the presence of the ditch is not related to this snakes presence or abundance, while the data does show that the presence or lack of ephemeral wetlands is related. The presence of ephemeral wetlands was shown not to be related to ditches, as some ditched areas still contain these wetlands due to other factor (mainly topography). That puts the researcher in a conundrum in that a simple logical extrapolation of my data makes it clear that the ditching of the wetland is a major cause of the decline, however I cannot attribute the actual ditch to it. As a scientist I can only report what I found, the interpretation of it is up to the reader. Hopefully that somewhat explains where I am coming from. It is very difficult to show direction causation in an open system, I think this holds true in the global warming issue as well as some of my work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.