Global warming

[Transplant]

The entire debate that the US goes through when this Country decides not to sign an international agreement is quite ironic.

On one hand the US won't listen to the rest of the world when it comes to global warming.

On the other hand, we demand certain countries to listen to those same foreigh countries on other matters.

So, its ok for the US to poo-poo the Kyoto accords. But when Iran poo-poos the International Nuclear Agreements..... Very bad form.

(note: I do not condone Iran)

[sax184]

I'll play Devil's advocate: Suppose that we prove that a 20% reduction in use of fossil fuels actually drives a downward trend in temperatures of 1 degree per 100 years? What policies do we implement then?

I'd suggest starting at the UNC Carbon Reduction Project (CRed).

[MR-2]

If you watch the movie, the science examines temperatures from core ice samples going back several hundred thousand years (that scientists used to determine periods of the ice ages), so it's more like 400,000 years--not 400. Using that data, which predates human history, the earth has NEVER been hotter than it is at this point in time. That is an astounding fact, if you back up and think about it. It's really a perfect title to the movie, Inconvenient Truth. There are so many people with their head in the sand...

We know it was hotter at one point when life was on it. The Eocene period was an Earth without icecaps. Ocean levels were at their highest ever. Temperate forests extended right up to the poles. The era was host to one of our many mass extinctions, resulting in a very homogenous set of species covering the planet. This is the future we're looking at.

[dmccall]

Seeing this movie made me think of something...when I was growing up in the eighties, it seems that every winter we had a good snowstorm or two. I remember the fun of getting picked up early from school, staying out a few days in an unexpected winter vacation, making snowmen, throwing snowballs, etc.

We average 7.5" of snow each season. Given that we have had these three large events,

* January 2000...25.8 inches

* February 1979...17.2 inches

* March 1980

[monsoon]

Actually, what you can expect to see is more frequent storms that dump a lot of water in a small amount of time which was recently experienced in Raleigh. This is because as the air gets warmer, it absorbs more moisture from the ground. In North Carolina's case air masses moving west to east will be loaded with water and when they collide with cooler air over the oceans, you get a lot of rain.

Now when these storms happen in the winter, you get snowfalls that are record breaking but of short duration when the conditions are right. This is quite different when it was generally cooler and snowfalls tended to be a lot less in amount, but lasted longer and there were more of them.

[MR-2]

Average snowfall has gone steadily downhill each year. We had a decent snow-sleet mix two years ago that kept below freezing for a week, and got a layer of ice on it at one point. That was the last time it stayed freezing long enough for winter weather here.

There were bits last year. There was a tiny bit of snow on one occasion. Just west of Raleigh, Chapel Hill didn't get any winter percipitation at all. And this year, there was nothing once again.

We've had 'nothing years' before, but I don't remember ever having two contiguously, after a 'something year' that really wasn't very much. We had multiple 3-inch snow storms reliably in the early 90s, and occasionally something bigger. We had on-off years in the late 90s, and in 2001, 2002, with extra snow during the 'on' year. Now, we just have off years it seems.

It gets down to freezing, but the moment moister rolls in, it warms up enough to make it rain.

[Subway Scoundrel]

I'm curious why we should think Gore is qualified to speak on this subject.

Why would someone like Shawn Hanity be qualified to speak on the subject? Or Rush? Or George Will?

I think Gore's credibility is a major issue. He IS NOT a scientist and probably doesn't understand any of the data-this is complex climatology/ecology data that is still being debated in the scientific community today. Remember, Gore is the self-proclaimed developer of the internet and the inspiration of the movie "Love Story" (which wasn't true). I don't dispute the potential for global warming but Gore is a megalomaniac.

But why does Shawn Hannity fill the airways taking the opposite view every afternoon. I would think people would go after him and he speaks on this 4 times a week (and how it is bogus). I don't think he went to MIT.

[Subway Scoundrel]

Er, well it does b/c these are actual scientists with opposing views. That's the debate. I could supply a lot more but I have a day job. All I would say to people is keep an open mind and don't swallow whole everthing ol' Al Gore tries to tell us.

Like listening to debates by Jerry Falwell and Darwin.

[Subway Scoundrel]

I'm absolutely sure that we can find evidence of climate changes since we started gathering data. The three real questions are:

* Are we basing a conclusion on too small of a sample size (any data extrapolated from before data measuring equipment was invented is up to debate)?

* Are we assuming that any changes that we see are the result of human behavior?

* Are we assuming that humans can create change to overcome powerful exogenous factors?

According to some, the earth was once a giant rock leaving an explosion. We got to this point somehow, and there's no reason to assume the Earth won't still continue morphing. I think there is plenty of room for debate of the facts, causes, effects, etc. (I should disclose that I have not seen the movie)

I totally agree and not sure of all the data as the world is an old place and many changes. But the thing that gets me............If you know somthing is bad, no matter the discussion points around it, why continue?

Just to argue for a politcal side or to save "my" job? Or to not give someone power? When we know that poluting the skies with everything possible is not good.

I do think some of this is liberal alarmist BS and does go too far but I also think that the other side would swallow Drano every day, not because it not good for them, but to prove the point that Drano is "made by Americans and the Unamericans don't suport USA jobs" "And I heard "Shawn Limbaugh" says it is good for America"

Just reading the responses here reaks with so much political smack that you have to wonder what are the real reasons both sides take their views.

[raleighfan]

But why does Shawn Hannity fill the airways taking the opposite view every afternoon. I would think people would go after him and he speaks on this 4 times a week (and how it is bogus). I don't think he went to MIT.

I'm not sure where Sean Hannity went to school. But Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and he writes a very interesting article on the origins of the supposed "consensus" on Global Warming. He doesn't appear (at least to me) have any need for any political agenda:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[JDC]

So many people have a distorted view of the man thru the media.

People have a distorted view about global warming because of the media too. Notice that many of the posts on here with a links to stories about global warming being debatable are from the popular media (and not from scientific journals). The media tends to oversimplify issues because of airtime, column inches, etc. Get your science info from scientists, not reporters (or the White House for that matter).

He's been painted so far out of the mainstream, that I wonder if moderates and right-wingers will take him seriously.

They ought to: he won the 2000 presidential election.

Since this thread began with movie news, I'd like to add this tidbit:

WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?

Opens in the Triangle this summer.

[intcvlcphlga]

I'm not sure where Sean Hannity went to school. But Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and he writes a very interesting article on the origins of the supposed "consensus" on Global Warming. He doesn't appear (at least to me) have any need for any political agenda:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Keep in mind that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank. And, the article you linked appears to be about 14 years old since it is referencing the Earth Summit in Rio from 1992 and the then Senator Gore.

Here's a link to another "acclaimed" scientist's web presentation from 2 months ago: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/nas_24april2006.pdf

[raleighfan]

Yeah, no doubt, it is an old article. I was looking for some sort of answer on how this whole "group think" on global warming started. I think the points he makes still basically stand...

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do."

[intcvlcphlga]

Yeah, no doubt, it is an old article. I was looking for some sort of answer on how this whole "group think" on global warming started. I think the points he makes still basically stand...

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do."

All I ask is that you give equal credence to an Ivy League scientist who is not affiliated with a political think-tank (the Cato Institute) and a presentation from 2006 (keep in mind that the 1990s were the hottest decade in recorded history and that occured after Professor Lindzen wrote his article). Dr. Hansen, a climate scientist, is a professor at Columbia, a member of the NAS and the director of the Goddard Space Institute of NASA. None of these institutions are partisan or lobbyist organizations. They have no profit motive in supporting or debunking global warming.

As far as scientists from other disciplines such as biology, chemistry, botany, etc. being asked about global warming, it is difficult to isolate different scientific fields of study when say studying the effects of the environment on a specific organism. You can't render a biologists opinion irrelevant if he notices a change in his study subjects that are consistent with a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature doesn't work that way - and nature isn't partisan. Ever heard of Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?

[peaceloveunderstanding]

What do you guys think about this press release from the U.S. Senate Committe on Enviornment and Public Works?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257909

[yoga]

I don't know what to think of the whole global warming thing. My BIL is a geologist and I asked him what he thought. His response was that it's such a small sliver of time relative to the life of the planet that he didn't see how they could necessarily conclude anything. THat was several years ago when I asked him - I should ask him again to see if he's changed thought.

**edit**

After reading this, I can see intcvlcphlga's point.

As far as scientists from other disciplines such as biology, chemistry, botany, etc. being asked about global warming, it is difficult to isolate different scientific fields of study when say studying the effects of the environment on a specific organism. You can't render a biologists opinion irrelevant if he notices a change in his study subjects that are consistent with a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature doesn't work that way - and nature isn't partisan. Ever heard of Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?

[raleighfan]

I don't know what to think of the whole global warming thing. My BIL is a geologist and I asked him what he thought. His response was that it's such a small sliver of time relative to the life of the planet that he didn't see how they could necessarily conclude anything. THat was several years ago when I asked him - I should ask him again to see if he's changed thought.

sounds like a rational way to go about it

[yoga]

Here is my geologist BIL's response to my inquiry what he thinks about the global warming thing:

Throughout geologic history there have been many times when the earth was

much warmer (and colder) than now. We are learning that these changes in

world climate can occur (and have occurred) very quickly. There are

buffering systems in place that tend to make the changes gradual. Some

researchers think that at some point the equilibrating forces lose out and

change comes with the surprise of an avalanche. We (people) could be an

insignificant little fly in the ointment until one day we become the straw

that breaks the camels back. Change in climate is normal and we probably

will not ever know all of the mechanisms involved. It is also impossible to

know whether we are that last straw but if we are doing things with our

daily activities which could contribute to the warming (which we are) then

doesn't it make sense we should do something to dampen our contribution. If

we don't, the next big CNN breaking news story might be about the Greenland

ice sheet crashing into the sea one sunny summer day real soon. Of course,

it might do that anyway!

[raleighfan]

That sounds like a level-headed, thoughtful response.

[raleighfan]

As far as scientists from other disciplines such as biology, chemistry, botany, etc. being asked about global warming, it is difficult to isolate different scientific fields of study when say studying the effects of the environment on a specific organism. You can't render a biologists opinion irrelevant if he notices a change in his study subjects that are consistent with a higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature doesn't work that way - and nature isn't partisan. Ever heard of Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?

Agreed. But nor should we rely too heavily on their findings either which a lot of the studies seem to do.

[Subway Scoundrel]

Agreed. But nor should we rely too heavily on their findings either which a lot of the studies seem to do.

Then who do you/we rely on ??

A former VP?

A radio host?

Poster on UP?

Just wondering?

[peaceloveunderstanding]

Then who do you/we rely on ??

A former VP?

A radio host?

Poster on UP?

Just wondering?

Me, myself, and I.

Seriously, I don't know enough to make any conclusion, there is strong evidence for both sides of the issue. If in doubt nothing should be done.

[raleighfan]

Then who do you/we rely on ??

A former VP?

A radio host?

Poster on UP?

Just wondering?

Poster at UP. Pick one.

[sax184]

What do you guys think about this press release from the U.S. Senate Committe on Enviornment and Public Works?

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?pa...p&id=257909

I think that a Senate committee releasing a press release in which it ignores the work of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, a "private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter" by its own definition-- and prefers instead the work of junkscience.com, is a very clear sign of how far our government's vital functions have been compromised for the benefit of our current leadership's large donor base in the past 6 years.

[ChiefJoJo]

Seriously, I don't know enough to make any conclusion, there is strong evidence for both sides of the issue. If in doubt nothing should be done.

This is what the administration, big oil, big industry, etc, wants to have happen. To much confusion and "noise" on the issue to the point where individuals give in and don't act at all.

Anybody notice the Academy's committee on surface temps has a local member?

Peter Bloomfield

Professor of Statistics and of Financial Mathematics

North Carolina State University

Raleigh