backtop


Print 63 comment(s) - last by derdon.. on May 25 at 8:54 AM

More evidence this week shows the effects of global warming may be largely exaggerated

Der Spiegel, Europe's largest weekly news magazine, has a lengthy piece on the effects of global warming.  Their conclusion, reached from interviews with prominent scientists, matches what you've been reading here in this blog for the past year.  There's absolutely nothing to panic about. 

According to the study, most nations will actually benefit from global warming, with drought-stricken areas like sub-Saharan Africa seeing a bit more rain, and extremely cold areas like Northern Europe blessed with a more moderate climate and longer growing seasons.  The Southeastern U.S. is expected to see a little less rain, but for tourism-heavy Florida (which bills itself as the "Sunshine State" despite abnormally high rainfall) this may be a net positive as well.

Nations like Germany and Scandinavia are predicted to see a tourism boom, along with saving billions in winter heating costs.  Areas already tropically hot are not expected to see temperature increases, but Germany alone is predicted to see up to 40,000 fewer deaths per year from cold-related illnesses.

More precise computer models have drastically reduced the anticipated amount of sea level rise.  It now stands at 16 inches over the next century ... a per-year rate which is tiny, and can easily be compensated in storm-surge prone areas by building taller dikes. 

As for increasing storm activity, the models just don't support it. The report indicates that cloud cover is the most significant factor in global warming models.  High clouds generally indicate warming activity, lower clouds indicate cooling.  Storm activity, it seems, does not play a direct correlation to cooling and warming cycles.

A few quote highlights from the piece:

  • "We have to take away people's fear of climate change," Hans von Storch, climate researcher,  director of the Institute for Coastal Research.
  • "According to our computer model, neither the number nor intensity of storms is increasing," Jochem Marotzke, director, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.
  • "A warmer climate helps promote species diversity," Munich zoologist Josef Reichholf.

Here in the U.S., the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative Monthly has published an interview with Professor Reid Bryson, founder of the Center for Climatic Research, and the most cited climatologist in the world.  Bryson, one of the first researchers to claim humans were capable of affecting the climate, has this to say on the warming debate:

"All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd.  Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

He points out recently-found silver mines and irrigation canals, found underneath retreating glacial ice sheets in the Alps, clear proof these areas were ice-free during the Middle Ages.   He also reveals some interesting statistics on the relative effects of various greenhouse gases, noting that water vapor is responsible for 80% of all absorbed heat, whereas CO2 accounts for only 0.08% -- a thousandth as much.

Bryson makes a number of other telling points.  The interview is highly recommended to anyone interested in separating fact from hype in the global warming debate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ried F'n Bryson??
By sbandyk on 5/10/2007 12:15:36 AM , Rating: 2
I just googled a couple of the sources to see where the Der Spiegl article was coming from. My first try was an institute name that was so vague that there are many of them around the world. The second was Ried Bryson. Now I know who he is.

Ried Bryson is a favorite of the American Right Wing. He's also the point man for the Canadian Coal industry (and other industries). He's a crank.

I don't have time to track down all the background on him.. I encourage you all to weed through Right Wing, Pro-Business PR and look into him.

Here's what I remember about good old Ried.
He bills himself as a Paleoclimatologist and a Climatologist. He isn't. He's a meterologist. I'm not sure if it's still active but I had read that he was being sued for lying on his CV and misrepresenting himself.
He spent (if I remember correctly) 8 years as a faculty member [needs verification.. I could be mistaken] and he has an extremely light list of academic publication in respected journals.
He's a shill for the energy industry. The "Wisconson Energy Cooperative" noted in the blog.. which famously intervied Ried is a Cooperative of Energy Producers.

Oh, this one is great. Here's a quote from 'don't worry about Global Warming' Ried:
“There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not
merely something of academic interest.” Bryson warned, “It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.”

That was before he 'retired' and started working with the energy industry.

If you want to have some real fun.. just Google his name and notice how many times Reid Bryson is listed as a world famous "Climatologist". Small problem, HE ISN'T!

Personally, I'm not a researcher but I run IT at a research University with a large GeoPhysical Sciences department. I've yet to discover a single researcher here who doesn't believe humans are negatively affecting the environment.

There is a very large, very well funded disinformation operaton on Climate change. The disinformation campaign is run by corporations who benefit when we don't try to alter our carbon footprint. They have a direct and clear motivation to deny climate change.
On the other side are the researchers who are only wagering their professional reputations.
Until I see a smoking gun, I go with the vast majority of real independent Climatologists.

Steven.




RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By sbandyk on 5/10/2007 12:32:52 AM , Rating: 1
dang, almost forgot.. I had a couple other things to get off my chest.

Just a few misconceptions I can't stand hearing:

No, the world isn't turning into a giant desert. Climate change will make the climate less stable, warming the Atlantic stream may actually push Europe into a mini ice age.

Yes, temperature changes will be small. 1C world wide change can wreak havoc.

These effects are cumulative and exponential. When polar ice melts it doesn't just free water, it puts some of it in the atmosphere (trapping heat more than CO2) and it reduces white (reflective) land mass increasing solar absorption and increasing total energy (heat). If it's happening, it'll start slow.. real slow.. but it will speed up.

Just because this spring was cold doesn't mean that refutes global warming any more than last December's warmth proves it. This is big picture stuff.

.. I quit, really, there's too much.

Oh, and the latest OBSERVATIONS indicate things are getting worse FASTER than we previously thought.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic....
http://www.nbc6.net/msnbcnews/11621174/detail.html
The latest thinking is, it's worse than recently predicted:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=could_global...


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By TomZ on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By porkpie on 5/10/2007 9:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
Rofl, Bryson isn't 'working with the energy industry'. Amazing how low you guys will stoop.

BTW, you forgot to try and discredit all the other scientists in the article. Better get to work!


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By dever on 5/11/2007 1:19:37 PM , Rating: 1
It appears he didn't actually read the article... by the way, here's the correctly link for the der Spiegel article:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518...


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By dever on 5/11/2007 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 3
sbandyk, it appears that you believe that a researcher getting reimbursed by an "evil" company for a plane ticket and lodging to speak at a conference is tantamount to some corporate-conspiracy-flying-saucer-hoogy-boogy.

But, taking millions of dollars, by force, from the poorest in the country (ie federal taxes) to fund your entire life's work is great and honorable. Work that is shielded from the ultimate peer review - consumer preferences in the market.

Do you really believe that we should never question the motives of one who's living is made in academia through outright grant of money to one party taken by a second party (govt) from a third party (taxpayers)?


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By James Holden on 5/10/2007 2:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
Intersting post, good to see some of the sources for this, but I have a question for you -- why focus on the carbon footprint instead of, say, the methane footprint. Wasn't there a study that showed methane was 100x worse than CO2 with regard to trapping heat -- and that our methane footprint is much larger than the CO2 footprint?


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By peternelson on 5/11/2007 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 3
Methane is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, and the figure I saw was that methane was 20x more warming than CO2 (for a given amount of emission).

Research on this has shown that COWS are responsible for most methane emissions. However simply by changing the cattle feed you can DRASTICALLY reduce methane emissions. That is where your tax dollars should go first.

The other methane source is decomposing in landfill. That can be captured and used to generate energy rather than leak to atmosphere.


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 6:57:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Bryson bills himself as a Paleoclimatologist and a Climatologist. He isn't. He's a meterologist
How typical. Yet another scientist speaks out against global warming alarmism and hundreds of enviro-whackos scurry out of the woodwork to try and trash them.

Bryson has been doing climate research for decades. He's a climatologist. His degree is in meteorology of course, the same as most climatologists. There isn't a degree in climatology itself. But Bryson has not only been doing climate research, he's been teaching climatology at U. of Wisconsin for over 30 years. He founded the department for chrissakes.

Here's a link to the University website:

quote:
1970
Chancellor and Board of Regents approve reorganization of Institute for Environmental Studies (IES) into comprehensive, independent academic unit. Reid Bryson appointed first director.
The IES department includes a center for Marine Stuides, a Center of Climatic Research, the Ecological Study Group, Biotic Systems groups, Quantitative Ecosystems Modeling, Environmental Monitoring and Data Acquisition, and several other research arms.

http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/about/history.htm


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 7:08:26 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Here's a quote from 'don't worry about Global Warming' Ried:
“There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest.” Bryson warned, “It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. ”

That was before he 'retired' ...
You left off a few facts. Bryson made that claim in the 1970s, and he was talking about global cooling, not warming. Back then, most climatologists thought we were in for another ice age. Time Magazine even did a cover story on it, saying (just like they do global warming today), that the science was 'settled'.

Bryson freely admits they were mistaken. He's one of dozens of climatologists who have recanted, now that new research has showed the tremendous natural variation of the earth's climate.

Research in the 1970s supported global cooling. Research in the 1990s supported anthopogenic global warming. The research this decade has supported natural warming, driven by natural climatic changes.


RE: Ried F'n Bryson??
By Ringold on 5/10/2007 2:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
... And with that, IT man Steven's credibility goes up in a giant mushroom cloud of alarmist anti-business dust.

I could understand a few errors, but gross errors and wanton quoting out of context to some is misleading, but to me is propaganda.. and propaganda is lieing. Not only that, he went on to cite two liberal news agencies when there are at least a few impeccably neutral sources out there. But then, those neutral firms don't tend to run as many alarmist articles, either.


WTF?
By cheetah2k on 5/10/2007 2:00:20 AM , Rating: 5
I doubt anyone in Australia will agree with those comments that "a little warming is good for most nations".

Brisbane hasnt seen decent rain for over 5 years now. They are on level 5 water restrictions - that means 4 min showers, no watering grass/plants and no car washing! The place is looking like a desert now....

The Great Barrier Reef is the most affected natural phenomenon, and it will be gone in less than 10 years at the current rate of warming...

The above has to tell you that Global Warming isnt good. I mean, WTF do i know, but it doesn't take a scientist to work out this s.h.i.t aint good.




RE: WTF?
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 9:06:41 AM , Rating: 1
There is probably zero correlation between global warming and the issue you describe. Global warming is not a 5- or 10-year thing - it plays out over hundreds of years before you see measurable effects. Remember, most forcasts are in the 1°C/century range. Clearly that rate of change is not going to make Brisbane a desert in a five-year period.


RE: WTF?
By Ringold on 5/10/2007 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm here in Florida, and I've already heard people try to blame beach errosion from this sub-tropical storm off our coast on global warming.

Yes, the errorsion has been eye-popping, but FFS..
A) When one moves there, they must be pretty damn dense if they havent over the course of their life noticed the coast gets at least a passing blow EVERY YEAR from a hurricane
B) If all it takes is one nasty low pressure system to annihilate the beaches then god help those people if they were to see a REAL hurricane -- much less "global warming". Gee, maybe New Symrna isn't naturally supposed to have such beaches -- maybe that's why nature destroys them every couple years?

Florida, too, is critically short on water, with over two hundred fires raging at the moment and visibility down to 2.5 miles yesterday. It's been going on over a decade, though, and I don't really pin it at all on GW. We've just been... very unlucky. All it would take is a nice storm system to park over us for about a week and years of neglect would be soaked away, but it just hasn't happened.


credability
By werepossum on 5/10/2007 6:07:47 PM , Rating: 1
I'm constantly amazed that scientists whose degrees are in microbiology or geology or such receive more press coverage, and are considered by the left and the press as being more reliable, on issues of global warming than are meteorologists, even PHDs and those teaching and studying climatology. I don't know how many times I've read that someone's study of fossil bacterial density, or spore counts, or tree rings not only proves global warming, but proves that it is driven almost solely by mankind. You don't find a lot of meteorologists (and almost none above age 45) who believe in manmade, catastrophic global warming. Centuries of carefully recorded human ice up/ice out dates, cycles of maritime ice hazards charted, records of caravans with women and children crossing the Alps - all that is discarded on the basis of CO2 concentrations in ice cores - a field where studies are considered successful if not more than half the data have to be discarded to match the model, and where predictive studies have been wildly unsuccessful.

Australia and Florida will take it in the shorts, though; both are severely overcrowded for their water tables, and even a little less rain is going to hurt. Luckily, both have lots of sea water and are prosperous enough to build desalination plants.

And blaming plate tectonics on mankind is light. There was a story on the news about the man piloting a boat when a ray leaped into the boat and speared him through the heart. (He lived.) The news clip I watched featured an "animal expert" chick who blamed the rash of "attacks" on global warming. Seems marine animals are being so stressed by global warming that they're fighting back by attacking humans, the cause of global warming.




RE: credability
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 7:46:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Centuries of carefully recorded human ice up/ice out dates, cycles of maritime ice hazards charted, records of caravans with women and children crossing the Alps - all that is discarded on the basis of CO2 concentrations in ice cores - a field where studies are considered successful if not more than half the data have to be discarded to match the model, and where predictive studies have been wildly unsuccessful
Great post, and I wanted to comment on this point further. Ice core accuracy has increased a lot in the past 5-10 years. But as it has, scientists have noticed a very interesting fact. The new data shows CO2 increases in the earth's past don't match up precisely with past warming. The warming precedes the CO2 rise, by a few hundred years in most cases. Meaning that a naturally warming earth releases more CO2, and not vice versa.


Really?
By GI2K on 5/13/2007 5:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
“Nations like Germany and Scandinavia are predicted to see a tourism boom”
Why that if Scandinavia becomes warm then it becomes like any other country, their cold temperatures is what makes them “unique”, as for Germany doubt of it colder temperatures never stopped anyone from going there and if tourists want warm temperatures other south-European countries will look like the tropics compared to Germany.

“along with saving billions in winter heating costs.”
And spending billions in summer cooling costs...

"Germany alone is predicted to see up to 40,000 fewer deaths per year from cold-related illnesses"
Yeah but how many more deaths will Germany get from hot-related illnesses.
And let's not even speak of all the diseases transmitted by warm-loving insects and others.

Quite frankly I don’t think Germany will get anything positive out of it... but then again in a subject so vast I think anyone can point a thousand positive points while others can point just as much negative points...

Anyway global warming is today like some kind of boost for scientist and reporters seeking global fame be it by supporting or not global warming.

At least these guys admit that something is changing not like some...




Interesting read
By Xoddoza on 5/9/2007 7:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting read, I've always thought climate change was played up a lot, particularly its effects.

In some areas of the world however 14 inch's of water (or however much it was can still be an issue.) I live in New Zealand and have reasonable contact with pacific islands many of which would struggle to deal with rises like that, when your beach front holiday home is only half a meter off the see level.

Its also probably a reasonable certainty that these predictions will be very wrong in some areas and totally different in others as micro climates are all affected and flow on through to each other. Thats a largish issue for New Zealand with our farming industry.

Still nice to see not all doom and gloom.




Never doubted it
By cochy on 5/9/2007 9:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the nice blog. A little warming will be nice for us up in Canada =)

I don't think the Earth is on it's way to becoming Venus quite yet.




i love this quote
By kattanna on 5/10/2007 11:32:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide


that was an awesome quote from the linked article




By derdon on 5/25/2007 8:54:42 AM , Rating: 1
The whole play-down of global climate change is hurting the discussion as much as the hype around it...




It's called 'Der Spiegel'
By Griswold on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's called 'Der Spiegel'
By TomZ on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's called 'Der Spiegel'
By TheOneYouKNow on 5/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's called 'Der Spiegel'
By TomZ on 5/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's called 'Der Spiegel'
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 7:48:03 PM , Rating: 3
Your post has been filed under the "can't attack the message so lets attack the messenger" category.


IF I believe ..
By chick0n on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: No kidding
By cochy on 5/9/2007 9:44:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But rather that the current changes we are seeing, like increased intensity in the average hurricane, longer droughts in hot countries, cost lines coming further and further in to land and animals dying out or moving else where is and is going to hit the worlds poor extremely hard. That the poor who have been suffering due to political failings are going to suffer yet more because of humanities short sightedness.


Nevermind the fact that some of the things you've listed aren't or haven't been proven to be related to GW. The Earth is a very dynamic place. Sea levels will rise whether or not everyone starts riding llamas to work. Third World countries are being hit harder and harder every year by natural disasters and such, not because of human influence on the Earth itself but by growing populations . The more humans we pack in per square mile the more devastating the effect of coast lines shrinking, or an earthquake, a volcanic eruption or a tsunami for example.


RE: No kidding
By fk49 on 5/9/2007 9:55:19 PM , Rating: 5
I whole-heartedly agree cochy. People forget that our human population is simply at unprecedented levels and that increases every single societal problem exponentially. I laughed when I saw Al Gore's graph of Earth's carbon dioxide spike, because it matches up almost exactly humanity's population explosion at the advent of agriculture.

Asher has pointed out before that cows contribute more to the greenhouse effect than automobiles. What are we supposed to do about that? Kill all our livestock and eat tofu? And what do we do about all the people that are constantly born? Stop them from breathing out CO2? All of this simply happens because of how our society works.


RE: No kidding
By Xoddoza on 5/9/2007 10:09:10 PM , Rating: 1
It is largely a result of our technology and society through just survival, live stock and just pure human numbers.

Its crazy that we don't put enough thought and effort into using our technology to help right the unbalances. I'm not talking about total control of earths atmosphere and environment but at least affecting it in small ways that help cancel out our large presence of this planet.

I'd say we are past the point (population numbers) where we could theoretically all survive on earth in a healthy state. Not without demolishing forests reclaiming seabeds to get space for agriculture, manufacturing.


RE: No kidding
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 8:49:56 AM , Rating: 1
When did we humans "all survive on earth in a healthy state"?!?

Obviously the human population is constantly increasing and people are living longer. Your view to the contrary is distorted.


RE: No kidding
By Ringold on 5/10/2007 1:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say we are past the point (population numbers) where we could theoretically all survive on earth in a healthy state.


That's got everything to do with economics, and absolutely nothing to do with the climate and technology.

Case in point. China is seeing hundreds of millions of people join the relatively wealthy middle class. Hundreds of millions will be living in nicer, cleaner homes, with more access to health care and the services and products that make the quality of life better in the developed world. The same process is ongoing in India, and has been well under way in the rest of Southeast Asia for decades. All of that at the detriment of absolutely nobody else -- economic growth. Africa is the next wave, the next continent to join the developed world, but so far only the few politically sane areas like South Africa and Rwanda are fully benefiting. Why the almighty duopolists on morality, the UN and EU, aren't helping in places like Sudan and Somalia is an open question, but where growth is able to exist, poverty is being destroyed.

Of course, some forests have been demolished in the process, but would you rather have forests (which at least in higher latitudes is a net cause of warming) or a high-tech fab providing a local community hundreds of highly-skilled labor jobs.. or a shoe factory providing the ONLY jobs that STILL pay much better wages than scooping dung and plowing fields did before said job was available.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 10:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
Erm, yeah, I think that is the arguement being made:

"All of this simply happens because of how our society works"

The amount of cows currently in the world is our doing. The amount of CO2 cars and power plants generate, is again our going. That I think is the point people like Al Gore are trying to make. I don't really know, I've not seen any of his material, living here in England.


RE: No kidding
By James Holden on 5/9/2007 10:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
The bigger picture seems to indicate that the CO2, for example, isn't really that debilitating. Methane, from the cows, is worse, but also not that big of a deal.

Gore is in a unique position. He can claim that if disasters don't happen, it's because he made a ruckus. On the other hand, if disasters do occur, he can claim that he was right all along.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 10:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
Firstly I'd like to ask where you are getting this 'bigger picture' from? I understand the subject is quite complicated, for example there is a decade long study to understand how rising clouds, due to cleaner air is helping remove massive amounts of the o-zone layer (cleaner air, more sun-light, clouds rise higher due to more heat, they more in to the o-zone layer, freeze and take a huge chuck of o-zone with them back down to the lower atmosphere). But the whole details of the process is so complicated that no scientists have any good understanding of it at all. That's just one aspect of the climate..

In England it isn't a politically contentious issue, the Conservative party (the right-wing party over here) are in fact the ones arguing that they are the more green party. The current party in power, the Labour party (a party founded by trade unions and was the one to implement a free health care system) disagree saying they have and will continue to put more in to reducing Carbon emissions and then the 3rd party is the Liberal Democrats who argue they are the only party who honestly has strong green policies they will implement.

So yeah... different political environment and there's not anyone over here who strongly opposes the idea that pumping less carbon in to the environment is a bad thing.


RE: No kidding
By James Holden on 5/9/2007 11:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
We have the same policies in the U.S. and Kyoto of course. If you follow Masher's posts, you'll see that he has a lot of evidence that suggests Carbon is more a political than scientific thing.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 11:26:35 PM , Rating: 1
No you don't, U.S policies are completely different from U.K polices. And the U.K is actually signed up to the Kyoto treaty, the U.S isn't.

His post is politically slanted, the 'evidence' is mainly opinion and it doesn't really say that Global Warming doesn't exist, more that we can deal with it fine. I'm willing to accept that to an extent, but the argument I was trying to get across is that it's not the rich that need to worry about global warming, it's the poor. Take this as an example from from the original post:

"More precise computer models have drastically reduced the anticipated amount of sea level rise. It now stands at 16 inches over the next century ... a per-year rate which is tiny, and can easily be compensated in storm-surge prone areas by building taller dikes."

Now the first sentence is an overwhelmingly confident statement with no reference at all. It makes no attempt to explain what would happen in some countries if the water level increased and use anecdotally says "which is tiny". Well I read a lot of the older reports saying that average temperature would increase 1C over 100 years and that would be devastating to some countries, anecdotally this doesn't sound like much but just saying "oh well it's only 0.01C a year, that's tiny" isn't evidence.

The second sentence is the one I'm trying at get to though "build taller dykes", well that's o.k if you live in America or you like in England, 2 of the richest countries in the world. But it's poor countries where this will be an issue, where they can't afford to build dykes across almost their entire coastline.


RE: No kidding
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 12:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"And the U.K is actually signed up to the Kyoto treaty, the U.S isn't.
Yes, the U.K. signed up for Kyoto-- then promptly failed to meet all the targets. Same as Germany, Canada, and most every other industrialized nation that chose to sign.

But hey, its the thought that counts, right?


RE: No kidding
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 8:55:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
But it's poor countries where this will be an issue, where they can't afford to build dykes across almost their entire coastline.

You're right - that's not going to happen. So in these countries, the people living there will have to move back a bit off the coastlines, and entire regions could become inhabitable. But this is going to happen anyway. The earth is warming, mostly due to its own reasons. Even if humans weren't on the planet, these changes would occur anyway.


RE: No kidding
By jacarte8 on 5/10/2007 11:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Excatly. What do these alarmists use to explain the other fluctuations in the Earth's environment over the past 100,000 years? Yes, the climate is changing, but it is in a CONSTANT state of flux. Similar to animal rights activists. What do they think has caused previous extinctions on the planet?

Clearly, humans do their part to cause both of these things now, but we are not the only source of change on this planet. Give environmentalists another 100 years and humans will be blamed for plate tectonics, and causing tsunamis.


RE: No kidding
By Ringold on 5/10/2007 1:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Give environmentalists another 100 years and humans will be blamed for plate tectonics


I know you were kidding, but... I've seen many articles over the last year or two that follow this logic train already:

Man causes global warming -> Global warming melts ice -> weight is redistributed across earths surface -> weight shift causes more earthquakes -> Therefore, man causes earth quakes.

Regardless, I got a buck that says in 15 years, this GW thing has either blown over or ruined wide swaths of the worlds economy, and in either case, environmentalists are then deep in the process of destroying the fledgling nanotech business because OMG nanoparticles are everywhere.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 10:07:21 PM , Rating: 1
That's a bit of a hypocritical way of arguing, is it not? Sort of like:

"You've got no evidence for that, so I'm is right"

I'm not a researcher and have no authority on the situation, I even stated:

"I'm just saying that that's what the argument is and it appears to be a fairly legitimate one."

You on the other hand appear to be speaking as though you are an expert on the subject, so I'm not presuming the ability to construct a well rounded argument that disagrees with you. But quite a lot of EU studies do appear to attribute some of the intensity of these natural disasters to the contribution mankind has made in terms of CO2 levels. More over, many experts do appear to agree and I'm more inclined to believe independent studies conducted over in the EU than over in the highly politicised American environment.

My theme about hitting the poor comes from a quote from a recent large scale study that the EU did, with many experts in the field involved and from my understanding of the situation there was a lot consensus. But like I say, I'm not expert and you appear to speak as though you are one, so perhaps you can enlighten me as to why these studies are wrong.

Earth quakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunami's are clearly all caused by things out of our control, I'm not sure why you even mentioned them?


RE: No kidding
By cochy on 5/9/2007 11:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not expert and you appear to speak as though you are one, so perhaps you can enlighten me as to why these studies are wrong.


I'm not an expert. But if you can point the way to these "studies" that could be a start.

It's widely known that there is absolutely no correlation between GW and stronger hurricanes. That was a myth that Al Gore and the like jumped all over after Katrina for his own purposes. This article mentions that as well. I'm not trying to be an expert, all I was doing was pointing out something that's pretty clear, and until there's some proof will remain pretty clear.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 11:32:12 PM , Rating: 3
"It's widely known that there is absolutely no correlation between GW and stronger hurricanes. "

My understanding was that GW wouldn't affect the amount of hurricanes but would afffect their intensity. Go and look up science journals if you want to read them, I can't say I've done that.

I mainly read BBC articles and 2-3 page summaries on the reports. If I knew the ins and outs of the science I'd probabily be tallking people that they are actually wrong rather than just presenting the other side of the arguement. Please don't mistake my posts as anything more than that. But just such politically slanted posts wind me up somewhat, so I thought I'd provide at least some voice from the other side.


RE: No kidding
By Amiga500 on 5/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: No kidding
By James Holden on 5/10/2007 6:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Is that not due to the 30 year swings in hurricane intensities? I thought there was evidence that that particular phenomena has been occurring for millenia.


RE: No kidding
By cochy on 5/10/2007 1:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Point is, this is a very complex issue and the science is definitely not well understood. Right now there's no proof either which way, only trends over small periods of time are observed. Honestly, one needs to observe trends for thousands of years if one wants to really deduce anything meaningful when it comes to geological processes.


RE: No kidding
By James Holden on 5/10/2007 6:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Is that not due to the 30 year swings in hurricane intensities? I thought there was evidence that that particular phenomena has been occurring for millenia.


RE: No kidding
By James Holden on 5/10/2007 7:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the double post.


RE: No kidding
By grenableu on 5/10/2007 6:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"But a new study in the journal Nature ..."
Kerry Emanuel's study has been widely challenged, and several competing studies have concluded just the opposite, that global warming is not having any effect on hurricane strength.

The problem is the media doesn't cover research which doesn't make a good headline.


RE: No kidding
By novacthall on 5/11/2007 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's also a direct correlation between the volume of ice cream sold and the number of shark attacks observed yearly.

Are we to believe that ice cream causes shark attacks? Or can we look past the correlation to understand that the underlying cause is tied to summer activities and seasonal treats?

Correlation does not imply causality.


RE: No kidding
By cochy on 5/9/2007 11:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"You've got no evidence for that, so I'm is right"


Climatology is science. The scientific method requires you to prove a theory right. Otherwise it's just a theory. That is what angers me the most out of this whole thing. A couple years ago there were a whole bunch of major storms and suddenly they are all caused by global warming. That kind of sensationalism is plain silly.

quote:
Earth quakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunami's are clearly all caused by things out of our control, I'm not sure why you even mentioned them?


So are glaciers freezing and melting and sea levels rising and falling. Humans better get used to this fact.


RE: No kidding
By Zurtex on 5/9/2007 11:35:51 PM , Rating: 3
What angers me is people who say:

"Otherwise it's just a theory"

All science is theory, whether it be the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of light. It's just about how much evidence it has for or against it as to whether it is currently scientifically accepted or not.

The difference is “glaciers freezing and melting and sea levels rising and falling” are impacted be human actions, as far as we know earth quakes aren't. Even this article isn't disputing global warming as a myth.


RE: No kidding
By cochy on 5/10/2007 12:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even this article isn't disputing global warming as a myth.


No it doesn't, it's just disputing how much impact humans have in that process. That's what we really want to figure out.


RE: No kidding
By jacarte8 on 5/10/2007 11:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
Excatly. That's the important thing, and that's the question which should dictate our actions, as a species, in the future. However, that does not mean we should jump to conclusions out of guilt and waste trillions of dollars in the process. It is very important to be green, just as it's very important not to drive the global economy into the ground trying to do so.


RE: No kidding
By AlexWade on 5/10/2007 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So are glaciers freezing and melting and sea levels rising and falling. Humans better get used to this fact.


Along the same line of thought, did you know that the antarctic sea ice is increasing by an average of about 14,000 km every year since 1979. Sure, some spots are decreasing and that is what Al Gore and his liers jump on. But overall, it is increasing. And a study suggests that the growth may accelerating. Dr. Vyas, a scientist from India, has done several studies on the antarctic. Here is the one I'm referring to.
http://64.119.172.31/awpf.pdf

Did you know that there was a time when Greenland was farmed? Al Gore conveniently omitted that data from his global temperature history.

Did you know we do not have accurate hurricane data until the launch of weather satellites? Before then, all the data on hurricanes relied on weather stations and ships. In other words, we do not have enough data to show that hurricanes intensity and frequency is increasing or decreasing. But, from the data we do have, which may not be accurate, intensity is not increasing and the frequency follows a cycle of active/calm periods.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov


RE: No kidding
By Hawkido on 5/10/2007 11:30:58 AM , Rating: 2
Global energy level lesson:

1. Where does the Earth gain all of it's energy?
All of the Earth's energy is absorbed from the Sun. Even the magnetic Field that causes the core to be molten. Chemical energy is created from the absorbed sunlight, or the intense energy of the molten core, which is caused by the magnetic field of the sun.

2. The Sun has a quasi-stable 11 year cycle from very hot to relativly cool and calm. When was the last hot cycle peak?
The Sun's last Peak on the hot cycle was in 2000. However, the cycle was broken and the magnetic destabilization of the sun did not calm down. In 2003 the largest and hottest flare (coronal mass ejection) ever witnessed blasted out the solar system. When it struck the earth, it disabled satillites and power stations, causeing blackouts and communications failures.

There how's that. If the sun backs down off the hot cycle and returns to its normal behavior, all things return to normal. If the sun stepps it up and this is the new calm level of the sun then we are in for a real warm treat in a few years when it hits it's new high level of activity. Else it may fall into a very calm state and thus usher in another ice age (mini or otherwise) The human population was insignificant during all the previous ice ages and GW spells the earth has had. There may be some human contribution to GW. But I remember in the 80's when the sun when on a cool spell everyone was crying "It's an Ice Age! We're all gonna freeze to death!"
Mean while back then there were shysters on TV asking people to put their money and valuables into their "Special Ice Age Proof Safe" and the shyster would watch over it until you thaw out. Much like today only they chaged the name of the safe to "Global Warming Proof Safe." In five years it will be "Asteroid Proof Safe" once again, then "Oil Shortage Proof Safe" then they will start recycling the stickers, cause they are cheap and people are too stupid to realize the stickers are old.


RE: No kidding
By Ringold on 5/10/2007 2:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
The sun causes the Earth's core to spin? Cool beans. I wondered what could keep a massive chunk of nickle spinning rapidly in a bath of molten rock for billions of years on end without the help of the universes best lube, and now I know.

The rest of that I did know, though, and the correlation is so clear it's almost silly.

Pardon, while I go build a shrine to Helios.


RE: No kidding
By Hawkido on 5/21/2007 1:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, just like you toilet water spins on its way down is caused by the off center position of your toilet from the equator. For those that don't know your toilet water spins in a different direction for those on the opposite side of the equator, and spins little to none at the equator (depending on the tilt cycle of the earth) unless the water jets in your toilet create an artifical spiral.

Toilets that create an artifical spiral need to be hemisphere specific.

Back to the Planet:
The fact that one side of the nickle/iron core is closer to the sun by about 2000 miles causes an offset in the force applied to the other side of the core and thus the spin. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Where does all the heat in the earths core come from when we are surrounded by the cold of space? Friction? The very act of friction is a conversion of kinetic energy into heat energy, thus the act of negativly accellerating or preventing further acceleration generates either/both other kinetic energy or/and Heat.


RE: No kidding
By chick0n on 5/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: No kidding
By TomZ on 5/10/2007 3:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
I also remember when we were supposed to worry about the coming ice age. Your logic doesn't hold any water.

We have to examine each situation individually to see if it makes sense. The problem of human-induced global warming having cataclysmic effects just doesn't pass the test. It's a non-issue.


RE: No kidding
By mindless1 on 5/11/2007 10:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is unquestionably going to raise temps, but "probably" not as fast as some had predicted, so yes we are potentially destroying the habitability of the planet but not fast enough to get alarmed about for the next few generations.

We also can't resolve whether that mankind-induced warming will have a net result of more or less accomodating temperature and certainly some areas will at times benefit while others don't, until the total damage is high enough that there is no benefit anywhere.

It's just a matter of how long it will take.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki