New Data Validates Global Warming Projections

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by cygonaut

Here's NCDC's FAQ's on Global Warming
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

This appears to be a reasonably biased report. It seems to discount (and, in fact,barely reference) the discontinuity between surface/troposhpere measurements and the physics of greenhouse gas warming. It also asserts that artic ice is decreasing, in spite of recent evidence to the reverse. This does not appear to be an even handed review.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Huh? Global warming is a cleanly leftist issue. How did it become a political element of the right???

Global warming is a human issue. Its of course interesting that the leftist governments of China and India are completely aligned with the pro-business lobby here. If there's polarization on this issue its those who have significant economic interests in the short-term versus those who are concerned about the long-term consequences for our decendents (I'll hold my tongue about those who think that Armageddon is right around the corner so global warming doesn't matter). My main point here is that I disagree with both of you: I see strong feelings on both sides of this issue that completely span the political spectrum.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This appears to be a reasonably biased report. It seems to discount (and, in fact,barely reference) the discontinuity between surface/troposhpere measurements and the physics of greenhouse gas warming. It also asserts that artic ice is decreasing, in spite of recent evidence to the reverse. This does not appear to be an even handed review.

Oh my! Curiouser and curiouser! Why is the Bush Administration (which is in full control of the Dept of Commerce and NOAA) producing pro-global warming propaganda????

Arctic ice is indeed decreasing, and there are people investigating the business opportunities represented by the opening of the Northwest Passage because of it. The melting of the northern ice cap will not affect sea level. There is great concern about the breakup of several ice shelves in Antartica (rocky might help us there) which are also melting, but there is data showing that a couple of Antartic glaciers are increasing in size, although they represent a minority and do not offset the melting activity completely.

With all this conflicting data, it is easy to take the side that you feel most comfortable with, but the balance of the opinions of the experts I've read up on all seem to agree that the trends are more than worrisome. Even if it turns out that we're not necessarily headed into a complete meltdown, the effects of man's contribution to the global climate will undoubtedly disturb the VERY unusual period of low variability in the Earth's climate, and we are headed toward a return of the "normal" climate fluctuations that wildly swing from Ice Age to Swamp Age, that will not be good for civilization.

The folks who argue that the "solutions" like Kyoto are "just too expensive" (yes, on the left and the right) just aren't taking into account the long-term consequences. On the other hand, it may indeed be too late so we might as well just sit around and enjoy our Kool-Aid...

Cheers,
Buffy

[Smokinjoe9]

I have to go with buffy on this one.. we are going to get all sweaty and have no place to cool down, heha..I understand or believe it is typical earth cycling, but may be rushed a bit by human's insatiable apetite for burning up natural resources..Oh and Hair Spray.

[cygonaut]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Huh? Global warming is a cleanly leftist issue. How did it become a political element of the right???

Because it's a leftist issue.

(lol)

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Arctic ice is indeed decreasing...

True. I misspoke. The issue is that polar ice may not be decreaseing since antarctic ice appears to be increasing. Sorry for my inarticulation.

...There is great concern about the breakup of several ice shelves in Antartica (rocky might help us there) which are also melting, but there is data showing that a couple of Antartic glaciers are increasing in size, although they represent a minority and do not offset the melting activity completely.

I think this is not generally accepted.

With all this conflicting data, it is easy to take the side that you feel most comfortable with, but the balance of the opinions of the experts I've read up on all seem to agree that the trends are more than worrisome.

Hmmm. This is significant step forward. "Worrisome" is a much different position than the inevitable "dire" consequences predicted by the core of the media.

...the effects of man's contribution to the global climate will undoubtedly disturb the VERY unusual period of low variability in the Earth's climate, and we are headed toward a return of the "normal" climate fluctuations that wildly swing from Ice Age to Swamp Age, that will not be good for civilization.

The variability argument is valid. The difficulty is establishing ANY causality that is remotely anthrpocentric in it.

The folks who argue that the "solutions" like Kyoto are "just too expensive" (yes, on the left and the right) just aren't taking into account the long-term consequences.

Sorry, I am in that camp. I think we ought to establish reasonable causality before we impose a multi-trillion-per-year cost on the global economy.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I think this is not generally accepted.

Antarctic shelf breakup is large and measurable, and the data shows that many more Antarctic glaciers are receding that growing, although there clearly are some that are growing. "Acceptance" is the issue:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The difficulty is establishing ANY causality that is remotely anthrpocentric in it.Sorry, I am in that camp. I think we ought to establish reasonable causality before we impose a multi-trillion-per-year cost on the global economy.

Unfortunately in this debate, there is no way to *absolutely* prove that "man is causing global warming". Due to the complexities of the systems being observed, the only thing that can be done is to define percentages and probabilities, thus allowing anyone who does not like the conclusions to say it is "not proven." Because of the huge dollars involved, there are going to be lots of people who have huge incentives to simply say "no" to *any* initiatives. Kyoto is not perfect, but I've argued elsewhere (Kyoto Protocol - US Missing the Boat) that its better to work with something than to stick one's head in the sand, and more importantly, there seem to be opportunities (some extremely selfish--see that thread) that people are not considering. Sad that our children will have to live with our lack of foresight (on both sides: sad when the extremists win because the majority sits on its hands).

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Antarctic shelf breakup is large and measurable, and the data shows that many more Antarctic glaciers are receding that growing, although there clearly are some that are growing. "Acceptance" is the issue:

The issue is whether there is a net loss or net gain of polar ice. This is the issue that I believe has no general consensus.

Unfortunately in this debate, there is no way to *absolutely* prove that "man is causing global warming".

Who mentioned absolute? I was merely thinking about credible evidence of causality. Sure these systems are complex, but that does not mean that we should skew data to support a "scientific" conclusion.

Due to the complexities of the systems being observed, the only thing that can be done is to define percentages and probabilities, thus allowing anyone who does not like the conclusions to say it is "not proven."

And if only there was agreement on those. The "range" of potential global warming over the next hundred yeras is (as I recall) between 0.7 degress and 11 degrees. The impact of 0.7 degrees is small. And as I recall, the likelihood of the change falling toward the "lower end of the range" is high. We have time to figure this out. The Kyoto solution was poorly concieved. Kyoto was as rational as Cuba and Sudan sitting on the Human Rights committee within the UN. And it was formed with a similar genesis.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The issue is whether there is a net loss or net gain of polar ice. This is the issue that I believe has no general consensus.

Out of all the scientists out there studying the Arctic, only a few are arguing its growing (thickening actually): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm

And there are those who say that growth in the arctic ice could in fact be completely consistent with global warming: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/PolarParadox/

In addition, massive retreat of Antarctic glaciers has been in the news recently with much evidence to back it up (although as I've said a small minority *are* increasing): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4471135.stm

How much more evidence is needed? I don't know. I'm concerned. I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme, but the current administration does not even want to work with anyone on the issue: it seems that the policy is to disclaim the validity of any evidence opposed to laissez faire industrial policy. Sad, scary and just as extreme as the sky-is-falling-nuts at the other end of the spectrum...unfortunately for our grandkids, the nuts may be right...

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

How much more evidence is needed? I don't know. I'm concerned. I think you're right that Kyoto is too extreme, but the current administration does not even want to work with anyone on the issue...

Your last phrase would be another thread.....