hilarious!!! actually, i think he is a meterologist, though...i think i heard him say so in the threads about tropical storm fey which i'm too lazy to look up right now!
No where near as pronounced? What difference does that make if its pronounced enough to cause the excess freshwater from the arctic to shut down the gulf stream, chilling the East Coast and freezing Europe? And for those who mention 100 years, you're confusing subject here. The Gulf Stream can shut down in a matter of a few years, not 100.
i think you're missing the point...he's saying human contribution is nowhere near as pronounced as we're being told...if we're not doing the bulk of it, how can we possibly stop it??? if we're not the cause in fact of the situation you speak of, how can we stop it??
He will be getting his meteorology degree from Florida State in the near future. Since he's taking Diff. Eq. I'd bet he's a couple of semesters from graduation. FSU has a fantastic meteorology program BTW.
yep...guys like me and refman who have such a HUGE interest in disproving global warming... i stand to make millions!!!
Actually, according to some hearsay in the posts above, the people who talk <i>up</i> global warming are just in it for the money. There really is no scientific consensus on this issue. If you believe that human activity is causing the world to heat up, then it's just that - you believe it. You can pick and choose facts all you want but in the end all you have is your faith. The same is true for the opposite camp. They can pick and choose their facts to support their argument all they want but in the end all they have is <i>their</i> faith. But right now there just isn't enough clear evidence to overwhelmingly support either point. It's clear that the world is getting warmer, however, what is not clear is why it's getting warmer. It could be human activity, it could be solar activity or it could be something completely different. Or a combination of things! I think the most important part of the "Triggering Abrupt Climate Change" article was the fact that we don't have enough facts! Funding more research would be the best thing an administration could do (and this would be consistent with Bush's stance on the subject).
this is ultimately my point...and this is why i'm bothered by statements from the chairman of the UN saying things like, "we have to act now to curb global warming even if we don't have the evidence for it." i see 4 possible relevant scenarios here: 1. global warming is a myth 2. global warming is real..but we're not contributing one iota to it 3. global warming is real..we're contributing to it, but not at an appreciable rate...nature is BY FAR the dominant force in bringing about this change 4. global warming is real...and we're a significant cause in fact... if #1 is correct...hooray!! we all win!! if #2-3 are correct...what the heck can we do about it??? if #4 is correct...we need to study the consequences further and figure out ways to deal with it.
Yep - as Refman said, I'm in the meteorology program at FSU. He also nailed it when he mentioned that I'm probably a couple of semesters away from graduation - Spring 2004 is the projected date, so about 3 more semesters after this one. As others pointed out, I'm not saying that there is no conclusive evidence for or against global warming or global cooling (I myself am divded on the issue) - just that our impact on the environment is nowhere near as pronounced as some of the experts would have you believe. Climatic effects, on the whole, cannot be measured over a span of 5 years, yet alone 100 years. There have been periods throughout history (I'm surmising here, due to the lack of verifiable data through the Earth's lifespan) where the temperatures on Earth have been much warmer than they are now, while there have been times where they have been much cooler than they are now. Those who believe in the theories of global warming tend to lessen the impact of those cycles and look at the impacts on the Earth as a combination of man-made problems and overall Earth warming (leaning heavily towards the former), while those who do not believe in those theories take a longer term look at the situation and note that, on the whole, the climatic changes we've seen over the past 100 years have not been nearly as significant as other periods in the past. I'm not saying one or the other is right or wrong, because no one will really know until we'll after we're gone, but that most meteorologists believe in the latter theory yet report on the former because it's what brings in the money and the fame. The Gulf Stream is still very much evident. Don't believe me? Take a look at the latest sea surface temperature analysis here and the SST anamoly here. In fact, waters in the North Atlantic are currently warmer than normal, while there remains a pronounced current of warmer water at high latitudes across the Atlantic Ocean. There's very little research money in trying to disprove the effects of global warming. Why? The topic of global warming is a popular environmental platform to stand on, especially in terms of reducing emissions and the like, while the short-term effects that we've seen over the past 100 years draw in the headlines. Couple that with the fact that most research money in meteorology comes from the government, and you see why someone with a different view than what the people in power want to hear is not going to be able to get funding or support for a major research project into global cooling or disproving global warming.
Are these maps really relevant? Form the article: It appears that the reaearchers' salinity maps from 1000-4000 feet below the surface may be more applicable than today's surface temperature maps, no?
MadMax and mfclark- glad to have your input. I didn't make my point clear about the money comment earlier so allow me to do it here. By no means am I saying that you, madmax and/or refman stand to profit. But surely you understand the implications that environmental reform has financially for big US business. And mfclark, I understand your point about meteorologists making a big noise about climactic end of the world scenarios gets press and money, but in the big picture I'm talking about what they stand to gain ain't a hill of beans next to what greenhouse-gas producing businesses are afraid of losing financially, because reducing these hazardous emissions is costly. To phrase it more accurately, the boys who are talking down global warming are the ones protecting their own wealth. I think rimrocker's analogy to smoking in the 50's is excellent. Simple common sense would tell you that breathing smoke is detrimental to one's health, but big tobacco fought the whole thing tooth and nail because there wasn't evidence. Anyway, this point isn't terribly important. Apparently no conclusive evidence either way at this point. I think I just wanted to add that although I'm sure that some global warming alarmists take their stance to get attention and research$, I think that most are speaking out of a true desire to help the planet. In my opinion those who most strongly want to deny global warming are most influenced by $$$.
Been a few years since I've done any research in global warming, but If my memory serves me correctly the following was widely accepted by scientists at the time: 1) The climate has risen by less than or around .5 degrees (Can't remember if its R or K) in last 50 years. .5 degrees may not sound like a lot but with the size of the earth...you're talking about a serious energy change. 2) Humans are responsible for good portion of it (~20-80%), but it was dificult to prove. 3) The Ice Age wasn't at a ridiculous lower temp....I believe less than 10 degrees (R or K) on average. 4) Consequences were dificult to judge.
Perhaps, but the sea surface maps show that very little change has occured in the gulf stream to this point. Does that mean nothing could happen? No. Does that mean we should be looking into the matter? Of course. What gets me, though, is that people tend to blame it all on humans, when it could be more of a result of a long term global climate change than the greenhouse effect and what has commonly become known as global warming. There's just not enough research out there to conclusively state one way or the other, and with where the money is going, it's not exactly headed towards and objective answer. I know - a lot of people see that point, and that is why the number of people who do the research and get the money for global warming studies is very small compared to the overall number of research meteorologists out there. Just like the tobacco analogy, there are always going to be people out there who push their research just for the money as opposed to the greater good. I'm not saying that they are wrong here, I would just like to see a more objective view in terms of research and governmental attention. This article gives a good general overview of the ice age and long-term cooling/warming patterns: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
20 to 80%. Isn't that a large range? All that tells me is that the scientists have no real clue as to the impact of human behavior on this problem.
Sure the Earth is warming. It has been for around 20,000 years. The ice started to melt so rapidly around 13,000 y.a. that it caused huge ice dams to break flooding the majority of the Earth. The ice is still retreating from it's glacial peak, a time when large ice masses covered many of the nice cities in which we live. At the peak of glaciation, the sea level was much lower(300 ft.) than it's present level. The ice melted very rapidly and is still doing so. How long will it continue? Are we speeding up or altering the process? Many scientists thought it took many years to start another ice age. For it to "build up" and the climate to gradually change. Now, many of the same scientists have started to believe that this drastic change in climate may occur literally over the course of a few years. 15,000 y.a. we had wooly mammoths in Texas! 35,000 y.a Neanderthal went extinct. When were the great pyramids built? What was the climate like then? Are we changing the climate? Yes. How so? by polluting it with toxic emissions and greenhouse gasses among other things. What is the end result? ? It depends. Either way we're killing ourselves with our pollution.
Hmmm, a few things about this thread... 1. The IPCC report on global warming has established as fact that humans are increasing the level of 'greenhouse gases' to levels that are altering the climate in a potentially catastrophic direction. That report was signed off on by more than 4,000 scientists and over SEVENTY Nobel Prize winners, the majority of which were received for science. 2. There is plenty of money in anti-warming conclusions. It is the oil lobby after all, and the logging (construction, paper) lobby, and the developing world isn't too happy about it either. 3. To say cooling is more likely a problem than warming may be missing the point, since cooling is the logical extension of warming. 4. Saying we don't have data from far back enough is interesting in the face of the Arctic core samples taken, and those taken from Devil's Hole in Death Valley which give accurate records going pretty far back.
I really don't take exception in most of what you say in this post. One thing I should note is that the meteorologist that told me that there is as much evidence of global cooling as global warming but warming is discussed because it gets more research money is a GOVERNMENT meteorologist. He currently works for the NWS, not the oil companies. He has no financial incentive to tell me or anybody else that global warming is greatly overstated.
Originally posted by HayesStreet Hmmm, a few things about this thread... 1. The IPCC report on global warming has established as fact that humans are increasing the level of 'greenhouse gases' to levels that are altering the climate in a potentially catastrophic direction. That report was signed off on by more than 4,000 scientists and over SEVENTY Nobel Prize winners, the majority of which were received for science. .... Dang HayesStreet, seventy? How can I get one?
The majority? The majority were received for science? So we had Nobel Prize winners for ART signing off on a report on global warming. That's REALLY comforting. LOL I realize that the scientists also signed off which gives the report a degree of validity...but I find it really curious that only the MAJORITY of Nobel Prize winners signing are scientists. So 34 of them were artists?
