Is the climate REALLY getting warmer or is this just a natural cycle?

[Kate in Arabia]

Ann, could I ask you a bit more about that marble in the bowl?...So then on a larger scale, a severe drought in Australia means the water has to go somewhere - up the other side of the bowl and unduly cold and/or rainy weather elsewhere?

 

I don't know anything about this theory, but thought I would mention that in the years we've lived here the UAE has seen snow for the first time in living memory (in some of the mountainous areas).. I don't know what that means, maybe nothing, but it's weird/unusual.

[Whereneverever]

Wyoming is having horrible droughts and high temps. And wild fires that are horrible. Something is different, I know that.

[Julie in Austin]

I don't understand the mindset that wants to answer this question by considering the weather in one's own area or one's own perception of the weather. This is a question to be answered by scientists who study the issue.

[WishboneDawn]

 

This, I don't understand. What rates are "heard of" vs. "unheard of"? WE, as human race have not been around long enough and tracking anything to have even a tiny fraction of the information required to say for sure. All we have is educated guesses. In the end, they are still Guesses.

 

No.

 

Here's a link that explains many methods of discovering information about climate conditions in the past. Humans may not have been around that long but the earth has obviously been around at least as long as it's climate it's been marked by climate. We can measure the effect of past climate on many things.

 

There may be compelling evidence that counters the idea that the rate of climate change is unheard of but to claim their is no evidence of the rate of climate change or that what we know is simply a matter of guessing is wrong. It's an argument that ultimately claims humans can't know anything and we basically live in a state of ignorance about the world around us. It's a fallacy meant to dismiss evidence without any proper examination or consideration of it.

[Luanne]

I wonder...

 

If people believe this is a natural cycle, do they also believe that we need to clean up the environment, our food and the water?

 

See, I'm willing to bet that most do.

 

So, isn't the point moot?

 

 

 

I believe it is a natural cycle, but I agree about needing to clean up the environment as well.

[Luanne]

Wyoming is having horrible droughts and high temps. And wild fires that are horrible. Something is different, I know that.

 

 

That is true. I hadn't thought about that. The wild fires in Colorado were unbelievable in 2012. I've never seen anything like it.

[Mergath]

This weekend is supposed to be unseasonably warm, and then we're getting blasted with arctic air and snow.

 

Here's an interesting article signed by some pretty impressive scientists saying that global warming is not proven. I think that was pretty brave of them because I'm sure there's a possibility of harm to their careers since it's such a political cookie. Which is why I don't go about sharing people's names.

 

 

I don't know... Some of the people who signed the WSJ article seem a little, erm, nutty. Claude Allegre, for example, apparently thinks that asbestos is perfectly safe, so reading his assertion that CO2 isn't harmful doesn't exactly reassure me. J. Scott Armstrong is a marketing expert, and it looks like he hasn't set foot in a classroom since the early sixties. Jan Breslow is an MD who has only done research in heart disease from the look of it, so I'm not sure why he even interjected himself into global warming- that would be like a sociologist writing a letter to the WSJ on string theory or something. Roger Cohen recently retired from working for Exxon Mobil... yeah, no conflict of interest there. *snort* And so on and so forth...

 

I don't think you need to have a PhD to have an opinion, but at the same time, I'm going to take the word of the thousands of experts in the field who say climate change is real and anthropogenic over these guys.

[Slartibartfast]

That is true. I hadn't thought about that. The wild fires in Colorado were unbelievable in 2012. I've never seen anything like it.

 

A large section of the country had severe drought during 2012, several of them wheat states.

 

There is a drought monitor on the USDA website.

 

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

 

And, people might enjoy mild winters but some of the crops need wet winters. Kansas needs it for winter wheat.

[mlbuchina]

This is a joke, right? I'm assuming you know it doesn't actually work that way?

 

What doesn't work what way?

 

As to being a joke, the remark about longer growing seasons is tongue-in-cheek, while I firmly believe that scientific data is used to fear monger, gin up emotional responses, and pass legislation to restrict freedom and take away personal property.

[Mrs Mungo]

Restrict freedom in what way? The freedom to pollute everyone's environment with poisons like in Love Canal or what?

[FaithManor]

The earth is definitely getting warmer. No one with any sense disputes that. My opinion is that there very well could be a natural cycle that has been greatly exacerbated by our actions. I think it's a bit naive to think that all the chemicals we've pumped into the atmosphere aren't going to have any effect. We thought for a long time that dumping all that garbage into the ocean wasn't going to hurt anything because the ocean is so big, but now we're finding out that isn't true. Animals are dying, plants are dying, and we have a giant island of plastic floating around in the Pacific Ocean.

 

 

 

I am with Mergath on this one. I believe that we are in a natural cycle, but that it has probably been intensified due to environtmental issues man has created...everything from decimating the rainforests, to the plastic ocean. Both of those things absolutely hurt my heart because unbeknownst to most, we are killing ourselves and our children's future due to this folly. 60% of oil consumption goes to plastics. Several deadly toxins are produced from the manufacture of plastics. Rainforest devestation causes mass drought and the extinction of botanical and animal life that aren't even known to the scientific world. With those deaths and particularly in the botanical realm, the possible treatments and cures for disease die too.

 

If you want to heat the earth, kill as much plant life as you can. It's a sure fire method of roasting this planet.

 

Poison the ocean, poison one the greatests sources of bio-diversity, water to sustain the earth, and future agricultural fields for feeding the population. We should rename the Pacific - "The Plastics Ocean" or " The Great Petroleum Sea".

 

Faith

[mommymilkies]

A large section of the country had severe drought during 2012, several of them wheat states.

 

There is a drought monitor on the USDA website.

 

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

 

And, people might enjoy mild winters but some of the crops need wet winters. Kansas needs it for winter wheat.

 

Thanks for that. We've had severe droughts in 2010 and 2012 and severe flooding in 2009. Almost all of the southern part of the state had it's corn plowed under because of severe heat and drought. It's funny to see us not even marked up that high on the map when it has never been this hot and dry down here. We didn't even have a real winter last year!

[mlbuchina]

Restrict freedom in what way? The freedom to pollute everyone's environment with poisons like in Love Canal or what?

 

Freedom of speech, freedom to buy an incandescent light bulb (thank goodness that piece of legislation was repealed last year), freedom of innovation, freedom of choice (I have zero desire to have my mobility restricted by being denied my vehicle, although I am easier to control if I can't get away), freedom to have a different opinion...

 

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php is an interesting blog post on the matter, however I'm sure that, because it is coming from someone with the point of view that man-made global warming is a hoax, it will be completely dismissed and the author disparaged.

[Mergath]

 

Freedom of speech, freedom to buy an incandescent light bulb (thank goodness that piece of legislation was repealed last year), freedom of innovation, freedom of choice (I have zero desire to have my mobility restricted by being denied my vehicle, although I am easier to control if I can't get away), freedom to have a different opinion...

 

http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php is an interesting blog post on the matter, however I'm sure that, because it is coming from someone with the point of view that man-made global warming is a hoax, it will be completely dismissed and the author disparaged.

 

Yeah, people tend to do that to nutters. :blink:

 

It's one thing to agree or disagree on the man-made aspect of climate change, but trying to state that the right to pollute is a personal freedom akin to the freedom of speech is bizarre. Better let everyone start dumping DDT and Agent Orange into the groundwater- we wouldn't want to infringe upon their individual freedoms. I'm sure all the children born with birth defects will understand that it's for the sake of liberty they're missing a few major limbs.

[Mrs Mungo]

Freedom of innovation? What a load of bull!! What is impeding innovation in this country right now are the car companies and big oil. Did you follow the story of California's electric cars?

[justamouse]

I don't know... Some of the people who signed the WSJ article seem a little, erm, nutty. Claude Allegre, for example, apparently thinks that asbestos is perfectly safe, so reading his assertion that CO2 isn't harmful doesn't exactly reassure me. J. Scott Armstrong is a marketing expert, and it looks like he hasn't set foot in a classroom since the early sixties. Jan Breslow is an MD who has only done research in heart disease from the look of it, so I'm not sure why he even interjected himself into global warming- that would be like a sociologist writing a letter to the WSJ on string theory or something. Roger Cohen recently retired from working for Exxon Mobil... yeah, no conflict of interest there. *snort* And so on and so forth...

 

I don't think you need to have a PhD to have an opinion, but at the same time, I'm going to take the word of the thousands of experts in the field who say climate change is real and anthropogenic over these guys.

 

 

 

See, this is exactly what I mean. So, all of the PhDs who signed off on global warming had NO ulterior motives...like investments and profits in green businesses?

[Mergath]

 

 

See, this is exactly what I mean. So, all of the PhDs who signed off on global warming had NO ulterior motives...like investments and profits in green businesses?

 

Most of the scientists who "signed off" on global warming are scientists actually IN THE FIELD of climatology. The science IS their motive. The people who stand to profit from denying climate change, ie. oil companies and the like, probably couldn't find anyone with a real connection or actual training in the correct branch of science, so they had to make do with those yahoos to sign their little letter.

[elfgivas]

See, this is exactly what I mean. So, all of the PhDs who signed off on global warming had NO ulterior motives...like investments and profits in green businesses?

 

 

we are talking about my husband here, and some of our friends. my dh loves science. loves it. he likes to ask tough questions and discover what the information shows. he likes to think about things. a lot. his motivation is to answer hard questions, to let the science speak, and to share what he learns. he'd love it if people chose to use it to make reality based decisions. he'd love it if it helped make the world healthier for our children.

 

as an aside, where in the world would we get money for investments in green businesses? (or anything else, for that matter). these are scientists we are talking about.... and in our case, we are a homeschooling family, so only one salary.

 

sigh....

ann

 

ps. i'm not sure what "signed off" on global warming means. instruments measure data. scientists asl questions, collect data and then look at it to see if it can help them learn anything about their questions. and then, they ask the next questions. and the next. they try to make sense out of what they are seeing. then they ask more questions and collect more data to see if what they are thinking might be accurate. and thru the process they try to make the answer to the question have fewer and fewer possibilities for error. and so it goes....

[justamouse]

Most of the scientists who "signed off" on global warming are scientists actually IN THE FIELD of climatology. The science IS their motive. The people who stand to profit from denying climate change, ie. oil companies and the like, probably couldn't find anyone with a real connection or actual training in the correct branch of science, so they had to make do with those yahoos to sign their little letter.

 

 

And this is exact;y why people say the left has been reduced to bully tactics. They have an opinion you disagree with? CUt them off at the knees. Say they don't have real degrees, call them yahoos. Their PhD is just nothing.

 

Al Gore? Up to his EYEBALLS in green tech investments. You think perhaps that's why he's beat the drum so loud? And no climatologists have no investments in green tech? Science isn't their only motive, no one is that pure, sorry.

[Free]

we are talking about my husband here, and some of our friends. my dh loves science. loves it. he likes to ask tough questions and discover what the information shows. he likes to think about things. a lot. his motivation is to answer hard questions, to let the science speak, and to share what he learns. he'd love it if people chose to use it to make reality based decisions. he'd love it if it helped make the world healthier for our children.

 

as an aside, where in the world would we get money for investments in green businesses? (or anything else, for that matter). these are scientists we are talking about.... and in our case, we are a homeschooling family, so only one salary.

 

sigh....

ann

 

Ann, I appreciate your inputs in this thread. As someone who does not understand anything about climate science, I like hearing from people who are actually working in the field and are exposed to the relevant data first hand.

[Free]

Personally, I don't care if people cause it to get hotter or not, I would just like it to be hotter. I hate the cold. :001_cool:

 

I think it would be better all around if it got warm and stayed that way. More people die in the winter, and if it is warmer, the growing season would last longer and we could feed all the starving people in the world.

 

I think the biggest problem is when politicians get involved, and then the science is used as a weapon to take more of my personal property and money.

 

 

I suppose you have not heard of India. You can find both heat and starvation here.

[elfgivas]

 

And this is exact;y why people say the left has been reduced to bully tactics. They have an opinion you disagree with? CUt them off at the knees. Say they don't have real degrees, call them yahoos. Their PhD is just nothing.

 

Al Gore? Up to his EYEBALLS in green tech investments. You think perhaps that's why he's beat the drum so loud? And no climatologists have no investments in green tech? Science isn't their only motive, no one is that pure, sorry.

 

 

but we're not talking about opinions, nor are we talking about agreeing or disagreeing. we are talking about developing explanations for things we have observed and then making predictions based on those explanations that cannot be falsified.

 

it is not my opinion that 2 + 2 = 4. it is a system of mathematics that has not been disproven in generations, despite attempts to do so. is it right? most likely. is it possible that someone someday may disprove it? yes, but not so likely. it is the best explanation for the data that we've got right now.

 

fwiw,

ann

 

ps. al gore isn't a scientist. he studied journalism, and law (but didn't finish his law degree). he is a vietnam war vet. he went to divinity college. according to wikipedia, he became interested in climate change during a science class in his undergrad degree. i don't know him; i haven't met him. but just because two things are true doesn't mean one caused the other. (re green investments and interest in climate change). indeed, i can imagine that if one had all sorts of money, which he does, one might invest it in things one thought would become profitable. T. Boone Pickens, a texas oil magnet, has also invested heavily in green technology.... my guess is that it is because he is good at seeing where money is to be made, but ??? it is perhaps worth noting that one way of questioning a person's work is to impune them personally. ie. al gore's possible motivation doesn't change the climate change data, or the best explanation we've come up for what we're seeing.

[justamouse]

we are talking about my husband here, and some of our friends. my dh loves science. loves it. he likes to ask tough questions and discover what the information shows. he likes to think about things. a lot. his motivation is to answer hard questions, to let the science speak, and to share what he learns. he'd love it if people chose to use it to make reality based decisions. he'd love it if it helped make the world healthier for our children.

 

as an aside, where in the world would we get money for investments in green businesses? (or anything else, for that matter). these are scientists we are talking about.... and in our case, we are a homeschooling family, so only one salary.

 

sigh....

ann

 

 

 

 

And the slacker yahoo PhDs who doubt it don't have families or bills? If anything, I'm willing to bet they have a harder time telling their truth for fear of reprisal.

 

Want to see scientists up to their neck in unethical practices? How about Monsanto? Their profits are up this quarter. I'm betting every one of those scientists have invested in the company.

 

And again, I say, the point is moot. I don't know many people, even staunch republicans, who are embracing the pollution/energy/water problems.

 

And you didn't even need global warming to do it, you just had to educate them on what they were eating, drinking, and breathing.

[Dana]

And the slacker yahoo PhDs who doubt it don't have families or bills? If anything, I'm willing to bet they have a harder time telling their truth for fear of reprisal.

 

 

 

No, the issue there is that just as it wouldn't make sense for a podiatrist to be giving you reputable advice on your eyes, when you're talking about climate change and research (peer reviewed) that's being done, what your PhD is in DOES matter.I don't have the link at hand, but there was a recent person who was trying to disprove climate change (and there'd be some serious money to be made if it were done) who spent time looking closely at the research and is now convinced that change is happening.I really wish it weren't. I really wish we'd make the changes that are needed. As it is, I expect my son will have far fewer options than I had and a much tougher life. The stuff I've read is absolutely terrifying.

[elfgivas]

:closedeyes: time for bed.

[Melissa in Australia]

Personally, I don't care if people cause it to get hotter or not, I would just like it to be hotter. I hate the cold. :001_cool:

 

I think it would be better all around if it got warm and stayed that way. More people die in the winter, and if it is warmer, the growing season would last longer and we could feed all the starving people in the world.

 

I think the biggest problem is when politicians get involved, and then the science is used as a weapon to take more of my personal property and money.

 

You want heat, Come to Australia. We are having a record heatwave (not where I live, but the rest of the country). There are some areas that have had almost 2 weeks of temperatures in the mid 40"s C. That is HOT. More people here die from heat related illnesses than cold weather. As a direct result of the heat huge amount of Australian fruit and vegetable crops are failing. An example ~ I live in one of the most moderate climate spots of Australia. We have had only 1 day over 40 oC this year so far. It cooked the apples on the tree. We covered the garden with bed sheets to save the vegetables from the sun. Farmers cannot do that.

 

The heat doesn't extend the growing season. Plants shut down in such hot weather. which means they are no longer taking in water and they get baked, shrivel up and die. more hot days mean more bushfires.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't have the link at hand, but there was a recent person who was trying to disprove climate change (and there'd be some serious money to be made if it were done) who spent time looking closely at the research and is now convinced that change is happening.

 

I actually linked an article earlier in the thread about a physicist who set out to prove the data wrong and then decided the data was excellent.

 

You want heat, Come to Australia. We are having a record heatwave (not where I live, but the rest of the country). There are some areas that have had almost 2 weeks of temperatures in the mid 40"s C.

 

Parts of the US stay above 50 degrees Celsius for weeks at a time in the summer.

[goldberry]

My opinion is that there very well could be a natural cycle that has been greatly exacerbated by our actions. .

 

That's my vote. Combination of natural cycle plus human influences.

[Mergath]

And this is exact;y why people say the left has been reduced to bully tactics. They have an opinion you disagree with? CUt them off at the knees. Say they don't have real degrees, call them yahoos. Their PhD is just nothing.

 

Al Gore? Up to his EYEBALLS in green tech investments. You think perhaps that's why he's beat the drum so loud? And no climatologists have no investments in green tech? Science isn't their only motive, no one is that pure, sorry.

 

How the heck is it "bully tactics" to say that the opinion of a climatologist is worth more when it comes to climatology than a marketing expert or a cardiologist? If I want someone to do my taxes, I go to an accountant. If I want someone to treat a broken leg, I go to a doctor. If I want someone to figure out and explain climate change, I go to a climatologist. That's not bullying. That's just common sense. Unfortunately, those who want to completely deny climate change can't find any reputable climatologists to support their denial, so they have to resort to fits of crying whenever the rest of us don't believe their accountants or librarians or whoever. Get a group of reputable climatologists to do some research, and I'll take a long look. But a group of marketing experts and whatnot writing an op-ed to the WSJ? Sorry, but no.

 

Oh, and I don't think anyone here has held up Al Gore as an example of a scientist who researched climate change. There's more than enough research from the actual scientists to look at.

[elfgivas]

 

Parts of the US stay above 50 degrees Celsius for weeks at a time in the summer.

 

 

50 C is 122 F. i am thinking death valley can be that warm for an extended period of time, but they don't grow anything there in the summer. is there somewhere else i'm not thinking of? what is happening in australia is horrifying.... it seems as if half the country is burning (it isn't, but NSW is in desperate trouble).

 

wikipedia talks about the great USA heat wave of 1936 with records still standing today, and the hottest it got was 121 F (which admittedly was pretty close to 122 ;) )

 

"July was the peak month, in which temperatures reached all-time record levels—many of which still stand as of 2012. In Steele, North Dakota, temperatures reached 121 °F (49 °C), which remains North Dakota's record. In Ohio, temperatures reached 110 °F (43 °C), which nearly tied the previous record set in 1934. The states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and New Jersey also experienced record high temperatures. The provinces of Ontario and Manitoba set still-standing record highs above 110 °F (43 °C). Chicago Midway airport recorded 100 °F (38 °C) or higher temperatures on 12 consecutive days from July 6–17, 1936. Later that summer in downstate Illinois, at Mount Vernon the temperature surpassed 100 °F (38 °C) for 18 days running from August 12–29, 1936.^[3]

 

curious,

ann

[StephanieZ]

The university professors I've asked have emphatically and foamingly stated it's a natural cycle. I really wasn't expecting how passionate about the whole thing they were but, there you go.

 

So. Natural cycle.

 

That must be a very select pool of professors you are dipping in! I know dozens personally at many universities and casually knew the views of many, many more during my schooling, and I'd say your experiences are very unusual. Very.

[Melissa in Australia]

I actually linked an article earlier in the thread about a physicist who set out to prove the data wrong and then decided the data was excellent.

 

 

 

Parts of the US stay above 50 degrees Celsius for weeks at a time in the summer.

Parts of Australia do to. But I am talking about HUGE swathes of Australia staying that hot not just isolated places.

[Deee]

In fact, its currently so hot in much of Australia (reprieve in Sydney today following some much needed rain, but back to 40 degrees C on Friday) that the Bureau of Meterology has had to come up with a new colour to map the higher temperatures (deep red had already been used, so now we have fires-of-hell purple). Large parts of Australia are currently on fire - we nearly lost our National Observatory last night, and last week, more than 100 people lost their homes in Tasmania (that's the cool part of Australia, BTW).

 

I am a scientist. I teach sustainability, so my opinion is well informed. The anti-climate change lobby uses two highly unscientific methods to discredit the real science: anecdote and vote counting. Anecdote is very popular in Australia: the news will show a climate scientist saying that global warming is affecting weather, water, bush fires, etc, then they will show some old bloke who says it was hot when he was a kid. At it worst, this moves to vote counting: one scientist, one denier, 3 scientists, 3 deniers. What the untrained public doesn't understand is that the scientist is presenting the results of scientific investigations based on very large data sets, with potential errors taken into account, and that such information is usually only made public when it is shown to be statistically significant. The deniers are, by and large, not backed by science, but rather by opinion and anecdote. To equate one denier with one scientist is like holding up 5 cents and saying its the same as $1000 because they are both money. Its ignorant and, at this point, scandalous.

 

As for the allegation that the scientists have ulterior motives, I'm not sure what sort of life you think most scientists live, but let me put your mind at ease. Most scientists work for about the average wage here in Australia, following 4-10 years of university. Its about the same in the US. Most tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc) earn twice as much as scientists who work in the public sector I earn more working as a gardener. Most are on short term contracts, 6-12 months long. All work long hours and spend at least 3 months of every year applying for funding. All take work home. They don't have any spare time or money to get involved in green-tech investments.

 

Its not freedom that allows you to pollute the environment and steal quality of life from the next generations. You are taking more than your fair share. That's greed and ignorance. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you're entitled to it. And the comment that global warming will extend the growing season and prevent cold related deaths is so breathtakingly ignorant and short sighted that it has left me shaking. Tell that to the people who are dying of drought induced famine, or have lost their homes this year and last to dramatic climate events. I'm sure your increased comfort will give them great solace.

Danielle