The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
In 5 years I'm going to be looking for Nelson to pop up and "Haaaww Hawww" every one of the stoopid Global Climate Warming pseudo-science reactionary whackos. Shockingly this year is going to be even colder than last year, goddamn natural phenomenon!!
Oh man, gas is up to $1.67 today! ... when adjusted for inflation its actually cheaper than it was 8 years ago.
Anyone seen ManBearPig yet??
This is always an interesting topic. I do believe it's possible that global warming maybe be over hyped. However, it's not fair to say that since "current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures" equates to global warming predictions being off.
ReplyDeleteFirst, scientists refer to global warming as "Global Climate Change." The reason being that increased global temperature (global warming) will lead to changes in normal weather patterns. Rather than contradicting the theory of global climate change, this reinforces it.
The fact of the matter however, is that we're effectively arguing about the results of an ongoing experiment with multiple uncontrolled variables. As it stands now there is no way to agree on the absolute facts.
Regardless of what is changing, if anything, understanding Earth's climate patterns and the evolution of those patterns is crucial, period. Earth is only going to get more populated and for the good of all mankind, and for our curiosity and search for understanding, the qualities that uniquely define us, we need to learn more.
So the problem is not a matter of arguing who is right, because at the moment that is impossible to determine. As a species we take risks. We use the best information we have to assess those risks and then make a decision as to whether or not the potential benefits of our decisions are worth the potential costs.
Here's an interesting example I recently learned about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942
In the year 2029, and asteroid ominously names Apophis for the Egyptian god of the dead will pass extremely close to Earth. We have enough data on it's trajectory to know that it will not hit Earth. However, if Apophis does miss Earth, but passes a region of space close enough to Earth so that our gravity effects it (a so called 600 meter "gravitational keyhole") then Apophis WILL impact Earth in 2036.
So what do we do about this? There is a pretty good chance we're going to be OK. But that is just luck. Everyone agrees that it's only a matter of time before Earth runs into something. So when do we take action? When we are certain it's going to hit us? What if it takes too long to determine if it will definitely hit us and it's too late to come up with a plan to avert it? At some point we are going to have to make decisions like this without knowing for sure if we're in peril. Who do we trust? The scientist that say we're doomed or the ones that say there is a good chance it's not going to hit us?
I don't know how we answer these questions, but we're not playing poker, we're talking about Earth, or our survival as a species. It's hard for me to play with such high stakes.
-Matt
However, it's not fair to say that since "current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures" equates to global warming predictions being off.
ReplyDeleteThat is what you think that article was about? It was a three page report on several bodies of evidence pointing to the contrary. The past two years are merely examples that disprove the "warming" trend that was supposedly man-made.
So the problem is not a matter of arguing who is right, because at the moment that is impossible to determine
But that is not what global warming advocates said for the past 5 years, the global warming community has declared that it was possible to determine. In fact the IPCC Climate Report said it was scientifically proven than man caused global warming. Scientists who have attempted to disprove or refute this have been shunned from the scientific community.
For references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[6] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[7][8][9] While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings,[10] the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.[11][12]"
Calling it Global Climate Change is a convenient twisting of the hyper-reaction of the past 5 years. In fact, Matt, I believe you and I have had a similar debate a couple years ago where I was arguing this very point: any warming is due to "climate change", regular, usual, cyclical.
The bottom line here is that world governments, scientific bodies, the media, the general public have bought the global warming myth hook line and sinker.
I'm no expert, but I have three things to add:
ReplyDeleteThe change to "Global Climate Change" is not a twist, it is to combat all the people who simply dismiss "Global Warming" with "but it just snowed in Atlanta! It's colder, not warmer." Warmer oceans create irregular weather patterns, so some places are getting more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more hurricanes, etc.
That article incorrectly critiques Gore's movie. Gore did go back much further than 1000 years, even using ice samples to test air content from thousands of years ago. And cyclical weather patterns is not a new concept to climate change scientists. The conclusion is that the change we are seeing is far outside the norm of our known cyclic patterns.
And third, I think it is a bit absurd to think that 6.7 billion people on this planet cannot affect it. We're producing the equivalent of 132 million barrels of oil each day (per Wikipedia) of fossil fuels. That's oil, coal, and natural gas that would normally just be sitting in the Earth, untouched. Each of those are burned, releasing heat, gas and particulates. How many stars do you see at night over Atlanta? And you don't think that can have any effect? Shit man, we get acid rain in the NW from China's factories. It's a small world.