Where the ... is that global [climate change] warming?

[aristide1]

everybody knows more ppl in a room means higher temperatures...

Right, so now picture Washington DC.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The hardest thing to grasp about global climate change is that it is the change in the average temperature.

I heard someplace that a better term for what is happening is global climate weirdness.

How much snow did they get in London? How often is it flooding in Venice? How long has the drought lasted in East Africa? When will there be open sea on August 15th in the Arctic? How many record breaking icebergs have broken off of Antarctica? How permanent is permafrost? Why are polar bears drowning? How many fires have there been in western USA? When did West Nile Virus show up in your area? When will they run out of water in Georgia and Alabama?

[alecmg]

There is no denying, climate changes.
Whether it is caused (or just increased somewhat) by humans and whether it is a bad thing globally, thats not decided yet.

Think about it, you may get to see forests in Sahara!

[andyb]

How much snow did they get in London?

I'm just outside of london and I got ~8 inches of snow.

My point of ressurecting this post was to talk about that taboo subject of controling the world population of humans (limiting the number to a sustainable level), if you look further into climate change caused by mankind, there are 2 striking things.

Modern technology with which we burn more fossil fuels (industrial revolution - until now).

More people using that technology (it has also got cheaper, and is now mainstream for an ever increasing percentage of the worlds populous).

The richer countries around the world are already making efforts to reduce the former, but without population control, its practically useless, and seems more of a gimmick compared to what I believe is the bigger of the issues - people.

Fewer people means, fewer resources being burnt an ending up in the atmosphere, fewer people means less deforestation that can combat the polution in the atmosphere, fewer people means less agriculture and farm animals are needed (which is usually ecologically unsound).


Andy

[blackworx]

When will there be open sea on August 15th in the Arctic? ... Why are polar bears drowning?

Hi Neil,

I'm definitely not a climate change denier, but I would point out that open sea at the north pole is not a new phenomenon, and has been occurring for as long as we have been keeping records. Admittedly if I were an editor for any mainstream news outlet I too would have found headlines such as: "North pole ice free for first time ever" too seductive to resist because: A) at the time, it was not something many readers would ever have given much thought to; B) ignorance of the facts makes such a claim sound worrying - always good fodder for a headline; and C) it sells news.

The whole drowning polar bears thing is also a myth. Although there is occasional and well-publicised anecdotal and photographic "evidence" to support the claim of stranded or drowned bears, the idea that climate change is causing this is not logically sound. Again, polar bears drowning is not a new phenomenon. That's not to say polar bear populations aren't coming under ever-increasing stress because of climate change, just that drowning is not how scientists believe that stress is manifesting itself. According to the Journal of Wildlife Management, the problem lies in the bears' dependence on ice for hunting. When emerging from hibernation, the bears must feed on seal pups to get the energy required to make it through the summer period, when the sea ice breaks up. If the ice breaks up earlier, it is more difficult for them to catch adequate amounts of food, in turn causing the less able hunters to suffer a cumulatively increased likelihood of perishing during subsequent winter hibernations.

Again, I'm not a denier, but I do tend to find that deniers will use claims like those as examples to draw into question the validity of whole conservationist argument and divert or close down debate.

As for snow in London, that's not even close to unheard of - even in such relatively (compared to recent years) large volumes. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard, on a chilly day: "Ooh it's cold! Where's that global warming we keep hearing about? Eh?"

[blackworx]

Interesting article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25 ... anslation/

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form.

[Eyedolon]

I think you all should lighten up and get outside a lot! You'd see reality with your eyes.

We got snow this morning here in Eastern WA, US. It was a big time surprise, because for the last two days it's been pushing the 50s.

For reference, two years ago it was 20-low 30s during february. Also, ask any snow-sports friends of yours how the snow's been this season. In one word - Terrible!

I used to not have a sense of how much differing climates affected me. The weather around here is ridiculous though, and it would take a complete idiot to not notice how insanely different it is.

As for trees in the Sahara, the actual answer is that the Sahara is spreading, and gradually taking over Africa. Global Warming? I have no idea. It's not going away in the slightest.

I remember growing up 90* in the summer was HOT HOT HOT in western WA. Like, heatstroke and fatalities kind of hot. My house growing up never had A/C (in fact, I have yet to live in a house with A/C), and we never needed it. Last summer it held to 100* along the water near Seattle for almost a week.

[blackworx]

Said it before, I'll say it again

weather != climate

I think you all should lighten up and get outside a lot! You'd see reality with your eyes.

That's a rather grand assumption about the rest of the posters on this thread is it not?

[Eyedolon]

Oh I love it!

Weather trends do tell a lot about climate though, as Seattle rarely if ever gets snow or above 90, and Eastern WA ranges from sub zero to 110+. That's of course due to the Puget Sound, but it makes it very easy to spot freak occurrences (of which there have been many this year)

[NeilBlanchard]

The articles about the science of global climate change are mostly saying that the changes are occurring much more quickly than we had originally projected:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -melt.html

In the south the Western Antarctic region, which stretches to near the southern tip of Latin America and which had earlier been thought stable, is melting faster than previously thought, discharging water and ice into the ocean. The biggest west Antarctic glacier, the Pine Island Glacier, is moving 40 per cent faster than it was in the 1970s, while the Smith Glacier, also in West Antarctica, is moving 83 per cent faster than it did in 1992.

Researchers also found that in the Arctic, during the summers of 2007 and 2008, the minimum extent of year-round sea ice decreased to its lowest level since satellite records began 30 years ago.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-26-voa5.cfm

"In Africa, for instance, by 2020 our projections show that 75 to 250 million people would be affected by water stress on account of climate change, and crop revenues could drop very rapidly," said R.K. Pachauri. "We are really causing major distortions and disparities in economic development and growth throughout the world."

Pachauri's testimony coincided with another study by the U.N.-backed International Polar Year program, which found that icecaps at both the North and South Poles are melting at unprecedented rate. The report, compiled by scientists from more than 60 countries, also says that the shrinking of polar and Greenland ice is fueling a rise in sea levels and the potential for dramatic changes in the global climate system.

The authors say the Arctic permafrost also reveals larger amounts of carbon than expected that, with further melting, could release more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Christopher Field, a contributor to the IPCC report, told the Senate Committee that temperatures at the South Pole are rising faster than expected.

"Just within the last few months we've seen confirmation that the continent of Antarctica has been warming," he said. "And it's been warming at a rate of almost 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable in pace to much of the rest of the Southern Hemisphere."

Pachauri and Field say the costs of mitigating human generated carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions are modest compared to the costs of doing nothing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29386865/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... AD96BIS880
http://www.newsweek.com/id/185822
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... 3Y_2qjIoRw

[blackworx]

The interesting thing about the article I posted is not that it denies climate change - it doesn't - but that it states unequivocally that we do not yet fully understand the fundamental principles behind the process, and that there has been a rush to substitute hypothesis for truth before we have even been able to create accurate models.

[L2GX]

The interesting thing about the article I posted is not that it denies climate change - it doesn't - but that it states unequivocally that we do not yet fully understand the fundamental principles behind the process, and that there has been a rush to substitute hypothesis for truth before we have even been able to create accurate models.

Don't mistake the scientific process for the political process.
Scientific understanding keeps developing following a long-established method. They deal with reality
Politicians renew their ideologies to deal with changed perceptions of the world. They deal with perception

If those scientists who currently accept climate change were orbiting on a spaceship (and didn't have relatives, friends etc. on the planet) perhaps they would be less pushy in trying to change people's perception of the issue.
Since they're in the same boat and in view of the lack of political response, I understand and am grateful for their crying wolf.

I don't think it's a scientific failing at all; a more nimble political-economical system (not as bogged down by marketing-lobbying feedback loops) would also deal better with global cooling, should scientific consensus go that way. Or with economical issues as we are currently experiencing. Or with the resource crisis a developing third world (Chinese mining in Africa anyone?) is presenting.

etc.

[blackworx]

The paper largely comprises an attack on the science, but as I've said already it raises an interesting point, which is that whilst climate change is an acknowledged phenomenon - a problem we will face regardless of its causes - our understanding of the fundamental principles, as well as our chronological perspective, not to mention what is actually happening as well as what is about to happen is nowhere near good enough to be able to establish absolute causality, but that such absolute (i.e. man-made) causality is precisely how it is presented. Whether scientists are playing politics or not is irrelevant - the politics is inseperable and as unavoidable as the climate change itself.

Ok, so the "yes, but we don't really know" argument has been raised time and again. Sure, we've all heard it a million times, but in making that argument the authors bring up counterpoints to accepted wisdom which are more than just plausible, as well as serious questions about even short term predictions not fitting with reality. That's the scientific process.

[Nick Geraedts]

I'll keep it short and say that I generally agree with blackworx's views here. We don't have a second earth that we can depopulate to see what would happen without human influences, so all the simulations and projections are just that - computer aided guesses. You can make a very good guess, but it's still a guess.

On the other hand, I picked up a book a while ago (people in Canada who watch TV are likely well aware of it) titled Daily Planet Book of Cool Ideas by Jay Ingram. While I don't agree with the views of some of the experts that were consulted (one thinks that we're all doomed no matter what we do), the book has some great insights into what regular people are doing to reduce their energy consumption and impact on the planet - climate wise or not. Anyone looking for an interesting read that encourages new ideas and active participation by the public - go get it.