How do we prepare? Should we (Unity08) support means to get better earth-friendly cars, yet cutting some commerce? Should we wait for more evidence?
How do we prepare? Should we (Unity08) support means to get better earth-friendly cars, yet cutting some commerce? Should we wait for more evidence?
Mmm. Well, first up, as far as waiting for more evidence, I have to admit that strikes me as silly. Most of the argument there (what there is of it) is less about the fact and more about how much of the change is human-caused. (gg)Rather like arguing about whether the fire was arson or lightning, while the barn burns down.
I'd say that there's a real need to think about global warming/climate change and energy policy as joint problems.
To be effective, there has to be an economic incentive for major industries to become cleaner. This _is_ just now starting to happen, in that really big re-insurance companies are adjusting their business policies to essentially charge for the effects of fossil fuels on climate change. If we had a tax structure that made those tax breaks that oil companies get dependent on reducing emissions, or investing in most-promising technologies for removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere, that would create a huge incentive. It would also create a new industry in building those CO2 removal devices; and that's new jobs.
Another thing we could do is to have an additional national building code item requiring X-number square feet of solar panels for X-number of square feet of new construction. We did something similar back in the 1970s, when we began to require insulation. Again, this would generate jobs, as well as reduce usage of fossil fuels.
The Sun is entering a cycle in its weather where it puts out less energy. In about 10 to 12 years we are going to be a lot cooler and we are going to be missing the good old days.
I'm all for reducing pollutants in our environment, but I refuse to worship at the alter of the Global Warming Church.
thanks... it is good to find someone knows that what gore is preaching is idolatry in the truest form. we need to conserve, to live more simply but it will not "make this world better". the job of changing the world for the better is far more difficult and complicated than what gore, and others like him, can do.
As a geologist who was one step away from becoming an astrophysicist instead, I happen to have a unique knowledge of the science behind both global warming and the solar cycle that was cited. The solar cycle referred to is the ~11 year fluctuation of the sun's magnetic field which tends to result in both increased and decreased solar ACTIVITY, NOT OUTPUT. It is a fluctuation in what could be called turbulence and may correspond to at most a 0.15% change in solar output. This minor fluctuation will do NOTHING to decrease temperature on Earth.
With that put aside, on to global warming. Global warming is a FACT. What is disputed is whether it is anthropogenic in origin. At present the scientific community places the certainty of global warming's anthropogenic nature at 90%. In a comprehensive review of PEER REVIEWED literature on climate change it was found that 3/4 of articles state a finding in favour or anthropogenic warming, while the other 1/4 state that findings are inconclusive, and none claim to contradict those findings.
So the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is in consensus. Where the uncertainty arises is through the efforts of special interest groups. For example, Exxon Mobile, the largest oil company in America, currently funds 43 separate organizations designed to question global warming, and PAYS $10,000 to anyone who will put together an article disputing anthropogenic global warming and funds the publishing of these "studies" that are NEVER PEER REVIEWED.
To conclude, as in all debates and civilized conversation, and even in a forum such as this, it is essential to GET THE FACTS, and not state as "fact" something that is merely uninformed speculation.
I know a lot of people who refuse to believe in global warming due to ideological beliefs and because they only get their information from conservative radio and television. There is a lot of scientific information out there (really to much to easily digest) that I suggest you look into.
The real point is that no legitimate scientist can say (and most WONT say) definitively what has caused the increased temperatures on this planet, but they will tell you that the systems involved are incredibly complex and poorly understood. Even more poorly understood are the potential ramifications of global climate change.
The sunspot theory of global warming is insufficient to explain the pattern of increased temperatures. The earth's climate is a lot more complex than the simple input of energy from the sun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_variation)
I tend to agree with you Jack. I believe in doing our best to reduce pollution, everyone should do their part but at the same time I havent been convinced we are all doomed from Global Warming. Sorry Al Gores film just did not convince me. What is everyone going to say when the temp drops and things start to freeze?
With all the debate over whether global warming exists, nothing is getting done. So why not stick to something that is self evident, air and water pollution.
Poisons in our air and water WILL harm you eventually, if they don't get you maybe they will affect your grandchildren when they are born with pollution induced abnormalities. Get things rolling in that direction first, it will lead to tackling the global warming issue, whether one exists or not.
We may be approaching the time where we want to consider signing the Kyoto accord, or at least preparing America for a time when our country will be signing a successor document to the Kyoto accord. We may want to negotiate concessions from those countries that are not facing any caps on their CO2 emissions. If seawater levels rise enough, they may be eager to make such concessions in order to get our country, a very major producer of CO2, to reduce its emissions.
Fuels will continue to be burned; can the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere be increased? -- Photosyntesis does take up CO2 but the issue there is that it tends to get cycled right back into the atmosphere. Plant material decays. CO2 and sometimes methane, a green-house gas about 20 times more effective at trapping heat, are then released back into the atmosphere. We may have to think about actually trapping some CO2 exhaust gases and sequestering them some place more permanent than in growing plant life or the atmosphere. Coal-fired power plants produce gases that are very high in CO2.
One of the uses of CO2 is in tertiary oil reovery. At high pressure, CO2 is a very effective solvent that can be used to extract oil from depleted fields. This is one use for CO2 that would help benefit our energy independence. To the extent that it takes more tons of CO2 to extract the oil than are produced when the oil is burned, there is a potential net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from injecting CO2. Of course, it may be possible to inject CO2 into other rock formations, but the economics are probably much more favorable if existing deep well heads are used.
One of the best traps for CO2 is deep ocean water. Below a certain depth, carbonate minerals dissolve. Deep ocean water is undersaturated in CO2 and provides a vast CO2 sink if the CO2 can be placed there. Thus it should be possible to store huge quantities of CO2 in the world's deep oceans. Some of this CO2 will eventually be released where deep ocean currents upwell, but this will be thousands of years in the future. Time is what is needed now. In that distant future, other technical solutions may be available.
The search for economically viable ways to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere should be funded now. One possibility is to increase the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by ocean waters. An experiment in the 80's found that the southern Pacific Ocean could grow hundreds to thousands of times more plankton if dissolved iron was dispersed across the surface. Apparently the lack of iron in these waters is the limiting factor in growing plankton. Plankton photosynthesize and thereby draw CO2 from the atmosphere. The scientific community mostly opposed doing this on a large scale as it would likely greatly disrupt the ocean ecology. However, there may come a time when the greater good will involve increasing the ocean's uptake of CO2. This might involve adding dissolved iron, raising floating beds of filter feeders on the plankton (clams, oysters, perhaps crustaceans), harvesting the food and disposing of the carbonate shells in deep ocean water.
There is little dissent left in the scientific community that global warming is taking place and that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are higher than at any time recorded in the Greenland ice cap (as measured by drilling the cap and very carefully collecting samples, measuring the CO2 content of the air trapped in the ice). Evidence suggests we are going to depart an interglacial period and the earth is going to return to a climate that predates the evolution of man. This may require some major adjustments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch
Sketch,
I know you are just trying to find a way to help, but puting other things out of balance to make other things better is just what got us into this mess in the first place. Growing more plankton to lower CO2? That will just mess up the ocean eco system which in my mind will be much harder to fix than the CO2 crisis. And putting it at the bottom of the ocean? I mean, who knows if there are things that will fall out of balance if we do that, i know more CO2 is messing up the surface here, what about the oceans? i just think we need to find a way to help this situation without making a quick fix.
Odd. Here in New England it hasnt stopped raining in nearly a month. Did something like that last year too. We got like 20 inches of rain in a three week period and then not another drop for six months. In the end they called it an average year. Very strange. Hmmm ...
the extrordanary rain in NE is caused by global warming .. the oceans are rising and we're all gonna die.
Here is a pdf link from the GAO about how Alaska's Eskimos are being flooded out.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04142.pdf
Anonymous writes "the extrordanary rain in NE is caused by global warming .. the oceans are rising and we're all gonna die."
I dont know if I would go that far. What I meant to imply was that, as someone who has always been on the fence about the idea of global warming, it is increasingly apparent that the climate IS changing. The examples are endless, the water in my basement is a minor example.
Point is ... will we merly adapt to the change or attempt to prevent it?
We haven't had more than a half inch of rain this month, Which I guess must be caused by globlal warming because the sudan problem is according to the Secretary General of the UN. Global warming is the cause of everything. The corn in Wisconsin isn't going to fill out and we all will need to use more gasoline. Vicious cycle.
The easiest, most impactful thing for the US to do to combat global warming is to change CAFE requirements. Reclassify SUVs as the family passenger vehicles that they are, (They're not trucks!), and substantially increase required mileage for all vehicles to be in line with Europe and China.
Several years ago auto manufacturers pleaded with Congress that re-tooling to meet higher fuel economy standards would be too expensive. Well, so is producing vehicles that nobody can afford to buy! It's pretty obvious to anyone watching the global economy that oil prices (for rational and irrational reasons) will never return to $25/barrel. If Ford and GM managers can't see past the end of their own noses, then those companies deserve to go bankrupt; Toyota and Honda are readily filling in with better, more responsible vehicles.
Now we just have to get the surviving automakers to produce larger capacity HYBRID vehicles (vans, SUVs) that still get 40-50 mpg.
Kew England hasn't seen it rain like this in 60 years. Is it the end of the world? No, it just means that every 60 years or so it rains like this.
GlobalTraveler on June 10, 2024 - 1:39pm
What global warming? Global warming hasnt been established as a scientific fact. and two .. if you want to buy a Kia or a Yugo .. i dont see anyone stopping you. Why do you want to control someone elses choices .. when no one is infringing on yours.
First, the scientific community is pretty much as close to consensus on the existence of increased global temperatures as scientists are going to be on a particular topic. The question is not really whether or not there is warming, it is what is causing it.
Second, given that the planet is warming, if people's actions (in this case energy usage) are shown to be at least partly responsible, then you will be infringing on other people's choices. The concept is that of an externality, where one persons decision has unintended effects (typically costs) on others who were not involved in the initial transaction. The simple analogy is that if I am listening to a stereo five feet from you and playing it so loud that you cannot do anything else, I am causing you to bear a cost of my enjoyment. In the case of global climate change, the way in which we use and produce energy in the world is causing unintended consequences of which we cannot possibly predict at this time.
I'm asthmatic and it affects my breathing. When I'm inside in a clean air conditioned environment I can breathe much better. I lived in LA at one point and had to move. It was very noticable to me when the Santa Ana winds cleaned out the LA Basin, I could breathe better.
Its not 60 years, its 160 years. That how far back the records go and this has never happened. Waiting for the Jesus crowd to start marching with the REPENT signs
http://home.comcast.net/~wdud/
Well GlobalTraveler, I'm guessing in your travels you got to see the polluted rhine and themes ..not to mention the disgusting volga. and i hope you got to visit the slash and burn countries to our south. Did you spend some time in the industrial part of india .. or see the the waste run offs in china. How about the oil discards running for square miles in the caspian .. not to mention all the nuclear dumps in russia. Did you see how indonesia is being harvested to make throw away chop sticks for the japanese. It seems you are being very selective in who you critcize. The next thing i suspect you will be suggesting is that we go back to harvesting whales for their oil content. Thats what denmark, japan, and argintina do.
Sarahmae D, I have no disagreement with you about any of the issues that your raise. I have seen those, and the desertification of Africa, the melting glaciers of New Zealand and both polar regions, and signs of depleted fish stocks in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. However, none of those issues are strictly within the puriew of the US, American voters or our politicians.
We could immediately and substantially mitigate the US's carbon footprint; Congress could make these changes by year-end, if our politicians were paying attention.
IMO, it is irresponsible, not to mention ineffective, to shirk our own responsibilities because others' are neglecting theirs.
And yes, Anonymous, the car you drive affects the quality of the air we all breathe, and collectively, the choices of all 6B people on the planet DO affect the climate. We are each, in fact, infringing on others' rights by threatening their homes, food sources, health and livelihoods.
There is no longer debate among scientists about global warming, or human contributions to it.
Earlier this year I believe the Discovery Channel (correct me if I’m wrong) had a special on Global Warming. I think the scientific evidence was very strong that there is global warming. However the science for how and why there is global warming was very much up in the air. Startling to me was the inference that global warming at best will help the worlds crop production increase and at worst cause another ice age.
The program showed a time line of global warming and cooling. As I remember, base line was the world average from the start of national weather recorders; a little over 100 years ago. The amazing thing was the highs and lows. The highs were like a 300 million year stretch that was 8 degrees above base line and the lows started some 100 thousand years ago at 4 degrees below base line. Today we are at about a half degree above base line in a normal geological weather pattern.
Global warming, I say it’s no problem and as far as the United States signing on to the Kyoto protocol; no thanks.
I sustain all of what Sarahmae D said. I have spent sometime in Brazil. Most out laying towns of the major cities in Brazil by EPA standards would and will qualify as superfund sites. Some of the towns I've been in look and smell like toxic waste dumps.
I forgot to answer the questions.
How do we prepare? We don’t
Should we (Unity08) support means to get better earth-friendly cars? No. The United States has lead the world in clean air acts/green house gas reductions. The current level of required emissions is just fine.
yet cutting some commerce? Nope.
Should we wait for more evidence? Nope.
With respect, I disagree Greg. The science of how and why of global warming and global dimming are pretty well understood, though as with all science, our understanding is continually improving.
For more insight, I think it was Sketch who wrote an eloquent statement under one the Poll headers regarding both.
Where disagreement among scientists still very clearly exists is on modelling the future...ie, how bad will things get, how soon, and how/if current trends can be reversed.
Part of the difficulty with modeling is the astounding complexity of the climate. Another pertinent factor is that building predictive models in a time of very rapid change is inherently difficult (wide data variations are destabilizing).
Sketch and others may have other information, but the data available on the climate today is far worse than any of the models predicted just a couple of decades ago.
As for clean air and green house gas reductions, we are actually woefully behind other developed nations. The US accounts for a disproportionate share, by population certainly, and even when measured aginst percentage of global GDP. The efficiency and pollution characteristics of our existing fleet of cars on the road today is worse than 1980.
Given that understanding, we need to do what we can ASAP. Change the things we can control, and do them NOW. And invest in alternative technologies and energy sources (see energy independence topic) for the longer term. It's going to take a while to refine newer technologies to come to current performance levels, just as it took a while to achieve increases in efficiencies of fossil-fuel burning engines.
Like you, I don't support signing Kyoto. There are far too many holes in it. It is a good working document to start with, and many of the issues could be fixed. And normally, I would be more inclined to support free market than government imposed solutions, but in this case, the causes of global warming are too far removed from the consequences; it's too difficult for people to connect the destructiveness of their own individual actions to the problems they are creating for other people half the globe away. Someplace between indifference and willful ignorance, I think.
Signing the Kyoto treaty would be a huge mistake.
How do we know that Global warming is a fact when facts like most of the weather stations in former Soviet countries were abandoned after the fall, and the that Africa doesn't maintain theirs? We can look only into area climate change, but climate change is natural. It was cold in the seventies, hot in the thirties and cold from the 1600's trhough the 1850's. The Spanish Armada was distroyed due to a very cold storm that blew them around England, Napoleon lost 56,000 of his 60,000 man army due a very cold winter, and the Hessens were defeated on Christmas by the best president ever George Washington do to a nearly frozen Delaware river that he crossed. Before that the midevil warming period caused great ecinomic gains and funded the crusades and the norsemen even were planting corn on Greenland and having picnics while wearing speedos there. Another item for discussion is that the ocean creates most of the CO2, around 70%, as opposed to humans around 3%, and it creates more when it is hot...let's dry up the oceans!...maybe just the Atlantic Ocean, we'll leave the Pacific...more tourist attractions there.
The Kyoto Treaty was just a start and since it is due to expire in 2024, to sign it at this point would be less than productive. What we need is an entirely new treaty.
One major concern of Kyoto's opponents has been that many developing nations and China are not signatories. And China's GHG emissions increase every year by the yearly output of the UK, so the argument goes that any reductions we make will be offset by China. Probably true, but what better way to start a global policy change than to lead by example. Perhaps you have seen the commercial with Bill Clinton encouraging American use of renewables in which he says, "If Brazil can do it, so can we". If Brazil can do it, so can we? And I thought that the U.S. was supposed to be the technological wonder!!!
Reading through some of the entries in this forum I am appalled by the ignorance of some people. I am a geologist who was on the verge of becoming an astrophysicist and I was quite frankly flabbergasted by some of the statements made in this forum, including one in particular where someone tried to say that the sun spot cycle is why it's warm now and that it will be cold in a few years for the same reason. But the point that I am trying to get to is that it is special interest groups who have distorted public opinion to the point that achieving acceptance of a new more stringent treaty would be near impossible.
Now, regardless of whether or not we can get China to sign on to the deal we should be leading the way with the other 169 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. We as a nation could cut world GHG emissions by 4% merely be doubling the efficiency of our transportation, which should be relatively easy to accomplish given that we are far below even Chinese standards on that point. TO get more developing nations in on the new treaty we should develop and international development fund for the development of renewable energy resources in developing nations, funded by the developed nations.
In the U.S. we could kickstart the green energy business by requiring all new government projects to be super-efficient constructions, all government vehicles to be hybrid, all government buildings to purchase electricity from renewable sources.
Cars and trucks are 2 to 3 times cleaner and more effeicent now than in the 80's. The trouble is there are 5 times more on the road then in the 80's. and projected to increase by 50% by 2024.
80's cars sucked, all the polution controlls, now power and no better gas millage then the 70's. I have a 71 camaro, get's 10 city and 15 highway cruising. about 5 mpg if I'm having fun (thats running around 140mph). I also had a 73 chevy 4x4 pu, got 8 city and 11 highway period. didn't matter if you were pulling a house or not. New trucks get 15 city and 19 hwy. GM is comming out with the hybrid trucks around the first of 08. 25% better millage out of those. Also the 08 camaro is said to get 30 mpg hwy, with a 400 horse v8.
Browncoats Unite!
To quote my military teachers, "the enviornment is in a world of "sh&$"... we have no clue how much toxic waste has been dumped illegally in the oceans by the communists and third world nations that we cannot control now or in the future... We must start finding ways to protect ourselves from the toxic enviornment to come, the enviornmental war was lost decades ago, sacrificed in the name of profit... Now we must shelter ourselves and ride out a storm that will only get worse... with our best hopes a managed toxic enviornment where human can continue. Man are they gonna thank us....
From all I've read and heard, global warming is real. It occurs with or without us, but we may or may not contribute greatly.
But why would we need a reason to conserve natural resources?
How about to save money, trees for oxygen, wildlife and untouched scenery for tourism and just to escape a crowded place that makes us crazy?
It isn't just a pet project for hippies. They're just the ones who cared before it became a matter of money.
as far as it killing industry, it creates new ones. With alternative fuels, the money stays here, the money then becomes income tax which also stays here. Employment rises, lowering welfare. And we might not have to keep photos to remind our offspring what nature looks like. Many of the animals we feel are pests and better off without are saving lives. Snake venom is used to stop clotting, bees for life threatening crows feet, frogs are being used to study how to prevent frostbite and other ailments.
There are no "extra" live things on this globe.
So why wait for a disaster?
The US contributes to more than 30% of CO2 emissions globally. The only one close is China! We could do a lot in regards to CAFE, but big industry is the largest contributor. Sure, at least regulating the worst offenders (SUV’s and Hummers) does make sense, but since when does that motivate our government?
Signing Kyoto may put us in a financial hurt right now, but would you rather spend that cash on Army Corps’ of Engineer dikes from Halifax to South Beach in 20 years? Yes, I just predicted the Bush will invade Canada… in jest hopefully.
We need to pressure the oil companies to invest not in new oil fields, but in alternative solutions. What else are they going to do with all those windfall profits? They are one the only folks with the means... if we could just change their motivation. They could make a lot of money cleaning up the messes they have helped create. Sounds like a win-win for them… and us.
Some may call it a political statement, but Mr. Gore has done a fantastic job explaining what's going on with his presentation *The Inevitable Truth*. He's put it in an interesting and educational format. I recommend seeing it... I think we should put it on all networks during prime time without telling anyone that American Idol time slot would be changed to directly after the presentation.
How do we prepare? We can still fix it; the Earth climate is very bendy. It's got to be now though.
Should we (Unity08) support means to get better earth-friendly cars, yet cutting some commerce?
Earth friendly cars can be a HUGE $$$ maker for the car companies, why do good things have to be painful all the time? This country has always been a technological leader and we’ve made some pretty good money doing it I do believe.
Should we wait for more evidence?
I don't think we need anymore evidence, just ask anyone that lives in Louisiana.
Just so that people are headed for the right place, Jeff, the movie title is 'An Inconvenient Truth.'
Also, for the Unity08 policy wonks... Thomas Friedman of the NYT proposed the intriguing idea of a joint US-China endeavour to address climate change (thereby assuring that 2 major players would buy into the solution, among other benefits). Any chance that Unity08 could provide some traction to Mr. Friedman's idea, or vice versa?
It is not a newspaper - it's a biased propoganda machine. I don't read anything from the NYT and neither should you. Get your news from a news organization.
I just spent the last hour looking for hard numbers on Global Warming. I couldn’t find any. Can someone please post a web site that they know of, that might have the data I’m looking for. I am looking for the average world temperatures from 1878 to present, by year.
I did find a record for high and low temperature extremes throughout the globe. I found them at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration web site.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html
I did a quick average (leaving out Antarctica).
The average world high temperature between 1881 and present was 125 degrees with an average year of 1909. The average world low temperature between 1933 and present was -47 degrees with an average year of 1948.
There really is no true global data. Weather stations were not kept up in Soviet blocked countries or in most African countries or China. these are large parts of the globe. It was hot in the midevil times(great ecinomic growth), it was cold from about 1600 to 1850,(many wars) it was warmest in the 1930's(took naps and watched Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini take over the world) and it was cold in the 1970's(hence the cold war, viet nam, etc) and it is a little hot now at least in Wisconsin and there is no rain. Where the heck is the rain?
The best resource is probably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Just search that and they have all of their previous reports available on their website.
I found the data I was looking for. It is official the average world temperature has risen 1 degree off base line and 1.3 degrees total, in 125 years, 1880 to 2024.
http://zfacts.com/p/202.html
Just for the recorder we are still relatively cold compared to 100 thousand years ago. So I’m not too concerned.
You are correct but you left out the temperature of the other planets. They have also risen 1 degree, this tells me that it is the Sun causeing the problem. Not Man
It isn't man and it isn't the sun. It's the ocean. Let's dry it up. Global warming is silly. Could we move on to how to get rain in Wisconsin?
Global warming is a FACT. What is disputed is whether it is anthropogenic in origin. At present the scientific community places the certainty of global warming's anthropogenic nature at 90%. In a comprehensive review of PEER REVIEWED literature on climate change it was found that 3/4 of articles state a finding in favour or anthropogenic warming, while the other 1/4 state that findings are inconclusive, and none claim to contradict those findings.
So the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is in consensus. Where the uncertainty arises is through the efforts of special interest groups. For example, Exxon Mobile, the largest oil company in America, currently funds 43 separate organizations designed to question global warming, and PAYS $10,000 to anyone who will put together an article disputing anthropogenic global warming and funds the publishing of these "studies" that are NEVER PEER REVIEWED.
Sure your problems up in Wisconsin MAY be related to global warming. It does not always manifest itself in the form of massive rainfall. It is true that increasing temperatures will increase the amount of vapor in the atmosphere on average, but that is a global average. The increased temperature really means that there will be an increase in massive rainfall events and not so may typical rain showers and of course it will vary from region to region. the changes in the global circulation will mean for example that while southern Africa will see increased rains, northern Africa will see decreased rain and an expanding Sahara.
Greg,there is plenty of hard peer-reviewed data. Studies have been done on human induced climate change since the 80s. Out of 938 peer-reviewed studies analyzed by the journal Science, not one refuted the fact that humans are altering the climate by producing massive amounts of Co2. You should be concered.
On May 25, 2024 - Atmospheric temperature measurements by U.S. weather satellites indicated Earth's hot, tropical zone expanded 140 miles farther from the equator since 1979. Researchers from the University of Utah and University of Washington said the apparent north-south widening of the tropics amounts to 2 degrees of latitude or 140 miles. The study is being published in the Friday May 26 issue of the journal Science.
"It’s a big deal. The tropics may be expanding and getting larger,” said study co-author Thomas Reichler, an assistant professor of meteorology at the University of Utah. “If this is true, it also would mean that subtropical deserts are expanding into heavily populated midlatitude regions.”
Reichler said the study makes no conclusion about the cause of the tropical expansion, but is purely observational, based on 1979-2005 measurements by the TIROS-N and NOAA 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 weather satellites. NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, parent agency of the National Weather Service.
But the fact that this expansion of 140 miles of this tropic zone is significant, because it has occured in such a short period of time(26 years). For this change to have occured in such a limited time frame which also conencides with a period of the largest Co2 emmissions is indication to me that it is human induced.
There has been debate over the interpretation of atmospheric temperature measurements collected by microwave sounding units (MSUs) on the weather satellites. But Science reported in a May 12 news story (“No Doubt About It, the World Is Warming,” page 825) that scientists with competing views hashed out their differences and now agree the weather satellite data show warming of the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, which extends from the ground up to 55,000 feet at the equator and 23,000 feet at the poles. A recent
While those measurements dealt with global averages, the new study shows specifically that Earth’s midlatitudes got about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer during the past 26 years, suggesting there has been a change in the average position of the subtropical jet streams. These rivers of air – one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern Hemisphere – move west to east and mark the meteorological transition from tropical to subtropical climates.
“We analyzed 26-year-long satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures and found a distinct and very robust pattern of warming, which suggests that each subtropical jet stream has moved poleward by about 1 degree latitude,” Reichler says. “This poleward movement took place over both hemispheres, indicating that the tropics have been widening. … Independent [weather balloon] observations of the atmosphere confirm these findings.”
He adds: “The possible expansion of the tropics may be a totally new aspect of climate change. We don’t know for sure what triggered it. My research is investigating whether it is related to global warming or not. … One can certainly think of various mechanisms of how global warming-related changes in the atmosphere could induce the changes we see. But it’s very speculative at this point. That’s what our research is going to look at.”
The tropical zone is defined geographically as the portion of Earth’s surface characterized by hot weather and located between the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 degrees north latitude and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5 degrees south latitude. But meteorologists generally consider the tropics extend 30 degrees latitude north and south of the equator.
The subtropics – which also tend to have hot climates – are the indefinite belts in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres that are between tropical and temperate zones. The U.S. desert Southwest is considered subtropical, Reichler says.
Earth has two polar jet streams at polar latitudes, one in each hemisphere, and two subtropical jet streams closer to the equator, also one in each hemisphere. The jet streams, at altitudes of roughly 30,000 feet, are relatively narrow streams or tubes of high-speed air moving generally west-to-east, but in a path that meanders widely in a north-south direction. They represent boundaries between warm, tropical air masses and cooler air closer to the poles. In the Northern Hemisphere, the polar jet stream generally is found between 30 degrees and 70 degrees north latitude, while the subtropical jet stream generally is confined between 20 degrees and 50 degrees north latitude.
The average position of each subtropical jet stream marks the location of dry, subtropical desert regions on the land below, such as southwestern United States. But in winter, Pacific cyclones can move along the track of the jet, bringing storms to California.
Pushing the Subtropical Jets toward the Poles
The study implies that warmer midlatitude temperatures mean the subtropical jet streams have moved farther from the equator based on the idea that warmer air makes the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, expand and bulge upward. Thus, warmer midlatitude temperatures create a bulge that pushes the subtropical jet streams toward the poles.
The study found that while the lower atmosphere or troposphere at midlatitudes got warmer during the past 25 years, the overlying stratosphere got cooler.
“This pattern of warming in the troposphere where we live and cooling of the stratosphere above may actually cause a change of the jet positions,” Reichler says.
Global warming might cause tropical expansion another way, he adds. The El Nino climate phenomenon – characterized by a pool of warm water in the western tropical Pacific moving eastward toward the Americas – often causes warmer, drier summers at midlatitudes. Other studies have shown tropical sea surface temperatures have warmed during the past 25 years. If ocean warming by El Nino can cause warmer, drier summers, then so should a general increase in tropical ocean temperatures – a possible mechanism for tropical expansion, Reichler says.
The researchers considered the possibility that the 26-year warming trend might be an illusion caused by data from the strong El Nino of 1997, which caused record midlatitude temperatures in 1998. But the midlatitude warming trend remained even when data from the 1997 El Nino was excluded.
If global warming isn’t responsible for tropical expansion, another possible cause is the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer due to pollutants such as refrigerant gases. Ozone loss cools the stratosphere while the troposphere warms – the same pattern from global warming due to greenhouse gases.
Heres some links for further info:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://unfccc.int/2860.html
http://www.istl.org/01-fall/internet.html#internat
http://www.climatescience.gov/
But it was colder in the seventies! If you compare average temperature now to the seventies of course it will be warmer! It is a righting mechanism.
The Kyoto accord placed no limits on some countries, such as China and India. China depends mostly on coal for its energy. Coal produces more CO2 per unit of energy than any other fuel.
From Forbes:
About 70% of China's energy comes from coal, and that share has been rising as the country has doubled its consumption of coal over the last four years. China passed the U.S. in 2024, and it now uses more coal than any other country. Its value among Chinese is reflected in the saying Xue zhong song tan, or "To give some coal to someone on a snowy day." A truer translation: "To lend a helping hand to someone in need."
But boosting its use of coal is worsening China's already grim environmental record. "The global atmosphere can't take this increase," says Janet Sawin, director of the Worldwatch Institute's Energy & Climate Change Program. To cut pollution, China wants to produce more clean-burning coal... It's also using more natural gas and building nuclear power plants, but those will make up only a tiny part of its energy usage for years to come.
Right you are. In many parts of China, coal can practically be dug with a hand trowel, and subsistence level farmers (of which there are about 900m) burn it straight out of the ground over open flame to make dinner.
So rather than saying only that we won't sign Kyoto, let's put together a concrete list of *meaningful* actions we will take, then get together with the Kyoto crowd to change the document to include our actions and address those exclusions. A number of US cities are already making such a commitment. (Yes, the federal government is leading from the rear!)
Sitting on our hands because everyone else is will not solve this problem.
The federal government has stated that signing on to the Kyoto protocol will hurt our economy. Although the protocol is not perfect, it is still a stepping stone towards action. Eventually, our country will be expected to do something about the global warming issue, and waiting until the last minute is not a good idea. I don't even think the idea of global warming can be debated: the evidence is right in front of us. Rising waters, more violent storms, and, as a result, loss of biodiversity. The Clean Air and Water Acts, as well as the Endangered Species Act, were great for domestic policy, but the problem has reached a global scale. Signing on to the Kyoto protocol will show other countries that we are concerned and-who knows?-maybe India and China would also be encouraged to join.
You need to check out the non-government, non-industry, non-lobby group of climate experts and find out the "real" inconvenient truth! The "majority of scientists agree" quote so many throw out like many on this forum and our sensationalist, Al Gore, is really attributed to only a small fraction of those scientists who actually work in the climate field. Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have a special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former U. of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies." They are climate impact experts, not climate change cause experts.
So this "all encompassing body of scientific knowledge" becomes smaller still. Among the experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of HYPOTHETICAL futures. Ball goes on to say, "these models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios and since modelers concede computer outputs are not "PREDICTIONS" BUT ARE IN FACT MERELY SCENARIOS, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is NO CONSENSUS, despite what Gore and others would have you believe.
Examples:
Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist Professor - Carelton University - appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Substainable Development this past year - "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this (geological) time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." He then asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm Univeristy, Sweden states "that some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. However, he states that the "mass balance" of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occuring phenomenon which is due to the normal advancement of a glacier." "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades." The Antarctic has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. Some have stated that the Arctic ice-cap is schrinking (Gore and others). This is misleading, according to Ball: "the survey that these types are citing was a single transect across one part of the Artic basin in the month of October during the 1960's when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology." Karlen explains that a paper published in 2024 by the U. of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperatures is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but NO OVERALL TEMPERATURE RISE. "For several published records it shows a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlen. Dr. Dick Morgan, climatology researcher at the U. of Exeter, U.K. says the Canadian Arctic has seen some decreases in ice thickness over the past 30 years but no melt down. It has fluctuated five times just since the early 70's and has been on "a steady increase to reach normal conditions since 2024."
The Andes Glacier's have been sited time and again as a direct cause of CO2 and increased temperatures and their melting - however, new peer-reviewed studies show that in the South American Andes Mountains the glaciers' advances and retreats have not been governed by CO2, but by small variations in the sun's intensity (the sun, imagine that?). The study led by PJ Polissar of the U. of Massachusetts, found Andean glaciers expanded onlyu four times during the 600 years of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1250 AD to 1850. Each of those glacier advances occurred during a solar minimum, when the sun's lowered activity apparently dropped the mountain-top temperatures by 2-4 degrees C and increased precipitation by about 20 percent.
The sun has been linked to earth's climate changes for the past 400 years-by sunspot records. Early astronomers noted that the coldest periods of the Little ice Age occurred when there were virtually no sunspots on the sun. The sporer Minimum lasted from 1420 to 1570, and the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1710.
The solar-earth linkage came to the fore-ground agian in the 1980's when researchers brought up the first long ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. The 400,000 years of temperature history contained in the ice cores clearly showed a moderate, natural cycle that raised temperatures at the latitude of New York and Paris by about 2 degrees C, and then lowered them by a similar amount. The cycles averaged about 1500 years in length. Carbon 14 and beryllium 10 isotopes in the ice clearly linked this temperature cycle to the sun.
The temperature effect of atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic, not exponential. What this means is that as CO2 is added to the atmosphere, if it has any impact at all, at a certain point there is absolutly NO impact as there can be no more absorption then what the system can handle.
The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C. The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.) the IPCC estimates a trivial 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C warming during the Twentieth Century and both the GHCN-ERSST Data Set and the HadCRUT2v Data Set record the period of the 19-teens through mid-1940s as having a global trend of +0.13 °C/decade for a net warming of 0.45 °C -- leaving a mere 0.15 °C ± 0.2 °C net warming potential for the post-WWII period of significant carbon emission from fossil fuel use.
Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. Another thing, there is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
Questions:
OK, temps are rising, but why?
Antarctic ice cores tell us that temps and CO2 in the atmosphere have tracked closely together through recent Ice Ages, but the CO2 changes have lagged behind the temp changes by about 800 years.
Higher temps have produced more atmospheric CO2, rather than CO2 producing higher temps! That's because most of the planet's CO2 is stored in the oceans, and as the seawater warms, it can't hold as much CO2.
If CO2 is the driving climate force, why did the earth begin warming in 1850, while human CO2 emissions didn't start to really expand until about 1940?
Why did the earth's temp decline from 1940 to 1975, even as CO2 emissions were soaring?
How warm will New York get in this modern warming? It looks like about a total of 2 degrees C - based on history.
Nearly All Info, Quotes, Stats, etc. taken from Tom Harris' article "Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe"; Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute - article "Global Warming: Some Inconvenient Glaciers"; and JunkScience.com
Your post is well researched, well thought out, but it reads almost identically to some of the "studies" that I have seen commissioned by some of the 40+ special interest groups funded by Exxon Mobile.
I am a geologist who was half a step short of becoming an astrophysicist so I have a level of expertise in both fields so i would like to take the opportunity to debunk some of the points in your post. I will avoid citing peer reviewed sources and especially the IPCC since you obviously do not believe any of them and will stick to incontrovertible facts.
1. Response to Patterson: Most CO2 consumption is from oceanic life. At 450 Mya multicellular life was just exploding onto the scene rapidly consuming that 3000ppm CO2. Also, at that time it was 12 degrees warmer than it is now, so obviously the CO2 had an effect. The Earth was just emerging from a "Snowball Earth" which means that most of the surface of the water was covered by ice, hence the marine organisms could not breath. That CO2 had built up for millions of years in the atmosphere and it was necessary to increase the greenhouse effect enough to counteract the negative forcing caused by the increased albedo of the ice. That CO2 was mostly volcanic/tectonic in origin.
2. Response to Karlen: Antarctica has only had a permanent ice sheet for ~23 My since it separated from another landmass allowing the circumpolar currents to isolate it from the rest of the circulation. Antarctica has been in fact the driest place on Earth, yes even drier than the Atacama, for many years because it is so cold and the circumpolar circulation would force any moisture to be dropped before it could make landfall. The REASON that snowfall has increased in Antarctica is BECAUSE it has gotten warmer which has allowed more moisture to make landfall. Since there has been a temperature increase, even if the interior ice mass increases, the edges will calve more readily and since the edges are further from the pole this creates a net decrease in albedo, hence a positive feedback loop.
3. Andes glaciers: So the correlation is between solar minima and glacier expanding? If the expansion is correlated to the minima, why did they expand only 4 times in 600 years, why didn't they expand at any of the other dozens of minima that occurred during those 600 years? Also you'll find a strong correlation between increased volcanic activity, thus aerosols, and this minor period of cooling; the temperature decrease was less than 2 degrees. And if you look at the historical records, you'll find that both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were merely local phenomena, not global occurrences. Your discussion of the "solar-earth" linkage seems to imply that the temperature variability is due to solar decreases, which is entirely false, it is the Milankovich Cycles that have governed the temperature cycle and if you look at those cycles you will find that we are expecting decreasing temperatures right now, not increases.
4. Non-Linear relationships: Your argument contradicts itself. On the one hand you say that the idea of a feedback is falacious, on the other you imply that there in a non-linear relationship because the system essentially acts as a buffer. The system does act as a buffer, which is why CO2 failed to rise as quickly as it would have in an ideal system. Then the negative fluctuations in the recent temperature measurements can be attributed to increased atmospheric aerosols and particulates, such as that produced by volcanic activity.
P.S. In your questions section you state that higher temperatures actually produce more CO2 because the warmer water can't hold as much. This is true. Except for the fact that this is exactly the kind of feedback that you discounted in the previous section!
Well, I think that's plenty of foiled misinformation for now...
Nice post. Worth the read. Thanks.
from:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m...
Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr...
There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.
----------
There is a near-simultaneous (0 to 1000 years)-- geologic time has limited precision -- between the warming associated with interglacial periods and rises in CO2. There is a lag between the temperture drop assoicated with growth of glaciers and the drop in CO2. This suggests that it is possible that CO2 could cause the warming, but a drop in CO2 is not causing the cooling, because the CO2 decrease occurs after the onset of cooling.
None of these are "man-made" events. They do however show that there is a correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 and the onset of warming, and show what levels of CO2 were present during the interglacial periods. Some would consider it cause for concern that CO2 levels are presently higher than in any of these interglacial periods. Along with the close temporal onset between CO2 rises and temperature rises, a reasonable hypothesis is that, if CO2 is responsible for the rise in warming, the lag between the rise in CO2 and warming will be short, on the order of centuries. We are already in an interglacial period; where then, are we headed?
Where are we now? from:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2024.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sketch