Global warming is real...yet few do anything to stop it

LongIslandPiney

Explorer
Jan 11, 2006
484
0
The ecological "footprint", especially here in the northeast, is much larger than average. People buy big houses, drive big SUV's, and waste energy in so many other ways it's sickening.
Here on LI, it seems everyone has to drive them, even though no one needs an SUV for anything (on road,anyway). They use 3-5 times as much gas as a car, pour out as much as 5 times pollutants, and are a danger to everyone on the road.
It seems the GMC series of beasts (the Yukon, Tahoe, Suburban) are the most popular with families 'round here, with the executives driving Hummers, Escalades, and Armadas to work.
Most ppl, when confronted with the question (why do you need such a big thing?) they say "well so my kids will be safe". Well your kids are going to grow up in a world ruined by your greed. Sea levels are rising, greenhouse gases are rising at record rates, earth is warmest in 2,000 years and you still have the gall to drive around in that big heap of metal?

What's happening to our planet is indeed quite rapid and scary. The patterns of flooding and drought we are seeing across the world, could very well be an effect of the rise in greenhouse gases, which is happening at record rates. The severe gypsy moth invasion in the woods, is going to be more frequent. This hurts the pine barrens too.:(

Greenhouse Gases Increased in 2005


Graph shows increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past fifty years as measured over Mauna Loa, Hawaii. NOAA.
The level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmsphere increased worldwide in 2005, according to a new NOAA survey.

Greenhouse gas levels rose to nearly 379 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 2 ppm over 2004. By contrast, levels before the industrial age began two centuries ago were about 100 ppm lower.

Warming Impacts Pacific Islanders


Sea level is rising in the Pacific Ocean nation of Vanuatu, highlighted in red on this false-color map. USGS.
In recent years, signs of global warming have appeared just about everywhere on the planet. Now, for perhaps the first time, it's forcing people to leave their homes.

According to a new United Nations report, about 100 people on the island of Tegua in Vanuata in the Pacific Ocean are moving to higher ground to escape rising seas.

Coconut trees along the island's shoreline are already standing under water. Some of the island's residents have taken apart their wooden homes and moved them about 600 yards inland. In recent years, storm-whipped seas have flooded the village about four or five times a year.

Climate experts say ocean levels could rise by nearly three feet (one meter) by the year 2100 due to global warming. Most of the extra water is from melting icecaps. The warming has been blamed on the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels in power plants, factories, and cars and trucks.

People in other areas of the Pacific Ocean are feeling the effects too. In Papua New Guinea, about 2,000 people living on the Cantaret Islands are making plans to move to higher ground on Bougainville Island.

Thousands of miles away in the chilly Arctic, global warming is also leaving its mark. Natives in the villages of Shishmaref in Alaska and Tuktoyaktuk in Canada may need to leave their villages as sea ice disappears around them.

Greenland's Glaciers are Melting


Greenland's melting glaciers are adding to rising sea levels. NOAA.
Evidence that Greenland is shrinking keeps piling up. As temperatures climb, Greenland's southern glaciers are getting swallowed up by the Atlantic Ocean at a faster and faster rate. Scientists say this big meltdown is having a much bigger effect on the rise of global sea level than once thought.

Its melting glaciers are adding twice as much ice to the ocean as compared to ten years ago. Greenland's total melting ice is responsible for about 17 percent of the 0.1 inch annual rise in global sea level. This is double the amount scientists estimated earlier.

Rising temperatures are causing the glaciers to flow faster. The increased flow causes more ice to melt into the sea. In 2005, Greenland lost 54 cubic miles of ice. In 1996, the total was only 22 cubic miles.

Scientists say the extra warmth increases melt water where the glaciers flow over rock. This helps ease the downhill flow of the massive rivers of ice as they steadily crawl towards the Atlantic.

NASA: 2005 Was Hottest Year


This map shows that average surface temperatures on Earth were way above normal (red) across much of the globe in 2005. NASA.
A NASA study says 2005 was the hottest year on Earth since global temperature record-keeping began in the 1890s. In fact, the five hottest years (2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004) have all been within the past decade.

In 2005, average global temperatures were slighty higher than they were in 1998. That year was marked by a strong El Niño which added to the warmth felt in some parts of the world. What is remarkable is that there was only a very weak El Niño in 2005.

Earlier this year, other climate studies named 2005 as the second warmest year after 1998. But NASA says those studies only looked at data through November and didn't include complete data for the Arctic. In the new NASA study, the weather was unusually mild in the Arctic in 2005. This helped boost the global average in 2005.

Over the past 30 years, Earth has warmed by 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius). Over the past century, the increase has been 1.44 degrees F (0.8 degrees C). Over the rest of the 21st century, global temperatures could rise from 6 to 10 degrees F (3 to 5 degrees C). This would make the Earth hotter than it's been in hundreds of thousands of years.

A temperature rise that big would have a disastrous effect on people, wildlife, and the environment. Sea level rise, coastal erosion, wildlife and plant extinctions, as well as floods, droughts, and other weather extremes will become bigger and bigger threats to the planet and its inhabitants.
 

kingofthepines

Explorer
Sep 10, 2003
268
7
the final outpost
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them 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 special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University 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."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among 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. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "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 suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] 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." Patterson 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?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "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. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But KarlÈn clarifies 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. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s 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."

KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,239
4,331
Pines; Bamber area
"Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Feel unable to state publicly? Why, are they under a gag order?

==========================

Readers respond on global warming
Tom Hennessy
Staff columnist


The response to my recent column on Al Gore's film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was hefty and evenly divided.
The cons were the most vociferous. Al and I have nothing to fear, they said. The environment is doing just fine. The climatic changes cited by Gore in the film are part of earth's natural cycle.

Some said the film is the kickoff of Gore's campaign for president. Or that it is constructed to appeal to gullible viewers, including yours truly. Or that Gore is full of ... well, carbon monoxide. One woman said she knows little about environmental problems, but does not need to see the film to know that Gore is wrong.

Three readers refuted my column with one by Tom Harris, having found the latter on the Internet. Presumably not knowing who he is, they nevertheless bought his premise that Gore is an environmentally ignorant, alarmist politician.

As it turns out, Harris works for the High Park Group, a consulting firm that deals with energy issues and whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association.
 
Top