Warthaug
Contributor
I'm a little late jumping in, but hey, I just finished moving - its not like I've had internet (or a phone, or home) for the last week or anything.
I have to say, it's sad to see posts like this - so much propaghanda and distortions, so little truth or honesty. To be brief:
1) Global warming - i.e. that the earth is warming - is a fact. That is not conjecture, computer models or anything of the like. We know this as a fact from nothing more then modern meteorological records, which extend back to the mid-1800's. So unless you think thermometers have magically started reading warm over the last 20 years, there is no factual grounds to deny that warming is occurring.
Using proxy measures - ice cores, tree rings, and so forth, we can extend the climatological record back even farther. And while you can try and poke holes in these projections, it doesn't get around the fact that we know the earth is warming from nothing more then reading thermometers.
2) No non-human factors account for the current (1980's - onwards) warming trend. Before the 1980's the earths temperature was pretty much in lock-step with solar output, with the odd blip caused by changes in particulates (i.e. volcanic eruptions). Since then the temperature has increased, even though natural sources of warming have both gone up and down (i.e. 2 short solar cycles) during that period of time. This warming has continued, despite several large jumps in some cooling factors (particulates) which previously would produce cooling.
3) Human factors correlate well with the post-80's warming, particularly the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
4) Computer models have predicted several climatic changes which should occur due to increasing CO2 - i.e. rapid warming in the arctic, changes in rainfall patterns in western Canada/USA and Africa, hotter summers in Europe, etc - and to date these models have done an excellent job of predicting these changes.
And contrary to what others have posted, weather is not climate. Or, in other words, complaining that we cannot predict hurricanes, etc, has nothing to do with climatology, global warming, or anything even vaguely relevant to the discussion of global warming.
5) There are about 15,000 people working as climatologists the world around. Of which 3 or 4 actively believe and promote that humans are not responsible what-so-ever for warming. In contrast, thousands of the remainder actively promote the theory that humans are causing warming, and the "sighlent majority" publish papers which support the human-warming link.
Aside from the small number of climatologists, most anti-warming "experts" are economists, statisticians, and individuals in other unrelated fields.
6) The only thing that matters in science is our publications (I'm a scientist by profession, BTW). Over the past year there has been ~1200 publications in the field, none of which have denied a human connection.
There is also ~100,000 publications on the topic of global warming - and the conclusion that can be drawn from them is pretty clear. We are responsible for global warming. The only real outstanding question is how much we are responsible for. The bad news is that most evidence suggests its "most".
7) Reducing CO2 is not difficult. Just as a personal example, over the past two years I've managed to drop my CO2 emissions by over 50%, and saved a bucket of money at the same time. It was easy:
a) Needed new car, bough cheaper, fuel-efficient car to replace my old truck
b) Replaced most of my lighting with compact fluorescents
c) My fridge broke, and I replaced it with a more efficient model
Those three alone (mostly the first) account for an ~50% reduction in my CO2 emissions, and came at a net saving (reduced car cost and fuel consumption, plus less electricity).
I also just moved (new city, work related). Made a point of finding a place close to work (no need to commute anymore), and have a smaller place. Don't know yet how much of a reduction that'll be, but it should be a bit - and I save yet more money and time.
No need to live like a bum, or live in 3rd world conditions. The only thing being environmentally friendly "cost" me was less money.
At the end of the day, if you're going to fox news, al gore, an oil consortium, or any other sort of special interest group - either pro or anti-warming - you are not getting the real story. Unfortunately, with such a heavily politicized topic finding impartial sources is nearly impossible. And unless you're involved in the field, the scientific papers are nearly unintelligible. Which is why several real climatologists (i.e. scientists who actually do the research and publish the papers) have begun a web project to inform people of what scientists are actually finding, as well as providing forms where anyone can ask questions that the climatologists will answer.
I'd urge anyone active or lurking on this thread to check it out:
RealClimate
Bryan
I have to say, it's sad to see posts like this - so much propaghanda and distortions, so little truth or honesty. To be brief:
1) Global warming - i.e. that the earth is warming - is a fact. That is not conjecture, computer models or anything of the like. We know this as a fact from nothing more then modern meteorological records, which extend back to the mid-1800's. So unless you think thermometers have magically started reading warm over the last 20 years, there is no factual grounds to deny that warming is occurring.
Using proxy measures - ice cores, tree rings, and so forth, we can extend the climatological record back even farther. And while you can try and poke holes in these projections, it doesn't get around the fact that we know the earth is warming from nothing more then reading thermometers.
2) No non-human factors account for the current (1980's - onwards) warming trend. Before the 1980's the earths temperature was pretty much in lock-step with solar output, with the odd blip caused by changes in particulates (i.e. volcanic eruptions). Since then the temperature has increased, even though natural sources of warming have both gone up and down (i.e. 2 short solar cycles) during that period of time. This warming has continued, despite several large jumps in some cooling factors (particulates) which previously would produce cooling.
3) Human factors correlate well with the post-80's warming, particularly the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
4) Computer models have predicted several climatic changes which should occur due to increasing CO2 - i.e. rapid warming in the arctic, changes in rainfall patterns in western Canada/USA and Africa, hotter summers in Europe, etc - and to date these models have done an excellent job of predicting these changes.
And contrary to what others have posted, weather is not climate. Or, in other words, complaining that we cannot predict hurricanes, etc, has nothing to do with climatology, global warming, or anything even vaguely relevant to the discussion of global warming.
5) There are about 15,000 people working as climatologists the world around. Of which 3 or 4 actively believe and promote that humans are not responsible what-so-ever for warming. In contrast, thousands of the remainder actively promote the theory that humans are causing warming, and the "sighlent majority" publish papers which support the human-warming link.
Aside from the small number of climatologists, most anti-warming "experts" are economists, statisticians, and individuals in other unrelated fields.
6) The only thing that matters in science is our publications (I'm a scientist by profession, BTW). Over the past year there has been ~1200 publications in the field, none of which have denied a human connection.
There is also ~100,000 publications on the topic of global warming - and the conclusion that can be drawn from them is pretty clear. We are responsible for global warming. The only real outstanding question is how much we are responsible for. The bad news is that most evidence suggests its "most".
7) Reducing CO2 is not difficult. Just as a personal example, over the past two years I've managed to drop my CO2 emissions by over 50%, and saved a bucket of money at the same time. It was easy:
a) Needed new car, bough cheaper, fuel-efficient car to replace my old truck
b) Replaced most of my lighting with compact fluorescents
c) My fridge broke, and I replaced it with a more efficient model
Those three alone (mostly the first) account for an ~50% reduction in my CO2 emissions, and came at a net saving (reduced car cost and fuel consumption, plus less electricity).
I also just moved (new city, work related). Made a point of finding a place close to work (no need to commute anymore), and have a smaller place. Don't know yet how much of a reduction that'll be, but it should be a bit - and I save yet more money and time.
No need to live like a bum, or live in 3rd world conditions. The only thing being environmentally friendly "cost" me was less money.
At the end of the day, if you're going to fox news, al gore, an oil consortium, or any other sort of special interest group - either pro or anti-warming - you are not getting the real story. Unfortunately, with such a heavily politicized topic finding impartial sources is nearly impossible. And unless you're involved in the field, the scientific papers are nearly unintelligible. Which is why several real climatologists (i.e. scientists who actually do the research and publish the papers) have begun a web project to inform people of what scientists are actually finding, as well as providing forms where anyone can ask questions that the climatologists will answer.
I'd urge anyone active or lurking on this thread to check it out:
RealClimate
Bryan
