The New Global Warming Thread

[deathknight]

I wanted to get your guy's thoughts on this piece of info I found from this wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


Variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud feedbacks, may have contributed to recent warming.[23] A difference between this mechanism and greenhouse warming is that an increase in solar activity should produce a warming of the stratosphere while greenhouse warming should produce a cooling of the stratosphere. Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960.[24] Thus, solar activity alone is not the main contributor to recent warming.

However, other phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.[1] However, some research has suggested that the Sun's contribution may have been underestimated. Two researchers at Duke University have estimated that the Sun may have contributed about 40–50% of the global surface temperature warming over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35% between 1980 and 2000.[25] Stott and coauthors suggest that climate models overestimate the relative effect of greenhouse gases compared to solar forcing; they also suggest that the cooling effects of volcanic dust and sulfate aerosols have been underestimated.[26] Nevertheless, they conclude that even with an enhanced climate sensitivity to solar forcing, most of the warming during the latest decades is attributable to the increases in greenhouse gases.

Not saying it is true just trying to get some input here for further discussion and to see if this article is valid at all.

[AMosely]

It's certainly valid, and your summary is a good example of why this is such a difficult debate. We (humans) do not fully understand (or may not even be aware of) all of the mechanisms involved with the Earth's atmosphere and its relationship with the climate. Further, we also do not completely understand the complex relationship between the climate and the Earth's surface (landmass and ecosystems).

To some, this is reason enough to discount any provacative theories about humankind's influence (past, present or potential) on such systems. In my opinion, I believe that humans should aim to be as neutral as possible with regard to environmental (land, sea or air) pollution and impact. There is clear enough evidence to me that we are far from neutral, and that is why I take the position I do on this issue.

[GhostintheShell]

^^^Well articulated. +rep

[xTYBALTx]

Video of an Oxford Style debate between pro- and anti- warmers.

Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard Somerville on one side.

Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, and Philip Stott on the other.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Video of an Oxford Style debate between pro- and anti- warmers.

We've already covered this since you posted the transcript a month ago, but it's worth pointing out that the question being debated was whether or not global warming is a crisis. They weren't debating whether or not global warming was occuring at this point in time, or whether or not human-caused exhausts are contributing to the phenomena. I would have rather seen the panel debate those aspects instead of articulating the label of 'crisis.'

I don't believe it is a crisis (I think only the media is touting this notion), but it's interesting that 42% of the audience did after the debate.

It will be a crisis if some of the doomsday models hold true, however.

[Lucky Shot]

If it's not a crisis, then it's not worth debating whether human produced C02 is contributing to the crisis.

Lucky Shot

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I don't believe it is a crisis (I think only the media is touting this notion), but it's interesting that 42% of the audience did after the debate.

The post-debate poll numbers are meaningless without reference. Before the debate, 57.32% of the audience believed GW to be a crisis, with just 29.88% believing GW not a crisis. After the debate, only 42.22% believed it to be a crisis, while 46.22% did not believe it a crisis. That's an incredible swing, and very interesting indeed.

Global warming is not a crisis: From 29.88% before debate to 46.22% after.

Global warming is a crisis: From 57.32% before debate to 42.22% after.

Ouch.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

If it's not a crisis, then it's not worth debating whether human produced C02 is contributing to the crisis.

Lucky Shot

I completely disagree. I believe that it is a potential crisis, which is why debate is so critical to the issue right now. The outcome of the posted debate does not surprise me in the least - many people who are overinfluenced by the media think that global warming is a crisis, when it fact it merely has potential to become one. That said, it is equally if not more irresponsible to discount it as junk science.

I also believe that there are no valid reasons for inaction and many good reasons for action - many of which have nothing to do with global warming. Human health, environmental conservation and investment in renewable resources are all excellent reasons to take action. Doing a good thing for different reasons does not change the fact that it is a good thing. Reduction in the excessive refinement and burning of non-renewable fossil fuels (namely coal and oil) is a good thing.

[Lucky Shot]

Great, then encourage Human Health, Environmental Conservation and investment in renewable resources and remove the alarmism of Global Warming. If it's the right thing to do for the right reasons AND global warming is not a crisis now, then promote a green, clean earth without the fearmongering and potential doom predictions.

Lucky Shot

[GhostintheShell]

^^^+rep to you as well Lucky

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Great, then encourage Human Health, Environmental Conservation and investment in renewable resources and remove the alarmism of Global Warming. If it's the right thing to do for the right reasons AND global warming is not a crisis now, then promote a green, clean earth without the fearmongering and potential doom predictions.

Lucky Shot

I don't buy in to fearmongering and doom predictions, though I think it is worth noting the fact that many atmospheric scientists around the world (IPCC) seem to be arriving at doom predictions.

Like I said, I take the position I do because acceptance of global warming at any level should provoke increased environmental responsibility within every citizen of an industrialized nation. If you are going to take a bias on the issue, let it be in favor of the planet.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by AMosely

If you are going to take a bias on the issue, let it be in favor of the planet.

Nice way of putting it. I have a slightly different philosophy though: If you are going to take a bias on the issue, let it be in favor of humanity.

Actually, I think those two philosophies do a pretty good job of summing up our disagreements on global warming.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I have a slightly different philosophy though: If you are going to take a bias on the issue, let it be in favor of humanity.

Actually, I think those two philosophies do a pretty good job of summing up our disagreements on global warming.

I see your point but would like to know how not reducing our (humankind's) environmental impact on the planet (in this case, emissions that have a negative effect on both human planetary health) somehow promotes humankind more than doing the opposite - reducing harmful emissions and reducing our dependence on non-renewable sources, namely fossil fuels.

Our 20th century material existence has instilled an overwhelming sense of economic dependence, which in my opinion is even more overblown than many of the forecasted effects of global warming.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by AMosely

I see your point but would like to know how not reducing our (humankind's) environmental impact on the planet (in this case, emissions that have a negative effect on both human planetary health) somehow promotes humankind more than doing the opposite - reducing harmful emissions and reducing our dependence on non-renewable sources, namely fossil fuels.

Any time you can reduce environmental impact with no (significant) additional cost, I'm all for it. The trick is deciding when to reduce impact on the planet at the cost of additional negative impacts on the humans inhabiting said planet. For example, lets take cars: If all cars on the planet disappeared tomorrow, I'll bet there would be a lot fewer environmental emissions. But humanity would suffer greatly from the lack of transportation.

You can't simply eliminate activities that harm the environment--you have to examine what benefit humanity derives from them that convinced us to start those activities in the first place, and then propose a way to acheive the same or a similar benefit with less damage.

Our 20th century material existence has instilled an overwhelming sense of economic dependence, which in my opinion is even more overblown than many of the forecasted effects of global warming.

Er...I'm not quite sure what you mean by "economic dependence" in that context. Dependence on what, exactly?

[xTYBALTx]

I don't think beavers spend much time thinking about how they can lessen their impact on the world.

I don't think ants do either.

We should only lessen our impact on the world inasmuch as that lessening will improve the quality of our lives or our descendant's lives.

Impact, in and of itself, needn't be a bad thing.