Global Warming likely man-made, new study finds

[tbone]

Ok, so who the heck are we supposed to believe? Other studies last week said it was natural, this week, it's man made?

I guess considering my other post about Congressional hearings into the Bush administration pressuring, coercing, and even threatening scientists to change data about global warming and the previous study was by the gov't, I'll beleive this one for the moment.

(02-02) 09:39 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- An international body of climate scientists issued somber findings today that even more strongly confirm that Earth's rising air and ocean temperatures are very likely due to the increase in emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Even if the industrial nations start to immediately reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, the past and future gases will continue to contribute to global warming and the rise of oceans for more than 1,000 years, according to a long-awaited report released in Paris.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level,'' said the report, a summary of four volumes of study representing the most-up-to-date knowledge on climate change.

The scientists credit improved worldwide computer modeling that confirm measurements on the ground, satellite data and ice core borings dating back 650,000 years with helping to build a picture of what has been happening to the planet. Some of the findings:

-- Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global rate in the past 100 years. The extent of the sea ice has shrunk nearly 3 percent per decade since 1978. Temperatures in the top layer of permafrost have increased since the 1980s, and the maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 percent in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900 with a decrease in spring of up to 15 percent.

-- Precipitation has significantly increased in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia. Drying has been seen in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Other regions are showing a high variability in rain and snowfall.

-- Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s, and more intense and longer droughts have been observed over wide areas, particularly in the tropics and subtropics, since the 1970s.

-- Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years as cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become more frequent.

Richard Somerville, a climate scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a coordinating lead author of a section of the report, said it seemed likely that these events would "carry on through the 21st century and continue to grow and become more serious as time goes by.''

The release of the international assessment, heralded by shutting off lights in the Eiffel Tower for five minutes as the scientists rushed to finish, comes after six years of work and is built on a previous dozen years of study by hundreds of researchers from more than 100 nations. In the next two month, two more bodies of work dealing with different aspects of climate change will be released.

This part of the fourth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, formed by the United Nations' Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization in 1988 to support a framework for study approved by the world's nations, including the United States.

Global warming likely man-made, new study finds

[Thorgrim]

This study > others

It's extremely conservative, and still puts us at 90% the cause of global warming, and that it could spill out of control if we don't stop it

Of course, don't look to this board, Exxon Mobil is offering 10,000 for anyone with a science backround to critique the report

Glad to see those big profits are going to use, god forbid we end those subsidies, without our tax dollars they might not be able to fund right wing think tanks

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Of course, don't look to this board, Exxon Mobil is offering 10,000 for anyone with a science backround to critique the report

True.

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | Life | Guardian Unlimited

I had a long political discussion with my roommate last night over this issue. (He's Libertarian.) It's interesting to see opinions similar to his expressed on the recent "Al Gore nominated for peace prize" thread here. I'm trying to understand their thought processes.

It seems that the current line of thinking on the right is that the socialists have hijacked the environmental movement for their own gain, and they're excluding the legitimate scientists that say mankind doesn't contribute significantly to global warming. The socialists are using enviromentalism as a tool to attack capitalism by preventing us from drilling for oil in our artic refuges and demanding unreasonable regulations that hamper American businesses without demanding the same of other countries. It seems that Gore at one time fired a scientist who disagreed with him.

Also, all the scientists studying CO2 levels apparently have been wasting their time all these decades because it's impossible to get a statistically valid sample when you realize how old the Earth is. He won't accept the IPCC report because he can't verify the motivations of the scientists involved, and all the scientists who disagree with the science have been blacklisted.

I don't argue the possibility that the environmental lobby sometimes slants its case it the way that's favorable to them, but it's hard to believe that the environmentalists are a bigger, more powerful, greedier lobby with more financial interests to protect than the oil companies. I guess the "real" environmentalists are in a way absolved because they're being used by the socialists.

(I'm guessing that it would only take a tiny amount of digging to get them to admit that their definition of "socialists" pretty much equals "Democrats and Liberals.")

[7960]

wait, my 02/02/07 story says it's not man-made and claims we may be *cooling* the earth with our pollution

The real deal?

We need to figure out which story was filed last so we know which is more current (and thus, true).

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

wait, my 02/02/07 story says it's not man-made and claims we may be *cooling* the earth with our pollution

The real deal?

We need to figure out which story was filed last so we know which is more current (and thus, true).

Good read

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by 7960

wait, my 02/02/07 story says it's not man-made and claims we may be *cooling* the earth with our pollution

The real deal?

We need to figure out which story was filed last so we know which is more current (and thus, true).

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv

I stopped reading there. He is not a climatologist.

[motivez]

What would it take to convince some of you who are global warming skeptics that it was indeed being caused by man?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I stopped reading there. He is not a climatologist.

So let's ask the climatologists!!

Originally Posted by same article

In fact, according to the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Oh shit........ even THEY don't know

[motivez]

Global Warming doesn't mean everyone is going to start wearing bikini's and tank tops because it's going to be hot everywhere

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What would it take to convince some of you who are global warming skeptics that it was indeed being caused by man?

Proof based on something other than speculation.

I believe man has a role in global warming, I just have trouble believing all the hype.

[motivez]

Why do you think this newest study is based on speculation?

What specific parts of the report do you feel are incorrect, inaccurate, etc?

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Global Warming doesn't mean everyone is going to start wearing bikini's and tank tops because it's going to be hot everywhere

You're right. I means rain in the sahara!

....they found Sahel rainfall in the July to September period jumped 1-2mm a day

Global Warming Could End Sahara Droughts, Says Study

[motivez]

Indeed. I suspect that's why it's also referred to as climate change.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Global Warming doesn't mean everyone is going to start wearing bikini's and tank tops because it's going to be hot everywhere

But it's also hard to blame a .5 degree climate change on greenhouse gases when the majority of the climate change occurred when we were releasing far less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Obviously they don't help, but logically it can't be the full/big picture.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

Indeed. I suspect that's why it's also referred to as climate change.

Watch the news. It's NEVER called climate change. It's called "GLOBAL WARMING IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS AND THE OCEANS ARE GOING TO RISE 17 FEET "


.........and yes, they actually say that every time they talk about it

[7960]

Seriously, mostly I'm mocking the scientific community who can't make up their fucking mind. One group believes something and is out there looking for proof to back it up. Another group believes the anti-something and is out there looking for proof for *their* theory.

What happened to good old scientific process that took a shitload of evidence and started at the beginning and worked its way through to come to a conclusion? THAT'S what's pissing me off. It's like they alternate weeks... this week some other scientist comes out with "PROOF GLOBAL WARMING IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS AND THE OCEANS ARE GOING TO RISE 17 FEET : noes:" and the next another scientist comes out and with "PROOF THOSE OTHER GUYS ARE FULL OF SHIT "

I understand it's a complex system. Why can't they forget the hype and report what they KNOW and admit what they HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE OF?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

Watch the news. It's NEVER called climate change. It's called "GLOBAL WARMING IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS AND THE OCEANS ARE GOING TO RISE 17 FEET "


.........and yes, they actually say that every time they talk about it

I used to be an environmental studies major and had quite a few professors who worked for the EPA. The general consensus from my professors was that greenhouse gases are not good for human health or the earth and could be contributing to some unknown degree to global warming. But if the temperature rises, humans will be ok. The biggest problem would be ocean levels rises a couple feet or so which wouldn't be a problem if not for the number of displaced people. It would be a huge displacement issue and cause humanitarian problems in poor countries where the people have no place to go. If/when the oceans rise it will be gradual. Humans will have time to adjust. The ocean levels have risen and fallen throughout history. The same as we're not gonna have to wake up and wear bathing suits, people aren't going to suddenly wake up and be under water either.

The biggest piece of "evidence" that humans are greatly effecting global warming is that "scientists agree." That's all it is. They all agree to the speculation and that for some reason holds precedent. However, they admitted if a professor at our university asked for grant money to contest global warming or if they published something against global warming they would have problems within the administration and their department. Basically global warming is more of a media issue than anything else they say.

Now these are only a few members of the EPA and they wouldn't put these opinions in writing if they ever wanted to see grant money or tenure in the future. But it is what they lectured and taught. And, I really haven't seen any counter evidence to disprove what they were saying other than "scientists agree." You either agree with the common belief that makes people money or you're a right-wing nut job who doesn't understand that it's not ok to believe the same theory as everyone else just because it's more popular. Keep in mind these people speaking out in favor of global warming do so for a living. They live off of grant money. If they deny global warming or go against the hype they basically end their career and start flipping burgers at McDonalds.

[motivez]

It's referred to as global warming most often because of the direct impact the greenhouse gases have on the global temperature.

It's not speaking to the effects that global warming will have on the climate when referred to as that. Anyone who's done even a minute amount of reading on the subject understands that some of the effects will be colder climates for certain areas, changes in weather patterns, etc.

Global warming is just the phrase people have latched on to. Don't put stock in it as a simplistic definition of what is going to happen.