Climate shift

[damienpaul]

Okay, as you can see in my sig, I am interested in climate, the weather and admittedly, i love a nice evening with red wine in hand watching a hell of a storm overhead (and taking pictures).

One question I'd like to get the views of the bountiful members here is if you belive that weather patterns are shifting permanently - meaning settling into a new regime (for want of a better term).

If folks could post evidence either way...I have no particular stance on this - it is a mixture of a hunch and a fear of sorts.

[suttsteve]

I see no evidence that weather patterns are currently shifting. On a global scale, they seem pretty normal.

[damienpaul]

Here is an article from the CSIRO in Australia Global climate shift linked to greenhouse and another from the USGS about the Little Ice Age ice-core evidence of rapid climate shift during the termination of the Little Ice Age.

It appears that climate shifts are relatively normal, usually either temporary or small scale - but there is a growing body of research that suggests that a large-ish scale climate shift is underway.

This shift could entirely be part of the natural cycles of things - e.g. interglacial cycles etc.

Suttsteve, thank you for your opinion - do you have links that show that point of view, i'd be interested in reading them

[dgruss23]

Here is a really good discussion we had at BABB on this topic:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1

The people supporting anthropogenic global warming failed to come up with the meat to support the claim that the evidence for AAGW is overwhelming.

[damienpaul]

Thats what I thought as well.... I remember reading a study of ice cores similar to the USGS link - and it suggests cyclicity.

The thread you linked is awesome, personally I am not really much of a believer of anthropogenic sources of global warming and climate change anymore. The data from ice cores etc seem to suggest a cycle

[cyswxman]

It really depends on what you mean by shifting patterns. The atmosphere is pretty much in a constant state of flux, and rarely holds a climatic regime for very long. Indeed climate can be defined as the average weather over a rather long period of time. There tend to be irregular cyclical patterns, which themselves are governed by smaller cyclical patterns, and so on. To establish that the climate is now warmer than it should be, or colder, wetter, drier, etc, requires that one determine a normal, i.e. what it "should" be like, then measure the difference. I'm not so sure we can yet determine any locations' "normal", or even it it exists. As I am fond of saying, "Normal is quite abnormal."

[Kullat Nunu]

Well, even if the rising temperatures are not caused by humans, it's not wise to accelerate the warming. We cannot afford to be wrong.

It seems that within the last few thousands of years -- the time when here have been human civilizations -- Earth's climate has been unusually stable. During the last glaciation period, especially at its end there were huge shifts in global temperatures.

[Gillianren]

here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"

I don't have enough information to really have an opinion beyond that on either subject, and I feel that this is in no small part because most of the people who write on either subject assume that you already understand it. I don't; Bill Nye's talk on global warming (which, as I recall, supported the human-created angle, though I could be wrong) was about at the level I could understand, and included a funny bit about cavemen worrying about "global cooling," which made clear that climate varies and always has.

[Kristophe]

I'm sorta in the same seat as Gillian, 'cept I'm more worried about the toxic chemicals that end up all over the place. I'd prefer we get a grip on those, first.

I, too, haven't personally witnessed any seemingly long term changes in the weather. Not locally, anyway. Everything is as it has been as far back as I can remember. Nearly twenty years, anyway.

[MG1962A]

I think the climate is changing - I'm not sure there is any dynamic to make it stay stable for any period of time. My understanding is we are still on the up swing from the last ice age.

In terms of the stuff we are pumping into the atmosphere, there have been volcanic events in the past that bordered on catastrophic, and the environment has bounced back.

I am not condoning air pollution, just suggesting a lot of the stuff being pumped out wont affect climate as much as we think, though human health will naturally suffer.

You did ask to sight references, and that is a fair point. I have an interest in the evolution of life on this planet, and when you do look through the ages, you realise how calm things are at the momment. Life has had to deal with events that make the current climate seem a paradise

MG

[dgruss23]

here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"

If you read the first 7 pages of the thread I linked to above you'll see the arguments against anthropogenic global warming. You could post some questions on that thread if you would like additional explanation.

As to your question about trying to limit what we spill in the atmosphere - Its a good question. And there is nothing wrong as long as its done for the right reasons and in a way that is not harmful.

The problem is that anthropogenic global warming theory is not a good reason to limit fossil fuel usage - because the theory is so weak when you look at the evidence. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - it is plant food. Trees grow by using atmospheric CO2. James Lovelock pointed out in his GAIA hypothesis that if CO2 levels drop too much below the pre-industrial levels, the growth of plants would be restricted.

Nobody on BABB (BAUT now) indicated they were against improving fuel efficiency and reducing emission pollutants such as SO2. But like it or not our economy and lives at this time depend upon the flow of oil. Alternative technologies are not yet feasible - perhaps someday - but not yet. Look at the crisis created in the south by one hurricane. You disrupt electricity and gasoline supplies and chaos ensues.

I'm in favor of improving fuel efficiency and reducing polluting emissions - but Kyoto (for example) is not the answer.

[Lord Jubjub]

Oil and gas get expensive enough and many other options start to look feasible. A lot of these alternative energy sources are expensive in setup terms but cheaper in maintenence. Thus, they are likely to stick around when the prices drop. Even efficiency measures are the same way--very expensive to find and develop, but cheap once they're in production.

Supposedly, rooftop solar panels are quite the rage in California. Anyone there confirm this?

[Taks]

here's what I don't understand, and it's not just a global warming thing.

economics are a HUGE consideration... so you're right, it's not just a GW thing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere?

maybe nothing, maybe everything. tinkering one way or the other has yet unproven consequences. the only known consequence is economic impact. our technology to limit fossil fuel use, in particular, just isn't there yet. limiting such things results in dire consequences for developed nations, and all but eliminates growth in developing nations. the current answer? limit developed nations (US, europe) yet allow developing nations (china, india) to continue unabated. in the end, what do we accomplish when the primary polluters aren't limited anyway? (hint: nothing).

another example is recycling. currently, many forms of recycling are more damaging to the environment than developing the raw resource in the first place (primarily by requiring more energy to produce). when our technology advances, that won't be as much of an issue, but in the mean time... pollute away in the name of enviromental friendliness?

the short answer is that it makes sense to cut back on pollution, but not at the expense of the world economy. feeding the poor becomes a difficult task when we're all poor. technological advances that will in the end improve conditions no longer get invented due to a lack of resources.

and included a funny bit about cavemen worrying about "global cooling," which made clear that climate varies and always has.

that was the big scare up till the early 70s... then it was the hole in the ozone, now global warming. same people making the apocalyptic claims, too. then they wonder why folks such as i don't trust them.

taks

[ausduck1]

For what it's worth, and having no qualifications in the area of weather and global weather patterns etc (I'm just an interested earth inhabitant who reads and watches documentary channels) - using common sense and knowing that the majority of weather observations have been collected in a very short period of time in the history of the earth... well, who's to say that the climactic changes aren't just the result of the very natural state of flux that this planet is in? The hole on the ozone layer gets press regularly here in Australia, and is often linked to our high rate of skin cancer, but are the fluctuations really the result of greenhouse gases or a natural ebbing and flowing??? WE live on a dynamic planet, things aren't going to stay the same, so go with the evolutionary flow (and wear sunblock!!)

[Taks]

The hole on the ozone layer gets press regularly here in Australia, and is often linked to our high rate of skin cancer, but are the fluctuations really the result of greenhouse gases or a natural ebbing and flowing???

the funny thing about a "hole" in the ozone is that when it gets big, there's more O2 in the atmosphere, which is then converted to ozone by UV light... back and forth, back and forth, definite ebb and flow thing going on there. once they figured that out after the big scare in the 90s (or whenever), suddenly the press dropped it and we never hear of it in the states anymore.

taks

[Gillianren]

look, I used to live in LA. these means that, due to things dumped in the atmosphere, I still have the lungs of a smoker, even though I never smoked. that's the sort of thing I mean when I refer to things dumped in the atmosphere.

okay, yes, I'll admit I don't know what specific chemicals are dumped into the atmosphere, and what specific damage those chemicals do, but again, no one has ever even tried explaining this to me in language I can understand. I think I'm speaking for a lot of us when I say that what we need is "stuff dumped into the atmosphere for dummies."

but correct me if I'm wrong, but very few things that dump chemicals into the atmosphere dump nothing but harmless ones, even discounting any thoughts of global warming or ozone holes.

[Glom]

This software has begun to annoy me. I already lost a post a spent a while writing.

what's wrong with trying to limit what we spill into the atmosphere? this is a similar question, to me at least, as "what's wrong with trying to limit the fossil fuels we use, even if they aren't going to give out any time soon?"

I have another question. What's wrong with spilling stuff into the atmosphere? I know it's a weird one, but think about it. Of course, the answer is obvious when it comes to things like SO2 and NOx, which are pollutants, but I sense a more superstious implication that it is someful sinful to emit on first principles. I get a vibe of Ned Flanders and co for whom salting your food is a sin because it inflames the taste buds and becomes enjoyable. This puritanical attitude often seems to be an underlying bias for proponents of emissions reductions and the walking-on-egg-shells lifestyle. It has become ingrained in the public mind that emissions are bad regardless.

So when I ask the question, it's not because I'm saying there aren't plenty of emissions, which are bad, but because I want you to really think about what the basis of your concern is. Is it because of real issues like air quality or because of more latent fear of emissions in general? I'm not sure everyone knows anymore.

[Glom]

look, I used to live in LA. these means that, due to things dumped in the atmosphere, I still have the lungs of a smoker, even though I never smoked. that's the sort of thing I mean when I refer to things dumped in the atmosphere.

Of course, when it comes to air quality, you are right to ask for emissions reductions. My issue is with a more superstitious undercurrent behind emissions reductions. Your question had a ring of "even if the emissions don't cause any harm, shouldn't we try to reduce them anyway".

[aurora]

Today's news story linked below.

As in North America and Europe, glaciers are melting in the Himalayas.

CNN story glacier melting

but, no worries, right?

[dgruss23]

Today's news story linked below.

As in North America and Europe, glaciers are melting in the Himalayas.

CNN story glacier melting

but, no worries, right?

I missed the part where the compelling proof is provided that humans are responsible for the observed climate changes.

[Glom]

I missed the part where the compelling proof is provided that humans are responsible for the observed climate changes.

If I had a pound for everytime an AAGWer has cited some change as evidence of the paradigm, I'd already be able to fund Kyoto. No matter how many times we tell, them some of them can't seem to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not evidence of a specific cause.

[BobK]

Graph the history of carbonated beverage consumption over the last 1000 years. Due to the enormous increase in consumption you will notice a hockey stick shape become quite apparent over the last 100 years.

For the AGW people worried about CO2 causing extreme global warming, I say a journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step. If you drink carbonated beverages,(unknown, but I'm sure vast majority of people) you should at least be willing to stop buying and consuming them. This will cost absolutely nothing, and for those that have a tough time making decisions, there's added benefit of reduced selection space when puchasing beverages.

How can the AGW people expect to convert the skeptics into supporting the enormous costs associated with Kyoto if they don't try to lead by the simple expedient of doing something that costs nothing and might well be as statistically insignificant as Kyoto?

[aurora]

Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

[Glom]

Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Yes, but we manage. Moving on from this trolling...

[Fram]

Perhaps not trolling, but certainly flame bait.

[Launch window]

Perhaps not trolling, but certainly flame bait.

Glom is a big gasoline fan and pro-Nuke advocate so just sometimes he'll turn a blind eye to evidence that is presented to him or blame 'Al-Gore' and accuse the data of being political. Thankfully his manners are a lot better than the other anti-Climate Change and Nuke-fan... that Project-Orion guy

[antoniseb]

I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Hi Aurora, Global Warming is a touchy subject, and people on both sides find it easy to get frustrated with the other side. However, what you have written here is the sort of thing that starts fights. Please be more careful about this sort of thing. This is a warning.

[Fram]

I meant that aurora's mail was flame bait, not Glom's. Sorry for the confusion.
I have complained about some of Glom's posts before, and I don't agree with him on the AGW issue, but I see no fault in his posts here, while aurora's was uncalled for. I should quote the post I'm replying to more often (this one was in response to Launch Window).

[dgruss23]

Greenland melting

Greenland melting article on CNN

Regarding those who believe that human activities have no effect on climate, I'd have to think it must be so frustrating to be smarter than all the scientists in the world.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Its the evidence - and we discussed it extensively in this thread among others. Please feel free to respond to the points against AAGW raised in that thread. I left that as an open challenge and nobody has accepted it. I offered very detailed explanations and provided journal references. We don't have to reduce the discussion to "belief". There's plenty of evidence and logical inference to discuss.

[Fram]

I'm just rereading the linked thread, and one of the first reasosn given why Kyoto is useless (by de Freitas originally) is that it will only have a very limited impact, even if everything else the AGW'ers predict is true.
As they say so themselves, that is true. However, you should also note that they give Kyoto as only a first (small) step towards a solution, not as the solution in itself. You have to change the curve (i.e. the rise in temperature) somewhere, and at first, the change will be slow, almost imperceptibly so. It's like steering an oil tanker...

So I think this argument is invalid. That leaves only, er, all the others to tackle.