E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSTo figure out what is likely to happen to Earth's climate this century, scientists are looking 3 million years into the past.
They have concluded that the most revealing slice of time is the Pliocene Epoch, a warm, wet period between 3.15 million and 2.85 million years ago, when the world probably looked and felt much as it does now. Global temperatures and the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were similar to today's climate, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Knowing more about the Pliocene is useful for climate modelers around the world who create sophisticated computer programs to simulate what global warming could bring to Earth.
But recreating ancient climate conditions has also given fuel to those who question human-caused global warming. In the Pliocene Epoch, there were no humans to spur carbon dioxide emissions, so the similarity in carbon dioxide levels between then and now points to natural causes, they say.
As Harry Dowsett, a USGS scientist who has made a career of studying the Pliocene, put it, this was a time "before man was able to do anything to Earth."
Hindcasting - looking backward to project forward - relies on tools that are not regularly used in paleontology, the study of fossil evidence of past ages. Techniques like radio-carbon dating, which tracks the gradual decay of radioactive carbon, only work back to about 1 million years ago.
Instead, paleoclimatologists who study ancient climate find clues in cores drilled in sediment layers on ocean bottoms and in some leaf remains. They then examine different isotopes (atomic weights, with varying numbers of neutrons) of non-radioactive, stable carbon.
Mark Pagani, a paleoclimatologist at Yale University, described how this works: When algae in the Pliocene sucked up carbon dioxide to perform photosynthesis, they produced organic carbon with distinct isotope signatures that were sensitive to the concentration of CO2 in seawater. These signatures are preserved in fossils that can help determine how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere back then.
"We needed to figure out what was on the land, where the plants were growing, where the mountains were, where the sea level was, where the ice sheets were," Dowsett said.
Using these techniques, scientists have estimated carbon dioxide levels at some locations going back as much as 150 million years, Pagani said.
The USGS homed in on the mid-Pliocene as a good analog for modern Earth's changing climate. The agency considered data from 100 sites and a distinct period of time, making the first and only geospatial reconstruction of the Pliocene.
In the last five years, a more complete and detailed picture of the epoch has emerged.
The mid-Pliocene was about as warm as climate models predict it will be by 2100, or about 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) above current global mean temperatures, the Geological Survey said.
Sea levels were as much as 70 feet higher than they are now. Florida would have been a narrow strip instead of a broad peninsula, Washington, D.C., might have offered oceanfront views and much of Bangladesh would have been under water. Greenland, now covered in melting glaciers, had forests growing on its northern slope.
Animals and plants would have looked familiar to 21st century eyes, as newly formed grasslands attracted long-legged grazers. The dinosaurs were long gone, and the mountains were basically built. Two-footed ancestors of homo sapiens probably walked the Earth.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were between 350 and 400 parts per million (that is, between 350 and 400 carbon dioxide molecules for every million molecules of air), said Pagani, who called the estimates "a pretty good ballpark figure."
Today, the carbon dioxide concentration is similar. An April 5 reading at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory was over 394 parts per million. This figure has climbed from less than 320 ppm in 1960 and could be over 450 ppm by 2100. A graph is visible at the NOAA site http://co2now.org/.
What people care about in the 21st century, Pagani said, is how the temperature responds to rising carbon dioxide, which argues for a detailed look at the last time the Earth was as hot as projections show it will be in coming decades.
A study in the journal Nature Climate Change compared four existing climate models, and found all four are largely consistent with each other and with USGS data on the Pliocene.
But problems with simulating what could happen in the North Atlantic are significant, said Mark Chandler of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The models show less North Atlantic warming than occurred during the Pliocene.
"What happens to the North Atlantic in the future is going to dramatically affect the Western world," Chandler said.
The absence of human life during the Pliocene Epoch has offered ammunition to those who question anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change.
Patrick Michaels, a climate scientist at the libertarian CATO Institute, said Earth's climate over time has gone through natural cycles. While he acknowledged anthropogenic climate change is occurring, Michaels said the issue is how sensitive global temperatures are to fluctuations in carbon dioxide: "It's not the heat, it's the sensitivity."
"They're absolutely right, climate changes naturally, it's constantly changing for natural reasons," said Maureen Raymo of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
However, Raymo noted that the natural changes caused by volcanic eruptions, other geologic activities and variations in Earth's orbit take eons to unfold. Humans have been putting additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels for only a century or so. And there is a lag between the time when carbon dioxide gets into the air and the full warming effects are felt.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
If the ice caps do melt this is going to be a very crowded world.
Frank,
it is already crowded in many ways.
We need to work on that space program.
The space program won't help with overcrowding. It just means all our eggs won't be in one basket.
the ice caps WILL melt. we're still at the end of an ice age. this is the natural course of earth and we WILL adjust. there was a time when the world was mostly water (no ice at all), and another time when the world was covered with ice. people just need to stop obsessing. this is a VERY long process.
It's interesting that the author of the article felt compelled to obtain a comment from Patrick Michaels of the CATO instittue (fomerly the Charles Koch foundation) which receives it's support from oil and gas companies. This is akin to the American Tobacco Companies telling you that smoking is not harmful to your health when most smokers die from lung cancer or emphasema.
rockmebritney: Yes, it is a very long process, or should be, except for the last hundred years or so when it's started to become a very fast process indeed.
The arguments on both sides of the issue are based on a fallacy. Using pseudo science to prove political points. Basing the arguments on climate averages is strictly pseudo science.
The average temperature won't harm us but the extremes just might. Over the past few decades we have experienced records at both extremes - and - those extremes average to a moderate fluctuation. How does either side of the 'science' explain records at both extremes in the same year?
Based on science - we are experiencing something that has not occurred before. In the past the earth either warmed or cooled - tropic environment or ice age environment. We have experienced BOTH over a few short decades. The paleoclimate record does not show that has occurred before.
It's not just space...it's sustainability. Lots of farmland in Florida and Bangladesh, and other low-laying coastlands. Once they're underwater or salinated, they are useless for farming. And of course, the shift in climate can affect other crop regions, in unpredictable (and not always good) ways.
Something to ponder
@ Nerm_L
Yes we are experiencing record highs and record lows, however since 1950 the number of record highs have occurred twice as often as record lows in the continental US. (National Science Foundation: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115905 ) If we're experiencing it, then other areas of the globe are exeprienceing it. If we were at equalibrium you'd see the same number of record highs as record lows. Right now we've still got the polar ice caps that try to help cool things, but what happens when we have an ice free artic ocean and an ice free anartica?
Better drink that glass of iced tea, before the ice melts and it overflows... BWAHAHAHAHA! Suckers.
@JustOlJoe -- A fluctuation in the climate average does not require ANY temperature or precipitation records be broken. An increasing average temperature only needs more warm days than cool days - not broken temperature records. The fact that temperature records are being broken at both extremes suggest we are experiencing something unprecedented.
The existence of life is not governed by averages - but - by the climate extremes that a species can tolerate. The fact that temperature and precipitation records at both extremes are being broken suggest that we have already passed a tipping point.
@ diatribe
If that is a typical glass of ice tea, then it'll not overflow! http://chemistry.about.com/u/sty/chemistryarticles/Hot-Chemistry-Topics/Can-Melting-Ice-Overflow-a-Glass-of-Water.htm
However if it's melting glaciers in Greenland and Antartica, then the ice water will not only raise the surface of the earths water world wide, but so will the rebound of the land masses the glaciers resided on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
So when was your last physics / science class? What grade did you make? And are you doing continuing education or just resting on your laurels?
Nerm, I'm not a climate scientist, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Increases in average temps are going to result in a more energetic atmosphere. It's easy to suppose that would lead to extremes. Even if you'd expect more hot extremes than cold ones, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be any cold ones.
@ Nerm_L
Sorry I read your post after reading one of the others and erred in my comment. You are right it's not the averages we have to worry about, but the extremes!
You have no sense of humor.
It's probably funnier when addressed to Al Gore... he just bought a big beach house in Malibu.
the earth goes through many cycles in it's orbit around the sun; we are now in the 25 thousand year cycle; as the earth wobbles in it's orbit, the magnetic north is racing toward the west, (airports are even having to re-number their compass landing strip); there are other cycles, which we do not yet have records of(those Homo Saipens of 3 million years ago , should have at least kept a written record, to late now). mankind's attack on the surface of the earth is a big factor, however there are also other natural factors occurring; of course many will not believe these reports since many believe the earth is only 6 thousand plus years old.
For the record, though. There is no solution to climate change, only to our own behavior. We WILL adapt, or we WILL perish, end of story.
@AG99 -- The global average is an accumulation of localized events. In our own country, Texas has experienced record drought and unprecedented snow fall within a 12 month period. How does a species adapt to that kind of climate? We are seeing reports of similar localized events occurring elsewhere in the northern hemisphere.
If those localized zones became consistently warmer or cooler - we should expect to see a shift in the type of plants and animals living in those zones as those species adapt to the changing localized climate. The paleoclimate records indicate that has occurred in the past. The paleoclimate record does not show that warm tolerant and cold tolerant species existed in the same zone at the same time.
Arguing climate change based on averages is a fallacy - and - proves nothing. The averages do not provide any indication of the localized climate extremes. Survival of species depends on a consistent climate within those localized zones. Few species can tolerate rapid shifts between both extremes. Are we will to accept large dead zones in our environment?
Geology tells us that previously habitable lands do indeed become vast wastelands as the climate changes drastically. The Gobi and Sahara deserts are perfect examples of that. Remains of creatures that only could reside in wet temperate climates are found in both of these giant sand piles. On the other hand previously uninhabitable areas then become habitable and viable for supporting human life. That is probably one of the greatest motivators for our species to have spread over this entire planet over the eons. Humanoid migrations to find food and resources caused us to go farther and farther afield as swamps became deserts and deserts became forest lands.
First off, this is ridiculous, we know from the study of the infallible bible that the earth is only some 4,000 years old. Any evangelical christian will be glad to tell you that dinosaur bones were placed on earth by the devil to test our faith. We have a political party in this country which is controlled by people who believe this without reservation. That political party wants to run this country and the candidates they propose KNOW that the earth was created in about a week and our current scientific knowledge is vastly inferior to their faith in the fact that we were created in a flash, exactly as we look today, by the stroke of an Intelligent Creator. Come on folks. we're never going to get back to the 18th century if we keep spouting all this "scientific" crap.
"However, Raymo noted that the natural changes caused by volcanic eruptions, other geologic activities and variations in Earth's orbit take eons to unfold."
This is pure BS. The last ice age got underway in a mere 20 years. The result being 100,000 years of ice sheet ending a mere 8,000+ years ago.
When a scientist makes an obviously inaccurate statement like Raymo did then politics become suspect.
Something else no one bothers to tell you. The periods when there were any ice sheets at all on the planet are extremely minor when compared to ice free earth. So ice free earth is the norm. Ice sheets are the aberration. Only because we inhabit the earth during an ice age do we think anything else is something to panic over.
And then there are the people like Blue who make nonsensical comments that show their true worth.
FACT: Cows have digestive bacteria in their stomachs that cause them to belch methane, the second most significant heat-trapping emission associated with global warming after carbon dioxide.
SOLUTION: Halt all cattle breeding. Place cows inside hermetically-sealed barns and allow them to fart and belch to their hearts' content until they go gently into that good pasture. Siphon the methane and put it to work generating electricity. Mandate vegetarianism. (Sadly, this would probably lead to the "War On Drugs" to be overshadowed by a "War On Meat". Some people never loin!)
Another valid point - supported by pure crap. No one can demonstrate that the last ice age was initiated over a 20 year period without a lot of hand waving and pseudo science. And you have not explained why only cooler temperature extremes were created - an ice age.
If you wish to really 'prove' a point - how long did it take for the Yellowstone caldera to form? Data from volcanic eruptions have shown that ejected dust can circle the globe in as little as three days. And modern data also suggests that the ejected material can have a cooling effect around the globe - particulates in the atmosphere reflect solar heat. However, the data also suggests that the cooling trend would be uniform around the globe. The data suggests a volcano would not cause both hotter and cooler temperature extremes.
The climate history of the planet suggests that a 'natural' climate shift would trend toward either more warmth or more cold - but - does not support more extremes in temperature. Life that we are familiar with exists in a fairly narrow range of temperature. The only paleoclimate data that suggests extreme temperatures is when life has ceased to exist. Is mass extinction a desirable option?
That is truly a good question. The answer would depend on what survives.
Nerm_L
You have obviously done a lot of fact finding and are good at refuting missing facts from others assertions here and are correct in rejecting political based science, that is arguments presented as science who's real objective is to promote a certain agenda. However you yourself seldom present a coherent argument for anything. Particularly troubling is your assertion that "Arguing climate change based on averages is a fallacy - and - proves nothing." You have created a definition of "fallacy" that is recognized nowhere else, or you don't know what fallacy means. Averages are perfectically good arguments, as long as you understand what is being measured, the number of data points, etc. In fact the average temperature is the only thing that really matters, as local climate varies so much. Current climate change models use vast amounts of individual data over periods of time that satisfy most people, and more extreme weather is also part of the predictions. Most people need help with statistics, is that your problem? Or are you also arguing from an agenda? It is always possible to take scepticism to a fault, as there is no way to present absolute certainty, but that is not the same thing as anything goes. The trends here are clear, both in the data, and in the scientific consensus, that man made climate change is real. It is up to the deniers to prove it wrong, with more that old recycled data and arguments, or just scepticism. That the current models can't explain everything doesn't prove them wrong at all. If you want to wait for that, you will be waiting a long time. It took a century before the biochemists could explain how aspirin worked, but the priniciples of biochemistry remained true all along, it just took a long time to get all the details needed for that particular item. The climate change sceptics are like a person a century ago scoffing at chemistry by saying "they can't even explain how asprin works." No, but worked better that alchemistry or anything else around.
@Mike4703 -- Using averages is not the fallacy. The fallacy is the conclusion drawn from the averages. Indications are quite clear that the average global temperature is increasing. But that does not provide any indication of the mechanism that is causing the rise in average temperature.
The average can increase if 1) the summer temperatures are lower and the winter temperatures are higher (no broken records), 2) the summer temperatures remain unchanged and the winter temperatures become higher (record warmth during winter), 3) summer temperatures increase and winter temperatures do not change (record warmth during summer), or 4) summer temperatures increase and winter temperatures decrease (record warmth during summer and record cold during winter).
The first three scenarios are supported by paleoclimate records and would allow species to adapt to changes in the climate, as suggested by the paleoclimate records. The fallacy is the assumption that the climate change we are experiencing follows one of these three scenarios - while ignoring that the fourth scenario is possible. The fallacy is that the climate change, supported by comparing current and historic climate averages, is survivable by the bulk of species currently alive on the planet.
However, over the past few decades we have experienced both record warmth and record cold extremes. The seasonal temperature extremes may be diverging. That divergence has provided fodder to the climate change deniers.
The fourth scenario (and worst case scenario) is a distinct possibility. Mass extinction is a very real possibility. Should we be investing in modifying human behavior or should we be investing in developing means to perpetuate a diversity of species?
The fallacy is that the arguments about global climate averages used by both sides are based on the assumption that the changes in climate are similar to those of the past AND that a mass extinction event that destroys both warm tolerant and cold tolerant species can not occur.
rockmebritney "the ice caps WILL melt. we're still at the end of an ice age. this is the natural course of earth and we WILL adjust. there was a time when the world was mostly water (no ice at all), and another time when the world was covered with ice. people just need to stop obsessing. this is a VERY long process."
That's what all living creatures do - they adjust. Estimates are that we may see about as much 'global warming' between now and 2100 as we have already witnessed over the last 150 years. We seem to have adjusted just fine, and I'm sure we will again.
I still remember reading an article in the mid-1960s about the North Polar cap melting, and the north winds picking up tremendous amounts of moisture and dumping it on northern climes, thus starting the next Ice Age - that was from the 'climate experts' back then. Who knows what might really happen.
Know why I know climate change is cyclical? 'Cause a bunch of pointy headed climate scientists told me so, and I wasn't around then to say yes or no. It just makes sense.
Know why I know global warming is not real? 'Cause even tho' a bunch of pointy headed climate scientists told me so, I know they're wrong, 'cause I know that climate change is cyclical.
Frank: The melting of the N Pole will not raise water level 1 millimeter. The N Pole is nothing more than a giant ice cube. Due to water's expansion, when it freezes, its present displacement equals the amount of water that will be released upon its melting.
Gil-2872519 "Frank: The melting of the N Pole will not raise water level 1 millimeter. The N Pole is nothing more than a giant ice cube. Due to water's expansion, when it freezes, its present displacement equals the amount of water that will be released upon its melting."
Well, well, well. Someone who actually understands how things work. Exactly correct. When ice floats, it displaces an amount of water equivalent to it's weight - hence, no change in water level when it melts. Easy experiment - will a glass with half ice and half water and mark the water level - after it melts, note the same water level.
It's too bad that we don't have 'balanced' stories on 'global warming' instead of the 'gloom and doom' stories we typically see. 'Global warming' is nothing new - it has happened numerous times in the past (before the 'industrial revolution', and in every case, it has brought great benefits to mankind in general, as well as almost all terrestrial animal life. In fact, those previous examples of 'global warming' have typically led to great advancements in the arts and sciences, food production, economic growth and prosperity.
Scientists talk about studying the effects of 'global warming' from 3 million years ago, but why not just look at the effects from the 'Medieval Warm Period' of just about 900 years ago, when temperatures were 3 times as much above the long term mean average as they are now - for a period of about 300 years. Humans prospered then, and then suffered greatly during the 'Little Ice Age' that followed.
Gil-2872519 "Frank: The melting of the N Pole will not raise water level 1 millimeter. The N Pole is nothing more than a giant ice cube. Due to water's expansion, when it freezes, its present displacement equals the amount of water that will be released upon its melting."
In my Post #1.30 above, I agreed with you, but on reflection, now I have to disagree, because the floating ice is at least partially fresh water from snow, so it is less dense than the surrounding sea water. There will be a very slight change in sea level.
Oh goody, climate change is natural, so I'm gonna drive my 1500 HP Hummer that get 3 gallons to the mile, 0.3 MPG and dump my used motor oil in the river so the 5 million ppl who live downstream can drink it. Hey, this America.....as a Tea Party GOP.....I can do what I want......Obama or no Obama!!!!
How much taxpayer money was given in a grant to this guy to write a report that basically says nothing.
Did you read the report? No you did not. How do you know it says nothing? The report is a construction of a model system based on fossil evidence, similar to our own that existed 3 million years ago. Perhaps to someone who doesn't care to understand, that is nothing. To climate scientists it is very important information.
I would estimate that this study cost less than the cost of air conditioning the barracks at a single Afghan base for a day.
Well hot damn. A "scientist" has come out and said what I've been saying for years. Climate change is a natural cycle.
No matter how smart and important we as a species like to believe we are.... we're nothing but a speck on this planets history. When we're all gone, we'll be the fertilizer for the plants that come after us and on and on it goes... where it stops, we'll never know.
Quite right! We're not in danger of destroying Mother Earth, only ourselves with our arrogance.
One more nail in the coffin of the cap and trade scam . Guess little AL will have to find another scam. Wounder what the environmentalists will come up with now ????? Some how they will spin this to make it look like man did it . They just don't believe in the fact that everything works in cycles and this is just one of many cycles the earth goes through.
bob
xd
What took nature 100,000 years to do. Man can now do it in a few hundred years. But you are right, it has happened before man was around. Just look how far man has come.
bob1
This probably broke your heart too, didn't it? One of your own saying global warming is true. Those damn right wing nuts! LOLOLOL Ops, I guess one of those nails just fell out.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
Climate change is obviously a natural process that occurs over millions or even hundreds of years. Just look at the Great Warming and mini-Ice Age that occurred within the past millennium but prior to the age of industry. It would be interesting if our climatologists could determine the natural causes as opposed to concentrating on the ex-post facto illogic of 'man made' climate change.
Since you understand the science - please, explain why the northern hemisphere is experiencing record heat AND record cold in the same year. Record drought and record precipitation - in the same year. Perhaps you can explain that an average does not tell anything about the maximums - plus ten and minus ten give the same average as plus one hundred and minus one hundred. Yet the extremes are an order of magnitude apart.
We have been experiencing records at both extremes - and - those extremes have been averaging to a moderate middle. How does the paleoclimate record explain a tropic environment and ice age environment existing at the same time.
We are not experiencing anything that has occurred in the past. The average won't harm us - but - the extremes just might.
Of course Earth goes through natural cycles! Has anyone ever said it didn't? Some of these cycles are to our benefit and some aren't. Does it make sense to instigate a cycle that could have devastating impacts on food production? (That would be increasing the planet's average temperature through the rise in greenhouse gasses, for those of you who couldn't guess.)
But hey, we aren't sure so let's just keep on experimenting with our only home and see what happens. Then we can be sure. Good plan.
Bob1/28,
Oh no! Little Bobby Gore wrong?! Can't be, everyone knows that.
Nerm_L...
While you note averages, can you provide the absolute high or low for ANY period prior to when man began keeping such records? No, I didn't think so.
The "scientists" are making assumptions based on what they know, or at least what they THINK they know.
How many times in the recent past have scientific assumptions been proved wrong? Hell, they're even questioning the speed of light concept as they have noticed "anomolies" during tests that indicate there ARE things that travel faster than light.
For everything we learn or think we learn, we continually prove as a species we really don't know anything at all. Our knowledge base of the planet we call earth isn't even a thin pencil line down the fifty yard line of a football field.
So the natural warming cycles are caused by CO2 concentration, right? So then if man pumps gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, by the denier logic, this CO2 is somehow "special" in that it won't cause a warming cycle?? If this logic were true, then a man-made bioweapon wouldn't kill you either because in the past natural diseases existed that weren't created by man.
This argument is devoid of reason. CO2 is CO2. If it can cause warming in the past it can cause warming in the present no matter its source. Climate change that has occurred in the past without humans in no way precludes humans' ability to cause climate change in the present. Mankind is the single biggest emitter of this gas - not volcanoes, not anything but our industry. Mankind does NOT have a tiny insignificant footprint on this planet. We are a force of nature in our own right, just look at a picture of the Earth at night from space and try to convince yourself that humans have no presence here.
Xdm9mm...scientists are always making assumption based on what they think they know - that is how science works. Those assumptions have taken us to the moon, cured diseases, split atoms.
Scientists never stop testing their theories. So obviously when a physicist sees some weird results in a neutrino experiment he very carefully retools and retests. Questioning the speed of light is how science tests the robustness of the speed of light measurement. It doesn't mean that scientists have lost faith in the conclusion. And if the experiment results in a change of the theory - that means we have learned something - not that we were simply wrong!
Just because a theory can be proven wrong does not mean that all theories are wrong. At the present most evidence points to man made climate change. Evidence to the contrary is weak and relies on mere disbelief, such as the idea that mankind is merely too insignificant to be a factor. That is an assumption. When man's influence is actually measured it becomes clear that that assumption is wrong.
@XDm9mm -- Paleoclimate can only indicate extremes over a period of time. Scientist know quite well that certain plants and animals cannot survive known extremes in temperature and precipitation. That past record provides an indication that the climate was either tropical (with fewer cold extremes) or ice age (with fewer heat extremes) because of the relative abundance of different types of plants and animals.
We know that many plants and animals can adapt over time to extremes of either heat or cold. The paleoclimate record does show that a climate shift from one extreme to another - from tropic to ice age or the reverse - results in a die off of species adapted to the given climate. The paleoclimate record does not indicate that plants and animals can adapt to both extremes occurring at the same time. That could indicate a die off of both heat tolerant and cold tolerant species at the same time.
We are experiencing something that does not appear in the history of the planet. The survival of species is dependent on the climate extremes - not the average climate. We are in the middle of an extremely dangerous experiment.
Scientists are not the ones making the assumptions, but the people interpreting the data for public consumption. Scientists, if they are worth their salt, will tell you there is always more to know; that nothing is ever certain. Science is SUPPOSED to contradict itself for this very reason.
You are casting pearls before swine, radagast. Most of the people posting here couldn't follow a logical thought process if their life depended upon it.
How anyone with a brain in their head can argue against cleaning up the atmosphere is beyond me. But then I feel the same about the forests and rivers and ocean. How does it hurt to keep them clean.
That said I'm not a mega corp owned by the Koch brothers that squeezes out every dime it can and leaves chaos and filth in my wake.
There is a fascinating article about why people don't respond to long term threat. Seems we aren't wired to recognize or acknowledge anything that isn't trying to eat us.
http://tinyurl.com/7ba9fqc
Er... Who said anything about not cleaning up our act. Isn't that the key to our adaptation, and thus our survival as a species?
Therein lies the danger of basing human response to the changing climate on pseudo science. Burning fossil fuels releases warming gasses AND cooling particulates and gasses.
Fossil fuels are a combination of carbon and hydrogen. Releasing a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere also releases about one half ton of water. Simply eliminating the release of the heating gas (CO2) also eliminates the cooling gas (water). We do not even understand what burning fossil fuels is doing to the climate - how can we possibly predict what eliminating fossil fuels will do?
Fossil fuels obviously contributes to the changes in climate - the northern hemisphere burns more fossil fuel and is experiencing more instances of climate extremes. BUT nothing suggests that simply eliminating fossil fuels will reverse the climate changes being experienced, either.
We need to really invest in understanding the problem and determining the ramifications of what can be accomplished. Unfortunately the pseudo science contributes nothing other than complacency and lack of any action. Attempting to politically discredit climate science is extraordinarily self serving and may be extremely dangerous. Attempting to politically discredit use of fossil fuels may be equally as dangerous.
We need answers. If this is only about who is right and who is wrong - PSEUDO SCIENCE IS WRONG. On all sides. Don't accept pseudo science as a convenient way to promote a political agenda. That is beyond the realm of science.
Perhaps there's a better way to explain what the scientists are saying so that the lowest common denominator can comprehend. The difference between natural and man-made global warming.
Let's say you get 10 inches of rain. If you get it slowly, ie. spread out over ten days or 1 inch per day, then the ground can handle it, there is no flooding, everything is good. The way global warming happened millions of years ago naturally.
But if you get that same 10 inches of rain in a couple of hours (such as we in the Northeast did with hurricane Irene) then the ground can't handle it, and you have runoff and raging floods that destroyed our homes and infrastructure where it had never been harmed before. This is what man is doing to Earth right now, in less than 100 years!
We are going to see extremes (already are) and consequences that you aren't going to see from millions of years ago. These extremes that we are just beginning to see (drought, excessive rain, record heat, record cold) will first affect our crops because it's happening too quickly for them to adapt. We lose our crops...we lose our livestock, because we'll have nothing to feed them. We have drought, we lose our water supplies as well as crops. We have cold weather where we never had it before, we lose crops. Excessive rain, we lose topsoil and, yes, crops. If the crops had thousands of years to adapt to the changes, all would be fine. Man is making these changes happen overnight, a blink, speaking in geological time.
One would have to be quite stupid not to see what we've done in one hundred years. Look at cars. They were 'born' about a hundred years ago. Where exactly do the stupid people think these exhaust emissions are going? Look at the amount of cars and trucks in this world! Years ago, it used to be just us (Western World) who had cars. Look at them now! Yes it's oil products that are doing it. And who's behind the scenes making sure we have stupid people saying it can't be so? Paying off politicians to make sure that nothing is done to harm their industry? (Change over automobiles to hydrogen or methane, which exhausts harmless water, or change over power plants to natural gas rather than oil or coal or even nuclear, or perfect natural energy sources like solar, wind, thermal, etc.) Big oil! It could be done, but they would rather promote the 'voices' who say there is no global warming, or change is too expensive to afford. They don't care. Why? Because when there's almost nothing left, the rich will have what's left and we'll have the nothing!
Best post on this thread. It's not change but the rapidity of change that's the issue.
While we need to do what we reasonably can to avoid polluting our environment, and causing immediate health issues - We arrogantly take too much credit for "changing the earth's climate". We need to find cleaner and more renewable sources of energy - volcanos alone make a large impact on things like CFCs. From NASA: " In 1991 after the Pinatubo eruption, when the amount of CFCs in the stratosphere increased, the ozone content in the mid-latitudes decreased
by 5 percent to 8 percent, affecting highly populated regions".
We may affect change, but we are NOT alone...
The mother is going through a normal cyclic change.
Man may have had a little to do with it, but not much.
Assumptions and hopeful guesses do not replace actual evidence and measurements. Putting your head in the sand is not a solution.
Neither is overreaction. Uniformitarianism is NOT gradualism. The principles and processes that are at work now have always been, but to assume that the rates they occur are constant or uniform is a fallacy.
Please explain how in your teeny tiny little private world, cleaning up the environment is a bad idea? I mean really, it begs the question:
Are you a shill for big oil?
Wow. You interpreted my comment in a really extreme way. Cleaning up the environment is the ONLY idea left. Unfortunately, carbon taxes, new lightbulbs and strong-arming people isn't going to work. You could say that every change on a mass scale starts with a change on a small scale. Now, I'm not the most scientifically inclined person to ever walk the Earth, but I have a keen understanding regarding the interconnectedness of all things on all levels. Every choice that I make has an impact, so I do what I can. I concentrate more on reuseables than recycleables, I try to eliminate toxic consumer items from my household. I do little things, like make my own mayonnaise, etc., so I don't have to buy so many plastic containers. I can't afford an electric car, but I have a pretty efficient one and drive as little as possible. I grow a lot of my own food, and some for other people. We are working on an effective, to-code grey water recycling/irrigation system for our property. I just finished my first winter with no clothes dryer (and I have a toddler). I don't use chemical fertilizers. I do my best to encourage the health and activity of native pollinators with thoughtful and well-organized planting. I DON"T GROW GMO. I go out of my way to support community conscious businesses and products, even though they may cost more... Gosh, I sound smug when I say all that out loud, but whatever. I'm hardly perfect, but it's a process, and one that is always evolving and becoming more efficient.
I also try to encourage the people I meet to do the same; not through shoutdowns and guilt, but with what is really a very positive message and simple practice.
My big idea right now is to try to build a kinetic-powered vehicle in which I can make up to 120 mile round trips... but that is not related to this thread.
I'm the opposite of a shill, actually. Every good dog knows not to $hit where it eats.
Political pressure has been demonstrated already to be ineffective in changing "big business." The ONLY pressure that they understand is economic. Unfortunately, in this country the only vote we have that counts is with our dollars. It's funny you say "sacrifices." I don't feel as if I've sacrificed anything at all. In fact, I feel like my overall quality of life has been improved greatly, but I suppose it is a point of conjecture. As long as people want to buy things like lawn fertilizer and hair conditioner, corporations will be there to meet that demand. It is the demand that drives the interests of business, not the other way around.
Further, as long as corporations are legally people, all such legislation is bunk, balancing the responsibility of corporate entities on the backs of the people.
Wow: The sky is falling freaks are going to be upset. LOL
Arizona,
Chicken Little ain't gonna like what you said! LOL M2...
This article said nothing that upends climate science. Care to explain exactly what the "freaks" are going to be upset about?
This article was written in that infamous journalistic style of giving both sides equal weight regardless of the weight of their arguments. So what if some guy said that natural cycles occurred in the past? So? He admits that CO2 caused those natural cycles. Why then would CO2 derived from mankind not participate in warming? Is natural CO2 somehow different?
No. This article says nothing to diminish AGW. In fact this article is about a study that measures ancient sea levels, glaciers, and CO2 concentrations to compare them with present day measurements. What should impress you is the similarity of current and historic CO2 concentrations.
AHA! Nicely done, Radagast. Are you, however, willing to argue that those same, naturally occurring critical mass points, at which the process is forced to move the other direction, will somehow be eliminated by human activity, because that would be arrogant. Humans are known for their hubris. There is exactly the same amount of carbon on Earth as there has ever been and, as far as I've heard, it hasn't started behaving differently. Also, it is a blatant oversimplification to say that CO2 is THE climate driver, when that is simply not true. The hydrologic cyle, alone, has more to do with climate fluctuation. Often this element is left out of this whole debate, and that makes for a lot of spurious conjecture, IMO.
Your reading comprehension is very poor, Arizona Tumbleweed
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I understand that no one study can account for ALL factors involved in what is, in reality, a pretty complex system. Radagast is quite correct in his/her evaluation of the caliber of journalism in this article. It is quite common in the Memory Hole... I mean MSNBC.
I guess that depends on the specifics of the particular "critical mass points." Are you suggesting that it is arrogant to think that we can reverse the potential for warming? I would say it was arrogant to think we could go to the moon. It was arrogant for Magellan to circumnavigate the globe. It was arrogant to prove E=mC^2. We do arrogant things everyday.
And let me respond to your observation that the amount of carbon on the planet has not changed. That is correct - but - the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is what drives climate change. If the carbon is underground it isn't involved in the system. Pretty simple.
Water vapor does not have as much to do with climate fluctuations. Water vapor is responsible for the bulk of our greenhouse effect - it keeps the planet warm, but it does not vary significantly in any way that will drastically affect climate. CO2 fluctuates and is also a potent greenhouse gas. CO2 therefore, is the major factor in varying climate.
Water vapor is not left out, it is practically neutral over the long term. The only thing that can conceivably increase water vapor is temperature driven evaporation. The temps have to go up first and that is driven by CO2.
Carbon sequestered underground, ie. fossil fuels, is the end result of what were once living, carbon-based life forms, and thus has been at play in the atmosphere at some point in the (albeit distant) past. No? Granted, without our discovery of their exploitation for our, ever expanding, energy "needs," there would certainly be less of a role for them to play within the current paradigm. We cannot know the what-ifs of that scenario, but it does bear acknowledgement. Look, I'm not in disagreement about the nature of climate change. I'm only in opposition to the various political agendas (profit agendas?) supposedly aimed at "fixing the problem," because none of the regularly touted "solutions" involves anyone having to change anything... Let's pay carbon taxes so there is money to be made in not changing anything, intrinsically, about the way people live on Earth? Really, Al Gore? About that beach house...
At least Lester Brown (of the "Plan B" writings) has solutions to offer regarding REAL changes in OUR behavior to net change in the world around us. People like Al Gore have only hypocrisy to offer.
All of you Ahhha deniers need to re-read the article. The last paragraph, which you chose to ignore, is relevent.
"However, Raymo noted that the natural changes caused by volcanic eruptions, other geologic activities and variations in Earth's orbit take eons to unfold. Humans have been putting additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels for only a century or so."
Yes, but what is a century to the mother?
A blip.
And our contributions?
Another blip.
Another study say that our emissions are keeping the Earth cooler and causing less severe Hurricanes.
Hurricanes are natures way to remove heat from the atmosphere.
We may have been doing more GOOD all along.
They can do all the studies and projections they want and they still will have no clue as to what the weather on this earth will do. There are too many variables. There is no way to forecast the future. And the past is gone forever.
That would be true IF we were talking about weather, but we're not. We are, however, talking about climate which is all together something different. You are slightly correct on one point, there are MANY variables. But, we are continuouly learning what those variables are and what roles those variables play in the scheme of things.
How can you possibly say "there is no way to forecast the future"? How do you think we know what will happen in the future? Answer: Based on what has happenned in the past. How do you think our understanding of hurricanes has increased? Answer: Based on how hurricanes have acted in the past and their interplay between high and low pressure areas and differences in water temperatures.
Sorry, but the past isn't "gone forever", it's only hidden in the details.
By studying the geologic record and analyzing ice core samples scientists are able to determine many things about the climate at various times in the earths past. I have seen a chart that shows the earth going into ice ages and coming out of them several times in the last 500000 years. The interesting thing is the ratio of the time of the ice age to the warm period is on average 7 to 1. The transitions in and out of these periods are very steep indicating the transition from warm to ice age happens in a relatively short period of time. The warm periods are always associated wih elevated CO2 levels. Will we be able to live long enough to see the effect our petroleum combustion has on these natural processes?
The thing that is not certain in the evolution of our planet, and is related to this article, is the existence of humans. We did not exist back in this simular atmostphere, and we will not survive as we know existence on the other side of this . We can not continue as we are.
To all of those who say, "The climate changes naturally," I say, "Just because you get wet when it rains, that doesn't mean that it's not possibe to get wet when it's not raining, but when someone is pointing a sprinkler at you."
Sometimes, the climate changes by itself. Right now, all the evidence indicates that we are causing the climate to change. Is that a smart thing to do?
We are not and COULD not be causing all of this.
And even if we are, it's far too late to reverse the fantasy results that climate change via man activists claim.
Get used to it.
It's here to stay.
The assertion that we could not be causing this is contradicted by a considerable mountain of evidence. Where are you getting this silly idea?
The "silly" data is just that.
"Silly Data"
In some places things are heating up, in others things are cooling down.
As a matter of fact we will see lower summer temps this year in North America.
Natural gas prices are about to bottom out because of this.
Warmer winters, cooler summers.
This is a global change that cannot be attributed to man.
So by your logic some places that have higher rates of cancer than others means we shouldn't bother looking for a cure, right?? Doesn't make much sense does it?? And, how do you know for a fact "North America will see lower summer temps this year" and how will those supposed lower temps "bottom out" natural gas prices??
Your 'argument' makes zero sense and has even less merit.
Well Garret, that is because you are not in the business that I am in.
I am operations manager for a green energy project.
I watch fuel prices for a living.
As for cancer and the other nonsense you talked of, I do not know.
As far as the lower temps go, Google it.
I don't have the time to explain.
I am busy making green energy.
The reason it's "here to stay", as you put it Viewer, is because we are in fact causing this change and have been causing it for the last 200+ years from everything we have input into the environment. I'll give you that we may not be causing it 100%, but we ARE contributing to this change we are currently witnessing. Get used to that tid-bit.
And, how, exactly, do you know what business I'm in?? You don't. You claim to be in the 'green energy' business but that entails a rather large area. You could be one of those analysts that's causing fuel prices to fluctuate more-so than in recent memory. Who knows? That's the thing about the internet, anonymity is your best friend a lot of the time.
As far as you being "busy" to explain things to me, by the number of posts on this and other subjects maybe you should focus more on "making green energy" rather than spouting rhetoric on social blogs.
Condemning the voter's children to a CO2 demise forces the voters to turn to the republicans. 26 years of fear mongering our climate change mistake has turned against us.
Pushing climate change fear will leave neocons in power forever.
Conservatives will always be in charge in one way or another.
You can get used to that too.
But what does this have to do with the weather?
I won't be here in 2100, and neither will my children, so MEH.
And there it is. The real reason that so many argue against climate change, or their role in it. They do not care about the species, or the only habitable planet in the Universe that we know about. They do not care about their grandchildren or great grandchildren, they can not see any further than the little tykes running around in their living room right now. I have news you you, children born today WILL be around in 2100. Their children will live much longer than that. This kind of thinking shows nothing but ignorance.
Better move inland folks...it's going to get wet!
I would be very interested in how they extrapolate the findings, and in how the climate change deniers will spin it. But any way you slice it, if we as a species can't find a sustainable balance with our planet, nature will be the great equalizer. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, but they still bit the dust. We're not that special...we still need to eat and breath, and if we can't do either, we'll be just as gone.
We need to drink too, and that's just as problematic.
Too true AG, I overlooked that tidbit...but I think everyone gets the idea. Thanx for pointing it out.
Move to the Great Lakes area in North America, they'll continue to hold water for a long time even with a warmer, drier climate.
There is strong evidence that climate change that causes glaciers and ice caps to melt can cause seismic and volcanic reactions as the earth tries to maintain rotational balance while the earths surface mass is changing. The earths crust is free to move, slowly of course. Think of the earth as a large gyroscope. Look at Japan and Indonesia just in the last 10 years. If you examine the data from the USGS around these areas you will see the earthquakes have never rested more than a few days at the most. It seems to me these processes are accelerating
We are causing damage on levels that we can't even begin to comprehend because of the minuscule span of our lives.
Thats it from now on I am not going to heat my house any more as it will contribute to CO2 emissions and I refuse to ride the Green buses that use Natural gas as It produces CO2 .
Oh well I can go on welfare and be safe.
Well, now, there's a brilliant reaction!
Look, folks, what we're doing is conducting a vast, uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we've got. Does that really seem like a smart idea to anyone? So what do we do about it? Do we completely shut down our economy, and all move into caves? No, of course not. What we should do is exercise some caution. Don't pretend that we have a complete understanding of what will happen, and on that basis engage in a wild over-reaction, one way or the other.
The climate change deniers tell us that even though we're driving around a blind corner, we should take it at top speed, since there couldn't possibly be a stalled dumptruck in the road ahead.
If what you say is true, the time to exercise caution has been long past deadline.
There is NO reversal.
You tree huggers had better get readjusted.
The mother is on the march.
Again, Viewer, your logic is flawed. It's the same as a drunk driver getting into a wreck and blaming it on that 'last drink' they had regardless of the 12 pack they had before that.
We may not be able to "reverse" what we have done but we can certainly learn from it and correct our actions toward the future. 'Adapting' to our future, as you have stated but not stated, is NOT the way to go about things. Instead, we should/need to do as the rest of all natures creatures do and find a balance with Earh and NOT act as a virus upon it.
re 21.3
Would not the seeking/finding of that balance be adaptation...? Obviously, we cannot go on living on Earth the way we have been; as if there were zero consequences for our actions. It would be nice to see more of a movement toward stewardship of Earth. Unfortunately, new taxes and legislation are not going to do that. Partly because demand drives the activities of business, and partly because so-called "regulatory agencies" are staffed by the same people they are tasked with regulating. Beyond cleaning up our own side of the fence, any suggestions?
The climate change mistake is identified to all voters as leftist and the left's fear mongering of a CO2 death to the voter's children will not win an election ever again for a long long time. Climate change is helping neocons gain power thanks to the huge swing vote.
The swing voter is not going to vote for taxes to make the weather colder and if you don't know that, YOU are the new denier.
Climate change was our Iraq War of lies and fear.
I'm part of that swing vote and your logic couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, support for climate change theory is a leftist position. The right's inability to understand basic science is undermining their support. GOP policies are increasingly being seen as destructive and backward, anti-science and anti-progress. While I would normally consider a GOP candidate (I voted for McCain), they've turned me off completely in the last couple of years.
Romney could be a moderate Republican if he wasn't pandering to his base at the moment, but even if he swings back to the center now, the damage is done.
You don't get it. Climate change is the end of the world as in "threat to the planet" and "catstrophic climate crisis". Nothing is worse. And you don't think it was exaggerated?
If you think its real, get a sign and start marching and acting like its the end of the world.
"global warming is the greatest threat to the planet" -Earth Hour.
Paul, siddown, it's alright, we can call the nice young men in their clean white coats if you need help.
Paul: People who don't take climate change seriously are most likely already going to vote Republican regardless of the doom and gloom rhetoric. Those who think the threat is exaggerated might be tempted to vote Republican as a backlash against alarmism, but I think that very unlikely. They are far more likely to listen to the many voices out there calling for increased investments in renewable energy and a slow and steady migration away from reliance on fossil fuels.
Those voices used to include moderate Republicans, but lately they've become more radicalized. In some small ways, they remind me of the Taliban in their increasing extremism.
If climate change isn't a crisis, it isn't a threat.
Climate change is a CO2 death warrent to billions of children; “global warming is the greatest threat to the planet.” –Earth Hour
Yet millions in the global scientific community refuse to join the dozens of climate change protesters and act like its the end of the planet (a threat). All despite the fact that these same people in the global scientific community have condemned their own children to the greenhouse gas ovens. This is proof climate change was exaggerated and exaggerated science trumps consensus science.
REAL planet lovers are overjoyed and happy and glad and thankful the crisis wasn’t real after all.
Most of the US and Canadian rust belt cities have not had a smog day in 6 years, only constant “Alerts” that are predictions, not measurements of pollution. Note: ALL pollution does not stay in the air FOREVER.
Upon settlement, the polar bear was indigenous to as far south as Minnesota but called the yellow bear because it retained its summer coat longer, but still the same bear.
Obama has not mentioned any climate crisis in his last two state of the unions.
Occupywallstreet’s demands do not include climate change…………bank funded and corporate run CARBON TRADING STOCK markets.
Almost all research into climate change is into "effects" not causes.
Science made environmentalism necessary in the first place after poisoning the planet with the pesticides they developed and denied for decades as being toxic.
Exaggerating is not a crime; it’s called the perfect crime.
Every single scientist has a special and unique and personal opinion of climate change and it’s still called scientific consensus?
History shows that today’s climate change crisis believer, is tomorrow’s end of the world freak.
Paul,
Good post.
I also do believe the planet is warming however that has been well recognised for years by the unbiased scientific soceity.
We cannot change natural cycles.
Most of us here will not be around in the next centuryhowever the world will have to adapt to the process not try to eliminate "Global Warming" as that is futile.
LOL, right wingers are losing their foothold on power because of that sort of thinking. If you keep proving your ignorance and reluctance to face what is an obvious reality, how can you expect anyone to take you even remotely serious? If you accepted what the rest of the world can see, and attempted to change, then you would have a chance. Keep the whole head in the sand "if I can't see it it isn't happening" attitude, and you will continue to be the laughing stock of the world. Not that Dems are any better in the eyes of me or the world but they do at least accept reality to some degree.
How true.
If you want to say the Second Coming is bad go ahead, I never said that. The earth will burn as an oven and the seas will exceed their boundaries. You can call it judgements of God or Mickey mouse dreams if you want. It will not change the prophecies and the fact that the climate is changing, tree forests are drying up and burning, drought, warming seas, earlier spring, later fall, earlier migration of fish, blooming of plants, growing seasons. Glacier melting and Greenland melting, ice cap thickness at record low. How do you convince yourself it is not happening?
This article offers some corroboration for those of us who feel that our presence (human beings) has only contributed marginally to what is and has been for eons a normal cyclic process. There is no denying that climate change is indeed happening. The only contention seems to be the degree to which our activities have contributed to accelerating that change. In any case it is a moot point because the change is going to happen no matter what we do and, as the article points out, once the CO2 is in the atmosphere there is a lag until its effects are felt so in essence the damage has been done and there is little that we can do about it now.
Now that being said I submit that we still need to take a look at our levels of pollution not from the standpoint of climate change but from the standpoint of our own physical health. Also there is the issue of limited resources and it behoves us to begin developing energy alternatives that are easily renewable or sources of energy that are plentiful and basically free once the initial infrastructure is in place such as solar power, wind power, geothermal power and so on.
Another critical issue has to be total world population. That must be brought under control if we are to avoid critical shortages of things like fresh water to drink and ample food to eat. Science is doing what it can with genetic manipulation to produce more crops and larger livestock but at what expense to the humans who consume these designer foods? By far the most logical thing to do would be to limit our overall population in some way.
In any case I think that this research will help us to understand and perhaps create some model of what to expect over the next few hundred years. That will go a long way in helping us to adapt and deal with it. And after all that is what we humans are designed to do in the first place once we stop panicking and squabbling with one another over nonsense issues.
Try reading it again. The study shows what the world was like the last time there was this much CO2 in the air, and that pretty much exactly matches what climate scientists have been predicting.
Then ponder that we are not stopping here -- within decades the CO2 level will be much higher than that period and we need to go back to earlier (and much hotter!) eras to find comparable situations.
What are you talking about? This confirms everything that climate scientists have been warning about.
Occupywallstreet’s list of demands does not include one word
about climate change because of the required bank funded and corporate run
CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS ruled by trustworthy politicians. Let's be
progressive progressives and get ahead of the curve and leave the CO2
exaggeration behind us. More CO2 fear is just alienating the swing voter.
Like who votes for a party that condemns your kids and your
family to a CO2 he!! ?
Co2 Hell, wow maybe a movie or mini series? WE need to outlaw carbonated beverages?
From the article: "But recreating ancient climate conditions has also given fuel to those who question human-caused global warming. In the Pliocene Epoch, there were no humans to spur carbon dioxide emissions, so the similarity in carbon dioxide levels between then and now points to natural causes, they say."
This is silly. This article clearly states that the Co2 levels were similar then to what they are now. This idea is that the cause of climate change is from the Co2; the debate is NOT about what is CAUSING all of the Co2 to be in the atmosphere. Just because there weren't cars and factories then ... just because the source of the Co2 was different then from what it is now, doesn't mean the study is invalidated.
I continue to be amazed by the hoops these deniers jump through to smear climate science.
That's just spin. "Deniers" don't deny the climate is changing, just the fact that humans are the cause or can do anything about it. So based on your post, you must agree that it is just a natural cycle, as all the so called "deniers" you're attempting to poke fun at have been saying all along.
I love these kinds of discussions. They clearly show that epistemology is not dead. We're, with this issue, dealing really with quality of information. How do we know what we know and when can we say we really know something?
Happens all the time, but in discussions about climate change it seems closer to the surface than in many other discussions, perhaps because we're all and each involved directly, whatever the outcome.
Sad that we don't deal more with the "science" of knowing in our educational system. Then, maybe, we humans would have enough consensus to come to resolution and act in our own best interest. But we don't because philosophy really isn't part of our educational plan.
Critical thinking isn't either. We sure are into blame. If we can keep it up for long enough, we'll never have to change because we'll die before getting the opportunity.
Oh MY!! If she's doing so well, why do you have to advertize this job???
I think the climate worriers put too much emphasis on the so called "extremes" of weather. The reason so many records are being broken is because they have not been keeping records for that long...maybe 120-130 years tops. There have been more, worse, and much more widespread tornado outbreaks in the past. Look it up. Same applies to the snowfall and cold weather that the other side of the planet endured last winter. Look it up. Go educate yourselves about things like La Nina and El Nino, things like MJO's, Kelvin and Rossby Waves, ENSO, and the Arctic Oscillation, among others. Then you won't appear to be such simpleton's about this subject.
The planet will adjust itself and get along just fine with whatever changes occur. Humankind, animal life, and plants will have find a way to adjust also, or perish. We don't have the resources or national or global will to turn any change around. A bit of work by one of the local weather guys:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/bou/showimages/APR-MAY-JUN_2012_Outlook-Baker.pdf
locally, our last 2 winters have been much colder than the previous 15.Does that mean that we should be shouting about the coming ice age. I don't know because Al Gore won't answer his phone.
cunical, last winter was the warmest on record in the US thousands of termperature records were broken. where do you get your material?
Maybe he lives in Alaska...