Email Us Your Global Warming Horror Stories

[mamapajamas]

This week's Parade supplement in the paper had a story about climate change and you with a guy in shirt and tie wiping the sweat off his brow as the lead picture.

What?!!! They mean to tell us that its hot in June? Whoda thunk?

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm a newbie... and therefore can't post links until I have 15 posts.

However, I do have links to NASA sources, NASA/JPL, and UC Berkeley astronomy department for the information on global warming on Jupiter and Mars as well as an increase in solar activity being called the Modern Maximum, which I shall post when I have 15 posts. The fact that three planets in the same system are experiencing global warming makes it pretty evident that astronomers and environmentalists are either not talking to each other or are deliberately ignoring each other.

Global warming on three planets is an extremely significant datum that environmentalists ignore at their own (credibility) peril.

Oh... and by the way, given that this is a discussion forum and not a dissertation, I AM allowed to draw my own conclusions from information I've seen.

I was referring to the claim that the scientists are not talking to each other or are ignoring each other. AFAIK, they do take this knowledge into consideration. Also, it is climate scientists, not environmentalists. I am not saying you cannot make conclusions or comment, I was just after evidence of your claim.

 

[Earthborn]

For one thing, there is global warming on Mars. The sad part about this is that NASA released this news back in December of 2001.

You mean this, right? Interesting stuff. NASA seems to believe CO₂ in the atmosphere has a lot to do with it.

Then, in April 2004, UC Berkeley released the fact that there is global warming on Jupiter. We've known about that for two years.

You mean this, right? Interesting stuff, but this Jovian global climate change, but not global warming:

the average temperature on Jupiter will change by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles

It is also assumed to be caused by dynamics of Jupiter's atmosphere itself rather than solar activity. And oh, yeah: it is a prediction. Not a measurement.

 

[Badger]

Ok, Mamapajamas, you know if you'd posted each word as a separate post, you'd now be able to post links, AND get an avatar??

Welcome to the board!

I look forward to what you got!

And, thanks Earthborn! Appreciated.

 

[gumboot]

Wow...

Some of you people have no sense of humour. That first post was completely brilliant and hilarious. But you had to all ruin it by getting all serious and screamy. If you can't laugh at the potential of humans destroying the entire planet, what can you laugh at?

-Andrew

 

[StewartP]

Last year our cherry tree flowered in early April. This year it was into May before it flowered. OK, so that might indicate cooling but the climate change linked to the Gulf stream can have different local effects.

No I don't think it is unreasonable to use 1 anecdote to extrapolate to long term climate change.

No, I'm kidding.

Is climate change real?
Yes of course. Climate change s the norm. In fact trying to stop climate change by contoling the levels of a single substance like CO2 is insane.
If real, is it significantly caused by human activity?
Debatable.
If real, what is its current trend?
Debatable
If real, are its outcomes necissarily bad (for mankind in particular, or the planet in general)
Debatable, global warming could lead to increased precipitation.

Is global warming being seized by people who see it as a means of controlling western economies now that communism is discredited?

oops! conspiracy theory cover blown

 

[Jocko]

Last year our cherry tree flowered in early April. This year it was into May before it flowered. OK, so that might indicate cooling but the climate change linked to the Gulf stream can have different local effects.

No I don't think it is unreasonable to use 1 anecdote to extrapolate to long term climate change.

No, I'm kidding.

Is climate change real?
Yes of course. Climate change s the norm. In fact trying to stop climate change by contoling the levels of a single substance like CO2 is insane.
If real, is it significantly caused by human activity?
Debatable.
If real, what is its current trend?
Debatable
If real, are its outcomes necissarily bad (for mankind in particular, or the planet in general)
Debatable, global warming could lead to increased precipitation.

Is global warming being seized by people who see it as a means of controlling western economies now that communism is discredited?

oops! conspiracy theory cover blown

What a perfectly sane and thoughtful assessment. I have no doubt that you will be keelhauled for it by the usual, predictable GW zealots here.

 

[varwoche]

Is global warming being seized by people who see it as a means of controlling western economies now that communism is discredited? oops! conspiracy theory cover blown

It's a rather vast conspiracy, don't you think? (Scientists must hate America, or something like that.)

 

[BPSCG]

Obviously I would take the cheaper option, because obviously division of labor has huge efficiency gains. Why did you ask this question?

Because you said:

By that same token, if my factory was spewing out tons of crap in its smoke every year, I would try to fix that. I wouldn't need some GW thing to force me to, I would do it myself. If my car was spewing out crap, I would fix it.

My reaction was, "What if it's less expensive to not fix it, and simply clean up, or even simply ignore the problem?" It sounded to me like you weren't considering that, that you would spend whatever money it took, no matter how expensive, to cleanse your auto's emissions of that last part per trillion of CO.

 

[rocketdodger]

My reaction was, "What if it's less expensive to not fix it, and simply clean up, or even simply ignore the problem?" It sounded to me like you weren't considering that, that you would spend whatever money it took, no matter how expensive, to cleanse your auto's emissions of that last part per trillion of CO.

No I am talking about problematic emissions.

Here is how I see it -- I treat all land, air, and water as if it is my personal property right behind my house. Outside of that, I don't care how it stays clean, as long as it does. Certainly, if two options provide the same results and one costs much less, I will choose it.

 

[Earthborn]

Is climate change real?
Yes of course. Climate change s the norm. In fact trying to stop climate change by contoling the levels of a single substance like CO2 is insane.

Good thing no one is claiming to be able to do that, then. Controlling CO₂ is usually argued to try to prevent an accelarated global climate change.

If real, is it significantly caused by human activity?
Debatable.

It is debatable, and therefore has been debated extensively and for a fairly long time. Apperently most climatologists now agree that other possible causes have not contributed as much to the present warming trend.

If real, what is its current trend?
Debatable

The current trend seems to be: "warming"

If real, are its outcomes necissarily bad (for mankind in particular, or the planet in general)
Debatable, global warming could lead to increased precipitation.

Whether something is "bad" is not something that can be answered by science, because it is a value judgement. Depending on the things you value, present trends may be "good" or "bad". Since different people value different things, it is both good and bad at the same time.

If you value new shorter, safer shipping lanes in the artic, it's good.
If you value the preservation of tropical coral reefs, it is very bad.
If you hope tropical coral reefs will form elsewhere, it may be good.
If you value the preservation of natural habitats on land, it is not so good, but certainly not as bad as building roads or growing food crops everywhere.
If you value Norwegian vineyards, it is good.
If you value Bangladeshis staying in their own country and not seek refuge elsewhere, it is bad.
If you value the Dutch exporting their flood protection technology, it is good.
If you value Tuvalu, it is bad.
If you value plant growth, unfortunatly new research shows that it is unlikely that plants will take in the access CO₂ and grow faster, so doesn't necessarily make a difference. It may even limit plant growth.

The question is: what do you value?

 

[StewartP]

The current trend seems to be: "warming"

depends on the timescale - over the last 50 years? last 100? last 1000?

Whether something is "bad" is not something that can be answered by science, because it is a value judgement. Depending on the things you value, present trends may be "good" or "bad". Since different people value different things, it is both good and bad at the same time.

absolutely

If you value new shorter, safer shipping lanes in the artic, it's good.
If you value the preservation of tropical coral reefs, it is very bad.
If you hope tropical coral reefs will form elsewhere, it may be good.
If you value the preservation of natural habitats on land, it is not so good, but certainly not as bad as building roads or growing food crops everywhere.
If you value Norwegian vineyards, it is good.
If you value Bangladeshis staying in their own country and not seek refuge elsewhere, it is bad.
If you value the Dutch exporting their flood protection technology, it is good.
If you value Tuvalu, it is bad.
The question is: what do you value?

IF current climate change is driven by sources outside of humanity (as it might be in the case of Jupiter's new red spot) then we should be spending our energies on looking at how to adapt to the climate change. If we look at the median estimates given by scientists for warming, on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the median estimates are more likely than the extremes that are often quoted in the media then the warming is likeley to be 2 or 3 degrees over many decades. It may not be the overnight flooding of Tuvalu and crop failures in Kansas. Cunning huminity will have the time and the know-how to get to grips with it.


In synchronicity with other current threads where people have pointed out than even skeptics are a "marble cake" of skeptic and woo, I find myself in the woo-like mindset of putting more stock in sources like (the late) John Daley's "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" website (I can't post urls yet too jnr w'w'w'.john-daly'.'com ) and Steve Milloy's junkscience.'com than in mainstream media global warming consensus.


(edited for some typos, tho I've left "huminity" in. I like it. and "median" is probably the wrong word. I mean the middle estimates, not the extremes. I'm sure there's one word for it, median might not be it, average isn't it either)

 

[mamapajamas]

NASA seems to believe CO₂ in the atmosphere has a lot to do with it.

Uh huh. That's one of the articles. The entire story is about CO₂. The South Polar ice caps top layer IS CO₂, and that is exactly what it melting. So of course NASA thinks CO₂ "has something to do with it".

The temps on Mars are getting warm enough to melt the CO₂ ice at the South Pole. It isn't bloody likely to ever get warm enough on Mars to ever melt the H₂O ice... Mars is too far away from the sun.

but this Jovian global climate change, but not global warming:It is also assumed to be caused by dynamics of Jupiter's atmosphere itself rather than solar activity. And oh, yeah: it is a prediction. Not a measurement.

Read the article again. Jupiter is now warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. The article says that warming would cause the giant storms to break up. And, no, it is not a prediction, it is a theory. There are fewer and smaller storms on Jupiter's surface NOW, not at some point in the future.

 

[a_unique_person]

Last year our cherry tree flowered in early April. This year it was into May before it flowered. OK, so that might indicate cooling but the climate change linked to the Gulf stream can have different local effects.

No I don't think it is unreasonable to use 1 anecdote to extrapolate to long term climate change.

No, I'm kidding.

Is climate change real?
Yes of course. Climate change s the norm. In fact trying to stop climate change by contoling the levels of a single substance like CO2 is insane.
If real, is it significantly caused by human activity?
Debatable.
If real, what is its current trend?
Debatable
If real, are its outcomes necissarily bad (for mankind in particular, or the planet in general)
Debatable, global warming could lead to increased precipitation.

Is global warming being seized by people who see it as a means of controlling western economies now that communism is discredited?

oops! conspiracy theory cover blown

Now, for the evidence?

 

[Huntster]

It was a late spring around here. The snow was ass deep still in early May. I needed the snowmobile to go looking for spring bears, but they weren't up yet.

Then I got snowed on at the 2,000' level at Mentasta on June 4th. It was the latest that the locals there had ever seen snow.

Then it snowed at the 1,500 ft. level in the Talkeetna Mountains behind the house last night. On June 25th. Nobody around here has seen that before, either.

Yeah, global warming is a damned mysterious phenomenon.......................

 

[senorpogo]

Everyone knows that everything bad happening related to the weather is caused by global warming.

If it's raining too much - global warming. Too little - global warming.
Really cold winter - global warming. Really warm winter - global warming.

Fact check time - Global warming personally hates you. He's going to do everything he can to ruin your day.

If rain ruins your picnic and then, just as you get home to eat indoors, the rains stop and the sun comes out - global warming made it rain and subsequently stop raining at that precious moment in time just to personally spite you and your family (whom global warming hates too).

If global warming could get you fired from your job, he would (right after global warming finishes trying to bang your sister).

We need to stop global warming!

 

[Earthborn]

The entire story is about CO₂. The South Polar ice caps top layer IS CO₂, and that is exactly what it melting.

True. Here is the other article, that mentions what is expected to happen when all that CO₂ ends up in the atmosphere:

Although this atmosphere would not be breathable, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" that would cause the global temperature to increase considerably

It isn't bloody likely to ever get warm enough on Mars to ever melt the H₂O ice... Mars is too far away from the sun.

Untrue. The temperature on some areas on Mars can sometimes rise to 20 degrees Celsius (68 Fahrenheit). It is just that its atmosphere doesn't have enough pressure to allow water to become liquid. It immediately sublimates to watervapour.

Read the article again. Jupiter is now warmer at the equator and colder at the poles.

Quote the passage where it says that.

The article says that warming would cause the giant storms to break up.

That's not how I read it. Quite the opposite:

"I predict that due to the loss of these atmospheric whirlpools, the average temperature on Jupiter will change by as much as 10 degrees Celsius, getting warmer near the equator and cooler at the poles"

So giant storms break up, causing the temperature shift.

Even if Earth's, Mars' and Jupiter's climate changes have a mutual cause, it still does not explain what that mutual cause is. The effects of the sun on the Earth's climate have been studied extensively and don't seem to be a significant cause of climate change, so I wonder what other factor could influence three planets at the same time.

 

[a_unique_person]

Even if Earth's, Mars' and Jupiter's climate changes have a mutual cause, it still does not explain what that mutual cause is. The effects of the sun on the Earth's climate have been studied extensively and don't seem to be a significant cause of climate change, so I wonder what other factor could influence three planets at the same time.

Or is correlation evidence of common causation, or is this a case of hasty generalisation. If the sun were to be heating up to a new level for some reason, I would expect all the planets to respond.

 

[Earthborn]

IF current climate change is driven by sources outside of humanity (as it might be in the case of Jupiter's new red spot) then we should be spending our energies on looking at how to adapt to the climate change.

If the current climate change is driven by sources outside of humanity, there is no reason to suspect that CO₂ emissions are going to help. And even if the current climate change is purely anthropogenic, looking how to adapt to it is still going to be necessary. There is no reason to suspect that we can stop it.

If we look at the median estimates given by scientists for warming, on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the median estimates are more likely than the extremes that are often quoted in the media then the warming is likeley to be 2 or 3 degrees over many decades. It may not be the overnight flooding of Tuvalu and crop failures in Kansas. Cunning huminity will have the time and the know-how to get to grips with it.

Those estimates are only for the anthropogenic effect. There is more and more evidence that the anthropogenic warming may trigger a cascade of natural effects that can cause much faster and bigger warming than that.

 

[BPSCG]

We had five inches (about 11 cm) of rain here in Our Nation's Capital last night, and we've had about another inch or two so far today, with more expected. You know what the cause is.

BTW, I have a question. Isn't the Earth always in a warming trend or a cooling trend?