|
Most Recent Climate Change
Photos in the News… |
While many people theorize whether or not global warming exists, we here at EcoWorld believe that global warming and climate change are not only real – but they are both topics we need to understand more about. With this in mind, our editors have worked on the following list of global warming facts…
Editor’s Note: Viewing the global temperature records shown on the tables and analysis to follow, one might immediately ask: Even if recent warming may be leveling off since temperature records are arguably flat for the last ten years – what if they aren’t? That is the classic, and not cavalierly dismissed, question from the global warming alarmists. Then again, what if we successfully cool the planet, avoiding climate catastrophe by banning spurious combustion, only to regret that in the process we never developed a fleet of passenger and cargo transport aerospaceplanes, and as a result were unable to spacelift the throw-weight necessary to stop an asteroid from hitting our planet and wiping us out?
Beware of how often you play the “we-do-this-or-we-all-perish” card while relying on the precautionary principle. How often must we transform and reorganize our entire industrial base, just to avoid a plausible, but somewhat (if not extremely) low probability of leaving ourselves vulnerable to certain slaughter? And should we shift our focus away from ridding the air of really noxious pollutants; micro-particulates, sulpher dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, just to reduce C02 emissions?
The data in the following set of tables, compiled by Dr. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist from MIT, only goes back to the mid 19th century; there are only about 150 years of data. Per-WWI data could be skewed. Depending on whether or not that is true, or even so, there is only about a 0.5 (one-half degree) centigrade change in global temperature that is clearly indicated. But what if the recent 25 year rising trend doesn’t fall? What are the 500 year trends, year by year? Do we know? What are the 10,000 year trends?
What if the earth really is warming – what if the data takes another leap, then another, instead of settling back to the 150 year mean? Do we combat this by curtailing and controlling all burning?
Why instead don’t we simply replace more of the 40% of forests that have been lost in the last 150 years, and restore to life 30% of the deserts that have marched forward over the last 150 years? We can plant trees in the cities while we’re at it, to ameliorate the hugely significant additional effect of the urban heat islands of our world’s new mega-cities. Do we strip the last forests to grow biofuel, instead of simply constructing (usually on rooftops) photovoltaic and solar-thermal arrays that consume – by well over two orders of magnitude – far less space? Wouldn’t we rather replace desert with rangeland and farms, and rangeland and farms with forest, and put canopies of green across our cities, rather than regulate all burning?
There is broad agreement about the behavior of the global mean temperature.
While there is agreement regarding the historical data, that does not mean that the resulting observations are very solid. The point of the following tables is simply to render transparent the global temperature records underlying most global warming observations and predictions, and comment on what they may or may not indicate.
| GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE Per Year from 1900 through 2005 |
 |
| Source: UK Meteorological Office |
The tables above and below this paragraph are the records commonly displayed by the IPCC. Interestingly, the record is essentially flat since 1995. The modest spike in 1998 is commonly associated with an El Nino. The temperature records reflected in these two tables are completely consistent with a rapid rise from 1976 to 1986 and a leveling off since. This would be more like what is referred to as a regime change than a response to global greenhouse warming.
| GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE Per Year from 1995 through 2005 |
 |
| Source: UK Meteorological Office |
When considering global temperature trends it is important to take into account uncertainty bands. When this is done, as the table below indicates, there is no basis for claiming an significant global warming trend since 1986, though there might very well be one.
| GLOBAL MEAN ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE WITH UNCERTAINTY BANDS Per Year from 1855 through 2005 |
 |
It is sometimes claimed that the recent warming period involves much more rapid warming than the mean warming for the past century or so. This is, of course, true of any warming period in a record that includes periods of cooling as well as periods of relatively stationary temperature. For example, the rate of warming during 1910-1940 is somewhat more rapid than the recent rate. More over, if one looks for short periods, there is no difficulty in finding rates that are many times the rate over the last century.
There are only a few groups that compile records of the global mean temperature, and at least two of these groups are strongly committed to the popular view of global warming. On the three tables below, the planets yearly fluctuations in surface temperature are shown against the average measurements from 1961 to 1990 in the case of the first table, and 1951 to 1980 in the 2nd and 3rd tables. Each of these groups of researchers have used the same data, in a range of years which begins between 1851 and 1880, and ends in 2006.
| GLOBAL ANNUAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES FROM THE 1961 TO 1990 AVERAGE Per Year From 1850 through 2005 |
 |
| Note: The 95% confidence limits for the annual global estimate are shown (black error bars). Sources: NOAA/NCDC, HadCRUT, and NASA GISS |
Of the three groups compiling each of the above graphs, at least two of these groups are strongly committed to the popular view of global warming. All the groups use the same data, but differ a bit in how they treat the data. Reassuringly, the records look pretty much the same. Two groups (Hansen’s at GISS and NOAA) claim that 2005 was a record breaker, but by a statistically insignificant amount, and clearly the difference between this result and the others is well within the uncertainty as displayed by the error bars. The table from NOAA shows a total warming of only .45C over the length of the record.
The matter of error bars is not without interest. Hansen doesn’t show any. However, the error bars in NCDC analysis are noticeably larger than those from the UK. As best I can tell, the NCDC uses stricter quality control, leading them to reject data from obviously suspect stations (like those in rapidly urbanizing regions). The UK, on the other hand, keeps these stations, and “corrects” them in a largely subjective manner. Thus, the UK has a larger number of points going into the mean, many of which have been “corrected” to look like the mean. This leads to an artificially small error bar.
In all cases, the error bar refers simply to the scatter of points going into the mean. In the next three tables, the late Stan Grotch of the Livermore Radiation Lab showed the nature and implications on the error bars of this scatter.
| DEVIATIONS OF ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE FROM LONG-TERM AVERAGE Per Year From 1851 to 1984 |
 |
| Data points averaged to obtain time record of global mean temperature. Note points range from less than -2C to more than +2C. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory) |
Note that the error bars (below tables) are based solely on the scatter of the individual station data points (above table). They don’t include any information about other sources of uncertainty such as changes in land usage, changes in instrumentation, etc.
| GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED ON A SCALE RELEVANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATION DEVIATIONS Per Year from 1851 to 1984 |
 |
| Each value here is based on the average of all the points for each year in the previous figure. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory) |
Another major problem in interpretation arises from the existence of natural internal variability. This is a frequently misunderstood issue. The point is that the earth’s global mean temperature varies even in the absense of any external forcing at all. This is an inevitable property of a turbulent fluid where the greenhouse effect (mostly due to water vapor and clouds) varies dramatically with location. Moreover, the ocean is continually moving in and out of equilibrium with the surface for a variety of reasons. An example of such behavior is El Nino. However, there are similar phenomena in other regions.
| GLOBALLY AVERAGED DEVIATIONS FROM AVERAGE TEMPERATURE PLOTTED ON A SCALE STRETCHED TO FILL THE GRAPH Per Year from 1851 to 1984 |
 |
| Each value here is based on the curve in the previous figure stretched to fill the graph. Note that range is now about -0.6C to +.3C. Source: S.L. Grotch, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory |
There is argument as to the significance of natural internal variability, but it is clear from the temperature record that changes of 0.5C over short periods are not particularly uncommon. Natural internal variability, or “noise” in systems such as the earth are generally reflected in temperature observations. Finally, it is characteristic of noise that it is random. Data indicates natural internal variability or “noise” should be represented by a horizontal band of width 0.4 – 0.5 centigrade. The below table shows that it is rare so far to find that the noise band and the sampling error bars don’t overlap.
| OBSERVATIONS VS. INTERNAL VARIABILITY Per Year From 1851 to 2000 |
 |
We have not given much attention, so far, to systematic errors due to instrument changes. Two warrant some mention. Over much of the world, traditional thermometers have been replaced by electronic thermometers, which have much shorter response times. This appears to have contributed a bit to recent warming. Perhaps more serious are problems with pre World War I ocean measurements. Note that 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean. Crudely speaking, before WWI, temperatures were measured by collecting sea water in a canvas bucket, and measuring the temperature. After that, the temperature was taken by measuring the temperature in the engine intake.
In the late ’80’s there was a cooperative program between the late Prof. Reginald Newell at MIT and the UK Meteorological Office to intercalibrate the two methods. The resulting paper showed ocean temperatures about 0.2 centigrade warmer (for the pre WWI period) than those given in the paper that finally appeared. Professor Newell was extremely upset with the change, since he could not find out what the basis for it was. Such a change accounts for about 0.14 centigrade of the century long term trend commonly cited.
The point of all this is not to claim that there has been no warming. After all, the system’s temperature is always varying. However, when dealing with small temperature changes in a turbulent system, there is little appropriateness to dogmatism. Perhaps the most important message one gets from the data is that the change in temperature has been on the order of 0.5 centigrade, and the main question should be whether we have any solid basis for considering such a change to be large or small, serious or inconsequential.
About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Comment by b blanchette
October 1, 2008 at 6:16 pm - #
I was wondering if you have a chart and description of land and water temperature, precipitation that would cover from 1900 to 2008? And also a chart showing increases and decreases in violent storms, typhoons, tornados, earthquakes, tidal waves and volcano activities with an explanation. Also, who is your expert and how would I email them a few Q’s – I am a journalist looking into global warming trends and changes across this period of time and want to write about that along with the many reasons for it as well as ways people can make changes the fastest.
Comment by john b
November 10, 2008 at 5:01 pm - #
I have posted the following on the use of highly reflective microcrystals for increasing terrestrial albedo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4B_dnIMiaA
This may be a more feasible approach as compared to others that have been reported.
Comment by eric e
December 17, 2008 at 11:27 am - #
Where did you obtain your info? Because it dates pretty far back.
Pingback by An Inaccurate Postulate | Reflections From a Murky Pond
December 23, 2008 at 10:51 am - #
[...] Global surface temperatures have been stable for 10 years [...]
Comment by Stephen Cataldo
December 28, 2008 at 8:51 pm - #
There’s some strange back and forth approach to statistics:
1) If global warming was a hypothesis based primarily on global warming records, then the statistics would still be short of proof. But it isn’t: global warming is a theory with some complex models built on top of relatively simple science around heat/light being reflected. The statistics about weather patterns strongly support the theory.
2) This article throws around the “error bar.” While one year or a couple might be significantly off, the odds that a longer term trend could be nothing but a *steady* change in the error — that would only occur if there was a plain old fashioned mistake. It’s instructive that the same articles that say the 50 and 100 year trends aren’t necessarily true because of the “error bar” also mention that a 10 year recent flattening is a big deal, even though that kind of error is the numbers would mess up short term trends much more than long term.
Twenty years ago, people trying to argue that we shouldn’t act on global warming came up with reasons why carbon wouldn’t build up — it was generally considered obvious that if carbon did build up it would warm the planet. The carbon buildup is now incontrovertible, so the arguments against the theory of global warming have switched to arguing about this weather record — a mere piece of supporting evidence to a theory built on more basic physics — matches the theory but is, perhaps and just barely, incompletely proven. The evidence is overwhelming: if you don’t trust the possible errors in the weather stats, check glacier melt, species migration, or another dozen indicators that all agree. If money wasn’t involved, this wouldn’t be controversial.
Comment by Ed Ring
December 28, 2008 at 9:05 pm - #
Stephen, with all respect, consider this: Your arguments are potentially sound save for the last – “if money wasn’t involved, this wouldn’t be controversial.”
The vast preponderance of money – i.e., vested interests – are strongly in favor of CO2 alarmism. CPAs have a whole new area, carbon accounting, to expand into. Similarly, the entire legal community gains a whole new area of law – carbon regulations. Wall Street gains a whole new commodity to trade, carbon emissions and carbon offsets. The entire public sector gains a new item to tax, something to offset their failing revenues from other sectors in this economic downturn. Are you kidding? And lest we forget, the largest, most powerful corporations on earth, the carbon-based energy companies, get to see constrained supplies, leading to higher prices and margins for their products, as well as endless infusions of corporate welfare to help them “mitigate,” as well as countless mid-tier competitors driven under by the onerous regulations. And of course the venture capital community and the greentech entrepreneurs get to grow in artificial, “climate crisis” enabled modes, supported by offsets, subsidies, and other politically derived sustenance, instead of by success in a competitive market. Let’s not forget the insurance companies who get to carve out whole new “man made climate change related catastrophes” from normal coverage, allowing them to charge new premiums, as well as the entire scientific community who will gain grant funding if they support the alarm, and oblivion if they do not. Please don’t suggest the money is on the side of the “denialists.” It insults one’s intelligence.
Comment by Rich Johnson
January 7, 2009 at 4:21 pm - #
Ed and Stephen,
That was two of the best worded and well thought out debate comments I have heard in a long time. Kudo’s to both of you for having the courage and intelligence to offer good well thought out statements versus the name calling and just plain stupid comments that are many times posted on forums such as these.
Comment by DJ Farmer
January 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm - #
I do not dispute the earth is warming. I dispute that man is the cause. Just a few salient points.
1. The earth has been steadily warming for roughly 22k years which prcipitated the end of the last major ice age.
2. Data used to to speciously support “man made” global warming cherry picks data to support that hypothesis and ignores data that doesn’t support it. For example – data collection only looks at data going back to 1800 at the earliest and usually only back to around 1880. This is an insignificant amount of time geologically and ecologically.
3. Solar activity and other factors are not taken into account
4. All models currently used are flawed, if you take each computer model and input hisotrically known data from history and request an outcome of that data using said model the output doen’t match historical fact. How can you rely on a model that can not even generate an outcome to match waht is historically known???
5. The statements that man induced global warming will melt glaciers and cause is sea levels to rise is false. Ice displaces more water causes it to rise, when the ice melts water levels actually drop. Take a class of water and mark its level, place one ot two ice cubes in the class and mark the level, wait for the cubes to melt and again check the level. Further even is sea levels to rice as a result of this warming the land gained by the thawing far exceeds land lost to sea rise.
6. There has been no and I mean no proven link or corralation/cause/effect between CO2 levels and surface temperature rise. Ice core samples do not prove this. If CO2 increases cause global warming then how can ice form to trap the CO2? The ice would be melting and not forming!
7. Geologically speaking we are in an interglacial period and evidence indicates that between ice ages there is a gradual warming trend with a sudden few year temperature spike followed by a sharp decline and a new ice age. What we are seeing now matches this.
8. The man made global warming alarmist can not even tell you what the earth’s surface temperature should be. For all we know the perfect temperature for earth as an eco system may be 120f, this is not good for humans but may be perfect for earth. Further, the alarmists can not accept that the earth changes and has always undergone changes, it is not static which is what they seem the believe the earth should be – at least temperature wise.
None of this is to suggest that we should not be good stewards of the earth. We should all try and reduce pollution, limit our negative impact on earth as much as possible. We should move to renewable energy sources, but we should not do any of this at the expense of human lives and economies.
Instead of constantly finding fault with every idea or technology the alarmists should be helping to develop technology or ways to make things work better and cleaner. As an example, drilling in ANWAR – the alarmist insist no drilling should occur as it could potentially pollute the area and would cause wildlife stressing. Insead work with the companies to develop and implement safeguards to prevent/reduce pollution, the chance of an oil spill, more efficient drilling and exploration, smaller footprints, etc. The animals will adapt to the presence of the humans and technology.
Work together people, do not let politics and money drive science but let the research and science take you where it will.
Comment by wadosy
January 14, 2009 at 9:54 pm - #
co2 is a warming gas.
we are depositing about 30 gigatons of extra co2 into the air every year.
the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 to about 380 —100 parts per million— since we started using fossil fuels.
the last 50 of that 100 parts per million increase has happened in the last 33 years.
it’s awful hard to figure out what’s happening here.
Comment by DJ Farmer
January 15, 2009 at 3:16 pm - #
Prove CO2 is a warming gas.
Those who are trying to convince us that Man Made Global Warming is mainly caused by man putting CO2 into the atmosphere have not proven it.
Furthermore if the models and science they use were true we would have a venutian atmosphere by now. Furthemore, real science has provent he temperature drives CO2 levels, CO2 does not drive temperature levels.
Actually study both sides of the issue, looked at the the science and proof each side has and NOT rely on what the news tells you or the UN IPCC wants you to know?
Just 30 years ago a lot of the same scientists claimed the earth was cooling and heading toward a new ice age.
http://www.demanddebate.com/globalwarming.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
Respectfully
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 4:47 pm - #
“Prove CO2 is a warming gas…”
so thousands and thousands of scientists have been wrong about the co2 molecule for over a hundred years.
good enough.
.
thirty years ago we were putting so many particulates into the atmosphere that they were cooling the planet and overriding the warming of the co2… which is about the same thing that’s happening now with particulates from emerging economies who’ve taken over the manufacturing since america and europe have “outsourced” their manufacturing.
google: atmospheric brown clouds
google: global dimming
i guess you’ve never heard of the clean air acts, which have knocked particulate emissions down in america… the same type of legislation was passed in europe, we cleaned the air up, the co2 became dominant, and the warming resumed.
too bad we have such an insatiable appetite for the goods sold in walmart, too bad the chinese are willing to suffocate themselves in the effort to provide these goods, and it’s way too bad that the resultant dirty manufacturing processes are once more masking the warming effects of co2.
and it’s way way way too bad that the particulates settle out in four or five years, but the atmospheric lifetime of co2 is around 300 years.
what you gonna do when you run out of stuff to burn?
ABCs (atmospheric brown clouds) shield the surface from sunlight by reflecting solar radiation back to space and by absorbing heat in the atmosphere.
These two dimming phenomena can act to artificially cool the Earth’s surface especially during dry seasons. The pollution can also be transported around the world via winds in the upper troposphere (above 5 km in altitude).
As a result global temperature rises—linked with greenhouse gas emissions—may currently be between 20 per cent and 80 per cent less as a result of brown clouds around the world says the report.
If brown clouds were eliminated overnight, this could trigger a rapid global temperature rise of as much as to 2 degrees C.
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=550&ArticleID=5978&l=en
google “global dimming”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22global+dimming%22&aq=f&oq=
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 5:08 pm - #
too bad you guys are so lame you can’t play on a level field, isnt it?
what you really need to do is map out your position: for instance, you can’t even seem to make up your minds whether it’s warming or cooling.
so… choose one: (a) it’s warming, or (b) it’s cooling.
then what you gots to do is decide what’s causing the warming or cooling…
the way it is now, once day it’s cosmic rays, the next day it’s variations in solar irradiance… the day after that, it’s cowfarts, and the day after that, it’s termites.
WTF?
so what you gots to do is pick a story and stick to it.
simple.
Comment by Ed Ring
January 15, 2009 at 6:34 pm - #
Wadosy: Like many websites, newspapers, and television networks, we do have some strong editorial positions. Unlike many websites, however, we don’t attempt to demonize or denigrate anyone who disagrees with us. So please don’t indulge in name calling – we respect you and we respect your opinion. Also, please try to consolidate your comments so as not to inundate us. And by the way, the only reason three of your recent comments were removed just now is because you neglected to include the actual URL links along with the search results you were suggesting we reference.
Your position is fairly consistent, unlike ours, as you would have it. That is fine. If anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming, and if particulates are attenuating that effect, then your theory is correct. It certainly is not illogical. Our position is there are myriad first order forcing mechanisms that cause climate change, as we’ve described many times. We probably are not going to come to a meeting of the minds anytime soon.
It is vital to continue this debate, because the consequences are not simply climatic – they are political and economic, and simply giving in to the agenda of those who insist we precipitously retool and reinvent the political economy and technological infrastructure of the world is something we do not think is prudent.
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 8:54 pm - #
huh! i’m not supposed to “indulge in namecalling”…
why, then, do you decide to post my information —information that was banished to ecoworld purgatory— after i indulge in namecalling?
wouldnt it have been much more straightforward of you to have approved that information right from the start?
i’m glad to see you admit to the logic of my position… but then, who couldnt admit to it? …the only way you can defeat that logic is by refusing to approve my posts.
the facts remain: there are very well understood mechanisms at work here that explain observed changes in the climate, but some of them dont fit your agenda, so you have to make hamhanded attempts to suppress knowledge of those mechanisms.
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 9:12 pm - #
more maps:
chokepoint map
israel topo map
uk topo flood
political and economic consequences of global warming include 9/11, the famous “global war on terror”, and the deliberate crashing of the economy to obscure the fact that global oil production has peaked.
and by now, we should all have come to the realization that peak oil was the thing that triggered the 9/11 operation, which explains why peak oil must be obscured.
Comment by Ed Ring
January 15, 2009 at 9:13 pm - #
Wadosy: Nothing you have posted so far has been banished or otherwise deleted. We almost never delete comments unless they are spam. We do have a moderation queue that, honestly, is supposed to be turned off but kicks in unpredictably. We have to monitor them (more than one database) manually to approve non-spam comments that somehow end up in the queue. No kidding. As I explained, the only comments we’ve deleted of yours are three you made today where you were referencing Google search results, but you forgot to paste in the URL for the actual results. And it would help if you would consolidate your comments – offering up three Google search result URLs do not require three separate comments.
There are a lot of logical positions, but saying something is logical doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true. Climate systems are extraordinarily complex, and again, our editorial position is there are many first order climate forcing mechanisms; CO2 and particulates (or aerosols) are only two of them. How they interact, we maintain, is not understood well enough to justify abruptly shutting down the fossil fuel based world economy, or, just as bad, subjecting it to punishing regulations that ultimately only hurt the less fortunate. I would ask you to consider these points with an open mind.
The reason we don’t encourage name calling or disrespect is because we believe that does absolutely nothing to advance a search, which I presume we share, for the truth. Moreover, it’s not nice.
PS. While your arguments regarding global dimming potentially deferring the alleged impact of CO2 are lucid – whether they are true or not they are lucid – some of the other theories you are promoting seem a bit far fetched to me.
PPS. I am not editing your posts, I had to make your links have short names so the lengthy URLs didn’t bleed into column two of the home page under “recent comments.” I am not editing your posts. Cut me some slack. I don’t like editors who distort the comments of others. The only thing I edited other than your URLs was your profanity.
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm - #
would you please correct my typos? …seeing as how you’re editing my posts anyhow.
A poet can survive anything but a misprint… oscar wilde
Comment by wadosy
January 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm - #
this is a test…
oil production vs price, dollar, gold, drills
Comment by DJ Farmer
January 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm - #
Wadosys says
“so thousands and thousands of scientists have been wrong about the co2 molecule for over a hundred years.
good enough.”
So name 10% of them and there reviewed and accepted research.
You did not logically and with proof refute a single point I made.
Point of fact is this – the earth has cooled and warmed for millions of years. It is now warming, a few scientists have decided using specious science and modeling and data going back only to 1800 that “man” is causing it.
Three questions for you (anyone really) regarding CO2 – how much CO2 does it require to raise the surface temperature of earth .1 degree F? If CO2 is driving global warming and man is putting all this CO2 into the atmoshpere to cause it then why did the earth warm enough to end the last ice age and conitnue to warm ever since? What should the “mean” surface temperature of the earth be and why?
Wadosys also says “and by now, we should all have come to the realization that peak oil was the thing that triggered the 9/11 operation, which explains why peak oil must be obscured.”
Where is your proof and not your belief. Do you have some intel no of us have seen or some inside knowledge??? Based on that staement I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about.
Comment by wadosy
January 16, 2009 at 6:06 pm - #
want to explain why PNAC said they needed “a new pearl harbor” in september of 2000, a few months before they were installed into positions from which they could make their “new pearl harbor” happen?
want to explain how the PNAC people were installed by an election recount in a state governed by the brother of the president-elect and PNAC member, jeb bush?
want to explain why netanyahu thought 9/11 was such a good deal?
want to explain why, despite a seven-fold increase in price and a doubling of drills, crude oil production has remained flat for the last four and a half years?
want to explain why exxon, after investing so much time, money and effort in developing nuclear power for america, finally gave up on nukes and joined up with the israeli americans of the AEI in their oil acquisition project?
want to explain why exxon and the AEI are the world’s prime deniers of global warming?
want to explain why exxon and CERA are the world’s prime deniers of peak oil?
want to explain why, when it comes to global warming, you’re so willing to believe the same AEI people who lied us into the iraq war?
Comment by DJ Farmer
January 18, 2009 at 11:29 am - #
Are we discussing “Man Made” Global Warming or not?
Wadosys – If you wish to discuss conspiracy theories then kindly post somewhere else. I have no interest in discussing what is obviously a cause celeb for you.
To answer “want to explain why, when it comes to global warming, you’re so willing to believe the same AEI people who lied us into the iraq war?”
I do not believe any one sorce. I research and study all sides of the issue from those who claim man is causing all global warming to those who deny global warming is even occurring. From that research I can determine what is factual and relevant.
How do you do it?
Comment by selti
March 28, 2009 at 9:41 pm - #
Fact 1: Global Temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975. Fact 2: Since 1998, this temperature has not increased. Fact 3: Human emission of CO2 has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. Conclusion: Human emission of CO2 is not a major cause of increase in global temperature; as a result, the theory that this CO2 is the cause of global warming is a myth, not science.
“Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris.” John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science.
Comment by Hamblin
April 1, 2009 at 1:59 pm - #
I don’t have an opinion; I just teach. I teach students how to research. What is valid? What has been peer reviewed? Who did the peer review? Who funded the research? What, if anything, did they have to gain? If you consider yourself to be a serious scientist, you must be prepared to have an open mind to all new research and evidence.
However, for myself, I find it very difficult to ignore the photographic evidence of receding glaciers, drunken forests, methane bubbling out of the ground and drowned polar bears. I therefore conclude that something very unpleasant is happening relatively quickly, whatever the cause. Data can be manipulated by anyone with an objective to peddle and CGI is guilty of many things, but the evidence of one’s own eyes is hard to refute. Please don’t quote me 10 year data – that’s not a valid time frame for this problem.
My biggest problem is, there so many people and organisations with an axe to grind,it’s hard to guide students through the minefield of making informed decisions and judgements.
Comment by Amy
April 22, 2009 at 2:32 am - #
Well, global warming??
obviously it’s happening it may not be happening to a degree at which you as an idividual can notice it but it’s happening whether it be at the poles or the equator changes are ocuring. The earth has heated and cooled before but not like what is happening now. Rapid climate changes more sevre storms, droughts and rising sea levels are already occuring.
For those skeptics is it not better just to play it safe and take the extra precautions?? I mean if you end up being right and global warming is not occuring what is there to lose?? You can have a nice laugh at us. But if you are wrong look at what we stand to lose??
I may only be 17 but it doesn’t take a scientist to realise that it’s not worth fighting over because what we are putting at risk is far more valuable than any im right win??
Comment by Ken
April 25, 2009 at 9:24 pm - #
Man made global warming, I just don’t see it. The hypothesis that Co2 causes warming has been disproved since 1998. Global tempertures have went down while Co2 has up. Enough said hypothesis Some one said peak oil? The Russians are leading the world in oil and natural gas. They have a working theory that oil is a renewable energy. They drill wells deeper than fossils could have possibly been. I think to date they have drilled 310 of these deep wells. I would say their theory is more credible than the fossil fuel theory just by practical use. It just gos to show something you might have believed all your life was a lie.
Comment by Goran
April 27, 2009 at 7:31 pm - #
Hamblin:
“but the evidence of one’s own eyes is hard to refute.”
True. But the main question remains. Is this warming caused by man? If it’s not, we can’t do anything about it. Like someone befor wrote. How do you know what is the “perfect” temperature for earth?
Amy:
“The earth has heated and cooled before but not like what is happening now. Rapid climate changes more sevre storms, droughts and rising sea levels are already occuring.”
Do you have any scientific proof that storms and droughts are worse than before? Is the wearher really worse, or do we just see more and more tornados and huricanes on daily news?
“For those skeptics is it not better just to play it safe and take the extra precautions?? I mean if you end up being right and global warming is not occuring what is there to lose??”
What do we have to lose?
- There are many new taxes all over the world that tax us for doing everyday stuff without proper alternative. Governments want us to pay taxes for burning gasoline, but there are no real alternative means of transportation. Electric cars are extremely expensive and not very good, and hybrids don’t do that much difference. And besides, power plants that provide electricity produce CO2 as well.
So we are losing our money and freedom with this. If global warming is a scam this means that our governments are lying to us and trying to manipulate us.
- CO2 taxes and trading puts poorer countries into even worse condition. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
Sorry for any typos and grammar mistakes. Im not a native speaker and its very late here
Comment by Mike
May 1, 2009 at 9:34 am - #
Global Warming, Cooling, Dimming or not. I am satisfied that the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy provides sufficient reason to take serious action to modify our use and consumption of fossil fuels. We are relocating toxic compounds to our biosphere, and are converting a lot of that matter into heat. There will be some noticeable negative consequence to this, no? At some point, the balanced system that sustains life on this earth will be altered by this introduction of toxins and heat that human life will be adversely affected. By that I mean millions to billions dead- by famine, disease, toxicity, or the wars that will ensue from the shortage of water and food. Both Cooling and Warming can cause this to happen.
Once you hit the point that enough people say, OK it is a problem, it will be too late for a lot of people. I think we are nearing the precipice, regardless of the nuances in the debate. I am choosing the side of alarmist caution, because if I am correct, I do not have sufficient resources to insure I am one of the survivors. If I am wrong, the most I risk is having to survive in a sluggish economy hampered by ill conceived energy policy.
Comment by Dave Weber
May 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm - #
The real question is, ” What is the ideal average temperature of the Earth to promote human existance and the existance of the flora and fauna that we live with.”.
It is pretty intuitive that a warmer Earth will raise the average temperature of the oceans, and higher ocean temperatures translates to higher precipitation. Plants tend to flourish in deserts if the precipitation is higher. And they flourish in higher CO2 in the atmosphere, because it promotes the reaction of photosynthesis.
Regarding the fauna, the highest diversity of both flora and fauna occurs near the equator. This is coincidentally the hottest and wettest areas on Earth. Take a look at the tropical locations on Earth using GoogleEarth and they are a relatively small band that runs across Northern S. America and Central Africa. If the Earth was hotter, the tropical areas would widen and move north and south of the equator, which yields more land area that can support the most living diversity.
It may be true that the deserts of Anartica and Greenland might be freed for more useful land use, and this would flood some low lying areas , like NYC and Florida and Netherlands. But, land values come & go in human affairs. Someone might loose a vacation home due to high water, but more probable is that by then, the buildings will be on stilts (or just live on the 3rd or 4th floor, like Venice).
The increase in rain will green up the Gobi, Austrailian, Sahara, western US, and Arabian deserts and fee up more arable land for multiple use.
The most important thing is to prevent the next ice age (which really puts a dent in living diversity) by adding a little more CO2 to the atmosphere – like we are already doing. This will maximize the utility of the Earth for all living things.
Pingback by US Military Prepares for War with Climate Change & Global Warming | EcoWorld
August 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm - #
[...] about this can be found on the New York Times website. Please also see our own articles on Global Warming Facts and Global Warming Information. Category: Climate [...]
Comment by lara
September 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm - #
hey.i loved the article on global warming.i was just wondering,do you have any science project questions that you have in mind about global warming.if so,please email me back anything that you think of at: moogirl10gmail.com thanks for listening,hope to here from you soon!
Comment by Jasmine
September 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm - #
Global Warming is here and happening! …
Comment by Andy
September 28, 2009 at 10:59 pm - #
The global warming charts are fairly clear – total warming over the past two centuries has been no more than one would expect from normal short term variability and the trend has been dead flat for the past 10 years. Ocean levels have only risen centimeters with no damage to coastal cities. The “scientists” try to proclaim that the trend is somehow only occurring in the high Northern hemisphere and they focus on those areas solely to try to justify an alarmist crises type reaction to a trend that, everywhere else on the planet, has simply not occurred. No major change in sea level. No change in antarctic ice cover and, frankly, no statistically significant change in global temperatures.
Comment by Erin and Leah
October 9, 2009 at 2:29 pm - #
Hi everyone,
We would just like to say that somewhere there should be a version of articles such as this one that have dumbed down the subject of global warming so that average janes like us can understand them without having to fry our brains and go to ten years of schooling in environmental science. Even if global warming actually is a real threat (which it is not) the concept ofit should be available to everyone. Even those unlike you, who are intelectually gifted.
Please do not take anything offensively, this was meant as a notice and only half a mockery of this subject.
Thank you,
Erin and Leah
Comment by EcoWorld Editorial Staff
October 12, 2009 at 12:08 pm - #
Erin and Leah, thank you for the comments.
We’re working hard to simplify some of our most demanded information – and this article is one of them. If you’d be willing to provide additional feedback to us, we would be grateful.
Comment by Matthew
October 12, 2009 at 10:41 pm - #
EcoWorld
It is with great interest I read professor Lindzen’s article along with the follow up comments. I am at best of very average intelligence and though I did not enjoy the privilege of higher education I found the article to be within my capability to follow and understand. As to some of the comments, it is frightening and sad that politically correct agendas drive the thinking of a significant number of people who seem unwilling to invest the time to research and think clearly through important issues such as climate change from a truly scientific perspective. It is also a shame that a number of people who think of themselves as a ’scientist’ do not apply scientific principle to their research and position papers, and instead allow themselves to be driven by agenda instead of research. As an illustration, regardless of one’s viewpoints on the topic discussed therein, the movie ‘Expelled’ is fairly indicative of what goes on in many of the halls of academia if one does not play by the ‘rules’. Thanks and keep up the good work!
Pingback by Climate Change - Get the Facts - Blog Action Day 2009 - BevUniverse Drink Reviews Blog
October 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm - #
[...] Global Warming Facts from EcoWorld [...]
Comment by michaela reyes
November 4, 2009 at 1:25 am - #
can you explain stuff?
Comment by michaela reyes
November 4, 2009 at 1:26 am - #
about global warming, causes an deffects and how to stop it?
Comment by Ai Rui Sheng
November 12, 2009 at 6:55 am - #
If CO2 is indeed a warming agent and atmospheric levels are increasing naturally, as it is released from the warming oceans, can we do anything about it?
Will we have Britain making wine again, as it did during Roman times, and is this bad?
Buckminster Fuller described pollution as the production of chemicals that we had not found a use for. What can we use CO2 for?