Is global warming real?

[mennie]

People should be asking and demanding hard facts before they get sucked in by the sexiness of Global Warming Inc.

I think this is the main difference between you guys in the US and the rest of the world. Here we don't see global warming as a salesman's speech.

It's even noted in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
In the Western world, the idea of human influence on climate and efforts to combat it has gained wider acceptance in Europe than in the United States.

Of course I understand that it is difficult to trust a government that lies and misleads so much.

[zebm1]

Some years ago, people in the largest cities noticed that when the weekends came it always seemed to rain, ruining tha weekend plans for outdoor activities. So, of course, some meterological scientists did a study and found.....that yes, the 5 day wookweek activity patterns did produce local weather patterns.
The use of air conditioning, to cool office buildings, and the increased vehicular traffic produced enough heat to drive off any naturally occuring rain clouds. What happened on the weekends was that the air mass over the cities cooled enough for water vapor to condense and produce rain. So...yes, given a large enough pattern of human behavior in a localized region, we can and do influence the weather locally. As I remember it, this was reported on a PBS Frontline Report, very similar in proofs as that Google British documentary on "The Global Warming Swindle." And yes I did watch yur posting, I'm in the process of tracking those who gave their opinions...checking their biographies, books written et al. Trying to see what their own biases are.

BTW Jesse C., did yu read any of tha Cites I provided?

[bdk]

In the Western world, the idea of human influence on climate and efforts to combat it has gained wider acceptance in Europe than in the United States.

Of course I understand that it is difficult to trust a government that lies and misleads so much.

I didn't think that the Netherlands was that bad, but of course I have not lived there...

[Jesse C.]

Hey Zeb,

I have looked at two of them so far and will check out the rest as time permits, just trying to dance as fast as I can!

[zebm1]

Hey bdk, if yu lived ina country that depends on the Mother of all sea dikes to keep tha North Sea from flooding yur front yards, wouldn't yu be just a tad worried about sea levels rising?

[Bill Greenwood]

Bill Grey is mentioned as from Col State Univ. Is he really a professor there and what are his academic credentials?The local paper says his recent hurricane forecast are not accurate.

[zebm1]

Speaking of sea levels rising as tha result of temperatures rising. A little known historical fact is, that what we now know as tha North Sea was at one time prarrie grasslands. It is quite common for fishing boats that use deep water dredge nets to pull up from tha North Sea bottom bones, teeth, tusks and other stuff related to Ice Age fauna (mammals).

Cites:
1) http://www.cjfossils.com/mammothhomepage.htm
2) http://www.universaltreasures.com/mammoth.htm
3) http://www.paleodirect.com/woolymammothsold1.htm
4) http://www.bestcrystals.com/fossils2.html
5) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 5663/1464b
6) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 5663/1464b

As yall can see, tha material pulled up from tha bottom of tha North Sea is "real" bone, not fossils and there is a very lucrative retail trade in these artifacts. One last Cite:
7) http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press ... 1063355267

As yall can also see, tha "rise" of sea levels in tha North Sea basin was very likely to have been caused by a "global warming" albeit over a period of several thousand years. Will we see a catastrophe of weather-related change on tha order of 10 years or less, I doubt it. Meterological change due to pollution related events tend to be rather "long-timing" events. Although tha winter of 1944-45 was the coldest recorded in quite awhile. The science points to tha temperature fall as being related to all of tha particulate matter that rose into tha higher reaches of tha Troposphere due to all of tha fires caused by World War II.

But then, a nuclear exchange could be a "tipping point," there is still that potential.

BTW, I use Cites as a sort of "Good neighbor" policy. It uses less bandwidth on this website's servers, which leaves much more bandwidth for all of these pictures that we all luv to drool over.
Have a better day.

[mennie]

zebm1, yes we live low here. Utrecht is not below sea level but just on the edge of it, about 2 meters above. My gf lives just below sea level near to Rotterdam. But I'm not really worried.
I just don't understand. Yesterday Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" was on tv and they showed how you can not see the Hollywood sign because of all the smog. How can you not want to do anything about that? I WOULD be worried...

[zebm1]

Hey mennie, not being able to see tha Hollywood sign is a sign of progress in curtailing polution in tha Los Angeles area. Back in tha 60s yu couldn't even see tha hill that tha sign is on.

As to tha Nederlands, how about tha Districts of North and South Holland, Frieland, Flevoland and Zeeland? When we visited back in 1960 during tha Tulip Festivals, I remember huge dikes, floodgates and in places as we drove around...feeling like yur country waz a larger New Orleans, water higher than our heads while sitting/driving in our Opel.

[bdk]

I just don't understand. Yesterday Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" was on tv and they showed how you can not see the Hollywood sign because of all the smog. How can you not want to do anything about that? I WOULD be worried...

How is Columbine related to Hollywood? "Bowling for Columbine" (although claimed to be a documentary) is no such thing. It is a political opinion film containing many misleading statements and factual errors. The air is far better in Los Angeles than it was even 10 years ago. I have not seen a "first stage smog alert" in years, though 10 years ago we had them all the time. That does not suggest a scientific basis, just my observation.

Right now I am in Shanghai where you can barely see across the street due to the pollution. They still burn the crops here in China you know after the harvest... China is now claiming that their "one child policy" has resulted in 300 million fewer births over the past 25 or so years, and thus they are polluting far less than they would have otherwise. The reason they mention this is because they want relief from the per capita pollution standards the world is trying to impose upon them.

China is about to pass the US on "greenhouse gas" (primarily carbon dioxide) emissions as they industrialize, yet their population is about 5 time greater than the US which has completed industrialization and is on the downside now. Of course this is all a red herring because carbon dioxide does not create "global warming," warming results in elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

[zebm1]

And if yu really wanna worry about "Global Warming", then we're really gonna have to do something about tha largest contributor to global warming. We gotta get rid of all that water vapor, since it is By Far the largest, by volume, of any of tha Greenhouse Gases. I mean things are bad enuff and now tha Greenhouse Crazies want us to convert all of our automobiles over to hydrogen fueled.....won't that just add more water vapor to tha Global Warming equation?

[Jesse C.]

Ok, finally got to read all the links. Some interesting points, some had more proof than others, but interesting nonetheless.

If bio engineered food would have been more widely accepted instead of being shot down thanks to folks like Greenpeace and PETA, there would most likely be more crops being grown in less than ideal locals. But, that is a whole different thread altogether.

I think that considering the size of our country, the USA in case you are wodering, we have cleaned up pretty good. I think if other countries where held up to our standards they would likely go broke or go into chaos. If we actually followed the Kyoto treaty to the letter, we would be going backwards, hence why Bush declined to join up with it originally and now he has gone GW happy. Go figure!

More later, gotta get to lunch!!

[bdk]

Arctic Becomes Tourism Hot Spot, But Is That Cool?
by Gautam Naik
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
provided by

James Brusslan is an environmental lawyer with climate change on his mind. He cycles to the office and works at a Chicago law firm that offsets its carbon emissions. He plasters friends' SUVs with stickers that say: "I'm changing the climate! Ask me how!"

To get a first-hand glimpse of such changes, Mr. Brusslan, 50 years old, recently spent $2,800 on a week's camping trip here, about 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle. "I wanted to see what was happening," he said, as he gazed at an ice fiord where a glacier was splintering into icebergs. "In 10 years, it probably will be gone." He next plans to see the melting glaciers of Sichuan, China.

Global warming has given rise to a new niche in the booming eco-tourism business: climate tourists. These visitors seek out places where a long-term warming trend -- subject of a global summit hosted by the United Nations this week -- is starting to have a discernible impact. Yet some say there's a big irony in this kind of travel: Any trip by train, plane or cruise ship pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and potentially contributes to the warming of the planet.

"What's the point of your trip to the Maldives if the end result is that it will be drowned" because emissions from eco-tourists' jets contribute to global warming and rising seas, says Jeff Gazzard of Aviation Environmental Federation, a United Kingdom group fighting to curtail airplane emissions. The Maldives, a string of islands in the Indian Ocean, sit about three feet above sea level and are at risk if warming effects raise ocean levels.

More than 1.5 million tourists now visit the arctic each year, up from one million in the early 1990s, according to the U.N. Longer and warmer summers keep arctic seas freer of ice flows, so cruise ships can visit places that were once inaccessible -- raising other environmental concerns.

Some tourists to Norway's Svalbard archipelago in the arctic hope to catch sight of new islands that have appeared as the ice sheet retreats. "They're just rocks," scoffs Rune Bergstroem, head of the environment department at the governor of Svalbard's office. That didn't stop a recent visitor from England from trying to claim one such island, going ashore and writing his bid on a baked-bean can. It was rejected.

The annual number of visitors to Svalbard has surged 33% in the past five years to about 80,000. About half arrive on cruise liners. With so many more passengers going ashore, fragile vegetation on some islands has gotten worn down. There's a higher risk of an oil spill; a new law requires ships on the eastern part of the islands to use marine diesel instead of heavy oil.

Local wildlife is under threat, and not just from direct climate change. "Regions with polar bears were hard to access, but boats can now get there because the sea ice melts," says Mr. Bergstroem. "There could be more conflicts between people and bears."

Still, global warming can be a persuasive sales pitch. This month, Betchart Expeditions Inc., of Cupertino, Calif., offers a 12-day voyage to "Warming Island" near Greenland. Melting ice has revealed the long-buried island, "a compelling indicator of the rapid speed of global warming," says Betchart's Web site. The cost: between $5,000 and $7,000, not including flights. So far, 38 people have signed up.

Earthwatch Institute, a nonprofit in Maynard, Mass., runs trips that allow people to help scientists studying coral reefs in the Bahamas and the effects of climate change on orchids in India. Its 11-day trip, "Climate Change at the Arctic's Edge" -- priced between $2,849 and $4,349, not including flights -- involves going to Manitoba, Canada, to monitor carbon stores in the permafrost.

Hansruedi Burgener didn't seek out climate tourists -- they found him. Last summer, hundreds trekked to his remote hostel-cum-restaurant in the Swiss Alps, because it has a clear view of a mountain called the Eiger. Noting that a warming trend had accelerated melting of glacial ice, geologists predicted part of the mountain would soon collapse. To mark the event, Mr. Burgener introduced a coffee-and-schnapps concoction called a "Rockslide."

In July 2006, about a half-million cubic meters of the Eiger -- the volume of a small skyscraper -- plunged into the valley. No one was hurt, but dust from the impact blanketed the nearby resort of Grindelwald. Tourists still go there, to see where the rock fall occurred. "I don't think climate change is good for the environment," says Mr. Burgener. "But it's made the hostel famous, and that's good for me."

There are some efforts to keep the trend from heating up. The International Ecotourism Society, based in Washington, D.C., launched a campaign called "Traveling with Climate in Mind" to help people "minimize their environmental footprint" through better use of energy and offsetting emissions.

In March, the airline SAS started a program that allows passengers to pay a fee -- up to €8 for a European flight -- to offset their flight-related emissions. The money is spent on a renewable-energy project. But though the airline carries more than four million passengers a month, it has registered only about 600 transactions so far.

"It's low; we're disappointed," says Neils Ierek Nertun, environmental director for SAS.

Per Stuhaug, a 53-year-old consultant for International Business Machines Corp. in Copenhagen, took a recent SAS flight to visit Greenland's vast inland ice sheet. He said he was "interested in seeing any changes since my last visit," a 2004 camping trip. But he dismissed the airline's carbon-offset program as a marketing gimmick and didn't pay the fee.

Though they are hardly the main contributor to global warming, tourists interested in climate change recognize a dilemma. "I have a curiosity about these places, but going there to see them causes more damage," says Anne Patrick, a Massachusetts schoolteacher who has visited Antarctica and Greenland. "How do you come to grips with that? I don't have an answer."

Most visitors to Greenland head to the town of Ilulissat, a settlement of brightly painted houses with a breathtaking view of icebergs. Scientists speculate that the iceberg that sank the Titanic originated here.

Ilulissat has become a poster child for global warming. January temperatures used to routinely hit minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit, but now rarely fall below minus 13 Fahrenheit. The nearest glacier, Jacobshavn, has retreated more than nine miles since 2002. The bay no longer freezes, so fishermen catch halibut all year long, depleting stocks, says Konrad Seblon, district manager of a provincial agency charged with developing tourism.

This year, the town has hosted Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Barbara Boxer, U.S. senator from California, and the president of the European Union. Up to 35,000 tourists are expected too, compared with 10,000 some five years ago. The town's population is 5,000 people and a lot more sled dogs.

"Tourists are welcome, but we don't want too many. And we don't want big hotels," says Anthon Frederiksen, Ilulissat's mayor. "We'd like to preserve nature and our culture."

Many visitors shell out $300 for a trip to a glacier called Eqi. When Eqi reaches the sea, large pieces "calve," or break off, becoming icebergs. One recent afternoon, a boat filled with tourists drew near Eqi's 250-foot-tall ice face. Suddenly, a chunk the size of a small house plunged into the waters, unleashing a 6-foot swell.

The wave slammed into the boat, rocking it hard. "That was exciting," said Ingeborg Mathiesen, a 68-year-old Norwegian, as she gripped the guard rails. "I've never seen anything like it."

The day before, a similar wave in Svalbard pounded a sightseeing boat and injured 17 British tourists. Next summer, Ms. Mathiesen plans to visit Svalbard, to see icebergs and polar bears. Says her husband, Erich: "We don't want to wait five years when they may be gone."

Copyrighted, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

[muddyboots]

Looks to me like the naysayers are in the extreme minority, as they seem to be in the scientific world. Wonder why someone would work so hard to disprove something, using news stories someone else wrote, which mostly began with an obvious slant. A journalist is there to sell newspapers. If his clientel is conservative, or if he can cause controversy, he will obviously be led to write a story which claims the mainstream scientific theory is correct. However, I don't see any of those qouted as actually having any basis in scientific fact. It's just qoutes, not documented evidence or even claims that their opinions are based on scientific evidence.

I also notice you didn't provide a vote for "yes there is warming but it's cause is still unproved," There is far more evidence that the Earth is warming, from Mount Kilomanjaro, to the icecaps, to the odd weather patterns we are seeing, and what is reputedly as small rise in temp over the past fe years. Evidence is there if you are willing to look, and certainly enough to build a strong theory pointing to global warming. But its cause and cure are still scince fiction.

It's been over a hundred years since Darwins Orgins of Species. There is enough evidence to prove its veracity a thousand times over, and yet there are still those who refuse to believe we didn't evolve from other species. I find it hard not to lump Global Warming naysayers in the same group as the "not descended from apes" people. Just because they won't believe it doesn't mean they are right.

[bdk]

I also notice you didn't provide a vote for "yes there is warming but it's cause is still unproved," There is far more evidence that the Earth is warming, from Mount Kilomanjaro, to the icecaps, to the odd weather patterns we are seeing, and what is reputedly as small rise in temp over the past fe years. Evidence is there if you are willing to look, and certainly enough to build a strong theory pointing to global warming. But its cause and cure are still scince fiction.

Is global warming a real threat?

Yes, but is out of our control and occurs naturally 40%

If you don't like the wording of my poll, feel free to make your own.

I also don't write news stories, so occasionally I post ones that I think might be of interest to others. I don't claim to be a credible source of information on this topic. This is a discussion forum- you get what you get!

I am not a climatologist on the cutting edge of my field so there is nothing I can prove or disprove regarding the climate. I claim to have done no original work in this field, have you? I gather information from sources both pro and con. I read and make a decision for myself. I found the subject of this article to be somewhat ironic as it suggests that the same people who claim to be environmentally conscious are themselves contributing to the problem. Sorry if my point was not clear enough in this respect.

I happen to believe the earth is warming (at this moment). I also believe there are causes, but human intervention is not primary among them. When I was a teenager though, there was a great fear that we were heading into a new ice age. The same fear mongers that were running around then, or their disciples, are still with us.

Darwin has never been conclusively proven right or wrong. That is why it is the THEORY of evolution. Many scientists agreed at one time that the earth was flat and later that the universe revolved around the earth. Many widely accepted theories of the past have since been disproven. Just because there is overwhelming evidence doesn't make something so. It is the things you don't know that make the difference!

"No one wants to learn from mistakes, but we cannot learn enough from successes to go beyond the state of the art." -- Henry Petroski