Climate change? Wait a minute...not so fast...literally

vinlyn

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

sndymorn

Wow, silence on response to this article is deafening!
I await Al Gore's recanting as he is such a leader in this field....Maybe I'll knit a large sweater.

vinlyn

Yes, and I think I know why...because it's not what most of the people who inhabit this forum want to hear. It's outside their already formed belief system.

Do I believe in climate change? Yes. Do I believe man is having an influence on it? Yes. But I have always been a bit leery of the bandwagon jumping on the Al Gore version of climate change, and that dates back to my years earning a Geosciences Degree back in the 1970s. I had a professor who said we were moving further into an interglacial period, and that meant a warming climate. He said that man, particularly through fossil fuels, was adding to that...but that that was minor compared to the inter-glacial aspect.

So when the Al Gore-type movement began, and just snowballed, I was a little apprehensive about the degree of change and how I sometimes felt there was a little jumping to conclusions.

Again, I agree with the basic conclusion, but am more apt to question the degree (pun intended).

Paco

If somthing significant is going on then we need more time a researcha and less Chicken Little doomsayers.

vinlyn

I agree. If somthing significant is going on then we need more time a researcha dn less Chicken Little doomsayers.

I agree...to an extent. There are a lot of things we can do that are a good idea and are just the best thing to do. But there is a bit of Chicken Little attitude here, which is sort of the way things tend to work nowadays, when everything is a crisis and people jump on a bandwagon so easily.

Jeffrey

Just something to add is how auto industry always says increased fuel emission standards will be impossible but it hasn't been true. It IS economically feasible to leverage technology to become more green. I hope ye' see I am not contradicting anyone's comments I am just adding my own.

B5C

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism

LOL "Gaia" theory? lol

No matter what that guy can claim. His ideals will be just an hypthesis.

vinlyn

Just something to add is how auto industry always says increased fuel emission standards will be impossible but it hasn't been true. It IS economically feasible to leverage technology to become more green. I hope ye' see I am not contradicting anyone's comments I am just adding my own.

I think you have a very good point. I rarely believe what heavy industry tells us.

possibilities

Al Gore's movie was an eye opener for me. No more, no less. Beyond that, I try to not add to pollution - that's all one can do on a small scale.
Scientists bring forth all types of scenarios, take you pick, something will suit your personal attitude -- and it won't mean much in the long run, since apparently there is no consensus.
Anyone banking on science at this point seems to be too trusting in someone's agenda. Take it with a grain of salt.

@vinlyn - from what I notice on this forum, there is a wide diversity of opinions, esp in this matter; no need to pigeon hole anyone and/or make false claims, (or appear defensive).

twobitbob

James Lovelock is one of the greatest scientists of a generation.

Telly03

Pretty sad to think that Al Gore and many others may have pulled off a huge scam, purposly exaggerating claims to invoke fear to make money.

Mountains

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that Al Gore or anyone else is trying to pull a scam to make money on this.

Mountains

Y'know, there are a *lot* of **really** smart people all over the world who are studying this. And the conclusion that 98+% of them agree with is that global climate change is real, and that human activity in the past 150 years is greatly accelerating it. Did we "cause" it to start changing? Maybe, or maybe not. That's not the point. The point is, we understand enough about the science to know that we're pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at rates that are unprecedented in history. We *know* that sea temperatures are rising. We *know* that polar ice is melting at a rate far faster than has ever been recorded in the geological history found within the ice itself. We *know* that vast areas of the land surface of the planet are getting warmer and drier, while others are getting cooler and wetter. Those are facts that simply cannot be disputed.

But the bottom line is, I'm just not willing to bet that 98+% of the world's climate and other related scientists are wrong and a bunch of yahoos with no scientific background are right. I'm just not willing to gamble the future of the planet and the human race on the possibility that 98+% of the world's climatologists are 100% dead wrong on this. I might believe the spherical earth hypothesis is wrong and that I'll fall off the edge if I sail too far west. But science has pretty well shown that I'm wrong on that. Just because you don't believe the science doesn't automatically mean that it's not true.

We're doing things to the planet that have never been done to the planet before. It's pretty short sighted and downright stupid of us to believe that nothing we're doing is having any effect on the almost microscopically thin veil of atmosphere that surrounds this rock. Just because it's too big for you to see or too complex for you to understand doesn't mean it's not true and that it's not happening. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make it any better.

Where does denial stop? I just don't get it.

Telly03

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that Al Gore or anyone else is trying to pull a scam to make money on this.

Actually I do

"Where does denial stop? I just don't get it" This is my point as well

Telly03

Mountains

Yeah, Penn & Teller are certainly authorities. I have to give you that one. Honestly, if I had another planet to go to to let you guys have your way with this one, I would. But I have to live here to, so I'd appreciate it if you all who don't believe crap stinks would kindly not screw this one for the rest of us who are capable of independent thought and scientific reason.

Tosh

Whatever anyone's point of view, it makes sense to reduce our use of fossil fuels; it's a finite resource - and explore cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

All over the UK solar panels are appearing on roofs; I think that's a good thing.

Telly03

I believe my carbon footprint is much lower than Al Gore's, so I'm doing my part.

Telly03

Jason

@vinlyn - from what I notice on this forum, there is a wide diversity of opinions, esp in this matter; no need to pigeon hole anyone and/or make false claims, (or appear defensive).

I agree. It might just be my imagination, but you're posts have seemed increasingly antagonistic as of late. As for myself, I haven't respond because I honestly don't care about Al Gore or James Lovelock, or what they have to say about anything.

vinlyn

Please tell me you don't seriously believe that Al Gore or anyone else is trying to pull a scam to make money on this.

I assume you're talking to Telly, but as for me, I don't think there's a scam involved. But, I do think there's a crisis/band wagon effect where people get all wrapped up in something and may not be keeping all of the data and all the factors in perspective.

vinlyn

Al Gore's movie was an eye opener for me. No more, no less. Beyond that, I try to not add to pollution - that's all one can do on a small scale.
Scientists bring forth all types of scenarios, take you pick, something will suit your personal attitude -- and it won't mean much in the long run, since apparently there is no consensus.
Anyone banking on science at this point seems to be too trusting in someone's agenda. Take it with a grain of salt.

...

I think you're right in terms of the scenario scenario (Pun intended). Kind of reminds me of what good planning really is -- developing various scenarios from "best case" to "worst case", but then being realistic enough to know that neither the best nor worst case scenario is probably going to happen. More likely some place in the middle.

vinlyn

Y'know, there are a *lot* of **really** smart people all over the world who are studying this. And the conclusion that 98+% of them agree with is that global climate change is real, and that human activity in the past 150 years is greatly accelerating it. Did we "cause" it to start changing? Maybe, or maybe not. That's not the point. The point is, we understand enough about the science to know that we're pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at rates that are unprecedented in history. We *know* that sea temperatures are rising. We *know* that polar ice is melting at a rate far faster than has ever been recorded in the geological history found within the ice itself. We *know* that vast areas of the land surface of the planet are getting warmer and drier, while others are getting cooler and wetter. Those are facts that simply cannot be disputed.

But the bottom line is, I'm just not willing to bet that 98+% of the world's climate and other related scientists are wrong and a bunch of yahoos with no scientific background are right. I'm just not willing to gamble the future of the planet and the human race on the possibility that 98+% of the world's climatologists are 100% dead wrong on this. I might believe the spherical earth hypothesis is wrong and that I'll fall off the edge if I sail too far west. But science has pretty well shown that I'm wrong on that. Just because you don't believe the science doesn't automatically mean that it's not true.

We're doing things to the planet that have never been done to the planet before. It's pretty short sighted and downright stupid of us to believe that nothing we're doing is having any effect on the almost microscopically thin veil of atmosphere that surrounds this rock. Just because it's too big for you to see or too complex for you to understand doesn't mean it's not true and that it's not happening. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to make it any better.

Where does denial stop? I just don't get it.

I don't think any of us are arguing with what you've written.

The OP was that one of the leading scientists is saying, oops -- not wrong on the general concept, but maybe wrong on the rate of change.

vinlyn

@vinlyn - from what I notice on this forum, there is a wide diversity of opinions, esp in this matter; no need to pigeon hole anyone and/or make false claims, (or appear defensive).

I agree. It might just be my imagination, but you're posts have seemed increasingly antagonistic as of late. As for myself, I haven't respond because I honestly don't care about Al Gore or James Lovelock, or what they have to say about anything.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jason, and you are wrong. I'm not attempting to be antagonistic at all.

In fact, in this response that you responded to, I'm merely alluding to my sense that most (not all) people on this forum are more on the Al Gore side of things...as am I.

Jason

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jason, and you are wrong. I'm not attempting to be antagonistic at all.

In fact, in this response that you responded to, I'm merely alluding to my sense that most (not all) people on this forum are more on the Al Gore side of things...as am I.

That may be, but saying nobody's responded "because it's not what most of the people who inhabit this forum want to hear. It's outside their already formed belief system" sounds pretty antagonistic to me.

As for the climate change debate, I believe that we may be contributing to climate change, and that we should probably start doing something to seriously curb our greenhouse gas emissions. That said, I've never been a fan of the environmental sensationalism that some supporters of climate change tend to exhibit.

So much for that assumption, eh?

person

I read this comment about his previous position "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” and thought this sounds like a strawman argument against climate change. I suppose there are some extreme positions but its not where most are.

andyrobyn

I just had a coffee with a friend and she was watching a television programme on the ABC in Australia, think it is called "One to One".
I saw scientist, cosmologist, author Lawrence Krauss saying the when it comes to the future of the planet the problem is that as a species we do not act as a global entity and we are reactionary rather than proactive. He suggested if we do act at all on global warming issues it will probably be due to $$$, once we see the negative effects of our long term action ( my paraphrasing , obviously ).

ThailandTom

You may find this interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17843648

vinlyn

^ Thanks for posting that Tom. I experienced that myself. In 1960, when I was just 1+0 years old, we took a trip to the Canadian Rockies and we took a large snowmobile ride up on Athabasca Glacier on the way north to Japser. About 5 years ago I went again, and the melt-back of the glacier was so dramatic over that 50 years...and they had posted signs of the front of the glacier for each few years.

But here is the problem I have with the article: "This will happen in the next decades to centuries," he told BBC News.

There's a huge difference between something happening in decades, as opposed to something happening in centuries. And it sort of discredits -- in the eyes of some -- the scientific predictions being made.

Further, the article doesn't really address the issue of natural global warming (since we are moving further into an interglacial period) - versus- man-made global warming.

And I wonder what we would do if we were moving toward another ice age. Pollute more?

andyrobyn

Here are some Australians discussing in a Q & A session following a documentary yesterday evening also on ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/932129

ThailandTom

I think there is always going to be people on different sides for and against the idea that we are speeding up the process, creating it entirely or it is happening all by itself. We all know where My Gore is though But I saw the article and thought you may want to read it, I do not have an opinion yet on exactly what is going on as I do not honestly know. All I know is that glaciers are decreasing in size all around the world. You make a good point though, decades and centuries make a lot of difference in time.

vinlyn

^^ And let me say again, we need to take action to reduce our effect on the climate. But we need to make sure that the message that is coming out is defendable to a reasonable person, and devoid of hysteria.

ThailandTom

^^ And let me say again, we need to take action to reduce our effect on the climate. But we need to make sure that the message that is coming out is defendable to a reasonable person, and devoid of hysteria.

That is a good point yes, you are thinking well for the next generations to come. After all, it is going to be their problem, oh yea also mine too if I am still around within the next 40 years.

vinlyn

^^ LOL, well, I doubt I'll be around that long, but it does concern me. I have been quite pleased back here in the States to see a decidedly more favorable attitude -- in general -- toward being "green". In western Canada and in some places here in Colorado and South Dakota I've seen a number of wind turbines. Here in Colorado they are being more careful (though not necessarily careful enough) with issues such as fracking. We're certainly changing what kinds of light bulbs we are using. A friend is seriously considering one of electric/gas cars. There are still the disbelievers, as well as the stick-in-the-muds. It's a shock to go into a store and see a light bulb for over $15, but in my house I've slowly been switching over so that now most of my regular lamps have energy saving bulbs. Lots of utility companies over rebates on things like water saving toilets (I put 2 in and got a nice rebate check). So people are beginning to think more about these things.

ThailandTom

Thailand is really quite good with recycling, that is mainly because there is money in it lol. I don't quite know too much about how energy is created here though, I have not looked into that. The UK is quite bad as far as recycling goes, Germany and some EU countries are great, in Germany I think it is law to divide up your rubbish to be recycled, @federica can maybe quote me on that.

B5C

Ok, Penn and Teller's show "Bullshit" is great, but there is an problem. They both are Libertarians politically. Conservatives and Libertarians are part of the anti-climate cloud. Libertarians believe global warming regulations hurts free enterprise.

James Lovelock is not as great of an scientist as many you all think. He maybe great in the environmentalist community, but he is not supportive in the scientific community. His Gaia hypothesis will always be an hypothesis due to the huge evidence of natural selection destroying the claims of the Gaia hypothesis.

Telly03

Libertarians believe global warming regulations hurts free enterprise.

Maybe some do, but that is quite an assumption for their motives.... I agree with Penn and Teller in that there is not enough evidence to make any conclusion as to how much we are contributing to climate change, which is also a natural occurrence, yet the lack of evidence that we cant make a difference has me recycling, saving gas and using low wattage bulbs. So I'm doing my part without lining someone's pockets for carbon credits so that I could feel less guilty.

B5C

Maybe some do, but that is quite an assumption for their motives.... I agree with Penn and Teller in that there is not enough evidence to make any conclusion as to how much we are contributing to climate change, which is also a natural occurrence, yet the lack of evidence that we cant make a difference has me recycling, saving gas and using low wattage bulbs. So I'm doing my part without lining someone's pockets for carbon credits so that I could feel less guilty.

My god, Telly. There is PLENTY of evidence of how much we contribute to climate change. We have the same about of evidence of human involved climate change as the evidence for natural selection through the process of evolution.

Telly03

@B5C and then there's the evidence that we don't, and the admission that the OP presented, which leaves me to believe that we don't really have a clue.

B5C

@B5C and then there's the evidence that we don't, and the admission that the OP presented, which leaves me to believe that we don't really have a clue.

One data point doesn't tear down the whole theory. There is no grand conspiracy. Global Warming deniers are just like Creationists. Also we dunbunked many claims by the anti-global warming crowd.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

I will give you an examples:

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.

4) After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Yes. And sea level has been up to 70 metres higher during warm periods. If that happens again, there'll be no more London or New York.

7) The 0.7 °C increase in the average global temperature over the past hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

Wrong. The rapid warming since the late 1970s has occurred even though other factors that can warm the planet, such as the sun's intensity, have remained constant.


8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers, not the 4000 usually cited.

Untrue, as even the briefest look at the scientific literature can establish.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "climategate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Nothing in the emails undermines any of the key scientific conclusions. Independent groups have come to the same conclusions.

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

The sun may have contributed to the warming in the first part of the 20th century but it has not caused the rapid warming since the late 1970s.

person

The atmosphere traps heat radiated from the earth by the radiation from the sun, this is known as the greenhouse effect. If we didn't have this a completely black earth would only be about -18 degrees celcius instead of around +14 degrees. The reason the atmosphere traps heat is due to certain molecules which are able to trap and emit the infrared radiation (heat) given off by the warmed earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

It would stand to reason that if there were more or less of these gases that more or less heat would be trapped.

No matter what reasons I hear from skeptics I can't get around these basic facts.

Telly03

You can spin it either way... I'm not saying your wrong for buying into it, I just chose not to.

sndymorn

Let us wait for Al Gore to modify his view....
I believe it is appropriate to expect some comment from him soon.
I hope he does as his opinion seems to hold great weight: especially in the USA.

I'd like to hear from him as he was one of the most strident of the doom and gloomers, as this article suggests.

^^ And let me say again, we need to take action to reduce our effect on the climate. But we need to make sure that the message that is coming out is defendable to a reasonable person, and devoid of hysteria.

Yes Vin, and I would add that children(some as young as ten) in schools are being misinformed about the issue; and further they are being frightened. Since Gore's movie is used in our schools as a teaching aide for youngsters, I believe he needs to take a roll in reversing the effects of his wild prognostications.

I shudder to think what sort of President he might have made.

Telly03

Did Al Gore ever state how much, in total dollars, we need to pay him for him to stop global warming?

David

Penn and Teller? Seriously?

Did you see their "expose" on the Dalai Lama?

These guys actually make their money from duping people. That is what they do.

Telly03

They are mere rookies compared to Big Al

possibilities

^^^ Done hating, maybe?

David

I'm sorry but to think our actions have had no effects on the speeding up of climate change seems to be willfully irresponsible. It isn't like we didn't already know this before Gore got involved, lol.

Somehow I doubt that scientists since the 70s have been conspiring to line Al Gores pockets by faking their findings. I heard about this when I was in grade school too.

The difference is that now we actually have the means to find alternate resources.

Telly03

^^^ Done hating, maybe?

No hate here... I'm actually amused. Done with the accusations and labelling, maybe?

twobitbob

James Lovelock is not as great of an scientist as many you all think. He maybe great in the environmentalist community, but he is not supportive in the scientific community. His Gaia hypothesis will always be an hypothesis due to the huge evidence of natural selection destroying the claims of the Gaia hypothesis.

Lovelock has contributed to medical research, atmospheric research (including a stint at NASA), as well as the geophysiology for which he is popularly known. He has also invented a great many scientific gadgets.

As for gaia theory always being a hypothesis, either the hypothesis is valid, in which evidence can be found to prove or disprove it, or the hypothesis is so vaguely defined it cannot be proved either way, in which case it never was a hypothesis.

As for climate change, this group of physicists probably present the most convincing evidence (sorry to bring it to actual science).


http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-uhi.pdf

Its more accessible here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

Jeffrey

I think gaia theory is partly about attitudes not that I have read any of the shotgun pattern of links. Sorry to anyone but I hate reading links I like them digested in an abstract/summary.

So if we have an attitude that we don't give a holy hannah and just run rampant without being careful and excellent at detail well then what happens? So everyone is guilty of not doing 39 things such as decomposition worms box and super conscious of efficiency and lightbulbs and things... Well everyone is guilty but at least the right attitude and striving towards excellency can be burned into the psyche.