Questions about

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Does this belong here(not one of my topic questions)?

 

If we pass Kyoto and the like today, will this effectively stop global warming? Bandage it?

 

Doesn't a longer summer mean more time for farmers to grow crops?

 

I'm clueless.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Doesn't a longer summer mean more time for farmers to grow crops?

 

From Sierra Club:

 

When [people] hear the range of predicted temperatures they often react by saying, "A few degrees…that's it?! I'd love for it to be a few more degrees on average!"

 

Most don't realize that this is a global average (we've already mentioned that it will be more than that in Canada) and that small changes in the global average can bring about huge effects. The last ice-age, for example, was only about 5 degrees Celsius cooler than today. If that little cooling could result in such drastic effects, what could happen with a much more rapid shift in temperature is truly frightening.

 

It's also tempting to think that an increase in CO2 will help plants as they use CO2 to grow and higher temperatures mean longer growing seasons. But as anyone who has ever grown a plant will tell you, along with any science student who knows the equation for photosynthesis, one needs more than temperature and CO2 to successfully grow a plant. The other key ingredients are of course sunlight and water.

 

The water cycle will be drastically altered with increased temperatures, increasing the number and severity of both droughts and floods. Higher temperatures increase the rates of evaporation from the surface. When conditions momentarily shift, the massive amounts of water now held in the atmosphere flow down in torrential quantities. Unfortunately, the prairies are already seeing this new pattern emerge. What good is a longer growing season if it's just longer drought?

 

It's a dismal surprise for many to find out that sunlight will also be altered. Global warming will likely increase ozone layer depletion - bringing about more plant-damaging UV rays.

 

And we haven't even mentioned the increase in infestations because insect larvae can now better survive through winters nor have we mentioned the increase in the frequency and severity of fires.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Passing Kyoto would do zilch. *IF* you consider global warming to be a) real and b) a very dangerous threat, then c) their must be a united global response.

 

Otherwise, polluting companies eventually relocate to more friendly environs, and nothing has changed other than their incorporated nationality.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

If we pass Kyoto and the like today, will this effectively stop global warming? Bandage it?

 

Kyoto is based on junk science in the first place, but even if you do believe in the principles behind it, the agreement wouldn't work. Not only is Stephen Joseph correct, but it would also take centuries for any results to come from Kyoto in even a best case scenario.

 

From Dr. Tim Ball, Canada's foremost climatologist (now retired).

 

An examination of published scientific data show many inconsistencies between the climate record and the CO2 - Global Warming hypothesis. Some of these are:

 

* The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, and the nature of CO2 / water vapour interactions is not clearly understood. Moreover, James Hansen (2000) downplayed the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

* Antarctic ice cores in one study show carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 ppm about 600 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations, while in another study Antarctic ice core data show that CO2 levels lag an increase in temperature by 900 to 1200 years.

* World Climate Report (2002) shows that annual growth in concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have remained essentially flat from 1975 to the present - during a time of maximum production of CO2 from fossil fuels. This casts doubt on the claim that rapid and dramatic build-ups of CO2 will occur in the future.

* We know that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels was not the cause of dramatic historical climate changes, for example, 1000 years ago, in the Medieval Warm Period or in the Little Ice Age that followed from about 1350 to about 1860. We are still emerging, in an oscillating fashion, on the warming trend that came after the Little Ice Age.

* In the 20th century, there was little correlation between temperature changes and CO2 levels. Some surface temperature measurements show a 0.5°C rise over the past 100 years. However, that average hides some significant details. From 1905 to 1940, a rise of about 0.5°C was measured, during which time there was an imperceptible rise in CO2. From 1940 to 1975, the temperature decreased about 0.2°C, while CO2 levels started to increase more rapidly. The out-of-sync relationship is obvious.

 

The Hockey Stick has been one of the most beguiling arguments in the Kyoto proponents’ repertoire and it still appears on many websites. It originates with Michael Mann (1999) and co-workers and shows a rather flat temperature line over the last 1000 years, until in the late 1800s, when a sharp increase is evident, presumably because of man-made greenhouse gases.

 

Over the years, the graph has been subject to many criticisms from other scientists, for a number of reasons. Some complained that the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (approx. 1000-1400) and the even better known Little Ice Age (approx. 1450-1850) do not register on Mann’s chart. Others took issue with the tree ring proxy methods being used for the time span before thermometer readings were available, or with the inaccuracy of the temperature readings themselves. They maintain that instrument errors are often larger than the anomalies measured, or that the urban heat island issue skews surface data badly. (Most land measurements are made in more densely populated areas, while rural areas, let alone oceans, contribute few data points. Balloon and satellite data show no warming beyond our 0.6o C/century awakening from the glacial times).

 

In this article in Energy & Environment (Vol 14/6, 2003, http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/m&m.pdf) Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick reject Mann’s methodology, point to numerous errors, unjustifiably truncated data and extrapolations, and other defects. They then use Mann’s original data and recognized methodology to prove that Mann’s graph shape is an artifact and that a proper interpretation finds that temperatures around 1400 were warmer than anything in the 20th century.

 

The upshot is, of course, that climate variations are naturally occurring phenomena and man has little or no impact on the globe’s climate system.

 

The widely read work by McIntyre and McKitrick has elicited much discussion in scientific circles. A more definitive version was later published in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

Worldwide, the news media commonly report that weather extremes such as droughts, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes are becoming much more frequent, and the implication is made that global circulation models support this idea. However, the 1996 IPCC report states that "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, has increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century…". What has happened is that weather-related damage to human infrastructure has increased as world population rises, and the distribution and value of housing and other buildings increases. Instant media coverage is undoubtedly another factor. Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada climatologist deals with extreme weather events extensively in a report for the Alberta Government: Trends and changes in extreme weather events.

 

Global climate change has been a constant throughout the history of the Earth, driven by a variety of global and astronomical natural factors. The variability of and interactions among these factors are the subjects of active research, but are still very poorly understood by climate scientists. Observations of past climatic variations show much better correlation with astronomical variables such as solar activity and orbital changes than they do with atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, but it is impossible to determine how much this increase is due to human activities. The best attempts to remove biases from temperature data still do not show a good correlation between changes in atmospheric CO2 and changes in global temperatures.

 

Global circulation models attempt to represent climatic influences with numerical equations, and are used to predict future climate variations. However, they are hampered by our poor understanding of the relationships and feedback loops among many of the key variables.

 

These observations suggest that global climate change is a natural and fundamental part of earth history, and that the effects of human activities on global climate are no more than a poorly understood fourth-order factor.

 

In terms of the recent public debates about global climate change, there is no body of evidence, and certainly no consensus in the scientific community, that man-made CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to climate change.

 

Doesn't a longer summer mean more time for farmers to grow crops?

 

It would vary on a regional basis. Some places, such as the Great Lakes region and Eastern North America would likely experience a longer growing season that would produce much greater yields (there is a reason why wheat is no longer grown in Ontario). There would be more droughts in the Great Plains, especially in the more arid areas and the Californian Citrus crops would take a hit as well. This is all speculative, of course. But based on how things usually occur during warmer periods, you would be able to get a reasonable estimate as to what happens. On average globally, conditions would improve on the east coast of continents and decline on the west coasts. Which is good news if you happen to live in China or Japan and bad news if you happen to live in southern France or Spain. There are overriding factors though. Britain is basically powered by the Gulf Stream and wouldn't be affected nearly as much by atmospheric conditions. Conditions in Scandinavia would actually improve most likely. So it gets rather complicated.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In terms of the recent public debates about global climate change, there is no body of evidence, and certainly no consensus in the scientific community, that man-made CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to climate change.

 

This is not true. There is an international scientific consensus that the earth is warming because of human activity.

 

There is serious debate over the efficacy of Kyoto, but not over the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

There is serious debate over the efficacy of Kyoto, but not over the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

 

Not true at all. It may be reported that way, but it is not accurate in the slightest. The fact that there is so much opposition from the scientific community should be enough to suggest that the group as a whole is not united on this issue. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not a concensus, not matter how much they like to claim it is.

 

Even the concept of Global Warming is disputed. It depends largely on scale. Use a scale of about 100-150 years, then yes, the earth is getting warmer. You look at the past 1000 years, and we are a little above average now (the unusual warmth of the first 400 years of the second millenium almost cancels out the unusual cold spell in the next 400). You look at the Holocene as a whole, and the earth is getting cooler. Climate change is so gradual that you can't just look at last year (or even ten years ago) and say definitively that the earth is getting cooler or warmer.

 

But we'll get away from that for now as the area that scientists are discussing is that approx. 150 year period in which modern meteorology has existed. Once you toss out the increased temperatures due to the Urban Heat Island effect (in which case we are mainly looking at atmospheric temperatures) you get to the 0.6 C increase in the last century that even the IPCC agrees with. What caused that increase is very much up for debate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There is serious debate over the efficacy of Kyoto, but not over the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

 

Not true at all. It may be reported that way, but it is not accurate in the slightest.

 

You gotta be kidding. The media goes out of its way to report on climate change in a "balanced" manner to the point that obscure skeptics and CATO fellows get quoted.

 

Here's a list of organizations that acknowledge anthropogenic climate change:

 

IPCC

US National Academy of Sciences

The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India

American Meteorological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Association for the Advancement of Science

almost every political party in the developed world, including most conservative ones

 

Also, the two leading scientific journals in the US, Science & Nature, tend to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Edited January 5, 2006 by bigolsmitty

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Smitty,

 

At this moment, we know the following

1) We have increased greenhouse gases due to our human activity

2) The earth has natural warming/cooling cycles.

 

Just to what extent *WE* have influenced temperatures versus natural cycles is up to debate, and that debate is very contentious.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Right, there are legitimate debates over the extent of & the best response to anthropogenic climate change, but not serious debate over whether it is happening.

Edited January 5, 2006 by bigolsmitty

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Smitty,

 

At this moment, we know the following

1) We have increased greenhouse gases due to our human activity

2) The earth has natural warming/cooling cycles.

 

Just to what extent *WE* have influenced temperatures versus natural cycles is up to debate, and that debate is very contentious.

 

 

Right. Nobody is arguing that the earth hasn't gotten warmer in the past 150 years. Likewise, nobody is arguing that human activity hasn't increased CO2 levels. But there is a considerable argument as to whether the latter is the main cause of the former, or whether it is only a minor contributor.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Kahran Ramsus

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Statements on climate change from several scientific organizations:

 

IPCC

 

American Meteorological Society

 

American Geophysical Union

 

National Academy of Sciences

 

Joint Statement on Science of Climate Change (several academies of science)

 

Geological Society of London

 

IPCC:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities

 

AMS:

human activities are contributing to climate change

Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents resulting primarily from energy use, agriculture, and land clearing. These radiatively active gases and trace constituents interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming.

 

AGU:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

 

Joint Statement:

The statement endorses the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes. It calls for prompt action to be taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and recognises the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol as a small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

 

GSoL:

We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.

Edited January 7, 2006 by bigolsmitty

[CanadianChris 0]

Cutting and pasting quotes with no context doesn't advance your argument any, especially when some of these reports raise uncertainties about the magnitude of the human effect. Specifically, the one by the AMS is just a call for further research, in order that well-reasoned decisions can be made.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cutting and pasting quotes with no context doesn't advance your argument any, especially when some of these reports raise uncertainties about the magnitude of the human effect. Specifically, the one by the AMS is just a call for further research, in order that well-reasoned decisions can be made.

 

I provided links to the full text of the statements and provided quotes that I thought supported my argument. I recognized that part of the AMS statement was a call for further research, but the AMS also said that human activity was causing climate change. All of these organizations support the notion of anthropogenic climate change.

 

And the fact that they raise questions about the magnitude of the human effect in no way weakens my argument. I never said that there was no debate over the extent of the human effect on climate change.

Edited January 7, 2006 by bigolsmitty