The INOV8 blog tracks the latest news and trends in technology and innovation throughout the world
Climate change may be undeniable. In fact, since topping out in 1998 with the warmest year recorded globally, temperatures worldwide have fallen. The Pacific Ocean is cooling. The climate indeed is changing.
The argument for global warming may have cooled, but many believe still that man is primarily responsible for climate change. Others point to evidence that climate change is a cyclical part of the earth’s evolution.
Check out this story from BBC that asks, “What happened to global warming?”
What do you think? We can all agree that man needs to be a better steward of the earth. But is global warming/climate change a direct result of man’s overindulgence … or more a part of the earth’s natural cycle?
Let us know your thoughts in comments.
The key point in this is debate. Science or a particular theory cannot be taken on faith or political preference. It needs to based on rigorous and continuous debate and study. Recently it has appeared that the skeptics were uniformly shouted down for reasons that defy scientific method or sound logic.
No system compares with the complexity of our climate. Even the best models make loads of assumptions. Let’s keep an open mind to all opinions, studies, and theories.
Even with the uncertainty of cause for climate change, moving toward non-polluting domestic supplies of energy is in our national interest. Let’s not lose that momentum.
Anyone remember 1973-74 and the oil embargo? I do. Think about how down the path towards clean domestic energy we might be, if the entire country hadn’t doubled down with an increased addiction with cheap foreign oil and gas guzzling cars.
I feel like this post was tailored to me. I really am hesitant to respond because I’ve already plastered my views over every single Arkansas forum on the issue. I’m also hesitant because I’ve realized that it’s almost pointless to debate when there is not some baseline level understanding of science… (Hey Arkansas!) But whatever, let’s go:
With respect, when someone says that climate change is just part of the earth’s “natural cycle,” you can almost be certain they are only loosely tuned in to what they’re talking about. Not because they’re wrong–they are in fact very right–but because the statement is so banal, yet it is being offered as a stunning insight.
Climate scientists are fully aware of climate cycles. They study them in depth. So when they, pouring their lives into this work, find reason to deviate from the typical climate cycle model when exploring global warming, take note.
Some notes:
1) There is no debate as to the molecular properties of CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This means its structure helps trap heat. More greenhouse gas, naturally, means more heat. I repeat, there are no debates about the molecular properties of CO2, or CH4, or H20 for that matter (all greenhouse gases).
2) The debate, as alluded to in the article, is about the entire effects of global warming in the context of the very complex climate system.
Let me just make some points to illustrate how much we know/how complicated the climate is:
a) Venus’ temps at the poles is virtually the same as its equator due to the massive amounts of CO2 in its atmosphere which diffuses heat. This illustrates how global warming will be more noticeable at the poles than at the equator.
b) An ironic effect of warmer temps is more water vapor, which produces more cloud cover. Because cloud cover is white, it reflects 90% of sunlight. This means that more cloud cover cools temperatures.
c) Not all places will get warmer in global warming–only on AVERAGE places will get warmer. Some will get colder.
d) We covered solar variation; however, solar variation takes places over tens of thousands of years–not a few decades.
e) There are numerous positive and negative feedback mechanisms in climate
Now, what does this BBC article say?
-Does it dispute global warming? Nope. Man-made global warming is still real according to most (all?) of these scientists, it’s just that its effects are being counterbalanced by other forces.
-If you notice, many of the scientists who bring up the possibility of solar variance are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–hundreds of climate scientists organized through the UN. This is the same panel that won the Nobel Prize for its work on global warming and the urgent need to fight back. This is the same IPCC that so many skeptics questioned the credibility before, but now are apparently consider credible because they are noting the complexity of the climate?
-It says that both sides generally agree that man-made global warming will come back in full force.
Thus, this article annoys me and is pretty reckless title by the writer. It doesn’t challenge the fundamentals at all, and its title will cause some to think global warming is dead. And still, it doesn’t address the huge ice loss–we’re talking CO-sized– that is taking place yearly at Antarctica (remember: warming is worse on the poles). Apparently, this scientist didn’t get the memo and states that North Pole ice will be gone within a decade or 2: http://news.aol.com/article/north-pole-will-be-open-sea-during/717202 Why so fast? Ice is 90% reflective of sunlight. Once some of it melts, that means there is less reflectivity on the Earth’s surface, which means warmer temps. Warmer temps means more melting, which means even less reflectivity. Positive feedback loop. To make matters worse, in places like Siberia, ice melting is unlocking huge reserves of CO2 and CH4, which are greenhouse gases. This speeds up the process.
So what do I believe? I believe it’s complicated; I believe these scientists. Global warming is clearly a real threat.
I’ve been around scientists, I’ve been around future scientists, and I’ve been around non-scientists, and I can say with 100% certainty that I have way more faith in the cognitive abilities of scientists… Always have, always will. If it turns out they were wrong on man-made-global warming, which isn’t going to happen, then I will retract my statements on global warming, cut of three of my limbs, grow a pair of wings and fly off to Jupiter.
I would have edited this post for brevity but that would require reading it all over again.
[...] Cooling on Global Warming [...]