![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2007, at 10:40:31
In reply to Re: BTW yesterday it snowed here! » TexasChic, posted by Phillipa on February 2, 2007, at 22:11:42
> We had it in NC too. Some still on the ground today. And now they are saying there is not global warming as the US is going to stay cold. May shift a bit and the NE may get warmer South colder. Love Phillipa
and if that happens, it is directly opposite of how our temperature ranges have always been. that means that our weather is changing and it's not a good thing. ice caps are melting and polar bears are drowning and starving because they have to swim farther to find food. that's not normal.
Posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2007, at 10:43:52
In reply to Re: BTW yesterday it snowed here! » Phillipa, posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2007, at 10:40:31
http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/16904988/
this report was issued yesterday.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:16:37
In reply to Re: BTW yesterday it snowed here!, posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2007, at 10:43:52
Its the same one as at http://www.ipcc.ch
Well this is actually the orginal report that all the media are referring to at the moment. Its the IPCC.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:44:24
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » TexasChic, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2007, at 9:04:58
Well actually, those theories from the 70s are still correct.
There are two components that matter.
1) Natural climate change
2) Man made induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change to be exact).Natural climate change:
Natural climate change happens, is happening, will always happen. Its to do with the configuration of the sun and the earth at various points in their orbits. These are called 'Milanovich cycles' and are responsible for past (geologically recent anyhow) ice ages/warm periods. Anyway.
The theories from the 70s are to do with these natural climate cycles. People then didn't realise that man could be influencing the climate.
Man made climate change:Okay is the real debate at the moment. Are we changing the climate by burning fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? There are other mechanisms as well and obviously these things are really complicated. So thats what the report I posted about has found. It is very likely (>90% probable) that we are warming our climate by the burning of fossils fuels and other mechanisms.
So the theories from the 70s about a global cooling are still correct, just now we know that we are warming the climate. I suppose you might ask why don't they cancel each other out. Well I doubt anyone knows really. I mean, they are both very different mechanisms, and perhaps the cooling is going on, but the warming is far greater, so resulting in a net warming anyway. Also these natural cycles operate on many different timescales - there are little 'blips' such as the Mediveal warm period and more ultra (10,000 years for instance) climate cycles. In any case, the natural variability happens slower than the human induced climate change. So even if the climate is changing naturally, it isn't nearly as fast as man made climate change.
So you can't really say those theories from the 70s were incorrect. We know alot more now!
Oh well. I wonder what the world would look like in 2060? I'll be 80 then.
BTW one of the reports findings is that storm intensities are likely to increase, and sea levels are going to rise, so I'd stay out of low lying, hurricane path areas!
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:48:24
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by TexasChic on February 2, 2007, at 18:57:19
BTW http://www.ipcc.ch is not the media, they indepenantly review peer reviewed scientific articles in journals. They don't even conduct the science- they just review whats been written.
I haven't found the media to be particulary sensationalistic about this report. Well the media I've read anyway! Mainly the BBC news website in fact.
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2007, at 13:00:37
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Dinah, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:44:24
Well, I'm not saying anything about the theory of global warming, but I do know that the new ice age was blamed on man as well. It wasn't considered a natural thing at all. I got right on the bandwagon and preached imminent disaster if we didn't stop using hairspray, etc.
I guess I feel sort of betrayed that they suddenly changed the nature of the imminent disaster without changing the cause, and expected me not to notice. I feel the betrayal of the true believer. And the caution of the person fooled once and reluctant to believe without question again.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 14:33:18
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2007, at 13:00:37
Hairspray....are you sure you're not talking about CFCs and the ozone layer?
I wasn't even born in the 70s and have just heard a vague few comments from my professors about the 70s ice age thing so I wasn't around to know what went on.
But you know, science is constantly evolving - stuff from the 70s is like almost prehistoric now. I mean, we know so much more than we did then, we have better climate models, we have better instructments, more science done, everything and from what I understand they weren't that sure what was going on back then anyway.
And I'm sure the media completely sensationalised the whole 70s cooling thing.
Well the IPCC is not the media. I believe them, I mean, climate will change whether we influence it or not so believing in climate change really isn't the issue, its whether we are changing it ourselves.
People thought the earth was flat for a long time and shunned new theories. It takes time for things to enter into the mainstream.
Posted by Dinah on February 3, 2007, at 15:54:33
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Dinah, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 14:33:18
Posted by Declan on February 3, 2007, at 17:14:09
In reply to Re: BTW yesterday it snowed here! » fayeroe, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:16:37
It's the rainfall patterns that will be vital.
In Australia the current drought has led to the collapse (so they call it) of the Murray-Darling Basin, which really means that irrigation entitlements have been granted way in excess of the capacity of the various rivers to supply these (or much) water, and the water has run out (in places), and the ecosystem wrecked (or perhaps vanished is the right word).
They expect a drying of the continent, particularly south of a line drawn between Sydney and Perth.
Perhaps countries like Australia and those in sub-saharan Africa will feel these climatic effects first.
I keep thinking about Java and the monsoon. Lots of people there.
Will there arise a redemptive apocalyptic political movement out of all this?
(I do not mean the Greens.)It's a pity that science and technology came late to humanity when the population was already so large. We don't have much room to move.
Posted by fayeroe on February 3, 2007, at 19:19:23
In reply to Rain and Food, posted by Declan on February 3, 2007, at 17:14:09
i believe that i saw on the news today that 9 islands around Indonesia have disappeared.......
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 4, 2007, at 5:58:10
In reply to Rain and Food, posted by Declan on February 3, 2007, at 17:14:09
Yeah big problems.
Thing is, its so hard to predict how the weather will change in the response to the climate change. I mean, some regions of the world might get more hot, others might get more cold, more rain, less rain, etc. These are big problems for sure. We'll have to mitigate and adapt.
I know water is going to be (and is becoming) a big concern in Oz. Hydrogeologists are on the list of skilled immigrants thing. Its going to be a big problem everywhere really.
Sea level is probably going to be a big concern too. For a start, most of the Maldives are less than 2m above sea level not be mention Bangledesh, blah blah.
Oh well.
Lets um, not think about it too much, its depressing. I'm thinking in terms of my career (selfish I know) but at least there might be some work out there for me in the coming years :o) Otherwise it'll be the oil industry. Which is slightly ironic I know.
Posted by Declan on February 4, 2007, at 14:59:58
In reply to Re: Rain and Food » Declan, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 4, 2007, at 5:58:10
6 billion now. Is it supposed to plateau at 12? I forget. The area available for food use is diminishing through degradation.
In the long term (longer than our lifetimes) there is no room to move. But humanity has always arranged desperate peril for itself.
Posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 15:32:43
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » TexasChic, posted by Dinah on February 3, 2007, at 9:04:58
It's a different "they," though, Dinah.
The person who claimed there was an ice age in the 70's wasn't a scientist. He was a journalist or radio personality, who misread a scientific study (and there were some scientists who thought there was some--some, not a great, but some-- chance of an ice age sometime in the next several thousand years.
I don't know their reasoning, but if you look at the records of ice ages, ice ages have occurred and receded periodically through the natural history of the planet. So based on that, rather than any undue alternation of the earth's natural cyclical warming and cooling over millenia, there was (and perhaps still is, depending on the effects of global warming on these historical trends) a rather large chance-- although not in the near future.
There may also have been some scientists who mistakenly endorsed that view, for reasons of scientific mistakes. But on the whole, the scientific community disparaged that claim.
What's different today is that there's a huge scientific concensus-- that the speakers are legitimate scientists, of a mainstream and reputable sort-- and that they never said the other thing.
Perhaps no one says, we were wrong and now we're right, and the reason to believe us now, despite our being wrong then is: xxxxx. This may be because the scientific community never endorsed that guy's view. (Sorry I forget his name, you mentioned it, Lowell something?)
I did read about him, but, despite the currency of his theory at the time, he seemed to have few legitimate sources and to have misinterpreted the statistics in the ones he had.
The reaction to his book is an interesting sociological phenomenon, but not necessarily a mistake that present-day scientists feel that they made.
Honore
Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2007, at 17:24:26
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Dinah, posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 15:32:43
Perhaps so. I was expressing my personal feelings of betrayal, not any belief or disbelief in the science involved. There was certainly no mass objection to the theory in the seventies. I assume that if there were any objections, they were silenced by the fact that the call to action was beneficial. My beef may be more with the press than the scientists. It wasn't nice to scare little girls senseless in the greater interest of environmental awareness. Scary days those were. The threat of nuclear war, overpopulation, the new ice age. At least I'm too young to have hidden under my desk in nuclear bomb drills or had a bomb shelter in my backyard. Still, I was pretty sure the earth wouldn't see my fortieth birthday. I was left with an overriding preference against extreme scenarios, I think.
I am more compelled by the fact that we're tenants on earth, not owners, and are dutybound to leave the planet in at least as good shape as we found it. Whether not doing so means disaster to us personally or not.
The area I live in has been damaged by humans far more quickly than global warming will damage. The infrastructure for oil exploration was built with no concern for the future, and that has directly damaged the wetlands that have historically protected us. As only one of many many examples. This area has been harmed enormously by man's actions.
Who hasn't had their heart broken by strip mining or clearcutting or the loss of habitats or hunting animals into extinction? Or the careless introduction of species not native to an environment?
I suppose I'd prefer an emphasis on a more all encompassing view of man's responsibility to the earth that shelters us.
On the other hand, I don't bicycle to my grocery store, and although my annual vehicle mileage is quite low, it's more because of my reluctance to go out than any greater good. There's no way I could live without a/c. So I may not have all that much room to talk.
Posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2007, at 17:50:03
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Honore, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2007, at 17:24:26
Are you saying we who remember the 70's are OLD????
;-)-T
Posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2007, at 18:16:53
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Honore, posted by Dinah on February 4, 2007, at 17:24:26
We may make the earth uninhabitable for ourselves, therefore destroying our species, but I think the earth will be around for a lon-n-n-ng time after we're gone. We're nothing but a blink, just a nasty virus to the planet that will eventually die off. That could even be what extreme weather is, earth's penicillin.
-T
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2007, at 6:53:04
In reply to 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 2, 2007, at 15:23:21
The global warming "debate" is hardly one at all, IMHO. Scientists from 130 countries, thousands of them, have created a consensus document. I don't know that has ever happened before in the history of science. Ever.
The opponents, the skeptics, are really very few in number. What amazes me is that the media give them equal press. The result is a common perception that both perspectives deserve equal consideration. I know the numbers alone do not support an argument for correctness, but the ratio of proponents to opponents (in the scientific community alone) is greater than 99:1. Less than 1% of climate scientists are in opposition to the anthropogenic nature of global warming. There are two embedded concepts. Global warming is happening. And people caused it. I think both are true.
I'm almost loathe to say it, absent clear proof, but there's pretty good evidence that at least a few of the most vocal opponents are funded by oil company lobby groups. Hired mouthpieces, remeniscent of what the tobacco companies did for thirty years. Anyway.
One of the commonest misconceptions is that the weather will simply be warmer everywhere. That is not the case. Both computer modelling and actual observations support the prediction that the atmosphere will become more turbulent as it warms. Like a pot left to simmer on the stove, if the heat goes up a bit, the pot will boil up. Cold polar air will have greater incursions towards the tropics, as the jet stream oscillates with greater amplitude. Meanwhile, the poles themselves will warm, because the cold has moved elsewhere. The individual incursions of cold air southward will be brief (weather events), whereas the polar warming will occur over years (climate). It is hard for us to separate the two, because our experiential view of the world is day to day.
In North America, I think there will be more ice storms, as opposed to snow events. Winter thunderstorms might even become commonplace, as the clash of Gulf warm moist air with cold Arctic air masses provides a huge temperature gradient.
Global warming means more variation in weather, but with an average increase in climate. That's my take.
Lar
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:39:54
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change' » Dinah, posted by Honore on February 4, 2007, at 15:32:43
Yep. Well explained. I wasn't too sure on the 70s thing you know.
But actually there will be future ice ages for sure - the planet has another 52 million years before its engulfed by the Sun -- so there's plently of scope for ice ages. They will happen, its just a question of whether they will happen on a human timescale.
The Earth has seen far far greater extremes of climate than what we're talking about here.Anyway.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:41:07
In reply to stuff from the 70s is like almost prehistoric now, posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2007, at 17:50:03
Lol!! No I was referring to scientific theories actually. We know alot more now than in the 70s, well with regard to the Earth Sciences anyway.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:42:01
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2007, at 18:16:53
Yes you're quite right, we are just a mere blick! Its scary!
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:47:09
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2007, at 6:53:04
Yep. You're right. But interestingly the Chairman of Shell, is actually pretty forward with his thinking (and he happens to be a Finn!). Have a look at this article, here in the Finnish press Helsingin Sanomat is like The New York Times, BTW:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/New+mission+for+Jorma+Ollila+fighting+climate+change/1135224678250
> One of the commonest misconceptions is that the weather will simply be warmer everywhere.
Yeah us here in Europe are messed up if the Gulf Stream diverts. It keeps us relatively warm for our latitdues. It was shutdown in the geologic recent.... oh well.
Posted by 10derHeart on February 5, 2007, at 11:03:14
In reply to stuff from the 70s is like almost prehistoric now, posted by TexasChic on February 4, 2007, at 17:50:03
well, I dunno what 'old' is, but I was in high school in the seventies...and I'm pretty sure this guy sat next to me in some classes.....
http://www.thalia.science.ru.nl/funpage/television/dinosaurs/pictures/pics/robbie04.jpg
;-)
10der..who might possibly be remembering prehistoric times... :-)
PS - Anyone else remember this (BBC?) animatronics show, "Dinosaurs?" I think Jim Henson was involved... I loved it. I may have to look for it on DVD
Posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2007, at 18:40:18
In reply to Re: stuff from the 70s is like almost prehistoric » TexasChic, posted by 10derHeart on February 5, 2007, at 11:03:14
Whoa, I don't remember that one! It looks like he's opening a box of Ewoks!
My first tv memory is the crying Indian - it made me SO SAD. And Captain Kangaroo. For some reason I loved Mr. Green Jeans.-T
Posted by Declan on February 5, 2007, at 18:45:46
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by Larry Hoover on February 5, 2007, at 6:53:04
Even the dumbest tabloid press take it seriously here, perhaps because the Australian ecosystem is more marginal and closer to the edge.
Australia has always had a very uneven climate compared to North America or Europe, and this will get worse according to the projections.
There will even be more rain in places (in the desert in the north west, for example), but I'd bet it won't translate into a net advantage.
Posted by TexasChic on February 5, 2007, at 19:55:03
In reply to Re: 'Humans blamed for climate change', posted by Declan on February 5, 2007, at 18:45:46
Once EVERYONE believed the earth was flat and the planets rotated around it. Well maybe not at the same time. But my point is its all speculation, and sometimes the majority is WRONG. Mwa-ha-ha!
-T
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.