Educate Me in....

[seawasp]

... "Global Warming".

I've more than once seen, and gotten peripherally involved in, discussions on this subject, but the last time I looked at it in any depth was (now that I think back) more than 10 years ago.

People on BOTH sides have been so strident that I find it very hard to even sort out the sane from the kook, and I'd really like to have a decent overview of the subject... on both sides.

I would prefer this *NOT* become a debate in my journal. What I want are references that allow me to examine the major sides of the debate -- best case, worst case, strength of evidence, etc.

Last I looked, for instance, I saw no clear indication that there was a really good plot of temperatures for, say, the past 100,000 years which would therefore permit one to see if the current temperature trends really fell out of those bounds. After all, 100-200 years is a miniscule blip on the charts.

So I'm looking to update my knowledge -- preferably with few flames.

Comments

[aardy.livejournal.com]

Someone else on my friendslist recently brought up the topic of global warming not too long ago, with much discussion and several links and references in the comments.

He also has several other posts about various effects (such as how long until the arctic ice melts and what the effects will be, etc.) and some other environmental, etc. discussions here.

However, wherever temperature trends are concerned, you have to be very careful to keep in mind that comparing anything before 1871 or so to anything after 1871 is largely apples and oranges, due to the precision of actual weather measurements vs. the imprecision of logical deductions and guesswork based on tree rings, core samples, weather descriptions in medieval manuscripts, etc.

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

Note that some of the Medieval evidence on climate change is from tax records. If fields halfway up a mountain are listed in tax records at one time as growing taxable crops, but not at another, I think it's a reasonable inference that the climate has changed in that particular area.

Tax records aren't infallible, but there's some incentive for keeping them accurate.

[snippy]

I don't pay much attention to the subject, but if I were to change that, I'd also examine temperature trends on other planets in this solar system.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind that if your next step is to claim that because others planets are warming, any warming on Earth must be due to the sun, the likely response is likely to point out that not all of the other worlds are warming, that in at least some of the cases where a planet is warming, we know why and it's not due to the sun getting a bit brighter, and that we measure how bright the sun is so if it was getting brighter, we'd know.

[snippy]

Exactly: you'd want to distinguish local effects accurately, which you can't do if you only look at what's happening on any one planet.

[snippy]

Also, I'd keep in mind that what I assume someone's argument to be, may not actually be their argument. And just because they might want to look at some data that obvious opponents or proponents of a position use doesn't mean they're making the same argument.

[ross-teneyck.livejournal.com]

I don't have a handy list of good sources, but the impression I've gotten is that there are two areas of debate:

1) Is the planet, in fact, getting warmer? And if it is, does this screw us?

2) If the planet is getting warmer, is this due in whole or in part to human activity?

Without speaking to the merits of either claim, I have observed that there are people who hold passionately that the answers are (1) yes, and (2) no, and seem to find this comforting. That seems odd to me, because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that, while it may not be our fault, we're still screwed and we probably can't do much about it. C.f. james_nicoll's observations of the subset of doomsayers who seem to relish the prospect of our imminent destruction.

[aardy.livejournal.com]

I suspect those folks find that comforting because if the planet is getting warmer but it's not due to human activity, then a) it might start get cooler on its own any day now (so we might not be screwed), and b) they don't have to change their behavior as it impacts resource consumption and the environment, because the effects we're seeing aren't affected by their human activity. So keep driving those 11 mpg SUVs, keep buying crops from slash-n-burned rain forest plantations, keep manufacturing emissions regulations where they are (or even roll them back), etc., because cow farts and volcanic eruptions cause more global warming than anything humans have done, are doing, or could do. (So it's not our fault, and I should be able to do whatever I want to without feeling guilty about it.)

In other words, it's all about "me", more specifically, maintaining "my" lifestyle exactly as it is.

[msboku.livejournal.com]

So if it is a minuscule blip on the charts, then how much of a problem do they see it as? (Asks my fantastic self)

[nwhyte]

I think the WikiPedia page is pretty objective. The most recent authoritative report on the subject that I have come across is the Stern Review.

[arcadiagt5.livejournal.com]

On this subject a good LJ to be reading is tikiwanderer. Particularly this post: http://tikiwanderer.livejournal.com/159049.html

[akuchling.livejournal.com]

The American Institute of Physics funded someone (Spencer Weart) to write a historical overview of global warming, available at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ . The material is also available as a 200-odd page book that's a good overview of the history.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

There's always the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[ninjarat.livejournal.com]

In a nutshell: the Earth is getting warmer and there appears to be a correlation between temperature increase and CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

In one corner are those that espouse the theory that the increase in CO2 levels are due to anthropogenic causes (read: humans burning fossil fuels). Members of the IPCC are among the most notable. I'm not going to provide specific references because they're a dime a dozen.

In another corner are those that believe that the spectrographic analysis conducted by the IGPP is flawed and that the increase in CO2 levels may in fact be natural. Foremost among these are Drs Heinz Hug and Jack Barret. Here's a link to their paper: http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/review.htm

There are a multitude of other corners and political camps surrounding the issue. For example, the US agrees with the Kyoto Protocol in principle, but the President refuses to ratify it becuase of consessions made to China (the number 2 greenhouse gas emitting nation in the world, second after the US) to get China to sign.

The IPCC's reports have been faslified in the past (most notably the 1996 report) leading many to doubt the veracity of the IPCC's findings and recomendations. Hug's findings still have not been verified or disproven. The upshot is that nobody really has anything conclusive other than a pretty good observational analysis that the Earth is generally getting warmer.

Most of the arguments ignore possible benefits of slight temperature increases. The most notable benefit is longer growing seasons.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

China (the number 2 greenhouse gas emitting nation in the world,

Not any more.

And assuming their economic development does not stall before convergence with the US and assuming they don't start enforcing anti-pollution laws until they are roughly as rich as the West, we're probably looking at a China whose production of greenhouses gases is three or four times that of the USA.

Then there's India....

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

And a little googling says that about 25% of LA's particulate pollution originates in China.

[j-larson.livejournal.com]

Well, the Royal Society recently gave an award to The Rough Guide to Climate Change (http://boingboing.net/2007/04/26/royal_society_2007_p.html). I haven't read it, but it's on my TODO list.

[quantumseriph.livejournal.com]

Here is a you-tube video about Global Warming that's quite compelling and will entertain any students of logic out there.

After seeing this video, I ask myself: "What would Spock do?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3682695505610905132&q=%22global+warming%22&total=18506&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1