Why is it so hard to get social conservatives to take global warming seriously? These are good people who take family and future generations seriously but a lot of them are missing this one. Seems odd. My guess is the messenger. Read a newsy article on the subject and it invariably contains a wide-eyed with a Snail Darter under one arm and a Stephens Kangaroo Rat under the other. Makes it hard to separate the silly whims of a runaway EPA from the important stuff.

The Kyoto accord sucks if you live here and maybe Bush's backstep will help produce something better. Hesitated to make a political comment but figured it would come up.

Good John Leo piece in this week's USN&WP.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Answers

Carlos,

The problem isn't the messenger, it's the lack of hard data (or even worse, the presence of conflicting data). For every scientist you can find who will swear on a stack of Bibles that global warming is a real threat, I'll find you another who will swear on that same stack that it's a bunch of hooey.

Since I'm not a scientist, who do I believe?

Ever worse, politics, arguments and professional feuds get injected into the process. I've been doing a little casual research into the KT-boundary extinctions (the so-called "dinosaur die-out"), and ran across this troubling page.

Now, we HAVE to add this disclaimer: to be fair, we're only getting Dewey McLean's side of the story here. But it's still very troubling; what if this guy really has discovered a link between greenhouse gases and "die-outs," and his work is being silenced by political opposition?

(Then again, I could probably search and find another site that would denounce McLean as a paranoid who wants to ram HIS agenda into the public arena.)

Some dire warnings have turned out to be valid -- DDT, for example, should have been banned. Others turned out to be false alarms, such as the now-infamous banning of saccharine a few decades ago.

There you have it; that's the answer to your question. I don't know who to believe YET. It's just that simple. And if I could convince myself that the debate was free of politics, and that there weren't scientists on *BOTH* sides lining up for grant money, it would make my decision a lot easier, too.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Stephen, your post indicates that you think the scientific community is more or less evenly split on whether there is global warming. I believe this is not true, that the great majority of scientists believe that there is indeed global warming going on, and that it is primarily (though not entirely) caused by human activity.

The world's insurance companies now believe in global warming, what with a new "storm of the century" every couple years.

A friend of mine who keeps up with the research told me that he had read an excellent study (British I think) which indicated that one third of what we are going through is normal cyclical activity, and two thirds due to human activity.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Peter, you may very well be right, but that's not what I've seen. I've got to admit, though, that I haven't really devoted a great deal of time to researching it thus far.

Incidentally, I'll never argue with the fact that we need to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy (for dozens of reasons). There are all sorts of alternatives we could starting moving toward. The question is how to do it without destroying the economy.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Stephen:

I've come around to favoring nuclear, a total 180 from my earlier views.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

From what I have seen, the great majority of scientists with expertise in relevant fields do not buy the global warming theory. To most, the jury is still out. The IPCC is about politics, not science.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

I wonder if Z knows what's in the scientific literature for this one?

I've seen him comment on it before.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

I wonder if Z knows what's in the scientific literature for this one? I've seen him comment on it before.

So have *I*. I spent 20 minutes typing in what my textbooks [circa 1999 said], and Z said they were out-of-date. He offered no further information at the time, and I doubt he will now. No offense to Z, but I'll believe my two Biology professors before I believe an anonymous internet poster who claims to be up on this stuff. For the record, my textbook said it was real and my profs said it was real. I never queried my profs on their preference on vehicles, and they were both younger than Z. [see another thread regarding that.] Anyway, I don't want to offend Z again, and I don't want to fight over this, so this is my last thought on this topic.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

I have no "good" knowledge of this either way, but I can relate a personal experience.

Back in 1974, my family bought a "summer place" in the Pocono Mts., PA. We'd spend the summers up there and it was nice. We'd have to have TWO sets of clothing per day: summer clothes for day time and fall clothes for night time because the temperature dropped to the 50s-60s no matter what it hit during the day (usually the 80s).

As the years went by, I came to notice that one no longer needed two sets of clothing because the night time temps weren't all that far off the day time temps. In addition, the day time temps were now in the 90s when that had never been the case before.

An obvious reason for this was the increase in population in the area. It was damn near deserted when my family bought in. Now every Tom, Dick, Harry and their extended families are in the area. And people aren't just going there for the summer; they actually LIVE there and commute the 2 to 2-1/2 hours into NYC for work.

Does this have anything to do with it? Probably does.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

That's funny. I've noticed that the summers in the Washington, DC area have been cooler in the past few years than what I remember.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

I've also had a similar experience on the Pacific coast of Mexico.

I've been going down to Mazatlan every February since 1989; spending about 2-1/2 to 3 weeks there. It seems the OPPOSITE has occurred. I never needed more than a light jacket at night, but the past four/five years, I need almost fall clothes. And the town has definitely grown in population over the years, so I can't explain that.

Completely unscientific, but those are my experiences.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Anita:

I really don't understand this obsession with text books. They are used in introductory, undergraduate, courses and serve a useful function in that setting. I am presently teaching a molecular genetics course [team taught; my part is molecular ecology]. We don't use text books. I have never used a text book in a course. I have been involved, in the past, in writing them. The last one I worked on took 4 y to complete. While still considered a classic, it was out of date before it was released. I don't do that anymore. Happens that way in fast moving fields and I am in a fast moving field.

My previous comments came from a limited access conference on the effect of global warming on agriculture [held in Germany]. In this field, that was some time ago. This isn't what I do; I was just commenting on what the participants said. At that time the agreement was that carbon dioxide levels were increasing in the atmosphere. There now appears to be no question about that. Has this led to global warming? There is the point of discussion.

The problem is that the general population wants final answers. There aren't any. You can line up a few Nobel prize winners to support one side or the other in the argument. These are really opinions [of course considered ones].The press keeps saying that the majority of scientists agree that there is human caused global warming. I have been doing this for a long time. I have never seen a situation in which a majority of scientists have agreed on anything.

This is like most decisions based on incomplete data about extremely complex systems. It will be a political decision.

My feelings have always been that if [taking the worse case of human activity causing global warming] we make draconion changes now it will make no difference for a century or two. If the climate is warming, it makes no difference what we do now. It would be wise to spend the money preparing for the change in climate.

Just my opinion [shared by many]. Of course, I am always open to new ideas and opinions. Information in the field is not static. My opinion could change next week.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Trish, Buddy, et al ...

I'll muddy the waters further. (Something at which I am superlative.)

According to places like the extremely-respected, extensively-peer-reviewed and ultra-scientific Weather Channel([g]), we've actually been in a global "warm spell" for several decades; the past decade was an even warmer "bump" above the norm.

Temperatures are now cooling a bit now back to the normal range for the warm spell (if that makes any sense). The weather supposedly will return to the pattern that I remember from most of my childhood; summers in the South will be hot and muggy with almost daily, but brief, afternoon thundershowers.

Weather can fall into a niche and continue for quite a few years. (Shoot, to hear the geologists tell it, we're in a warm spell now; the normal state for Mother Earth in the Mesozoic is an ICE AGE!)

It's very hard to determine if temperatures are really warming globally, or if it's just a temporary climatic change. And even if we are experiencing global warming trends, we might not notice it for some time because of these variations!

Or, even worse ... OVERREACT. On the one hand, what if global warming happens during a downturn in temperatures? It would be masked by that and we wouldn't notice it! On the other hand, what if there WAS no global warming, and increasing temperatures are due instead to a cyclical "bump" in climate?

The only reliable data is going to be collected globally for many, many decades (or centuries). I think it's WAY too early to tell for sure, and I don't want to wreck the global economy with drastic, draconian measures.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Poole:

Thanks for correcting my spelling of draconian. *<)))

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

We have a frightening decrease in snow and ice on the land masses. Therefore there is a fear that the oceans will rise. And what do you suppose a significant rise in ocean level will do to the damn global economy?

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

That's another thing I've notice (or had noticed). When I was growing up in NYC, we almost ALWAYS had at least one thunderstorm (or lighting storm) per week during the summer.

They seem few and far between these days.

Can't explain that either.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Peter,

Like I said, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at this. Have you got links to data on that ice depletion? Truly, my mind isn't made up here yet.

Trish,

But that's supposedly because of the warm-spell La-Nina/El-Nino thingie (or something like that), which is now ending. The weather is supposed to go back to that pattern.

I know that Alabama has been suffering from a TERRIBLE drought. It's not too bad up Flint's way in Huntsville, but here in the center of the state, it was BAD last summer and fall.

I HOPE we return to the afternoon shower, anyway. :)

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Stephen:

I don't have any Internet links, it's just articles I've been reading over the last couple of years. But many articles, on many different places. The Greenland icecap has shrunk dramatically. Mount Kilamanjaro is rapidly losing its white top. Startling shrinkage in the Andes. And on and on.

And the phenomenon of "galloping glaciers" all over the world.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Not to make light of what could be a serious situation, but if Peg (Our Resident *.gif Expert) could possibly find a picture of "galloping glaciers", I would forever be in her debt.

Peter, that just conjured the weirdest picture in my mind.....LOL.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Peter:

We have a frightening decrease in snow and ice on the land masses. Therefore there is a fear that the oceans will rise. And what do you suppose a significant rise in ocean level will do to the damn global economy?

Not a lot of data here Peter. I don't know what quantitative measure to put on frightening or fear. With those measurements, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion, " And what do you suppose a significant rise in ocean level will do to the damn global economy?". I also wouldn't worry to much about your inability to link to real scientific evidence. It is mostly protected and not available to link, so I don't do it with the opinion stuff anymore. This, of course, excludes sightings.com.

The land ice in North America has been retreating for more than 100y. We have been in a very cold period. Sea ice makes no difference. The sea level is lower than it was in 1850. Those are facts. Now what does the present decrease of ice pack in Greenland and Anartica mean? I haven't been able to find out. Is it part of a short term change or a long term trend? Darn if I know. There is the question.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

To Z:

A minor point first: Ice in the sea makes no difference if it melts. A glass of water with an ice cube in it will have the same water level if the ice cube melts.

But what I am talking about, the magnitude of it, has never been seen in recorded human history.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

Peter:

A minor point first: Ice in the sea makes no difference if it melts. Nice that you agree, that is what I said.

Recorded human history for the whole surface of the world is probably less than 100 y. Too short of a time to make any decisions. In the first part of the 20th century less than 20% of the surface had been mapped. I read that they didn't have sats back then.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

To Z:

Recorded history for the mountain ranges and glaciers I'm talking about is much longer than 100 years.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001

And also, Z, regarding it being too soon to make any decisions, consider the downside to two scenarios:

If I'm wrong, and we proceed as if there was a global warming threat, the world will spend some extra money.

If I'm right, and we do nothing or fiddle around, then there could be flooding which, among other things, will cover the rich river deltas and other lowlands which tens of millions of people depend on for their food.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2001