Effects of Climate Warming Already in Evidence

Lycos Environmental News Service ^ | 03/29/2002

[editor-surveyor]

"I SUPPORT GLOBAL WARMING,would make a great bumper sticker."

It would make a great national motto too!

[Robert A Cook PE]

NO global warming prediction - based on the REAL changes that HAVE taken place in CO2 and other gasses when compared to their modelled evironments - has been correct.

So, if the global warming extremists can predict the PRESENT trends correctly, why do you think they can predict the future trends?

Second.

What exactly IS the threat involved in slightly higher growing temperatures in the fall and early spring, less frost and freezes, more rain, more CO2 to grow plants (food and trees), and a longer growing season?

[aruanan]

Effects of Climate Warming Already in Evidence

Once again, if there is global warming (as there was in the first half of the 20th century), it is a continued recovery from the Mini-Ice Age in the latter half of the second millennium. The world's average temperature is still below the 10,000 year average. It is also considerably below that of the Medieval Climate Optimum, a period of time in which there was, along with much warmer temperatures and more clement weather, a flourishing of civilization around the world. If we go simply on the basis of history, a warming would be a very good thing indeed.

[headsonpikes]

Thank you for reminding us in #73 that the climatic danger most likely to affect us in the centuries immediately ahead

IS AN ICE-AGE!

This is a plain scientific fact. Nothing has changed since the '70s; it's just that there is no FUNDING available to tell the truth.

Why??? Well, for starters, there's not much mileage to be made off solar and planetary cycles; nobody to blame, and nobody to stigmatize.

There is only $$$$$$ for intellectual whoresons.

[GOP_1900AD]

Here in California, we are having, for the first time in about 6 years, a spring where it actually has been warm a little bit. We were certainly off to a cold start of spring with snow down to low elevations (~1000 feet) in mid March. Last year, we had snow down to near sea level (a rare occurence in any month) in April, as we did the year before. In 1998, we had snow at sea level for several hours on the last day of fall, something you can count on about once every 50 years. In contrast, during the late 70s and much of the 1980s, we had mild winters and warm to hot springs. I remember during the 1980s warm spell in particular, the green wackos were all saying "the warming has begun!" Now they are shivering!

[Ditter]

The coming ice age in the 70's & 80's? How about now?. There was an article on FR yesterday saying we were in for global cooling.

[GOP_1900AD]

This has a built in bias. At the beginning of the period, a much smaller percentage of the recording stations were in urban areas than at the end of the period. This due to urban expansion and subsequent expansions of the urban "heat islands". Add to that the increasing ubiquetousness of electrical sources of heat (devices, devices everywhere!... and the power to run them!) for the kicker. Using air measurements is a flawed method unless one can figure out a way to correct for the bias. Good luck!...

[Kenny Bunk]

Dammit, this Global Warming Crisis would never have happened if you right-wing lunatics had read Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance," instead of burning it! It was choc-a-bloc with valuable info on the harm evil man has wrought to the environment.

But look at the bright side, Canada may actually become inhabitable! Gotta go now... movin' inland.

[waterstraat]

Under all the ice and snow of the Artic, there are tropical plants. We have been in an ice age for the last several thousand years. This is not global warming, it is just more receding of the ice age. Once Alaska becomes tropical, AGAIN, we will just be back to normal.

[GOP_1900AD]

Believe the satellites. They are measuring temperatures at the bulk level and are not much affected by the biasing / aliasing factors that has resulted from larger and larger percentages of ground recording stations being encompassed by urbanization and the subsequent thermal "heat island" effects.

[mconder]

Sweet...longer summers.

[GOP_1900AD]

I agree. I remember, "way back when," my kin in Phoenix bitching when the humidity got up to 10%, saying it was "humid." And those dust storm "monsoons" were indeed the norm. More recently (~96), I was up around the Utah / Arizona border one October and witnessed a blizzard, one that apparently made it down past Sedona, perhaps even to Prescott. I'd expect that in mid winter but not October. Global warming? Ptschaw! Yeah, right!

[GOP_1900AD]

These cold summers suck, don't they? I am trying to remember the last time I saw triple digits on successive days in the South Bay or East Bay. They start getting all excited these days when it hits 90 at Moffett Field. Then I love it when all the greenhorn / carpetbagger transplants start to bitch when it gets above 80 (or above 70 around the Golden Gate!).... "it's SOOOOOO hot... when will it get back to normal?" What a bunch of whiners!

[blackie]

The stupidity will end when all of the wacko, left-wing, enviro-nazis' are exterminated...

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!

Molon Labe !!

[William Terrell]

I'd be mightily suspicious of any "general concurrence" in any area of scientific field. It is almost frigtening to count the number of scientific truths later totally refuted, frightening in that the behavior of people is limited by the belief in these ex-scientific truths. Any scientific truth on which legislation (of any kind) depends that impacts human safety, comfort, mobility, property and liberty had best be viewed with a heap of cynicism.

Would you be willing to alter and limit human interaction, liberty and general enjoyment world-wide on the evidence that is stipulated among the scientists in relevant disciplines (that is, not biologists, mathematicians, sociologists, psychologists, medical doctors, chemists, anthropologists, ect)?

[pierrem15]

Still a third conclusion of this study is an inference that Earth is not in radiative balance with space. Specifically, the observed temperature changes imply that Earth is absorbing about 0.5 Watt per square meter of sunlight more than it is emitting back to space.

This part was stunning: this is the only report of "hard" evidence for greenhouse gas warming I've seen. Unfortunately, it doesn't say exactly how the team "inferred" the radiative imbalance. It would seem to me that a few satellites scanning the Earth's surface vs. incoming radiation could determine if the Earth is radiating as much energy out as it takes in. Of course, the radiative imbalance could also be caused (temporarily) by a miniscule change in solar output. It would take a while (as the link notes) for an equilibrium to be re-established.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years, the researchers note. Starting around 1976, the rate of global warming more than doubled, changing faster than at any other time during the last 1,000 years.

However, average global climate has far less effect on local ecosystems than do local and regional climate changes.

[spunkets]

"The study concludes that based on the evidence "only 30 years of warmer temperatures at the end of the 20th century have affected the phenology [timing of seasonal activities] of organisms, the range and distribution of species, and the composition and dynamics of communities.""

This conclusion is absolutely unfounded. There's no way in hell any organisms can detect a couple tenths of a ^oC. It's also impossible for seasons to shorten by, "3.6" days a decade from this sort of a temperature rise. For the 50 years they gave that's 18 days from a total energy input of < 0.2%. That's rediculous! They do qualify the statement with, "some areas", but it still fits the rest of this propaganda piece as pure hype. They may have been looking at what is well known as heat islands around urban areas, but the fact they omitted that mention is cause to lose all trust in what they say.

It's irresponsible scare mongering again. It's sole purpose is to decieve those folks that don't understand the fundamental workings of nature. I doubt they themselves do. They just keep on repeating their same conclusion endlessly. Repeat it often enough, include keywords, expert and ample/overwhelming evidence, and folks will believe it as if it were true.

[editor-surveyor]

"It's irresponsible scare mongering again."

Gee, I wonder how it got here? Certainly no freeper would post such rubbish! - The database must have been hacked.