Why skeptics must heed climate change

[Raleigh Pearson]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>That qualifies as the funniest line of the year, global climate change has never stopped since Earth appeared.

If that is the funniest thing you have heard this year then you must have a very sad, dull life. But you are right. The climate has always been changing, but in the past 50 years, the overall trend has been warming, and at an alarming rate. It has increased due to human causes.

And while I may not be able to convince everyone that this change is due to anthropogenic causes, despite the abundance of evidence, nevertheless saving energy leads to cutting costs and saving money. The fact of the matter is that global climate change is real and that people can choose to “go green” and be proactive, or face further consequences. Some people believe it is too difficult to become more environmentally conscious yet this, however, is not true at all. In fact, according to a study by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, the United States can “reduce 28% of its greenhouse gases” through simple alterations to heating, cooling, and lighting practices. Businesses are beginning to follow the whims of the American consumers. Environmentally conscious products are popping up everywhere and consumers are continuing to buy these products. By emphasizing environmental policies, a business can actually increase revenue and decrease costs as it becomes more viable in the marketplace. Stockholders will be content due to increased profits, consumers will be more likely to buy products from “green” companies, and the community will appreciate a more environmentally sustainable business. Ultimately according to Jennifer Weeks, it is up to the consumers to have the biggest impact. Because consumption makes up such a large portion of the US economy, if consumers make the decision to buy green products, companies will begin to produce more environmentally conscious products.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30...

Ambec, Stefan, and Paul Lanoie "Does It Pay to Be Green? A Systematic Overview." Academy of Management Perspectives

[Fun Facts]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

<quoted text>
If that is the funniest thing you have heard this year then you must have a very sad, dull life. But you are right. The climate has always been changing, but in the past 50 years, the overall trend has been warming, and at an alarming rate. It has increased due to human causes.

The last 30 years show warming the 30 years prior to that showed cooling. The rate of increase in warming in the first half of the 20th century was greater than the rate of increase in the last 30 years. Climates do not change slowly. Historical data shows climates shifts are rapid and dynamic, often accompanied by radical weather patterns as the earth adjusts to the 'new normal'.

The 30 years starting with 1977 had three positive aspects that caused the majority of warming. The sun had three of the highest activity solar cycles in the 20th century. Most notable about these cycles was the high minimum values. In other words when the solar cycle cooled it did not cool as much as all the other solar cycles in the 20th century.

In 1977 the Pacific Decadal Occillation switched to a positive phase. When this happened it was noticed by scientist who had no knowledge of this system. It was called the "Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977". We now know this system as the PDO and it has phase shifts every +/- 30 years.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Occilation has also been in a positive phase. It switched to the cool phase in January 2009.

These three 'systems' all being positive at the same time would have caused increased temperatures for a short period of time, 30 years.

Since 2002, solar activity has fallen off the charts. Very little activity in solar cycle 24. The PDO also switched to it's cool phase. And the AMO is now in a cool phase. There is about a 10 year lag time in solar activity and climate. When the PDO switches we experience more La Ninas than El Ninos, but we still have El Ninos. The AMO will impact the vital Gulf Stream that brings moderate temperatures to Europe.

It will not take long to see if the above three systems will trump any CO2 increases. According to solar physicists, cooling should become evident by 2010-2012.

[Raleigh Pearson]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Note the difference between AGW which has solid scientific agreement and climate change which is based on probably trends from modelling. Climate change has abundant scientific evidence in that natural climate oscillations ( shifting heat and moisture in different patterns ) is natural and well documented. However, we have NO climate change theory or solid link between any climate change observed and AGW influence.
AGW ( Global warming) though is solidly based on the science and confirmed in both land and ocean measurements ( 97% of the 'surface' thermal mass).
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-0...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/...
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2009...

I completely agree with you. Just naysayers will point to a cold day and say global warming is not real because the temperature in one isolated place is cold, when in reality the entire globe is warmer as a whole. Thats why I prefer global climate change.

[Raleigh Pearson]

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>

Since 2002, solar activity has fallen off the charts. Very little activity in solar cycle 24. The PDO also switched to it's cool phase. And the AMO is now in a cool phase. There is about a 10 year lag time in solar activity and climate. When the PDO switches we experience more La Ninas than El Ninos, but we still have El Ninos. The AMO will impact the vital Gulf Stream that brings moderate temperatures to Europe.
It will not take long to see if the above three systems will trump any CO2 increases. According to solar physicists, cooling should become evident by 2010-2012.

You say the earth is in the cooling cycle right now, starting in 2002, yet 2005 is the hottest year on record. Furthermore, the last decade has been the hottest 10 years on record. So maybe the earth would be in a normal cooling cycle now but temperatures have instead been reaching ever higher levels due to dramatic increases in atmospheric CO2.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impac...

[litesong]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

........saving energy leads to cutting costs and saving money.

When I first came to AGW topix forums, I figured, my ideas of conservation, efficiency & frugality would be accepted quite readily, specially in our down cycle.

Deniers have dumped more stuff on me than when the Ghostbusters Stay Puft marshmallow man was zapped.

Have fun here. But get used to hand-to-hand (keyboard) combat.

[Earthling]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

The climate has always been changing, but in the past 50 years, the overall trend has been warming, and at an alarming rate. It has increased due to human causes.

The, "human causes" part, is simply alarmist mantra, based on few facts.
Much of Earth has been warming on and off since the LIA, the alternative would have been to remain in the cold phase that did more harm to animal and plant life than warming has or will.
Whether it's believed or not, we're alive during a warming phase that is a big improvement on what it was just over 100 years ago.
You can forget 50 years of warming and call it 140 years of warming, that would be much more accurate, but don't forget to allow for the 11 and 30 year cycles in between.
Be thankful that it's warming and not cooling.

[Greenmeanie]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/65... This is new!

[Earthling]

Greenmeanie wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear th/earthnews/6553592/Climate-c hange-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argue s-CO2-is-not-causing-global-wa rming.html This is new!

Some of the comments are as interesting as the main article, if not more so.

[Raleigh Pearson]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>The, "human causes" part, is simply alarmist mantra, based on few facts.
Much of Earth has been warming on and off since the LIA, the alternative would have been to remain in the cold phase that did more harm to animal and plant life than warming has or will.
Whether it's believed or not, we're alive during a warming phase that is a big improvement on what it was just over 100 years ago.
You can forget 50 years of warming and call it 140 years of warming, that would be much more accurate, but don't forget to allow for the 11 and 30 year cycles in between.
Be thankful that it's warming and not cooling.

How do you explain the 40% increase of atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas, since industrialization? CO2 levels are at there highest in 650000 years.

Plus, there are many adverse affects to warming. In addition to the science community’s tacit agreement concerning anthropogenic global climate change, economists are also in agreement about global climate change. According to a survey by the New York University School of Law in which 144 leading economists were questioned, 84% of economists believe climate change poses a “clear and present danger to the United States and global economies”. The effects of climate change will differ in each region of the country, with most regions being affected by devastating droughts. In the Midwest for instance, climate change would dramatically affect the growth of crops and shipping on the Great Lakes. According to a study by the University of Maryland,“$3.4 billion and 60,000 jobs rely on the movement of goods within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping route annually”. If extensive droughts did occur, this industry would greatly suffer. Additionally, the forestry industry, which accounts for $41 billion a year in revenue, would be nearly non-existent due to the loss of growth in the virgin forests. This is a very important finding given that many nay-sayers of going green believe it would hurt the economy, when in fact many economists believe climate change would in fact devastate the economy. Additionally, the survey asked the economists about a cap and trade system. A full 94.3% of the economists believe that a cap and trade system in which carbon is auctioned off in a market is the best method for the US economy to flourish and cut emissions at the same time.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/noaa-gl...

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-climate.ht...

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/...

[Queue]

Well, lesssssssssseeeeeeeee......... .

The Earth, being appx. 4.5 billions years old, give or take an eon or two, warms up, and cools down periodically. Has done so since it came into existence. Most likely will continue this activity until it is snuffed out. AND, of course there are those so arrogant to actually believe that the amount of warming or cooling on this planet as a result of orbital cyclic wobble, and heating and cooling by the sun is actually affected more by mankinds puny existence.

However, be that as it may, one good thing to come out of the whole (what is the buzz word du jour?) "climate change"? Is that it will make certain bankers and Al Gore incredibly rich after their initial money grab (diguised as "carbon creadits").

What was it PT Barnum once said?

"There's a sucker born every minute"..........

[NobodyYouKnow]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you explain the ..

The point of his post is that he DOESN'T explain anything. It 'just happens' aka magic. Science demands a WHY. Raleigh demands a 'why not?'. Maybe things can fall up, right? Can you prove they don't?

Don't try to compete with such ignorance. It isn't rational.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Some of the comments are as interesting as the main article, if not more so.

Absolutely. Zero is as low as it gets. No WAY they can be less interesting.

[Eighthman]

Green Commies are lying globalist greedy monsters.
i.e Maurice Strong ...George Soros...Al Gore

[Brian_G]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

How do you explain the 40% increase of atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas, since industrialization? CO2 levels are at there highest in 650000 years...

First, we are talking about a very small increase, about 0.012%, of the atmospheric volume, so you'd have to believe in historical reconstructions with amazing accuracy. Then, we know that CO2 increases after temperature warms, so warming oceans cause higher CO2 levels. And finally, the Earth's atmosphere has radically changed many times in its 4.5 billion year history, you'd have to believe only the past 0.014% of Earth's history is significant and ignore the previous 4.49935 billion years.

Industrialization isn't all bad; it gives us longer, healthier lives, more freedom and leisure time. Don't spend your life in front of a TV, get out and see just how beautiful the climate looks in real life.

[Raleigh Pearson]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
First, we are talking about a very small increase, about 0.012%, of the atmospheric volume, so you'd have to believe in historical reconstructions with amazing accuracy. Then, we know that CO2 increases after temperature warms, so warming oceans cause higher CO2 levels. And finally, the Earth's atmosphere has radically changed many times in its 4.5 billion year history, you'd have to believe only the past 0.014% of Earth's history is significant and ignore the previous 4.49935 billion years.
Industrialization isn't all bad; it gives us longer, healthier lives, more freedom and leisure time. Don't spend your life in front of a TV, get out and see just how beautiful the climate looks in real life.

I never said industrialization is bad. I love all the benefits of industrialization. But you say there is a 4.5 billion year history of the earth. So I ask you this: how many of these years of humans been around? Im not saying the world will be destroyed from global warming. Just humanities livelihood will be dramatically changed by higher temperatures. In the Midwest for instance, climate change would dramatically affect the growth of crops and shipping on the Great Lakes. According to a study by the University of Maryland,“$3.4 billion and 60,000 jobs rely on the movement of goods within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping route annually”. If extensive droughts did occur, this industry would greatly suffer. Additionally, the forestry industry, which accounts for $41 billion a year in revenue, would be nearly non-existent due to the loss of growth in the virgin forests.

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-climate.ht...

[Queue]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said industrialization is bad. I love all the benefits of industrialization. But you say there is a 4.5 billion year history of the earth. So I ask you this: how many of these years of humans been around? Im not saying the world will be destroyed from global warming. Just humanities livelihood will be dramatically changed by higher temperatures. In the Midwest for instance, climate change would dramatically affect the growth of crops and shipping on the Great Lakes. According to a study by the University of Maryland,“$3.4 billion and 60,000 jobs rely on the movement of goods within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping route annually”. If extensive droughts did occur, this industry would greatly suffer. Additionally, the forestry industry, which accounts for $41 billion a year in revenue, would be nearly non-existent due to the loss of growth in the virgin forests.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-climate.ht...

Extensive droughts? Lesssseeeee........ If the temperature is higher, which now there seems to be evidence that it is decreasing rather than increasing (hence the new nom-du-jour "climate change" in place of "Global Warming"), it means more evaporation of water, hence more clouds, hence more precipitation. One of the points made by the weather channel was the increase in number of hurricanes as a result of (what back then) was called "global warming". Interesting, hurricanes usually form at sea, and dump copious amounts of water on land. Some drought..........

[Chimney]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you explain the 40% increase of atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas, since industrialization? CO2 levels are at there highest in 650000 years.
Plus, there are many adverse affects to warming. In addition to the science community’s tacit agreement concerning anthropogenic global climate change, economists are also in agreement about global climate change. According to a survey by the New York University School of Law in which 144 leading economists were questioned, 84% of economists believe climate change poses a “clear and present danger to the United States and global economies”. The effects of climate change will differ in each region of the country, with most regions being affected by devastating droughts. In the Midwest for instance, climate change would dramatically affect the growth of crops and shipping on the Great Lakes. According to a study by the University of Maryland,“$3.4 billion and 60,000 jobs rely on the movement of goods within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence shipping route annually”. If extensive droughts did occur, this industry would greatly suffer. Additionally, the forestry industry, which accounts for $41 billion a year in revenue, would be nearly non-existent due to the loss of growth in the virgin forests. This is a very important finding given that many nay-sayers of going green believe it would hurt the economy, when in fact many economists believe climate change would in fact devastate the economy. Additionally, the survey asked the economists about a cap and trade system. A full 94.3% of the economists believe that a cap and trade system in which carbon is auctioned off in a market is the best method for the US economy to flourish and cut emissions at the same time.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/13/noaa-gl...
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1016-climate.ht...
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/...

Too many words. Sceptics wont get it.

[Raleigh Pearson]

You say the earth is in the cooling cycle right now, yet 2005 is the hottest year on record. Furthermore, the last decade has been the hottest 10 years on record. Also not all of the world would be warmer, some in areas would in fact be cooler with an overall warming worldwide. But climate change was a term used by the Bush administration to make the warming seem less dire.

As for the drought, when the temperature is warmer evaporation occurs like you said, but clouds cannot condense as easily due to the higher temperatures.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/0...

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impac...

[Chimney]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
First, we are talking about a very small increase, about 0.012%, of the atmospheric volume, so you'd have to believe in historical reconstructions with amazing accuracy. Then, we know that CO2 increases after temperature warms, so warming oceans cause higher CO2 levels. And finally, the Earth's atmosphere has radically changed many times in its 4.5 billion year history, you'd have to believe only the past 0.014% of Earth's history is significant and ignore the previous 4.49935 billion years.
Industrialization isn't all bad; it gives us longer, healthier lives, more freedom and leisure time. Don't spend your life in front of a TV, get out and see just how beautiful the climate looks in real life.

Come on, even you know this is spin. CO2 increase is small in terms of "atmospheric volume" but very large in terms of CO2 concentration. If you cannot see the difference, you are stupid, and if you can, such statements call into question your integrity.

Earth's atmosphere has radically changed over the last 4.5 billion years. So has climate.

The issue is not whether atmosphere and climate has changed over millions or billions of years. Its not whether climate will naturally change - of course it will.

The issue is whether significant man-made changes in the greenhouse gas component of the atmosphere NOW will influence climate NOW, in ways that will cause us real problems, beyond whatever natural processes would cause climate change.

[Queue]

Raleigh Pearson wrote:

You say the earth is in the cooling cycle right now, yet 2005 is the hottest year on record. Furthermore, the last decade has been the hottest 10 years on record. Also not all of the world would be warmer, some in areas would in fact be cooler with an overall warming worldwide. But climate change was a term used by the Bush administration to make the warming seem less dire.
As for the drought, when the temperature is warmer evaporation occurs like you said, but clouds cannot condense as easily due to the higher temperatures.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/0...
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impac...

So I guess "the experts" were wrong. There must be less hurricanes and rain when it's warmer..........