The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Jangalomph]

Don't you guy's think the reason the poles are melting is because we are coming out of the ice age.. and that's the ice left out of it. That's my theory.

See my earlier post. If only more people realised this. But people seem to want to ignore this simple fact. People don't realise we are in an ice age but we are, still, and as we come out of it, the planet is heating up. The problem is people hate change, even if that change is natural, and expected. People don't like it when their accepted view of things is shaken up.

Yeah, we are in ice age. That's where there is still ice at the poles obviously.

[abathor]

Don't you guy's think the reason the poles are melting is because we are coming out of the ice age.. and that's the ice left out of it. That's my theory.

See my earlier post. If only more people realised this. But people seem to want to ignore this simple fact. People don't realise we are in an ice age but we are, still, and as we come out of it, the planet is heating up. The problem is people hate change, even if that change is natural, and expected. People don't like it when their accepted view of things is shaken up.

Yeah, we are in ice age. That's where there is still ice at the poles obviously.

Yep! But some people seem to think that is just 'normality' rather than being in an ice age.

[Jangalomph]

Don't you guy's think the reason the poles are melting is because we are coming out of the ice age.. and that's the ice left out of it. That's my theory.

See my earlier post. If only more people realised this. But people seem to want to ignore this simple fact. People don't realise we are in an ice age but we are, still, and as we come out of it, the planet is heating up. The problem is people hate change, even if that change is natural, and expected. People don't like it when their accepted view of things is shaken up.

Yeah, we are in ice age. That's where there is still ice at the poles obviously.

Yep! But some people seem to think that is just 'normality' rather than being in an ice age.

People need to stop blaming it on Carbon dioxide from the cars and crap too.

[Sacul15]

Today's weather is helping to undo my skepticism. It is fucking HOT!!!

[Jangalomph]

Today's weather is helping to undo my skepticism. It is fucking HOT!!!

Well obviously the earth is getting hotter..

[BillyDa59]

Yeah, we are in ice age. That's where there is still ice at the poles obviously.

Of course we're in an ice age! There's still ice in my fridge.

[meshed]

Regardless of whether we are coming out of an ice age or not, the amount of damage we're doing to the environment is bound to worsen or at least accelerate the effects. right?

In any case shouldn't global warming be self-correcting? Not sure about this but if the polar ice melts thus raising sea levels, global convection currents slow down as the volume of the sea increases. This in turn reduces the heat being circulated from the equator to the northern and southern hemispheres.

The result? Temperature drops at the poles and sea begin to freeze again. Convection currents pick up pace, poles get hotter and the ice melts. . . you know the rest. Equilibrium is maintained, well thats what i think anyway. Meteorology enthusiasts among you might know if this has any truth.

[abathor]

Regardless of whether we are coming out of an ice age or not, the amount of damage we're doing to the environment is bound to worsen or at least accelerate the effects. right?

No one is disputing that, however what annoys me is that people think that by reducing pollution we can stop it all together and 'save the planet'. Well no, it's going to happen anyway, all we can do is slow it down.

[Rasky_26]

Just a quick clarification about my background. I'm a meteorology student at Iowa State University and have taken several (4) classes that discuss global climate on all scales of the world (or as much as time allows the professors to talk). Also, I didn't start/stay in the meteorology program blindly following what I read about or hear about in the news. I actually was very skeptical about global warming and initially though it was a bunch of outrageous theories being tossed around. I heard some (not much) about about the global cooling trend in the 1970's and figured this was on par with that.

I also like to think I don't easily jump onto trends. I like facts and they are the biggest player for me in making informed decisions. If I don't find the facts convincing (say a 60% agreement between researchers on a topic) then I won't be swayed. However, if I have the chance to see as many facts as possible and they are all (or at least a very high percentage) in line with each other, then I will agree with the theory (though, in keeping with a good scientist I should always be trying to disprove theories even if I agree with them).

However, after taking the classes and asking many many questions (yeah, I'm that kid) I gotta say this is a sound theory of global climate change (not global warming, because that is both natural and man-made, where as global change is a departure from the norm). Its more than monitoring temperature and carbon dioxide. The AR4 (the fourth installment of the IPCC) studied things from ocean pH and glacier levels to when river ice breaks up and when flowers bloom. It sounds quite variable, but there are years of records and when plotted it shows a significant change since the 1950's.

Regardless of whether we are coming out of an ice age or not, the amount of damage we're doing to the environment is bound to worsen or at least accelerate the effects. right?

Well, this covers many many more topics than just global change (i.e. trash, deforestation, etc...), but yes, I would have to agree.

In any case shouldn't global warming be self-correcting? Not sure about this but if the polar ice melts thus raising sea levels, global convection currents slow down as the volume of the sea increases. This in turn reduces the heat being circulated from the equator to the northern and southern hemispheres.

Self-correcting in a sense, but not exactly. Its more like a sinusoidal curve where it moves to an equilibrium, but overshoots and tries to return, but overshoots, etc.....(this is most likely due to slight variances in Earth's elliptical orbit that occur over 10's of thousands of years). Evidence indicates that Earth may have been completely covered with ice (maybe 3 different times) in the past. (Ironically, how it would have gotten out of a state like that is still baffling.)

You are also right in the circulation patterns (according to the best model runs). A surplus of heat and moisture would be locked near the equator while the poles would lose heat. The increased amount of liquid water would help capture a surplus of CO2 and over time, would move towards another ice age.

The result? Temperature drops at the poles and sea begin to freeze again. Convection currents pick up pace, poles get hotter and the ice melts. . . you know the rest. Equilibrium is maintained, well thats what i think anyway. Meteorology enthusiasts among you might know if this has any truth.

That is the case (according to research). The issue that takes place is the time scale it typically occurred on compared to the time scale we are now seeing it occur on. Usually, this occurs over 10's of thousands of years. If we go back to the sinusoidal curve, there is now a large acceleration that hasn't been seen (barring natural disasters: volcanoes, meteors) and is thrusting a shift towards a new equilibrium without allowing species (namely smaller/sensitive species that are more on a cycle of solar energy input than temperature) to adapt.

[Rasky_26]

No one is disputing that, however what annoys me is that people think that by reducing pollution we can stop it all together and 'save the planet'. Well no, it's going to happen anyway, all we can do is slow it down.

Sorry for the double post, didn't see abathor's post when I wrote the last one.

This is actually a wonderful point that many people seem to forget. We are on a natural cycle and this will occur regardless of humans or not. The factor is that the added input has repeatedly been tested and shown to have a positive feedback on the environment (basically, it does something to the environment, the environment responds by helping create of the initial variable, etc....).

Though carbon dioxide isn't the worst greenhouse gas out there, it creates positive feedback systems. Just a few degrees can unfreeze the cryosphere (water in frozen form in air/land/water) which holds large amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in it. It may increase plant production, but plants and trees aren't very good at sequestering carbon. They tend to store large amounts within and when they die the CO2 is re-emitted with only small amounts being changed to oxygen and carbon being sequestered. (There are plenty of examples of positive feedback systems, but I'm sick of typing.)

Either way, I really respect how you phrased this abathor and it shows good insight.

[meshed]

@ Rasky_26 : All I can say is wow and thanks for elaborating on the issue. Its nice to have someone who has first-hand knowledge on the subject and i appreciate your comment. Really cleared up a lot of things for me, especially with regards to overshooting and time scale. With the way people talk about climate change, I've come to take it as though it was a matter of centuries or even decades rather than thousands of years. Hope i didn't leave your fingers too sore. You should write an article about this. It would be a really interesting read.

No one is disputing that, however what annoys me is that people think that by reducing pollution we can stop it all together and 'save the planet'. Well no, it's going to happen anyway, all we can do is slow it down.

Actually i used to be one of those people til a couple years ago. i agree, though its not their fault they're being misinformed. I'm one those people who watch to much docos for their own good and i can say i have rarely seen global warming/climate change mentioned as part of a cycle like in rasky's post.

[blackdeath]

Um... as background I majored in math and politics and I am currently working on my math masters. I would like to point out a few basic things:

a) global warming is separate from the "environment". i hate to break it to you but the environment doesn't give two shits about us. when we go extinct from whatever, even from a nuclear war, life will come back, ok? it's been here 4 billion years and will be here for, what, another 4? don't be so godamnned arrogant to think that suddenly in the past 300 years we became so special as to alter the fate of BILLIONS of years of evolution. life will move on with or without what we do to the planet. and, yes, the life that was around a billion years ago was probably just as smart as you are now, you're just too dumb and arrogant to realize it. there is NO SUCH THING as "hurting the environment," ok? that's just you thinking you're more important than billions of years of life.

b) after looking at the climate models (and that's what they are, just mathematical models), i can tell you that no one can possibly gain any sense from them. even an economic model (which are notoriously inaccurate) typically only involves ~100 variables. the climate models tend to involve about ~5000 variables, the vast majority of which are ASSUMED. now, you don't have to have a math degree to realize that a model with 5000 variables, most of which are involved in exponential feedback loops, and most of which are ASSUME constants, is impossible to make any sense out of. even tweaking one or two variables in the right spot and it goes from 270 kelvin to 1000 kelvin. this is the nature of the math.

c) by all means keep working on the science. please. but dear god don't just bring up 100 years of evidence. bring me 100 million years. and please, for the love of god, don't use the terribly misunderstood science to then take a leap of faith and start prescribing political and social remedies simply because you're scared. because then only one thing will happen: your science will be hijacked by people who have more resources than you to just further their own agenda.

d) i don't know. neither do you. but we're both getting played here.