Climate Change for beginners

[The Super Pope]

I have refused to acknowledge climate change for a long time. Having said that, it is snowing outside in the middle of April, so I guessed there might be something to it. So I decided to watch a National Geographic documentary entitled '6 degrees warmer' or something. Now according to that britain will become warmer and will experience an agricultural re-birth while the mid-west US turns into a dust bowl. Now there's a problem in me viewing this as a bad thing, in fact i turned on every light in the house and left the car engine running to try and speed things up.
Normally climate change is stuffed down my throat with things about flooding in Bangladesh. Now, I'm no geography major but I know that happens anyway and so it's hardly going to make me change my life.
Climate change in Britain is usually sold as "It'll be colder because the Gulf stream will stop", yet here was National Geographic, they of the cuddly animal pictures, telling me actually it will get hotter.

So can someone explain in idiot's terms what the effects of climate change will be and some hard evidence of it's actual existence from reputable sources, not Fox news.
Also, please start at the beginning as most sources provided on this topic assume some degree of prior knowledge on climate change.

Also, please don't shout at me if I ask a stupid question.

Let's have a National Geographic cuddly animal to make this thread a happier place

[H_man]

Essentially if you like the Amazon Rain forest, as well as 50% of Earth's biodiversity, support carbon reduction.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cl...-2007-pt2.html

The CBC is on par with the BBC, btw.

[Gwendylyn]

Climate change in Britain is usually sold as "It'll be colder because the Gulf stream will stop", yet here was National Geographic, they of the cuddly animal pictures, telling me actually it will get hotter.

So can someone explain in idiot's terms what the effects of climate change will be and some hard evidence of it's actual existence from reputable sources, not Fox news.
Also, please start at the beginning as most sources provided on this topic assume some degree of prior knowledge on climate change.

If you don't understand global warming, why don't you look up information yourself and just learn? Honestly. You are asking other people to do the work for you - I'm sure plenty of them don't mind - but you should know what sources are reputable and what are not.

It still brings me the question of... why not just google "global warming for beginners" and read the links that pop up from reputable (.gov, for example) sources?

[The Super Pope]

If you don't understand global warming, why don't you look up information yourself and just learn? Honestly. You are asking other people to do the work for you - I'm sure plenty of them don't mind - but you should know what sources are reputable and what are not.

It still brings me the question of... why not just google "global warming for beginners" and read the links that pop up from reputable (.gov, for example) sources?

Because I don't know what i'm looking for, I've seen many conflicting reports and as i said in the o.p. most assume some level of understanding.

[Gwendylyn]

Because I don't know what i'm looking for, I've seen many conflicting reports and as i said in the o.p. most assume some level of understanding.

But, honestly, if you are intelligent you can find it eventually. If you are looking to be taught about Global Warming, you really shouldn't ask on a forum where it is a divisive issue, since you will get posters arguing about it rather than any clear truth.

Like I said, start with googling "global warming overview". Look for .gov information. If it is a .org, look at their "about" or "statement of purpose" to see if it is a biased source. If in doubt google that institutions name with "criticism" at the end to see if they are biased or not. Make your own damn judgment calls on what sources to believe. If in doubt, you could also repost links here and ask if they are reliable.

Really, you should have learned how to research things online by now.

[Ramashan]

Some of the common misconceptions regarding global warming is that people argue over why its happening and don't look at the fact that it is happening and that it means the world is going to heat up into this Venus like state.

For the first, everyone pretty much agrees that the world is heating up. Most of the debate about this usually degrades into why, is it the sun or human activity. Does it really matter when it comes to regulating industrial emmessions? finding better energy sources? Building more fuel efficient cars? Living a greener life? Figuring out what to do with rising oceans? Not really , regardless of the reason, all these things that come from the debate are beneficial.

OK, now that the political part is aside. The second thing is what does one degree actually mean and how can it have such a great effect on the globe?

I believe that when they say 1 degree, they mean 1 degree at the equator which equals something like 6 to 10 degrees at the poles. This isn't enough to make the poles a tropical paradise or allow us to comfortably live in Antarctica, but it will mean changes in weather patterns while the globe attempts to balance itself. The issue of global warming is one of weather.

There is two possibilities for places like Britain. The Gulf stream could grow warmer as water temperatures rise and return it to a climate similar to that of when the Romans found it where it is said to have been growing citrus fruit. Or, with the continueing melting on the Greenland Ice Shelf and North Atlantic Ice Flows it could lower the salinity of the North Sea which would shut down what is called the 'Global Conveyer Belt' which is responsible for Britain's warmth and make it have a climate similar to Canada and Alaska. Which would mean shorter wetter summers and more severe winters. We just don't know right now.

Anyway, that is just some things to think about as you study the links people have left above.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

There is two possibilities for places like Britain. The Gulf stream could grow warmer as water temperatures rise and return it to a climate similar to that of when the Romans found it where it is said to have been growing citrus fruit.

Why don't ppl complain about us being in a "global cooling" spell? This I can't understand. I used to be WARMER in the past, not colder!

[Ramashan]

Why don't ppl complain about us being in a "global cooling" spell? This I can't understand. I used to be WARMER in the past, not colder!

Go back to the 70's and that is exactly what people were saying. Its all a matter of perspective, because it was also much colder in the more recent past as well.

Either way, if it gets colder and more moisture gets locked into the northern zones that means the tropics get drier as is the suspision of why the Maya clasical era collapsed. And if it gets hotter and the ice shelves melt, then we will have the deserts growing in some areas while there will be an increase of rain and severe storms in others.

Either way, temperature change affects weather which will vary from place to place on the earth. The most severe aspect of a warming globe, no matter the reasons, is rising sea levels which could potentially have an affect on most of the populated urban areas around the world.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Go back to the 70's and that is exactly what people were saying. Its all a matter of perspective, because it was also much colder in the more recent past as well.

Either way, if it gets colder and more moisture gets locked into the northern zones that means the tropics get drier as is the suspision of why the Maya clasical era collapsed. And if it gets hotter and the ice shelves melt, then we will have the deserts growing in some areas while there will be an increase of rain and severe storms in others.

Either way, temperature change affects weather which will vary from place to place on the earth. The most severe aspect of a warming globe, no matter the reasons, is rising sea levels which could potentially have an affect on most of the populated urban areas around the world.

The sea level will rise like 4 inches if the earth warms globally...I don't recall the exact time frame but thats over several years, 10 I think (assuming that its as bad as ppl make it out to be). Its only raised like what, like half an inch if even that?

[Richard]

Climate change is blatantly obvious, it's the CAUSE that people refer to when they speak of the 'climate change debate'. Unless maths was never their strong point.

To know if climate change is man-made you'd need to simulate it rather accurately. It could just as easily be the Earth's natural warm-cool mechanisms in action.

Reducing pollution is beneficial either way though; anyone denying that is a :wub: (or selfish).

[Simetrical]

For the first, everyone pretty much agrees that the world is heating up.

There used to be some people who didn't even agree with that, but a Northwest Passage being open for the first time in recorded history has probably shut most of them up.

Most of the debate about this usually degrades into why, is it the sun or human activity. Does it really matter when it comes to regulating industrial emmessions?

Of course it does. If rising CO₂ levels are not a substantial factor, there's no point in spending trillions of dollars on cutting CO₂ emissions. Instead, we can spend the money in other places, like aerosols, or who knows what. Practically the only solution that's commonly countenanced as a solution to global warming is cutting CO₂ emissions, but if warming isn't anthropogenic, that's one of the most monumental wastes of money in the history of civilization. (And even if warming is anthropogenic, CO₂ reduction is not a complete solution by far, and it's questionable whether it gives the best cost-benefit ratio.)

I believe that when they say 1 degree, they mean 1 degree at the equator which equals something like 6 to 10 degrees at the poles.

No, they mean one degree global mean temperature, averaged over the surface of the Earth. That's less than a degree at the equator, more at the poles. I'd be surprised if it were as much as 6 to 10 degrees, but I don't know.

The issue of global warming is one of weather.

Well, more like climate.

Why don't ppl complain about us being in a "global cooling" spell? This I can't understand. I used to be WARMER in the past, not colder!

Not true. Mean global temperature is higher than it has been for at least several centuries, by most accounts more (depending on how warm you think the Medieval Warm Period was). Local temperatures are therefore usually warmer as well, but in some places it may grow colder as wind patterns and so on shift. "Climate change" is the more generic term preferred by climatologists.

Like I said, start with googling "global warming overview". Look for .gov information. If it is a .org, look at their "about" or "statement of purpose" to see if it is a biased source. If in doubt google that institutions name with "criticism" at the end to see if they are biased or not. Make your own damn judgment calls on what sources to believe. If in doubt, you could also repost links here and ask if they are reliable.

Honestly, I have. I haven't yet found any reason to believe that climatologists have any idea what they're talking about when they say current warming is anthropogenic. Maybe I just haven't found it, but I really haven't seen any remarkable predictions that these climate models have made that have turned out to be true contrary to other models. I'd be interested if anyone knows why we should believe these models more than we believe, say, macroeconomics models (which mostly say things like that the minimum wage is a stupid idea, and other ideas dear to the heart of modern society).

Reducing pollution is beneficial either way though; anyone denying that is a :wub: (or selfish).

But if carbon dioxide emissions are not in fact causing any harm, as non-anthropogenic arguments would say, they can't reasonably be classified as "pollution". Conventional pollution, like particulates, actually causes global cooling, amusingly. One reason some think we didn't see warming earlier in this century is because we didn't start cleaning up pollution until recently.

[Mímirswell]

But if carbon dioxide emissions are not in fact causing any harm, as non-anthropogenic arguments would say, they can't reasonably be classified as "pollution". Conventional pollution, like particulates, actually causes global cooling, amusingly. One reason some think we didn't see warming earlier in this century is because we didn't start cleaning up pollution until recently.

Without a doubt, higher CO² levels cause harm (immediate in terms of economic damage, long term in possible failure cascade of the ocean ecosystem). You can do a relatively simple experiment to show how higher levels impact quite a few species directly.

Abstract: 10 year study finds that coral reefs only prosper if carbonate ions are present in the water at the right concentrations and this only happens with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at levels under 450 parts per million (a situation that has been maintained for the last 20 million years). Also effected are Crustaceans who develop diseases as the result of poor calcification of their shells for similar reasons (carbon accretion).

My thoughts: The real issue is the politicization of science and the inability of governments to create appropriate laws and manage the scientific process without injecting their own bias into the studies. Right now is the absolute worst situation wherein the governments are bias and they leave much of the funding to private entities that are bias. The overall result being a degradation in the quality of research.

Source: Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
O. Hoegh-Guldberg¹, P. J. Mumby², A. J. Hooten³, R. S. Steneck⁴, P. Greenfield⁵, E. Gomez⁶, C. D. Harvell⁷, P. F. Sale⁸, A. J. Edwards⁹, K. Caldeira¹⁰, N. Knowlton¹¹, C. M. Eakin¹², R. Iglesias-Prieto¹³, N. Muthiga¹⁴, R. H. Bradbury¹⁵, A. Dubi¹⁶, and M. E. Hatziolos¹⁷
Science 14 December 2007: 1737-1742.

1 Centre for Marine Studies, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, 4072 Queensland, Australia.
2 Marine Spatial Ecology Laboratory, School of BioSciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK.
3 AJH Environmental Services, 4900 Auburn Avenue, Suite 201, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
4 University of Maine, School of Marine Sciences, Darling Marine Center, Walpole, ME 04573, USA.
5 The Chancellery, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, 4072 Queensland, Australia.
6 Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
7 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, E321 Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
8 International Network on Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University, 50 Main Street East, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 1E9, Canada.
9 School of Biology, Ridley Building, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE17RU, UK.
10 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
11 National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013, USA.
12 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coral Reef Watch, E/RA31, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3226, USA.
13 Unidad Académica Puerto Morelos, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apdo. Postal 1152, Cancún 77500 QR, México.
14 Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York, NY 10460, USA.
15 Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program, Australian National University, Canberra, 0200 Australia.
16 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
17 Environment Department, MC5-523, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC20433, USA.

[TheKwas]

I'd be interested if anyone knows why we should believe these models more than we believe, say, macroeconomics models (which mostly say things like that the minimum wage is a stupid idea, and other ideas dear to the heart of modern society).

First off, most econometric data does not suggest that the minimum wage is a stupid idea. Most econometric data (along with theory) suggests that minimum wage laws do have a negative effect on employment, but this negative effect has to be weighed against the positive of increase the wage of those working in minimum wage industries. What is the exact best ratio of equality/employment is a normative question that can't be answered by econometric data, but due to diminishing marginal returns, it is generally accepted that there is a desirable middle-ground minimum wage that will maximize utility. Exactly what this middle ground wage is depends on the economic climate. I can't remember the exact figures my professor was talking about, but I believe that in Ontario, Canada around 2 years ago the marginal figures were that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would result in a negative .1% unemployment effect, which would probably indicate that a minimum wage increase would occur soon.

Secondly, I would suspect that climatology models would be more accurate in determining causes than econometric models. All determinate causes in economics are derived from human behavior (culture, social make-up, stability, type of government, human expectations, sterotypes, ect), natural resources, and geography (is the country landlocked, how many mountains in the way of trade routes, how many rivers, ect), and it's pretty easy to see that it's impossible to truly reduce such factors into model quantities (there are numerous attempts, such has reducing the democratic nature of a nation into an index and comparing all the countries in the world and looking for correlations, but these are naturally unreliable).

In contrast, The main determinates in climatology that I can think of are solar activity, geology activity, orbital activity and human activity. Geology and orbital activity strikes me as irrelevant in regards to the time frame we are interested in (volcano activity might be an exception), and the other two can generally be quantified (human greenhouse emmissions are the main activity we are interested in).

Moving to Proximate causes, both economics and climatology are filled with extreme complexities. However, even here I would suspect more potential for climatology's accuracy. In economics, the proximate causes can lead to meduim and long term growth/decline which can make them hard to tell apart from determinate causes. Technological growth rates (which can generally be treated as a proximate cause) are next to impossible to tell apart from productivity growth rates (which I will simplify as a determinate cause here), so if there's an increase in output that is unexplained, economists will never really know if the increase was due to a new technology that an industry started using, or if it was due to a cultural change in the workplace of that industry.

In contrast to climatology, it would seem that all the proximate causes that can be connected to meduim term (Medium term being defined as decades) temperature change are fairly well understood (volcanos, ocean currents... ozone stuff perhaps? I'm not even sure what else) and can be quantified and measured to a significant degree. All the other proximate causes, although having significant effect on everyday weather, are either generally predictable from a statistical pov and can be considered as having no net effect on global temperatures, or they are greenhouse gas feedback mechanism.

Due to the more simplistic nature of the important causes of climate change, it seems to me to be much easier to move from correlation to causation in climatology than it is in economics. I'm led to believe by things I have read in the past that solar activity has not experianced many significant variations in the past decade and there's no convincing feedback mechanism that can explain current warming (this is where skeptics seem to disagree). Thus, we can look to the other determinate causes and see if they have been changing in a manner that could explain the warming.

As I point out, I don't see where climatology's computer models have any more going for it than those of macroeconomics, yet the latter are consistently ignored because they disagree with what people want to believe.

Just because ignore such models doesn't mean they should ignore them. If a macroeconomic model has been universally accepted by the economic community, then you can be fairly certain that the model is explaining economic phenonmenon fair accurately for a pretty long time and and countless of researchers have duplicated results using different methods. It's true that in the past ther have been numerous 'economic crisises' originally with Keynesian economics, then with monetarian economics, and even with Rational expectations theories, but all of those occured before the heyday of econometrics and world-wide statistic databases.

Now granted there are plenty of junk models (as a side note, never take an econometric model seriously if it's studying something like gun laws or crime), and there's still plenty of issues that researchers are debating over, but there's a few models where agreement is truely widespread.

[The Super Pope]

" I haven't yet found any reason to believe that climatologists have any idea what they're talking about when they say current warming is anthropogenic"

What?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

HOLD THE PHONES! Mim!?

[Ramashan]

Of course it does. If rising CO2 levels are not a substantial factor, there's no point in spending trillions of dollars on cutting CO2 emissions. Instead, we can spend the money in other places, like aerosols, or who knows what. Practically the only solution that's commonly countenanced as a solution to global warming is cutting CO2 emissions, but if warming isn't anthropogenic, that's one of the most monumental wastes of money in the history of civilization. (And even if warming is anthropogenic, CO2 reduction is not a complete solution by far, and it's questionable whether it gives the best cost-benefit ratio.)

I tend to see the social benefits as outweighing the monetary cost at the moment. If a belief in C)2 emiisions leads to alternative energy production and people being more conscious of the fuel they burn, then the out come is beneficial in my opinion.

However, now that companies have learned how to make money with cap and trade people are potentially going to get rich off of it. But I think you do have a point there are other things we can also be spending our money in regards to insuring that we continue to life in a healthy and clean environment.

No, they mean one degree global mean temperature, averaged over the surface of the Earth. That's less than a degree at the equator, more at the poles. I'd be surprised if it were as much as 6 to 10 degrees, but I don't know.

But even if it is a little higher in the arctic it will still affect climate (and I was saying weather because climate change will change weather patterns like more severe storms, droughts, wind speeds which will have a direct affect on how we live and the natural disastors we encounter. I guess climate and weather is just semantics to me in this.) by changing weather patterns and causing the seas the rise if the land based is to melt.

The sea level will rise like 4 inches if the earth warms globally...I don't recall the exact time frame but thats over several years, 10 I think (assuming that its as bad as ppl make it out to be). Its only raised like what, like half an inch if even that?

This is not the information i generally find, especially is the ice shelves, as I mentioned above melt. Most of the ice that has melted to open up the Northwest passage and in the collapsing of parts of Antarctica are floating ice, so will not contribute to much rise in sea level.

But if land based ice were to all melt there would be a substantial rise in sea levels. Just look at how much land is now underwater that was once exposed during the last great ice age.

[The Super Pope]

Is it true that we're still in an Ice Age? If so, isn't warming to be expected?

[Simetrical]

" I haven't yet found any reason to believe that climatologists have any idea what they're talking about when they say current warming is anthropogenic"

What?

I think it's kind of straightforward? Which part didn't you understand? "Anthropogenic" you could look up in a dictionary: it means "caused by man" (in this case as opposed to natural, e.g., caused by the sun or whatever).

Without a doubt, higher CO² levels cause harm (immediate in terms of economic damage, long term in possible failure cascade of the ocean ecosystem). You can do a relatively simple experiment to show how higher levels impact quite a few species directly.

Abstract: 10 year study finds that coral reefs only prosper if carbonate ions are present in the water at the right concentrations and this only happens with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at levels under 450 parts per million (a situation that has been maintained for the last 20 million years). Also effected are Crustaceans who develop diseases as the result of poor calcification of their shells for similar reasons (carbon accretion).

Okay, I'll grant that. But in terms of established harm it's far from the top of what we should be worried about pollution-wise if you discount the greenhouse effect. Relative to its benefits, damage to things like coral reefs is not likely to be an overwhelming consideration.

My thoughts: The real issue is the politicization of science and the inability of governments to create appropriate laws and manage the scientific process without injecting their own bias into the studies. Right now is the absolute worst situation wherein the governments are bias and they leave much of the funding to private entities that are bias. The overall result being a degradation in the quality of research.

Pretty much, yes. The bias is not all against climatology, either, by any means. There's tremendous bias in favor of environmentalism in the developed world today, which in turn makes people sympathetic to the idea of humans causing disastrous climate change. As I point out, I don't see where climatology's computer models have any more going for it than those of macroeconomics, yet the latter are consistently ignored because they disagree with what people want to believe.

I tend to see the social benefits as outweighing the monetary cost at the moment. If a belief in C)2 emiisions leads to alternative energy production and people being more conscious of the fuel they burn, then the out come is beneficial in my opinion.

Spreading lies is not justified by anything, except possibly to cover up state secrets and similar, and even then only in a limited fashion (almost always in those cases you can get away with "no comment" instead of lying). It also wastes a huge amount of resources that could be devoted to more environmentally productive things, if it's not true.

But even if it is a little higher in the arctic it will still affect climate (and I was saying weather because climate change will change weather patterns like more severe storms, droughts, wind speeds which will have a direct affect on how we live and the natural disastors we encounter. I guess climate and weather is just semantics to me in this.) by changing weather patterns and causing the seas the rise if the land based is to melt.

Well, obviously, yes.

Is it true that we're still in an Ice Age? If so, isn't warming to be expected?

No. The last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago. There are definitely some natural cycles of warming and cooling in the Earth's history. Some people argue that we are, or may be, in one of the natural warming periods. That's the question: is current warming caused by CO₂ emissions (as practically all climatologists seem to say, and which almost all governments officially acknowledge, etc.), or not?

[Ramashan]

Originally Posted by Ramashan
I tend to see the social benefits as outweighing the monetary cost at the moment. If a belief in C)2 emiisions leads to alternative energy production and people being more conscious of the fuel they burn, then the out come is beneficial in my opinion.

Spreading lies is not justified by anything, except possibly to cover up state secrets and similar, and even then only in a limited fashion (almost always in those cases you can get away with "no comment" instead of lying). It also wastes a huge amount of resources that could be devoted to more environmentally productive things, if it's not true.

I wouldn't necessarily call it spreading lies at the moment. There is not enough data on either side of the table to support what's going on between CO2 and the sun. That's why the debates are still raging. I don't believe we will really know what the truth is until either more CO2 is in the air and nothing happens, less CO2 is in the air and we cool down which takes time. By saying that it is lies is like calling any scientific theory a lie until it has been proven.

[Simetrical]

Either way, you were implying that the propagation of possibly-incorrect information could be justified by the ways it might change people's behavior (through misinforming them). I find that attitude objectionable.