Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic New climate change study

I know we've got people on here who are very interested in this type of thing, so I thought I'd link this: Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Change Debate . It's from the Journal of Geophysical Research.

I haven't looked into this very much but thought it was interesting.

PJ

I found this part of the scientists' conclusion interesting (bold lettering is mine):

If you take a look at the schematic picture of the Earth below, however, you can see that the parts of the Earth that seem to be hardest hit by global warming are much nearer the poles:



Also, interestingly, you can see that the northern hemisphere seems to be harder hit by global warming than the southern hemisphere. Remember that more people live north of the equator than south of it, and most of humanity's production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases also takes place there.

Pam, you are certainly right that the study you refer to was peer-reviewed, otherwise it wouldn't have been published in Journal of Geophysical Research. All articles that are published in scientific journals like that are peer-reviewed. However, that doesn't mean that all the "peers" agree with the conclusions. It definitely doesn't mean that this study has managed to change the minds of all or most other scientists who previously believed that global warming is man-made. It just means that the science done to carry out the study is OK. Specifically, it means that the scientists explained how they reasoned, what assumptions they made, what hypotheses they used, and how exactly they carried out their study. In other words, they used a fully scientific approach, and that way others can carry out similar studies and see if they reach similar results. Others can also make slight modifications in their assumptions and see if that affects the result. For example, others can say that the El Nino theory must explain why global warming is most severe away from the tropics, and the study is not good enough if it can't be made to explain why higher and lower latitudes are hardest hit.

You can be sure, too, that many studies which do claim that global warming is mostly man-made have been published in various peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Here in Sweden, several studies have been quoted recently which claim that global warming is worse than expected and is happening at a faster rate. I haven't looked up those studies and can't quote them here. However, as some of you know, I'm very interested in astronomy and regularly buy astronomical magazines. In the July issue of Astronomy Now, a British astronomy magazine, there is an "editorial" by Alan Longstaff which bears the heading, "Don't blame the Sun". I tried to find Longstaff's editorial on line, but it doesn't seem to be available there, so I will just quote parts of it here. Among other things Longstaff wrote:

Longstaff thus points out that humans (with their industrial activities) have enriched the Earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide, but he then proceeds to discuss the role of the Sun in global warming. Can the Sun be responsible for at least most of global warming? Longstaff concludes that that isn't the case:

Longstaff's message isn't the gospel truth, of course. I just notice it as one more voice in the ever-louder chorus which does blame human activity for global warming.

Anyway, just recently there was an international "climate summit" in Copenhagen, where almost all the world's most important nations participated, including China and India. The nations jointly agreed that global temperature can't be allowed to rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius over the next one hundred years. But according to Longstaff's editorial, global temperature has so far risen by only 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1780, and that has caused worrying problems. Can the Earth handle another two degrees over the next one hundred years without very serious effects?

Ann

The Earth has been as much as 3-4 degrees hotter in the past, so I'm guessing the answer is, yes, we can handle that.

Not that I think it'll come to that; there hasn't been any significant global warming since around 1998. (That's why it's now called "climate change" instead of "global warming", or even "global cooling" in the 70s) Too bad, I like warm weather

Anyway, I didn't post that to convince you, just to point out that there are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue. I just don't think it's wise to completely destroy our economy (cap'n'trade) and our way of life when the science is *not* beyond reasonable, rational dispute.

PJ

I absolutely agree there. Anyway, questioning established truths is what science is all about, as long as the questioning is carried out in a scientific way.

Ann

However, I need to dispute this:

You are right, the Earth has been at least 3-4 degrees Celsius hotter in the past than it is now. However, were we around then? Were any mammals at all around then? Can we handle an Earth that is 3-4 degrees Celsius hotter than it is today?

Swedish televsion has just shown a British BBC documentary about the Earth, and about the forces that, according to the documentary, have made the Earth a living planet: its volcanism, its atmosphere, its ice and its oceans. The conclusion that the documentary made is that the Earth itself is very sturdy, and it will remain a wonderful haven for biological life for many millions of years to come, regardless of what we humans do to it. However, again according to the documentary, humans as a species are not very sturdy at all, but very dependent on the special conditions on the Earth that we find around us here and now. According to the documentary, we are in the process of changing the special conditions that make the Earth habitable for us. The Earth will survive, and life on Earth will survive, but will we?

Of course, that was once again just the opinion of those who made the documentary, and not the gospel truth about the Earth and humanity. Still, it is worth thinking about.

Ann