Comments on: The Global Warming in the Pipeline http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/ Blogging the science and policy of global warming Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:13:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: Climate 411 » Global Warming Crib Sheet - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-807 Climate 411 » Global Warming Crib Sheet - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:44:18 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-807 [...] then there’s the issue of "warming in the pipeline". Temperature may have warmed by only a certain amount today, but some additional warming is [...] [...] then there's the issue of "warming in the pipeline". Temperature may have warmed by only a certain amount today, but some additional warming is [...]

]]> By: Sheryl Canter http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-623 Sheryl Canter Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:41:27 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-623 There is extensive discussion of science on this blog. See the list of categories? There are 63 in Science. Click the link and take a look. All your questions will be answered. There is extensive discussion of science on this blog. See the list of categories? There are 63 in Science. Click the link and take a look. All your questions will be answered.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-622 Jay Alt Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:28:51 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-622 kenzrw writes: <i>Isn't there already a company in the Pacific that's supposed to 'seed' the ocean with iron so the ocean can make more algae, thus becoming a carbon sink? </i> That idea seems to have hit a problem recently. 'Fix' For Global Warming Discredited By New Research http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129132753.htm kenzrw writes:
Isn't there already a company in the Pacific that's supposed to 'seed' the ocean with iron so the ocean can make more algae, thus becoming a carbon sink?

That idea seems to have hit a problem recently.

'Fix' For Global Warming Discredited By New Research
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129132753.htm

]]> By: GWG1 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-621 GWG1 Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:11:31 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-621 Please watch and spread the word about global warming! www.globalwarmingguy.com Please watch and spread the word about global warming!

http://www.globalwarmingguy.com

]]> By: saluki http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-620 saluki Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:31:33 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-620 I see that there is a lot of political activism on this blog, but the discussions about the science of global warming seem to be very limited. This worries me. I would like to ask a few questions regarding the science. 1. It seems to be treated as axiomatic by the man made global warming advocates that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, global temperature increases. But when we look at the historical record of global temperature versus global CO2, temperature rises seem to be leading C02 rises in most cases and by as much as one hundred years. It appears that increasing temperatures cause increases in CO2 rather than the other way around. 2. The earth constantly undergoes changes in climate. We have had much higher temperatures - 10 to 15C higher than today. We have had CO2 level almost 10 times as high as today. We have had completely melted ice caps. We have had rates of change of temperature increase that are 4 times what we are experiencing today. All of this happened long before the first redneck stepped into the first SUV. So why do we need mankind to explain the current rises in temperature? 3. When we use historical thermometer records to tell us about temperature change in the recent past, why don't we account for the "islands of heat" problem that is produced by taking temperature readings in areas where the population has significantly increased over the recent past. 4. Why were temperatures higher than today in the middle ages, and why did it produce prosperity instead of doom? 5. Why is it that most of the temperature rise that happened in the last hundred years or so happend in the early part of the century when industrializations and automotive traffic were almost insignificant? 6. With the earth having experienced much more radical temperature extremes and having recovered quite nicely, over the last 65 million years, why are people trying to convince us that suddenly, if mankind doesn't act immediately, the world will go to hell in a handbasket? 7. Why do the ocean levels in the Maldives seem to be going down rather than up? 8. What do you think is untrue about what this professor of climate has to say? http://youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related http://youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=related http://youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=related http://youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=related I see that there is a lot of political activism on this blog, but the discussions about the science of global warming seem to be very limited. This worries me. I would like to ask a few questions regarding the science.

1. It seems to be treated as axiomatic by the man made global warming advocates that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, global temperature increases. But when we look at the historical record of global temperature versus global CO2, temperature rises seem to be leading C02 rises in most cases and by as much as one hundred years. It appears that increasing temperatures cause increases in CO2 rather than the other way around.

2. The earth constantly undergoes changes in climate. We have had much higher temperatures – 10 to 15C higher than today. We have had CO2 level almost 10 times as high as today. We have had completely melted ice caps. We have had rates of change of temperature increase that are 4 times what we are experiencing today. All of this happened long before the first redneck stepped into the first SUV. So why do we need mankind to explain the current rises in temperature?

3. When we use historical thermometer records to tell us about temperature change in the recent past, why don't we account for the "islands of heat" problem that is produced by taking temperature readings in areas where the population has significantly increased over the recent past.

4. Why were temperatures higher than today in the middle ages, and why did it produce prosperity instead of doom?

5. Why is it that most of the temperature rise that happened in the last hundred years or so happend in the early part of the century when industrializations and automotive traffic were almost insignificant?

6. With the earth having experienced much more radical temperature extremes and having recovered quite nicely, over the last 65 million years, why are people trying to convince us that suddenly, if mankind doesn't act immediately, the world will go to hell in a handbasket?

7. Why do the ocean levels in the Maldives seem to be going down rather than up?

8. What do you think is untrue about what this professor of climate has to say?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&#38;feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&#38;feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&#38;feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&#38;feature=related

]]> By: futbol http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-619 futbol Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:42:57 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-619 This may be God's greatest challenge to humanity. Solving this problem would require civilizations to change and to actually care about their fellow man. Many nations consumed by fear will prevent the necessary changes regarding energy production to prevail. It seems to me that science is concrete on the subject of global warming, and the lawyers and political leaders are ignorant. As are most people who have not been effected by anything more than $3/ gallon. Humans need to change the way they are living. I am feeling very skeptical that we are capable of such simple but great change. This may be God's greatest challenge to humanity. Solving this problem would require civilizations to change and to actually care about their fellow man. Many nations consumed by fear will prevent the necessary changes regarding energy production to prevail. It seems to me that science is concrete on the subject of global warming, and the lawyers and political leaders are ignorant. As are most people who have not been effected by anything more than $3/ gallon.

Humans need to change the way they are living. I am feeling very skeptical that we are capable of such simple but great change.

]]> By: kenzrw http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-618 kenzrw Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:48:10 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-618 Geoengineering scares me, more for what we don't know than anything else (i.e., how would it effect the ecosystem other than the cooling). Isn't there already a company in the Pacific that's supposed to 'seed' the ocean with iron so the ocean can make more algae, thus becoming a carbon sink? I hope there's not too many others going off willy nilly like this without proper controls. Anyway, doing something like artificial carbon sequestering makes the public lazy and not want to cut back on emissions. Geoengineering scares me, more for what we don't know than anything else (i.e., how would it effect the ecosystem other than the cooling). Isn't there already a company in the Pacific that's supposed to 'seed' the ocean with iron so the ocean can make more algae, thus becoming a carbon sink? I hope there's not too many others going off willy nilly like this without proper controls. Anyway, doing something like artificial carbon sequestering makes the public lazy and not want to cut back on emissions.

]]> By: Lisa Moore http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-617 Lisa Moore Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:05:20 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-617 Hi kenzrw, If we could hold concentrations steady at current levels, the additional warming would take several decades. You can see this in the second figure of my post <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/07/02/climate-models-how-they-work/" rel="nofollow">"Climate Models: How They Work"</a>. As for some yet unknown atmospheric phenomenon to slow down warming... we know that sulfate aerosols reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. As a result, both <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/" rel="nofollow">volcanoes</a> and <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/04/05/geo-engineering/" rel="nofollow">geoengineering</a> could conceivably "buy time". But we can't control volcanoes and, as Bill explained in his post, there are lots of risks about geoengineering! Hi kenzrw,

If we could hold concentrations steady at current levels, the additional warming would take several decades. You can see this in the second figure of my post "Climate Models: How They Work".

As for some yet unknown atmospheric phenomenon to slow down warming… we know that sulfate aerosols reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. As a result, both volcanoes and geoengineering could conceivably "buy time". But we can't control volcanoes and, as Bill explained in his post, there are lots of risks about geoengineering!

]]> By: kenzrw http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-616 kenzrw Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:38:37 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-616 Let's hope there's some as yet unknown atmospheric reaction that could slow down the warming, such as an increase in low-level clouds when temperatures reach a certain level. From what I read, forecasting clouds in climate models is very difficult. Who knows? (I know...wishful thinking) Let's hope there's some as yet unknown atmospheric reaction that could slow down the warming, such as an increase in low-level clouds when temperatures reach a certain level. From what I read, forecasting clouds in climate models is very difficult. Who knows? (I know…wishful thinking)

]]> By: kenzrw http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/comment-page-1/#comment-615 kenzrw Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:25:37 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/#comment-615 Lisa, Your article said: "For example, the latest IPCC report calculates that if we held greenhouse gas concentrations steady at 2000 levels, average global temperature would go up another degree Fahrenheit." How long would take to go up that one degree F? Lisa,

Your article said:
"For example, the latest IPCC report calculates that if we held greenhouse gas concentrations steady at 2000 levels, average global temperature would go up another degree Fahrenheit."

How long would take to go up that one degree F?

]]>