Vostok? Is it from Russia? If so, that would be good evidence of global warming.
Lol. Indeed.
Att. JulianD.
Today, the thermal observations are made via satellites, in the old days, it was mercury or alcohol in glas tubes. Many older readings were made by amateurs, like sailors on long journeys, or humble people living on out-posts.
Vast areas of land and ice was not covered at all, until the fifties.
Not much attention was given to this science niche, until the 70’.
Yes, I do believe the graph(NASA link) to show these numbers, and that the globe temp. has gone up with a full degree in 130 years. But still I imagine those oldtimers, with frozen fingers, looking at the mercury string, and noting it in their log book.
It’s not a unique occurrence. Greater changes has certainly occurred in the past. both colder and warmer. With both higher and lower CO2 and oxygen levels, in the atmosphere.
I consider the planet as a dynamic system, and it’s allowed to make adjustments. There is no correct state (condition) it has to settle in. But We people, would like it to stay just like this, forever.
I can’t predict how the curves and graphs will look like in the future, but seeing a plane stagnation, I don’t.
The graph will never be horizontal (flat), no matter what man decides, or leaders dictate.
Btw. I loath toxic pollutions. A higher threat to humanity, than CO2.
-Soren.
No doubt this is a shitty place to discuss “Global Warming”. The truth is that there are myriad prevailing weather patterns, and they generally almost always affect grape growing conditions, which in turn affect the wine we all drink. Thats really everything!
This is also in a book by Cliff Harris “Weather and Bible prophecy; what was, what is and what’s to come”
Btw they sell the book on the website…no joke.
Wait, the climate isn’t supposed to change? To combat CO2 until we figure this out I’ll just keep holding my breath…
The west going jet streams has on several occasions the last few years made a southern loop across northern Europe, giving very cold and crappy summer weather. If your are north of this stream, arctic air is pumped southernly. That air is warmer than it used to be, but still cold compared to the weather south of the jet stream giving “normal” summer temperatures. The mechanism is pretty well understood, and the changes in the jet stream is probably an effect of warming in the arctic. Climate and weather are two different things.
Scientific skepticism is an essential and wonderful thing. But it is for scientists, not laypeople.
Non-scientists choosing to ignore the overwhelming consensus of scientists, are not expressing scepticism, but rather ignorance, as they try to avoid hearing what they don’t want to hear. That is why I brought up the parallel of the anti-vaccers. Their argument has no scientific merit, and is larger based on the ravings of a celebrity. Their choosing not to vaccinate isn’t scepticism, it’s choosing to ignore the science of immunology. And we get measles outbreaks as a result.
Not believing in climate change is a similar choice. Does anybody really believe that climate scientists haven’t considered the accuracy of old thermometers in their calculations? Or that they haven’t figured out clever ways to figure out CO2 levels for millennia before we ever started measuring? Does anybody really believe that climate scientists are part of some secret society with nefarious intentions?
Of course further science will always be needed, but there is already far more than enough to conclude with great confidence that the climate change is accelerating, that humans are the cause, and that the repercussions will be tragic. The arguments for mitigating climate change are easy to make on both moral and cost grounds.
Chris mentioned polarization, and I concur. Almost all conservative parties around the developed world accept the science of climate change and have agreed to mitigate it… I really can’t go much further without getting this thread moved to Politics.
No, skepticism is an absolute good. And global warming deniers serve an important social purpose, which is forcing scientists to make their arguments clear so that everybody knows precisely why the argument is so nearly universally accepted and why the deniers are wrong. If intelligent design theory hadn’t existed, I would have wanted to invent it since its various failed challenges clearly enhanced public understanding of natural selection in general (despite the continued existence of doubters).
Chris’s point would be a good one if it didn’t slightly confuse two issues. Climate change theory takes into account two things: 1)the historical norms of weather variation and 2)the extremes that extreme events reach. Thus, not every heat wave is evidence for climate change anymore than any cool spell is counter evidence. But if all the heat waves are getting even hotter over time and all the cool spells cooler, that is evidence for something happening as well as temperature norms. I would say that temperature norms will always seem to be better evidence. The fact of the melting of polar ice caps, which takes extended temperature changing over long periods, for instance, would seem to me far more convincing than any cool moment in Epernay or heat wave in San Francisco. Since I have started living in Provence for the summer, back in 2011, for instance, the Rhone has had an unusual string of rainier and cooler summers (11, 13 and 14) and fewer of the very warm dry ones that were typical of the period between 98 and 10. Would it therefore be correct to conclude that my presence has stopped global warming in Provence or rather that such small scale events just do happen?
Skepticism is fine, and rest assured that at some point some scientists certainly argued about the structure of a molecule of water. The other difference, of course, is that much like in economics and sociology, it’s quite hard to experiment with the climate…
People didn’t accept gravity overnight either and I’m sure many felt super smart pointing at a bird, a balloon or the moon and saying “see, it doesn’t fall, your views are wrong” even when a “consensus of experts” agreed gravity was real.
Right now there’s overwhelming evidence of a drastic, accelerating shift in climate in the last century. You can choose to believe it’s due to all kinds of very plausible explanations on how human behaviors and choices are responsible. Or you can choose to believe it’s just coincidental. The “consensus of experts” is simply advising you not to bet all your money on it being a coincidence, especially since it seems we’re starting to reap the rewards of political decisions re: gases harmful to the ozone layer.
Look at harvest dates on how they have changed (not a straight line) to see the effect of climate change.
So what you are saying is that the AFWEs are staving off Global Warming by picking the grapes earlier…
Gillaume, Jonathan and Brady,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, all of which were elegantly stated and very respectful. I’ll look into this issue further with your thoughts and the spirit of your comments in mind.
Peace.
To combat CO2 until we figure this out I’ll just keep holding my breath…
No. Even better is just don’t fart.
- Girls don’t like it (although it’s the epitome of humor for some guys ).
- It puts methane into the atmosphere.
- It marks you as an obnoxious slob.
- It annoys the rest of us.
- It kills some of us.
That said, it sucks for those folks in Champagne that they got such a jacked weather pattern.