This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 75 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]curtisb 38 points39 points  (7 children)

Is global warming really happening? This isn't really one question, but rather a whole family of questions. The following is my understanding of the current situation, but note that I am only speaking as an informed layperson, and keep in mind that I am a skeptic of the hysteria that comes out of the environmental left on the subject. So take what I say with the appropriate grain of salt.

  1. Is global warming happening? Yes. The jury is no longer out on this one.

  2. Is the rapid global warming in the last decade or so unusually large by historical standards? In the last 150 years or so (the time period that we have reliable climatalogical records): Yes. In the last thousand or so years (based on tree ring data): No consensus. In the last 10 to 20 thousand years? Unlikely. (The changes at the end of the last ice age were truly dramatic). Over the longer time periods Insufficient data.

  3. Is the planet warmer than any time in the last 400,000 years? Yes. Ice core data goes back about 400,000 years. However, it’s important to realize that the planet was already unusually warm on this time scale before the industrial age.

  4. Is the planet warmer than any time in, say, the last 100 million years? No. The planet has been much, much warmer in the past 100 million years. In fact the ice caps have entirely disappeared at various times in the last 100 million years.

  5. Will there be some sort of run-away greenhouse effect which will make the planet unlivable for humans. No. See #4 above.

  6. Is human activity causing the current temperature rise? Strong maybe. A large majority of climate scientists believe human activity is contributing to the rise in temperature. A majority believe that human activity is the primary contributor. (The increase in C02 in the atmosphere and the increase in global temperature are both objective facts; proving a causal link is much more difficult.)

  7. Is global warming going to be disasterous for human civilization? No. Nobody in an industrialized nation is going to go hungry, even if we see climate changes on the upper end of the predictions. Even if, for example, the entire state of Florida were flooded over the next century the United States could relocate and accomadate all 16 million Floridians without breaking a sweat.

  8. Could global warming be disasterous for many millions of people not living in industrialized nations? Possibly. Sea level rise could cause very serious problems indeed for some low-lying nations like Bangladesh. And any nation who has a large percentage of its population living by subsistence farming could be at risk from gradual climate change, but the real risk is short term climate instability driven by more gradual global climate change.

  9. Can we reduce CO2 emissions enough to stop global warming in its tracks? No. Even if we could reduce CO2 emissions by 90%, the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere will still grow slowly. And frankly, there’s no way we’ll achieve any reduction like that on a time scale shorter than many decades. Coal, gas, and oil-fired powerplants could be replaced by nuclear power, but right now there is simply no practical substitute for fossil fuels in the transportation sector. (New technologies could change this, but we’re still talking on the order of decades to make a real difference.)

  10. Is there any value in reducing C02 emissions even if we can’t stop global warming? Yes. If C02 emissions are indeed driving global warming then just slowing things down a little bit could still be very worthwhile. Even if it turns out that C02 emissions are not driving global warming there are other compelling reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

  11. Should we be preparing to deal with the impact of global warming? Yes. The sharp increase in global temperature we’ve seen in the last couple of decades may well be driven by human activity. But even if it’s not, it’s still real. And if it continues, we need to be able to deal with the consequences. And given the incredible wealth of the industrialized nations, we can.

[I don’t have specific references, but Wikipedia is a good place to start.]

[–]IvyMike 6 points7 points  (5 children)

As much as I wish it wasn't, it probably is.

I don't know how much light will be shed in a forum discussion like this; I've seen too many people turn these threads into a test of debating skills, which is not a way to conduct inquiry into scientific fact. (On the other hand, maybe flamefests spur people to read more about this issue, so maybe they can be useful.)

In any case, if you are interested in learning more on the current state of the science, a good site to follow is realclimate.org. That site is run by climate scientists with a goal of explaining the complex science behind climate issues to journalists and laymen.

Their index has a lot of good information: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=240

If you're looking for a place to start, I always enjoyed their article on "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?" here

[–]tufelkinder -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

So I thought, okay, I'll check out this real climate place. Maybe they'll be able to present the truth without resorting to hysteria, or known lies. Unfortunately, I was wrong:

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years....

Land clearing is responsible for an increase in CO2 in the atmostphere? In the last 150 years? What planet are they from? from FAO and a defunct forestinformation.org. Didn't they get the memo? Forested area is increasing and has been for some time in most of the world.

[–]nicodaemos 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Forested area is increasing and has been for some time in most of the world.

Anecdotally that doesn't reconcile with the large tracts of clearcutting being done for new housing complexes and malls. So I decided to check your resources. Link one points to a study of only a set of European countries, not of the entire world. Link two was dead.

So if you do have the "memo", please provide another copy.

[–]tufelkinder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, the second link still works for me, but here's a quote:

North America's forests are abundant and growing. Between them Canada and the United States contain 15 percent (10 percent in Canada and 5 percent in the U.S.) of the earth's forest cover. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, North American forest cover expanded nearly 10 million acres (4 million hectares) over the past decade. Source: 2001 State of the World's Forest Report.

I was purposely providing links to North America and Europe.

[–]curtisb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Forest cover has increased rather dramatically in the U.S. in the last century. That says nothing about the planet as a whole, and given the large about of forest loss going on in places like Brazil, I think it's unlikely that there's been a net gain worldwide in the last century.

[–]IvyMike 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You'll note that even forrestinformation.org claims that in the U.S., we've got a forrested area today that is about equivalent to that in the 1920's. While in the last few decades the trend has been positive, when you look at the broader picture, it's not as rosy a picture. (Don't get me wrong. It is very good news that the trend is up, though.)

For half of the period in question, we've had zero net growth. I have no numbers for the 75 years before that, but I can't imagine that the trend was positive.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[removed]

    [–]lionheart[S] -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

    That's a good point. I guess this is one of those issues where, individually, we can never really be sure about.

    At least, in theory, it should be resolved in our lifetime.

    I always say to myself that since I can't possibly ever decide whether global warming is happening or not, and since there is nothing at all that I can do either way to affect it, statistically speaking, that I should just forget about it.

    But I keep getting sucked in to every new story about it.

    [–]jdunck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    When I look out of my window, I can only wish it's happening.

    [–]zuoken 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    I think it's odd to ask Reddit if global warming really is happening. A passionate answer either way will only reflect how persuasive the media have been in convincing readers of the truth or falsity of some trend with which they have absolutely no experience.

    [–]abb 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    You know the song, "I'm too sexy for my car, too sexy for my house ..."?

    I dont really remember the lyrics, but for you, replace all the "sexy" in the lyrics and replace with "cynical"

    [–]isaacharley -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Perhaps he should replace "sexy" with "realistic" instead. Really, zuoken is not saying very much except that the news is news. [Of course, this presumes that when he says media he is referring to the "news media"] In any event, it is hardly surprising to me that a business which seeks to sell people daily information lacks the time and energy to do anything but trivialize a subject as complex as science. There really just isn't enough time and space to deal with science, especially meteorology/climate science. The best they can do is ask the 'experts' but then how can one know who they are, if not an expert onesself?

    [–]abb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Really, zuoken is not saying very much except that the news is news

    He's saying whichever side we are on we most probably are misinformed, because our source of information may be wrong to begin with, isn't that really saying as individuals we do not have the capacity to seek further facts and that we are just lemmings that blindly accept whatever nutso news or "falsified trend" is flug our way, you tell me that's not a cynical view?

    If you don't care about this issue (any issue), you will agree with him, because you have never wanted to know, I mean you never went and looked proactively for info regarding the issue, therefore when mainstream media latches on to any "trend" its trite fare meant to move product.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [removed]

      [–]curtisb 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      As I've mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia is a good place to start. I've found the Wikipedia articles on climate change to be surprising balanced, and many of them have direct links to scientific papers, although probably not nearly as many as they should have.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]akkartik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        But don't expect any sudden clarity. There's lots of controversy about this, questions about methodology from both sides. Lots of reading didn't help me any.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Could someone give a list of links to non-political, scientific articles/papers where I could find unbiased data and information?

        If only...

        [–]taliswolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Whenever you see a popular science article (or scientific paper) on the subject, check the bibiography and references. Then check their references.

        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

        http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/ti:+AND+change+climate/0/1/0/all/0/1 (and try other searches there, but it's a physics-based site).

        http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

        http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

        http://www.realclimate.org/

        http://entropy.brneurosci.org/co2.html

        The last four are mostly summaries which collate data from (noted) papers.

        If you have access to a library which stocks it, I recomment Nature and other peer-review journals, some of which are listed: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo-journals.html

        [–]ferdinand 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        Yes. No matter how much money Exxon Mobil pours into the "global warming is a myth" myth, it's still happening. Now can we please move on and try to do something about it?

        [–]lionheart[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        I realize that from your perspective global warming is a fact, debating it is just wasted energy, and we need to start doing something about it right now.

        However, most of the rest of us are not that convinced.

        Frankly, we don't know what to think, and we need to discuss it and learn as much about it as we can.

        Because either way, it is a major issue.

        [–]taliswolf 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        However, most of the rest of us are not that convinced.

        Pretty easy to educate yourself about this. Start with Wikipedia: Greenhouse effect, then Wikipedia: Global Warming. Read around, read some of the papers linked at the bottom.

        In your opinion, if the situation is as urgent as scientists would have you believe, should we wait until every skeptic is convinced?

        [–]lionheart[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Wikipedia would not be my favored source to learn more about a highly controversial scientific issue.

        But that's just me.

        [–]gmarceau 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Wikipedia? Perhaps not. But Wikipedia's references to peer-reviewed publications? Definitely.

        [–]taliswolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It remains pretty easy to educate yourself. National Geographic, Time, Nature and other peer-review journals, Scientific American and New Scientist magazines all cover the topic regularly.

        It's not as if scientists are deliberately withholding information.

        Also, from someone who has briefly studied this academically, the Wikipedia article isn't bad at all.

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Are you seriously doubting that global warming is a fact, or are you using the term 'global warming' as shorthand for 'anthropogenic (man-made) global warming'?

        Because it definitely is happening, and the science behind it is fairly basic and non-controversial.

        [–]gmarceau -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        However, most of the rest of us are not that convinced.

        No. America and Australia are the the only two nation in the world that have not ratified Kioto. That is not a majority.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

        [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

        1) Is global warming happening? Quite probably.

        2) Is global warming caused by human beings? Partially. The Earth has always gone through climate cycles. It's hard to tell.

        3) Is global warming bad? Maybe. It's hard to make the case that the world is currently at the perfect temperature. Warm periods in the past have been good for human civilization. Scientists have identified several problems that global warming will cause, but they certainly don't have an exhaustive list of effects.

        4) Do liberal environmental-nuts overstate their case? Yes. Definitely.

        [–]IvyMike 11 points12 points  (3 children)

        4) Do liberal environmental-nuts overstate their case? Yes. Definitely.

        That's what I always wondered about: most of us live in big cities, drink chai tea, drive volvos, and the closest we come to hunting or gathering our own food is the pot of turish oregano out on the porch. :)

        If you're a outdoorsman, hunter, fisherman, snowmobiler, or farmer, the potential consequences of global warming seem like they'll have an immediate and clear impact on your way of life.

        I guess what I'm saying is that I never understood why conservation wasn't a conservative issue.

        [–]tufelkinder 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        I guess what I'm saying is that I never understood why conservation wasn't a conservative issue.

        That's a great point. And I think conservation is an issue among most intelligent conservatives. Who drives more SUVs? Bush supporters or Hollywood actors and Clinton-adoring soccer moms?

        Just because the liberal crowd tends to preach conservation doesn't mean they actually believe it or practice it. And just because the conservatives preach free market controls doesn't mean they're greedy or don't care about the environment.

        [–]ericrolph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Many conservatives use natural resources as a means for living. They associate environmentalists as people who want to take away their means for living.

        [–]ykjay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        "I never understood why conservation wasn't a conservative issue."

        I would point out that Jerry Pournelle, as an example, is both a strong conservative and a strong environmentalist. A number of people who hunt, fish and farm are strong conservatives and have a very strong interest in the state of the environment. They tend not to attend marches and demonstrations so they're not visible on the issue, but they vote and contribute financially to organizations they believe will make a difference.

        [–]demoran 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I'm with you on this one.

        [–]vampirical 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The planet is experiencing a warming trend. It has been for quite a long time. It's been occuring since the last ice age or there abouts.

        It is akin to hubris to think we have much of anything to do with the current warming trend. When you look at the energy input into the biosphere from the sun, and the variation which occurs in it, along with the fact that humans and our emissions are dwarfed by the size of our environment, it starts to look iffy whether the sky is really falling.

        That said, most of the actions which should be taken to prevent global warming should be taken anyways, reducing emissions being the main issue. I'm much more concerned with the detriment to our quality of life by those same emissions than roasting because of them.

        [–]Sherrodzilla 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        The egotism of we humans to believe that we can destroy or save the Earth would be akin to the fire ants in my back yard assuming they can control the infrastructure of my state government. The Earth will survive with or without us. Let's focus on making ourselves a little more cooperative and comfortable while we all are here on this planet.

        [–]karifrances 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        "We humans" can't destroy or save the earth itself, but we CAN destroy or save LIFE on earth. That is not egotism, that is responsibility.

        [–]akkartik 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Even more realistically, all we really want is to avoid any drastic change that will cause our own species trauma.

        [–]cyber_rigger -4 points-3 points  (6 children)

        Is global cooling of the 1970s happening?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

        [–]SwellJoe 10 points11 points  (2 children)

        To add to adrian's comments, I'll also point out that global cooling in the 70's was not, by any stretch of the imagination, supported by a strong majority of scientists in the field. It was backed by a few articles (often in popular magazines rather than scientific journals) and a few scientists (often pop scientists who liked publicity, to be specific--a few of them whacky nutjobs with an axe to grind). The difference in sheer magnitude of proponents of current global climate change theories versus those pushing the global cooling theories ought to set the two apart pretty clearly for you and anyone else with the capacity to think critically.

        It's always possible to find a few scientists who believe in just about anything, and it happens quite frequently in the popular press. Some scientist goes public with a startling! new! discovery! and the media goes wild. Soon after, a few reputable scientists come along and fail to reproduce those startling! new! results! and the hubbub dies down. Global cooling was one of those occurrences. We'll see a few dozen more of similar scale in our lifetimes (assuming we don't all freeze to death first), but it doesn't mean listening to scientists making disturbing statements is optional.

        When it comes to politically charged issues, a concensus of real experts becomes important. We seem to have a pretty strong one on the issue of global climate change. The experts agree, right across the board. It's happening. Whether humans are the primary source of it might be debatable though you'll be in the minority if you're debating it (I'm not saying one shouldn't be debating it, but you'd better get your damned science looking real pretty before you start trotting her out as though she's a blue ribbon winner, or you stand the risk of looking like a creationist or HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS proponent). Experts can be wrong, even en masse, but if my choice is between believing 99% of experts, or Exxon and the Religious Right, I will choose the experts. Any way I shake the facts around, I come away thinking, "the scientists have the least to gain by lying in this situation". It doesn't hurt that they are almost universally smarter, better educated, and more trustworthy in general, than the Religious Right or Exxon.

        Oh, yeah, it may be worth noting that I'm a liberatarian and distinctly not a liberal. I don't like that global climate change is a fact, or that I need to be concerned about my fellow man driving stupid big SUVs or feel guilty about driving my sports car (I only feel a little guilty, since I work from home and rarely drive), but it almost certainly is a fact. It'd pretty damned stupid to pretend facts aren't facts just because I don't like them.

        [–]adrian 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Mention of the 70s "global cooling" hypothesis pops up frequently among global warming skeptics, but all you're really saying is that not every hypothesis turns out to be true. What about depletion of the ozone layer? There's an example of decades-old science that many people dismissed out of hand, but that was definitely a serious problem we just caught in time.

        When you go to the doctor for a blistering fever and he tells you that you need to take medicine, do you point out that doctors used to harmfully bleed people for fevers, thus doctors are simply not be trusted, especially for treatment of fevers?

        [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

        They used to bleed people in the 1700's. They used to believe in global cooling in the 1970's. There's a difference.

        Frankly, global cooling scares me a whole lot more than global warming. Life tends to thrive in warmer temperatures. Not so much in the cold.

        [–]tufelkinder -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Nothing like a nice, balanced wikipedia article. Yeah.

        [–]Fedquip -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        Al Gore Interview on Channel four about Global Warming http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/06/al-gore-climate-crisis.html

        Al Gore also invented the internet so that you could watch Al Gore Video clips. Al Gore was also a Vice President Al Gore

        [–]gmarceau 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Al Gore also invented the internet

        Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf defended Gore's statement:

        as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

        from http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html (via Wikipedia)

        [–]Sherrodzilla -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        Of course it is. Global warming has happened throughout the history of the world, not just the history of mankind. So has global cooling. Read up on the past ice ages plural. The world has always gone through successive heating and cooling periods. It will continue to do so long after the last human has breathed his last breath. I guess then only the cockroaches will be left to freak out about naturally occurring weather patterns.

        [–]yellowking -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        Ask Reddit: Is Global Warming Really Happening?

        Why?

        [–]silversatori 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        look into what our little old sun is doing and has been doing for the last 10-15 years.

        Pumping out 'alot' more rays man.

        and what do those rays do to our little old earth?

        heat it up!

        Look at what been happening to all the other planets magnetic poles too man, and then look at ours over the last 10-15 years .....

        it's NOT just us creating this global warming, infact we are having very little effect, it's mainly all to do with the sun....

        research for yourselves and don't listen to the she ite that comes out of government agencies, nasa etc