How does one explain global warming to people whose understanding of meteorology is limited to technology no greater than a weather rock?
I have not debated global warming (natural or anthropogenic) with people like this, but their argument against global warming generally runs like this: ‘This is the worst Winter we’ve had since I can remember! So much for “global warming”!’ And they mean it.
Is there a way, preferably using single syllables, to explain the interaction of (what appear to be to some people) small rises in the average global temperature, general meteorology, and other factors that result in specific weather in a region? That is, how does one explain that warmer weather in one part of the world will result in colder-than-normal temperatures where they are?
It’s colder this morning than it was yesterday afternoon, ergo, the Earth is cooling down!
Try to get them to switch off the term “global warming” and to “climate change.” Some places will get warmer, a few will get colder. (Northern Europe is in particular danger if the Gulf Stream gets messed up.) Point out that there is more energy in the system which makes extreme things more common. That includes blizzards and such.
There was an article in my paper last week about two German ships sailing from Europe to Korea via the fabled Canadian North West Passage. This was thought to be forever impossible for merchant shipping unless it was an ice breaker or nuclear submarine.
There is evidence both for and against GW (I currently feel the weight of evidence is against GW). But there are a few basic things to understand:
The most significant greenhouse gasses are: water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide. All those gasses absorb and scatter infrared light. Thus, they act as a “blanket.” Infrared is the primary way that heat energy escapes earth, and slowing the escape means that there will be a tendency for heat to build up.
As water vapor in the atmosphere increases, cloud cover increases, which reduces the amount of heat coming into the Earth (the so-called “thermostat effect”). It’s not entirely clear which effect dominates, but IMO GW is just not supported by the evidence.
I mention that map because recently Drudge and other sources of denial have used the record low temperatures in July for Chicago and the North East in the USA to say that Global Warming was false, and Drudge and others pointed to a blog from the same weather site.
(The owner of the blog had to add a note)
Now, when one looks at the early map, one can see how misleading colder-than-normal temperatures in a local area can be.
Well, after checking many serious sources and reviews from academia, I would say that most scientists do think that there is plenty of support for AGW, and they did not reach that consensus quickly or by coincidence.
Now, do we need to do something about it? What will be the results of that warming? Those are questions that still need to be researched and investigated. Until we find evidence that the natural sequestration of CO2 **will **keep up in the future with a good chunk of our emissions *, then the discussion IMHO should be to make modest efforts to limit emissions of CO2 and other GW gases, and to help the nations that could be affected the most to develop and be prepared when more serious changes come by the end of the century thanks to GW.
This missing sink, contrary to what some deniers have reported, was already taken into account in many of the projections and simulations, regardless of it being somewhere, the fact is that CO2 levels continue to rise.
As one researcher reported in a science blog, (paraphrasing) once we figure out where and how the “missing” sinks work, then scientists can advise people if modest efforts are just what is needed, or if we should be draconian if we want to have hope to control the situation, or if we should just give up and just work on minimizing the predicted effects.
I’d rather not get into the cause of global warming. I believe it’s anthropogenic, but it may be part of a natural cycle. Either way, it seems clear that the Earth is warming up.
GIGObuster: I’ll have to check out your links later, as I’m at work. Thanks for posting them.
1.) We can and have proven that CO[sub]2[/sub] causes a greenhouse effect.
2.) We know that interactions that cause one effect in controlled circumstances can cause a completely different effect in a complex system. For example, the condition known as lupus anticoagulant is called such because it acts as an anticoagulant in vitro, but *in vivo *(i.e., in an actual living human person), it acts in the complete opposite way: as a coagulant. (Fun side note: it’s not actually lupus, either.)
3.) Human beings have been dumping a shit-ton of CO[sub]2[/sub] (and other stuff) into the air since industrialization, and the climate is changing. It’s reasonable to assume that the two things are connected and not just correlated. Just because every square inch of the globe isn’t reacting the same way, or the way that might be predicted by small-scale experiments that can’t hope to remotely approach the level of complexity of our actual climate, doesn’t mean we aren’t changing things.
Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic is irrelevant to the OP. The OP should point out that you have to look at it over the long term. And by that I mean in multiple decades and centuries. Only a few hundred years ago, we had the end of the Little Ice Age, when temperatures were much colder than they are now. And a few hundred years before that we had the end of the Medieval Warm Period. The OP should also point out that one cold snap does not mean much by itself, nor does one mild winter - nor one severe winter - but a succession of such over decades is significant.
Actually, no it isn’t a reasonable assumption. It’s reasonable to suspect a link, but to assume a link is most certainly not reasonable and contrary to science.
You nail it on the head, Quartz. When I first saw the surface level of evidence, my eyebrows went up. But the more I investigate the data, the more I conclude that the evidence favors that the Earth simply isn’t warming.
This is similar (but opposite) to my experience with looking into Evolution for instance. I grew up with many people of the young-Earth creationism bent. The more I looked into Evolution, the more evidence I found in favor of it (and that continues to grow with DNA, molecular evidence, more transitional forms, etc.).
In the case of warming, we have data that is suspect (surface stations as I mentioned) a model that isn’t confirmed IMO (the atmospheric profile of heat doesn’t match what is predicted by a warming blanket), and the computer models I’ve seen can’t predict the current climate based on historical methods (and don’t take cooling models into account).
The failure of the hypothesis to make predictions that have been confirmed is why I reject the hypothesis, and the cagey nature of those who hold the data (refusing it to release it, hiding it once it’s found, etc.) means I don’t trust them, and when I look at the data I can find doesn’t support the conclusion.
History shows that it took a long time for many scientists to find out that indeed CO2 and other greenhouse gases were an issue.
In the 40’s guys like Callendar proposed that there was evidence that GW was going to be a problem, but most scientists found Callendar’s calculations to be flawed, after they finished with him there was nothing left but the feathers.
However, thanks to the cold war in the 50’s, we got evidence that showed that Callendar was onto something.
Well, IMO you are confusing very localized events with global ones, just like in the example of the cool temperatures during July in the north east of the USA.
IMHO Humanity, the fetal child in the womb of mother earth thinks, in all our ‘wisdom’, that we can actually do better trying to figure our things on our own then depend on our mother earth and our Heavenly Father who created everything in absolute perfection. As such we have cut ourselves off from our mother, trying to recycle our own waste, and trying to reclaim our own respiration, something we were never designed to do, and something our mother is well equipped to deal with. As such we, the fetal child of mother earth, is running a fever.