"Smoking gun" proves global warming exists?

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies has released findings that scientist/journalist Michio Kaku calls the “smoking gun” that finally proves global climate change is taking place. From http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/:

Does this settle the question once and for all? Or is it still possible to have reasonable doubt as to whether global climate change is taking place?

Furthermore, do these findings establish that global climate change is anthropogenic? I’m not clear on how they rule out the possibility that the observed warming is part of a natural cycle that would have followed the same schedule if the human race had never evolved.

I don’t think it settles it once and for all, but its certainly another piece of the puzzle. I don’t think we still have enough data, especially long term data, to completely accurately model the earths climate and make accurate predictions…and until and unless we do, there will always be questions.

Well, thats the kicker isn’t it…and what you are really driving at. The answer is the same as the above…we don’t have enough data yet, though there are indications that point to the strong possibility that humans are at least partially the cause…if indeed we are in a major climate shift. Of course, there have been wide ranges of climate shift in the earths past that happened without humans being around at all.

-XT

Well, xtisme, my question to you is: How do you know that we don’t have enough data, or how much will be enough? Your reply seems like the pat response of any of the people who have an interest in deferring the obvious conclusion. Here, in this case, the researchers have 10 years of data, and their conclusions are in accord with what I understand to be at least dozens, if not hundreds, of other studies and observations.

So why is it insufficient, and when will it be sufficient?

There doesn’t need to be a smoking gun in this case. The scientific community has long known and accepted the fact that the world is warming up.

I dunno. How many people actually still believe that global warming isn’t an observed and provable phenomenon? I really don’t think there are all that many. It’s the cause of the phenomenon that’s so hotly (heh) contested, isn’t it? And 125 years isn’t really enough, in my opinion, to place the bulk of the blame on manmade atmospheric pollutants - such as CO[sub]2[/sub]. Especially when the period you’re trying to draw a conclusion from (which is essentially the industrial revolution) is the only period for which we have concrete data. It simply can’t be compared to anything else to see if the warming trend we’re currently experiencing is unique.

Thats all true…but a sample size of 10 years is pretty scant when talking about the climate on a world wide scale. While I make no claims to being an expert on this subject, from what I recall it would take a much larger sample size to be able to accurately model the earths weather patterns and climate and make the kind of firm predictions that this statement indicates: “Does this settle the question once and for all?”

If I’m wrong and the general consensus of the experts in the various fields touching on this subject is that 10 years is plenty of data to make such a strong statement that this subject has been put to rest, i.e. ‘settled once and for all’ then I encourage you to post some cites of said consensus of scientists and fight my ignorance.

When I see a majority consensus across the board in the various sciences effected, and not a continued split and continued debate over the issues Hentor. As I’m not an expert on the subject, I have to basically follow along with those folks who ARE the experts. Afaik, the last time I dipped (admittedly its been a while) more deeply into this subject, the experts were divided on such key questions as A) Is a major climate shift coming or already here, B) What exactly does that mean, what possible range of effects can we expect, C) What are the causes of such a shift if its happening, D) Is human behavior the over all driving force behind a potential climate shift and E) Is there anything humans can realistically do to ‘fix’ the problem.

Perhaps you are an expert on the climate Hentor, or perhaps you play one on TV…I make no such claims. If you have evidence that a large majority of scientists have come to a consensus over these issues and that I’m simply in denial I will re-evaluate my position on this subject.

-XT

To me, the debate is really “Do we have enough evidence to affect public policy?”

The evidence for manmade global warming has consistently mounted. While I encourage doubt and debate in the scientific process down to the last iota of a possibility, there seems to be plenty enough evidence to take precautionary measures.

Depends entirely on the “precautionary measures” proposed.

Most of the data I have seen shows that the earth has warmed as solar activity has increased, and that the relationship is linear.

If manmade concentrations of greenhouse gases were a culprit, you would expect to see a multiplier effect when in fact there is not one present.

For a vivid illustration of this, please note the graph at the top of this page.

this just in. “Cavemen” report global warming, glaciers melting, life on earth to end shortly.

This report replaces reports from 10K years previous that report global cooling… glaciers growing, formerly lovely caves now uninhabitable… tragedy! Life on earth to end shortly.

Personally, I think we just don’t know enough yet. Once we can get real measurements from the distant past, I might buy into it. I personally think the earth is too good at changing for us to have a real impact on it in the long term. Perhaps we can slightly increase a rate of change, but the system will swing into balance as it has in the past.

-Butler

Not so. The ice shield over Greenland is almost two miles thick and records climatic events going back 130,000 years. Core samples taken and analyzed since 1996 have given scientists new levels of knowledge about pre-industrial climate cycles. See http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm.

Thanks for the link Mr. Moto! I wanted to post something from that link and discuss it briefly:

This is kind of what I was getting at and how I remembered the debate from my own time in college. Basically how I remembered things was that there were various theories that ran the gamit from ‘global warming’ to ‘a new ice age’…but each always cavioted with something like ‘we just don’t have sufficient data yet to properly model an entire world to make fixed predictions as to what exactly is going on and what it means’.

-XT

Question really isn’t “is there currently some good evidence of global warming?” but rather:

  1. How long term is it?

  2. is it part of a natural cycle?

  3. What is causing it?

  4. Are humans having a significant part in the cause- whatever it may be?

  5. Is there anything we can really do to stop our part?

  6. If one nation, or even half the nations, try and cut back- will it do any good if the others just keep on spewing?

Hmmm. Interesting link. Lemme take some time to digest that and then I’l have more to say. Thanks for posting it.

Well the devil is in the details isn’t it?

My impression from talking to scientists has been that the earth is a complex system and the doubts can pretty much always be raised, but that most scientists involved tend to believe that the evidence is about as sound as you can get.

As far as I’m concerned the stance of demanding absolute proof is absurd because it can’t be met until things are too late. Personally at this point, the evidence is such that I demand absolute proof that it isn’t happening.

James Howard Kunstler discusses the Greenland core sample findings in chapter 5 of his new book, The Long Emergency (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116965793/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-7269971-7884801?v=glance&s=books&n=507846):

He goes on to emphasize that “global climate change” is a preferable name for this phenomenon, because “global warming” might not have a net warming effect everywhere. For instance, Western Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream, which is driven by a temperature differential itself based on a salinity differential between the waters of the North Atlantic and the Middle Atlantic. If global warming led to melting ice in the North Atlantic, and that changed the salinity of the water significantly, that might put an end to the Gulf Stream or redirect it – and Western Europe would grow as cold as Labrador. (Bear in mind that Rome is at roughly the same latitude as New York City; it’s only the Gulf Stream that makes it warmer.)

Should be easy then to provide me with a cite that there is a majority consensus among scientists of various fields that this is taking place and that humans are the cause. That is, if you have spoken to a representative sampling of scientists in the various effected fields when you talk about it in the above quote. I’m just skeptical by nature so I need at least something thats not anecdotal. So that you don’t think I’m loading the deck here, I’ll accept a similar consensus as the majority of scientists in various fields have reguarding Evolution…and dismiss similar disention that some fringe scientists have reguarding Evolution or put forth in reguards to ID or similar creation type ‘science’.

If this is directed at me, I’m not ‘demanding absolute proof’…I’ll be quite content with my request for a cite that the majority consensus is what you are saying and that there is no serious (and qualified) opposition to this point of view from the scientific community. Personally, at this point, I think that there IS no such consensus, and that doing anything would be going off half cocked without sufficient data to ensure that what we were doing is A) Helpful at all, B) Worth whatever sacrifices are called for, C) Wouldn’t make matters worse instead of better…law of unintended consequences and all that.

-XT

For the smoking gun to have any impact, you would first have to find someone who even listens to scientists. Or even moreover, give that “Science” stuff any weight whatsoever.

Heh. And we ain’t likely to find that person in this particular administration. Shoulda appointed Bob Park as science advisor.

Considering the fact there approximately 1,500 pounds of menthane producing termites per person on this planet, I find it odd they were omitted from a list that only includes agriculture, swamp decay & tundra thawing.