Global Warming: A Refresher Course

Global warming is the talk of the town today, what with Al Gore making the pronouncement that the tragedy in Myanmar is a direct effect of global warming. In an interview on NPR, Al Gore said:

"And as we're talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated. And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."

John McCain also announced his plans to tackle global warming, citing free-marking principles as a possible solution.

And lastly, and most definitely most importantly, Polar Bears have officially been declared a protected species.

And so, to prepare you for all your upcoming global warming dinner-party debates, and because (haven't you heard?!) the icebergs are melting, here is your official Huffington Post Global Warming Refresher Course.

Let's start small. What exactly is global warming?

Seriously? Did you skip (and/or fail) 5th grade? But then again, maybe the answer isn't that simple. According to the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) kid's site, global warming is the literal warming of the earth by 1 degree Farenheit over the last 100 years. The flip side to that coin is that global warming is a farce.

Let's assume it's real -- it never hurts to be prepared -- and the earth is slowly warming. What's going to happen?

The easy way to answer that question is to watch this movie. Or, if you're a little more of the "but how does that affect me?" type person, then you can check out this list of Top 100 slightly-more-everyday effects of global warming. A teaser: Say goodbye to your favorite French wine.

What?! I can't live without my '98 Chateau Neuf-du-Pape! What can I do to stop it?!

First, read every one of Huffington Post contributor Olivia Zaleski's posts. The lady knows what she's talking about on everything from bottled water to the art of dumpster diving. She'll have you greening up your Easter before you can say, "Happy Earth Day!"

And for those of you who are more visual learners, here is the "Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See":

So, what do you think? Can you find a flaw in his argument? Is there anything you want to add to the course? Share your tips and thoughts below!

Comments

[TimmySlagle]

Okay Moderators, this post SPECIFICALLY asks:

Can you find a flaw in his argument?

I did. I found three. And posted them. They were up about a day, before you deleted them. Was "Can you find a flaw" a rhetorical question?

Pretty easy to win an argument, when you refuse to listen to the rebuttals

[RTIII]

...I've been saying something like this to everyone who would listen for about three our four years now:

"A few weeks ago, NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several coauthors. The abstract attached to it argued -- and I have never read stronger language in a scientific paper -- that "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-mckibben11-2008may11%2c0%2c2392815.story

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

[TimmySlagle]

So where's the paper?

Did Science publish it yet?

I don't think I've ever seen such a grand press release, anouncing a "submitted" paper before. Usually when scientists are submitting something, they do it quietly, because if it doesn't stand up to peer review, it never gets published.

Talk about arrogance!

[eredux]

Check this US Energy Consumption Map out, interactive Carbon Footprint maps and charts, illustrating the Greenest United States.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[RTIII]

(part II)

Note the EPA (cited above) does not perform earth science AT ALL. It wouldn't surprise me they would get their numbers off, especially for a children's site. Also, the EPA is the most politicized department since George Bush took office in 2001, though the public should know Bush ordered ALL public agencies to stop being open to the public and has forced ALL public releases to pass through his office wherein the releases are altered to meet his agenda(s). In short, what scientists know is being kept from the public. To get the real scoop, you MUST get into the real science - as if you were a scientist - because this is the only area where Bush cannot effectively stop the communication.

People can expect; rising sea levels by 30 feet and more (with all the change that would entail, like the disappearance of Florida) in, oh, my crystal ball says less than 30 years, though NO ONE CAN TELL YOU. ...At JPL at a meeting of the Global Ice Scientists for their semi-annual meeting. Nevermind the detail; at the end of it there was a heated debate on the TIMELINE of sea level rise - NOBODY thought there would be less than 30 feet of rise "soon" (the highest estimate being 120 feet), but the timeline of "soon" was argued eloquently by two distinguished, long-standing researchers and it was decided: 10 days or 100 years are both possible.

...I could go on.

RT

[TimmySlagle]

"10 days or 100 years are both possible."

I actually heard it was more like 1000.

It is my understanding, that according to the IPCC consensus, the ocean rise is about 23 inches by 2100.

[RTIII]

Well, I was in the room...

There's a feed-back mechanism wherein the Ross Ice Shelf, in particular, could collapse into the ocean in "the blink of an eye." Whenever ice that's on land enters the sea (directly or by melting), it causes sea level rise. There's also a larger amount of ice on coastlines that melts when sea level rises. ...Without writing a paper here, the short of it is that we don't presently have a way to determine how long many of the sea level changes of the past took to occur down to a resolution that's useful in our present situation. In virtually all cases of which we are aware, if an event took ten days or a several hundred years, we couldn't tell the difference from what we can see now.

I should point out that the IPCC isn't really the best body to look to for rate of sea level rise information or predictions because they are too broad of a group in terms of disciplines. The IPCC includes people studying atmosphere, oceans, and a host of other disciplines, for example those who study anerobic bacteria. You need to look to the real experts who who know about the ice - where the water comes from that will do all the sea level rising - which is why I talked specifically about GLOBAL ICE researchers.

RT

[RTIII]

Hi TimmySlagle,

Well, I haven't worked with Andrew Monaghan, but I did once share a research grant with one of his immediate colleagues. I'm not familliar with Monaghan's work in particular, and it looks new, but I have a few comments.

First, this guy STILL isn't an ice researcher. Not that this invalidates his research, it's just that he's one of the atmospheric guys.

Secondly, the article stated estimates from an ("The") Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and therein lies the rub: Governments - our government in particular - are actively trying to hide the truth. THEY are NOT to be listened to! Further NSF and DOE are exceptionally thoroughly politicized, the latter being heavily "Republicanized" through its connections with the Military Industrial Complex.

Regards,
RT

[RTIII]

OMFG....

Well, lets start at the beginning. First, credential: I'm Chief Scientist of an organization I founded 11 years ago to serve the needs of the earth science community. Prior to that, I received grants and performed multidisciplinary earth science research for about four years at a major university. (I'm leaving names out so I can state my own political opinions without involving these organizations.)

FROM THE TOP: We scientists talk primarily about GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE as the key issue. So called "Global Warming" isn't particularly global - most of the change is happening at the poles - but it is this warming which is the driving force behind GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. For the record, I believe that the above is wrong; in the last hundred years, we've seen something more like a 0.76 degree C change (or something close to that), and the 1 degree number would be about the change from a hundred and fifty years ago or thereabouts. ... That notwithstanding, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE _is_ happening and is very well documented - there is no debate about it. Some places are becoming wetter, some dryer, some hotter, some colder, etc. There are several thousand variables which impact climate in any particular spot, and all of these are in flux.

(end part 1)

[noneIn2008]

We are not picking between two choices. We need to place bets among a number of different scenarios. Money spent on warming is money that could be spent on food, water, AIDS, etc. We lose over 50 million people per year due to bad water.

The probabilistic scenarios have been run. The answer is balance spending across the more immediate needs like better water. The World Health Organization, international associations of scientists, international associations of economists and other think tanks have probabilistically prioritized a number of issues and global warming comes out 9th, NINTH

Making it a choice between only two alternative then stating the risk of not acting is old poor logic, you know this.

What is the worst that can happen?
The poles are ready for the 22,00 year switch?
Yellowstone goes up every 600,000 years. It is about time +/- a few 100,000. This will freeze the earth for 10,000 + years and kill most people.
We could get hit by another 30 mile comment that destroyed 90% of life.

[HeevenSteven]

It's not false choice. There are good reasons to believe the worst case scenario is very plausible; therefore action to avoid it are prudent. You could die before you retire, but you may like to 100 so it's prudent to invest for the future. The wise always invest and take steps to avoid a worst case scenario.

[RTIII]

...30 mile comments are pretty rare, especially here on HufPo where we're limited to 250 words!

[MGhamma]

Hahahahaha. Nice one. Though I've read some comets here that seem 30 miles long.