The next person to mention "global warming" gets a thump right in the eye

[fpb]

It's snowing heavily under a driving wind. Winter is back, and according to the weatherman it will be around for the next few days.

Comments

[filialucis]

I remember back in the late '70s or early '80s some scientists were predicting that we were headed for a new ice age because of human influences on the global climate...

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

And they still are.... Global Warming is the simple-minded media term which everyone seems to use, Climate Change is much more accurate. The warming effects of greenhouse gasses could lead to a mini ice-age for the northern hemisphere, or at least northern europe, if enough fresh water is driven into the north atlantic that the gulf-stream is switched off. The mini-ice age in Northern Europe in the 16th century may be an example of a period of cold following a swift warming in climate.

As far a 'global warming' is concerned, more warming = more energy in the atmosphere = more extreme weather.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Are you a scientist? Just curious.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I have a scientific/statistical background, but now work in financial Risk Management - more statistics.

I have read a lot on climate change, mainly to try to make some sort of sense of the terrible reporting on the subject in the media which simplifies everything down to sound bites. And also because I became interested when I helped a PhD student with his stats a few years ago. The process of accademic funding also has a lot to answer for here, but that is a subject for another day.

Truth is the only thing i've seen which most reputable scientists agree on is that man is having some impact on the climate, exactly what that impact will be and to what extent it will cause change seems to be less clear.

I would probably agree, generally, with Al Gore etc re. cleaning up our act regarding greenhouse gasses, which i'm guessing is not your position. (please excuse me if I am wrong) My reasoning being that since we are not totally sure what the impact on our climate of pollution will be it is better to be safe than sorry.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As a historian, I have a different take on climate change. I know that it happens. Three centuries ago, the Thames and the lagoon of Venice would freeze solid and the locals would hold fairs there. But then, in the time of the Roman Empire, vineyards grew as far as Northamptonshire (archaeology confirms this), which is further north than they do now. Which is why I have severe doubts about the anthropogenic hypothesis. More important still, the way that climate change is being met is both disingenuous and monstrously dangerous. It is disingenuous because politicians are using it to impose all sorts of measures, especially but not exclusively taxation, which would never pass except for the collective ghost that haunts the imagination. Disingenuous, too, because climate change is always presented exclusively as a looming catastrophe, without any positive side (e.g., what about a possible northwards extension of the grain-bearing area, which would further increase the already formidable food potential of North America, northern Europe and Russia?). Hideously dangerous, because it encourages all kinds of behaviours that discourage the development of the global south. For instance, the emerging concept of "carbon footprint" discourages the free export of foodstuffs from Africa and Latin America, for which African and Latin American politicians have been pressing for decades in vain. The last thing we need is to discourage the development of poor countries. IN the case of China and India, their clout is such that they cannot be prevented from doing what they want; and that is, in my view, good news all told (although I am greatly concerned at the rise of ultra-nationalism in both countries). But do we really want Africa and the poorer parts of Latin America and Asia to carry on as they are?

That does not mean that we should not be fighting pollution; but as a goal in itself, not as part of what I regard as a millienaristic, apocalyptic pseudo-religious ideology.

Bravo

[lametiger.livejournal.com]

I consider myself a sensible environmentalist. We do need to look for alternate energy sources for sound economic reasons. We do need to reduce smog for sound health reasons. We do need to decrease our dependency on disposable items. But IMO to put so much emphasis on the faulty "carbon footprint" issue encourages those who see the holes in the anthropogenic-global-warming scenario to discount the valid concerns about our environment. Your final paragraph speaks well to what I have tried to point out to others, that crying wolf about global warming can lead to greater apathy about the environment, especially if the warming trend reverses itself, as I have no doubt it will at some point. And BTW, why are fuel cells touted as being part of a solution to "global warming" by their proponents? They certainly will help with the smog issues if they can be perfected, but they do produce water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas in the proper sense of a gas that helps to reduce heat escape to outer space.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

BTW, the reason why I asked if you were a scientist is that your views immediately sounded both more nuanced and more knowledgeable than the kind of thing I usually come across. Even if I disagree with some extent, I want to make the point that I have a lot of respect for your views.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Appreciated Fabio.

I may be reaching here, but I think we both hate the way in which issues are trivialised and simplified in the press and popular culture. For me I hate the way many people support political parties the way they support football teams - without thought or reference to what they actually say....

[crinklequirk.livejournal.com]

http://williamcalvin.com/index.html

William H. Calvin bespeaks much of this whole issue, and a number of others, besides (including putting up online versions of his books, chapter by chapter, free for all to read - lovely!).

I came here via sartorias' journal, and since climate change is one of my things, I was grateful for stigandnasty919's response above. :)

Indeed, it is a complex question, and one which can and usually has happened quite abruptly (as in, within a decade, or less) before.

Humanity has, with the advent of the industrial age (generating major global warming mechanisms and changes), brought the entire Earth system up to the point of the next (I suspect major, sadly) Ice Age, and if we escape a major die-off of many species, then we'll be lucky.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind that the original post was not meant to be taken very seriously. (It never is when I threaten bodily violence!) It was largely a way to have a laugh at what has been a depressing and dreary spring (which is also costing me an awful lot of money in heating, much more than I had budgeted for). As a rule, I prefer not to have very firm opinions in field of which I have no knowledge.

[crinklequirk.livejournal.com]

Our weather here in Minnesota has been rather dreary of late, too - but that excess energy in the entire system (from the global warming, and in such things as the release of all that latent energy from the glacial meltwaters, among other things) - that excess energy does promote abrupt climate shifts, including the wacky weather we've been suffering through. Calvin actually talks about the "Little Ice Age" and its effects on the cultures in Europe - from bread riots to "witch" burnings, all because, hot or cold, the climates were just not stable. If it's stable, we can adapt to the new thing. But when it's not - that's a whole other ball of wax.

All I can say is, budget more for the basics, and reduce, re-use, and recycle, because it's going to get worse. :|


It's all interesting stuff - just scary, at times.