OPINION & EDITORIAL
Climate change more than warming
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Kohl ought to follow Feingold (April 13, 2007)
- BH mischaracterizes FACT, climate effects (October 26, 2006)
- Don't despair for global warming (February 13, 2007)
- Herald comic strip offensive (December 5, 2006)
- Ald. King combats warming (March 12, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, February 16, 2007
Dear Editor,
First of all I would like to thank Monty Rohde for his comic in Wednesday's Badger Herald. I too have become increasingly frustrated with peoples use of horribly illogical arguments such as, Wisconsin can get a bit chilly to refute the facts of Global Warming. As a sophomore and a new student this semester, after spending the past year working in Florida with AmeriCorps, this cold does take some getting used to again. Yet we cannot ignore what is happening to our environment and we must start taking responsibility for our actions.
In January of 06 I left UW-LaCrosse to join AmeriCorps and work for the Florida Park Service. I learned first hand how we are destroying our environment and all of the wonderful creatures that inhabit it. Many times during my service I felt completely helpless and frustrated with the amount of ignorance in light of all the evidence supporting global warming. Upon my return to school, I hoped to find people who are more aware of their actions because they are better educated about the effects of wastefulness. I am sorely disappointed to see the neglect of energy management on campus. I have found that even simple tasks like turning out the lights or turning off computers when they aren't being used is overlooked all over campus.
Also, in response to Ryan Hill's article about Teach for America; AmeriCorps; Peacecorps, and Student Conservation Association are all excellent ways for college students to make a huge impact, whether it is in fields of environment, education, or housing. I want to make sure that all students here at Madison know that they can make a difference even if a large time commitment is not your thing. Campus organizations such as WISPRIG run several campaigns that need serious campus interest, support, and help. Even just a few hours a week of volunteering, talking to your friends about societies needs, or turning off your lights can make a huge difference.
Sincerely,
Tony Uhl Sophomore B.A. History/Environmental Studies
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 6:36am):
Actually, Rohde also stated in his cartoon that January was very warm... so he used the same argument he was trying to counter (he is not a scientist, so what does he know?). But that is not why I am writing this.
I am not going to attempt to debunk the concept of global climate change (it may have changed over the last 50-100 years). I do, however, question the chicken littles of the world who claim we are responsible (and I am one who has the potential to benefit greatly if people think we cause it, but I am not going to succumb to the temptation of profiting from ignorance like most that have made this a political issue).
Fact number 1, there is not even 100 years worth of reliable temperature and climate data to draw a conclusion (actually, there is really only about 30-40 years of good oceanographic data). Considering the Earth is billions of years old and humanlike creatures have inhabited the Earth for at least a million years, we have very little data. Fact number 2, the Earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling in the past. Ice covered the state of WI for centuries, what is responsible for those ice caps receding? The Geico cave man did not have an SUV. As correctly pointed out, Greenland used to be, as the name implies, green (in other words, it was more temperate). Now since glaciers do not melt in a day, so it would take many years of warmer than current temperatures to have the end result (this, BTW, was during what is called the Medieval Warming Period which has been discarded by chicken little because it could not have been caused by man).
So what can cause warming? Or (since warming is no longer the correct term) climate change? The sun? Considering there has been increased solar activity since this most recent warming trend started (see Martian polar ice caps shrinking), that may be having an effect on Earth. How about heat internal to the Earth. Recently there have been discoveries of many more new geothermal heat sources on the bottom of the ocean which could quite easily contribute to warming (the oceans have a huge effect on climate). There are many more viable possibilities as well, but they are discarded by those who wish to gain political power through man made warming.
I know, you will say CO2 proves man is responsible. Not so fast. CO2 is a gas that is soluble in water. As water temp increases, the CO2 will come out of solution. Anyone with a lick of chemistry should know this (but ignores it if you believe in man made global climate change). If the oceans warm up, no matter what the means (geothermal or solar), there is going to be an increase in atmospheric CO2. So now, which came first, the warmth or the CO2?
Finally, anyone with a scientific background knows, if one goes in with a preconceived notion as to the outcome, the outcome can be skewed. If I create a computer model that predicts temps will increase as CO2 increases (without taking into account other contributors), of course the models will show doom and gloom if one assumes CO2 is the only variable and man is the main contributor.
Man made Global Climate Change (the name was changed because warming just wasn't cutting it) is little more than a political scare to give more power to various political groups. I hope someone writes a piece on the politics of climate change, because that is really what the issue is.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 7:47am):
Why, when temps are above average (locally), do the climate changers decry global warming, but when it is colder than normal, they say the world temp as a whole is the consideration?
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 8:01am):
Tony, let me get this straight, you went to Florida and discovered warmer temperatures; therefore, global warming is real?
Newsflash: as you move closer to the equator, temperatures increase.
Perhaps you should join Americorps in Alaska to "prove" global cooling.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 9:32am):
Many of the people who post comments on this site should actually read about the data and the science (and post references themselves):
"Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 -- 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960 -- 2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates."
- From page 2 of
"Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
So Anonymous 6:36am, you say "not even 100 years worth of reliable temperature and climate data," but what about methods that use ice cores?
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 9:37am):
Better global warming than giant sheets of ice over everything.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 10:15am):
6:36AM commentator. you are my hero.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 10:43am):
Can anyone explain to me why it would be bad to limit our footprint on the earth? Even if "climate change" isn't entirely our doing, why are you people getting so angry just at the mere notion of protecting our most prescious asset? Just because we aren't the sole cause we have to go out of our way to continue our wasteful, thoughtless ways? I just don't get the anger spewing forth.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 10:51am):
Acid rain isn't man made either.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:22am):
First off, 9:32, the IPCC is not a scientific group, they are a political group sanctioned by the UN using only research that supports their preconceived notions. The reference you cite proves nothing. As a matter of fact, you did point out that we really only have 46 years of actual atmospheric (not derived) CO2 data. Thank you so much for making my point!
Ice cores... perhaps they do contain information regarding CO2 concentration, however, they DO NOT show global temperatures. The further back you glean data, the more uncertainty in the values. The ice cores DO NOT prove whether CO2 is caused by warming oceans or if CO2 causes warmer temperatures.
IF CO2 is the only thing that causes warming (as evidenced by your political ice cores), how is then that, at least at one time, the northern hemisphere was more temperate than now? If not CO2, what? If you want, I can continue to rip your ice cores to shreds, it is quite easy with just minimal scientific knowledge (you should have learned this in high school science class).
Please note, that I did agree that it appears as though temperatures now are probably a bit warmer than they were 100 years ago when we started to actually measure and record temperatures with reasonable instrumentation. I only disagree as to what is causing it. Please show me a study that has concluded that overall atmospheric CO2 concentration causes warming rather than is a result of ocean warming. The IPCC has not considered this (they do not want to) nor do those who use this topic as a political tool.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:34am):
Now, I'm not a scientist, and don't claim to be. But for those of you who saw the Daily Show a few days ago, you know that a nearly iddentical scientific consensus 30-35 years ago thought there was global COOLING that human industry was creating.
Perhaps environmentalists are just the sorts of scientists who go into their work believing that there must be human causes to changes that they notice. From the environmentalists I know, it wouldn't be a shock.
Now, there is nothing wrong with shrinking or "ecological footprint" or whatever you want to call it, but that's sheerly from an economic standpoint. Turn down the heat a few degrees, turn off a light when you aren't using it, or a corporation making the machines in its factory more energy efficient saves money and will make the resources we have last longer. An argument for other, cleaner fuel sources still exists. Developing fuel sources that would not depend so heavily on oil could reduce costs and definitely would reduce our dependence on OPEC.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:47am):
Tempuratures are STILL not warm enough to farm in Greenland, like they were over a thousand years ago. It has been independently proven to general satisfaction that Greenland was settled by Vikings around 970, a settlement which lasted until the fifteenth century WHEN IT STARTED TO GET MUCH COLDER, to cold to grow food!!!!!!!!!!!
No vine growing in Vinland yet either.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:48am):
10:43 we are limiting our footprint. In the past 30+ years the US has reduced emissions significantly and continue to do so on a daily basis. Meanwhile, many "developing" countries spew out much more in an uncontrolled fashion. Yet, the UN and other bodies (IPCC) wish to further punish those trying to clean up their act and allow those with no intention of cleaning up getting away with it (thus the politics of it).
We do not get angry at the concern, we get angry with the politics. We get angry with the tactics (shut the opposition up at all costs), we get angry when the world body wishes to impose the most harm on one of the few countries that has actually taken a stand on emissions and has worked to reduce them (ever get behind a 1977 Nova, now that smells) while letting the bigger offenders get away with it.
Oh, and 10:51, it can be proven with general chemistry (that you should have learned in high school) that if you have nitrous and sulfurous emissions, when combined with water, form acids, so your sarcasm is totally unfounded. Before you make a fool of yourself, take a look at the requirements already in place that have reduced those emissions considerably.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 11:54am):
I thought aerosol propellants were going to cause the downfall of humanity. Please, fear machine, give me something solid to be scared of.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 12:26pm):
11:32, while I get the feeling we may disagree on some things, I could not agree with you more on what we should do.
Turn down the heat (we live with the winter temp at 65 degrees), use energy efficient products (they do exist, more so in the US than anywhere else), walk or ride a bike, don't go to the store daily, plan ahead, keep your car tuned up, don't fly in private jets (this is to the elites who wish to tell everyone else how to live while they do not do it). Why? Do it for your wallet! Even if man made climate change is a crock, there is nothing wrong with becoming more efficient! Think of all the beer money you can save if you cut back your energy usage (that which you pay for) 10%, 15%. That could be a pitcher or more a month!!
Fear not, though, no matter how much you conserve, no matter what happens, it will not be good enough in the eyes of the climate change crowd until privately owned U.S. industry is brought to a standstill by regulations imposed by the government.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 1:22pm):
What about Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa? These nations are not obliged to limit their greenhouse gas emissions under Kyoto.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 2:13pm):
Dear Anonymous @ 11:22am,
> "As a matter of fact, you did point out that we really only have 46 years of actual atmospheric (not derived) CO2 data."
Yes, the data is "derived"
The ages of fossils are "derived," (by carbon dating, rock layers...)
the distance to stars and galaxies are "derived," (by paralax, redshift...)
the molecular content of the sun is "derived," (by spectral lines...)
and yes, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from thousands of years ago can be "derived" by measuring the gas conent of bubbles that became trapped in the ice at that time.
"Derived" information is common, useful, and accurate because thanks to statistics, bounds on errors can be placed.
And if you want direct access to ice core data, rather than an inter-governmental panel of hundreds of scientists, then go to
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 2:22pm):
When they analyzed the ice core samples, did they take year by year samples for 650,000 years or did they take averages that cover a long period of time? FYI, it would be impossible to narrow a sample down a 100 year period dating back that far, let alone year by year to establish a trend. Anything (if anything) that can be gleaned from the data would be highly suspect, considering the CO2 is a gas and is not solid at surface temperatures and pressures, thus it will leach out over time and provide lower and lower CO2 concentrations than actual. And still, ice cores are NOT INDICATIVE of global temperatures!
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 3:38pm):
A bunch of arguments regurgitated from some paid think tank's website, or merely stripped and posted. These arguments are so broad and weak there is no sense in even trying to argue. Pat yourself on the back and be gloat over your victory. I'm not going to argue with someone who doesn't think they can be proven wrong.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 5:38pm):
3:38, huh? So you are saying all the questions (note, they are not arguements, they are questions that have not been answered) were pulled from think tank sites? You mean those who did the work the IPCC used were not paid? That is a real shame.
I am not saying I am right or wrong, I am saying ASK QUESTIONS!! If something does not sound right, look at it, do not take things for granted just because your favorite politician, actor, whatever is in favor of it. They do nothing more than use the data that supports their cause at the time.
If an ailing university did a study that discovered college educated people live longer and concluded that a college education lengthened a life, would you question the conclusion (you could argue college educated people are more health concious and take care of themselves more than those without)? How about if there was s study that showed more single mothers got pregnant when they were drunk and concluded that alcohol makes you more fertile, would you question that logic? Of course you would.
Then why on Earth would you take something like this at face value when there are so many questions unanswered.
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 5:59pm):
You are correct, fossil ages are derived to within several thousand years (not real accurate, but accurate enough for the purpose).
The point is measured data is much much more reliable than derived data which has more uncertainty the farther back you go. As stated, ice cores are not indicative of world temperatures. There is evidence that there were warmer time periods, if the warmer climate was not caused by CO2, what caused it??? Doesn't anyone think the current increased solar activity, or possibly increased geothermal warming of the oceans could have any impact on climate?
Oh, 3:38, to once again reiterate, I am stand to benefit VERY MUCH from the global climate change scare, so in reality, I am potentially harming my future asking such questions. So keep up the scare tactics, but I will never let anyone stop me from asking questions and I will never settle for the word of a politician or a think tank until they can answer all the questions. Can you say the same?
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 6:34pm):
We know man did not cause the extreme climate changes over the first 4 billion years of the planet, how can we say we are causing it now?
With all the recent threats of job losses and denied funding that has taken place lately for those who question climate change, how can anyone say only the "deniers" are part of paid think tanks?
Anonymous (February 16, 2007 @ 7:17pm):
15+ comments about global warming...wow UW is full of hippies...
Anonymous (February 17, 2007 @ 12:56pm):
5:59pm,
"measured data is much much more reliable than derived data"
As was pointed out before, there are many things for which we cannot possibly hope to ever have direct measurements of (molecular content of gas around stars, age of fossils, etc...)
But whether data is a direct measurement or derived data, error bars can always be placed on measurements - usually corresponding to one standard deviation of uncertainty.
I recommend going to
http://www.nature.com/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/
and doing a search on "Ice Core Records" or "CO2 concentrations" and you can see directly the graphs with data points and error bars. And you'll see that, indeed, many measurements confirm that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not exceeded 300 ppm anytime within the last several-hundred thousand years...until now.
As to your other point, again, ice core data shows that atmospheric increases in CO2 concentrations precede global temperature increases.
Anonymous (February 18, 2007 @ 12:15pm):
11 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since 1995. If the climate continues changing at the rate it has been, we won't be able to grow corn in the Midwest in 100 years, and maple syrup will no longer be made in New England in 50 years. That might not matter to some of you because you figure you won't live long enough for it to affect you, but that's a stupid, selfish attitude, and your children will have to deal with the mess you've made.
Anonymous (February 18, 2007 @ 2:19pm):
11 of the 15 hottest years on record... note, records of actual temperatures started in about 1871, and those are US temps, not global, therefore, there is not much of a record. Recall, glaciers took thousands of years to receed, if you took a 100 year chunk of the time, you could say the same thing (in other words, that is a poor point).
Regarding ice cores, they still do not record actual temps. The time when Greenland was green is one time in history where the CO2 thesis is out to lunch, thus it has been disgarded from the current "evidence".
Finally, we worry about something that is quite probably cyclic and that we can do nothing about, yet, when it comes to a known threat (those who would love to get "the bomb" and blow us into oblivion), we dilly dally, try to fight a war politically (not let the military WIN). I say, if we are not going to try to win the war on terror (let politics dictate) then what is the point of caring about green house gases?
Anonymous (February 18, 2007 @ 2:45pm):
Who said things did not appear to be warming? I don't think anyone did. The cause is what is in question.
There is greater solar activity now, that could easily be a contributor (and more than likely is based on shrinking Martian ice caps). There is nothing we can do about solar activity.
There is more than expected (but hard to say an increase because we have very little data from the depths where it is being found) in oceanographic geothermal activity.
The greatest theory (and I have doubts on this being the whole cause, but perhaps contributing) is that as ice form at the poles, pressure is placed on the poles (makes some sense). This localized pressure is felt internally and needs to be relieved. It is done so in may places, but the deep oceans are a place for such relief. More geothermal heating means ocean heating means world heating and, more importantly, odd weather patterns. And the great thing about it, it explains the heating and cooling cycles since the beginning of time.
Anonymous (February 18, 2007 @ 4:59pm):
"11 of the 15 hottest years on record have been since 1995."
Did that 'record' include the centuries when the Vikings were farming in Greenland?
Anonymous (February 21, 2007 @ 7:21pm):
This type of crap is like saying we're entering another Ice Age because of the sleet that fell during finals week last spring.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
