Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Topic: Science articles in newspapers
July 17, 2019 / By Brooke Question:
Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?
Best Answers: Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Alivia | 2 days ago
Part of the problem with vastly different predictions is the source.
As I read the professional scientifc literature on this subject there does not seem to be a great seal of variability in the predicitons.
Where I see the most variability in is articles in the popular press.
The articles in the popular press are often written by people with very limited backgrounds in science. In some cases it appears that the author has misunderstood material that they have read in the professional literature.
In other cases it appears that the author has deliberately exaggerrated the findings of the professional literature to make a more exciting or alarming story.
This is a good way to sell magazines and newspapers, however it provides information that is misleading at best and adds to the impressionm among many people that they are being "conned".
If we could make the professional literature more widely available rather than summaries written by people who often do not know what they are talking about or are trying to exaggerate the material to make a more attention getting story we would have more accurate information, less hysteria and better policy making.
👍 232 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Science articles in newspapers
Originally Answered: Large scale global study shows a massive 50% gap in man made CO2 global warming theory?
According to your cut and paste we may be in real trouble due to feedbacks and tipping points.
If you think that the temperature rise 55 million years ago was significant, notice that it said "Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years". If the earth warmed then at the rate it is rising today and that rise continued for 10 k years, the average temperature increase would not have reached 7 degrees Celsius but rather 74 degrees Celsius.
In comparison, the rise we have seen over the past one hundred years is happening at about one hundred times faster than the rise between the Palaeocene and the Eocene and we have yet to see any of the expected tipping points.
Edit: Perhaps it would help if you read the source document. If you have the capacity to understand it, of course.
Edit: "Did you read it"
Yes and I also read the source documents.
"If the temperature reconstructions are correct, then feedbacks and/or forcings other than atmospheric CO2 caused a major portion of the PETM warming."
Meaning the temperature rise cannot be explained simply by changes in radiative forcings caused by changes of with of CO2 in the atmosphere and indeed other feedbacks and forcings must have come into play. In short what the paper is telling us is if we don't get the feedbacks correct and act on our quickly changing climate we could find ourselves very surprised and quickly screwed.
We simply can't look back fifty five million years to determine our future climate. Due to factors such as plate tectonics, much has changed and we simply are unable to rely on uniformitarianism to give us the right answers.
If you actually read it, you obviously didn't understand it.
because there are so many different motives behind what is being published,
In Portugal by the way, Roman villas are on the bottom of the sea a mile out, so water has been rising for a while
but seashells are found at high altitudes so it has been a lot higher before
Global Warming appears more true than NOT.
There are Natural fazes but we are affecting that to a great extent ,with deforestation ,desertification and pollution., especially air pollution.
A few weeks ago one of NASA's top scientists concluded that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free within five years, much faster than all previous predictions.
Calculations do not include the accumulative ,speeding up ,factor with time. the increase in water temperature will get faster all the time as well as the melting, when the ice is all gone the deeper cold Ocean currents will stop ,and the drag has gone with it ,also changing the higher warm currents,And only the moon will keep things moving
This will affect coastal climates ,world wide ,almost instantly. All aquatic flora and fauna will be affected,many dying off and others becoming invasive,
Recently In Chiapas ,and Tabasco in Mexico .more then a million people became homeless overnight with water coming up to their roofs ,because of rains from super evaporation from the forests,this had never happened before. Millions of animals died.
In India 3000 people died because of super storms .
A few years ago in Europe 3500 people,died during a heat wave ,many of them in France .
Right now the average death toll annually is 150.000 due to Global warming,these figures are already out of date and are expected to double soon.
In Northern China millions of people are running for their lives because regular dust storms so far have buried 900 villages under the sand and the whole of northern China is turning into a dessert.
The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year all around the edges ,like a slow burning fire shriveling up their neighbors In the Kalahari huge rivers have dried up and thousand of species are gone due to their habitats disappearing .
The biggest changes are invisible at micro biotic levels species are becoming extinct ,others are multiplying ,
This affects the insect populations that follow ,and changes in that ,affect all that follows in the food chains ,
All life is interrelated of both flora and fauna, And since we are on the top of the food chain ,we are always the last to know.
So Global warming has its toll there are incidents all over the world ,However
confusion rules the day ,i am beginning to think that SCIENCE HAS BEEN INVADED WITH POLITICS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS
The truth is being distorted at high levels,
And lies have been weaved in.
Some of the real dangers are being hidden because there are no solutions , Public could panic.and Authorities would loose control .
Others facts are exaggerated so that the phenomena can be used to milk the people.
This is further complicated with Arrogance that will not admit that mankind could be guilty, or that Gods could be out of control ,unloving or incompetent
But I do not think we can make a real difference anymore to change the tide.
On a Global scale,Humanity is not co operative enough .
The poor regions have other priorities such as daily survival.
There is a lot we can do about being more responsible and frugal with what we got and behaving less destructive however the negative forces out weigh the positive ones.
In the first world countries many do not care or are more interested in Global Control than Global Warming.
Besides Corporations have other priorities involving exploitation rather than preservation.Changes will cause loss of profits ,
This also affects truths from being published.
👍 100 | 👎 -4
One of the biggest variable in long term predictions is when will mankind reduce emisions, and by how much. The charts in this paper illustrate that very well:
The 20 foot rise is generally associated with the Greenland ice sheet melting, which was originally thought to be a 1000 year event. The IPCC has admitted that their static model for ice sheet melt (like one giant ice cube) dramatically underestimates the melt rate, because real glaciers move, break up, and can rapidly accelerate due to the lubricating effect of meltwater. One more recent estimate was 300 years, but that could change as the ice sheet dynamics are intensively studied.
Here's one of the scientists looking at it:
Prof Lenton said the IPCC way of working, including multiple reviews, caused it to issue more conservative reports than his team's studies. He added that the inevitable collapse of the Greenland ice sheet was closer than thought because of the latency in the Earth's climate system. "If you could stabilise the greenhouse gas levels to today's level, you'll still get some further warming [by 2100]."
A global average temperature rise of just 1C would be enough to slip the Greenland ice over the edge. The IPCC's prediction for 2100 is a rise of 1.1C-6.4C.
"Instead of sea levels rising by about 40 centimetres, as the IPCC predicts in one of its computer forecasts, the true rise might be as great as several metres by 2100. That is why, they say, planet Earth today is in 'imminent peril.'"
Don't get too hung up though on the year 2100. The bottom line is that whatever is forecast for 2100 is just one figure (or range) at one arbitrary point in time. The big picture is that we're doing nothing at this time that is adequate to stop the overall process, so we are on track for massive sea level rise over the long haul, unless we do something about it.
That's why so many nations were in Bali recently, negotiating the foundations of a new agreement that will have much more dramatic targets than the Kyoto Protocol.
👍 99 | 👎 -10
Actuallly, that's a good question.
The answer lies in what scientists know--and in the limits of that knowledge at this time.
We know global warming is real. We know the primary causes are human-gerated CO2 emissions and deforestation. There are a lot of other things we know, as well (e.g. we can expect far drier weatehr in the American West do to loss of sno pack; we knowthe polar ice is melting and will continue to do so). Etc., etc. etc.
But there is also a lot we don't know. How fast is the polar ice going to elt? How much of the large icecaps of Greenland and Antartical will melt--and how long will it take. How will rising sea levels and other changes affect ocean currents? How much will warmer temperatures affec the number and strength of hurricanes?
These are questions that scientists don't have enough data topredict reliablly. That effort has also been hampered by the campaign to block research on global warming and climate chaange. For example, its only in the last 2 years that scientists have been able to get funding to actually study the effects of global warming on the ice in Greenland. --the Bush administration refused to fund it. We have surface data and temperature data--but lost years of research time studying how the icecap itself is responding.
So--to answer your question: you see various estimates because different scientists are working with the data they have--and most estimate it will be about 10 years before there is enough data to make a realiable prediction. In the meantime, some are more optimistic--sealevel rises might be only a foot or two. The "20 foot" rise is a pessiistic estimate--but its not "scare tactics"
Also--be sure to look at the time frame involved. Most of the predictions of a small rise (inches) refer to the next 10-20 years. If the projection is over the next 50-100 years, the figure will be higher.
👍 98 | 👎 -16
The differences come from the FACT that as more people study the "problem" of global warming.It is becoming more obvious that there is no "problem". The scare tactics are used to try and get people so anxious that they will jump on the band wagon,just in case. And it makes those people who propagate this drivel("global warming" is the death of us all) a lot of money and fame.
👍 97 | 👎 -22
Originally Answered: Folks that truly believed that "man-made global warming" was science?
The problem is they distract people with actual evidence of increasing temps. Then sneak in some BS about a connection CO2 levels, even though there are ice core samples showing much higher CO2 levels in the past.
If the CO2 levels were higher in the past, and life continued, and the temps later dropped, then we are NOT looking at run away warming caused by people's CO2 emissions.
We are look at another NATURAL cycle, that is being used for political and economic gain at the expense of the public.
valid point. however that distraction is being used to push trillions of dollars in taxation by blaming humans.
the problem is there is a lack of published science against the human caused global warming hypothesis.
The scandal emails point to the idea that there is a lack of published dissent by design, because the leaders of the scientific community have actively worked to prevent any dissenting reports from being published. So all scientific research that can be accessed by people on the internet can easily be blown off by people as "just some internet stuff that isn't even published".
(thanks, and as neither of us are experts in the field, we can cheerfully agree to disagree on the analysis.)
I won't argue your points except that my understanding is that a good portion of research conducted in other countries uses data and results from East Anglia. Not in its finished form, but not in its originial raw form. This leads to the possibility that the tainted data extends beyond the CRU.
Not diffinitive at all. But nothing is right now.
I think that makes it the wrong time for the nations to meet and draft legislation, and make promises based on the community of data that has an unknown level of taintedness.