Physics teacher at my University states Global Warming is real.

[HS Lifter]

Skip to Main Content

* ACS
* Journals
* C&EN
* CAS

Chemical & Engineering News

* About C&EN
* Contact C&EN
* Advertising
* Support

* Home
* Current Issue
* Features
* Alerts
* Careers
* Multimedia
* Archive
*
Advanced

Home » Editor's Page » Global Warming News
Editor's Page

September 10, 2007
Volume 85, Number 37
p. 5

FROM THE EDITOR
Global Warming News
Rudy M. Baum, Editor-in-chief

Global warming skeptics do not like being pinned down in making their arguments.

Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, some of the bolder skeptics argue, but even if it is a greenhouse gas, humans can't possibly produce enough of it to affect climate. Global warming is not occurring, some insist, but even if it is occurring, humans are not responsible for it.

Some argue that even if humans are responsible for global warming, it's not such a bad thing and we can adapt. Heck, people like warm climates, they say. Why do you think Florida and Arizona are two of the fastest-growing states in the U.S.?

And what about the polar bears suffering as Arctic ice disappears in summer? Well, they can adopt a terrestrial summer lifestyle similar to that of the brown bears they evolved from. There are other problems facing humanity that it makes more sense to spend money on than global warming—even if it is occurring and humans are causing it.

Case in point: In August, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies revised the average annual temperature of the 48 contiguous states for the years 2000 to 2006 downward by 0.15 °C. The change corrected an error made when meshing two data sets. It was discovered by Stephen McIntyre, a retired Canadian businessman with a bent for mathematics who tirelessly combs NASA climate data looking for just such errors.

As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record for the contiguous 48 states; 1934, previously second, takes the top spot. And 1939 now replaces 2001 in the 10th slot.

For the planet as a whole, though, the revision had no real impact. The error applied only to the data for the contiguous 48 states, which make up only about 2% of Earth's surface.

But the Wall Street Journal seized on the revision in an editorial titled "Not So Hot," which asserted: "The new data undermine another frightful talking point from environmentalists, which is that six of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. Wrong. NASA now says six of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s."

In fact, before the revision, NASA had said that five of the 10 warmest years in the contiguous 48 states had occurred since 1990. After the revision, that number fell to four, with the others being 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939, and 1953.

But NASA still says that six of the 10 warmest years worldwide have occurred since 1990. And the planet's five warmest years on record, in order, are still 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

"If nothing else, the snafu calls into question how much faith to put in climate change models," the Journal hyperventilates. And it adds, "What's more disturbing is what this incident tells us about the scientific double standard in the global warming debate."

Both assertions are nonsense. Climate models and climate data correlate well. And the error was detected, pointed out, and corrected. That's hardly a double standard.

Meanwhile, Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg has published a new book, "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." I have not yet read it, but I have read Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and other essays he has written. His point is that while human activities probably are causing the climate to change, spending money on problems like hunger, AIDS, and clean water will yield much greater benefits than spending the same amount on alleviating climate change.

Lomborg does not deny that climate change is occurring, but he does not think it is the impending catastrophe that many climate scientists think it is. He thinks that we—and polar bears—will get used to it. It's a legitimate point of view, although one I happen to disagree with.

In the meantime, the climate continues to change. The Washington Post reported recently that grape harvests in the Alsace region of France have come earlier and earlier over the past 30 years, shifting from mid-to-late October in the late 1970s to late August-mid-September since 2000. This year, harvesting in one vineyard began on Aug. 24, the earliest ever recorded. The dates are becoming just as hard to pin down as the skeptics' arguments.

Thanks for reading.

Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS.

* Email this article to a friend
* Print this article
* E-mail the editor

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society

* Email this article to a friend
* Print this article
* Email the editor

Login

Member ID:

Password:

Questions or Problems?
Adjust text size:
A- A+
Articles By Topic

* Latest News
* Business
* Government & Policy
* Science / Technology
* Career & Employment
* ACS News
* View All Topics

Chemical & Engineering News

Home | Current Issue | Features | Alerts | Careers | Multimedia | Archive | About C&EN | Contact Us | Support | Site Map
American Chemical Society

www.ACS.org | Journals | Chemical Abstracts Service | Membership | Meetings

Member & Subscriber Services | Customer Service | Technical Support

Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society

____________________________________________________________

 

[GUARDIAN]

I am not saying that what we do is zero sum, but it does look like global warming stopped in 1998 which was the earth's hottest year in the trend. Russian scientists are now saying we may go into a drastic cooling period due to unusually dormant sunspot activity.

it is theorized that global warming will lead to cooling trends in warmer climates. i haven't researched this either. just throwing it out.

 

[stosstruppe]

September 10, 2007
Volume 85, Number 37
p. 5

FROM THE EDITOR
Global Warming News
Rudy M. Baum, Editor-in-chief

Global warming skeptics do not like being pinned down in making their arguments.

<snip> blahblahblah</snip>

The Washington Post reported recently etc

If it's all the same to you mate, I'd rather continue to use newspapers to line my cat's litter box with than as the basis of my global warming education.

 

[75th]

I am not saying that what we do is zero sum, but it does look like global warming stopped in 1998 which was the earth's hottest year in the trend. Russian scientists are now saying we may go into a drastic cooling period due to unusually dormant sunspot activity.

So...the earth is going to continue following a cycle it has for apparently millions of years?

Thats just crazy talk.

 

[75th]

This has been researched and covered to death. Vulcanic emissions and all that stuff contribute virtually nil compared to us.

Howsabout those that want to argue actually have some background researching this stuff from PR journals instead of wherever the hell you people get your information from. Feel free to reference your sources.

Heres an interesting one: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Although this one is from IDB, it has some good info: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

 

[redsamurai]

The fact that the earth's climate system is changing is "irrefutable". The cause is the only thing in question. What infuriates me about the naysayers is that at first, they denied that the earth was even warming and wanted no further discussion. Now they admit the earth is warming and could possibly cause problems but that "it's not our doing".....and want no further discussions. This is the merchant class wanting to do "business as usual" with no interruptions.

I have no idea what is going on, but we need to investigate it "thoroughly" and we need to enact prudence with each successive generation of technology that is coming out to ensure we don't "exacerbate" a problem. IT may very well be that there's nothing we can do about warming......it's possible that the theory of the earth's path around the galaxy is bringing it into a zone of higher cosmic radiation, is true.....something we can do nothing about unless we can figure out a way to alter a planet's galactic path.

But we have to start doing shit "NOW". And if that means some businessmen have to actually wait before they can exploit certain technologies, than so be it.

 

[Razorguns]

The fact that the earth's climate system is changing is "irrefutable". The cause is the only thing in question. What infuriates me about the naysayers is that at first, they denied that the earth was even warming and wanted no further discussion. Now they admit the earth is warming and could possibly cause problems but that "it's not our doing".....and want no further discussions. This is the merchant class wanting to do "business as usual" with no interruptions.

I have no idea what is going on, but we need to investigate it "thoroughly" and we need to enact prudence with each successive generation of technology that is coming out to ensure we don't "exacerbate" a problem. IT may very well be that there's nothing we can do about warming......it's possible that the theory of the earth's path around the galaxy is bringing it into a zone of higher cosmic radiation, is true.....something we can do nothing about unless we can figure out a way to alter a planet's galactic path.

But we have to start doing shit "NOW". And if that means some businessmen have to actually wait before they can exploit certain technologies, than so be it.

your argument flopped when you said INVESTIGATE NOW, and then followed it up with your CONCLUSION.

Research has already been done by unbiased sources. GW is debunked.

Of course hippies are pissed and won't let this issue due, or accept the fact that they're wrong. So it's still an "issue".

But it isn't. It's debunked, time to move on. No one should give a fuck. No one cares about Acid Rain, Ozone, Ocean Levels, Spotted Owl, Global Cooling, Rainforests, etc. - Remember "those" issues of yesterday?

r

 

[redsamurai]

A) What conclusion did I offer? Read what I said......I offered a "possibility", thre's a difference.

B) And who exactly debunked global warming? WHen the premier research institutes in the world are saying otherwise? The only issue is what's the cause..........sorry, but the best minds in the world have spoken on this.

your argument flopped when you said INVESTIGATE NOW, and then followed it up with your CONCLUSION.

Research has already been done by unbiased sources. GW is debunked.

Of course hippies are pissed and won't let this issue due, or accept the fact that they're wrong. So it's still an "issue".

But it isn't. It's debunked, time to move on. No one should give a fuck. No one cares about Acid Rain, Ozone, Ocean Levels, Spotted Owl, Global Cooling, Rainforests, etc. - Remember "those" issues of yesterday?

r

 

[redsamurai]

when the max planck institute acknowledges that the greenhouse effect is at least partially responsible for the increase in global temperatures...........it's the end of the disussion. Institute's like they are beyond reproach. They are a completely unbiased institute that is foremost concerned with scientific data............and they don't care what that data say's or who's side it bolsters.

 

[jestro]

Regardless of what is causing the change in temps, what is the big problem with going cleaner or greener? Pollution effects more than just the temperature. Research a little on the dead zones that are happening in the ocean.