The Human Role in Global Climate Change

Produced by WPSU (a PBS affiliate) and the Rock Ethics Institute, this short film reviews the current state of scientific understanding about the human influences on climate change through straightforward explanations by top geological, meteorological, and geographic scientists working on climate related research at The Pennsylvania State University. The film concludes with the argument that while the sciencehas reached a high degree of certainty and there is little remaining disagreement about the causes of climate change, there remain questions as to what to do about climate change which are fundamentally ethical in nature and are now the responsibility of decision-makers and the public-at-large. The film features professors Richard Alley, Katherine Freeman, Michael Mann, James Kasting, Petra Tschakert, Klaus Keller, and Nancy Tuana.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• climate
• change
• anthropogenic
• human
• dimensions
• ethics
• impacts
• sea
• level
• rise
• global
• warming

[matildaz]

@Viracocha711 Don't have to be a meteorologist to do first grade math. In 1988, Hansen laid out scenarios A, B, and C. "A" forecast +.8 deg warming, "B" 0.7 deg warming and "C" 0.3 deg warmer. Actual warming 0.2 deg. Scenario C assumed "drastic cuts in emissions" which did not occur. Argue "A" or "B" but both are badly wrong. Trying to defend Hansen's forecast is like trying to say 8 is smaller than 2. We skeptical scientists will not let these misrepresentations stand.

[Viracocha711]

@matildaz You may be a Meteorologist but that literally means NOTHING! Are you studying "climate" or do you track weather? That is what I thought. So, you can save the characters needed to profess your alleged profession. Hansen's model laid out 3 different paths depending on whether we reduced CO2, stayed on the same path or increased the rate of CO2 output...You are simply misinterpreting the data. I would suggest you revisit the model. The same goes for the other models. Later.

[matildaz]

@Viracocha711 Study after study have shown regional differences in Antarctica but no net warming or ice loss. Hansen's forecast undeniably overstated the warming. Simple math. This idea that GW is 'happening faster than we thought" is just brazen, and somewhat desperate, propaganda. GW is happening...but it's no big deal. I'm a meteorologist...nobody is paying me. I'm unconcerned. That's my last post on this thread.

[Viracocha711]

@matildaz Not sure what "referred literature" you are reading but according to a study in NATURE the satellite program GRACE shows Antarctica is losing land ice mass (Western) at an accelerating rate. And YES temps show "strong warming" in the southern oceans as well. AGAIN, where you are getting your info from in regards to Hansen's models & other models is anyone's guess because Hansen's models have been almost spot on while the others have under estimated warming/ice loss.

[matildaz]

@Viracocha711 I get my data from the referred literature and I'm a professional meteorologist. You misread my comment about Antarctica. It holds 85% of the world's ice and has not melted at all and the temp has not warmed at all. The arctic has melted a great deal, but there is plenty of evidence that this has happened in the recent past (1930's). Hansen and other climate models have over-stated the warming by a factor of 2 or 3 to one. This is simple fact.

[Viracocha711]

@matildaz You clearly don't know what you are talking about at all! Either you are getting your info from a Professional Deniers source or you are LYING on purpose. There is not a single model anywhere that projects 85% of Antarctica should have melted by now...That comment alone shows how ridiculous you are or probably how utterly ignorant you really are. Like I said before the errors the models have made were due to being too conservative not over shooting.

[matildaz]

@Viracocha711 Unfortunately, you are wrong about just about everything. Hansen had three scenarios. Scenario C...drastic reductions in fossil fuels...obviously has not occurred. Thus it was scenario A (0.8deg) or scenario B (0.7 deg). Both overstated the warming by roughly a factor of 3. Almost all other climate models did the same. Antarctica, with 85% of the ice, hasn't melted at all. The problem has been exaggerated, the models way off, climate scientists alarmist

[Viracocha711]

@matildaz You need to go back & read a lot more about Hansen's models...There were 3 scenarios plotted & you are simply using one that does not match the the predicted use of fossil fuels. As far as the models go most have UNDER ESTIMATED the rise in temps & melting of ice especially in the Arctic. What sucks is any scientist who dares tell the public how bad things could get is labelled an "alarmist". Seriously, if things are going to get bad do we want scientist to just be quiet?

[matildaz]

@Viracocha711

Hansen's 1988 forecasts that he presented to Congress and everyone else projected 0.7 deg warming from 1988 to now. The actual rise has been about 0.25 deg. Virtually all climate forecasts have dramatically overstated the warming. I'm a believer in global warming... but I'm highly skeptical of the disaster scenarios. Much is not understood and changes have been small. The reason not much has been done is many scientists are like me...skeptical.

[Viracocha711]

@matildaz You are LYING about the "Climate Forecast"...The models have been very close since Jim Hansen's model in the early 90s...They have only got much better. Where they do err the models are too conservative! At least you can see the trouble that lies not so far in the future when it comes to the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. The climate will slap the deniers in the face eventually & I do hope people are locked up for the harm they have caused simply for a paycheck from Exxon