Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you consider global warming just a theory or a proven fact?

121 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

121 Comments
Login to comment

I would classify "global warming" (now termed "climate change") and an un-truth mostly predicated on lies. People need to give the Sun more credit and precedence on anything related to climate.

Very happy with the solar panel technology and lower costs and that many Japanese companies are considering solar technology. Wind technology is also gaining. Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model 3.

-36 ( +10 / -46 )

Cycles of global warming and cooling have been happening since time began, regardless. Did the last ice age disappear because of what the cavemen did?

-25 ( +13 / -38 )

The globe warms: surface, troposphere, oceans and melting ice.

The surface warms. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend

The troposphere warms. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/plot/uah/from:1996/trend http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996/plot/rss/from:1996/trend

The oceans warm… http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ ...and rise 3.3 mm per year, up from 0.8 mm per year a century ago. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png ...and acidify by 30% since the industrial revolution. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014) , http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS, http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014), http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/abstract 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/852.abstract = - 1,031 Gt, total
0 ( +8 / -8 )

@John Samuel

I don't think you know what number a trillion is. One trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, there would be no ice by now.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Global warming is fact. "Human influenced" global warming is theory. Deforestation of an obscene degree exists, this may affect global conditions most.

6 ( +19 / -14 )

I am sorry but if you think it is a lie or you don't know, then you have not done your homework. The science is overwhelming and we are seeing the results in mass die off events of animals as well as in weather pattern changes.

So far the only people I have encountered who do not accept the existence of climate change fall into three categories.

People with a vested financial interest in denial of climate change. Uninformed individuals who have bought into the lies of category 1 people. Believer people who believe that humanity cannot change the world despite the evidence.

In all cases, wilful ignorance is a serious problem we have to face. Just because you believe, or decide that something isn't true, does not invalidate the science or the facts. If you want to be clueless and on the wrong side of history, that is a wilful choice to be ignorant.

9 ( +23 / -13 )

Global warming is fact. "Human influenced" global warming is theory.

Only among those who don't believe in science. Anyone who knows the scientific method knows it's human caused.

What's amazing is that these science deniers get into air planes, the concept of which was proven using the scientific method. They pick and choose when they want to accept the scientific method as working.

I wish the deniers would all go live in caves, where they can be safe from anything that was proven using the scientific method. Then those of us who actually care about our planet more than money could get to fixing it.

1 ( +15 / -16 )

Sometimes in summer season I notice a global warming in earth or Japan because I feel temperature is warmer than before definitely.

But it's very cold in winter season and we cannot live without any air-conditioner or gas stove or heater something.

What is the fact? Gradual warming in average? We still may not know yet exactly.

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Are humans causing Global Warming? Or is it the natural cycle? What history do we have on mass die offs? What history of weather patterns exist? Both histories are like a blink of a eye in a thousand lifetimes. Perhaps ocean pollution are the culprit of fish die offs?

Let me add....I live a "Greener" lifestyle than most human influenced global warming believers. My impact is far below average. Ignorance...no. I want a clean healthy earth for future generations.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It would be a much less emotional issue if we just separated the CO2 factor from natural earth & solar cycles. CO2 IS a problem, but to say global warming (or change) is a result of the emissions is also faulty in my mind. Too many unknowns. We think we know it all but someone's skewing the numbers for political gain.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Scientific theory/fact until new data invalidates it, like with a!! Scientific data.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Are humans causing Global Warming? Or is it the natural cycle?

Well, it depends on who you believe. Do you believe the scientists who went to university and learned the scientific method, and spend their lives studying the climate and climate change throughout history, then submit their findings to be peer reviewed? Or do you believe some hack on the internet who read a blog that questions whether or not it's human caused.

Personally, I believe the scientists. But hey, if you want to believe some hacks on the interwebz, that's your prerogative.

5 ( +14 / -9 )

Follow the money Stranger. Funding/employment comes from where?

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Follow the money Stranger. Funding/employment comes from where?

How would money get the studies past peer review? Are you saying that the peers are paid off in order for it to pass review?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

I consider AGW a theory. Worth looking into. I am.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Follow the money Stranger. Funding/employment comes from where?

That question goes both ways. Which do you think is more realistic? All of the vast majority of scientists that believe in climate change being paid off, or just the small minority that don't?

Keep in mind that those who recently came around to being at least open to the idea of man-made climate change spent decades denying it. Read about ExxonMobil's early climate change research and their subsequent campaign to deny their own results.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

sensei258:

Cycles of global warming and cooling have been happening since time began, regardless. Did the last ice age disappear because of what the cavemen did?

Have you any idea of the amplitudes and periodicity of these cycles compared to the last 150 years or so? I suggest you do a bit of research instead of just spouting out whatever a republican says he or she thinks. The last time CO2 atmospheric levels were as high as they are now (about 400ppm) was 3 million years ago! The ice age and cavemen didn't even exist then. These so-called cycles related to cavemen you are thinking of only date back to the last interglacial, 125,000 years ago. And never were the CO2 levels as high as they are now. Check out the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa observatory. 20th-21st century CO2 levels are rising at an alarming rate never seen before. CO2 is a GHG, period. Basic science tells you the relationship between GHG and global temperatures.

Oh, and the earth is not flat, and it's older than 6,000 years. Just saying, sensei.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It's up to you who you want to believe, NASA and the world's leading environmentalist scientists or Republican leaders from coal producing states. For those who give more credence to NASA and the worlds leading environmental scientists (like myself), here is a statistical graph to help move the discussion along.

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/9/

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Let's take a moment to appreciate how despite 97% of experts in climatology agree that the mountain of evidence support anthrogenic climate change and how there is really not any credible counter evidence, yet predominantly Americans with a profit-driven or politically-driven motive argue it as a matter of opinion in order to obstruct the necessary structural changes that would hold off radical destruction to our environment. And now we have JT presenting the dispute between a preponderance of evidence and obstinate disregard of that evidence as also a matter of opinion.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

A theory, but very-close-to-the fact theory.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It is a very good theory. It is warming without a doubt, if you look at GISS surface temperatures. Natural causes alone cannot come close to explaining it. Natural causes plus human causes do explain it.

The question, unfortunately is meaningless. A theory in science is a very well supported hypothesis with which there is no major disagreement, yet scientists continue to work on details. So, "just a theory" is wrong, and fact is wrong terminology. It is close to fact.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What is called global warming or climate change as defined by the IPCC is a claim CO2 has become a toxin caused by human western affiliated civilization and is overheating the plant with the eventual result of life being eradicated from earth.

The IPCC, a variety of politicians, bureaucrats and government grant funded scientists have invented a series of computer models proving this theory.

And the only way to save earth is to tax people to funnel even more money to the government grant funded scientists and affiliated government agencies or regulations,which force people to tax fund or buy from the green companies which are all owned by the,same bureaucrats, politicians, government grant funded scientists and their cronies.

The global warming IPCC defined theory is a massive financial and power grabbing scam. It has nothing to do with reality, there likely are serous pollution concerns, even a preventable calamity on the way but with the global warming scam in place, it is sucking all the attention and money from any real science which might uncover a real problem. Worse, even if a real problem is uncovered, the global warming scanners,will try to block or refute any real science because they are more interested in the money and power from their global warming financial scam.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

All I know is that we are trashing this planet.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The problem with many weather reporting stations is that historically, until recently many were located in what used to be rural areas. Once the cities spread out to those areas, the natural heat island effect of urbanization threw off the readings. We need to look at temperature readings from rural weather stations that have stayed rural over the last 100 years instead for a better assessment of climate change.

Besides, scientists who have been looking at the surface temperature of every planet (and the highest cloud level of our gas giant planets) all note temperatures have been rising on every planet in the last 75 years. That tells me either the Sun's radiation output is changing or radiation coming from outside the Solar System is causing a temperature rise.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

man made global warming is not proven. there are arguments for and against. no slam dunk. the problem is that the politicians are running with it in order to squeeze out more tax money.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

it's funny that so many people believe global warming is a fact when the UN and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change themselves still say it is still a theory. Neither body says that climate change or global warming is undeniably occurring, they never claim global warming is certain, they only provide degrees of certainty. Yet anyone who questions climate change is labeled as a "denier". If the scientists themselves say that climate change is not undeniable, then WTF is wrong with being a "denier"?

There isn't much "science" left in climate science nowadays. Below are excerpts from Chapter 8 of the IPCC AR2 report, which was at the time the most comprehensive report on global warming. The report underwent a extensive and rigorous peer-review process to verify all information contained.

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. "'

When you read this chapter in the IPCC report on global warming, it makes it sound as though scientists don't really know completely what is happening, or who is causing it. Unfortunately, these paragraphs didn't sit well with the politicians who funded the study; they demanded that it be changed. So, without consulting the majority of the scientists who created the report, and not consulting any of the peer-review group of scientists at all, the above paragraphs were removed entirely, and replaced with the following:

"There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]"

"The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]"

These paragraphs were written by Dr Ben Santer, lead author of the report, contrary to the findings and will of the scientists and peer review scientists who actually created the report. None of those who created the report were informed of the changes, or consulted in any way. They didn't know anything until the report was read at the Madrid conference on global warming.

Since scientific results can be overridden by the political will of the policymakers who fund the scientists, why bother with the science part of it at all? Why not just print whatever numbers they want, and be done with it? But, in essence, that is what they are doing, and have been doing.

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.” Goethe

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Sometimes scientists and meteorologists are all wrong. What happened to the "Monster" El Nino? They were wrong. So the ocean waters got significantly warmer. No biggy. Mother nature will unleash her wrath when she pleases.

Scientists can only try to scare you.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

If JT hadn't put that 'just' in the question, I would have voted 'A theory' without hesitation. In the same way that evolution is a theory. But the nuance (=lack of understanding of what a theory is) means I'm still looking for the 'None of the above' button.

What happened to the "Monster" El Nino?

According to Climate Central -

From crippling drought in southern Africa to a record number of February tornadoes in the U.S. Southeast

those wide-ranging impacts will continue to be felt for weeks and months to come — good news for those in California, who need El Niño-fueled rains, but bad news for the many areas, like Indonesia, which is suffering from deep drought, food and water shortages, and wildfires.

Already this year, El Niño-related weather has cost billions of dollars in damage and left some 100 million people facing food and water shortages.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/monster-el-nino-transforms-worlds-weather-20138

Who were wrong?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The question is nonsensical. Of course "global warming" exist. As does global cooling.

The politician`s claim that global warming and cooling are solely caused by man-made CO2 emissions are what sceptics are protesting against. And that claim is not even a "theory". It is a hypothesis, and and extremely weak one.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Enhanced by us, absolutely,but it is a natural phenomenon. What is it that we have done to enhance it? Failed, we have.

"Solve the problem. Failure is not an option." Apollo 13 we solved. That was in 1970. I was still in Viet Nam. You? Worked, then. Since? Not.

Fukushima fallout spreading still. Effective detox response under development yet?

Chernobyl's 30th is this week. Only one event. Fukushima - continues. ????

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Who were wrong?

K cleo, I see ur point. As a native of southern CA, there was hardly any impact. Unlike the '97 el nino there. California reallly, really needed that rain. So this el nino might've triggered tornadoes n' such so I feel bad for the people in Kansas.

All in all, there was nothing "monsterous" about recent el nino.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Wc626 - At last, I thought, he sees sense...until I got to that last sentence.

All in all, billions of dollars of damage and some 100 million people facing food and water shortages sounds pretty "monstrous" to me. Just because it wasn't particularly noticeable where you were doesn't mean it didn't happen.

(Hint: global warming isn't what happens to the weather in one small part of the planet. The fact that it's called global is a bit of a giveaway.)

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sometimes scientists and meteorologists are all wrong. What happened to the "Monster" El Nino? They were wrong.

Of course they were wrong. The current El Nino was weaker than it's two predecessors, which shouldn't have been the case, as climate change was supposed to have made it the worst on record.

Here are some more predictions made by the IPCC and the $1 billion per year climate change lobby:

The temperature increases they predicted for the past two decades? All wrong. There has been no statistical increase in temperatures, so says Dr Phil Jones of the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit at Hadley.

The sea level increase predicted? Wrong. Sea level increase has not accelerated. My tide gauge at my seaside home is unchanged since my family bought the home 50 years ago.

Increase in storms and events? Wrong. We are actually seeing fewer tornadoes and hurricanes. The 2015 IPCC report finally went so far as to say that climate change "would not increase the frequency or severity of storms". We still keep seeing headlines about how climate change is going to cause catastrophic weather events, which is funny when even UN climate change scientists deny they will.

Arctic ice gone by 2013? Wrong. Arctic ice is not what it once was, but has been recovering. Antarctic ice is now at record levels for both volume and extent.

Damage to crops and agriculture? Wrong. It seems CO2 is actually increasing crop yields.

Drowning of low-lying islands? Wrong. More islands seem to be appearing than disappearing.

The only significance of the last El Nino is that it pushed temperatures out of the "pause" (total lack of global warming for the last nearly 20 years). On the other side, the coming El Nina is predicted to bring unusually cold weather. The UN's IPCC is predicting up to three decades of progressively cooler weather until global warming starts it's inexorable climb again.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Follow the money Stranger. Funding/employment comes from where?

Why are resource wars fought? Why have we still not weaned ourselves off fossil fuels?

1 ( +3 / -3 )

Solution? Cap and trade. Why? It's a conservative idea just like Obamacare's mandate (National Review)

I'm going to sell my waterfront property to a Republican for a premium. Sucker!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Come on, guys, wake up! Global wariming theory is a sham made up by green businesses such as solar, wind, geothermal power generations. They are making money by crying wolf. sensei258 is quite right. The earth has gone through a cycle of wamr and cold climates for millions of years.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Do you enjoy breathing in pollution?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This is a silly poll to begin with, as people seem to think that 'theory' means 'guess'. Any scientific proof that isn't intuitive to the human mind can't be conclusively demonstrated. Even the idea of gravity is 'just a theory' by these standards. Peer reviewed ideas that are relentlessly tested and demonstrated are de facto truths. When you have wide scientific consensus you can take the theory to be fact. 97% of climatologists say that climate change is happening and that it's man-made... in the scientific community that's about as good as it gets. So the question posed by this poll is false... It's both a fact and a theory.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

It is past theory dear ostriches. It's fact.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There has been no statistical increase in temperatures

In the past 134 years, the hottest 10 years have occurred since 1998. 2015 was the hottest year on record.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

so says Dr Phil Jones of the IPCC and the Climate Research Unit

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones.....Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13719510

Sea level increase has not accelerated. My tide gauge at my seaside home is unchanged since my family bought the home 50 years ago

According to NASA, who are looking at a bit more than your personal tide gauge, sea levels are rising quickly but unevenly across the globe. Is your tide gauge on the western coast of the USA? Sea levels there are stable or dropping.

http://www.space.com/30379-nasa-sea-level-rise-model-video.html

Drowning of low-lying islands? Wrong.

The people of the Marshall Islands and other low-lying islands might be forgiven for not believing you as the waves wash their homes into the sea.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/climate-change/lowLat.html

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Global wariming theory is a sham made up by green businesses such as solar, wind, geothermal power generations.

Because green businesses are so well established and have the resources, influence, and clout to stand up against coal, oil, and basically any other industry that emits CO2, methane, etc.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I guess i'll do what most illiterate people do. Put my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la". Problem solved.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Because green businesses are so well established and have the resources, influence, and clout to stand up against coal

You forgot nukes. U know.....the clean energy

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Facts don't care about people's feelings

2 ( +3 / -1 )

that there is climate change is fact but notice that they are now calling it climate change instead of global warming? the question is whether its man made and that we can actually do anything about it. the peat fires in indonesia put out more CO2 than the entire US economy.and volcanos release 200 million tons annually.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I think "climate change" is more descriptive of the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's hard to believe that some people think that breathing coal emissions is healthy. In fact some conservatives say it's more healthy than clean air. Something about the extra carbon that our bodies need, based on their science.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@sangetsu

The sea level increase predicted? Wrong. Sea level increase has not accelerated. My tide gauge at my seaside home is unchanged since my family bought the home 50 years ago.

Florida, Gulf of Mexico coast, right?

You're using rather a poor standard of evidence there. Unless of course the scientific community agrees that the gauge at your seaside home is the best indicator of what's going on in the Gulf of Mexico. But I suspect if they knew of its existence, and of yours, they wouldn't. They have better ways to find out what they want to know.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This is an incredibly simple fact climate change, reading so many that deny the obvious is rather disheartening.

Get a clue folks, over the past couple hundred years the population of humans has & CONTINUES to skyrocket, industry has increased at a huge rate, more people in poorer countries are becoming middle class with all the consumption that entails.

We are destroying the natural world at an insane place ALL OVER THE WORLD! Consumption continues unabtted.........

CO2 is increasing at an alarming rate.

HOW COULD WE NOT BE AFFECTING THE CLIMATE................DOH!!!

And people who casually say "well the earth has warmed & cooled over time " REALLY need to get a grip on what GEOLOGIC TIME means, hint wrt to temperatures its measured over 10s of THOUSANDS of years, NOT a few decades!!

3 ( +4 / -2 )

Stupid question, Global Warming is "just" a theory, but then so is gravity!

In science, a theory is as good as it gets.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

It's a theory, scientific theory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So yeah, fact. Probably. You don't really know until you are a scientist yourself, so good looking propaganda can make you believe what you want anyway. Personally I follow the logic that if global warming is a lie I don't lose anything - better environment is always nice nevertheless, but if it's true consequences are huge, so it's better to believe whether it's false or true (and science tells it's true, so there are more factors in favor of global warming as a fact).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When Obama takes a private jet to go to Hawaii from Washington , for a golf holiday then we should realise that the elites are happy to waste and pollute.And they more than happy to come up with the next round of Eco taxes so that they can all fly to Davos for their next chit chat......paid by us!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The question is ill-formed.

Questions for which the evidence arrives incrementally demand, not a binary choice between the two very fuzzy notions of "theory" and "fact", but rather a nuanced degree of certainty. That degree of certainty can be quite high or quite low, but binary belief can not map to the evidential gradient. Since rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the evidence, any non-degreed and unnuanced declaration of a discrete position will be intrinsically irrational.

I personally position my degree of certainty at around 98% for global warming, and just slightly below that for man-made global warming based on the evidence I've so far encountered.

This is not a pedantic exercise, but the only rational way to approach questions for which inductively acquired evidence accrues. The degree of belief must map to the degree of the relevant evidence. Adding such epistemic nuance increases resolution productive to the dialogue.

https://logfall.wordpress.com/denial-of-the-epistemic-gradient/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Only the ill informed buy into government funded climate nonsense. This is a tax scheme perpetuated by the most venal crony capitalist and rent seekers. The burn rate of the sun determines climate. Not the hot air of the politician and his pet rent seekers.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I see I'm in the 69% who say global warming is a fact. That being said, it's impossible to say for certain that human activity has a significant impact on Mother Nature's whims. Certainly, humans are powerless against typhoons, earthquakes, etc....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Apart from the scientific evidence, I'm quite happy to accept anecdotal evidence as well. I have spoken to old folk in my hometown who quite consistently attest to the summers there being hotter and longer, and the winters being shorter and drier. I believe them, they would know.

And whilst I understand that the Earth has cycles, these temperature changes occur veeery slowly, over thousands of years, not over the course of 100 years. So I think that position is myopic.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Do you consider global warming just a theory or a proven fact?

Using the previously used term "global warming" instead of climate change is a problem with this question. No one that is made clear about the question being asked denies that the Earth both warms and cools. The question could also be phrased "do you consider global cooling a theory or fact" and just as many people if not more will deny that global cooling is also a fact. Japan Today missed the mark with this poll question because it is not clear.

How would money get the studies past peer review? Are you saying that the peers are paid off in order for it to pass review?

The effect of money is both direct and indirect. Direct in the flow of billions of US dollars targeted to studying it. Scientists want to get on that gravy train. The effect is indirect in that one's ability to have a career depends upon accepting man made global warming as fact. The 'climate' in the scientific community is so politicized that any scientist or publication that goes against the political stampede to endorse man caused global warming risks being ostracized. Everyone knows that is true and you are a 'denier' if you will not admit to that fact. This was exposed in the East Anglia e-mails and in the legal action that is being used against any scientist that does not get with the program.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I have no economic axe to grind either way. I consider global warming is happening mainly because of the sun's activity, but also with the activity of humans on top of that.

As Pukey2 says above "The last time CO2 atmospheric levels were as high as they are now (about 400ppm) was 3 million years ago! The ice age and cavemen didn't even exist then."

So it has happened before, and it may well happen again.

The human race is a dirty cancer upon the planet, I sometimes think.

Much more power and research into renewables! Fossil and nuclear fuels only to tide us through until such time as we have reduced our footprint to the break-even point...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All I know is the air and water pollution in China is caused by communists, and is killing people.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

All I know is the air and water pollution in China is caused by communists

I'm not sure why you are bringing China into it, but the pollution in China is not caused by the government, the communists, it's caused by industry, the capitalists.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"I'm not sure why you are bringing China into it, but the pollution in China is not caused by the government, the communists, it's caused by industry, the capitalists."

But the communists approve of all this, doncha know, lol

2 ( +2 / -0 )

All I know is the air and water pollution in China is caused by communists, and is killing people.

But not by us, consuming like there's no tomorrow.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The phenomenon is real and being measured. There are multiple layers of cause and effect in play. Some of the effects themselves are aggravating causes for other effects that contribute to the phenomenon. Other causes are independent of others.

Earth's overall climate is a hugely complex system. It has multiple factors some that aggravate each other, others that combat each other.

But we cannot dispute the slow but steady increase in global mean temperatures, year on year, season on season, month on month, etc.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The initial question is flawed and shows the lack of understanding the scientific method, and frankly the entire problem with discussing anything of this nature.

Theory in science means something different to the casual use of the word but as we are talking about something scientific I have to assume the poll creator is somewhat scientifically illiterate.

And as to where I stand, earth climate is changing that is a fact, is man partly or even wholly responsible, the evidence appears to point to yes. However, the same measures we need to take to tackle it would also result in less pollution and protection of resources.. so not sure what the argument really is besides, of course, greed and money.

0 ( +2 / -3 )

The fact that it's called global is a bit of a giveaway.)

Really? How has it affected where you live in Japan? The rainy season is on the way (june) like clockwork in Japan. The so-called "monsterous" el nino will do little to nuthing in ur parts.

California still faces drought conditions in the next couple yrs. If not worse. The scientists are fooling everyone. Everyone knows mother nature will do what she pleases. A few CFC's going up & penetrating the ozone is not such a big deal.

I hope everyone cranks up the AC's this summer. Refrigeration is a science, also, in itself. Except there are no consequences. Simply select the desired temp in ur home & let it ride~

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Over population? The waste one human generates, the waste accociateed with one human in a developed nation...

Look at the packaging in Japan. Petroliam derivatives that do not degrade well in the ocean or underground and burning is worse.

How many species have been over utilized and pushed aside for human habitation? Humans have disrupted the planet in long lasting ways yet to come to fruition.

Potable water is the next issue. But a factual issue.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How has it affected where you live in Japan?

Climate change in Japan? Where to start?

In my first summer here, the locals were exclaiming how hot it was when the thermometer hit 30 degrees. These days, 30 degrees in summer is a pleasant, balmy day; temperatures in excess of 35 degrees are no longer unusual.

The torrential rain that fell in east Japan in autumn last year - two months' worth of rain in as many days - was a more intense repeat of the torrential rains that affected Hiroshima the year before. Autumn rains are not unusual of course, but both these events were likely greatly intensified by global climate change. I have never experienced Deluge-level rain before in my life.

The so-called "monsterous" el nino will do little to nuthing in ur parts

Whether or not el nino affects 'ur parts' has nothing to do with its overall effect, any more than snow in winter 'proves global warming is a myth'.

You may as well say the Kumamoto earthquake didn't happen because you didn't feel it in America or wherever you are.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@cleo. You're right. I just wish the media in sc didn't hype up the whole el nino thing as much as they did. sc was hardly affected. Thanks for articulating the big picture.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm starting to believe there might be some truth in it. A few weeks ago I was freezing, today I cycled to work in a t-shirt

3 ( +3 / -1 )

In the past 134 years, the hottest 10 years have occurred since 1998. 2015 was the hottest year on record.

I daresay the world is more than 134 years old. And we have no idea if the last 10 were hotter because the data is not actual data, but data which has been subjected to mathematical formulas to compensate for hundreds of variables (heat island effect, height of thermometers, direction of sunlight, wind, humidity, etc). The number of thermometers around the world has decreased by two-thirds since 1960, so we can't make even tolerable comparisons of temperatures to earlier times. 2015 was not the hottest year on record, for the same reasons. I guess you aren't aware that the world was warmer in medieval times than now (back when Greenland was still green), and that the starting line for the current escalation in temperatures always tends to start at the end of a period known to climatologists as the "little ice age", when the world was cooler than usual. No surprise at all that temperatures have risen since then. Move the scale back 1000 years instead of 134 years, and you will see that there are no recent records, indeed, there has been no increase whatsoever.

The people of the Marshall Islands and other low-lying islands might be forgiven for not believing you as the waves wash their homes into the sea.

Had they not dynamited the reefs surrounding their islands to let their boats in and out more easily, allowing tidal erosion, then waves would not be washing their homes away. Rising sea levels do not usually effect reef islands, as if the sea level rises, coral reef growth rises too, and likewise the islands protected by the reefs.

According to NASA, who are looking at a bit more than your personal tide gauge, sea levels are rising quickly but unevenly across the globe. Is your tide gauge on the western coast of the USA? Sea levels there are stable or dropping.

Ah, Dr Hansen, director of Nasa, and part of the top-tier of climate-change proponents, the one who received $1.6 million in speech fees for speaking as a global warming advocate? (and was forced to return much of it) I guess I can build a pool were the water level is uneven? Or make a bathtub where the water level is uneven? GISS satellites measure sea level quite accurately, and they do not show any accelerated increase in sea level. The IPCC and NASA use surface measurements, and the only one of these stations (in Hong Kong) has shown appreciable sea level rise.

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones.....Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

Listen to the interview yourself, it is not "erroneous". And read about why this interview was conducted. It was conducted after Russians hacked the CRU's computer system, and released thousand of emails, many of which contained conversations on how to marginalize climate change skeptics, prevent their work from being published, or get them thrown out of work. It also showed them figuring out ways to show increases in global warming when their data showed no increases. These emails make for interesting reading.

When you have wide scientific consensus you can take the theory to be fact. 97% of climatologists say that climate change is happening and that it's man-made...

This is utter nonsense. 97% of climatologists do not agree that climate change is happening. The "97%" number comes from a University of Illinois study done by Zimmerman and Doran. In the study, they contacted 3146 scientists. Of the scientists polled, the only ones who were accepted in the survey were those whose work consisted more than 50% of climate change study (in other words, were paid to prove that climate change was occurring), that number was 79. Exactly how does 79 out of 3146 equal 97%?

I have looked this subject for years, I have read the IPCC reports (have you?), the reports of those who support the theory of climate change, and those who don't. I have actually been silly enough to send emails and make telephone calls to some of these people (I take the subject seriously). And after looking at the science myself, and the absurd way in which facts are bent and tortured until they are no longer facts, but now fit in how and where they are wanted, I can't help but be a "denier".

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I daresay the world is more than 134 years old.

I daresay it is. But the time we're interested in is the last hundred years or so during which there have been drastic and rapid changes. Flora and fauna can adapt to gradual changes over time, over centuries or millennia. The rapid changes we are experiencing now, over the space of a few decades, are something different.

I guess you aren't aware that the world was warmer in medieval times than now (back when Greenland was still green)

Greenland was not 'green' in 'medieval times'. Eric the Red (who was a murderer as well as a liar) named the land Greenland to encourage people to settle there, but the only green land was along the coast - same as today. It was thousands of years ago that Greenland was actually green, with forests and stuff and no ice.

Rising sea levels do not usually effect reef islands, as if the sea level rises, coral reef growth rises too

Oh dear. Sea levels in the South Pacific have risen about a foot in the past 30 years. Given optimum conditions, coral can grow at a rate of 0.2 to 25mm a year, but conditions are rarely optimal. Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and coral disease in the Marshals have also inhibited growth.

Listen to the interview yourself, it is not "erroneous"

I read the interview. In it Dr Jones explains the difference between statistically-significant and statistically-insignificant warming, and in response to a direct question he says, 'I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed... - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.'

If he didn't think people were quoting him erroneously, why in 2011 did he allow the BBC to state that it was erroneous?

2 ( +4 / -3 )

Wow! This topic brought out all the Discovery channel buffs, didn't it? Yes, it is true that, the world goes through cycles of climate change around every 10-20 thousand years and ice cores fro the Antarctic have documented the causes. In most cases it from from excessive amounts of CO2 or methane gas in the atmosphere. However, they have also prove that, these climate change incidents take a thousand years or so to eventuate. Never in the history of the planet have greenhouse gases built up so quickly - less than a hundred years. The planet took around 100 million years to bury the billions of tons of CO2 in the form of fossil fuels. Humans have released more than 50% of it back into the atmosphere in the last hundred years or so.

Is global warming real? You bet your sunscreen and 40'+ summer days it is! The earth's surface temperature has increase by 1.5' in the last 50 years and seas have risen by nearly ten centimetres. As the effects of so much CO2 in the atmosphere get more severe the temperature increases will become more rapid and 'super storms' will become a regular event. The oceans are already warming and has lead to many fish species leaving the equatorial regions and invading temperate zones where they compete for food with the native region species. Warner oceans and decreased salinity due to melting ice caps spell disaster for the earth's climate.

Just to be clear. Global warming is only one aspect of climate change and it is directly related to the huge amounts of CO2 released by humans in the last 150 years. The real danger comes from the billions of tons of methane hydrate from an in the bottom of the oceans, which has already started to leech out. As the seas warm more methane hydrate will be released. Methane hydrate is a 100 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane hydrate also combusts when mixed with oxygen. Anybody who does not believe this is real needs to stop going to church and start going to a library!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Methane hydrate is a 100 times stronger greenhouse gas

I read that the Russian permafrost would release a lot as well when it thaws.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@cleo

In my first summer here, the locals were exclaiming how hot it was when the thermometer hit 30 degrees. These days, 30 degrees in summer is a pleasant, balmy day; temperatures in excess of 35 degrees are no longer unusual.

Memory tends to be selective. If you look at historical temperatures, above 30 degrees was quite normal in summer. These are the highs Tokyo had way back in September 1962. The year is chosen at random, there is no data available for the 7th of the month, and the asterisks are for days that didn't reach 30 degrees. This was September, mind you.

31.7, 30, 31.1, , 32.2, 30.6, ?, 30, 32.8, 31.1, 30.6, 31.1, 30.6, 30.6, 31.1, 32.2, 30, 31.7, , 30, 32.2, , , 30.6, , , , , , .

http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/09-1962/ws-476620.html

There were only 3 days in August which didn't reach 30 degrees. And there were 4 days when it was 35 or above (37.8, 35.6, 35.6, and 37.2 on the 4th, 7th, 9th and 21st).

Try another: cool, northern Aomori in August 1973 (no earlier records at the source I used)

30, , , , 32, 32, 32, 34, 31, 30, 33, 33, 33, , 30, , 32, 31, 30, , 30, 32, , , , , , , , , *.

And Osaka 60 years ago, in Aug. 1956

<http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/08-1956/ws-477720.html >

There are 3 days of 35 or over, with the top temperature reaching 37.8 degrees. There were 9 in August 1960.

http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/08-1960/ws-477720.html

So whether it's getting warmer today or not, very hot summer temperatures have always been part of life in much of Japan, easily matching the temperatures you described above.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I read the interview. In it Dr Jones explains the difference between statistically-significant and statistically-insignificant warming, and in response to a direct question he says, 'I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed... - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.'

Really? Here is an excerpt from the interview itself:

BBC: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Phil Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

This is what was said in the interview, and if Dr Jones later said it was erroneous, he was not telling the truth, because publicly available temperature records do in fact show that his information was accurate, and there was no, and has been no increase.

If he didn't think people were quoting him erroneously, why in 2011 did he allow the BBC to state that it was erroneous?

Because his center has 1500 staff members and a budget of 170 million pounds per year, which it would not be getting if the world were not getting any hotter.

Oh dear. Sea levels in the South Pacific have risen about a foot in the past 30 years. Given optimum conditions, coral can grow at a rate of 0.2 to 25mm a year, but conditions are rarely optimal. Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and coral disease in the Marshals have also inhibited growth.

Wrong, sea level rise for the past 80 years has been 9 inches, certainly not 12 inches in 30 years. (B. F. Chao, Y. H. Yu, and Y. S. Li (Science, 320:212-214, showing an annual rise of 2.46mm) The University of Adelaide set up 12 new tide gauges in 12 Pacific islands in 1990, and these new gauges show no rise in sea levels. Coral has no trouble keeping up with 2.46mm of annual sea level rise.

I daresay it is. But the time we're interested in is the last hundred years or so during which there have been drastic and rapid changes. Flora and fauna can adapt to gradual changes over time, over centuries or millennia. The rapid changes we are experiencing now, over the space of a few decades, are something different.

What changes? Since the record set in 1998, there has been no increase, as per Dr Jones, and even the IPCC itself. There has been no drastic change in temperatures, sea level rise, or storm frequency. And yes, the IPCC's most current report (AR4) states clearly that extreme weather events are not predicted. I have heard the IPCC come up with every excuse in the book as to why the weather is not getting hotter. First it was blamed on pollution from China (even though they at first said that particle aerosols would increase warming), then it was blamed on a lull in solar activity, then it was blamed on errors in formulas. And finally, it was said that the heat was not being held in the atmosphere, but in the deep oceans, and that the current El Nino would break records as a result. But, it didn't, did it?

The world is used to far more drastic changes than man can cause, and it can compensate for them, it always has. More CO2 may mean more heat, but it also means more food for plants, which increase in coverage, and absorb the CO2. Regardless of how far any phenomena pushes things out of balance, nature always pushes things back. I hate the term "climate change", because the climate has constantly changed throughout the history of the world. Never in any period of time has the world's climate remained stable.

The hottest day ever recorded on earth was 56.7 degrees centigrade, the record was set on July 19th, 1913. No recent record has come close.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The question is too simplistic. What is mant by "global warmiing"?

The Earth's climate may well be changing; it has done so in the past, and this is just part of the nature.

The real question that people are asking is whether the climate is changing (and, specifically, warming) due to man's activities. There is no certainty about this. Some science would suggest this might be so, but this is far from conclusive.

And the even bigger question is what can we do to remedy this change (if we are actually causing it)? The answer here is that if man's CO2 emissions are at fault then until China and India stop increasing their output of this pollutant there is NOTHING worthwhile that the rest of us can do.

So if you believe that man's CO2 output is a problem, campaign against China and India; anything else is a complete waste of time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The real question that people are asking is whether the climate is changing (and, specifically, warming) due to man's activities.

Not anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

wipeout

Of course there have always been hot days in summer. But there are now more hotter days.

Try this, to see the rise in temperature: copy-paste the temperatures for Tokyo 1875 to 2013 shown on this page http://www.data.jma.go.jp/obd/stats/etrn/view/monthly_s3_en.php?block_no=47662&view=2 into an Excel spreadsheet, and make a graph for July, August and September. While there are plenty of ups and downs year to year, the overall trend is UP. If you can't see it, add an approximate value line; it goes markedly UP.

sangetsu93

Yes, really. He didn't say that what he said was erroneous; the BBC said what he said is quoted erroneously as demonstration that the Earth's temperature is not rising. From the excerpt you quote, he does not say that the temperature is not rising. to the contrary, he says clearly that the trend is positive.

Since the record set in 1998, there has been no increase, as per Dr Jones

See, erroneous quoting, like that. He did not say there has been no increase.

sea level rise for the past 80 years has been 9 inches, certainly not 12 inches in 30 years

According to the NY Times, in the South Pacific it is about a foot over the past 30 years, faster than elsewhere

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html?_r=1

The Science report you mention appears to refer to global sea level rise, not sea level rise in the South Pacific. Remember, sea level rise is not uniform?

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/320/5873/212

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's amazing how peer-reviewed science can be considered by some people to be a fear used to control.

Apparently some people don't understand how peer-review works.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Climate has always been changing, and currently it's warming up. The theory is how much the planet's most productive species ever is contributing to this change - is it a significant contribution or an insignificant contribution or maybe in a grey area in between? It's still not definite one way or another. But another big question is - what if people thought one way or another, what if it turns out they were wrong

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Of course there have always been hot days in summer. But there are now more hotter days.

And of course you have substituted your original argument, which I addressed, because it was off the mark, with a different one, which I don't particularly dispute.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Just not sure that it might not be largely due to natural causes also.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Over the ages of time the earth has cooled and warmed --- before mankind ever had a chance to make it's mark. Looking at the hard data, the earth IS now warming a bit. Seems to be no direct relationship to humans because we are generally too puny to effect things much. The sun among things has the power to make vast temperature changes.

First, what IS alarming is how many scientists are trying to profit, either economically, socially or politically, from telling the false story of man-made global warming. I know at the major university where I work, the story changed; initially it was carbon dioxide that was the culprit and now nitrogen dioxides are the problem that man has created. Meanwhile the researchers are getting lots of funding from us taxpayers.

Second, the politicians are using the excuse of man-made global warming to redistribute incomes world-wide.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nobody denies the earth has been warming (except for some die-hard U.S. Republicans who search for "scientists" to help protect the U.S.'s petroleum industry). Where all the controversy exists is whether humans are the driving force behind the current warming trend. The fact that the temperature has been trending up since the Industrial Revolution began means nothing to some people. Ice core samples looking back in time almost to the time of the dawn of Christianity indicate that while cycles were present, this spate of warming has greatly deviated from the Earth's warming/cooling cycles. Deniers state that you can't tell what the temperatures were before thermometers were invented by looking at ice cores. This is a bit of a lie. You can compare core samples from years where there WERE thermometers and correlate the samples with older core samples to infer the older temperatures.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's now more like "Global Whining"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Science report you mention appears to refer to global sea level rise, not sea level rise in the South Pacific. Remember, sea level rise is not uniform?

Nonsense. Sea level is uniform, but land level is not uniform. If the Marshall Islands are being inundated, it is not because the sea is higher, but because the islands are getting lower, the result of clearing coral to allow access to boats. The tides are let through the gaps, and erode the islands, make sense? And as the great majority of us don't live in the South Pacific, the lack of any abnormal sea level rise (as determined in the report) is a good thing, right?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sea level is uniform

According to NASA, who I think probably have spent a bit more time and energy than either you or me studying this, sea levels are rising quickly but unevenly across the globe. http://www.space.com/30379-nasa-sea-level-rise-model-video.html#sthash.ip4cKDg3.dpuf

I know you want to believe that water is flat, but it obviously isn't. If levels are rising unevenly, then it's obvious that sea level is not uniform.

the islands are getting lower, the result of clearing coral to allow access to boats

Links, please. I have found papers suggesting that coastal erosion in the Marshalls may be partly due to the construction of seawalls, and that dredging by the US military during WWII is having an impact on Tuvalu now, but no suggestion of any widespread clearing away of coral to make boat channels.

as the great majority of us don't live in the South Pacific

...you're all right, jack?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You all do what you're going to do but clearly the 80/20 rule is alive and well here. The world was flat once was it not? This is all a power struggle just like religion and the masses are eating it up due to peer pressure and/or fear. There's a saying "People are stupid, a person is smart". Think about it... alone, for once.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a scientific fact and also a red herring. The overriding issue is overpopulation, and the disappearance of fresh water is a bigger problem than climate change. If somebody had a magic wand and could fix climate change, civilization as we know it would still end in the near future. Most uneducated people cannot understand evidence-based science, and people with average IQs cannot become properly educated. There is no hope, but we will all die, so what's it matter? Only guilt over having stuck progeny into the fray, which causes denial on top of ignorance.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I sure do believe it as fact. I remember when I was 16 (40 years ago)and had to drive into the city ( Sydney Australia )every day for about year. You could not help but notice this dirty brown line below the blue sky. I wondered what the %^*. this can not be good. It made my really think about what damage we are doing even back then. Now we all experience the hotter weather and the weird weather patterns, which was not the norm 2 30 , 40, 50 ,60 years ago. The two decade i was not born yet. But taking toour parents and their friend and people from that era say the same thing that the weather was normal compare to today. Some one mention and I am not having ago at there comment. That Did the last ice age disappear because of what the cavemen did ? I would not have a clue but i bet 40 years before that event the caveman did not see a dirty brown line under the blue sky. The most brilliant mind ever (Newton ) stated "when there is a action there is a reaction". This is why I think our action have a hell of lot to do with how the planet in reacting today.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A load of codswallop!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Sea level is uniform,

Ever since the moon started orbiting the Earth, sea level has not been uniform. (Think "tides")

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is a question wrongly asked, and the heart of the problem people have with science since the definition of a theory is different in both domains. Also add a third domain area not otherwise known until the Internet began; triumphant ignorance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

On January 25th, 2006, while at the Sundance film festival, screening “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said this as chronicled in an article by CBS News:

“within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return” and “a true planetary emergency.”

Well, we are 3 months past this this famous point, and since there is no return, the whole climate taxation nonsense can please go away?

Thanks!

And a nod to Odmar Edenhoffer and the JT editors:

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealth by climate policy". (Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

you have substituted your original argument, which I addressed, because it was off the mark, with a different one

Not at all. It's the same argument (=observation) rephrased to help understanding, and with visuals to boot. In the past, 30 degrees was a hot summer's day; now the norm is higher.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sigh... the whole thing has become a politicised debate... Politicians twist, bend and misdirect to achieve their own aims. That's just what they do - they want to win. Get the politics out of this whole debate. Wipe the slate clean. Start looking at this issue solely on the data.

If I've learnt one thing from the whole climate change debate... If you throw enough stupidity at a topic, it becomes stupid, regardless of how serious that topic may be. Let's tone down the stupid, folks, and start looking at the facts...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not at all. It's the same argument (=observation) rephrased to help understanding, and with visuals to boot. In the past, 30 degrees was a hot summer's day; now the norm is higher.

As the figures I posted above show, 30 was a perfectly normal maximum, frequently exceeded, even in northernmost Honshu 40 and 50 years ago. I also showed that September commonly sees such temperatures: my early 1960s example has 19 days of 30 or above, which explicitly disproves your contention "30 was a hot summer's day".

But since you repeat the fallacy, I may as well just increase the relentless detail.

How does this grab you? A 2-month run in 1955 in Morioka, Iwate. It's not generally considered a hot spot, and we're now talking 60 years ago, presumably long before you arrived in Japan.

July: , 31.7, 30.6, , , , , , 31.1, 31.7, 31.7, 32.8, 33.9, 31.1, 30.6, 30.6, 30.6, 30.6, 31.1, 34.4, 33.3, 30.6, 30, 30.6, 31.7, 32.2, 31.7, 30.6, 32.8, 33.9, 33.9, 33.9

August: , 32.2, 30.6, 30, , , , 30.6, 31.7, 30.6, 31.1, , , 30.6, 31.1, 31.7, 30.6, 32.8, 31.1, , , , , 30.6, 30, , 30.6, , , 30, .

http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/07-1955/ws-475840.html

http://en.tutiempo.net/climate/08-1955/ws-475840.html

Can you, in all seriousness, cast your eye over those figures, 26 days of 30 or 30+ in July, and 16 in August, for a place that is far from the hottest in Japan, and still try to pass off your anecdotal claim as better information?

Come off it. 30 degrees was no big thing back then, simple as that.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How does this grab you? A 2-month run in 1955

You're completely missing the point. The figures for any one particular year do not mean anything. If you look at the overall trend, the summers are definitely hotter than they were.

30 was a perfectly normal maximum

And now it's a perfectly normal normal in summer, not a maximum at all. (I never said 30 degrees never used to happen; I said 30 degrees was a hot summer's day. Your figures show the maximum hovering around the 30 mark. Where has it hovered in recent years?)

The Japan Meteorological Office since 1939 has defined a 'summer day' (夏日) as a day when the maximum temperature is over 25 degrees; 'a midsummer day' (真夏日) as a day when the maximum temperature is over 30 degrees; and an 'extremely hot day' (猛暑日) as a day when the maximum temperature exceeds 35 degrees.

This page shows the number of summer, midsummer and extremely hot days each year from 1939 to 2015. (For Toyama - just happened to be the first page that popped up) Not only is the trend for there to be more of each category; it's also getting warmer earlier. In 1939 the earliest summer day was in May; in 4 years since 2009, the earliest summer day has been in March.

http://www.jma-net.go.jp/toyama/data/data14.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You're completely missing the point. The figures for any one particular year do not mean anything.

They don't?

Then why would you give "figures" for "one particular year" yourself?

As in:

In my first summer here, the locals were exclaiming how hot it was when the thermometer hit 30 degrees.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A theory.

And I have no doubt that the way people will interpret my answer will have much more to do with them than it will with me.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

They don't?

Then why would you give "figures" for "one particular year" yourself?

The true point is that the figures for any one LOCATION don't matter when talking about the annual average of global temperatures. You could have a location hitting 40°C for weeks on end and if the majority of the globe is cooler than average for the year then the globe would be cooling, not warming. Taking the temperature at one particular location and then trying to use it to either prove OR disprove global warming is a fool's game.

For a look at how 2015 compared to the average of 1981-2010's years, look here:

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/data-snapshots/tempanomaly-annual-nnvl-2015-00-00?theme=Temperature

The majority of the globe is 6°F or 7°F warmer than the average established only a couple of decades ago. The most obvious cause is the El Nino in the Pacific, but why is that El Nino lasting as long as it is?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Then why would you give "figures" for "one particular year" yourself?

I did not 'give figures' for one particular year. I described the locals' reaction to the mercury hitting 30 degrees at a time when, fresh from the sunny UK, anything over around 20 seemed summery to me, and over 25 was positively tropical. Compare that to now, many many years later, when I'm acclimatised and my local friends and I agree that 30 degrees in summer is no big deal (anymore).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A proven FACT ~ Do you want to find out I'm wrong ~

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A little over ten years ago, during the preview of "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore made some specific predictions about Global Warming including such things as "snow being a memory in New York City, the Arctic Ocean becoming ice free, and sea level increases sufficient to cause coastal flooding. Also, there were going to be a bunch of hurricanes. Rush Limbaugh started the clock running and it ran out on 26 January of this year. None of that stuff happened and a lot of places have actually gotten cooler. Meanwhile, in Paris, France, the wackos just signed up for more costly baloney.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@cleo

I did not 'give figures' for one particular year.

You gave a figure (30 degrees) and some uselessly vague anecdotal support for a particular (though unspecified) year. That's figures for a particular year. The fact that it's a figure you basically dreamed up doesn't change that.

And you can't have it both ways. If the figures I give are meaningless, so are yours. I didn't choose to present the argument this way, you introduced it, and my response was consistent to your method of putting it (other than not being anecdotal). But my figures show that yours, based on memory, are not particularly good. I realize you don't like the figures I put up, but unless you can find "better" ones, which I invite you to do, you're kind of stuck with them.

By the way, you (or anyone else) can go to the site that all that all that data came from and do your own searches. The figures go back to 1955 and are available for most years up to today. You'll get much the same that I did. That way you can satisfy yourself that I didn't just cherry pick, which should be obvious anyway from the fact that 1) I threw in Aomori and Iwate, and 2) I looked at years way in the past, well before most of who comment on JT and personally remember those cooler summers actually arrived in Japan.

I never said 30 degrees never used to happen

Acknowledged; and I never stated or implied that you did. I responded to exactly what you did say.

Your figures show the maximum hovering around the 30 mark.

Even if that was true (and it isn't), the reason I posted those figures is because 30 degrees was the temperature mentioned by you. However, what I sought to show is that 30 degrees or above is reached day after day after day throughout the summer (specifically July, August, and in the case of Tokyo often well into September). This refutes your claim that 30 degrees makes it "a hot day" as in "unusually hot", which from the context, is very clearly what you meant. It is however "a hot day" in the sense that summer tends to deliver hot days while winter doesn't, and also in the sense that bears shit in the woods.

So anyway, to explain to you why your saying that my figures show the maximum "hovering around the 30 mark" is blatantly untrue: my figures very clearly show the 30 mark being exceeded, often for days or weeks in a row. Of course they're the frigging maximums, but 32 isn't 30, nor is it hovering around 30, I trust you get that? They also show that temperatures like 37 degrees and above used to occur in the 1960s and in the 1950s.

Secondly, I could have made more effort to post figures that looked more impressive. But I didn't: I actually put your claim to the test, by going well back, and looking at (as well as Tokyo) places that are known to have much more benign summers than Tokyo, Osaka or Kyoto. (And they still do.)

Your claim collapses under that test. Unsurprisingly, to hold to your claim, and again in your latest comment, you just flip the argument again, to one I don't dispute. It's a different argument. The earlier, original claim is bunkum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

your claim that 30 degrees makes it "a hot day" as in "unusually hot", which from the context, is very clearly what you meant.

Nowhere did I say it was 'unusually' hot. Of course it's hot in summer. The point is not that 30 degrees was hot then, but that it is not seen as particularly hot now. Not in any cherry-picked year, but overall, temperatures are rising. Summers are getting hotter. Not just from my memory; the figures show it clearly, if you look at the overall picture and not at individual years.

temperatures like 37 degrees and above used to occur in the 1960s and in the 1950s

And they occur more often now. Look again (if you bothered to look in the first place) at the JMA page I cited above; the top 5 years with the most 'extremely hot' (>35 degrees+) days are, in order, 2010, 2007, 1994, 2000 and 2012. All occurring in the last quarter-century, not in the 1950s and 60s. From 1939 to 1969, only 12 years had any 'extremely hot' days, and those only 1 or 2 days in the year; in the last 30 years, there were only 3 years that did not have any 'extremely hot days', and in 10 of the last 30 years the number of 'extremely hot' days is in double digits. How anyone can look at those figures and say it's just the same, beats me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nowhere did I say it was 'unusually' hot.

No, you said people "exclaimed" "how hot" it was when the temperature "hit" 30 degrees. The implication there is that this is not just a normal temperature on a normal summer's day.

But regardless of how you wish to bend and twist the phrase to mean something else that it doesn't actually say, I have shown that in high summer (which as you well know is the end of rainy season onwards) the temperature "hits" 30 degrees and above with very great frequency. That was true 50 years ago, and it was also true 60 years ago. I consider the point to be a) in complete contradiction of your claim, and b) fully proved and sufficiently flogged to death to be not worth further discussion.

And they occur more often now. Look again (if you bothered to look in the first place)

I didn't. And I can't be bothered to.

As I've said, it's a different argument, and not one that I dispute. You might consider why I am saying I don't dispute it. However, your original point was plainly untrue (and weak, and based on memory, and anecdotal). It's just as untrue now, no matter how often you post links or figures to data for recent years. The figures you give are correct, the first argument you presented had nothing to do with those figures, and as an argument, it's unsalvageable. Not that that will stop you trying, I have no doubt.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men."

- song 'Godzilla' by Blue Oyster Cult

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The deniers remind my of some of the remarks made about introducing day light saving. I remember one person remark. This daylight saving in fading my curtains with this extra hour of daylight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The theory of 'manmade climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis." Dr, Leslie Woodcock

(professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester in England, with a Ph.D. from the University of London, and served as a senior research consultant at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Laboratory in Ohio.)

I think I go with Prof, Woodcock and not with Al Gore or some Japan Today experts.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"The theory of 'manmade climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis." Dr, Leslie Woodcock

(professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester in England, with a Ph.D. from the University of London, and served as a senior research consultant at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Laboratory in Ohio.)

I think I go with Prof, Woodcock and not with Al Gore or some Japan Today experts.

All Dr. Leslie Woodcock said was that "manmade climate change" hasn't been definitively proven, yet. He said nothing about whether it was a bogus hypothesis. In short, he said nothing we didn't already know. The force called GRAVITY is an "unsubstantiated hypothesis", but that doesn't stop the world from teaching about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Larry Woodworth:

" The force called GRAVITY is an "unsubstantiated hypothesis", but that doesn't stop the world from teaching about it "

No, "the force called GRAVITY" is a theory, and and extremely stong one. An unsubstantiated hypothesis is a claim that is extremely weak. You might want to check your definitions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, I lived in LA back in 92, and a black haze covered the sky on many days. To think that accumulation of these pollutants would not cause a reaction is kinda stupid IMO. But I'm no scientist.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@RonaldNixon

I just see this as another way for Obama and liberals to take away our freedom while not holding the Chinese accountable.

Well yes, you would, because you see everything as another way for Obama and the liberals to take away your freedom.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As I've said, it's a different argument

No, you're just trying to make it into a different argument to 'prove' your case.

I can't be bothered to.

If you won't even look at the facts, then there's no point in any further discussion, is there?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hardly. I've said twice, and you're apparently incapable of comprehending this no matter how many times it's repeated (which is the real reason why there's no point in further discussion, since you ask), that I don't dispute the second argument, which relates to a trend of warming. You'll see above elsewhere in this thread in a couple of comments I made to other posters (deniers, frankly) that I do not reject global warming or whatever other term people prefer for it.

But the first comment doesn't support the second argument (as it's not correct in the first place, it's just a dodgy comment). It was referring to the year of your arrival, and to a particular temperature back then (30 degrees), which no matter when you came to Japan, was completely commonplace in the summer months once the rainy season is done with. And I've linked to figures for that going back to the mid-1950s. Those high temperatures are simply a fact, a daily occurrence, and your memory on that is faulty. Whether or not they've risen since, there has been no time in our lifetimes when comfortable 25-degree days were the main feature of summer in Tokyo, Kyoto, or Kyushu in the months of July and August, and even Tohoku used to see very frequent 30+ temperatures. It's also quite normal in Kanto and westward for temps to exceed 30 degrees weeks into September. That's just the way it has always been over the last 60 years.

You don't seem that keen on the idea, which is no less true for that, so you're right, it's not really worth discussing beyond this point.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"The theory is that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel causes 'global warming.' In fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 times more of it in our atmosphere [than carbon dioxide].

"Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it's the gas of life. We breathe it out, plants breathe it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it."

Woodcock is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of the journal Molecular Simulation, a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a former guest scientist at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Professor Leslie Woodcock went on to say: "If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It's an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.

"The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years. If there are extremes, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's not permanent and it's not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.

"It's become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by government advisers around the world."

But he added: "You can't blame ordinary people with little or no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren's future and the environment."

(I would have phrased the last sentence a bit stronger, but he is a polite fellow)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Anyone who thinks global warming is just a "theory" doesn't know what scientific theory is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyone who thinks global warming is just a "theory" doesn't know what scientific theory is.

Anyone who thinks that human caused global warming is "settled science" doesn't know what scientific theory is. They have yet to build a model that can correctly test it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Anyone who thinks that human caused global warming is "settled science" doesn't know what scientific theory is. They have yet to build a model that can correctly test it.

Well we should definitely take your word for it over the 98% of climate scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject. You seem legit.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is known that in this universe, there is constant change. It is also known that Earth has experienced both warming and cooling over the ages, caused by many known and unknown factors. A very small change in position of Earth to the sun or the change in magnetic core of earth or the volcanic activities or an asteroid impact have changed the ever evolving earths climatic balance. Definitely man has changed the Earths ecological and biological balance that has existed, creating a new balance that we have today.

The point is there is a new "balance" that what we call nature adjusts to constantly. Global warming if that is occurring is that process. Regardless of what is causing the change, it "appears" to be changing from what we have experienced in the past. It may or may not endanger Earth, but that change is definitely affecting the biological life and balance as we know it to today.

The key is whether we can change it by changing our "behavior" to what "we desire" the "balance" to be at. Or, do we try to "adjust" ourselves to the change that is occurring. The changes occurring may be not for us to or beyond man to control or manipulate.

Could it be a part of a lager change that may be occurring with the Earth itself, affected by changes occurring in other parts of the universe?

Regardless.., man must "adjust" to the changes "before" it is too late.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites