|
|
| Quote: | Impacts of Global Warming
Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may be permanently altered.
Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.
Unfortunately, many of the potentially most important impacts depend upon whether rainfall increases or decreases, which can not be reliably projected for specific areas. |
The ironic thing about global warming is it could lead to an ice age. Nothing as bad as the tens of thousands of years ago but something like the little ice age which ended about the mid 1800's, it was at near its end during the revolutionary war that started the US and during that time New York Haber froze over and troupes were able to walk across it.
For those who's going to ask "How." There is something called the ocean conveyor belt which essentially regulates the worlds temperatures, if enough fresh water gets into the arctic ocean, it will stop and warm water from the equator will not flow north causing parts of the north east US, Briton Ireland and parts of northern Europe to get very cold.
Always good to quote some stuff for those much needed extra points I always think:
"Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.
The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later."
It can't be said with 100% confidence that humans are the cause for global warming, as likely as it may seem. There is no doubt we are getting warmer, but it could also be part of a natural cycle as well. Just another unpredictable thing in nature. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to cut down emissions.
These are all predictions. Trends tend not to continue as we believe they will. Don't forget, there was a program in the 70s that predicted everyone would have gone extinct by 1990
| Soulfire wrote: | | It can't be said with 100% confidence that humans are the cause for global warming, as likely as it may seem. There is no doubt we are getting warmer, but it could also be part of a natural cycle as well. Just another unpredictable thing in nature. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to cut down emissions. |
Based on all the scientific evidence, we are at fault.
I originally posted this in a now locked thread and thought I'd repost it here:
My synaptic jury is still out on the causes of global warming. I do not dispute that it is happening; however I cannot with 100% certainty attribute it to human activity. Maybe humans are causing all of it, maybe none of it, or maybe it’s a combination of natural cycles and human activity. I tend to think we have nothing to do with it, to be honest. But, humans are arrogant.
I give my following reasoning for delaying judgment upon mankind:
We just recently emerged from the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. That natural cycle coincidentally ended with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Of course the earth is warming, because it is in the middle of a warming cycle. Is it warming more than it would normally? I don't know.
Despite recent claims that the earth is hotter now than it has ever been in a million years, I do not see English wines competing with French wines. (i.e. I do not see vineyards thriving in England.) This was the case during the Medieval Warming, when temperatures were so high that England had a temperate climate, much to the chagrin of French winemakers.
Climatologists have trouble explaining The Ice Age and the other afore mentioned warming and cooling. How can they be so certain of this one's cause?
Finally, there is no such thing as an unbiased person or opinion. Everyone, whether scientist, philosopher or politician, is biased by their experiences, personal beliefs, hopes, ambitions, etc. I see it all the time in anthropology and archaeology, for example. Evidence is thrown out because it does not fit the currently most popular theory or the particular scientist's own paradigm. As an example in climatology, a German climatologist recently dismissed the Little Ice Age as insignificant because it only affected Western Europe. That was an outright lie. (One need only look at the journals of Europeans exploring the Americas during this period to realize that.) However he had to dismiss it to reinforce his and others opinions that humans are solely responsible for the current warming trend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Causes
| Quote: | | Greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun. However, they absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted as black body radiation from the Earth, making it more difficult for the Earth to cool. How much they warm the world by is shown in their global warming potential. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than ever before in history. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation [8]. |
There is no dispute, all evadence points to us.
| The Conspirator wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Causes
| Quote: | | Greenhouse gases are transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun. However, they absorb some of the longer infrared radiation emitted as black body radiation from the Earth, making it more difficult for the Earth to cool. How much they warm the world by is shown in their global warming potential. The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years is due to fossil fuel burning. The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than ever before in history. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation [8]. |
There is no dispute, all evadence points to us. |
wrong.
the evidence is all circumstancial and cannot be definitively blamed on manmade conditions.. it all depends on who you ask.. the 50% of scientists who claim man is to blame (and who also typically are supported with government funding), or the other 50% who have looked at all the same 'evidence' and emphatically declare that mankind is insignificant regarding global climate
and quoting wikipedia as a factual source is like quoting Dilbert
JoeFriday: There is no debate in the scientific comuinity, that is a lie polititions and oil companys won't you to beleve. There is no debate.
I personally believe that global warming is created by humans, but really, does it matter?
It's happening, of that there is little real scientific debate. So instead of hoping that it's not happening or arguing that it is, we should be acting on the assumption that it is. Because we'll create a better world for ourselves with that assumption.
As world citizens, we need to be vigilant in protecting our natural resources. Plant trees to soak up the carbon dioxide, drive less, use less air conditioning, vote in politicians who care, and don't buy products from companies who are destroying the environment. Think about your actions every day and realize that we all have an effect on the world.
Agreed, JoeFriday.
There is no consensus among scientists as some have been lead to believe. For every climatologist convinved that the current global warming period is caused by humans there are others who don't.
One need only do some quick research to find scientific conclusions that differ from the mainstream view that humans are causing it.
| Moonspider wrote: | Ag
One need only do some quick research to find scientific conclusions that differ from the mainstream view that humans are causing it. |
Or that, even IF they were causing it, they'd be able to do anything effective about it.
Global Warming = Amway in the 21st Century (A Pyramid Scheme) 
the late 70s were dedicated to 'proving' that global cooling not only existed, but was going to become a serious worldwide problem
the 80s were mostly spent laughing at those scientists
the 90s were the spent, by those scientists who risked losing their funding if they didn't come up with a new theory, finding a way to prove that global warming is now the bane of civilization
I'll wait until 2015 and jump on the Global Hot Flash bandwagon.. meanwhile, I suggest that The Conspirator invest his cash in Popsicle stock, as sales will undoubtedly quadruple as the temperatures increase.. hell, we've already gone up nearly 0.1 degrees on average over the last century!
Its all the trapped methane that worries me, as the world heats up (manmade or not) methane that is trapped in various places on terra firma or under the blue briney seas is released into the atmosphere and as its a bad bad naughty green house gas (maybe the worst) it then causes the earth to heat up more and as the world heats up.....well you can guess the rest
Maybe the existance of life itself is destructive fullstop, the earth would end up saturated in some gas or other eventually
SAVE THE WORLD........STOP FARTING
There is no debate! The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is human caused.
| Quote: | | Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences. |
Theres no debate. Do not give in to political lies.
Global warming is at least partly caused by human influence.
| The Conspirator wrote: | There is no debate! The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is human caused.
| Quote: | | Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences. |
Theres no debate. Do not give in tdffo political lies. |
Remember GW is highly questionable. The data used in the famous "hockey-stick" graph is mostly proxydata and the reliability of direct measurements the last 150 years are not great to say the least. Also the effect of urban heat islands are not fully understood and compensated for. Even if there is a climate warming it might be due to natural causes. In any event, we know for a fact that climate changed long before humans started to used combustion engines, so I dont know what all the fuzz is about.
Dude, do research, its not. Oh yeah, don;t use google for research.
I would say that there is almost a consensus among scientists that global warming is actually happening, but among those they are divided on the issue of whether it is from man made sources or natural.
No there is no devision in the scientific community, the consciouses is that people are causing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
| Quote: | | Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. |
Reaserch, learn.
| Quote: | So,what is global warming....
Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.
The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"[1].
The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later. [2]
The measure of the response to increased GHGs, and other anthropogenic and natural climate forcings, is climate sensitivity. It is found by observational [3] and model studies. This sensitivity is usually expressed in terms of the temperature response expected from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The current literature estimates sensitivity in the range 1.5–4.5 °C (2.7–8.1 °F). Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) project that global temperatures may increase between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (2.5 to 10.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. The uncertainty in this range results from both the difficulty of estimating the volume of future greenhouse gas emissions and uncertainty about climate sensitivity.
An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a rising sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. These changes may increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, and tornados. Other consequences include higher or lower agricultural yields, glacial retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors. Warming is expected to affect the number and magnitude of these events; however, it is difficult to connect particular events to global warming. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming (and sea level rise due to thermal expansion) is expected to continue past then, since CO2 has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 50 to 200 years. [4]. Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. However, the uncertainty is more significant regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and there is a hotly contested political and public debate over what, if anything, should be done to reduce or reverse future warming, and how to deal with the predicted consequences. |
So...we must do something to avoid global warning happen...
We can all look up the definitions on Wikki; there is no need to copy them into the thread.
Chris
like what conspiractor mentioned, the most ironic part of global warming is tt some countries will experience a fall of temperature and lead them to the ice age. and its kinda freaky to imagine stuff shown on movies like the day after tomorrow could well come thru one day, although much exaggerated. and its juz a ticking time bomb which cannot and hardly be stopped. and its like the world keeps nagging bout the point tt global warming is screwing up ourselves but really i think there's nothing much we can do..except to slow down the process.
global warming is real. If you doubt it, ask Al Gore.
I think its a little arrogant to say we are totally responsible for global warming, there is a natural cycle to the earths temperature
We know for a fact that there has been many many ice ages over 100's of thousands if not 1000,000's of years , after each one of these there has been a warming period......is man responsible for all of those ?
Past climatic variations show much better correlation with astronomical variables such as solar activity and orbital changes than they do with atmospheric carbon levels
Natural disasters caused by the weather have been many and various though out mans history, but as our population grows more and more ppl are effected and more and more ppl hear about it through the media the more and more ppl put 2 and 2 together and come up with green, lets just forget we the temperatures/sea levels have been rising since the last ice age(14,000 years) shall we ?
Having said that we should stop releasing as many greenhouse or other gases that cause any detriment to our enviroment as we can.......Who wouldnt want a cleaner enviroment ?
| em0o wrote: | | global warming is real. If you doubt it, ask Al Gore. |
Nobody disputes global warming, just the possible cause(s) behind it.
I find it ironic that we can't predict the ferocity of a hurricane season with any accuracy but some scientists seem to insist that we have a complete grasp of global climatology and can attribute the causes of global warming with 100% accuracy.
I personally think that one fine day, the polar ice caps will totally melt and submerge the earth. There will be an ice age soon if we don't do anything soon. The earth will be snowbound and cold. It'll be something like that movie: "The Day after Tomorrow".
The arctic ice cap displaces as much water as it contains and the Greenland and antarctic ice caps don't contain enough water to submerge all or even the majority of land on earth. Even if they did melt, the vast majority of land would still be above water.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | The arctic ice cap displaces as much water as it contains and the Greenland and antarctic ice caps don't contain enough water to submerge all or even the majority of land on earth. Even if they did melt, the vast majority of land would still be above water. |
Absolutely. How many people have ever had a glass of ice water overflow because the ice melted?
Its scary but is true, dont tell me taht you haven't perceive the change in termperture in the last years. Well I had, and every single years it turns hotter and hotter. I live in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, and it had always been hot in here but these last years it had turned hotter than ever. Actually the last Christmas was in 30C, imagine a Christmas without cold weather!!! Its damn nuts. But it it what we have cause to ourselves, all the polution that we have created is creating all this mess. Unfortunetely there is no actual way to tuen everything back. Maybe future generation will be more concious, at least if life still exist for them. Anyway, start buying boats since WaterWorld is turning true.
have you guys seen the movie the day after tomorrw? thats what we are going to be like. i truly believe we are killing the earth slowly, but then again, no one realy cars except for al gore. that guy is off the hook. i mena we are takin steps to recycle and reduce our depenecy on oil etc.. but yea. that shiet is crazy man, i think as americans we should set the example, other large countries such as china etc also. brazil has it right.
Please lets not bring up that movie. The story of that movie is not based on science nor was any of the events in that movie.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Please lets not bring up that movie. The story of that movie is not based on science nor was any of the events in that movie. |
Agreed. What shall we discuss next, the future of space travel using Star Wars as scientific reference material?
In all fun,
M
Global warming is a big problem for the world and I think we all should aim to lower our carbondioxide emmission. I think it is very alarming and ignorand of countries like Australia and USA not to sign the Kyoto protocol. I admire people like Al Gore who try to raise awerness of this growing problem and offer a solution. I would advise everybody to watch his movie!!
As everyone here will agrees it is very clear that when we proceed at this speed than will be in few hunderd years the live on earth can be ended or in the worst case that we will live in a hell.
So i want to make a promise that i will make my contribution to bring down the carbon dioxide levels.
If everyone will do this then we can let the catastrophy lean over to a good life.
I hope that everyone will make the same promise and so let spread this word around the world.
President Bush and everyone who denie to sign the Kyoto pact, must read this and think about this.
You are aware that in the 70's (30 years ago) scientists were propagating the idea that we were facing an imminent ice age and disaster for mankind. However the funny thing is that once the bandwagon starts rolling people seem to forget about science and it all become politics. I would argue it is irresponsible to spend billions and billions on CO2 emission mitigation schemes to change the global mean temperature 0.2 degrees in 100 years, while a large part of the world population lack even the most basic things like access to clean water and a proper house.
The "science" behind global warming is highly political - many scientists get a lot of funding for this "research". In 50 years this period in science will be regarded with embarrasment and shame.
Plecse do some reserch on it.
Reading Wikipedia is not research, thank you. Especially on controversial topics like this, it is prone to take an unencyclopedic stand and present it as objective.
Quoting from the topic mentioned at the bottom of this post:
| The Conspirator wrote: | | No, politicians are not a source of good information. But nether is an opinion weather it come from fox news.com or my site. When it come to news site and channels pay attention to the news only and not the opinions and when it come to politicians, treat them the same as commercials, don't believe then, just assume there lying cause they probably are. |
Good for you you're critical on news sites, but since when is Wikipedia totally reliable? Seems to me you're just ignoring that question because they happen to be "on your side".
There is a dispute about whether global warming is caused by humans or not. There are scientists claiming that it's a natural cycle. Last year the debate came to our school. I've also been to an international student summit on climate change in London. My conclusion is that even though it's not 100% confirmed, that doesn't make the need to cut emissions less pressing. The risk is simply too high and pollution has so many other disadvantages, the most important being the damage done to third world countries.
Denying that there is any debate will only harm the noble cause of cutting back emissions. And please shut up about following money trails. It's about correct scientifical evidence no matter with who the researcher is associated.
Read http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-35524.html for the same discussion on this forum. And before you want to counter what I said, read the topic again as it's most likely already discussed there. Wikipedia for example...
There is no dispute! Do research, check the sources, read up on the topic, there is no dispute. The scientists agree its us causing it and I didn't get that from Al moron Gore.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | There is no dispute! |
there ABSOLUTELY IS a dispute! YOU do the research.
again you just try to out anyone who disagrees with you. i got news for you, A LOT of people disagree with you. people who really HAVE done research. quit being so childish and accept that people's opinions differ and accept that you are not always right, no matter how many times you say it and how many people you insult saying it. 
There is no dispute, this dispute is a lie created by politicians. Do the research, check the sources, check the links in the page, check the talk section, use it as a jumping off point, do the research and you'll find there is no dispute, it is a lie created by politicians so as not to do anything about the problem.
Uh huh...
| Quote: | | again you just try to out anyone who disagrees with you. i got news for you, A LOT of people disagree with you. people who really HAVE done research. quit being so childish and accept that people's opinions differ and accept that you are not always right, no matter how many times you say it and how many people you insult saying it. |
stop your lies conspirator. stop being so childish.
I don't ****** lie! I learn, I understand, I research unlike you. You said I call people lier's, I never have, you do. Before you call some one else a lier you should learn, research and understand child.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | I don't ****** lie! I learn, I understand, I research |
this is sad. after this i think i'm done wasting my time with you. you're ignorant, self centered, never wrong, insulting, lying, and refuse to accept anything to do with anything that you dont believe in.
You accuse me of flaming in another topic than blatantly flame me heres, how hypocritical.
I think we can conclude that The Conspirator is actually leader and overseer of the global science community, deciding whether there is a debate or not.
People that actually learn about the topic will see that there is no debate and that this idea that the scientific community id debating it comes from politicians not from the scientists.
| Arnie wrote: | | I think we can conclude that The Conspirator is actually leader and overseer of the global science community, deciding whether there is a debate or not. |
that's true. and he is the master of biased sources as well. 
| The Conspirator wrote: | | People that actually learn about the topic will see that there is no debate and that this idea that the scientific community id debating it comes from politicians not from the scientists. |
I will paraphrase: "if you don't agree with me you are uninformed". That's no argument, that's a worthless personal attack.
Untrue as well, since only attending the conference I did would get you well informed, let alone paying attention.
But you can continue being stubborn and refusing to actually try to give some valid arguments why environmental care would be required. Denying that there's a debate only harms that cause.
Pretending that denial in scientific circles about politics is anything like in politics is not right (which is the point Conspirator was trying to make). The evidence for global warming is supported by observations. I can cite you hundreds published in the most prestigious and rigorous scientific journals such as Nature and Science which indicate that it is. Can anyone here provide a reasonable scientific case - published in a respectable journal - that it's not? I doubt it. The question really is now: What are we going to do about it? Can we stop it?
I too have been to conferences where global warming was discussed. For example, out of personal interest I went to some sessions of the Meteorology, Climate Change and Oceanography section of AIP 2005. I was there presenting some work in a different area of physics research. It was very cool to see the latest measurements of CFCs, showing a clear change after they were banned, and the measurements of CO2, constantly increasing.
Some politicians want to bury their heads in the sand. That might be politically correct if you believe in selling the future of your children for votes - I mean who would you vote for? Someone who tells you that you that your lifestyle is unsustainable, or someone who tells you that it is not? Good for vote grabbing, but not responsible.
I am 100% sure that global warming is caused by humans...
Before invention of motorcycles and equipment, there was less worry about global warming!
Doesn't it scare you that China and India are become high-maintenance consumers like the US? I don't think our planet can take on that kind of abuse.
| nopaniers wrote: | | The evidence for global warming is supported by observations. I can cite you hundreds published in the most prestigious and rigorous scientific journals such as Nature and Science which indicate that it is. Can anyone here provide a reasonable scientific case - published in a respectable journal - that it's not? I doubt it. The question really is now: What are we going to do about it? Can we stop it? |
Scientific honesty calls for aknowledgement that science, and even so-called "scientific consensus", is always debatable. If anything history has taught us that many scientific "truths" does not hold up to the test of time - science is more "theory" than "fact" and is as such constantly up for revision. How do you accomodate the fact that just 30 years ago the very same scientific community was telling us that the next ice age was imminent, and "failure to act is highly irresponsible"?
The notion that there is a concensus is also false. There are scientists who reserve against the GW bandwagon.
Please allow me to put forward some points borrowed from "State of Fear", a novel by Michael Crichton (and don't bother with the ad-hominem, all these points are based on sound scientific peer-reviewed papers):
| Quote: | most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
“full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90);
temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);
“No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);
Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);
The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);
James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);
there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);
temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);
changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);
temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);
increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);
the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);
sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);
sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);
the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions ... totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);
change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and
computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566). |
| Quote: | | If anything history has taught us that many scientific "truths" does not hold up to the test of time - science is more "theory" than "fact" and is as such constantly up for revision. |
What you mean is falsifiable.
You also do not understand what a scientific theory is, its not a guess or even an educated guess. Its based on observable evidence and what the evidence says is conclusion scientists come to.
| Quote: | | How do you accomodate the fact that just 30 years ago the very same scientific community was telling us that the next ice age was imminent, and "failure to act is highly irresponsible"? |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century
Basically, its based on a short trend, lack of knowledge of hoe climate changed worked and media hype and the scientific investigation of "global cooling" lead to the discovery of global warming and pointed to humans as the cause of global warming.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | People that actually learn about the topic will see that there is no debate and that this idea that the scientific community id debating it comes from politicians not from the scientists. |
We could and should ask questions (debate)about the topic in different ways..
We do know that theres never been such a thing as a global stable climate, the Earths temperature has allways fluctuated and the longer back in time you look the less significant the recent temp rises seem
We do know that sea levels and land positions are constantly changing, this also can have an effect on ocean currents, before there was the north atlantic there was no north atlantic drift , the Earth changes hence to some extent the weather/temperature changes on a slow but natural cycle
There are theorys (ok un-proven as of now perhaps..theoretical) that the sun and variations in solar radiation , cosmic rays, sunspots, can cause the earths temperature to change through various mechanisms, the Svensmark Effect for example
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Basically, its based on a short trend, lack of knowledge of hoe climate changed worked and media hype and the scientific investigation of "global cooling" lead to the discovery of global warming and pointed to humans as the cause of global warming. |
Dont forget global dimming to..we could just be keeping the earth cooler , warming and cooling at the same time!!
| Quote: | | How do you accomodate the fact that just 30 years ago the very same scientific community was telling us that the next ice age was imminent, and "failure to act is highly irresponsible"? |
30 years ago the science was in its infancy, with the first reliable measurements of CO2 being made. The scientists in question were pointing out the need for their research - that our assumption that man will not affect the climate is wrong - which is constantly misrepresented by politicians (mostly referring to a Newsweek article written by a journalist not a scientist, and not anything published in a refereed journal). If I had a dollar for every time the popular press misrepresented my own field - quantum information - then I'd be a rich man.
For example in 1972, Emiliani warned "Man's activity may either precipitate this new ice age or lead to substantial or even total melting of the ice caps". Now some people want to portray that need for research - and to quantify, developing models which do explain affects from El Nino and the affect of an ever increasing CO2, CFC, Methane - as the results of the research.
Go on. If you don't agree with me - cite me a paper in a scientific jounal. It's not so hard.
The "State of Fear" is a fictional work, and has been widely critisized in the scientific community. See, for example, here including the comments and questions and the responses by the scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
To quote the main part of the article here:
| Quote: | The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO2. One character suggests that "if CO2 didn't cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?" (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current 'best guess' is that the global mean changes in temperature (including the 1940-1970 cooling) are actually quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability (particularly the 1930's warming in the North Atlantic). However, in no case has anyone managed to show that the recent warming can be matched without the increases in CO2 (and other GHGs like CH4).
Secondly, through the copious use of station weather data, a number of single station records with long term cooling trends are shown. In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long-term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970's). "There's your global warming" one of the good guys declares. I have to disagree. Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. It does not imply that the whole globe is warming uniformly (which of course it isn't). (But that doesn't stop one character later on (p381) declaring that "..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world. That's why it's called global warming"). Had the characters visited the nearby station of Santa Barbara Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have been proof of global warming? No. Only by amalgamating all of the records we have (after correcting for known problems, such as discussed below) can we have an idea what the regional, hemispheric or global means are doing. That is what is meant by global warming.
Crichton next raises the apparently unrecognised (by the lawyer character at least) fact that the interior of Antarctica is cooling (p196), an issue discussed in another post (Antarctica cooling, global warming?). This is more or less correct (given the obvious uncertainties in long term data from the continental interior), but analogously to the example above, local cooling does not contradict global warming.
Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen's testimony to congress in 1988. "Dr. Hansen overestimated [global warming] by 300 percent" (p247). Hansen's testimony did indeed lead to a big increase in awareness of global warming as a issue, but not because he exaggerated the problem by 300%. In a paper published soon after that testimony, Hansen et al, 1988 presented three model simulations for different scenarios for the growth in trace gases and other forcings (see figure). Scenario A had exponentially increasing CO2, Scenario B had a more modest Business-as-usual assumption, and Scenario C had no further increases in CO2 after the year 2000. Both scenarios B and C assumed a large volcanic eruption in 1995. Rightly, the authors did not assume that they knew what path the carbon dioxide emissions would take, and so presented a spectrum of results. The scenario that ended up being closest to the real path of forcings growth was scenario B, with the difference that Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, not 1995. The temperature change for the decade under this scenario was very close to the actual 0.11 C/decade observed (as can be seen in the figure). So given a good estimate of the forcings, the model did a reasonable job. In fact in his testimony, Hansen ONLY showed results from scenario B, and stated clearly that it was the most probable scenario. The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable.
Dr Hansen is further quoted (a little out-of-context) saying: "The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change". Given the discussion above it is clear that without good estimates of the actual forcings, the differences in the model projections can be large. It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible. Much of the future is of course unknowable. A new energy source could replace fossil fuels, governments could control emissions, or maybe a series of huge volcanoes will erupt. Therefore it is much more sensible to ask, what would climate be like if you doubled CO2? or if this or that scenario occured. These are much better defined questions. Hansen's quote is often taken to imply that models are so unreliable they are useless in helping assess the issue. In fact it is the opposite - Hansen is actually claiming that the uncertainty in models (for instance, in the climate sensitivity) is now less than the uncertainty in the emissions scenarios (i.e. it is the uncertainty in the forcings, that drives the uncertainty in the projections).
Continuing to p315, it is claimed that "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (and, as described on p563, the MIT academic apparently still thinks so). However, this is not an accurate statement and William Connolley's pages on the subject are an illuminating read for those wanting more details.
Another issue that often comes up in discussion about the surface temperature record is the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), and here it appears on p370. It is undisputed that the centres of cities such as New York are significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside. This issue has been extensively studied and is corrected for in all analyses of the global temperature trends. To see whether there might still be a residual effect in the corrected data, a recent paper (Parker, Nature, 2004) looked at the differences in the trends if you looked separately at windy and not-so-windy conditions. Wind is known to diminish the impact of urban heating, and so the trends on windy days should be less than trends on still days if this was important. The trends actually end up almost exactly the same. Other validating data for the corrected surface temperature record comes from the oceans, which have also been warming in recent decades. Even Richard Lindzen , normally an arch-skeptic on these issues, stated that "ocean temperature increases present some support for the surface temperature record" Lindzen (2002). Another demonstration that the corrections are sufficient is that over the continental US, where many cities have a clear urban heating signal, the mean of the corrected data is actually rather flat (p88) - i.e. none of the strong urban biases in the US has made it into the regional or indeed global mean.
A central issue in the book concerns sea-level rise. Vanuatu is singled out for special attention since the islanders there are understandably concerned about their low-lying islands eventually being swamped. Sea level however is a surprisingly difficult thing to measure. Tide gauges are very noisy, and are usually located on the continental coast. Global trends in sea level from these gauges are between 1.7 to 2.4 mm/yr. Sea level though is not rising everywhere. In Scandinavia the continents are still rebounding from the ice age and local sea level is receding. Satellite data (TOPEX/POSEIDON and JASON) can give a global picture, and indicate that although the global mean rise over recent years (2.8 mm/yr) is significantly larger than the longer term trend estimated from tide gauges, sea level change is actually very dynamic. There are many patterns of behaviour particularly in the Pacific, associated with El Nino variability - possibly related to Vanuatu's lack of actual sea level rise over the last 40 years. Curiously, Crichton cites the higher satellite derived number to claim that the rate of sea level rise has not increased recently ("[Sea level is] rising faster, Satellites prove it","Actually they don't"), p424. There are clearly some problems in comparing tide gauge and satellite data, and of course, satellites can have their problems (cf. MSU data), but the quoted numbers don't support the actual statement at all - though it would be fairer to say that the satellites are consistent with a recent rise in the rate, rather than a proof that it is occuring.
There are only a few out-and-out errors, but to be generous, they probably just slipped through the editing process. For instance, on p187 "higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds" - Presumably, he meant that if the temperature is higher, the relatively humidity could be lower (and so there might be less clouds). On p368. "Croplands are warmer than forested lands". This is probably a confusion with the urban heating issue, but the actual impact is the opposite - croplands have a higher albedo than forests, reflect more solar radiation, and are thus cooler. In fact, while this is not yet fully quantified, it appears to have been a significant cooling term in the global budget over the last 150 years. On p461 "...Greenland shows that, in the last hundred thousand years, there have been four abrupt climate change events" More like 40. And that is probably an undercount given that Greenland may not record events in the tropics.
At the end of the book, Crichton gives us an author's message. In it, he re-iterates the main points of his thesis, that there are some who go too far to drum up support (and I have some sympathy with this), and that because we don't know everything, we actually know nothing (here, I beg to differ). He also gives us his estimate, ~0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400% in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs. This is not true. The current batch of models have a mean climate sensitivity of about 3 C to doubled CO2 (and range between 2.5 and 4.0 degrees) (Paris meeting of IPCC, July 2004) , i.e an uncertainty of about 30%. As discussed above, the biggest uncertainties about the future are the economics, technology and rate of development going forward. The main cause of the spread in the widely quoted 1.5 to 5.8 C range of temperature projections for 2100 in IPCC is actually the different scenarios used. For lack of better information, if we (incorrectly) assume all the scenarios are equally probable, the error around the mean of 3.6 degrees is about 60%, not 400%. Crichton also suggests that most of his 0.8 C warming will be due to land use changes. That is actually extremely unlikely since land use change globally is a cooling effect (as discussed above). Physically-based simulations are actually better than just guessing.
Finally, in an appendix, Crichton uses a rather curious train of logic to compare global warming to the 19th Century eugenics movement. He argues, that since eugenics was studied in prestigious universities and supported by charitable foundations, and now, so is global warming, they must somehow be related. Presumably, the author doesn't actually believe that foundation-supported academic research ipso facto is evil and mis-guided, but that is an impression that is left.
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. |
Peter Doran who did the research was misused by Crichton about Antartica, writes:
| Quote: | | Our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear |
In fact, as he says, that the results of his study are predicted by current models which include the effects of ozone depeletion.
| Quote: | Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?
Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. |
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20711F63E5B0C748EDDAE0894DE404482
When in the book Crichton claims
| Quote: | | Four hundredths of a degree.'' ... ''I can give you the references.'' |
In fact, Tom Wigley, who wrote the 1998 article Crichton cites says that Cricton misuses his research. While the report ''assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and that there were no subsequent climate mitigation policies.'' The point of the paper was that to quote Wigley, ''Once we've done Kyoto we're obviously going to do other things.''
When talking about Kilimanjaro - which Crichton says the snows would melt regardless of global warming is wrong UMass-Amherst climatologist Douglas Hardy, who wrote the paper that Crichton cites says Crichton is doing ''what I perceive the denialists always to do, and that is to take things out of context, or take elements of reality and twist them a little bit, or combine them with other elements of reality to support their desired outcome... The link is very clear between changes in tropospheric temperature and [glacial retreats]. The forests need replanting for many reasons, but I think that [Crichton's] idea is preposterous, without some larger-scale changes."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/?page=1
The point is that Crichton's book is a fictional work - which distorts the good work of scientists. Fiction is not science. Fiction, is by definition, not true and not subject to peer review and proper scrutiny.
| Quote: | | We do know that sea levels and land positions are constantly changing, this also can have an effect on ocean currents, before there was the north atlantic there was no north atlantic drift , the Earth changes hence to some extent the weather/temperature changes on a slow but natural cycle |
Yes. That is true. The more important point is that as we gain more and more understanding of how these cycles work - we can evaluate the effect of various forms of forcing - solar forcing, or those from CO2 and see what effect each has. Increasing CO2 - which is happening - leads to global warming.
In regard to the Svensmark Effect... Can you see the correlations between temperature and cosmic rays in the record:
I don't. The study is not contrary to the greenhouse effect, and although it might be an effect, it certainly isn't as large as CO2. To quote one of the authors of the study:
| Quote: | | I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research. |
For a good discussion see here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/#more-359
You know what the problem is (and the point I'm trying to make)? The world is getting stuck on the debate whether the evidence is 100% robust. But scientific evidence in a complex area like this cannot be 100% robust. Arguments are found in the topic I linked to in my previous posting - if you want to debate on that you had better read them.
So if you keep bickering on about the evidence of antropogene climate change, the only people that will really care about environment are some extremists. Focus has to be put on many other reasons for being environmentally friendly and not abusing fuel.
[quote="nopaniers"] | Quote: | | I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research. |
The most apt word for me there is "puzzle"........I am not an academic type person, but I know enough to know nobody knows enough about the climate on a global scale including the present and past to be 100% sure about ,anything 100% , is it man ? is it a natural cycle ? is it part cosmic like orbital inclination ?... the removal of any would not negate the effect of the others.
I am not sure anybody can understand an "open system" the more you look the more variables there are to consider, consider that the computers used to model the carbon emissions of man indirectly emmited carbon ,did they imput the amount of carbon they emitted into there own equations ?....Ok nit picking I know, but I think its easy to get things wrong with a small small error of input missing some small part of the whole picture...like those of us trying to build there websites know well  .
My personal beliefs are that we should rely less on fossil fuels,we should emit less of all the things(chemicals ect ) that cause more detriment than benefit to our enviroment ,but I cant see man not hitting a global hot or cold patch sometime in the future even if we do give up our hunger for fossil fuels tomorrow, we should be prepaired to adapt whatever the case
One more thing before I go:
| Quote: | | El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426); |
As an Australian I find this pretty offensive. As most Australians know, El Nino brings drought to Australia. The same pattern brings flooding on the other side of the Pacific. Droughts which force our farmers are forced off the barren land.
| Quote: | | "We're in uncharted territory," said Bernard Whyte, a grain and livestock farmer from 35 miles north of Wagga Wagga. "I don't think anybody has a clue what to do." Crops are failing and, with paddocks reduced to dust-bowls, livestock are being sold in record numbers. Areas in southern and south-eastern Australia have been worst hit, with pitifully low rainfall. Now 92 per cent of New South Wales is in drought. The Prime Minister, John Howard, has announced an extra A$350m (£140m) in aid for farmers. A Mental health group, Beyondblue, said a farmer is committing suicide every four days. |
Forget saving on heating fuels if your livestock is dead, or an "extended growing season" if there is no rain.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1919119.ece
| Quote: | | 30 years ago the science was in its infancy |
It still is. The climate system is very poorly understood, which is proved by the poor performance of the current models. The theory of the greenhouse effect is just a glorified guess. The effect of cloud formation, increased particles/albedo, urban heat island and solar cycles is not fully accounted for/understood. In 1974, after a 30 year period of global cooling Rasool and Schneider concluded that quadrupling the amount of aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" .
Now, after a 30 year period of slighty warming trend, there is firm conviction that GHG's are the main forcing for global climate - ignoring the consensus of most scientists: "climate is too complicated to be predicted by a single parameter." (Karner, Daniel B., and Richard A. Muller (2000). "A Causality Problem for Milankovitch." Science 288: 2143-44. ).
| Quote: |
The scientists in question were pointing out the need for their research - that our assumption that man will not affect the climate is wrong - which is constantly misrepresented by politicians (mostly referring to a Newsweek article written by a journalist not a scientist, and not anything published in a refereed journal). |
This works both ways - any group can misrepresent scientific results to suit their agenda - which is the point Crichton is making. The scare and crisis mentality of GW is most likely hugely overblown. Reading the IPCC reports one will see the cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol is enormous, while the gains are at best uncertain. The standard argument that the Kyoto is a first step is moot - further emission mitigation is likely to be as expensive and probably misdirected. Morally this is objectable as large parts of the world population lack reliable access to clean water and decent housing and suffers from malnutrition. These are real problems that should be dealt with first.
| Quote: | | The point is that Crichton's book is a fictional work - which distorts the good work of scientists. Fiction is not science. Fiction, is by definition, not true and not subject to peer review and proper scrutiny. |
Well the point is taken. But Crichton is not the only one to distort the work of scientists. And sometimes "science" is not science, even if it tries to appear like it (look up "Eugenics" for example). Where is your "peer review" there? It failed altogether to shoot down this pseudo-scientific movement.
Have a look, it's pretty disturbing
In proof that we dont understand even the greenhouse effect, approximatly half of the carbon dioxide released is unaccounted for, our models suggest the earths temperature should be higher for the amount we have released however they arnt.
| Rhysige wrote: | | In proof that we dont understand even the greenhouse effect, approximatly half of the carbon dioxide released is unaccounted for, our models suggest the earths temperature should be higher for the amount we have released however they arnt. |
See Global Dimming.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Rhysige wrote: | | In proof that we dont understand even the greenhouse effect, approximatly half of the carbon dioxide released is unaccounted for, our models suggest the earths temperature should be higher for the amount we have released however they arnt. |
See Global Dimming. |
See Global Warming Controversy
There IS a controversy. A large one.
Okay. Let's examine the claims first. First of all, the paper by Rasool and Schneider that I believe you are referring to was published in 1971, not 1974 (If not, could you please give me a proper reference).
| mephisto73 wrote: | | In 1974, after a 30 year period of global cooling Rasool and Schneider concluded that quadrupling the amount of aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" . |
What they actually said was:
| Quote: | | Even if we assume that the rate of scavenging and other removal processes for atmospheric dust particles remains constant, it is still difficult to predict the rate at which global background opacity of the atmosphere will increase with increasing particulate injection by human activities. However, it is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years[24]. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K. |
What he is saying, in simpler English, is: If much more light (a factor of four) was absorbed by manmade polution in the atmosphere, then the earth would cool. Note the if. Less light due to a large increase in air pollution all around the world, cooler temperatures. As he explicitly says, he does not predict that this increase in pollution would happen. For some reason you left that part out...
Opacity means "Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor translucent." So it's not (as you claimed) it is not a factor of four in aerosols which would make the planet cool, but a factor of four in the amount of light which was absorbed.
| Quote: | | Now, after a 30 year period of slighty warming trend, |
It sounds to me like you're trying to belittle the warming periods. Here is the temperature record over the last century.
| Quote: | | "climate is too complicated to be predicted by a single parameter." (Karner, Daniel B., and Richard A. Muller (2000). "A Causality Problem for Milankovitch." Science 288: 2143-44. ). |
A quote I completely agree with. Who ever said that there was only a single parameter?
| Quote: | | Morally this is objectable as large parts of the world population lack reliable access to clean water and decent housing and suffers from malnutrition. These are real problems that should be dealt with first. |
I agree. The same people who stand against doing anything about global warming are often the people who stand against these things too. They believe in the power of markets, over any morality. So they could not care less if markets lead to starvation, or lack of clean drinking water. They complain about giving money to the UN for them to provide drinking water to over a billion people. Decisions should be made with the morality - be that destroying our climate, providing for those less well off, or water - not only with regard to making money.
You talk about drinking water - You know, a town near where I come from - Wagga Wagga ran out of water because of the current drought. Imagine what a similar thing does to the third world. Increased global warming will only increase the numbers of droughts in previously fertile places. These problems go hand in hand.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | There IS a controversy. A large one. |
Hey? To quote from your own article:
| Quote: | | The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion. |
| nopaniers wrote: | | S3nd K3ys wrote: | | There IS a controversy. A large one. |
Hey? To quote from your own article:
| Quote: | | The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion. |
|
I used wiki because Con used it. Con said there WAS NO DEBATE. So I showed him there IS a debate. From HIS preferred site. If I wanted to debunk global warming, I surely wouldn't use wiki to do it.
Also, for the record, I don't doubt global warming any more than I doubted global cooling thirty years ago. But I don't know why it's happening or what we can do, if there's anything we can do, just like nobody else knows.
Well, it is quite known what is sensible to do to make global warming less bad, and also to help the developing countries. Personally I think emissions have to be cut, and we have to find a different energy source.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | Rhysige wrote: | | In proof that we dont understand even the greenhouse effect, approximatly half of the carbon dioxide released is unaccounted for, our models suggest the earths temperature should be higher for the amount we have released however they arnt. |
See Global Dimming. |
See Global Warming Controversy
There IS a controversy. A large one. |
| Quote: | The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion.
There is also considerable opposition from the realms of politics and business to many of the possible actions that could be taken. Chiefly, this opposition arises because the worst-case projected effects would cause enormous expense and disruption to the current geopolitical and geoeconomic situation, with no obvious recognizable short-term benefits, and no real way to gauge the expected results short of performing the actions. Mitigating these expected effects would also be expensive and difficult, requiring much compromise and cooperation between large numbers of organizations and governments. Although the magnitude of the expense is itself in dispute, the short- and long-term expenses are thought to be very large as well as being very difficult to plan for or to implement. Hence, objections are raised and impasses are reached, and the grounds for committing to such effort seem to always be a point of contention.
This is a public and political debate. While the climate projections involved in the discussion have reasonably well-known error bars (but depend on assumptions on carbon emission), the political and economical effects of both global warming and mitigation are much harder to quantify. Questions are asked; If money is spent reducing fossil fuel dependency, will this increase or decrease tension in regions such as the Near/Middle East? Counter questions are asked; Assuming a beneficial outcome based upon that, how would a monetary value be put upon that effect? |
There is no debate which in the scientific community, the scientific consciouses is that global warming is due to the human activity's, there is no debate the controversy comes from the politicians and businesses who refuse to believe the data.
You're killing me, Con...
| The Conspirator wrote: | | S3nd K3ys wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | Rhysige wrote: | | In proof that we dont understand even the greenhouse effect, approximatly half of the carbon dioxide released is unaccounted for, our models suggest the earths temperature should be higher for the amount we have released however they arnt. |
See Global Dimming. |
See Global Warming Controversy
There IS a controversy. A large one. |
| Quote: | The current scientific opinion on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend. Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)) agree with the general point that the Earth is warming, and that something should be done about it. However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion.
There is also considerable opposition from the realms of politics and business to many of the possible actions that could be taken. Chiefly, this opposition arises because the worst-case projected effects would cause enormous expense and disruption to the current geopolitical and geoeconomic situation, with no obvious recognizable short-term benefits, and no real way to gauge the expected results short of performing the actions. Mitigating these expected effects would also be expensive and difficult, requiring much compromise and cooperation between large numbers of organizations and governments. Although the magnitude of the expense is itself in dispute, the short- and long-term expenses are thought to be very large as well as being very difficult to plan for or to implement. Hence, objections are raised and impasses are reached, and the grounds for committing to such effort seem to always be a point of contention.
This is a public and political debate. While the climate projections involved in the discussion have reasonably well-known error bars (but depend on assumptions on carbon emission), the political and economical effects of both global warming and mitigation are much harder to quantify. Questions are asked; If money is spent reducing fossil fuel dependency, will this increase or decrease tension in regions such as the Near/Middle East? Counter questions are asked; Assuming a beneficial outcome based upon that, how would a monetary value be put upon that effect? |
There is no debate which in the scientific community, the scientific consciouses is that global warming is due to the human activity's, there is no debate the controversy comes from the politicians and businesses who refuse to believe the data. |
So to summerize and clarify...
| Mr. Conspirator wrote: | | There is no debate |
BUT...
| Mr. Conspirators quote of wiki wrote: | However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with certain points involved in the discussion.
...
There is also considerable opposition from the realms of politics and business to many of the possible actions that could be taken. |
Yikes, Con.
Again with the lies... err, I mean false statements deliberately presented as being true?
I do not lie, there is no dispute and that is the fact. Theres always a small number of who disagrees with what ever consensus (see string theory (thats been practicality dead more than once)) for a variety of reasons and "certain pints" is not a dispute in the scientific community.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | I do not lie, there is no dispute and that is the fact. Theres always a small number of who disagrees with what ever consensus (see string theory (thats been practicality dead more than once)) for a variety of reasons and "certain pints" is not a dispute in the scientific community. |
First of all your claim that there is no debate is silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Second, the very idea of controversy, or debate, is a sign of a healthy scientific process, if anything. Blind acceptance of paradigms are never good for scientific objectivity, it will usually lead to disaster or at least bad decisions.
Further there is conflicting measurements and the NASA says that: " we believe the problem resides in the computer models and in our past assumptions that the atmosphere is so well behaved. These models just don't handle processes like clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems well enough to accurately predict how strong global warming will be, or how it will manifest itself at different heights in the atmosphere,"
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html
It's not as clear cut as you want to make it.
A few holdouts dose not a debate make, the scientific community has a consciouses that its human caused, the only debate going on in the scientific community is how bad it will be, how long it will take and what the consequence are going to be.
You like pictures?
I got picturs.
| The Conspirator wrote: | A few holdouts dose not a debate make, the scientific community has a consciouses that its human caused, the only debate going on in the scientific community is how bad it will be, how long it will take and what the consequence are going to be.
|
There are THREE things you're in error on...
1) You don't lie is a lie
2) There is no debate is a lie.
3) Consensus means majority of opinion
Goddammit, I don't lie. I've had enough of these character attacks! A few hold outs dose not a dispute or debate make, the evidence is overwhelmingly toward human actions. There are plenty of debates and disputes in science some involving global warming but the cause is not disputed by the scientific community
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Goddammit, I don't lie. I've had enough of these character attacks! |
Stop lying and you won't be attacked. There is a debate. I don't care HOW much you think there isn't.
| Quote: | The Global Warming Debate:
Points made by Supporters
* Rise in CO2 and other Greenhouse gases are anthropogenic.
* Historical Temperature records show an increase of 0.4-0.8°C in the last 100 years.
* This is an unusually warm period for the last 1000 years.
* CO2 is a first order forcing of Climate Change.
* There will be longterm ramifications, the effects of global warming will be felt centuries in the future.
* Climate models can only reproduce the current trends if they use Greenhouse gas forcing, these models show that there will be warming and a rise of sea level.
* IPCC report summerises the state of Climate Science.
Points made by Opponents
* IPCC draws conclusions from Climate models with acknowledged weakness in cloud physics schemes.
* There is a difference between correlation and causation. Just because the temperature were observed to rise around the start of the Industrial Revolution does not mean the Industrial Rev. caused the temperatures to increase.
* Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these periods are not explained by mechanisims that involve human influences.
* Climate Science can not make a definative prediction yet, the computer climate models are still evolving to include all the feedback mechanisms.
* Global temperatures are directly correlated with solar (sunspot) activity.
|
Tell me how one group is definatively correct and the other is absolutely wrong?
Also...
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=65
| Quote: | Is global warming occurring?
* According to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase."
* Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.
* Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
Are humans causing the climate to change?
* 98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.
* By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)
* A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?
* The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Also, sea-level rises over the centuries relate more to warmer and thus expanding oceans, not to melting ice caps.
* Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.
* Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.
What are the policy proposals?
* The U.S. agreed to a 7% reduction of CO2 emissions from what they were in 1990 -- a target to be met by 2008-2012. This agreement would result in massive restrictions on energy use and large taxpayer-funded subsidies for new technologies.
* The Clinton Administration has supported a system of tradable permits to be used by companies that emit CO2. These permits could be bought and sold inter-nationally, giving companies an incentive to lower emissions and thus sell their permits. But this system would require massive international oversight on the order of a worldwide EPA to track CO2 emissions, and the costs to consumers would still be high.
* Because of the devastating effects that global warming policies will have on economic growth, the treaty that was discussed in Kyoto in December 1997 currently excludes developing nations. However, the US Senate has voted 95-0 against supporting a treaty that doesn’t include developing nations.
What economic impact will the proposals have?
* According to a report by the Department of Energy, stringent targets to reduce fossil-fuel emissions in the US will cause energy-intensive industries, including steel, iron, chemical, rubber and plastic, to flee from the developed countries to undeveloped countries, taking with them hundreds of thousands of jobs.
* Carbon taxes will cause relatively large income losses in the poorest one-fifth of the population. The poor, because they spend a greater proportion of their income on necessities, would have few ways to cut back to compensate for higher living costs.
* Stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 would reduce the growth of US per capita income by 5% per year.(Gary W. Yohe, Wesleyan University)
* The burden would fall on many individuals and families and would be unfair in that it would be quite unrelated to income, wealth or ability to pay. Instead, the burden would be determined by energy use patterns and circumstances, such as distance from work, condition and energy efficiency of homes, automobiles, and appliances.
* Senior citizens on fixed incomes would find their energy costs escalating and their income dwindling.
Will the policies actually stop global warming?
* By all estimates, only severe reductions in global CO2 emissions -- on the order of 60 percent or more -- will alter the computer forecasts. The resulting economic dislocations would be tremendous, potentially outweighing the negative impacts of even the most apocalyptic warming scenario.
* If the policies do not include developing nations the result will likely be a reallocation of emissions to developing nations, not a reduction of emissions.
* If the entire world is included and CO2 emissions are severely restricted, the science is not clear what impact, if any, it would have on the world’s climate.
For more information on global climate change, please contact
Consumer Alert
1001 Connecticut Ave. · NW · Suite 1128
Washington, DC · 20036
Tel.: (202)467-5809 · Fax: (202)467-5814 |
The satelite measurements to which you refer, Mephisto, were shown to be incorrect. They were contradicted by direct measurement (see for example Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1665 (1996), Geophys. Res. Lett. 21, 1149 (1994)) and the by the climate models. It turned out (almost a decade ago now, in 1998) that the authors had not accounted for drag on the satelites. When this was taken into account the satelite readings broadly matched both the models, and the direct measurments (see Science, Vol. 281. no. 5379, pp. 930 - 932 (1998)).
| Quote: | The global warming issue has been confounded for several years by satellite observations of a cooling trend in the troposphere (the lowest 10 to 15 km of the atmosphere) (1-4). Such cooling is at odds with measurements at meteorological stations (5, 6), which show warming at Earth's surface, and with climate models, which yield warming at the surface and in the troposphere (1, 7).
Wentz and Schabel (8 ) have now discovered an oversight in the satellite data analysis that, at least to first order, removes the inconsistency between surface and satellite observations. The modified temperature profile is also in close accord with published climate model simulations. |
See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/281/5379/930#ref6
The satelite readings, the models and direct measurements also agree for the rates of increase in temperature, for example in Science (2005):
| Science wrote: | | Some reconstructions of recent warming in the troposphere based on satellite data have indicated that the troposphere has warmed since 1979 (when the data were initially collected) at a rate considerably less than that, which should be expected from surface temperature measurements. Three studies (all published online 11 August 2005) reassess these data and reconstructions in favor of the surface temperature trends. Mears and Wentz (p. 1548) identify an error in the diurnal correction that has been applied to the satellite data, and derive a physically consistent one of the opposite sign, whose application brings into agreement a newer reconstruction of tropospheric warming, model calculations, and surface temperature measurements. Sherwood et al. (p. 1556) show that a spurious temporal trend was introduced into tropospheric temperature profiles recorded by radiosondes through changes in instrumentation made over time that involved solar heating of the instrument above ambient temperature. Correction for this bias brings many of the radiosonde data into better agreement with models and the surface temperature record, particularly in the tropics, where the disagreement between surface and expected tropospheric temperatures was most pronounced. Santer et al. (p. 1551) examined patterns of the amplification of surface temperature trends in the tropical troposphere using 19 different models. They show that the reconstructions used to argue that the troposphere was not warming are inconsistent with our understanding of the physical processes that control the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere (the lapse rate). |
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5740/1453b
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | * According to Accu-Weather, the world’s leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. |
Accu-Weather's survey included only three cities, which is a particularly small data set, and not statistically significant. The accepted number is 0.6 +- 0.2 degrees.
| Quote: | | Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. |
The record shows a warming. Please see the previous post for some references.
| Quote: | | Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. |
All models I know of predict warming over the next century. If you disagree, please feel free to cite me ones which show cooling, given reasonable conditions.
| Quote: | | By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate.... (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University) |
That's plainly wrong. The vast majority of scientists agree with global climate change. To quote from Science magazine:
| Quote: | Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling ( .
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. |
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686/
| Quote: | | A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. |
Limbaugh lifted these incorrect numbers from a column written by George Will.
The survey, conducted 15 years ago in 1991 (a very long time ago now considering the amount of research which has been done since then), indicated that 66% of those respondants agreed, 10% disagreed and the rest were undecided.
| Quote: | | Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. |
Actually, such spread of disease has already been observed. For example
| Science 191 wrote: | | Climate warming can increase pathogen development and survival rates, disease transmission, and host susceptibility. Although most host-parasite systems are predicted to experience more frequent or severe disease impacts with warming, a subset of pathogens might decline with warming, releasing hosts from disease. Recently, changes in El in˜o–Southern Oscillation events have had a detectable influence on marine and terrestrial pathogens, including coral diseases, oyster pathogens, crop pathogens, Rift Valley fever, and human cholera. |
Or you can read a popular account here: http://compassonline.org/?q=node/view/117
| Quote: | | Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. |
We have a drought, farmers are committing suicide, the land is barren with over 90% of my home state in drought and you want a warmer climate? Great, mate.
So let us look at some of these people shall we?
Willie Soon and Baliunas: These guy wrote are not only funded by the oil industry, they wrote a paper so unscientific (in methodology) that when it was accidently accepted for publication, five of the editors resigned.
| Quote: | | After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann's hockey stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given.) |
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
Frederick Seitz: Strange. The guy is a solid state physicist - where pretty much everyone knows who he is (myself included). But he isn't a climate scientist. He's more recently become an advocate for tobacco companies (who have employed him since 1979) claiming that smoking is not harmful. What he's doing commenting on global warming I'm not quite sure.
Shaviv and Vizer: Whose work on climate change has been seriously questioned, because it contains methodological errors - in one case adjusting their data by 40 million years to make it fit their hypothesis. And even if their work was correct it applies to geological timescales of millions of years, not to the warming we have seen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3419975.stm
But then this is all a bit silly... Many hundreds of scientists for, opposed to a tiny minority against (and I would point out that none of those question that warming is occurring, at least not in the past five years). That is not a controversy, that's an overwhelming consensus. I've been to conferences and seen this for myself. It is simply not the case that there is a controversy in scientific circles, only in political ones.
Personally I think ignoring and/or putting small groups of opponents in a corner, is even more damaging to the effectivity of the praised "peer review" principle. This topic makes obvious that there is a lot of pressure on scientists to accept the common opinion. They're not forced to, but if you go against the ruling opinion you get pushed in a corner and are constantly under fire. Doesn't leave much credibility either.
So much for peer review, because they won't listen anyway!
| Arnie wrote: | Personally I think ignoring and/or putting small groups of opponents in a corner, is even more damaging to the effectivity of the praised "peer review" principle. This topic makes obvious that there is a lot of pressure on scientists to accept the common opinion. They're not forced to, but if you go against the ruling opinion you get pushed in a corner and are constantly under fire. Doesn't leave much credibility either.
So much for peer review, because they won't listen anyway! |
You're correct with the addition of the premise that funding for scientists not conforming is also being reduced/eliminated. (I worked with some scientists at GNF (Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation) a few years ago that used to be involved with climate change)
If you look at the scientists who are in the minority, you may find that they're the ones not funded by those with something to gain with the global warming threat.
The pressure is not to accept a common opinion, but to conform to a certain minimum standard of quality. Basic things, like not falsifying data, and providing evidence for your statements.
The day after tomorrow is near
| nopaniers wrote: | | The pressure is not to accept a common opinion, but to conform to a certain minimum standard of quality. Basic things, like not falsifying data, and providing evidence for your statements. |
That's the ideal scientific community yes, but in reality it's not as ideal as you like to present it. Scientists are also human, the word "community" already implies that there is human communication involved. Which leaves a lot of room for practices as I described above.
In the news today: Global warming is projected to cost much more than preventative measures to combat it.
| Quote: | | Climate change could cut global growth by a fifth, costing up to £3.68 trillion in total, unless drastic action is taken, a review is to warn. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, economist Sir Nicholas Stern says. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
That makes sense, considering the $6 billion loss Australia is taking this year because of the drought.
Some people don't believe in Global Warming but then I tihnk that even if it does or doesn't exist, we really need to reduce our pollution and take care of our environment. We live in the world and if we mistreat it, we will be affecting our future generations and someday the earth may be polluted to a point of no return
| nopaniers wrote: | In the news today: Global warming is projected to cost much more than preventative measures to combat it.
| Quote: | | Climate change could cut global growth by a fifth, costing up to £3.68 trillion in total, unless drastic action is taken, a review is to warn. But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, economist Sir Nicholas Stern says. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
That makes sense, considering the $6 billion loss Australia is taking this year because of the drought. |
But you don't know if your actions will actually affect the current trend in climate change. You don't know what is the main forcing, or even if it's anthropogenic. It's senseless to spend such amounts of money more or less in blind, or at best based on assumptions.
We do know what the main forcings are. See for example, this graph showing the major differences in comparison with the pre-industrial climate (together with their uncertainties shown as error bars):
As for uncertainty - if I tell you there is a cliff over there, and to stop running towards it do you really reply "You can't tell me if I'll fall in three steps or four, so I will keep running". You are basing your actions on an unfounded (and unscientific) view that everything will be okay if you do nothing. The blind person is the one who ignores scientific advice in favour of political ideology. The forcings are changing as we pollute the atmosphere more.
Here is one of the world's most eminent economists - He was the chief economist, and senior vice president of the World Bank - evaluating the economic effects of combatting greenhouse gasses, and concluding that it is beneficial to do so. You say it is "senseless" invest money in the future of our children. Here one of the world's leading experts telling us that it is ecomically senseless not to. Doing nothing costs trillions, literally, much more than developing new technology and new industries to deal with the problem.
| nopaniers wrote: | | We do know what the main forcings are. See for example, this graph showing the major differences in comparison with the pre-industrial climate (together with their uncertainties shown as error bars): |
Just a quick observation for arguments sake. 1750 was during the The Little Ice Age. So yes, there are atmospheric differences because of the Industrial Revolution. But how much do those differences account for global warming as compared to the post-ice age natural warming?
An important factor which is still being researched, and does not yet figure satisfactorily in most models, is Global Dimming.
It has been observed that the amount of sunlight striking the earth has actually decreased over the last century, despite the increase of temperatures over the same period. This is thought to be a result of atmospheric pollution and experiments have shown a significant effect. This obviously acts to mitigate (reduce) the effect of global warming and this is not reflected in many climate models in use. One such study looked at the effect of grounding much of the global airplane fleet post 9/11 and showed a significant and unexpected effect. Other studies have looked at the evaporation data which is accurately measured by the pan-evaporation data over the last decades. There is little doubt that global dimming is a real phenomenon and is probably responsible for about a 5% decrease in actual solar irradiance over the last 30 years or so. This is a significant mitigation in AGW.
As the west has become more environmentally conscious and introduced legislation to protect the environment , the amount of pollution entering the atmosphere has decreased significantly and this will, inevitable, reduce global dimming and, therefore, increase the effects of global warming.
When one considers this factor then the picture is, I think, more alarming than one could otherwise think. A relatively small increase in global temp, coupled with a reduction in global dimming will push us closer and closer to several key 'tipping points'.
These include :
a possible atlantic conveyor switch-off, and the related el-ninô effects;
large-scale 'boiling' of huge deposits of methane hydrates from the ocean floor;
the dying of a large portion of the south-american rain forests
Any one of these could take us rapidly into unknown territory and could drastically alter the climate very rapidly.
Regards
Chris
Chris.
I think I'm not being clear. Let me clarify my position:
1. I don't argue against global climate change. I'm sure it is changing.
2. I think it is reasonable to say that we can't be certain about the net effect of anthropogenic forcings.
3. Climate has changed naturally through out history, well before man, and without these changes we would most likely not be here.
4. Actions to mitigate CO2 emissions are at this stage premature and misdirected. The same investment could improve directly the lives of millions in developing countries.
Stabilizing CO2 levels around 450 ppm will cost about 4 to 18 trillion US$, according to IPCC projections. The benefit of this is uncertain. My only argument is that these money can be spent better elsewhere. And that the fear mongering is unnecessary.
| mephisto73 wrote: | I think I'm not being clear. Let me clarify my position:
1. I don't argue against global climate change. I'm sure it is changing.
2. I think it is reasonable to say that we can't be certain about the net effect of anthropogenic forcings.
|
Sure, in the same way that you cannot be certain about the exact effect of tossing a hand-grenade into a room. What you can be fairly certain of, however, is that you will find the effects are not likely to produce anything but negative consequences. | Quote: |
3. Climate has changed naturally through out history, well before man, and without these changes we would most likely not be here.
|
Agreed but so what ? | Quote: |
4. Actions to mitigate CO2 emissions are at this stage premature and misdirected. The same investment could improve directly the lives of millions in developing countries. |
This argument has been made by Oil lobbyists for over a decade and as well as being factually incorrect (many co2 reduction measures are costed, practical and actually implemented, for example) it is highly misleading because it takes no account of the costs of not acting. Developing countries are already suffering disproportionately from the currect effects of climate. Any swing in global climate is almost certain to impact the poorest countries hardest. Consider drought patterns in Africa, flood patterns in India and other parts of Asia.
| Quote: |
Stabilizing CO2 levels around 450 ppm will cost about 4 to 18 trillion US$, according to IPCC projections. The benefit of this is uncertain. My only argument is that these money can be spent better elsewhere. And that the fear mongering is unnecessary. |
Hmm....here's a different picture with the same data :
change over next century...AtmosphericConcentration ....Expected consequences
1° C.......................................450 ppm CO2...........Widespread loss of coral reefs
2° C.......................................550 ppm CO2............Increased risk of breakup of West Antarctic Ice Sheet; sea level rise 4-6 meters
3° C......................................650 ppm CO2.............Increased risk of Gulf Stream Circulation shutdown. Sharp fall in temperatures in N. Europe
B.C. O’Neill and M. Oppenheimer, “Dangerous Climate Impacts And the Kyoto Protocol,” Science 296:1972 (14 June 2002).
And here are 2 different ways of looking at the potential costs:
http://camres.frih.net/resources/climate.pdf
http://camres.frih.net/resources/climate1.pdf
Regards
Chris
| Moonspider wrote: | | Just a quick observation for arguments sake. 1750 was during the The Little Ice Age. So yes, there are atmospheric differences because of the Industrial Revolution. But how much do those differences account for global warming as compared to the post-ice age natural warming? |
The levels of CO2 are much higher than they were in the little-ice age. It's not simply some resoration of some "natural" equilibrium. See, for example, one of many similar CO2 readings from ice-core samples:
And as you see from the graph I posted in the previous link, this increase CO2 is responsible for a difference in forcing between 1750 (or in fact most of the time for the past 1000 years which all had similar CO2 levels) and now. It doesn't look to me like an effect of the "little ice age".
S3: I never lie, I tell the Truth, and your character attacks only make you look bad. The fact is there is no dispute, a few hold outs do not a dispute make, the fools here say the earth is flat. Now dose that mean there is a dispute (not scientific dispute obviously but a public one) about the shape of the earth? No. A few hold outs do not a dispute make. For it to be a real dispute there would have to be more than a few and based on the evidence at hand.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | S3: I never lie, I tell the Truth |
Sure, kid. Sure.
And by your own standards, when the earth WAS flat, and there were only a FEW saying it was round, how'd that work out for you and your "no debate" theory because only a "few" were holding out saying it was round??
I bet you know for a fact there is no God. Or that there IS a God.
Don't you?
Con, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG! There IS a debate, and if you deny it, you're lying!
Here's some of the 'debate that doesn't exist' according to Con...
| http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548 wrote: | Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
|
And for further entertainment, here are a few links from different sources saying there certainly IS a debate on Global Warming.
Are you paying attention, CON???????
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1
ABC News (USA) — Michael Crichton Takes on Global Warming in Latest Work
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1307945.htm
ABC (Australia) — Transcript of interview with Andrey Illarionov
http://www.arm.ac.uk/press/200years-on-the-Net.html
Armagh Observatory — 200 years on the net
From BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_358000/358953.stm
Global warming — is the Sun to blame?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm
Climate change 'is the norm'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4105327.stm
Crichton's climate fear contention
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4203021.stm
Science sceptics meet on climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3854461.stm
Fossils point to warmer UK past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4693855.stm
Politics plays climate 'hockey'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm
A Load of Hot Air?
From CATO.ORG
http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/index.html
Environment and Climate
http://www.cato.org/current/global-warming/index.html
Global Warming
Other sources:
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02967.cfm
CEI — Bush Administration withdraws support for IPCC Chairman.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Chris Landsea — Statement on why he quit the IPCC
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu//?p=30
Climate Science — Resignation from the CCSP Committee
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=%5CCommentary%5Carchive%5C200412%5CCOM20041202d.html
CNS — There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming
http://www.cei.org/
Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.co2science.org
CO2 science
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185171,00.html
Fox News — Kyoto's Quiet Anniversary
http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm#CO2_levels
CO2 Levels at 18 times what they were before mankind had the ability to affect them.
I've got TONs of this stuff. Do I need to post more DEBATE for you Con, (or tidrug for that matter)? Or are you convinced that you were wrong and that there really IS a debate?
A few hold outs do not a debate make, you won't to talk about a global warming debate, go to the political forum, theres plenty of debate in politics about it but this is about science and there is no debate in the scientific community and a few articles from non-scientists don't belong here. A few hold outs do not a debate make, you won;t a debate, you need scientists with hard evidence against it, evidence that can be repeated and comes out with the same conclusion but that hasn't happened, thats how science works.
I won;t this character assassination attempts stopped, you won;t to talk about lies, look at your own posts on Islam.
And that quote, well if you had bothered to read it you would have seen its flaws, in fact you wouldn't have read past the first line, it gets it opposite, the majority (actually vast majority) of scientists say humans are the cause.
The global warming is a serious problem, we have to hurry to safe this nice place in the universe! But, I think we will start with it when it is to late..... 
I hope you all will forgive me for skipping through the debate and posting something.
S3nd K3ys...who is the Heartland organization? At their "about us"page there's a picture of a city and it says, among other stuff: "Heartland's mission is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls Heartland "a highly effective libertarian institute. ..."In 2005, 52 percent of the organization’s income came from foundations, 32 percent from corporations, and 14 percent from individuals."
They're enviromentalists? How about the CATO Institute? Tell me what's happening here...the US, which consumes some 25-30% of the world's goods & services, and hence, produces that same percentage of the world's waste is an irrelevant fact behind what's propagated by the corporate media? See, the problem you're having is that you see "sides" to an issue, rather than interests based on class. Left vs. right is a false premise that doesn't exist. History overwhelming proves that the world has always been Top vs. bottom. The bottom up movement is dead. You of the top 1 or 5 or 10%?
But the crap their talking heads spew is true? ...lol...
alaskan glaciers are melting at an astonishing rate... were ******
I know that in alot of places, global warming seems evident, but from where I live, things have actually gotten more moist, if not more cool. (i guess that if you look at it realistically, the increase of percipitation could easily be a result of global warming, but seeing as I dont really understand meterology that well, this is nothing more than raw speculation... but this is a forum, not a university, so I don't think there is anything wrong with the statment)
The problem with this issue is that it was politicised very early. The US (and others, but much less significant) took the decision to kick it into the long grass in the medium term because the US economy stands to loose heavily if restrictions or other measures are implemented.
In order to remain credible the administration setup several 'information' sources who could be relied upon to give favourable (or at least not too critical) views of the situation and forecasts of the future effects.
Various straw-man arguments and misleading studies have been used in a concerted campaign to minimise the coverage and reported impact of AGW by the US establishment. Until recently senior members of the administration did not even admit that there was any proof that AGW is a reality.
In order to knock down some of the more ridiculous counter-arguments, I'll post a few rebuttals to the obvious rubbish.
1. It is the Sun that is responsible.
Energy from the sun increases slightly — by about 1 part in 1,000 — in concert with the peaks of the sunspot cycle. But those fluctuations can't account for the current warming.
The problem is, no one has been able to figure out how minuscule changes in sunlight could raise temperatures significantly. Of the 1.2-degree increase in average global temperatures over the past century, less than 15 percent can be blamed on changes in the sun, the newest estimates say. The story really developed legs when the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute took it up and argued that the sun might be to blame for global warming.
2. Michael Crichton says it's a conspiracy and why would he lie ?
Well, a couple of things to remember.
a) Crichton's novel 'State of Fear' dismisses all evidence of global warming as the work of Dr. Evil-like conspirators, so he has taken a stance for his fiction which he is now defending.
b) He is a writer of entertaining but hardly challenging pulp sci-fi novels. He is hardly an authority on any aspect of science let alone climatology. Jurassic Park is an enjoyable film but it hardly makes Crichton someone with an especially noteworthy opinion in this matter.
3. Lots of scientists are sceptical about AGW.
No, dude, they're not. Really! Trust me. What there are is a lot of oil financed groups, a few crank groups and a few 'awkward squad' type groups who just like controversy. The latest group being touted as scientists speaking against AGW is the 'Scientific Aliiance (A UK group of 'scientists' who are 'impartial and 'sceptical' about AGW.
The founders of the Scientific Alliance were Mark Adams and quarryman Robert Durward, the director of the British Aggregates Association. Durward says he is 'a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff... much of which is unjustified, such as the climate change levy. We also have the aggregates tax, which will put the UK quarry industry out of business.'
[quote]Durward and Adams established the Scientific Alliance in 2001. Two years later The Scotsman newspaper reported that on contacting the Alliance to ask about Durward's role, 'after some uncertainty, the switchboard it shares with a number of other firms denied any knowledge of Mr Durward’s existence. Matthew Drinkwater, the one person responding to calls to its offices, could also be contacted by ringing the offices of Foresight Communications.'
Foresight Communications is a PR firm established by Mark Adams in January 2001. As well as The Scientific Alliance, its client list includes the British Aggregates Association and the New Party for Britain (also known as the People's Alliance). The New Party - also the name of Oswald Mosley’s first party - is so right-wing that the Tory leader in Scotland, where it operates, has called it 'fascist and undemocratic'. Like the Scientific Alliance, this 'People's Alliance', was established by Durward and Adams. Laterly Philip Stott has been the quoted representative of the group on several occasions. He potrays himself as a champion of science against coroporate and political abuse. I cannot find any record of him publishing in any of the fields he is most vocal in (GM - pro, AGW - denies, organic agriculture - against, Genome program - messianic). Basically he is an outspoken maverick with little claim to scientific bona fides in this field and a history of over-hyped, immoderate and unscientific comment in many other fields.
As always with such matters, make your own mind up, but be very careful about believing claims to impartiality and scientific bona-fides. Always check your source (is my advice) and try to use checks that are reputable - national (better yet, professional) publications for choice,
Regards
Chris
Global warming nobody exactly knows is it good if we warm up our climate. One big vulcan eruption can put in atmosphere the same amount of CO2 as mankind for years. THe subject of global warming is so popular because some organization gain of this - Green party, Democrats, organization which want more money from industry etc.
For me is the not main problem of Earth. Much more important are hungry in many countries and wars (not particular in Iraq but in Africa where more people die in a month than Iraq by year).
| Zeusik wrote: | Global warming nobody exactly knows is it good if we warm up our climate. One big vulcan eruption can put in atmosphere the same amount of CO2 as mankind for years. THe subject of global warming is so popular because some organization gain of this - Green party, Democrats, organization which want more money from industry etc.
For me is the not main problem of Earth. Much more important are hungry in many countries and wars (not particular in Iraq but in Africa where more people die in a month than Iraq by year). |
Wrong on several counts.
1) We are not certain exactly what effect warming the climate will have but enough is known to be sure that it can only be bad, worse or catastophic. There is no good outcome.
2) The Greens are not known for their greedy devious plots to extort money with menaces....
3) The amount of CO2 released by volcanos is around 100-120 Million tons per annum. The total amount per annum is about 10 Billion tons...that makes volcanos responsible for about 1%...
4) The population of Africa are already amongst the worst hit by global warming and this will continue. Disruption of the atlanti conveyor is though by many climatologists to have already contributed greatly to failing monsoons and extended periods of drought in large part of central and southern Africa.
Regards
Chris
Climate change is real. No rational reasoning can deny it. There is simply too much evidence of it: global average temperature change, rapid melting of ice in the Arctic, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widespread dying of coral reefs and so on and so on…
Global warming is approaching the point of no return. We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rapidly. And the fact is that immediate and very efficient actions are needed if humanity is to "survive". There is not a moment to lose…
But as yet the politicians are still engrossed in their war-for-oil-games and the scientists are going on debating. When they are going to stop, till they will hear the bump???
| The Conspirator wrote: | | A few hold outs do not a debate make, you won;t a debate, you need scientists with hard evidence against it, evidence that can be repeated and comes out with the same conclusion but that hasn't happened, thats how science works. |
And that's the flaw of science as I have been arguing all the time. Because there isn't just evidence, there's people gathering it, collecting it, processing it, interpreting it, communicating it, publishing it, scrutinizing it, peer-reviewing it... all people's work. And people can fail, even when there are a billion scientists involved. Masses have been deceived before - the way any community, including the scientific community, works makes it possible to silence a few who oppose wrong things. It's how science works and it isn't perfect. Just as they used to believe in generatio spontanea.
I have no problem accepting the urge of action on this issue. I just cannot stand people claiming that science is flawless.
men in 50 more years there will be no ice on the poles hehehe imagin all the climate changes we will be the responsibles for our own extintion we suck
I'm no scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but just wanted to make a few comments.
I personally believe that the current climate change is a combination of two things: natural warming and human activity. I think that we as humans went through the industrial revolution at an inopportune moment in climatic history. That is, we started industrializing as the earth was warming up after the Little Ice Age.
As for those that argue that we have no idea what will happen. You're dead wrong. It is not as if earth's climatic history has been static up until this period. (To hear some "greens" talk, you'd think that the Earth's climate never changed until recently.) Look at the last major warming period during the Middle Ages. During that warming period, human populations flourished as did economies, conflict was limited (comparably to other periods). Then, as the Medieval Warming became the Little Ice Age, life changed for the worse. Crops that were great during the warm period failed. Famine entered into the picture. Disease spread rapidly in populations already weakened by starvation and less hospitable weather. Populations dropped dramatically during the great plagues. Economies collapsed, as did governments. So, based on historical examples, I expect the same. Technology won't make us much different, some, but not much.
The U.S. government and military already has contingency plans (as it does for every possible scenario imaginable, no matter how probable).
I personally adhere to the theory that global warming, such as the afore mentioned Medieval Warming, leads to global cooling as the north polar ice cap melts and cools the Atlantic. I believe this is what happened then, and expect it to happen this time around as well.
We shall see. I also don't believe even that our best efforts will be able to prevent it. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but I think we'll fail because it is not entirely a human-caused issue. Human behavior may be accelerating the cycle, but is not the sole cause IMHO. What concerns me more than politics like the Kyoto Protocol (which I believe to be useless as it excludes far too many countries with far too vast populations), is that no one seems to be focusing on the real issue: how to cope with the changes and limit the damage to human populations.
We're like people standing on a beach in South Carolina arguing over how to stop an approaching hurricane rather than building a shelter or evacuating.
Respectfully,
M
Just to add another point to this debate...
Magnetic reversal... Doesn't the earths magnetic field fluctuate and the poles change every so often? Sure the last major one was in the 50's.
This would cause more solar radiation to enter the earths atmosphere and heat the place up under those water ladenned clouds...
Yes, no and no.
The magnetic pols have shifted in the past but on average every 200,00 years and the last one was 600,000 years ago and there is growing evidence that we are at the beginnings of a poler shift but that wouldn't effect the temperature of the earth, the magnetic field dose not protect us from soler radiation (the atmosphere dose that) it protects us from soler wind and soler flairs.
I cant really imagine what our mother earth will be by the end of the global warming... I mean the real happening of the global warming...
Shall we be the fish by then? 
| Arnie wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | A few hold outs do not a debate make, you won;t a debate, you need scientists with hard evidence against it, evidence that can be repeated and comes out with the same conclusion but that hasn't happened, thats how science works. |
And that's the flaw of science as I have been arguing all the time. Because there isn't just evidence, there's people gathering it, collecting it, processing it, interpreting it, communicating it, publishing it, scrutinizing it, peer-reviewing it... all people's work. And people can fail, even when there are a billion scientists involved. Masses have been deceived before - the way any community, including the scientific community, works makes it possible to silence a few who oppose wrong things. It's how science works and it isn't perfect. Just as they used to believe in generatio spontanea.
I have no problem accepting the urge of action on this issue. I just cannot stand people claiming that science is flawless. |
That is not a flaw of science, it is a flaw of humanity. Sure science is not proof against all attempts to behave in this manner, what is ? Science is, however, less susceptible to this type of partiality and twisting than other institutions though. Much of the distortion is external - media distortions or omissions in reporting, financial interference in research, politically motivated pressure and influence on scientists and their employers and so on. Most scientists are honest and professional in their work. Most science is accurate and valid in it's results.
Examples of suppression, distortion and deception are, I would argue, far less prevelant in science than in other facets of life and work. Science is based on refutation and test, unlike politics, religion, popular comment and media coverage. It at least contains within it the tools to combat such things.
Chris
Global warming seriously need sorting out.
Bikerman, science is always done by humans and thus subject to the flaws of humanity. You are correctly stating the root of the problem, though.
Still I do not agree that scientists and their works deserve any more trust than others. The peer review system simply isn't nearly as reliable as is usually suggested.
A good dose of scepticism is healthy. But the mistake made by most people saying that, is that it's not just the populistic politician that should be looked upon with suspicion (which we hear all that often) but also the saluted scientist (which we are all supposed to believe).
| UHF123 wrote: | Always good to quote some stuff for those much needed extra points I always think:
"Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades.
The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. The first speculation that a greenhouse effect might occur was by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1897, although it did not become a topic of popular debate until some 90 years later."
|
If you want to quote you should use the quote tags, so it looks like | Quote: | | insert your quote here |
Just a small tip so you dont get banned.
| Arnie wrote: | Bikerman, science is always done by humans and thus subject to the flaws of humanity. You are correctly stating the root of the problem, though.
Still I do not agree that scientists and their works deserve any more trust than others. The peer review system simply isn't nearly as reliable as is usually suggested.
A good dose of scepticism is healthy. But the mistake made by most people saying that, is that it's not just the populistic politician that should be looked upon with suspicion (which we hear all that often) but also the saluted scientist (which we are all supposed to believe). |
Scepticism is fundamental to science so there is no dispute there.
Peer review, for all it's imperfections, is also a strength of science. I would argue that not only is science more deserving of trust than other endeavours, it is hugely so. Peer review isn't perfect, to be sure, but it doesn't need to be. It is the gatekeeper to getting a theory considered, not the final arbitor of which theory is accepted at a particular time. Experiment and observational data trumps theory every time....
I believe that the mistake often made with considerations of science is to rely on lazy, ill-informed commentary or, worse, commentators with an agenda spinning a story around some half-understood science. Scientists are, in my experience, normally accurate, moderate and measured when describing the implications and importance of their own work and theory. The problem comes in the interface between the scientist and the layman. This is largely due to the appalling lack of scientific understanding and basic knowledge displayed by the 'average' person and will only be addressed satisfactorily when the level of science understanding is increased significantly - this will do away with the need for simplistic and distorted commentary on the work and allow discussion and consideration of the science itself and not a second hand summary which may or may not be accurate...
Regards
Chris
Just a tidbit - I heard in school on friday that we have only 10 years to stop global warming before it becomes a juggernaught
I dont know whether or not to believe that, but there it is
Just some more facts.
The total number of animals across the world has declined by a third since 1970, according to wildlife campaigners. The WWF's Living Planet Report revealed that land-based species decreased by 31 per cent, freshwater species by 28 per cent and marine species by 27 per cent in the 33 years between 1970 to 2003...
The rest of article is here http://news.uk.msn.com/endangered_species.aspx?imageindex=1#723124
| snowboardude wrote: | | Just a tidbit - I heard in school on friday that we have only 10 years to stop global warming before it becomes a juggernaught |
I think we have longer that that.
Why should we go under so fast, it think there is potentiel for at least 100 years.....but maybe the goverments all over the world should pay more attention! I think it is part of a cyclus that the world changes....with or without our "help". It's just going faster now.
Something i've wondered over and payed much attention too, is that mother nature is being more and more cruel, storms are getting worse and weather is generally more dangerous and cruel(if you can say that).
Anders aka Sensei.....
By the way, i'm from Denmark so if my english stinks...please tell i wan't to adjust my language!
Global warming is happening. The problem is how long this trend will continue! Instead of playing the blame game (man or just nature) we should find out what can be done to slow it, stop it and even reverse it.
On the other hand global warming is used for other purposes than science:
-politicians and their fund raisers (corporations) deny that the man plays any role in global warming. Scientists receive money to do research to prove that. After all some hundred thousand dollars spent on politicians and scientists is better than millions spent on protecting environment.
-other politicians (leftists and ecologists) use global warming as a political weapon against right-wing politicians. They tend to say that global warming is the product of man alone (that is big industry).
-Earth-protecting activists (a bunch a lunatics who put nature and animals above man) agree with the leftists. So a man can't cut a tree to survive one more winter because some obscure animal species can become extinct and an ice age will be triggered!
Interesting topic!
I tended to believe in the phenomenon of global warming till quite recently.
A couple of months ago, I happened to catch Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Crichton makes a case for the supposed 'global warming' being a hoax and proceeds to substantiate it with recorded facts.
Agreed that humans are meddling too much with the environment, but in my humble opinion, we are but one of the minor factors influencing nature. That said, it seems that the way we are heading, we might end up being a major bad influence. It is not too late now to change I guess, and we must proceed towards using cleaner sources of fuel etc. in order to avoid tampering with nature too much.
That book, its crap. Its no hoax, read though the other posts in the thread.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | That book, its crap. Its no hoax, read though the other posts in the thread. |
Yeah, the other posts that say there is no debate about this multi page highly debated subject.
BTW, anything the Conspirator says is crap, prolly has more truth than he's willing to admit, so take what he says with a grain of salt. He thinks Al Gores movie was the best most factual movie ever. (I'm guessing)
Michael Crichton's State of Fear was not meant to be a factual representation of the issue. It is (and it has a disclaimer to this effect) a piece of fiction; a representation of a biased case meant to prove that global climate change doesn't exist. All the citations are real, but not all of them are taken in their true context. Just as Al Gore's movie was meant to blatantly support the existence of global warming, Michael Crichton's book was meant to blatantly refute the existence of global warming. It is a work of fiction, just like Jurassic Park, and a highly compelling work of fiction at that. It cannot be used to argue (logical argument that is, since it is a very good emotional argument) about global climate change (the technical "new" name for global warming).
As far as "no debate", that is partially true. Most people agree that there has been a rising trend in global temperatures in the last century or so. The real debate centers around whether or not this is a problem, how much of the temperature rise is actually caused by human activity, and if it is a problem how much of an effect can certain changes have?
| Montressor wrote: |
As far as "no debate", that is partially true. Most people agree that there has been a rising trend in global temperatures in the last century or so. The real debate centers around whether or not this is a problem, how much of the temperature rise is actually caused by human activity, and if it is a problem how much of an effect can certain changes have? |
Again, I'm not debating that. I'm debating the cause of the warming.
Bikerman, I think you're just too idealistic about science while underestimating the room human nature makes for errors. Of course in theory peer review works, but in theory many real factors are not accounted for. Just an example, if you turn yourself against a highly praised scientist's theories, you're disadvantaged because of the common opinion. People, including scientists, don't want to be excluded from the community and the loner that risks his neck simply gets pushed aside. Just think of what Newton did to the guy that published things against his theory. In the present we know the guy was right, but who can tell in how much % of such cases the truth has come to light?
I personally would like to see the planet cleanse itself of us all. I'd love to watch all the doogooders and politicians try and survive without money and power and end up having to survive like the rest of us.
Look what happened after hurricane Katrina. If that happened on a global scale. I'd suggest finding the highest cave you can and barricade yourself in with asmuch food and water as you can muster...
A good idea would be for people to post all the useful knowledge they know e.g. how to make their own batteries, how to make bread, how to fish, all the stuff you'll need to survive after the apocalypse.
Cos in the end there is absolutely nothing we can do about global warming. Especially if China keep building a coal fired powerstation every month.
| Teezgaff wrote: | | I personally would like to see the planet cleanse itself of us all. |
That's creepy. I can't imagine someone hating life so much. If you truely believe that, what are you still doing here? Why havent' you killed yourself?
| Quote: | | If you truely believe that, what are you still doing here? Why havent' you killed yourself? |
When nature puts us all on an equal footing we'll realise how the 3rd world people suffer and survive..
| Teezgaff wrote: | | Quote: | | If you truely believe that, what are you still doing here? Why havent' you killed yourself? |
When nature puts us all on an equal footing we'll realise how the 3rd world people suffer and survive.. |
Avoiding the question?
Earth Surface Temperature : Year 1600 AD - 16-17 deg C
Year 1945 - 13 deg C
Year 2004 - 15 deg C
- The Physics Fact Book,Ed. Glenn Elert
Earth, if did not have an atmosphere it will be at -18 deg C. Because of the green house effect (read CO2) the temperature on the surface is an hospitable 15 deg C today.
Earth Surface Temperature : Year 1600 AD - 16-17 deg C
Year 1945 - 13 deg C
Year 2004 - 15 deg C
- The Physics Fact Book,Ed. Glenn Elert
Earth, if did not have an atmosphere it will be at -18 deg C. Because of the green house effect (read CO2) the temperature on the surface is an hospitable 15 deg C today.
| rshanthakumar wrote: | Earth Surface Temperature : Year 1600 AD - 16-17 deg C
Year 1945 - 13 deg C
Year 2004 - 15 deg C
- The Physics Fact Book,Ed. Glenn Elert
Earth, if did not have an atmosphere it will be at -18 deg C. Because of the green house effect (read CO2) the temperature on the surface is an hospitable 15 deg C today. |
So you're saying that, while it's hotter now than 50 years ago, it's colder than 400 years ago?
Damn that British Empire and their SUVs 400 years ago!!!
Having followed up the references, from the "Physics Fact Book" website, I think that they have misquoted their reference, manicore (who they reference for the 16-17C figure). What it actually says is:
| Quote: | | It is remarkable that over the last 400.000 years, the maximum of the yearly average of the temperature exceeded the present values by just 1 to 2 °C (average temperature on earth was then 16 to 17 °C compared to 15 °C today) ; the last time that we reached such values was 130.000 years ago. |
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/past.html
What it is saying is that earth's temperatures have been remarkably stable, and that we are now already in one of the hotter periods of the cycle, and so should expect temperatures to naturally go down (although this changes should only be expected over many of thousands of years):
| Quote: | We are already in a "warm" period regarding the natural evolution of our climate. If everything evolved in a "business as usual" context, we should get near the end of the present interglacial period ans the climate should have a natural tendancy to get cooler.
But such a cooling of the climate does not occur in a single century, even if the above graph seems "steep" when an ice age starts (going to the left). The fastest evolutions on the above graph are the loss of a couple degrees (Celsius) in ....5 to 10.000 years, whereas the present simulations predict a similar change in magnitude, the other way round, in.....one century. It is 50 to 100 times faster. |
| nopaniers wrote: | Having followed up the references, from the "Physics Fact Book" website, I think that they have misquoted their reference, manicore (who they reference for the 16-17C figure). What it actually says is:
| Quote: | | It is remarkable that over the last 400.000 years, the maximum of the yearly average of the temperature exceeded the present values by just 1 to 2 °C (average temperature on earth was then 16 to 17 °C compared to 15 °C today) ; the last time that we reached such values was 130.000 years ago. |
http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/past.html
What it is saying is that earth's temperatures have been remarkably stable, and that we are now already in one of the hotter periods of the cycle, and so should expect temperatures to naturally go down (although this changes should only be expected over many of thousands of years):
| Quote: | We are already in a "warm" period regarding the natural evolution of our climate. If everything evolved in a "business as usual" context, we should get near the end of the present interglacial period ans the climate should have a natural tendancy to get cooler.
But such a cooling of the climate does not occur in a single century, even if the above graph seems "steep" when an ice age starts (going to the left). The fastest evolutions on the above graph are the loss of a couple degrees (Celsius) in ....5 to 10.000 years, whereas the present simulations predict a similar change in magnitude, the other way round, in.....one century. It is 50 to 100 times faster. |
|
So it must have been those old, ineffecient SUVs.
No, S3ndK3ys. The earth's climate depends on many factors. CO2 is one of the more important forcings, both for explaining the historical climate over the past 400,000 years and also for explaining the climate today. CO2 levels are the highest they have been for the past 600,000 years and are heading steadily upwards. Man has affected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is affecting the climate.
When you're talking about periods of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, different factors also play their part. In particular, there are Milankovitch cycles. One of which are basically wobbles of the earth on it's axis. These take around 41,000 years. Another important factor is the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. One period is 100,000 years or so. Finally, you have the angle of the earth's axis. None of these factors can be used to explain the recent warming, and none will change significantly over our lifetimes - so they can't be used to explain recent warming, but are important when looking back at climate over several tens of thousand years.
Why do I bother?
| nopaniers wrote: | No, S3ndK3ys. The earth's climate depends on many factors. CO2 is one of the more important forcings, both for explaining the historical climate over the past 400,000 years and also for explaining the climate today. CO2 levels are the highest they have been for the past 600,000 years and are heading steadily upwards. Man has affected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is affecting the climate.
When you're talking about periods of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, different factors also play their part. In particular, there are Milankovitch cycles. One of which are basically wobbles of the earth on it's axis. These take around 41,000 years. Another important factor is the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. One period is 100,000 years or so. Finally, you have the angle of the earth's axis. None of these factors can be used to explain the recent warming, and none will change significantly over our lifetimes - so they can't be used to explain recent warming, but are important when looking back at climate over several tens of thousand years.
Why do I bother? |
Well, that makes sence.
Just looking back 15 years we had A LOT colder winters in sweden. Now we have 10C in the middle of december. So something is going on, and it cant be explained by the cykles you mentioned.
It will for sure be interesting to see what scientists come up to... Kind of impressive(and scary) if the changes to the weather is all to blame on us humans.
| nopaniers wrote: | No, S3ndK3ys. The earth's climate depends on many factors. CO2 is one of the more important forcings, both for explaining the historical climate over the past 400,000 years and also for explaining the climate today. CO2 levels are the highest they have been for the past 600,000 years and are heading steadily upwards. Man has affected the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is affecting the climate.
When you're talking about periods of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, different factors also play their part. In particular, there are Milankovitch cycles. One of which are basically wobbles of the earth on it's axis. These take around 41,000 years. Another important factor is the eccentricity of the earth's orbit. One period is 100,000 years or so. Finally, you have the angle of the earth's axis. None of these factors can be used to explain the recent warming, and none will change significantly over our lifetimes - so they can't be used to explain recent warming, but are important when looking back at climate over several tens of thousand years.
Why do I bother? |
Those don't explain the Holocene Warming, the Medieval Warming, or the Little Ice Age either, do they?
I still don't think we're quite as warm as the Medieval Warming yet. Does England have high quality wine vineyards competing with those in France?
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: | Those don't explain the Holocene Warming, the Medieval Warming, or the Little Ice Age either, do they?
I still don't think we're quite as warm as the Medieval Warming yet. Does England have high quality wine vineyards competing with those in France?
Respectfully,
M |
Yes, changes in the tilt/eccentricity/precession are not used to explain the medieval warming and the "little ice age". They do however credit changes in the sun's intensity (how much energy it expels) as the at least one of the main contributing factors of the "Little Ice Age".
see -http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/200112065794.html
What's funny here is you're talking about a few degrees of damage humans are supposedely doing, (supposedly being key) when somthing like a meteor or large volcano can change earth temps by over 10 to 20 degrees for several years at a time.
The fact is, (from ice cores) that this current 'moderate' climate we have now is a freak of nature and it is usually much more hostile.
Perhaps all this technology is actually settling down the weather patterns that have been fluctuating radically and un-predictably for hundreds of thousands of years.
Open your eyes and do research on BOTH sides, not just the anti-human side like I'm seeing here.
There's two sides, and neither has any proof of us being a)responsible on a large scale and b) that we can actually do anything about it.
Ruh roh, rorge...
Looks like Al Gore and the MSM have been called to the mat.
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711
| Quote: | Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”
...
The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.
Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.
Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.
"The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.
...
Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777) |
This is the part where Con jumps in claiming these sources are biased and everything it claims are "all lies".
Senator Inhofe:
Education:
B.A., Economics, University of Tulsa, 1973.
Professional Experience:
Businessman, Land Developer, 1962-1986
-taken from Project Vote Smart - http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H3251103
First, an economics major, not a science major. Which side do you thing he would take? Hurt the economy to help the environment, or hurt the environment to help the economy?
Second, a land developer for 24 years... need I say that he might, just might hold some anti-environmentalist biases?
and here are some special interest group ratings:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3251103
You may want to check how the groups in Business, Environment, and Animal Rights think of him. Never before have I seen so many 100% and so many 0%, I hadn't though it possible to vote against everything a special interest group wants for so many years. You would think that perhaps he would vote for some of those "pat yourselves on the back" legislation that everyone signs because the actual content of the bill can be summarized as; "yay, go environment, we like you", and have no actions... but who knows
To post something and say that the author is not biased is always false. All people are biased, and all authors write on what they've already formed opinions on. You can, however, claim that the author managed to restrain his bias reasonably well, which may or may not be the case in the current example.
| Montressor wrote: |
To post something and say that the author is not biased is always false. |
I included "lies" with the accusation of bias.
| Quote: | | Those don't explain the Holocene Warming, the Medieval Warming, or the Little Ice Age either, do they? |
Yes, No, and No.
The Holocene is the past 10,000 years of the earth's history, including today. We aren't in an ice-age right now because of these natural cycles in the orientation of the earth's axis and orbit around the sun. So yes, Holocene warming is precisely due to these cycles.
As Montressor pointed out, the little ice age is mostly lower solar activity. Generally sunspot number is taken as a measure of solar activity. Here's a graph of sunspot numbers over the past 400 years or so.
Normally (as every long distance radio enthusiast knows) there's an 11 year sunspot cycle, but there are also long term changes. During the so-called little ice age, solar activity was at a minimum, which is known as the Maunder minimum. Another important factor was that there was increased volcanic activity (eg. the erruption of Tambora in 1815) during this period, which also has the net effect of reducing the temperature. Both of these - solar forcing and volanic activity (which spews small particles into the air) - are important forcings, but you cannot explain past climate without including the forcing from CO2.
| Quote: | | I still don't think we're quite as warm as the Medieval Warming yet. Does England have high quality wine vineyards competing with those in France? |
Wine is grown more extensively in Southern Britain now than it was during the Medieval Warm period. The average global temperature is now also hotter than the medieval warm period (by around 0.4C). See for example, this graph:
One possible cause is increased solar activity during this period, known as the Medieval Maximum.
Although temperatures went up in Europe, in other parts of the world they went down. For example, there is evidence that the temperatures in Antartica went down over the same period. One of the possible causes for this local change is that the gulf stream - "thermohaline circulation" around the world - changed significantly during this period.
-- Edit: Fixed some spelling --
| S3ndK3ys wrote: | | Perhaps all this technology is actually settling down the weather patterns that have been fluctuating radically and un-predictably for hundreds of thousands of years. |
It's not unpredictable, as I've trying to explain.
| S3ndK3ys wrote: | | The fact is, (from ice cores) that this current 'moderate' climate we have now is a freak of nature and it is usually much more hostile. |
Yes. Our climate right at the moment is much nicer than it has been in the past, for example in the ice ages. More than that we can see some warnings from the past records. A while ago Bikerman made the most interesting post on this whole board when he talked about tipping points. One of the things he mentioned was:
| Bikerman wrote: | | large-scale 'boiling' of huge deposits of methane hydrates from the ocean floor; |
55 million years ago a similar thing may have happened. Since methane (like CO2) is a greenhouse gas, it led to a big rise in temperature for the earth (around 5-7C) plus a large heating of the world's oceans (by around 10C). It lead to mass extinctions - including of mamals like us. It's known as the "Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum".
Now I'm not saying that this will happen to us, but its good to bear in mind that the world's climate does have these "tipping points" where abrupt changes happen. It's a non-linear feedback system - and worryingly some of the feedbacks are positive. If we push things too far, then we might find that the earth's climate changes to a new equilibrium, and not such a nice one.
Thank you, Nopaniers. I did not realize wine grapes were being grown at such levels in southern Britatin.
Respectfully,
M
I thought this a funny tidbit. I particularly enjoyed the opening sentence:
| UN Article wrote: | | Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today. |
Gotta do something to cut down that cattle flatulence!
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
Respectfully,
M
I dont mean to be racist...but the US government can't see what's staring them right in the face! Global Warming is a Big Issue!
| LostOverThere wrote: | | I dont mean to be racist.. |
Then why use the word?
Do you even KNOW what racist means?
It has NOTHING to do with this topic.
| Quote: | | .but the US government can't see what's staring them right in the face! Global Warming is a Big Issue! |
Yes, the government CAN see it, with BOTH eyes. Unlike you. There are TWO sides to it. We don't know what's causing it, or what, if anything, we can do about it. And the US is not about to destroy it's economy over something they can't verify, but especially over something the up-and coming nations are exempt from, China, India etc.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | LostOverThere wrote: | | I dont mean to be racist.. |
| Quote: | | .but the US government can't see what's staring them right in the face! Global Warming is a Big Issue! |
Yes, the government CAN see it, with BOTH eyes. Unlike you. There are TWO sides to it. We don't know what's causing it, or what, if anything, we can do about it. And the US is not about to destroy it's economy over something they can't verify, but especially over something the up-and coming nations are exempt from, China, India etc. |
Says the one who dose not know what he's talking about.
The politicians choose ether to ignore it or use it for there own political gain then do nothing to keep getting money from the polluting businesses. The government is run by politicians.
The evidence is in, its us.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | The evidence is in, its us. |
Really?
I heard on TV last night that the UN REDUCED the level of involvement they THOUGHT humans had, by 25%.
How about you post up some proof for once? And by "proof" I don't mean to say "google is unreliable" or "google can't be used"
I've posted it before.
green house gases trap heat, humans are pumping out green house gasses, the earth is warming, by examining ice cores scientists have found a correlation between the amount of green house gasses in the atmospheres and the temperature of the earth.
| The Conspirator wrote: | I've posted it before.
green house gases trap heat, humans are pumping out green house gasses, the earth is warming, by examining ice cores scientists have found a correlation between the amount of green house gasses in the atmospheres and the temperature of the earth. |
The question isn´t really if CO2 is the cause of greenhouse effect, nor is it if we humans "produce" CO2... The question is just if the ammount we let out in the atmosphere is the cause of all this global warming.
Sandy: I see your point that it´s not all about US and so on. But still US are a huge part in this, and if they reduce the CO2 levels it will MIGHT affect the greenhouse effect a lot.
Sweden are doing quite some to lower the greenhouse effect, and seriously, we are a tiny country, but everyone has to do their part and not just blame others or there will never be any change.
| The Conspirator wrote: | I've posted it before.
green house gases trap heat, humans are pumping out green house gasses, the earth is warming, by examining ice cores scientists have found a correlation between the amount of green house gasses in the atmospheres and the temperature of the earth. |
Oh. Well I guess that proves it then, huh? Con has spoken!
Seriously, Con, prove humans are causing the majority of global warming, (or even a "significant" amount).
Then, if you truely ARE an all-knowing God by some how proving something nobody else has, prove that there's anything we do can stop/slow global warming.
Look at the evadence!
We have and are pumping out green house gasses.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2
| Quote: | | Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). |
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/globtemp.html
| Quote: | | Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in at least the last 750,000 years. It took at least 10,000 years from the end of the last ice age for levels of carbon dioxide to increase 100 ppmv to 280 ppmv, but that same increase has occurred over only the past 150 years to current values of over 370 ppmv. About half of that increase has occurred over the last 35 years, owing mainly to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. In the absence of controls, future projections are that the rate of increase in carbon dioxide amount may accelerate, and concentrations could double from pre-industrial values within the next 50 to 100 years. |
That has an effect on the environment
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1
| Quote: | | The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. |
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/
| Quote: | | The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#External_links
At this point, denying humans are at fault for at lest the majority of global warming is like denying relativity.
| The Conspirator wrote: | Look at the evadence!
We have and are pumping out green house gasses.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2
| Quote: | | Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). |
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/globtemp.html
| Quote: | | Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in at least the last 750,000 years. It took at least 10,000 years from the end of the last ice age for levels of carbon dioxide to increase 100 ppmv to 280 ppmv, but that same increase has occurred over only the past 150 years to current values of over 370 ppmv. About half of that increase has occurred over the last 35 years, owing mainly to combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. In the absence of controls, future projections are that the rate of increase in carbon dioxide amount may accelerate, and concentrations could double from pre-industrial values within the next 50 to 100 years. |
That has an effect on the environment
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1
| Quote: | | The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. |
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/
| Quote: | | The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#External_links
At this point, denying humans are at fault for at lest the majority of global warming is like denying relativity. |
That's just speculation. It doesn't prove anything. And those sources are biased.
Ohhh, an interview with am author who's aid global warming isn't real dispute that fact that the earth is warming.
an interview with this guy who says its not people.
Michael Crichton dose not know what he's talking about, the earth is getting warmer, global warming is real. What ever the cause is, its real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Criticism
Andrey Illarionov uis a former economic is the former economic policy advisor to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Not some one you won't to get infromation on global warming from.
I've given you evidence and you give me interviews and site off google.
The evidence is in, read, check. Its real and its us. I don't get my info from uneducated writers of the news or google. Man has been pumping green house gasses into the atmosphere, greenhouse gasses trap heat from the sun, more green house gasses more heat trapped by the sun.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | I've given you evidence and you give me interviews and site off google. |
LoL. I did not use google to find ANY of those links.
| Quote: | | The evidence is in, |
You mean the OPINIONs are in.
My favorite of the links I posted is...
No, I don not use google, google has its purposes but factual information is not one of them. People lie and there are myths, people perpetuate those lies and myths. You more likely to get a lie and/or a myth using google than factual information. Google dose not filter out the lies and myths, it takes the search term(s) and find the sites that have the best matching descriptions and keywords, not the most factual sites.
BBC talks about other theory's, yes and that is a good thing but, it doesn't compare the theory's based on the evidence. And the evidence says people. You could look at the evidence but you don't.
| The Conspirator wrote: | No, I don not use google, google has its purposes but factual information is not one of them. People lie and there are myths, people perpetuate those lies and myths. You more likely to get a lie and/or a myth using google than factual information. Google dose not filter out the lies and myths, it takes the search term(s) and find the sites that have the best matching descriptions and keywords, not the most factual sites.
BBC talks about other theory's, yes and that is a good thing but, it doesn't compare the theory's based on the evidence. And the evidence says people. You could look at the evidence but you don't. |
I didn't say you use google, I said I didn't use it.
I've seen the evidence. The evidence from BOTH sides. That's how I've come to the conclusion that WE DONT KNOW FOR SURE.
I was a firm believer up until about 2 years ago when more and more evidence (or lack thereof) stating humans are the cause.
Again, since it seems you think I'm against the premise of global warming, I'm not. I'm just going to save my judgement until all the numbers are in, and in the mean time, do what I can WITHIN REASON to do less 'just in case'.
BTW, you did agree to stop arguing that there is no argument about this subject in the AWIT, remember?? There CLEARLY is an argument, no matter what you think.
The evidence is in, its us or mostly us. The suns output hasn't increased enough to explain the increase in the earths temperate, the orbit hasn't changed in time of the increase.
I didn't say you said that it wasn't real, Michael Crichton did.
I never said there where other theory's (a theory in science is an explanation of something (evolution happens, the theory of evolution is explains the proses)), there are other theory's but the human actions cause is supported by the evidence.
| The Conspirator wrote: | | The evidence is in, its us or mostly us. |
No, con. It's an opinion that it's us. We still don't know.
oh, so there is no global warming, that's interesting, wonder what happened to the upsala glacier since 1924, pictured below, perhaps the tourists took it  
In the news today, apparently some big chief in the american military now believes the reports that the north polar ice cap will melt completely by 2050, what do you think his reaction was? was he concerned about the plight of the indiginous peoples of the arctic region, or for the loss of species like the polar bear, or was he embaressed that the inaction of the bush 'government' on this issue will cause expense and suffering for millions, well no, these were not the big-wigs thoughts, he instead impressed upon the whithehouse the urgent need to spend $1million upgrading the two US icebreakers to secure the new navigation channels opened up by the retreating ice.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | The evidence is in, its us or mostly us. |
No, con. It's an opinion that it's us. We still don't know. |
No its the evidence. that facts are that we are pumping out green house gasses green house gasses trap heat from the sun, the co2 level hasn't been this high in hundreds of thousands of years, the suns output has not increased significantly enough to cause the currant warming trend, the earths orbit has not changed significantly in century's. It is us. It is us, look at the scientific evidence and not the Michael Crichton of the world.
s3ndK3ys, many of your links don't work... and the of the few that I actually did follow, one claimed that Nature wasn't a scientific journal.
|
