Author Topic: global warning update. (Read 6869 times)

Curval · « **Reply #60 on:** June 06, 2006, 09:51:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mighty1
Contribute? Yes as do all living breathing creatures.

What I don't agree with is that we are the cause of global warming.

I'm not saying humans (note that I did not say Americans) CAUSED it. I just think that we are contributing to making it worse.

I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...nothing to do with defensive people who are driving large SUVs, trucks, hot rods etc. and who don't like the finger being pointed at them. Nor is it anything to do with a certain Treaty that people here are so defensive about...nope, it good cold hard facts that I see here.

lukster · « **Reply #61 on:** June 06, 2006, 10:09:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
I'm not saying humans (note that I did not say Americans) CAUSED it. I just think that we are contributing to making it worse.

I just did a quick google search. Boy there are alot of arrogant and egotistical scientists out there who happen to agree with this. But, they are obviously wrong. The O'Club BBS is the place to get good data and good scientific facts from...nothing to do with defensive people who are driving large SUVs, trucks, hot rods etc. and who don't like the finger being pointed at them. Nor is it anything to do with a certain Treaty that people here are so defensive about...nope, it good cold hard facts that I see here.

How about those Russian scientists that have spent many years drilling for and examining hard evidence. The one's whose chart I posted. Are you dismissing their research or my understanding of it? I'll admit I'm not sure I understand what it means but I'm open to explanation. What it looks like to me is proof that the ice has been steadily melting in Antartica over the last 160,000 years. They also showed a steady increase in temperature over the last 150 years. I suppose it wouldn't be very scientific for them to extropolate that 150 year period over the last 160,000 though to predict an increasing rate or steady change in temperature.

Curval · « **Reply #62 on:** June 06, 2006, 12:21:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
What does this mean exactly?

From here: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

Okay man. You want my opinion on the first graph...the one which has "Years Before Present" on the X-axis?

If you look on the right hand side you should notice that the graphed line has a distinctive downward trend, right at the end. It is difficult to be very accurate on it, which I am sure is by design, but the period through which the ice depth is getting thinner FASTER is about in line with the industrial revolution to date. If you elongated that line without the sharp decline it would extend well beyond "the present" and give the earth priobably another 20,000 - 40,000 years before the ice thickness is zero.

So, I'd say your graph actually backs up what I (and thousands of scientists) are saying. It is so difficult to tell though because it has obviously been used to try and convince the person seeing it of your arguments. It is so very very vague when you get out to the far right hand side of the graph. I'd like to see the graph START at 40,000 years before the present. it would be much more "telling".

Now we get a look at the regression analysis that was put forward in your link. The margin of errors in that graph make it useless...as mentioned in the article here:

"However, this finding is under dispute because some claim that the amount of error in the data is too large to justify the conclusion."

So, sorry...I don't think much of your Russian scientist's link.

lukster · « **Reply #63 on:** June 06, 2006, 12:43:09 PM »

I noticed that downward trend also but what I see is a sharper slope beginning about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. To me that implies our current warming trend is natural.

Curval · « **Reply #64 on:** June 06, 2006, 12:47:11 PM »

See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #65 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:33:39 PM »

Regardless of how much human influence is affecting global change...and I believe that we're not making the situation any better...it's really really bad news if the Atlantic temp cools enough to slow the gulf stream current.
Just remember that the Alaskan Pipeline was built on permafrost, and as it continues to soften and settle, the pipeline's intgrity will be compromised

None of us will be around to see it happen anyway, so, drive on.

john9001 · « **Reply #66 on:** June 06, 2006, 01:55:00 PM »

the Alaskan Pipeline was built ABOVE the permafrost, to keep from melting it and to allow the migration of caribou.

beet1e · « **Reply #67 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:18:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
See Rule #4

OK, let's try that one again, without the initial sentence. (I saved it just in case!)

The latest studies I personally have seen on this issue were those presented in David Attenborough's programme last Friday: http://www.bbc.co.uk/climatechaos

We know that the earth's climate is cyclic, and that some warming is due to natural causes. But (and it's a very big but) the climatological model presented in the programme calculates the increase in global temperature based on man-made carbon emissions, having taken into account the natural changes. Using the computer model that they have, they can ask it to make projections about climate changes based on a multitude of criteria. A full explanation of this data model would have been beyond the scope of the programme. But I am left in no doubt that they have allowed for the earth's own warming trend. They have allowed for CO2 being absorbed by trees and other biomass. They have allowed for the amount of CO2 which is absorbed by the oceans. The predictions for global warming are made for a variety of scenarios. One scenario is that we burn less fossil fuel, use fuel from renewable resources, more nuclear energy for electricity, and other energy sources like solar power and wind driven turbines. At the opposite end of the scale is what will happen if we change nothing and go on as we have before, burning fossil fuels with gay abandon...

Emissions of CO2 in the USA in 2004 totalled more than 7 billion tonnes. Source: US Department of Energy - http://ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605...grpt/057304.pdf
This is about 25% of the world total, and it is estimated that this will increase by ~50% by 2030. The scientific studies that I have seen analyse the warming effect caused by the current levels of output, and the projected increases. Does anyone here seriously believe that the ~800 billion tonnes of man-made CO2 which will be released into the atmosphere by 2030 are "not going to make a difference" with regard to the warming effect known to be caused by CO2 in the atmosphere? Sure, the earth goes through cycles, but when was the last time in the earth's history that these levels of CO2 were being released?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #68 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:22:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.

The industrial revolution started 5,000 years ago?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #69 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:23:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Regardless of how much human influence is affecting global change...and I believe that we're not making the situation any better...it's really really bad news if the Atlantic temp cools enough to slow the gulf stream current.
Just remember that the Alaskan Pipeline was built on permafrost, and as it continues to soften and settle, the pipeline's intgrity will be compromised

None of us will be around to see it happen anyway, so, drive on.

That pipeline was designed to last 15 years. Its past 30 now. It has to be replaced soon, regardless.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #70 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:44:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
Sure, the earth goes through cycles, but when was the last time in the earth's history that these levels of CO2 were being released?

650,000 years ago.

beet1e · « **Reply #71 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:45:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
650,000 years ago.

By what?

Curval · « **Reply #72 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:49:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The industrial revolution started 5,000 years ago?

Where did you get that from?

I said we need a graph that shows the melting FROM 5,000 years ago to the present to see if global warming increased rapidly during the Industrial Revolution and onward. We need to go back about 5,000 years to the trend prior to and then since the revolution. I used 5,000 years ago because lukster mentioned that the sharp downward trend in the graph began 5,000 years ago...but you could do 10,000, 2,500, 15,000...whatever. Starting 160,000 years ago distorts the graph massively when you try and look at the years closer to today.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #73 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:51:09 PM »

For Beetle...
Don't know...

Quote

We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

link

It's gotta be wrong, as there was no industry at the time.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #74 on:** June 06, 2006, 02:53:48 PM »

For Curval...

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
See? The graph is so poorly done we can't even agree on what we see. We are only interested in the past 5,000 years (to determine if there is any global warming effect due to the industrial revolution)...but instead of detail we get a graph that begins 160,000 years ago. Why? Because it backs up their argument better.

Seemed to be what you were saying. If you can compare years before the start of the industrial revolution, 5,000 years seems rather arbitrary.