Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on September 04, 2006, 11:55:05 PM
-
The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.
Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.
Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge have found there have been eight cycles of atmospheric change in the past 800,000 years when carbon dioxide and methane have risen to peak levels.
Each time, the world also experienced the relatively high temperatures associated with warm, inter-glacial periods, which were almost certainly linked with levels of carbon dioxide and possibly methane in the atmosphere.
However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS.
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
"We have a no-analogue situation. We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.
The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.
"It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.
The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.
But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience."
c&p (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1362736.ece)
"crikey"
-
Pfft, scientists. What do they know?
-
"Through landcover changes over the last 300 years, we may have already altered the climate more than would occur associated with the radiative effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide." (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020926landcover.html)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.
Ever a reason to cull the FDB's if I ever saw one.
-
'Ten years to climate meltdown'
Press Association link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6057741,00.html)
Monday September 4, 2006 4:48 PM
A climate change timebomb may be just 10 years away from detonating, according to the latest global warming evidence.
New data from a deep ice core drilled out of the Antarctic permafrost reveal a shocking rate of change in carbon dioxide concentrations.
The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contains tiny bubbles of ancient air that can be analysed.
Scientists who studied the samples found they left no doubt as to the extent of the build-up of greenhouse gases.
For most of the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels had remained at between 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now they are at 380ppm.
In the past, it had taken 1,000 years for carbon dioxide to rise by 30ppm during natural warming periods. According to the new measurements, the same level of increase has occurred in just the last 17 years.
Isotopic tests confirmed that the recent carbon dioxide had come from fossil fuel sources and must be due to human activity.
Dr Eric Wolff, from the British Antarctic Survey, who presented the findings at the BA Festival of Science in Norwich, said: "The rate of change is the most scary thing.
"We really are in a situation where something's happening that we don't have any analogue for in our records.
"It's an experiment we don't know the result of."
"It's an experiment we don't know the result of" yet we do know[/i] that we are 10 years from the climate change timebomb detonating....
-
Been reading up on this lately and sadly, things look bad.
Quite bad.
-
That contradiction Holden pointed out is just another reason why it's hard to take these guys and their doom and gloom forecasts seriously. They don't know what's going to happen, but apparently they do know we are all going to die a horrible death in 2016, or at the very least something really nasty is going to happen from a climate timebomb(whatever that is) going off.
They need to be a little bit more specific, what date is this big event in 2016 going to happen on? Will I be safe if I take refuge in my cave in the Bush, or is this thing just going to bump of you guys in the northern hemisphere? I need to know. I got plans to make.
-
Well they're pointing out that there is (which is probably true) a certain point of no return. That is the timebomb, - after that, oooops...
-
Ok Angus but even if they are right, the reality of it is that there's nothing much the average person can do to prevent it anyway. So why worry about it?
WW3 will prolly kill off most of us first anyway. It's a better bet, but not worth worrying about either.
-
weird... first they tell us that it is global warming and then it is C02 going up in every other period of time in the past (c02 happens after GW)
Now... it is the C02 that is causing the global warming?
We are in a global warming trend... we have had em in the past.
Know what? they are natural and.... we can't do a thing about em.
Let's say we were in an ice age (we will be eventualy) Do you think these scientists would be advocating burning all the fossil fuel we could to stop the onslought of the ice age? Nope... they would know there was nothing man could do.
It is very arrogant to think that we are causing global warming.
But... say they are right.... we are doomed at this point....nothing can change it... it's too late... the only thing that will help is if we shut down all air travel right now. Each passenger on a cross continental flight creates a ton of Co2 gasses.... more than most cars produce in a lifetime.
Get out of your jets and take the car or we are doomed..... dooomed I say!
lazs
-
the sky is falling(*&!@# oh noes(*&!@#!
Question for the day -- if atmospheric carbon dioxide is as strong a determinant of planetary temperature as is frequently alleged, why isn't the world at its warmest in April and coolest in August when the annual peak and trough in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels occur? The annual northern hemisphere spring/summer growing season sees a draw down of 4-5 ppmv in the atmospheric carbon resource yet global temperature peaks when atmospheric carbon dioxide is lowest and is a little below average when CO2 is highest. Something wrong here, surely.
Do we really need to rehash the inherent problems with ice core samples? We've done that dance before with Beetle in another thread.
-
Outlaw industry, and create huge air scrubbers. Then an asteroid hits and kills us anyways. Or war starts and we add to the damage. We just rent the place.
-
now would be a good time to release the beet1e
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Ok Angus but even if they are right, the reality of it is that there's nothing much the average person can do to prevent it anyway. So why worry about it?
WW3 will prolly kill off most of us first anyway. It's a better bet, but not worth worrying about either.
That is an attitude Hitler would have loved.
Fortunately (for him it was UNfortunately) the Brits didn't feel that way.
-
High c02 historicaly trails global warming trends it does not cause them or come before them even.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Each passenger on a cross continental flight creates a ton of Co2 gasses.... more than most cars produce in a lifetime.
That's utter crap. They create less than an average car per kilometer per passenger(taking account the average passenger load percentages). Do you drive you average car just 5585 kilometres(New York to London) in it's lifetime?
-
Oh, and Lazs:
"It is very arrogant to think that we are causing global warming.
But... say they are right.... we are doomed at this point....nothing can change it... it's too late... the only thing that will help is if we shut down all air travel right now. Each passenger on a cross continental flight creates a ton of Co2 gasses.... more than most cars produce in a lifetime."
Firstly, it's very arrogant of you to even think you can stick to that we have nothing to do with global warming.
Secondly, there are measures that can be taken, - it is a fight. If you surrender immediately (same goes to crime and drugs, where your position seems to be the same) , it's lost.
Thirdly, air travel is not the main problem, just a wee part of it. In fact, in your statement there is utter and absolute nonsense, and either you're trolling, or just having a brain problem. Explain how you feed a lifetime use of a car, - that is the fuel bill, within the price of an airticket :D
(maybe you forgot a few zeros?)
And Beetle should be unleashed. It seems that many a thing he said was actually right. Which is vastly superior to the nonsense posted above.
-
Originally posted by mora
That's utter crap. They create less than an average car per kilometer per passenger(taking account the average passenger load percentages). Do you drive you average car just 5585 kilometres(New York to London) in it's lifetime?
Second to that! :aok
And a nice angle.
A car using 10.L pr 100 km, and only lasting 100.000 km wil use 10 tonnes of fuel. That would gibe a Jumbo the fuel load of 4000 tonnes for a leg with 400 passengers right?
-
I see the people who live in countries that are so boring that they need to travel for fun don't want to admit how much of a problem they are.
one little selfish vacation trip is worse than some poor slob going to work every day in his car. I read that each passenger is responsible for a ton of Co2 for the trip... it would take a lot of driving to equal that.
So now..... flying... the thing you like is a "minor" part of the problem...LOL...
Global warming is simply a way for you to nanny people..... so long as it only applies to other people of course...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and Lazs:
"It is very arrogant to think that we are causing global warming.
But... say they are right.... we are doomed at this point....nothing can change it... it's too late... the only thing that will help is if we shut down all air travel right now. Each passenger on a cross continental flight creates a ton of Co2 gasses.... more than most cars produce in a lifetime."
Firstly, it's very arrogant of you to even think you can stick to that we have nothing to do with global warming.
Secondly, there are measures that can be taken, - it is a fight. If you surrender immediately (same goes to crime and drugs, where your position seems to be the same) , it's lost.
Thirdly, air travel is not the main problem, just a wee part of it. In fact, in your statement there is utter and absolute nonsense, and either you're trolling, or just having a brain problem. Explain how you feed a lifetime use of a car, - that is the fuel bill, within the price of an airticket :D
(maybe you forgot a few zeros?)
And Beetle should be unleashed. It seems that many a thing he said was actually right. Which is vastly superior to the nonsense posted above.
I think the jury is still out on who is or isn't right. 10 years? I can wait. I have little doubt though that by then there will be some new disaster looming on the horizon. With the climate very much the same in 10 years as it is today perhaps the new alarm will be we're running out of breatheable air?
-
Never fear! Myself, Pinky and the good folks at Ionic Breeze have things well under control.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I see the people who live in countries that are so boring that they need to travel for fun don't want to admit how much of a problem they are.
one little selfish vacation trip is worse than some poor slob going to work every day in his car. I read that each passenger is responsible for a ton of Co2 for the trip... it would take a lot of driving to equal that.
So now..... flying... the thing you like is a "minor" part of the problem...LOL...
Global warming is simply a way for you to nanny people..... so long as it only applies to other people of course...
lazs
Do you know maths? Can you post numbers?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
one little selfish vacation trip is worse than some poor slob going to work every day in his car. I read that each passenger is responsible for a ton of Co2 for the trip... it would take a lot of driving to equal that.
So now..... flying... the thing you like is a "minor" part of the problem...LOL...
straw man
Ton of CO2? You release the same amount of C02 when you burn an amount of hydrocarbon, it doesn't matter if it's in a car or an airplane. A typical fuel consumption of an intercontinental airliner is around 3 liters per kilometer(77 Miles Per Gallon) per passenger. Even the smallest cars consume almost twice of that, and they are mostly occupied by a single passenger. You better start carpooling or we are doomed.
-
Conservative America is to blame..... Free Tibet.
-
The future looks so bright and shine for our kids...
-
Quick!~ everybody run outside and kill themselves :rolleyes:
-
No, that would release methane from the corpses :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
No, that would release methane from the corpses :D
:lol
-
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it,"
I like how he says that even though there's nothing in the data to suggest it. Instead of of saying "it means that Earth systems can't cope with it" he should say "it means we don't know how Earth systems will cope with it." This is the kind of stuff that prevents these guys from being taken seriously by a lot of us.
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
The future looks so bright and shine for our kids...
Just like it did during WWII, or WWI, for that matter, or the Cold War when people learned to 'Live with the Bomb', or during the first decades of the industrial revolution, or during any of the various plagues that struck in the last 800 years, or the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the times before after and during Roman rule. Geez, I don't even wanna think about how pre-historic man reacted to the gradual climatic shifts that signalled the beginning of the end of the Ice Age--must of really got their panties in a bunch.
The world has always and will always seem f'ed up to the people that are old enough to remember when a different set of problems dominated global concern. In another generation, when a whole new set of world-killing problems are discovered, your children will sit around and wax nostalgic about how great it was when the 21st century was young.
Our world strives for balance, like it or not. We can and will adapt and live to see a whole new set of freakishness scare the hell out of us.
-
The earth will survive humanity, and life will continue without us, as long as the sun survives to provide energy....
Humanity will not last forever, nor should it. As we each are guaranteed a death sentance so it only makes sense our species will one day end.
Only the passage of time will truly last forever. All other elements will decay into death status.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The earth will survive humanity, and life will continue without us, as long as the sun survives to provide energy....
Humanity will not last forever, nor should it. As we each are guaranteed a death sentance so it only makes sense our species will one day end.
Only the passage of time will truly last forever. All other elements will decay into death status.
I think we'll last longer than many think. The same talents that has produced the technology that supposedly threatens us today will overwhelm the problems it created.
Or not.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The earth will survive humanity, and life will continue without us, as long as the sun survives to provide energy....
Humanity will not last forever, nor should it. As we each are guaranteed a death sentance so it only makes sense our species will one day end.
Only the passage of time will truly last forever. All other elements will decay into death status.
The earth, - yes. However perhaps in a similar form as Venus until the light goes out.
It's no excuse for us to behave like we do though....
-
Why do core samples taken at one location provide detailed information for the entire earth?
A change of 30ppm of CO2 in 17 years establishes a definitive rate of change? Wouldn't you want more points on that curve to be more accurate?
Does anyone realize that a single volcanic eruption can produce more CO2 than all the automobiles can for a single year?
Or that automobiles isn't the only possible reason for increased CO2? Could reducing vegatation inhibit the reduction of CO2?
Does anyone wonder who funds this research?
What would happen if the research pointed out that there wasn't a problem?
How can someone claim that humans have changed CO2 levels "outside the normal range" when you have core samples taken from only one location which only represent less than 1/4th of the earth's life? What is normal?
Hasn't the earth heated up several times before?
Why do so many people jump on bandwagons so easily?
I ask because I'm ignorant.
-
Originally posted by IgnorantJoe
Why do so many people jump on bandwagons so easily?
Bandwagons allow for entire groups to say 'see, I knew it!' based solely on the fact that a bunch of other people are saying 'see, I knew it!' right along with them.
That's why people like bandwagons.
-
Originally posted by mora
straw man
Ton of CO2? You release the same amount of C02 when you burn an amount of hydrocarbon, it doesn't matter if it's in a car or an airplane. A typical fuel consumption of an intercontinental airliner is around 3 liters per kilometer(77 Miles Per Gallon) per passenger. Even the smallest cars consume almost twice of that, and they are mostly occupied by a single passenger. You better start carpooling or we are doomed.
IF an airliner is burning THREE litres of fuel per kilometer, per passenger, no way it is getting 77 MPG per passenger. Thats approximately 5 litres of fuel per mile, per passenger. Or approximately 1.25 gallons per mile, per passenger.
Even the worst SUV's get better mileage than that, far better.
Want to do something about CO2 levels? Plant a tree, stop the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest.
-
Gasses distribute pretty evenly.
A single data point, even a single source, is not a reliable basis for anything.
The change in CO2 being plotted is several orders of magnitude beyond what volcanic eruptions can produce,
Research demonstrating rise in CO2 levels is funded by several groups around the world, and vetted by peer review; as is research on the rise in global temperatures, the association between CO2 and global temperatures, and the history of climate change.
Scientists claiming "it's not as bad as all that" are funded by the major oil companies; and even they do not question that human activity has sent the atmospheric levels of CO2 skyrocketing.
The research itself isn't saying "there is a problem"; it is saying, "These are the facts, and here's what's associated with them."
"There is a serious problem" is how we understand the facts; "Oh my god, the world is gonna catch fire" is how the press portrays it.
Yes, the earth has been a lot hotter than it is now -- all that carbon that we're pumping out of the earth and burning used to be in the atmosphere. And yes, to say it's out of the earth's "normal range" is a little presumptuous. But as humans, we really shouldn't care about the "normal range" of Earth temperatures in absolute, or the fact that the earth was once boiling hot. We should care about the temperatures necessary to sustain human life.
The bandwagon was twenty years ago. Now it's just cold, hard facts.
Human ingenuity might get us out of this, but there's far more of us now than there ever was; resources (such as water and food) are already scarce -- climate change will make that even worse; and the global economy has a single point of failure: burning carbon for energy.
It's time to get ingenious.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
IF an airliner is burning THREE litres of fuel per kilometer, per passenger, no way it is getting 77 MPG per passenger. Thats approximately 5 litres of fuel per mile, per passenger. Or approximately 1.25 gallons per mile, per passenger.
LOL, my bad.... of course it would be 3 liters per 100 km per passenger.
-
well... I was gonna ask some of you global warming caused by C02 experts for a little math but it seems you have trouble with math so...
I will just ask.... How much do we have to reduce C02 emmisions in order to stop the current global warming?
What should we do right now?
If we all stopped driving and burning anything as of right now.... how many minutes.... how much will it slow the natural global warming trend we are in?
And.... what do we do if we go into a global cooling cycle?
How much is co2 raising the tempreture of the planet? Not, how much was it 100 years ago and how much is it today but..... How much is the fault of co2?
none of you know the answers.... none of you can say that if we all suddenly left the planet that it would change the rate of global warming one little bit...
lazs
-
Well, I recently purchased several "choice" acres on the moon and on mars.
soon as i figure out the whole getting there and surviving there thing im gonna kick back and watch you earthers kill yourselves either the fast way or the slow way. I got a "prime" location to watch it all :cool:
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Ooooh Lazs, you're starting to sound like Jackal there. Next you'll be saying "pulse rate above 30" or some such line.
So let me ask you: How many international visitors does Dixon attract each year? :rofl
At least compare Windsor to our American places with castles...
Disney (just the California adventure park) had 4.7 million visitors last year... hundreds of thousands of them foreigners.
That must be rough. More people want to see the fake castle of a cartoon mouse, than a storied bastion of royal power.
:lol
-
Originally posted by mora
LOL, my bad.... of course it would be 3 liters per 100 km per passenger.
Even that is kind of misleading. It assumes the airliner has a full load of passengers, which isnt always the case.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48121
According to British Airways, a 747-400 plane cruises at 576 mph (927
km/h), burns 12,788 liters (3378 US gallons) of fuel per hour, and
carries 409 passengers when full:
http://www.britishairways.com/flights/factfile/airfleet/docs/7474.shtml
If the plane is 75% full, one passenger is carried 22.2 km for each
liter of fuel burned (52.2 miles for each US gallon of fuel burned).
This fuel efficiency exceeds that of almost all cars, when the driver
is travelling alone.
These figures assume the car only has the driver, again, that isnt always the case.
I dont burn 3378 gallons of gas in an entire year but a 747 does in just a few hours. In a few hours a 747 pumps out more hydrocarbon emissions than I do in a car in over 4 years. Thats just ONE 747 flight.
If I used a full tank of gas every week (I dont, use about 3/4) I would use 728 gallons per year.
-
Before too much finger-pointing in the direction of Brazil for its cutting of the rain forests takes place, it might be well to consider just how much unnecessary consumption of lumber takes place right here in the United States.
We are the leading consumer of wood products, bar none. One has only to consider the vast number of McMansions being constructed in suburban areas and upper crust communities to understand the magnitude of that consumption. Does a family of only two or three really need a 6,000 square foot, multi-story home to dwell in.
Construction companies that build these large cookie-cutter monstrosities often prepare a site by bulldozing ALL vegetation, and planting them as close together as possible. If the home-buyer wants trees on their property, they have to start from scratch.
With so much lumber being needed for construction, the cutting of forests is reaching unbelievable proportions. Replanting of cut hardwood forests is often in faster growing pine, leading to a complete change in the former eco-system. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in Arkansas bottomland hardwood forests are headed the way of the dodo.
If the planting of trees will help address the atmospheric problems threatening our planet, then I am all for it...but we as Americans also need to live a less ostentatious lifestyle and thus have a lesser impact on the environment around us.
Sorry.....my rant for the day.
-
Well Shuckins you are right about construction companies just bulldozing all the vegetation. Especially on the larger construction projects.
Logging needs to be done in a manner that doesn't wipe out the forest. Trees that are cut down need to be replanted and not just with fast growing pines.
In regards to the Amazon rain forest, that ecosystem is disappearing at an astounding rate.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The earth will survive humanity, and life will continue without us, as long as the sun survives to provide energy....
Humanity will not last forever, nor should it. As we each are guaranteed a death sentance so it only makes sense our species will one day end.
Only the passage of time will truly last forever. All other elements will decay into death status.
Dang thats deep Yeager...You just re-read Johnathon Livingston Seagull? ;-)
-
Is Yeager still alive?
Hello?? ?
-
After all this talk of fuel burning and stuff nobody has yet mentioned cow farts. They emit alot of CO2 and methane gas.
Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?
Has a study been done? I think there was one done for just the cows, but one for everybody. Quick call the "Lets Do a Study" Organization and get them on that right quick.
Oh and somebody should talk to all the valcano's going off. They need to be told that they should have some consideration for us lowly folks. When they go off they blow polutants higher into the atmosphere than anything man made.
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?
I believe iPod's may be part of the problem. Since I got my iPod, I've noticed that while I'm walking around the city I am farting much more often (I just don't know how loud they are cuz I can't hear them wearing the earphones)
I'm sure if someone did a graph comparing the number of farts while wearing and not wearing an iPod, you would see an increase while wearing.
-
Originally posted by eureka101
Indy - no, I'm comparing my environs to Lazs's environs, since it was he who suggested that the reason some of us go on foreign trips is because our own environs are uninteresting. The FACTS tell a different story!
I think the facts really do speak to the quality of the Disney experience.
-
air trapped in the pyramids has killed people opening sealed compartments, and that was only 2200 odd years ago.
why do these tards think that a pocket of frozen air from EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND years ago is going to be a reliable source for studying 800,000 year old air samples? even with the preservation of deep freezing, it doesnt mean a damn thing.
like taking samples of moon dust, mixing them into a sand pit, then doing the testing on what you had left almost 1,000,000 years later..
-
Man-made contribution of CO2 to our system, and man-made reduction of capacity to absorb that CO2 contribution are both worthy of study, since they are both controllable by man. It is neither a liberal/conservative issue, nor a topic for class warfare - the uneducated vs. the educated.
Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages.
(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coa.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/cob.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coc.png)
(http://tech-rep.org/ah/cod.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coe.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/cof.png)
-
(http://tech-rep.org/ah/cog.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coh.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coi.png)
(http://tech-rep.org/ah/coj.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/cok.png)|(http://tech-rep.org/ah/col.png)
-
Rolex:
"Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages."
Not only the :aok
But more. The next step is always "ok ok , ok,, OK, it's so, but we can't do doodly squat about it"
First denialism, and then surrender.
-
link (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/~lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf#search=%22lyman%20ocean%20cooling%22) Abstract. We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) X 10^22 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (per unit area of the Earth’s surface). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Our system is experiencing a net CO2 increase and an increased system temperature. That is undeniable. Dismissing it and calling scientists "tards" is the stuff of Pol Pot and the dark ages.
i didnt call all scientists tards did i?
just the ones that count 800,000 year old frozen air to be a reliable source for testing 800,000 year old carbon statistics...
comphrension problems?
-
I kinda like the projections for global warming on Texas. Increased precip in summer months, decreased in winter but overall annual increase resulting in increased forestation.
100 years from now our great great grandchildren may look back and at laugh at today's alarmists as they enjoy longer and more bountiful growing seasons. Only time will tell.
-
well documented fact that latent mummy flatulence is often far worse than the daddy type BF. besides so far it's only killed british subjects.
-
Originally posted by Angus
That is an attitude Hitler would have loved.
Fortunately (for him it was UNfortunately) the Brits didn't feel that way.
Declaring war on industrialization to turn the clock back to pre-industrialization days to halt global warming is not going to happen, well, not by choice anyway. And some alarmist say that even if that were done it probably would be too late anyway, the damage has already been done. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. But if the alarmist are right there is fug all you and I can do about it. The kyoto protocol or any of the other feel good 'save the world' measures are not going to imo make a blind bit of difference.. the cards have been dealt, we have to play out our hand.
And your mistaken if you think my realist views and cynism of junk science would equate to an apathetic acceptance hitler. Far from it
-
Hehe, This:
"After all this talk of fuel burning and stuff nobody has yet mentioned cow farts. They emit alot of CO2 and methane gas.
Hell add in all the other creatures that fart to. Couldnt it be said that in conjunction with all the farting going on, they put out more polution that cars even?
Has a study been done? I think there was one done for just the cows, but one for everybody. Quick call the "Lets Do a Study" Organization and get them on that right quick."
Here is a challenge for you. Some facts.
1. In a western country like I live in, there are actually much more cars than cattle. (That counts down to little calfs, and the country is completely self sufficient with both beef and milk products)
2. Cows, as well as other ruminants have been around for a long time. Very long, just undergoing some species changes. (In the USA you killed all them buffalos and replaced somewhat with the cow. (Smaller)
3. You eat the cows. You eat the milk products. There is normally better economy in producing grain/vegetables/fruits of the same ground for direct human consumption, so ruminants, or generally most of animal husbondry is on a large scale decided by the humans.
4. As a sidenote, the most efficient meat production is pig/poultry. However, as they are not basically grazing animals, cattle will thrive where pigs and chicken won't. Sheep will thrive nicely on a terrain which is very difficult for cattle. However, the milk will give the best output of all, way better than meat.
All down to the humans.......
-
The lefties have a whole army that go around the world injecting ice bubbles. I seen a few!:noid
-
ok.. so we have more co2 now than in some other times. We are in a global warming trend. Co2 allways rises after a global warming trend.
You can't stop a global warming trend or the C02 that follows.
None of you can tell anyone how much man is affecting climate one way or the other. The warming trend would continue no matter if we all died. There is nothing we can do to stop it or start it.
eureka... soooooo... you feel that your pleasure to see new things and people is more important than our mother earth? How selfish... You don't care how much polution is spewed into the air so long as you have a good time?
Oh... and kalifornia has many millions of tourists every year. With a tank of gas I can go see the desert or the beach or the mountains or huge redwood forests or a national park. Yosemite attracts a few people now and then.
lazs
-
Well I see we have reached the chart posting war and the "No , I`m not bored " stage. It can only get better from here on in. :)
-
angus... do you eat 747's on pleasure jaunts around the planet "making new friends" and spewing filth on our beloved mother earth?
No one can say how much or how little we are affecting climate change or how much we can affect it with our best efforts.
We could all walk everywhere and live outside in the cold and it wouldn't change things a bit.
If/when we go into the next global cooling cycle what are you idiots gonna suggest then? slash and burn? setting the oil fields on fire?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Elfie
If the plane is 75% full, one passenger is carried 22.2 km for each
liter of fuel burned (52.2 miles for each US gallon of fuel burned).
This fuel efficiency exceeds that of almost all cars, when the driver
is travelling alone.
The average load ratio of airlines is more than that, but 75% is fair enough. IIRC the average number of passengers in passengers cars is about 1,5 here, I assume it's much less than that in the US(Just look at the empty carpool lanes).
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... do you eat 747's on pleasure jaunts around the planet "making new friends" and spewing filth on our beloved mother earth?
No one can say how much or how little we are affecting climate change or how much we can affect it with our best efforts.
We could all walk everywhere and live outside in the cold and it wouldn't change things a bit.
If/when we go into the next global cooling cycle what are you idiots gonna suggest then? slash and burn? setting the oil fields on fire?
lazs
There you go again. You miss the point. The point is all about that WE ARE AFFECTING CLIMATE ON A VERY BIG SCALE. (Very well established)
THE WAY WE DO THINGS DOES AFFECT THINGS.
So, my first suggestion to the problem is to face it and abort surrender.
But of course it is uncomfortable to those who either won't face the problem, and if they think it is there, they immediately shrug their shoulders and raise their palms in surrender.
And this airplane sidetrack is cool. It's a diversion and a strawman on a discount deal. :D
-
C'mon guys, I'm thuper therial here! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/environment.gore.reut/index.html?section=cnn_space)
-
How many here think China and India will reduce fossil fuel emmissions and slow down their economic growth to stem CO2? Aint going to happen. The rest of the world wants cars, industry and electricity too, and they are going to get it. Drive a hybrid car if you want too, China is mining for coal on your behalf, dont worry.
-
Originally posted by Squire
How many here think China and India will reduce fossil fuel emmissions and slow down their economic growth to stem CO2? Aint going to happen. The rest of the world wants cars, industry and electricity too, and they are going to get it. Drive a hybrid car if you want too, China is mining for coal on your behalf, dont worry.
Sadly, this is rather true.
Yet, worth the go.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
C'mon guys, I'm thuper therial here! (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05/environment.gore.reut/index.html?section=cnn_space)
He could do his part to reduce co2 if he'd just stop breathing. ;)
-
Pointed out above, he'd turn into a rotting corpse which emits CO2 and Methane which is much more powerful.
Which by the way, is what marks the point of no return, - since temperature in enough quantity will unleash the methane stored in the Siberian territories, there will be so much greenhouse gases around that what we humans emit is like a toothpick in Hell. Then BAM, hit the boiling point at certain areas (for Farenheit people that is 100 degrees celcius), and there will be no turning back.
So, is it worth a fight?
-
I keep hearing that it is all mans fault or... some of the saner fruitcakes saying that "we are a big part of it"
No frigging numbers. we get numbers for co2 production... man made and otherwise but not one number as to how much is natural and how much is man made and how much stopping all man made co2 would help.
More co2 means healthier plants which use co2... probly kick us into an ice age eh?
Nope.... if you can't tell me how much time off the inevitable man made destruction of the planet is gonna be saved by me suffering.... I ain't gonna worry about it.
If the planet is in a global warming cycle then it will just have to play itself out naturaly.... we can't fix it any more than we can stop an ice age.
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
The average load ratio of airlines is more than that, but 75% is fair enough. IIRC the average number of passengers in passengers cars is about 1,5 here, I assume it's much less than that in the US(Just look at the empty carpool lanes).
At 75% capacity the airliner is more fuel efficient per passenger than your average car with just a driver. Add just one passenger and your average car beats that fuel effiency hands down. Even an airliner with full capacity wouldn't beat a car with one driver and one passenger for fuel efficiency.
More people are using the carpool option here in the Denver area. The high occupancy lanes have alot more traffic on them these days than they used to.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
At 75% capacity the airliner is more fuel efficient per passenger than your average car with just a driver. Add just one passenger and your average car beats that fuel effiency hands down. Even an airliner with full capacity wouldn't beat a car with one driver and one passenger for fuel efficiency.
Like I said the average load for a passenger car is less than 1,5 persons. Also you need to find out the average load ratio for airliner(definately more than 75%). And use combined fuel consumption for an average passenger car.
The A380 Family represents the optimum outcome of decades of R&D:
first civil aircraft to incorporate 25% composites. less than 3 litres of fuel per passenger/100 kilometres, generating CO2 emissions lower than 80g per passenger/kilometre (the European car industry aims to achieve 140g of CO2 per kilometre in 2008)..
http://www.rtcc.org/2006/html/soc_air_airbus.html
-
Is it just me or can anyone else envision Angus wringing his hands while reading this thread?
-
Like I said the average load for a passenger car is less than 1,5 persons. Also you need to find out the average load ratio for airliner(definately more than 75%). And use combined fuel consumption for an average passenger car.
If 75% passenger load on an airliner is beaten by 2 people in a car (fuel effiency wise), even a 100% passenger load isnt going to beat 2 people in a car.
Point I was trying to make (obviously failed lol) with my original post on this subject was......a single airliner in ONE flight (regardless of numbers of passengers) puts out more hydrocarbon emissions than a single car does in years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of airliner flights per day.
With car pooling (should be alot more of that going on) airliners are much worse than cars emissions wise.
-
Thursday September 7, 2006
By Steve Connor
LONDON - Britain has been colonised at least eight times over the past 700,000 years and on seven of these occasions the entire human population was wiped out by intensely cold winters.
This is one of the main conclusions of a five-year investigation into the prehistoric sites of Britain which has shown that the last colonisation occurred less than 12,000 years ago - making Britain a younger country than Australia, which has been continuously inhabited for at least 50,000 years.
"Britain had to be repopulated over and over again. Completely new people had to come back, sometimes with a gap of 100,000 years between these occupations," said Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.
"Early Britons had to cope with these changes of climate. Often they couldn't and they died out completely. Britain and the British people today are new arrivals. We're products of only the last 12,000 years," Stringer said.
Studies of several prehistoric sites have revealed that the early human inhabitants of Britain lived alongside large mammals such as elephants, mammoths, rhinos and hippos as well as fierce carnivores such as hyaenas and scimitar-toothed cats.
Over the past 800,000 years the climate has fluctuated widely from being semi-tropical to the freezing cold of an ice age.
On seven occasions the winters became extremely cold with average temperatures plummeting to well below freezing.
There was a severe cold spell between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago that seems to have wiped out all humans who lived here. Then there was an eighth wave of colonisers who crossed from the continent over a land bridge that connected Britain to the mainland.
"It looks like there have been eight separate colonisation events that we can record and seven of those were unsuccessful so it is only the one in the present interglacial that is a successful one that leads through to the present day," Stringer said.
There was one particularly cold period that seemed to have prevented people from living in Britain for about 40,000 years.
"We're talking about little windows of time when the climate was good enough for them to survive here, until we get to the late part of the story," he said.
At Lynford in East Anglia scientists have found evidence that Neanderthals lived in Britain and managed to cope with very cold winters with temperatures of minus -10C.
"The interesting thing is how were they surviving at Lynford. There are no trees there so the wind-chill factor alone must have been quite severe. They must have had shelters and some form of clothing," Stringer said.
However, this population was eventually wiped out. Ultimately, the Neanderthals were replaced by anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, who became the ancestors of today's Britons.
- INDEPENDENT
Neaderthal man sure was a heavy polluter, where was neanderthal-Al Gore when all this was going on?
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Neaderthal man sure was a heavy polluter, where was neanderthal-Al Gore when all this was going on?
no doubt he was likely to be grooming his neanderthal beard and preparing to teach at a neanderthal institute of higher learning.
-
Oh my, interesting thread.
Here's a "wringing" cookie for you.
A Boeing 747 with maximum fuel load and 400 passengers, burning up every gallon in the tanks gives roughly 450 litres per passenger.
(link http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.html)
That is not the best available setup of course, but not totally the worst (which would be 1 passenger :D)
So, how far do you get on 450 litres? In my car some 4500 kilometres actually. And a Boeing on full load? 10.000 probably.
But these numbers are a bit...off.
Here is the main thing. It's not all about just CARS. It's about human effect on global warming.
It doesn't really matter how we burn fossil fuel, it's the fact that we do it.
It's the fact that we are causing changes.
Like I said before, funny twists there are to this thread, blowing up all the smoke about airplanes. Doh.
-
Oh, here's a good linkie:
http://www.kvikmynd.is/video.asp?land=&offset=&id=2465
-
Are we at war with aliens? cause I swear I just saw an anti human race propaganda film in that link you posted Angus ;)
-
Hehehhrrr.
I'll look into that ;)
More planet-human data inbound.
-
funny twists?
not one of you handwringers has told us yet how many seconds we can take off the doom of global warming by living in tents.
Not one of you has said that the global warming trend will stop or how much it will slow or.... even if we might be headed for a global cooling trend.
Do you really think we can control the sun and volcanoes and such?
you just want to appear to be "doing something" yet... you see nothing wrong with pleasure jaunts in jets.... useless travel to "meet new people"
most environmentalists are like that... they only want to limit things that others do. oh... and get grant money and make useless objects and make the government force people to buy em.
They are no different than the snake oil salesmen of old.
lazs
-
Strawman.
Diversions.
Twists.
Main issue is that the PART in global warming caused by humans is indeed something that the humans CAN do something about.
It has not much to do with tents (a bit more with bicycles perhaps, hehe), and there is nothing we can do about volcanoes or the Sun. But our PART is there, and it's a composition of everything.
Big impact is the utter quality of life, which includes very much of fossile burning for consumption and lifestyle (pleasure jaunts in fossile fuelled vehicles included), then as well how far we push nature (as through agriculture) to make our life cheaper and easier.
As for your concern about an iceage, there have been many. They did not kill all primates on the planet, which is unlike the point-of-no-return which we are being warned about. That "doomsday" setup at large would wipe out just about all lifeforms on the planet for good.
-
And wringing...yes.
The French told the British, that if France was lost to Hitler, England had no point in fighting further. They would have their necks wringed like a chicken.
After the BoB, Winston Churchill said something like "Some neck. Some Chicken".
So, is there a point in fighting a problem, or should that particular French attitude prevail?
-
I believe that it is in the human's best interest to try to reduce activity that alters the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
Does anybody know what happens when we alter a planet's atmosphere?
No.
Does anybody suppose that it would be an improvement for the existing flora and fuana?
Me either.
It's foolish to think that man doesn't alter the planet's atmosphere more than any other living thing on earth.
It's just as foolish to think that we can continue proliferating without altering the composition of the sky.
For this virus called life, man is it's champion vector, and best hope of spreading it's infection to other planets, other solar systems, other galaxies.
Do not let humans who would trade the future of their seed for earthly fortunes impose the same fate on our own more worthy complex protien strands.
Stupid is an adverb, extinction has allways been stupidity's reward.
-
If you believe that evolution has wrought a good thing then why denounce it's natural continuation?
-
Since we all know that we're going to die one day, why not end it now?
After all, it's going to happen in a most natural way.
Dohhh :huh
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you believe that evolution has wrought a good thing then why denounce it's natural continuation?
There are no good or bad in evolution or nature. There is only survivors and forgotten.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Since we all know that we're going to die one day, why not end it now?
After all, it's going to happen in a most natural way.
Dohhh :huh
Suicide is the interruption of the natural process.
BTW, didn't we introduce more of these greenhouse gasses when panicked over the receding ozone layer? Maybe we should have looked before we leapt?
-
I guess you are referring to the extra energy needed in many cooling systems after Freon 12 was banned? (For cooling and freezing more energy is needed for the todays allowed materials)
Anyway, the Ozon layer is recovering, which could be an important lesson for the fight with greenhouse effect.
Problem was recognized, countered, and is getting less.
;)
-
I'm referring to this:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/envdev838.doc.htm
"GENEVA, 11 April (UNEP/WMO) -- After 20 years of protecting the ozone layer with a new generation of chemicals, governments are confronting the fact that these ozone-friendly substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) also happen to be greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming."
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Point I was trying to make (obviously failed lol) with my original post on this subject was......a single airliner in ONE flight (regardless of numbers of passengers) puts out more hydrocarbon emissions than a single car does in years. There are hundreds, if not thousands of airliner flights per day.
With car pooling (should be alot more of that going on) airliners are much worse than cars emissions wise.
And there are billions of automobile trips each day. Again it doesn't matter how enviromentally "friendly" passenger cars with more than one person are, because on average they just carry a little more than one passenger. Also you are overestimating the fuel efficiency of an average passenger car.
-
Originally posted by Suave
...proselytizing...
Stupid is an adverb, extinction has allways been stupidity's reward.
Isn't stupid an adjective and stupidly an adverb?
Are you asking me to trust the rationalizations of someone who doesn't know the difference?
-
Is this a thread where the exact use of the word "stupid" is discussed?
I thought it was a CO2 - Global warming thread with interesting inputs.
Well what to expect, where the debate has entered a quarrel wheteher it's the fault of aircraft or cars.
Maybe time to go google to bring up some stats?
-
Originally posted by mora
And there are billions of automobile trips each day. Again it doesn't matter how enviromentally "friendly" passenger cars with more than one person are, because on average they just carry a little more than one passenger. Also you are overestimating the fuel efficiency of an average passenger car.
While I would agree that there are many more automobile trips each day, not one of those trips burns thousands of gallons of fuel on a single trip like an airliner does. I dont think these 2 types of transportation are really comparable just due to the difference in the sheer amount of fuel used.
I did try to find out how many airliner trips there are each day without much luck.
-
no angus... the thread is about how much man is affecting the normal global warming cycle we are in and how much us not even existing would change things.
none of you hand wringers can tell us.
I say that everything affects everything.... so what? I am saying that you had better show some good provable results for any hardship that you want to impose on me.... not just that is seems like a good idea.
as for the aircraft.... now it seems that since it is a smaller portion than the cars that if should be exempt and all you hand wringers can go merrily on your way with your pleasure jaunts.
We can do "something" about man made co2 by simply banning all but emergency air travel.
How much will that help? Who cares right? it only matters that it will help right?
lazs
-
"no angus... the thread is about how much man is affecting the normal global warming cycle we are in and how much us not even existing would change things."
Exactly.
We agree on what it's about.
But we disagree about the size of problems, and the fight.
-
Gee........you mean to tell me the earth and the climate are going through changes? Well......now that hasn`t happened but a few thousand times. Cooling/warming....warming/cooling............................
What a news flash.
-
Hello my dear friend and yes, welcome to the changes.
They're worth a study, since the evidence of our part in it seems to be popping up constantly.
So, while looking into matters I just stumbled across some interesting data.
(Various sources).
It has to do with the impact of mankind, as well as world's used energy and various shares of it.
You'll like it.
Will be back later ;)
-
no angus... we dissagree on if it is a natural cycle or not and on what to do about whatever portion is man made.
No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it.
most of you hand wringers just say " we must have some effect... who cares how much? sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."
I'm not buying it... not if you can't tell me how much we are hurting or how much we can help.
lazs
-
So, here's my point.
It's happening and we have a slice of it.
First step of global warming debates was: It's happening.
Denialists said, noo...it aint.
Now, even you are a step further.
Step 2, yeah it's happening, but it's only natural.
Step 2b is "No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it."
Step 3 is where many of the scientists are now, - Dang, it's happening and it is very much of our fault.
And this from you is a strawman:
"sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."
Who said that? You did.
Why? Because that is about as far as you are ready to go with the thought.
I'll give you a thought of mine.
We will need to change our lifestile, as we did when the declination of the ozone layer was being countered. That didn't really put you on a hairshirt did it? However, this one is a much bigger issue. But down to hairshirt....no.
There is a long way between some change of lifestyle down to the hairshirt you see.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, here's my point.
It's happening and we have a slice of it.
First step of global warming debates was: It's happening.
Denialists said, noo...it aint.
Now, even you are a step further.
Step 2, yeah it's happening, but it's only natural.
Step 2b is "No one here has been able.... nor any scientist been able... to tell how much of the natural warming cycle is man made or, more importantly....what and if we can do about it."
Step 3 is where many of the scientists are now, - Dang, it's happening and it is very much of our fault.
And this from you is a strawman:
"sooo we need to change our lifestyles and put on hairshirts and live in caves till it all goes away."
Who said that? You did.
Why? Because that is about as far as you are ready to go with the thought.
I'll give you a thought of mine.
We will need to change our lifestile, as we did when the declination of the ozone layer was being countered. That didn't really put you on a hairshirt did it? However, this one is a much bigger issue. But down to hairshirt....no.
There is a long way between some change of lifestyle down to the hairshirt you see.
We've already been greatly inconvenienced in plugging up the hole in the ozone layer. Replacement of chlorofluorocarbons was no small nor inexpensive undertaking. Now we find that the replacements may be causing an even greater problem? Color me skeptical of this whole "we must do something now" movement.
-
Originally posted by lukster
We've already been greatly inconvenienced in plugging up the hole in the ozone layer. Replacement of chlorofluorocarbons was no small nor inexpensive undertaking. Now we find that the replacements may be causing an even greater problem? Color me skeptical of this whole "we must do something now" movement.
Be sceptical as you like. It is yet but a pinsalamander part of our combined emissions.
And did you consider the "inconveniences" with the ozone layer in a goodbye mode?
-
Ok angus... I can see we are getting nowhere in the "how much is man made" debate since you are unwilling to answer this just as your scientists heros can't/won't/don't have a clue/ do.
So... since you won't or can't answer that one... let's take a different tact...
we don't know if it will do any real good in the natural ebb and flow of global climate but.... we can do "something"
exactly what is it that you think we should do? What would make you feel good about the whole situation?
What are the sacrafices you would want us to all make?
lazs
-
Wow! They had Chili back then too?!!!!!!
-
Lazs:
"exactly what is it that you think we should do? What would make you feel good about the whole situation?
What are the sacrafices you would want us to all make?"
That I can tell you.
SACRIFICES OF MANKIND, CHAPTER ONE :D
1. Try to realize there is a problem.
2. Try to analyze the magnitude of the problem (nobody has the accurate answer of how much, that includes me. Very much is work is basically put into the fight of whether there is a problem or not, which includes this thread :D)
3. Find a way to counter the problem. Since the problem consists of greenhouse gases being released out of their storage, it is a question of 2 things, a and b.
3a. Try to minimize the emissions. That includes fuel saving and alternate energy, which is nowhere near it's limit.
3b. Try to increase the amount of i.e. charbon that gets tied up. That is an environmental and agricultural question.
4. Bonus one. Stop making a monster out of fighting a problem :D
I guess I will have to get more into detail later ;)
-
Scare of the Century
JASON LEE STEORTS
"The alarms and assertions about global warming have gone reprehensibly too far,”
says Steorts.
“Suddenly and unexpectedly,” Time announced in a recent issue, “the crisis is upon us. The climate is crashing, and global warming [what else?] is to blame.”
“We see a photograph of a polar bear, standing all by his lonesome at the water’s
edge, and are told that the poor fellow might drown because “polar ice caps are
melting faster than ever.” Later, we learn that “the journal Science published a
study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an
eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft.”
”The policy implications of such reportage are clear, but in case you missed them,
Time connects the dots: “Curbing global warming may be an order of magnitude
harder than, say, eradicating smallpox or putting a man on the moon. But is it moral
not to try?”
“The answer is, yes, it may indeed be moral not to try. What is not moral is to
distort the truth for political ends—which is precisely what has been done with the
ice-caps story. Here’s what you haven’t read.”
“The world has two major ice sheets, one covering most of Greenland and the
other covering most of Antarctica but the chances of the ice caps fully melting are
about as high as the chances of Times giving you an honest story on global
warming.”
“ University of Virginia climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels is direct: “What has
happened is that Antarctica has been gaining ice.” Michaels explains that there has
been a cooling trend over most of Antarctica for decades. “At the same time, one
tiny portion of the continent—the Antarctic Peninsula —has been warming, and its
ice has been melting. The peninsula constitutes only about 2 percent of Antarctica ’s total area, but almost every study of melting Antarctic ice you’ve
heard of focuses on it.” (Which I’ve been saying all along.)
Antarctica has gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003,
says Steorts, “enough to lower sea levels by roughly 0.12 millimeters annually.”
(Lower sea levels, not higher, which is also what I've been saying.)
But those figures take us only to 2003. A study released earlier this year, says
Steorts, suggests that the Antarctic Ice Sheet has lost about 152 cubic kilometers
of ice per year during the past three years, equivalent to about 0.4 millimeters of
annual sea-level rise. “But three years do not make a trend,” says Steorts. This
kind of alarmism “is on the order of going to the beach at high tide, drawing a line
at the water’s edge, and fretting a few hours later that the oceans are drying up.”
And Greenland ? Some studies show that it’s losing a negligible amount of mass,
others show that it’s gaining a negligible amount of mass. Even if the losing-mass
proponents are correct, “Add all the numbers from Greenland and Antarctica up,”
says Steorts, “and you get a rather piddling total. In 2005, Jay Zwally of NASA
published a study in the Journal of Glaciology that looked at the ice-mass
changes for both Greenland and Antarctica from 1992 to 2002. He concluded that
the total ice loss was equivalent to a sea-level rise of just 0.05 millimeters per year.
At that rate, it would take the oceans a millennium to gain 5 centimeters, and a full
20,000 years to rise by a meter. To the hills, anyone?”
You don’t need to invoke man-made global warming to explain what’s going on,
says Steorts. “We have temperature records indicating that Greenland was as
warm as it is today during the first half of the 20th century. “If today’s temperatures
are casing Greenland ’s coastal ice to slide into the sea, it must have been positively
galloping there 80 years ago.
“Fred Singer of George Mason University points out that “we have historic
[temperature] records in Europe going back a thousand years. It was much
warmer then than today. Polar bears survived. The ice caps survived.”
“Time, Al Gore, the Democratic party, the EU, politically correct scientists, and
the entire green lobby want us to throw enormous sums of money [via the Kyoto
Treaty] at solutions that won’t work anyhow.
Good plan, guys.”
-
The Myth of Greenhouse Gases
Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Feb 23, 2005
“Listen up. This is very important.
“In fact, the global warmiacs couldn't be further from the truth. As I argued in my January 13 column, Let Eyes See and Ears Hear, and in my 1997 investigative report, "Global Warming or Globaloney," high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are indeed a dire warning that something very unpleasant is about to befall our planet and those of us who reside here, but it has nothing to do with global warming.
“Precisely the opposite: It is both the harbinger and the cause of a coming new ice age.
“Now comes Robert W. Felix, who in his book "Not by Fire but by Ice" argues persuasively that it is not global warming but ocean warming that is pushing CO2 levels through the roof.
“According to Felix, the oceans are warming as the result of widespread underwater volcanic activity, which he thoroughly documents. He adds that "We've forgotten that this isn't the first time our seas have warmed. Sea temperatures also shot upward 10º to 18ºF just prior to the last ice age. As the oceans warmed, evaporation increased. The excess moisture then fell to the ground as giant blizzards, giant storms and floods (Noah's Deluge type floods), and a new ice age began."
“And he warns, "The same thing is happening today. "Our seas, heated by underwater volcanism, are leading us directly into the next ice age ... and we don't even know it.
-
The coming ice age
By John Silveira
As little as 30 years ago the talk wasn’t about global warming, it was about an imminent ice age. Is an ice age likely? Even possible? Consider this: There have been more than 20 glacial advances, or ice ages, in just the last two million years. And we know from geological evidence that each glaciation lasted anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 years—no one knows why the disparity—separated by warm periods that last some 10,000 to 15,000 years. What we can be reasonably sure of is that we’re now in one of the warm periods, and this one is already 13,000 years old. Some scientists think it’s at an end and a new ice age is about to begin.
No one really knows what causes ice ages. Theories abound. They include perturbations in the earth’s orbit, changes in ocean currents, the earth periodically passing through galactic dust that obscures the sun, variations in the sun’s energy output, changes in continental positions, uplift of continental blocks, reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. Evidence or experiment may eventually resolve which of the theories wins out, or it may turn out that a combination of theories are true. It may even be that none of the current theories proves satisfactory and some entirely new theory ultimately explains their cause.
But what is pretty certain is how they take place. It was once common wisdom to believe that the advent of an ice age took place over centuries or even millennia, and that they ended the same way. It was thought that the changes were so slow that, if people were around to witness them, each generation would hardly notice any change. If the next glaciation were to come on slowly, and we recognized it as the beginning of an ice age, maybe there would be time for civilization to adjust: to begin food storage, to develop crop hybrids that will endure shorter growing seasons, to move populations, factories, and technology—the core of our civilization—into southern climates, etc.
But we now have evidence that ice ages come on with an abruptness that will catch us by total surprise. Physical evidence indicates that when the last ice age started, the British Isles went from a temperate climate to being completely covered with glaciers hundreds of feet thick in just 20 years.
Do scientists think it’ll happen that way again? Yes. And if the next ice age starts here’s how it may occur: At first we wouldn’t even realize it, so the first few years we’d feel we were just having one or two bad winters. But after a few years rivers will freeze all-year-round, snow from the previous years won’t completely melt, glaciers will begin to form, and some of what is currently now the world’s most fertile ground will become unfarmable.
Countries bordering on both sides of the Atlantic will change radically as a result of changes in the Gulf Stream, and Europe, which today is almost 20 degrees warmer than other parts of the world at the same latitude, will become as cold and dry as Siberia. The Sahara may again become forested while the Amazon basin becomes a desert. Florida may also become a desert, as it was in a previous ice age.
At the same time, if the climate changes enough to disturb the monsoon season that fuels agriculture from Africa to China, where over half the world’s six billion people now live, hundreds of millions will starve when the climate abruptly changes. There’s no way to prepare them for that.
Canadian and Russian wheat will fail completely. American agriculture, on which much of the world depends, will be scaled back by shorter growing seasons. Not only will we not have enough food for export, we won’t be able to grow enough to sustain even our own current population. And jobs? Factories will close, service businesses will disappear, stocked supermarkets will become a thing of the past. Get ready for your standard of living to drop like a rock while you and your kin go hungry.
How far will the ice fields extend? In North America they will most likely reach as far south as present day Chicago. But they may go further. And this isn’t going to be some picture postcard winter landscape. At the height of the last ice age, the ice fields covering much of North America were up to two miles thick. So, expect the great northern cities, such as New York, Boston, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, etc., to be swept away before advancing glaciers. In the meantime, sea levels will drop and more of the continental shelves will be exposed. You’ll be able to walk from Siberia to Alaska, from California to the Channel Islands, from Britain to France, from Australia to New Guinea.
But when is this really all likely to happen? Because no one knows what causes ice ages, there’s no way to forecast when the next one will start, how bad it will be, or what effect the (allegedly man-made) global warming taking place today will have on it. We can’t tell whether it will be less severe than the last one, when the ice sheets only extended as far south as Wisconsin, or as bad as some of the glaciations of half a billion years ago when ice sheets formed all the way to the equator. Although this latter scenario is unlikely, no one can be sure. But if it does, kiss the human race good-bye.
What seems fairly certain is that we will go from the world as it is today to full-blown glaciation in less than 20 years, maybe in as little as four or five. And there is no way the United States can adjust to and survive a climate change this abrupt.
Can we stop it? We can’t even stop a single snow storm. Imagine trying to stop an ice age that’s going to go on for tens of thousands of years.
-
So, make a snowman the danger and we are simply keeping things better than freeze over?
While the Earth has cycles, some of them violent, we never hit the Venus condition, which is the doomsday say.
That means roughly this:
Hot enough to release everything that is stored as frozen > accelerated heating > water on surface hits boiling point (Water IS a greenhouse gas as steam) > The devil can now comfortably live on the surface > All hell is loose.
Jackal, while you do indeed paste a lot, please explain to me with your own logics that an iceage is coming, and we're better off with the heat.
In my mind, the end of all intelligent life on the planet would rather be occuring when every dot hits the boiling point rather than when a good block is frozen while there is a good block being comfy.
-
Scientists can't even agree on whether we are heading towards catastrophic global warming or headed towards an ice age. :lol
You don�t need to invoke man-made global warming to explain what�s going on,
says Steorts. �We have temperature records indicating that Greenland was as
warm as it is today during the first half of the 20th century. �If today�s temperatures
are casing Greenland �s coastal ice to slide into the sea, it must have been positively
galloping there 80 years ago.
�Fred Singer of George Mason University points out that �we have historic
[temperature] records in Europe going back a thousand years. It was much
warmer then than today. Polar bears survived. The ice caps survived.ďż˝
When scientists can agree, then I'll get worried. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, make a snowman the danger and we are simply keeping things better than freeze over?
While the Earth has cycles, some of them violent, we never hit the Venus condition, which is the doomsday say.
That means roughly this:
Hot enough to release everything that is stored as frozen > accelerated heating > water on surface hits boiling point (Water IS a greenhouse gas as steam) > The devil can now comfortably live on the surface > All hell is loose.
Jackal, while you do indeed paste a lot, please explain to me with your own logics that an iceage is coming, and we're better off with the heat.
In my mind, the end of all intelligent life on the planet would rather be occuring when every dot hits the boiling point rather than when a good block is frozen while there is a good block being comfy.
Jackal can post for himself but I thought what he posted was pretty clear. There is now increasing activity among the world's underwater volcanoes resulting in increasing sea temperatures which results in increasing evaporation leading to an ice age as believed to have happened many times in the past.
Increased Volcanic activity. Wouldn't that account for increasing co2 levels?
-
Originally posted by Angus
That means roughly this:
Hot enough to release everything that is stored as frozen > accelerated heating > water on surface hits boiling point (Water IS a greenhouse gas as steam) > The devil can now comfortably live on the surface > All hell is loose.
So, are you suggesting this will happen?
I guess by the same token I could suggest that in the event of a supervolcanoe eruption or a nuclear disaster or war things would get sort of like a giant ice rink. Frosty could now visit all those places that he was never able to before comfortably. All icebox is loose. Am I suggesting that? Nope, but just as feasable.
Jackal, while you do indeed paste a lot
Yep. This way Skuzz doesn`t have to come in and post an "FYI..this site contains....XXXXX". Feel free to skip over any cut and pastes of mine you find offensive.
please explain to me with your own logics that an iceage is coming,
It would be pretty illogical for me to attempt that. It would, on the same theme, be pretty illogical for me to assume the position that a global meltdown/warming is taking place or in our future. The main reason is absolutely nobody knows or agrees on either subject.
I suppose you do know that some scientists are saying that your ice melting is not being caused by global warming, but instead by undersea, volcanic activity. They are also saying that, if this is so, global warming will never happen, but instead, parts of the earth that now have moderate temps will become frozen areas due to the changes that will take effect in ocean currents. Do I buy into this? Nope? Why? Because, just like the global warming for lunch bunch, they are speculating without sufficient knowledge. In other words....guessing and speculating on what could happen.
One thing I can count on, and know as fact, is none of them can predict mother nature or unforseen, unpredictable changes or occurences in mother earth and our environment. Can`t be done.
I`ve seen many doomsday theories come down the pike. Some have captured a small audience as believers......for a while. Then the next theory takes hold and it`s OMG we`re all going to die time again.
None of them know, none of them agree, all are speculative, if not pipe dreams of a nightmarish nature.
and we're better off with the heat
We are? We have a choice now? :)
In my mind, the end of all intelligent life on the planet would rather be occuring when every dot hits the boiling point rather than when a good block is frozen while there is a good block being comfy
Ummmmmmmm..........errrrrrrrr rrrr............OK......I guess.
So......are we predicting the total end to intelligent life now or what?
-
What sacrafices would you handwringers want me to make in order to stop the sun from heating and cooling or the under ocean volcanoes from heating up the ocean?
angus... I asked you what we should do and you gave no specifics at all.
Should we ban all tourist and non essential flights? if not..... why not? How bout drive only for emergencies and be given ration cards?
How bout.... we give lots more of our money to the government for them to study the problem?
lazs
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.
Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.
lol. Does anybody really read this and not get the horse crap that is being peddled here?
Yes, climate change is a reality......otherwise we'd still have an ice age.
And, how exactly do the aire bubbles trapped in ice *reveal* that HUMANS are the cause of the change? Its a joke, really.
-
source (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027084.shtml)
“Rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them. Hastenrath [2001, 2006] suggests an increase in net shortwave radiation, accompanied by a decrease in cloudiness and precipitation, initiated the retreat of the glaciers during the last two decades of the 19th century. This is supported by a recent finding that a higher frequency of climatically significant Indian Ocean Zonal Mode events in the 19th century (1820–1880) may have provided a mechanism to contribute to a wetter climate in East Africa, and thus stable glaciers [Mölg et al., 2006]. To fully understand what climatic conditions enabled glaciers to accumulate and grow prior to the onset of modern glacier recession on Kilimanjaro, more effort to reconstruct 19th century climate is necessary.”
-
Here is a little sidenote, since many threads have included statements that the globe is not warming at all, while this one hasn't so much.
There is the melting for which you need warming. Glaciers again, yes.
Not only photos and measurements have been used for the measure (this has been debated on the threads,- some have claimed that the glaciers are piling up at the same rate).
There is the possibility of measuring the amount of how much the sea is being "watered out" in terms of the mineral balance - mostly salt.
It supports nicely that indeed the world glaciers and surface ice, notably on the northern hemisphere are indeed melting and very much so.
This method had not crossed my mind yet, but it's quite simple!
-
What exactly do you want us to do and how much will it help change a natural cycle?
How can we stop the volcanoes from heating up the ocean? Won't melting glaciers help?
lazs
-
What exactly happens if I shoot you somewhere in the torso with a .22 magnum from 30 yards???
I don't know, but probably somewhere between painful and lethal.
And...Im afraid it's not any hidden volcanoes melting the polar caps.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
What exactly happens if I shoot you somewhere in the torso with a .22 magnum from 30 yards???
.
What exactly happens if the atmosphere, climate and environment are tampered with in some unnatural way?
And...Im afraid it's not any hidden volcanoes melting the polar caps....
You base this assumption on what? You have some info that you are not letting the theorists in on? They certainly can`t agree on what or IF anything unnatural is happening.
Usualy the first step in fixing anything is to determine exactly what is wrong and why. This hasn`t been done.
Before that you need to know if there really is something wrong . This hasn`t been done either.
-
"What exactly happens if the atmosphere, climate and environment are tampered with in some unnatural way?"
Apparently, our impact seems to be a bit off track for the last 800.000 years, so I's say that it qualifies for "unnatural" tampering.
Then please inform me about sudden volcanic activity underseas which is swiftly melting the polar caps. It's news to me, and I live near volcanoes (2 of them locked and loaded for action which I can look at through the kitchen window).
Bring proof please.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"What exactly happens if the atmosphere, climate and environment are tampered with in some unnatural way?"
Apparently, our impact seems to be a bit off track for the last 800.000 years, so I's say that it qualifies for "unnatural" tampering.
.
There is one thing for certain, the human population is not going to commit suicided.
You answered a question with a question. Why? Because there is no true answer to the question. Just as there is no answer to the questions of..."Does global warming exist?" and "If so, what is the solution?" Theories and specualtion without anything to back them up to the point of believable or provable.
Then please inform me about sudden volcanic activity underseas which is swiftly melting the polar caps. It's news to me, and I live near volcanoes (2 of them locked and loaded for action which I can look at through the kitchen window).
Well you can read what has allready been posted. Scroll up. :) Or....you can do a little reading and investigating on what others are saying..if you can get past the ice is melting because...................... ........
Proof??? There is no proof. It`s ALL specualtion, just as is global warming. Some going off the deep end yelling the sky is falling, the sky is falling, but then being unable to show where it is actualy falling, if it is falling or why.
News to you? Hmmmmm...so you have just looked at one side of the coin and refuse to even consider anything past that?
Seems you haven`t looked into this at all past."The ice is melting". That is not even remotely considered unnatural for the earth. Some even go so far as to say that is BS and claim the ice may be receeding, but on the other hand is thickening. Some claim the ice is advancing. NONE have anything positive or agreed upon. Unfounded theories, specualtion and posturing for cash. "Come On Down! You Are The Next Contestant On The Price Is Right!"
BTW......volcanic activity doesn`t always mean some spectacularr or visible eruption from known volcanic cone. It can include undersea vents, cracks, etc. It laso doesn`t mean it is a one time, thing. It can be continualy happening over a long period of time.
-
Jackal, you're hanging on a straw in deep water here:
"There is one thing for certain, the human population is not going to commit suicided.
You answered a question with a question. Why? Because there is no true answer to the question. Just as there is no answer to the questions of..."Does global warming exist?" and "If so, what is the solution?" Theories and specualtion without anything to back them up to the point of believable or provable."
1: It's happened before on the "civilization" scale.
1b. This particular kind is not like shooting you in the head, so it's a result of an action.
1c. You yourself have said that fighting emissions was futile because mankind wouldnt do anything about it.
2. So, back to whether global warming exists. Even you have mentioned that it does, but clinging on it as a part of nature.
2b I guess you are referring to whether it exists with the human finger in it, and of course that question is about as accurate as my shooting of lazs above....
2c you want to see the solution of a problem that you have difficulties in comprehending. The solution is not one little thing, but many, and has to do with most aspects of human life and notably consumption.
Then to the mysterious volcanoes. why didn't you just say it was aliens?
And for the ice, - do I have to post that sat picture again!!!!!! And where is the ocean salt going to at the suspiciously same time?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, you're hanging on a straw in deep water here:
"There is one thing for certain, the human population is not going to commit suicided.
You answered a question with a question. Why? Because there is no true answer to the question. Just as there is no answer to the questions of..."Does global warming exist?" and "If so, what is the solution?" Theories and specualtion without anything to back them up to the point of believable or provable."
1: It's happened before on the "civilization" scale.
1b. This particular kind is not like shooting you in the head, so it's a result of an action.
1c. You yourself have said that fighting emissions was futile because mankind wouldnt do anything about it.
2. So, back to whether global warming exists. Even you have mentioned that it does, but clinging on it as a part of nature.
2b I guess you are referring to whether it exists with the human finger in it, and of course that question is about as accurate as my shooting of lazs above....
2c you want to see the solution of a problem that you have difficulties in comprehending. The solution is not one little thing, but many, and has to do with most aspects of human life and notably consumption.
Then to the mysterious volcanoes. why didn't you just say it was aliens?
And for the ice, - do I have to post that sat picture again!!!!!! And where is the ocean salt going to at the suspiciously same time?
I`m hanging on a straw??????????????:rofl I don`t think you get it Angus. I`m not hanging on anything. Why? Because nothing has been shown so far to even suggest that anyone has anything postive or agreed upon, proven, feasable , etc.
If anyone is hanging on to something it would be you. The ice is melting! That is all you have said so far and you can`t back that up. You refuse to look at any point past the one you have sewt yourself upon to be fact. There is no fact. None. All specualtion and dreaming in a sci-fi way up to now.
You find volcanic activity totaly unconsiderable? Why? You know nothing of undersea volvanic activity regarding this subject. Not much has been studied regarding this period. Why do you find it so easy to accept ONE group`s theories without even considering there are others?
You`re hanging....I`m not.....on anything.
Angus if you feel the need to post sat pics, charts.....or any other unsupported babble.........feel free to do so if it makes you feel any better. I can post some pics of Godzilla and his mass destruction of the earth and it`s population if you wish. I can`t explain why he is doing it. I can`t explain how he is going to be stopped. I can`t prove he is doing it even. But.............it would be just as feasable and provable as anything so far on global warming.
If you feel the pic/chart craving overcoming you, please include depth/thickness and prove them to be so. Also please prove why ice melting/advancing now is anything other than what has been known in the past history of the earth.
To sum it up. You can`t prove anything and neither can anyone else at this point. It is totaly unagreed upon. There are many more theories that one could get wrapped up in when it comes to global destruction and the downfall of the human population. Most would be much more impressive and relevant to todays events around the world.
Absolutely noone can predict what will happen in the future concerning climate because noone can factor in the unpreictable forces of mother nature.
You want global warming??? Go to the game forum. I think you will find that what is happening there will cause immediate warming. :rofl
-
Your post hardly deserves an answer but for others reading, it does yet.
Just this one is enough:
"The ice is melting! That is all you have said so far and you can`t back that up."
I have backed that up, it is established and it is countered by yourself with mysterious underwater volcanoes causing it.
FYI the Greenland glacier is sitting on a particularly quiet area, and the activity around there is even less than in your brain :D
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
The future looks so bright and shine for our kids...
Yeah but I think it has more to do with a Thermonuclear blast, or a Comet striking the Earth's surface or the rising tides glistening and drowning them as global warming causes the seas to rise. :aok
-
Originally posted by Angus
Then to the mysterious volcanoes. why didn't you just say it was aliens?
Nothing mysterious about underwater volcanoes, most of them are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_volcanoes
-
So the theories gathered by some elite crew of geniouses are:
1: The climate isn't neseccarily getting warmer. (Well it's been measuring up lately but it has happened before)
2: The ice melting (wooot? Ice melting,naaa) doesn't prove it.
3: Ok, it's melting, but it's them new hidden underwater volcanoes.
Ahhh, I understand. I can actually see one former underwater volcanoe through my livingroom window. So they must be popping up quietly all of a sudden - uhh, like she did.
Not joking, can see this baby through the window, so who is being bluffed with the new volcanic conspiracy theory? Maybe time to try to float on another straw?
Here she is.
(http://www.icelandicgeographic.is/spreng.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Your post hardly deserves an answer but for others reading, it does yet.
Just this one is enough:
"The ice is melting! That is all you have said so far and you can`t back that up."
I have backed that up, it is established and it is countered by yourself with mysterious underwater volcanoes causing it.
LMAO Get over the ice is melting deal will ya Angus. Sheesh. We got that.
Ice has a tendency to melt. Water has a tendency to freeze and make ice. The ice melting in your area is not the issue. You thought perhaps there would never be any more ice melting/forming for the entire history of earth from a certain point? It is not the issue.
FYI the Greenland glacier is sitting on a particularly quiet area, and the activity around there is even less than in your brain :D
Psssst Angus. The volcanic activity does not have to be in your back yard for it to have an effect..........in any area.
I believe if you wish to speak of brain activity, you might want to check your own. You just can`t get past "the ice is melting". Read a little. Check out some of the other opinions and theories. What`s it gonna hurt. I mean, after all, at this point , it`s all theroy, specualtion with a dash of "The Sky Is Falling" thrown in for good measure.
Man........you have latched onto this like a bulldog on a soup bone and can`t seem to see that someone has set you a whole case of Alpo out. :)
You ever manage to get past this I have a whole list of doomsday theories I can throw your way. that way you can continue to have something to wring your hands about when this plays out. The big one can`t be predicted though. That`s the one to watch out for. The one that noone can possibly predict, because it is unpredictable. Totaly. Mother Nature.
-
angus... I am saying that we are having no effect that is worth doing anything about. prove me wrong. I am saying that there is nothing we can do to make any difference that is worthwhile in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.... prove me wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus... I am saying that we are having no effect that is worth doing anything about. prove me wrong. I am saying that there is nothing we can do to make any difference that is worthwhile in the natural heating and cooling of the planet.... prove me wrong.
lazs
I am saying that the globe is at least partially warming because of human impact, which consists of many factors. OK.
To name the big baddies, is that emissions are increasing while the globe's ability to tie co2 (forests) is decreasing.
So, in short, it's not just the car's in the USA and the fat amreeegans. My money is on Brazil as the biggest baddie, - but the fault is more mutual.
We're lending our cheap lifestyle from mother nature, and that is bloody well counterable, - if there is a will and understanding for it.
Regarding forests, there is only one continent that is advancing. All the others are on the pillage side, from modest to horrendous. So the coffee can be a cent cheaper etc etc.
And Jackal:
"LMAO Get over the ice is melting deal will ya Angus. Sheesh. We got that.
Ice has a tendency to melt. Water has a tendency to freeze and make ice. The ice melting in your area is not the issue. You thought perhaps there would never be any more ice melting/forming for the entire history of earth from a certain point? It is not the issue."
The ice melting faster than it builds up is a solid proof of heating. So get over it yerself. And please find those sudden underwater volcanoes that popped up for the last 100 years will you.
BTW, do you belive in the possibility of terraforming, - such as what is being speculated about regarding mars?
-
The ice melting faster than it builds up is a solid proof of heating. So get over it yerself.
[/B][/QUOTE]
ROFLMAO :rofl
You just can`t get past it, can ya?
According to some of the community , your statement is false. :)
But, once again, that is not the issue. Ice melts. It has been known to do so since recorded history. Weather patterns shift/change. They have been known to do so since recorded history.
You just can`t get past your back door. :)
And please find those sudden underwater volcanoes that popped up for the last 100 years will you.
I don`t beleive it was mentioned that they popped up over the past 100 years.
At any rate.........I`ll leave the killer asteroid, ghost busting, sun exploding, alien attack finding, global whining, attack of the killer tomato findings up to you. I wouldn`t want to spoil your hobby. :)
BTW, do you belive in the possibility of terraforming, - such as what is being speculated about regarding mars?
Do you beleive it was a sign when you spelled out Abe Lincoln with your alphabet cereal. Get a grip Angus. We are going to need you for the defense of our world when the gray ones come. :rofl
Angus you have gotten so locked up and so far out in left field you are beyond the fence. You could sit up a taco stand from your position. :)
-
Who is using your family brain cell at the moment?
It's not just that the ice is melting, it's melting faster than it builds up. One way to measure is what NASA has been doing since 1979 from sattelite. Another way to measure is the salt amount in the watermass and the freshwater buffer in the summertime.
Get over it, when the icecube has melted into your whisky, the alcohol in the liquid (promill) is less.
As for the rest of your text, it's just stuff from the nearest bog.
-
Fact is our climate has undergone radical and rapid changes in the past many, many times. Undersea volcanic activity is difficult to observe and/or monitor. It's quite possible that they are responsible for the recurring ice ages and we may be seeing the onset of one now.
-
Burning fossil fuels released about 27 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year. Best estimates are volcanos release about 250 million tons a year.
Whatever else is happening, man is taking carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it on a massive scale in a very short time period.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Burning fossil fuels released about 27 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year. Best estimates are volcanos release about 250 million tons a year.
Whatever else is happening, man is taking carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it on a massive scale in a very short time period.
Volcanoes can heat up water much more directly than through the emissions of greehouse gasses.
Here's a list of articles with links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543202/posts
Perhaps not all of those posted links are credible. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Burning fossil fuels released about 27 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year. Best estimates are volcanos release about 250 million tons a year.
Whatever else is happening, man is taking carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it on a massive scale in a very short time period.
Sad but true.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Burning fossil fuels released about 27 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year. Best estimates are volcanos release about 250 million tons a year.
Whatever else is happening, man is taking carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago and releasing it on a massive scale in a very short time period.
Sad but true.
BTW, is there any proper volcano having an eruption right now? Don't know of any.
And on top of that, since I've seen some good eruptions, and been very close, the "smog" isn't that much.
While my neighbour, Mt Hekla, is only some 30 miles away, an eruption in full power won't even smell much. There is no foggy smog either.
At the same time, on a still day, even a small city like Reykjavík (ca 200.000) will have a visible sphere from that distance, and it's one of the cleanest (in regards of air) cities of that size in the world.
As for underseas activity and what I was referring to with the last 100 years, is that it's a nice diversion. The sequence is like this:
1. We pump out greenhouse gases in stunning quantity. Every day.
2. Scientists find out the effect and issue a warning about warming.
3. Warming is established and is faster than predicted.
4. The human crowd starts debating about whether it's getting warmer or not, then denialists grab any log or diversion to float on. Such as, "It doesn't mean it's getting warmer despite the melting ice", It's those underwater volcanoes, It's a natural cycle, it's been worse before in the planet's history, It's just them volcanoes, and then the loosers side, uh, there's nothing that we will or can do.
Bottom line. We have an impact, and the predicted effect which was rather careful, is coming true with more weight than anticipated.
-
Angus, when even the scientists studying global warming cant agree, how is it that you are 100% correct and the ones who arent buying in are denialists? :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sad but true.
BTW, is there any proper volcano having an eruption right now? Don't know of any.
Most of the world's volcanoes are underwater and many of them are currently "erupting". Didn't you read the link I posted? 75% of the worlds magma is coming from undersea volcanoes. Not sure what you mean by "proper".
-
The thing about "saving the Earth" Is not about saving the Earth, is about what will happen when the Earth gets to the point where humanity cannot exist because we've made ourselves into a biohazard, that not only threatens us, but threatens all life on Earth, life that we depend on for living.
The Earth will be fine we're the ones in trouble.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Most of the world's volcanoes are underwater and many of them are currently "erupting". Didn't you read the link I posted? 75% of the worlds magma is coming from undersea volcanoes. Not sure what you mean by "proper".
I'm sayin proper as in "big". Like the one in Alaska some years back.
(The one that blocked flight over the zone for a long time"
And I know about the underseas ones, most of them are not so big, but they're many.
AFAIK the biggest eruption in mankind's history occured not far from where I live, and lasted for 3 years. It cooled the climate over the whole of Europe.
-
News of the day: Glaciers in the Alps are melting at record speed.
Hope this link works.
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/togt/frett.html?nid=1223821
Maybe a volcanoe to blame?
:D
(press button marked "spila")
-
Originally posted by Angus
I'm sayin proper as in "big". Like the one in Alaska some years back.
(The one that blocked flight over the zone for a long time"
And I know about the underseas ones, most of them are not so big, but they're many.
AFAIK the biggest eruption in mankind's history occured not far from where I live, and lasted for 3 years. It cooled the climate over the whole of Europe.
I`ll say it one more time Angus. According to the folks suggesting this, it doesn`t have to be a big eruption from a known "cone". There are many, many volcanic , underwater vents, cracks, etc. It doesn`t and is not suggested as one major event doing this. You really should check it out.................if you can get past "the ice is melting". :)
If you can ever get past that there are many, many theories and doomsday scenarios. Another that has been sugested is changes in the sun and it`s output. If you can get past "the ice is melting", you have, at your fingertips, numerous ways to fill your "we`re all gonna die" cravings. :)
Check em out. The ice will still be melting when you are done. :rofl
Who is using your family brain cell at the moment?
Tsk tsk Angus....very unbecoming. :rofl
when the icecube has melted into your whisky, the alcohol in the liquid (promill) is less
The alcohol is still the same amount. It is just in a different ratio to liquid.
As for the rest of your text, it's just stuff from the nearest bog.
And your`s is from " The Angus foundation for the ice is melting">
Really need to get a grip Angus and check out some of what the other hand wringers are saying. When the theory is blown, you will be at a total loss.
OH........just for your benefit I checked out the coast of Texas. The only ice that is melting there is in the margaritas. I feel so much better knowing that. :aok
-
A little snip. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goddard Space Flight Center
Krishna Ramanujan
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone: 301/286-3026)
This graphic shows trends in the length of the sea-ice season throughout the Southern Ocean over 21 years (1979-1999), as calculated from satellite data. Credit: Claire Parkinson, NASA GSFC
SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER
trends in the length of the sea-ice season throughout the Southern Ocean over 21 years (1979-1999)
While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere.
In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.
“You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events,” Parkinson said.
-
Another :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article appears in the April 14, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Greenland Ice Sheet Growing:
What Makes an Ice Age?
Have you been duped by a mass of propaganda about global warming? 21st Century Science & Technology Editor Laurence Hecht explains why the Earth is poised to enter a new glaciation.
Despite mountains of propaganda to the contrary, a mountain of ice in the center of Greenland has been growing over the recent decade. The floating ice on the East Antarctic ice shelf is growing too, adding a much greater mass of sea ice than was lost in the much-publicized collapse of the West Antarctic shelf.
These are among the surprising results of a study of ice-mass changes from 1992-2002, which just appeared in the Journal of Glaciology. The study, which went counter to many expert estimates, is based on the most precise satellite altimetry data ever gathered, using the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and 2, and other observations.
The increases in Greenland ice and Antarctic sea ice are outweighed, however, by a slight decrease in the ice buildup on the Antarctic land mass. This net excess of melted ice over newly frozen ice would increase the global sea level—but not by very much. Its net contribution to sea level comes to +0.05 millimeters per year, with an error margin of +/-0.03 mm. Thus, in a decade, the contribution to sea level increase from the melting ice would have amounted to from 0.2 to 0.8 millimeters—that is, less than 1/30 of an inch!
The most important thing to recognize about this latest study, is that it says nothing about the future of the Earth's climate. No short-term climate trend can tell us that, because the primary determinants of Earth's climate are based on orbital-astronomical cycles of 21,000-, 40,000-, and 100,000-year duration. Understanding these orbital cycles is the key to being able to interpret for yourself, with a clear head, the mass of propaganda dished out every day by the global warming lobby, and to seeing why global warming itself is a myth.
-
So, in your mind, the global atmosphere isn't warming?
And definately not around the arctic?
:huh
-
Here's what NASA sais....
Guess they can't get over their melting problem either.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/seaice_meltdown.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_winterrecovery.html
Call it propoganda, but this is NASA stuff, and here is one more bonus from physics. Ice reflects sunrays better than the sea. If you've ever been on an iced landscape you'll know what it means, - the cube in your margarita isn't big enough for a demo though. So, as it sais in the article above:
"Changes in the sea ice minimum extent are especially important because more of the sun's energy reaches Earth's surface during the Arctic summer than during the Arctic winter. Sea ice reflects much of the sun's radiation back into space, whereas dark ice-free ocean water absorbs more of the sun's energy. So, reduced sea ice during the sunnier summer months has more of an impact on the Arctic's overall energy balance than reduced ice in the winter. "
That's the whole deal here, what's happening accelerates itself. Signs to measure are Sattelite (shows decline), waterlevels (rise) and salt concentration (falling), so how is the outcome?
I get over the "Ice thing" with a result, - the overall balance is more melting than freezing. So make up yer mind about this:
1: is it melting
2: then, why?
same goes to the atmosphere....
1: is it warming?
2: why so?
Here's the stuff, - link provided by NASA.
(http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060404_graph_72dpi.gif)
-
I am saying that the little teensy bit that man is helping the normal warming cycle of the planet is not worth doing anything much about.
prove me wrong... hell... we can't even prove that raised limits of C02 will increase warming.... raised co2 levels have allways trailed global warming in the past.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
We've already been greatly inconvenienced in plugging up the hole in the ozone layer.
I'm so sorry that "we" have been "inconvenienced" by having to pay the price for damage we caused to our own Planet.
The current situation is an emergency and, in my humble opinion, nothing we do( not even the outright cessation of Industrial Polution etc) will reverse a course that will end in Earths Climate Change.
Taurus45
formerly java45
-
Would anyone care if I mentioned that Popular Mechanics and DOW have said that "the average American home generates as many fossil-fuel emission as two cars"?
Are would you just rather keep with the herd mentality that cars are teh debil?
-
The Americans are indeed on top in fossil burns, - one and every American creates 10 times the amount of a Chinaman for instance.
BUT, it's bigger than that, and sometimes I feel that the debate goes from environmentalists saying "you U.S. people spew too much fossil gases, it's all yer fault" and as this issue is mentioned at all so many Americans go all on to a clutching defense.
The whole impact of mankind is very much bigger, and is occuring worldwide.
The biggest baddie might be deforestation and buildup of deserts rather than just the burn of fossil fuels.
All add up though, and our impact is by no means small......As the bubbles show....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Here's what NASA sais....
Guess they can't get over their melting problem either.
Call it propoganda, but this is NASA stuff,
Not to burst your bubble, but some of the info introduced is also NASA "stuff" and they come to completely different opinion.
Take a look around Angus. It won`t bite ya. :)
And also, like I have said previously, when you tire of this doomsday scenario or when it is blown out of the water, I have a million of em for you to wring your hands over. Just ask. Glad to oblige.
-
The real deal. :)
Note: NASA "stuff" included.
Can you say sham children?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Bush denies funding to international abortion groups, the UN issues another dire warning about global warming. Yet, global warming is a myth.
On January 22, 2001 as pro-lifers descended on Washington, DC for the annual National Right To Life March on the U.S. Supreme Court, President George W. Bush, in one of his first meaningful presidential acts, rescinded an Executive Order issued by Bill Clinton (who himself rescinded a similar Executive Order issued by Ronald Reagan in 1984) in 1993 that allowed tax-payer dollars to be used for abortion.
iiiiiWithin hours of the Bush Executive Order, the United Nations (meeting in Shanghai, China) countered the Bush declaration with one of their own by declaring in the most forceful statement yet that the threat of global warming was much more imminent than previously thought. The report, released to the media on January 23 in Beijing, predicted that the human element affecting global warming would trigger brutal droughts, floods, and violent storms across the planet over the next century because of human-caused air pollution is causing surface temperatures on the planet to rise faster than previously anticipated.
iiiiiThe report speculated (as fact) that the Earth's average temperature would rise as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years. This is 60% higher than the same group predicted less than six years ago. "The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community," Klaus Topfler, head of the UN Environmental Programme, "We should start preparing now."
iiiiiPreparing, of course, means funding more abortions--particularly in the poverty-strickened third world nations with overwhelmingly high birth rates and an absense of birth control means of any type.
iiiiiThe new report was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 100 ecoalarmist scientists who were pulled together by the UN in 1988
to assess global warming. (While it might seem strange that the UN was holding its annual environmental strategy meetings in the most socialist nation on Earth, it is important to understand that in 1998, in a private meeting in the White House, Vice President Al Gore told Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji that he would give China whatever it wanted if Beijing would agree to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, what China wanted was better access to America's top military secrets, more super computers to perfect the systems created from the stolen weapons secrets--and even better access into America's consumer markets. Did Zhu get what he wanted? When Zhu addressed the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, a pro-China New York think tank in 1999, he told the panda-huggers in attendance that it was a good investment for China.)
iiiiiThe question is: is Global Warming a real threat as the ecoalarmists say, or is it a myth as a minority of climatologists in the United States claim? It is good politics, we all know that. And, it solves a problem for the transnationalist industrialists who need to transfer entire industries from the United States and other industrialized nations into the emerging third world countries where the UN's jobless human capital (and tomorrow's consumers) live without creating a backlash that will cause Americans and Europeans to boycott their goods as they build the new economies of the third world (but must rely on the consumers in the industrialized nations to buy those products until the third world economies have developed sufficiently).
The Myth of Global Warming
iiiiiAsk anyone who spent the winter of 2000-2001 in Central Russia if they believe in global warming, and you will likely here the response: "Nyet!" from everyone you ask. The temperatures plummeted to 75 degrees below zero and colder (-40C to -53C) in early December and remained there through January, creating unbelievable hardships that were reminescent of the Mongolian winter of 1999-2000 when the thermometer dropped to -50 degrees Farenheit in October in Mongolia, and remained in sub-zero numbers throughout most of the winter. During that tragic arctic winter in which snow cover, as well as the density and duration of it, remained abnormally high, UN relief organizations and the International Red Cross estimated that over 300 thousand camels, goats, yaks, sheep and horses--animals that are central to the Mongolian economy--died each week. Hospitals in the populated areas of Mongolia reported greatly increased admissions of the very young and the elderly suffering from cold-related illnesses, and the international wire services reported an epic increase of starvation-related deaths. Yet, not one whisper of the Mongolian tragedy, or the fact that Asia was experiencing its earliest or coldest winter of the cenutry touched the American media.
iiiiiWhen the ecoalarmists first advanced the theory that the world was heading towards an inexorable phase of mankind-induced planetary warming that would have a devastating impact on the entire world, many in the scientific community shook their heads and ignored the rantings because they viewed them as too ridiculous to challenge. Since that time, the agenda of those behind the scare has become all too clear--and the threat to America all too great--that it can no longer be ignored, althought it now appears it may be too late to stop the fully-loaded environmental freight train as it gains speed on its downhill run to execution.
iiiiiAnti-green environmental groups--as well as the government itself--have tracked the globe's average monthly temperatures since 1979, when NASA satellite temperature
record-keeping began. NASA temperature tracking is important because that data is real.
iiiiiGlobal satellite measurements are made from a series of orbiting platforms that record the average temperature in various atmospheric layers. Temperatures at levels between 5,000 and 28,000 feet are measured by weather balloons which feed the data to the satellite which, in turn, feeds the data back to NASA. These measurements are accurate to within 0.001C, and provide climatologists with more uniform data--in a more universal manner for the entire globe--and is far more reliable than the measurements taken on land, or the wild guesses of political pundits whose agenda necessitates global warming.
iiiiiNASA's global temperature tracking between 1979 and 1998 reveal the typical weather anomalies--unseasonably hot summers and warmer winters--during that period; but overall, NASA data from 1979 forward clearly shows there has been no sustained planetary warming. Nor has any been recorded in all of the years that weather tracking data has been compiled. In fact, during the very mild winters that North America experienced since the El Nino winter of 1998, the global temperature departure has been -0.094 degrees.
iiiiiFrom the Rio Earth Summit forward Americans have been bombarded with a virtual plethora of articles, books, and newspaper articles on the need to reduce greenhouse gases--mainly carbon dioxide. The greenhouses gases, Americans are being told, are the real culprits behind global warming. And, we have been warned, greenhouse gases are rising. They are rising, we have been told, because of us--people. People who consume fossil fuels. People who destroy trees. People who consume too much space. Yet, with or without the proposed UN Global Warming Treaty (which Clinton and Gore partially implemented through the EPA before leaving office), increased carbon dioxide levels is a foregone conclusion--even if every fossil fuel was outlawed overnight in every nation of the world. The human race is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions only to the extent that our increased productivity of the land [i.e., modern agriculture] has caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to rise, allowing plantlife and fauna to become more abundant. The biomass in dryland areas of America are expanding the native fauna where none had previously existed simply because, with previously lower carbon dioxide levels, it couldn't grow. Plant life feeds on carbon dioxide, creating oxygen as a byproduct. And humans, you know, require oxygen to live.
iiiiiDue to the cries of the ecoalarmists, scientists have been monitoring the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for much of the past decade, and have closely studied its "impact" on the environment. Most have been astounded by what they have witnessed based on the doomsday cries of the climatic doomsayers. Most have written on the subject in America's prominent ecological periodicals, but apparently the doomsayers, who claim to be scientific environmentalists, don't read those publications.
iiiiiA multitude of studies which have been conducted by several unbiased climatic experts and biologists alike indicate that the increased levels of carbon dioxide that triggered the "cimatic crisis" are indicative only of better crop yields, expanding fauna, and a richer habitat for wildlife--not exactly the best ammunition in the world from which to create an apocalyptic nightmare. But, for those who have managed to successfully politicize a make-believe crisis into a catastrophe waiting to happen, you have to do the best you can with what you have to work with.
-
Was that winter as cold as 1941 - 1942.
BTW where I am we have 22 deg Celcius in the shade,- it is 15:26 and its the middle of september.
No frost for 4 months now, all the berries are ripe and undamaged, no autumn colour on the trees, Mt Hekla hardly has ANY snow on her, - in short, a day I've never seen that time of year.
Of course there are swings and spikes, we know that, and of course measurments and calculations are never completely accurate, and thereby somewhat debateable.
But, when it comes to snowlines, icemass and water temps (Much more mass and thereby more power than air temp) it's beyond that.
Which means, that the overall impact is: Warming.
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW where I am we have 22 deg Celcius in the shade,- it is 15:26 and its the middle of september.
Sounds like a really nice day. Enjoy.
No frost for 4 months now, all the berries are ripe and undamaged, no autumn colour on the trees, Mt Hekla hardly has ANY snow on her, - in short, a day I've never seen that time of year.
Great. I`d use the weather changes to your advantage. Pick some of those berries. Enjoy the warmth. Be a good time for a mountain hike.
Of course there are swings and spikes
Yea. Changing weather patterns. Norm.
and of course measurments and calculations are never completely accurate
Yea. The global warming for lunch bunch is more than proof of that. They have changed horses in the middle of the stream so many times the thouroughbreds now wear lifejackets. :)
and thereby somewhat debateable.
Somewhat? :rofl Like...........the earth is falt is "somewhat" debateable.
But, when it comes to snowlines, icemass and water temps (Much more mass and thereby more power than air temp) it's beyond that.Which means, that the overall impact is: Warming
When I stand too close to my BBQ grill the imapact is: Warming. But it`s not global. Changing weather patterns. No biggy. It`s mother nature`s way. always has been.
-
MYTH #1: 'Humanity is the Primary Cause of Global Climate Change.'
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today.
More than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.
However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar energy.
Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #1C: 'Climate Change is Occurring at an Unprecedented Rate.'
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University explains that it is a serious mistake to regard the natural climate cycle as tranquil and predictable. In fact, there is no reason to believe that current rates of temperature change are in any way different to what one would expect due to entirely natural causes. Dr. Patterson says that, by examining Greenland ice cores, scientists have found breathtakingly sudden variations in climate throughout the geologic record.
“About 15,000 years ago, while the planet was still emerging from the last ice age, Greenland’s temperature rose by 9°C in only 50 years,” explains Dr. Patterson. “Once, 12,000 years ago, the temperature rose an astonishing 8°C in a single decade.”
Recent European data suggests that even more severe climate fluctuations occurred at the end of the previous interglacial warm period. Their data shows that temperatures varied from warmer than they are today to the coldest of the ice age in merely a few decades, and then bounced back up again over the next century or so. Dr. Patterson sums up - "the only thing constant about climate is change."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #3a (a corollary to Myth #3): 'Historical Records Confirm That Global Warming Has Resulted From Increasing Levels of CO2 in Our Atmosphere.'
The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.
Considerable evidence now supports the carbon cycle modelers' assumption that atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:
1.
Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.
2.
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.
3.
Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.
Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century, or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "...the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed."
Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels - see Myth #3 for more on this point.
-
Myth #1a: 'Computer Models Show Catastrophic Warming in the Future.'
The modern global warming debate was ignited in 1989 when NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen testified before a joint U.S. House and Senate committee that there was "a strong cause and effect relationship between the current climate" - then a blistering drought - "and human alteration of the atmosphere." His computer models predicted an average global temperature rise of 0.45°C between 1988 and 1997 and 8°C by 2050 due to greenhouse gas build-up. Despite enormous uncertainties in his simulations, it wasn't long before the politically correct view of the future included a global warming catastrophe.
Yet today, Hansen admits that his computer simulations were wrong and that current climate change models are unreliable (see related article by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia). After the U.S. spent $10 billion on this issue, Hansen wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "The forces that drive long-term climate changes are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." As more and more variables have been incorporated into the models, the amount of predicted change has decreased. Renowned Columbia University oceanographer/climatologist Dr. Wallace Broecker believes that more than one million variables influence climate change. Although not all are required to reasonably model climate, this fact underlines why contemporary computer simulations are not very accurate.
The problem is also due to the fact that, even though water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it is essentially ignored by climate models. These simulations are so primitive that they are even unable to determine today's climate when starting with known past temperatures and rates of CO2 level rise.
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, explains that, despite these obvious flaws, much of the current debate on global warming has been hijacked by theorists, relying primarily on these inaccurate models but working with little actual data. With the support of biologists, who generally lack a proper understanding of long-term climate dynamics, mass media and government have treated the more extreme of these theoretical scenarios as credible indicators of future environmental change, which they clearly are not.
Dr. Michaels puts the controversy into perspective: “Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have risen about 0.7°C in the last 100 years, but about half of that warming occurred before most changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The other half, which has occurred in the last three decades, is often attributed to human causation."
“If this is true, then we have a very good idea of future warming,” says Dr. Michaels. “While global climate models are incapable of predicting the distribution of regional and vertical climate change, they generally agree that once human-induced warming begins, it takes place at a constant (not increasing) rate. This is because the response of temperature to carbon dioxide becomes damped at higher concentrations, while it is generally assumed that the carbon dioxide increase itself is exponential, along with population. The mathematical combination of the two is a straight line.”
Dr. Michaels concludes that the resultant warming predicted by these computer models works out to approximately 1.6°C in the next 100 years. "Half of this amount, in the last 100 years, saw a doubling of life span and a quintupling of crop yields where economic freedom reigned," he says. "There is no reason to expect a sudden turnaround; rather, continued adaptation and prosperity are much more likely."
Dr. Roger Pocklington of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography says, "Professional doomsayers always pick the least likely, upper extremity, of the temperature range for their polemics, never the average." They also never explain that most of the computer models forecast much lower temperatures and that the average of these models is more in the range cited by Dr. Michaels.
Dr. Michaels concludes, "Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide [the primary driver of temperature change in the computer models] have been much slower than anticipated by virtually all scientists 25 years ago. The increases are so small that they may not even be exponential. This predicts a damping of the already-small warming rate in coming decades."
A good illustration of how poorly today's Global Climate Models (GCMs) perform is obtained by comparing the rise in global average temperatures actually measured over the past two decades with how the GCMs used by the IPCC 'predict' they should have increased. As evident in the following graph (where measured temperature rise is indicated as an averaged trend) even the most conservative of the models used by the IPCC 'predict' significantly greater temperature rises than what actually occurred. How can we put any faith in the IPCC's predictions for the future when their forecasts are based solely on such inaccurate GCMs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
MYTH #2: 'Recent Global Temperature Rise Has Been Dramatic.'
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Carleton University and others show that in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today, long before we began burning significant quantities of fossil fuels. (An important March 2003 Harvard University announcement confirms this). The following graph puts this in perspective (NOTE: The Sargaso Sea is a two million square mile ellipse in the North Atlantic that has been studied for centuries - its temperature variations generally indicate global trends and agree with the even longer (6,000 year) Chinese peat bog records.):
From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Earth was warmer than it is today. In the 20th Century the global average surface temperature rose about 0.7oC, after a five hundred year cool period called the Little Ice Age. Only the 20th Century warming trend may have a human component attributable to fossil fuel use, which increased sharply after 1940. A closer look at the 20th century temperature record shows three distinct trends: First, a warming trend of about 0.5oC began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970's - fears of a coming glacial period dominated during the '70s when Iceland's fisheries were destroyed by advancing sea ice, winters in North America were unusually cold and it was first realized that global temperatures had fallen steadily between 1940 and 1975. Then a third warming trend occurred from 1976 to 1986, after which the increase becomes very small. The largest portion of the warming for the second half of the 20th century was limited mainly to winter in the coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America.
So where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple - they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space-based measurements, they quote error-prone, ground-based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends.
Until recently the best we could do to estimate the Earth's overall temperature was to average data collected at ground stations around the globe. These readings are notoriously inaccurate as most of them come from developing countries that do not properly maintain their stations or records. In addition, there are two other problems with data collected at the Earth's surface.
First, nearly all of these stations are land-based, even though three quarters of our planet is covered with water. There are far too few temperature-sensing buoys deployed at sea to give an even remotely accurate assessment of atmospheric temperature trends in these vast areas. This is especially significant in the Southern Hemisphere, which is 90 percent ocean.
Second, urban sprawl has enveloped many temperature sensing stations in "heat islands" significantly warmer that the surrounding countryside. The warming measured at these sites is therefore problematic in determining global trends.
The only way to properly take the planet's temperature is to use sophisticated space-based sensors mounted aboard Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Tim Patterson, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal a statistically significant, but very small, temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07oC per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.
With the exception of the recent El Nińo warming event (temperatures quickly dropped to normal), both balloon and satellite data have shown only a minute rise in the planet's average temperature over the past two decades.
In the final analysis, the Earth is warming ... and it is getting colder … and it is staying the same. It all depends on what time frame you are speaking about and where (and how) you look.
---------------------------------------------------
MYTH #1b: 'The Consensus of World Scientists, as Revealed by the UN's IPCC, Agree - Humanity is Causing Significant Climate Change.'
"There is of course no consensus at all," according to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. "There isn't even a consensus on whether the atmosphere is currently warming -- never mind on whether humanity should be held responsible."
Most people don't realize that there are in fact two parts to the IPCC report - a large science section (the 'main report') which is a description of research activities in climate science, as well as a highly politicized "Summary for Policymakers". The summary is what is commonly quoted in the media and by those supporting Kyoto. They present it as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing. It only represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), NGO's and business, rather than of scientists. The Summary for Policymakers has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty and presents frightening scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Dr. Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London (England), explains, "The whole feel of the IPCC report differs between its political summary and the scientific sections. It comes as a shock to read the following in the conclusions to the science part: "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible." - quite a contrast to the alarmism of the Summary for Policymakers.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of the lead authors of the science sections of the IPCC report, has scathingly described the summary as "very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen," prepared by a "peculiar group" with "no technical competence." Professor Lindzen further described the inept and unethical behaviour of the IPCC in preparing their reports in his May 2, 2001 testimony to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee - the full transcript of that testimony can be viewed at http://www.senate.gov/%7Eepw/lin_0502.htm. On hearing about Canada's Minister of the Environment David Anderson's confidence in the dramatic conclusions of the IPCC summary report, Dr. Lindzen laughed, "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not."
"The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science, even though it claims to be," sums up climate specialist, Dr. David Wojick. "Rather, it is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment." *
Even the science part of the IPCC report is suspect. "It is absolutely remarkable how inferior and one-sided this report is," said Dr. Nils Axel-Mörner, Professor of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at Stockholm University. "Where are all the real sea level specialists from our Commission and from IGCP? They have had little or nothing to say in this report. If science is treated in this way, it is bound to go wrong."
Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and a climatology professor for 25 years at the University of Winnipeg explains that these problems have resulted in many of the scientists who were originally part of the IPCC process withdrawing. "What most people don't understand is that all IPCC 'predictions' are based on computer models that assume, with no reasonable justification, a doubling of CO2," says Dr. Ball. "Every single prediction they have made has been incorrect."
When Dr. Ball appeared before the Canadian Federal government's Standing Committee on the Environment he experienced the whip of political correctness when he tried to explain the problems with some of their beliefs about atmospheric science. "Galileo would be ashamed of you!" chastised Marlene Catterall, Liberal Member of Parliament for Ottawa West-Nepean. Ms. Catterall was apparently unaware that Galileo continually challenged orthodoxy and would have chaffed at today's politically correct science. Regardless, Parliamentarians should be seeking the advice of leading experts in the field, not trying to muzzle them.
-
MYTH #3: 'The Buildup of Human Induced Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Particular, Will Cause a Catastrophic Planetary Warming.'
The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.
A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."
Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.
It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Nińo climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see http://www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.
Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."
Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the Sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. This idea is further supported by climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki who demonstrated in a recent edition of the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age of the latter seventeenth century, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "... the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed." Dr. Ball sums up, "Ignoring the Sun and water vapor as causes of climate change is like ignoring the transmission and engine when the car is not working."
Like carbon cycle modelers, Dr. Ball and Dr. Veizer believe that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. Here is some of the evidence that supports this hypothesis:
1. Global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise;
2. Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels finally increased;
3. At the beginning of the most recent glacial period, about 114,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 remained relatively high even as temperatures plummeted.
Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes, "It is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More to come. Stay tuned. :)
-
And myth #4, Glaciers are retreating :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
And myth #4, Glaciers are retreating :D
Nope. That`s your bag Angus. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #4: 'If the Earth Warms, It Will Be Disastrous for the Environment and Human Society.'
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished and weather was more moderate. In cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.
Between 900 and 1300 A.D., the Earth warmed 1 to 2°C; , depending on latitude - approximately what climate models now predict for the 21st century. This warming resulted in one of the most favorable periods in history. Food production surged due to mild winters and longer growing seasons. Primary agricultural regions had fewer droughts and floods so human populations rose accordingly. When Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder in 980 AD, he was fortunate that his banishment coincided with this unusually warm climatic period. Open sea-lanes allowed him to make his way to a wholly new and, at the time, reasonably hospitable land - calling it "Greenland" was not just an advertising gimmick to attract settlers. The pioneers who followed Erik had a reasonable prospect of prosperity in this new world. They raised sheep and cattle brought with them from Iceland and even grew grain.
However, about 1350, the weather began to cool. Crops failed and the settlers became increasingly dependent on supplies shipped in from Europe. Eventually, sea ice started to restrict shipping and, during the 15th century, the colonists were cut off from the outside world. Recent archaeological evidence shows a sad end to the westernmost outpost of the marauding Vikings - with the ground staying frozen throughout most, and finally all, of the year, famine-weakened Norsemen eventually could not even properly bury their own dead. The "Little Ice Age" had begun and the Greenland settlements were wiped out as effectively as the Vikings themselves had reduced many a European coastal town to ashes in raids of previous centuries.
With average temperature dropping 1.5° over the next hundred years, Iceland and Eastern Europe were depopulated and famines periodically ravaged much of Western Europe. Ice caps began to develop in the Arctic. Glaciers advanced throughout the Alps. Little Ice Age cooling was global in extent - evidence has been found in western North America from Alaska into the continental U.S., as well as in China, the Andes Mountains, New Zealand and equatorial Kenya. Wildly erratic and frigid conditions continued until the mid-19th century, when skating parties on London's Thames River finally had to be abandoned as conditions gradually warmed to those of the mid 1300s. Nevertheless, the 10th century, when Eric the Red settled Greenland, was still over 1°C warmer than the 20th century. This is worth remembering when we hear alarmist claims about today's temperatures.
Severe as it seemed to those who suffered during those centuries of cold winters, the Little Ice Age may prove to be minor indeed in comparison with what is in store for us if our climate follows past trends as expected (see Myth #1). In the last 1.6 million years there have been 33 glacial advances and retreats. It was only ten millennia ago, when humans were fashioning flint spearheads to hunt the last wooly bison and carving flint sickles to work our first farms, that massive ice sheets, some up to a mile thick, finally retreated from Europe and North America. As noted historian Norman Pounds has said, "The whole of human history has been lived in the shadow of the Ice Age."
Considering the massive impact cold periods have had on civilization, we have to wonder if global warming concerns of the past two decades have been overblown. Is the warming since the late 19th century due to natural oscillations, well recorded throughout geologic history, or is it due to industrialization? Since current conditions are only slightly warmer than those at the end of the last major ice age, were we saved from glacial devastation by industrialization?
No one truly knows the answer to these questions. However, what we do know is that the next glaciation, due within a few thousand years, is part of a natural climate cycle that is expected to continue for at least several million years more. The nature of our planet's orbital dynamics and position of the continents as they influence ocean circulation are the main controls, not human activities. Based on the impact of the 1350-1880 Little Ice Age, it is apparent that humankind, and particularly Northern countries such as Canada, benefits much more from a warmer climate than a cooler one.
-
MYTH #5 - 'Extreme Weather Events are Expected to be More Common if the World Warms. This Has Already Started - Drought, Floods, Forest Fires, etc. are on the Rise as a Result of Our Greenhouse Gas
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a meteorologist with 25 years experience at Environment Canada, showed in a study about to be published that extreme weather events (heat waves, floods, winter blizzards, thunderstorms, hail, tornadoes) are not currently increasing anywhere in Canada. "Extreme weather events are definitely on the decline over the last 40 years," concludes Dr. Khandekar.
He shows that the hottest summers of the 20th century in Canada were during the dust bowl years of the 1920s and the 1930s, not the 1990s. Dr. Khandekar summarizes, "The observed climate change of the last 50 years is beneficial to most regions of Canada in terms of lower heating costs and an enjoyable climate."
According to Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, the frequency of hurricanes, thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes have not increased in recent years either. Weather just seems unusual and dangerous these days because of media focus. If the planet warms, the temperature differential between the Earth's poles and equatorial regions will drop, resulting in weather that is even more tranquil. The geologic record clearly shows that today's climate is in no way extraordinary or identifiably different from what one would expect due to entirely natural processes.
The same is true of droughts. Dr. Christy explains, "When looking back over the past 2,000 years we see that the most significant droughts in the Southwestern U.S., for example, occurred prior to 1600." Dr Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, maintains that the present drought on the Canadian prairies is part of a natural cycle that has gone on for thousands of years. "There are many droughts that are documented to have been much worse than the present one, and long before the initiation of human produced greenhouse gases," Dr. Patterson explains. "The worst drought (in Canada) in the last 1,000 years lasted from 1680-1720 during an episode of cold from which we only began to recover in the 1890s." Not surprisingly, in previous centuries, North America's great plains were referred to as the 'Great American Desert,' an area that should not be extensively farmed, specialists recommended.
But what about the frightening predictions of computer models we keep hearing about? Dr. Tom Wigley of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Science explains, "There is no consensus between (computer) models on changes in... temperature and precipitation. Even the best models perform poorly in simulating such variability."
Sir John Houghton, chief scientist of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agrees and adds, "...there is little agreement between models on... changes in storminess...Conclusions regarding extreme events are obviously even more uncertain."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don`t touch that dial. More to come. :)
-
great info jackal. I knew you were good for something.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
great info jackal. I knew you were good for something.
lazs
The wife says she disagrees. :)
-
So, I guess that the above proves that despite the oceans warming and glacers and polar ice retreating, the whole thing just isn't happening :huh
Oh, yes. The polar caps are melting because of underwater volcanoes, Glaciers like in the alps, - well, must be a misunderstanding (What was it to be expected, mostly GONE in a 100 years?).
There is no greenhouseffect, just doesn't work that way (so forget about terraforming mars).
And the earth is flat and 600o years old.
Well, still stuck in the ice, but again, it's because it's a very clear and non-debateable fact.....
-
angus.... might I point out that it was you who insisted that the whole cause of any climate change was evil manmade causes and that it was not debateable and that we could do something about it right now and should be and that.... it was not debateable.
Now that counter evidence shows up you scream "no fair"?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, I guess that the above proves that despite the oceans warming and glacers and polar ice retreating, the whole thing just isn't happening :huh
.
No Angus. Don`t give up on your whole cause. Ice melts when weather patterns change and the temp becomes warmer. Water freezes and becomes ice when the weather patterns changes and the temp becomes colder. It`s always worked like that. :)
You just got to get over the fact the ice is melting and blaming it on a fairy tale. Then you will be all set. :)
Did you believe , perhaps, that ice never melts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #6: 'Sea level is Rising Quickly and it Will Get Worse if the Polar Ice Caps Melt Due to Global Warming. Coastal Settlements and Low-lying Islands Will be Submerged.'
Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975.
According to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, ongoing sea level rise is due to the slow melting of Antarctic ice sheets that have been gradually disappearing for about 18,000 years, the date of the last glacial maximum. As far as we can tell from geological data, only temperature variations on a millennial time scale can affect this rate. Climate fluctuations lasting decades or even centuries are too short to affect this rate of melting appreciably. Our best estimate is that these ice sheets will continue to melt for another 5,000 to 7,000 years until they disappear. So unless another ice age commences in the meantime, sea level is bound to keep on rising and there is probably nothing that humans can do about this.
It is also important to understand that, just as the melting of ice cubes in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow, the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level changes. Only if massive quantities of inland Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melted would sea levels raise enough to submerge coastal settlements. Dr. Patterson and University of Hawaii Professor of Earth Science Dr. Charles Fletcher maintain that this did not happen 5,500 years ago, when the Earth was three degrees warmer. They also explain that sea level was only two meters higher 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were almost six degrees warmer than now.
Ordinarily, small island-nations like the Maldives and Barbados are not threatened by such a rise. This is because these countries are built entirely on coral and coral fragments. This coral is continually, and quickly, growing upward and, unless something very bad happens to the natural environment in a region, no sea level rise is fast enough to get ahead of coral growth. The Maldivian reefs have been coping with increasing sea level for the past few thousand years and were even able to keep up when the ocean was rising ten times faster than it is now, 10,000 years ago.
Oceanographer Klaus Schwarzer of Christian Albrechts University in Germany explains that today's problems in the Maldives are caused by two factors - local pollution that is killing the reefs (as is the case in Barbados) and inappropriate construction projects. Barriers built out into the ocean to stop the drift of sediment away from the coast are disrupting the circulation of nutrient rich water to the reefs and killing them.
As a result, the Maldives islands are sinking. This has nothing to do with climate change and is the fault of the Maldivian government, which selected a barrier design maladapted for a coral atoll (it was designed for the rock-based Mediterranean Sea coast). Yet, Ismail Shafeeu, the Maldives' Minister of the Environment, still complains, "In the next hundred years or so, what the rest of the world does is going to determine whether we are going to be around or not. We need commitment on the part of people living in countries that are causing this problem. If these countries and the people living in these countries do not change their lifestyles in a way that will allow us to survive, they will have the murder of a nation on their hands." Clearly, Mr. Shafeeu is either misinformed about the science or is engaging in propaganda.
The Barbados has lost nearly all of their reefs due to runoff from their own agriculture. Their wells are becoming more salty simply because they are extracting so much water to irrigate crops that they are actually drawing sea water into their aquifers. As in the Maldives, its problems are caused by flawed domestic practices and have nothing to do with climate change.
If the U.N. and environmental groups are genuinely interested in solving environmental problems in the Maldives and other developing countries, then they should focus on their true causes. To do otherwise virtually guarantees these problems will continue, no matter how sensational an example it provides for climate change alarmists.
-
"No Angus. Don`t give up on your whole cause. Ice melts when weather patterns change and the temp becomes warmer. Water freezes and becomes ice when the weather patterns changes and the temp becomes colder. It`s always worked like that.
You just got to get over the fact the ice is melting and blaming it on a fairy tale. Then you will be all set.
Did you believe , perhaps, that ice never melts?"
At that speed, it's creepy, and if this is keeping on at the same speed we're going to have the permafrost farting at us in the next 100 years. That's what the doomsday theory is all about.
Our example of melting is a record, be it post ice age, and even before it. It corresponds nice and paralell with our increase in CO2 amongst other things, so I do belive it's sort of "our" pattern this time.
-
A pity that this is not your lingo.
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/togt/frett.html?nid=1224401
Bottom line, those quoted scientists belive that the sudden warming in the last decades only has a 5% chance of being from "natural" causes.
Now, we can quote articles forever. I rather like to use my own nose and look at the data.
The data is hard, and in some places of the world (like mine) more clear to the senses than in other parts.
-
Here's a fun global warming time sink. (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=653)
I started you off with Jackal's 4 main authors on the left. Fill in the blanks, follow the funding. Enjoy.
And as for the Cooler heads Coalition, members include groups who took cash from tobacco industry to deny that second-hand smoke was harmful, a group (paid by Microsoft) that announced a book claiming Linus Torvalds did not invent Linux; and that claims Open Source Software, and Linux in particular, is dangerous, insecure, and illegal. It also includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute (see the map far right) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (see map middle). There's even some Jack Abramoff illegal action.
Cooler heads indeed.
I deliberately left off S. Fred Singer because he just clutters it with all his Exxon-funded orgs. Suffice to say he's special.
-
Hey dead, get's to warm for ya just move.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Now, we can quote articles forever. I rather like to use my own nose and look at the data.
The data is hard, and in some places of the world (like mine) more clear to the senses than in other parts.
So, taking core samples in one location consitutes hard data? What if I take a phone survey using only people in the phone book; would you consider my results to be hard data?
And why is data clearer to the senses in your part of the world compared to other parts of the world?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Bottom line, those quoted scientists belive that the sudden warming in the last decades only has a 5% chance of being from "natural" causes.
Originally posted by -dead-
I started you off with Jackal's 4 main authors on the left. Fill in the blanks, follow the funding. Enjoy.
source (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/)
ALEX BEAM
MIT's Inconvenient Scientist
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | August 30, 2006
Speech codes are rare in the industrialized, Western democracies. In Germany and Austria, for instance, it is forbidden to proselytize Nazi ideology or trivialize the Holocaust. Given those countries' recent histories, that is a restraint on free expression we can live with.
More curious are our own taboos on the subject of global warming. I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.
Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.
I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?
Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.
"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as "the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
Prof Lindzen is paid by MIT.
-
I for myself had heard that the oil companies funded global warming denialists. I didn't want to bring it up though, although some on these threads have chosen to throw the poop at government reasearches.
The best remains, it seems that the US is the host for global warming denialism. The rest of the world is aleady past that. Not all with doing, but with realizing.
However, Exxon will have to pay very much before one stops to be able to read the temp gauge :D
-
Here is a part of the nonsense about:
""We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as "the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.""
ROFL :rofl :rofl
Has a whiff of the Holocaut denialists. I even read that Auschwitz did not exist, but when I went and had a lookie, it did. So did the Greenland Glacier, but the locals said it was schrinking....
-
If you think a MIT meterology professor is funny, this should be hilarious...
"Retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers was slow until about 1920 when retreat became more rapid. Between the height of the Little Ice Age and 1950, Mount Rainier's glaciers lost about one-quarter of their length. Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980's, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970's and early 1980's as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960's and 1970's"
"In 1986 and 2002, Hubbard Glacier closed the entrance to Russell Fiord, blocking tidal flow between the Fiord and Disenchantment Bay at Gilbert Point. The water level in the new Russell Lake rose to an elevation of 83 feet above sea level in 1986 and 61 feet in 2002. Both times, the ice/moraine dam broke before water overtopped into the Situk River."
"On the Arctic island of Novaya Zemlya, the glaciers retreated rapidly before 1920 — but the retreat then slowed. After 1950, more than half of the glaciers stopped retreating, and many tidewater glaciers began to advance. The island’s temperatures in the last four decades have been lower than the previous 40 years — in both the winter and the summer."
"In New Zealand, equilibrium line altitude (ELA) measurements of fifty index glaciers "spread throughout the length and width of the Southern Alps" have likewise revealed "two periods of positive mass balances from 1980 to 1987 and from 1991 to 1997. Franz Josef Glacier, which "regained 1200 m from 1984 to 2000, an extension which recovered a significant 41% of length lost since 1900."
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
source (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/)
Prof Lindzen is paid by MIT.
And the Cato Institute (same as John Christy), Tech Central Science Foundation (same as Tim Patterson & Tim Ball), and the George C Marshall Institute. Heck he's even turned up to a meeting or two of the Cooler Heads Coalition.
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)
You just type his name in, and off you go... try it yourself.
-
No, oil companies sponsoring global warming denialists? NEVER :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
I for myself had heard that the oil companies funded global warming denialists. I didn't want to bring it up though, although some on these threads have chosen to throw the poop at government reasearches.
The best remains, it seems that the US is the host for global warming denialism. The rest of the world is aleady past that. Not all with doing, but with realizing.
However, Exxon will have to pay very much before one stops to be able to read the temp gauge :D
:D Hehe. Have a little look see at what Kyoto is actual about. Their true goals etc. Money, money and the equalization of power and revenue for all. They should have just called theirself the Supreme Superpower Heros Of The New World Order. Got them some metal studded leather superhero costumes and an elevated throne, with an enormous bigscreen of the world in the background from which to make public broadcasts. A great majority of their dug up and paid off concrete postive data and proclamtions has been shot down and disproven or shown not to be proven. When cornered with researched and proven facts from other sources ,which they cannot deny, they have switched horses in the middle of the stream so many times by now that their saddles have to be weatherproofed. Maybe/maybe not...possibly/possibly not......could be/ could not be seems to be the norm from the scientific community that are in this corner. Money. One funded research reports and findings gets shot down or brought under too much scrutiny, it`s just another day and another dollar for the "Pay me to sayers".
At this point they have absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The weather patterns are changing and that`s about it. Woot. News flash....the earth and environment, weather, etc. has been in a constant state of change dating back to the earliest recorded history. I expect it will continue to do so in the future.
-
MYTH #7: 'Humanity is Causing Earth's Polar Regions to Warm Quickly Resulting in Unusual Rates of Ice Melting.'
Arctic ice primarily just responds to changing wind patterns, thinning in some regions while piling up in others without generally melting. P. Winsor of G¨oteborg University, in Sweden used detailed measurements to conclude in a report published last year, "... there was no trend towards a thinning ice cover during the 1990s. Data from the North Pole shows a slight increase in mean ice thickness, whereas the Beaufort Sea shows a small decrease, none of which are significant."
Source: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Senior Research Scientist and Coordinator for national and international marine geological research at the Geological Survey of Finland.
It is revealing that actual measurements show conditions in arctic regions to be very different to what our theories predict. For example, Greenland warmed considerably during the 1920s and 1930s long before the recent buildup in greenhouse gases. Since then the temperatures of Greenland coastal stations are decreasing at the rate of 0.2 to 0.3oC per decade (according to Dr. Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, the summer temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have also been decreasing - in this case at the rate of 2 deg centigrade per decade since 1980's!). So where is the amplified warming of the Arctic? All we are seeing is a shift in regional climate; one part of the Arctic is warming and another is cooling. It is also important to remember that a thousand years ago conditions were so warm that the Vikings were sailing in Arctic waters that are now permanent pack ice.
Professor Fred Michel, an arctic regions specialist in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, explains that the problem being experienced by the natives in the north is not due to any unnatural climate change. Instead they are having more difficulty now than in previous generations because they have evolved from a nomadic, hunting society, one which moved as the climate changed, into one that is now staying in one place with fixed buildings highly susceptible to structural problems due to the normal freeze/thaw cycle and natural climate variations.
Dr. Michel also points out, "… glaciers have retreated but this is not unusual in a global history perspective." He explains that the changes natives have observed in stream flow are generally the normal result of variations in daily temperatures - what was a tranquil stream in the morning can transform, on a sunny day, into an impassable torrent raging down the valley by mid afternoon. By mid evening the flow begins to subside and by midnight the stream is again passable. Dr. Michel concludes, "Things are changing, but man may not be the cause."
The mammoth west Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough water to lift the world's sea levels by about 6 metres, isn't melting. Instead, its thickening and Antarctica is getting cooler. A new study by researchers from the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California at Santa Cruz, published in the respected journal Science, found that the ice sheets of Antarctica are expanding by some 26.8 billion tons of ice a year.
Another study, published in a recent edition of the journal Nature, found that air temperatures measured in Antarctica's polar desert valleys actually declined by almost 0.4oC from 1986 to 1999. The study's lead author, limnologist Peter Doran, an expert on the study of fresh water at the University of Illinois at Chicago concludes, "We went into this project with the idea that global warming was going to hit us any time now, and we kept waiting for the warm summers to come and they never came. It just kept getting colder and colder, and that's the story."
-
MYTH #8: 'Kyoto Will Save Thousands of Lives by Cutting Air Pollution.'
Many people support the Kyoto Accord because they believe it is a clean air treaty that will reduce pollution. It is not. Kyoto is a treaty designed to reduce human production of so-called 'greenhouse gases' (GHG), the recent increase of which has been associated with unnatural global warming by some scientists. Greenhouse gases include water vapor (99% of all the GHG in the atmosphere), methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Only about 2% of all GHG are produced by human activity; the rest is produced by nature.
The first time frame of the Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries (including Canada and the United States) to reduce their overall emissions of GHG so that their yearly average between 2008 and 2012 will be an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels (targets vary - for example, Canada's is a 6% reduction; Australia's is an 8% increase). Since most of the developed world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.
Many commentators refer to Kyoto and other treaties that address CO2 levels as 'pollution treaties', implying that CO2 is somehow a pollutant. This is incorrect. CO2 is a benign 'trace gas', constituting only about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and not toxic in any fashion. Besides helping keep the earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age with average global temperatures 33°C lower than they are now, CO2 is a plant nutrient critical to the process of photosynthesis. A recent paper by Robinson, Baliunas, Soon and Robinson concludes, "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century … has markedly increased plant growth rates… the [future] effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms."
Many scientists maintain that imposing CO2 treaties is consequently unnecessary and imposes an unreasonable burden on the economy of energy intensive societies such as the United States and Canada. Whether human production of CO2 is in any way contributing to climate change is simply unknown in the scientific community. It will be at least ten years before the science has matured sufficiently to make any meaningful predictions of the influence of CO2, if any, on global climate. When it comes to this trace constituent of the atmosphere, the alarmism of government, special interest lobby groups and some in the media is clearly unwarranted.
On the other hand, real pollution is an important concern that must continue to be addressed. Besides the detrimental effect of substances such as mercury, real air pollution problems include smog and acid rain. The two key components of smog are airborne particles ('particulate matter' such as smoke) and ground-level ozone. The latter is produced when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds react. Acid rain is formed when two common air pollutants, sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX, react together to acidify rain, snow or fog.
Some people believe that, since Kyoto would require significant cuts in the consumption of fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2 emissions, the treaty is important because it would also result in pollution reduction. Such a strategy makes no sense. Instead of using a GHG treaty to reduce air pollution, actions should continue to be taken specifically aimed at reducing air pollution. An example is the installation of scrubbers on smokestacks to remove SO2. Such measures are far less expensive that a more general GHG reduction plan. It is also more effective since all of the effort and technology is then focused on the problem at hand instead of a more nebulous concern that may not be a concern at all.
There are even examples where a focus on GHG reduction will lead directly to increases in pollution. The Canadian trucking sector has warned recently (Calgary Herald, September 25, 2002) that a concentration on GHG instead of pollution would undo years of technological advancements in so-called 'cleaner-burn' engines. The newer truck engines emit less particulate matter that contributes to smog but burn a bit more fuel, which leads to production of more CO2. "So you have to decide, which one do you want to concentrate on?" said Kim Royal, executive director of the Alberta Motor Transport Association. Reverting to older, dirtier machinery, simply to satisfy Kyoto, defies common sense.
Professor Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph in Canada, also explains why it is counterproductive for countries like Canada to implement Kyoto when their neighbours do not. He says that, if Canada implements Kyoto (Prime Minister Jean Chretien ratified the accord in late 2002 over loud objections from industry, scientists and many other Canadians), with the U.S. out of the deal, major energy consumers would be driven south where power generators burn higher carbon-based fuels than does Canada. This would result in the greenhouse gases and pollution produced by North Americans as a whole rising over what would be the case if these energy consumers stayed within the relatively low carbon energy supply network in Canada. "There's a very good chance that Kyoto will make Toronto's air quality worse just by the fact that it will intensify emitting activity in Ohio," says Dr. McKitrick. Finally, it is important to realize that no otherwise healthy person 'dies of air pollution'. It may be a contributing factor to death in the case of people who have other serious life-threatening problems such as advanced heart disease or emphysema. Dr. McKitrick also points out that air quality has generally improved since the 1970's. Ontario's Environment Ministry, which accurately tracks smog levels throughout most of the province, shows clearly that smog levels are nearly unchanged in the past two decades. As is so often the case, environmental extremists have exaggerated the 'problem' simply to promote their own agenda.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
You just type his name in, and off you go... try it yourself.
I did, and I got what MIT says about him...
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)
The man seems to be respected among his peers. That a hydrocarbon company would pay someone of distinguished academic pedigree who's opinion helps the company's cause is far from shocking. I would find it surprising if they did not.
If he is such a crackpot, I would think that MIT would oust him.
-
You are all nuts. :rolleyes:
Science is not Science anymore. Any theory out there will have contrary theories to argue against it. Politics and business and special interest groups will fund the work to produce the results they WANT to see. Some scientist will develop a countering thoery just to get published or grant money. Others will do so for self prevervation or to muddy the waters of debate.
Take all the available data.... incorporate the data that supports your theory, and throw out the data that disproves it..... then publish and hold the press conference. The more outlandish, the more sensational, the more press it will receive.
The true is up for sale to the highest bidder. To think main stream science in this day and age is honest, pure, and uncontaminated by other factors is the real problem. And naive.
By way as an example, I submit the "scientific" work of Christian Scientists to explain Noah's flood and dinosaur bones. The world sits atop a great subsurface ocean... God break the surface.... it collapses onto the world below.... the water forced up falls as rain for 40 days and nights. The bones of the creatures from that subsurface world are fossilized and deposited. Not too clear about where all that water went....but..... And this is held as a scientific theory to "prove" the bible.... a book regarding faith....
----------------------------------------
My personal feelings on the matter are that, yes: global warming is happening. The consequences of it could be very severe to catastophic.
I also do not believe anyone really knows what will happen or when. The problem is too vast and too dynamic. Too many trigger events. No one has the hard data..... which is the great stall tactic of those who do not want to consider global warming as a possible threat ---- they want hard numbers that cannot be given until after its already happened. They want the theory proved.... this in a time where many people don't even believe in the theory of evolution.... to ask them to change their lives and risk damage to the world's leading economies on what *might* happen in their eyes?
Then there are those that hold stead fast to the idea that mere humans cannot possibly change their environment. That anything that is happening is happening naturally. While, warming may be attributable to natural frequency of warming and cooling trends, dismissing the idea that humanity can change its environment is the most blithly unimaginiative and uninformed statement I've ever heard.
A locust swarm or alge bloom can occur and continues until all possible food source has been wiped out. These events done by creatures far smaller and less capable than we are. The world's fishing fleets are very limited and regulated around the world.... if all regulations were dropped, and those fleets all set forth to catch as much fish as they can to bring to market... they could depopulate the oceans in a relatively short span of time... the fleet' ability to harvest the ocean is far in excess to the ocean's ability to repopulate itself.
We can dam great rivers, we can cause deforestation beyond any capability of mother nature...and have in the past in the Americas and Europe.....and continue to do so to this day in parts of the world. We pollute vast parts of coastline around the world. We have driven other creatures to extinction. We certainly do have the ability, whether intended or not, to greatly effect the environment on the planet.
I'm old enough to remember winters in the northeast with massive snowfalls, as can my father, grandfather, and great grandfather when he still lived. They do not get anywhere near that kind of snowfall now. It has changed.
I've seen retreated glaciers with my own eyes compared to 100 year old photos from the same vantage point.
The north polar ice is thinning..... open water...open water...seen at the north pole in summertime.... that is new in our experience. Polar bears are drowning and face extinction if it continues at this rate. Will it continue.... I think so, but there is no hard evidence.
Salinity levels of the great oceanidc conveyor belt have dropped... the flow has slowed... that's documented between now and the earliest recordings done on the subject...... but how slow until it stalls? No one knows. If the flow does stall, a mini-ice age over the north east of America and northern Europe is a pretty sure bet though.... how that flow tranfers heat to the North Atlantic is pretty well understood.
Coral reefs are dying. Everywhere.
Bogs and mashland in Siberia have more methane and CO2 trapped in them that can be released if they thaw out than all the methane and CO2 generated by mankind since the start of the Industrial age.... what exactly has to happen to release all that gas? No one knows for sure.
What will happen. I don't know. No one does. To do nothing invites possible disaster..... and inviting possible disaster is becoming the accepted policy to pursue.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
I've seen retreated glaciers with my own eyes compared to 100 year old photos from the same vantage point.
.
:D Sort of like this one?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1158788643_glacier2.jpeg)
Melting glacier 'false alarm'
By Julian Isherwood, Scandinavia Correspondent
Pictures released by Greenpeace claiming to show how man-made global warming has caused Arctic glaciers to retreat are at best misleading and only illustrate a natural phenomenon, says a leading glaciologist.
A greenpeace activist compares the photo above with the Norwegian glacier at present
The picture series, which compared the size of a glacier on Svalbard in 1918 with its size in 2002, was published across the world alongside a Greenpeace warning that global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases was causing Arctic glaciers to melt.
"The blame can be put squarely on human activity," Greenpeace said. "Our addiction to fossil fuels releases millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and this is what is causing temperatures to rise and our future to melt before our eyes."
But Prof Ole Humlum, a leading glaciologist in Svalbard, 500 miles north of Norway, said yesterday: "That glacier had already disappeared in the early 1920s as a result of a perfectly natural rise in temperature that had nothing to do with man-made global warming."
Prof Humlum is employed by several universities to research glacial developments in Svalbard and the Arctic in general. He said the picture series was at best misleading. "They should have asked the specialists on Svalbard first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.
Being around, and growing up with people old enough to remember WW1, I do not have to speculate about how much our glaciers have been schrinking.
Neither do the Greenlanders.
(The Greenland Glacier is the second largest block of Ice on land in the world)
And...what we see and feel (agriculture in the areas is already taking advantage of warming, YES it is)...is NOT sponsored. It's just a reality that we feel, see, and live with.
It's warmer. A lot.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.
Being around, and growing up with people old enough to remember WW1, I do not have to speculate about how much our glaciers have been schrinking.
Neither do the Greenlanders.
(The Greenland Glacier is the second largest block of Ice on land in the world)
And...what we see and feel (agriculture in the areas is already taking advantage of warming, YES it is)...is NOT sponsored. It's just a reality that we feel, see, and live with.
It's warmer. A lot.
Which only validates one thing as mentioned numerous times. The weather patterns are changing in your area. Something that has always been in a state of change since the beginning of recorded history and will continue to do so. It`s a given. Nothing stays the same. Never has. Never will.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I, at least am in the position of having glaciers in a visible range, without leaving the house.
...
It's warmer. A lot.
I see this through my window...
(http://www.gruenewald.de/berlenbach/USA2000/JPG/mt%20shasta-1-dia.jpg)
Mt Shasta is home to seven glaciers. Shasta's glaciers are growing....
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Nope. That`s your bag Angus. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MYTH #4: 'If the Earth Warms, It Will Be Disastrous for the Environment and Human Society.'
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University, and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished and weather was more moderate. In cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease.
Between 900 and 1300 A.D., the Earth warmed 1 to 2°C; , depending on latitude - approximately what climate models now predict for the 21st century. This warming resulted in one of the most favorable periods in history. Food production surged due to mild winters and longer growing seasons. Primary agricultural regions had fewer droughts and floods so human populations rose accordingly. When Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder in 980 AD, he was fortunate that his banishment coincided with this unusually warm climatic period. Open sea-lanes allowed him to make his way to a wholly new and, at the time, reasonably hospitable land - calling it "Greenland" was not just an advertising gimmick to attract settlers. The pioneers who followed Erik had a reasonable prospect of prosperity in this new world. They raised sheep and cattle brought with them from Iceland and even grew grain.
However, about 1350, the weather began to cool. Crops failed and the settlers became increasingly dependent on supplies shipped in from Europe. Eventually, sea ice started to restrict shipping and, during the 15th century, the colonists were cut off from the outside world. Recent archaeological evidence shows a sad end to the westernmost outpost of the marauding Vikings - with the ground staying frozen throughout most, and finally all, of the year, famine-weakened Norsemen eventually could not even properly bury their own dead. The "Little Ice Age" had begun and the Greenland settlements were wiped out as effectively as the Vikings themselves had reduced many a European coastal town to ashes in raids of previous centuries.
With average temperature dropping 1.5° over the next hundred years, Iceland and Eastern Europe were depopulated and famines periodically ravaged much of Western Europe. Ice caps began to develop in the Arctic. Glaciers advanced throughout the Alps. Little Ice Age cooling was global in extent - evidence has been found in western North America from Alaska into the continental U.S., as well as in China, the Andes Mountains, New Zealand and equatorial Kenya. Wildly erratic and frigid conditions continued until the mid-19th century, when skating parties on London's Thames River finally had to be abandoned as conditions gradually warmed to those of the mid 1300s. Nevertheless, the 10th century, when Eric the Red settled Greenland, was still over 1°C warmer than the 20th century. This is worth remembering when we hear alarmist claims about today's temperatures.
Severe as it seemed to those who suffered during those centuries of cold winters, the Little Ice Age may prove to be minor indeed in comparison with what is in store for us if our climate follows past trends as expected (see Myth #1). In the last 1.6 million years there have been 33 glacial advances and retreats. It was only ten millennia ago, when humans were fashioning flint spearheads to hunt the last wooly bison and carving flint sickles to work our first farms, that massive ice sheets, some up to a mile thick, finally retreated from Europe and North America. As noted historian Norman Pounds has said, "The whole of human history has been lived in the shadow of the Ice Age."
Considering the massive impact cold periods have had on civilization, we have to wonder if global warming concerns of the past two decades have been overblown. Is the warming since the late 19th century due to natural oscillations, well recorded throughout geologic history, or is it due to industrialization? Since current conditions are only slightly warmer than those at the end of the last major ice age, were we saved from glacial devastation by industrialization?
No one truly knows the answer to these questions. However, what we do know is that the next glaciation, due within a few thousand years, is part of a natural climate cycle that is expected to continue for at least several million years more. The nature of our planet's orbital dynamics and position of the continents as they influence ocean circulation are the main controls, not human activities. Based on the impact of the 1350-1880 Little Ice Age, it is apparent that humankind, and particularly Northern countries such as Canada, benefits much more from a warmer climate than a cooler one.
I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.
Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.
Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.
An ER doctor would probably find you a little strange if you asked for your kid to be treated for a burn......................and there was no burn.
-
Myth #8a (a corollary to Myth #8): 'Scientists are able to make meaningful climate predictions based on observed, and anticipated, changes in CO2 levels.'
Canadian environmental activist Dr. David Suzuki and Monte Hummel, President of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, said recently in an open letter to Canadian Prime Minster Chretien, "A doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the potential to destroy over 35% of the world's terrestrial habitats (due to climate change)…"
Credible global warming forecasts are not possible until we have a far better understanding of the science involved. Here's why:
1.
Atmospheric CO2 is part of a highly complex, and poorly understood, system called the carbon cycle. Within this system, 745 billion tons of carbon pass through the atmosphere each year exchanging CO2 with other components of the carbon cycle such as the oceans, soil and plants. Of the seven billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere each year from human activities, three billion tons remain there causing the observed increase in the CO2 level. Another two billion tons of carbon are absorbed by the oceans each year, leaving two billion tons unaccounted for.
Scientists assume that there must be a yet-unidentified carbon sink, something that is sopping up this excess carbon. One popular hypothesis is that the biosphere itself could be the sink since CO2 is critical to plant photosynthesis.
2.
It is not known whether temperature rise is a result of, or a cause of, CO2 level changes. Most climate models start with the basic assumption that changing CO2 concentrations drive temperature variations. However, in carbon cycle models, the opposite is assumed; carbon cycle modelers first impose temperature changes and then calculate the resulting changes to the world's carbon reservoirs (including CO2 levels in the atmosphere).
This is more than an academic argument. If temperature changes drive CO2 levels, and not the other way around, then even the most severe reductions in our production of CO2 would have no effect on global climate.
3.
As described in Myth #8, current computer simulations of our climate are far too unreliable to form the basis of good forecasts.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I see this through my window...
(http://www.gruenewald.de/berlenbach/USA2000/JPG/mt%20shasta-1-dia.jpg)
Mt Shasta is home to seven glaciers. Shasta's glaciers are growing....
so thats where bonds dumped his stash!!!11:rofl :rofl
-
This one compared to the Greenland Glacier is like a crowberry in hell...
-
Originally posted by Angus
This one compared to the Greenland Glacier is like a crowberry in hell...
You can see glaciers in Greenland from your house? wow...
Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire icecap is thinning.
But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall is falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, say Johannessen and team.
source (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm)
-
Originally posted by Silat
I love the response of those like the Far Right/GOP who say: we should try no treatment of any kind until we have precisely narrowed down every single possible cause. It's kinda like taking your kid to the emergency room with a 3rd degree burn: I say treat the burn while you try to figure out how he got burned. the Far Right/GOP et al. say, let the burn fester until we know for sure if it was self-inflicted, an accident, arson, etc. no treatment until we know with 100% certainty -99.99999% ain't close enough - how he got burned.
Kinda stupid, in my book, but I guess it makes sense to some.
Hate to burst your bubble but it isn't just the "far right" not interested in jumping on the reactionary band wagon.
-
source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/11/MELTING.TMP&type=science)The vast ice cap that covers Greenland nearly three miles thick is melting faster than ever before on record, and the pace is speeding year by year, according to global climate watchers gathering data from twin satellites that probe the effects of warming on the huge northern island.
So it's either melting at an alarmingly fast rate, or thickening...
That is why I am a skeptic on scientific "consensus"
All the western US weather phenomenon in the 80's was "El Nino"
The droughts were el nino.... the mudslides were el nino.... the big snows here were el nino... the sji season there sucked because of el nino...
You couldn't get through the TV weather report without an el nino story.
Now it's man caused global warming...
Read the story about Greenland thickening, and it's due to Global Warming. Read the one about melting, and it's due to global warming.
Both stories are about scientific studies, both assume the driver is global warming, but one says it's growing and one says its shrinking.
There is warming, and probably anthropormorphic warming, but there is a lot more variability in the system, more local phenomenon, more unknowns than those in the general media report.
-
Like any other religion I believe everyone should be free to believe and practice what they want. Just don't try to force your beliefs on me.
-
Curling was invented in Ireland 400 years ago.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Like any other religion I believe everyone should be free to believe and practice what they want. Just don't try to force your beliefs on me.
Well I don`t look at it as a religion, but I agree with you there.
What I have been asking for here, without much success I might add is that folks not be duped into believing something is a given when in fact it is far from it.
I know I have taken a close look at it from all sides. What I have found is that there is much more info to the contrary of what these global warming for lunch bunch is ,and have been stating from the beginning, than meets the eye.
The number one thing you always hear is it is a majority of studies and scientists that agrees on the global warming theory. When you start looking at the other side of the coin, this is far from the truth. Then you find that they make statements as facts claiming to be supported with data and studies. When you look into it you find that this is just a flat out, bald face lie. Then you hear that warming has been caused by earth`s human population and this is stated as proven fact. Actualy there is absolutely nothing to support this. On the contrary records and historical data shows this as the most unlikely suspect.
The real attention grabber though is when you start looking into the interests and real goals of those pushing Kyoto and it becomes overwhelmingly convincing that people have ben terribly mislead and disinformed by them and so called Enviro groups who have other interests.
This is , in my opinion, one of the most misrepresented issues to come down the pike in quite a while.
There are skeletons in these closets............both sides. Just take the time to look into it before seting your teeth into it is what I`m asking.
-
I think there's plenty of evidence to indicate people have a need to believe in something greater than themselves. Those that reject traditional religion in favor of science typically think their reasoning superior to the religious from what I've observed. I think this blinds them to their own need and the manner in which they attempt to fulfill it.
Some of these who are ignorant of their need are so sure that they are right have no qualms about pressing their beliefs, or facts in their eyes, on others. These very same scoff at the religious who are guilty of the same.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
An ER doctor would probably find you a little strange if you asked for your kid to be treated for a burn......................and there was no burn.
There is a burn. And there is global warming.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Hate to burst your bubble but it isn't just the "far right" not interested in jumping on the reactionary band wagon.
The reactionaries on this issue are those who are in denial. They are the 1% of scientists, experts, oil company shills and GOP sheep.:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_us/clinton_global_initiative;_ylt=AkpiodksNMstDjZPns42PSyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
-
Originally posted by Silat
The reactionaries on this issue are those who are in denial. They are the 1% of scientists, experts, oil company shills and GOP sheep.:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_us/clinton_global_initiative;_ylt=AkpiodksNMstDjZPns42PSyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
I know that's what you and others would like to believe but that doesn't make it so.
-
Originally posted by Silat
There is a burn.
Those are just carpet burns...and yes the lady is my wife. :)
And there is global warming.
Only when you stand too close to the potbelly stove nekkid. :)
-
Well, if you can't see the stove, I guess you'll be fine and safe for burns :D
-
silat... I liken it more to...
All these doctors notice that you have a huge nasty flu bug.... they also notice that you have an infected redwood splinter in your hand...
They assume that the redwood splinter is the cause of the virus and suggest all kinds of drastic remidies that will change your lifestyle based on ridding your body of the splinter.
In the mean time... your body fights off the flu like it has every other time you had the flu...
They get rich off you and the people selling "cures" get rich and they can all take credit for curring your flu when nature takes over.
lazs
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
The rapid rise in greenhouse gases over the past century is unprecedented in at least 800,000 years, according to a study of the oldest Antarctic ice core which highlights the reality of climate change.
Air bubbles trapped in ice for hundreds of thousands of years have revealed that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a manner that has no known natural parallel.
Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) in Cambridge have found there have been eight cycles of atmospheric change in the past 800,000 years when carbon dioxide and methane have risen to peak levels.
Each time, the world also experienced the relatively high temperatures associated with warm, inter-glacial periods, which were almost certainly linked with levels of carbon dioxide and possibly methane in the atmosphere.
However, existing levels of carbon dioxide and methane are far higher than anything seen during these earlier warm periods, said Eric Wolff of the BAS.
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change," Dr Wolff said. "Over the past 200 years, human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range and we have no analogue for what will happen next.
"We have a no-analogue situation. We don't have anything in the past that we can measure directly," he added.
The ice core was drilled from a thick area of ice on Antarctica known as Dome C. The core is nearly 3.2km long and reaches to a depth where air bubbles became trapped in ice that formed 800,000 years ago.
"It's from those air bubbles that we know for sure that carbon dioxide has increased by about 35 per cent in the past 200 years. Before that 200 years, which is when man's been influencing the atmosphere, it was pretty steady to within 5 per cent," Dr Wolff said.
The core shows that carbon dioxide was always between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300 ppm during the 800,000 years. However, now it is 380 ppm. Methane was never higher than 750 parts per billion (ppb) in this timescale, but now it stands at 1,780 ppb.
But the rate of change is even more dramatic, with increases in carbon dioxide never exceeding 30 ppm in 1,000 years -- and yet now carbon dioxide has risen by 30 ppm in the last 17 years.
"The rate of change is probably the most scary thing because it means that the Earth systems can't cope with it," Dr Wolff told the British Association meeting at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.
"On such a crowded planet, we have little capacity to adapt to changes that are much faster than anything in human experience."
c&p
(http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1362736.ece)
"crikey"
An example of a cut and paste drive by.
-
how the world really ends (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/06/endofworld.html)
:aok
-
Originally posted by Silat
The reactionaries on this issue are those who are in denial. They are the 1% of scientists, experts, oil company shills and GOP sheep.:)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060921/ap_on_re_us/clinton_global_initiative;_ylt=AkpiodksNMstDjZPns42PSyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Neh. They all know that de nile is a river in Egypt and that the next generation can fend for itself no matter what we leave them stuck with.
;)
-
Global warming alarmism bears many traits of a religion.
1. Faith among believers that doom approaches unless there is repentance and mending of ways.
2. Evangelistic believers fervent in their attemps to convert nonbelievers.
3. Devout in their beliefs while attempting to silence those opposed and suppress conflicting evidence
Just sayin'
-
Can we hear an Amen brothers??? :D
-
can I get witness