Hah, we won't trust weather reports three days in the future, yet we will beleive this prediction for fifty years in the future, it may happen, but China is the biggest polluter now, and any pressure is unlikely to affect those buggers. Watch the day after tomorow or Gore's masterpiece enough times and you might actually start to beleive it all, abit like Micheal Moore's films.
Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread
- Thread starter ZAGGIN
- 3,644 comments
- 221,538 views
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
Phew, that's a relief... it was looking a bit touch and go for a minute there, but since 2007 was colder than 2006, I guess we can finally put this global warming hoax to bed. Although 2007 was the 8th warmest year on record (the other seven warmest being 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006), this one year drop in global temperature clearly means that the panic is over!
Heh. Clearly not. But what exactly do you mean by "warmest on record"?
Yes that's right. Though I have no reason to think that 2008 will be any warmer given the lack of solar activity thus far.
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
It was a direct quote from my source, which can be found here
K. It looks like it "warmest on record" means in the last 100-150 years. But according to that chart, the temperature has basically been headed upward over the last 100 years anyway... so it's not like that result should be surprising.
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
And what of the paleoclimate data (which we've discussed at some length in this thread already) which shows that 21st century global mean temperatures are now higher than at any time for the last 1000 years? I'd say that "warmest on record", taken strictly literally, means "since records began to be kept", maybe 150 years ago... but that our understanding of paleoclimate is improving all the time and already it strongly supports the view that the Earth is warmer now, in the 21st century, than it has been for many hundreds of years.
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm sorry, my data was clearly out of date - I stand corrected! It seems China has recently overtaken the US as the world's biggest emitter of CO2, however I still don't think that China's new #1 status admonishes anyone else of responsibility in terms of what they should do about their own emissions. China also remains a fairly modest polluter in terms of pollution per head of population...
True, and I guess the term as used on the NASA website is limited to meaning "in recorded history", which limits the value of the phrase to referring to the last 150 years. But "recorded" history is not the only source of information available of past climate - it is by far the most accurate (and hence useful), but paleoclimate data allow us to broaden the definition of "warmest on record", albeit with lower accuracy...
- 38,903
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Shall we welcome Global Cooling?
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/2...stifies-repealing-global-warming-response-act
http://www.politickernj.com/bguhl/2...stifies-repealing-global-warming-response-act
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
I don't buy it personally, but it is a scientific theory that has been tossed around on and off since the 1970s. The problem is that we quite literally have no idea where we are headed, given that most of the data we have shows that carbon levels are beyond anything seen in nature previously.
If we're on the verge of an ice age, it will be interesting to see what our current warming issue will do to offset it, but to halt government programs to otherwise limit pollution because of it is just silly. Maybe we'll start seeing snow in Michigan again before Thanksgiving?
If we're on the verge of an ice age, it will be interesting to see what our current warming issue will do to offset it, but to halt government programs to otherwise limit pollution because of it is just silly. Maybe we'll start seeing snow in Michigan again before Thanksgiving?
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
It's an infamous graph which looks like an ice hockey stick - straight along, then sharply upwards (temperature vs. time). It has been posted in this thread somewhere (probably a few times 
), and, despite questionable methods, presentation and reliability, has been used as the basis of many pro-ACC arguments - and because of questionable methods, presentation and reliability, used as the basis of many anti-ACC arguments.
), and, despite questionable methods, presentation and reliability, has been used as the basis of many pro-ACC arguments - and because of questionable methods, presentation and reliability, used as the basis of many anti-ACC arguments.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Don't forget that they refused to allow it face peer review for years by not releasing their actual research data. It got a free pass long enough to become considered evidence before it finally faced peer review and was found to be inaccurate at best.It's an infamous graph which looks like an ice hockey stick - straight along, then sharply upwards (temperature vs. time). It has been posted in this thread somewhere (probably a few times
Keef
Premium
- 24,959
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Well, I guess that government organization just went and made a fool of themselves. Has this been on the news yet?
Maybe NASA should just stick to space and stay away from the weather, eh? Biased science is not science. NASA knows how costly mistakes are, and they do everything to not make any. Apparently this was either a case of them not doing enough, or blatant misplacement of the data. I think it was done on purpose. There's no way real NASA scientists would risk their credibility on some cheap screw up like that.
Maybe NASA should just stick to space and stay away from the weather, eh? Biased science is not science. NASA knows how costly mistakes are, and they do everything to not make any. Apparently this was either a case of them not doing enough, or blatant misplacement of the data. I think it was done on purpose. There's no way real NASA scientists would risk their credibility on some cheap screw up like that.
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Somewhat of a contradiction, no...? If there's no way NASA would risk their credibility, then why would they do it on purpose?
One thing is for certain - a mistake was made, and it has since been corrected. But given the amount of bile been spouted on blogs all over the web, you'd have thought that Al Gore had taken a dump on the Queen Mother's grave or something...
I think this statement is deliberately misleading, intended to compound doubt with no actual justification. It may be true that Arctic sea ice is returning more rapidly than it did last year, but the insinuation is that this means that the Arctic must be getting colder, but this isn't the case...The Telegraph
NASA
Therefore, just because Arctic sea ice has returned more rapidly this year than in recent years, it doesn't mean that global warming has stopped... the fact that the article clearly portrays it to mean this is as misleading as watching an iceberg calve into the sea and claim that this is evidence for global warming.
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I agree that one could read this in the article, but the most important sentence there is this one:
Did they really make up a cause for incorrect figures they'd learned to be incorrect? If so, this is... just despicable.
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Heh. That sounds semi-plausible but I wouldn't want to attempt to quantify that.
There are two schools of thought here though.
1. So what? We don't even know that carbon dioxide --> global warming.
2. Even assuming that carbon dioxide --> global warming, insects provide an almost immeasurable benefit to all other life on Earth and would count towards the "natural" loading anyway.
Fun comparison though.
There are two schools of thought here though.
1. So what? We don't even know that carbon dioxide --> global warming.
2. Even assuming that carbon dioxide --> global warming, insects provide an almost immeasurable benefit to all other life on Earth and would count towards the "natural" loading anyway.
Fun comparison though.
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Since this factlet was posted in this thread, I am assuming that the contention is "how can humans be blamed for global warming when our combined efforts (in emitting carbon dioxide) are lower than that of insects?"...
To be meaningful in the context of this discussion, demonstrating how much CO2 insects emit annually is, in itself, not important (however interesting it may be as trivia). What would be important is if insect CO2 emissions are changing, by how much, and at what rate... for example, if insects only emitted 2 billion metric tons in 1959, but are now producing 48 billion metric tons, that would be relevant... either way, as Famine suggests, it's going to be pretty hard to measure! However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that global insect CO2 emissions are any different today than they were 50 years ago...
Similarly, the exact amount of annual human carbon dioxide emissions is not the issue - rather it is the rate and the extent to which human carbon dioxide emissions have risen. The observed change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is more closely mirrored by and currently best explained by the rise in human CO2 output - additionally, there is currently no known natural variation in CO2 output that explains why CO2 levels have accumulated in the atmosphere to the extent (and at the rate) in which they have been observed to do...
To be meaningful in the context of this discussion, demonstrating how much CO2 insects emit annually is, in itself, not important (however interesting it may be as trivia). What would be important is if insect CO2 emissions are changing, by how much, and at what rate... for example, if insects only emitted 2 billion metric tons in 1959, but are now producing 48 billion metric tons, that would be relevant... either way, as Famine suggests, it's going to be pretty hard to measure! However, there is currently no evidence to suggest that global insect CO2 emissions are any different today than they were 50 years ago...
Similarly, the exact amount of annual human carbon dioxide emissions is not the issue - rather it is the rate and the extent to which human carbon dioxide emissions have risen. The observed change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is more closely mirrored by and currently best explained by the rise in human CO2 output - additionally, there is currently no known natural variation in CO2 output that explains why CO2 levels have accumulated in the atmosphere to the extent (and at the rate) in which they have been observed to do...
- 15,486
- UK
To help conserve the planet I'm going to stop breathing. I also have an axe and will go and kill some cows.
Don't all animals produce Co2 through respiration? Also, related to respiration, what is the chemical process for it in humans? Given the other elements we breathe in (Hydrogen, mostly, isn't it?) what does that get turned into? Water vapour?
Don't all animals produce Co2 through respiration? Also, related to respiration, what is the chemical process for it in humans? Given the other elements we breathe in (Hydrogen, mostly, isn't it?) what does that get turned into? Water vapour?
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nitrogen - 78%; Oxygen - 21%; Everything else - 1% (including water vapour [mostly], argon, carbon dioxide at 0.035% and trace amounts of other stuff).
It's all respirationally inert except the oxygen - which comes out of us at about 17%, with 4% carbon dioxide. The chemical process is... well... mind-boggling to think it can be achieved in *breathes in* *breathes out* that amount of time.
It's all respirationally inert except the oxygen - which comes out of us at about 17%, with 4% carbon dioxide. The chemical process is... well... mind-boggling to think it can be achieved in *breathes in* *breathes out* that amount of time.
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
After re-reading through the majority I feel like we need a summary of all the key facts for both sides in one post (preferably the 1st post). I would love to go to a global warming protest somewhere and put banners up disputing the fact that global warming is man made.
- 86,445
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'd like to see those banners - I've never seen a protest championing uncertainty before.
You can't really counter it with "Global Warming isn't man made" because that's not any more true. I suppose really the only banner which would fit is... well...
You can't really counter it with "Global Warming isn't man made" because that's not any more true. I suppose really the only banner which would fit is... well...
- 29,082
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
That's quite a big ask, but it's a good idea - I would suggest that you have a look at some of the major forums/blogs that are devoted to this debate:
Real Climate (Pro-AGW)
Skeptical Science (Pro-AGW)
Climate Audit(Anti-AGW)
Watts Up With That (Anti-AGW)
Gristmill (Pro-AGW)...
(to name but a few!!)
But remember, these sites thrive on the argument, and the perplexing truth is that both the main pro and anti-AGW blogs have compelling arguments in their favour, leaving you wondering how both can be right...
If you're really interested in the subject, I'd recommend reading up on some of the basic science background first... the most comprehensive compendium of information currently available is the 2007 IPCC report, available for free in it's entirety here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm . Journals/science publications like Science, Nature, New Scientist, American Scientist etc. have open-access articles about climate change available too. If I have time over the next week or so, I might put together a list of papers from the scientific literature which are relevant to this topic too.
Because it would be a laugh or because you really are disputing that global warming is man made? The former is considerably more justifiable than the latter, IMO...
Last edited:
- 3,323
- GTP_Mark
- Mark T33
I could always make a banner with the assistance of the GTP'ers. I would be happy to represent.
I would like to see the reaction that it causes amongst the pro global warming protestors. I would have to find a suitable site, maybe somewhere around Stansted as there seems to be alot going on with the expansion plans.
I would have to watch out for flying green custard though.
- 3,542
- Marin County, C
You breathe out carbon dioxide and plants use that carbon compound and waste it in the soil and produce oxygen... I think.. If we want to reduce carbon dioxide % in the air we should slow down on cutting down trees... And when we do re-plant. Trees keep from turning places into deserts.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,785
- Mile High City
- 27,203
- United Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification#Causes
"The primary reasons for desertification are overgrazing, over-cultivation, increased fire frequency, water impoundment, deforestation, overdrafting of groundwater, increased soil salinity, and global climate change."
It's basically a nice balance in the ecosystem. Trees and plants need earth rich in nutrients to survive, yet these same trees and plants need to be present to hold in the moisture, nutrients and other good stuff in the ground. Plus, where there's greenery there's rain, which again is necessary for the balance. If the landscape is arid then then it quickly becomes desert.
"The primary reasons for desertification are overgrazing, over-cultivation, increased fire frequency, water impoundment, deforestation, overdrafting of groundwater, increased soil salinity, and global climate change."
It's basically a nice balance in the ecosystem. Trees and plants need earth rich in nutrients to survive, yet these same trees and plants need to be present to hold in the moisture, nutrients and other good stuff in the ground. Plus, where there's greenery there's rain, which again is necessary for the balance. If the landscape is arid then then it quickly becomes desert.
