Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,644 comments
  • 221,458 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
:lol: Well that's true. Those things are one of the most dangerous hazards I've seen while in London, they're so painfully slow off the lights and when on a dual carriageway I can easily see them being the cause of some shunts.

Seriously though, everytime I hear that message on the radio that the Tfl are discussing whether to make the congestion charge based on environmental impact I die a little inside.
 
Has Global Warming Stopped?

Article
HAS GLOBAL WARMING STOPPED?


New Statesman, 19 December 2007
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004


David Whitehouse


'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'


Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Havent we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all thats left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?


Arent we told that if we dont act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCCs Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.


With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 there has been no warming over the 12 months.


But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.


The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.


In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earths surface causing some heat to be retained.


Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.


The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earths atmosphere. Its a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earths temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.


But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UKs Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) its apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.


The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.


For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. Its not a viewpoint or a sceptics inaccuracy. Its an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.


The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.


But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.


But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.


It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didnt discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?


Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.


Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.


I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.


The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earths atmospheres interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.


David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 19881998, Science Editor BBC News Online 19982006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com


Copyright 2007, New Statesman
 
If sea levels raised 70 metres, most of the Yorke Peninsula would be underwater, i might have to move to Maitland. :(
 
Global warming is a myth!

Global warming is an undeniable fact!

It's the Lord's mighty hand!

No, it's a placebo!

It's...it's...wait, what are we talking about?
 
Danoff is working for the oil companies, he wants us to think it's stopped.

[/conspiracy]
 
If sea levels raised 70 metres, most of the Yorke Peninsula would be underwater, i might have to move to Maitland. :(

I've never heard a figure that high, at most it'd be 7 metres that I've heard. A sea level rise of 70 metres, well there's not enough ice in the world to do that.
 
I've never heard a figure that high, at most it'd be 7 metres that I've heard. A sea level rise of 70 metres, well there's not enough ice in the world to do that.

I've heard several times that if all ice on the earth was to melt, sea levels would rise by 70 metres.
 
I've heard several times that if all ice on the earth was to melt, sea levels would rise by 70 metres.

As has been mentioned, that will depend on how much of that ice is on land. If you put an icecube in a glass of water, then mark the surface level of the water, then wait for the icecube to melt, the water level should not change.

However, if you heat the water by a few degrees, the surface level will rise. But it will take many hundreds of years to heat the oceans by a mere few degrees, as far as I know. That's a lot of water to heat. Unfortunately, if that does heat up, then evaporation may also increase, and water vapour is apparently quite a serious greenhouse gas, far more so than CO2.

I got most of that from watching TV so apologies if my physics facts are screwy.
 
The physics may be a little screwy. Ice is less dense than water, so it floats and some of that water mass is above the surface. When the ice melts, the water level will rise a small amount. Though, actually, I suppose not, because the ice below the water will reduce in volume as it melts. I suppose the water surface is displaced by the mass of the water it is effectively supporting, anyway, so you may be right.

And no, there is not enough ice in the world to raise the ocean level by anything like 70 metres. 70 feet, maybe, but more like 7 metres. If that. Oceans are big and land is small - particularly land totally covered by ice. You can't look at a world map and say "Antarctica is huge - we're all going to drown!" Don't forget that most maps are projections, which means that the size of anything approaching either Arctic Circle is wildly exaggerated on most world maps.
 
Ice takes up more space than the volume of water that makes the ice. If you have a gallon-sized icecube, you will have less than a gallon of water when it all melts. If the Arctic ice cap melts, no big deal (in terms of sea level rise). Some of it is above the water level, but the majority isn't. Antarctica is another problem, since that is a huge land mass covered with ice a mile thick. Should all of that melt, the sea level will rise, but will do little to affect anything besides coastal cities. Now, burying a few coastal cities is a big deal, but really, is that the end of civilization? No. Only the very stupid will drown. The rest of us will move inland. And Denver? They're not worried.
 
As has been mentioned, that will depend on how much of that ice is on land. If you put an icecube in a glass of water, then mark the surface level of the water, then wait for the icecube to melt, the water level should not change.

However, if you heat the water by a few degrees, the surface level will rise. But it will take many hundreds of years to heat the oceans by a mere few degrees, as far as I know. That's a lot of water to heat. Unfortunately, if that does heat up, then evaporation may also increase, and water vapour is apparently quite a serious greenhouse gas, far more so than CO2.

I got most of that from watching TV so apologies if my physics facts are screwy.

I see your point, but are you sure water vapour's a serious greenhouse gas? If that's the case, it might cause a loop where the ocean will warm up, creating vapour causing the earth and the ocean to warm up more and it will be unstoppable, so we must not let it get to that stage.

Ice takes up more space than the volume of water that makes the ice. If you have a gallon-sized icecube, you will have less than a gallon of water when it all melts. If the Arctic ice cap melts, no big deal (in terms of sea level rise). Some of it is above the water level, but the majority isn't. Antarctica is another problem, since that is a huge land mass covered with ice a mile thick. Should all of that melt, the sea level will rise, but will do little to affect anything besides coastal cities. Now, burying a few coastal cities is a big deal, but really, is that the end of civilization? No. Only the very stupid will drown. The rest of us will move inland. And Denver? They're not worried.

We live about 15 metres above sea level according to google earth. The sea will cover more like 80% of the earth if that happens. There won't be much of the peninsula left. A lot of people here might even have to go to Adelaide or somewhere, i would hate to live in a city.

EDIT: Here is our Peninsula:



Say the sea levels did rise 70 metres, this is roughly what would be left:
 
Water vapor is responsible for most of the "greenhouse" effect, not carbon dioxide. However, there is not going to be a runaway effect. Remember, the earth was much warmer and the atomsphere "wetter" millions of years ago. If that had kept going indefinitely, we would not be here having this discussion.
 
One point that was made on one of the BBC documentaries which is very important to note, this depends on what you think is happening.

"It's not the earth that needs saving, it's us"

The Earth has coped with far worse than this, it could/will/does affect us though.
 
Thanks for answering that Kylehnat, personally I wasn't sure about the water vapour as a greenhouse thing. I just seem to remember hearing that on a TV programme debunking CO2 as a major greenhouse threat, and then I speculated the rest from there. Of course, more water vapour also means saturation point is reached earlier, which means more rain, so the water goes back into the ocean. I think.

As for the ice under / above water debate, one of the first things I ever learnt in school science, way back when I was like, five years old or something, and probably while learning about the Titanic, is that if you float an iceberg (or icecube) in water, nine tenths is below the surface. Later on you learn that a floating object displaces its own mass in water, indicating that ice has nine tenths the density of water. So the ice below the waterline will occupy only nine tenths of the volume it currently displaces once it melts. If the icecube was 10 cubic metres, 9m^3 of ice would be submerged. When it melts, that portion of the icecube would become 8.1 cubic metres of water. The water level would drop, except there's still 1m^3 of ice above the water level to take into account. When that melts, it becomes 0.9m^3 of water, giving you 9m^3 of water overall from the icecube (8.1 + 0.9), which is exactly the volume that was displaced by the cube in the first place, thus the water level remains constant when the icecube melts.

Again, I put the caveat on this that I haven't studied fluid dynamics for 15 years and have never used the info professionally, so my physics might be a bit screwy, but I'm pretty certain that the observable facts are thus: put some water in a glass, mark the level. Put an icecube in the water, the level rises. The level will then remain constant at this new mark throughout the melting stage of the ice. It will not go up or down.
 
"It's not the earth that needs saving, it's us"
That's right. After we go extinct for whatever reason, the earth has a few billion years to recover before the sun swallows it. We're a mere a tick in the earth's skin. There is no way we can permanently alter the face of the planet. If aliens visit in a billion years, they'll never know we existed.
 
If we were all extinct, the earth will go back to normal.

and what exactly is normal btw?

Earth has always been constantly changing millions of years before we were ever around. You have too many blind human caused doomsday thoughts.
 
and what exactly is normal btw?

Earth has always been constantly changing millions of years before we were ever around. You have too many blind human caused doomsday thoughts.

Normal is not pumping greenhouse crap into the atmosphere.

I wouldn't mind the sea level raising 70m. I'd be closer to the beach.

I'd be about 30km out at sea.
 
I'd be about 30km out at sea.
But you can move 30km in about 20 minutes.

The earth is incredibly dynamic. Where I live was probably underwater a couple million years ago. If water started encroaching, I'd have plenty of time to move farther east. Other animals have no qualms about moving to adapt to their environment. I'm not sure why us humans have such a problem with having to re-locate.
 

Latest Posts

Back