Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

There was an excellent documentary on this... can't remember where I saw it, though...

The Day After Tomorrow, it's a film

Seriously though, I do recall something along those lines in a normal documentary too.

 

[FoolKiller]

There was an excellent documentary on this... can't remember where I saw it, though...

Seriously though, I do recall something along those lines in a normal documentary too.

If it involves Al "I sell carbon credits to those scared by my lies, but won't debate the science" Gore then it was a hypocritical farce at best.

Penn and Teller summed this all up best for me: We just don't know, but a lot people are making a lot of money off of BS.

 

[Danoff]

In a section titled "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate"..., they go on to remind us that "the science is far from settled.". One question immediately springs to mind in that case. If "the science is far from settled" (direct quote), then pray tell how they can give the entire document the title "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate". That sounds pretty much like their opinion is that the science is settled if you ask me, but perhaps I'm reading it wrong...

...I think you might be reading it wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can find inconsistencies in their report, but it's a given that "Nature Rules the Climate". It might be misleading, but it's clearly correct. I haven't read it to know whether the rest of the document is crap, but the title and conclusion aren't enough to get me there.

 

[Touring Mars]

it's a given that "Nature Rules the Climate"

Please explain...

 

[Danoff]

Please explain...

Sun goes out. Earth freezes over. Sun heats up, earth heats up. Nature is far more in control than we are. That's basically a given. Granted, it's a fairly useless statement.

 

[DK]

Okay, try an experiment - get two transparent airtight boxes. Fill one with car fumes. Don't do anything to the other. Leave them in an area exposed to sunlight. Record the temperatures each day for a certain amount of time. Record the difference between the two boxes at the end of the experiment, and if the box filled with car fumes is warmer than its non-polluted counterpart, you have proof for man-made global warming.

There's a reason why some people don't believe Gore and Co. are right, and it's because they don't want to, e.g. they might have vested interests, i.e. they invested money in an oil company.

 

[FoolKiller]

Okay, try an experiment - get two transparent airtight boxes. Fill one with car fumes. Don't do anything to the other. Leave them in an area exposed to sunlight. Record the temperatures each day for a certain amount of time. Record the difference between the two boxes at the end of the experiment, and if the box filled with car fumes is warmer than its non-polluted counterpart, you have proof for man-made global warming.

Your experiment is severely flawed on many levels. The most obvious being that the Earth is far, far, far from being filled with exhaust fumes.

Other things include the lack of a heat absorbing surface (ground), light and heat reflecting elements (clouds), other sources of greenhouse gases (volcanoes, animals, etc), and millenia long outside forces that may or may not have an effect (solar activity).

There's a reason why some people don't believe Gore and Co. are right, and it's because they don't want to, e.g. they might have vested interests, i.e. they invested money in an oil company.

I have no invested money in oil companies, but I do not believe Gore and Co. And if how someone invests their money is your basis for not trusting someone then you should not trust Gore at all.

He is chairman of a company called Generation Investment Management, which he co-founded in 2004. GIM is a company that invests in and researches green technologies. They also sell carbon credits for those who don't want to actually change their lifestyle, but instead want to pay to relieve themselves of their green guilt (much like the Catholic Church used to do). Al Gore released his book and movie in 2006. People who freaked out over his book and movie then began paying his company so that they can live a carbon neutral lifestyle. Gore explains his very un-green lifestyle (flying around, driving an SUV, house using 10 times the electricity of a normal home) by claiming to be carbon neutral by buying carbon credits. Guess what company he buys those carbon credits from? He is paying himself to be able to claim a carbon neutral lifestyle, while using scare tactics to get others to pay him money.

What Gore does is the equivalent of an oil executive telling everyone that if they don't burn oil at record levels the Earth will see massive destruction in the near future.

 

[Touring Mars]

Sun goes out. Earth freezes over. Sun heats up, earth heats up. Nature is far more in control than we are. That's basically a given.

Control is one thing, influence is quite another. Earth's climate is not controlled or ruled by any one single factor - rather, it is determined by a large number of factors simultaneously, and it is both constrained by and compelled to react to external stimuli. I don't believe that it is "a given" by any stretch of the imagination that "nature" is always the dominant force in determining Earth's climate... that life itself can permanently and irrevocably alter the climate of the planet is an established fact. That this has happened atleast once and possibly many times in the history of the Earth is proof that it is possible that human activity could influence the climate of the Earth too, either deliberately or unwittingly.

Human activity isn't and cannot be solely responsible for the Earth's past, present, or future climate. There will always be factors that are totally and permanently outside our control. But it doesn't logically follow from these facts that humans cannot ever play the dominant role in global climate change... life can, has and does critically influence the climate (and vice versa) and we are no exception. For that reason alone, I cannot see how the statement "Nature rules the climate" can be considered even remotely true without also classifying human activity as "natural".

 

[Joel]

Hey guys,
This is very serious thing that result of global warming is near to us in few years.if we dont do in fast.so it is problemtic for us.

Thanks.

What? Problemtic? Do you mean problematic? Please write in proper english. I see you're from the UK, so you should know how to.

 

[superwally]

The planet is warmer. "Proving" it using off-the-cuff climate models is spectacularly bad science. It defies common sense to believe we can correctly predict the climate in 40 years when we can't get the data to come out right for 40 days or even 40 hours. I'm an environmental engineer by degree, so I don't want to hear any crap about having stock in an oil company, OK? I understand the material better than every environmental 'scientist' I've come across. There are plenty here in Vermont.

Water vapor is far more prevalent in the atmosphere (+/- 4%) than CO2 (.036%) and a better greenhouse gas, so what the hell are we all going to do about that? What about the sun? We don't know jack squat about what it has been doing over the eons so let's not consider it a variable in our climate equations? Bad, bad, bad science.

Did the public need a wake-up call to start doing something about the way we live in the world? Yes. I just don't think coming up with a big lie is the way to do it. The result of all the green talk is to push people into two camps, those 'for' and those 'against'-and now that everyone is on a team, we concentrate on the fight, instead of solving our problem.

In the end, the problem isn't that we are stuffing too much crap in the atmosphere, it's that there are too many people stuffed on the planet-what's the solution for that?

 

[orimarc]

it's that there are too many people stuffed on the planet-what's the solution for that?

Er...A-Bombs? World War III? Another extermination era?

 

[homeforsummer]

If it involves Al "I sell carbon credits to those scared by my lies, but won't debate the science" Gore then it was a hypocritical farce at best.

I've not seen An Inconvenient Truth actually, though I'll watch it at some point as my journalism MA dissertation this year is about the media's attitude and coverage towards climate change so I'll be working my way through all the propoganda films, both pro and anti.

Penn and Teller summed this all up best for me: We just don't know, but a lot people are making a lot of money off of BS.

Well, quite. In the poll I answered along the lines of "it's happening, but the causes are unknown", though I'd add that it's likely that human activity has some impact on that (and thinking about it, I should really have voted in the second poll option from the top, as this more accurately represents my views). At the same time it's unrealistic to assume that it's all human activity, and also to assume that it's all somehow CO2, as one of the strongest greenhouse gasses is methane, half of which is produced by animals reared for food - so if the world cut it's meat consumption that would probably have an affect, rather than any push to strangle CO2 emissions.

Generally? I consider myself fairly eco-conscious (whatever that means) and I'm not as sceptical about things like electric cars, hybrids and so on like probably a fair few people on GTP are. In fact, I'm very interested in them indeed. But then, I'm very interested in cars in general so aside from obnoxious consumption/purist reasons about the demise of internal combustion engines, the future of electric cars and so on are just another car-related subject that I'm interested in.

While I think that climate-change deniers are generally talking out of their backsides, I also rather dislike the "swampy" Greenpeace types who think that "cars are killers" and that we should all live on soya beans and corn, because they're irritating, unrealistic, ill-informed and generally as unpleasant as people who try and force their religion on you.

 

[niky]

If it involves Al "I sell carbon credits to those scared by my lies, but won't debate the science" Gore then it was a hypocritical farce at best.

Penn and Teller summed this all up best for me: We just don't know, but a lot people are making a lot of money off of BS.

Actually, like HFS, I do feel that the climate is changing, but that we do not fully understand the mechanisms involved.

And the documentary was not "An Inconvenient Truth". It was a documentary about an interdisciplinary investigation into the decline of the old Egyptian empire (pyramid builder era) and another ancient civilization... both of which were wiped out by dramatic changes in climate. The discussion was on proposed mechanisms that caused the climate change and the connection between climate change and the destruction of the ecology in the areas where these civilizations resided. And the change that wiped out these civilizations took place over such a short time period that it was previously un-noticed in data taken from core samples taken off the sea bed... indicated by an abnormal spike in (some mineral indicator of ancient temperature/humidity/whatever), which rises by 400% at the time of the fall of the pyramid builders. Fascinating stuff.

Very well presented. Very interesting. Obviously, it's not anthropogenic climate change, but it shows a glimmer of how climate change itself occurs.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you find out the name of that documentary, could you let me know? I'd like to try and watch it.

 

[niky]

I think this may be the one:
http://discoveryenterprise.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-ancient-egypt-fell.html

You can actually watch it online... though you'll have to install that player. I don't know if Discovery has it in rotation in your area.

Very interesting stuff. While they do harp on about climate-change-this and climate-change-that, they're obviously not selling the anthropogenic notion, but showing how climate change may have effects that are not immediately obvious or that reach beyond the initial areas affected.

In other words, it may not just be a case of the straw breaking the camel's back... but exactly where you put that straw... making the whole camel-load of goods fall down like a twenty-foot tall Jenga stack.

We, as humans, may not be the prime motivators of climate change... but our contributions count for something. Whether it's the infintesimal rise in the level of CO2, the sulfur we put in the air a few decades ago, the ozone-depleting CFCs, or the effect that urban heat-islands have on weather and wind patterns around the globe... we are changing the climate. The big question is... how? And is there any way we can ensure that we don't tip the balance the wrong way and push ourselves into the next Ice Age?

It's fascinating, actually... the idea that a warming trend can push the whole system over into a permanent cool state. I hope it happens well after I'm dead, though...

 

[DK]

Your experiment is severely flawed on many levels. The most obvious being that the Earth is far, far, far from being filled with exhaust fumes.

Other things include the lack of a heat absorbing surface (ground), light and heat reflecting elements (clouds), other sources of greenhouse gases (volcanoes, animals, etc), and millenia long outside forces that may or may not have an effect (solar activity).

Okay, I'll add some oxygen, water and some soil.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Okay, try an experiment - get two transparent airtight boxes. Fill one with car fumes. Don't do anything to the other. Leave them in an area exposed to sunlight. Record the temperatures each day for a certain amount of time. Record the difference between the two boxes at the end of the experiment, and if the box filled with car fumes is warmer than its non-polluted counterpart, you have proof for man-made global warming.

There's a reason why some people don't believe Gore and Co. are right, and it's because they don't want to, e.g. they might have vested interests, i.e. they invested money in an oil company.

"From: Earth, dumbass"

Listen to the man.

 

[niky]

Okay, I'll add some oxygen, water and some soil.

Unless your boxes are the size of our magnetosphere, you're not going to get a valid result. And the boxes themselves will change the outcome of the experiment.

The whole point is the systemic effect of such changes. And unless you have a working "system" and not just some air in a box, you're not going to see what those effects might be.

It's like car aerodynamics. You can prove that a front spoiler for a Formula car will have great aerodynamics and downforce in isolation, but until you actually put it on the car (in real-life or virtual reality), you won't know how the shape of the spoiler and the airflow over it will affect the rest of the car. Who knows? That nifty downforce increasing vortex generator at the trailing edge of the front wing might just cause the airflow to skip the radiator scoops on the sidepods, causing a nasty overheat.

 

[Public'sTwin]

And the boxes themselves will change the outcome of the experiment.

And more pertinently, in the Earth's case, the atmosphere is the box.

(The parallels between the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and that of said box's walls, I believe, are obvious enough not to necessitate further extrapolation.)

 

[FoolKiller]

A friend sent me an article from the Herald Sun, so I did some digging for more detailed info and here is some of what I found.

If any of these released emails have merit to them there could be an awful lot of questions for a few scientists.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...ently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.


I’m currently traveling and writing this from an airport, but here is what I know so far:

An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:

"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
be kept under wraps.

We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents"

The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.

It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.

I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great.

Here is some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:

It is very long, so follow the link to see the supposed emails.


Nature reports on the hackers, but leaves out any quotes from the released info.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html



As I do not work in a science field I don't know what implications any of this may have if these are real documents, but I see a lot of talk of scandal.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting but disturbing development - not surprising at all that the conspiracy theorists over at WUWT have immediately leapt on a comment (illegally obtained, and with the surrounding context assumed) as "evidence" that the entire premise of anthropogenic climate change is suspect or based on doctored data. While data access is a legitimate issue, it is really outrageous that WUWT (and other parts of the denialosphere) would handle and publish the illegally obtained information in the way that they have.

Still, it is hardly the smoking gun they are already claiming it is.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

“This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

NY Times today.

 

[nikdevid]

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation

 

[Joel]

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation

You realize that the largest contributor of greenhouse gases is the natural world, and dead things (both plants & animals) decomposing? Now, I'm not trying to say "go burn down the whole rain forest" but people need to realize that trees do not get rid of carbon, they only hold onto it until they die.

 

[lbsf1]

we are selfish to think that we are the cause of global warming. the earth should be heating up if it isn't then we should be worried. The earth has many secrets and there are so many things that can get up before global warming does (yellowstone massive volcano) volcanos produce 10 times the amount of co2 as humans overall, so remember we arn't in control.


that is my view please don't have a go at me and ask for proof because people have done this in the past and i can't remember where it is. volcano stuff is in bill bryson a short history of nearly everything, that book is now in the library so i can't give quotes.

 

[homeforsummer]

we are selfish to think that we are the cause of global warming.

How are we selfish to assume we're the cause? Surely assuming responsibility for something is a selfless act, rather than a selfish one?

the earth should be heating up if it isn't then we should be worried.

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but you've worded it badly. The Earth is in a natural period of warming if most studies are to be believed, and throughout history the Earth has warmed and cooled in cycles. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that human activity is contributing to the warming. It would be hard to deny that without human input the climate would probably be quite different. And of course, it's not all about CO2. We can thank the period between the 20s and 80s and the reliance on CFCs for the nice big hole in the ozone layer in the Northern hemisphere. And of course, oxides of nitrogen, which do their bit for giving kids athsma and causing smog.

The earth has many secrets and there are so many things that can get up before global warming does (yellowstone massive volcano) volcanos produce 10 times the amount of co2 as humans overall, so remember we arn't in control.

Hmm...

Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide.[24] It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.

From here

Obviously Wiki isn't the best source in the world but you can genuinely rely on their scientific articles to be accurate and a bit more impartial than the page for a band, say, or a car.

Regardless, it seems to contradict your statement a little, and in the absence of any source to back yours up, I think I'll go with mine.

that is my view please don't have a go at me and ask for proof because people have done this in the past and i can't remember where it is. volcano stuff is in bill bryson a short history of nearly everything, that book is now in the library so i can't give quotes.

I hope you don't consider my reply "having a go" - it's merely debate - but I do suggest that you do your best to find and quote sources as otherwise your future arguements won't be particularly strong ones.

 

[Joel]

^ 2 posts. I think a better word to use would be arrogant, not selfish. However, I agree with your position, and I just think that it's been a huge scare to make you run out and buy a bunch of "green" stuff (don't even get me started on hybrid cars).

 

[Sureboss]

It would be hard to deny that without human input the climate would probably be quite different.

Don't know how you can make a statement like that.

 

[homeforsummer]

However, I agree with your position, and I just think that it's been a huge scare to make you run out and buy a bunch of "green" stuff (don't even get me started on hybrid cars).

Hybrid cars being used as a marketing tool: Bad. Hybrid cars being used as an alternative means to an end for reducing emissions and oil usage: Good.

Don't know how you can make a statement like that.

I can't quite tell whether this is a serious question or not, but I'll bite anyway: CFCs, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons from combustion, carbon monoxide, non-naturally occuring particulates, etc. All these are things that humans have contributed to since the start of the industrial revolution in the 18th century. Some occur naturally from things like volcanoes and forest fires (but then a lot of forest fires are started by human hand too), but by and large humankind contributes rather a lot of it to the atmosphere. As mentioned, CFCs have done their fair share of damage alone. And then we have methane from livestock reared specifically for human consumption, which is rather a lot too.

If anything, it's hard not to make a statement like that.

 

[Sureboss]

No, it was a serious question. Just don't know how you can make such a big unknown statement as, "If we weren't here, things would surely be different." There's nothing to back up what the world's climate would be like if Industrial revolution, etc, didn't happen. It's just estimating, as is going forward with the future and the "damage" we are doing.