Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

Good point, although I would argue that this isn't really charity (even if may appear to be so), but more like an investment designed to protect one's own interests.

Um, you don't pay off your neighbor's debt when you are about to default, even though it would increase your property value to keep them in their house. ?

 

[Dotini]

If we are all in the same dismasted boat, and the seams have sprung and the keel is broken, then the Pollyannas will want everyone to bail. Cassandras will have other ideas.

 

[Touring Mars]

If we are all in the same dismasted boat, and the seams have sprung and the keel is broken, then the Pollyannas will want everyone to bail. Cassandras will have other ideas.

It also matters who in the boat is best able to survive if and when the boat goes under. The best swimmers are going to worry less, whereas those who are just learning to swim might expect a little help, especially when it was the best swimmers who rocked the boat so much that it started to capsize in the first place. It also depends on what creek the boat is sinking into, especially if that creek is extremely deep... and that brown coloration ain't mud.

 

[FoolKiller]

It also matters who in the boat is best able to survive if and when the boat goes under. The best swimmers are going to worry less, whereas those who are just learning to swim might expect a little help, especially when it was the best swimmers who rocked the boat so much that it started to capsize in the first place. It also depends on what creek the boat is sinking into, especially if that creek is extremely deep... and that brown coloration ain't mud.

Well, if the ship sinks anyway, why waste the money?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/18/2775284.htm

Temps to rise 3C even with a deal: leak
By Environment reporter Sarah Clarke

A UN report leaked from the Copenhagen climate talks suggests that global temperatures will rise by an average of 3 degrees Celsius even if all the emissions cuts offered so far are implemented.

The analysis, obtained by the UK's Guardian newspaper, seriously undermines statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century.

The report claims the confidential UN draft, discussed at the meeting on Tuesday night, dated at 11:00pm, was handed out and distributed to the two working parties meeting to negotiate a compromise, or a text, at this particular meeting.

It reportedly suggests the emissions cut being offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit will lead to global temperature rises of by an average of about 3 degrees Celsius.

That figure is high in comparison to what the UN's chief science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says.

Three degrees would be tracking for the worst-case scenario such as extreme weather events and rising sea levels that would swallow up Pacific nations.

The Stern economic review, which was released a few years ago, says that a rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering from severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger.

Wealthy countries have been talking about a 2C rise as a maximum by the turn of the century.

With just 24 hours left at the Copenhagen summit, a number of countries will now be trying to work out how they can move and cut the 3C back to what the other countries and other nations are talking about.

Pacific countries are talking about a 1.5C temperature rise by the turn of the century, which indicates that things are moving very slowly at the meeting and there is a lot of work to be done in the next 24 hours.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned of a looming summit disaster, while the United States insisted that it would be better to leave Copenhagen with no deal rather than a bad one.

"There is less than 24 hours. If we carry on like this, it will be a failure," Mr Sarkozy warned angrily from the conference podium. "Failure at Copenhagen would catastrophic for all of us."

The European Union called for an emergency meeting of "relevant players" at the summit in a bid to break the deadlock.

More than 120 leaders, including US President Barack Obama, are heading for the summit on Friday, but none held out hope of a deal that could rescue the 12 days of negotiations.

So, increasing everyone's debts by hundreds of billions might not be good enough.

Assuming this is true, how would it not be better to use this money to help developing countries reach a point to adapt to change that will happen either way? To use your analogy, why don't we just teach them to swim?

 

[Dotini]

There has been any number of would-be rescuers who perished because the drowning clung too tightly to them.

 

[niky]

It's the Beggars in Spain argument. We're a global ecology, not just a global economy.

What affects one part of the globe... weakness in one area or region... affects economic weath and growth in others.

Still... the focus of where and how the money is spent may just be slightly askew.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/559564/?sc=dwhr;xy=10002094

Interesting article with real news on the quite active Yellowstone caldera volcano. It exploded in huge caldera eruptions 2.05 million, 1.3 million and 642,000 years ago. The whole area of Yellowstone is currently rising at the rate of 3"/ year, and periodically suffers swarms of earthquakes, mostly mild. The last time it exploded, virtually the entire area of the current US was covered in lava or ash. Undoubtedly enough soot was cast into the atmosphere to cool the planet by tens of degrees for many years.

This volcano has a plume of magma under it that extends for many hundred of miles down towards the core of the planet.

 

[DK]

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/559564/?sc=dwhr;xy=10002094

Interesting article with real news on the quite active Yellowstone caldera volcano. It exploded in huge caldera eruptions 2.05 million, 1.3 million and 642,000 years ago. The whole area of Yellowstone is currently rising at the rate of 3"/ year, and periodically suffers swarms of earthquakes, mostly mild. The last time it exploded, virtually the entire area of the current US was covered in lava or ash. Undoubtedly enough soot was cast into the atmosphere to cool the planet by tens of degrees for many years.

This volcano has a plume of magma under it that extends for many hundred of miles down towards the core of the planet.

That's scary 🤬 man.

 

[niky]

That's scary 🤬 man.

Discovery already did their mockumentary of what would happen if Yellowstone did explode. Damn right it is.

 

[GaryyC]

I remember watching that during my earth and space science course in high school. If Yellowstone erupted, the US and bits of Canada would be in a world of trouble. If i remember correctly, measurements were in miles long and wide. Just hope it doesn't erupt in our lifetime

 

[jedaye]

I don't think people should get too woried over climate change. I'm pretty sure science will solve our problems.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

Here is a completely different take on the science and politics of global warming.

 

[Famine]

"World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown"

Summary:
IPCC report in 2008 says the world's glaciers are melting so fast that the Himalayan ones have a 90% probability of vanishing by 2035.
The claim in the IPCC report was based on a WWF report from 2005 - which was never peer-reviewed as it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper.
The WWF report from 2005 was based on article in NewScientist in 1999.
NewScientist article based on a single phonecall interview with Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain, and was speculative rather than predictive.
Syed Hasnain's data never gave a probability, never gave a date and referred only to fringe glaciers rather than the entire Himalayan glacier network.


The editor of that section of the IPCC's report says:
"I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about" and "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

The IPCC say:
"No comment."

Though previously said that criticism of their report's glacier loss claim is:
"voodoo science"

(which is different science from the one where you lift a line from propoganda which was itself unverified and then arbitrarily add a probability and a deadline)


And again, this is no indicator of the veracity of climate change or its causes, rather another stab at the IPCC (and particularly the "I" part) and its ability to assess and competently and truthfully report what is going on.

 

[Sureboss]

Now, to base a report on, "it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about" shows an incredible amount of ineptitude and complete lack of competence.

You never assume in this world. You never also rely on people knowing anything.

It's almost at the point of laughable.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

I'd like to point out how the "news" sways the poll. Point being that it is IMPORTANT that you get acurate news.

 

[Sam48]

Could someone please explain to me how the north pole is reportedly melting if it is niether 32* F or 5*F with the sun beating on it. Because last I checked it was minus 40sum* in the arctic.

 

[Touring Mars]

Because the ice at the North Pole is sea ice, not land ice, therefore it is far more susceptible to the sea temperature than the air temperature. Also, sea ice reflects the sun and keeps the sea water cooler. The less ice there is, the less local cooling will occur. In other words, even if the amount of solar energy was kept totally constant, you'd get more melting in a scenario where there was less ice coverage to begin with. This is effectively what is happening - increasing sea temperatures are leading to more melting in the summer, despite the fact that average summer solar irradiation isn't changing.

--

As for the IPCC glacier blunder, it is pretty embarrassing and they ought to take a good look at how they respond to criticism and/or legitimate challenges such as this. A few saving graces are that glaciologists decried this particular statement from the outset as wrong, and that this example only goes to show that the IPCC won't get away with their own sloppy research, since every claim they make will be rigorously checked by someone, even if they fail to do it themselves. The vast majority of the IPCC's main reports are based on real peer-reviewed scientific literature, and there is alot of it... it is not surprising that some spurious things slip through the net, but it is not like they were ever likely to 'get away with it'. Unfortunately, since their sole reason for being is to inform policy, even a small mistake such as this is very embarrassing and does call into question their editorial policy and objectivity.

 

[Sam48]

^Thanks, But if the ice is melting, why is the sea temperature rising?

Sun- heats sea water- which melts ice- which causes more heat to hit the other ice (without it being reflected)- other ice now melts- water progressively cools do to melting ice- water then reforms itself back into ice- cycle repeats.

That makes sense, (please correct me if it's not quite right) but what does this have to do with global warming? This sounds more like a natural weather trend.

 

[Touring Mars]

Probably because the amount of ice melting is nowhere near enough to reduce the temperature of the sea enough to cause it to refreeze during the summer months... if you put a block of ice into a large glass of cold water, the ice will melt and the temperature of the water may go down ever so slightly, but the water doesn't simply "refreeze", especially when the ambient temperature is going up.

Arctic sea ice comes and goes every year, and that is perfectly natural. But what is unusual is the rate at which summer sea ice extent has been observed to be declining over the last few decades. If that trend continues, then the Arctic sea could well be ice-free in the summer months in a few decades time.

 

[Sam48]

I agree, but it just doesn't sound like global warming to me. Global warming is about the temperature of the air, not the water, plus glaciers are growing in the south pole, so it would seem undignified to say global warming is only occurring in the northern hemisphere.

 

[niky]

Global warming is global. That includes everything... except the lithosphere... which is plenty warm already...

The temperature of the seas may even be more important than the temperature of the air, as the convection currents that travel around the oceans have a large effect on the weather.

Glaciers grow on the south pole. Not in it. And the south pole is on land... and is less susceptible to changes in water temperature.

 

[Sam48]

Non the less, the south pole is cooling and growing. And not just in the south pole, but in many other cool areas such as the Himalayas and Greenland.

 

[homeforsummer]

Non the less, the south pole is cooling and growing. And not just in the south pole, but in many other cool areas such as the Himalayas and Greenland.

You're missing the point. Global warming is a trend. Given two extremes, simplified to cold and hot, the average temperatures are heading towards the hot extreme. That isn't to say that temperatures don't fluctuate, as sometimes they do.

If you have a 1 degree rise every year for three years (hypothetical), then a two degree fall for a year, and then a one degree rise for another two years, that's still an increase of 3 degrees from where you started. Sure, there was a year of "cooling", but if you considered every year individually then all you'd get are fluctuations rather than an overall picture.

The global warming trend is also averaged globally. Just because some areas of the globe are getting cooler it doesn't mean that temperatures as a whole aren't rising. Think of it as having all the radiators in your house on, and having a window open in one room. That room will get cooler, sure, but on average the house is getting warmer.

 

[Touring Mars]

I agree, but it just doesn't sound like global warming to me. Global warming is about the temperature of the air, not the water, plus glaciers are growing in the south pole, so it would seem undignified to say global warming is only occurring in the northern hemisphere.

Non the less, the south pole is cooling and growing. And not just in the south pole, but in many other cool areas such as the Himalayas and Greenland.

Antarctica is a huge and complex system, and it is impossible to sum up its behaviour in such simplistic terms. Parts of it are seeing more ice growth, but other parts are not. Factors affecting Antarctic ice are fundamentally different to the factors affecting Arctic ice, therefore it is unreasonable to expect them to behave in an identical fashion. Also, I'd like to see the evidence that ice sheets/glaciers in the Himalayas and in Greenland are "growing".

Just remember that although "global warming" is about what is happening to whole planet, it doesn't mean that the every point on the planet must warm by the same amount or at the same rate. Some regions may experience very little "warming" while other regions, such as the Arctic circle, are likely (and are already) experiencing pronounced warming over very short timescales.

 

[Sam48]

I probably won't believe in global warming for a while. It's to young a science to make any rock solid conclusions about it. Plus after the leaked emails from the UK during the coolest year the US has ever been through, It doesn't really help your theory.

 

[Jim Prower]

Does it exist? I honestly don't know! Too much politics getting wrapped up in it.

I think It may be happening, but I don't know what's causing it, and, to be honest...I don't think it's as big a problem as everyone says!!!

 

[hambone8611]

I,m sure globel worming is true . I think man adds to this but not nerly to the extent gore would have you believe. when I look at the poluition above the city and think how many cities there are in the world. I don,t see how the accumulitve affect could be anything but bad hence globel warming.

 

[Sam48]

I,m sure globel worming is true . I think man adds to this but not nerly to the extent gore would have you believe. when I look at the poluition above the city and think how many cities there are in the world. I don,t see how the accumulitve affect could be anything but bad hence globel warming.

What do cities have to do with it???

 

[hambone8611]

There is a signifacant amount of cars,factories,poluition,ext. and when I ponder this I have to believe there is an effect that set's off a chain reaction I'm not say'n cities are the only contributing factor I'm saying that thay start me considering that there is truth to the whole globel worming thing. I guess when I ask myself how could there not be I have no answer

 

[Famine]

There is a signifacant amount of cars,factories,poluition,ext. and when I ponder this I have to believe there is an effect that set's off a chain reaction I'm not say'n cities are the only contributing factor I'm saying that thay start me considering that there is truth to the whole globel worming thing. I guess when I ask myself how could there not be I have no answer

I'm having some considerable difficulty actually reading your posts - though this is by far the most legible one I've seen from you to date. Could you please do us the service of concentrating a little more when you're submitting posts here, or, if you're unable for any reason, run them through a spell checker?

I mean, there's no excuse for this sort of thing:

globel worming

When the correct spellings are in the thread title. You might think it picky, but there is simply no possibility of people understanding your point if your posts are that hard to read, mainly because they won't read your posts at all. I got as far as "poluition,ext." in that post before I switched off. After all if people don't understand you, you have no reason to even post in the first place...