Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

FOX news is now everybody in the US of A . Pravda is your friend . You & Fool Killer can back this to the hilt , it's obvious , 2 on 1 means you win by default.Not a bully bully . Oh No!

I really wish you would actually read my post instead of assuming I said what you want me to have said. I never claimed that Fx news is everybody in the US.

& You , my friend , are an OPEN BOOK , by doing exactly as I said you would in my VERBATIM quote of my post , numbered w/out edits before yours.

I most certainly did not. You said I would take quotes out of context. They're prefectly in context.

What , if anything, are you trying to say with this here couplet , that it's impossible to choose sources outside the US ,or , more generously, that an 'open mind' is incencsed & offended by the implication that you would never have done otherwise , if the latter , proofs may be furnished .

No. I am not claiming that it's impossible to choose sources outside the US and maintain an open mind. I'm claiming that refusing to listen to any sources from the US is a closed mind.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Here's a little pre-Kyoto relegation , i hope you comprehend the term.

 

[Danoff]

Here's a little pre-Kyoto relegation , i hope you comprehend the term.

What was I supposed to get out of that?

 

[FoolKiller]

What was I supposed to get out of that?

That it is blatantly obvious that man has caused global warming and that it is just our American greed that keeps us from signing on to Kyoto.

At least that is what I think he is getting at, because otherwise it makes a good case against Kyoto.

 

[Zardoz]

Oh, what do they know? Just because they live there it doesn't mean they're "experts" or anything...

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh, what do they know? Just because they live there it doesn't mean they're "experts" or anything...

How exactly does a group of local Inuit activists saying something prove it to be so? Apparently all you have to do to prove something is say that you see the signs of it and that you know it is America's fault.

I mean really, that satement is like me saying, If they can ski so soon there must not be any global warming.

Oh, and moves like this, where they are moving my local National Weather Service recording station to the airport where they will admittedly get higher temperature readings is suspicious, especially when conditions that most people feel would be in the suburbs, which is where the current station lies. Why would you want to measure official temperatures in conditions that no one lives under?

Oh, and Inuit protestors should have picked a better time to protest than winter, especially when a winter storm is sweeping across the country, Texas is having snow and record lows, and Illinois has temperatures 20 degrees below normal.
CNN Story
CNN Photo Gallery

 

[Zardoz]

Global warming to speed up as carbon levels show sharp rise

"Through most of the past half-century, levels of the gas rose by an average of 1.3 parts per million a year; in the late 1990s, this figure rose to 1.6 ppm, and again to 2ppm in 2002 and 2003. But unpublished figures for the first 10 months of this year show a rise of 2.2ppm.

"Scientists believe this may be the first evidence that climate change is starting to produce itself, as rising temperatures so alter natural systems that the Earth itself releases more gas, driving the thermometer ever higher."



2005 warmest on record in north

"Ocean temperatures recorded in the Northern Hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record."



A new 650,000-year record

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."




So, whaddya think, folks? Are we seeing the beginning of the "runaway greenhouse effect" all those eco-Nazis have been warning us about?

EDIT:

James "Gaia" Lovelock thinks so. He's come to the conclusion that we're as good as done. You think you've seen some pessimistic attitudes? Take a look at this one:

Total doom, utter gloom

"Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

Woof! Cheery outlook, huh?

Sure hope he's very wrong...

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

The fact that I live in Ontario, Canada, and was wearing a t-shirt outside today isn't unusual. The fact that its mid-Janruary though makes it a lil absurd. Makes me wanna push my car over a cliff, and go hug a tree.

 

[FoolKiller]

The fact that I live in Ontario, Canada, and was wearing a t-shirt outside today isn't unusual. The fact that its mid-Janruary though makes it a lil absurd. Makes me wanna push my car over a cliff, and go hug a tree.

Are you blaming that on global warming or just an odd mild winter?

What does it mean when Texas had four inches of snow and record lows while Illinois had 20 degrees below normal with snow in the fall? Global cooling? Maybe I should buy a Hummer and chop down a tree?

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

Are you blaming that on global warming or just an odd mild winter?

What does it mean when Texas had four inches of snow and record lows while Illinois had 20 degrees below normal with snow in the fall? Global cooling? Maybe I should buy a Hummer and chop down a tree?

I'm not blaming it on Global Warming, but I am saying we have to realize that this environmental impact we're making on the Earth is changing the world we live in. Its definitly not normal to be able to walk around in a t-shirt in Janruary, in Ontario atleast. Somethings changing the world from the norm, and global warming may be a contributing factor.

 

[Zardoz]

...odd...

ROFLMAO!

Yeah, things are getting "odd" all right! This is gonna be one seriously "odd" century!

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not blaming it on Global Warming, but I am saying we have to realize that this environmental impact we're making on the Earth is changing the world we live in. Its definitly not normal to be able to walk around in a t-shirt in Janruary, in Ontario atleast. Somethings changing the world from the norm, and global warming may be a contributing factor.

But it cannot be proven that the warming trend we see is long-term or even man-made. Just because something isn't normal does not mean that it isn't natural.

Yeah, things are getting "odd" all right! This is gonna be one seriously "odd" century!

I'm sorry, what word would you rather I use? Abnormal? Irregular? Freak?

And if it is as you are predicting I believe catastrophic is the word, however that does not fit a mild winter or a warm spell or whatever is happening in Ontario. He is making it sound warmer there than it is here in Kentucky. I haven't worn a T-shirt without a coat for a couple of months now.

 

[VeilsideR33sub]

There is a smog layer in the upper atmosphere that offsets some of that co2 greenhousing.
If industry becomes cleaner it will disappear but the co2 will continue its job for hundreds of years and we cant stop it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Plants add methane to air, may cause global warming.

And before you scoff it is from a reputable scientific publication, Nature.

Methane emissions from terrestrial plants under aerobic conditions

Methane is an important greenhouse gas and its atmospheric concentration has almost tripled since pre-industrial times1, 2. It plays a central role in atmospheric oxidation chemistry and affects stratospheric ozone and water vapour levels. Most of the methane from natural sources in Earth's atmosphere is thought to originate from biological processes in anoxic environments2. Here we demonstrate using stable carbon isotopes that methane is readily formed in situ in terrestrial plants under oxic conditions by a hitherto unrecognized process. Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed during incubation experiments in the laboratory and in the field. If our measurements are typical for short-lived biomass and scaled on a global basis, we estimate a methane source strength of 62–236 Tg yr-1 for living plants and 1–7 Tg yr-1 for plant litter (1 Tg = 1012 g). We suggest that this newly identified source may have important implications for the global methane budget and may call for a reconsideration of the role of natural methane sources in past climate change.

Start cutting down the forests boys.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

But it cannot be proven that the warming trend we see is long-term or even man-made. Just because something isn't normal does not mean that it isn't natural.

Just because its natural, doesn't mean nature is the only contributing factor to the issue at hand. Species thoughout history have gone extinct, thats nature, but to say humans going out and shooting every Tiger left on earth, is not entirely natures fault. Survival of the fittest no longer applies when nature is taken out of the equation.

CO2, and other green house gasses have always been around, thats a given, but never in the quantity we've seen in the past 100 years. Its all about balance on earth, and when something like man tips the scale on one side, something has to give, in this case, air quality and our ozone.

 

[Danoff]

CO2, and other green house gasses have always been around, thats a given, but never in the quantity we've seen in the past 100 years. Its all about balance on earth, and when something like man tips the scale on one side, something has to give, in this case, air quality and our ozone.

Just because we haven't seen that quantity in 100 years, or even 600,000 years doesn't mean man has much if anything to do with it. The Earth is billions of years old.

 

[FoolKiller]

CO2, and other green house gasses have always been around, thats a given, but never in the quantity we've seen in the past 100 years. Its all about balance on earth, and when something like man tips the scale on one side, something has to give, in this case, air quality and our ozone.

Maybe it's the trees and their methane.

 

[Kylehnat]

Oh, and moves like this, where they are moving my local National Weather Service recording station to the airport where they will admittedly get higher temperature readings is suspicious, especially when conditions that most people feel would be in the suburbs, which is where the current station lies. Why would you want to measure official temperatures in conditions that no one lives under?

Funny you should mention that. In reality, most "official" weather data for major cities is taken at that city's main airport. If you heard anything about Seattle's rainy streak (which sadly ended at 27 consecutive days of measurable rain, 6 short of the record), you have to realize that it had to rain at Sea-Tac airport to keep the streak alive. The airport is 15 miles south of downtown, and several miles outside the city limits, yet it is the official Seattle weather. A bit strange indeed. There were 2 or 3 days during the streak where a rogue shower hit the airport, but not a drop fell where I live.

If you're really concerned about being fed information that is not indicative of where you live, you can always buy one of those home weather stations. You'll feel better knowing the exact temperature and humidity of your backyard

 

[FoolKiller]

Funny you should mention that. In reality, most "official" weather data for major cities is taken at that city's main airport. If you heard anything about Seattle's rainy streak (which sadly ended at 27 consecutive days of measurable rain, 6 short of the record), you have to realize that it had to rain at Sea-Tac airport to keep the streak alive. The airport is 15 miles south of downtown, and several miles outside the city limits, yet it is the official Seattle weather. A bit strange indeed. There were 2 or 3 days during the streak where a rogue shower hit the airport, but not a drop fell where I live.

If you're really concerned about being fed information that is not indicative of where you live, you can always buy one of those home weather stations. You'll feel better knowing the exact temperature and humidity of your backyard

I understand that is how it is usually done, but changing where measurements are being taken will show a change in measurements, throwing off averages and creating new highs, something which I am sure will be pointed out without mention of the move.

In fact, the move happened at the beginning of the year and they already had a new high recorded, a difference of only a degree, but no one mentioned the possibility of the new location being a factor. Nor did they explain how my house was recording almost ten below the previous high.

 

[Duke]

Woof! Cheery outlook, huh?

Sure hope he's very wrong...

I'm betting he is, in fact, very wrong.

Did you know that there is no - zip, zero, nada - conclusive evidence that global warming is occurring?

Preposterous, right? Everybody knows global warming is a real, imminent threat. The ice caps are melting. The glaciers are disappearing. Sea levels are rising. It's getting hotter everywhere. We hear it every day. It's common knowledge.

It's also wrong. Local/regional warming is definitely occurring in some areas. It's also definitely NOT occurring in other areas. Many major areas of the globe show no significant warming trend for the last 150+ years. There is no evidence that sea levels are rising, not in the Pacific, anyway. There is no evidence that weather is getting more extreme in anything other than a short-term trend.

I suggest everybody read a novel on this subject by Michael Chrichton called State of Fear. It is a novel, discussing ecologoical extremists, but the information given in it is factual and backed up by multiple references. In fact, the last 30 pages of the book are given over to an extensive bibliography concerning his sources and the scientific experiments and papers and records he cites throughout the book.

It's quite an interesting read. In fact I've got more than a dozen books from his bibliography on my to-read list right now.

 

[Kylehnat]

I understand that is how it is usually done, but changing where measurements are being taken will show a change in measurements, throwing off averages and creating new highs, something which I am sure will be pointed out without mention of the move.

That's a good point, though it would take more than just one weather station showing a change to throw up red flags. If every station within 500 miles showed similar trends, then there is more meaning to it (or maybe they all just moved their stations to the airport)

Local/regional warming is definitely occurring in some areas. It's also definitely NOT occurring in other areas. Many major areas of the globe show no significant warming trend for the last 150+ years. There is no evidence that sea levels are rising, not in the Pacific, anyway. There is no evidence that weather is getting more extreme in anything other than a short-term trend.

Also a good point. Our winters here have been very odd for the last few years. This year it has been very warm and very wet. The last two years, it was rather cold and almost completely dry. Our climate is definately different now than it was 10 years ago, but it also coincides with the northern Pacific oscillation cycle, which peaks every 25-30 years. Once that goes away, we can start comparing apples to apples again. For now though, it's just assumed to be a natural cycle. If these trends continue indefinately, then there is cause for concern.

 

[Dave A]

There is evidence, it's just that none of it is conclusive. Let's face it, you can find evidence to suport almost any claim these days. Conclusive evidence on the other hand, thats a different matter. It's like that BBC site article Zardoz posted on the hottest ever recorded here...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532344.stm
It states in that very article that globally the hottest ever recorded was in the 1860's. It's also very possible there has been hotter before then, but reliable records were not kept before then. What you need to look at are the averages, and the global averages, not just in one part of one country.

Since 1980 the northern hemisphere has risen consistently, but then were back to the fact that it was hotter than it is now in the 1860's. What all this says to me is simply that globally, reliable records haven't been kept for long enough to monitor weather routines and climate changes properly over the course of long periods of time, it could be global warming, it could be the climate doing it's thing. There's no conclusive evidence either way that I'm aware of, but I think there's a hell of a lot of scare mongering going on in the world today.

 

[Duke]

One other thing that goes along with the "moving weatherstations to the airport" theme is this:

A significant amount of so-called global warming can be accounted for by understanding that a great many rural weather stations have been gradually surrounded by and incorporated into growing metropolitan areas. Concrete and asphalt are hotter materials than grass and trees - so of course these stations are going to show a warming trend over the last 50 years.

It may or may not have anything to do with greenhouse gases, however.

 

[Zardoz]

..."moving weatherstations to the airport"...

...is responsible for what is going on in the Arctic, and what is happening to glaciers worldwide? Metropolitan areas building up around weather stations has made the sea temperature rise?

...Did you know that there is no - zip, zero, nada - conclusive evidence that global warming is occurring?...Local/regional warming is definitely occurring in some areas...

"zip, zero, nada"? Really?

Woods Hole Research Center's data



BTW, this bit of info is no surprise, is it? (I'm sure ExxonMobil's executives are all big Michael Crichton fans):

Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer


An organized campaign of disinformation:

The ExxonMobil "action plan"


What the skeptics don't tell you

 

[FoolKiller]

What Zardoz forgot to mention.

Woods Hole Research Center Mission We work locally and regionally, assisting communities with resource management, and internationally to promote policies that stabilize climate and protect the integrity of the global environment.
- environmental group.
Environmental Defense Mission As an organization based in the United States, we pay special attention to U.S. environmental problems and to America’s role in causing and solving global problems, and we aim to share our approaches internationally.
- environmental group.

They sound pretty partisaned to me. I guess I can post anything from the Cato Institute and you will just accept it?


By the way, how is taking new scientists that have not participated in the debate and having them do research for you, expecting their results to support your opinion, and then showing it to the public with the hopes of educating them on the opposing view different from what environamental groups do?

The problem there is that it is bad science to do research with the intent of supporting your opinion. That makes ExxonMobile no worse than people who do research looking for evidence of global warming. Both sides are using bad science.

The only truly non-partisaned scientists I have heard essentially say that there is a slight warming trend that cannot be attributed to anything due to the ever changing nature of climate and there is no evidence that it will continue with no change. Then they step out of a politically charged debate. Conclusive is the keyword in what Duke said and any scientist worth his degree will not claim that there is anything conclusive in this debate.

 

[Zardoz]

...The only truly non-partisaned scientists I have heard essentially say that there is a slight warming trend that cannot be attributed to anything due to the ever changing nature of climate and there is no evidence that it will continue with no change...

I'll post this for the third time because it is so significant:

A new 650,000-year record

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

How can anyone think that it is purely coincidental that this occurred during the last half of the 20th century, when we burned up about half the crude oil this planet has, and increased our population from 2.5 billion to 6 billion? How can anyone attribute that to pure chance? How would you calculate the odds of that happening?

And BTW, global warming skeptics gleefully jumped on the claims of two guys that the so-called "hockey stick" chart showing the rapid rise of global temperatures in the last part of the 20th century was flawed.

Well, not so fast, FOXNews fans. Turns out it may be not so flawed after all:

Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire

The jury is still out on this, apparently, but those who frantically tried to write it off may have to curb their enthusiasm for a while. Even if the chart has to be slightly revised, do you, once again, attribute the far-more-rapid temperature rise to coincidence?

And how do you explain the arctic ice, glacier recession, slowing of the Gulf Stream, and increased sea temperature? Or are those naturally-occurring events that just happened to coincide with 20th-century human activity, once again purely by chance?

Is it all attributable to coincidence?

 

[Danoff]

I'll post this for the third time because it is so significant:

A new 650,000-year record

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

Why do you think this is proof of man's influence? Here's a quote from your citation:
"Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years. This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past. "

Not even 1 million years? Half a million years? I'll repeat, this planet is over 4 Billion years old, with a capital B. The levels you're talking about are accurate for HALF a Million years... in the Antarctic only.

Sorry, I'm going to need more than this kind of circumstantial evidence. I'm not saying that you're not right. I'm not saying that it is impossible that man is responsible for all of this, I'm simply saying that we still don't have enough information to know for sure. Plus, as Famine pointed out nicely earlier, CARS are not the cheif source of greenhouse gasses. Burning gasoline is not where this comes from. If you want to propose an action to take be more scientific about it.

First I need better proof that we're having a MAJOR impact on climate (not just gas levels, which still hasn't even been proven enough). Second, we'd need to look at the various sources of these gasses and propose a solution that makes sense - rather than knee-jerk against the industries we hate the most at the moment.

Edit: Does it not alarm you how misleading that article is with the quote you posted? They use "at any time" and mean "at any time in the last 650,000 years". There's a big difference.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'll post this for the third time because it is so significant:

A new 650,000-year record

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

You have your ice core data and I have mine.
To simplify, mine came from Greenland and the temperature chart looks like this:

Wait! The current day temperatures were reached 10,000 years ago. And look at that jump!

I believe Duke said something about regional differences?

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that temperature is reconstructed by analyzing the amount of oxygen found in the ice core. Why didn't BBC mention the oxygen levels or even just temperature levels since that seems to be measurable?

And BTW, global warming skeptics gleefully jumped on the claims of two guys that the so-called "hockey stick" chart showing the rapid rise of global temperatures in the last part of the 20th century was flawed.

Well, not so fast, FOXNews fans. Turns out it may be not so flawed after all:

Global-Warming Skeptics Under Fire

The jury is still out on this, apparently, but those who frantically tried to write it off may have to curb their enthusiasm for a while. Even if the chart has to be slightly revised, do you, once again, attribute the far-more-rapid temperature rise to coincidence?

Old news, but why did Dr. Michael Mann, who originated this hockey stick graph, refuse to release his data for years? Could it be what makes the math seem fuzzy? That seems suspicious and after Congressman Barton demanded his data he finally released it.

The problem is not with the math, although some tried that angle. The problem is two things. One, the data is derived from tree rings. Tree rings are a poor test of temperature considering that tree rings are affected by more than just temperature.

Second, some of his data was insufficient to be considered statistically significant. For instance, the entire 15th century was judged by one tree ring.

The math is irrelevant when your data is bad.

And how do you explain the arctic ice, glacier recession, slowing of the Gulf Stream, and increased sea temperature? Or are those naturally-occurring events that just happened to coincide with 20th-century human activity, once again purely by chance?

Is it all attributable to coincidence?

Or is there a possibility that there is a cycle? Were those glaciers always there? There used to be a glacier where I am sitting right now, and at one time an ocean. The glaciers receded suspiciously as mammals formed and took hold as a dominant species. Perhaps they farted too much and filled the atmosphere with methane.

By the way, never trust any data that uses the word "likely" as fact. It really means, "we think so but can't prove it."

 

[Duke]

Zardoz, I don't have the reference list here, but as soon as I get a chance, I'll post some of the science that contradicts the environmentalist mantra that everything everywhere is getting warmer and has only done so in the last 100-150 years.

Also, note that I didn't argue about your CO2/methane "facts". I accept that statement at face value. However, I will say that there is no conclusive evidence that these gas levels are the cause of global warming... which is itself not conclusively proven to be occurring.

 

[Zardoz]

You have your ice core data and I have mine.

Duelling ice cores. Gee, I wonder why there's so much debate about what's actually happening?

Pardon the extremely lame cliche, but time really will tell, won't it? All we can do is watch and wait, and hope the nutty professor, crazy ol' Doc Lovelock, is dead wrong, along with those white wine-drinking, brie cheese-eating, Prius-driving fairies at Woods Hole.

Personally, I'll be keeping an eye on the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska and Norway. If all that tundra actually thaws out some summer, the methane that will be released will be measured in billions of tons. Methane is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so all bets will be off, won't they?