Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 362

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #1 Global Warming 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2
    Everybody says that global warming is going to kill us and that the earth is going to get very hot but it's way colder here now than it was a few months ago.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    would that be the onset of winter ?

    you can't pretend to talk about climate and then bring in the vagaries of weather


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    We didn't quite break the minimum coverage record of '07. But '08 ice was thinner than ever, and this was first year both passages opened.

     

  5. #4 Re: Global Warming 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by VelocityRaptor
    Everybody says that global warming is going to kill us and that the earth is going to get very hot but it's way colder here now than it was a few months ago.
    Cigarettes, motorcycles, and ex-wives will kill you before global warming does.
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    We didn't quite break the minimum coverage record of '07. But '08 ice was thinner than ever, and this was first year both passages opened.

    wtf planet is tat it doesnt look like earth
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    it is, looking straight down on the north pole
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    44
    Where did you find those images Pong? Looks cool! In a nightmare-for-the-climate kind of way
    Dramatisation; may not have happened.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    I would like to see the images of the south pole, the ice there is thicking and expanding.
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by kevvy
    Where did you find those images Pong? Looks cool! In a nightmare-for-the-climate kind of way
    comes from Cryosphere Today, which also has data on the antarctic
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    44
    Brilliant, thanks marnixR!
    Dramatisation; may not have happened.
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    Looks like more ice this year than last at todays date. But the scientists were saying we would loose all the ice this summer, looks like they were wrong again. Oh well, maybe next year we will all be burning up, I guess thats what they are wanting.
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    What scientists were saying we would loose all the ice this summer, mastmec? You made that up?

    I'm optimistic the Northwest Passage will reliably open for a few months every year. On the other hand I regret the loss of permafrost in Canada's far north, as now we'll have to build proper highways at huge expense.

    BTW September 20th shown on maps is the approximate date of minimum sea ice.

    EDIT: The trend over decades...
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...917152523.aspx
    I don't make things up, misquote sometimes yes.
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    The headline is "Networks Wrong" not "Scientists Wrong".

    Less than three months ago, NBC’s Anne Thompson was warning ominously of ice loss. "But this summer, some scientists say that ice could retreat so dramatically that open water covers the North Pole, so much so that you could sail across it."
    Here the storywriter didn't even claim we'd lose all ice, as you said "scientists" did. In fact, scientists have been surprised year after year by faster melting than models predict. It says so right in the story, and anybody watching predictions over the last decade would know this.

    The headline should read "Scientists Wrong On Global Warming Again; Arctic Ice Retreat Outpaces Models".
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    With respect to the original question, heat waves and cold snaps have pretty much zero relationship with global warming. The long term trend is of average 0.8 Celsius warming, while heat and cold waves can vary massively more.

    To illustrate this point, let me tell you of the hottest temperature caused by weather variation ever recorded. it was in the desert in Libya in the year 1911, when the air temperature came close to 60 Celsius. 1911 was the second coldest year of the 20th Century, and the second coldest year of any time after 1880. Yet it had the highest ever recorded temperature.

    Temperature variation over a relatively short time span has no relationship with global warming.
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    I'm bad, this one is more like it:
    June 20, 2008
    Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

    "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

    "I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.

    This is from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...orth-pole.html

    I think a good point here is that people should stop listening to all the Chicken Littles of the world.



    Another good web site to visit is http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...climchange.asp
    Check out the fire and ice
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    I'm bad, this one is more like it:
    June 20, 2008
    Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.
    Do you understand that when we say North Pole we mean a point on the map not the entire Northern Icecap?

    Read your own damn article:
    The melt would be mostly symbolic—thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer.
    We might even see an unusually icy year, and yet lopsided melting where it hasn't occurred before. Look at the posted maps - does this look predictable? Notice that sometimes a hole appears near the North Pole. Such holes will very probably appear again, anywhere. The spot of ocean we call the North Pole enjoys no special protection.

    How could one place in the high Arctic (the North Pole) melt while more southerly areas remain frozen? The answer is weather. You know, like unseasonably warm winds in one place, while another gets some freak snowstorm. It happens. Even over the Arctic. Ocean currents are also fickle.

    Mastmec, one melting snowfield in the Rockies is not the Rockies, and the North Pole is not the complete Icecap!

    In the Pacific Northwest, we often get a January "Pineapple Express", which is warm humid air jetting up from the tropics. This steams on through the Rockies, melting every ski slope in its path. In Alberta they call it the Chinook, which means "snow-eater". Okay, ski resort operators say one face of their mountain may completely melt this summer. Just looking at other slopes in previous years. Are they the Chicken Littles of the world?
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    The Chicken Littles of the world are people like Algore and his ilk that run around in their private jets living the life of luxury calling people who use gas and electricity evil because they are destroying the planet. And then making stupid movies about the end of the world unless we change our evil ways, calling for mass government intervintion into our lives and private business for control over what we do in the name of saving the world. It's all BS, except for the power over the rest of the country, thats what it is really about, money and power. There is not a damn thing anyone can do to change the temp of their area much less the whole planet. This has nothing to do with normal changes in temp anywhere on this planet, they've all changed, they will always continue to change, there is nothing that us little people can do to fix something that isn't broke, not that we even understand. Thats like an infant trying to assemble an atomic bomb. There is warming on the planet, there is also cooling on the planet and they happen at the same time. There is no such thing as global warming. Your blind if you can't see whats behind it all.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    There is not a damn thing anyone can do to change the temp of their area much less the whole planet.
    Mmmm, so if I remove the trees from the garden and pave over the clover and flowery bits, I won't be changing the "temp of my area?" I'd think it would rise ten degrees with no trouble at all.
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    thats what it is really about, money and power.
    Muh ha ha ha!

    That is why I post this BS... money and power, you ranting pawn.

    *Rubs hands villainously*


    Who is citing "Business & Media Institute - Advancing the culture of free enterprise in America" ?
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    603
    To be honest, I don't have the references to point out adequately why the OP and every other oponent to global warming is silly. However, I think it may just reflect more of a dogma or something; I suspect a vast majority of people who think it's BS really didn't do much research to back themselves up.

    Probably just a case where, given time, the truth will be seen. That truth is becoming more and more clear- honestly, we just got our first major snowfall in CALGARY. Usually we are doused in snow by october, but it's been insanely warm and temperate here this year. I guess they'll just write that off as a convenient warm spell though.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    To be honest, I don't have the references to point out adequately why the OP and every other oponent to global warming is silly. However, I think it may just reflect more of a dogma or something; I suspect a vast majority of people who think it's BS really didn't do much research to back themselves up.

    Probably just a case where, given time, the truth will be seen. That truth is becoming more and more clear- honestly, we just got our first major snowfall in CALGARY. Usually we are doused in snow by october, but it's been insanely warm and temperate here this year. I guess they'll just write that off as a convenient warm spell though.
    Mormoopid, will you just read what you wrote? Jeez! You called all opponents to what you believe "silly" while admitting to a lack of "references" to make your point. And then you audaciously "suspected" that those who believe other than you don't do much research.

    Did you know, mister moopid, that during the last Ice Age we humans came very close to being exterminated because the Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels dropped dangerously close to theoretical biological minimums?

    I swear, moopid, if you new people don't began to think as you move about this world you all are going to ruin the great climb of Paleozoic ooze from the Earth to the Moon.

    May God help us all. ()
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Mormoopid, will you just read what you wrote? Jeez! You called all opponents to what you believe "silly" while admitting to a lack of "references" to make your point. And then you audaciously "suspected" that those who believe other than you don't do much research.
    While I agree with your lament that he should do his own reading, he's right nevertheless. There's very little science published that backs up continued doubt about man-made climate change. Unfortunately the skeptics reside in the easier to read blogosphere where most Americans seem to get their news rather than a library of journal articles. Scientist in general could do a better job explaining their work to the general public.

    Did you know, mister moopid, that during the last Ice Age we humans came very close to being exterminated because the Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels dropped dangerously close to theoretical biological minimums?
    We did almost become exterminated but it had nothing to do with an Ice age or decreased Co2 levels. By the evidence we were evolving rather well in tropical Africa, though blocked there by other intelligent primates living in the Middle East from expansion, where the ice ages have relatively little effect. The most threatening event to our species appears to be the eruption of super volcano Toba in Sumatra 74000, which due to aerosols cause severe cooling for a few years--too short to set off an ice age. If anything after the dust settled it probably helped delay slowly cooling temperatures due to astronomical forcing for a few thousand years.
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Mormoopid, will you just read what you wrote? Jeez! You called all opponents to what you believe "silly" while admitting to a lack of "references" to make your point. And then you audaciously "suspected" that those who believe other than you don't do much research.
    While I agree with your lament that he should do his own reading, he's right nevertheless. There's very little science published that backs up continued doubt about man-made climate change. Unfortunately the skeptics reside in the easier to read blogosphere where most Americans seem to get their news rather than a library of journal articles. Scientist in general could do a better job explaining their work to the general public.
    Sure thing, Lynx, and fifty years ago mountains were built by hair-brained structures called "geosynclines", and nine out of ten TV Dentists (who got free samples) recommended Pepsident Toothpaste for our teeth. During the last Century Freudian gobbledegook treated ten million confused and crazy people at the rate of a thousand bucks per clip and no one was cured. I could have used that ten trillion bucks.

    Now tell me again (since it is so obvious to the grant seeking scientists who referendum science) where is the evidence for CO2 induced global warming. Tell me in a sentence or less and I'll shut up.

    Did you know, mister moopid, that during the last Ice Age we humans came very close to being exterminated because the Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels dropped dangerously close to theoretical biological minimums?
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    We did almost become exterminated but it had nothing to do with an Ice age or decreased Co2 levels. By the evidence we were evolving rather well in tropical Africa, though blocked there by other intelligent primates living in the Middle East from expansion, where the ice ages have relatively little effect. The most threatening event to our species appears to be the eruption of super volcano Toba in Sumatra 74000, which due to aerosols cause severe cooling for a few years--too short to set off an ice age. If anything after the dust settled it probably helped delay slowly cooling temperatures due to astronomical forcing for a few thousand years.
    Ice core samples from Greenland indicate that atmospheric content of CO2 dropped to about 157 parts per million during the last glacial. This is getting dangerously close to a level where life on Earth as constituted today will cease. Your little Sumatra volcano was a "poof" in passing. Even in India human life continued on (reduced a bit don't you know.). CO2 is our friend. :-D
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Now tell me again (since it is so obvious to the grant seeking scientists who referendum science) where is the evidence for CO2 induced global warming. Tell me in a sentence or less and I'll shut up.
    I'll boil a century of science down to your one sentence. Since the 19th century we've known Co2 is transparent to visible solar radiation striking the earth and opaque to IR radiation leaving--none of the thousands of papers since has shown anything to mitigate this basic physical fact.
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    milum, your points are empty of any relavent content. Maybe the CO2 levels did drop and we had some trouble, but what does that have to do with global warming other than to support it? If CO2 levels dropped and an ice age loomed, would increased levels not cause global warming? Global warming is of course, relative. We don't want the climate to change too much from what we are comfortable with. There is an ongoing balance in CO2 levels due to an inevitable equilibrium, but by us pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, the equilibrium is shifting towards a point we don't want it to. Our contributions are small in comparison, but it is quite enough to have the feared shift in equilibrium as result. Do you really have anything of value to add, or are you going to continue making empty and irrelavent points? Merry Christmas.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    And a Merry Christmas to you, Kalster. Do I have anything of value to add, you ask. Well let me try, Kalster, and maybe, just maybe, you'll listen and become a better person. Sentence by sentence...
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    milum, your points are empty of any relavent content.
    Gee whiz, Kalster, you start out rude and you end up misspelling "relevant".
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalster
    Maybe the CO2 levels did drop and we had some trouble, but what does that have to do with global warming other than to support it?
    Now what troubles did WE have, Kalster? I know of none. And what, for Heaven's sake, does "not having anything to do with Global Warming except support it" mean? The phrase is oxymoronic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalster
    If CO2 levels dropped and an ice age loomed, would increased levels not cause global warming? Global warming is of course, relative. We don't want the climate to change too much from what we are comfortable with. There is an ongoing balance in CO2 levels due to an inevitable equilibrium, but by us pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, the equilibrium is shifting towards a point we don't want it to. Our contributions are small in comparison, but it is quite enough to have the feared shift in equilibrium as result.
    Now Kalster, I know you think you've said what you wanted to say, and I know that you think that you have said it, but really Kalster, you've rambled on and on without making a coherent point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalster
    Do you really have anything of value to add, or are you going to continue making empty and irrelavent points? Merry Christmas.
    No Kalster, I guess I don't have anything else to add. It seems that I don't have anyone here who cares to exchange ideas while conducting themselves as gentlemen. Merry Christmas and I wish you well.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    We are currently in the middle of an Ice Age, which is a million years running to date. This includes glacial and interglacial periods. During glacial periods, CO2 levels drop - probably due to absorption by the ocean. This does no real harm to life, and is certainly not a threat to humans or pre-humans. It simply makes the raw material for photosynthesis a bit less accessible, and slows down plant growth. The lower temperatures also do this.

    Low CO2 did NOT threaten humans or pre-humans with extinction. The cold was a problem in the north, but our ancestors in Africa did not have that problem and survived very nicely.
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    We are currently in the middle of an Ice Age, which is a million years running to date. This includes glacial and interglacial periods. During glacial periods, CO2 levels drop - probably due to absorption by the ocean. This does no real harm to life, and is certainly not a threat to humans or pre-humans. It simply makes the raw material for photosynthesis a bit less accessible, and slows down plant growth. The lower temperatures also do this.

    Low CO2 did NOT threaten humans or pre-humans with extinction. The cold was a problem in the north, but our ancestors in Africa did not have that problem and survived very nicely.
    Right on, skeptic, dropping CO2 levels didn't "threaten" human beings during the last glacial period because they only dropped "close" to the minimal amount needed for human survival. But hey, Skeptic, this ain't Horseshoes, close don't count.

    The point is that CO2 levels need to be raised to about 500 ppm so we as a caring people can feed the six billion people that we already have.

    What, you don't like people?
     

  31. #30  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Quote Originally Posted by MILUM
    And a Merry Christmas to you, Kalster. Do I have anything of value to add, you ask. Well let me try, Kalster, and maybe, just maybe, you'll listen and become a better person. Sentence by sentence...Gee whiz, Kalster, you start out rude and you end up misspelling "relevant".
    Become a better person? :-D You presume to know me do you? How was my post any more rude than you previous ones? What is the purpose of calling me on my spelling? Are you saying that only stupid people ever misspell anything or are you simply taking a childish jab at me? Are you sitting behind your computer screen with a big superior grin on your face?

    Now what troubles did WE have, Kalster? I know of none.
    Well, we would rather have it be warmer than it is during a glacial period, no? As Lynx_Fox said, the fact that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation is well known. It is also well understood that the black body temperatures of an earth without an atmosphere would be much lower, so why is it warmer with an atmosphere? Well, because of the greenhouse effect. Even you should concur with this. We know that gasses are opaque to certain wavelengths of light (i.e. absorb them) and are transparent to others. If you have less gas that absorbs IR, less is absorbed before reaching space and the atmosphere cools on average. So during glacial periods, dropping CO2 levels add to the pace of the feedback loop that feeds glaciations. More gas that absorbs IR warms the atmosphere. The energy of the sun takes a certain time before it is re-emitted back into space and the time it takes for this to happen determines the temperature of the atmosphere, all things being equal.

    You half rightly say that CO2 is our friend, but life is adapted to certain levels that are optimum. Too little would kill us the same as too much would.

    And what, for Heaven's sake, does "not having anything to do with Global Warming except support it" mean? The phrase is oxymoronic.
    Well, you deny global warming due to rising CO2 levels, right? You cite low CO2 levels during glacial periods. What I ask, is what does you citation do other than supporting the link between rising CO2 levels and global warming?

    No Kalster, I guess I don't have anything else to add. It seems that I don't have anyone here who cares to exchange ideas while conducting themselves as gentlemen.
    Again you insinuate that I am not conducting myself as a gentleman. I put it to you that you are reacting this way because someone is calling you on the validity of your assertions. Your points have not had much to do with global warming, but more with the effect on plant life in respect to Carbon availability, no? Correct me if I am wrong here.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    See KALSTER, you ARE a better person. It just took a little digging to drag your good nature out. Yes, my criticism of your spelling was with a smile. I don't give a swinging damn if every word I read is misspelled as long as I can read it. If the English language lasts another Century or two all the words I type here will be considered misspelled. Of course, by then, all of us will be dead because of Global Warming. [here I am being facetious. If everyone's dead in the future it won't be because of Global Warming it'll be because of the effete nature of the human spirit that ditched science for fairy tales like Global Warming. Too bad, real science might have saved us from the comet, or the Ice Age, or ourselves, but considering the hokey way World culture is headed, survival of the species is not as important as hugging a tree or making a buck.]

    I like you, Kalster. Will you be my friend?
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Re carbon dioxide
    Perhaps someone will contradict this, but to the best of my knowledge, humans cannot be harmed by a reduction of CO2 in the air we breathe. CO2 serves one purpose in the human body. It is the trigger that stimulates breathing. However, it is not CO2 we inhale that does this - but CO2 that builds up inside our bodies. If the air we breather is very low in, or even devoid of, CO2, it has little effect on our health and well being.

    Of course, in terms of plant growth, the opposite applies. Plants need CO2 for photosynthesis, and we can regard CO2 as being a fertiliser.

    I was surprised to see someone refer to a time during an earlier glacial period, of low CO2 where it was suggested this endangered the human population. It would have slowed plant growth, but it would hardly have endangered human life.
     

  34. #33  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    milum:

    I see that you are an unusual sort of fellow. :?

    All the other off-topic points aside, what is your reason for thinking global warming is a myth please?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    I've lost track, are we talking about global warming in general or man made global warming? Since we've had no net warming since 1998, I'd say the issue should be rested so we can get ready to pay for global cooling AGAIN! Plus 9 out of 10 Climatologist say there is no GLOBAL warming, warming and cooling all around the globe at the same time, I guess that is why they call it global climate change now so that if anything happens they can say we(humans) are causing it and we must pay the government so they can fix it. Seeing how the government has fixed all of the other problems the people of earth have, I can see why everyone believes they can fix this one too (sarcasim if you couldn't tell)
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    ...Since we've had no net warming since 1998 ... Plus 9 out of 10 Climatologist say there is no GLOBAL warming
    Give us references for these claims before we feel the need to respond to them.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    Dennis Brey, a climate analyst in Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than 1 in 10 climate scientist believed change from human activity.
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Dennis Brey, a climate analyst in Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than 1 in 10 climate scientist believed change from human activity.
    Is this the study from a couple years ago, or something new. I hope it's done better than the one done a few years back.

    Climatologist were asked to rate from 1-7 whether they agreed with the statement: "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?"
    The one in 10 which he quotes are only those who answered '1,' strongly agree. The same study showed more than 70% agree with the IPCC reports as accurate.
    And get this, the entire survey had to rely on the roughly 3rd of respondents contacted most of whom had been encourage to do so by skeptic groups, provide the distribution list, who did a media blitz among those climatologist thought favorable or neutral to respond favorably to their cause.


    Those here can read the paper that was rejected by several publications including Science and Nature, probably for it's sloppy methods, but I'm not sure on that last part.
    http://coast.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/b...s/Science2.pdf

    Next about using 1998 as a benchmark. Is a good example of cherry picking. We already know that was an anomalous warm year, part of the natural variability that happens every year. Given the average 50 years rate of surface temperature increase of about 0.13C/decade and natural variability ~0.10-0.2C, we should only expect to reach record max temp about every 10 years or so. I posted the chart from the National Climate Data center so you can see both the climb and the year to year fluctuations below.



     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Re global warming since 1998.

    In fact, global warming has merely slowed. There are dishonest people who claim no warming since 1998. They do this by taking the highest global temperature of 1998 as if it were an average, and comparing that to lower temperatures of, say, 2004.

    This is dishonest since 1998 was a massive El Nino event which created a freak high global temperature. Well above 1997 or 1999. If you make your warming graph based on the average temperature of 1997 to 1999 you see a clear cut warming trend continuing through to the present.

    Another factor is the sunspot cycle. For the last few years, the sunspot cycle has tended downwards towards the normal nadir. This has a tendency to cause cooling. However, in this case, it has merely slowed the warming. The next few years will be sunspot activity increasing, as it trends towards the apex of the cycle. That will accelerate warming over that period.

    In short, there is no cooling since 1998. Warming continues.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    I'd like to see that graph to go about 50 years farther back, then we could see the event of global cooling we were hearing about for about 25 years in the media and climate scientist. We were going to all starve to death back then because of the coming ice age.
    Science and Nature refused alot of those reports because they didn't follow the global warming scare.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    [quote="skeptic"]

    Another factor is the sunspot cycle. For the last few years, the sunspot cycle has tended downwards towards the normal nadir. This has a tendency to cause cooling. However, in this case, it has merely slowed the warming. The next few years will be sunspot activity increasing, as it trends towards the apex of the cycle. That will accelerate warming over that period.

    [quote]

    I thought that their posistion on this was that the sun has nothing to do with global warming.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Science and Nature refused alot of those reports because they didn't follow the global warming scare.
    And you know this because you are on the approval boards for both publications??

    Again what is your reference for this claim?
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    I'd like to see that graph to go about 50 years farther back, then we could see the event of global cooling we were hearing about for about 25 years in the media and climate scientist. We were going to all starve to death back then because of the coming ice age.
    Science and Nature refused alot of those reports because they didn't follow the global warming scare.
    Sure. And you realize the 70's coming ice age was almost entirely media driving--no climate group was predicting an ice age in the short term back then. What there was is an appeal to do more climate research because scientist from several fields were starting to discover the past climate swings and they were correctly pointing out that better understanding had more than academic interest.

    The slight cooling from about WWII to the 1970s is thought mostly to be the effect of increased sun-blocking industrial aerosols in the post WWII in Europe in in America--both of which started to remove them as part of clean air initiatives. There might also have been some subtle solar forcing or some other natural effect. The current short term leveling, if it continues, might reflect the increasing industrial aerosols of China and India which are going through a similar cycle we went through--develop industry to the utmost and clean up the air later.


    Your chart is below.
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    63
    Well if I would've been on that board I would not have been there long because of my views. This is from quotes of people who submitted those reports, but I guess you would dismiss them due to your views of this subject.
    So how would someone explain the warming of the 1300's where Greenland thawed out and the Vikings farmed there untill the little ice age froze it back over?
    And what about all the weather stations that were shut down during the fall of russia in the late 80's and 90's that were in the coldest regions of the earth? And The weather stations in rural areas that have lately have had population growth around them, wouldn't that make it look like a warming trend?
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,261
    No I dismiss them at this point because it is at least second hand information coming from the source then through you to the forum. Give me the primary quotes of the authors on the subject.

    I like to evaluate assertions based the information as it is originally provided.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by mastmec
    Well if I would've been on that board I would not have been there long because of my views. This is from quotes of people who submitted those reports, but I guess you would dismiss them due to your views of this subject.
    I'm perfectly willing to answer questions which are civil as best I can. I'm not a climate expert but follow it pretty close and have two degrees (including some published journal papers) in the close field of meteorology.

    So how would someone explain the warming of the 1300's where Greenland thawed out and the Vikings farmed there until the little ice age froze it back over?
    Most likely solar forcing, though there are some interesting hypothesis that relate the warming with the European population explosion related farming between 11th and 13th and subsequent sharp decline as plagues decimated Europe and Asia starting in the 14th and continued into the 16th as disease decimated New World population centers. Is also possible both effects were happening, with methane production of humans from farming and climate reinforcing each other superimposed on a solar fluctuation. Though warm, it's also important to note that the middle ages were not nearly as warm as it is now--and nothing compared to what the models predict we'll look like in 50-100 years if we continue to burn fossil fuels.

    And The weather stations in rural areas that have lately have had population growth around them, wouldn't that make it look like a warming trend?
    There's a variety of techniques applied individual station records to remove this bias including: adjusting compared to rural adjacent stations trends, removing anomalous warm stations entirely until they can be maintained or relocated and others. If you want a good summation of current methods you could read: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/...ansen_etal.pdf

    Removing urban effect is pretty complicated but if I remember right the worst case was a bias of about +0.05-0.1 C over the past century, or in other words less than a decade's worth of net temperature increase.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Re the effect of sunspots.
    This is a bit controversial, since some climate scientists are somewhat opposed to the idea of sunspots driving climate. However, there are some difficult to deny correlations.

    Note that sunspot activity can be, and has been, measured in an indirect way from ice cores for the past several thousand years.

    The dark ages were a bit cooler than now, and sunspot activity was low, and the cold probably contributed to the widespread poverty of the time by colder and longer winters - hence poorer harvests. Towards 900AD sunspot activity increased, and the global climate warmed. By 1000 AD, the world was, on average, about as warm as it became in 1940. This was warm enough for nordic peoples to colonise southern Greenland.

    From 1200 AD to 1600 AD sunspot activity reduced, and the world cooled. The Little Ice Age correlated with the Maunder Minimum - a time of almost zero sunspot activity. The second greatest warming of the 20th Century coincided with a substantial increase in sunspot activity from 1910 to 1940.

    However, when we consider the present situation, you have to bear in mind that from 1976 to the present, which is the greatest warming event in recorded history (or pre-history), sunspot activity did not increase in any overall way - just the ups and downs of the 11 year cycle. This means that the 1976 to present warming was not caused by changes in sunspot activity.
     

  48. #47 Re: Global Warming 
    Forum Freshman The Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by VelocityRaptor
    Everybody says that global warming is going to kill us and that the earth is going to get very hot but it's way colder here now than it was a few months ago.
    There is a concerted effort worldwide to globalize the nation-states as the natural response to a "threat against humanity". Environmentalists have decided global pollution and global warming to be the catalyst for these globalist movements, although they do not have the popular support required as of yet. Very discreetly was the term "global warming" altered to "climate change", as many scientists are beginning to realize just how negligible man's impact on this planet's climate cycles are. Environmentalists are but one group in a long list of groups who love scaring people with fantastically apocalyptic scenarios in order to further their own agendas.

    Wiping your backside with three squares of toilet paper will not help "stabilize" our planet, nor will it attract many of the female species. It is also no coincidence that Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, who was a globalist communist ruling over one of the most polluted nations on Earth, is the founder and president of Green Cross International. Red Communism hasn't gone anywhere! It has instead gotten a haircut and renamed itself Green Socialism. As one last word of advice, you should probably be very skeptical when approaching any theory or movement if the word "global" is involved.
     

  49. #48 Re: Global Warming 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by The Pride

    There is a concerted effort worldwide to globalize the nation-states as the natural response to a "threat against humanity". Environmentalists have decided global pollution and global warming to be the catalyst for these globalist movements, although they do not have the popular support required as of yet. Very discreetly was the term "global warming" altered to "climate change",
    All that might be true (I doubt it) but it doesn't effect the American sciences, almost all of which is done in conservative government labs like NOAA, NASA, the DOD or under the guidance of the national science foundation.

    If there's a problem, it's that many of these same organizations have been effectively muted by political oversight that's gone as far as alter reports and threatened scientist for speaking directly to the public without it being vetted through political appointees. So they've had to educate the public through their continuing scientific publication which most Americans don't bother and aren't educated enough to read, and the few times they've been called to testify to congress. I'm not making this up but it's probably for another thread and probably not in a science forum.

    Just because you don't like the scientific conclusion that we are changing the climate, or some fringe groups are also exploiting that message doesn't mean that conclusion is wrong.

    --

    Good succinct post about sunspots Skeptic.
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The slight cooling from about WWII to the 1970s is thought mostly to be the effect of increased sun-blocking industrial aerosols in the post WWII in Europe in in America--both of which started to remove them as part of clean air initiatives. There might also have been some subtle solar forcing or some other natural effect. The current short term leveling, if it continues, might reflect the increasing industrial aerosols of China and India which are going through a similar cycle we went through--develop industry to the utmost and clean up the air later.

    Thank you, Lynx_Fox, that's a useful chart. And I'm glad you mentioned aerosols & clean air initiatives.

    I'd like you to question your own qualifier of "industrial aerosols". Why consider only industrial source aerosols? Remember the Dustbowl. Remember that the soot of London was caused by every single house burning wood and coal up the chimney, not so much the scattered landmark factory furnaces. I can relate that in the Pacific Northwest a century ago forest fire was so ubiquitous choking summer haze was normal. Today we effectively suppress forest fire and control erosion through irrigation and cover planting... over most of Earth's surface. I think industrial aerosols played a relatively minor role in the story of aerosol forcing.

    Unfortunately historic cloud cover data is practically anecdotal. Local records (observed "tenths" of sky coverage) indicate a decrease over the last century. We can't turn back the terraforming clock so we can only guess how aerosols and cloud formation ought to work naturally. It's kinda like waking up to find oneself holding the controls of a passenger plane, which one's apparently been flying for some time already. We're definitely losing altitude now. Why? What should we do? Pull back on the yoke?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I'd like you to question your own qualifier of "industrial aerosols". Why consider only industrial source aerosols?
    My understanding it the majority of man-made aerosols come from industry AND that's where most of the restrictions were applied.

    You're correct to point out examples from London and our Dustbowl years, but is there any real evidence that either were more than local and regional phenomena? Most solid carbons, such as fire soot and wind blown dust are both generated at near ground level and settle or rain out pretty quickly. Industrial soot, on the other hand, is usually released from high towers purposely designed so the emissions doesn't settle out in the local area.

    At least in the US restrictions of individual sources have been minimal. Heck last night I had a sizable fire of scrap wood, Xmas packing materials that didn't require any kind of permit. Having lived in Germany, I'm guessing Europe is more restrictive.

    The secondary aerosols usually emitted as a gas that convert into solids are particularly problematic and easily regional and global in scale. Europe and the US both restrict industrial release of sulfur. Most of the gains for individuals has come from the types of fuel we burn, such as converting to low sulfur diesel.

    Unfortunately historic cloud cover data is practically anecdotal. Local records (observed "tenths" of sky coverage) indicate a decrease over the last century.
    Interesting, can you post some studies?


    We can't turn back the terraforming clock so we can only guess how aerosols and cloud formation ought to work naturally.
    We've got pretty good models that go into great detail. Of course nothing at this scale really gets into the climate model scale other than some crude parametrizations.

    It's kinda like waking up to find oneself holding the controls of a passenger plane, which one's apparently been flying for some time already. We're definitely losing altitude now. Why? What should we do? Pull back on the yoke?
    LOL. I like it! So far we keep ignoring the altimeter and refuse to drop the flaps.
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Unfortunately historic cloud cover data is practically anecdotal. Local records (observed "tenths" of sky coverage) indicate a decrease over the last century.
    Interesting, can you post some studies?
    All I've found, Googling, is local to China and the USSR, since the 30s. The global coverage AFAIK wasn't monitored until very recently. It's done with satellites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Why consider only industrial source aerosols?
    My understanding it the majority of man-made aerosols come from industry AND that's where most of the restrictions were applied.
    We've had much better monitoring of industrial aerosols. So, those appear most significant, because they fill our picture. On the other hand, there is a dustbowl in China now covering 18% of the country's surface. That's a lot of particles churning up every time it blows a duststorm. An incalculable lot? This dustbowl is "man-made" because it consumes formerly agricultural land - the farmers and herders just keep moving around it. Meanwhile, we've pacified similarly huge areas of marginal land through irrigation and clever planting, so again the aerosol (lack thereof) is caused by humans. I reckon on balance we've reduced "natural" aerosols on a much larger scale than we've replaced them with icky industrial aerosols. Also, forest fire (or lack thereof) is in human hands now. If we're trying to gauge our impact we should consider these things.

    I think the main cause of global warming is a lack of cloud cover. I think we might be a little overly focused on industrial aerosols as radiative forcing agents. The albedo difference between cloud or no-cloud, though fickle, totally owns over that. Why are we ignoring this? Maybe because clouds are "weather"?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I think the main cause of global warming is a lack of cloud cover.
    Cloud cover hasn't varied much over the past decades, or rather it hasn't trended downwards has it? In any case there's no simple correlation between cloud cover and warming (or cooling). What do you base your belief on?
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    milum:

    I see that you are an unusual sort of fellow. :?

    All the other off-topic points aside, what is your reason for thinking global warming is a myth please?
    Baptist preachers.

    Most Baptist preachers are among the finest people on Earth but a few television preachers use the Christian message of Universal Love to con money from the poor and elderly to enrich themselves -may they burn in Hell.

    And Scientists, politicians, and lawyers.

    In large, politicians and lawyers are a money grubbing group. And now a small but vocal majority of scientists want to grub some big bucks too.

    Every month I go out to the Union Chapel Mine to dig up tracks of early reptiles. In the hanging wall away from the gob piles I see the alternating flat layers of sandstone and shale that represents an eustatic cycle of about a hundred thousand years. Those were tough times; the atmospheric CO2 was twice what it is today and it was hot. This was the Early Pennsylvanian Period of about three hundred million years ago, back when plants first began to flourish on land and the first reptiles began to run beneath the trees. Life was good.

    But, other that the paleozoic, my life-long interest has been in the study of the last 100,000 years, mainly because it was this period that gave birth to sapient man.

    Boo! The sky is falling.

    would you mind answering the question please, rather than going even more off-topic ? -- MR
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    I think the main cause of global warming is a lack of cloud cover.
    Cloud cover hasn't varied much over the past decades, or rather it hasn't trended downwards has it? In any case there's no simple correlation between cloud cover and warming (or cooling). What do you base your belief on?
    All records I've seen have a downward trend. But I guess we'll never know what global coverage was like before weather satellites. It's not something one can extrapolate with any confidence. It's a beast to measure even with satellites. Only one study from that data contradicts a downward trend.

    There is a very strong correlation between clouds and albedo, and a very strong correlation between albedo and cooling. Do I have to argue my "belief" that clouds reflect sunlight?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  56. #55  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    remember that the earth has a day and a night side
    so yes, cloud cover means increased albedo against incoming sun light, but on the other hand less radiation of heat into space on the other side

    i don't know which of the two effects prevails
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Well sure and moreover cloudy skies mean that much less heat radiating into space during daytime also. In any case you can't budget energy that you never received.

    We all agree that daytime cloud reflects more than clear sky right?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  58. #57 Re: Global Warming 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by tenderheart bear
    Quote Originally Posted by VelocityRaptor
    Everybody says that global warming is going to kill us and that the earth is going to get very hot but it's way colder here now than it was a few months ago.
    Cigarettes, motorcycles, and ex-wives will kill you before global warming does.


    _________________
    A cool idea from Busby SEO Test
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    We all agree that daytime cloud reflects more than clear sky right?
    We should all agree that it's not that simple.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ok-for-albedo/

    The ISCCP estimate (right) shows a decreasing albedo trend of 1-2% in the 80s and 90s (as opposed to 7-8% in the earthshine-based proxy), a small increase of 1% form [sic] 1999 to 2001 and a flattening of the curve in the last three years. Quantitatively similar trends are derived from radiative flux retrievals by the ERBS and Terra and Aqua satellites.
    and

    The reconstruction of radiative fluxes from atmospheric properties is a very difficult and tedious job and both the ISCCP and ERBE/CERES groups are putting a great deal of effort into producing detailed and carefully evaluated radiative flux datasets. Both datasets show little or no albedo trend in the last four years [document dated Feb 2006]. Thus explanations for how the albedo trends of the last four years are consistent with the surface warming and the ocean heat content increases are not necessarily required at this point in time.
    Mid level and high level cloud amounts seem relatively unchanged:

    http://www.realclimate.org/cloud_isccp.jpg
     

  60. #59 It can't be... 
    New Member Zoology_Scientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Puerto Rico, Barrio Nuevo, Bayamón
    Posts
    2
    If global warming if happening when it gets too hot..., volcanoes will erupt, so it gets cooler...
    Bernardo E. Roselló Robles
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    We all agree that daytime cloud reflects more than clear sky right?
    We should all agree that it's not that simple.
    Woah. Hang on. I'm asking you to acknowledge the energy input Earth gets in the first place, and you're pointing deep into the House of Mirrors. I'm not denying the House of Mirrors, but please let's establish solar radiation before we go there!
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    milum:

    I see that you are an unusual sort of fellow. :?

    All the other off-topic points aside, what is your reason for thinking global warming is a myth please?
    Baptist preachers.

    Most Baptist preachers are among the finest people on Earth but a few television preachers use the Christian message of Universal Love to con money from the poor and elderly to enrich themselves -may they burn in Hell.

    And Scientists, politicians, and lawyers.

    In large, politicians and lawyers are a money grubbing group. And now a small but vocal majority of scientists want to grub some big bucks too.

    Every month I go out to the Union Chapel Mine to dig up tracks of early reptiles. In the hanging wall away from the gob piles I see the alternating flat layers of sandstone and shale that represents an eustatic cycle of about a hundred thousand years. Those were tough times; the atmospheric CO2 was twice what it is today and it was hot. This was the Early Pennsylvanian Period of about three hundred million years ago, back when plants first began to flourish on land and the first reptiles began to run beneath the trees. Life was good.

    But, other that the paleozoic, my life-long interest has been in the study of the last 100,000 years, mainly because it was this period that gave birth to sapient man.

    Boo! The sky is falling.

    would you mind answering the question please, rather than going even more off-topic ? -- MR
    :x
    __________________________________________________ ______________

    Just who are you, mister MR? And how did you interject your incomprehension into my answer to Kalster's question?

    Sigh.
    Ok, MR, I'll try to explain the associations inherent within my answer to goodbuddy Kalster.

    Slowly now...TV preachers prey upon the fears and emotions of their own particular set of "true believers" so as to line their pockets....this same fraudulent aggrandizement has long been a trait of lawyers and politicians but now our most sacred public guardian of "truth" outside of the clergy - our scientists - have sold their crooked souls for funding and grants. ( Get the comparison?)

    Next, at the Steve Menkin Fossil Site I see direct evidence that high atmospheric CO2 and a hot climate brought forth life to a barren landscape. (and life is good)

    And lastly, the slight fluctations of tempretures change during the last one hundred years as are claimed by even the most unscrupolous and bible thumping of Global Warming scientists are but blips on a hundred thousand years of an ever-changing Earth.

    Kalster asked, I answered, you interrupted.
    Now do you understad why I think Global Warming is a joke?
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There is a very strong correlation between clouds and albedo, and a very strong correlation between albedo and cooling.
    Venus has a very high albedo. How cool is Venus?

    All I'm saying is that if you assume more clouds = colder you are grossly oversimplifying and possibly wrong.
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    All I'm saying is that if you assume more clouds = colder you are grossly oversimplifying and possibly wrong.
    Yeah, well if you assume more clouds = colder you are grossly oversimplifying and possibly wrong. Nya! :P

    Sorry, I'm not the poster you invite me to be. Can we move on please?

    I'm gonna assume that dayside cloud reflects more solar energy back into space than clear sky, and assume that we can't play with energy we never received in the first place. Then with our known energy gain AKA budget we can look at darkside radiation and whatnot stirring 'round in the atmosphere AKA House of Mirrors.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  65. #64  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Just who are you, mister MR? And how did you interject your incomprehension into my answer to Kalster's question?
    i just happen to be the mod for this forum, that's who i am
    and the reason why i injected my question in your reply to kalster is that i thought that your so-called answer was not an answer at all but totally off-topic

    i may also add on a personal note that i find your tone of voice unnecessarily aggressive
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Just who are you, mister MR? And how did you interject your incomprehension into my answer to Kalster's question?
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i just happen to be the mod for this forum, that's who i am
    and the reason why i injected my question in your reply to kalster is that i thought that your so-called answer was not an answer at all but totally off-topic
    Didja now, marnix? Well, what say you apologise for missing the point? These fellows get it...


    1. "I am a skeptic. ... Global warming has become a new religion." – Nobel Prize winner for physics Ivar Giaever.

    2. "Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Centre in Ohio.

    3. "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." – U.S. government atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    4. "After reading (U.N. IPCC Chairman) Pachauri's asinine comment (comparing skeptics to) Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs.

    5. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead." – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, serving as staff physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    6. "The (global warming) scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." – Award-winning paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    7. "Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the U.N.-IPCC. ... The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium ... which is why 'global warming' is now called 'climate change.'" – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. [/quote]

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i may also add on a personal note that i find your tone of voice unnecessarily aggressive
    And I, marnixR, find that your ability to read " tone of voice" in my posts needs fine-tuning. But of course, I am me and you are the censor.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Didja now, marnix? Well, what say you apologise for missing the point? These fellows get it...

    1. "I am a skeptic. ... Global warming has become a new religion." – Nobel Prize winner for physics Ivar Giaever.

    2. "Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Centre in Ohio.

    3. "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." – U.S. government atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    4. "After reading (U.N. IPCC Chairman) Pachauri's asinine comment (comparing skeptics to) Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs.

    5. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead." – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, serving as staff physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    6. "The (global warming) scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." – Award-winning paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    7. "Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the U.N.-IPCC. ... The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium ... which is why 'global warming' is now called 'climate change.'" – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

    Of the 7 listed scientist I only see three who are actual climatologists. Of the others one is a Geophysicist, one a paleontologist, one a Solid state physicist, and one a Solar Physicist.

    One quote (#4) doesn't actually even specifically mention global warming!

    Would you go to a Veterinarian if you are experiencing Chest pain? This is the same situation going to ANYONE with a doctorate will not get an accurate assessment of opinion. It is the same tactic that is used by creationists who want to try provide dissenting opinions on evolution, lots of Doctors, layers, Climatologists etc..., very few if any actually evolutionary biologists. Thus large lists of names with little if any actually knowledge of the science.
     

  68. #67  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    And I, marnixR, find that your ability to read " tone of voice" in my posts needs fine-tuning. But of course, I am me and you are the censor.
    **shrug**
    have it your way - i'm not a censor by nature, but could still become one if pushed too far
    in the meantime i'd like to suggest you use a less confrontational way of wording your opinions
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman LoKo1Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    40
    With all do respect, ive decided to skip all the controversy and get back to the point. What is Algore trying to prove in his movies, Does he really think he can make a diffrence?
    The_Wolf
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    Even though I accept the basic reality of anthropogenic global warming, I have little respect for the approach Al Gore takes, and deep suspicion of his motives. His movie is highly inaccurate, and he is a politician. That makes me concerned about what he is after.
     

  71. #70  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    remember also that Al Gore, in his 8 years as vice-president, did not lift a finger to raise awareness of global warming or start initiatives to reduce its impact
    why did he all of a sudden become a cruisader for global warming once out of office ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  72. #71  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    remember also that Al Gore, in his 8 years as vice-president, did not lift a finger to raise awareness of global warming or start initiatives to reduce its impact
    why did he all of a sudden become a cruisader for global warming once out of office ?
    Yes, I was also entirely unimpressed. The 11th Hour was also a bit hype-y, but slightly better though, no? :|
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Remember Al Gore, in his 8 years as vice-president, he did not lift a finger to raise public awareness of global warming or start initiatives to reduce its impact
    Why did he suddenly become a cruisader for global warming once out of office ?
    Yeah, I remember, marnixR. I also remember that Al Gore warned that all the Northern sea Ice would be gone by the summer of 2009.

    Then, just a minute ago, I read this report from the data released by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions....

    "...Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

    Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. "


    .
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman LoKo1Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    40
    I think Algore wants his place in history, he ran for presidency and lost. So now he wants to make an impact on Global warming and then say that he was that spark that created the flame. Fame is a powerful thing and many people would do the impossible to get a taste of it. But thats all in my opinion.
    The_Wolf
     

  75. #74  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    "...Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
    tbh i don't see much of a difference between the arctic ice cover of this year and a year ago :



    whilst the ice cover in 1979 was noticeably more widespread than it is now

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,242
    Antarctic is part of global.

    That "fastest rate of change on record" is interesting. Less temperate. Could the whole hemisphere go that way? Heh. That would really screw with people's minds.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    remember also that Al Gore, in his 8 years as vice-president, did not lift a finger to raise awareness of global warming or start initiatives to reduce its impact
    why did he all of a sudden become a cruisader for global warming once out of office ?
    Yes, I was also entirely unimpressed. The 11th Hour was also a bit hype-y, but slightly better though, no? :|
    I was as well...but not by too much. The VP traditionally isn't a good place to be the bully pulpit and he'd just published in best selling book "earth in the balance" which goes into climate as well as other environmental subjects and proposed solutions.

    And although he contributes nothing to the science of climate, he's certainly having a huge effect on perceptions of the general public around the world.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    ...Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

    Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards. ".
    This misleading. It's the ice extent that increased, meaning the area covered, not the mass of ice. The new ice is thin, and the reason it grew so rapidly is (from the same article):

    the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    I think its more of a data issue that makes me unceartian our climate models make some awfully big asssumptions about how the actual climate is affected we are talking about a super complex process that ahs hundreds of varibles and yet we can say for certian that yup this is happening. I mean we dont even ahve complete data regrading the temperature for more then 200 or so years. We can infer it through historical records but we dont know how hot it was in paris in the 1300's. So no we look at the last 50 years and say hey its getting hotter and ingonre the other million. Hell we cant ever predict the stockmarket and we have almost a perfect data set for that. So until scientist can give me a complete data set i wont drink that kool aid.
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    ronin
    There are indirect methods that permit measures of temperature going back thousands of years.
    Examples include ;

    Oxygen isotope ratios in bubbles trapped in glaciers
    Tree ring data
    Coral ring data
    Sediments
    Microfossils in sediments
    etc.

    We have a pretty good idea of temperatures going back quite a way. Where one method is inadequate, we can compare using other methods. Sure, they will not give global average temperatures to the degree of accuracy that modern thermometers do, but they are sufficient to show trends in temperature changes in the past.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    Ok Did not know that, thanks for the info but still while we might be able to say we are in a global warming period or global cooling can we honestly its a bit harder tos ay taht we are the cause of it. It makes it even harder to beleive when politicians make it a big issue, then there is the allocation of grant money to science programs. Goverments are not going to give gran money to things that they are against. Science is getting a little to political for my taste now off days.
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Righton, Ronin, methinks the manhaters manipulate too much.

    Now here's a fair question...

    ON WHAT MEASURE DO YOU DIEHARD ADHERENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING BASE YOUR MEASUREMENTS?

    This is not a hard question. This is a fair question. Don't preach the populist mantra. Simply give a specific study that led to your conversion to the Global Warming church.

    Ronon: These answers should be fun. :-D
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    milum
    I am a die hard sceptic, and it takes good data to make me believe anything. However, I accept anthropogenic global warming. The reason I accept it is because the factual data bears it out.

    1. For the past 30 years, the world has experienced a warming that is at an unprecedented rate. Global average of 0.18 C per decade, and the Arctic and Antarctic Peninsular warm at a rate 3 to 4 times as rapidly. This 30 year event correlates with greenhouse gas increase.

    2. Greenhouse gases have risen rapidly. The rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is exponential. In the 19th Century, it rose at about 0.05 ppm per year. Once half way through the 20th, it was up to 1 ppm per year, and today at 2 ppm per year. There are no volcanoes or other 'natural' actions to explain this increase, but human activity is an entirely sufficient explanation, with deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, loss of soil carbon through agricultural tillage, and industrial emissions.

    3. Sea level rise is also at an unprecedented rate. Most of the 20th Century saw a rise of 1.8 mm per year, but recently it has gone to 3.1 mm per year.

    4. Greenhouse gas theory explains these events very well indeed. However, nothing else over the past 30 years can even approach an explanation. Solar activity has been relatively even. Aerosols have not changed. Other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, there is no alternative credible explanation.

    It is basic data that convinces me that global warming is real, and has a human cause.
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    skeptic:
    Thank you for your studied compilation of your thoughts concerning Global Warming. I believe that you care about truth and reality and the American Way so there's a pretty good chance that you will soon become a newly born convert to the truth of Climasanity.

    But, being you, you have listed a mishmash of Global Warming mantras for me to rebute, so I'll take your list in small bites. We'll start with number 1. (remember, skeptic, the sooner you denounce manmade global warming the sooner I stop pointing out the err of your ways.

    skeptic (who is a nice guy) wrote...

    1. For the past 30 years, the world has experienced a warming that is at an unprecedented rate. Global average of 0.18 C per decade, and the Arctic and Antarctic Peninsular warm at a rate 3 to 4 times as rapidly. This 30 year event correlates with greenhouse gas increase.
    "unprecedented", you say? Ooo! That sounds scary. Maybe you mean unprecedented in the last 30 years, the period when global temperatures have been monitored by satellites and other sophisticated instruments. But hey, we'll discuss the perameters of "unprecidented" later If necessary, but first let me rhetoricalize...

    IN THE LAST THIRTY YEARS WHICH CAME FIRST THE INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE OR THE INCREASE OF CO2 IN OUR ATMOSPHERE?
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    To milum

    First : your question.
    Increase in CO2 has been recorded for the past 250 yars by direct or indirect measures. Thus, the CO2 increase preceded the past 30 year warming event by rather a large degree. However, the increase in CO2 was relatively trivial till about the mid 20th Century. It has been increasing in an exponential manner all through the 20th Century and was substantial by the mid 20th.

    The world has been warming since about the year 1800 AD. However, the causes have been a bit 'muddy' till about 1976. Since CO2 has been increasing over that time, and for a bit before that time, it is probably that the increase in CO2 was one of the causes. However, till the mid 20th Century, the CO2 increase was probably too small to be other than a minor cause.

    1910 to 1940 was a significant warming event, with a global average increase of about 0.4 Celsius during that time. This was, at the time, the greatest warming event in 1000 years. This 'coincides' with the largest increase in sunspot activity for the past 1000 years, and I am happy to accept that as the main cause of that particular warming.

    However, the warming of 1976 to the present, of about 0.5 Celsius global average (greater than the earlier warming), occured at a time of sunspot stability, with no change other than the normal 11 year cycle. Thus, sunspots are not a cause of this one. Solar flux as measured by satellites also changed by only trivial amounts. The only significant chang that we know affects climate was greenhouse gases.
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    [quote="skeptic"]To milum

    First : your question.
    Increase in CO2 has been recorded for the past 250 years by direct or indirect measures. Thus, the CO2 increase preceded the past 30 year warming event by rather a large degree. However, the increase in CO2 was relatively trivial till about the mid 20th Century. It has been increasing in an exponential manner all through the 20th Century and became substantial by the mid 20th (that is : 1 ppm per year or more).

    The world has been warming since about the year 1800 AD. However, the causes have been a bit 'muddy' till about 1976. Since CO2 has been increasing over that time, and for a bit before that time, it is probable that the increase in CO2 was one of the causes. However, till the mid 20th Century, the CO2 increase was probably too small to be other than a minor cause.

    1910 to 1940 was a significant warming event, with a global average increase of about 0.4 Celsius during that time. This was, at the time, the greatest warming event in 1000 years. This 'coincides' with the largest increase in sunspot activity for the past 1000 years, and I am happy to accept that as the main cause of that particular warming.

    However, the warming of 1976 to the present, of about 0.5 Celsius global average (greater than the earlier warming), occured at a time of sunspot stability, with no change other than the normal 11 year cycle. Thus, sunspots are not a cause of this one. Solar flux as measured by satellites also changed by only trivial amounts. The only significant change that we know affects climate was greenhouse gases.

    Here is a recent article that may be pertinent.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/relea...0109115047.htm
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    First : your question.
    Increase in CO2 has been recorded for the past 250 years by direct or indirect measures. Thus, the CO2 increase preceded the past 30 year warming event by rather a large degree. However, the increase in CO2 was relatively trivial till about the mid 20th Century. It has been increasing in an exponential manner all through the 20th Century and became substantial by the mid 20th (that is : 1 ppm per year or more).
    Uh, skeptic. You didn't answer the "rhetorical" question, to wit: Is Carbon Dioxide the cause and Global Warming the effect?
    NO! We (even Al Gore knows) know that Global Warming causes a significant increase in Carbon Dioxide but not vice-versa. All measurements throught time point to this truism. Our oceans are the moderating mechanism of the Earth's temperature. An increase in temperature releases CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. The process is as simple as that neglected bourbon and coke sitting by your computer...as the ice melts your drink expands slightly and the CO2 that is trapped in your glass excapes from your glass and then rises into the atmosphere and increases the basis of earthlings living existence. Ain't life grand? Ain't CO2 grand? :-D

    Take a swig and save the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The world has been warming since about the year 1800 AD. However, the causes have been a bit 'muddy' till about 1976. Since CO2 has been increasing over that time, and for a bit before that time, it is probable that the increase in CO2 was one of the causes. However, till the mid 20th Century, the CO2 increase was probably too small to be other than a minor cause.

    1910 to 1940 was a significant warming event, with a global average increase of about 0.4 Celsius during that time. This was, at the time, the greatest warming event in 1000 years. This 'coincides' with the largest increase in sunspot activity for the past 1000 years, and I am happy to accept that as the main cause of that particular warming.

    However, the warming of 1976 to the present, of about 0.5 Celsius global average (greater than the earlier warming), occured at a time of sunspot stability, with no change other than the normal 11 year cycle. Thus, sunspots are not a cause of this one. Solar flux as measured by satellites also changed by only trivial amounts. The only significant change that we know affects climate was greenhouse gases.
    Gee whiz, skeptic, you must keep current. 2008 ended as the coldest year worldwide since 1933, and 2009 is on track to be even colder. Brr.
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Gee whiz, skeptic, you must keep current. 2008 ended as the coldest year worldwide since 1933, and 2009 is on track to be even colder. Brr.
    Not sure we're you read this junk science.

    First off 2008 hasn't been compiled yet, by the end of this week or the following one the major climate agencies will release their full reports and provide access to the data sets.

    But as of the end of November, here's the National Climatic Data Center's preliminary result:


    The year 2008 is on track to be one of the ten warmest years on record for the globe, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For November alone, the month is fourth warmest all-time globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The early assessment is based on records dating back to 1880....


    NCDC's ranking of 2008 as ninth warmest compares to a similar ranking of ninth warmest based on an analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


    Your source is basically just making stuff up, or you are

     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    milum got the business of CO2 from the oceans from previous interglacial records. In this he was right. In previous interglacial periods, warming came first and CO2 increase about 800 years later.

    However, that is a totally different situation to the present. There is no 800 year delay for a start! In fact, the CO2 increase right now is preceding the warming significantly.

    His statement about 2008 being cold is based on a slightly earlier record, where the USA had a cool year. Not the world. Just the USA. However, some people with limited respect for accuracy used that as the basis for some global warming denial. A bit pathetic really.
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    15
    Ok if We are lnking Co2 to global warming then yes i can see that we might be contributing to global warming. But from what i understand or at least what i was taught was that the increase in temperatures would melt the ice caps which would lower the temperature of the sea and sink the transalantic current which would cause a rapid cool down in other parts of the world. Maybe I am off kelter here but i was lead to believe that earth has a way of self correcting imbalances. While i dont think this gives us a carte blanche pass to do anything we want the whole carbon footprint thing is a little silly, along with carbon credits and so on and so forth. But thank you for the data nice to know someone can approach this thing with a bit of science and not omg al gore/Dicaprio/Celeberity/Politician said this so that why its true
     

  91. #90  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Maybe I am off kelter here but i was lead to believe that earth has a way of self correcting imbalances.
    Yes, equilibrium points can shift, but when all are again in balance, the new equilibrium point could be something we are not comfortable with. Two possible extremes would be the one you referenced to regarding shifting sea currents ushering in a new glaciation period and the other is total melting of the ice caps with wide scale flooding and general disaster. Either scenario represents things coming back into balance, but at a point we don't want. If some natural phenomena cause it there is nothing we can do about it, but if our actions are directly contributing to undesirable climate change, should we not do something about it? I agree that we should not all jump on the bandwagon because Al Gore said so, but if the data leads towards a consistent interpretation that indicates anthropogenic global warming, then we should at the very least take heed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    An increase in temperature releases CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.
    Actually, the oceans still do not hold their limit for CO2, and as such, the only effect they will have will be when the earth becomes significantly warmer. Not only does warm water allow less CO2 to dissolve, the melting of polar ice caps will release fresh water which, being more buoyant, will float atop the seawater and slow the dissolution process. At this point the sea will become a factor contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, but at the moment it is absorbing a lot of the CO2 we release, which may mean that our measurements on how much CO2 we produce are too low.
     

  93. #92  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,699
    warming of frozen regions like siberia releases methane, which quickly oxidises into CO2
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazz
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    An increase in temperature releases CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.
    Actually, the oceans still do not hold their limit for CO2, and as such, the only effect they will have will be when the earth becomes significantly warmer. Not only does warm water allow less CO2 to dissolve, the melting of polar ice caps will release fresh water which, being more buoyant, will float atop the seawater and slow the dissolution process. At this point the sea will become a factor contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, but at the moment it is absorbing a lot of the CO2 we release, which may mean that our measurements on how much CO2 we produce are too low.
    Gee, Hazz, do you not see that you have talked in a circle?

    The Earth is warming because of CO2.
    The cool seas dissolve CO2.
    This warming will cause the Ice caps to melt and unsaturated cooler water will dilute the seas.
    This cooling wiill cause the oceans to release CO2
    The cool seas caused Global Warming because they dissolved CO2.

    Damn seas. Them and the damn clouds produce 95% of the Global Warming greenhouse gasses. Damn man. He injects about .09% of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Damn clouds. Damn Oceans.
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by milum

    Gee, Hazz, do you not see that you have talked in a circle?

    The Earth is warming because of CO2.
    The cool seas dissolve CO2.
    This warming will cause the Ice caps to melt and unsaturated cooler water will dilute the seas.
    This cooling wiill cause the oceans to release CO2
    The cool seas caused Global Warming because they dissolved CO2.

    Damn seas. Them and the damn clouds produce 95% of the Global Warming greenhouse gasses. Damn man. He injects about .09% of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Damn clouds. Damn Oceans.
    Actually you've got things upside down.
    Solubility of Co2 in the Ocean decreases with increased temperature, in other words the warmer the surface the lower the amount of Co2 absorbed and mixed into deeper cooler waters. The oceans have absorbed roughly half the fossil fuel Co2 man has released, we know this from both measurements of Co2 in the atmosphere and direct measurement of increased acidity of the ocean surface waters. As the oceans warm it decreased their ability to reduce the atmospheric Co2.

    We also know from isotope ratio of atmospheric Carbon that most of the increase over the past 100 years has been due to burning of fossil fuels.
     

  96. #95  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,247
    Gee whiz, skeptic, you must keep current. 2008 ended as the coldest year worldwide since 1933, and 2009 is on track to be even colder. Brr.
    The official results for the year 2008 came out today...

    The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...ann/ann08.html
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Damn man. He injects about .09% of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
    Citation?
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendell
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Damn man. He injects about .09% of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
    Citation?
    Agreed, before we go any further, what is your source material for you assertions please!
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendell
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Damn man. He injects about .09% of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
    Citation?
    Agreed, before we go any further, what is your source material for you assertions please!
    Well now, aren't both of you prissy. This forum is simply a chat among folks interested in reality. So do why the both of you say "quote, please" and silly queer things like "Citation, please" ) .

    I cite...

    380 ppm CO2 and 20,000 ppm of other stuff??

    Today we’ve discussed CO2 and Global Warming previously; today we learned some new and useful facts. There are 20,000 ppm of water vapor in the air, versus 380 ppm of carbon dioxide. Still, the Global Warming charlatans try to sell their get-rich-quick and get-poor-quick schemes by focusing on the CO2 in the air. Alexander Cockburn takes a swipe at exposing the silly fraud of Global Warming in The Nation, of all places:

    imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slow arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. It starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e., 1.1 billion metric tons), and peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, plummets into the Great Depression and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 percent drop. Then, in 1933, the line climbs slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.

    And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That’s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it’s at 380. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 percent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn’t even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere’s CO2. It is thus impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from people burning fossil fuels…

    We’re warmer now because today’s world is in the thaw following the recent ice age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive…The not-very-reliable data on the world’s average temperature (which omit data from most of the world’s oceans and remote regions, while overrepresenting urban areas) show about a 0.5 degree Celsius increase between 1880 and 1980, and still rising. But is CO2, at 380 ppm in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 percent of solar radiation that the atmosphere absorbs, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in a humid tropical atmosphere can be as high as 20,000 ppm?…

    Water covers 71 percent of Earth’s surface. Compared with the atmosphere, there’s 100 times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the post-glacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. “The greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards,” Hertzberg concludes. “It is the warming of the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse.” In vivid confirmation of that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last 750,000 years, CO2 changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.

    Goo Bye.
     

  100. #99  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,204
    Nice copy and paste there, however, there is still no mention of empirical data. People have been providing data collected, with references of where and by whom. Data that has been verified. You supply a quote from goodness knows where, written by goodness knows whom, using data that might as well have been made up on the spot. Don't you see the difference? You have been claiming "group science" and money making schemes since you got here, but don't you see that you might have been the victim of propaganda yourself?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,776
    milum
    Burning fossil fuels is only one of the sources of CO2. Deforestation and modern agricultural techniques are even more important, and they did not stop during the Great Depression. For example : the vast acreages put to the plow lose organic matter by oxidation, generating enormous tonnages of CO2.

    Co2 increase back then was pretty minimal, also. Average about 0.2 ppm per year increase. Today it is 2 ppm per year. A ten fold increase in the rate of increase.

    As a result, global warming in today's world is caused pretty much exclusively by CO2 increase. Water vapour is a very temporary influence. It has a habit of falling out of the sky! The driver of warming is CO2, and that comes from human activity.
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •