Thread: global warming resources proving global warmings existance

I know that many people deny global warming so I put together this collection of news articles highlighting consensus of global warming among scientists and much more to educate the public about global warming. What's cooler than cool? the end of global warming!: Resources global warming prevention starts with awareness.

I know I'm being a bit of a bore here, but.

News items are one thing. Your resource, maybe under the "Interesting Facts" heading, would be more valuable if you linked data, official references, a scientific paper or even a science/statistics blog to back up things that interest you.

Doesn't need to be overly technical if you're looking to introduce non-scientific people to the various topics. The most topical item at the moment would be Arctic sea ice. Whaddaya know! there's a blog with the latest article on volume of sea ice. PIOMAS September 2012 (minimum) - Arctic Sea Ice

And the best assemblage of graphs and data on sea ice you'll find anywhere https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

For official sources, NOAA, NSIDC, NASA-GISS, CRU, BOM, all have excellent websites.

Thank you very much for your info. I have been trying to work to increase the range of information to further help people understand global warming. My worry is that half the people here in Toronto will deny it's existance during the winter. when they learn the facts, they will realise that northern hemisphere winter is by no means a pause to global warming. I will try to look for additional resources for global warming.

Toronto. Oh dear. The Canadian official sites have never appealed to me. But some of the USA ones cover the continent pretty well - after all they have to do Alaska.

Originally Posted by adelady

Toronto. Oh dear. The Canadian official sites have never appealed to me. But some of the USA ones cover the continent pretty well - after all they have to do Alaska.

Since I do live in Toronto I tend to use american sources for everything since we are surrounded by the usa to the west, south and east. For things like weather, I am lucky that southern ontario surrounded by the USa. All weather systems pass through Us territory before they get to Toronto aka T-dot.

Here is a link that may help create a "natural" baseline:

Julie Brigham-Grette presents Lake El' gygytgyn Research - YouTube

Originally Posted by sculptor

Here is a link that may help create a "natural" baseline:

Julie Brigham-Grette presents Lake El' gygytgyn Research - YouTube

Ok thank you. It looks like a good source of info. I will add it to the resources page on my website. Coincidenly, just this morning, I found a great news article about the arctic. I just found out that the rate of ice melt in the arctic is higher than it has ever been before which leaves no doubt whatsoever that global warming is human caused.

Originally Posted by merrychristmas

... the rate of ice melt in the arctic is higher than it has ever been before .

statements like that are for newspapers, not scientists.
they are supposition and speculation.

perhaps
the rate of ice melt in the arctic is higher than it has ever been since accurate measurement instruments have been deployed

would be more apropos?

A lot of what appears in science news is announced because scientists have discovered those facts, so it should be taken seriously that this rate of melting in the arctic is happening this fast. Most changes in the past probably would not have been so abrupt anyway except for events that caused a sudden drop in temperatures like with volcanos. I read that these kinds of changes in ice and surface temerature as well as other patterns normally happen over thousands of years and since we are seing it happen in just a couple decades, there is no room for doubt that the rate of ice loss in the arctic is unnatural which would obviously be explained by humans suddenly starting to throw immense quantities of greenhouse gases into the environment in the last few decades and this unprecedented melting is happening in conjunction with the increase in human activities. When I present my global warming awareness walk to the media, I will mention this arctic ice issue as the strongest evidence that humans are to blame for global warming. Don't you think that that would be the strongest point in my argument of humans being responsible for global warming?

I once read a bock on sales that said "Make your weakest point your selling point. Once you've sold that, any arguements fall back on your strengths.

recent studies indicate abrupt warming periods, decades rather than the old "thousands of years" commonly held speculations.
So I would call
"the rate of ice melt in the arctic is higher than it has ever been before"
supposition and hyperbole, not science
a good rhetorical and sales tool never the less

"has ever been" is a very long time
well beyond the science

Originally Posted by sculptor

I once read a bock on sales that said "Make your weakest point your selling point. Once you've sold that, any arguements fall back on your strengths.

recent studies indicate abrupt warming periods, decades rather than the old "thousands of years" commonly held speculations.
So I would call
"the rate of ice melt in the arctic is higher than it has ever been before"
supposition and hyperbole, not science
a good rhetorical and sales tool never the less

"has ever been" is a very long time
well beyond the science

Even if the current rate of ice melt has been matched before, clearly the conditions that we are seeing are a major concern. Scientists have the ability to tell how fast the earth changed in the past by looking at things like the remains of living things and organic material as well as non organic material and also can tell things like history of sea level. Telling the history of Earth's temperatures must have been a piece of cake compared with using what info was available to prove the big bang theory. One of the biggest concerns of this loss of arctic ice is that it will encourage companies to take advantage and access the deposits of fossil fuels in the arctic.

"has ever been" is a very long time
well beyond the science

Well, ever in human terms. We need to focus on the planet and the biosphere conditions that have supported our growth and development.

There are two key periods for that. The first is 3 million years. It's only been that long since the American continents met up at Panama and changed ocean circulation so that equatorial waters no longer act as an unbroken band of warm water around the centre of the globe and have, since then, diverted warm waters northward through the Gulf Stream. The second is the 10000 years of the Holocene. The only reason we have been able to create our agriculture based civilisations is that we have predictable, reliable seasons suited to the cultivation of annual grasses.

Any references to climate conditions before 3 million years ago can only give us very, very general guidance about our own circumstances. Just the physics really. Such and such a CO2 concentration maintained for x years is likely to result in y temperature. That temperature likely means sea levels z metres higher or lower than now.

The substantial ice sitting at the poles is the air conditioning unit driving our predictable seasonal conditions. Hadley cells, Rossby waves, jet streams, trade winds are just a few of the major air circulation processes that bring rainy, windy, dry conditions to various places at predictable times. Reducing the ice reduces the temperature differentials between the equator and the North Pole in particular. Which slows down Rossby waves - whoops! Suddenly we get rain that stays for days or weeks and washes our crops away instead of watering them. Or we get dry periods that stay in place for weeks at a time and dessicate our soils and fry our crops instead of warming the soil and maturing the crop.

You may not like ice or snow. I certainly don't. I live in a city that has never recorded a temperature below 0C. But I'm grateful for it. With ice at the poles and the mountaintop glaciers, I know that the weather systems that have allowed human civilisation to grow and flourish will keep on doing so.

If you don't like ice, or even the idea of it, think about it the way we don't think about sewage systems in cities. We don't want ever to go there, let alone work there, but we're very grateful for its contribution to a healthier place to live. And we want it to always be there. Out of sight, well maintained, doing its job, making our lives safer and better.

Originally Posted by adelady

... The substantial ice sitting at the poles is the air conditioning unit driving our predictable seasonal conditions. ... And we want it to always be there. ... .

Want all you want, but ice ages ain't the norm/average for this planet, and sooner or later reality will rear it's ugly head, end this ice age, and the earth will return to a more temperate clime.

Polution, on the other hand still sucks.
Can you fight that without the climate crutch?

Originally Posted by adelady

"has ever been" is a very long time
well beyond the science

Well, ever in human terms. We need to focus on the planet and the biosphere conditions that have supported our growth and development.

There are two key periods for that. The first is 3 million years. It's only been that long since the American continents met up at Panama and changed ocean circulation so that equatorial waters no longer act as an unbroken band of warm water around the centre of the globe and have, since then, diverted warm waters northward through the Gulf Stream. The second is the 10000 years of the Holocene. The only reason we have been able to create our agriculture based civilisations is that we have predictable, reliable seasons suited to the cultivation of annual grasses.

Any references to climate conditions before 3 million years ago can only give us very, very general guidance about our own circumstances. Just the physics really. Such and such a CO2 concentration maintained for x years is likely to result in y temperature. That temperature likely means sea levels z metres higher or lower than now.

The substantial ice sitting at the poles is the air conditioning unit driving our predictable seasonal conditions. Hadley cells, Rossby waves, jet streams, trade winds are just a few of the major air circulation processes that bring rainy, windy, dry conditions to various places at predictable times. Reducing the ice reduces the temperature differentials between the equator and the North Pole in particular. Which slows down Rossby waves - whoops! Suddenly we get rain that stays for days or weeks and washes our crops away instead of watering them. Or we get dry periods that stay in place for weeks at a time and dessicate our soils and fry our crops instead of warming the soil and maturing the crop.

You may not like ice or snow. I certainly don't. I live in a city that has never recorded a temperature below 0C. But I'm grateful for it. With ice at the poles and the mountaintop glaciers, I know that the weather systems that have allowed human civilisation to grow and flourish will keep on doing so.

If you don't like ice, or even the idea of it, think about it the way we don't think about sewage systems in cities. We don't want ever to go there, let alone work there, but we're very grateful for its contribution to a healthier place to live. And we want it to always be there. Out of sight, well maintained, doing its job, making our lives safer and better.

That is why during my Toronto walk I want to get the word out about global warmings effects on the arctic and the fact that a cold weather forecast does not mean that global warming is over. What happens in the arctic will later be felt elsewhere. If we let the arctic melt completely we will lose our natural air conditioner in the summer and who knows what could happen as a result. I have a feeling it would result in most inland areas of north america getting unrelenting heat without the frequent cool downs we used to always get. Already with this years heat, parts of the north-west territoes had a summer as hot as or even hotter than what it should have been like around Toronto with july averaging about 27 or 28 degrees celcius in parts of the northwest territories.