Latest on Global Warming - 2005 the warmest year in a century.

[GILD]

Some more scientific information (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060123/warmestyear_pla.html?source=rss) for the ideologues to ignore.

[steveyo]

Some more scientific information (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060123/warmestyear_pla.html?source=rss) for the ideologues to ignore.
Of 928 peer reviewed scientific articles published between 1998 and 2004 on the subject of global warming, over 600 link global warming to human causation. Guess how many dispute this: zero.

The disputes with global warming come from industry and right-wing think-tanks, and some republican senators who seek to require absolute proof that such a link exists before enacting legislation, which is, of course, impossible.

Dave (GILD), don't you wish you lived in the US so we could both be on the same lists of agitators?

[GILD]

I think we are (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46415), nationalities notwithstanding.

So, what are we going to do about that Barton fella (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/Barton-Investigation.html)?

[steveyo]

I guess we'll just move up to the Yukon at some point. I really want Gilby, Harper, or JC to weigh in for this discussion.

[trials_uni]

all i can say is it better start warming up up here in canada or im gonna blow a gasket...its so cold out side.

[mike_echter]

I have one thing to say... www.worldjumpday.org!!!!!!!!!! REGISTER NOW!!!

[carsonpalooza]

Global Warming is pretty serious, there has already been marches against it
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44676






seriously though, it is serious.

[GILD]

Interesting 'new' development...

Methane 'Fart' from the Earth Poses Enormous Global Warming Risk

By Steve Connor, The Independent UK. Posted September 24, 2008.

Melting in the Arctic has caused the release of millions of tons of methane -- a gas 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists. (http://www.alternet.org/environment/100067?comments=view&cID=1016257&pID=1016220#c1016257)

[videotoast]

Its not about warming.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/01/2351360.htm

Coldest August ever in Australia?

How about this: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928 South Africa, also?

[GILD]

I think in the intervening years since the original creation of this thread the term 'climate change' has taken it's rightfull place in describing the phenomenon.

[UniBrier]

Methane 'Fart' from the Earth Poses Enormous Global Warming RiskBest find a big match and light that fart; sounds like that would be the lesser of two evils.

[GILD]

Best find a big match and light that fart; sounds like that would be the lesser of two evils.
Won't that just put us back in the 'warming' disussion' again?

But yeah, as far as headlines go...

[videotoast]

Climate has been changing for as long as there has been a planet....I can't get too worked up about it, sorry.....

Sometimes it is colder sometimes it is warmer...sometimes glaciers melt and recede, sometimes there are ice ages....

Sometimes there are hurricanes and floods, sometimes there are droughts....

I have clothes for all the possibilities....and there is nothing that can stop mother nature from her course....by getting frought with "chicken little" syndrome and pounding one's chest will not do anything about it....

Maybe I will sell carbon offset credits and get rich like AlGore.....at least that would impact MY world.....

[kevinalexandersmith]

I was just teaching a math problem using some data from NASA. Apparently Triton (Neptune's largest moon) has been heating up also. What if it's not global warming but Solar System Warming!

I also seem to remember a problem that showed a significant warming on Mars in the last 20 years, but that was probably because of those two little remote control cars we drove around up there.

Well let's look on the bright side, maybe global warming will save us from the coming nuclear winter.

[Spudman]

Its not about warming.....
Coldest August ever in Australia?


The man made global warming is going to drastically affect the atmosphere, creating a climate shift that throws us into a new ice age... Don't you watch television?

[videotoast]

The man made global warming is going to drastically affect the atmosphere, creating a climate shift that throws us into a new ice age... Don't you watch television?

No, but I know everything on the internet is TRUE.

[forrestunifreak]

What if it's not global warming but Solar System Warming!
You mean, if there where a ball of fire 864938 miles in diameter burning at 15,000,000° C out there somewhere?

Preposterous!

[videotoast]

You mean, if there where a ball of fire 864938 miles in diameter burning at 15,000,000° C out there somewhere?

Preposterous!

I find it preposterous, myself, to think that the fiery ball in the sky's solar pulses have an affect on the temperatures of the little orbs that circle it....I wonder how mankind can be responsible for the solar activity....

Is it possible to sell some sort of heat dissipation aerosol that we can all use to cool the sun a bit, please....

....and don't even get me started about the water on our planet....it takes up more mass than does air....and it is not held responsible for the swings in temperature or climate? I am aghast!

[MuniAddict]

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-c&eurl=http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?gclid=CLGOuqfV95UCFQv7agodKSNN4Q

[videotoast]

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Qp5bxrp-c&eurl=http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?gclid=CLGOuqfV95UCFQv7agodKSNN4Q

Thanks for the link...interesting stuff!

BTW....I still clean up trash when I see it, and like clean water, and fresh air, too.....

[Gilby]

I really want Gilby, Harper, or JC to weigh in for this discussion.

We must do something about "climate change", as long as it is this:
1. End the entity that is the biggest polluter.
2. Restore property rights.

[MuniAddict]

We must do something about "climate change", as long as it is this:
1. End the entity that is the biggest polluter.
2. Restore property rights.
How do you "end" volcanic eruptions and cow farts?

[petad]

How do you "end" ... cow farts?

Popular Science to the Rescue! (http://www.popsci.com/cliff-kuang/article/2008-09/farming-sky)

[napalm]

personally i am pretty bloody scared about global warming. I think that human innaction is going to result in drastic shifts in the worlds climate and is going to fundementally change the way we live on the planet.

global warmings immediate results will not nessesarily result in an accross the board warming of temperatures. Instead, it will probably change the existing ocean currents and may in places cause drastic cooling (ie UK and eastern Europe that relies on warm water currents to stop it resembling siberia)

I'm my opinion, there is absolutely no harm in attempting to produce electricity etc from renewable resources- even if global warming is a bogus concept that has fooled the greatest scientific minds of our age. It would stop countries invading others to ensure their energy futures, or propping up despodic ones that breed hate and radicalisation.

For those of you hedging your bets that it is all a scam, think how you would try to justify your position to your grandchildren 20 years down the track when the icecaps have melted, sea levels have risen, and sporadic and dangerous climactic phenomena are an every day concern.

Mark

[videotoast]

I'm my opinion, there is absolutely no harm in attempting to produce electricity etc from renewable resources- even if global warming is a bogus concept that has fooled the greatest scientific minds of our age. It would stop countries invading others to ensure their energy futures, or propping up despodic ones that breed hate and radicalisation.

For those of you hedging your bets that it is all a scam, think how you would try to justify your position to your grandchildren 20 years down the track when the icecaps have melted, sea levels have risen, and sporadic and dangerous climactic phenomena are an every day concern.

Mark

....sorry, I didn't see that powerpoint....(even the parts of it that were supposed to be entertaining)

Scare tactics (polar ice caps are going to melt; the sky is falling; and we are all going to drown, really don't bother me....as it has always been the case for politicians, lobbyists or someone trying to sell you something, throughout history) (the next logical step, usually taken by those who have drunk the kool aid would be to personally attack those who don't subscribe to the notion, as heretical or monstrosities)

That being said, I would welcome any technology that would enable us to get more efficient renewable energy sources, and build several dozen nuke plants to minimize our exposure to oil imports from the middle east and other countries that do not support democracy.....

[GILD]

I apologise for dredging this thread up again.

I'd forgotten how desperately depressed and sad some of you can can actually make me.

[videotoast]

I apologise for dredging this thread up again.

I'd forgotten how desperately depressed and sad some of you can can actually make me.

I know what you mean....scaring someone into believing something for profit is a horrible thing to do, isn't it?

I am optimistic that as soon as we can control the solar flares, we can get this warming thing figured out....in the meantime, we are at the mercy of Gaia....

[ThisGuyIKnow]

That being said, I would welcome any technology that would enable us to get more efficient renewable energy sources, and build several dozen nuke plants to minimize our exposure to oil imports from the middle east and other countries that do not acknowledge our god given superiority

Fixed

[videotoast]

Fixed

Ugly American.....LOL!

[ThisGuyIKnow]

That being said, I would welcome any technology that would enable us to get more efficient renewable energy sources, and build several dozen nuke plants to minimize our exposure to oil imports from the middle east and other countries who do not submit to U.S. bullying

Fixed again

[johnfoss]

I am optimistic that as soon as we can control the solar flares, we can get this warming thing figured out....in the meantime, we are at the mercy of Gaia....So what you're saying is that we can burn all the fuels we want, stomp infinitely with our carbon footprint boots, and it has nothing to do with the climate change we're experiencing? Not even a little? What is your basis for disagreeing with all the scientists mentioned above? Hopefully something other than party loyalty...

[MuniAddict]

So what you're saying is that we can burn all the fuels we want, stomp infinitely with our carbon footprint boots, and it has nothing to do with the climate change we're experiencing? Not even a little? What is your basis for disagreeing with all the scientists mentioned above? Hopefully something other than party loyalty...
At least 31,000 scientists disagree that humans have, or are causing "global warning".

http://www.thehammondreport.com/2008/05/19/over-31-000-scientists-disagree-with-human-caused-global-warming/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

[videotoast]

Hopefully something other than party loyalty...

There is a party? Where?

I have looked at a lot of the facts...read innumerable documents....listened to many scientists....and came to a conclusion that is more widely accepted than those on the polar ends of this misadventure, called Global Warming (or change...or wahtever they want to call it now....)

[harper]

Global warming (now renamed climate change due to inconveniently inconsistent temperature fluctuations) is an interesting topic. Human influences on the specific content of the atmosphere may go back 200 or 300 years. The significant contributions can't be that long ago.

Climate behavior prior to the "influence" of humans had its ups and downs. Sometimes there were big ups and downs separated by 10's of thousands of years and more frequently smaller variations over hundreds of years. It was warm when the Scandanavians sailed to Greenland but there wasn't a lot of industry in China at the time. There was a cold period from around 1500-1800 where European crops did very poorly due to severe winters and too-cool summers but there weren't a lot of fossil fuels being used then either.

There are a few poster child gases on which folks like to blame climate change. These are water vapor, methane, and, surprisingly, the least significant of the insulating gases, carbon dioxide. Methane and carbon dioxide, like almost all gases, dissolve in water. They like cold water to dissolve well and the warmer it gets the less effectively they are dissolved. Interestingly, more water vapor can exist at higher temperatures also. So here you have three gases which are going to be present in greater abundance if the earth gets warmer. The question is, do the gases cause the earth to retain heat or does the warm earth cause the gases to grow in abundance in the atmosphere.

If humans were taken out of this model it's fairly obvious that if the earth were to warm naturally in some cyclic manner (as is evidenced from fossil records) then the abundance of carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor in the atmosphere would all increase. My contention, despite the self-important glow of possibly being a "major player" in global climate, is that the sun is an even bigger player with a longer history. It deflates my ego painfully.

[Dr. Science]

A dispassionate look at the data can address all of your concerns/questions Mr. Harper. The arguments that the current fluctuations are all natural can be easily dispelled. We understand the solar forcing on climate well enough to say that the current trend is outside of what could be caused be that. Past CO2 and temperature trends, show that CO2 lags temperature by 500 years or so, because of the kinds of effects your allude to: increased temperature drives the liberation of CO2 from the ocean (the biggest reservoir) and soils. So it is clear the current trend (and it is important to speak of the trend because there will be fluctuations) is not natural. What we should do about it is policy, not science, so Dr. Policy will have to comment on that.

[harper]

A dispassionate look at the data can address all of your concerns/questions Mr. Harper.

I have neither wrt the myth of global warming. I do have some concern about re-reading your post until I can extrapolate its meaning by filtering your spelling and grammatical errors. Please edit more thoroughly. If not Dr. Policy, at least Miss Ayelery should be notified.

[Dr. Science]

I have neither wrt the myth of global warming. I do have some concern about re-reading your post until I can extrapolate its meaning by filtering your spelling and grammatical errors. Please edit more thoroughly. If not Dr. Policy, at least Miss Ayelery should be notified.
Sorry- I was hurrying home, where I had a nice formaldehyde martini waiting for me.
1. The term "solar forcing" is used to denote the change in global heat balance due to increase (or decrease) in solar intensity. This is reasonably well understood and does not account for the current temperature trend.
2. Water is the most important greenhouse gas, and increasing temperature raises the absolute humidity of the atmosphere. How this will play out in terms of the the location and intensity of cloud formation is one of the largest uncertainties in the climate system.
3. Carbon dioxide is the next most important greenhouse gas because of its huge concentration, methane has a higher effect per molecule, but is more than 200 times less abundant in the atmosphere.
4. The biggest temperature effect on CO2 and CH4 is not due to changes in solubility, it's due to increased biotic activity (soil microbes etc.). This is why the disproportionate warming in the Arctic has such an impact on these gases, soil carbon fluxes increase dramatically at higher temperatures. The pH of the ocean is also a critical parameter is determining solubility of CO2.
5. The past climate record shows that CO2 lagged temperature increases by 500 to 1000 years(the methane record is not as clear). The current data show them going up together. So it is clear that the current era is not part of the natural cycle.

Now for another martini

[johnfoss]

I can't help but notice similarities between what we're doing to the planet/atmosphere and what we've done to our economy. The sky can't be falling if we refuse to look up and see what's going on up there... :)

[harper]

Now for another martini

Thanks for a peek into your belief system.

[Dr. Science]

Thanks for a peek into your belief system.
Wow - I was just trying to be funny. Formaldehyde martini - it's a joke - get it? just a joke.
This does bring up an interesting point. I have noticed that almost always, somewhere along the way, climate change skeptics resort to personal attacks.

[harper]

Wow - I was just trying to be funny. Formaldehyde martini - it's a joke - get it? just a joke.
This does bring up an interesting point. I have noticed that almost always, somewhere along the way, climate change skeptics resort to personal attacks.

Sorry, I didn't want to quote the entire post. Everything prior to the martini is the belief system. The martini is just the escape. Were you personally attacking me with the personal attack jab? It was a joke. I was just trying to be funny. Just take a breath, fade back into your safe anonymity, and pour yourself another relaxing glass of preservative.

[Dr. Science]

Sorry, I didn't want to quote the entire post. Everything prior to the martini is the belief system. The martini is just the escape. Were you personally attacking me with the personal attack jab? It was a joke. I was just trying to be funny.
Oh, I completely misunderstood your point. But I tried to phrase my comment in a neutral way, since it wasn't clear what your intention was.
My belief system here is based on Science and rational thought. Isn't that your's too?
Just take a breath, fade back into your safe anonymity, and pour yourself another relaxing glass of preservative.
OK

[harper]

My belief system here is based on Science and rational thought. Isn't that your's too?



No. My belief system is based primarily on how I feel about what I'm wearing at the time or what Oprah last told me. Sometimes, if I feel flighty and recklessly passionate, I read scare stories in tabloids or watch Al Gore and Michael Moore crockumentaries and freak out. Then I believe the world is being intentionally poisoned by evil businesses, politicians, and scientists and I want to ban nuclear power plants, vote for Ralph Nader, and blow up big, fat industries with big, fat carbon feet. Sometimes I look at the numbers (in the rare instances that there are any meaningful ones) and they don't really add up. In fact, sometimes they don't add, subtract, multiply, or divide up; they're just there to look big and formidable. False facts are frequently formed from figures fabricated from fear fired fiction. I know that doesn't make much sense but you have to admit it's a hell of a good alliteration.

[kevinalexandersmith]

25 years ago I was in school hearing about how in 20 years all of our man made structures would be crumbling from acid rain corrosion. Plants life would die off and then it would get really bad. I remember a particularly scary video of someone dressed in the special suits that the last survivors on earth would be wearing to protect themselves.

Acid rain was the big story of the time. The news seemed to love it. The refurbishing of the statue of liberty was claimed to be necessary due to acid rain. Acid rain was blamed on industry. There were screams for government regulation before it was too late. Some said it was already too late.

Now acid rain seem all but forgotten. The buildings I went to school in are all still standing. I haven’t seen anyone wearing special rubber suits to protect themselves. So what happened? Did the screams of the terrified bring about regulation that reversed the acid rain phenomenon and saved us all or was it that acid rain wasn’t as big a deal as we were lead to believe. I wonder if any of the young scientists that terrified us about acid rain are now older scientists preaching about global warming.

I admit I could be wrong, but it seems likely that 25 years from now there will be something else to be terrified about and global warming will be almost completely erased from peoples minds just like acid rain.

The reason no one looks up when some yells “the sky is falling” is because there is always someone yelling it. By now most older people just want that kid to stop screaming about the wolf so we can get some sleep. Younger people rarely understand this because they haven’t lived thru one horrific prediction of the future after another.

I could be wrong so call me when the seas start rising.our

[Jim_Rob]

YES! Finally something I know something about. 25 years ago I was doing research on acid rain. The problem was being caused by sulfur dioxide, from coal-fired power plants, converting to sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. It was decided (in 1989) to REGULATE the emissions of sulfur dioxide through a "cap and trade" system, the very system that is presented as a model for what to do about CO2 emissions. It has worked and the problem has steadily gotten better.
The unfortunate truth is that people don't listen to simple, reasoned arguments. This encourages the use of scare tactics (on both sides), which results in gross distortions.
If you want to see what our country would be like without pollution controls, visit China. The air causes constant lung irritation and the open waterways smell like a sewer - but man that economy is growing!

I could be wrong so call me when the seas start rising.our
It already is rising, just not fast enough to scare people.

[tim williamson]

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

[tim williamson]

http://www.surfacestations.org

[johnfoss]

At least 31,000 scientists disagree that humans have, or are causing "global warning".
http://www.thehammondreport.com/2008/05/19/over-31-000-scientists-disagree-with-human-caused-global-warming/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/The first link is accompanied by an ad saying "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Clearly no agenda on that site. The second link describes how you can order a paper copy of the petition so you can sign it. It doesn't mention being a scientist.

I find guys like Harper and Dr. Science a lot more credible in these things. I even picked up a new sig from Harper. :)

[videotoast]

I have found that the most neutral party (a statistician), with no agenda, either way, came to some remarkable conclusions. Perhaps a little of Bjorn Lomborg's book could get you to consider some real facts...not coming from either "side" of the arguement, just statistical analysis of real facts and figures to come to conclusions that should captivate anyone looking to find some clear data on the subject matter....

BTW...he is a Danish professor....using statistics and data from all the most respected sources of information....

(the title will drive many away, due to the name...but you know what they say about the cover of books, don't you?)

The Skeptical Environmentalist....by Bjorn Lomborg

[steveyo]

I have found that the most neutral party (a statistician), with no agenda, either way, came to some remarkable conclusions. Perhaps a little of Bjorn Lomborg's book could get you to consider some real facts...not coming from either "side" of the arguement, just statistical analysis of real facts and figures to come to conclusions that should captivate anyone looking to find some clear data on the subject matter....

BTW...he is a Danish professor....using statistics and data from all the most respected sources of information....The Skeptical Environmentalist....by Bjorn LomborgActually, no. I don't know about his "agenda", but his book was roundly panned by scientists.

There was 10-page critique of his work in Scientific American, written by 4 specialists in actual fields of science related to climate change. It was prefaced by a comment from John Rennie, SA editor, including that: "the errors described here, however, show that in its purpose of describing the real state of the world, the book is a failure".

Stephen Schneider, a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, criticized Lomborg for inaccurately portraying the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Peter Raven, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2002 said of Lomborg: "...he's not an environmental scientist and he doesn't understand the fields that he's talking about so in that case, if you have a point to make and you want to get to that point, which is: everything's fine, everybody's wrong, there is no environmental problem, you just keep making that point. It's like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn't take into account the facts".

[videotoast]

Actually, bzzzzt. His book was panned by scientists.

There was 10-page critique of his work in Scientific American, writtne by 4 specialist in actual fields of science related to climate change. It was prefaced by a comment from John Rennie, SA editor, including that: "the errors described here, however, show that in its purpose of describing the real state of the world, the book is a failure".

Stephen Schneider, a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences and Senior Fellow at the Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, criticized Lomborg for inaccurately portraying the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Peter Raven, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2002 said of Lomborg: "...he's not an environmental scientist and he doesn't understand the fields that he's talking about so in that case, if you have a point to make and you want to get to that point, which is: everything's fine, everybody's wrong, there is no environmental problem, you just keep making that point. It's like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn't take into account the facts".

Exactly....as I stated...he is a statistician, and used stats from various sources, including the IPCC....to come to independent conclusions using the facts that are/were available at the time of publication. He is a guy who loves the environment and warns all of us that becoming to wrapped up in the scare tactics will lead you down the wrong path....

Many of the proponents of global warming absolutely PANNED him, in as much as calling heretical....because he didn't walk the line with their findings....he had nothing to gain from his information....and book, as he is a statistician, not an environmental lobbyist, scientist or on the government payrolls.....

Maybe a close look at the co-founder of Greenpeace.....he had some interesting information, as well....(how are his opinions discredited?)

I guess to counter your arguement and dismissal of Bjorn Lomborg's work, those on the other side could, and should completely dismiss Al Gore's Powerpoint presentation, as well?

(AL Gore is a lawyer....and politician....he has plenty to gain from whatever side of the issue he takes up)