Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cycadcenter

Global Warming Test

Recommended Posts

amazondk

I cited the Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institution in an earlier post.  This article is from one of their researchers.  Woods Hole is known for scientific pursuit of issues related to the ocean and other areas and has a lot of data on climate change.  The end of this article comes to this conculsion: " Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."

The entire article is here - Woods Hole on Climate Change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elHoagie

Here's a couple plots showing the mean global temperature for the past 150 years or so, relative to the average temperature over that time. There is a clear trend...

One thing that's not so clear is how this temperature change is distributed over the globe. Near the equator, there are several negative feedback mechanisms with regard to temperature change. The result is that global warming has little or no effect on the temperature in the tropics (the effect on rainfall is another story...). But, near the poles, there are several positive feedback mechanisms with regard to temperature change. The result is that a slight warming (or cooling) trend will make things even warmer (or cooler) at the poles, and a small change can quickly become a large change in those regions. So, most tropical areas have warmed less than the average of 1C and most polar areas have warmed more than the average of 1C.

post-74-1197952139_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Don, I read a very thought provoking article earlier this year on the subject of carbon storage.

The evidence to support the relationship between carbon and earths temperature was pretty conclusive.

The article suggested that millions of years ago before the carbon was deposited,the earth was a hot steamy place teeming with life and able to support far more life than can exist today.

The article suggested that the slow accumulation of carbon and resulting slow fall in temperature over those millions of years was amounting to a slow death of the planet as the amount of life sustainable was falling as the carbon was locked away, icecaps spread and deserts formed. If you look at fossil evidence then this is clearly so.

That means that global warming is not bad for the planet in every respect.

The problem of course is that these temperature changes occurred over millenia and many plants and animals could adapt. What you graph shows is that the recent rate and scale of climate change is unprecedented and its accelerating at a rate that is going to cause ecological disaster because the planet cannot adapt well to such rapid change.

Until we fully understand the problem, and both sides admit they dont fully understand it, the only prudent course of action is CAUTION.

We simply cannot afford to gamble with our planet.

Idiots like that coal industry employee pumping out stupid propaganda quizes are the ones who want shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

I agree that we should not just continue spewing out emissions into the atmosphere and even if CO2 is not the catalyst of global warming it undoubtedly has other side effects.  Nature really does not care what is good or bad for humans.  And, unless we blow the planet up Earth will be around for I believe another 2.5 billion years before it gets consumed by the expanding sun.  I personally am getting really tired of the constant climate change barage and specifically that it is directed only at the impacts of warming as if that will continue for ever.  I am not quite sure what you mean as unprecedented change in temperatures.  The previous spike in warming was just as steep 125,000 years ago. In fact if I read the graph correctly it was warmer than currently.  In fact I believe that there were birch trees growing up to the Artic Circle if I remember what I read correctly.   When you read material produced by serious research what I see is the we still do not have much information to make a valid judgement.  That our world wide monitoring capability is still small to arrive at reliable conclusions on a global scale, and so on.  I would say that even the best computer models are limited to the data that they are fed. Of course as time goes on the data should get better and the results as well.  If I were to bet I would be on ice being the major problem humanity will have to deal with in the future.  And, that could be a real difficult one to cope with.  If we will or already have messed up the Earth's systems so much that the Glacial period is over I guess that will make a lot of Russians happy.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Here is an interesting graphic, which makes the claim that CO2 is not having an effect very hard to swallow.

I dont understand how any credible scientist can ignore evidence like this.

Don, do you have more up to date graphs because much of the recent rise in temps was since those stats were compiled in 1987.

2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric in Orlando

One thing to add is that every planet in the solar system is experiencing global warming, most likely from increased solar activity. The ice caps on Mars are even shrinking at an increasing rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gsn

Okay strictly from a laymans point of view.

First let me say that it only makes sense to conserve our natural resources,(fossil fuels)but other resources as well,  otherwise we will run out of them eventually. There is a need to develop alternate sources of energy on the planet, with the added bonus that we will reduce pollution.

Water is something every one takes for granted ,because it is everywhere,and it is cheap.

But in certain areas water is not everywhere. Take Florida and California as just one example, both places have water problems. Face it people waste water on a daily basis! washing the car, taking showers, washing dishes, letting it run down the drain so to speak!  Most just don't have the conservation GENE I guess!

Having said that I don't WANT or NEED Chicken Little crying

"the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

when he doesn't really have clue if  what we are doing is causing it fall or not!

One only has to look at the evening weather forecast to know  that we KNOW very little about weather,and climate.They can't even really tell you with any degree of accuracy whether it is going to rain tomorrow! Little lone what  the climate will be 20 ,50 100 years from now! With all our knowledge, and computer models we still don't know all the factors that make weather,WEATHER! There are so many factors in what makes up the weather and climate that we are basically  still clueless about it.

One more example,look at the hurricane predictions for the last two years... They were not even close!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't throw a RED HERRING at me, from either side. Or use a "science" man doesn't really understand  to try and get me to do something I/WE should already be doing ,CONSERVING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

I think that our two graphs are basically the same ones from the same ice cores.  I am no climate scientist, but I think when you compare the CO2 levels to the temperature it is not clear what causes what.  What some claim is that the temperature rises are previous to the CO 2 rise.  I would say that looking at the two graphs this well could be the case.  It looks to me like the CO2 is a bit behind the temperature.  In geologic time 500 years is nothing, but in human time it is.  The water in cold oceans capture CO2 and as the ocean warms releases it. What your graphs do show is a cyclical pattern of rise and fall of temperatures.  The theory I have read is that this has to do to a large degree with variations in the Earth's orbit and the way the planet spins on it's axis.  Maybe more educated minds than mine could give a better explanataion.  As Eric says Mars is also warming.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Yes it could be the mouse chasing the cat rather than vice versa, but we really dont know anything other than that there is a relationship.

Anyway,it all becomes academic when Yellowstone Park goes up and that is any day now ( in geological terms ie give or take a few thousand years)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pivi

(keiththibodeaux @ Dec. 14 2007,03:45)

QUOTE
I believe that mankind's activities are playing a very small part in the overall climate change, but many of these things being called for, are in some cases, things we should have been doing all along for common sense conservation, so they don't bother me much.

that's not true.

Kjoto protocol people...kjoto protocol...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

Have you ever been to Yellowstone?  Since my home state has a part of it I have been there a few times.  It is really a humbling experience to sit on the bank of Lake Yellowstone and try to comprehend the  depth of the lake, the magnitude of the exposion and the destruction that must have resulted.  It was one real big bang.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

(Nigel @ Dec. 17 2007,18:25)

QUOTE
Surprise surpise........ the author of that test is employed by the coal industry.

About the test

Yeah its funny how any reasearch money that would fund another view to the carbon/greenhouse gas one must come from the coal industry(or oil).  Thats the problem, and you've found it, staring you right in the eyes:  Any scientist whos proposes an alternate study wont be funded by the political apparatus of the government, so only the special interests will fund it.  And then it will have no credibility even if something useful is learned, great plan for the politicos.  You wont find ANY studies of the opposing postion being funded by NSF, NONE.  Einsteins theory of relativity was overwhelmingly rejected by the common view of his contemporary scientists, as was his discovery of brownian motion.  And yet somehow years later these works are recognized as some of the most significant science of a generation.  Todays politically charged scientific review process is much more biased and influenced by politics than the process in the time of einstein.  30 second soundbites and parroting by synchophants  is used to invalidate alternate ideas, there is no room for alternate ideas or scientist who epouse them.  Science is about competing ideas and when the funding apparatus will not allow that, you have what you have, oil companies funding the opposing view, ughhh!  By the way you should also be very uncomfortable with the US government giving the alternate energy money to the oil companies as well, very disturbing.

Its kind of like how herbal remedies(example chinese medicine) "dont have any FDA studies to back them up".  Thats because the drug companies cant patent them, and have no interest in funding expensive FDA studies(often hundreds of millions of dollars).  And the NIH is western medicine dominated and wont entertain any other views.  So what you get is drugs for this, and drugs for that, drugs that are barely better than a placebo, but "FDA approved" drugs.  But all too often the side effects are not understood until the drug is in circulation.  That is outcomes based science, junk science as other views or knowledge is not of interest to the supporters of junk science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

(Nigel @ Dec. 18 2007,06:07)

QUOTE
Here is an interesting graphic, which makes the claim that CO2 is not having an effect very hard to swallow.

I dont understand how any credible scientist can ignore evidence like this.

Don, do you have more up to date graphs because much of the recent rise in temps was since those stats were compiled in 1987.

2.jpg

measuring carbon in archeological samples(or temperature from fossil) is a highly inexact science.  I would suggest an investigation of a statistical anaylsis of the method with the error bars and a defense of them.  So many soft science projects have virtually no qualifying measurement statistics.  I can tell you the graphs are nice, but hardly convincing in absence of an analysis of the method and assumptions used to obtain the data.  the global temperature data from even 400 years ago(mini ice age) have errors of 0.6-0.8 degrees at least and these are admitted by the scientists who make the estimates.  The problems is that someone else grabs the graph and washes the measurement errors and assumptions out of the discusssion and here you are left with "convincing arguments".  The job of scientists is to examine thw assumptions and errors, obviously that job was not done here.  

And yet the same people ignore lab results with highly quantized and accurate physics detailing the minimal energy contribution(not the overall effect) of CO2 from the discussion, that is not science at all.  But you can rtell how people are predisposing the science to give the desired outcome, its sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

(elHoagie @ Dec. 17 2007,23:28)

QUOTE
Here's a couple plots showing the mean global temperature for the past 150 years or so, relative to the average temperature over that time. There is a clear trend...

One thing that's not so clear is how this temperature change is distributed over the globe. Near the equator, there are several negative feedback mechanisms with regard to temperature change. The result is that global warming has little or no effect on the temperature in the tropics (the effect on rainfall is another story...). But, near the poles, there are several positive feedback mechanisms with regard to temperature change. The result is that a slight warming (or cooling) trend will make things even warmer (or cooler) at the poles, and a small change can quickly become a large change in those regions. So, most tropical areas have warmed less than the average of 1C and most polar areas have warmed more than the average of 1C.

Interesting to note that the apparent warmup between 1920 and 1950 is equal to that between 1975-2007.  Could it be with at least 20x more autos and oil being burned that latter period the warmup is the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

(amazondk @ Dec. 18 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
Nigel,

Have you ever been to Yellowstone?  Since my home state has a part of it I have been there a few times.  It is really a humbling experience to sit on the bank of Lake Yellowstone and try to comprehend the  depth of the lake, the magnitude of the exposion and the destruction that must have resulted.  It was one real big bang.

dk

Don, I have never been there, only seen documentaries, it seems a fabulous place.

Is it true that in places the lake has gone dry where the magma beds have risen so much ?

Sonora ,I am not a scientist only a reader of scientific articles. I dont want to dismiss the articles of either side unless it is grossly propagandist in nature as the coal salesmans quiz was.

The difference between you and me is that you think you are right and the other scientists are wrong so want to gamble with the planet , whereas I prefer to listen to both sides, keep an open mind, and take precautions until we fully understand whats going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

hmmm,i thought the palapa was dead & buried...

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

This mechanism which is being looked at lot by Woods Hole researchers and others has shut down in the past stopping the Gulf Stream and causing what appears to have been abrupt climate change.  The theory is that the lessing of salt content in the North Atlantic due to the melting of sea ice is the culprit.  Something which global warming produces.  This is what is mentioned in my post above.    This map came from NOAA - Thermohaline circulation    .  At least I can be assured that even in the ice ages there was tropical forest where I live and it did not freeze.  

OceanConveyor.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

(Nigel @ Dec. 18 2007,15:03)

QUOTE

(amazondk @ Dec. 18 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
Nigel,

Have you ever been to Yellowstone?  Since my home state has a part of it I have been there a few times.  It is really a humbling experience to sit on the bank of Lake Yellowstone and try to comprehend the  depth of the lake, the magnitude of the exposion and the destruction that must have resulted.  It was one real big bang.

dk

Don, I have never been there, only seen documentaries, it seems a fabulous place.

Is it true that in places the lake has gone dry where the magma beds have risen so much ?

Sonora ,I am not a scientist only a reader of scientific articles. I dont want to dismiss the articles of either side unless it is grossly propagandist in nature as the coal salesmans quiz was.

The difference between you and me is that you think you are right and the other scientists are wrong so want to gamble with the planet , whereas I prefer to listen to both sides, keep an open mind, and take precautions until we fully understand whats going on.

My concern Nigel is just that who is "right" has not been decided by sound science, but by politics.  There is not even the question of whether we know enough to determine who is "right".  There is no other side with a voice on the CO2 issue, except for those corrupt oil interests you speak of.  I have seen academia up close and it is a mess.  Universities exist to acquire grants, not to produce the researchers of tomorrow.  You have failth in the system, I cannot, I have been there.  There are good people for sure, but a corrupt process that sacrifices good science for manipulation through funding dollar.  Money is distributed via a political process, so organized and so controlled that its function is near censure.  Any scientist who speaks out against the prevailing funding wind will be destroyed(unless he/she works for an oil interest).  There is no such thing as a good scientist that does not have the capability and the duty to be critical of ideas and published research.  The review of published articles is at an all time low in its effectiveness.  Research journal try to compete with the internet, but cant.  And the internet articles have almost no review at all.  And yet those who are critical of certain ideas are threatened with shunning, or career destruction.  It is a problem larger than global warming as it impacts the human condition on many levels.  Diseases will go without remedies/cures and the worlds dependence on oil will continue because of it.  And yes the understanding of global warming will not advance, it will be retarded by the politically stubborn monions of interest groups like the oil companies and the "global warming interests" fighting it out soundbite for soundbite.  Unlike you, I have a front row seat to it all and its very disappointing to see how successful special interests are at manipulation of the public opinion.  Its all about control and power, not science.  Einstein would be greatly saddened by it all were he alive today.

I can speak from personal experience and thousands of CO2 measurements using infrared spectroscopy for the purposes of keeping air safe in the workplace for humans.  I am quite certain that my experiments are more accurate and more defensible than any global warming discussion, they are quantitative and reproducible, very unlike the "weather forecast quality" of many of the global warming studies.  The idea that the accuracy of the CO2 concentration 500 years ago(450 years before man could even measure it) is not questioned, and a measurement taken today is with sophisticated optoelectronics, just flabberghasts me.  It must be some kind of religion that gives rise to such faith.  My "religion" and my faith is in the scientific process, not a political argument.  The simple pieces(CO2 energy potential) of a very complex model like global warming must make sense or the model is in itself in doubt.  

The thermohaline effects that Don referenced can/have have great impact and are very well understood in their physical significance.  The thermohaline effects give rise to cycles in the global thermals, warming and cooling, but noone is talking to the public about them, no one.  Its a pity that the CO2 argument is so widely accepted and yet so obviously flawed, but thats the cost of the soundbite society, increasingly "TVcentric", and scientifically illiterate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coloradoboi

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 18 2007,09:57)

QUOTE
One thing to add is that every planet in the solar system is experiencing global warming, most likely from increased solar activity. The ice caps on Mars are even shrinking at an increasing rate.

It is true that every single planet is warming.  Our planet, however, is warming many many times faster than any other planet in the solar system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Scott,

Where did you get that information from?

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

(amazondk @ Dec. 18 2007,16:26)

QUOTE
This mechanism which is being looked at lot by Woods Hole researchers and others has shut down in the past stopping the Gulf Stream and causing what appears to have been abrupt climate change.  The theory is that the lessing of salt content in the North Atlantic due to the melting of sea ice is the culprit.  Something which global warming produces.  This is what is mentioned in my post above.    This map came from NOAA - Thermohaline circulation    .  At least I can be assured that even in the ice ages there was tropical forest where I live and it did not freeze.  

OceanConveyor.jpg

Don, I dont want to think about that scary scenario !!

The UK is on the same latitude as Newfoundland and if it ever happens we will freeze. However, I didnt think that would affect the warming in other parts of the globe ,only stop the warm conveyor belt that keeps northern europe warm and cosy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

(sonoranfans @ Dec. 18 2007,16:49)

QUOTE
My concern Nigel is just that who is "right" has not been decided by sound science, but by politics.  There is not even the question of whether we know enough to determine who is "right".  There is no other side with a voice on the CO2 issue, except for those corrupt oil interests you speak of.  I have seen academia up close and it is a mess.  Universities exist to acquire grants, not to produce the researchers of tomorrow.  You have failth in the system, I cannot, I have been there.  There are good people for sure, but a corrupt process that sacrifices good science for manipulation through funding dollar.  Money is distributed via a political process, so organized and so controlled that its function is near censure.  Any scientist who speaks out against the prevailing funding wind will be destroyed(unless he/she works for an oil interest).  There is no such thing as a good scientist that does not have the capability and the duty to be critical of ideas and published research.  The review of published articles is at an all time low in its effectiveness.  Research journal try to compete with the internet, but cant.  And the internet articles have almost no review at all.  And yet those who are critical of certain ideas are threatened with shunning, or career destruction.  It is a problem larger than global warming as it impacts the human condition on many levels.  Diseases will go without remedies/cures and the worlds dependence on oil will continue because of it.  And yes the understanding of global warming will not advance, it will be retarded by the politically stubborn monions of interest groups like the oil companies and the "global warming interests" fighting it out soundbite for soundbite.  Unlike you, I have a front row seat to it all and its very disappointing to see how successful special interests are at manipulation of the public opinion.  Its all about control and power, not science.  Einstein would be greatly saddened by it all were he alive today.

Sonora, I dont know much about the politics of the scienctific community, but yes , I resent the way our government uses it as an excuse to raise tax without giving anything in return, but I dont think going into politics is allowed on this board any more ,so I shall leave it there !!!

That doesnt mean that the science is wrong, just that the people in charge are using it to their advantage, just like the oil companies are pumping out contradictory science to use for their advantage.

Somebody needs to remove the influence of politics and profit and allow them to work together to solve this problem and fully understand whats causing it,because this planet belongs to all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

You should definately read this article - Woods Hole Abrupt Climate Change Impacts. The worlds climate is definately interlinked and a THC shutdown would have global effects.  Could you image if the average yearly temperatures in Europe drop by 5 C for an extended time period, say 100 years.  This has happened repeatedly in the past.  With a colder Northern Europe and Northeastern North America percipitation patterns around the globe would be altered.  This would be in general less rainfall.  The overall impacts would be enormous for food production.  What the article says I think is true - there is not nearly as much known about the oceans role in driving climate and that this is overlooked to a large degree in climate modeling.  Since water is the major greenhouse gas and most of the water is the the oceans and change in between water in the oceans and the atmoshpere would have an impact overall.

The article makes this point " It is prudent to superimpose on this forecast the potential for abrupt climate change induced by thermohaline shutdown. Such a change could cool down selective areas of the globe by 3° to 5° Celsius, while simultaneously causing drought in many parts of the world. These climate changes would occur quickly, even as other regions continue to warm slowly. It is critical to consider the economic and political ramifications of this geographically selective climate change. Specifically, the region most affected by a shutdown—the countries bordering the North Atlantic—is also one of the world’s most developed."

I have been observing the oceans impact here in Amazonia and it is interesting.  In 2005 there was a record drought in the region, the biggest in 100 years in some areas.  This was probably driven by El Niño.  This year has been very wet and the rainy season has set in strongly since November.  This is a La Niña year.  At the same time many areas north, like Florida have had a dry year.  Here is a picture of what the impacts will look like.

occi_abrclimate_wef_en5_19075.gif

I think that maybe this can be looked at as a way nature balances Earth's systems.  Since nature does not really care what the impacts on humans are when they get in the way the consequences can be great.  An abrupt change to cold, even if focused mostly on one part of the globe would have massive impacts.  Especially in the part of the world you live in.  Since this has happened in the past there is no reason to think it will not happen again.

Take a look at the Younger Dryas event.  That was only 12,500 year ago.  Temperatures plummeted 5 C  and this  lasted 1,300 years.   Odds are it will happen again.  It is I guess like earthquakes.  It seems to be a matter of when and to what magnitude, not if.

From the map it also does not look good for palm growing in Florida.  Colder winters in the Northeast surely would be felt strongly there.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Don, Yes, I am read that article ,or at least something very similar.

It is terrifying, if it came to pass there would be mass starvation and Northern Europe would go into meltdown. Mass migration would follow. Other countries would put up shutters and try to stop the migration.

Its likely an apocalyptic war could follow as 100,s of millions starve and go without heating in a frozen wasteland.

This is one of the reasons why I desperately want to buy property in brazil but my wife wont listen to me.

Even if that scenario does not happen, Northern europe is dieing, energy prices are escalating, gas is running out , let alone all the other bad things going on, in my opinion the future is not bright here.

The future lies in self sufficient warm countries like Brazil, with young dynamic economies and plenty of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

I hope that this scenario does not happen soon either.  Our main market for timber is Holland and Norther Europe.  Brazil is a very blessed country in the respect of land, climate and resources.  As the Brazilian joke goest on the creation of the world, the only problem is the people that God put here.  But, in spite of things life keeps moving on and the country keeps growing.  My view is that the country is so rich that it ends up going forward in spite of itself.  That being said I love living here, I love the Brazilian people, and it is my home today.  I want the best for the country and it's people and I try to do my part to make it a better place.  And, I love Amazonia in particular, it is a wonderful place to live, at least for me.  Now that Brazil has also found one of the largest light crude oil reserves in the world in the coming years the country will become a net oil exporter.  This coupled with the bio fuel production, and tremendous areas of arable land currently under used hold for a strong and growing position in the world economy.  And, not to mention the enormous mineral reserves the country contains.  Once the education, health, and basic sanitation infrastructure gets to where a good life with opportunities develops Brazil surely will be a world leader.  And, besides there is Carnaval as well.  If Brazil becomes the equivalent of a tropical, continental sized country with a mediteranean culture, what more could I ask for.  And, even in the last ice age Manaus was a humid tropical forest.  A bit cooler and drier, but you could still grow the same plants.

I do hope that whatever happens it is manageble and does not create too much caos. Whether warmer or colder I think I will still be able to sit on my deck and look out over the Negro River with this view.  

dk

151220071154.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Eric,

While looking at the December weather thread it does not look like much of a warming trend right now anyway.  The story hear was that the rain would stop and forest would die a few years ago.  Who knows that might happen some day, but right now it is raining everyday and the rivers are rising.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coloradoboi

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 19 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
An interesting article I just came across;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps....0575140

It is ridiculous to use just 1 year as an example.  Overall temperatures in the past 100 years have gone up, and you know it.  

Sure, we may have a winter that is a bit cooler than average, but in the long term, I believe temps will continue to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cycadcenter

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 19 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
An interesting article I just came across;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps....0575140

Excellent article and exactly what a lot of people are thinking.  I just read another article which stated that Perth in Western Australia is having the coldest December on record.

If temperatures have risen by .7 C in the last 100 years SO WHAT.   I can drive from San Diego to Palm Springs in summer and there will be a temperature rise of 20C in 100 miles and life doesn't cease to exist in fact people flock there for the warm weather.

Do you really think that you can notice such a small change over 100 years.

Thoughout civilization people have gravitated to warmer climates to live, grow food and now vacation.  You don't see many retirement communities in Alaska or Siberia.

As for the claim that the oceans are going to rise by 6m,  just where is the water going to come from.  the oceans now cover approximately 2/3 of the world's surface,  is there that much ice to melt????

The other thing I just cannot fathom is the trading of carbon credits.  Say i have 1000 Ha of forest sitting in Australia which I can sell the carbon credits for $100,000 so someone else can still pollute but have a "touchy feel good feeling" about it cause they purchased carbon offsets doesn't seem real responsible but you'd have to be nobel prize winner to figure that one out.

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

(Coloradoboi @ Dec. 19 2007,17:02)

QUOTE

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 19 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
An interesting article I just came across;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps....0575140

It is ridiculous to use just 1 year as an example.  Overall temperatures in the past 100 years have gone up, and you know it.  

Sure, we may have a winter that is a bit cooler than average, but in the long term, I believe temps will continue to rise.

Scott,

As cited above unless we have in some way short circuited the Ice Age climate regime we live in Cold will be the future.  The last Glacial Maximum was 18,000 years ago.  And, we have been in a warm interglacial period for about 12,500 years.  I was raised a bit north of you on the high plains of Montana where evidence of the last Ice Age is everywhere.  I find it hard to believe that in one form or another cold will not prevail.  I spent a lot of time while young collecting rocks polished by the crushing ice.  And, I also spent a lot of time collecting fossil sea shells on clay banks near the Canadian border.  And, the rocks at the highest points of the Eastern Front of the Rockies are full of sea shells.  The only constant in life is change.  And, climate is always changing.  And, mankind has been around for a few minutes or even seconds of the history of our planet.  On the same note it does not mean much that the past 10 or 20 years have been warmer than the previous ones.  If the THC shutdown scenario has any credibility along with solar radiation cycles all the theories may be tested sooner than most would like.  The Woods Hole information is very educational as they are an institute that focuses on the major force in our global climate, the oceans.  And, it is very interesting how they say over and over that we really do not understand the role of the oceans in our climate to any degree.  I am not saying that humans do not impact the climate.  It is a matter of to what degree.  And, personally I find it hard to see how we could in such a short time make such a global impact.  As I said above I bet on ice.

At least the skiing will get better.  That is if it is not too dry to form much snow.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

(Cycadcenter @ Dec. 19 2007,19:07)

QUOTE

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 19 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
An interesting article I just came across;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps....0575140

Excellent article and exactly what a lot of people are thinking.  I just read another article which stated that Perth in Western Australia is having the coldest December on record.

If temperatures have risen by .7 C in the last 100 years SO WHAT.   I can drive from San Diego to Palm Springs in summer and there will be a temperature rise of 20C in 100 miles and life doesn't cease to exist in fact people flock there for the warm weather.

Do you really think that you can notice such a small change over 100 years.

Thoughout civilization people have gravitated to warmer climates to live, grow food and now vacation.  You don't see many retirement communities in Alaska or Siberia.

As for the claim that the oceans are going to rise by 6m,  just where is the water going to come from.  the oceans now cover approximately 2/3 of the world's surface,  is there that much ice to melt????

The other thing I just cannot fathom is the trading of carbon credits.  Say i have 1000 Ha of forest sitting in Australia which I can sell the carbon credits for $100,000 so someone else can still pollute but have a "touchy feel good feeling" about it cause they purchased carbon offsets doesn't seem real responsible but you'd have to be nobel prize winner to figure that one out.

Bruce

Bruce if you look at the graph I posted early you will see that the sea level in the last Glacial Maximum, 18,000 years ago (a short time geologically) was over 100 meters lower than today.  And, that about 10,000 years ago it was 10 meters higher than today.  That is about the time that humans started their rapid colonization of the planet.  If you look at the graph from a historical perspective the odds are for the oceans levels to drop as cold onec again grips the Earth.  But, who knows if that will happen.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elHoagie

(sonoranfans @ Dec. 18 2007,13:49)

QUOTE
My concern Nigel is just that who is "right" has not been decided by sound science, but by politics.  There is not even the question of whether we know enough to determine who is "right".  There is no other side with a voice on the CO2 issue, except for those corrupt oil interests you speak of.  I have seen academia up close and it is a mess.  Universities exist to acquire grants, not to produce the researchers of tomorrow.  You have failth in the system, I cannot, I have been there.  There are good people for sure, but a corrupt process that sacrifices good science for manipulation through funding dollar.  Money is distributed via a political process, so organized and so controlled that its function is near censure.  Any scientist who speaks out against the prevailing funding wind will be destroyed(unless he/she works for an oil interest).  There is no such thing as a good scientist that does not have the capability and the duty to be critical of ideas and published research.  The review of published articles is at an all time low in its effectiveness.  Research journal try to compete with the internet, but cant.  And the internet articles have almost no review at all.  And yet those who are critical of certain ideas are threatened with shunning, or career destruction.  It is a problem larger than global warming as it impacts the human condition on many levels.  Diseases will go without remedies/cures and the worlds dependence on oil will continue because of it.  And yes the understanding of global warming will not advance, it will be retarded by the politically stubborn monions of interest groups like the oil companies and the "global warming interests" fighting it out soundbite for soundbite.  Unlike you, I have a front row seat to it all and its very disappointing to see how successful special interests are at manipulation of the public opinion.  Its all about control and power, not science.  Einstein would be greatly saddened by it all were he alive today.

Dude, what happened to you while you were at university?  It's true that universities skim 50% off the top of every grant, and you are judged by how much money you bring in to the university.  It's unfortunate, but it's not that bad...  My research is in astrophysics, which is obviously not as sensitive an issue as global warming, but I don't see any evidence for the corruption with regard to funding that you describe.  Our funding proposals are ranked by a group of fellow astrophysicists.  Then, the funding agency (NSF, NASA, etc.) funds the projects with the highest rankings first, then down the line until the budget is exhausted.  Clearly, there must be some politics/biases involved because it's a group of humans who rank the proposals.  But, who is better suited to determine the merit of a proposal than a group of experts from the same field?

Besides, given that for the past seven years our government has taken the stance that anthropogenic global warming is a myth, wouldn't politics favor research that disproves anothropogenic global warming rather than vice versa?

Also, I agree with your statement above that these plots without any kind of error estimates can be misleading.  It's unfortunate that the mainstream media tries to dumb everything down.  They want an exact number, not a confidence interval...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

(Cycadcenter @ Dec. 19 2007,19:07)

QUOTE

(Eric in Orlando @ Dec. 19 2007,12:12)

QUOTE
An interesting article I just came across;

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps....0575140

Excellent article and exactly what a lot of people are thinking.  

If temperatures have risen by .7 C in the last 100 years SO WHAT.  

As for the claim that the oceans are going to rise by 6m,  just where is the water going to come from.  the oceans now cover approximately 2/3 of the world's surface,  is there that much ice to melt????

Oh lordy lord........... you guys really dont understand whats happening.

Water expands as it heats up and most of the planet surface is water.

If the currect warming trend continues, the last 100 years warming will seem nothing compared to the next 100 years.

That Washington times article is written by a halfwit whose stupid comments make it obvious he has no basic understanding of Global warming whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

Here is information about this years global temperature.

There is quite a few articles on the net about Global warming, its well worth searching and reading up on a few, because some of the american media output is quite atrocious.

global temperature data.

All the scientists agree that global warming means extremes of warm AND cold so all the washington hack did was to actually confirm they are correct.

5 days of cold in california last winter does not even compare to the winter russia had, where for the first time ever there was no snow or ice at christmas. It was months of weather way warmer than normal ,not just 5 days of cold.

All of the southern hemisphere cold was caused by an unusually intense La Nina , caused yet again by Global warming a symptom exactly as the scientists predicted.

Far from global cooling, 2007 will again be in the top 10 years since 1850.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Nigel,

There is also the question of where the temperature readings are coming from.  Are they in urban areas with heat island affects or are they from areas where this is not an impact?  And, also how efficient is our temperature monitoring world wide?  I know there are satellites in place and being put in place which will improve this data.  But, then you come to question of just how accurate are paleoclimate temperature projections.  When the phrase is used warmest or coldest in RECORDED history it leaves an awful lot open to intrepretation as this data has been recorded for a real short time span.   With regard to ocean temperatures the data is much worse.  

At least this kind of debate encourages one to learn more.  At least it does in my case.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nigel

(amazondk @ Dec. 20 2007,06:32)

QUOTE
At least this kind of debate encourages one to learn more.  

Don, thats true but I think they must be reasonably confident in their readings and should be able to adjust.

I can cast my mind back 20 years and remember the annual blizzards and frozen lakes, so i know that something quite staggering has occurred over the last 20 years for that to be a thing of the past.

One most alarming thing I have learned is just how bad the american media is at relaying whats happening, the articles posted in this thread alone show a completely corrupted ,biased and unbalanced nature that is deeply disturbing.

One only has to compare the Washington Post hacks article with the Metoffice article (which is completely unbiased and factual) to see what I mean.

Its hardly surprising that so many americans believe Global warming is a lie based on that kind of article.

Deeply deeply disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Case

I have had the opportunity to watch the debate here and have a few observations and comments:

1) In my area of the world, the weather during the winter is the same that I remember in my teens (I am 57). Cold winters, hot summers. In my lifetime, I have seen dry winters, dry summers, wet winters, wet summers. In no case has our local weather forecaster been accurate in any sense of scientific precision.

2) I'll stipulate that the earth is warming. There is no proof that mankind is causing it (although the evil humans do have no power to influence nature, except in a negative manner).

3) If Kyoto is to work properly, the all of the impacts that each country has on greenhouse gasses should be 'taxed'. Therefore, countries that raise cows and sheep should be taxed on their methane from bovine and ovine flatulence.  Pacific Rim countries should be taxed on their volcanoes contribution to the atmosphere of their CO2, SO2, and other noxious gasses.

4) When discussing the topic, I notice that those who have a basis in science try to explain their opposition to the opposing side in scientific terms, those who do not use ad hominem attacks as their rebuttal arguments. After all, if I can discredit the source, rather than explain in scientific terms to make my point, I won't have to go to university, learn testing and retesting techniques, formuluting hypotheses, or other basic scientific skills.

5) In our forums, we have been tracking the cold temperatures for 2 winters now. Now we have a global warming debate. What's up with that?

6) If global warming is happening, what is the impact? I have recently read that more people die each year from being frozen than from heat related causes. Is there any science behind that? If it is so, it looks to me that this is a net benefit.

7) Rising sea levels are a consequence of global warming.  In the U.S. people are flooded out of their home throughout the Mississippi Valley far too often. I watched an interview of one of these people that had lost their home for the ninth time. His quote, "I just don't know what I'm going to do". I have a suggestion, ...MOVE! On a longer timeframe, if sea levels rise, people will move. They will have more time than my flood plain friend.

8) We all, in this forum I believe, are concerned about our environment. Thirty years ago, Carl Sagan warned us of the 'nuclear winter' that war would potentially bring. Of course, that statement brought on thousands of studies that supported the 'fact' that the world was cooling and we were headed to another ice age within a decade. The results of this were actually beneficial to a point. Lead was removed from gasoline, Scrubbers were installed on power plants to remove particulates and sulfur, and other less impactful changes. Now the shift in the political-scientific complex is to extract billions to study golbal warming. Hmmm. maybe we do have the power to change the environment. In less than half a century, we have staved off certain annihalation from the 1000 foot high ice sheets covered the earth. What power we must have!

The discussion is good, as it must be. Let's focus on the science, the impact of global warming (I could use a taste of it this month, I'm freezing!), and whether or not we can actually do anything.......let us all reason together.

Thanks for reading....

(A humble scientist wanna-be)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

For whatever it is worth may this is relevant.

The Sky Is Falling

a Bulrovian fairy tale

Once upon a time there was a tiny, tiny chicken named Chicken Little. One day Chicken Little was scratching in the garden when something fell on her head.

"Oh," cried Chicken Little, "the sky is falling. I must go tell the king."

So Chicken Little ran and ran, and she met Henny Penny.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.

"Ah, Henny Penny," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, and I must go and tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the king," said Henny Penny.

So they ran along together, and they met Ducky Daddles.

"Where do you travel so fast?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"Ah, Ducky Daddles," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, and Henny Penny and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the king," said Ducky Daddles.

So they ran along together, and they met Goosey Loosey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling. Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you," said Goosey Loosey.

So they ran along together, and they met Turkey Lurkey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

"Ah, Turkey Lurkey," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, and Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey and I go to tell the king."

"How do you know that the sky is falling?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the king," said Turkey Lurkey.

So they ran along together, and they met Foxy Loxy.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"Ah, Foxy Loxy," said Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, and we go to tell the king."

"Do you know the way to the king's house?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"No," said Chicken Little.

"No," said Henny Penny.

"No," said Ducky Daddles.

"No," said Goosey Loosey.

"No," said Turkey Lurkey.

"Then come with me and I will show you," said Foxy Loxy.

And just as he was about to lead them into his den to eat them...

...the sky fell on him.

"Oh dear," said Chicken Little.

"We're too late," said Henny Penny.

"Poor Foxy Loxy," said Ducky Daddles.

"No sense in going to the king," said Goosey Loosey.

"Nothing to do now but go home," said Turkey Lurkey.

And they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neofolis

My knowledge may be limited in terms of global warming, but one thing I do know is that water expands as it cools, not the other way round.  Basic plumbing knowledge, that's why people get burst pipes when it is cold.

I heard, long ago, that if you took a block of polar ice 100m x 100m x 100m and put it in the middle of the Sahara, it would take 10 years to melt.  I don't know if that is true or even if I have remembered the melting time coreectly and, even if it is, it is clearly irrelevant, but I was wondering even if global warming does continue, it is surely going to be a very slow process in human terms, even if greatly accelerated in geological terms.  Whilst animals and plants are not as adaptable as humans, surely humans have the ability to aid in natures adaptation.  For example, as climates change different crops would be grown in different areas.  Different animal species can be introduced to more suitable environments, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I know that whenever humans interfere like that, it invariably has unforeseeable and undesirable side effects and I still believe we need to be taking action to reduce our impact on the globe, but equally, I am fairly sure we could cope with climate change and at least avoid the extinction of a great many species in the process, unless either things accelerate greatly or the climatic changes cause other cataclysmic events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...