Global warming: Fact or Fiction

[Sononara]

Perhaps a bit serious for the likes of this board, but whatever you reckon.

Personally, I dont think that a man-induced, apocolayptic climate change will bring about our doom. There is no rock hard evidence. Many people say that the green house effect is obvious, in such symptons such as, say, sea-levels rising, temperatures rising, you know, all the scare mongering stuff.

Apparantly, in the last 1000 years, temperatures have risen dramatically. Dr Mann, im unsure of his first name, devised a graph, known as the hockey stick. this graph showed a flat period for nine hundred years since 1005 and then in the last one hundred, extremely gassy years, the temperatures have shot through the roof. It says, that unless we band together and save the world, 40 degree nights, 50-60 degree days, wild storms, scorching droughts, no polar caps, all that jazz, will bring us our doom. But how can we know? I dont think they had terribly reliable thermometres back in the medieval ages.

Melbourne had a boiling 27 degrees last night on November 4. But back in 1901(remembering, our massive temperature climb has not yet begun) the temperature gage hit 33 degrees or something out rageous. Does this mean we are in danger of a massive global cooling?


My two cents.

[Ravager]

[QUOTE=Sononara]But how can we know? I dont think they had terribly reliable thermometres back in the medieval ages.
[/QUOTE]

I think they can get information like that from ice cores. They drill into the ice and can tell from the condition of it certain things about the world. E.G. A major volcanic explosion on one side of the world can make a small change on a global scale and that can be seen.

The greenhouse effect led to an Ice Age before didn't it? Though that was due to natural rather than man-made effects.

[Vicsun]

A little known fact about global warming is that it was actually invented by doctor Hathaniel Tawthorne during the cold war in an effort to persuade the Soviets into providing him with a life-time supply of pretzels. What the doctor would have used a life-time supply of pretzels for is currently classified by the United States' Government.

[Dottie]

Personally, I dont think that a man-induced, apocolayptic climate change will bring about our doom. There is no rock hard evidence. Many people say that the green house effect is obvious, in such symptons such as, say, sea-levels rising, temperatures rising, you know, all the scare mongering stuff.

There is as far as I know quite good evidence for global warming. You can look at NAS web page for more info.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/ ... enDocument

Melbourne had a boiling 27 degrees last night on November 4. But back in 1901(remembering, our massive temperature climb has not yet begun) the temperature gage hit 33 degrees or something out rageous. Does this mean we are in danger of a massive global cooling?

You can not meassure climate changes by measuring temprature two times.

Also this topic have been discussed on SYM on multiple occations, so can you please tell why you thing this would be a too serious topic?

[Lasher]

IMHO, there's not much man can do (excluding extremes... Nukes,for example) to change the world. All of the exhaust/CO2 man ever produced is a fraction of that of a single volcanic eruption. Perhaps measures should be taken to prevent another Ice Age, but we shouldn't be looking at what mankind does, but rather what nature does.

[Fiona]

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... arthy.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/521451.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138346,00.html


I don't have any expertise to bring. But I see that Harvard and the BBC believe in global warming. Fox News does not. Far from conclusive, I know, but it'll do me till something better comes along

[Hill-Shatar]

The Kyoto accords were not followed, unfortunately, for the most part. There have been attempts to initiate programs (I am sure my fellow Canadians will reconize the one tonne challenge), but many have failed.

Dottie and Fiona have both provided a lot of relevant and useful data, and this probably has popped up before... elbewit less than theological discussions and political debates.

Human's are in danger, as is the rest of the world. Few people fear gloable warming anymore, but I do think that in several decades or centuries, you will see major differences in water levels, temperatures and locations, as well as an increase in some climatic activity located mainly in the south eastern hemisphere. Whether or not the changes boom in my life time are a muystery. Whther or not the air quality gets so bad that disease run rampant and the sun is blocked out is a mystery, for us, at the moment. A slowly boiling Earth? Eventually something big will happen.

[Phreddie]

Hill you also have to take into account that the rising temperatures that first sparked interest in global warming are partially due to the earths natural, let me repeat natural cycles of heaitng and cooling, these cycles change every thirty or forty years, right now we are in the middle of one of her warmer cycles, and this is also part of the reason for the more active hurricane season over here.

[Curdis]

That global warming has captured the public/media eye is one thing, as far as I can tell there is lots of evidence which suggests that the earths current mean annual temperature is increasing. There is also some compelling evidence to suggest that CO2 is being deposited out of the atmosphere (in some areas)at rates well in excess of anything previously encountered. To add all this up and state that human CO2 production is causing a global temperature increase is probably misguided.

Many people have been stating this effect as fact for several decades and the historical record will show that the evidence which has been cited has unfortunately been shown to be erroneous on more than one occassion. e.g. Early studies proving the mean increase failed to take into account the change in landscape which accompanied city development at long term weather stations, this effect was what was driving the temperature increases.

This has now made the issue one which is an easy target for those people who have a vested interest in continued rampant energy consumption (read you and me). Because it is a media focus the whole issue of the ecology can be sidelined into this one place and whether we do anything to halt wholesale forrest clearance, coral reef bleaching, or any one of the many other environmental tragedies can all be decided on the evidence when it becomes scientifically irrefutable.

So in short. Whether it is happening or not should not be overshadowing, or forestalling the immediate and obvious problems which we as a society need to be addressing today.

1/Global Warming (Human CO2 input model)- as the evidence stands today - Fiction
2/Global environmental damage - as the evidence stands today - Fact

I think number one is serving as a distraction to the second. - Curdis !

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=Vicsun]A little known fact about global warming is that it was actually invented by doctor Hathaniel Tawthorne during the cold war in an effort to persuade the Soviets into providing him with a life-time supply of pretzels. What the doctor would have used a life-time supply of pretzels for is currently classified by the United States' Government.[/QUOTE]
How do you know about that? (Must make note to have Vicsun "dealt with"... oh crap, now everyone who views this thread must be "dealt with").

Yeah, Penn & Teller's BS also dealt with Global Warming. It was pretty sad, but they actually interviewed a bunch of people who belonged to Greenpeace and supported them. And even Greenpeace's chosen spokesperson couldn't really answer any questions about global warming. And the "doctors" and well-learned people who were talking about what a danger global warming was kept talking about how it was going to destroy the "global economy." Um, okay? Probably the best part of the episode was the girl who was getting people to sign a petition to have dihydrogen monoxide banned. All she did was use all the popular buzzwords used to describe pollution, but she told the absolute truth about what dihydrogen monoxide was: it's in our lakes and our streams, it's getting in our food, it's in our rain. Even the so-called experts can't really answer simple questions.

Frankly, I think the whole situation got blown out of proportion. Sure, there's a problem, but is it really as serious as everyone says? I don't think so anymore.

[Hill-Shatar]

@ Chim: To burst your bubble on the dihydrogen monoxide, many people do not know how to classify actual elements by name. I know that very few people can go around and say that they can easily classify anything you put in front of them.

Here's a thought, ask whether or not the dangerous species of hominids should be banned/irradicated from Canada? I said this once, and about ten people agreed with me. Use any biological buzzword and anyone will believe you, as you are a microbiologist. Nice test, you have proven that not everyone is skilled as a chemist or in the sciences. No sarcasm intended.

Here's a fact for you. It is a small minority of qualified scientists who oppose views that Global Warming was effected by human interference.

Knowing this, Fiona linked a harvard site, and now, after running a quick search, I am going to drop in the reference from Wikipedia.

Links:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/ - where they are testing. Government site.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/h ... ature.html

http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_home.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/paleo/
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/
http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/pcmdi-mirror/ ... _text.html
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?dirsu ... 2Foverview
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

All of the above I got off of the bottom of the wikipedia site.

[Sononara]

You can not meassure climate changes by measuring temprature two times.

As true as this is, this is not the only incident. Temperature's in Australia have always varied, as far as we know. We had a time in Central Australia in about 1945 or something when we had a 43 degree day, 45 a 42 a 41 and 48 then it cooled down to around 35.

1/Global Warming (Human CO2 input model)- as the evidence stands today - Fiction
2/Global environmental damage - as the evidence stands today - Fact

I agree completely. Hear Hear.

[Chimaera182]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]@ Chim: To burst your bubble on the dihydrogen monoxide, many people do not know how to classify actual elements by name. I know that very few people can go around and say that they can easily classify anything you put in front of them. [/QUOTE]
Except you would expect some of these educated people to know it, even the chosen representative of GreenPeace. But even she signed the petition to ban water.

[C Elegans]

Perhaps a bit serious for the likes of this board

What makes you believe so?

There is no rock hard evidence. Many people say that the green house effect is obvious, in such symptons such as, say, sea-levels rising, temperatures rising, you know, all the scare mongering stuff.

What type of evidence do you view as "rock hard"? Obviously, we cannot replicate the global events since we have no "lab earths" to perform controlled experiments with, but climate scientists use mathematical models together with empirical data.

But how can we know? I dont think they had terribly reliable thermometres back in the medieval ages.

As you should know if you aim to build your opinions of "global warming" on available facts, climate scientists do no use medieval thermometres for assessment of climate in the past. They use ice cores, tree rings and other markers for temperature. You can read more about this is the scientific information I provide in the links below.

Melbourne had a boiling 27 degrees last night on November 4. But back in 1901(remembering, our massive temperature climb has not yet begun) the temperature gage hit 33 degrees or something out rageous. Does this mean we are in danger of a massive global cooling?

Taking two single measurement points and drawing a conclusion from these, is not a reliable way to draw conclusions.

I am amazed how people seem to think global warming is something you could hold a "belief" or "non belief" in, as if it was a religion. I encourage everybody who wants to have an opinion to read up with the facts first, and form their opinion after you've done so.

Fiona, Dottie and Hill have already posted links to sites with facts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the largest body of scientists investigating the problem of potential global climate change. IPCC was formed in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. This international body of scienstist concluded that on the basis of current evidence, human interference with the climate is attributable for global warming. However, US president George W Bush did not like the conclusion, so he formed his own panel of independent scientists not belonging to IPCC - and the result of Bush's panel was that they supported the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

There is a lot of highly selected and biased information around regarding global warming. Thus, I must ask all of you who "don't believe" in global warming: What information do you have access to? What facts are you taking into consideration, that thousands of climate scientists obviously fail to adhere to?

Please read this report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific basis.This report and its conclusion was approved by over 100 countries. However, if you like some American forum members I've discussed global warming with on this board, believe that American information is more trustworthy that international, you can read this FAQ from American scientists.

Now, I am curious to hear your arguments for why you do not "believe" in global warming.

[VonDondu]

Doing something to prevent global warming would cost money, and it is against my political beliefs to spend money on enironmental protection (eww!), so I deny that global warming exists. By the same token, Christmas holiday traditions help certain people make a lot of extra money, so I "believe" in Christmas holiday traditions that weren't even invented until modern times by people who want to make extra money. This should clear things up for you naive political types. But remember, you can still vote for us even if you don't agree with us. We're your friends.

/sarcasm mode off

[Fiona]

ROFLMAO :d

[Curdis]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]What makes you believe so?

Now, I am curious to hear your arguments for why you do not "believe" in global warming.[/QUOTE]I hoped that I made myself clear in my original post. The issue (not unlike tobacco and health) has become one of an impossible level of proof. By making the whole of the response to environmental problems contingent upon indisputable scientific proof, the very people who have the most at stake are playing a highly cynical delaying tactic.

Many misguided (in my view) people made statements about the impact of human activity on global climate (in the 70's and 80's) based on what amounted to a belief. The methodology was found to be misleading, and the data used was found to be suspect. This is the background to the formation of the IPCC and although there is mounting and now more widely accepted evidence for the currently proposed model, you don't have to go far to find a well qualified meteorologist to plead for caution in interpretation.

I was in a highly fortunate position back in 2001 and was able to discuss the issue at length with both the head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the head of the Australian Greenhouse Office. Neither were in any doubt about the environmental priority of global warming but both conceded that the evidence was sketchy at best, especially the science behind linking what might be a natural cycle (of hotter climate) to human generated CO2 and the uptake of CO2 in Antarctic ice and surface layer sea water.

It is widely held belief(amoung people who have never actually looked at the evidence, or followed the science) that the whole thing is a radical left boogie man. The people who made rash statements based on poor science are the ones who have precipitated a situation where a now impossible level of proof is required before those with a vested interest will make any sacrifice.

Ironically belief has been made paramount in what ought to be science.

My second point was about lumping all of the environmental issues into one basket and the developing tragic consequences of this position, but I will leave that one for later. - Curdis !

[C Elegans]

[quote="Curdis]I hoped that I made myself clear in my original post. The issue (not unlike tobacco and health) has become one of an impossible level of proof. [/quote]

Actually Curdis"]http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm[/url]
the IPCC concludes that "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In the synthesis report, they conclude
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm

"2.10 The observed warming over the 20th century is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The increase in surface temperatures over the last 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone. Reconstructions of climate data for the last 1,000 years also indicate that this 20th century warming was unusual and unlikely to be the response to natural forcing alone: That is, volcanic eruptions and variation in solar irradiance do not explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century (see Figure 2-4a), but they may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half.

2.11 In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Detection and attribution studies (including greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols as anthropogenic forcing) consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years, despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain the warming (see Figure 2-4a); whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming (Figure 2-4b). The best agreement for the 1860-2000 record is found when the above anthropogenic and natural forcing factors are combined (see Figure 2-4c). This result does not exclude the possibility that other forcings may also contribute, and some known anthopogenic factors (e.g., organic carbon, black carbon (soot), biomass aerosols, and some changes in land use) have not been used in these detection and attribution studies. Estimates of the magnitude and geographic distribution of these additional anthropogenic forcings vary considerably."

Thus, I am not sure why you label human CO2 input as "fiction". Is it a particular model you are referring to, that only takes CO2 into account? Or do you mean that all various climate models that show human emission of CO2 plays a role in global warming, are "fiction"?

As I stated initially, I don't understand your conclusion. As far as I understand, climatologists have concluded that it's a very small chance that the recent rise in temperature are unrelated to human activities. Are you saying that human activities have had no influence on global warming? If so, what is your evidence for this statement?

[Hill-Shatar]

I completely agree with CE on this, so there is little I can do except respond to this (CE is on one of her escapades again, it is not smart to get in the way );

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Except you would expect some of these educated people to know it, even the chosen representative of GreenPeace. But even she signed the petition to ban water.[/QUOTE]

Really? So she had a scientific background? As with many others? Did they show the ones who did not sign the petition, and how high the numbers of those who actually knew what the classification of water is?

Not exactly the most stable evidence in any case. I will go to Tim Hortons tommorrow for lunch down the road, and ask random people there, and report back with my results. However, perhaps it would be best if someone who is not somewhat biased on the subject. Perhaps you, Fiona?

[Sononara]

Taking two single measurement points and drawing a conclusion from these, is not a reliable way to draw conclusions.

As true as this is, this is not the only incident. Temperature's in Australia have always varied, as far as we know. We had a time in Central Australia in about 1945 or something when we had a 43 degree day, 45 a 42 a 41 and 48 then it cooled down to around 35.

does this answer your question? Maybe not, as the view from Melbourne has shifted to central australia.

But thats not the point; the point is, that, temperatures are always going to be up and down. and arent we in an intermissio of an ice age anywho? i remember reading somewhere or another that we are.