Global Warming

[Sasquatch]

Considering that man is speeding up the process of global warming, and global warming can eventually lead to drastic global cooling, I'd say that's correct.

First, their idea wasn't that mankind is causing global warming, which will lead to global cooling -- their idea was that man is causing global cooling.

Second, there's no credible evidence (non-circumstantial) that mankind is "speeding up the process of global warming".

There honestly should only be one side to this argument. Humans are causing the warming cycle to increase.

Yes, there should be only one side, but unfortunately there are two. The first side is the truth, that human activity has done absolutely nothing to affect our climate. The side that shouldn't exist is the one gullible, ignorant, misinformed, or uninformed people buy into -- the idea that humans have somehow changed, over a century or so, a planet that has supposedly been around for billions of years.

... the average global temperature has increased by about .74°C, and per decade for the last fifty years, has been increasing about .13°C.

If it has increased 0.13°C every decade for the last fifty years, that would mean that the first half of this century saw an increase of 0.14°C. You know, when industry was dirtiest, before any environmental government control came into effect.

But go ahead and discount the myriad factors that affect climate -- natural cycles, rotation and tilt of the planet, energy produced by the sun, etc. etc. -- and blame it on mankind.

Clint said pretty much what I was going to say and more, Humans may not effect all climate changes but definitely contributing to this issue.
( A major cause the way I see it)

Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, pollutant production has increased (much, like CO2, is not much of a pollutant, but still.) But we also have less horses than we did a hundred years ago. A lot less. For those that say that global warming and human activity must be related because they have somewhat of a mutual increase ... global temperature and the number of horses have an inverse relationship, and the same "logic" could be used to argue that global warming is a result of a depreciation in the number of horses.

[Clint]

First, their idea wasn't that mankind is causing global warming, which will lead to global cooling -- their idea was that man is causing global cooling.

And my point being that man is causing global cooling by making the planet warmer. The argument that scientists proposed isn't exactly the same, but the end result is still the same; a very cold planet.

the idea that humans have somehow changed, over a century or so, a planet that has supposedly been around for billions of years.

It hasn't been just over a century or so. Humans have been polluting the earth as long as there has been civilization. The reason as to why the most major environmental changes have occurred in the past one hundred years or so is because the proportion of pollution produced by humans increased, and since none of it has had time to recycle, we've essentially reached the breaking point, or pretty damn close to it.

If it has increased 0.13°C every decade for the last fifty years, that would mean that the first half of this century saw an increase of 0.14°C. You know, when industry was dirtiest, before any environmental government control came into effect.

It doesn't matter one bit how dirty the industry is. The fact of the matter is, more pollutants were being put out in the second half of the century than the first. If you went by the concept of "what's dirtiest is the worst thing for the environment," then all volcanic eruptions would be catastrophic to the environment, considering that they let out pollutants more toxic and dirty than those of the dirtiest industries.

But go ahead and discount the myriad factors that affect climate -- natural cycles, rotation and tilt of the planet, energy produced by the sun, etc. etc. -- and blame it on mankind.

Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I'm discounting them. Yes, natural cycles effect the temperature of the earth, but if you can't see that humans are indeed harming the environment, whether we're the cause for the sped up process of global warming or not, then you're just an idiot.

(much, like CO2, is not much of a pollutant, but still.)

Actually, to humans, CO2 is a pollutant, because it can kill us. Ever heard of carbon dioxide poisoning?

But we also have less horses than we did a hundred years ago. A lot less. For those that say that global warming and human activity must be related because they have somewhat of a mutual increase ... global temperature and the number of horses have an inverse relationship, and the same "logic" could be used to argue that global warming is a result of a depreciation in the number of horses.

It's a matter of common sense that as the human population rises, so does man made pollution. The reason being that as the human population rises, there are more humans to cause pollution. I can't wait until 2070, when the human population reaches 20 billion. I'm sure earth's environment will be lovely then if humans keep behaving in the same predictable manner that they've been doing for the past hundred years or so.

[Alpha]

All my information is from the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change. "The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences." You can find a wealth of information on their process is you decide to insinuate that it is a biased organisation. It does NOT have an agenda, but simply gathers inputs from scientists and policy analysts at the top of their fields of research, and snthesises their findings into "Assessment Reports" (ARs) to demonstrate the current level of knowledge on the climate system, climate change, and future climate scenarios.

Here is a diagram that summarises the process the IPCC reports on the state of knowledge on climate change come about:

http://www.ipcc.ch/img/graphics/reports_procedures.jpg

Please, someone, explain why these scientists are ALL wrong in firmly stating:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer term
trend is unclear. There is high confidence that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century. The total 20th-century rise is estimated to be 0.17 [0.12 to 0.22] m. {5.5}

Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 6.6}

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7}

Here's an interesting graph. It doesn't go back very far, but it is very telling. There are many more you can find on the website.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig1-1.jpg

I would very much love for someone to give me a more credible citation to an organisation that has the opposite view of the IPCC. This debate is one-sided for good reason. Climate change is not pseudo-science. If it is not proven, it is increasingly likely and accepted. The majority of scientists agree that it is occurring, and politicians are increasingly taking heed. The gullible people are those who refuse to be persuaded by the most comprehensive investigation to have ever occurred into the workings of our planet.

But go ahead and discount the myriad factors that affect climate -- natural cycles, rotation and tilt of the planet, energy produced by the sun, etc. etc. -- and blame it on mankind.

I, along with almost every climate scientist, do not discount orbital forcing or any other potential climate parameter. I believe I described Milankovitch Cycles in a previous post. However, it has been calculated that these factors alone could not have led to the observed level of climate change that we have experienced. They have been, by far, the most important factor in past climate variability, and remain important today. But human actions are currently having a much more profound impact, which you will find if you take the time to read the AR4 (fourth Assessment Report) of the IPCC.

Yes, the earth is getting warmer. Yes, pollutant production has increased (much, like CO2, is not much of a pollutant, but still.) But we also have less horses than we did a hundred years ago. A lot less. For those that say that global warming and human activity must be related because they have somewhat of a mutual increase ... global temperature and the number of horses have an inverse relationship, and the same "logic" could be used to argue that global warming is a result of a depreciation in the number of horses.

Except populations of horses have not fluctuated with global temperatures like CO2 has. Watch:

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccours...aleotrends.gif

Naturally, this raises questions of correlation and causality, but the IPCC, the world's leading scientists, have identified causality: CO2 raises temperature. This can be natural or anthropogenic.

NB: I apologise for the big pictures. I'm not good with computers. A mod is more than welcome to fix it up.

[Sasquatch]

Hey, a mature, intelligent post, alright!

I don't have much time right now before I'm off to class, but I figured I'd reserve this spot and say one thing, at least.

All my information is from the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change. "The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences."

You can find a wealth of information on their process is you decide to insinuate that it is a biased organisation. It does NOT have an agenda, but simply gathers inputs from scientists and policy analysts at the top of their fields of research, and snthesises their findings into "Assessment Reports" (ARs) to demonstrate the current level of knowledge on the climate system, climate change, and future climate scenarios.

You claim that the IPCC doesn't have an agenda? The reason for their creation was to study man-made climate change. If there was a government program that was established solely to study scientific evidence for Biblical Creation, and they found that it really did happen like the Bible says, would you consider them biased? How about a study by a group of Muslim theologists that finds that Christianity is responsible for everything bad in the world? What about a NAMBLA study that claims that little boys aren't affected by being molested? What if Playskool, Parker Brothers, Milton Bradley, and Tonka all combined in a study that shows that video games damage children?

Here is a diagram that summarises the process the IPCC reports on the state of knowledge on climate change come about:

[image removed to save space - Sasquatch

Please, someone, explain why these scientists are ALL wrong in firmly stating:













Here's an interesting graph. It doesn't go back very far, but it is very telling. There are many more you can find on the website.

Image removed to save space - Sasquatch

I would very much love for someone to give me a more credible citation to an organisation that has the opposite view of the IPCC. This debate is one-sided for good reason. Climate change is not pseudo-science. If it is not proven, it is increasingly likely and accepted. The majority of scientists agree that it is occurring, and politicians are increasingly taking heed. The gullible people are those who refuse to be persuaded by the most comprehensive investigation to have ever occurred into the workings of our planet.



I, along with almost every climate scientist, do not discount orbital forcing or any other potential climate parameter. I believe I described Milankovitch Cycles in a previous post. However, it has been calculated that these factors alone could not have led to the observed level of climate change that we have experienced. They have been, by far, the most important factor in past climate variability, and remain important today. But human actions are currently having a much more profound impact, which you will find if you take the time to read the AR4 (fourth Assessment Report) of the IPCC.



Except populations of horses have not fluctuated with global temperatures like CO2 has. Watch:

Image removed to save space - Sasquatch

Naturally, this raises questions of correlation and causality, but the IPCC, the world's leading scientists, have identified causality: CO2 raises temperature. This can be natural or anthropogenic.

NB: I apologise for the big pictures. I'm not good with computers. A mod is more than welcome to fix it up.

[Locke4God]

Is anybody aware in this thread that the Earth has actually cooled over the last 10 years?

I'm frankly just completely unsure Global Warming is truly man-made to begin with. They like to quote that we've hit highs based on the first records that were kept over a hundred years ago, however we have now seen that during that time we were emerging from the Earth's last cooling phase and so rising temperatures are a natural part of the Earth's cycle and not necessarily a result of man.

It just concerns me that people like Al Gore are out there shouting about rising sea levels. Really? They look the same to me, and I live on a beach. That kind of thing makes me distrust guys that heavily support mass eco-friendly makovers. Besides the last I checked ice takes up more room than the water than composes it, and so if the glaciers are melting that would actually mean sea levels would go down, not up.

Anyway, over the last 10 years, the Earth has cooled, which is undeniable and we've only increased our output with more and more cars on the road. Nothing we have done has significantly changed anything for the better.

My main concern is that while I believe people should recycle and we should look at concervation effots, I don't think there's any reason to take actions that would become a detriment to the shaky economy in the name of environmentalism. We're going to be fine.

[Alpha]

Is anybody aware in this thread that the Earth has actually cooled over the last 10 years?

Are you aware that the Earth has been overwhelmingly colder than it is currently for the vast majority of what we can record of the past? And that the issue (as I see it) is that it doesn't actually matter if it is or isn't natural, but that we are so accustomed to the natural status quo that any change, warmer or colder, is to our detriment (overall)? If it us warmer, sea levels will rise, granting us with less land, and millions of refugees, as the vast majority of people live near the coast, and we have built impressive cities that are just so vulnerable to a changing climate.

Some places will benefit, I make no secret of that. Places that were once unable to support agriculture will open up, trade passages through the arctic ocean have opened up, etc. The overarching theme is that no matter how much we debate, climate changes. Is there ever an ideal state? I'd say yes. It's what we have now. What we have developed in. We do not live in areas where our populations are expressly vulnerable, but what happens when the patterns of vulnerability change? What happens in a warmer planet where there is greater latent energy for more, bigger storms, that can move further and further away from the equator? What happens where agriculture has developed where water is abundant, and this water becomes scarce. The social, economic, ecologic, political, cultural challenges are all so immense that we must do everything we can to preserve. We should put energy into adaption, too. But is there's a chance to preserve this beautiful planet, let's take it.

I'm frankly just completely unsure Global Warming is truly man-made to begin with. They like to quote that we've hit highs based on the first records that were kept over a hundred years ago, however we have now seen that during that time we were emerging from the Earth's last cooling phase and so rising temperatures are a natural part of the Earth's cycle and not necessarily a result of man.

Simply: so? As far as I am concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly against this conclusion, but that is irrelevant. You seem to accept it is happening in this paragraph, so why won't you do something about it regardless?

It just concerns me that people like Al Gore are out there shouting about rising sea levels. Really? They look the same to me, and I live on a beach. That kind of thing makes me distrust guys that heavily support mass eco-friendly makovers. Besides the last I checked ice takes up more room than the water than composes it, and so if the glaciers are melting that would actually mean sea levels would go down, not up.

For f*ck sake. I'm so sick of hearing that weak argument. Think of sea level in geological time. You don't notice yourself or your children growing when you see them every day, so does that mean we don't grow? The sea is rising, incrementally and imperceptibly so, but it is rising. I believe it is rising at a rate of 1.8mm per year. Or 0.005mm per day. You can't sea it! Heh.

As for your glaciers melting thing... are you really that stupid? If a glacier is on a landmass, such as in a valley, or on Greenland or Antarctica, then it is currently not displacing sea water. That is why, in the last ice age, sea levels were 130 metres lower than the present day. That fact is denied by no geologist of any standing. When ice is frozen in a sea ice cap, such as at the North Pole, then the ice displaces water equal to its mass. Water expands when it is frozen, but if you haven't seen an ice berg (they float past New Zealand more and more regularly btw), they have some ice above the water. Most of the ice berg is under the surface, but some is on top? Why? Because they are displacing water equal to their mass. The extra size gained upon freezing is not extra mass, so some ice peaks out above the liquid water. If the North Pole ice cap were to melt, it would not displace any water whatsoever, as all the mass is already displaced in the world's oceans.

Anyway, over the last 10 years, the Earth has cooled, which is undeniable and we've only increased our output with more and more cars on the road. Nothing we have done has significantly changed anything for the better.

How do those two statements support each other? Secondly, the Earth hasn't technically cooled over the last while, in fact it has plateaued for the last 8 years. Again, this is no secret. The IPCC recognises this. What you must understand is that CO2 emissions are not the only factor influencing the climate. There are a few theories. Perhaps we are entering a period of less intense solar luminosity? Or global warming has increased temperatures so that more water is evaporated from the oceans, increasing cloud cover and increasing the earth's albedo? The fact remains that CO2 has a blatant forbearance on the climate. Look at the last graph I posted in my previous post. It's not the only factor, but no one can deny the link.

My main concern is that while I believe people should recycle and we should look at concervation effots, I don't think there's any reason to take actions that would become a detriment to the shaky economy in the name of environmentalism. We're going to be fine.

Do you care to explain what is wrong with green jobs, cycling instead of driving, greater use of public transport, planing more green spaces, using agricultural fertilisers more efficiently, etc.? All of those things, and the multitudes of others, are good for people, the environment, AND the economy. Shock horror, environmentalists have common sense after all.

[Locke4God]

I'm just not sure that it's continuing to change. Yeah I'm aware the Earth used to be cooler 200 years ago, which is well before the modern industrial revolution. But I wonder if you are aware that if all of the climate change legistation works flawlessly then out best scientific estimates state that we "might" see a 1/4 degree drop over a hundred years from now. Is that worth putting our economy in a hammer lock?

And I don't have a problem with Green Jobs, except that they are more expensive. That's why nobody buys green cars. There's not a green car in the top 10 in sales. The Prius is the highest, and the accord and Camry Hybrids combined don't equal half the sales of the Prius. Again by in large, green is great if you can afford it, but forcing it on the nation at all levels will wreck the economy. Just consider that.

All I'm saying is that the Al Gores of the world would have you believe that we're going to be underwater in 10 years, and it's not going to happen. He's wrong. I'm more concerned that he's using the cause to increase the size of government, and I'm very worried that there's a deliberate effort to wreck the economy in order to meet that end. I wouldn't put it past them if I were you.

[ShootingStar]

Basically, I wanted to discuss all this and more. For example, how are you trying to help? How can we contribute to saving our planet? Is enough action being taken? What do you think about it all?

I think its interesting that you assume that everyone is doing something to "Stop global warming". What about the people who don't believe in it, or just don't give a shit? The way you make it sound, it's like there's no other option.

Do you care to explain what is wrong with green jobs, cycling instead of driving, greater use of public transport, planing more green spaces, using agricultural fertilisers more efficiently, etc.?

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with it, there's just no reason for attacking someone who believes differently.

And like Locke4God said, I'm more concerned about the economy.