GLOBAL WARMING

[Ringoyam]

Opinions?

[KuJo]

yes

[Justin05]

Weather.

[Anonymous]

Opinions?

You're just asking for a witty, cutting response, but I'm drawing a blank.

[Conan]

Stop shoving your left-wing, tree hugging propaganda down my throat.

[cryingmime]

I think that it's weird seeing commercials for "warming personal lubricants" on tv.

is that what this thread is about? anyone else with me?

r

[placid_panic]

I think that it's weird seeing commercials for "warming personal lubricants" on tv.

is that what this thread is about? anyone else with me?

r

i agree. it makes me wonder if people are having problems with cold genitals during sex, and that alarms me.

[Anonymous]

i agree. it makes me wonder if people are having problems with cold genitals during sex, and that alarms me.

For men, I hear testicles are like machinery. The colder, the better.

[placid_panic]

reduce the world population.

nature will do that. it's only a matter of time.

[Conan]

Anyone read State of Fear? In it Michael Crichton makes the case that global warning is a myth. I never got why.

[Justin05]

H5N1

[kendoiwan]

First part is simple enough do you believe that it's happening, if you do; is it man made or a natural occurance, if not why not.

[Justin05]

Yes. Man made. :dont:

[Lee]

Where is the "I honestly do not know" option?

[Jasz]

naturally occurring but exacerbated by human actions

[attila_the_hunny]

It should be mandated that every poll should have the "I don't care/who gives a shit" option.

[last_caress]

Electric Boogaloo.

[pangolin]

I voted man made, but concede that there are regular climatological changes.

[kendoiwan]

It should be mandated that every poll should have the "I don't care/who gives a shit" option.

then don't vote, besides we all know you care not, it'd be redundant

[attila_the_hunny]

then don't vote, besides we all know you care not, it'd be redundant

But I like to vote!

[SensEye]

I need the 'not sure' option. I suspect it's at least partly man made/exacerbated by man, but who knows with climate cycles. I don't see much we can do about it pragmatically, so I don't worry about it too much. What will be, will be.

Even if we got agreement 'in principle' to a Kyoto like accord, everybody will just cheat their asses off for economic expediency. No way China and India are going to give up their piece of the pie (or the US for that matter) now that they are just ramping up.

[ptGatsby]

Is there a reason why there is no

"Happening, but unsure why" ?

Cause that got my vote.

[kendoiwan]

because I'm looking for definitives... theres more to this, I'm just waiting to see what people think first

[kendoiwan]

Back to live action, who were the 3 people who voted natural, and why?

And the one person who voted not really happening?

[KuJo]

since the industrial revolution man has been ripping the ozone a new one.

[Antoinette]

Opinions?
stop playing with your refridgerator door! <_<
Ozone layer will go away~

[Stillwater]

it's primarily anthropogenic, and it's real.

[SeierTapt]

I believe it's most likely part natural causes and part human causes, and I think many scientist would agree that climate change like this is not something we fully understand enough to make any radical judgments or predictions. Hell, we still can't completely predict regional weather beyond a few days, and even then it sometimes ends up developing to be different than predictions. I think we are certianly in the midst of a gradual climate change based on thousands of years of climate change patterns. However, whether or not it's caused by SUV's or perhaps our sun acting differently than in the past is still to be determined IMO. Also, everything I've read on this issue point out that we should take the doomsayers with a grain of salt...

[Wiki]

At the risk of entering mid-flame war, I am suggesting that global warming may be the earth's way of responding to or combating what man has released into the ecosystem. In other words nature's response to a less than natural condition that man has created in attempt to restore balance.

Although appearing quite destructive, nature's volcano is absolutely essential to life, for without volcanoes life as we know it could not exist.

Nature has been known to create and destroy at will. At the end of the day, will it continue to tolerate us? Will nature decide that mankind is in its best interest?

Only time will tell, but should we guess wrong I doubt nature will give us enough time to recover once the last straw has been breached.

Do we have the ability to control corporate greed or has it already positioned itself as strategically as the virus, consuming the host to propagate its survival if only for a moment more, while lacking ample vision to forsee the fate of both?

[Claverhouse]

Some posts above moved to a new thread Man Made vs, Nature's own (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=351226&posted=1#post351226).


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[kendoiwan]

Hmm I guess the second part of what I had in mind is obsolete, I wanted to challenge the nay sayers to watch the special on global warming coming on Discovery this sunday night and see if they remain unconvinced...

[Ringoyam]

Why not make cleaner energy? There is not much to lose.

As for global warming, only time will tell.

You know, the only permanent solution to pollution, world hunger, etc. is to reduce the world population. People need to stop fucking like jackrabbits and start leaving no trace.

:hug:


I think your right... Lets hope NK attacks the US and praise George Bush in killing Iraqi's :bigguns: Or we could replace food factories with condom factories.:think:

[Ringoyam]

I think that it's weird seeing commercials for "warming personal lubricants" on tv.

is that what this thread is about? anyone else with me?

r

:think:

[Spartan26]

I'd say man has some effect but wouldn't be able to guess what percentage. I wonder what effect damming and irrigation have had. Bringing large quantities to otherwise arid places and continuing a water cycle that wouldn't have be naturally precepitated.

With parts of Africa, for example, having drier conditions over an expanded period of time and other strange weather occurances or altered weather patterns, I wonder if some areas won't stand to benifit, so to speak. Not suggesting a zero sum loss but who knows if we won't see a tropical desert southwest or the like.

[ken2834]

I agree, there are a lot of factors. When Mount Pinatubo erupted, I believe the dust in the atmosphere caused an extended episode of cooler temperatures. Could it be that these past few years only seem hotter relative to that cooler period?

[Purple-Silver Fox]

No. The fluctuations in temperature since the last 5 ice ages or so are rather regular, resembling a sinusoid function with a lot of noise. The temperature rise correlating with the industrial revolution breaks out of that pattern, rising. If I remembered where I saw that graph, I would even show it.

[songbird36]

http://xtramsn.co.nz/technology/0,,13440-6644603,00.html

The phenomenon of global warming due to CO2 emission now seems undeniable. I read the statements recently of one global warming expert who predicts that in roughly 100 years time at current emission rates, only the Antipodes and Northern sub-arctic regions will be inhabitable.

Does the world need to be doing more? Are we not taking these predictions seriously enough?

[macr0]

I don't see anything in that article about CO2 emissions. It's just a nice heat wave.

Besides, we all know that the decrease in pirates is the reason why the earth is heating up.

http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

[Meliora]

As long as it still snows a little in Texas for no apparent reason, I see nothing to fear.

[Biff_Loman]

There's no question that this is a huge deal. Every single issue of New Scientist has multiple articles/columns with respect to climate change. If we can't figure out a way to stop it, our grandchildren have no future.

Our species, however, lacks the ability to act on this kind of abstract information. As Gwynne Dyer put it: "Hard-wired short-sightedness: it's enough to make you slit your throat."

[mr. treat]

as of yet there is no hard evidence that human activities are responsible for the increase in global temperature. i don't want to sound like a broken record, but the earth has gone through varying periods of high and low temperatures since it was created. although, it is better to play it safe than sorry if one is concerned with the rise in temperatures.

i'm in favor of global warming myself.

[inspectorgadget]

as of yet there is no hard evidence that human activities are responsible for the increase in global temperature. i don't want to sound like a broken record, but the earth has gone through varying periods of high and low temperatures since it was created. although, it is better to play it safe than sorry if one is concerned with the rise in temperatures.

i'm in favor of global warming myself.

I've heard that argument before. I even saw the Penn and Teller episode over global warming and understood where they were coming from...

However, I find it very difficult to believe our actions haven't sped up the process. I think it's silly to think our pumping so much CO2 into atmosphere isn't having any effect.

[PiccoloNamek]

I'm not sure if it's our fault, or just some kind of natural progression, but it is definitely getting warmer, and I hate it. When I was a child, it was never 70+ degrees in November. It was always freezing cold outside by mid-october. Last year, it was so warm on Christmas day that I went for a walk in a t-shirt and shorts.

[Krill]

Everyone pretty much covered what I was going to say. I have yet to find any sort of appropriate evidence to merit the sort of serious economic ramifications that would occur from policies as minor a global temperature decrease as the Kyoto Protocol.

Every time I see it, it's always the same stuff. If they're really investigating this and there's something to it they'll find more evidence, not keep throwing the same things.

[mr. treat]

honestly i don't know what to think about CO2 emissions. scientists really have no idea what happens to most of it once it's in the atmosphere.

i read about a recent research project where they were experimenting with liquifying CO2 emissions and injecting it into seafloor bedrock. CO2 is the least of our worries when it comes to human pollution of the atmosphere and environment.

[inspectorgadget]

honestly i don't know what to think about CO2 emissions. scientists really have no idea what happens to most of it once it's in the atmosphere.

i read about a recent research project where they were experimenting with liquifying CO2 emissions and injecting it into seafloor bedrock. CO2 is the least of our worries when it comes to human pollution of the atmosphere and environment.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

That's an interesting read on it. Seems pretty straight forward to me... when you're burning billions of tons of carbon from fossil fuels and it's all being dumped into the atmosphere, plenty of it is going to be absorbed... it just sits there. This stuff has been trapped under the soil for years and now we have figured out how to get to it and process it and use it, and these are the consequences....

It's simply a green house effect... lets heat in, doesn't let it out.

[mr. treat]

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/2_global_warming.htm

That's an interesting read on it. Seems pretty straight forward to me... when you're burning billions of tons of carbon from fossil fuels and it's all being dumped into the atmosphere, plenty of it is going to be absorbed... it just sits there. This stuff has been trapped under the soil for years and now we have figured out how to get to it and process it and use it, and these are the consequences....

It's simply a green house effect... lets heat in, doesn't let it out.

yeah, i'm not denying that humans are releasing a ton of carbon into the atmosphere and that there's potential for it to be contributing to rising temperatures. all i'm saying is it's inconclusive whether or not humans are having a substantial impact on what are natural fluctuations of the global environment. it's a highly debated topic.

like the post above concerning pirates, correlation does not prove causation.

[Dark Razor]

I believe that the debate should maybe focus more on how we can adapt to global warming. Since there seems to be no doubt about that it is geting warming we should consider how we deal with rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, increasing desertification (is that a word?) and a possible slowdown of the gulf stream. Because even if it were proven that man is responsible for global warming, I doubt anything would change really.

Especially because we may not have as much time as some people think. Global warming seems to be self-accelerating, meaning that for example warmer temperatures lead to melting of permafrost and methan-hydrates, releasing large amounts of methan into the atmosphere (which is a greenhouse-gas 20 times more potent than CO2), and that reduced surface of ice reduces the amount of sunlight reflected into space.

[Hustler]

I'm not sure which is lamer: yet another global warming thread or yet another instance of someone posting the pirates vs. temperature response to the global warming thread.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Allow my Fi to help you out here:

someone posting the pirates vs. temperature response to the global warming thread

[songbird36]

yeah, i'm not denying that humans are releasing a ton of carbon into the atmosphere and that there's potential for it to be contributing to rising temperatures. all i'm saying is it's inconclusive whether or not humans are having a substantial impact on what are natural fluctuations of the global environment. it's a highly debated topic.

like the post above concerning pirates, correlation does not prove causation.

I'm not sure that it is now "inconclusive". Studies have shown that the rises in temperature are greater than would simply be attributable to natural fluctuations . It's not as if the outcome of global warming is speculative either - we know that the polar ice caps will eventually melt, islands will disappear, and low-lying countries will be affected. What is more speculative is the effect on the weather, and ecosystems of rising temperatures. Do we wait to passively wait to find out?

[Krill]

I'm not sure that it is now "inconclusive". Studies have shown that the rises in temperature are greater than would simply be attributable to natural fluctuations .

I would like to see these studies please.

[Lee]

Why don't people recognise the problem!? Even the ice caps on Mars are melting, that's how much damage we are doing!

[songbird36]

Here's a site with some really good links to relevant studies:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

It's interesting to note that the energy companies are now pulling funding out of research think tanks that were established to dispute the reality of greenhouse warming.

[Krill]

Here's a site with some really good links to relevant studies:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

It's interesting to note that the energy companies are now pulling funding out of research think tanks that were established to dispute the reality of greenhouse warming.



Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.

Humans were around before 900 AD and survived, yet this is the highest since then (over a period of comparable length mind you). Since then means it was this high over a comparable (25) year period around 900 AD.

[songbird36]

Yes, it's because of the "telescoped" effect of temperature increases over a short period of time. That doesn't fit established historical patterns of global temperature fluctuation.

[Jacque]

The "it's just a cycle" argument against manmade CO2 as a cause of global warming would have merit were we not so far out of the cycle.

While it is true that CO2 levels rise and fall with the each occurring ice age, we are at twice the highest ever recorded levels and it is growing exponentially. No other change except for an industrial revolution can account for this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)

As for the merits of global warming which a few members here have been floating around, you are at the depths of ignorance. You cannot correct the potentially disastrous consequences of human activity by simply making it intentional .

[macr0]

I'm not sure which is lamer: yet another global warming thread or yet another instance of someone posting the pirates vs. temperature response to the global warming thread.


Allow my Fi to help you out here:

someone posting the pirates vs. temperature response to the global warming thread

You're both wrong. Calling someone lame is lamer.

[Jacque]

You know what's really lame??? Entering a thread just to piss on it.

Immature behavior has really lost its class...

[songbird36]

You know what's really lame??? Entering a thread just to piss on it.

Immature behavior has really lost its class...


I agree. This was meant to generate a serious discussion - I was mostly interested in the issue of solutions to this problem, as I really don't think the validity of global warming (and its causative link to carbon emissions) is up for grabs..

[Krill]

The "it's just a cycle" argument against manmade CO2 as a cause of global warming would have merit were we not so far out of the cycle.

While it is true that CO2 levels rise and fall with the each occurring ice age, we are at twice the highest ever recorded levels and it is growing exponentially. No other change except for an industrial revolution can account for this.

Yes.

Problem though, the fact that there is more CO2 than before proves nothing. People aren't talking about "It's just a cycle" in terms of CO2, they're talking about it in terms of temperature.

Nice straw man though.

[intpgolfer]

Why don't people recognise the problem!? Even the ice caps on Mars are melting, that's how much damage we are doing!

Were there pirates on Mars too? :huh:

[In...TP]

Sir Isaac Newton predicted the world would end in the year 2060. Some of you may witness it.

[macr0]

I agree. This was meant to generate a serious discussion - I was mostly interested in the issue of solutions to this problem, as I really don't think the validity of global warming (and its causative link to carbon emissions) is up for grabs..

Well, for starters..watch this on flex fuels: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913

And look at this about Brazil: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829046/

Support flex fuel cars.
Support cleaner sources of power like Nuclear, wind and hydro.

Do those two things and I think you've done as much as any super hero could do, besides becoming one of those activities on TV that fight the man.

You could also do all of those "little things" that are supposed to help. I don't do those things because Sesame Street lied to me when I was a child about doing those things.

[songbird36]

Well, for starters..watch this on flex fuels: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913

And look at this about Brazil: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829046/

Support flex fuel cars.
Support cleaner sources of power like Nuclear, wind and hydro.

Do those two things and I think you've done as much as any super hero could do, besides becoming one of those activities on TV that fight the man.

You could also do all of those "little things" that are supposed to help. I don't do those things because Sesame Street lied to me when I was a child about doing those things.

I can't as an individual make an iota of difference to this process. You need your Government to pull its head out of the sand, or we're all doomed, quite frankly..

[Krill]

Sir Isaac Newton predicted the world would end in the year 2060. Some of you may witness it.

Yes, but he also predicted that it would end when the four horseman of the apocalypse rode down from the skies and demonic locusts with scorpion tails tormented people all across the face of the earth.

Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could have the necessary as of yet unknown chemical properties to manifest as demonic locusts, but I doubt it.

;)

[songbird36]

Yes, but he also predicted that it would end when the four horseman of the apocalypse rode down from the skies and demonic locusts with scorpion tails tormented people all across the face of the earth.

Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could have the necessary as of yet unknown chemical properties to manifest as demonic locusts, but I doubt it.

;)

What exactly is your argument? Sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing with it..

[macr0]

I can't as an individual make an iota of difference to this process. You need your Government to pull its head out of the sand, or we're all doomed, quite frankly..

Hmm. Well I heard somewhere that the livestock in New Zealand causes a lot of greenhouse gases. You kill your sheep, and we'll get the neocon's out of power.

[Krill]

What exactly is your argument? Sounds like you're on a hiding to nothing with it..

On a what to what with it?

I'm not familiar with that idiom, sorry.

[songbird36]

Hmm. Well I heard somewhere that the livestock in New Zealand causes a lot of greenhouse gases. You kill your sheep, and we'll get the neocon's out of power.

Funny you should mention that. One politician here some time ago quite seriously mooted the idea of a "fart tax" on livestock. Needless to say, his argument was blown off very quickly in Parliament :)

[mr. treat]

i fully advocate the use of nuclear, solar and wind power to replace fossil fuels. maybe some satellite complexes to beam down collected energy. cars, powered by nuclear fuel cells? it's a great idea!

[enjoysham]

The 'debate' about global warming is much like the 'centrist' debate in politics. The 'Centre' of the political spectrum in America has, in the last 20 years, been ever shifting to the Right.

The funding for much of the anti-global warming studies is provided by Big Oil. Watch Real Time with Bill Maher, it's a solid comedy news show, kind of like a grown up Daily Show. The intention of these studies is to attack the credibility of global warming as a viable global concern. I know this probably sounds like tree hugging garbage, but there is obviously an incentive for oil companies to avoid bad press. "Destroyers of the World seems like pretty bad press to me."

The Economist also has many articles on Global Warming. One of their insights: Mankind is a tropical animal that migrated north and south, so global warming really doesn't seem all that bad. Global Cooling on the other had (which was a scare in the 1970's due to sulfur emissions into the atmosphere) probably receive a much greater response.

[bclark619g]

The global warming argument is based on computer models. If these models are so accurate, why can't weather be predicted with any degree of accuracy?

The United States Hurricane Center predicted that this hurricane season would be one of the worst ever, but it was wrong.

There is not enough evidence to prove what the weather was thousands and millions of years ago. When science can come up with a model that predicts the weather accurately, and then use that model to demonstrate global warming, then that is when I will start believing it.

This planet's atomosphere is a complex system with many variables that can have an affect on temperature.

Look at all the doomsayers who said that the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska would damage the ecosystem forever. The most damage was done by the steamcleaning that was done to try and clean up all the oil.

Just remember, a computer model is not proof of anything.

[songbird36]

Look at all the doomsayers who said that the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska would damage the ecosystem forever. The most damage was done by the steamcleaning that was done to try and clean up all the oil.

Just remember, a computer model is not proof of anything.

Are you talking about inaccuracy in the model as a predictive tool? I take it you're not challenging the accuracy of actual ocean temperature measurements?

[Krill]

The funding for much of the anti-global warming studies is provided by Big Oil.

And the funding for much of the pro global warming studies is provided by organizations whose existence and success depends on their utility, something greatly increased by the existence of a climate crisis.

It goes both ways. Furthermore, it's a logical fallacy to assume something is wrong because it received funding from someone who would benefit if it was wrong.

[songbird36]

It goes both ways. Furthermore, it's a logical fallacy to assume something is wrong because it received funding from someone who would benefit if it was wrong.

It doesn't entail that the research is wrong - but it usually means that results are presented selectively, or else that conclusions are extrapolated from particular findings in a way which favours Big Energy (this problem happens with pharmaceutical research all the time).

[Krill]

It doesn't entail that the research is wrong - but it usually means that results are presented selectively, or else that conclusions are extrapolated from particular findings in a way which favours Big Energy (this problem happens with pharmaceutical research all the time).

I don't doubt that at all, however I've noticed that those results that indicated Global Warming in a very sure minded way tend to do the same.

[bclark619g]

Are you talking about inaccuracy in the model as a predictive tool? I take it you're not challenging the accuracy of actual ocean temperature measurements?

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of the model as a predictive tool.

The accuracy of ocean temperature readings is not relevant because the sample size is too small in the number of years of data. You can't determine a trend in ocean temperatures with only one hundred years (or whatever the length of time ocean temperatures have been measured) worth of data. The earth's warming and cooling cycles, from what I recall reading, take thousands of years.

There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal which said the global warming is a media-driven phenomenon. In the 70's, global cooling was the big issue in newspapers like the New York Times. There were predictions of a mini-ice age coming in the eighties. Didn't happen.

Last year there were articles talking about the ice cap at the North Pole shrinking. I think there was an article a couple of months ago, saying that now the ice cap is growing. My point is that these data points seem to be short-term trends--not long term trends.

[songbird36]

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of the model as a predictive tool.

The accuracy of ocean temperature readings is not relevant because the sample size is too small in the number of years of data. You can't determine a trend in ocean temperatures with only one hundred years (or whatever the length of time ocean temperatures have been measured) worth of data. The earth's warming and cooling cycles, from what I recall reading, take thousands of years.

There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal which said the global warming is a media-driven phenomenon. In the 70's, global cooling was the big issue in newspapers like the New York Times. There were predictions of a mini-ice age coming in the eighties. Didn't happen.

Last year there were articles talking about the ice cap at the North Pole shrinking. I think there was an article a couple of months ago, saying that now the ice cap is growing. My point is that these data points seem to be short-term trends--not long term trends.

OK, well that's a valid POV. Can you point to any recent research though that suggests global warming is not attributable to manmade CO2 emissions?

[Apostasius]

If one is going to be skeptical, then one should at least be aware of some of the information regarding global warming.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=3135
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/index.html
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/ (note the links in the tan sidebar)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

(http://www.realclimate.org/)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
(cliff notes version - short & simple)

And who could forget good old Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[Biff_Loman]

Thank heaven! Apostasius: you're the best. I'm way too lazy to trot out specific evidence in an internet discussion.

I think it's insane how much controversy there is.

[escapeTheVoid]

I would like to point everyone to the September 2006 edition of Scientific American. It's a special issue entitled, "Energy's Future: Beyond Carbon."

[bclark619g]

OK, well that's a valid POV. Can you point to any recent research though that suggests global warming is not attributable to manmade CO2 emissions?

No, I cannot. It seems obvious to me that the science is not precise in the area of global warming. It sounds so wonderfully scary to say that man has created enough CO2 emissions to cause this phenomenon. How do we know how much CO2 is produced by all the manmade processes? Somebody made a guess! It's okay to make a guess when you are doing an experiment, but you have to prove your hypothesis. Global warming has not been proven.

I did find the following link to two articles on Greenland's glaciers "melting" (http://www.debatebothsides.com/archive/index.php/t-27257.html) in which the second article (with quoted sources) indicates the complexity in trying to understand climate changes in one area and then extrapolating them out to the whole world.

This is the type of information which causes me to question the validity of sweeping statements about global warming.

[bclark619g]

Look at the graphs (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/pubs/topic1.pdf) in Figure 1: Comparison of observed changes in global-average surface air temperature over the 20th century with that from an ensemble of climate model simulations. Source: IPCC (2001b). It's on page 3.

There is a large amount of difference between the predicted temperatures (grey shading) and the actual observed temperatures (red line). Models missing actual measured temperatures, should not be relied on to make a case for temperatures from 1,000 years ago, where no actual measurements are available. If your model cannot mirror observed measurements, how can you claim the model is accurate? This is the problem I'm having with believing in global warming. The data just doesn't exist to verify what the temperature was 2,000 years ago. It's all guesswork.

[Apostasius]

Look at the graphs (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/hottopics/pubs/topic1.pdf) in Figure 1: Comparison of observed changes in global-average surface air temperature over the 20th century with that from an ensemble of climate model simulations. Source: IPCC (2001b). It's on page 3.

There is a large amount of difference between the predicted temperatures (grey shading) and the actual observed temperatures (red line). Models missing actual measured temperatures, should not be relied on to make a case for temperatures from 1,000 years ago, where no actual measurements are available. If your model cannot mirror observed measurements, how can you claim the model is accurate? This is the problem I'm having with believing in global warming. The data just doesn't exist to verify what the temperature was 2,000 years ago. It's all guesswork.

Ice core data are used. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Also check some of the other links posted.

[bclark619g]

Ice core data are used. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Also check some of the other links posted.

Ice core data is a perfect example of flawed data. The core sample in the article listed above is 3.2 km deep. When the Lost Squadron of airplanes was found in Greenland, the planes were buried in 268 feet of ice after 50 years.

Assume Greenland's ice pack generation is a reasonable approximation for Antarctic ice pack generation.

So:

268 feet of ice/50 years= 5.36 ft/yr of ice

Core sample was 3.2 km:

3.2km*1000 meters/3.meter/foot = 10,666.67 feet of ice in sample

To determine the number of years of data in the ice core based on Greenland ice generation, divide the Antarctic ice core sample by 5.36 ft/yr:

10,666.67 feet of ice sample/5.36 ft/yr = 1,990.05 years of ice generation


So, even if you don't agree that the ice generation rate in Greenland doesn't apply to ice generation in Antarctica, you have to question the idea that 3.2 meters of ice in Antarctica is equal to 800,000 years ago. In Greenland, 800,000 years of ice would be 4,288,000 feet thick (812 miles high).

For those of you wondering about the ice that melts every year, the Greenland rate accounts for that because we know when the planes were lost, 50 years ago, and the 268 feet of ice they were buried in was subject to melting during the 50 years. So if anything the 5.36 rate of ice accumulation would be conservative.

Anyway this exercise points out the amount of discrepancy in what is being touted as proof of global warming.

[CthulhuLuvsU]

I think its interesting that some well respected scientists have been worried about global warming.
[In an ABC News interview in August 2006, Hawking explained, "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of methane, trapped as hydrates on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so further global warming. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_hawking

It's also interesting that America is one of 2 countries (Australia being the other) that hasn't even moved to ratify the kyoto protocol. Whether or not you think the kyoto protocol would help, it says something that American government hasn't allowed its citizens to decide for themselves on the basis that the implementation of the protocol could harm the oil indus... cough... the economy. As the #1 contributer to greenhouse gas emissions, I think America should take action to at least develop forward thinking technology that will not harm the environment. Also, I would go as far as to say that if global warming does prove to be a major issue in the coming years, and America still refuses to contribute, I believe other nations are justified in using force to resolve the issue.

[Melody]

the Similar Threads Links at the bottom didn't include it, cuz apparently vBulliten is slightly retarded and doesn't use stratified bayesian relating like they should [on tertiary thought, their whole search system seems to use raw mySQL searching. sux sux. good thing we have that custom Google Search field in the top-right corner], but here is a recent one

Climate Change - The Money Question (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=13921)

[Apostasius]

Ice core data is a perfect example of flawed data.

Are you a paleoclimatologist? Do you think climatologists are incompetent?

One cannot make the assumption that Greenland's ice pack generation is a reasonable approximation of Antarctica's. One also cannot make the assumption that Greenland's ice pack generation is similar near the coast and far inland.

[Apostasius]

Okay, so I was curious about the Lost Squadron claim and discovered that similar information is used by creationists. Similarly, ice core skepticism seems especially prevalent by young earth creationists (YECs). I found the following in response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm
http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_westerngeologist_archive.html (scroll a third of the way down)

In fact, one thing I have observed is that global warming denial in general seems pronounced in two groups: (1) libertarians and (2) YECs. I find this correlation fascinating even if meaningless.

[bclark619g]

Okay, so I was curious about the Lost Squadron claim and discovered that similar information is used by creationists. Similarly, ice core skepticism seems especially prevalent by young earth creationists (YECs). I found the following in response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm
http://westerngeologist.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_westerngeologist_archive.html (scroll a third of the way down)

In fact, one thing I have observed is that global warming denial in general seems pronounced in two groups: (1) libertarians and (2) YECs. I find this correlation fascinating even if meaningless.

I found the article from the YECs too. I didn't include it because I didn't want that to confuse the issue. My recollection of the Lost Squadron was from reading it in a major magazine like Time, National Geographic, or maybe even the Discovery Channel.

No I'm not a scientist, but I can do simple math and you are free to refute me with an alternative math solution. Are you in agreement with my method, but just have a problem with my using Greenland as a proxy for Antarctica?

Is it not the nature of an INTP to question authoritative figures? I am just questioning the idea of some of the leaps being made by scientific organizations. You listed one website that quoted an article from the IPCC. The only thing conclusive it said was that most scientists think that humans have had an impact on environmental changes.

[escapeTheVoid]

I believe that the debate should maybe focus more on how we can adapt to global warming. Since there seems to be no doubt about that it is geting warming we should consider how we deal with rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, increasing desertification (is that a word?) and a possible slowdown of the gulf stream. Because even if it were proven that man is responsible for global warming, I doubt anything would change really.

Here's an article written by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pascala from the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton University highlighting some possible technologies and strategies for stabilizing carbon emissions by mid-century.

The article can be found at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5686/968?ijkey=Y58LIjdWjMPsw&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

CMI: http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm

[zhang_bob]

I've heard that argument before. I even saw the Penn and Teller episode over global warming and understood where they were coming from...


Was it this (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=Penn+and+Teller) one?

[Ferrus]

Humans are ultimately short time, oppurtunists, which served us well in the past. But now it may be our doom - let us not forget Easter Island or indeed the Maya.

[arcaneidea]

Global warming is an issue I have taken to heart for years now. Not only does the kyoto treaty only slightly delay the inevitible, but it also creates the false impression that we are doing something substantial to reverse the climate change crisis. Watch our fresh water supply melt away into the ocean and then who cares how thin the ozone layer is if you're too dehydrated to continue living. Our lakes and rivers have long been collectors of hazardeous runoff and industrial sewage. Throw in the growing insect, bacteria, and virus problems that we are facing more and more everyday and life looks pretty grim. I think it's time that we did something about this issue rather than waiting before it's too late. Yes I believe that the kyoto treaty is a good first step to solving a GLOBAL issue, but you can't believe that it is all that needs to be done. There is something seriously wrong with the rate at which we are consuming the only natural resources we have. I just saw " Who Killed The Electric Car," today and it further exposes oil companies plot to drill every last drop of oil we have because it is so profitable. The oil companies are the ones that benefit from the hydrogen fuel cell. It is a technology decades away from mass production (if it ever is mass produced) and just gives these huge companies more time to strip the earth bare of a NONRENEWABLE resource while we get little peaks at cars that cost a million dollars to make. I know I shouldn't be preaching all this in this forum as it is the rest of the world that needs to know this, but this is a very crucial topic and i'm glad it was started. Lots of good information in here. Time to save the world.

[Apostasius]

No I'm not a scientist, but I can do simple math and you are free to refute me with an alternative math solution. Are you in agreement with my method, but just have a problem with my using Greenland as a proxy for Antarctica?


I am not sure if your method is appropriate, because I do not know what other variables may be present. Your math, however, is fine.

I think the main disagreement would come from equating the ice generation rates from two different geographical regions and making a generalization that erroneously conflates two disparate events. I also think that factors such as glacial morphology and strata, precipitation content, regional climate patterns, etc. should be considered. I cannot provide details as my training is not in climatology.

I would also point out that the last link I provided was from a media outlet so it obviously lacks relevant scientific details inaccesible to the layperson.

[dubbeltop]

Global Warming

We just need to look at ourselves and realize that our COLLECTIVE behaviour is similar to sheep ,they just keep staring into oblivion as life passes them by...


The only solution to global warming is less humans, more nature

I already volunteered to stay single and keep myself entertained with endless supplies of neighbourhood cats...miauw

[SensEye]

Not only does the kyoto treaty only slightly delay the inevitible, but it also creates the false impression that we are doing something substantial to reverse the climate change crisis...Time to save the world.You got that right. Kyoto is about optics. Makes people feel the problem is being addressed. America isn't even on board. Also, China and India are exempt I believe. They're poor you know, we can't really expect the poor to not pollute, environment be damned.

As was said earlier, human nature simply does not have the long term vision to deal with this problem until there is serious crisis. Acheiving peace in the middle east is trivial compared to the global co-operation needed to solve global warming. The inept U.N. can't even deal with a one country issue like genocide in Darfur.

On the bright side, I figure to be dead before the shit really hits the fan. In your face future generations, prepare to be screwed. ;)

[OliverH]

You got that right. Kyoto is about optics. Makes people feel the problem is being addressed. America isn't even on board. Also, China and India are exempt I believe. They're poor you know, we can't really expect the poor to not pollute, environment be damned.

Incorrect. The Kyoto treaty isn't about optics, it's about leading by example. The Kyoto treaty covers a very specific timeframe, with a next step always in the plans. China and India always were to be taken into the boat in that next step. But at the onset of Kyoto negotiations, China's CO2 output was even falling as more and more outdated factories were being modernized. With the continuing boom in China, however, the trend was eventually turned around. But how do you go and ask someone to come into a boat you don't want to sit in yourself?


As was said earlier, human nature simply does not have the long term vision to deal with this problem until there is serious crisis. Acheiving peace in the middle east is trivial compared to the global co-operation needed to solve global warming. The inept U.N. can't even deal with a one country issue like genocide in Darfur.

This has nothing to do with the "inept UN". Calling the UN inept for not being able to deal with a one country issue suggests you don't understand what the UN is, does or wants. The UN's chief task is to regulate the relationships between individual member nations, not taking care of issues happening within one member nation. In fact, doing the latter is highly problematic in light of the UN charter. The UN is an inter-national organisation in the truest sense, acting between nations. While subsidiary organizations act within individual nations, they are not the UN but merely some of its organs and operate with the consent of the authorities involved. The issue is plain and simply one of sovereignty.

The reason why the UN has trouble dealing with one county issues is it was never designed to do so. If you try to club in a nail with a screwdriver, you will find you have serious trouble doing so. It's not what the screwdriver is made for. If you want to hammer in a nail, user a hammer. But don't use a screwdriver and call it inept for not doing it effectively.

[arcaneidea]

our COLLECTIVE behaviour is similar to sheep

Yes, humans are intelligent as individuals (that is why we have forums in the first place) and stupid in groups (in come all the worlds problems). I think if we had more introverted thinkers in this world then we would make a lot more progress. Despite saying that I'm an environmentalist, I can't help but admit that I drive a car on the same road, throw away garbage in the same trash, and buy the same pointless shit as most of the world. Who the hell ever thought of burning a crude black substance in the first place? As if it wouldn't harm us :huh: Anyways, people in general do not like to think. I find this is true whenever I talk about something of meaning with a friend that isn't an INTP or similar. They just don't want to hear it because it makes them depressed like all of us. One mind should never bear the weight of the world's problems, but it often does. Change starts from a single point (big bang anyone?) so if you really want to make a difference then start out by changing your friends minds. They will then have a message to spread. This is a ripple effect, starting at a point and reaching as far out as it possibly can. Change your friends minds about what though you might ask? Most people know the world is in trouble (major assumption), but don't want to think about it. They would rather watch :banghead: on TV. Explain to them how fragile earth is and to actually research the subject. Now if you're one of the people that only care about themselves and don't care what happens in the future, well you are where this problem came from. If it doesn't directly affect then than they won't care. Well global warming is a GLOBAL issue and if one country is polluting then it effects the whole world. Just be an individual when it comes to saving mankind, not one of the herd who follows the lead of the oil companies. No one wants to pollute, but when they have to go out of their way to not do so, or their is money involved, don't expect someone to give into the earth's NEEDS before their own WANTS.