View Full Version : Kyoto FLAMEWAR!
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 16:33
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm
While lecturing everybody else, especially America, on the morality of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it has been abundantly clear from the start that most European countries didn't have a snowflake in hell's chance of meeting their own Kyoto targets.
I've provided plenty of fodder for another US/EU flamewar, so do your part to add to global warming and begin bickering. ;)
More humorous, however, was the Russian stance that they may not sign Kyoto because global warming would be beneficial to them.
:shock:
Troll!! :P
But in all seriousness, I think this is a key statement from the article:
Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.
Can't possibly hope to reduce emissions if not enough countries are willing to follow the protocols. Oh yea, and Russia's stance is pretty dumb. Sure, make Russia a temperate climate. Why not go all the way and help the poor alaskans and greenlanders.
What about those wayward antarctic souls who could use a little warmth too? I'm sure all our coastal cities could use a little more water. Imagine the worth of the beachfront property formed in Kansas? :wink:
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 17:30
The EEA says the main reasons for the 2001 increase in all six gases were a colder winter in most EU countries, which meant householders burnt more heating fuel.
So, in short: warmer weather = decreased emissions. Looks like the "problem" is also the solution. ;)
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 17:33
:shock:
Troll!! :P
But in all seriousness, I think this is a key statement from the article:
Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.
Can't possibly hope to reduce emissions if not enough countries are willing to follow the protocols.
What does having more signatories have to do with individual countries (or regions) that have signed on not meeting targets?
MrsSkywalker
06-May-2003, 17:33
You know, we just had a winter here that was day-to-day 20 degreed (F) COLDER than normal.
Global warming my ass. :wink:
The article counted the emissions from the EU as a whole, not as separate countries. Each country that signs onto Kyoto still needs to ratify the protocols in their respective nations. Becoming a signatory is only a promise. It is not necessarily binding. The US could become a signatory, and still not ratify the Kyoto protocols in congress.
Hence:
Not enough signatories have yet ratified the protocol to allow it to enter into force.
Not enough countries have ratified the protocols in their respective legislative bodies for it to actually make a positive dent yet.
You know, we just had a winter here that was day-to-day 20 degreed (F) COLDER than normal.
Global warming my ass. :wink:
Believe it or not, colder weather as a result of global warming makes sense.
The warming does not have to be uniform. Basically global warming can affect the temperature in at least two ways. One is that portions of the atmosphere will warm up, say over a polluting country, while other portions remain the same temperature. If enough of the atmosphere changes, it will affect the global wind currents; the oft-used jet stream is one example. The differential fronts will expand or contract, thus changing weather patterns.
So what can happen is that we'll end up getting warmer winters and cooler summers, i.e. our weather will become more temperate. Or we could have hotter summers and colder winters as the normal wind currents that keep our climate more temperate no longer blow through as strongly.
Or we'll have chaotic swings in weather as the wind currents destabilize, i.e. 70 degree weather one day and 40 degree weather the next, followed by 80 degree weather for a week, then 30 degree weather for another week.
Fyi, that happened in NYC over the past few weeks. Crazy temperature swings, one after another. Ah thermodynamics. :)
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 17:49
The article counted the emissions from the EU as a whole, not as separate countries.
Right. And the EU as a whole is moving in the wrong direction. Are there any EU nations that have not signed on? Any EU nations that don't believe Kyoto is a good idea?
BTW, The article also gave an account of some individual countries and a gross idea of how they are faring on individual targets.)
Each country that signs onto Kyoto still needs to ratify the protocols in their respective nations. Becoming a signatory is only a promise.
Right.
Not enough countries have ratified the protocols in their respective legislative bodies for it to actually make a positive dent.
Pleaes clarify.
Are you saying that the EU countries are just dragging their feet? When do these legislative bodies plan on actually taking action? 2015?
What does the article mean when it stated:
The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012.
Is the EU committed, or not?
BTW, what are you thinking by responding to my posts? I thought you were "serious" about "ignoring" me... :wink:
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 17:52
Believe it or not, colder weather as a result of global warming makes sense.
Right......
It gets colder...It's global warming!
It gets hotter...It's global warming!
It's dryer this year...It's global warming!
It's wetter this year...It's global warming!
Too many gypsy moths this year...It's global warming!
Where are all the gypsy moths this year? It's global warming!
Mariner
06-May-2003, 17:52
That's one possible worry here in the UK. At the moment, we have a very temperate climate relative to our latitude - we're about the same latitude as Labrador! This is due to the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift), the flow of (relatively) warm water which comes up from the Gulf of Mexico.
One hypothesis is that Global Warming could change the flow of the Gulf Stream which would make our climate much more like that of Canada. Winters here might be a bit wet and miserable but I don't fancy freezing my nuts off much! :shock:
The article stated that 4 countries so far had ratified Kyoto and were on target to meet or exceed the targets. However, not every country has ratified Kyoto yet. I don't pretend to know why.
And I said before that I wasn't going to respond to your posts when you made ridiculous assertions, or when it was clear that it was just posting to troll. Your post in this thread certainly wasn't, so I responded. I've ignored your other posts that weren't particularly intelligible. So I'm still on track. :)
Believe it or not, colder weather as a result of global warming makes sense.
Right......
It gets colder...It's global warming!
It gets hotter...It's global warming!
It's dryer this year...It's global warming!
It's wetter this year...It's global warming!
Too many gypsy moths this year...It's global warming!
Where are all the gypsy moths this year? It's global warming!
Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic. Check the entire post that you snipped one sentence out of for reference. :)
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 17:57
And I said before that I wasn't going to respond to your posts when you made ridiculous assertions, or when it was clear that it was just posting to troll.
Hmmm...Strange way to state that you decided to stop simply throwing blatant insults at me, when you can't come up with a reasonable response to a logical post... :wink:
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 18:02
Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic.
Great, well such things (localized swings in the absolute statistical numbers) have been happening since the dawn of time. Guess "man made gasses" just might not be the primary cause....
Back on topic:
That's one possible worry here in the UK. At the moment, we have a very temperate climate relative to our latitude - we're about the same latitude as Labrador! This is due to the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Drift), the flow of (relatively) warm water which comes up from the Gulf of Mexico.
One hypothesis is that Global Warming could change the flow of the Gulf Stream which would make our climate much more like that of Canada. Winters here might be a bit wet and miserable but I don't fancy freezing my nuts off much! :shock:
That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!
Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change." Not because "Global Warming" isn't an accurate assessment of what's happening, but because those that don't understand thermodynamics and atmospheric differentials will automatically assume that global warming means we should be having 60 degree weather in december (that is of course, if you're in the northern hemisphere, well above the equator. :)).
It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.
Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic.
Great, well such things (localized swings in the absolute statistical numbers) have been happening since the dawn of time. Guess "man made gasses" just might not be the primary cause....
You forgot my instructions at the end:
Basically, yes. If you understand atmospheric thermodynamics, all of those examples are indeed plausible and realistic. Check the entire post that you snipped one sentence out of for reference. :)
Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe. No, we're not on the verge of the apocalypse. But certainly we are at a point in our history where with a little foresight, we can avoid huge problems to come in the next 100-200 years. And I believe we're moving in that direction.
MrsSkywalker
06-May-2003, 18:10
My honest view on global warming is as such:
Earth has been around for a very long time. In it's turbulent history, there are clear cut periods of warming and cooling. We had an ice age not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things...what happens after the ice ages? A period of warming! What a revelation!
It's a rather conceited view point to assume that the Earth would stop it's natural weather patterns to accomodate humans.
If we were entering another ice age, then the blame would be placed on the amount of refrigerators and freezers humans have. :roll:
You can't blame humans for Mother Nature's plan.
My honest view on global warming is as such:
Earth has been around for a very long time. In it's turbulent history, there are clear cut periods of warming and cooling. We had an ice age not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things...what happens after the ice ages? A period of warming! What a revelation!
It's a rather conceited view point to assume that the Earth would stop it's natural weather patterns to accomodate humans.
If we were entering another ice age, then the blame would be placed on the amount of refrigerators and freezers humans have. :roll:
You can't blame humans for Mother Nature's plan.
Indeed you are correct. There have been periods of warming and cooling in the Earth that are naturally occurring. There have also been periods of mass extinction and pollution, not caused by man.
Does that mean that just because it's happened in the past, we should go around exterminating all the living creatures on the planet? That we should pollute indiscriminately?
Of course not. The point of this entire endeavour is to try and limit human influence on the planet as much as possible. Whether you want to accept it or not, the point is that we *do* have an effect on the environment through our actions. We have changed the Earth's climate, especially when taking into account the wind patterns of the planet. If you know thermodynamics, you have to know that increasing the temperature differential of one body of air will most certainly cause weather pattern changes. This isn't hokey science.
I don't think it's conceited to believe that we can and are changing our environment. I do think it's rather short sighted to believe that no matter what we do the Earth won't be affected, simply because it's been here longer than we have and has experienced cataclysmic changes during that time.
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 18:33
That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!
Like that hasn't happened before? And won't again?
Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change."
I agree, though I'd wager that the "global warming" label was applied more by junk scientists, politicians and alarmists, than true scientists.
People just don't get "alarmed" by something like "climate change"? Why? Because they don't know what it means. Change for the better or worse? Even worse, when people ask the questions, the only honest answer that one can give is "uh, we don't really know how it's changing, or why, or what we can do...all we know is it's changing."
"Your region might get warmer...it might get cooler"
"You might have more precipitation...you might get less"
"You might get more gypsy moths...you might get more."
Say something more definitive like "It's getting WARMER!" (Or "It's getting COOLER for that matter"), and people can dream up their own dooms-day scenarios of coastal floods due to melting ice caps or the next ice age....
Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe.
Really? And how much half-way accurate "statistical history" do we actually have before we start measuring tree rings for you to make such a statement?
It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.
Indeed.
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 18:42
Does that mean that just because it's happened in the past, we should go around exterminating all the living creatures on the planet? That we should pollute indiscriminately?
Why is your analogy relevant at all? No one wants to kill all living creatures or pollute indiscriminately. You (as all environmentalists), equate CHANGE with BAD.
Why?
Why does climate change mean (for one example) things like "extinctions", instead of more generalized changing the make-up (some extinctions, some creatures NOT going extinct when they otherwise would have naturally) of the planet?
The point of this entire endeavour is to try and limit human influence on the planet as much as possible.
I disagree completely.
You come from the standpoint that human influence = bad.
I come from the standpoint that human influence = change. Change does not necessarily mean bad.
Whether you want to accept it or not, the point is that we *do* have an effect on the environment through our actions.
Agreed.
We have changed the Earth's climate,
Possibly. And the growth of rain forrests also changes the earth's climate. Is that a good or bad thing?
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 18:45
You forgot my instructions at the end:
No, I didn't. I read your entire posts, I just don't repeat the whole thing in it's entirety, and I don't think it's good use of bandwidth to quote more than is necessary for you to know which context each of my responses is in reference to.
Mariner
06-May-2003, 18:49
I was reading recently that the climate in the UK was considerably warmer in the 'dark ages' than it has been in recent centuries. Vineyards were quite common back then in the South of England, but they have to work damn hard nowadays to get much in the way of wine here.
As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!
Maybe I should take up Scuba diving...
That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!
Like that hasn't happened before? And won't again?
The point is that we should try and limit how much *we* change the environment. There are natural climate changes which occur on a geologic scale, i.e. thousands to millions of years, and then there are climate changes that occur on a human scale, i.e. months, years, and decades.
The changes that have been recorded in the past 10-20 years are most certainly occurring on a human scale, thus it is safe to conclude that these changes are not natural.
Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change."
I agree, though I'd wager that the "global warming" label was applied more by junk scientists, politicians and alarmists, than true scientists.
People just don't get "alarmed" by something like "climate change"? Why? Because they don't know what it means. Change for the better or worse? Even worse, when people ask the questions, the only honest answer that one can give is "uh, we don't really know how it's changing, or why, or what we can do...all we know is it's changing."
"Your region might get warmer...it might get cooler"
"You might have more precipitation...you might get less"
"You might get more gypsy moths...you might get more."
Say something more definitive like "It's getting WARMER!" (Or "It's getting COOLER for that matter"), and people can dream up their own dooms-day scenarios of coastal floods due to melting ice caps or the next ice age....
You took my quote out of context Joe.
Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change." Not because "Global Warming" isn't an accurate assessment of what's happening, but because those that don't understand thermodynamics and atmospheric differentials will automatically assume that global warming means we should be having 60 degree weather in december (that is of course, if you're in the northern hemisphere, well above the equator. ).
It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.
I stated that they should change the term from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change," not because "Global Warming" is not an accurate assessment of what is going on in the atmosphere, but because people that don't understand thermodynamics will automatically assume we're supposed to have balmy weather in the winter.
The intent of my *entire* thought was not to state that the term "Global Warming" is in any way alarmist or administered by junk science. To the contrary, it is a completely accurate assessment of the true nature of the climatological changes caused by man.
Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe.
Really? And how much half-way accurate "statistical history" do we actually have before we start measuring tree rings for you to make such a statement?
The statistical data is there for anyone to read. You can google it for yourself if you wish. And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.
As for the second post you made in response to my response to MrsSkywalker, the only thing I can say is that the Earth can only sustain a certain amount of removal.
The National Academy of Sciences released a study in June of 2002 which stated that the rate of resource removal from the Earth exceeds its natural ability to regenerate. Currently, we remove 1.2 years worth of resources from the Earth for every year of regeneration, and that rate is climbing.
The point of all this is that we must curtail our activities to bring it back in line with what the Earth can sustain us on. If we can curtail our polluting, our environmental destruction, etc etc etc, to a point where the Earth can replenish and regenerate itself on an even keel basis, then we'll be in harmony with the environment. That is what I and many other people espouse.
That is why we need to watch how we affect our environment. I don't believe that human influence is bad. I believe that *too* much influence is bad. We can't remove from the earth indiscriminately and expect everything to come back.
Farmers have to turn over their soil every other year or so, to make sure that the soil is not depleted. That's an instance of letting the earth regenerate. It's something that needs to be implemented on a planetary scale.
Silent_One
06-May-2003, 19:39
As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!
Well, looking a little north of the Antarctic.......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1058353.stm
Arctic sea ice 'thins by almost half' :shock:
Two UK scientists say they have found evidence to show that sea ice is thinning across the Arctic........
They say their work shows that the ice in the Fram Strait, between Svalbard and Greenland, thinned by nearly half in two decades.......
Dr Wadhams told BBC News Online: "Between summer 1976 and summer 1996 there was a 43% thinning of sea ice over a large area of the Arctic Ocean between Fram Strait and the North Pole.
And then another article!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/523065.stm
Arctic sea ice gets thinner :shock: :shock:
There has been a "striking" decline in the thickness of Arctic sea ice according to scientists who have studied data gathered by US Navy submarines.
And then even another article!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/552327.stm
Humanity blamed for ice loss :shock: :shock: :shock:
A new study says there is now very little doubt that human-induced warming is behind the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice seen in recent years.
Finally the latest article!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1311007.stm
Arctic's big melt challenged :?: :?: :lol: :lol: :lol:
New data suggest the North Pole got a little thicker in the 90s
......The evidence for major thinning is supported by submarine data. Upward-looking sonar readings, studied by both US and British scientists, have produced broadly similar results: about a 40% reduction in draught between the 1960s and 1990s - by draught, researchers mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack.
But the submarine data are not exactly comprehensive: the cruises were not continuous and the data sets only cover certain areas in the Arctic. And this is partly what got Dr Holloway into thinking the ice may simply have been "mislaid".......... He wondered if multi-decadal wind patterns known to operate in the Arctic could have shifted the ice into areas not surveyed by the submarines, giving the illusion that the ice was losing volume over a period of time. And when he matched the timing of the submarine visits with what he knew about wind cycles, his suspicions were confirmed.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level. :D
covermye
06-May-2003, 19:49
Of course we can't have a global warming argument without one of these contributions:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agriculture/factsheets/fs_beef.html
A teaser:
Livestock produce methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both are very potent greenhouse gasses, methane having a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide
:)
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 19:55
nitrous oxide 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide
Damn, I better stop huffing.
Silent_One: Thanks for the articles. They were a good read.
However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice. Most of the ice in antarctica is on the actual continent. Antarctica is a continent of solid land, covered with mile thick ice, while the arctic circle is a 'continent' of ice. Antarctica's ice sheets melting into the ocean would most certainly affect the sea levels around the globe catastrophically. Even greenland's ice melting would cause issues, because, as you stated correctly, ice does displace it's weight in water.
But if the ice isn't in the water to begin with, you've got problems. :wink:
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 20:12
The point is that we should try and limit how much *we* change the environment.
Because *WE* are bad, and some concept of "nature" is "OK", no matter how much or how fast / slow nature changes things?
The changes that have been recorded in the past 10-20 years are most certainly occurring on a human scale, thus it is safe to conclude that these changes are not natural.
Sorry, but your repeating it "most certainly" doesn't make it true. We have no accuate statistical record any further in history than a few generations. There is no way you can make any "safe conclusion" that any observed changes are natural or not. We simply don't have any data (other than "best guess averages") to make such a judgement.
You took my quote out of context Joe.
No, I didn't take it out of context. I agreed that it shold be changed. I don't agree with WHY it should be changed. You took MY quote out of context, despite the fact that you quoted the whole thing. Imagine that.
The intent of my *entire* thought was not to state that the term "Global Warming" is in any way alarmist or administered by junk science.
No, that's the intent of MY thought.
To the contrary, it is a completely accurate assessment of the true nature of the climatological changes caused by man.
No, it is not a completely accurate assesment. It is one theory. I would say that MOST believe that there is indeed "Global Warming" occurring. Whether it's caused by man or not to any extent is the debate.
The statistical data is there for anyone to read. You can google it for yourself if you wish.
I tried briefly, and couldn't find any. You talk contradictorally about "geolocical" timescales, and "human" timescales, etc. All of the theories about GEOLOGICAL climate changes are being based on extremely recent human time scale data.
For example, show me some daily, weekly, or monthly weather statistics for say, North Dakota in 1805, or 1500 B.C.
And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.
Really. :roll:
So you are telling me, that during such a "geological time scale" (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years?) for example, where the earth may have for example, warmed say 20 degrees on average, there was no period of a decade or a hundred years where the average temperature was constant or fell by a degree or two, or even more?
Do you understand the fallacy of your analysis?
If we can curtail our polluting, our environmental destruction, etc etc etc, to a point where the Earth can replenish and regenerate itself on an even keel basis, then we'll be in harmony with the environment. That is what I and many other people espouse.
Everyone esposes that.
Where there is disagreement is what defines "harmony." There are different levels of equilibrium, both on micro and macro levels.
That is why we need to watch how we affect our environment.
Yes, we do need to watch and study how we affect our environment. No arguyments there.
I don't believe that human influence is bad. I believe that *too* much influence is bad. We can't remove from the earth indiscriminately and expect everything to come back.
Agreed. Says nothing about global warming, which this topic is about.
Farmers have to turn over their soil every other year or so, to make sure that the soil is not depleted. That's an instance of letting the earth regenerate. It's something that needs to be implemented on a planetary scale.
Wrong.
Farmers have to turn their soil every other year or so to make sure the soil is not depleted for the particular crop they want to grow. If they don't turn the soil, they may not be able to grow their crop of choice. But given time, SOMETHING will grow back there.
Is what the farmer wanted to grow "right" or what nature allows to grow there without human intervention of (grow and harvast cycles) right?
Is it wrong to "artificially" replenish soil with nutrients?
Silent_One
06-May-2003, 20:13
However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice....
No...Im not wrong. Read what I wrote. Sea ice is ....in the sea! Land ice is different.
However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice....
No...Im not wrong. Read what I wrote. Sea ice is ....in the sea! Land ice is different.
Doh! :lol: misread your statement. okily I retract. :P
Silent_One
06-May-2003, 20:44
Now here's somethng interesting....
Nenana Ice Classic
The `Nenana Ice Classic' is a betting lottery to predict the correct time and date of ice breakup and has been an annual event since 1917. This year, there are 19 winners to share the $301,000 jackpot. :D
The median date of breakup is 5th May. The earliest breakups were on 20th April in 1941 and 1998, both of which were strong El Niño years. 2003 is also an El Niño year, but has clearly not had the same impact as on the previous occasions.
Where to get tickets :arrow: http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 20:45
But all those fresh water icebergs have a different density than sea water!
Which is why they float.
The breakup is from an iceshelf that is already boyant, so these don't add to sealevel. However when the iceshelf breaks up, pressure is decreased and you get an increase flow of ice form the interior of Anarctica.
Cheers
Gubbi
Joe, we can't possibly hope to have a coherant discussion when you quote+paste in the manner you do. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about by quoting your prior post, quite obviously out of the original context.
---------------------------------------
some concept of "nature" is "OK"
I agree. Nature is always good.
We simply don't have any data
I agree completely. People with your stance generally don't know what they're talking about.
Really. :roll:
Yes really.
I would say that MOST believe that there is indeed "Global Warming" occurring.
I'm glad we agree that global warming is occurring because of Man's negative influence.
---------------------------------------
You generally do so on a far grander scale than I can possibly hope to do, but the fact still remains that you take the points of someone's post and chop it up to the point where the original context is lost. Sometimes to the point where you'll make it sound like someone is agreeing with you when in fact they completely disagree. I've seen it quite a few times, and not with just my posts.
Context is all we've got when discussing things on these boards. The internet is a difficult place to have a discourse sometimes because the natural inflections in one's voice, or one's body language are not conveyed to increase the understanding of what is being said. If you chop up the context, it can turn the meaning of a sentence into something completely different. It turns a meaningful discussion into an argument over semantics and what was said, why this was said, what the meaning of this was, etc etc etc.
All it does is detract from the discussion. But then again, I'm detracting from the discussion by making this post, so I'll refrain from this and keep it on track in the future as best I can.
Silent_One
06-May-2003, 21:42
Related to Sea levels......
Pacific atolls can't find out whether they will sink
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/020825041235.1kc48u02.html
Tuvalu has become Greenpeace's poster-victim for the dangers of global warming and one of its main weapons for criticising Australia's conservative government, which refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions.......Tuvalu's 10,500 Polynesians live on just 26 square kilometres (10 square miles) over nine islands, none more than five metres (16 feet) above sea-level -- and if the water rises they are doomed.....
Since 1977 the University of Hawaii Sea Level Centre has had a tide gauge on Funafuti but it is infamous for producing erratic data, suggesting it is sinking or getting knocked about by the wind.
The 14-nation Australian-funded South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project installed a more accurate gauge there in 1993, which is operated by Australia's National Tidal Facility (NTF).
In March NTF caused controversy by declaring: "The historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."
Coastline degradation and sinking islets in Funafuti, it suggested, were the result of entirely local conditions.........
But at the Pacific Forum summit John Hunter of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre in Tasmania, Australia, criticised the NTF's operation.
"I do believe that the way in which the NTF have released figures has been unhelpful to climate scientists but very helpful to greenhouse sceptics," he told AFP.
Applying various statistical techniques, Hunter has come up with his own forecasts which are also inconclusive.
However Hunter concedes that the data is of "little value" at the moment because NTF hasn't been operating long enough and the effects of the El Nino weather phenomenon are hard to gauge.
Hunter said a useful estimate of sea level rise may be possible only in 40 years time.
"As with much climate data, we do not have as much as we would like and the uncertainty is undesirably high," he said. "However, we have to use what we have got."
So, not enough information, data is of "little value", not operational long enough, and it will take 40 years time.....
:lol: or :cry:
IMHO we cant have a definitive or conclusive evaluation of the effects of human intervention then we should control/minimize this level of intervention just as a precaution.
OT and advertisement :) Looks like you people have a lot energy and CPU cycles available. What about join the Beyond3D Folding Team ? :arrow: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5668&start=0
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 22:02
Joe, we can't possibly hope to have a coherant discussion when you quote+paste in the manner you do.
Oddly, no one else has had this complaint. Your problem is that you appear to assume the general context is lost because
1) I don't repeat every last sentence of yours that relates in some way to my response. and/or
2) I don't agree with you.
In other words, just because I don't agree with you, or don't see how certain aspects of your position fit in with your context, doesn't mean I don't understand the entire context itself.
For a change, assume that I do understand the entire context of whatever quote I pull from your posts. That's what I do when people pull quotes from my posts. And if you disagree with the statements I make around that, do what everone else does: say why you disagree, or why you think I misunderstood your context, and explain more precisely.
I do it all the time to folks who don't seem to get MY points. If their response indicates to me that they didn't "get my point" I just tell them they misunderstood (or that I wasn't clear enough...same thing), and I explain more fully.
Otherwise, we just end up cutting and pasting entire posts, which is quite pointless, tedious, and wasting bandwidth.
You generally do so on a far grander scale than I can possibly hope to do, but the fact still remains that you take the points of someone's post and chop it up to the point where the original context is lost.
Again, no one else has offered this complaint to me. You are making the erroneous assumption that I have "lost" the original context. Rather than assuming it is one of the following:
1) understand the context, but challenge you to explain how some statements are consistent with that context.
or
2) Actually don't understand the context, and you need to clarify.
In short, REST ASSURED, I do not purposely take any quotes out of context. If you BELIEVE that has happened, then you need to explain your position better.
Sometimes to the point where you'll make it sound like someone is agreeing with you when in fact they completely disagree. I've seen it quite a few times, and not with just my posts.
And sometimes you make contradictions or overgeneralizations to the point where the context is about as clear as mud. And not answering questions about specific points does little to clarify your stance.
Context is all we've got when discussing things on these boards.
Agreed. Which is why it is important to address either
1) any [i]apparent[i] contraditions, or
2) any points raised that highlight the consequence of an overgeneralized statement.
All it does is detract from the discussion. But then again, I'm detracting from the discussion by making this post, so I'll refrain from this and keep it on track in the future as best I can.
I agree this is not an ideal medium to debate / discuss. However, as long as you continue to believe that you are purposely being quoted out of context, rather than its just your position being challenged due to either contradictory statements you have made, or over-generalized statements you have made, then perhaps you shouldn't communicate using this forum.
It is precisely becuase this medium is not ideal, that you must be willing to explain yourself better when challenged.
anyone lived at 1950's London?
my commiserations to those who had... I have seen documentary about the 50-60's smog at london and can't really say that would be "periodically changes." so, obiously there has been some use of emission regulations... when I last visited London, I easily could see more than 10 meters away...
I wonder where you would be now, if everyone would have assumed that being "periodically changes" and continued pollution just like before...
I'll just put it to you this way joe. You don't know how many PMs I've received from various members of the b3d community who have stated in no uncertain terms that it is a useless and pointless effort to debate with you, because of the manner in which you post.
I just happen to be the only one who feels like voicing it. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your decision. I disagree a lot with MrsSkywalker, and I disagree alot with Vince, among others on this board. Ever wonder why I've never made those assessments about their posting styles?
Think about it.
Back on topic:
Pascal: I'm on the team. Currently have 180/600 done so far.
Silent_One: I think what people are trying to do today is minimize the damage until more is known about the environmental effects. We do from scientific study that certain human influences can have a negative effect on the environment. Right now we don't know the extent because really, environmental study is a new science. But I think it's safe to say that until we do find out how good/bad things are by our intervention, we should try to limit our influences on the environment.
It's better safe than sorry imo.
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 22:31
IMHO we cant have a definitive or conclusive evaluation of the effects of human intervention then we should control/minimize this level of intervention just as a precaution.
I don't think anyone really disagrees with that.
The question is "how much control" and "minimize to what extent?" We can take it to rediculous extremes:
We should all be walking to work on non-paved routes....taking care to "step around" any living thing so as not to disrupt "nature".
or
There should be no emission laws or regulations. Just do whatever is cheapest.
The truth is, conservatives, just like the greens, see a happy medium between those two somewhere. There are things that some believe are worthy precautions, and some believe are just a waste of money, that's all.
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 22:46
I'll just put it to you this way joe. You don't know how many PMs I've received from various members of the b3d community who have stated in no uncertain terms that it is a useless and pointless effort to debate with you, because of the manner in which you post.
Oh good grief. Lemme guess...the majority of them also happen to share your viewpoint. :roll: You seem to need quite a bit of "reassurance" from friends, co-workers, other board members on a varity of issues Natoma. Dunno why that is. I'm comfortable with myself.
I just happen to be the only one who feels like voicing it.
Indeed. That appears to be the case. No one has voiced it to me. You would think that would be the more productive route to take, wouldn't you?
Whether you choose to accept that or not is your decision. I disagree a lot with MrsSkywalker, and I disagree alot with Vince, among others on this board. Ever wonder why I've never made those assessments about their posting styles?
Because they don't challenge you the same way as I do perhaps?
I disagree a lot with other folks on this board too...and they have never made comments TO ME about my "posting style" on this board (other than being too verbose at times.)
Think about it.
Try spending less effort on critiqing my "style," and more on actually addressing my points. You might find that it actually causes you to more fully clarify and state your position, as well as having a better understanding of my own.
You can try and clarify and add substance, or you can continue to evade and just critiqe my "Style." The choice is yours.
Back on topic:
Let's start off slow. How about responding to a single point with an actual response of substance, rather than simply dismissing it as another "out of context" thing:
And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.
My response to "that quote":
So you are telling me, that during such a "geological time scale" (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years?) for example, where the earth may have for example, warmed say 20 degrees on average, there was no period of a decade or a hundred years where the average temperature was constant or fell by a degree or two, or even more?
Do you have an issue with my response to your quote? Yay or nay, it would be nice for you to answer the question...
RussSchultz
06-May-2003, 22:49
You two: this is a flamewar about US/EU and the Kyoto treaty. Threadjacking will not be tolerated. :P
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 22:51
Lol...you weren't kidding with the title! ;)
Oh good grief. Lemme guess...the majority of them also happen to share your viewpoint. :roll: You seem to need quite a bit of "reassurance" from friends, co-workers, other board members on a varity of issues Natoma. Dunno why that is. I'm comfortable with myself.
My viewpoint on your debating style? Most certainly. My viewpoint on the points of discussion? Not always.
I never bring these things up in PMs. I just receive messages. I tell people thank you for your support, and leave it at that.
Indeed. That appears to be the case. No one has voiced it to me. You would think that would be the more productive route to take, wouldn't you?
And see what's happened? You become indignant, retrench, and close off all possibilities of what's being said. As people have stated, it is useless and pointless. It's kind of funny because the very thing that I stated earlier with regard to trying to debate a point with you, you're doing again.
Because they don't challenge you the same way as I do perhaps?
I disagree a lot with other folks on this board too...and they have never made comments TO ME about my "posting style" on this board (other than being too verbose at times.)
Think about it.
Try spending less effort on critiqing my "style," and more on actually addressing my points. You might find that it actually causes you to more fully clarify and state your position, as well as having a better understanding of my own.
You can try and clarify and add substance, or you can continue to evade and just critiqe my "Style." The choice is yours.
:lol:
Damn you've got an ego about you don't you. Because they don't challenge me as well as you do? Oh lord that's a good one. I'll write that down for the future. :)
Contrary to your belief, I do respond to your posts, in full. You just chop them up so badly that when I read your responses, even *I* can't understand what I was saying, until I re-read my original post, in context.
You are right. No one else challenges me in that fashion. You certainly do take the cake on that one. :P
Back on topic:
Let's start off slow. How about responding to a single point with an actual response of substance, rather than simply dismissing it as another "out of context" thing:
And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.
My response to "that quote":
So you are telling me, that during such a "geological time scale" (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years?) for example, where the earth may have for example, warmed say 20 degrees on average, there was no period of a decade or a hundred years where the average temperature was constant or fell by a degree or two, or even more?
Do you have an issue with my response to your quote? Yay or nay, it would be nice for you to answer the question...
I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of atmospheric patterns of warming and cooling. I simply read the documents provided by the nationally funded institutes of science that provide the reports.
These reports have stated unequivocably that temperature changes are measured in the sheeting of the ice, rings in very old trees, as well as geologic layers in the earth. And the overall temperature shifts studied from these sources shows that human interference is indeed changing the environment more rapidly than nature has ever done.
Again, we are talking about temperature changes, pollution, deforestation, etc, on a scale that the earth cannot replenish naturally. There has been no species, until man, on the planet that has been capable of this type of environmental change.
We are removing 1.2 years worth of natural resources for every year of regeneration, and that rate is accelerating. No other species has done that to the extent that we do.
Take locusts for instance. They can wipe out entire fields. Yet locusts only come around once every few years, and the earth does recover once they die off. For all the problems they cause, they do indeed form a balance with the environment.
Or, take for instance the introduction of various diseases to mankind. Ebola and AIDS were introduced to the human species due to over-deforestation. Hanta virus was introduced in New Hampshire because Foxes were hunted down and killed, thus the natural predators of the rodents were removed, and they exploded. So now New Hampshire has a smoldering epidemic. Hanta virus, fyi, is deposited in the urine and fecal matter of rodentia.
SARS was a duck or pig virus that leapt to human beings from the farms of Guandong due to overcrowding of the animals and unsanitary conditions.
The list goes on and on and on.
Joe DeFuria
06-May-2003, 23:53
And see what's happened? You become indignant, retrench, and close off all possibilities of what's being said. As people have stated, it is useless and pointless.
Interestingly, that same exact "analysis" can be applied to your take on this situation.
It's kind of funny because the very thing that I stated earlier with regard to trying to debate a point with you, you're doing again.
Right. You're not debating points, just "style." Happens all the time with you.
Because they don't challenge you the same way as I do perhaps?
I disagree a lot with other folks on this board too...and they have never made comments TO ME about my "posting style" on this board (other than being too verbose at times.)
Think about it.
Try spending less effort on critiqing my "style," and more on actually addressing my points. You might find that it actually causes you to more fully clarify and state your position, as well as having a better understanding of my own.
You can try and clarify and add substance, or you can continue to evade and just critiqe my "Style." The choice is yours.
Damn you've got an ego about you don't you.
Indeed. A healthy one... and it doesn't need to be stroked by anyone. In PMs or otherwise.
Because they don't challenge me as well as you do? Oh lord that's a good one. I'll write that down for the future. :)
You should.
Contrary to your belief, I do respond to your posts, in full.
:laughs: :!:
You just chop them up so badly that when I read your responses, even *I* can't understand what I was saying, until I re-read my original post, in context.
You mean, your stance is so convoulted, over generalized and so often mis-represented by your own words that you can't answer simple and direct questions?
You are right. No one else challenges me in that fashion. You certainly do take the cake on that one. :P
Thanks.
I don't pretend to be an expert in the field of atmospheric patterns of warming and cooling. I simply read the documents provided by the nationally funded institutes of science that provide the reports.
If you read them as well as you read and respond to my posts, then I'm worried.
These reports have stated unequivocably that temperature changes are measured in the sheeting of the ice, rings in very old trees, as well as geologic layers in the earth. And the overall temperature shifts studied from these sources shows that human interference is indeed changing the environment more rapidly than nature has ever done...[snip..snip...snip]
You again fail to directly answer the question, and see the CONTEXT of MY point.
I'll be brief, so you won't miss the point again:
Do any of these "tree ring / ice glaciar" studies have the accuracy to determine LOCAL and SHORT-TERM trends in weather patterns throughout history?
During the time of the last "global warming" age for example, is there data that shows that over the course of that warming age, that local temperatures over a MINUTE period of time (like a dozen or a hundred years) that temperatures did not fluctatue, show warming trends that are faster than averge for the period? Or show local cooling trends?
If I FART much more than usual on May 14, 15, and 16, and observe that average daily temperates cooled 3 degrees over that period, does that mean that
1) We can "safely conclude" that since average daily temperatures from the beginning of Spring to the End of spring usually rise by 10 degrees (number pulled from my arse), that "The 3 day cooling phenomenon represents something that just doesn't happen in a "normal" spring".
2) That my farts caused the cooling.
Silent_One
07-May-2003, 00:13
Natoma wrote:These reports have stated unequivocably that temperature changes are measured in the sheeting of the ice, rings in very old trees, as well as geologic layers in the earth. And the overall temperature shifts studied from these sources shows that human interference is indeed changing the environment more rapidly than nature has ever done.
Well here's a different opinion on geologic temp. changes-
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_1.cfm
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today.
Click http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif to see how temperature has varied since 1979.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_1.pdf to see how temperature has varied in the past millennia.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_2.pdf to see how it has varied in the past 18,000 years.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_3.pdf to see how it has varied in the past 160,000 years.
For more than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.
However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar energy.
Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”
Joe DeFuria
07-May-2003, 00:17
Come on Silent_One...Natoma's stated that "his reports" have unequivocal findings...He said so, thus it must be true! :roll:
MrsSkywalker
07-May-2003, 00:25
Does that mean that just because it's happened in the past, we should go around exterminating all the living creatures on the planet? That we should pollute indiscriminately?
Of course not. The point of this entire endeavour is to try and limit human influence on the planet as much as possible. Whether you want to accept it or not, the point is that we *do* have an effect on the environment through our actions. We have changed the Earth's climate, especially when taking into account the wind patterns of the planet. If you know thermodynamics, you have to know that increasing the temperature differential of one body of air will most certainly cause weather pattern changes. This isn't hokey science.
I don't think it's conceited to believe that we can and are changing our environment. I do think it's rather short sighted to believe that no matter what we do the Earth won't be affected, simply because it's been here longer than we have and has experienced cataclysmic changes during that time.
Natoma, imagine the damage done to the environment by the massive amounts of methane from the dinosaurs. And lo and behold, the Earth was just fine. The dinos died, but the Earth thrived.
As far as us changing the wind patterns, you and the "studies" are off your rockers. If we can have such an effect over the wind patterns, then why the hell did 38 people just die from tornados? The God's honest is that WE HAVE NO CONTROL. Natoma, NOTHING you do on this planet is going to have an effect on it. NOTHING.
I wish you and all the other "conservationalists" would just get to the point: the Earth isn't the issue, the human race is. You're worried about the future of humans. Nothing wrong with that. At least admit it. There is nothing we can do to kill or save the earth. Absolutely nothing. If there is anything I have learned about the Earth and nature, it's that we cannot control it. I don't care if what we do causes the extinction of the human race. If we can't adapt to a different climate, then we really don't deserve to remain. At any rate, I will be fossilized by that time, so what does it really matter to me? Or you? I recycle, b/c it just makes sense. Why throw away something you can use again? And I don't litter or stand there and spray things from a spray can all willy-nilly. But I'm not going to worry about the millisecond my car's emissions shave off the earth's natural progression.
I think I'll go fire up my charcoal grill and cook up the deer I hit with my old '79 deisel Chevy. :lol:
We absolutely CAN change the environment, it just won't necessarily respond in a predictable way.
The butterfly flapping his wings is as true an analogy as you will ever find in meteorology. (including the butterfly in a model run and not the other, will change things after a certain amount of time s.t. the two do not look anything like one another)
Now, there is evidence for certain global features that are somewhat predictable in bulk, and they respond poorly to variation with greenhouse emissions. Thats what scientists are worried about. But as has been pointed out, there are innumerable feedback and anti feedback variables. The whole mess is so absymally complicated.
Joe DeFuria
07-May-2003, 02:27
The God's honest is that WE HAVE NO CONTROL. Natoma, NOTHING you do on this planet is going to have an effect on it. NOTHING.
We absolutely CAN change the environment...
Um, I agree with both of you. ;)
To clarify:
We can and do "change" the environment, and this can include changes in weather patterns and in fact, I believe global climate as well.
However, I also believe that the earth "will recover" no matter what we do. It may recover to a different equilibrium, it may never be "the same", but it will recover, even from singular catastrophic events like large meteor strikes or global nuclear war.
... it just won't necessarily respond in a predictable way.
Exactly. And I have no problems spending some research money to try and get a better handle on making some gross predictions and having a better understanding of climate in general. But one has to be very naive at this point in time to believe that less greenhouse gas emissions will have a "positive" or "negative" impact.
First, as MrsSkywalker was implying....positive or negative with respect to what? Humans? The red-spotted honey toad? Green leaf vegetation?
Second, for all we know, in 10,000 years after reducing greenhouse emissions, we'll have learned that doing so was the "worst" thing we could have done for a "better" global climate.
The whole mess is so absymally complicated.
That basically sums it all up. I wish some people would come to understand that. I think they're just too afraid to admit it. Too afraid to admit that we (humans) don't have all the answers or control. They just think that doing "something" is by definition better than "nothing"..even if the effects of doing that something are not understood with any degree of certainty.
Natoma wrote:These reports have stated unequivocably that temperature changes are measured in the sheeting of the ice, rings in very old trees, as well as geologic layers in the earth. And the overall temperature shifts studied from these sources shows that human interference is indeed changing the environment more rapidly than nature has ever done.
Well here's a different opinion on geologic temp. changes-
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_1.cfm
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, says this is very unlikely. The geologic record reveals that the only constant about climate is change. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. In the past million years, the Earth has been subjected to at least 33 ice ages and interglacial warm periods where temperatures soared far above that ever recorded in humanity's short history. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were periods much warmer and colder than today.
Click http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif to see how temperature has varied since 1979.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_1.pdf to see how temperature has varied in the past millennia.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_2.pdf to see how it has varied in the past 18,000 years.
Click http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_3.pdf to see how it has varied in the past 160,000 years.
For more than 90 percent of Earth's history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.
However, over the last 1.6 million years, it has generally been much cooler than this, with periodic rapid fluctuations from cooler to warmer intervals known as interglaciations. The causes of these dramatic climate variations include continental drift, changes in ocean/atmospheric circulation, natural wobbles in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar energy.
Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”
After reading the PDFs, I compared the temperature differentials within each century to the temperature shift from 1900 - 2000, as well as the projected temperature shift from 2000 - 2100.
The pdf here, http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_1.pdf, shows a very detailed degree of temperature variation. Thanks yet again Silent_One for the research. Much appreciated. :)
1000 - 1100: 0.2+
1100 - 1200: 0.1+
1200 - 1300: 0.1-
1300 - 1400: 0.6-
1400 - 1500: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1500 - 1600: 0.2-
1600 - 1700: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1700 - 1800: 0.0 (shifted up 0.3, then down 0.3 during the century)
1800 - 1900: 0.6+
1900 - 2000: 0.7+
2000 - 2100: 1.0 - 3.0+ (projected)
In this PDF, http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_2.pdf, the temperature variations follow roughly the same pattern as well. The massive increases or drops in temperature occurred over the course of 500 to 2000 years. We're talking about a change of 1-4 (+/-) degrees Celcius, which is enough for instance, to turn a polar ice cap into an ocean, or turn a desert into a forest, or vice versa.
What should be noted is that none of the changes displayed in either PDF showed sustained changes of 2-5 degrees Celcius changes (+/-) occurring in the span of 300 years, especially with a 1-3 degree sustained shift in temperature over the course of one century.
That is the main point of contention today among scientists. No one disputes the record of temperature fluctuation derived from ice cores, tree rings, fossil records, etc. What is in dispute today is the rapidity of temperature fluctuation over the past 200 years. Considering the advent of massively polluting technologies in the past 200 years, courtesy of the industrial revolution, we now have a shift in the balance of the normal planetary warming and cooling cycles. They have become, thus far, more pronounced and faster.
One thing that these PDFs do not convey, however, is the Carbon Load the oceans and forests can sustain. Think of the oceans as one big heatsink and carbon loading machine. The forests also perform the same function. Oceans can absorb 3.8 Billion tons of carbon every year, and disperse it naturally.
It should be noted that the United States alone is responsible for roughly 20 Carbon Tons released into the atmosphere, per person, every year. That works out to roughly 5 Billion Tons of Carbon (pop. est. at 250 Million). The rest of the world emits roughly the same amount, which leads to a rough estimate of 8 - 12 Billion Tons of Carbon released into the environment, worldwide, every year.
Let's stick with the conservative estimate of 8 Billion Tons of Carbon. Since the oceans can absorb roughly 3.8 Billion tons of carbon, and in the last recorded year of carbon emissions we went over the global carbon load amount by 1.4 Billion tons, it's safe to assume that the forests can absorb about 2.8 Billion tons, given a starting point of 8 Billion Carbon Tons released into the environment. This makes sense since there is far less forest than ocean. The excess carbon load was measured by how much carbon was introduced into the atmosphere that did not get absorbed anywhere. There was a 1.4 Billion ton excess.
This is one of the reasons why scientists are expecting the huge jump in worldwide temperature in the next century, because we only in the past 5-10 years hit the carbon load limit of the planet, and exceeded it. It's not coincidence that the period from 1930 - 1980 was the hottest recorded 50 year period on record in the past 1,000 years, when using carbon dating methods on ice, trees, and fossils, and that the decade from 1990 - 2000 had 3 of the hottest years on record ever (1993, 1994, and 1998). 1991 - 1992 were cooled because of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillippines, which caused worldwide temperatures to drop during that two year period by 0.2 degrees, before heating up rapidly in 1993 as the cloud cover dispersed.
With the oceans and the diminishing forest cover only able to absorb roughly 7 Billion Carbon Tons annually, we're obviously at a point where we're dumping carbon into the atmosphere, and it will linger. It has also been proven that enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can and will produce a greenhouse effect. With the natural absorption of the earth nullified by our current rates of carbon dumping, it's only a matter of time before we see the results of these actions.
According to projections, we'll see that shift in this century. Btw, sea levels have risen 4" since 1900 due to glacial melts at the poles. That melting is expected to accelerate tremendously in the 21st century due to the accompanying rise in temperature.
MrsSkywalker:
Eh? I've never stated that we can control the weather. There is a difference between changing the climate and controlling the climate. What we're doing right now is tantamount to uncontrolled climate change. See my last post for further explanation.
Also, I find it pretty silly to say that you don't care about what happens to the earth anyways because you won't be around here to see it. I don't have any kids, but damn I certainly want to make sure that while I'm on this Earth I do whatever I can do to preserve it for following generations.
That's quite a selfish attitude you've got. :(
It should be noted that the current forest cover is 40% of the planet. In the past decade, we've lost 2.2% of the world's forest cover, due to deforestation mostly. Since 1900, we've lost roughly 30% of the world's forest cover.
One of the most visible effects of this decline in forest cover can be seen in China. The vast amount of pollution that blows in off the Gobi Desert is no longer buffeted from China due to the vast amount of deforestation and overfarming. What happens is that the topsoil becomes dead and airborne. How problematic is this dust cloud? It was seen as far east as Arizona as a thick haze in 2001. Here are comparison photos:
http://www.lakepowell.net/canyondi.jpg http://www.lakepowell.net/canyonha.jpg
http://www.lakepowell.net/Dcp_3505.jpg http://www.lakepowell.net/Dcp_3447.jpg
http://www.lakepowell.net/Dcp_3507.jpg http://www.lakepowell.net/Dcp_3446.jpg
The images are from lakepowell.net. Pollution does not only affect our global climate, but it also affects humans directly in terms of our health. Is it any wonder that worldwide asthma rates have been rising exponentially for years, in both adults and children?
Many forms of lung cancer have also been associated with pollution as well.
That doesn't even begin to cover the diseases we've been exposed to due to deforestation and climate change. AIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, West Nile Virus (more mosquitos due to warmer, more humid weather in zones that are generally not as balmy as the environments closer to the equator), etc etc etc.
Silent_One
07-May-2003, 21:48
Natoma wrote:
After reading the PDFs, I compared the temperature differentials within each century to the temperature shift from 1900 - 2000, as well as the projected temperature shift from 2000 - 2100.
The pdf here, http://www.saf.ab.ca/pdf/figure_1.pdf, shows a very detailed degree of temperature variation. Thanks yet again Silent_One for the research. Much appreciated. :)
Your welcome.
1000 - 1100: 0.2+
1100 - 1200: 0.1+
1200 - 1300: 0.1-
1300 - 1400: 0.6-
1400 - 1500: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1500 - 1600: 0.2-
1600 - 1700: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1700 - 1800: 0.0 (shifted up 0.3, then down 0.3 during the century)
1800 - 1900: 0.6+
1900 - 2000: 0.7+
2000 - 2100: 1.0 - 3.0+ (projected)
Eh...thats funny, the PDF does not show projected data. Where did you get your information from (apparently not from the PDFs). How convenient for your argument!
What should be noted is that none of the changes displayed in either PDF showed sustained changes of 2-5 degrees Celcius changes (+/-) occurring in the span of 300 years, especially with a 1-3 degree sustained shift in temperature over the course of one century.
What should be noted is that none of the PDFs show projected data! You also seem to ignore the nasa.gif which indicates little temp. change since 1979.
As for future projections consider this:
The modern global warming debate was ignited in 1989 when NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen testified before a joint U.S. House and Senate committee that there was "a strong cause and effect relationship between the current climate" - then a blistering drought - "and human alteration of the atmosphere." His computer models predicted an average global temperature rise of 0.45°C between 1988 and 1997 and 8°C by 2050 due to greenhouse gas build-up. Despite enormous uncertainties in his simulations, it wasn't long before the politically correct view of the future included a global warming catastrophe.
Yet today, Hansen admits that his computer simulations were wrong and that current climate change models are unreliable (see related article by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia). After the U.S. spent $10 billion on this issue, Hansen wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "The forces that drive long-term climate changes are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." As more and more variables have been incorporated into the models, the amount of predicted change has decreased. Renowned Columbia University oceanographer/climatologist Dr. Wallace Broecker believes that more than one million variables influence climate change. Although not all are required to reasonably model climate, this fact underlines why contemporary computer simulations are not very accurate.
The problem is also due to the fact that, even though water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it is essentially ignored by climate models. These simulations are so primitive that they are even unable to determine today's climate when starting with known past temperatures and rates of CO2 level rise......<sinp>.......Dr. Michaels puts the controversy into perspective: “Temperatures measured by surface thermometers have risen about 0.7°C in the last 100 years, but about half of that warming occurred before most changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The other half, which has occurred in the last three decades, is often attributed to human causation."
“If this is true, then we have a very good idea of future warming,” says Dr. Michaels. “While global climate models are incapable of predicting the distribution of regional and vertical climate change, they generally agree that once human-induced warming begins, it takes place at a constant (not increasing) rate. This is because the response of temperature to carbon dioxide becomes damped at higher concentrations, while it is generally assumed that the carbon dioxide increase itself is exponential, along with population. The mathematical combination of the two is a straight line.”
Dr. Michaels concludes that the resultant warming predicted by these computer models works out to approximately 1.6°C in the next 100 years. "Half of this amount, in the last 100 years, saw a doubling of life span and a quintupling of crop yields where economic freedom reigned," he says. "There is no reason to expect a sudden turnaround; rather, continued adaptation and prosperity are much more likely."
Dr. Roger Pocklington of the Bedford Institute of Oceanography says, "Professional doomsayers always pick the least likely, upper extremity, of the temperature range for their polemics, never the average." They also never explain that most of the computer models forecast much lower temperatures and that the average of these models is more in the range cited by Dr. Michaels.
Dr. Michaels concludes, "Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide [the primary driver of temperature change in the computer models] have been much slower than anticipated by virtually all scientists 25 years ago. The increases are so small that they may not even be exponential. This predicts a damping of the already-small warming rate in coming decades."
Ah..but you say "the the oceans as one big heatsink and carbon loading machine" and were overloading them!
(natoma)
This is one of the reasons why scientists are expecting the huge jump in worldwide temperature in the next century, because we only in the past 5-10 years hit the carbon load limit of the planet, and exceeded it. It's not coincidence that the period from 1930 - 1980 was the hottest recorded 50 year period on record in the past 1,000 years, when using carbon dating methods on ice, trees, and fossils, and that the decade from 1990 - 2000 had 3 of the hottest years on record ever (1993, 1994, and 1998). 1991 - 1992 were cooled because of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillippines, which caused worldwide temperatures to drop during that two year period by 0.2 degrees, before heating up rapidly in 1993 as the cloud cover dispersed.
Well what about this:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:
a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.
b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].
c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.
d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.
Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years..........
.
Strange, you say last 50 years were the hottest, they say last 60 showed no warming trend....
Natoma wrote:
Btw, sea levels have risen 4" since 1900 due to glacial melts at the poles. That melting is expected to accelerate tremendously in the 21st century due to the accompanying rise in temperature.
Where do you get your information on this? (I'd like links please so I can read about it) Here's what I found:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth6.cfm
Sea level has been rising naturally since the end of the last ice age and this has not accelerated recently The total rise has been over 120 metres and is still proceeding at a rate of about 18 cm per century. We don't see an increase in this rate during the strong warming that took place between 1900 and 1940 nor did the rate decrease when the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975.
According to Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, ongoing sea level rise is due to the slow melting of Antarctic ice sheets that have been gradually disappearing for about 18,000 years, the date of the last glacial maximum. As far as we can tell from geological data, only temperature variations on a millennial time scale can affect this rate. Climate fluctuations lasting decades or even centuries are too short to affect this rate of melting appreciably. Our best estimate is that these ice sheets will continue to melt for another 5,000 to 7,000 years until they disappear. So unless another ice age commences in the meantime, sea level is bound to keep on rising and there is probably nothing that humans can do about this.
Then there's this:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
Using historical tide gauge data, Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs that couple oceans and atmosphere) and the ICE-3G model, IPCC scientists have interpreted the past, present and future of sea level to make the following basic claims [25]:
Sea level already has risen between 10 and 25 cm (4–10 inches) during the 20th Century, with a preferred value of 18 cm (7 inches), or an historical rise of 1.8 mm/yr.
A less-than-average rise will occur in the Southern Ocean. How much less is not specified.
Sea level changed by only 30–50 cm over timescales of several centuries during the previous 5,000 years.
A sea level rise of 21–92 cm is projected over the next hundred years, with a preferred value of around 50 cm (representing an acceleration in sea level rise to 5 mm/yr).....<snip>.....The IPCC has made it very clear that, in their view, past and future changes in sea level are mainly driven by the state of the climate. We now must examine the credibility of these IPCC claims, beginning with their claim that sea levels already have risen 18 cm during the 20th Century.
Conclusion
People have been given the impression that the 18 cm sea level rise claimed for the 20th Century is an observed quantity. It now should be clear that it is not. The 18 cm figure is the product of combining data from tide gauges with the output of the ICE-3G de-glaciation model. A simple logical equation can be constructed for this:
an observed quantity ± a modeled quantity = a modeled quantity
Thus, the claimed 18 cm sea level rise is a model construct, not an observed value. Worse still, the model is primarily focused on the North Atlantic Basin, which exhibits relative sea level trends quite unlike any observed outside the North Atlantic. Thus, global estimates should not be inferred with any confidence from modeled trends that mainly affect only that basin.
In the world’s remaining oceans there clearly is a lack of evidence of sea level rise during the 20th Century. This is particularly true around the Australian coast – a coastline representative of three oceans – where good quality records of tide gauge data are available. The rise recorded along the Australian coast is an insignificant 1.6 cm for the entire century. That’s just over half an inch in a hundred years!
The absence of significant sea level rise around Australia is confirmed by a similar absence of sea level change as measured since 1888 against the Ross-Lempriere benchmark carved on a natural rocky cliff on the Isle of the Dead in Port Arthur, Tasmania. It also is possible that a significant sea level fall occurred between 1841 (when the benchmark was struck) and 1888 (when its height was accurately measured). The only other tide gauge records of similar age are few in number and come from regions severely affected by PGR within the North Atlantic basin. Thus, they cannot be considered as conclusive evidence disputing a possible global sea level fall during that period.
Outside the North Atlantic Basin, most other tide gauges with long-term records have been mounted in tectonically active areas, especially along the west coast of North America and New Zealand. Thus they are unsuitable for measuring global trends. Many others are subject to local subsidence.
As to the future, the IPCC suggests accelerating sea level rise to nearly 5 cm/yr [25]. However, the TOPEX-Poseidon satellites now show sea level rise to be only 0.9 mm/yr [8], all of which has been attributed to the 1997-98 El Niño event [9]. Sea level was largely unchanged before and after that event. Thus the 0.9 mm/yr rise merely is a statistical artifact and does not represent a true rise in the background sea level.
Finally, it should be remembered that no matter what is said about sea level, it depends entirely upon how global climate responds to greenhouse gases – whether the planet warms significantly or not [45]. Sea level rise is contingent on atmospheric warming. If there is no warming, there is no sea level rise. The record of atmospheric temperature as recorded by satellites since 1979 reveals no significant warming despite numerous model predictions to the contrary.
And here's more indications that the North Pole ice is not melting -http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf
The reason I put a (projected) next to 2000 - 2100 is because that is what is currently projected by scientists to be the temperature increase on earth in the next century. It was not my intent to imply that it was in the pdf, obviously, because it could be checked quite quickly by downloading them.
Google "global climate change projection 21 century" to find the figures I put into the list. They were there because it was easier to read them. There was no duplicity intended.
I haven't had a chance to read all of the articles you've posted yet, but I wanted to clear that point up first.
Projections are that the component of sea-level rise related to global sea level change (4 to 8 inches during the 20th century–not land movement) could increase by 2-4 times during the 21st century.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/northeast/ne-edu-6.htm
and
Scientifically, it is the best-supported effect of global warming and climate change, with widespread observations already revealing the 4 to 10 inch rise in sea levels during the last century. IPCC projects a rise of 10 to 20 inches during the next century.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tg/wsealvl/wsealvl1.htm
These numbers are all coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which released their #'s in 1995. Their website is http://www.ipcc.ch/.
I'll edit my post more as I retrace my steps. I researched a lot of articles while writing my earlier post and neglected to save them all. :lol:
[EDIT TWO]
Here is one of the articles I read with regard to the changes over the past 100 years.
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
I ran it through the google translator because it was originally in french. The homepage for the article is here:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Egreenfacts%2Eorg%2Ffr%2Fdossi ers%2Fchangement%5Fclimatique%2Fl%5F3%2Frechauffem ent%5Fplanete%5F1%2Ehtm
Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
There's another link that I'm currently looking for that has the actual statement that 1930 - 1980 was the warmest 50 year period in the last 1000 years. As soon as I find it in my history i'll post the link.
Finally found it:
Fig. 6. Fifty-year averages of d18O for the last 12,000 y from Cores
1 and 3 on the Dunde ice cap, China. The reference line at !11&
represents the long-term average of the records; projections into the
shaded area indicate warmer-than-average periods. Note that the most
recent 50-yr period (1937}1987) is the warmest since the end of the last
glacial stage.
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/scientific_foci/qsr_pages/thompson.pdf
So in all actuality I misquoted the article. 1937 - 1987 was the warmest in the past 12,000 years, not 1,000 years. :)
[/EDIT TWO]
Himself
07-May-2003, 22:17
However, I also believe that the earth "will recover" no matter what we do. It may recover to a different equilibrium, it may never be "the same", but it will recover, even from singular catastrophic events like large meteor strikes or global nuclear war.
I agree, the earth will recover from whatever humans do, but the concern isn't about littering the earth but having a stable environment to live in for our grandkids. You don't have to look further than smog in cities to have a reason to clean things up.
Joe DeFuria
07-May-2003, 22:50
I agree, the earth will recover from whatever humans do, but the concern isn't about littering the earth but having a stable environment to live in for our grandkids. You don't have to look further than smog in cities to have a reason to clean things up.
I agree.
Where a direct cause - effect relationship (betwen pollutant and negative consequence like smog) is known, that is certainly reason to spend money to remedy the situation.
That is not the issue here, however, when talking about global greenhouse gas reductions and global climate changes.
MrsSkywalker
08-May-2003, 00:38
Natoma, have you seen the pics of the area around Mt. St. Helen's when it erupted? Or the amount of smoke that hovered over most of North America during last year's forest fires that were ignited by lightening?
There are hazy days, and there are clear days, even in the world's cleanest environments. Where's the pic of the canyon the day after that one was taken?
You can't set out to prove a theory with only half of the evidence. I'm not debating that smog exists. I'm not saying that I'd like to live in a smoggy area. But you are presenting "evidence" with no factual info to support it. What is the temp? Humidity level? Any volcanic activity upwind? Is there a sandstorm going on that day? A fire started in the shrubs?
I could take those same pics and use them to bolster MY POV, that the earth does more "damage" to itself than we do. "These pics show the incredible range of volcanic ash and fallout when caught in the jet stream."
Question for ya. Do you think that the climate steadily cooled into the ice age? Or do you believe that there was a sharp decrease in temp for a few decades/centuries?
Finally, it's worth mentioning that variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level. :D
The reason it is important is this, ice is white or close to it and reflects Infrared energy back, anyone that has gone diving knows that water absorbs red light very quickly, it absorbs infrared even faster, and the worry is that w/o the ice the sea will heat up rather quickly, and that in turn would have a huge impact on global climate. The amount of energy to heat the oceans 1 degree centigrade is staggering, and they can release that energy back into the environment, which is why this matters. Then the ice cap on antartica will melt much more quickly, not to mention polar bears will be extinct and so forth. But anyway, I actually agree with russia, why not let it warm up, the Canadians should be stoked too.
However, I also believe that the earth "will recover" no matter what we do. It may recover to a different equilibrium, it may never be "the same", but it will recover, even from singular catastrophic events like large meteor strikes or global nuclear war.
I agree, the earth will recover from whatever humans do, but the concern isn't about littering the earth but having a stable environment to live in for our grandkids. You don't have to look further than smog in cities to have a reason to clean things up.
I agree the earth will recover from whatever we do,
BUT
We might all be dead and in that case well...
Silent_One
08-May-2003, 02:22
The reason I put a (projected) next to 2000 - 2100 is because that is what is currently projected by scientists to be the temperature increase on earth in the next century. It was not my intent to imply that it was in the pdf, obviously, because it could be checked quite quickly by downloading them.
Google "global climate change projection 21 century" to find the figures I put into the list. They were there because it was easier to read them. There was no duplicity intended.
Sorry but it seems like manipulation of data. The data clearly shows information contrary to what you imply in your previous post.
Quote:
Projections are that the component of sea-level rise related to global sea level change (4 to 8 inches during the 20th century–not land movement) could increase by 2-4 times during the 21st century.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/northeast/ne-edu-6.htm
Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US. It was not written as a scientific paper regarding the rise in sea levels.
Quote:
Scientifically, it is the best-supported effect of global warming and climate change, with widespread observations already revealing the 4 to 10 inch rise in sea levels during the last century. IPCC projects a rise of 10 to 20 inches during the next century.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/tg/wsealvl/wsealvl1.htm
These numbers are all coming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which released their #'s in 1995. Their website is http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Answer: see my previous link which disputes the IPCC's claims.
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
Next: from your article -
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htmNevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely7 that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
The problem with the data the IPCC uses to generate these charts and generate thier conclusions is that the temp. readings they base their information on is from surface thermometers. Surface thermometers are not credible. They are prone to local variations in temp. caused by citys and towns.
http://www.john-daly.com/The new way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias. This second method, used since January 1979, is accurate to within one hundredth of a degree, and is clearly the best record we have. Here is Global Mean Temperature (anomalies in °C) of the Lower Troposphere (lower atmosphere) for the 24-year+ period January 1979 to March 2003, as measured by NOAA satellites. It shows a very different picture to that of the global `surface record' over the same period. Notice that, with the exception of the big El Niño year of 1998, all positive temperature anomalies were less than 0.4°C above the long-term average.
BTW - the above is an interesting site I'd love to get a picture of Baghdad Bob on this thread! :lol:
In canada in the last 100 years the summer season has been lenghthened by about 2 weeks and the tree line (the northern most areas where trees grow) has moved north about 150-200 kms. Something is going on and the relationship between co2 and warm periods and ice ages is solid science tho its a chicken and egg situation. Does c02 create warm ages or does warm ages add c02 to the atmosphere.
Im on the fence on this tho. Slight warming of the planet might be a good thing... Itd be wonderful to see large parts of the sahara getting regular rainfall at some point for ex. I also dont think its likely co2 emissions will drop for a while... whether kyoto is signed or not short of regular occurrences of weather related catastrophies no one will seriously respect any co2 treaty.
I havent seen any data on whether sun activity has increased energy output since monitoring of the sun has begun... tho Im sure some exists somewhere. I was impressed by the relationship between long ice age periods and long warm periods as to when the solar system enters then leaves sprial arms of the galaxy... might just be coincidental but it was interesting to note (ice ages began as we entered the last spiral arm about 60 million years ago and we are now on the edge leaving it).
I think we can sit this out a little while longer as reports say that stoppage of c02 production will see the c02 in the air quickly reduced to normal levels under 100 years... We can give this thing another 10-20 years and if things really do overheat itll move the market I think...
Sorry but it seems like manipulation of data. The data clearly shows information contrary to what you imply in your previous post.
Sigh. Call it what you will. I told you what to google to look at the projected figures for the 21st century. The PDF clearly shows the temperature changes from 1000 - 2000, as well as the temperature changes from 12,000 years ago to the present day, along with the change over time of the temperatures. Looking at the numbers you provided, along with published projected numbers for climatological change over the 21st century from the google search phrase I provided earlier, it is most certainly a scientific deduction that temperature change from 1800 - 2100 is and will accelerate far faster than any other period in the last 120 centuries.
But if you don't feel like googling the data for yourself with the phrase I used to get my information, here's a sampling of links:
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/99/pr9928.htm
Carbon dioxide emissions over the next century could increase global average temperatures 3 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) while wintertime precipitation over the U.S. Southwest and Great Plains could rise by 40% according to latest results from a new climate system model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125c.htm
The global average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degree C between 1990 and 2100. This is far more than the projection in the 1995 assessment of a 1 to 3.5 degree C temperature rise.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/climate_change.shtml
Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation.
Those are merely 3 of the first 4 links from the google search. I'm not going to list them all because frankly there are too many. Again, please read them for yourself. As I said before, there is no data manipulation present in the figures I provided.
Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US. It was not written as a scientific paper regarding the rise in sea levels.
Again, sigh. What is one of the potential impacts of climate change? A rise in sea levels!
/me slaps head.
Answer: see my previous link which disputes the IPCC's claims.
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm
I read it, and they didn't state anything definitive. I think a key quote from the article you provided is this:
The IPCC has made it very clear that, in their view, past and future changes in sea level are mainly driven by the state of the climate. We now must examine the credibility of these IPCC claims, beginning with their claim that sea levels already have risen 18 cm during the 20th Century.
While that link states that they must now begin to examine the data and see if there are issues with it, nothing to date has come out that scientifically, completely, and unequivocably repudiates the data from the IPCC.
If you provide a link to said data, I will most certainly change my tune. I realize that science is an ever evolving medium. But right now, the IPCC numbers are some of the best we've got.
Next: from your article -
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htmNevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely7 that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.
The problem with the data the IPCC uses to generate these charts and generate thier conclusions is that the temp. readings they base their information on is from surface thermometers. Surface thermometers are not credible. They are prone to local variations in temp. caused by citys and towns.
http://www.john-daly.com/The new way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias. This second method, used since January 1979, is accurate to within one hundredth of a degree, and is clearly the best record we have. Here is Global Mean Temperature (anomalies in °C) of the Lower Troposphere (lower atmosphere) for the 24-year+ period January 1979 to March 2003, as measured by NOAA satellites. It shows a very different picture to that of the global `surface record' over the same period. Notice that, with the exception of the big El Niño year of 1998, all positive temperature anomalies were less than 0.4°C above the long-term average.
If the IPCC used only one location for their temperature measurements then I would agree with your assessment that surface thermometers are not usable. However, the IPCC measured their numbers across the globe, from multiple sites. That completely negates the possibility of "bleed" from man-made creations such as cities, affecting the aggregate numbers.
BTW - the above is an interesting site I'd love to get a picture of Baghdad Bob on this thread! :lol:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean?
Natoma, have you seen the pics of the area around Mt. St. Helen's when it erupted? Or the amount of smoke that hovered over most of North America during last year's forest fires that were ignited by lightening?
There are hazy days, and there are clear days, even in the world's cleanest environments. Where's the pic of the canyon the day after that one was taken?
You can't set out to prove a theory with only half of the evidence. I'm not debating that smog exists. I'm not saying that I'd like to live in a smoggy area. But you are presenting "evidence" with no factual info to support it. What is the temp? Humidity level? Any volcanic activity upwind? Is there a sandstorm going on that day? A fire started in the shrubs?
I could take those same pics and use them to bolster MY POV, that the earth does more "damage" to itself than we do. "These pics show the incredible range of volcanic ash and fallout when caught in the jet stream."
Question for ya. Do you think that the climate steadily cooled into the ice age? Or do you believe that there was a sharp decrease in temp for a few decades/centuries?
MrsSkywalker, we're not talking about a volcanic eruption, or smog caused by man-made devices. And there were no major fires in the vicinity in 2001 when those photos were taken.
There is clear cut evidence that those photos were taken and were affected by the dust flowing off of the Gobi in 2001. If you don't want to believe my "half evidence," then you can most certainly take a look at these satellite photos from April 2001 which detail the movement of the dust cloud from China to western USA.
http://www-ocean.lbl.gov/people/bishop/bishoppubs/paparobots.html
This is the direct image:
http://www-ocean.lbl.gov/people/bishop/bishoppubs/Aerosolstripshalf.jpg
You can see quite clearly that the green "haze" dust clouds that show up in the satellite photos are indeed hovering over the south western portion of the states, and it seems even all the way to the "heartland" states such as missouri and texas. And here's another image that detailed the location of the dust clouds on various dates in april 2001:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~darmenov/RS_WebPage.htm
This is a direct image:
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~darmenov/RS_WebPage_files/image025.jpg
It moved quite quickly if you ask me.
If you google "gobi desert dust 2001 data" you can find more pages for your own perusal if you wish. That is the string I used to find those pages, among other articles.
Silent_One
08-May-2003, 16:33
Important things first!
Silent_One wrote:
BTW - the above is an interesting site I'd love to get a picture of Baghdad Bob on this thread!
I'm not exactly sure what you mean?
You don't know what I mean? Did you visit the site I refered to?There's a picture of "Baghdad Bob" on that site, which I thought it would be funny to post here in this thread! I thought I was clear but I guess not....... :?
Now the minor stuff :lol:
Notice how the studys you site allways have different projections.
First link - 3 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
Secound link - 1.4 and 5.8 degree C
Third link - 0.6 to 5.8 degree C
Which one do you believe?
It would appear that the 2nd & 3rd link are using simular data, which BTW, comes from the IPCC.
Those are merely 3 of the first 4 links from the google search. I'm not going to list them all because frankly there are too many. Again, please read them for yourself. As I said before, there is no data manipulation present in the figures I provided.
I don't believe your manipulating what is being reported (although it was not clear at first where you got the data in the previous instances :) ) But lets look a the information shall we. Based upon the link you provided, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125c.htm the folowing is stated in the article:
A unanimous report of hundreds of scientists from more than 100 countries has affirmed, on the basis of new and stronger evidence, that most of the warming over the last 50 years has been caused by human activities.
What "new and stronger evidence" are they refering to? According to the article the IPCC's first report, in 1990 "confirmed that climate change is a threat". Then in 1995 their second report project a temp. rise of 1 to 3.5 degree C by 2100. The last report, put out at the time of this article, says that "Warming is now expected to go up between 1.4 and 5.8 degree C between 1990 and 2100.' So what changed between reports? Well - here's an article that answers that question-
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci4-2-03.htm
What’s Behind the IPCC’s Latest Projections?
When the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, many were surprised that its projections for temperature increases had risen substantially. The IPCC’s 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) predicted that the earth’s temperature could increase by as much as 0.9 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. The TAR, however predicted a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C. In a paper published in the Journal of Climate (October 15, 2002), Thomas Wigley with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Sarah Raper with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, ask the question, "Why are the more recent projections so much larger?"
The authors attempt to quantify how much of the change in projections was due to the new emissions scenarios presented in the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, and how much was due to differences in the science used in the climate models. To determine this, the authors plugged the emissions scenarios responsible for the high and low ends of the temperature projections into the models used for the TAR, what Wigley and Raper call the "TAR science."
For the TAR’s high end, coal-intensive scenario, the "CO2 concentrations are remarkably similar" to those used for the high-end scenario in the SAR. The biggest differences between the two high-end scenarios are the assumptions about sulfate aerosol concentrations, which are thought to offset warming. "The large aerosol forcing differences arise because the SRES scenarios account for likely policy responses to sulfur pollution.... This leads to substantially lower SO2 emissions than for the [SAR scenarios]." There are also some differences in methane forcing and tropospheric ozone forcing. This exercise revealed a difference in forcing from changes in the TAR greenhouse gas cycle from 0.5 Watts per meter squared (W/m2) at the low end to 2 W/m2 at the high end.
The differences in science between the two reports refer to changes in the way the models handle complex climate processes. So it is not so much a change in science as a change in modeling. To determine how these changes affect the projections, Wigley and Raper compare the low and high-end scenarios using SAR science and TAR science. What they found was that "the effects on concentration projections for any give emission scenario are relatively small."
In fact, there was actually a reduction in CO2 forcing combined with increased warming. This was due primarily to two things—a change in a parameter that defines the relationship between CO2 concentrations and forcing and a change in how the thermohaline circulation (THC) was modeled. A slowdown in the THC, for example, would offset some of the projected warming due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations. In the TAR, the THC will not slow down as much as assumed in the SAR.
The result of these exercises reveals that very little of the change in temperature projections is due to changes in scientific understanding or better modeling, but due almost entirely to different emissions scenarios. "At the low warming limit, TAR science inflates the 1990-2100 warming for the [low-end SAR scenario] by around 34 percent," says Wigley and Raper. "At the high end, TAR science inflates the 1990-2100 warming for the [high-end SAR scenario] by around 4 percent." The rest of the high-end alarmist projection comes from changes in the worst-case storyline, which has little basis in reality. A full 79 percent of the change at the high-end projection came from the changed assumptions about sulfate aerosols alone, about which we know very little.
Now, on to you slapping yourself :shock:
Silent_One wrote:
Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US. It was not written as a scientific paper regarding the rise in sea levels.
Again, sigh. What is one of the potential impacts of climate change? A rise in sea levels!
/me slaps head.
No, no, no. You got things backwards! The paper was written as a responce to the scenario of rising sea levels, not a paper to discuss the scientific evidence of climate changes and its impact. From the introduction of the article:
As greenhouse gases build-up in our atmosphere, one of the most likely impacts of climate change is rising sea levels. Sea level will rise because warm water expands and glaciers and ice sheets melt, adding water to the ocean. Sea-level rise, already occurring and projected to occur 2-4 times faster in the 21st century, could inundate low-lying areas of the Northeast, many of which include densely populated locations.....
The article then talks about loss of land mass, erosion, wetlands, societal and economic Impacts, and Strategies to Address Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise....Again, its's not an article analyzing scientific data, it's a paper based upon the assumption that the sea level is going to rise. To them , it's a given!
/me slaps your head!
If the IPCC used only one location for their temperature measurements then I would agree with your assessment that surface thermometers are not usable. However, the IPCC measured their numbers across the globe, from multiple sites. That completely negates the possibility of "bleed" from man-made creations such as cities, affecting the aggregate numbers.
Well here's what others say.....
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth2.cfmSo where do environmental groups get the idea that our planet has warmed dramatically in recent decades? The answer is simple - they are using the wrong data. Instead of citing modern, accurate, space-based measurements, they quote error-prone, ground-based temperature readings that give little indication of true global trends.
Until recently the best we could do to estimate the Earth's overall temperature was to average data collected at ground stations around the globe. These readings are notoriously inaccurate as most of them come from developing countries that do not properly maintain their stations or records. In addition, there are two other problems with data collected at the Earth's surface.
First, nearly all of these stations are land-based, even though three quarters of our planet is covered with water. There are far too few temperature-sensing buoys deployed at sea to give an even remotely accurate assessment of atmospheric temperature trends in these vast areas. This is especially significant in the Southern Hemisphere, which is 90 percent ocean.
Second, urban sprawl has enveloped many temperature sensing stations in "heat islands" significantly warmer that the surrounding countryside. The warming measured at these sites is therefore problematic in determining global trends.
The only way to properly take the planet's temperature is to use sophisticated space-based sensors mounted aboard Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Tim Patterson, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal a statistically significant, but very small, temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07oC per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.
And this.....
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci7-24-02.htm
Scientists have been puzzling over the difference in temperature trends between the surface layer of the atmosphere up to about 5,000 feet and the layer above that known as the troposphere. Since 1979, when scientists began using satellites to take the temperature of the troposphere, it appears that even while the surface has apparently warmed, tropospheric temperatures have remained steady. This is puzzling because greenhouse theory says that the troposphere should warm first, followed by the surface layer.
This scientific controversy even merited special attention from the National Research Council, which assembled a panel to assess the situation. It concluded that both the surface data and the satellite data are correct, but only speculated about the possible causes.
According to the study, "The surface data suggests a warming of about 0.25 degrees C, while the satellite data shows no significant increase." Because the satellite data began in 1979, however, it has been noted that it is too short to "infer trends from any of the series since the trends estimated depend greatly on the subintervals chosen." Fortunately, the close agreement between the satellite and weather balloon data, which also measures tropospheric temperatures, allows for a longer time period to be considered.
Looking at the balloon data the study notes that there was a pronounced jump in the atmospheric temperature of about 0.25 degrees C in 1976. The surface followed suit but at a slower pace, taking about ten years to catch up. The delay in the surface data is probably due to the heat capacity of the oceans, which is related to overall climate sensitivity. The delayed response also accounts for the discrepancy between the surface-based temperature data and that taken from satellites. Since the satellite data began in 1979 it missed the jump in 1976, which was documented in the slower surface warming.
More importantly, the rate at which the surface temperature caught up with the tropospheric temperature can be used to calculate climate sensitivity. The study finds that the surface temperature will rise about one degree C for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. This is significantly lower than predictions made by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and provides empirical support to climate skeptics who argue that climate sensitivity has been significantly overstated.
To me, the point of this discussion with you Natoma, is to show that their is much to be take with a grain of salt. If you believe outright that the worst is coming, and try to show "proof", I'm sure I can find "proof" that your proof is wrong. Such is the nature of the current debate. Personally I believe some of the information, some of the time, and not the worst case - best case scenarios. :)
In canada in the last 100 years the summer season has been lenghthened by about 2 weeks and the tree line (the northern most areas where trees grow) has moved north about 150-200 kms. Something is going on and the relationship between co2 and warm periods and ice ages is solid science tho its a chicken and egg situation. Does c02 create warm ages or does warm ages add c02 to the atmosphere.
Im on the fence on this tho. Slight warming of the planet might be a good thing... Itd be wonderful to see large parts of the sahara getting regular rainfall at some point for ex. I also dont think its likely co2 emissions will drop for a while... whether kyoto is signed or not short of regular occurrences of weather related catastrophies no one will seriously respect any co2 treaty.
I havent seen any data on whether sun activity has increased energy output since monitoring of the sun has begun... tho Im sure some exists somewhere. I was impressed by the relationship between long ice age periods and long warm periods as to when the solar system enters then leaves sprial arms of the galaxy... might just be coincidental but it was interesting to note (ice ages began as we entered the last spiral arm about 60 million years ago and we are now on the edge leaving it).
I think we can sit this out a little while longer as reports say that stoppage of c02 production will see the c02 in the air quickly reduced to normal levels under 100 years... We can give this thing another 10-20 years and if things really do overheat itll move the market I think...
Can you provide links to some pages, or a google phrase, regarding the potential "sun cycle" effect on our climate? Or on a grander scale, the "galactic cycle" effect on our climate? It sounds like interesting reading, and I'd like to learn more.
Thanks.
Notice how the studys you site allways have different projections.
First link - 3 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
Secound link - 1.4 and 5.8 degree C
Third link - 0.6 to 5.8 degree C
Which one do you believe?
It would appear that the 2nd & 3rd link are using simular data, which BTW, comes from the IPCC.
That's why I gave a range and explicitly stated "projected" instead of definitive.
I don't believe your manipulating what is being reported (although it was not clear at first where you got the data in the previous instances :) ) But lets look a the information shall we. Based upon the link you provided, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr125c.htm the folowing is stated in the article:
A unanimous report of hundreds of scientists from more than 100 countries has affirmed, on the basis of new and stronger evidence, that most of the warming over the last 50 years has been caused by human activities.
What "new and stronger evidence" are they refering to? According to the article the IPCC's first report, in 1990 "confirmed that climate change is a threat". Then in 1995 their second report project a temp. rise of 1 to 3.5 degree C by 2100. The last report, put out at the time of this article, says that "Warming is now expected to go up between 1.4 and 5.8 degree C between 1990 and 2100.' So what changed between reports? Well - here's an article that answers that question-
http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci4-2-03.htm
What’s Behind the IPCC’s Latest Projections?
When the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, many were surprised that its projections for temperature increases had risen substantially. The IPCC’s 1996 Second Assessment Report (SAR) predicted that the earth’s temperature could increase by as much as 0.9 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. The TAR, however predicted a rise of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C. In a paper published in the Journal of Climate (October 15, 2002), Thomas Wigley with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Sarah Raper with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, ask the question, "Why are the more recent projections so much larger?"
The authors attempt to quantify how much of the change in projections was due to the new emissions scenarios presented in the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, and how much was due to differences in the science used in the climate models. To determine this, the authors plugged the emissions scenarios responsible for the high and low ends of the temperature projections into the models used for the TAR, what Wigley and Raper call the "TAR science."
For the TAR’s high end, coal-intensive scenario, the "CO2 concentrations are remarkably similar" to those used for the high-end scenario in the SAR. The biggest differences between the two high-end scenarios are the assumptions about sulfate aerosol concentrations, which are thought to offset warming. "The large aerosol forcing differences arise because the SRES scenarios account for likely policy responses to sulfur pollution.... This leads to substantially lower SO2 emissions than for the [SAR scenarios]." There are also some differences in methane forcing and tropospheric ozone forcing. This exercise revealed a difference in forcing from changes in the TAR greenhouse gas cycle from 0.5 Watts per meter squared (W/m2) at the low end to 2 W/m2 at the high end.
The differences in science between the two reports refer to changes in the way the models handle complex climate processes. So it is not so much a change in science as a change in modeling. To determine how these changes affect the projections, Wigley and Raper compare the low and high-end scenarios using SAR science and TAR science. What they found was that "the effects on concentration projections for any give emission scenario are relatively small."
In fact, there was actually a reduction in CO2 forcing combined with increased warming. This was due primarily to two things—a change in a parameter that defines the relationship between CO2 concentrations and forcing and a change in how the thermohaline circulation (THC) was modeled. A slowdown in the THC, for example, would offset some of the projected warming due to higher greenhouse gas concentrations. In the TAR, the THC will not slow down as much as assumed in the SAR.
The result of these exercises reveals that very little of the change in temperature projections is due to changes in scientific understanding or better modeling, but due almost entirely to different emissions scenarios. "At the low warming limit, TAR science inflates the 1990-2100 warming for the [low-end SAR scenario] by around 34 percent," says Wigley and Raper. "At the high end, TAR science inflates the 1990-2100 warming for the [high-end SAR scenario] by around 4 percent." The rest of the high-end alarmist projection comes from changes in the worst-case storyline, which has little basis in reality. A full 79 percent of the change at the high-end projection came from the changed assumptions about sulfate aerosols alone, about which we know very little.
Personally I don't know weather modelling through and through. Though I wish I did considering it seems to be a quite interesting subject. However, I must point out that while I believe the 5.8 degree change in the new modeled numbers is far out when taking into account other sources, the old numbers do indeed jive with current scientific understanding of a more realistic 1 - 4 degree Celcius shift in temperature in the 21st century.
Notice that at the end of the quote, which you bolded, it states A full 79 percent of the change at the high-end projection came from the changed assumptions about sulfate aerosols alone, about which we know very little.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that's basically saying that the difference from the original 1 - 4 degree shift to the newly calculated 1 - 5.8 degree shift was basically the change in assumptions regarding aerosol emissions. But in no way shape or form did that article repudiate the original numbers! Just the newly formed numbers. So even if you throw out the newly formed numbers, that still leaves, even conservatively (when taking into account the other sources available from the google search I provided), a 1 - 3 degree Celcius shift in temperature, which is what I stuck with in my table comparison on the last page.
Now, on to you slapping yourself :shock:
Silent_One wrote:
Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US. It was not written as a scientific paper regarding the rise in sea levels.
Again, sigh. What is one of the potential impacts of climate change? A rise in sea levels!
/me slaps head.
No, no, no. You got things backwards! The paper was written as a responce to the scenario of rising sea levels, not a paper to discuss the scientific evidence of climate changes and its impact. From the introduction of the article:
As greenhouse gases build-up in our atmosphere, one of the most likely impacts of climate change is rising sea levels. Sea level will rise because warm water expands and glaciers and ice sheets melt, adding water to the ocean. Sea-level rise, already occurring and projected to occur 2-4 times faster in the 21st century, could inundate low-lying areas of the Northeast, many of which include densely populated locations.....
The article then talks about loss of land mass, erosion, wetlands, societal and economic Impacts, and Strategies to Address Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise....Again, its's not an article analyzing scientific data, it's a paper based upon the assumption that the sea level is going to rise. To them , it's a given!
/me slaps your head!
I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm reading what you wrote, as well as what the article wrote, and it seems to me quite clearly that the article is saying that one of the impacts of climate change is a rise in sea levels.
Sorry, don't buy it. That paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change on the northeastern US.
Then you write something which was really confusing, especially given the quote you provided:
No, no, no. You got things backwards! The paper was written as a responce to the scenario of rising sea levels, not a paper to discuss the scientific evidence of climate changes and its impact.
So, how did I get things backwards when first you state that the paper was written to examine the potential impacts of climate change in the US, then you state that the paper was written not as an examination of the evidence of climate changes and their impact, but as a response to the scenario of rising sea levels?
I'm sitting here doing a :? trying to decipher that one.
As greenhouse gases build-up in our atmosphere, one of the most likely impacts of climate change is rising sea levels. Sea level will rise because warm water expands and glaciers and ice sheets melt, adding water to the ocean. Sea-level rise, already occurring and projected to occur 2-4 times faster in the 21st century, could inundate low-lying areas of the Northeast, many of which include densely populated locations....
They state that one of the most likely impacts of climate change is rising sea levels. And then they explain why sea levels would rise due to warming temperatures due to a build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
To me, the point of this discussion with you Natoma, is to show that their is much to be take with a grain of salt. If you believe outright that the worst is coming, and try to show "proof", I'm sure I can find "proof" that your proof is wrong. Such is the nature of the current debate. Personally I believe some of the information, some of the time, and not the worst case - best case scenarios. :)
I read the urls that you provided, as well as the quotes you provided, and as I said before, I'll say again. Until we have definitive long term proof that the IPCC numbers were incorrect, then they're the best ones we have.
However, the second quote block that you provide has many clues as to why Satellite data *and* ground based data are important to the discussion in tandem, and not opposition:
Scientists have been puzzling over the difference in temperature trends between the surface layer of the atmosphere up to about 5,000 feet and the layer above that known as the troposphere. Since 1979, when scientists began using satellites to take the temperature of the troposphere, it appears that even while the surface has apparently warmed, tropospheric temperatures have remained steady. This is puzzling because greenhouse theory says that the troposphere should warm first, followed by the surface layer.
So now we have a discrepancy in the theory of greenhouse gas warming. However, that discrepancy in the theory does not negate the fact that the surface temperatures have increased far more than the trophospheric temperatures have increased. The article goes on to give a potential explanation for this difference:
This scientific controversy even merited special attention from the National Research Council, which assembled a panel to assess the situation. It concluded that both the surface data and the satellite data are correct, but only speculated about the possible causes.
According to the study, "The surface data suggests a warming of about 0.25 degrees C, while the satellite data shows no significant increase." Because the satellite data began in 1979, however, it has been noted that it is too short to "infer trends from any of the series since the trends estimated depend greatly on the subintervals chosen." Fortunately, the close agreement between the satellite and weather balloon data, which also measures tropospheric temperatures, allows for a longer time period to be considered.
Looking at the balloon data the study notes that there was a pronounced jump in the atmospheric temperature of about 0.25 degrees C in 1976. The surface followed suit but at a slower pace, taking about ten years to catch up. The delay in the surface data is probably due to the heat capacity of the oceans, which is related to overall climate sensitivity. The delayed response also accounts for the discrepancy between the surface-based temperature data and that taken from satellites. Since the satellite data began in 1979 it missed the jump in 1976, which was documented in the slower surface warming.
Keep in mind that I noted the fact earlier in this discussion that the Oceans act as not only a natural carbon loading mechanism, but a giant heatsink.
I don't think the numbers are in any way incongruous, unless you choose to believe that both are immutable unto themselves and cannot corrolate with any other data source.
From the article you provided, it seems that scientists are using *both* forms of data capture in order to glean the true picture of what's going on. Land based data *and* satellite based data, with a smattering of balloon data as well.
As you stated earlier, I don't particularly believe that in 100 years we're all going to be underwater. However, I do believe that we are changing the planet for the worse by our actions. The worse, only because we are not in equilibrium with the planet. We remove far more resources, and pollute the earth far more, than the earth can replenish and remove naturally. We need to curtail our activities to bring them back in line to what the earth can support.
The numbers provided by the scientific community merely illustrate how we are changing our environment and how, if we don't curtail our activities, things can get very bad for us.
Think about it this way. Go back 100 years when heavy metal pollution of our streams and rivers was common place. You think that if the US government didn't institute guidelines on environmental safety that our streams and rivers would be teeming with life today? That if environmental solutions to vehicle pollution weren't legislated that we'd still have wonderful air quality today?
The reason why our planet isn't in worse shape is because people in the past realized that hey, we need to change our ways. And this was *before* all of the satellites and computers and whatnot that help shape our world today. Now we're able to analyze the data from thousands of years ago to the present day, and project based on our current usage patterns, where the earth most likely will be in another century or two. It is not a death knell of inevitability. Merely a warning that this *may* occur.
To ignore this as some in this discussion, nay many around the world, have is foolhardy at best, and suicidal for future caretakers of this world at worst. If the people of the past said "I don't care what happens tomorrow. I won't be around," we'd have even worse toxic waste pollution, air quality, etc etc etc than we have today. It's our duty to make sure we try and keep the planet as livable as possible for the human race, because quite frankly we're the only species in the history of this planet that has the intelligence to do so on a global scale.
It's our responsibility. If you believe in god, then you know that god made man to be the caretakers of the earth. Not its destroyers. Even if you don't believe in god (myself in that group), science tells you that we've got no place else to go. So if we muck up this planet, we're screwed royally.
But that's maybe a discussion for another thread. :)
MrsSkywalker
08-May-2003, 17:55
Natoma, listen up.
The Earth has been around for app. 4.55 billion years. Homo sapiens have only been around for about 130,000 years (both are debatable ages, but all seem to agree that: 1)the earth was here 4.55 billion years ago 2) there were homo sapiens 130,000 years ago). Do the math and you will see that homo sapiens haven't even been on this planet for 0.01% of it's existence. And during the brief time we have been on earth, we have only been recording weather (accurately...with thermometers, barometers, etc) for at most a few hundred years...and that's being very generous, b/c the only way to accurately measure weather is through sattelites, and those have only been in operation since the 1960's.
We as humans have not been around long enough to understand the earth's natural cycle...at all. No one can. So, every piece of data you link is extrodinarily subjective and instantly suspect, b/c there is no hard data to compare it with. A few hundred years of collected data, only about 50 years of reliable and accurate measurements, out of a 4.55 BILLION year history... Think of it this way. Would you say that data collected after watching a child for 2 seconds was enough to base a behavioral assessment on? What if in that 2 seconds cried? Would you try to claim that the child has emotional disorders? Or just sat there? Would you then assert that he is paralyzed? Because that is exactly what you and the other environmentalists are trying to do. You are basing your fears and claims of destruction on a few seconds in the earth's life cycle. It's ridiculous.
All we know about past weather patterns is found in the rocks. We know through fossils that at one time, Mt. Washington (a large and famous Mt. in NH for those who may not have heard of it before) was halfway under water and is now about 100 miles from the ocean. We know through fossils that at at least one time almost all of North America was a tropical climate. We also know that at at least one time, most of North America was frozen in ice. And, we know for a fact that humans were not around then.
I think it is conceited to be surprised that the earth doesn't consult humans before changing.
First you complain that I don't respond to your posts. Then when I do respond, and actually apologize for ignoring your posts, you completely toss them out the window?
First it's humans cannot affect the earth in any way. When I show that to not be true, you say that the data is "half evidence." Then when I show it to be quite full, you revert to the "homo sapiens cannot affect the earth" spiel. We've been on this merry-go-round before, and I'm not going to go for a spin with you again. The answers to what you're telling me are in the posts I've made, if you choose to read them.
A snapshot of my stance on this subject was in my prior post. Here's the read (though by all means, read all of my posts please, including the satellite data which you made no mention of, even though you basically said I was pulling the whole dust cloud stuff out of my ass):
As you stated earlier, I don't particularly believe that in 100 years we're all going to be underwater. However, I do believe that we are changing the planet for the worse by our actions. The worse, only because we are not in equilibrium with the planet. We remove far more resources, and pollute the earth far more, than the earth can replenish and remove naturally. We need to curtail our activities to bring them back in line to what the earth can support.
The numbers provided by the scientific community merely illustrate how we are changing our environment and how, if we don't curtail our activities, things can get very bad for us.
Think about it this way. Go back 100 years when heavy metal pollution of our streams and rivers was common place. You think that if the US government didn't institute guidelines on environmental safety that our streams and rivers would be teeming with life today? That if environmental solutions to vehicle pollution weren't legislated that we'd still have wonderful air quality today?
The reason why our planet isn't in worse shape is because people in the past realized that hey, we need to change our ways. And this was *before* all of the satellites and computers and whatnot that help shape our world today. Now we're able to analyze the data from thousands of years ago to the present day, and project based on our current usage patterns, where the earth most likely will be in another century or two. It is not a death knell of inevitability. Merely a warning that this *may* occur.
To ignore this as some in this discussion, nay many around the world, have is foolhardy at best, and suicidal for future caretakers of this world at worst. If the people of the past said "I don't care what happens tomorrow. I won't be around," we'd have even worse toxic waste pollution, air quality, etc etc etc than we have today. It's our duty to make sure we try and keep the planet as livable as possible for the human race, because quite frankly we're the only species in the history of this planet that has the intelligence to do so on a global scale.
It's our responsibility. If you believe in god, then you know that god made man to be the caretakers of the earth. Not its destroyers. Even if you don't believe in god (myself in that group), science tells you that we've got no place else to go. So if we muck up this planet, we're screwed royally.
But that's maybe a discussion for another thread.
p.s.: In the 4.55 Billion year history of this planet, no species has had the ability to irradiate the globe. Does that mean that we shouldn't care about nuclear war, because the time we've had nuclear bombs has only been a blip in the history of the planet? I mean, we can't do too much damage to the planet with an all out nuclear war right? It'd only last a couple of hours or days.
But could it completely wipe out all life on earth? Most certainly.
Listen to me carefully, and understand. Technology has changed the equation of what can be done to this planet. No species has had the techological abilities of the human race. Unless it's possible that other highly intelligent species evolved on this planet during the previous 4.55 Billion years and just happened to leave Earth and go into outer space. I mean, it is possible. We most certainly don't know. But from what we do know, we're the first species that completely can alter the makeup of this planet in a completely unnatural way, i.e. through the use of technology.
Atomic Weaponry. Toxic Waste. Vehicle Pollution. Heavy Metal Runoff. Oil Spills. Terraforming. Etc etc etc.
It is our *intelligence* which is the difference between the current iteration of the Earth, and past iterations with prior species. *That* is what differentiates our stay on this planet. We can make or break the survival of practically every animal on the planet. That is a tremendous responsibility, and quite frankly it's disturbing to have people like you who simply don't give a hoot about it. Times have changed. Open your eyes.
Joe DeFuria
08-May-2003, 19:22
Natoma,
I mean, we can't do too much damage to the planet with an all out nuclear war right? It'd only last a couple of hours or days.
There needs to be a distinction made between "damage" and "change." That is really the root of this side-discussion. You appear to always site change as "wrong."
A global nuclear war would certainly change this earth. Just as would several large volcanic eruptions or collission with comets / asteroids.
There would be "short term damage" so to speak. Immeditate deaths. Extinctions, etc. However, the earth would "recover" (as it has from all other drastic impacts) and reach some new "equilibrium". New life...new species, etc.
And I use the term "equilibrium" in the loosest sense, because the earth is constantly evolving, both on micro and macro scales, with or without technological or other catastrophic interference.
Is that new "equilibrium" better or worse than our current one? Who knows. You and I certainly don't. All we know is it will be different.
But could it completely wipe out all life on earth? Most certainly.
Most certainly not. I am being literal here, and for a reason. I do NOT believe that we could completely wipe out every living entity on this planet. We could wipe out a large percentage of life (especially higher life forms), but not all life.
The earth would recover. (Save, pehaps, for the time when we build our first death-star...)
Listen to me carefully, and understand. Technology has changed the equation of what can be done to this planet.
That is true, and technology works both ways. It can change the equation for better or worse.
What you have not been clear on, is why you feel some urgent need to reduce greenhouse gasses now. You stated earlier that now we have relatively "clean air" and "clean water" vs. a couple generations ago. Sort of prooves the "healing power" of the earth, doesn't it? That all of that pollution doesn't seem to have some irreversible or permanent effect of "damage." We saw what it (pollution) was doing, we changed, and the earth recovered.
To be clear, this is not to say that things are now the same as they would have been if there was zero pollution. But this is also not to say that we aren't actually better off now than we would have been had we not polluted.
The difference with global greenhouse gasses is....we don't know what it's doing. We really have no idea about it's impacts, for better or worse, on the global climate. For all we know, the cause-effect is the other way around...the changing climate is causing changes in greenhouse gas levels.
We can try and curtail man-made greenhouse gas levels all we want, but we quite frankly don't know what impact that will have. What I am supremely confident of though, is if at some point it is understood that less greenhouse gas emmissions are better, that at that time we can take meausres to curtail it, and the earth will recover.
Just like our water and air.
I love armchair critics and pamphlet scholars ;)
One notion I reject is the implicit FAITH that the Earth will naturally overcome any obstacle the Human species throw at it.
Actually from heavy numerical work, one can find various models which display the so called venus run away reactions. In fact, there is heavy evidence that the planet Venus lost its atmosphere through a greenhouse reaction.
Perhaps I should be more clear. Irregardless of humans, the earth might hit a point in phase space that destroys any path back to equilibrium. It is not inconceivable that human based emmissions could contribute to this situation.
Hmm the reason Mt Washinton was tropical at one might be because our area (Im in New Brunswick) on the eastern seaboard was once close to Morocco. The geology shows this being I think about 100 million years ago. So we've been sliding slowly to the northwest ever since... I suppose even at this alttitude tho that at that time things were warm enough for us to tropical or sub tropical...
MrsSkywalker
09-May-2003, 00:39
Hmm the reason Mt Washinton was tropical at one might be because our area (Im in New Brunswick) on the eastern seaboard was once close to Morocco. The geology shows this being I think about 100 million years ago. So we've been sliding slowly to the northwest ever since... I suppose even at this alttitude tho that at that time things were warm enough for us to tropical or sub tropical...
True, but there is debate about the time period of the fossils. Some appear to be much newer than they had thought.
BTW, New Brunswick is pretty nice...didn't realize you lived so close :)
Silent_One
09-May-2003, 01:40
natoma-
Just a quick note -
Silent_One wrote:
Notice how the studys you site allways have different projections.
First link - 3 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)
Secound link - 1.4 and 5.8 degree C
Third link - 0.6 to 5.8 degree C
Which one do you believe?
It would appear that the 2nd & 3rd link are using simular data, which BTW, comes from the IPCC.
That's why I gave a range and explicitly stated "projected" instead of definitive.
Yes, you did say projected -
1000 - 1100: 0.2+
1100 - 1200: 0.1+
1200 - 1300: 0.1-
1300 - 1400: 0.6-
1400 - 1500: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1500 - 1600: 0.2-
1600 - 1700: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1700 - 1800: 0.0 (shifted up 0.3, then down 0.3 during the century)
1800 - 1900: 0.6+
1900 - 2000: 0.7+
2000 - 2100: 1.0 - 3.0+ (projected)
You also said -
What should be noted is that none of the changes displayed in either PDF showed sustained changes of 2-5 degrees Celcius changes (+/-) occurring in the span of 300 years, especially with a 1-3 degree sustained shift in temperature over the course of one century.
....but if you read the post I linked you would have seen...
Despite a 0.7 degree C warming that has occurred over the past century (as much warming occurred before 1940 as since then, even though the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred after 1940) , overall, global temperatures have dropped about 2°C over the past 5,000 years (depending on latitude: a 6 degree C drop in some Arctic areas; a 0.5 degree C drop in some lower latitudes). Another ice age is expected to begin within the next few thousand years and so any gradual global warming could be a blessing, as it could delay the onset of the next glacial period, or at least reduce its severity.”
It should be clear that a.) large temp. fluxuations have occured and b.) much of the warming that occured this past century had happened before "the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred ". Question - Why?
Also what is important about your reference to "the span of 300 years"? Even you only project 100 years!
Regarding the confusing post_
Sorry if I was not clear. Upon re-reading it I can see why your...uh...slapping yourself. :lol:
One last try. The paper was written as to the impact of rising sea levels. It was NOT a paper written as to why the sea levels might rise. Thats why I said "Sorry, don't buy it." when you try to present it as a factual, scientific paper regarding the rise in the sea level. Sure, it said "the Sea levels are rising!", and "This study says so!" but it might as well be a newspaper article just stating information with no data, no backup. So, sorry, but I don't buy it. Clear?
More later....
yeah nice and cold... spring is late dagnabit... ;)
Natoma,
I mean, we can't do too much damage to the planet with an all out nuclear war right? It'd only last a couple of hours or days.
There needs to be a distinction made between "damage" and "change." That is really the root of this side-discussion. You appear to always site change as "wrong."
A global nuclear war would certainly change this earth. Just as would several large volcanic eruptions or collission with comets / asteroids.
There would be "short term damage" so to speak. Immeditate deaths. Extinctions, etc. However, the earth would "recover" (as it has from all other drastic impacts) and reach some new "equilibrium". New life...new species, etc.
And I use the term "equilibrium" in the loosest sense, because the earth is constantly evolving, both on micro and macro scales, with or without technological or other catastrophic interference.
Is that new "equilibrium" better or worse than our current one? Who knows. You and I certainly don't. All we know is it will be different.
And that is my stance on the whole matter. What I've stated all along. We should do everything we can to keep the environment in line with what can support us.
That is the equilibrium that we should be worried about. If we know the earth can safely process 7 Billion tons of Carbon yearly, then we should limit our output to that. Since we are currently removing 1.2 years worth of resources for every year of natural regeneration, then we need to find ways to curtail our consumption to fall back in line with what the earth can support.
I'm not resigned to letting the earth become a wasteland and letting our species die off, but knowing that the earth may or may not survive and replenish itself once we're gone.
Scientific study has thus far concluded that Mars once supported life from the fact that it was once covered with water. Now it's a barren rock with a thin atmosphere, all its water frozen at the poles.
Who's to say that something similar couldn't happen to our planet? Or look at what happened to Venus? The current theory is that Venus is the prime example of a runaway greenhouse effect.
Who's to say that one day we won't tip the scales in that direction permanently, no matter what we do?
But could it completely wipe out all life on earth? Most certainly.
Most certainly not. I am being literal here, and for a reason. I do NOT believe that we could completely wipe out every living entity on this planet. We could wipe out a large percentage of life (especially higher life forms), but not all life.
The earth would recover. (Save, pehaps, for the time when we build our first death-star...)
Again, see my reasoning above when I discussed Mars and Venus. I don't think it's completely certain that the earth would recover. Certain frog species can recover if you chop off a couple of legs. They can simply regenerate and go on their way. Cut them in half however, and it's all over. Their regenerative powers aren't that strong.
Who's to say we won't hit that point some day with the earth, where it just will not recover? We're no experts in planetary climatology yet, so why take that chance?
We don't have another opportunity waiting for us out there if we do happen to muck this planet up. This is all we've got.
Listen to me carefully, and understand. Technology has changed the equation of what can be done to this planet.
That is true, and technology works both ways. It can change the equation for better or worse.
What you have not been clear on, is why you feel some urgent need to reduce greenhouse gasses now. You stated earlier that now we have relatively "clean air" and "clean water" vs. a couple generations ago. Sort of prooves the "healing power" of the earth, doesn't it? That all of that pollution doesn't seem to have some irreversible or permanent effect of "damage." We saw what it (pollution) was doing, we changed, and the earth recovered.
To be clear, this is not to say that things are now the same as they would have been if there was zero pollution. But this is also not to say that we aren't actually better off now than we would have been had we not polluted.
We have cleaner air and cleaner water because legislation has been passed that has increased the scrutiny on polluting technologies. You can no longer dump toxic waste into rivers and streams. You can no longer have cars that come without a catalytic converter, which cleans the emissions spewed by those vehicles.
Government has forced outdated power plants, mostly coal fired and oil driven, to clean up their smokestacks in order to release relatively harmless emissions into the atmosphere, rather than the black belching smoke that was a normal site in the latter 19th and first half 20th centuries.
It certainly does prove the healing power of the earth, once we stop polluting it beyond what it can recover from. That is why I stated earlier that we need to establish an equilibrium with the planet.
For example, when I was growing up, I remember that you could not swim in the Hudson River, or go fishing, because it was so polluted. Now, while it's still not relatively safe to swim, you can go fishing at certain times of the year. Further reclamation projects that are in line in NYC have the Hudson returning to an earlier state of health as well.
This has been my mantra all along. Yes we need to do certain things in order to survive and thrive as a culture, as a species. However, we can do all these things within the confines of what this planet can support.
The difference with global greenhouse gasses is....we don't know what it's doing. We really have no idea about it's impacts, for better or worse, on the global climate. For all we know, the cause-effect is the other way around...the changing climate is causing changes in greenhouse gas levels.
We can try and curtail man-made greenhouse gas levels all we want, but we quite frankly don't know what impact that will have. What I am supremely confident of though, is if at some point it is understood that less greenhouse gas emmissions are better, that at that time we can take meausres to curtail it, and the earth will recover.
Just like our water and air.
1) I haven't seen any data to support the theory that the changing climate is what is raising the greenhouse gas levels. It also doesn't jive with the current empirical evidence sitting on our roads and highways, along with our industrial complexes.
2) Here's a thought. 40 years ago, people that didn't have scientific data said "You know, smoking can't be all that good for you. It doesn't smell that good, and you're always coughing and sneezing and you smell bad." People would respond "Hey, I feel fine, and there's no science out there that says smoking is bad. So I'll puff away."
Fast-forward to present day, and those same people today are dying of lung cancer and throat cancer, it's been found that nicotine is highly addictive, and has terrible effects on the cardio-vascular system. Some people are able to recover, while others most certainly aren't.
Do you really want to take a chance that by the time we completely and fully understand what we're doing to the environment, that it might be too late to actually fix things?
I certainly don't. We have enough knowledge and understanding today to know that we are affecting our climate in ways that will change the way the earth looks and responds. We don't have all the answers, but the fact is we know something is up. Since we know that there are potentially devastating consequences to our actions, I believe it would be prudent to try and nip it in the bud before it becomes a huge green-eyed monster that we can't curtail.
I think that's the most prudent course of action, because we still have a lot of time to change and still keep our relatively pristine world.
It should be clear that a.) large temp. fluxuations have occured and b.) much of the warming that occured this past century had happened before "the large majority of the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere occurred ". Question - Why?
Also what is important about your reference to "the span of 300 years"? Even you only project 100 years!
I haven't debated the fact that large temperature fluctuations have occurred in the past. What I've debated is that the temperature fluctuations we've seen, courtesy of the PDFs you provided, have occurred over the course of 500 - 2000 years. We're talking fluctuations of 1-4 degrees.
The reason why people are becoming alarmed now is because the shift in the 19th century was 0.6 degrees celcius, and a 0.7 degree celcius shift int he 20th century. Considering scientists are predicting a 1-3 degree celcius shift for the 21st century, that would make a 2.3 - 4.3 degree celcius shift in global temperatures, accelerating this century. So that's why I said that these sustained temperature increases would happen over 3 centuries. I included the currently recorded data with the scientifically projected data, for a warming trend that is by far the greatest in the past 12,000 years.
The only difference is the industrial revolution and all of the polluting technologies that were created in its wake.
I can only speculate as to the temperature building in the 20th century occurring mostly before the large buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm assuming that the CO2 released to the atmosphere does not immediately get absorbed by the forests and the oceans. So the climate was indeed heating up, but eventually the atmosphere would be cleansed as the oceans and forests did their thing. But after a while, the oceans and forests could no longer completely purge the atmosphere of the CO2, so it began to linger.
But the temperature increases still would have occurred during that time because the transition in the carbon cycle was not instantaneous.
Regarding the confusing post_
Sorry if I was not clear. Upon re-reading it I can see why your...uh...slapping yourself. :lol:
One last try. The paper was written as to the impact of rising sea levels. It was NOT a paper written as to why the sea levels might rise. Thats why I said "Sorry, don't buy it." when you try to present it as a factual, scientific paper regarding the rise in the sea level. Sure, it said "the Sea levels are rising!", and "This study says so!" but it might as well be a newspaper article just stating information with no data, no backup. So, sorry, but I don't buy it. Clear?
More later....
:lol:
I still don't understand, but oh wells.
Silent_One
09-May-2003, 21:08
Natoma wrote:
1000 - 1100: 0.2+
1100 - 1200: 0.1+
1200 - 1300: 0.1-
1300 - 1400: 0.6-
1400 - 1500: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1500 - 1600: 0.2-
1600 - 1700: 0.0 (shifted up 0.2, then down 0.2 during the century)
1700 - 1800: 0.0 (shifted up 0.3, then down 0.3 during the century)
1800 - 1900: 0.6+
1900 - 2000: 0.7+
2000 - 2100: 1.0 - 3.0+ (projected)
What should be noted is that none of the changes displayed in either PDF showed sustained changes of 2-5 degrees Celcius changes (+/-) occurring in the span of 300 years, especially with a 1-3 degree sustained shift in temperature over the course of one century.
I can only speculate as to the temperature building in the 20th century occurring mostly before the large buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm assuming that the CO2 released to the atmosphere does not immediately get absorbed by the forests and the oceans. So the climate was indeed heating up, but eventually the atmosphere would be cleansed as the oceans and forests did their thing. But after a while, the oceans and forests could no longer completely purge the atmosphere of the CO2, so it began to linger.
Questions.
Why in 1300 to 1400 did the temp. drop by 0.6 degree C? Why in 1800 to 1900 did the temp. rise by 0.6 degree C? I assume that there was plenty of forests and trees as well as the oceans to absorb the carbon durning the 1800's , so whats going on (I mean, durning the 1900's we had a LOT more pollution and technologies in this world that in the 1800's yet the temp. rise isn't that much different)
I'm not sure why global temperatures dropped 0.6 degrees celcius in 1300-1400. There's nothing to show that it was anything but a natural occurrence. The technology at that point was not great enough to affect global temperatures in the way that we can today.
However it should be noted, as I stated earlier, that the cooling trend was not sustained. It was a one century drop, then the temperatures stabilized for the next 400 years. The PDFs you provided us earlier showed that the earth has experienced warming and cooling trends that usually burned themselves out in a century, or were sustained over the course of 5 - 20 centuries. It's only since 1800 have temperatures risen consistently, with a projected temperature explosion in this century. That gradient has never occurred naturally in the past 12,000 years, which is why we can attribute it to human causes.
As to why the temperature rise was roughly the same in the 19th century as it was in the 20th century, I think it goes back to my original theory regarding the loads that the earth is able to absorb. I believe we've been affecting our climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution on a global scale. While people historically have its peak in the late 19th, early 20th century, the industrial revolution really began with the advent of such technologies as the steam engine in the early 19th century.
Up until the past few decades, we've been within the limits the earth could naturally replenish itself and remove pollutants in the biosphere. However we've recently gone over the threshold of pollution and resource removal. That would explain why the temperature increase is expected to explode in the 21st century.
Mariner
09-May-2003, 22:13
Something such as major volcanic eruptions could have caused an overall drop in temperature, I expect. I've no idea if this is the case or not in this case.
Something such as major volcanic eruptions could have caused an overall drop in temperature, I expect. I've no idea if this is the case or not in this case.
That gave me an idea. I googled and came up with the following pdf, http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02babstracts/Budner-stu.pdf which gives a short blurb on an expedition to Antarctica in 2000/2001 which produced two ice cores. Those ice cores detailed three major volcanic eruptions on the planet in the 13th century, that had been unknown until the core's retrieval.
It also had evidence of the well known eruption of Huaynaputina in 1600 and the Kuwae eruption in 1454.
Considering the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo lowered global temperatures 0.2 degrees alone for a few years, three major eruptions within the same timeframe, dispersed across the globe, could have lowered global temperature by 0.6 degrees.
One notion I reject is the implicit FAITH that the Earth will naturally overcome any obstacle the Human species throw at it.
Actually from heavy numerical work, one can find various models which display the so called venus run away reactions. In fact, there is heavy evidence that the planet Venus lost its atmosphere through a greenhouse reaction.
Perhaps I should be more clear. Irregardless of humans, the earth might hit a point in phase space that destroys any path back to equilibrium. It is not inconceivable that human based emmissions could contribute to this situation.I reject that too Fred.
Finally we agree about something :)
IMHO while we dont understand it with more accuracy and precision we need some precautions measures. All have to contribute.
Silent_One
10-May-2003, 03:10
This is one of the reasons why scientists are expecting the huge jump in worldwide temperature in the next century, because we only in the past 5-10 years hit the carbon load limit of the planet, and exceeded it. It's not coincidence that the period from 1930 - 1980 was the hottest recorded 50 year period on record in the past 1,000 years, when using carbon dating methods on ice, trees, and fossils, and that the decade from 1990 - 2000 had 3 of the hottest years on record ever (1993, 1994, and 1998). 1991 - 1992 were cooled because of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillippines, which caused worldwide temperatures to drop during that two year period by 0.2 degrees, before heating up rapidly in 1993 as the cloud cover dispersed.
O.K. the last 5-10 yers we "hit our limit"
I can only speculate as to the temperature building in the 20th century occurring mostly before the large buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm assuming that the CO2 released to the atmosphere does not immediately get absorbed by the forests and the oceans. So the climate was indeed heating up, but eventually the atmosphere would be cleansed as the oceans and forests did their thing. But after a while, the oceans and forests could no longer completely purge the atmosphere of the CO2, so it began to linger.
Oh...wait, we "hit our limit" 50-60 years ago...
As to why the temperature rise was roughly the same in the 19th century as it was in the 20th century, I think it goes back to my original theory regarding the loads that the earth is able to absorb. I believe we've been affecting our climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution on a global scale. While people historically have its peak in the late 19th, early 20th century, the industrial revolution really began with the advent of such technologies as the steam engine in the early 19th century.
huh?...that limit again..."loads that the earth is able to absorb"
Up until the past few decades, we've been within the limits the earth could naturally replenish itself and remove pollutants in the biosphere. However we've recently gone over the threshold of pollution and resource removal. That would explain why the temperature increase is expected to explode in the 21st century.Oh, wait...were still within the limits!!? Oh back to the beginning!
Sounds like a lot of speculation. You assume that the "CO2 released to the atmosphere does not immediately get absorbed by the forests and the oceans." But then it catches up. But then "the oceans and forests could no longer completely purge the atmosphere of the CO2, so it began to linger." Well for that to happen we (the world) must have had a pause in our polluting for it to "catch up", and then we went back to our dirty ways...Come on Natoma! This issue is much more complex than this and your just speculating away! How about this possibilty- (you asked Pax for info on the SUN, this might be it, I don't know)
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth3.cfmThe hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.
A good example of the sort of misinformation that is being publicized regarding this topic is seen in the following quote from Dr. (Zoology) David Suzuki in the June 21, 2002 version of his "Science Matters" column that appeared in newspapers across Canada: "Increased concentration of carbon dioxide, the most important heat-trapping gas, has pushed up global temperatures, which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced."
Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, responds, "The Suzuki comment displays an ignorance of climate science. Even the Greenpeace report on global warming concedes that water vapour is the most abundant and most important greenhouse gas. Water vapour is ignored because the models can't include clouds. Imagine recommending devastating economic and therefore social policy based on a climate model that can't even include clouds!" In fact, CO2 is less than 3 percent of greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapor constitutes 97 percent. Other GHG are methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and trace gases.
It is very revealing that an increase in the production of water vapor at the equator during the 1998 El Niño climate event caused worldwide average temperatures to spike by almost 1°C that year. The human contribution to the atmosphere's total water vapor content is trivial by comparison. A study by Dr. Kevin Telmer, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. Jan Veizer, Professor of Geology at the University of Ottawa, demonstrates that the larger amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere at higher temperature permit more CO2 to be absorbed by plants (see www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-00zf.html). Thus, we have a self-regulating system that helps keep the climate in check.
Of the 0.7°C global temperature rise in the past century, half of it occurred before 1940, although most of the buildup in human-induced CO2 has occurred since then. It is also important to understand that our Sun, the ultimate source of all atmospheric warmth, is currently brighter than at any time in the past 400 years. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University concludes, "With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."
Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the Sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. This idea is further supported by climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki who demonstrated in a recent edition of the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness. Whether they were looking at the Little Ice Age of the latter seventeenth century, the rapid warming in the early part of the twentieth century or the relatively unchanging temperatures of recent decades, our star's output and global temperatures were closely correlated. NASA's Paal Brekke explains, "... the Sun may be a much more important contributor to global climate change than previously assumed." Dr. Ball sums up, "Ignoring the Sun and water vapor as causes of climate change is like ignoring the transmission and engine when the car is not working."
Like carbon cycle modelers, Dr. Ball and Dr. Veizer believe that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. Here is some of the evidence that supports this hypothesis:
Global mean atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface (and hence atmospheric) temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise;
Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, atmospheric temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels finally increased;
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period, about 114,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 remained relatively high even as temperatures plummeted.
Finally, recent publications in the prestigious journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago.
Clearly, variations in the Sun's brightness should be far more interesting to those concerned about future climate change than the relatively trivial and inconsistent effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, concludes, "It is highly probable that global average temperature will go up and down during future years regardless of what we do."
I don't quite buy the precautionary principle (as its called by greens) either. I mean we could go to the extreme and say any sort of emmision by the human race is unnacceptable and go on a witch hunt over it. In which case they'll have to pry the CO2 emmissions out of my dead corpse.
More research must be done on the subject, its not clear yet what exactly the state was like say on Venus. Nor is it scientifically indisputable if we are even contributing to anything of the sort.
Destroying our global economies over this seems like drastic overkill, and actually detrimental to a long term solution.
Truth be told, im more irate about the destruction of the rain forests (for many reasons other than just the greenhouse effect), than I am about America's withdrawal from Kyoto.
The 'precautionary principle' can be applied indiscriminately to many avenues of interest to science, its use in this case is IMO very premature.
Extreme precautionary is not a good idea but a conservative precautionary could be and Kyoto IMHO is conservative.
Also I dont see it as destroying any economy but modifying it. IMHO modifying for better and more technology based.
This US Kyoto/oil/tax complex and interconnected measures are IMHO just old.
No action is aburd.
OT: The rain forest is something we need precaution because of the possibility of desertifation process. It has the potential to be a desert larger than the Saara because the forest is based on a thin layer of rich soil and the trees (increbilly big) roots do go more than one meter down and spread tens of meters.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2163646.stm
found one!
just coming out of a format... sorry took a while ;)
Joe DeFuria
12-May-2003, 15:54
More research must be done on the subject, its not clear yet what exactly the state was like say on Venus. Nor is it scientifically indisputable if we are even contributing to anything of the sort.
Destroying our global economies over this seems like drastic overkill, and actually detrimental to a long term solution.
Agreed.
Again I dont see any economy destruction. Doing it correctlly the impact is less than 1% of the GDP.http://www.stanford.edu/group/MERGE/kyoto.pdf
Silent_One
12-May-2003, 19:28
Again I dont see any economy destruction. Doing it correctlly the impact is less than 1% of the GDP.http://www.stanford.edu/group/MERGE/kyoto.pdf
Well there are numerous studys out that suggest otherwise -
http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ6-3-99.html
Costs of Kyoto will be High Regardless of Flexible MechanismsOne of the most hotly debated issues of global warming is the cost of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. Some private sector estimates put the cost as high as $300 billion per year, while the Clinton Administration’s Council of Economic Advisors claims it will cost no more than $12 billion per year. The administration argues that the large difference between the two estimates is the assumption of flexible mechanisms such as emission trading and joint implementation....A new study, sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, concludes that the cost of complying with Kyoto will be high regardless of the use of flexible mechanisms. ....<snip>.....Without the use of flexible mechanisms, compliance with Kyoto would lower GDP by 3.6 to 5.1 percent by 2010, or between $330 billion to $467 billion. With flexible mechanisms those costs are only reduced slightly, from 3 to 4.3 percent of GDP. Brown concludes, "if reducing CO2 emissions is similar to purchasing insurance against the possible consequences of global warming, these figures suggest that U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord represents a costly and excessive insurance." The study can be found at www.ncpa.org/studies/s224.html.
http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ10-20-98.html
Government Study Contradicts Administration’s Cost Estimates
Several studies done by private, econometric modeling firms show the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol to be high. Critics argue that these studies cannot be trusted given that they were funded by the fossil fuel industry. A new government study, however, has just been released which validate the findings of the industry-funded studies, and counters claims by the Clinton Administration the costs will be negligible......<snip>.....The EIA estimates that the Kyoto Protocol will cost the U.S. economy $64 billion per year. Under a carbon tax, energy prices will double by 2010 and then "decline to 79 percent above reference case price levels in 2020." Gasoline prices could rise by 53 percent and electricity prices could rise by as much as 86 percent by 2010. Overall the EIA study paints a rather gloomy economic picture under the Kyoto Protocol. The study is available on the web at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ6-13-01.htmFormer Clinton Aides Now Admit Kyoto Would Be Costly
Amidst major criticism from both domestic environmental groups and European officials, President Bush is receiving aid and comfort from an unexpected source – former Clinton Administration officials. Bush has stated that the U.S. will not comply with the Kyoto Protocol because it is "fatally flawed" and would impose undue economic hardships on the country.
Now, according to the June 12 issue of USA Today, "Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto’s mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult – and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge." This change in tune from the Clintonites is part of the reason that Bush decided to reject Kyoto.
The Clinton Administration was overly optimistic about the costs of Kyoto because its economic analysis was based on unrealistic assumptions. It assumed, for instance, that China and India would accept emissions reduction limits and that they would be able to fully participate in an unlimited international emissions trading system. China has made it clear, however, that it will not accept commitments, and the European Union has remained opposed to unlimited emissions trading.
http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ1-24-01.htm
IPCC: Kyoto would be Costly
Working Group III of the IPCC report predicts that compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would reduce economic growth by as much as 2 percent per year in the industrialized countries, according to the January 9 issue of Japan Times. This closely matches predictions by several other economic studies. Economic growth rates in industrial countries hover around 2 percent per year. That would be consumed by the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ4-4.html
United States’ Compliance Costs
A study by the non-partisan Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates (WEFA, Inc.) outlines the state-by-state costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol for the United States. The U.S. agreed to reduce its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. This means that the U.S. will have to reduce its emissions by 40 percent below levels predicted by the year 2010.
The study shows, for example, that California would lose approximately 300,000 jobs and wages would fall by as much as 3.2 percent. Energy prices would rise significantly. Residential electricity rates would increase by 29 percent, home heating oil by 53 percent and natural gas by 52 percent.
Other states would be similarly damaged. New York and Texas, for example, would lose 110,000 and 123,000 jobs respectively. New York’s residential electricity rates would increase by 37.7 percent while Texas’s increase by 58.7 percent. Higher energy prices, of course, would lead to higher grocery, housing and medical costs. The state-by-state breakdown of WEFA’s estimates of the costs of Kyoto can be found at www.rnc.org/news/kyoto/.
I'm sure that both of us could come up with many studys that support one side of the debate or the other. The question is which one do you believe?
THe ACCF says from1% to 4%. http://www.accf.org/Mar99test.htm
Others say less than 1%.
Take some "average", probably 1% with good/fast actions/administration.
I dont buy/believe in 58% increase in energy cost.
Silent_One:
You're making this far more complex than it needs to be.
1) Carbon is released into the atmosphere.
2) The oceans and forests immediately begin to absorb the carbon, but the completion of the process is not instantaneous. During the time of absorption, the carbon lingers in the atmosphere and contributes to rising temperatures, however minute.
3) The planet has been absorbing our carbon emissions with relatively no problem for the past couple of centuries. As stipulated in point #2, the carbon was not immediately absorbed, and thus contributed to relatively small temperature increases while the natural carbon sinks of the planet did their work.
4) Only in the last decade roughly, when we have gone over the threshold of what the planet could effectively remove from the atmosphere in a given amount of time, have we noticed temperature fluctuations spiking faster than they historically have.
That is one of the reasons why scientists are able to predict a 1-3 degree celcius rise in temperatures by the end of this century, due to our rising dependence on carbon emitting technologies and fuels.
p.s.: Can you find any other sources regarding the economic problems with kyoto other than globalwarming.org? I mean, there must be other sources no?
Silent_One
14-May-2003, 00:57
Natoma-
Last things first:
p.s.: Can you find any other sources regarding the economic problems with kyoto other than globalwarming.org? I mean, there must be other sources no?
Of course :) (Question: Why? Do you have a problem with the studys sited by globalwarming.org?).
Here's links and/or studys from other sites:
Kyoto Treaty Wasteful, Lomborg Tells Chamber
http://www.uscib.org/%5Cindex.asp?documentID=2073
Lomborg, recently named director of the Environmental Assessment Institutein Denmark, argued that the projected 2010 cost associated with Kyoto of $150 to $200 billion could be better used to provide clean water and sanitation for everyone in the developing world. "Environmentalists would like you to think that we are cornered in terms of global warming, but we aren t. It s only when we acknowledge that we aren t cornered that we can look at whether our priorities are right and whether, for example, providing clean water should be a higher priority than addressing climate change."
First Step to What?
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11603
Clinton's own Department of Energy figured it would lower GDP by $397 billion and double the cost of energy. WEFA Inc., a respected economic consulting firm, projected it would result in the loss of 2.4 million jobs.
The Kyoto Protocol would have caused California to lose 278,000 jobs, New York to lose 140,000 jobs, and unemployment rates to reach 10 percent in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Montana. State tax revenues would have plummeted as companies struggled to turn profits and fewer people were working, and for less money. Federal and state governments would have been forced to drastically cut existing social welfare programs or raise taxes dramatically.
And this is just the beginning, said Kyoto's supporters.
The Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions
An Examination of Administration Forecastshttp://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-044es.html
How much will it cost the United States to comply with the Kyoto protocol? The estimates range from over 4 percent of gross domestic product and $348 for the right to emit a ton of "greenhouse gases" to only .1 percent of GDP and $14 for the right to emit a ton of gases.
In the lowest cost scenarios, U.S. emitters purchase rights to emit from other countries. In the highest cost scenarios, actual U.S. emissions have to be reduced by about 30 percent from what they otherwise would be. Such a cut-back would imply a massive shift from coal- to natural-gas-fired electricity generation. But even the low-cost scenar-ios are excessively expensive because models of the atmo-sphere predict that very little warming would be prevented.
The Consequences Of Kyoto
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307es.html
Last December the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However, according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period. :shock: .
TSR Extra - Recess Notes 2002:
Answers to Common Environmental Questionshttp://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR72302.html
Issue: Emissions reductions demanded by the Kyoto Protocol would have had few economic effects.
Response: The Kyoto Protocol would have had a devastating affect on the U.S. economy, according to very conservative projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. They estimate gasoline prices would have risen 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year 2010, electricity would have gone up 20 to 86 percent and gross domestic product would have fallen.
Other experts have predicted the output of energy intensive products, such as steel, chemicals, paper and cars would have fallen by as much as 15 percent. Such sweeping changes would cost the jobs of millions of Americans. That is why responsible leaders, such as Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, and James Hoffa, president of the Teamsters Union, have expressed grave concerns about the Protocol.
natoma wrote:
Only in the last decade roughly, when we have gone over the threshold of what the planet could effectively remove from the atmosphere in a given amount of time, have we noticed temperature fluctuations spiking faster than they historically have.
And I Disagree. As I have show you before the assumption that the last decade has been "historically the hottest in the last 1000 years" is inaccurate.
Is Earth's Temperature Up or Down or Both?
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html
Thermometers on the ground, measuring the near-surface air temperature, demonstrate a marked increase in globally-averaged temperature over the past two decades. Computer models of global warming predict that the temperature trend in the Earth's thick lower atmosphere, called the lower troposphere, should be experiencing an even more pronounced warming that increases smoothly with altitude. And yet, satellite observations of the temperature of the Earth's lower troposphere do not reveal any overall warming trend. Although interpreted by some as a controversy, research from NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center and the Global Hydrology and Climate Center now suggests that the temperature structure of the atmosphere is more complex than we (and our computer models) originally thought.
Measuring the Temperature of Earth From Space
Even with Needed Corrections, Data Still Don't Show the Expected Signature of Global Warming
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/notebook/essd13aug98_1.htm
) The global decadal temperature trends, for the period 1979-1997, from the various satellite, weather balloon, and surface temperature measurements are as follows, in order of increasing temperature trend:
DEEP LAYER MEASUREMENTS
Weather balloon trend (Angell/NOAA) -0.07 deg. C/decade
Unadjusted satellite trend: -0.04 deg. C/decade
Weather balloon trend
(Parker, UK Met Office): -0.02 deg. C/decade
Our Adjusted Satellite Trend: -0.01 deg. C/decade
Wentz-estimated adjusted satellite trend: +0.08 deg. C/decade
SURFACE MEASUREMENTS
Sea surface and land surface temperatures
(U.K. Met Office): +0.15 deg. C/decade
4) The adjusted satellite trends are still not near the expected value of global warming predicted by computer climate models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1995 estimate of average global warming at the surface until the year 2100 is +0.18 deg. C/decade. Climate models suggest that the deep layer measured by the satellite and weather balloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface (+0.23 deg. C/decade). None of the satellite or weather balloon estimates are near this value.
5) 1998 UPDATE: The last six months of our adjusted satellite record (February through July 1998) were the warmest in the 20 year record. The updated trend is now +0.04 deg. C/decade (which is still only 1/6th of the IPCC-expected warming rate). The current demise of El Nino, and the possibility of a La Nina forming, will likely cause significant cooling in the coming months.
natoma wrote:
You're making this far more complex than it needs to be.
Sigh.....because it IS complex. You seem to think that everythiong fits into a neat little box. If it doesn't, then, as you say - "I can only speculate...."
If the issue is stright forward and indeed not complex then why the controversy? Why would thousands of scientists form all over the world sign a petition declaring that the Kyoto treaty is flawed?
Global Warming Petition
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
17,100 scientist sign Global Warming Petition :shock:
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries..
During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.
Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.