|
|
|
|
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:04:16 PM | Of course, Solomon recently produced a whole book entitled The Deniers, which, despite the title, included NO ONE who actually takes issue with the fact that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the planet has been cooling for the past 10 years. | |
|
| I notice it's the IPCC, not the IPGW
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:41:21 PM |
In my opinion the belief that humans are responsible for a changing climate is similar to believing that a group doing a raindance will actually make it rain. You mean like Republican governor Sonny Perdue did on the steps of the Georgia state capitol building last November?
I'm with Ottawa_C:
In my view, Msg: 5 makes the most sense - regardless of one's opinion of the former vice president, his motives or those outrageous stories he tells about melting glaciers. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:50:42 PM |
Ottawa, I am not disputing there has been a slight increase in temperature recently. But historically speaking, what happened to Irelands' growing season? In our recorded history (no daily temps to go with it) Ireland once had a much longer growing season, heck Greenland was even smaller and may have had some actual green.
Cause and effect aren't as clear cut as they seem at first glance.
Heya, Tunz! I don't have any answers because I don't really know anything about this. All I can say with some degree of confidence, is that with climate change, comes some weidness. For instance, different plant life popping up in places never seen before.
global warming is a huge lie, the weather channel who are actually qualified to know these things have stated that the earth is actually cooling. I had to wear a jacket today and it's almost june ? Not that this is scientific proof but It kind of pisses me off waiting for summer.
Whoa! You've convinced me! Shoot I had to wear a coat today, too, so I guess global warming isn't true after all!
Sorry about the sarcasm, I just cannot stand another "I had to wear a coat today" anti-global warming rant. It's getting old, and it's not even close to being a valid argument.
BTW, the reason the last 2 or so years have been cooler is that we are currently going through a La Nina. The opposite to the El Nino that we experienced in 1998. Here's a link with a lot of interesting information:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.html
I'm not a climatologist, nor do I pretend to understand the the science behind all this, but I can tell you this: A couple of months ago NASA anounced that the Earth had actually cooled by about two degrees in the last one hundred years, This past winter America saw more snow cover than at any time in the last one hundred years,China just went through it's worst winter in over fifty years, a winter so severe that about 15-20 percent of it's forest land was destroyed by the extreme cold, and irredescent clouds, normally only seen in the polar regions, have been seen as far south as the eastern US seaboard.
See my post above. We are experiencing a La Nina. Things will be "back to normal" later in the year.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228093721.htm
And the melting Antarctic ice sheet? Turns out there is a volcano under it that's starting to heat up. While "climate change" is certainly real,and a natural phenomenon, it appears that while the polar caps are warming, the rest is cooling. It wouldn't hurt to stop burning up so much middle eastern oil,though, as long as I don't have to give up my four wheel drive pick-up.
This s the first I've heard of this. Can you provide a link, please?
Sorry to burst your bubble but the planet has been cooling for the past 10 years.
There's no bubble to burst, because you are misinformed. You've been had by the denyers who have suckered you in with false information.
Each year after 1998 has proven to be cooler than the average recorded world temperature of 1998. However, that's deceiving. What you're not considering is that 1998 has proven to be the hottest year on record. Why is that? We experienced the strongest El Nino of the century. Toss the 1998 blip or record from the early 80's, and it's perfectly visible that the trend of higher temperatures continues.
Taken from an interesting website:
1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The WMO reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.
However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 7:36:09 PM | | Ottawa, sorry, can't post a link on the Antarctic ice sheet thing. Saw it on some program on PBS(So, It's gotta be true, right?) I'm not much in the "copy and paste" dep't, either. Guess I just don't have as much free time to do the research that some people have.Also, just because someone wrote it, and you(or I) read it, doesn't make it fact,and that goes for both sides. If someone really wants to believe in global warming, then they will, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. As I said before, I believe the Earth's climate is changing, just not necessarily only heating up as some believe, but regions of the planet are changing. The Earth is not a stagnant thing, but is constantly changing, which includes heating and cooling,so how much of it can be blamed on mankind I can't say. Remember, as recently as ten thousand years ago (A rather short period of time in geological terms) much of the U.S was covered in a sheet of ice up to a mile thick.So, in that sense, I guess global warming is real. Or,maybe it was just El Nino. And, what about NASA's assessment? | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:06:01 PM | Also, just because someone wrote it, and you(or I) read it, doesn't make it fact,and that goes for both sides. If someone really wants to believe in global warming, then they will, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, it's called sheer laziness. No wonder people are so misinformed.
Anyway, I don't particiapte in a lot of these threads simply because I feel I have little or nothing to offer. I will not form an opinion until I feel I have educated myself enough on the subject. I dunno, maybe it's the Capricorn in me. My door is open to other ideas, facts and contrary evidence. Yes, one should not take everything at face value, but there's enough resources out there to figure a lot out. So, based-on the information that I've read so far, I do believe that global warming/climate change is real.
BTW, it's not critical to believe or not. By simply using common sense, we can all join together and make our way of life so much better. In turn, Mother Nature will thank us. See post #5... he explains it much better that myself.
**Edit to add: I did a Google search on the volcano. Took me 5 seconds. ;-)
It's a good article, so I hope you take the time to read it. BTW, it reads:
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
So yeah, it's there and is responsible for some thinning and moving of glaciers, but certainly not the majority.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080120-antarctic-volcano.html | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:11:08 PM |
Whoa! You've convinced me! Shoot I had to wear a coat today, too, so I guess global warming isn't true after all!
Do you remember when april showers brought may flowers and all that crap ? well it ain't happening any more is it ? the tides have turned and the world is becoming colder. It's a fact deal with it ! October and haloween used to be barbequeing on the patio and now it's get the hell in the house cause it's freaking cold out there ? | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:14:18 PM |
BTW, the reason the last 2 or so years have been cooler is that we are currently going through a La Nina. The opposite to the El Nino that we experienced in 1998. Here's a link with a lot of interesting information:
Sooooooo, couldn't a large part of the warmest years recently be attributable to El Nino? That fits the time frame and there was both hot and whacky weather when that effect was felt world wide. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:27:56 PM | Good question.
The last El Nino started in the spring of 1997 and ended late 1998. BTW, 1998 is tied for the hottest year on record.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol5no2/article_2.html
As for typical durations, it ranges from 1/2 year to 1 1/2 years:
Global temperature anomalies during the ten strongest El Niños of the Twentieth Century are shown above. The width of the bar represents the character of the event. El Niño events have a duration varying between half a year to a year and a half. Over recent years, El Niño events have become more frequent as the global temperature anomalies associated with each El Niño continue to increase. This means that the extreme regional weather and climate anomalies associated with El Niño are being exacerbated by increasingly higher temperatures. The warmer conditions have been linked to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/enso/10elnino.html | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:36:07 PM | If someone really wants to believe in global warming, then they will, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Negative. This better describes people who made up their mind to deny manmade climate change. I believe that climate change is occurring because of the preponderance of the evidence; in the HIGHLY unlikely occurrence of the massive evidence taking a massive shift in the opposite direction, then I will all too gladly go with that. I mean, we are talking about bad "news" (not at all new) here after all.
It really comes down to knowledge of the scientific method, the scientific community, peer review, and scientific consensus in a relevant field of expertise. The OP's claims certainly do not qualify.
Edit: No need to be shy, OC. Your contributions are bang-on. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:54:28 PM |
Vaughan noted, however, that the hidden volcano doesn't explain widespread thinning of Antarctic glaciers.
Not quite true. All the data are not in yet. In fact some of the data is pointing in the other direction...
The full article at http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0
Polar scientists on thin ice
Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will "lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.
If these findings are validated in future by CryoSat-2 and other developments that are able to assess the 28% of Antarctica not yet surveyed, the low-lying areas of the world will have weathered the worst of the global warming predictions: The populations of these areas -- in Bangladesh, in the Maldives, and elsewhere -- will have found that, if anything, they can look forward to a future with more nutrient-rich seacoast, not less. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 8:58:16 PM | Ok... everyone's heard of El Nino?... how it affects temperatures and switches around every 3 to 7 years?
Well how about this ... Pacific Decadal Oscillation ... bigger than El Nino... recently (1996) discovered phenomenon. Apparently... with a 20 to 30 year cycle... has switched over (maybe) to a cooler cycle.
Now ofc those who adhere to the Global Warming idea... will say it will just "mask" the effects ... and those on the other side will say here comes the end of global warming temperature rises.
But... the fact is that we as a species are just beginning to scratch the surface of a huge and complex system and are just dimly becoming aware of some of the factors involved.
With vested (read money, politics, power) interests on both sides of this issue... it's no wonder it's such a mess. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/23/2008 9:07:25 PM | | I don't know what you are talking about. The weather here has been cooler. It is almost June and it is in upper 30's to low 40's at night. Day time mid to upper 40's. It sure the **** is not warming where I live. I think all the government tests, spaceships, bomb testing,and satellites are screwing up the climate. Al Gore is a typical politician. Can you say liar! Politicians are all the same. Pull the wool over everyones eyes. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 12:24:04 AM | Global warming deniers are the easily fooled type, see who most of these deniers voted for in the past two big elections. Seems that they are told anything by an authority figure and these dittoheads, unable to think for themselves, mindlessly repeat what they're told.
As for global warming, the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is an undeniable fact.
Go here, read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Here's a quote
"Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. As of 2004, around 27 gigatonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels per year worldwide..."
Us humans, are pulling hydrocarbons (coal, oil) which has been locked beneath the ground and we're putting it into the atmosphere.
"The increase in carbon dioxide concentration arises because the increase from human activity is not balanced by a corresponding sink."
Global warming deniers are not thinking for themselves, they seem suspicious of science and anything else that disturbs their oversimplified worldview. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 12:44:34 AM | I believe global warming is occuring. I also believe this ole world has been around alot longer than than any of us and just like forest fires and hurricanes and tornados along with the rest of "natural" disasters , what we think we know and what we think can be resolved will be rethought wth the next popular "insight".
In the end nature will win. She will rid herself of the parasites that ail her. Problem solved. Maybe we just don't completely understand the cycles of earth as well as we think. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 1:26:21 AM | Al Gore will do financially well if carbon credits are mandated into law:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=225153
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/01/media-ignores-al-gores-planned-global-warming-profiteering
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/04/06/al-gore-responds-newsbusters-denies-global-warming-his-meal-ticket | |
|
| |
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 1:41:26 AM | Global Warming is nothing more than another gris-gris. It relies on a myth perpetuated by quack scientists looking to dip their beak in everyone else's pocketbooks 'for the good of humankind'. If you're wondering why a bunch of so-called conservatives like McCain (another Rockefeller Republican, thought Reagan got rid of you bozos), Gingrich (i'm sooooo ashamed of him) and even Bush (funny, didn't he reject Kyoto?) are supporting this crap. Follow the money. But like I said it's the same environmental myth in the same vein as recycling, which actually causes more trouble, more subsidies for vote buyers, and actually more pollution! As I said before it's another feel good belief, or in that case a gris-gris. Now i'm gonna go eat my steak!  | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:19:24 AM | | Maybe a good name for climate change would be global evolution? It doesn't matter if people are present or not...what happens...happens. What really concerns me is there are wacko's out the trying to figure how to cool the planet by doing things to the atmosphere. Emotional imploding at the first sign hearing someone questioning global warming is not a sign of enlightenment....it's just the opposite. To run there risk of destroying our planet to save it is nuts. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:45:48 AM | The EPICA project drills ice cores in the Antarctic. Ice cores show atmospheric change, temperature, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, among other things. Like tree rings, they are not disputed in their accuracy- they're like fingerprints. Look at this graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Spikes in temperature (blue) occur 400-600 years AFTER spikes in CO2 (red).
AFTER, not before.
Which means? CO2 is NOT the culprit in warming trends. Which means the central premise of global warming is false.
What's stunning is that this blazingly simple piece of information is being suppressed, by a big money political machine that wants to keep YOU scared. George Orwell wrote in '1984' : 'Freedom is the freedom to say '2+2=4'.
More good news: whether you 'believe' in any of this GW nonsense or not is academic. Neither side disputes we're due for an ice age and we're running out of gas. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:53:14 AM | wow some of you people are mad!! Whether global warming exists or not, you should take care of where you live. I think changes are needed!! I really don't understand why people get all hiffy piffy about improving the way we live. I have read its a money thing, ummm, what do you think the oil companies are doing. They steal more money from us then mad scientists. I would love to drive an efficient car where I don't have to smell exhaust.
BTW, the core of the earth is cooling and we will lose our magnetic shield. Also, we will be experincing a FLIP (north and south swap) we are about 260,000 years over due. So, I guess we are all gonners lets kill the planet as fast as we can and who cares if the latter is true. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 6:55:29 AM | o yeah forgot to mention, A scientist that fought for global warming is now considering it a good thing. From what I remember, global warming may actually help eliminate storms or something.
BTW, you dont have to just study earth for global warming. Take a Look at venus!! that will be us. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 9:41:18 AM |
Spikes in temperature (blue) occur 400-600 years AFTER spikes in CO2 (red).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 12:18:55 PM | http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/429604
World losing climate change momentum: UN
JOSEPH COLEMAN
The Associated Press
KOBE–The world is losing momentum in the battle against global warming, the UN climate chief warned on Saturday, urging environmental ministers from wealthy nations to revive the effort by setting clear targets for reducing greenhouse gases.
The ministers gathered in the western Japanese city of Kobe for a three-day meeting as evidence mounted that rising world temperatures have been taking a toll on the earth at a faster rate than previously forecast.
The officials from the Group of Eight countries, joined by representatives from other countries including China and other organizations, were to lay the foundations for the upcoming G8 summit in northern Japan in July.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer told the Associated Press on the sidelines that he was concerned about stalling momentum behind international talks to forge a global warming pact by December 2009 to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Its first phase ends in 2012.
"Much of the enthusiasm and ambition that we saw in Bali with the launch of negotiations doesn't seem to be present," he said, referring to a meeting on the Indonesian resort island in December, when some 190 countries decided on a timetable for talks on the new climate pact.
De Boer cited a recently announced U.S. climate plan that would allow an increase in emissions, Canada's indication that it will not meet its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, and European industry's skepticism about the EU goal of cutting emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
To rejuvenate the talks, G8 countries – the United States, Japan, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Italy and Canada – need to decide on midterm targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020, make a clearer commitment to helping poorer nations deal with climate change, and form a dialogue with top developing countries such as China to run parallel with the UN-led talks, he said.
"Certainly my expectation is that ... the G8 leaders will now really take things to the next level, and I think need to take it to the next level, with December 2009 being just around the corner," de Boer said.
On Saturday the ministers heard from environmentalists and business leaders before moving behind closed doors.
Environmentalists urged quick action to stem the effects of the rise in world temperatures, which scientists say threaten to drive species to extinction, worsen floods and droughts, and thwart economic development.
The rapid melting of ice in the Arctic, increasing crop damage and other effects show the multiplying effects or higher temperatures, said Bill Hare, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Summer sea ice in the Arctic, for instance, shrank to a record low last year to nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.
Hare warned that rising oil prices could speed that even further. Light, sweet crude for July delivery settled at $132.19 a barrel Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The increase encourages the use of cheaper coal – a much dirtier fuel.
"The recent developments in the energy sector, particularly high oil prices and coal intensive development ... are pointing toward the risk of higher emissions," Hare told the ministers.
The initial meetings on Saturday illustrated the continuing divisions among nations over how to attack climate change.
The UN process has moved slowly, with nations clashing over how ambitious the world should be in stemming the rising in world temperatures, how reduction targets should be set, and how much rapidly developing nations such as China should be called on to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases.
Hilary Benn, British environmental chief, argued that the world had no choice but to act against climate change now that scientists have shown that the earth can only absorb a limited amount of greenhouse gases before temperatures rise too high.
"The fundamental problem we have is a political one," he said. ``How do we divide up between all the nations of the earth in a fair manner the ability to emit that limited quantity of emissions so that we avoid dangerous climate change?'' | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/24/2008 3:08:06 PM | To put CO2 levels in perspective
For simplicity, let us picture a football stadium with about 10,000 people in the stands. Assume each person represents a small volume of one type of gas.
If the Earth’s Atmosphere Were a Football Stadium
Atmospheric Gas Percent in Atmosphere People in the Stadium
Nitrogen (N2) 78% 7,800
Oxygen (O2) 21% 2,100
Argon (A) 1% 100
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 0.038% 4
Not included in the table is "water vapor," the amount of which varies in the atmosphere but probably averages about 2 percent at any point in time. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas and has more impact on global temperature than all other greenhouse gases combined.
Carbon dioxide is represented as only about 4 parts in 10,000, the smallest volume of any major atmospheric gas.
Moreover, those who name CO2 as a pollutant are not concerned with the 4 parts, but only with 1 part--the portion added during the past 150 years by the burning of fossil fuels. This 1/10,000 increase is the target of the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20952
For C02 then... humanity "might" be responsible for 0.0095% of the atmospheric increase and we should all be spending billions of dollars and worrying about this??
We should be more concerned about who and why these new "scare" "terror" tactics are being used at all. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 5/28/2008 5:23:25 PM | The earth may be heating up a little faster than it would without us, but also keep in mind that where I live was once almost fully submerged, due to melted glaciers.
I think we should keep mind of how we do things, but I don't agree with all the chicken littles out there, spreading fear - it kinda reminds me of the Bush regime. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
