Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 176
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 8 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

You've obviously not figured out that world governments, the IPCC, the UN, G8, G20 etc etc are ALL political organisations then I take it? Filled with gosh,,,,,,, politicians, discussing OMG who'd have thought it.... topics with political impact based on their political leanings and where the outcome specifically in this instance will result in increased and additional taxation done by erm.....politicians in governments gee whizz

Yup, nothing at all "political there, who would ever think any of that could be even remotely linked to "politics"

All you've done is illustrate what I said, since this ^^^ can be ignored. For several reasons.

Firstly, climate change advocacy groups are not made up entirely of politicians.
The concept wasn't discovered by politicians and they weren't the initial agents of change.

Change will only occur through international cooperation, which necessitates the involvement of governments. So to complain that 'politicians' are involved therefore the whole thing is just 'political' is to ignore reality in a spectacularly nonsensical way.

But most importantly, it's not relevant to the findings of the groups what the make up of them is. Even if 'politicians' working alone had discovered the planet is warming it makes no sense to disregard their findings simply because they are 'politicians'.

The fact is glaciers are retreating, and oceans are warming. These are not 'political' myths.
So to ignore these verifiable facts and cast the entire thing as a 'political' beat-up is just an enormous straw man combined with ad hominems directed at the wrong people.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 177
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:13:31 AM

The fact is glaciers are retreating, and oceans are warming. These are not 'political' myths.
So to ignore these verifiable facts and cast the entire thing as a 'political' beat-up is just an enormous straw man combined with ad hominems directed at the wrong people.


Who said it was "political myths"? The point is that "change" can ONLY happen due to politics, ergo it IS a political topic, one that scientists cant effect, cant legislate and cant control

A change in housing policy will also lean on reports on demographic trends, sociology and many other forms of study and research. But any change is purely a political process argued by politicians and the outcome is done by politicians

As for the "verifiable facts" theyre not and never have been disputed, infact they have happened before and will keep happening until the sun explodes as will the complete opposite of all of those things

The only actual topic of relevance is what PERCENTAGE of any change is directly related to mans activities from the whole and that is what needs to be ascertained BEFORE a political decision on what should/shouldnt be done and to what extent and format

And even when that actual percentage is known (which it isnt yet) the relevance of politics will still be far more significant than that of scientists

Because a rapid change in economics wont be "evenly" applied, it will be applied by the haves to the have nots on both local and global approaches and I suspect that even a large percentage the most pro AGW scientists will be apalled at what their research will eventually lead to in terms of economic disparity if legislation is rushed through based on scaremongering

The road to hell is paved with good intentions I think is quite an apt phrase


Like saying AGW is as believable as the Xmen is that that sort of delusional opinion we can ignore?


Making any claim without having an understanding of an entire system IS just that believable, which is exactly what is being done.



Thinking c02 is a element and shiny on one side that sort of uniformed?


Gee. youre really scraping the barrel with that one, I actually asked if we were SUPPOSED to believe it was ONLY shiny on one side, I didnt claim it WAS

Still whining about the element typo too I see? Wow, picking up a typo rather than responding to the gist really is classic deflection


thinking a few million trees would negate man made C02 that sort of uniformed?


A few million trees a year for the last 30 years would have been a far more productive use of money that funding bickering bureaucrats. Especially as deforestation has far more of an impact than just for CO2 as it also increases rainwater run off into the sea, speeds up desert expanse rates and decreases the volume of water in water tables and aquafers as well as increasing the CO2 cycle.

But as we cant equate mans CO2 contribution to a percentage of WARMING, we also cant define whether it would or wouldnt negate our influence either. CO2 isnt the only piece of the puzzle by a long chalk


I could go on obviously but it would be as pointless as pointing out that you cherry pick data whilst criticising people for cherry picking data,


Actually I regularly point out that BOTH sides cherry pick data that supports their case. And have repeatedly stated that niether side has definitive proof to back up their claims because so much of the eco system isnt understood

You on the otherhand take everything that supports what you "believe" as being irrefuteable whilst dismissing anything that doesnt support your belief hence my comparisons to religious debates between opposing faiths
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 178
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/26/2011 6:31:53 AM
If the fossil fuel industries would quit obfuscating the debate with dishonesty via their biostitutes, we could be well on our way to transition to sustainable alternatives to finite and environmentally destructive status quo. It is the constant muddying of the waters and air by the paid denier crowd that keeps the money flowing to CONG energy.

While the planet burns, we are morally and financially failing to deal with reality. We may have already blown our window of opportunity to avert runaway climatic chaos.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 179
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/26/2011 9:25:37 AM

We may have already blown our window of opportunity to avert runaway climatic chaos.


It might surprise you to hear that I wouldnt rule out that "possibility" but even so I still dont and never will agree with widescale knee jerk reaction to a "possible" negative outcome

And because this is always going to be a topic dictated by wealth and politics the problem still remains that wholesale changes ALWAYS have winners and losers. Nobody really wants to be a loser as such. And the decision of who will win and who will lose is going one way or another to come down to who has the biggest guns, the largest army and the most money to throw around and global carbon taxing will just speed that process up

The fact that carbon exchanges were even allowed to be legal doesnt exactly scream for a positive outcome, especially when the amount of pro AGW involvement there was in their formation and ownership and the methodology and ideology behind carbon exchanges themselves has nothing whatsoever to do with being "green" and everything to do with getting rich

It should also be remembered that mans attempts to influence the eco sytems under the guise of being green is littered with tons of examples where a rash and rushed approach has resulted in cataclysmic outcomes to that ecosystem the "management" (read mismanagement) or yellowstone park being a prime example over its history

Its also "interesting" that the same people classed as being "deniers" seem to be going out of their way to influence factors that cause accelerated "signs" of global warming when doing the complete opposite would make more sense and what has been going on with water buy ups, control and distribution is a good example there as it has resulted in faster decay of plant growth, erosion of topsoil, increased growth of deserts and much higher rainwater run offs which in turn leaves less fresh water and increases sea levels

At face value that would seem counterproductive. But whether it is or is actually very productive depends on what the long term financial aims are

Even moving from coal to hyrdoelectric dams isnt as "green" as it seems. As the act of damming water means organisms in the water are effectively baked to death which then reduces the amount of nutrients absorbed into the soil, which in turn kills off plant growth which then in turn negatively effects the recharge of the water table and aquafers

The more I look at the topic the less the enviroment seems to be the main focus and the more the political and financial gains do

And rather than a solution being the aim, it does look like the money element is actually aiming for the arguement to become endless, or continue to such a point that near global military action under the green banner will become seen as "unnavoidable"
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 180
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 5:51:24 AM
Just a few observations that appear to be missing from much of this debate:

1) It is in the nature of climate to change

2) We have not proved AGW beyond a reasonable doubt, or for that matter, by even a preponderance of evidence.

3) It would be the ultimate in hubris and quite immoral to consider terraforming the planet, even if we could, especially in light of 1 & 2.

4) In light of 3, we should adapt or die. It has been so since the dawn of time.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 181
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 8:41:19 AM
In the past CO2 levels have been as much as 25 times higher than today. Likewise temperatures were as much as 12 degrees warmer than today. Neither sparked runaway climactic chaos. Methinks this is more fear mongering from the left.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 182
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 9:48:14 AM

Methinks this is more fear mongering from the left.


Well, certainly not a plot by cash starved governments to impose carbon taxes. No, they would never think of anything like that!

Well, perhaps in Australia, a place least likely to suffer from CO2 issues.......
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 183
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 11:24:32 AM
Not sure where you are getting your info on Australia not bearing the consequences of climate chaos.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003#ixzz1dJ7uMTsi

When was Co2 25 times higher, and what were terrestrial and oceanic conditions then, as well as how conducive was it to life?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 184
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 6:35:05 PM

It should also be remembered that mans attempts to influence the eco sytems under the guise of being green is littered with tons of examples where a rash and rushed approach has resulted in cataclysmic outcomes to that ecosystem the "management" (read mismanagement) or yellowstone park being a prime example over its history


Now that's just nuts.

In Yellowstone the problem was that they kept putting out small fires that should have been allowed to burn, which meant a large amount of fuel (wood and such) accumulated creating a big fire hazard.

The remedial options for climate change involve simply NOT putting as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It's not a matter of trying to influence ecosystems as it is trying NOT to influence them as much as we have. How taking action to create LESS of an impact can be viewed as trying to influence anything other than human behavior is beyond me.

If there were no humans on the planet Yellowstone would have managed itself fine without our meddling. If there were no humans on the planet the climate would be far more stable this century. Nobody's advocating removing our species from the planet, but minimizing our negative impacts is well worth doing.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 185
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/27/2011 8:19:16 PM
I would myself, advocate taking the message in a further direction.

Rather than simply arguing that it is "wrong" for humans to disturb the "natural" course of climate, how about if we recognize that we ARE influencing things, and then decide if we WANT to or not?

In other words, just as we already HAVE learned from dealing with POLLUTION concerns, that when we DO change our local environment, that it often becomes a LESS desirable place for us to live.

For this purpose, it doesn't actually MATTER whether or not the NATURAL course of events would, or would not result in what we are seeing occur (the warming and it's consequences). Instead, look upon it as an ecological MANAGEMENT problem.

Too many ANTI-dealing-with-man's-impact-on-the-global-environment people are telling the rest of us that no matter WHAT happens, that we should just ACCEPT things the way they become. I think that this is MOSTLY because they either believe that doing anything about it will negatively impact them financially, OR that they have already hypnotized themselves into the notion that all global warming believers are evil-intentioned folks that they ALREADY don't like (and therefore, whether they are right or not, they should be opposed).

How about if we JOIN FORCES, and choose a positive course for humans dealing with the planet, so that we will make it a more fun place to be? We see global warming happening. Whether it is entirely natural, partially natural, or entirely human-caused, if we CAN have an influence, we ought to make that influence GOOD for us.

Oh well.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 186
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/28/2011 8:55:37 PM
"When was Co2 25 times higher"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

About 500 million years ago. Oddly enough the planet didn't become another Venus. This notion of an imminent runaway climactic change is pseudo-scientific nonsense.

"how conducive was it to life?"

We had the Cambrian explosion. So I'd say pretty conducive.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 187
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/1/2011 4:14:36 PM

Now that's just nuts.

In Yellowstone the problem was that they kept putting out small fires that should have been allowed to burn, which meant a large amount of fuel (wood and such) accumulated creating a big fire hazard


Not realising that redwoods need fire to propogate is only one of the "management" disasters, they also through their history of "assuming" they understood the ecosystem eradicated the balance of nature many times influencing to the detriment of the ecosystem the natural water cycle, animal life and plant life of the park almost turning large areas of it into barren wasteland in the process





The remedial options for climate change involve simply NOT putting as much greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It's not a matter of trying to influence ecosystems as it is trying NOT to influence them as much as we have. How taking action to create LESS of an impact can be viewed as trying to influence anything other than human behavior is beyond me


Where has anybody suggested that?

The point about not understanding the ecosystem was because until you understand an ecosystem you cant predict what will happen when one constituent part changes

Although the expanding desert region is mostly blamed on global warming its actually the case that a lot of rapidly decreasing vegetation is due to the damming of rivers for hydroelectric dams (how "green") and water supplies as it not only alters the water cycle but also kills off organisms in the now static water which is needed to keep the soil fertile and maintain plant growth

So straight away theres one aspect of "meddling" which is touted as being "green" that is doing the complete opposite of what its supposed to do

But no worries, because conveniently it can be claimed that its due to CO2 and global warming rather than mans meddling in things he doesnt understand

Or perhaps its meddling done because they DO understand the effect it would have, and which could then be claimed to "prove" the impact of global warming by increasing desert growth

Who knows?

Infact we have oil companies playing with the atlantic flow at the moment and causing noticeable slowing of the currents near where the BP oil disaster occured as thats the narrowest point. Thats far more imminent and would be FAR more catastrophic. And yet barely a murmur about it or any effort to stop the activity



If there were no humans on the planet Yellowstone would have managed itself fine without our meddling. If there were no humans on the planet the climate would be far more stable this century. Nobody's advocating removing our species from the planet, but minimizing our negative impacts is well worth doing


Even the AGW sceptics are advocating that, its only the methods and the way/speed the methods are imposed that is being questioned

A global carbon tax imposed by the World bank and then policed by UN forces (which is the full proposal) is effective world governance and also a means by which to invade any country under the guise of non compliance rather than having to go to all the trouble of inventing imaginary WMDs again

Theres plenty more that could be done without such extreme measures. And nowhere near enough actual "evidence" that such extremes are either needed nor that theres any imminent disaster to be averted

So more subtle methods are more than enough IF actually implemented until something more definitive is arrived at like an actual understanding of the ecosystem

Nobody is saying "nothing" should be done, just that a global facist form of CO2 governance is a bit too "NAZI" based on wishy washy supposition, assumption and hypothesis

But as such a "green" country, why arent we making it compulsory for ALL new homes to have their rooves build to present a south facing lean and then making heat exchangers, solar panels and solar water heating along with subterranean heat exchangers, water reclaimation and the like both compulsory AND incentivised whilst banning all domestic vehicles from sale over 1.5 litre engine size as a starting point

Infact the government has recently announced stopping the subsidies to people wanting solar panels due to the amount of take up on the scheme. The exact same thing as they did with LPG conversion susbsidies oddly enough

Theres a LOT that can be done before global taxation at gun point is "needed" yet most governments dont really give a toss about doing anything unless it involves extra taxation. So its hardly surprising that money is being seen as the core of the issue really




Infact even as far as

" If there were no humans on the planet the climate would be far more stable this century"

Is concerned its "possible" but not proven

Theres dozens of cycles working on the planets ecosystem some that are annual but most that are decadal, muldidecadal, others that are theorised to span centuries and yet others that are (to our limited knowledge) quite unpredictable or random as well as very long term cycles such as ice ages and warm periods

All of which have dependant, co dependant and independant elements to them and how they interact with all the other influencing factors

So yeah we might be the cause of the instability, or it might have happened anyway if its a time where a group of cycles either reach their peaks or troughs in close proximity or if less understood or more unpredictable influences have more of an effect if one or more of the smoother cycles are at a collective mean, max or opposition to each other at the time

This level of seeming "instability" could be one that happens every 500, 5,000, 50,000, 500,000 or million years. It could be something that happens everytime the planet heads towards its warmest period in a cycle as the forerunner to the start of the cooking phase of a cycle.

It could be dozens of things. But what exactly wont be "known" till we have a much better understanding of the way the ecosystem actually works


No one has said that the planet will be transformed into a gas giant as a result of the change in temperature. Why do the deniers always ludicrously misrepresent what has been claimed?


"Catastrophic climate change"
"catastrophic weather" (most probably due to el ninos et al rather than climate btw)
"Tipping points"
"pandemic level increases in diseases like malaria"

et al

I think thats exactly whats being hinted will happen actually

 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 188
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/3/2011 2:59:08 PM

and then policed by UN forces (which is the full proposal) is effective world governance and also a means by which to invade any country under the guise of non compliance rather than having to go to all the trouble of inventing imaginary WMDs again

Nonsense. That's apparently the job of the USA already, although the USSR, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, and others have all played heavily in that role at some time.

"Obama? Hey, this is Mikhail over at the UN. Good, good, thanks, and you? Great to hear! Listen, we've got some polluters we need to reign in. Yes, that's right. So you can provide army AND air force support? That's wonderful. We'll have to start with Texas, New York, Washington, and Los Angeles. Well yes, it might be a good idea to go to Maine for a while... No, no, you won't have to help with China. We have Chinese and Dutch troops lined up to take care of THAT problem. No, India has it's own problems, and China was the only one with a large enough army to deal with...um...China..."
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 189
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/5/2011 12:31:59 PM
"No one has said that the planet will be transformed into a gas giant as a result of the change in temperature. Why do the deniers always ludicrously misrepresent what has been claimed?"

Apparently you haven't been following the discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Citd9RH7kbU

http://www.350.org/about/science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJFWaidKuoU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMNpXQ4SYdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn-Sn2nWa_o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUG2YvMtPKM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)

"He [James Hansen] has further suggested potential projections of Runaway climate change on Earth creating more Venus-like conditions in his book Storms of My Grandchildren."
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 190
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/5/2011 12:55:53 PM
James Hansen? The same guy who said that as long as 1 freon plant exists ice ages can be prevented from returning?

Really.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 191
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/6/2011 6:28:10 PM
I never take any one paper or study as definitive, but this latest study comes at the human role from a different perspective but reaches the same conclusion countless other studies have reached.


Three-quarters of climate change is man-made

Independent study quantifies human influence on global warming.

Quirin Schiermeier

04 December 2011

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers in a paper published online today. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience1.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 °C. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analysed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth — a new ‘attribution' method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

Previous attempts to disentangle anthropogenic and natural warming used a statistically complex technique called optimal fingerprinting to compare observed patterns of surface air temperature over time with the modelled climate response to greenhouse gases, solar radiation and aerosols from volcanoes and other sources.

“Optimal fingerprinting is a powerful technique, but to most people it’s a black box,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, one of the authors of the report.

A balanced view

Knutti and his co-author Markus Huber, also at ETH Zurich, took a different approach. They utilized a much simpler model of Earth’s total energy budget and ran the model many thousands of times, using different combinations of a few crucial parameters that contribute to the energy budget. These included global values for incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun, solar energy leaving Earth, heat absorbed by the oceans and climate-feedback effects (such as reduced snow cover, which amplifies warming by exposing darker surfaces that absorb more heat).

By using the combinations that best matched the observed surface warming and ocean heat uptake, the authors then ran the so-constrained model with each energy parameter individually. This enabled them to estimate the contribution of CO2 and other climate-change agents to the observed temperature change. Their study was greatly assisted by a 2009 analysis2 of observed changes since 1950 in Earth’s energy balance, says Knutti.

Knutti and Huber found that greenhouse gases contributed 0.6–1.1 °C to the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century, with the most statistically likely value being a contribution of about 0.85 °C. Around half of that contribution from greenhouse gases — 0.45 °C — was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols. These directly influence Earth's climate by scattering light; they also have indirect climate effects through their interactions with clouds.

The authors calculated a net warming value of around 0.5 °C since the 1950s, which is very close to the actual temperature rise of 0.55 °C observed over that period. Changes in solar radiation — a hypothesis for global warming proffered by many climate sceptics — contributed no more than around 0.07 °C to the recent warming, the study finds.

To test whether recent warming might just be down to a random swing in Earth’s unstable climate — another theory favoured by sceptics — Knutti and Huber conducted a series of control runs of different climate models without including the effects of the energy-budget parameters. But even if climate variability were three times greater than that estimated by state-of-the-art models, it is extremely unlikely to have produced a warming trend as pronounced as that observed in the real world, they found.

“This tightens estimates of past responses,” says Gabriele Hegerl, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, “And it should also lead to predictions of future climate change that are grounded in the kind of changes already being observed.”


http://www.nature.com/news/three-quarters-of-climate-change-is-man-made-1.9538
 Damienevil
Joined: 2/22/2008
Msg: 192
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/7/2011 9:08:40 PM
I do not care about global warming.

What I do care about is global pollution.

Then again if we solved global pollution and we are responsible for global warming then it will reverse and we will enter that ice age we are supposedly keeping at bay.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 193
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 12:28:43 AM

hopefully i have put to rest the lie at least with this community.


So just to be clear, every national science organization in every free country on the planet relies on bad science to draw their conclusions. You, on the other hand, have the inside scoop on good science.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 194
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 12:47:00 AM

hopefully i have put to rest the lie at least with this community.

With information which is neither substantiated, nor remotely accurate? I actually laughed when I read this!

The WARMEST global average temperature since the Cambrian, WAS the Cambrian...at about 8C. My mental math puts that at about...47F, about 63F cooler at the hottest time than your pulled-from-your-own-nether-regions "110 f".

I would estimate the approximate median temperature to be about 4C, or 40F, since the Cambrian, and 0C or 32F since the Pliocene.

Maybe you were rounding up? "New math"? Doing funky things with decimal points? Reading the numbers upside down with a magnifying glass and a mirror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 195
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 5:58:39 AM
Over the history of the planet, or at least the history of the planet while life has been active on the planet, the "normal" temperature of the earth probably did not involve significant ice caps, although mountain based glaciers would likely have existed in at least some of the very highest peaks.

The current earth temperature is not "normal" in that we are still coming out of the last ice maxima. I think the main issue is whether the real, much warmer, "normal" earth temperature is suitable for the current human societal scale and form. Probably not. Given the well established patterns of temperature variation that is documented by the periodic advance and retreat of ice, I think it rather unlikely that such a pattern will be altered by life systems, although I am ready to believe that the rate of change of the temperature variations may, at least locally, be influenced by the actions of life systems.

Any routine study of weather patterns will show that the major influences on local climate are things like mountain ranges, large bodies of water, ocean currents, and the extent and depth of ice accumulation over large water bodies. Failing significant changes in these basic factors, local climate remains stable.

The ultimate driver of all weather on earth is the energy from the Sun. The only options out there for global climate change are to alter the solar output, or to make the planet more efficient in consuming that energy. Getting rid of ice would have a significant effect. Green house gases are, in a sense, self limiting, in that at some point life would be extinguished and there would be no more production by life systems.

It is known that the explosion of 1 large volcano can have a multi-year global climate effect, however, the worlds scientists are still arguing about whether the effect of 200 years of industrial production has had a detectable effect.

Thing is, there are forests out there, and they are made up of collections of trees............
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 196
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 8:36:45 AM

It is known that the explosion of 1 large volcano can have a multi-year global climate effect,


That's true, but it's important to note that we're talking a VERY large volcano. Mt. St. Helens didn't qualify. This sort of eruption happens maybe once every century or so, and the effects last a year or two. Oh, and that effect is a cooling effect, not warming, as some skeptics forget when they try to assert that volcanos produce more greenhouse gasses than humans do.


the worlds scientists are still arguing about whether the effect of 200 years of industrial production has had a detectable effect.


They are? I see that sort of debate in public forums like this among non-scientists, but I certainly don't see it reflected in the science journals, nor in the positions taken by the national academies of science of every major nation in the world.

There are a handful of bona fide scientists who differ with the mainstream science position that human activity is a significant factor in a warming planet. That handful gets a LOT smaller for those who argue humans have NO DETECTIBLE effect. None come to mind, although I wouldn't rule out that there may be one or two out there somewhere.

But to imply that the mainstream science community is torn over whether human activity has a detectible effect on climate is flat out wrong.

There will always be those on the fringe. There exists another handful of scientists who argue that human activity has a GREATER impact than the current mainstream position. Each new IPCC report results in roughly equal complaints that it's projections are too conservative or overstate the human role. Roughly equal among scientists, that is. Those on the other fringe just don't get the press that the naysayers do.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 197
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/9/2011 2:14:13 PM
1) A planet with no permanent ice caps can undergo glaciation.
2) Many biological species pollute, and can achieve global scale in their activities. We just pollute in a more efficient manner. It is also true that pollution also generates new environments in which alternative life systems thrive. Visit the local dump if you want a readily accessible example.
3) Without solar energy, there would be no climate. It is the only significant source of energy generating atmosphere/ocean activity. A volcano can temporarily alter the global climate, but we have no historical evidence of permanent global climate change from any earthbound source.
4) The argument about climate is not that the earth is warming, nor about whether the rate of warming is accelerating, but about whether human conversion of carbon to CO2 is the main factor influencing the rate of change of warming. Just chopping down all the trees on the planet should also produce increasing CO2 and hence cause global warming, but then again, trees are a relatively recent development.

Read James Hansen, then decide whether to just commit suicide to save the planet would be a good option.

Just remember, wine grapes were commonly grown throughout England around 1100 AD, doesn't work lately. I have heard no conclusive explanation for the mini-ice age of the 1500-1600s era. Now we have a global science/political/taxation industry based on the rather obvious observation that things are warming up, and people are told to panic.

It may well be that human activities will ultimately alter the climate in some long term way, and possibly in a way that results in the extinction of humans. In the geologic time frame, however, everything will relax back to a steady state that will obliterate all but minute traces of human existence.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 198
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/10/2011 5:23:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^^Some guys got a nobel prize for rekoning that the universe is expanding ,that for every action actualy accerlates the next one and so on and evrything just basicly keeps doubling..

similar can be said for man made global warming...everything that contributes to it is just accelerating the other...
 flowe944
Joined: 12/1/2011
Msg: 199
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 10:46:40 AM
Are you folks seriously trying to argue that man-made global warming-an unproven theory- exists? Al Gore's data and movie has been thoroughly trounced as bogus.
Why won't this hypocrite debate?
Science is NOT a consensus....
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 200
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 12/11/2011 11:20:41 AM
For those interested, here are two web pages from NASA. They are agreeing at least with initial temperature rise before satellite observation. They have separated their data into two charts to account for these time periods. Even at that they are stating that the overall global temperature rise is 1.5 degrees F or 0.84 degrees C since 1880.

The web site directly below is well layed out and easy for most to understand. You can interactively explore temperature, ice packs, sea levels etc.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

The site has suggested that the temperature rise over the last 20 years has been constant and in fact declined sightly. NASA is saying in a nice way that the computer models are in error and didn't account for all variables. I suggest those on this thread to read the link posted below.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures