Global Warming

[Adrenachrome]

Yes.. No?

[Demosthenes]

Not really a question. It's happening.

[Adrenachrome]

Shit let me rephrase, Man made global warming? Mind you there is more ice in Antarctica than ever, and all the ice lost in Greenland has returned, and Chinas coldest winter in so long...

[Grav]

Mind you there is more ice in Antarctica than ever, and all the ice lost in Greenland has returned, and Chinas coldest winter in so long...

Can you source this? I'm just surprised because this is the opposite of what I've heard.

[!King_Amazon!]

What a suprise, Chrome has bought in to even more republican bullshit.

Do you seriously not believe global warming is man-made? Of course the earth heats itself, but not at the rate that we're making it heat.

I never would have expected you of all people to be a fucking redneck republican.

Let me guess, you don't like them coloureds either, and you think racism is a lie, but you're probably racist against hispanics every chance you get. Grab your guns, boys, we gotta go take our country back from these illegals!

[D3V]

I do believe in Global warming, even Nasa has cited that man made resources are chaning the pattern up.

I deal with the same types of people here at work, that listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/Boortz that every time it gets cold joke about how "Oh man, this global warming is really taking off now! Damn it's only 35 degrees here!".. Their ignorance just kills me, and what's really sad about these "dittoheads" that can't make an informed opinion for themselves is that they really buy into all of the crap they hear and run with it.

I mean the sure simplicity of the studies they have done clearly show that Global warming is indeed a man-made trend. It does suck though because neither side can honestly difinitively show proof on their side, except for the guys that show Global warming is man made, i've seen tons of Carbon charts that show over the recent short period of time that the earth has warmed up more-so and has contributed to the rise in temperature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

I think i'll side with the extraordinary minds of NASA over some moron back-spin talking clown like Rush Limbaugh that has been against the whole "Global Warming" and "Al Gore" since the early 90's.

Now, Nasa does say this.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

Which aren't even their own scientists, so therefore I rule it out.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/global_warming_041115.html
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

[Adrenachrome]

What a suprise, Chrome has bought in to even more republican bullshit.

Do you seriously not believe global warming is man-made? Of course the earth heats itself, but not at the rate that we're making it heat.

I never would have expected you of all people to be a fucking redneck republican.

Let me guess, you don't like them coloureds either, and you think racism is a lie, but you're probably racist against hispanics every chance you get. Grab your guns, boys, we gotta go take our country back from these illegals!

What the fuck is wrong with you? This is not the flame forum. There is no need to attack me like that, I asked a question about global warming not race, if this is all you have to offer keep your fucking mouth shut.


Back on topic now that I have dealt with the riff raff.

I am in fact skeptical



The first thing that comes to mind when I doubt man made global warming is the climate change throughout history and corrosponding CO2 levels coupled with the fact that the Earth moves on it adapts and corrects.

In the 70's we were told(well not me..) that we were headed into an ice age. Not true obviously.

Then I think of volcanoes, The USGS studied Mount Saint Helens' emissions from 1980 to 1988.

At its worst, the output of CO2 was 23,000 tons per day. Or, in other words, what is emitted directly from the tailpipe when 2,371,134 gallons of gasoline are used. This ignores the fuel in the discovery, retrieval, transport, and refining required to actually get the fuel to your vehicle. The earth cooled 1.3 degrees over the next three years. Cooled. Not warmed. Though I damn sure do not want to live on a freezing cold ass planet either.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1904.asp

Note, I am all for energy conservation(though not by government controlled thermostats omg scary) I burn wood every cold night in a wood stove in my house. In stead of using electricity, though I don't know about the emissions differences.

I see no problem with driving a hybrid or other more efficient vehicles.

I just think it's kind of absurd to think that we are destroying the planet like some kind of intruders, we belong here, the planet made us and I believe it can take what we throw at it. But indeed wether or not it causes global warming I don't like pollution of any kind and the idea of spewing gasses into the atmosphere bothers me.

The big problem I have with it is not wether or not we are causing cooling or warming, they are preying on our fear, global emissions taxes and such. California's nifty plan to gain controll of thermostats "in an emergency", and this country in general paying billions and billions, not to research and test new energy sources but to offset carbon emissions. I think that every dime paid into global warming should be paid into new energy sources.

Can you source this? I'm just surprised because this is the opposite of what I've heard.

Maybe I am wrong about Greenland, all evidence I see shows loss of ice.

"Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

"China battles "coldest winter in 100 years""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/lf_nm_life/china_weather_dc

I just see plenty of reasons to remain skeptical, plus if you look at the control exerted over the world in the name of global warming it is kind of alarming.

[-Spector-]

I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..

[Grav]

I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..

I... uh... lol.

[!King_Amazon!]

I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..
Don't do drugs, kids.

[Atnas]

I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..

I thought about that too, and when Asamin tried to argue me out of thinking it, he provided some explanation I couldn't really understand at the time and I forget now.

I don't see why the water would rise?

[Demosthenes]

I don't follow the reasoning. Why would it matter that an ice crystal is less dense than water when it comes to flooding.

[Lenny]

I can't tell who's shitting us, and who's for real here... so I'll jump in with abandon anyway. :)

First and foremost, a huge percentage of the worlds ice is on land. An absolutely massive percentage of it. When that melts, it's going to follow the path it's liquid cousin already follows, and flow down into the sea (some might flow into lakes, though, but that's its problem... stubborn bastards). Well that can't be too bad, can it? I mean, we have water flowing into the world's seas daily! Yes it is a problem - people don't realise the sheer volume of ice. Take glaciers, for example. They can be miles long, and hundreds of meters thick. The same goes for ice sheets, except that they can cover thousands of square miles. Only two exist, in Anartica and Greenland, and if they melt, then we're buggered. If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely it would cause sea levels around the world to rise by 20 feet (and completely re-direct the Gulf Stream, leaving little old Britain kinda cold), and if the ice sheet in Antartica melted, sea levels around the world would rise by 210 feet. That's a lot. Now I'm lucky, because I live in a very hilly country, and I'm over 1,000ft above sea level, so it'll take something stupid like the whole country sinking to immerse me in sea water, but there are a lot of places worldwide that would be completely flooded with only a six foot rise - take Holland, for example. Extremely flat. An extra six feet of water? Bye bye you crazy Dutch.

So to summarise - a lot of ice is on land. When that melts, billions of gallons of water would flow on their merry way to the sea, and Holland would drown.

[Atnas]

Ah, thanks Lenny. I had not thought about the ice on land. XD

I don't follow the reasoning. Why would it matter that an ice crystal is less dense than water when it comes to flooding.

I had thought that most of the ice was in the ocean, therefore when the ice melted, it would displace less water than when it was in it's frozen state.

[Demosthenes]

I had thought that most of the ice was in the ocean, therefore when the ice melted, it would displace less water than when it was in it's frozen state.

Ahh. Even so, there would be a significant rise in the water levels wouldn't you think?

[!King_Amazon!]

Right. Of a glacier, about 90% of it is underwater, so I suppose you could assume that that 90% will not change anything when it melts, but the other 10% will.

I think what they are thinking is that it's like a glass of ice water, with ice cubes in it. Once you put the ice cubes in it, the water level is at the highest it will be, even once the ice melts. This is because the ice is already in the water.

However, it isn't the same as a glacier.

[Willkillforfood]

Water expands like 9 or 10% when frozen supposedly. In that case the change will be little to none, since 90% is already underwater. The poor coral reefs are fucked.

[Adrenachrome]

90% of icebergs are underwater, now without even slightly researching it, I can confidently tell you that most glaciers are not in the water, they are on land.

[D3V]

So, this goes back to Lenny's point. If these massive amounts of ICE on LAND melt, the water level will rise. It's as simple as that. Not only will the water level rise, but the Planet heating up could also have more severe weather changes that we are really unable to perdict, which is why I get so frustrated when people completely downplay Global warming and completely dismisss it as "not our fault" and don't care to take care of this poor country we're slowly destroying.

Where I live, we are roughly 5~7 feet above sea leval, now, if anything we're to shift within the next 10-15 years, I'm pretty much fucked, along with all of Florida which average above sea level is like 12 feet...

[Adrenachrome]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

Man made global warming is a ploy to govern and tax the world, get a grip kids.

[Demosthenes]

Anthropogenic global warming is not some conspiracy. The scientists aren't in some sort of cahoots with the left. It is very real. I have tests all week, but give me until saturday, and I will post all that I know on the subject to back my claim.

[Adrenachrome]

Anthropogenic global warming is not some conspiracy. The scientists aren't in some sort of cahoots with the left. It is very real. I have tests all week, but give me until saturday, and I will post all that I know on the subject to back my claim.


*noted.

[Adrenachrome]

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm


A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars

A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effectNew derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.


However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-09-polar-bears_N.htm?csp=34

Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate


Enlarge By Paul Richards, AFP/Getty Images

A polar bear with her cub on the edge of Hudson Bay outside Churchill, Mantioba, Canada, in November 2007.

Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving.

Although they say sea ice has melted, some Natives question the accuracy of the most dire predictions of a warming climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seek evidence that a change would seriously harm the bears.


Their stance has put them at loggerheads with a usual ally: environmentalists who say the bears need protection now to survive a warmer climate in the future.

"It would have a really big effect on us Inuit, because we go by dog team to traditionally hunt polar bears," said Jamie Kablutsiak, who guides U.S. trophy hunters for big money onto the ice on Canada's Hudson Bay. As for the bears, "I don't think they're decreasing because there's usually lots, even in summer time," he said.

A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will come soon, spokesman Bruce Woods said.

The petition marks the first time a healthy species would be considered at risk under the Endangered Species Act and the first time global warming would be officially labeled a species' main threat.

Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.

The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition in 2005 for endangered species protection based on projected habitat loss due to global warming.

The petition resulted in a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, which predicted a loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bear population by 2050, based on a projected 42% summertime loss of "optimal polar bear habitat" such as shallow-water sea ice.

Some scientists, however, question predictions that sea ice will disappear, and even that polar bears would disappear if it did.

Richard Glenn, an Alaskan Inuit hunter and ice researcher, told U.S. senators in January that "marginal ice," which freezes in winter and melts in summer, will grow as multiyear ice disappears.

"Even the Fish and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that … may be beneficial to ice seals and polar bears," he said.

The aim of the environmentalists is to use the Endangered Species Act to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming, said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. It would require federal agencies "to look at the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on polar bears" and limit emissions by cars and power plants, Siegel said.

Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin disagrees with that approach.

"If you want to address climate change, address it directly," said Doug Vincent-Lang, Palin's coordinator for endangered species.

To the Inuit, the polar bear has been a source of food, clothing and income for millennia, said Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Canada, which represents Inuit across Canada.

The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Native communities in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia, wants Fish & Wildlife not to make a decision until Natives have a greater role, Chairwoman Patricia Cochran said. Any decision should be based on "sound science," which includes traditional knowledge, Cochran said.

Big money is at stake. Sport hunters pay between $25,000 and $30,000 each to bag a polar bear.

The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which represents Eskimos on polar bear issues, supports the listing as long as it allows subsistence hunting by Alaskan Inuit to continue. Executive Director Charlie Johnson said the group chose to avoid clashing with U.S. environmentalists.

The conservation scheme works because "it's in the best interest of the (Inuit) people out there to maintain the (bear) populations," Smith said. But it may end if the bear is listed because U.S. hunters will be banned from importing any part of the bear, such as a pelt, Smith said.

"The numbers of polar bear are good," said Smith, a former conservation officer for the Canadian government.

Steven Amstrup, chief polar bear researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, said climate models predict that it will be warmer by midcentury than "ever in the course of polar bear evolution." Other scientists question that view.

Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said far too few data were used to make predictions about both climate change and polar bear behavior and populations.

"We looked at historical studies. The first thing you notice is the whole climatic system undergoes huge fluctuation," Soon said.

Over the possibly 200,000 years the polar bear has existed as a species, it has survived "very harsh conditions" of extreme cold, such as ice ages, and warmth, such as the last interglacial period, 100,000 to 110,000 years ago, Soon said.

[Atnas]

I've been told that for years and have decided to just let the two sides battle it out and learn about it as much as I could. I favor that it's bullshit tbh.

The world changes naturally. Some form of nitroglycerin changed freezing temperature worldwide. All monkeys learned to use a tool simultaneously. People believe Bush is a pretty cool guy. These are all anomalies.

But the world goes through a pattern as the poles near their flip. It's a natural cycle.

I suppose that the tropical climate of the dinosaurs was caused by car emissions.

[Demosthenes]

Just wanted to let you know, I still intend on responding. I haven't forgotten about this, just been busier than I anticipated.

[Adrenachrome]

I figured as much, I didn't assume you were ignoring it

[Demosthenes]

There are two comments above I am compelled to respond to.

The first thing that comes to mind when I doubt man made global warming is the climate change throughout history and corrosponding CO2 levels coupled with the fact that the Earth moves on it adapts and corrects.

This is a fairy tale. The earth neither adapts nor corrects. In fact, such diction is nonsensical in this context. The earth does not need to adapt nor correct. It will persist regardless of whether or not life perishes. There will be no spontaneous rectification. The earth does not exist for the preservation of life. It will impetuously turn as hostile as Venus given the first chance. Your teleological argument is extraordinarily dangerous and naive.

we belong here, the planet made us and I believe it can take what we throw at it.

We don't belong here. We are a transient species. Believing that life will persist despite what we do is once again an endearing thought, yet horrifically naive.

Adrenachrome, you somewhat scare me. You claim to be unbiased on the issue, however your sources are highly prejudicial. You will not find an unbiased presentation of the facts on a site like iceagenow.com. Cherry-picking from sites espousing your personal views is worse than merely ignoring evidence; it is self-proselytization.

Credible sources do exist that argue against anthropogenic global warming, however they are the minority. Your sources, however, are not exactly what one would call credible. Some deny global warming altogether. Denying anthropogenic global warming is one thing, however denying global warming altogether is simply absurd. Some of your sources have an obvious conservative bias. Other sources are news reporters. News reporters are not exactly the best scientific commentators. For instance, here (http://www.ktvu.com/news/15054540/detail.html) some news reporter claims that scientists have confirmed an extraterrestrial signal. Though an anomalous extragalactic signal was picked up that day, nobody seriously thought that this was confirmation of extraterrestrial contact. My point is that the general media is not a completely credible source for scientific reports.

So what constitutes a credible source? Anything from a respected peer-reviewed journal works. I provided links as examples in another thread, but I will provide some more examples. For instance, you claimed earlier that Greenland recovered all its lost ice. This is simply fiction. In fact, the arctic lost ice the size of Texas and California combined in 2007 alone. A climate model based on conservative estimates of climate change has us with an ice-free arctic by 2030. How credible can your sources be when they directly contradict empirical evidence? [1-2]

To understand global warming one must have a basic understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss the geochemical processes involved in the greenhouse effect, but I will discuss it on a superficial level briefly.

The greenhouse effect is a consequence of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. This heat is radiated down, thus increasing global temperature. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The greenhouse effect is a natural process on earth, and without it the average temperature on the surface of this planet would be -19 degrees Celsius as opposed to 14 degrees Celsius as it is now.

It is imperative to understand that humans have significantly increased the greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere through activities such as burning fossil fuels and biomass. This has also introduced aerosols into the atmosphere, which play a very similar role. Though greenhouse gases and temperature vary through natural causes, there is apodictic evidence which should lead us to conclude that human activity has played a very significant role in increasing the greenhouse gas content, and as a corollary, the temperature on earth.

Over the past 650,000 years, the natural range of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been 180-300 parts per million. [3] It is currently at 380 ppm. By the end of the 20th century scientists predict it will be in between 490-1260 ppm.[4] Either nature is inherently anomalous during times when the industry flourishes, or we need to seriously consider the cause of global warming to be anthropogenic.

It is not difficult to see that greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the industrial revolution.

Carbon Dioxide
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/atmosph_conc_co2-lg.gif

Methane
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/atmosph_conc_ch4-lg.gif

Nitrous Oxide
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/atmosph_conc_n2o-lg.gif

[5]

Notice how that instead of the gentle cyclic pattern that is normal, we see sharp spikes around the advent of the industrial revolution when we should be seeing drops in greenhouse gas concentration. Consequentially, this is exactly the time we also start seeing a global rise in temperature. [6] Nature did not decide to fool us by waiting for the industrial revolution before warming the globe by releasing enormous amounts of greenhouse gases from hidden sources. This is our doing.

The increase in temperature will not be evenly distributed throughout the earth. The change will become more severe as you approach the poles. One or more biomes may disappear completely and there will be species extinctions associated with the loss of those biomes. There is already concern about the survival of polar bears in the wild. We are already seeing ice thinning and the reduction in the size of glaciers at high latitudes and altitudes. We will probably have to change the name of Glacier National Park sometime this century.

In terms of global warming effects on the U.S., some models predict a major eastward movement of the latitude where the rainfall exceeds 20 inches. The current line is at the 100th meridian (near San Antonio), it may move as far east as the Mississippi river. If you look at a map of the U.S., there are no major cities west of the 100th meridian, with the exception of Denver, until you get to the West Coast. The lack of rainfall and water is the major reason. If this model is correct, Texas will not have enough water to support its large cities. [3]



[1] Stroeve, J., M.Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic Sea Ice Plummets in 2007. EOS Transactions. Vol 89, No. 2, pp 1-2. January 8, 2008.

[2] Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., Serreze, M. (2007). Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(9) DOI: 10.1029/2007GL029703

[3] Campbell, N., Reece, J. (2005). Biology. Pearson.

[4] Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Joseph Alcamo, Gerald Davis, Bert de Vries, Joergen Fenhann, Stuart Gaffin, Kenneth Gregory, Arnulf Grübler, Tae Yong Jung, Tom Kram, Emilio Lebre La Rovere, Laurie Michaelis, Shunsuke Mori, Tsuneyuki Morita, William Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, Lynn Price, Keywan Riahi, Alexander Roehrl, Hans-Holger Rogner, Alexei Sankovski, Michael Schlesinger, Priyadarshi Shukla, Steven Smith, Robert Swart, Sascha van Rooijen, Nadejda Victor, Zhou Dadi (1996). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. IPCC.

[5] www.epa.gov

[6] Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K. (1998). . Nature, 392(6678), 779-787. DOI: 10.1038/33859

[Grav]

Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it.

[Adrenachrome]

. There is already concern about the survival of polar bears in the wild.

Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.




7778897ii

[Demosthenes]

Wow! You've really outdone yourself this time, Adrena! The polar bear defense is infallible! How did I not see it before?!

You're looking at the subject with blinders. Polar bear population has increased due to hunting of polar bears being restricted. The loss of the tundra would be a calamity for the polar bear. Again, such parochial views are irresponsibly dangerous.

See:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/pubs2006/Stirling%20-%20Possible%20Effects%20of%20Climate%20Warming.pdf
http://umanitoba.ca/ceos/files/publications_pdf/058.pdf
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-263435/Historical-analysis-of-sea-ice.html
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/2/163
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?dirsub=%2FACIA%2Foverview
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2193%2F2006-180&ct=1
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic52-3-294.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2193%2F2006-180
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/uploads/abstracts/Stirling_Derocher_Wildlife_Professional_PB_climate _2007.pdf

[Grav]

Your rebuttal to that post is a nitpick on polar bears? Anything else to add...?

[Goodlookinguy]

Don't be mean to the polar bears, shiznad.

My opinion. Global warming sucks.

[Demosthenes]

Don't be mean to the polar bears, shiznad.

My opinion. Global warming sucks.

As in the phenomenon itself sucks, or that the theory sucks?

[Goodlookinguy]

As in the phenomenon itself sucks, or that the theory sucks?

Phenomenon, I guess. Theory bullshit, it's happening.

[D3V]

Global warming is real, the new argument is if it's man-made or not. Now, go!

[Goodlookinguy]

Man-made, if we all died, the world would be healed.

[FatIonSurged]

7778897ii

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/1979/roflbotorftee0.jpg

[Grav]

...l...LMFAO.

[Demosthenes]

...l...LMFAO.

I don't think adrenachrome will reply :(

[D3V]

What a suprise, Chrome has bought in to even more republican bullshit.

Do you seriously not believe global warming is man-made? Of course the earth heats itself, but not at the rate that we're making it heat.

I never would have expected you of all people to be a fucking redneck republican.

Let me guess, you don't like them coloureds either, and you think racism is a lie, but you're probably racist against hispanics every chance you get. Grab your guns, boys, we gotta go take our country back from these illegals!

Oh my...

http://zelaron.com/forum/showpost.php?p=275406

Republicans>Democrats.

[!King_Amazon!]

Orly? My opinions changed sometime during a 5 year span?

[Grav]

Which makes you a weak-minded liberal pussy.

[!King_Amazon!]

I was like 15 in 2003.

[Grav]

Once a pussy, always a pussy.

[Skurai]

Yes.. No?

Yes, but only on sunday after church. :grin:I have one question with Global Warming:

I was told that the polar ice caps were gonna melt and flood the fuck out of everything.

But then I'm like wait, water EXPANDS when it freezes, so when it melts, their won't be any flooding, but more land to build on.


That's just one flaw I found..

... I wanna grow up to be just like you.... :eek:
That's awesome... I need to post this on my myspace!

[D3V]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

Man made global warming is a ploy to govern and tax the world, get a grip kids.


Do you believe global warming is a proven fact caused by man?

Yes 56% 79138 votes
No 44% 62816 votes

Total votes: 141954


I can't believe, at this time in the 2000's almost one decade through, so many people still don't believe that Global warming has been caused by man.

[Grav]

I can't believe, at this time in the 2000's almost one decade through, so many people still don't believe that Global warming has been caused by man.

Well... global warming is a misnomer. It's really global climate change. Some parts of the world will get colder, so you can't call it purely warming. Also, temperature shifts are a normal part of the planet's life cycle. So while climate change is occurring, how do we determine how much of it is due to the planet and how much is due to us?

[D3V]

That's the million dollar question. I mean, there are other factors playing into this as well such as the poles shifting, and the natural occurrences that happens every few thousand of years. Then again, there is no denying that the amount of pollution we put into the air on a daily basis has to be harmful to our enviorment.

[Combinatus]

[...] Some parts of the world will get colder, so you can't call it purely warming. [...]


...which reminds me of the following article!


The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

[Grav]

tl;dr - In the 1970s, "Global Cooling" was the problem at hand. Might put things into perspective for you?

[Skurai]

tl;dr - In the 1970s, "Global Cooling" was the problem at hand. Might put things into perspective for you?

Are you for real!? Whoa!
I wonder if that's for true. I'm gonna ask some people over 30 or 40...

[Demosthenes]

tl;dr - In the 1970s, "Global Cooling" was the problem at hand. Might put things into perspective for you?

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

[Grav]

Sorry buddy... I get my facts from Glenn Beck, not some "scientists."

[Demosthenes]

Oh. Well in that case, my humblest apologies.

[Combinatus]

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf



Most climatologists (sans Phil Jones and some of his CRU associates?) agree that global warming is happening, and that it is probably man-made. The trends of global warming do display a notable correlation with the amount of solar radiation and its band (spectral) distribution[1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation)]. Thus, the latter conclusion about man playing a significant role in making, or ever having made matters worse is not fully validated.

The thing is, none of that really matters. Since no climatic model can currently represent all of the relevant variables, the only responsible thing to do is to take action against global warming. If we end up taking action in vain, another global depression may ensue. If we don't take action yet (man-made) global warming becomes unstoppable, Earth may become the next Venus.

On a related note, I wonder how far-reaching the consequences of the CRU leak will become. After all, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a small cabal of climatologists have sought to control the overall agenda to increase and gain funding beyond that which could have been previously expected:

http://www.aei.org/article/101395

[Demosthenes]

Props on finding a speciously more credible source (AEI), something Adrenachrome was not able to do. I must concede that a noticeable minority of scientists have a dissenting opinion concerning anthropogenic global warming. That said, many of the dissenting scientists are in the pockets of the oil companies. You will find a much smaller percentage of scientists dissenting from the consensus at independent institutes of study.

I feel obliged to point out that AEI is funded by two multi-billion dollar oil corporations, Koch industries and Gulf oil, and is a conservative think tank. It has essentially bribed scientists with $10,000+ to critique the IPCC's assessment of the current climate situation; an assessment that is in accordance with the scientific consensus. Furthermore, Hayward is a frequent contributor to AEI. If AEI were truly an unbiased source then the vast majority of the literature there would be in support of global warming. I would challenge you to find one article there espousing that view.

Also, Combinatus, Newsweek essentially retracted the article you posted above claiming "that it was so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future."

[Combinatus]

I feel obliged to point out that AEI is funded by two multi-billion dollar oil corporations, Koch industries and Gulf oil, and is a conservative think tank. It has essentially bribed scientists with $10,000+ to critique the IPCC's assessment of the current climate situation; an assessment that is in accordance with the scientific consensus. Furthermore, Hayward is a frequent contributor to AEI. If AEI were truly an unbiased source then the vast majority of the literature there would be in support of global warming. I would challenge you to find one article there espousing that view.


According to the most recent annual report on the AEI website the sources of revenue were:

36% Individuals
27% Conferences, Book Sales and other revenues
21% Corporations
16% Foundations

I think the above values are from their 2007 report since I could not find their 2008 report. So if 2007 is a typical year then corporate donations appear to be 21% of their revenue. However it is possible that some conference attendees were employees of corporations and had their conferences fees paid or reimbursed by their employers. Thus the revenue from corporations might be more than 21% but how much more is difficult to tell based on the information I have found. I am not an AEI supporter or defender but I do think if we criticize AEI then the criticism should be based on presenting the information. And I do think AEI should be criticized; just like I think the ExxonMobil, the IPCC, the UN, the local knitting club and every other organization should be criticized. No sacred cows and no free rides.

Now to the broader issue of funding and research. It is often implied indirectly or said explicitly that individuals and groups will bias their research and reporting based on their funding. Given what we know of humans this would not surprise me. However I suggest that we need to avoid automatically discrediting something just based on funding since it is possible for accurate research to be funded by a source with a vested interest just as it is possible for inaccurate research. I am not saying the outcomes are equally likely; I am just saying both are possible.

I would also caution people who continue using funding source as a basis of criticism that this is can boomerang. Consider the various governments, companies, foundations and other sources who claim that global warming is a serious, imminent, human caused threat. If the amount that they put into funding exceeds the amount put in by ExxonMobil and similar companies then the funding argument can backfire.

I mention all of this because I really think we need to de-politicize the entire discussion and have an open and transparent discussion with all of the raw data, the research methods, the assumptions, everything placed for all to easily and freely see and evaluate.

So for example how about reading the article (http://www.aei.org/article/101395) and criticizing it based on its content not on the website on which it is published. I have read the article. Most of what I read in the article are things I had seen elsewhere, although the part of the article about improving IPCC and improving climate research might be interesting. However, more in-depth analysis is needed for those proposals.

[S2 AM]

Sorry buddy... I get my facts from Glenn Beck, not some "scientists."

I got a chuckle out of this. You know I've actually seen the SNL spoof of Glenn Beck more than I've seen the actual Glenn Beck. SNL usually is a 'heightened reality' but in some of their fox spoofs they're sadly very close to the mark.

Props on finding a speciously more credible source (AEI), something Adrenachrome was not able to do. I must concede that a noticeable minority of scientists have a dissenting opinion concerning anthropogenic global warming.

I actually wrote a research paper on the subject and found plenty of credible sources against climate change(but more supporting it:haha:). The university has a database of articles by professors and academics from far and wide, white I believe is connected to most major universities worldwide. As you would imagine, it's much more credible than Google. Although if you search Google's scholarly articles and are willing to sift and have plenty of time to read, you can find interesting stuff too.

[Demosthenes]

I actually wrote a research paper on the subject and found plenty of credible sources against climate change(but more supporting it:haha:). The university has a database of articles by professors and academics from far and wide, white I believe is connected to most major universities worldwide.

I would believe it. We have a geology professor here who says that claims of man-made global warming are overstated.

Combanitus, you have given me a lot to read. I will get back to you after finals.

[S2 AM]

Combanitus, you have given me a lot to read. I will get back to you after finals.

Just finished number 4 out of 6 as we speak

[Demosthenes]

Just finished number 4 out of 6 as we speak

Nice. Where are you going? The way the schedule somehow happened to fall for me I have all 5 over the next two days.

[Skurai]

Sorry buddy... I get my facts from Glenn Beck, not some "scientists."

What's a scientist?

[D3V]

-2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade since records began
-2005 was warmest year of all time, 2008 coolest in decade
-Global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/01/22/nasa.warmest.decade.data/index.html?hpt=T2

The first decade of the 21st century was the warmest ever on Earth according to data released by scientists at NASA.

The U.S. space agency's data also revealed that 2009 was the second warmest year since temperature records began in 1880, and only narrowly cooler than 2005, the warmest year ever.

2008 was the coolest year of the decade but this was attributed to a strong La Nina which causes extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) said in a statement: "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle. When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated."

In the past three decades, GISS report surface temperature records show an upward trend of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.

In total, according to GISS, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880.

GISS sources its data using over one thousand weather stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperatures, and research station data from Antarctica -- all of which, they say, is readily available to the public.



I think that pretty much can sum up the whole humans vs nature argument.

[!King_Amazon!]

Except it can't, because proof doesn't stop them from sticking their fingers in their ears LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU

[D3V]

You know, that is true. http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/L/bush_dunce.jpg

[Skurai]

Except it can't, because proof doesn't stop them from sticking their fingers in their ears LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU

There's not such thing as proof, in america, my friend.

[Lenny]

Interestingly, for the UK, this winter has been the coldest for decades. Nor have I seen snow like we had for fifteen years.

[Skurai]

Indeed. It looks like Kagoms profecy was true. I'm feeling pretty hungry. Where's WW?

[!King_Amazon!]

I think I'll buy you a dictionary next Christmas, Skurai.

[Skurai]

I love dictionaries. Sometimes I look up obscure words that I don't know.

[!King_Amazon!]

I find it hard to believe that you've ever even opened a dictionary.

[Skurai]

Of course I opened a dictionary. Back in third grade, I was looking for the definition of the word "fuck", and then I used it once or twice will reading Jekyll and Hyde. I also used it various other times, once or twice reading Faust (I'm just thinking of the easiest time to remember).

[S2 AM]

Nice. Where are you going? The way the schedule somehow happened to fall for me I have all 5 over the next two days.

Virginia Tech, yourself?

[jamer123]

global warming is a theory not a proven fact ... even the scientist that said about it exaggerated on the facts given to the public