Climate Change

[cooper]

Seems I recall reading or hearing that the ANTARCTIC has been colder and growing more ice.

Is this true, and if so, why the opposite of the ARCTIC?????

Sadly its not true...

and the situation is worse than predicted.....
and happeneing faster.........

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Lightfin

Seems I recall reading or hearing that the ANTARCTIC has been colder and growing more ice.

the thing is that we have only been measuring and keeping records for a very short time. to say that this small sample of less than 100 years proves something is perhaps unwarranted when you remember that this planet has been going thru climate changes for many million years.


http://www.co2science.org/printer1.3/print.php
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

[bobsadler]

climate models vs relaity

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...GM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE=

[cooper]

human interaction of a scale never before seen versus...

We have the ability to realize what we are doing, do we have the ability to do something about it? To say "it has happened before" does not absolve our responsibility to the future. Particularly if WE are responsible for the change not other global events.
To state that WE are not "necessarily responsible" as an excuse to allow dire consequences is a "teenager type attitude". I hope we are more adult.....

[GordMay]

International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change.

Quoting George Monbiot, in the Guardian 10th May 2005:

“It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.”
Goto:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005.../junk-science/

Notwithstanding, a tiny* cadre of climate change skeptics & industry apologists claim that the evidence for climate change is either bunkum spun by charlatans, a gigantic anti-capitalist hoax or alarmist "junk" science propounded by such fly-by-night organizations as the UK's Royal Society, the American Meterological Society, NASA, the American Geophysical Union, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and finally the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

* compared to the vast majority of scientists"

Here is what the Royal Society of the United Kingdom says about eight of the most common claims by climate change deniers:

1. Climate change is nothing to do with humans:
"Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests."

2. CO2 makes up only a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming:
"Even in tiny concentrations [CO2] has a large influence on our climate . . . . Before industrialization CO2 made up about 0.03 per cent of the atmosphere or 280 ppm. Today, due to human influence it is about 380 ppm. Even these tiny quantities have resulted in an increase in global temperatures."

3. Rises in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the result of global warming, not the other way around:
"The recent steep increase in the level of CO2 -- some 30 per cent in the last 100 years -- is not the result of natural factors. This is because, by chemical analysis, we can tell that the majority of this CO2 has come from the burning of fossil fuels . . . CO2 from human sources is almost certainly responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. There is much evidence that backs up this explanation and none that conflicts with it."

4. Observation of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming:
"Discrepancies have been found to be related to problems with how the data was gathered and analysed and have now largely been resolved."

5. Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions:
"While climate models are now able to produce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change."

6. It's all to do with the sun -- for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots:
"While there is evidence of a link between solar warming and some of the warming in the early 20th century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years. There is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."

7. The climate is affected by cosmic rays:
"Any effect that cosmic rays could have on the climate is not yet very well understood, but if there is one, it is likely to be small . . . observation of clouds and galactic cosmic rays show that, at most, the possible link between cosmic rays and clouds only produces a small effect."

8. The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action:
"The world's leading authority on climate change has projected a global average temperature increase for this century of two to three degrees. This would mean that the Earth will experience a larger climate change than it has experienced for at least 10,000 years. The impact and pace of this change would be difficult for many people and ecosystems to adapt to . . . . And the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor who can least afford to adapt."

Royal Society's website www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ provides greater detail at:
"Is global warming a swindle?"
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

and

Climate change controversies: a simple guide
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085

[jzk]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Gord Answers:

Q. What is causing this?
A. MOSTLY HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Right! Our puny 0.28% contribution to greenhouse gasses is causing "most" of the warming! Now there is a good one! We don't even know if greenhouse gasses cause or trail warming! Nevertheless, there has been 10 times as much CO2 in our atmosphere before! And this was before humans were even there, so how did it get there? And, there was a time where there was no ice on the planet, yet life thrived very nicely. How could that be? But after the period of no ice, there was much ice cover - much more than now. But no humans "to mostly cause it." Then the earth warmed significantly, still yet with no humans present "to mostly cause it." How could that be? And this happened cycle after cycle with no humans! We are no where near either extreme, so how can we be "damaging the earth?"

You are picking one point on the geological timeline and purporting that unless the global temperatures remain constant, (which has never happened before in the history of the Earth), that all will be lost.

And then, what is even more bizarre, Global Warming advocates purport that if only they purchase "carbon credits" from Al Gore's new company, that the Earth will be saved! That is even more nonsense than the idea of human caused global warming in the first place. Going for a walk instead of driving to the store isn't going to change the temperature of the earth!

Even if burning fossil fuels was causing global temperature change, there is nothing you can do about it. For every gallon of diesel you don't run in your generator, the Chinese will burn it and 20 more. What are you going to do, go to war with China and India and force them to switch to solar power?

The greatest advancements in technology have come as a result of economic need and so too will alternative forms of energy. As we need, we will study cheaper ways to provide energy. This can't be achieved through some government program but will be achieved through private industry. Solar panels will get better, batteries will get better. But meanwhile, you should use fossil fuels and not feel any worse about it than Al Gore does for using 10 times as much as you.

[Alexei]

Originally Posted by Eleven

There is surely no doubt that the current levels of fossil burning is not good. In terms of whats left for the next generation and what condition we leave the planet in.
The increase in huricane activity n the past few years is co-incidence, the floods of the last few years are con-incidence, etc etc.
The rise in sea levels is due to the rainfall, not the ice melt up north. Sorry, can't hear you, my head is stuck in the sand.
Turn off the air conditioning, put on warmer clothing. Use carbon when the temperatures are ten degrees centrigrade outside your comfort zone, not one. Drive a little slower, keep your car a little longer. Nothing drastic, just do a bit while we wait and see who's right.
Unfortunately the safest place might not be at sea if the weather turns nastier but on land is not so good either. Buy a chunk of real estate with altitude so when it gets hot you've got a cool place to go ( or sell ).

Your premise is flawed.

There haven't been more hurricanes than normal in the last few years compared to historical data. The storms just get more press, and there are more people living in coastal areas, so some of them have caused more damage to human structures. Katrina wasn't the strongest storm in the last century, but with more construction in he gulf area and a ludicrously corrupt and incompetent local government ignoring warnings and not performing required maintenance on its infrastructure, you got record dollar amounts of damage. Meanwhile, you have pundits, politicians, and others with agendas using every single storm or natural disaster as a talking point to promote "global warming". So naturally those who take what they see on TV as gospel will be left with the impression that something different is happening compared with what has always happened.

Flooding: same thing. It's always happened, and it always will. But we have a 24 hr news cycle now, where we didn't 20 or 30 years ago, and everything has to be hyped to keep the ratings up. Just like with hurricanes.

Rising sea levels.... You know, people mention that as though it's gospel, but no one actually shows any data. But it's parroted about enough that it must be so, right? Does anyone know where to find some data on this, because I've never seen it.

The whole "Global Warming" thing is nothing more than a political farce. Someone wrote a few posts back that there is no debate in scientific fields, only in political ones. It's actually quite the opposite: The political forces in the world are all behind this (and why not, this is custom made to enhance the power of the political class), while there is SIGNIFICANT dissension among scientists who actually know what they're talking about. Al Gore's proclamation that the debate is over doesn't mean that it is so. A lot of these "experts" who get paraded around talking about global warming are from various disciplines who start from the premise that it's happening and then extrapolate what the effects will be.

In the meantime, actual meterologists, geologists, and climatologists have expressed a fair amount of doubt about 1) If it's even happening at all and 2) what's causing it. Ice core samples show that CO2 increases have TRAILED previous temperature increases by 800 - 1000 years. Balloon temperature measurements of the atmosphere have shown temperature trends that don't correspond to those expected from anthropogenic global warming. Arctic studies have shown that the retreat of arctic ice has also not happened in the manner that it should have if anthropogenic global warming was the cause. Satellite measurements of average global
temperature have shown temperatures more or less steady for the last 10 years, if not trending downward.

Add to that the fact that none of the climate models that the IPCC and the other bodies who are pushing this use as their "proof" have correctly shown the trend in temperature over the last 10 years, but instead show an unbroken rising line. Then you have supposedly scientific organizations like NASA changing the temperature data presentations of the last century to more closely resemble the party-line, in contradiction to actual satellite temperature measurements.

To me, it all adds up to a political hoax and shaky science. The simple fact that those who express doubts about it are labelled as ignorant "doubters", that they are raked over the coals in the media, that they are threatened professionally, that big business is spending a lot of money to lobby for carbon credits and wind power subsidies and the like, and that politicians on every level parrot the party line on it makes me doubt the veracity of the argument.

If the science were really so certain, the strong-arm tactics that are being used to silence dissent on this matter would not be necessary.

This is a transparent attack on freedom and private enterprise. The implications of a lot of the legislation that have been proposed on this are so far-reaching that it almost cannot be believed. It will give government complete control over every aspect of people's lives. And that's the point. We can't have the peons in the citizen class thinking for themselves and living how they want to live, now can we? No.....we in the POLITICAL class must think for them, and they must live how we tell them.

What a crock.

[gosstyla]

Originally Posted by GordMay

WRONG !!!
...The Arctic ice cap reached its smallest extent ever in 2007 ...

Ever is a real long time. Not too long ago the North Pole was a swamp with alligators, don't believe there was much ice then.

http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Alexei

... What a crock.

Indeed ...

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by jzk

Right! Our puny 0.28% contribution to greenhouse gasses is causing "most" of the warming!

Source? You won't find a credible one, because that figure is incorrect.

Now there is a good one! We don't even know if greenhouse gasses cause or trail warming!

In the past, they have trailed the initial solar-forcing Milankovitch cycles. Now they lead.

Nevertheless, there has been 10 times as much CO2 in our atmosphere before!

Comparisons over geologic time scales is irrelevant. On geologic time scales the climate is dominated by continent configuration.

Even if burning fossil fuels was causing global temperature change, there is nothing you can do about it. For every gallon of diesel you don't run in your generator, the Chinese will burn it and 20 more. What are you going to do, go to war with China and India and force them to switch to solar power?

Use our purchasing power to force China and India to invest in nuclear and/or carbon capture (as we need to).

But meanwhile, you should use fossil fuels and not feel any worse about it than Al Gore does for using 10 times as much as you.

Non-sequitur. Holding Al Gore up as a hate figure doesn't make a convincing argument. Try a different tack.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by gosstyla

Ever is a real long time. Not too long ago the North Pole was a swamp with alligators, don't believe there was much ice then.

On geologic time scales, the climate is dominated by continent configuration.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Lightfin

Haven't read this entire thread, so this may have been mentioned -- but, haven't the last two winters in Europe been a good bit colder than "normal"????

Here in Kentucky, USA, our spring and summer this year are both a little cooler than usual.

I don't think you have been paying attention . Getting colder is not only all a part of Global Warming. it's now proof.

Global Warming? I've been banging on about the real man made threat to the world for years. and no one has sent me a grant (yet). It's called Cheese. Everywhere in the world that makes Cheese has people dying. Sometimes after 80/90 or more years, but the eventually they all seem to die. You can't say that is a coincidence. In some areas they do not make cheese. and people still die. Which proves it.

Cheese? I blame the French

[jzk]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

On geologic time scales, the climate is dominated by continent configuration.

Even Al Gore is sharp enough to say things like "1998 was the warmest year on record," because even he knows it was warmer less than a thousand years ago.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Source? You won't find a credible one, because that figure is incorrect.

Well, my friend, why don't you provide the correct figure? Hint: CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by jzk

Even Al Gore is sharp enough to say things like "1998 was the warmest year on record," because even he knows it was warmer less than a thousand years ago.

I don't understand your point. Can you please clarify?

Well, my friend, why don't you provide the correct figure?

You made a specific claim. The burden of proof is on you. And yes, I do know where to find the correct figures, but I think it will be more instructive for you to do your own research.

Hint:...

Let me ask you another question. Based on what you have read that I have written, do you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? Just curious.