Do you believe global warming is taking place?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Mind Over Matter, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    To say that global warming is not happening is to deny the very real evidence shown by retreating glaciers and the polar ice caps. To deny that humans have some impact on this is to deny the very real evidence in terms of the shear volume of the small impacts that we have.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The argument of those against ascribing the cause of global warming to human activity, is that the sum of our contribution to greenhouse gas has been to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its average of about 0.25% to approaching 0.4%. They say that this increase in CO2, which is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect, is not enough to explain global warming.
    Rather, that global warming is part of a natural cycle of climate.

    Nobody disagrees that global warming is taking place.
    The argument is over whether man has caused it, and whether we can do anything about it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RioNapo Registered Member

    Messages:
    60
    obviously it is happening because if at an age of only 22 I can say "I remember when i was in grade school and we used to get snow days, cold days, snow often in october and toronto's 8 inch snowfalls were on the lower end of normall snowstorms" change is not just evident, it is happening too fast. now barely a decade later, we don't get snow in october, school bus cancellations due to cold temperatures are a thing of the past and the amount of time in which leaves are on trees is longer. It also seems summers with the name "the summer that never was" are rarer and seemingly unusually hot summers more the norm. That and other things make the climate seem to have warmed up noticably in less than a decade.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No, not "obviously it is happening because".....

    Here's most of that period you mentioned graphed out:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note, the last 3 years that are not on that graph have averaged an anomaly of .429

    So over the last 13 years (since you were 9 years old) the average global temperature has only increased ~.02 C (other global measurements such as that done by UAH and RSS using satellite data give virtually the same numbers).

    Now to put that amount of temperature change over time in perspective, here's an $800 reference thermometer:

    http://techinstrumentation.com/products/TL1%2dR-Reference-Thermometer.html

    But it only has an accuracy of +/- .04 C!

    Clearly the global change in temperature is not of a magnitude that you can detect by direct observation at one location (indeed, that's a global average and most of the warming the globe is experiencing is at the higher latitudes during the winter months).

    I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, but it is not something we can detect as easily as you think we can just based on a limited set of observations over a very limited time. Indeed the temperature change is so slow, and the normal oceanic cycles such as ENSO, PDO, AMO etc are so large as to influence large regional fluctuations in climate that make determining the average global temperature a most difficult task.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2011
  8. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Over the short term, a scale of decades, very likely.

    Over the medium term, I'm less sure. In other words, if you graphed out yearly temperature averages over a period of many centuries, there would probably be quite a bit of volatility in the graph, lots of jagged ups and downs. I'm not 100% convinced that what we are seeing in the last few decades isn't an example of that. There was a period of a century or so, back in late medieval times as I recall, when the Earth's climate was unusually cool, impacting harvests and stuff.

    When it comes to whether human beings are responsible for whatever-it-is that's happening, I'm still unconvinced. There have been periods of the Earth's history in which the polar icecaps extended down south of the Great Lakes. There have been other periods in Earth's history when the planet apparently didn't have polar icecaps at all. Human beings had nothing to do with any of that. Which suggests that there's a range of totally natural variation in the Earth's climate that absolutely dwarfs anything that we have seen in our recorded history. The causes of those macro-variations still aren't fully understood, as far as I know.

    When it comes to whether we understand the precise causes of whatever-it-is that's happening now, all we have are models that are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. Turning to the question of what to do about the phenomenon (assuming that anything needs and/or can be done), everything becomes even more hypothetical and speculative.

    Where I become frankly and openly doubtful, is when we reach the next step from there, when everything becomes politicized into a huge messianic politico-religious cause. It's the apocalypse! Only we can stop it! And that can only happen through radically changing our own society!! I'm struck by how all this 'global warming' stuff has only been flowing out of the university faculty clubs for the last couple of decades, since around the same time that Marxism with its "scientific socialism" imploded.

    My strong suspicion is that whatever scientific truth there might be in global-warming, and not being a climate-scientist I really have no way of knowing that, it's almost certain that political opportunists are riding this and trying to whip it up into a frenzy so as to be able to exploit it.

    It's already starting to reach the point where if a layman like myself fails to act like a sheep, fails to join the crowd and shout all the angry slogans at political enemies (capitalists naturally), we are denounced as "ignorant", "evil" and redefined as political enemies ourselves. Climate-gate revealed the emotions that this thing generates inside the scientific community, the lengths that people will go to promote it, and how failure to conform to new orthodoxy can destroy careers.

    I'm reminded of medieval Catholicism.

    And I fully expect to be mercilessly flamed by Sciforums for revealing my own damnable tendency towards heresy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2011
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Nonetheless, over the long term, we are definitely in a warming trend. Ice ages (defined as eras when significant masses of permanent ice form on the surface, primarily glaciers on the tallest mountains and sheets or caps at the poles, resulting in lower sea levels and less rainfall due to the water being trapped) have been happening in cycles of approximately 100,000 years for quite some time. We are currently very close to the end of the current ice age, with sea level significantly higher than it was 60KYA when humans with Stone Age-technology boats managed to colonize Australia by navigating the then-narrower straits between the various islands. As the glaciers and ice caps continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise another couple hundred feet, and we can say goodbye to Florida, Bangladesh and Holland.
    That's not an unreasonable assumption. However, our carbon footprint continues to increase. We may be doing our best to level off in the USA, but other countries are taking up the slack. China has something like two dozen coal mine fires that have been burning out of control for decades. They're already the #2 polluter. Add to that their determination to double the size of the planet's automobile fleet, and you have to wonder just how much we can get away with before we finally become a measurable cause of global warming, if we indeed are not one already.

    Then there's Indonesia. They clear-cut a massive swath of the rain forest on Borneo... which was covering gigantic peat bogs. Since no one has ever done this before, no one knew that when you expose a peat bog to sunlight, it becomes an engine of CO2 emission. Indonesia is now the world's #3 polluter.

    The Indians want cars too--all 1.2 billion of them.
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Sounds good to me - sorry Enmos

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes, it is a VERY unreasonable assumption.

    The average annual temperature in Antarctica is -37°C so even in worse case climate scenarios as long as the continent of Antarctica is at the pole not all of Antarctic is going to melt.

    The IPCC did look at the issue and stated that it would take ~10,000 years to melt just the East Antarctica Ice sheet, IF the globe's annual average temperature was +20C higher than present for that 10,000 years.

    BUT they also pointed out that there is no plausible mechanism for the climate to be 20+C over current for the next 10,000 years.

    Indeed, in the most recent study published in Science, researchers show that the latest models predict a slightly smaller change in Earth's climate then the last IPCC report suggested, now claiming a more modest rise of between 1.7C and 2.6C based on a doubling of pre-Industrial CO2.


    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre...sibly-less-than-most-extreme-projections.html


    Arthur
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    What do you base this assertion on?
    A link to a scientific journal supporting this with actual data would be nice.

    Nope. China has been #1 since ~2006 (and it's NOT because of the coal mine fires, they aren't even counted)

    India is far larger producer of GHGs than Indonesia is, even including Land Use Changes (about 5 times)

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf

    Arthur
     
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Here's a typical graph from Wikipedia. Their articles on Ice Age and Sea Level are consistent on this issue, and they give a number of scholarly references.
    This chart puts China slightly behind the USA, and India as a distant #5 after Russia and Japan. It does not mention Indonesia.

    Here's an article on the worldwide peat bog issue, which claims they produce 14% of GHG's.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yes and that just shows ~100,000 year cycles WITHIN an Ice Age.

    (All quotes are from your Wiki link to Ice Ages)

    That's just so we can use proper definitions.

    Ah, what they are consistent on is they don't support your assertion:

    First,
    Since as the IPCC pointed out already, if temps were +20C higher then today, it would still take 10,000 years to melt the East Antarctic Ice Sheets, which has to happen before you get to the end of the current ice age, but that is NOT something we think has any plausibility of happening.

    On the other hand, it would appear you meant that by being "very close to the end of the current ice age" you were actually referring to the end of the current warm interglacial period, that is also no longer thought to be true, and also from your link:

    In any case, while in geological time frames the term "very close" could mean 50,000 years, but in human terms there is no indication that we are "very close" to the end of either the ice age or the interglacial.

    As to this data on CO2 producation it's just way out of date:

    You might also note the reference is only about CO2 from fossil fuel use, but you were specifically referring to "carbon footprint" and so that figure doesn't include other GHGs gasses such as CH4 and other CO2 sources such as Land Use changes and Cement production and finally the rankings are based on EIA data from 2005.

    So, like I said, in the 2006/7 time frame China passed the US in both CO2 and GHG production.

    Actually that 14% figure comes from a study done on the massive wildfires and peat burning that occurred way back in 1997 (and was considered partially responsible for the largest single year increase in ppm of CO2 in 1998).

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-08-06.asp

    It's not an ongoing release of that much CO2 each year.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  15. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Regardless of whether global warming is occurring or not. We are obviously leaving a negative impact upon our world with an estimated 150-200 species vanishing from our planet daily.

    Personally, I would love to see large tracks of ocean turned into a rainforest of alge/seaweed. The nutrients could be pumped via plastic tubes from the bottom of the ocean, or even fed from shore pumped with wave power.

    Large seaweed tracks could be pulled into/over the grand banks and many other locations to increase fish populations.

    If a nation is starving pull a hundred thousand acres into shore for that country to have some algae burgers (yummy).

    It is amazing how much fuel algae yields approx 30% of its mass as vegetable oil that can also be converted into fuel.

    I could visualize a company that produces a lot of waste sponsoring 100000 acres of seaweed farms to counteract their negative footprint for public relations or political pressures. Make it a policy.

    The creation of life directly uses carbon in our atmosphere, although the farms would need to be maintained indefinitely for that to be effective, but it does provide immediate less carbon.

    This is a pro-active solution. It would be cheap to implement, and it is doing something.

    Small plastic floating pontoons/balls could be linked together in triangular formations and pushed outwards into the sea with anchors and tugboats maintaining control. Once the acreage is complete then it could be towed to any ocean local for it to grow.

    I'd rather see society err on the side of saving the planet.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    So according to you about 800,000 species have vanished since this century started.
    That's almost equal to half of the species we have ever named so I'm curious how you come to that conclusion.
    Maybe you could provide a name/date for 1/10 of a 1 percent of these recently vanished species so as to lend some credibility to this HUGE number?

    Indeed, what makes it so unlikely a number is that with all the biological research we do, on a global basis we still identify only about 18,000 new species a year.


    Your ideas sound just the opposite of "cheap to implement".
    I suspect that if it WAS cheap to implement then someone would be doing it on a large scale.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Regional and seasonal climate fluctuations are definitely taking place.

    For example, up until some twenty years ago, it was possible to reliably plant beans once a year, to produce good and timely yield, according to a calendar that was a few hundred years in use reliably.

    This doesn't work anymore.

    We now plant beans three times at least, two generations usually fail because at the time of the blossoming, comes an unexpected cold wave.
    Or there is drought at an unusual time.


    In Europe, this November was the driest in over a hundred years.
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Agreed.


    I think that the real issue is to find a justification to reign in consumerism, and how to clean up the effects it has had so far.

    And since traditional values of modesty and simplicity are considered outdated and promoting them is considered prudish and redneckish, someone or something else needs to be blamed.
    Capitalists come handy for that.

    But capitalists are not the problem - it is the average people who use the products and services provided by the capitalists that refuse to acknowledge the pollution problem that consumerism is causing.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And they have always taken place.

    We had the Dust Bowl in the 30s with high heat and no rain for so long the topsoil just blew away over a vast area.

    England used to rival France for growing grapes and making wine.

    They used to farm in Greenland.

    So?

    We could trade weather anecdotes till the cows comes home.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah, maybe we can do a mass mailer to those several Billion Chinese and Indians and tell them of the new rules we've come up with?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Which had happened before. How was this different? After a few decades of intensive farming, the ground cover that protected the soil from the wind was gone.
     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Obviously, bringing about world-wide social and economic change is a difficult, perhaps even an impossible task.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    When had it happened before?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

    The heat and drought of the 30s was unprecedented in the historical record, including up to the present time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave

    It is interesting that this followed one of the coldest winters on record

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_cold_wave
     

Share This Page