Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by PhiloNysh, Oct 5, 2003.


If global warming an environmental concern?

  1. Yes -humans caused it

    38 vote(s)
  2. No- it is a natural cause

    26 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    17 vote(s)
  1. Climatology Registered Member

    re: "slow massive extinction" research of quote -- don't bother ... the scientist(?) is/was full of it!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Who knows.. not that we know all species..
    anyways, when people talk about extinctions (which may well be true, I don't have any info on that), I always remember a quote from one x-files episode (yeah yeah)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

  8. Andre Registered Senior Member

  9. cardiovascular_tech behind you with a knife Registered Senior Member

    I always like your posts there andre they have pretty good information
  10. Golgo 13 The Professional Registered Senior Member

    Mann and Jones published a summary of numerous global temperature reconstructions spanning the previous 2 thousand years in Geophysical Research Letters. Their data indicates that while the Middle Ages had a warmth spike, the heating trend we face today is totally is unprecedented and likely, in large, to be artificially induced.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Comparison of proxy-based NH temperature reconstructions [Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999; Crowley and Lowery, 2000]

    The extent our greenhouse emissions will alter the atmosphere, what effects it will have, and what action we can take prevent or remedy the deleterious emissions are all side issues of whether global warming is something that actually occurs.

    Methane Burps: Ticking Time Bomb

    Countdown to global catastrophe

    Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages

    It should also be noted that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who replaced Dr. Robert Watson as chairman of the IPCC at the behest of the Bush Administration and big-oil, fully concurs with this assessment.

    Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert

    Global warning has already hit the danger point that international attempts to curb it are designed to avoid, according to the world's top climate watchdog.

    So Bush's own hand-picked chairman of the IPCC is now sounding the alarm on global-warming. I'd like to see the global warming apologists spin that.

    Remember, just because Bush's environmental policy depends on global warming to be false doesn't mean that reality is going to agree.

    With that in mind, the Pentagon seems to be buying into this whole 'global warming' thing.

    An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is "plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately," according to this report commissioned by the Pentagon.

    You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue.

    Already, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

    One would think that something like this happening before would make people wake up and realize they have a serious problem on their hands.

    The potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.
  11. Andre Registered Senior Member

    That's too much to react to right now, So only one thing:

    This is a culprit indeed but totally misunderstood. It has been showed to be very likely that clathrate explosions coincided with alleged temperature spikes. But the reaction of (all) the proxies, including the deep sea indications is so immediate and direct that warming cannot be the cause. It takes some tens of years to several hundred years to get a warming signal to the bottom of the ocean while we see reactions of maybe as little as months, a few years at the most.

    Consequently, the alleged warming signals may be a more direct physical reaction directly induced by the clathrate gun. For instance dramatic change in precipitation patterns (easily proven) and a sharp drop of the oceanic pH (also proven) and a strong enhanced stirring due to the currents that the clathrate decomposition induces. So those signals are most likely not warming at all. Consequently the whole world is totally different.
  12. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Well This month there will be a publication in exactly the same Geophysical research Letters proving that the use of statistics of Mann et al was flawed. Here is the story:
  13. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to have anything more then a layman's grasp of any of this stuff. I thought this lecture was interesting... Mostly in that it only speaks to things I can grasp with authority.

    perhaps someone else here will enjoy it too... it's long for a forum, but well worth the read.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Golgo 13 The Professional Registered Senior Member

    That right there is going to get you an incredible amount of bias.

    I've tend to notice that a disproportionate quantity of the global warming apologists happen to be connected to industries that have a fair share to lose by tighter pollution regulations.

    The head of the IPCC, the world's top climate watchdog, is as high of a source as it gets. I wonder why he's sounding the alarm to this global warming thing if it's all bollocks?
  15. Karmashock The Doomslayer Registered Senior Member

    Context. Currently the system is MORE biased because they only get the money from one source and there is often a predetermined conclusion that the team is supposed to come to.
    To put your claim in context.
  16. Climatology Registered Member

    The IPCC is a U.N. organization! What has the U.N. done well, lately -- and especially, what have they done well relying on dubious science, as the "Hockey Stick" of human-caused global warming is? Mann-Bradley-Hughes research and publishings have been hammered by many, and now even the publishing magazine itself: NATURE, in

    The author above's point about "consensus not being science...", is dead on RIGHT (a clear example is the AGW "hockey stick" itself, now DEAD)!
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2005
  17. Andre Registered Senior Member

  18. Climatology Registered Member

    Golgo 13-

    Do you actually understand climate science or do you just know a bunch of acronyms and re-post the propaganda from this circle of AGW zealots?

    You are way behind the literature! Regarding your summary mean temperatures chart, Briffa and Osborn have commented on the von Storch et al paper hammering MBH and others use tree-ring proxy data in a Science SEP'04 article (conclusions picked up by even the NYTimes):
    So it looks like using Briffa in your summary chart, as well as others of that Mann-incestuous circle, is bogus. As posted earlier, even NATURE, the bible of AGW proponents has backed off the "human-caused" GW chorus:

    Independent verification of Mann and other's data is anything but! MWP and LIA happened, and cooking the data and PCAs with a bunch of Bristlecone pine proxies from the North American west ain't gonna hide it -- no matter how many cooks shout they made that same entree.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2005
  19. Climatology Registered Member

    Oh, and in case you didn't notice, that's Dr. Raymond S. Bradley of Mann-Bradley-Hughes who noted,
    Does Professor Bradley's word count for anything against such a reputable Science source as And please don't start citing as your independent science source of choice -- Dr. Mann (Lead Advisor to) has already been cited to excess. He is not an independent source for the argument for anthropogenic global warming!
  20. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    If the greenhouse effect as you describe can be verified with sufficient evidence/data of past temperature viartions that unambiguously prve that the temperature spectrum of ci=urrent times is of a pathological nature then we make fixes. A good example (and I am not steering this thread into a ditch) is the ozone hole. Obviously the hole existed before first measured and detected. What is the time history of the ozone hole? Is it harmful just because it has reached a stage of being recongnizable? How do heavier than than air molecules (much heavier than air), those carrying the viscious Chlorine atoms, reach elevations in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to do the massivley claimed atmospheric damage to the ozone layer?

    Are the claimed airborne measurements of the pollutants unambigupous demontration of pathological ozone layer depletion? Is the area of the ozonje depeltion hole cyclic iin time, yearly? or finctionally related to the current tilt of the planet's spin axis with respect to solar radiation? Is the area of the hole seasonal?
    Use the same form of questions to greenhousing .

  21. Andre Registered Senior Member

    So why not calculate ourselfs what the increase of temperature would be with enhanced greenhouse effect due to doubling CO2.

    Let's look here first to collect some data

    Total Greenhouse gas effect: 33 C(K)
    Effect of water vapour: 75%
    Effect of CO2 in the remainder: 60%
    Consequently 60% of 25% of 33 C is 4,95 C temperature rise of the CO2 part

    Now our secret weapon: Modtran3, a formidable calculating model. Let's check the default data scrolling down and select under "Weather and Location, Locality:" "1976 US standard atmosphere"

    Then put under CO2: 0 to find the basic values without CO2 and "poke" on the bottom of the page. In the output we find:
    Now go back and repeat the calculation for a standard value 370 ppm of around the year 2000, we find:
    This value is less because part of the radiated energy is absorpt and transferred to heat, the greenhouse gas effect.
    Consequenty, the difference about 28,5 W/m2 is required to raise the temperature 4,95 degrees. So 5,76 W/m2 is required to raise the temperature 1 degree if we assume roughly linear relationship.

    What would doubling CO2 do? Just "poke" the double value 740ppm in Modtran3 and run:
    So we see that doubling results in a less flux of about 3.1 W/m2. As we needed 5,76 W/m2 for one degree celsius the outcome is that ....

    doubling CO2 in the atmosphere results in a temperature rise of 0,54 degrees Celsius without feedback factors.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2005
  22. extrasense Registered Senior Member

    You can not expect commies to care "about actual problems"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    They are busy fighting evil capitalism

  23. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    What use of coral reefs? Ok, they are pretty and are used as habitat for many species, but that is all.

Share This Page