Global Warming?

[Belladonna]

Yoohoo. Global Warming is the topic here.

We all know by now who here likes the current US President and who doesn't. We also know that no matter how many facts each side gives, each thinks they are 100% right and the other side is hopelessly wrong. Let it go and just discuss the main topic. There is just no need for this kind of arguing to pop up in every serious discussion, especially when it isn't going to change anyone's mind.

 

STAY ON TOPIC!

 

[Eliteone]

Ok on this topic. The Kyoto agreement never included China or India.

 

Both of whom are consuming fossil fuels and an accelerating rate due to their prosperious economies.

 

 

for Kyoto to be effective everyone must be included in it.

[blue]

the kyoto protocol did not include china and india because they're considered developing countries. this was one of the inherent flaws of the kyoto protocol. china produced over more than 50% of the co2 emissions globally but, according to kyoto, would not have to limit their co2.

 

the kyoto protocol wont work. 100-something nations and countries have already ratified the treaty, yet nothing is for certain.

 

while on the issue of global warming, the human species has not even been in existence long enough to witness an entire cycle of the earth. simply, the earth gets hot, then cold, then hot, then cold. for all we know, the earth is supposed to get a little bit hot, then cool down.

 

im not saying that there is no need for worry, but i am saying that there is no need to cry 'the sky is falling', chicken little. better alternatives would probably be wind power. hydroelectric power also affects the oceans ecosystems in a way.

 

methane hydrates is the next best thing.

 

if all else fails, lets just dump some iron seedings into the ocean!

[daybreak]

"Bush said earlier this month he recognizes that human activity contributes to a warmer Earth. But he continues to reject the Kyoto treaty on global warming that all other G-8 industrialized nations signed, because developing nations weren't included in it."

 

Interesting, he recognizes this now? This is news to me....Secondly, I'm sorry but I don't believe for even half a second that he refused to sign the treaty because it was somehow flawed. I wouldnt' matter if Kyoto was drafted by a second grader on meth or Einstein, he has corporate pals to keep happy, it's just business, I don't like it, but I understand.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/21...g.ap/index.html

[Lattia-Wilhelmi]

I've seen some document on TV that said that when earth get warmer happens this:

The polar ice will melt,

Then the water that will appear will confuse the Golf-stream,

Europes BIG source of heat will be gone,

and the heat there will go down bigtime.

 

Dunno if it said anything about other parts of the world coz it was a long time ago since I saw it

[RXS]

An interesting article about the new findings that debunk global warming.

 

Global Warming?

[Alexa]

Ah here we go again. Conservative spin alert:

 

RealClimate

The interesting part is the "plenty to say" link.

 

By the way, that idiotic copenhaben concensus, which consists of economists(!) and lawyers (ok, and a statistician) who claim that by using their "common sense" (yeah, right) they could better the world's problems has long been revealed as a bunch of morons (of course that once more depends on your ideology). When I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not an economist or to a lawyer.

 

And one word to Kyoto. Why not start at some point? The No. 1 when it comes to pollution per head still is the US. But stomp your feet and point to China if you feel better that way.

 

What remains:

The vast majority of scientists working in the field of climate (change) agree that

- global warming caused by human beings is true

- the most likely scenario is the melting of the polar ice which will cause a huge catastrophe

 

The vast majority of US scientists is included in this.

[[FF5]Knix]

I still say we need to kill more cows. Their flatulence is really messing with the Ozone Layer.

 

Eat more Steak!

[Alexa]

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 07:54 PM' post='50807']

I still say we need to kill more cows. Their flatulence is really messing with the Ozone Layer.

 

According to this their contribution is very low. Similar study was made by the Cornell University if you dun like the source.

 

Why not settle Mars and make it the farming planet? Could paint it black and white.

 

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 07:54 PM' post='50807']

Eat more Steak!

I'm a vegetarian, dummie!

 

Best would be to keep politics (and religion by the way) out of science. Science should be absolutely free and NO politician should be responsible for placing/removing scientists from positions or giving them budgets. Science has got to be objective and stick to the facts, that's why it's called science, not?

[[FF5]Knix]

Up Bella/ E1...Alexa called me "dummie" and that hurt my feelings bad....and she doesn't eat meat...cuz she's a veterinarian .

 

This kind of member on member abuse has to stop.

 

All i have to say to Alexa is...

 

[Alexa]

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 10:00 PM' post='50830']

Up Bella/ E1...Alexa called me "dummie" and that hurt my feelings bad....

This kind of member on member abuse has to stop.

Uhm, I do apologize for the "dummie", since it seems to have a different meaning in english. In german it means being an intelligent, wealthy and good looking conservative with principles.

 

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 10:00 PM' post='50830']

and she doesn't eat meat...cuz she's a veterinarian .

Nah. If I was a veterinarian, I'd eat meat to cut disposal costs.

 

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 10:00 PM' post='50830']

All i have to say to Alexa is...

dikfore

Hey, what's a dikfore?

[[FF5]Knix]

 

Hey, what's a dikfore?

 

 

Procreation, Urination, and over all male enjoyment.

 

Any other questions?

 

 

Gotcha!

 

 

muwahahahahahahahaha

[Alexa]

Knix' date='Apr 13 2006, 10:28 PM' post='50838']

Probahptui, Uribahptui, and over all male enbahptui. (Edited by Alexa's conscience)

 

Any other questions?

Gotcha!

muwahahahahahahahaha

OMG. You EVIL! Worst manoeuvre since Danny Cory cut a hole in the bottom of his popcorn tub!

[RXS]

Ah here we go again. Conservative spin alert:

 

RealClimate

The interesting part is the "plenty to say" link.

 

By the way, that idiotic copenhaben concensus, which consists of economists(!) and lawyers (ok, and a statistician) who claim that by using their "common sense" (yeah, right) they could better the world's problems has long been revealed as a bunch of morons (of course that once more depends on your ideology). When I'm sick, I go to a doctor, not an economist or to a lawyer.

 

And one word to Kyoto. Why not start at some point? The No. 1 when it comes to pollution per head still is the US. But stomp your feet and point to China if you feel better that way.

 

What remains:

The vast majority of scientists working in the field of climate (change) agree that

- global warming caused by human beings is true

- the most likely scenario is the melting of the polar ice which will cause a huge catastrophe

 

The vast majority of US scientists is included in this.

 

I am one of those scientists in your "vast majority of US scientists" and yet I question mainstream opinion based on facts that provide evidence that global warming is not conclusive. You, my friend, may very well be the one is who is dead wrong especially since you seem to regurgitate the same crap the media feeds you. You don't have to be a scientist to pour over and understand raw data. In fact, you are calling these economists, lawyers, staticians, accounts, what have you morons? Very arrogant, short sighted and close minded. You might want to read the article before you automatically dismiss it. Your comments are silly and have little basis.

 

 

And by the way, I don't have to go to a doctor to know that I have a cold.

 

 

From the site you linked to....

You seem to infer that the article by the well-respected Lindzen is less trustworthy because it is in the WSJ which you believe has a distorted or dishonest view of climate change. This to me is 'ad hom'. Further, your claimed openess to legitimate skepticism contradicts your approach under "Getting the balance right.." in which you seem to believe that journalists - who are not scientists - are only right if they take your side and not another. Given that you (as a team) have established this site to put YOUR case demonstrates to me that you accept there is a debate to be argued. Debate is good for science, provided it is genuninely open. Lindzen's article is a good part of the debate.

[Alexa]

I am one of those scientists in your "vast majority of US scientists" and am very close to the issue at hand....and you, my friend, are the one who is dead wrong. You don't have to be a scientist to pour over and understand raw data.

That's why I'm talking about it. The data from all measurement sites in the world (exept the one Crichton has written a book about) points to a global warming, or not? The discussion is about: where does it come from, or am I wrong there? And there are indeed good arguments on BOTH sides. What I'm concerned about is that scientists made an observation, and some scientists get cited saying: just ignore it, it may not be a problem, may just be natural? Hellooooo? We're talking about a problem that could cause the doom of mankind! The discussion is NOT the problem, the denial that IS going on IS. And that, you know that for sure, is NOT science. About the not being scientist to understand the data, read my response to your 'cold' statement.

 

In fact, you are calling these economists, lawyers, staticians, accounts, what have you morons? Very arrogant, short sighted and close minded. You might want to read the article before you automatically dismiss it. Your comments are silly and have little basis.

Yes I do, and with pride. The idea behind their lil' cooperation is not a bad one (indeed I agree something like that has to be done because of our limited ressources), it's just for one their aggressive and rude behaviour (listen to us, we got the solutions, YOU can't handle it bahbah) and their deliberate exclusion of scientists from their work. Yes, let me mock them and say: an expert may 'confuse' their thinking. What they do (or trying to, they badly fail) is pretty much summing up deaths and calculating what can be handled by the international community. And a bad flooding in little populated areas is less dire than the AIDS deaths in Africa, spreading from there. By the way the flooding idea is their own, the real problem could be worse? Not in our model, pal!

 

And by the way, I don't have to go to a doctor to know that I have a cold.

Right you are! And since you are a scientist, you know that the climate system is not an easy one. In fact, the economic system (even a microeconomic system) is way less complex, still there isn't a SINGLE modle that could describe it with just little accuracy. So we're not talking about the equivalent to a cold. More something like a tumor, or a suspected tumor.

 

From the site you linked to....

That site seem to be a gathering of scientists, with open discussions. That's why I found it appealing. Just a note...

 

that you accept there is a debate to be argued. Debate is good for science, provided it is genuninely open.

Yes and: Perfect!

 

Lindzen's article is a good part of the debate.

I try to be as unbiased as I can, but I'm sorry: in many of the articles you're linking, after 3 sentences one can clearly see where it's leading. Indeed (for me it seems) the well-respected Lindzen is the first one to slander his collegues. Sorry if I'm sounding harsh, but that's my reflection of the tone of the articles. May also be an intercultural or language problem.

I did read his article. Did you read the article linked under: 'plenty to say'? A lot of his ideas are getting disproved or corrected there. I have to believe what they, fellow scientist of the field, are saying. And that is just as good!

 

By the way I do have a general problem with journalists (my brother is one by the way). The have the difficult job of being able to understand 'everything' and translate and compile it. Well indeed this may not be what journalism should be about, but nowadays that's their everydays work. And speaking for my science they are doing a bad job there.

 

My opinion:

The slightes hint pointing to mankind being the origin of a desaster justifies all means. I owe that to the world, to flora and fauna and all human beings.

 

 

EDIT: Just checked back to RealClimate, there's another article about the Lindzen one:

Lindzen: point by point

 

Didn't read it completely by now, gonna go shoot some!

[RXS]

I guess the issue I have is with how you opened your original post "Ah here we go again. Conservative spin alert" instead of an open minded "Hmmm, good article from the other side of the debate" as you suggest is important in your most recent post.

 

So moving on, fluctuations in climate have happened before man ever came into the picture. Temperatures on this Earth have historically been much warmer and much colder. If you look at the overall trend, we are actually in a cooling period with a warming "spike" as seen here.

 

Temperature in the Northern Hemisphere over the last 1000 years

 

 

Conditions have become increasingly chilly and erratic over the last 1.8 million years. In the last 1 million years we see about ten Ice Ages, though it's hard to say what counts as an Ice Age.

 

Ocean temperatures over the last 2.5 million years

 

As temperatures get colder, water is taken out of the ocean and redistributed as ice pack on the poles as is evident by the increase in polar ice mass

 

Global ice mass over the last 6 Million and 1 Million years

 

 

 

My point in showing these graphs is to help you understand that it's not all doom and gloom like many in the media portray it as. The ice packs have melted in the past and water levels have risen during warmer times and vice versa during colder times. This is part of the cyclic nature of our Earth. There is some evidence where one might correlate the recent warming to CO2 emissions, but it is far from being conclusive - you might just as easily draw a correlation between increased monkey poop flinging and global warming. My advice is to be careful of the knee jerk, emotional charged reactions - the media has turned this type of behavior into a science and plays you as their pawn when you do. Look at the evidence, remove your emotions and prior conceptions, digest it, ask yourself it makes sense, draw your own conclusions (not the conclusions politicians would draw for you).

 

The reason I found the article particularly appealing is because I have witnessed a lot of the behaviors described by Richard Lindzen - I'm glad he had the balls to put the pursuit of truth in front of his professional career.

[{GD}Independent]

If anyone interested in this debate would like to read an excellent book, I'd be happy to lend them my MP3 version of Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR.

[Alexa]

I guess the issue I have is with how you opened your original post "Ah here we go again. Conservative spin alert" instead of an open minded "Hmmm, good article from the other side of the debate" as you suggest is important in your most recent post.

Sorry, not nice of me but I DO feel that way. See the article about the UN as an institution for corruption and forced sex, right published when a new corruption scandal in the US government occured and new US military torture pictures were discovered. I told you I 'feel' that these articles have a reason. And that reason is not to open a discussion. I MAY be wrong though.

About the debate, yes, important for the people who matter.

 

So moving on, fluctuations in climate have happened before man ever came into the picture. Temperatures on this Earth have historically been much warmer and much colder. If you look at the overall trend, we are actually in a cooling period with a warming "spike" as seen here.

That's one thing I've been wondering about myself. I'd think the data material is too weak to draw ANY conclusions. Still I keep finding statements that say by processing this data material, you can conclude that an unusual warming is happening.

 

Those are really interesting figures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the first figure, the spike that you call a warming spike IS unusually high and unusually broad. And interestingly enough 'starts' at the time of industrialisation (or rather and better: a bit after). I totally understand that the temperatures over a wider period of time would look a lot like the figure of the ocean temperature. Still the first figure shows that spiking anomaly. It sure is a discontinuity. My statistics knowledge doesn't go over the normal correlation (and some special correlations that are done in communications), so I have no idea how to analyze such data. I'd love to see a fourier analysis of this figure, or rather the million years version of it, together with the fourier of e.g. the solar activitiy which as far as I know IS periodic. I believe such things are done by the scientists.

 

I think the whole global warming question is about this: is man's behaviour on earth increasing the warming and changing the PRESENT (+/- 10,000 years) condition for the worse of mankind. From the first figure you posted I'd rather conclude this! That 100,000 years from now a new ice age (or the opposite) may occur is not questioned.

 

There is some evidence where one might correlate the recent warming to CO2 emissions, but it is far from being conclusive. My advice is to be careful of the knee jerk, emotional charged reactions - the media has turned this type of behavior into a science and plays you as their pawn when you do. Look at the evidence, remove your emotions and prior conceptions, digest it, ask yourself it makes sense, draw your own conclusions (not the conclusions politicians would draw for you).

I always do. But this is not simple (or advanced) physics. It's a weak science, guided by statistics (I don't mean to hurt feelings here, but isn't it?) It seems impossible to draw conclusions for yourself from the articles that are available. A bit more cause and effect would do good. And trust me in one thing: politicians and such are the last ones to draw conclusions for me (or that I'd trust to do ).

 

The reason I found the article particularly appealing is because I have witnessed a lot of the behaviors described by Richard Lindzen - I'm glad he had the balls to put the pursuit of truth in front of his professional career.

I don't know who he is, I sure don't like the style the article is written. It's too late now but tomorrow I'm gonna thoroughly read the criticism about his article (and the article again) and will try to build my own opinion as unbiased as I can be. If his points are good I'll accept them.

 

I'm really fond of science and I totally believe that neither side should punish the other or lead heavy attacks. If his work is well founded he won't have too much trouble. If not, I'm sorry, they'll rightly rip him into pieces. You know that this is also a side of science since there's a lot of money involved.