Global warming: Truth or Ficition

[Dare]

Originally posted by lion_roog
From my understanding...the average temperature has risen faster in the last century than during any other time in history.

I remember reading something akin to that in my environmental science classes...but then my teacher brought a good point...
...we didn't always have the scientific knowledge/tools that we have today, so just how accurate are the historical readings/accounts? I'm currently trying to look it up, but most of it seems to be buried in biased gobbledeegook.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Wicked
I remember reading something akin to that in my environmental science classes...but then my teacher brought a good point...
...we didn't always have the scientific knowledge/tools that we have today, so just how accurate are the historical readings/accounts? I'm currently trying to look it up, but most of it seems to be buried in biased gobbledeegook.

Here is a graph I found on Wiki...Not sure how reliable the data is considering it's Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1...Comparison.png

[Darkslash]

From my understanding...the average temperature has risen faster in the last century than during any other time in history.

We can't possibly know that! Any time in history? Say, perhaps, the first century of this planet's existence? Nobody was around to take a measurement. So all we know is that for the time period we have been taking temperatures, we have seen the sharpest rise only recently.

Correlation does not mean causation.

EDIT: This Graph supports a cycle over millenia -- so if we have observed a sharp rise in 100 years, it means virtually nothing in this perspective. That is, if we place our faith in the same scientific speculation that led to both graphs' production.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
We can't possibly know that! Any time in history? Say, perhaps, the first century of this planet's existence? Nobody was around to take a measurement. So all we know is that for the time period we have been taking temperatures, we have seen the sharpest rise only recently.

Well, if you want to get technical about it the first century of this planet's existance would be referred to as Pre-historic. But I don't feel like getting into the semantics of "history".

But your graph is interesting.

[Stormfury]

Both de facto el cartas seem correct. We are technically at an end of a cooling phase. We have surplussed a warming phase expedientially. There is a new cycle infraction to the puzzle. The only thing about antedated materials like all information of a past, it tells nothing about the future. It however can project likeliness, that's about it. An accelerant such as I said "global warming acceleration" could cause an ice age. As it was said before, the catalyst would be us.

I believe like many others; it's far too late, this new infraction cannot be stopped. There are two outcomes in the human psyche, 1.) don't believe -- or 2.) believe in. I believe in global warming/global cooling and our influences; and accepting any fate therein.

[Only-now]

I don't believe there is any harm in questioning our methods and their effects on the environment. Not just in this situation but all situations...it is healthy and will lead to a "better" and more "sustained" Earth to inhabit. At the same time however, I disagree that changes that occur on the Earth (many of which are not fully understood and mapped out..and might not ever be)..that are drastic or unknown to us....should be a) blamed on humanity instantly b) used for political agendas. Obviously...people will continue to do that...but just throwing that out there.

To get to what I believe...I have pretty much always been skeptical that human beings are the main cause of acceleration or any global warming at all. Of course much of the liberal bias, and environmentatlist you hear...love to rant about how our SUVs..and pickup trucks are ruining the world...but once again...all political agenda. I have heard from my parents...as well as rarely on television (since most television is liberal)...that a large majority of scientists don't believe that global warming is our fault...or that it is anything out of the ordinary that shouldn't be happening or is being accelerated by us. Even without much knowledge of weather cycles and the environment...it is easy to understand the concept of a climate cycle. So much of earth runs on a cylcle-like track. Our rotation, revolutions, water cycle, rock cycle, biological life cycle. Plus..with the relatively short amount of time that humans have been here...and with the relatively short amount of time that we actually live (100 years or so)....it is hard to say confidently that this change is one that is new and profound. There is so much time in which we didn't write history...so much we missed..and so much time that we didn't even exist.

Nature is a very powerful force. Human beings have some power to alter, and effect it as well...but in the end...it is very hard to overcome the Earth's processes. So...I would have a hard time believing that we have had a major impact on the climate of the planet...nor do I believe that a climate change (natural or if it WERE our fault) would be anything to worry about to the point we have to question whether we will survive etc.

So...I am throwing my coins in the basket that is labeled "This is a natural occurance in Earth's climatical cycle".

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

Last time I checked, Mt. St. Helens threw into the atmosphere more greenhouse-causing crap than all human activity has ever generated...

[Stormfury]

There's a lot of analogue that supports a global warming accelerant. These carbonic acids build and attain themselves to our savvy and almost indefinite eco-structure. The Phanaerozoic Eon cannot compare itself. There is little reason to compare geological periods because they're vast and ever-changing. Charts have mentioned a sharp incline of carbonization in the Earth's troposphere (383 parts per million stands by volume), about 63+ ppmv since major industries. Within -250 years time. It' is to say; we bare some significance.

Friday that report comes out and I am rather intrigued what it has to say.

[Darkslash]

Of course we "bare" [sic] some significance -- how much, in the grand scheme of things, is the point of contention.

[Stormfury]

What if we could oust or cut petroleum products in the (let's say) next decade? What kind of impact would that have on our global warming environment. ? Currently, the EPA projects a 44% increase from 1990 or a (13 billion metric ton of CO2 equivalent by 2020.) Cutting down emissions would consist of; traveling when necessary, high-priority tree reintroduction, replace methyl t-butyl ether with oxidizing ethanol fuels, et cetera. Formulating a theory on 'how much is too much?' is not scientifically known. But speculation is!

[Darkslash]

The bottom line of what America (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world) will do regarding any change in energy policy is to do what is most economical. Government forcing a change by regulation will not get us anywhere. But tax breaks and entrepreneurship will -- and these have been working. In my state, Indiana, dozens of new ethanol plants have opened because of a business-friendly state government. Job growth is a nice side product of this. But the bottom line is that the private sector will decide what our course will be, not politicians.

(side note: catalytic converters convert nearly all automotive exhaust to C02, yay for another government regulation...)

[Only-now]

The fact that geological time periods ARE ever-changing and vast is exactly my point. Much of the time this Earth has existed we have not been around to observe. That doesn't mean we should just ignore it and say it doesn't play a part. If there were climate cycles that mimic this...then this would not be such a major issue nor anything to raise alarm over. If we could somehow compare those past times with now...well...there would be a whole lot of time to overshadow the small percentage we can look at now. So...my point is that we don't know what happened back then...and it is likely that the Earth worked on these cycles...but even if that was not the case..the simple fact that we don't know sheds some doubt on global warming being significantly attributed to us.

As Darkslash said...sure..we may have played some part...but how big is it? HOW significant is it? We may be adding VERY little..and the observations we are taking simply show a correlation that is not necessarily based on just one factor. Say for instance the Earth is naturally heating..but we are also raising it VERY slightly. Well...if we observe it and wrongly rule out nature itself, then it will look like we are causing a huge increase...when we really aren't.

I don't think anyone has a problem with looking for alternate fuels, or even trying to keep the environment in better shape...but it is much harder than it looks. We can't just instantly change the way we live...or magically find a new fuel source...or convert all the existing facilities to a new fuel source etc. I know you don't necessarily want that instantly or anything...but I do believe that people..and the country in general has nothing against changing over...but as a country....we also have to worry about the cost of all this...and how it effects the citizens. Just for example..and a generalization: Say we were doing something to hurt the environment..not like catastrophicly..but something that isn't really good. Well..if it would cost the country more money, in taxes and projects, and regulations....to the point it would actually hurt the economy...well, I doubt it would happen then. The research is happening..and the time will be right for things to change over. Lets face it...if global warming isn't the issue...we are going to run out of oil/petroleum eventually.

~Kiva

[Pnt]

After reading parts of that new report released a bit ago, I'm more convinced than ever that Global Warming is what happens when politicians get involved with science.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by S0nique
Friday that report comes out and I am rather intrigued what it has to say.

Report Blames Global Warming on Humans:

PARIS (Feb. 2) - International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, called it a "very impressive document that goes several steps beyond previous research."

A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

The 21-page summary of the panel's findings released Friday represents the most authoritative science on global warming. The panel comprises hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The scientists said the changes are "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told The Associated Press in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

Sharon Hays, associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, welcomed the strong language of the report.

"It's a significant report. It will be valuable to policy makers," she told The Associated Press in an interview in Paris.

Hays stopped short of saying whether or how the report could bring about change in President Bush's policy about greenhouse gas emissions.

The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That was a wider range than in the 2001 report.

However, the panel also said its best estimate was for temperature rises of 3.2-7.1 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2001, all the panel gave was a range of 2.5-10.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Trenberth said scientists do worry that world leaders will take the message in the wrong way and throw up their hands. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

"The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don't do something and what will happen if we do something," co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona said. "I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years _ although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases -- this is the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming. But that issue was touched upon in the current document.


2/2/2007 05:43:25 - America Online, Time Warner, Inc.

----

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: AR4 is due soon!

"The BBC has reported that the report will conclude that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

[Only-now]

Doesn't change my mind.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

For all the hoopla about the report, it really does not say anything new, except that it both informs us that it is unstoppable yet we should try to stop it. What a bunch of fluff -- a panel whose mission is to report on the assumed warming of our planet has concluded in accordance with its mission (you see, if they concluded that there was not warming, they'd be out of their cushy UN jobs).

Has anyone ever given a thought to whether our planet's warming will result in a net positive for us? Think of all the new tundra that will now be inhabitable (Alaska, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Antarctica)!

[Only-now]

I know this is old news and such...but I found this on the net. These numbers come from the same sceintists that wrote up this latest report..the IPCC. This scientist believes that most who support human induced global warming are ignoring the exchange between the ocean and vegetation etc. So..he is citing a report here from the group that would now oppose him.

"He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

~Kiva

[ThiagoPE]

I don?t know there but here since the frist day of this year the TVS keeps talking about this subject almost every day! (and I should Care about because if the ocean level increase in the next years my city will be vanished from the map!)

I think they really want to consientize people that we still have time to do something and save the planet while still not too late.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

" Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of sources, and over 95% percent of these emissions would occur even if human beings were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.

As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels."

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Has anyone ever given a thought to whether our planet's warming will result in a net positive for us? Think of all the new tundra that will now be inhabitable (Alaska, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia, Antarctica)!

What about the other parts of the world that will become uninhabitable? Areas near to the sea but only just above sea-level will be flooded much more often, if not completly swamped (Bangladesh for example), never mind Africa with her expanding desert as is. Areas that are extremely hot will get hotter (Sahara desert) and areas that were once ice and snow will become warmer (Antarctica). Ignore the idea that the ecosystems in these areas will vanish faster than an ice cube in the Kalahari of course, think of the very vague and only human benefits to this.

As a biologist, geographer and wildlife conservation student, I believe that Global Warming is a reality and that we have to do something about it. In my opinion, anyone who ignores the signs of this is either ignoring it and hoping the problem will dissapear, or extremely stupid. You have to admit our climate is changing; our seasons are moving/lengthening and its telling in our animal populations, you can't tell me species from warmer climates and environments aren't visiting areas further north. Hell, even I noticed wihout promting.

I'm not saying that humans are the only cause of this and you won't hear me say so. Its a contribution of many factors but humanity is not helping. Cutting down rainforests, carbon emissions and pollution has a detrimental effect on the environment as is, ignoring the possible build-up of gasas contributing to Global Warming.

Sir David Attenborough did a thorough study of this. He himself wasn't quite a believer of it and went into it with a one-off TV programme, delving into the facts and myths about it. Our future is grim unless we do SOMETHING!!

I wasn't going to look into this thread as I could get flamed / lose my temper / sigh at/hit those who wouldn't believe its happening, but ... I did. Wouldn't have this problem if me and STL had sorted out something to do with humanity a long time ago ... <3 STL