Global Warming
- Thread starter alley cat
- Start date
It's actually been colder recently than usual. I heard something about this on the radio a short while back and they were talking about the global temperatures having dropped enough to "erase all of the global warming of the past 100 years." A quick google search, "cooler temperatures global warming" provides lots of opinions. Most are quick to point out that the cooler year is an anomoly and not an actual reversal.
I wouldn't suggest for a second that global warming isn't happening; however, when I was a kid we were told that the glaciers were creeping forward inches or feet every year and we'd eventually be facing an ice age; the biggest threat to our security was supposed to be Russia.
One thing remains sure, it just keeps spinning around.
I wouldn't suggest for a second that global warming isn't happening; however, when I was a kid we were told that the glaciers were creeping forward inches or feet every year and we'd eventually be facing an ice age; the biggest threat to our security was supposed to be Russia.
One thing remains sure, it just keeps spinning around.
Sitkaspruce
Well-Known Member
It'a a Conspiracy Theory that the government has set up so that they can add a "Carbon Tax" to our all ready high gas prices and people who have mass transit will not complain.
Felt like global warming was not around the other night as we got snow here in Port McNeill on Thursday night.
SS
Felt like global warming was not around the other night as we got snow here in Port McNeill on Thursday night.
SS
I noticed that the last few years they have been talking about climate change and not global warming anymore. I guess they realized that this climate change process does not necessarily mean warmer weather everywhere and all the times. Damn, all those palm trees that I planted lately in my yard may not do so well after all? And what about my private boat ramp and dock I built beside my driveway in anticipation of rising ocean levels - I am still 2 km from the beach! Damn!
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
part of it alley cat is that the global increase in temperature is very small so we will not notice it (yet) - its less than a degree, something like 0.47 or 0.77 celcius with an increase of 0.17 per decade (and increasing) last i heard. so the natural temperature flux from year to year is much more noticeable than the global warming increase, which is why it can still be a generally cold year.
however, this does not mean it is not important - this is a global average and due to climate dynamics and changes, some places are going to "feel it" much more than others. The polar caps obviously feel it much more as they have much less ice than they did 50 years ago. Also, as a side point, the critical temperature increase is about 2 celcius - this means that when we hit 2 degrees, the earth will enter a positive feedback loop which means we cannot stop further warming. The estimate for this mark is around 2030 (depending on global population and habits). pretty crazy stuff eh?
Anyways, i hope that answers your question
however, this does not mean it is not important - this is a global average and due to climate dynamics and changes, some places are going to "feel it" much more than others. The polar caps obviously feel it much more as they have much less ice than they did 50 years ago. Also, as a side point, the critical temperature increase is about 2 celcius - this means that when we hit 2 degrees, the earth will enter a positive feedback loop which means we cannot stop further warming. The estimate for this mark is around 2030 (depending on global population and habits). pretty crazy stuff eh?
Anyways, i hope that answers your question
Sushihunter
Active Member
Because for the last year or so, we have been COOLING.
We have cooled enough to wipe out the global warming of the last 100 years or so.
If you want to look at a cause of global warming, look at the sun - not man.
And stop listening to Al Gore and David Suzuki - they are not climatologists!
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
sushi - do you just really enjoy arguing with me? or do we just happen to have opposing views.
global warming is real and we are causing it. solar activity is responsible for an estimated 7% of global warming and we are the rest. this image is from a 2007 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report: (http://www.climateark.org/shared/docfeed/ipcc_report.pdf)
Anthropogenic means cause by man - clearly, solar irradiance is minor.
Al Gore and David Suzuki should not be categorized in the same group.
Al Gore is simply a spokesman for climatologists and a passionate environmentalist - more people will listen to him than some random climatologist so he is the figurehead. and don't even say he's in it for the money - have you heard of "Virgin Earth"; a competition put out by Gore and others to design a method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. the winner gets 25 million.
David Suzuki is the head of his foundation, which obviously deals with climatologists regularly. He himself is an experienced scientist with a PHD and his interpretation of the data brought to him by climatologists is valuable. again, he speaks because people will listen to him as appose to an unknown climatologist.
sushi did you learn about solar irradiance from the documentary "the great global warming swindle"?
alley cat,
this page has the answer to your question and some others - it contains responses to typical myths and questions about climate change. your question is just over half way down the page.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
global warming is real and we are causing it. solar activity is responsible for an estimated 7% of global warming and we are the rest. this image is from a 2007 IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report: (http://www.climateark.org/shared/docfeed/ipcc_report.pdf)
Anthropogenic means cause by man - clearly, solar irradiance is minor.
Al Gore and David Suzuki should not be categorized in the same group.
Al Gore is simply a spokesman for climatologists and a passionate environmentalist - more people will listen to him than some random climatologist so he is the figurehead. and don't even say he's in it for the money - have you heard of "Virgin Earth"; a competition put out by Gore and others to design a method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. the winner gets 25 million.
David Suzuki is the head of his foundation, which obviously deals with climatologists regularly. He himself is an experienced scientist with a PHD and his interpretation of the data brought to him by climatologists is valuable. again, he speaks because people will listen to him as appose to an unknown climatologist.
sushi did you learn about solar irradiance from the documentary "the great global warming swindle"?
alley cat,
this page has the answer to your question and some others - it contains responses to typical myths and questions about climate change. your question is just over half way down the page.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Thats an interesting graph ; I started this thread due to the huge amount of information and misinformation out there , most of us on this site debate and respond in a pretty respectful manner and that is why the query was put out.
Information is knowledge and not every one is right nor every one wrong Thanks for the graph again.
AL
Information is knowledge and not every one is right nor every one wrong Thanks for the graph again.
AL
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
Mr. Chris, "climate change" is a euphemism for "global warming."
Guess who made "climate change" popular, and continues to do so in order to protect the interests of big oil companies? Anybody[?][?][?]
Guess who made "climate change" popular, and continues to do so in order to protect the interests of big oil companies? Anybody[?][?][?]
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
Anyone who is even remotely interested in this issue really ought to watch the CBC's Fifth Estate program "The Denial Machine." Here's a link to it, and you can watch it right on your computer. I promise it will be time very well spent.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
Dave H
Well-Known Member
And for those who looked at the link posted by LastChance, here's a bit about the guy in question.
Note how he claims to be the world's best sea-level expert in the link by LastChance but in reality his academic career was mostly on ancient earthquake activities etc.
Typical of the paid deniers to make themselves out to be experts on stuff they really aren't.
Take care.
Classification: Global Warming "skeptic"
Nils Axel-Morner
Water dowsing expert
Axel-Morner, James Randi and "dowsing"
Axel-Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. Axel-Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Research and Background
Axel-Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Axel-Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.
Axel-Morner and the NRSP
Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
DeSmog uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Note how he claims to be the world's best sea-level expert in the link by LastChance but in reality his academic career was mostly on ancient earthquake activities etc.
Typical of the paid deniers to make themselves out to be experts on stuff they really aren't.
Take care.
Classification: Global Warming "skeptic"
Nils Axel-Morner
Water dowsing expert
Axel-Morner, James Randi and "dowsing"
Axel-Morner claims to be an expert in "dowsing," the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig. Axel-Morner's attempt to prove his dowsing abilities is chronicled by James Randi, the well-known myth buster, who has offered the longstanding One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
Research and Background
Axel-Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Axel-Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.
Axel-Morner and the NRSP
Listed as an "allied expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."
DeSmog uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are registered energy industry lobbyists and senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.”
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that link red monster, thats an interesting documentary - it pretty much confirms the suspected.
Lastchance,
thanks for posting that page, it is always good to see the opposition; however, i also question its quality - for example, go to the bottom and click on "global warming myth" - it takes you to an article by Fred Singer, who is a major player in the video red monster posted and is documented receiving money from Exxon, although he denies knowing it. anyways, he praises "the great global warming swindle" which is british documentary that received ALOT of criticism. this is a link to wikipedia summarizing the criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gr..._criticism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms), although, it is a dry read and makes up most the the page. some examples are misrepresenting scientists' interviews and just plain not true statements, such as the fact that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. he was also busted extending graphs from NASA to fit his agenda, of which the actual graphs oppose. anyways, the only reason i say all this is because this documentary is very convincing and i hate the idea of peoples minds being changed by it - while not knowing the truth about it. I'm always up for hearing alternative takes on issues but IMO, that whole site is corrupt and has poor credentials.
Lastchance,
thanks for posting that page, it is always good to see the opposition; however, i also question its quality - for example, go to the bottom and click on "global warming myth" - it takes you to an article by Fred Singer, who is a major player in the video red monster posted and is documented receiving money from Exxon, although he denies knowing it. anyways, he praises "the great global warming swindle" which is british documentary that received ALOT of criticism. this is a link to wikipedia summarizing the criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gr..._criticism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms), although, it is a dry read and makes up most the the page. some examples are misrepresenting scientists' interviews and just plain not true statements, such as the fact that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. he was also busted extending graphs from NASA to fit his agenda, of which the actual graphs oppose. anyways, the only reason i say all this is because this documentary is very convincing and i hate the idea of peoples minds being changed by it - while not knowing the truth about it. I'm always up for hearing alternative takes on issues but IMO, that whole site is corrupt and has poor credentials.
Time
Well-Known Member
Not to detract from the foregoing, but the "fact" of global warming is not something that willappear tomorrow (we had snow showers today, how does global warming explain that?), but it is a long term trend. The most obvious signs will be not warming per se, but more extreme weather patterns.
How serious? In our lifetimes? Don't know.
Err on the side of caution?
Carry on like all is good?
Your choice.
But they seem to be blaming poor salmon returns on poor (warmer) ocean temperatures, which is a consequence of global warming (or climate change, to avoid a terminology conflict).
Do you buy that?
If so, oppose global warming.
Get a rowboat, sailboat, downsize etc.
(I already have [but not for salmon fishing].)
But all of our individual actions probably mean squat in terms of global energy consuption/green house gas emissions etc.
What to do?
How serious? In our lifetimes? Don't know.
Err on the side of caution?
Carry on like all is good?
Your choice.
But they seem to be blaming poor salmon returns on poor (warmer) ocean temperatures, which is a consequence of global warming (or climate change, to avoid a terminology conflict).
Do you buy that?
If so, oppose global warming.
Get a rowboat, sailboat, downsize etc.
(I already have [but not for salmon fishing].)
But all of our individual actions probably mean squat in terms of global energy consuption/green house gas emissions etc.
What to do?
Sushihunter
Active Member
We do have opposing views.
As for CO2, you, (and Al Gore/David Suzuki, et al) are confusing Cause with Effect. Higher CO2 levels come AFTER higher temperatures-they are not the cause.
Also, how do you explain the parallel melting of the ice caps on Mars? I'm pretty sure I have not been driving my gas gussling SUV there any time recently.
Sushihunter
Active Member
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion...=8926a1d3-f43f-4f8b-811d-0a0daa3e1012&k=39580
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.
lgunter@shaw.ca
Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.
Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.
These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.
It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)
When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.
So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.
In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.
A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
But if the oceans aren't warming, then (please whisper) perhaps the models are wrong.
The supercomputer models also can't explain the interaction of clouds and climate. They have no idea whether clouds warm the world more by trapping heat in or cool it by reflecting heat back into space.
Modellers are also perplexed by the findings of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily over the entire surface of the Earth, versus approximately 7,000 random readings from Earth stations.
In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.
I'm not saying for sure the models are wrong and the Argos and satellites are right, only that in a debate as critical as the one on climate, it would be nice to hear some alternatives to the alarmist theory.
lgunter@shaw.ca
Similar threads
