Better put the ice cores back, studies have shown that since we started tracking the global climate change that temperatures have been on the rise.
Obviously it is our method of measuring temperature change that is causing the change!
Better put the ice cores back, studies have shown that since we started tracking the global climate change that temperatures have been on the rise.
Obviously it is our method of measuring temperature change that is causing the change!
Our planet is still moving out of the Ice Age. The 19th century was one of the coldest ever recorded.
I think that the majority of scientists think that mankind affects the enviornment, but many disagree to the extent and the doomsday scenarios.
We could always put it into the same boat as evolution which has never been proven...
"Gawd did it!"
Evolution is proven, the THEORY of evolution (or the theory of the methodology of evolution) has not.
Did anyone catch the PBS program on Solar cooling? Nasty effects of industrial pollution masking global warming. This should be a better topic to discuss.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Yes Whampon,
I did see the PBS program on global dimming.-----basically it said short lived industrial ash leads to more clouds--and less sunlight reaching the surface of the earth.
A Measured 20-30% in many locations in the last 50 years or so. Which fights the global warming caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. Gets really scary about what could happen if we ever melt the methane hydrates locked up in the artic oceans. But this global dimming factor only ads to the complexity of climate modeling.
And worse yet--implies if we stop polluting all of a sudden things get worse not better.
We may dismiss global warming as junk science----which has nothing to do with the probability that it may actually happen and change the earths climate in rather horrible ways.
I did see the PBS program on global dimming.-----basically it said short lived industrial ash leads to more clouds--and less sunlight reaching the surface of the earth.
A Measured 20-30% in many locations in the last 50 years or so. Which fights the global warming caused by greenhouse gases like CO2. Gets really scary about what could happen if we ever melt the methane hydrates locked up in the artic oceans. But this global dimming factor only ads to the complexity of climate modeling.
And worse yet--implies if we stop polluting all of a sudden things get worse not better.
We may dismiss global warming as junk science----which has nothing to do with the probability that it may actually happen and change the earths climate in rather horrible ways.
It is clear that Co2 has something to do with the average temperature in our atmosphere.
If you match these data, which contain the Co2 ppm data from the vostok cores, to this, which is the average temperature, also from the vostok core, there is a clear correlation! As is shown on a graph here.
As you can see here, there's also a distinct correlation with other greenhouse gasses, and solar efficiency.
Now we could stop here and say that gasses have effected the temperature in the past. But i doubt that is true. It is more likely the other way around, that in the past gasses have been controlled by something that controls temperature.
Today ice-ages are attributed to the Milankovich cycles.
Which generally means that the ice-ages are controlled by the amount of energy the sun applies the earth, and where it applies it. There are some uncertainties though, scientists believe this is caused by positive feedback loops (as is said on the page).
But as you can see from this graph a volcano can have massive effects on average temperature.
So far i have proven nothing about global warming. I'll get back later today (it's 8:30 am here) and finish it off.
Yes, there are still unknown factors in the future climate equation. What scares me is changes that may have a chance of going exponential, and we have no clue as to what they are.
Doe anybody remember back a few decades ago when "Global Cooling" was as much of an issue as global warming is today? It was basically unanimously agreed upon as being true as well.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
19th century huh? Not quite the cutting edge of the industrial revolution, not alot of greenhouse gas emitted then either.
Let me ask you this, what benefits do the tree huggers gain by stating that global warming is a credible and very big danger to the world? I know, they want to try to turn the tide on glaciers shrinking, rising sea levels, severe weather, and well, us bipedal morons to be able to survive.
And the second question is, what do the neo-cons have to gain by discrediting it? Hmmm.... lemme think about that.. oh yea, they can continue to get their collective knobs polished by the corporate whores who don't give a shiny crap about it and only how much their portfolio grows.
The Michael Chricton book "State of Fear" answered this question quite effectively, its a good read, a little preachy, but interesting and filled with interesting facts as well. Basically what he said was that human beings at all times must be in a state of fear, IE., have something to be afraid of. The beginning of the "threat of global warming" began immediately after the fall of the Berlin wall (read: the fall of Communism.) The "threat of global warming" community has built itself into its own multi-billion dollar industry, where its CEO's make millions of dollars, and selling is just as important as at your neighboorhood CompUSA. The difference, of course, being that they produce no product and no testable results, unlike the neo-cons that you so readily flame.
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
The amount of money that either side might make as a direct result of either defending OR denying Global Warming is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is that both sides are protecting an interest. Anti-Global Warming industry has just as much or more to lose if the "threat of global warming" is disproved or ceases to be a problem. Once there are people that have staked their livelyhood to a course of action, they will fight for that course of action and therefore their own livelyhood until they die. When you blindly believe in what either side is telling you, without at least hearing out what the others have to say, you are being a fool.
Lets look at a good example.
What areas of the world, for the past 100 years, do you feel have provided the most consistent and accurate measures of daily temperature trends? You can answer by region or by country, whatever youre most comfortable with.
Think about the following issues before you answer, and try to give as complete an answer as possible.
-- Soviet Russia
-- Breakup of the Soviet Union
-- WWI throughout Europe
-- WWII throughout Europe and northern Africa, bombing of Great Britain, concentration camps in and around Germany
-- End of WWII, breakup of Germany into East and West
-- Apartheid in Africa
-- Communism in China, overpopulation
-- Atomic bomb dropped on Japan, rebuilding
-- Creation of Israel as a state, bombings, Palestinian displacement
-- Student uprising against communism in China, slaughter of their own people
-- War in Vietnam
-- Poverty and dictatorships throughout S.America and the Carribean
-- Antartica, harsh climate, not heavily monitored until recently
-- Great Depression in America
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
Ok, first of all, money is relevant. Who has the most to lose? And who has the biggest $$ behind them to push their propaganda. Those who are going to say that global warming is a myth, a fallacy, those are the ones who have the most to lose. Make cars more efficient, or even try to get something to power them other than the archaic internal combustion engine. That would cost the car makers money as well as pulling money out of the pockets of big oil.
Now, those that know that global warming is a very real and relevant threat only stand to lose some face and time and money invested. After it's finally accepted, what money would there be to be made by them?
And what in the hell does the depression have to do with global warming or Apartheid? Not sure where you were trying to go with that one. By the way, since this went OT, my father and mother lived through the depression, so I can have it from the source how it was.
I think NASA and other scientific based organizations provide the best OVERALL climate view. Not 1 country, it's not called Bolivian warming, it's called Global warming.
Now, those that know that global warming is a very real and relevant threat only stand to lose some face and time and money invested. After it's finally accepted, what money would there be to be made by them?
And what in the hell does the depression have to do with global warming or Apartheid? Not sure where you were trying to go with that one. By the way, since this went OT, my father and mother lived through the depression, so I can have it from the source how it was.
I think NASA and other scientific based organizations provide the best OVERALL climate view. Not 1 country, it's not called Bolivian warming, it's called Global warming.
Exactly, thank you for making my point for me.
Who stands to lose more in the long run? Car companies or gas companies that have the infastructure and capital to adapt to a changing market environment? Or global threat corporations that would shrivel and die if the threat was removed? I think the answer is quite obvious.
I apologize if I wasnt clear before. Ill try to rephrase.
In 1910, there were no computers to take automated temperature readings. Everything was done by hand. The man that worked at the collection facility walked outside, held up a thermometer, and jotted down "70F" on a piece of paper that went into a logbook. He did this every day as part of his job, and hopefully if he was sick or had a vacation someone else there would do his job for him. This was the way that GLOBAL temperatures were recorded for most of the past 100 years (and still are in some places.)
What countries or regions, globally, do you feel had the best and most reliable recording methods?
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,080
- 5,453
- 136
Car companies and oil companies would not even consider adapting. Ok maybe auto makers, because they are starting to mass produce hybrids, but the oil companies, no, not a chance.
And I do believe that it wasn't some man taking a thermometer outside 50 or 60 years ago, they did have electronics and ways to read and record it. 60+ years ago, yea, I'd think you could be right, and frankly with all the technology today, they can take samples from the earth (crust and lower) and get readings by soil of what the temperature was like decades and centuries (if not longer) ago. So, your points moot.
And I do believe that it wasn't some man taking a thermometer outside 50 or 60 years ago, they did have electronics and ways to read and record it. 60+ years ago, yea, I'd think you could be right, and frankly with all the technology today, they can take samples from the earth (crust and lower) and get readings by soil of what the temperature was like decades and centuries (if not longer) ago. So, your points moot.
Maybe, maybe not.
How do you know my point is moot? I havnt made it yet.
The answer that I was hoping we could agree on, was that the most reliable longer term daily temperature data is likely from the US. Noone can disregard the *other* data, but when you look at the US data alone you find some interesting results.
Globally, the temperature record shows the average world temperature increasing approximately 1 degree Celcius over the period from 1880-2003. Locally, in America, the increase in temperature has been significantly less, only 1/3 degree Celcius over the same period of time. How do you explain this discrepancy? Do you think the call to action against global warming would be as strong if we had only seen the total change in temperature over 120 years of 33/100th of 1 degree Celcius?
Are you familiar with the so-called "Urban Heat-Island Effect"?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter