Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
In an attempt to enchance the logical part of this debate, i'm gonna make an attempt to put out what evidence we have on global warming.
Let it be known, that i believe in global warming, or atleast, i did untill i wrote this little post. This is the way of logics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
The measure of the average temperature the last 5.5 million years, found by "measurements from 57 globally distributed deep sea sediment cores." They checked them for a oxygen isotpe: "The measured quantity is oxygen isotope fractionation in benthic foraminifera, which serves as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets."
Then compared them to the last 420k years of measurements gotten from the Vostok ice-cores. "The observed isotope variations are very similar in shape to the temperature variations recorded at Vostok, Antarctica during the 420 kyr for which that record exists."
And they thereby reach an average gloabl temperature. The average is set to be around 1950.
What's interesting about this graph (apart from the temperatures we get from the last 5.5 million years) is the fact that there are some very distinct cycles in temperature. Lets just copy paste it so you have what he says:
"Labels are added to indicate regions where 100 kyr and 41 kyr cyclicity is observed. These periodicities match periodic changes in Earth's orbital eccentricity and obliquity respectively, and have been previously established by other studies (not relying on orbital tuning)." For further information on that look at this wiki page.

Now we have the average temperature of the old days, now look at it these days.
Here the data is.
We see a very sharp peak at the end, nearer our time! Now, this does not mean anything, as we do not have the same average as the first graph, atleast i can't see if we do. Not to specific numbers, only by estimating that the 1950 is estimated zero.
But note that all measurements of temperatures show this increase.
The increase is shown here and here, the latter is just a more detailed version of the second.

This page has this data on the temperature for the last few hundred years. Here we can see two things:
The first is that the average is set to cirka 1950.
The second is that the average temperature last year (2004) was 0.455 above average (1950) level. And if we compare this to the first graph we saw in my post, we see that this is an average that has not been seen atleast in the last 5.5 million years.

Now lets examine Co2 outlets, that this is something that i have seen many comments about, especially i remember the ones saying we do not produce nearly as much as what volcanoes produce.
Now look at this graph. It clearly shows a rise in Co2 contents in the atmosphere, which was averagely normal around year 1800, but then started rising. Dramatically.
Now, lets dig this page. Look at the atmosphere part of it. And i quote:
"The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities."

Another thing related is global cooling which was big. And it certainly appears that it might have actually made sense. But since we didn't know about global warming back then, we worried for nothing.
And this shows that some scientists fear that the reason we've not felt global warming that much, is because of the dust in the atmosphere, and that the climate models today are wrong, because we didn't know how much of an impact it created.

Now lets move to the only thing that i see may have some validity! Sun spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation_theory
From what i can gather from those 2 pages, it is hard, if not impossible, to say what's controlling our current weather.
But what i can gather, is that the solar activity has a major role on the average temperature of our dear atmosphere. But what you will notice, is that since the sixties the solar activity has stayed somewhat the same, If not reduced. But the average temperature has increased "dramatically".

Conclusion:
The earths temperature is going up and down as shown in the first graph. We are on the top of one such wave, and now it looks like it keeps going. Because during the past 5.5 million years we have never seen a average temperature this high. And for atleast 420k years of recorded history Co2 has never been as high as it is now.
Now, the fact that this happens at the same time the suns acticity is hitting a high, can mean two different things.
Either that the sun is responsible for this. Or that this is just a coincidence, but it still has something to do with it.
What i have concluded from the data i have seen today, is that there have been some small deviations in solar activity and temperature rise. And it's unlikely, at best, that our sun has suddenly run amok, and increased the temperature in our atmopshere over the last decades.
But maybe this is yet another cyclus of the sun that coincided with our current time?

My end comment will have to be that global warming looks to be real, but that our sun might be responsible for it. There's just too many maybe's when we're talking about the suns influence.
So my opinion would be that we take our precautions, and, for now, pretend that global warming is a fact. Because it might show that the sun is responsible for it in the future, but the case might turn out otherwise.


Disclaimer:
This post is not scientific, i do not have every piece of data ever collected. Therefore it will be much to my joy if any of you would find some data, especially regarding sunspots/solar-activity and more specific temperatures during the last few thousand years.
My conviction is, allthough, that the data i need to form a solid judgement is available, i cannot imagine else. But it's a big world, and many people have many interests.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
just thought i should mention corelation != causation.

Correct. But in science, you draw the conclusions of what data you have. That's why it's so important to be able to change your mind.
And besides, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're most likely dealing with a specimen of the anatidae family.
But it's not for sure.
 

shoegazer

Senior member
May 22, 2005
313
0
0
you said it yourself. but, i think it should be stressed that the correlation between increased solar intensiity and average global temperature falls apart in the past 30 years.



 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Like with almost all environmental issues, "Global Warming" is a scientific problem that requires a scientific solution... if a solution is necessary or possible. Much objective research and study must be done to determine what may be causing it and what its consequences may be. Only then can we decide if it can be stopped, or even if we want it to be stopped.

What shouldn't happen is this: People shouldn't automatically-
--start clamoring about the end of humanity
--assume Man is to blame
--start demanding drastic changes in the way people live.
--politicize the issue in attempts to push their other spurious agendas through
--assume it's a disasterous occurance
--force others to lower or harm their living standards/way of life.

Unfortunately, these are all things the modern Liberal environMENTAL movement does engage in. It's a shame, because it overshadows the good stuff real environmentalists advocate.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
to put this in some perspective...when i was growing up, the enviromentalists were bemoaning the coming of a new ICE AGE with global cooling.....

they also where screaming that the "Population Explosion" was going to result in massive overcrowding and death from widespread famine and lack of sufficient resources.

in the 70's, everyone was saying fossil fuels would run out in the near future.

need i go on...i wonder what the "fad" enviromental cause will be 30 years hence....
 

shoegazer

Senior member
May 22, 2005
313
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
they also where screaming that the "Population Explosion" was going to result in massive overcrowding and death from widespread famine and lack of sufficient resources.

uh...you're kidding right? that IS happening. look at the continent where population is growing the fastest, Africa.

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: shoegazer
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
they also where screaming that the "Population Explosion" was going to result in massive overcrowding and death from widespread famine and lack of sufficient resources.

uh...you're kidding right? that IS happening. look at the continent where population is growing the fastest, Africa.


Maybe you're too young, but the scenario the doomsayers preached looks nothing like the world today. There's more than enough resources for everyone, including Africans.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
read this

BBC

It also projects a population decline in Africa because of the lower life expectancy due to HIV-Aids.

now, granted it's mostly about changes in the rate of growth world wide, and yes, the situation in Africa is tragic, but little of the enviro's gloom and doom from the 60's and 70's has come to pass..

besides, i believe the population growth is fastest in Asia/India
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
254
57
101
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Like with almost all environmental issues, "Global Warming" is a scientific problem that requires a scientific solution... if a solution is necessary or possible. Much objective research and study must be done to determine what may be causing it and what its consequences may be. Only then can we decide if it can be stopped, or even if we want it to be stopped.

What shouldn't happen is this: People shouldn't automatically-
--start clamoring about the end of humanity
--assume Man is to blame
--start demanding drastic changes in the way people live.
--politicize the issue in attempts to push their other spurious agendas through
--assume it's a disasterous occurance
--force others to lower or harm their living standards/way of life.

Unfortunately, these are all things the modern Liberal environMENTAL movement does engage in. It's a shame, because it overshadows the good stuff real environmentalists advocate.



You do sound a lot like Bush; 'wait and see', 'we can't be sure', 'why take action when we don't absolutely know' etc. The thing is that most environmental scientists(at least outside the U.S) are convinced global warming is occuring, and that we are partly responsible. And please realize, that the trend isn't moving towards us being less involved, but rather the opposite. And it isn't happening slowly either, and probably won't be in the near future either, from what most scientists say.
You may think waiting and getting more knowledge before we do anything is the only reasonable way, but fortunately for us all your view is shared by less and less people everyday, or so it seems. The signs are already everywhere; that island-group for example that has halfway been submerged..Holland, heh, and Australia; predicted to get less rain in the coming 100 years, and the U.S..biggest food-producer in the world, isn't it?

I agree with Forsythe: Better do what we can eventhough we do not understand the problem entirely, than look back in 100 years and say 'Yeah, more drastic action was needed earler..now it's too late'.

And please excuse me if I draw unwarranted conclusions, but judging by your points..I think you are saying it's 'a shame more worthy environmental issues are being ignore because of this' not because you rate most environmental issues relatively highly, but because it seems like a good thing to say.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
If cleaner water and air, and understanding global climate change were all the "environmentalists" were after, there would be no problem. Of course, their pleas for harmony with nature go much farther than that. Rather than simply having an enlightened view of pollution and ecology, the environmental movement has become the new, respectable place for all kinds of wackos to further their destructive ends.

What an idea... invent the ultimate crisis and scare the hell out of people to get them to do all sorts of crazy things. It's been going on in one form or another for hundreds of years... I don't buy it. As a matter of fact, I see some of those ecological crusaders with their axes to grind and look into the VERY questionable scientific studies and research... and the thousands of scientists that have have been 'kicked out' for questioning their methods and findings. Look into how the whole movement has been politicized by philosophic kooks and crooked politicians. It's the new religion- incredibly dogmatic and complete with an armageddon. Only this religion has the ability to knock all of humanity down to level of cavemen.

I'm not saying climate change shouldn't be an issue. I'm saying it's being hijacked by idiots who harm the concept, and render it a joke of an issue.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
You do sound a lot like Bush; 'wait and see', 'we can't be sure', 'why take action when we don't absolutely know' etc.

actually, your wrong...that is not what Bush has done, in fact Bush has done something significantly more important that the ridiculous Kyoto treaty to improve the enviroment.

Beyond Kyoto

...Kyoto, signed in 1997 and officially ratified last year, has no future.
Many of the world's most prolific emitters of greenhouse gases, including China, India and South Korea, were exempt from the requirements of the protocol. The US and Australia have rejected it. And even noisy advocates, like France, Italy and Canada, are nowhere close to meeting the treaty's targets. The EU's emissions rose 3.6% between 2001 and 2004 (those in the US fell).

To reach Kyoto's drastic goal of cutting emissions by 2012 to levels 5% below those of 1990, developed nations have no choice but to slash energy use. That means slower growth, even widespread recession, with especially dire consequences not just for rich nations, but, worse, for poor nations that rely on demand from the developed world for their goods and services.

The Beyond Kyoto pact, by contrast, seeks to "address energy, climate change and air pollution issues within a paradigm of economic development." Specifically, the deal will concentrate on the technology that will help China and India, especially, to increase the efficiency of their energy use. Currently, these countries produce twice as many emissions as the US for each unit of GDP..
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
254
57
101
Of course the world's biggest polluter wouldn't want to put caps on emissions, eh?

In the words of Bush himself: ""But I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers.""

About the new pact:
'The non-binding deal includes no Kyoto-style limits on emissions and no timeframes.'

You can tell it's good anyway though, when China says something along these lines:
"China, which fears environmental restrictions could hamper its fast-growing economy, called the new pact a "win-win solution" for developing and developed nations."


Then there are off course those with other views:

""The main beneficiaries will be Australian coal companies, some of the world's biggest greenhouse polluters. It's a Machiavellian pact," said Clive Hamilton, director of The Australia Institute research centre.

Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew, whose country is a strong proponent of Kyoto, said he did not see the pact as a threat to Kyoto, which was first agreed in 1997 and came into force in February when Russia ratified it.

"This is progress, but I'm still waiting for the meat. I hope very much that there will be meat," he told reporters."


I don't think it's an inherently evil pact, I just hope it doesn't take focus away from Kyoto, which does indeed have goals.


Oh, and I didn't find much support for your figures on the web, but I did find this at the EEA website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/executive_summary.html

If you don't want to read it all, at least look at this picture. It gives a clue on how figures can, albeit in a rather unsophisticated manner, be angled: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/images/figure_es2l.gif

This one is could of course also be taken to mean many things
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/figure_es3.html


I guess I'm not really saying that Kyoto is particularly good when 'developing' countries like China and India don't have to adhere to the emission caps; just that environmental issues in general are turned to smoke and mirrors in front of Bush and his loyals.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Many studies have been completed, and the studies point to the fact, that all the gasses we humans let into our atmosphere, effect our climate by reflecting the longwaved lightwaves back at our earth, once it's passed as short waved.
What we can do is to lessen our output of said gasses.

What i see as the problem, is what you're saying, that more studies need to be done.
We have had many years of study, and it all points to one thing. The way modern science discovers things, is by denying options. That's why we had the fear of global cooling, which turned out to be a valid fear, but at that time we didn't know anything that denied it, namely global warming.

What we should start doing when we get evidence for such a thing as global warming, we should find out what the consequences would be of such a thing.
Therefore, if we are objective, we cannot ignore the fact that it very much so appears that man is to blame, and to change it, we only would require the changes that we see as sufficient to stop the beforenamed global warming.

And it clearly shows me that you are not depolitizicing this when you start talking about what liberals apparently are doing (no i'm not a liberal).

You talk about waiting and seeing untill we do more research, but that has already been done?!

These are not enviromentalists, these are scientists. And you claming that they need some place to "further their destructive ends" is just not sane.
They have not invented this crisis, i cannot see how you can ignore all the numbers i have posted here.

The new threatening crisis is simply human nature, and i seriously doubt that the scientists are the one to blame for making it grand, i assume it's more likely the supporters of the theories, but sadly, they exist.

And you talk about very dubious scientific findings about ecology, and many thousands of scientists that were kicked out because they apparently didn't find the things they were supposed to you claim.

The more i listne to you the more it all sounds like wishfull thinking, a feeling you have about being deliberatly lied to by scientists and educated people cannot be described as anything but paranoid, indeed which is what you claim those liars to be. And the fact that you have an apparent will to ignore anything scientific, and not take the numbers up for consideration again shows me that you have it in you to deny anything about global warming, because we're only inventing numbers to annoy you.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
You do sound a lot like Bush; 'wait and see', 'we can't be sure', 'why take action when we don't absolutely know' etc.

actually, your wrong...that is not what Bush has done, in fact Bush has done something significantly more important that the ridiculous Kyoto treaty to improve the enviroment.

Beyond Kyoto

...Kyoto, signed in 1997 and officially ratified last year, has no future.
Many of the world's most prolific emitters of greenhouse gases, including China, India and South Korea, were exempt from the requirements of the protocol. The US and Australia have rejected it. And even noisy advocates, like France, Italy and Canada, are nowhere close to meeting the treaty's targets. The EU's emissions rose 3.6% between 2001 and 2004 (those in the US fell).

To reach Kyoto's drastic goal of cutting emissions by 2012 to levels 5% below those of 1990, developed nations have no choice but to slash energy use. That means slower growth, even widespread recession, with especially dire consequences not just for rich nations, but, worse, for poor nations that rely on demand from the developed world for their goods and services.

The Beyond Kyoto pact, by contrast, seeks to "address energy, climate change and air pollution issues within a paradigm of economic development." Specifically, the deal will concentrate on the technology that will help China and India, especially, to increase the efficiency of their energy use. Currently, these countries produce twice as many emissions as the US for each unit of GDP..

This article is preposterous.
Saying that there's no way to cut emmisions but to curb energy use i directly false. Many things can be done, such as installing certain filters, improving the way cars burn fuel, using public transportation can also help, alot.
The thing about Kyoto is that it allows poor nations to develop, meanwhile the biggest poluters, cannot.
A country that cannot do this, and still be economically viable is a country that has no stability. We've managed to do so in denmark, you should damned well be able to do so in the US.

And you must remember, that the EU has many new countries, and most all of these countries can let out more gasses, which would be my guess as to why it has climbed.
 

MicroChrome

Senior member
Mar 8, 2005
430
0
0
Sadly this subject has been beaten to death...

Tell it to bush and *his* religious science team. Don't worry about it... Move along! Mooooooooo! Nothing to see here... Let's keep making our V8 Dodge Ram Pickups and SUV's and pretend like everything is perfect! Oh, and let's not tell america that solar panels will save huge ammounts of $$ on energy. Why can't bush give a HUGE tax break for people that buy 60 MPG cars and install solar hot water heaters?

Hmm...
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
So many GW threads... So little time.

Thanks for trolling though.

Just trying to smarten you up. See, we're (were anyways) in a cycle, as you can see from the very first link. This.
An suddenly, without any real explanation, we left that cycle. Coinciding with industrialisation.
And yes, it is true that we've had very high levels of co2 in our atmosphere, but we are talking more than 50 million years ago, that means it's data irrelevant to the current heating/colling cycle we are in.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
I'm just wondering because noone is even trying to respond, maybe everybody is convinced.