More "evidence" for global warming

[dgruss23]

Lilacs (http://www.pressconnects.com/wednesday/news/stories/ne121504s136223.shtml) are blooming 4 days earlier folks. Look out the "interdependence and synchrony" of nature is threatened. Birds and mammals will have to alter their migration patterns, hibernation patterns, eating patterns ... death and destruction in the way. We've ruined natures harmony! :roll: ](*,)

What is it with these people? For goodness sakes, between 1940 and into the 1970's the planet was in a cooling trend. Its hardly shocking that lilacs today would bloom a couple of days earlier now than when we were in the midst of a cooling!

This is just another example of the over-reaching that goes on by those eager to prove the existence of global warming. But really - why bother with lilacs - all they need to do is show evidence that warming conforming to their predictions is happening. But its not ... the cooling between 1940 and the mid-70's contradicts the claim that increasing CO2 leads to increases in temperature. And Satellite/Weather balloon data show very modest change - but a slight cooling the last 20-25 years.

While were at it, has anybody ever stopped to ask - If the ice ages are caused by the Earth's natural orbital cycles, and if the ice cores indicate that CO2 changes mirror the ice age cycles, then doesn't it seem more logical to conclude that CO2 responds to major climate changes rather than forcing major climate changes.

Finally, why isn't the fact that water vapor makes up at least 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect ever pointed out. CO2 is only about 3-4% of the greenhouse effect and humans are only responsible for a small fraction of that!

[Nicolas]

NOt going into the fact whether scientists are right or wrong, the warnings of we destroying the planet have been plenty and inconsistent.

Now we are cooking ourselves, while some decades ago we were freezing ourselves into a frozen dessert by cutting trees. A hundred years ago it was estimated that at the growing amount of traffic, London would be covered by some meters of horse sh*t bwithin 30 years...

Of course we should think about how we handle our planet, and it would hurt no one to pollute as little as possible. The fact that the earth is or is not heating up should not be the only consideration against pollution. If it turns out the earth isn't heating up because of us, does that mean we can burn up whatever we want?

About the earth heating up itself, I just don't know. On the one hand there is the measurements indicating decreasing ozone layer, increasing temperatures etc. On the other hand there is the complex solar cycle, possible factors from within earth itself, things like ice ages, hot medieval periods, etc. And some over-simplified claims of ice melting and hence sea water rising aren't good for the heating discussion either. MY view of it is that at this moment, the temperatures show an increasing trend. Where we are wrt the "average", I don't know. We might be part of the cause, but to me that is not certain. But as I said, we should take care of the planet anyway. I believe the Kyoto has its rights without the earth heating discussion as well. Decreasing smog and acid rain (to name some) never is bad. Plus less polution would allow for different layouts of urban areas and industrial areas.

[electromagneticpulse]

I don't believe in global warming. It's colder then last year but we just get cloudless skys, which makes everything even colder. :evil:

Sorry i'm scrooge as it hasn't even snowed :(

Global warmings no problem at all, it's easy to stop the overall temperature of the planet changing as there is lots of things we could do.

Edit: BTW i do believe in global warming :P

[Glom]

Obviously, being as non-polluting as possible is always a good thing. If you want a bit of irony, considering that the ice age fad of the 70s was blamed on pollution, which has been considerably cleaned up since then, we could argue that current warming trends are the result of the lack of pollution.

The problem with Kyoto is first that it's central premise is fundamentally flawed. Sure we want energy efficiency and stuff, but there are ways that governments could promote it, such as reducing VAT on flourescent light bulbs etc. Kyoto it too totalitarian. It could end up damaging economic growth, which is bad for everyone. Sure, when the Kyoto fad passes, we will see benefits in terms of energy efficiency, but that particular treaty is a deceptive way of achieving those benefits and plays with people's livelihoods.

What we need is less phantom apocalypses and more sensible talk about the best way to do things.

Places like London and Los Angeles are much cleaner and better places to be than they were a few decades ago thanks to the latter.

(Has everyone noticed I've been more calm and thoughtful lately on such issues? I don't want to to turn into what I hate the most.)

[sarongsong]

Here come the lawyers...Arctic people file suit against US...blaming the world's No. 1 carbon polluter for stoking the global warming that is destroying their habitat...

[Fram]

Finally, why isn't the fact that water vapor makes up at least 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect ever pointed out. CO2 is only about 3-4% of the greenhouse effect and humans are only responsible for a small fraction of that!

Not another GW thread, please...
And certainly not one filled with the same arguments over and over again. The 'fact' that water vapour is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (that part at least is a fact), for something between 60 and 80 % (and not 'at least 95%'), is pointed out by every serious study of GW and the serious websites reporting on it, as has been discussed in the GW poll in the 'general science' forum, where you were around as well.
CO2 is about 8-10% of the greenhouse effect (not 3-4 % of the effect), and humans are responsible for one third (not 'a small fraction' by any means) of it.
The greenhouse effect is responsibe for some 30 degrees warming, so CO2 is responsible for some 3 degrees, and humans for about 1 degree via CO2 (and some more via other gases like methane).

You know, it is possible to bash the doomsayers without using these kind of 'facts', and there is quite a huge difference between those doomsayers (and the media reporting) and many serious scientists and studies about global warming.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Not another GW thread, please...
And certainly not one filled with the same arguments over and over again.
17-December-2004, 02:11 PM
;)

[Fram]

My apologies, dgruss23 and everyone else. I thought it was a new thread, and thus my comments. Please ignore my previous post.

It does show the problems that can arise with resurrecting an old thread, though ;-)

[Glom]

Here come the lawyers...Arctic people file suit against US

The usual Great Satan crusades are always political and never scientific for a number of reasons:

1) The US is not the worst on a per capita basis. That distinction goes to either Canada or Australia, although I can't remember which one.

2) The US has the fastest growing forests hence they are actually sequestering more carbon than they're emitting.

3) The US is actually doing better than Europe in achieving the Kyoto targets, not to mention Canada, despite the fact that they didn't sign up.

4) The US is one of the AP6 nations, which means they will do something meaningful for the world by emphasising progress rather than nihilism and prosperity for the world rather than puritanical self-loathing.

[Fram]

The usual Great Satan crusades are always political and never scientific for a number of reasons:

1) The US is not the worst on a per capita basis. That distinction goes to either Canada or Australia, although I can't remember which one.

2) The US has the fastest growing forests hence they are actually sequestering more carbon than they're emitting.

3) The US is actually doing better than Europe in achieving the Kyoto targets, not to mention Canada, despite the fact that they didn't sign up.

4) The US is one of the AP6 nations, which means they will do something meaningful for the world by emphasising progress rather than nihilism and prosperity for the world rather than puritanical self-loathing.

1) Between 1990 and 2002: Australia between 16.2 and 19, Belgium between 6.8 and 10.7, Canada between 14.3 and 16.5, Chiona between 2.1 and 2.7, Germany between 9.7 and 11.2, India between 0.8 and 1.2, Japan between 8.7 and 9.4, Mexico between 3.6 and 4.5, Russia between 9.5 and 13.4, UK between 9.2 and 11.3, and the US between 18.5 and 20.5.
These aren't all the countries (the complete list is here (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_results.asp?rowId=751), but from the major countries (population and/or economic importance), the US have the highest emission rate per capita. Only some small countries (Luxemburg and smaller) and some oil states get (much) higher rates.

2) Deforestation in percentage between 1990 and 2000 (http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_rate.htm): the US forests are growing, but they aren't "the fastest growing forests" with a growth rate of 0.2 %. Countries like Denmark, Poland or Turkey do equally well, and Italy, France, Norway, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK (to name a few) are doing slightly or clearly better (Europe a a whole has 0.1%, so very slightly behind the US: the world average is -0.2%, the same as Belgium, sadly). Still, the US is doing quite allright in this respect.

3) I have not been able to find good sources about this (neither confirming nor denying) with some searching, so I'll not comment on it.

4) Google does not find the terms "AP6 countries" or "AP6 nations", and the first 100 results for AP6 gave nothing that resembled this either. Can you please elaborate, as I don't know what you mean?

[Monique]

Lilac Effect (LE) is well known. It become standard metric to monitor progress of global warming. As LE continue to increase, ocean level rise, hurricanes increase, ozone hole get bigger, and bathing suites get smaller.

;)

[Taks]

when someone shows an actual (valid) temperature record that supports GW theory, i may begin to believe. until then, the only "evidence" that indicates as such are temperature proxies, which are inherently flawed (particularly the tree ring proxies from north america).

the latest and greatest proxies, btw, actually seem to show a recovery from the LIA beginning in about 1600, and cooling since about 1940 or so... hmmm (see moberg on this... rather interesting tale with that paper as well).

taks

[Taks]

so CO2 is responsible for some 3 degrees, and humans for about 1 degree via CO2 (and some more via other gases like methane). which is, to put it bluntly, unproved.

You know, it is possible to bash the doomsayers without using these kind of 'facts', and there is quite a huge difference between those doomsayers (and the media reporting) and many serious scientists and studies about global warming.difficult to call an unproved thesis "fact." but you are correct in stating that the serious science and doomsaying are a bit divergent on this issue.

taks

[Doodler]

Not sure if its been subjected to independent confirmation, but wasn't there an ice core taken recently that demonstrated extremely elevated CO2 levels in recent years as compared to the last few hundred thousand?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yes, but that elevated level occurred after a warming trend. The heating caused the release of CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 did not cause the warming trend.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

1) Between 1990 and 2002: Australia between 16.2 and 19, Belgium between 6.8 and 10.7, Canada between 14.3 and 16.5, Chiona between 2.1 and 2.7, Germany between 9.7 and 11.2, India between 0.8 and 1.2, Japan between 8.7 and 9.4, Mexico between 3.6 and 4.5, Russia between 9.5 and 13.4, UK between 9.2 and 11.3, and the US between 18.5 and 20.5.
These aren't all the countries (the complete list is here (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_series_results.asp?rowId=751), but from the major countries (population and/or economic importance), the US have the highest emission rate per capita. Only some small countries (Luxemburg and smaller) and some oil states get (much) higher rates.
United States Virgin Islands - 2002 - 91.9...

Wow...

[Nicolas]

Lilac Effect (LE) is well known. It become standard metric to monitor progress of global warming. As LE continue to increase, ocean level rise, hurricanes increase, ozone hole get bigger, and bathing suites get smaller.

;)

And recently I read that for the first time since the measurements the Ozone hole did not get bigger this or last year...accompanied by a doomsday explanation.

(CNn.com and possibly another source as well)

[Fram]

when someone shows an actual (valid) temperature record that supports GW theory, i may begin to believe. until then, the only "evidence" that indicates as such are temperature proxies, which are inherently flawed (particularly the tree ring proxies from north america).

the latest and greatest proxies, btw, actually seem to show a recovery from the LIA beginning in about 1600, and cooling since about 1940 or so... hmmm (see moberg on this... rather interesting tale with that paper as well).

taks

They are inherently flawed, but still you present those that seem to support you? Strange...
And how would you reconstruct temperatures before 1800 except by proxies?

Anyway, I haven't found any yet that show a colling since about 1940 or so, unless you stop around 1970.
Take for example this one (http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Annual/HadCRUG.gif) from the UK meteorological services, or another one (http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/HadCRUG.gif) from the same source (but based on Jones and Moberg 2003: so apparently Moberg does not give cooling since about 1940).

From the abstract of Jones and Moberg (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=016&issue=02&page=0206) (2003) (bold mine):
The rate of annual warming for global land areas over the 1901–2000 period is estimated by least squares to be 0.07°C decade−1 (significant at better than the 99.9% level). Warming is not continuous but occurs principally over two periods (about 1920–45 and since 1975). Annual temperature series for the seven continents and the Arctic all show significant warming over the twentieth century, with significant (95%) warming for 1920–44 for North America, the Arctic, Africa, and South America, and all continents except Australia and the Antarctic since 1977. Cooling is significant during the intervening period (1945–76) for North America, the Arctic, and Africa.
So do you have a better source to claim that Moberg indicates a cooling since about 1940 or so?
The 2005 Nature study perhaps? I haven't read it, but I found some comments on it, like this one (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050207/pf/433562a_pf.html) from the Nature website (bold again mine):
The analysis is likely to reignite a long-standing controversy over the cause and extent of natural climate variability, scientists say, although the unprecedented nature of global warming since the mid-1980s remains unquestioned. The study was conducted by Anders Moberg of Stockholm University, Sweden, and his team (see page 613, and News and Views on page 587).

[mugaliens]

How much of global warming is real and how much has been sold to solicit grants for further studies and continued employment?

Anyone ever heard of this?

[Monique]

How much of global warming is real and how much has been sold to solicit grants for further studies and continued employment?

Anyone ever heard of this?
How much caused by humanity and how much caused by natural cycle?

[five_distinct]

How much caused by humanity and how much caused by natural cycle?

How much is caused by natural cycle and how much is caused by a really big-a pizza pie?

[Monique]

How much is caused by natural cycle and how much is caused by a really big-a pizza pie?
Not much evidence for pizza. Significant amount of evidence for natural cycles related to current glacial period.

[five_distinct]

Not much evidence for pizza. Significant amount of evidence for natural cycles related to current glacial period.

Owned by evidence.

I'm going to do more research into my pizza theory though, you'll all see me in Scientific American in two years!

[Monique]

Owned by evidence.

I'm going to do more research into my pizza theory though, you'll all see me in Scientific American in two years!
I tell you for true, I be very interested to read article in Scientific American.

[Philip A]

Owned by evidence.

I'm going to do more research into my pizza theory though, you'll all see me in Scientific American in two years!

I'm not sure pizzas count as theory. I'm fairly convinced they are fact... ;)

[LurchGS]

heh, you are confusing 'fact' with 'law'... you use facts to develop a hypothesis. You use MORE facts to develop a theory FROM that hypothesis (assuming you don't destroy the hypothesis in the fact finding process).

Once you can show the theory is valid under all circumstances you get a law.

Here, five_distinct is using the fact of pizza existance to hypothesize about global warming. I'm not sure I'd buy into a giant pizza, any more than I would buy into a giant cow... but lots of little pizzas... it's as good a hypothesis I've heard.

[HenrikOlsen]

That they are the cause for the variations in climate is theory though. Or more correctly a hypothesis.

[LurchGS]

exactly

[five_distinct]

heh, you are confusing 'fact' with 'law'... you use facts to develop a hypothesis. You use MORE facts to develop a theory FROM that hypothesis (assuming you don't destroy the hypothesis in the fact finding process).

Once you can show the theory is valid under all circumstances you get a law.

Here, five_distinct is using the fact of pizza existance to hypothesize about global warming. I'm not sure I'd buy into a giant pizza, any more than I would buy into a giant cow... but lots of little pizzas... it's as good a hypothesis I've heard.

Yes, perhaps not a big pizza...but a lot of really small pizzas, perhaps party-sized or even as small as medium, would have an adverse effect on our world's average temperature.

[LurchGS]

now we just need figures to support the hypothesis. How much energy is spent in the two primary types of pizza oven (brick and conveyor) on a given day, and how much waste heat is there in any given size of pizza... then we need to determine aproximately how much heat the pizza generates as fuel in our bodies