|
How Come No One Will Admit To Global Warming? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shamen DJ's |
As someone interested in Meteorology I have looked at all the weather records for
Toronto ( 1840 - 2005 )
Goderich,ON ( 1866 - 2005 - good because it lacks urban heat island )
London, ON ( 1870 - 2005 )
Sarnia, ON - Port Huron, MI ( 1830 -2005 - no major urban heat island )
Baltimore ( 1817 - 2005 )
Detroit ( 1820 - 2005 )
I actually graphed out the data, and even added a few degrees to the pre
1900 data to add in the current heat island effect to the urban stations. All those cities have had significant warming since 1820, except for some reason the 1820s, 1930 - 1955 periods were very warm, we have since 1998 exceeded even those years in the Great Lakes - Mid Atlantic Regions. This warming has been very conservative compared to the Western United State, Western & Arctic Regions of Canada where there has been a steep warming trend starting even before 1977, 78, 79 when the east was getting its coldest winters ever recorded. As for the rest of the world, warming has been uneven but significant in many places. Even in Africa, in a few years all the Glacial Ice on Mt. Killimanajaro will be all melted, in fact Glaciers are receding on almost every mountain range worldwide. Many high altitude tropical forests are now dying since the trees on those high slopes cannot adapt to warmer temperatures and have no where to migrate. Alot of the animals in those forest, especially tree frogs in Costa Ricas high mountain forests are rapidly becoming extinct.
As for who has had the most warming in the past 100 years - Alaska.
In many places the permafrost is melting, and it is causing homes to sink. Much of interior Alaska is now 7 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
One thing that confuses people is the effect of local fluctuations.
- During 1816 the volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora blocked out enough solar energy reaching the earth surface to cause "the year without a summer in West Europe & eastern United States. Snow fell in Boston in July for the only time ever. This gave birth to the theory that meteor strikes and cycles of volcanic activity have caused the start of previous Ice Ages. Luckily by 1819 the sulfuric acid cleared the upper atmosphere and the earths temperature rebounded to pre greenhouse averages. The eruption of Mt. Krakatoa in Indonesia also caused the freakishly cool weathr during the mid 1880s in the East U.S. The very cool 1872 - 76, 1902 - 05, 1912, 1963, & 1992 also coincided with volcanic activity.
- The extremely mild 1820s in the Great Lakes & Mid Atlantic were likely the results of a stronger westward moving Bermuda high resulting in record heat & drought in those regions. During theat period no effect occured on the worlds glaciers meaning that other parts of the world may have been avrage to cooler than normal at the same time.
- The 1930s brought the hottest driest summers until 2005 in much of Midwest North America, at the same time other parts of the world had below normal temps.
- In 1949 & 1950 the East U.S. barely had any winter at all, while in the West repeated arctic outbreaks brought them their coldest winters recorded to this day.
- During January 1977 Cincinnati, Ohio averaged an incredible 20
degrees colder than normal during the coldest winter ever in the east. During the same time Fairbanks, Alaska was warmer than Detroit, and ski resorts in the Rockies closed due to lack of snow, and much of the western U.S. suffered a drought emrgancy. The cause was an El Nino that caused only the west to warm, and artic air to circulate around the Western ridge. Just a few months later southern Ontario had its warmest spring til 1991, 1998.
The difference now, it that we have alot of months when almost entire continent of North American is warmer than normal at the same time.
Climate fluctuations no longer are balancing the worlds temperatures.
2005 was the warmest year world wide, in fact all the warmest years recorded have been since 1980. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Here's my "thing" when it comes to global warming. We have direct, reliable weather measurements only dating back the last 100 years or so. Considering that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, that means we have been able to directly observe and record environmental change for 0.000002% of the Earth's existance. Even if you take into acount roughly 40,000 years of "indirect" observations, you still only have a timeline the conincides with 0.008% of the Earth's existance.
I for one find it hard to make any kind of real models showing current trends and how they conincide with the Earth's overall climate model with such little data. Now...should we be stupid and do things that could potentially harm the environment? No, but it is hard to make any real assumptions based on 2 trillionths of a percent of climatalogical data. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Here's my "thing" when it comes to global warming. We have direct, reliable weather measurements only dating back the last 100 years or so. Considering that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, that means we have been able to directly observe and record environmental change for 0.000002% of the Earth's existance. Even if you take into acount roughly 40,000 years of "indirect" observations, you still only have a timeline the conincides with 0.008% of the Earth's existance.
I for one find it hard to make any kind of real models showing current trends and how they conincide with the Earth's overall climate model with such little data. Now...should we be stupid and do things that could potentially harm the environment? No, but it is hard to make any real assumptions based on 2 trillionths of a percent of climatalogical data. |
Exactly.
For all we know, this IS normal... |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Here's my "thing" when it comes to global warming. We have direct, reliable weather measurements only dating back the last 100 years or so. Considering that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, that means we have been able to directly observe and record environmental change for 0.000002% of the Earth's existance. Even if you take into acount roughly 40,000 years of "indirect" observations, you still only have a timeline the conincides with 0.008% of the Earth's existance.
I for one find it hard to make any kind of real models showing current trends and how they conincide with the Earth's overall climate model with such little data. Now...should we be stupid and do things that could potentially harm the environment? No, but it is hard to make any real assumptions based on 2 trillionths of a percent of climatalogical data. |
and
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Exactly.
For all we know, this IS normal... |
Ok. We have observed roughly 0% of the celestial body movements since the dawn of time, and the same goes for the position of near-Earth objects (like you, me, eagle #2567342, and leaf #18 from below of the birch tree outside my window on September 18th 05:37:42:000 GMT) relative to Earth. How could we ever conclude on something like gravity, or how objects interact? In fact, using the reasoning that you "skeptics" do, I find it nigh on impossible to conclude anything at all about this world. (Feel free to give me an example where we have more than 0.000000001% of observations. Yes, for f*cks sake, give me just one.)
I feel kind of stupid for keeping defending god damn solid science over and over again, when the only victims of stupidity and a resulting severely demolished eco-system are future generations whom I don't care about in particular. Maybe it's because of the sheer stupidity and arrogance that these "oh, nothing has been proved for once and all, so I'll keep acting irresponsible"-arguments seem to be based on, and the fact that so many people using these arguments are seemingly capable of walking around freely in society. Maybe it's because of the fundamental selfishness that lies beneath the arguments. But please, if these are the best arguments that you've got, STFU and leave the debate to scientists. |
|
|
| Vlad |
I have my own theory about why there is global warming...
I believe that the axis of the earth is shifting. I believe that not only does the Earth rotate/spin, around this axis, but I believe that after thousands of years, the axis shifts back and forth, or just shifts in a particular direction. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
and
Ok. We have observed roughly 0% of the celestial body movements since the dawn of time, and the same goes for the position of near-Earth objects (like you, me, eagle #2567342, and leaf #18 from below of the birch tree outside my window on September 18th 05:37:42:000 GMT) relative to Earth. How could we ever conclude on something like gravity, or how objects interact? In fact, using the reasoning that you "skeptics" do, I find it nigh on impossible to conclude anything at all about this world. (Feel free to give me an example where we have more than 0.000000001% of observations. Yes, for f*cks sake, give me just one.)
I feel kind of stupid for keeping defending god damn solid science over and over again, when the only victims of stupidity and a resulting severely demolished eco-system are future generations whom I don't care about in particular. Maybe it's because of the sheer stupidity and arrogance that these "oh, nothing has been proved for once and all, so I'll keep acting irresponsible"-arguments seem to be based on, and the fact that so many people using these arguments are seemingly capable of walking around freely in society. Maybe it's because of the fundamental selfishness that lies beneath the arguments. But please, if these are the best arguments that you've got, STFU and leave the debate to scientists. |
There's a big differnce between laws of physics that are supposedly constant through time (don't get Einsteinian with me) and continually fluctuating changes that can't be described and predicted using conventional or common laws. Even those "fixed" laws are constantly being modified, as in the case of Pioneer 10 leaving the solar system 400,000 miles off course. We have gone through changes in the notion of gravity as we passed from the age of Netwon to Einstein and now even more so with quantum theory.
What I'm getting at is the best we can do is what we have now. Maybe someday our science will be able to put a definite all-encompassing law on gravity, and maybe even make a fully functional climate model. However, right now we don't have that. We don't have "god damn solid" science on this issue, or I assure you this would not be a topic of conversation. Right now we have very limited "science" on the matter, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it is very weak science. We are able to say that today is warmer or cooler than yesterday, but we can put very little context behind it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I feel kind of stupid for keeping defending god damn solid science over and over again |
You probably should feel that way, especially given that even the dubious IPCC Third Assessment Report concedes, in practically every section, that model uncertainties require more critical assessment than is currently possible in order to draw reliable and specific conclusions regarding many issues related to global warming.
Of course, there's also the small matter of their failure to explain the overwhelming lack of correlation between recorded climate variations and the reconstructed pCO2 in the phanerozoic eon...
But I suppose small things like 500 million years of geological history aren't that relevant to a true believer, or a sufficiently motivated "scientist." |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
How could we ever conclude on something like gravity, or how objects interact? In fact, using the reasoning that you "skeptics" do, I find it nigh on impossible to conclude anything at all about this world. |
Really we cant conclude anything about gravity, except for some of its affects. Physicists are baffled at what gravity really is. Sure its the "Attraction between two bodies" but what does that really mean? Science is not sure.
Pop science and true science are two completely different things.
For example lets consider one of the axioms of the Theory of Relativity: One of the few things in the universe that is consant and absolute is the laws of Physics. Yet the "Laws of Physics" are constantly changing, Einstien himself shattered many misconceptions about physics and alter the "Laws of Physics" as well. However the laws of physics are not changing; merely our understanding of them is changing. Just because today we believe that E=mc^2, doesn't mean that tomorrow someone will discover that E does not.
You said that it was "nigh impossible" to conclude anything about the universe if we follow the logic that says we have practically 0% of the observations made. While what I am about to say depends on your definition of "conclude", this is true. It is "nigh impossible" to conclude anything about the universe and it is the hubris of man that suggests otherwise. Just because something has not happened since the dawn of history does not mean it wont happen one day, one year, one eon from now.
New things is science are being discovered every day and every once in a while everything that we thought about this world comes crashing down becuase of something someone thinks up or discovers.
Think about this: long ago we thought that light moved through an ether. Tests were made and this theory sastified some tests and failed others. We had no idea what atoms were, what electromagnetic fields were. We had no idea what gravity was. Yet we knew that light illuminated the dark, we knew that it we leaned on a wall we wouldnt fall into the wall, and if we dropped a ball if would move towards the ground. Today we know much more but even more questions are being raised and like "long ago" we are really just recording and understanding the actions and interactions of the world around us.
We "know" that light is both a particle and electromagnetic. We "know" that we dont fall throught that wall becuase of the repelling of like charges in the atoms. We know that gravity is the attraction between two bodies that is inversely proporational to the distance between them. Yet the "why?" and the "truly how?" still astounds us and we have no answer.
You don't believe me? Ask your physics professor why a positive charge is attracted to a negative charge and why when dealing with quantum physics many attractions are directly proportional to distance instead of inversely?
Edit: Dang it. I see two have already beaten me to the punch. Darn yous! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I feel kind of stupid for keeping defending god damn solid science over and over again, |
As the others have eloquently stated, nothing is unambiguous in science.
The only facts we can conclude are based on the data we collected within our tiny slice of time.
I was never a firm believer in the dogma of "terrestrial scientific fact" as it's always being dispeled by the wonders of nature.
Call me a romantic if you wish, I see myself more as understanding our true place in this world; to look in awe and make of it what we can. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Some good points being raised in this thread.
First of all, before we go any further, I think it's important that everyone acquaints themselves with at least the basic science behind the theory of anthropic global warming (this Wikipedia article is a pretty good place to start). Unless we're fairly clear on what the incontrovertable facts of the matter are, then this discussion won't get very far.
From my own perspective, I was fairly "agnostic" about global warming (in that I wasn't really committed to one perspective or another) until a couple of years ago. Now, however, I think the evidence is strong enough to say that the Earth is, on average, getting warmer and that the best explanation for this sustained climatic anomaly is human activity. As several people have said before, the evidence for this is nowhere near conclusive, but - as it stands - anthropic activity is the best explanation for the rise in global temperature that we've seen over the past century, and especially over the past decade or so. I can't see any other mitigating circumstances that can account for this gradual change in climate (increased solar or volcanic activity, eccentricities in the Earth's tilt or orbital path etc.) and none of the other explanations that I've encountered seem to be particularly credible or well supported. While, as I said, the evidence is hardly substantial enough to make this a fait accompli just yet, the fact is that the theory of anthropic influence is the best one that we currently have to explain the climatic anomalies that we're witnessing. If anyone thinks they've come across a better explanation for the available data, then I'd like to hear it.
I think the more contentious question is not whether anthropic global warming is actually happening right now, but what the best course of action to rectify this problem might be. I'm skeptical about the Kyoto protocol (too much expense for too little gain), although I do agree with binding emissions targets and global treaties more generally (unless the entire planet is working towards the same goal, then it's going to be difficult to reduce overall emissions). There are some, however, who credibly argue that such agreements aren't necessary. I read this article in the paper a few weeks ago:
| quote: | During the past 30 years, the US economy grew by 50 per cent, car numbers grew by 143 per cent, energy consumption grew by 45 per cent and air pollutants declined by 29 per cent, toxic emissions by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide levels by 65.3 per cent and airborne lead by 97.3 per cent. Most European signatories to the Kyoto Protocol had greenhouse gas emissions increase since 2001, whereas in the US emissions fell by nearly 1per cent.
[...]
Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees? No. Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving. Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world's economies.
For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps. When Earth had icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were higher. Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm times. Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300? Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present? Which part of the 120m sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced? To attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science. |
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...55E7583,00.html
I do not think the author is so much questioning anthropic global warming here, as he is questioning the merits of the proposed solutions to it, and raises some good points in the process. The "environmental" movement shoots itself in the foot by attributing every single local climatic anomaly to global warming (when it's global trends we're interested in) and by running fear-based campaigns that the scientific community has frequently proved to be without merit. To be honest, I think this is where most of the reluctance to accept the likelihood of anthropic global warming comes from - clueless environmentalists who employ bad science to further their own prejudiced agenda. Every time one of these idiots is shown-up as a liar (or, at best, as being scientifically illiterate) it undermines the growing scientific consensus on the issue, creating the illusion of controversy where really the facts are now largely settled. To be honest I consider "green" political parties and groups to be "environmental fundamentalists", every bit as worthy of derision as religious fundamentalist groups. They have a world-view to propogate, and they won't let facts get in the way while they do so.
It is, however, important to point out that the vast majority of the scientific community is in no way affiliated with these groups, and that it's important to distinguish between hard, scientific fact and the irrational dogma of a few leftist loonies. Most of the scientists who accept the reality of anthropic global warming have no political agenda, they've just reached conclusions based on the facts made apparent to them.
Anyway, that's just the way I see things as they currently stand. I'll add more as it comes to mind. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I think this is a great start...
| quote: |
from the January 11, 2006 edition
Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
BOSTON – Isaac Berzin is a big fan of algae. The tiny, single-celled plant, he says, could transform the world's energy needs and cut global warming.
Overshadowed by a multibillion-dollar push into other "clean-coal" technologies, a handful of tiny companies are racing to create an even cleaner, greener process using the same slimy stuff that thrives in the world's oceans.
Enter Dr. Berzin, a rocket scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. About three years ago, while working on an experiment for growing algae on the International Space Station, he came up with the idea for using it to clean up power-plant exhaust.
If he could find the right strain of algae, he figured he could turn the nation's greenhouse-gas-belching power plants into clean-green generators with an attached algae farm next door.
"This is a big idea," Berzin says, "a really powerful idea."
And one that's taken him to the top - a rooftop. Bolted onto the exhaust stacks of a brick-and-glass 20-megawatt power plant behind MIT's campus are rows of fat, clear tubes, each with green algae soup simmering inside.
Fed a generous helping of CO2-laden emissions, courtesy of the power plant's exhaust stack, the algae grow quickly even in the wan rays of a New England sun. The cleansed exhaust bubbles skyward, but with 40 percent less CO2 (a larger cut than the Kyoto treaty mandates) and another bonus: 86 percent less nitrous oxide.
After the CO2 is soaked up like a sponge, the algae is harvested daily. From that harvest, a combustible vegetable oil is squeezed out: biodiesel for automobiles. Berzin hands a visitor two vials - one with algal biodiesel, a clear, slightly yellowish liquid, the other with the dried green flakes that remained. Even that dried remnant can be further reprocessed to create ethanol, also used for transportation.
Being a good Samaritan on air quality usually costs a bundle. But Berzin's pitch is one hard-nosed utility executives and climate-change skeptics might like: It can make a tidy profit.
"You want to do good for the environment, of course, but we're not forcing people to do it for that reason - and that's the key," says the founder of GreenFuel Technologies, in Cambridge, Mass. "We're showing them how they can help the environment and make money at the same time."
GreenFuel has already garnered $11 million in venture capital funding and is conducting a field trial at a 1,000 megawatt power plant owned by a major southwestern power company. Next year, GreenFuel expects two to seven more such demo projects scaling up to a full pro- duction system by 2009.
Even though it's early yet, and may be a long shot, "the technology is quite fascinating," says Barry Worthington, executive director of US Energy Association in Washington, which represents electric utilities, government agencies, and the oil and gas industry.
One key is selecting an algae with a high oil density - about 50 percent of its weight. Because this kind of algae also grows so fast, it can produce 15,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre. Just 60 gallons are produced from soybeans, which along with corn are the major biodiesel crops today.
Greenfuel isn't alone in the algae-to-oil race. Last month, Greenshift Corporation, a Mount Arlington, N.J., technology incubator company, licensed CO2-gobbling algae technology that uses a screen-like algal filter. It was developed by David Bayless, a researcher at Ohio University.
A prototype is capable of handling 140 cubic meters of flue gas per minute, an amount equal to the exhaust from 50 cars or a 3-megawatt power plant, Greenshift said in a statement.
For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would require a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he says.
Energy security advocates like the idea because algae can reduce US dependence on foreign oil. "There's a lot of interest in algae right now," says John Sheehan, who helped lead the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) research project into using algae on smokestack emissions until budget cuts ended the program in 1996.
In 1990, Sheehan's NREL program calculated that just 15,000 square miles of desert (the Sonoran desert in California and Arizona is more than eight times that size) could grow enough algae to replace nearly all of the nation's current diesel requirements.
"I've had quite a few phone calls recently about it," says Mr. Sheehan. "This is not an outlandish idea at all."
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
|
|
