|
How Come No One Will Admit To Global Warming? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| Purple, I understand what you're getting at as far as the U.S. being the biggest offender, but I don't understand why U.S. action has to be mandatory before anyone else in the world lift a finger on their own behalf. If you want to change the world, do something about it. Don't point a guilty finger at someone else as a reason why you can't do something yourself. Lead by example, not by accusation. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Never one for passing on the chance of scornfully ridiculing your opponents?
Anyway, as I wrote in my answer to Neo, when talking about rock solid science, I'm talking about greenhouse gases ability to reflect heat emission. Unlike Neo, you have been told so before (in the thread I linked to), and there's really no excuse for misrepresenting my statement, and then attack this representation.
That being said, I'd sure like to address your arguments, but they're kind of vaguely stated, so it's like fighting ghosts. For instance, I took a look at the IPCC report, to see how it addressed the science of greenhouse gases, but I found no statements about unusable models in any of those sections? I did see that the entire report had a chapter on model critique. This is to be expected of a scientific report, and from what I saw there, it was most dutifully explained, so that the assumptions for the strengths of the conclusions of the report were quite clear? |
Well, I don't disagree that the "greenhouse effect" exists. However, that fact in itself is not very useful unless we can determine with greater specificity the contribution of different greenhouse gases have, rather than as a collective, and the specific effects, across all time frames, that industrial emissions of each of these gases independently has on the different (but in some cases related) equilibria that govern the presence of each of these gases within the atmosphere, and furthermore, the specific contribution of the greenhouse effect towards various climatological phenomena both historically, and in the future.
We, however, cannot, and consequently claims about the actual effects of current and future industry on the environment are highly speculative, at best, and very much departed from the "rock solid science" which prompted it.
| quote: | | As to the relationship between CO_2 and average temperature over time, I'm unsure of what specific study/posed problem you're referring to. I could certainly think of explanations for such a lack (e.g. the estimated CO_2 concentrations must have been calculated from some model itself, there's other greenhouse gases, melting of ice takes up a lot of energy, etc.), but with no clear definition of setting it's useless. |
Well, for some reason this data hasn't gotten a lot of attention (it is conspicuously absent from the IPCC TAR without explanation, for one), but it's pretty basic paleoclimatology:
C02:
Temperature:
As you can see, the C02 declined steadily (yet was a good 15 times higher than today) even as the global temperature dropped by 10°C during the Ordovician ice age, and CO2 continued the same trend, even as the temperature rose back another 10°C to the same level it was before. And although declining CO2 looks like it might have had some effect on the next ice age (around 300 million years ago), the increase in temperature following that ice age does not appear to have been triggered by a large jump in CO2. And given that even if CO2 and temperature were not interrelated at all, it is likely that we'd see some temporary correlations over such a great period of time, the data is even less indicative of CO2 as a driving force behind major climate shifts.
Of course, this should not be taken to mean that CO2 does not have any effect upon the climate - but only that other and as-of-yet unproven factors may have a much larger role in determining climate shifts. Because such a factor or factors are not remotely understood, we must concede to have a very limited understanding of climate change. Hence, we should neither dismiss CO2 as a contributing factor to climate change nor assume that current climate trends are due primarily to CO2 emissions (or any other greenhouse gas, for that matter.)
Further research is clearly necessary, but it seems rather pointless to attempt to adjust our behaviors based on such a limited understanding of the issues at hand. |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Purple, I understand what you're getting at as far as the U.S. being the biggest offender, but I don't understand why U.S. action has to be mandatory before anyone else in the world lift a finger on their own behalf. If you want to change the world, do something about it. Don't point a guilty finger at someone else as a reason why you can't do something yourself. Lead by example, not by accusation. |
I understand, but you see not all Indians/Italians are Mother Teresa.
As for seeting example, Japan did it, and look what they got in return; an economic stagnation / slowdown and deflation. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
As I see no one seems to have brough it up before:
Global Dimming
| quote: | | Global dimming is a term describing the gradual reduction in the amount of global hemispherical irradiance (or total solar irradiance) at the Earth's surface since the 1950s. The effect varies by location but worldwide it is of the order of a 5% reduction over the three decades 1960-1990; the trend has reversed during the past decade. Global dimming creates a cooling effect that may have led scientists to underestimate the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. |
I watched a documentary about this on TV just the other week. Never heard of it before. This environmental scientist (one Dr. David Travis) took the chance to measure the differences in temperature across the US during the days after 9/11 when all air traffic stood still. The result was an astonishing increase in the temperature window (lowest to highest temperature during a 24 hour period) during the days.
You can read the transcript of the documentary here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/pro...ing_trans.shtml
I thought it was quite interesting so I thought I should mention it. Puts another dimension to the debate I think. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, for some reason this data hasn't gotten a lot of attention |
Do you have some reference to/name of the article where this data is introduced/discussed? The figures alone doesn't tell me much about the dynamics assumed for the estimates. |
|
|
| stren |
| Global freezing is how i would call it. It was rediculously cold in the past 2 weeks -20C :nervous: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Do you have some reference to/name of the article where this data is introduced/discussed? The figures alone doesn't tell me much about the dynamics assumed for the estimates. |
Sure thing, for information on the history of CO2 in the atmosphere I used Robert Berner's figures:
Berner, R.A., 1997, The carbon cycle and CO2 over Phanerozoic time: the role of land plants. Phil. Trans. Royal Sc. Ser. B, v 353, p. 75-82
More in-depth discussion of how the figures were determined was published previously:
Berner, R.A., 1994, "GEOCARB II: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time". Am Jour Sci, v 294, 56-91.
The temperature chart was created by the PALEOMAP project found at http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Climate risk 'worse than thought'
Scientists warn of Greenland, West Antarctic ice sheets melting
Monday, January 30, 2006
LONDON, England (AP) -- The threat posed by climate change may be greater than previously thought, and global warming is advancing at an unsustainable rate, a report by scientists published Monday says.
The UK government-commissioned report collates evidence presented at a Meteorological Office conference on climate change last year. It says scientists now have "greater clarity and reduced uncertainty" about the impacts of climate change.
In a foreword, Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was clear that "the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought."
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialization and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable," he wrote.
Over the next century, global warming is expected to raise ocean levels, intensify storms, spread disease to new areas and shift climate zones, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter.
The U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says temperatures rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century. Computer modeling predicts increases of between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees and 5.8 degrees Celsius) by the year 2100, depending on how much is dome to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Scientists have warned of climatic "tipping points" such as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting and the Gulf Stream shutting down.
In the British report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that the huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by 16 feet (five meters).
Rapley said a previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report playing down worries about the ice sheet's stability should be revised.
"The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern."
Blair's vow to put climate change at the center of the international agenda during Britain's leadership of the G8 and the European Union last year met brought only a limited response.
He was unable to overcome the Bush administration's antipathy to the Kyoto climate-change accord -- rejected by the U.S. government on the grounds it would damage the economy. British ministers also have acknowledged that Britain is unlikely to meet its own target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/e...e.ap/index.html |
|
|
|
| daffodil |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
In the end, we can say that we need to be careful, but there is no way to draw a real conclusion as to if and why the Earth's climate is changing.
|
I don't think there can be any question that the Earth's climate is changing, but it's seems like no one has asked the most important question: Is there any significance?
The Earth goes through climate cycles. Everyone is familiar with ice ages, right? So the Earth warms up and cools down. We're looking at a 50 to 100 year slice of climate data--hardly a statistically significant sample. The Earth has an active core that creates earthquakes and volcanoes, thereby allowing life to exist here. Our climate is not meant to stay the same. Just because something is changing doesn't mean it's bad.
It doesn't mean it's fine, either. We could be irreversibly damaging the planet through pollution, but clearly there needs to be much, much more research done on the various compounds and their cumulative effect and the current attitude of American conservatives ("There is no such thing as global warming! We say it's not true so it's not worth investigating.") is dangerous for all of science. I don't think this can be debated in earnest until there is some much more significant research out there. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by daffodil
I don't think there can be any question that the Earth's climate is changing, but it's seems like no one has asked the most important question: Is there any significance?
|
I think the answer to that question is yes. While we can’t really say for certain that man is responsible for the current global warming trends, we can say that man will be responsible for the severity of the damage inflicted upon the biodiversity of this planet as global warming occurs. The fact that we have infringed upon the ecological habitats of so many species is a cause for alarm in itself, however, once we factor in the disruptive influence of global warming, we could very well see a number of species unable to cope with both ecological disruptions in tandem. The Economist had an excellent article on this topic not too long ago:
| quote: |
Not-so-cold mountain
Richard Leakey | NAIROBI
From The World in 2006 print edition
Conservationists need to rethink strategies for protected areas in response to global warming
Kilimanjaro, unfrozen in time
For thousands of years Mount Kilimanjaro has had its characteristic snow-and-ice-covered dome. Ice cores indicate that the glaciers have been there for over 11,000 years. In 2006 a lot of the ice will melt. It is projected that no permanent ice will remain by 2015.
Unfortunately, the ice appears to have been quite closely linked to the local hydrology and of particular concern is Kenya’s famous Amboseli National Park, which lies at the foot of this great mountain. It seems likely that the fresh-water springs and swamps will be affected, along with the water table in this generally dry and dusty park. Some 1,500 elephants are dependent on this area and they have nowhere to move to.
Similarly, in other parts of Kenya once-permanent rivers are now seasonal and this is having a serious impact on the survival of large numbers of creatures. Our dry months are getting longer and hotter, and the desiccation of the land is getting worse. The onset of our two seasonal rains is coming later. And when the rains do come they are often episodic and very heavy, so there is massive flooding and loss of topsoil. And then it’s dry again.
As the human population increases, more water is being taken off the dwindling rivers close to their highland sources. There is a serious question as to the long-term viability of many of the savannah national parks in Africa. As much as the entire human enterprise is based on the assumption of a stable climate, so too the parks and protected areas set up to conserve wild nature are based on the assumption that they will be secure and stable places. That simply is not so. Like Mount Kilimanjaro, Glacier National Park in America is melting and by 2030 may well have no glacier. We must urgently rethink the way we are protecting nature. Sadly, very little is currently known about the real capacity of protected areas to maintain biodiversity where climate change is taking place.
We are at the beginning of a period of great extinctions. Scientists believe that climate change will alter over a third of the world’s forests by the end of this century, with projections of massive extinctions of countless species. In the polar latitudes, the effects of climate change could be even more dramatic in terms of extinctions.
Conservationists have made strenuous arguments for in situ conservation, but from what we now know this approach may require revisiting. National parks and other protected areas were designated without thought to climate change. Historically, when the climate has changed significantly, species have moved if they could. Sometimes—if the climate change was too extensive or if migration was obstructed by geographical barriers such as mountains or rivers—movement has been impossible and extinction has been the result.
Climate change is not a new phenomenon. Countless times throughout the aeons of prehistory climates changed, species became extinct and evolution continued. The difference today is that the world is inhabited by close to 6.5 billion people and natural ecosystems have been severely fragmented. Biodiversity has been concentrated in small refuges, many of which are in effect islands. These islands are hemmed in not by oceans but by human development. The geological record tells us that during previous periods of climate change island populations have fared worse than mainland ones and have suffered greater rates of extinction.
Might new boundaries and perhaps corridors for migration help provide a solution? This does not mean that the existing national parks and other protected areas are for naught or have completely lost their relevance, but they must be modified to buffer climate change. In the less developed tropical countries land-use planning and zoning are probably the only remedies. Government action, particularly in areas adjacent to national parks, could make the difference between rivers drying up or continuing to flow all year round, for instance. This is politically sensitive in areas of great poverty, where short-term opportunistic land use is the norm. But in many national parks adjusting the boundaries, even in a relatively modest way, might improve the prospects of their animal populations.
I suggest that we are looking at something like a slow-moving but global tsunami of unimaginable force that will totally change the planet. The pressure on the land as a result of increasingly high-density human populations; the huge areas of land given over to cultivation and industry; the restrictions to wildlife movement and gene flow within fixed boundaries—all of these factors are turning a process of change into a crisis.
And yet our understanding of the threat in different parts of the world is poor. Which species are most at risk? What is the tolerance level for particular species? Whereas an elephant has an unquestioned ability to adapt, can other species that have a dependence on a smaller niche adapt too? If the food chain is broken by the loss of intolerant species, what happens? The time to find answers, as for the ice on Mount Kilimanjaro, is running out.
|
We may not be responsible for global warming, but we are responsible for its exacerbated effect on the environment. As such, we have an obligation to do what we can to mitigate its destructive impact. |
|
|
| Clublifexxx |
| Beacuse Oil runs the world thats why...Think about it these so called wars are all because of Greedy people that want oil. Did you know the States has about 50 years of oil reserves left...Think about it, Most of us are in their 20's no, when we are 75-85 the usa will have no more oil left |
|
|
|
|
