Atlantis Online
September 21, 2019, 12:09:49 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: USA showered by a watery comet ~11,000 years ago, ending the Golden Age of man in America
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050926/mammoth_02.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

An Inconvenient Truth

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Inconvenient Truth  (Read 3336 times)
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #120 on: April 01, 2007, 08:24:17 pm »



This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations. The most recent documentation for this data set is Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones (2006). "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850". J. Geophysical Research 111: D12106. DOI:10.1029/2005JD006548.  Following the common practice of the IPCC, the zero on this figure is the mean temperature from 1961-1990.

This figure was originally prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data and is part of the Global Warming Art project.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #121 on: April 01, 2007, 08:27:27 pm »



Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each smoothed on a decadal scale. The unsmoothed, annual value for 2004 is also plotted for reference.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #122 on: April 01, 2007, 08:28:49 pm »



Carbon dioxide during the last 400,000 years and the rapid rise since the Industrial Revolution; changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun, known as Milankovitch cycles, are believed to be the pacemaker of the 100,000 year ice age cycle.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #123 on: April 01, 2007, 08:31:56 pm »



Recent increases in atmospheric CO2. The monthly CO2 measurements display small seasonal oscillations in an overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum is reached during the northern hemisphere's late spring, and declines during the northern hemisphere growing season as plants remove some CO2 from the atmosphere.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #124 on: April 01, 2007, 08:33:43 pm »



Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and shows how high levels of CO2 have been sequestered in the form of hydrocarbons (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) now being re-released in the combustion of fossil fuels.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #125 on: April 01, 2007, 08:35:24 pm »



Anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases broken down by sector for the year 2000.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #126 on: April 01, 2007, 08:39:46 pm »



Global glacial mass balance in the last 50 years, reported to the WGMS and the NSIDC. The increased downward trend in the late 1980s is symptomatic of the increased rate and number of retreating glaciers.
Report Spam   Logged
Bee Cha
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3827



« Reply #127 on: April 01, 2007, 08:41:38 pm »



Calculations of global warming from a range of climate models under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #128 on: April 02, 2007, 06:47:58 am »

The Solution to Global Warming
A $10 Billion Sun shield for planet Earth
Last update:  06/11/2006
 

I'm all for it, although I suspect that environmentalism would be tossed out the window the morning after.  Though I question global Warming as offered by the IPCC (and Al Gore), I do not disagree that the planet warms up from time to time or is potentially warming up now.  This would certainly solve that problem and it would leave the buildup of Methane and Carbon for us to continue dealing with.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #129 on: April 02, 2007, 07:32:07 am »

What is the evidence of global warming?
Carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) concentration increasing

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily for 50 years.
First look at the CO2 concentration over 400,000 years from the Vostok ice cores

This is very old information.  One of the most prominent reasons for questioning this is that it shows a cyclic nature in the atmosphere.  Secondly, we have no way of telling from that data, is temperature following CO2 or is CO2 following temperature.  But that's not all that has kept scientists from wondering...  Let's keep going.

Compare this to Mauna Loa CO2 measurements over the last 50 years

Now we are measuring CO2 concentrations in the air and are comparing it to dissolved gases in ice cores.  This is the same thing that always occurs, and it is what gets the emotionally-driven scientists in trouble with the logically minded scientists.  Dissolved gases will always be smaller than concentrated ones, and measuring in the vicinity of an active volcanic ring is a sure-fire way to measure a lot of CO2.  This presentation could have come from the Inconvenient Truth movie, they are comparing extremes.

Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb. (* new 3/22/06*)  Aparently as much as 400 billion tons of methane may be trapped in the frozen tundra in the arctics.  This is about 3000 times the current methane content of the atmosphere.  Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.  The warming and thawing of the tundra may start a chain reaction which could release billions of tons of methane into the atmosphere which would greatly exacerbate the global warming problem.

First, you started out by saying, "What is the evidence of global warming?"  Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence.  The whole "Methane trapped in frozen tundra may be a ticking time bomb" headline isn't science or proof - it's  hype.  What you didn't include was the part where naturally occuring methane dissolves quite rapidly in the lower atmosphere and hardly ever makes it to the upper one.  Only really massive and rapid onslaughts of naturally occuring methane cause this sort of problem and thus far we haven't seen any signs of this; only slow - gradual increases. 

Also because of the density of (natural) CH4, massive releases are predicted to alter the localized weather, causing at first - a cool down.  Only later will they show the effects generated...  Maybe.  The data isn't able to be resolved due to its age.  Furthermore, because of ancient history, they theorize that it may have occurred at least twice before - leading them to question if Global Warming is man-made or of a cyclic nature.  The most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when methane eruptions caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.  The "grand daddy" of these catastrophes occurred 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when a series of methane outflows came close to wiping out all life on Earth...  Maybe.  We see the mass extinction event and we see a lot of methane, but we cannot ascertain which came first.  Again - we have no way of telling what came first - the methane or the temperature increase of 10-12o.

Probably the best argument, in-lieu-of evidence was the following by a friend who is a paleochemist:

"Greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide from increased volcanic activity, warmed the earth and seas enough to release massive amounts of methane from highly sensitive clathrates and gas hydrates, setting off a runaway greenhouse effect in the previous two episodes of rapid global warming.  In both cases, it appears as though the signs first showed up at the poles, therefore this time we should expect to see the same thing (if it is happening again).  Humans appear to be able to emit carbon dioxide in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that initiated these chain reactions in the past.  The U.S. Geological Survey states that, "burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes, the equivalent of an estimated 15,500 additional volcanoes the size of Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii."  If they are right, then it may be mankind that is triggering this new event.  Of course, all of this is assumed, based up the data we have from the past.  The idea that the K/T Boundary Event was caused by a meteor throws a monkey-wrench into the theory.  If the methane did not follow the volcanic activity but came simultaneously, then we are the tail wagging the dog in this new proposal.  It might best be time to turn off the sun till we can sort this all out."

I like him - he's honest.  I'll look through your other posts and comment as I complete them.


« Last Edit: April 02, 2007, 08:51:41 am by 19Merlin69 » Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #130 on: April 02, 2007, 11:00:24 am »

Quote
This is very old information.  One of the most prominent reasons for questioning this is that it shows a cyclic nature in the atmosphere.  Secondly, we have no way of telling from that data, is temperature following CO2 or is CO2 following temperature.  But that's not all that has kept scientists from wondering...  Let's keep going.

Don't confuse things.  The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed.  Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps.  The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #131 on: April 02, 2007, 11:05:04 am »

Quote
Now we are measuring CO2 concentrations in the air and are comparing it to dissolved gases in ice cores.  This is the same thing that always occurs, and it is what gets the emotionally-driven scientists in trouble with the logically minded scientists.  Dissolved gases will always be smaller than concentrated ones, and measuring in the vicinity of an active volcanic ring is a sure-fire way to measure a lot of CO2.  This presentation could have come from the Inconvenient Truth movie, they are comparing extremes.

I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.
Report Spam   Logged
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #132 on: April 02, 2007, 11:10:12 am »

Quote
First, you started out by saying, "What is the evidence of global warming?"  Unfortunately, I do not see any evidence.


Merlin, I think this is the case of someone seeing only what they want to see. Melting glaciers, dying coral reefs, rising ocean temps, all evidence of global warming.  With respect, the scientific disagreement on this isn't anything at all like you suggest, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

By the way, the Supreme Court (a conservative one) just ruled today that governments have the right to curb emissions from cars that cause greenhouse gases.  If that isn't a sign of how opinions on global warming have fallen away from the sketpics, I don't know what is.
Report Spam   Logged
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #133 on: April 02, 2007, 02:51:32 pm »

Don't confuse things.  The link between CO2 and temperatures has been established, however, it is far more complicated than you're presenting it to be. CO2 may not, in itself, always be the originator of global warming, however, it does exacerbate warming trends already present, even if they are natural in origin.

I'm not confusing anything Jason, and - while we're at it, I'm not the one simplifying either.  What you are failing to notice is that there is no data whatsoever that proves CO2 is the catalyst for warming.  There is no proof that CO2 controls temperature - so I have no idea of what you are speaking of.  All we have is anecdotal evidence that says the two have risen  with one another in the past.  We have as many physical models displaying temperature increasing CO2 as we do for CO2 increasing temperature.

Rising CO2 is bad news, if the ice cores are to be believed. 

But that's just the thing...  The ice cores don't say much.  They indicate, as we have already discussed, that temperature and CO2 rose in the past in the same time frames, which hints of a related mechanism controlling both.  What it doesn't say is, "Which came first, or if either is controlled by the other?"  Just as the expert geologist who wrote the article referring to "ticking time bombs" said, 'we cannot be certain of the mechanism, but we have our suspicions'.

Rising CO2 almost always goes with rising temps.  The reason why temps don't always rise at the same rate as CO2 is because there are other factors that also effect weather, volcanic eruptions, for instance, or, as presumed by scientists in the current case, the ocean, which has been said to be absorbing much of the heat from the current warming trend (ocean temps have risen by degrees, too, and the coral reef are dying off).

The problem is the word "almost".  Either they "do" or they "don't".  The fact that they don't always rise together is because the situation is very - very complicated (as I have preached for a long while).  Also, it makes logical sense that CO2 follows temps and not the other way around; as many physical models have predicted.  In that case, the fact that temps have increased and decreased without noticeable CO2 alterations would indicate that there is a threshold to surpass before the effect is made manifest.  The other way around, we are unable to explain 4 episodes of global warming in the past.

Keep in mind Jason - I used to be a standard model of GW supporter...  I changed camps when the data stopped adding up.
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
19Merlin69
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 255



WWW
« Reply #134 on: April 02, 2007, 03:03:38 pm »

I don't see any emotionally driven scientists involved with this, save for the ones on the skeptic side. Think of it, most have presented literally nothing to back up their assertions (except, of course, the propaganda fed to them by the oil companies), but are so certain that global warming is a "hoax."

Oh please, that's absurd.  NO EVIDENCE?  They've done nothing but refute the theory with data!  Are you sure that you aren't confusing media talking heads like Rush Blowhard for "experts" and "scientists"?  I refer only to REAL SCIENTISTS who are not under the influence of the oil industry.  Aside from myself, I know 30+ in my immediate "sphere" that agree that the issue has become 'emotionally charged' to the point that the data is being skewed so that Everything becomes evidence of GW.  Don't confuse what I said - I spoke clearly, you can at least read and comprehend what I took the time to say before ignoring it and responding emotionally.

As for the agenda on the other side, if a scientist saw some other danger coming to the world, an asteroid, for instance, logically, they would try and warn people about it to stop it. Nothing hysterial or emotional about that, it's simple common sense.

You clearly are looking for me to portray this in a negative light, even if I am not.  I did not use the word hysterical - that was your word.  What I said was that the data was being interpreted askew by emotionally-driven scientists.  I didn't call them emotional or hysterical. 

Otherwise - you are comparing apples to watermelons.  If there were an asteroid coming for the planet, we wouldn't be arguing.  There would be evidence to show that a big rock was flying its way toward us.  I'll bet arguments ensue over the best way to divert it though!  In the case of GW, the growing skepticism is due not to politics, but, adherence to standard practices & logic.  We want to see the models making correct predictions and we want to see some evidence showing a smoking gun. 
Report Spam   Logged

Knowledge is a gift to be given; stupidity, a communicable disease.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy