Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global Warming a fake?


  • Please log in to reply
290 replies to this topic

#18 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 01:48 PM

This just in; not only is Greenland experiencing accelerated melting, but the glaciers in Norway as well:

Glaciers melting at record rate
It's been a warm summer in Norway, and that's sped up the shrinking process that already had hit the country's glaciers. Experts say the glaciers are breaking up and literally running away at a record tempo this summer.

Read More...

:eek: :D :hihi: :lol: :ud: :boy_hug: :boy_hug:



#19 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 01:57 PM

This could all get very interesting very soon. After all, I personally have never seen an Eskimo with a sunburn not the result of reflection off the snow... :eek:

#20 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 02:12 PM

I heard on a radio talk program that said that the ice caps of the Earth and Mars were both melting. I did a little research and this is indeed the case. http://science.nasa....g_southpole.htm

Since there are no humans on Mars yet, and very little greenhouse gas, maybe the solar energy ouptut is more important than expected with respect to global warming.


Uh...not. Did you read the article?

...Like Earth, Mars has seasons that cause its polar caps to wax and wane. "It's late spring at the south pole of Mars," says planetary scientist Dave Smith of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it."...

This is a regular seasonal event on Mars for even backyard astronomers with a modest telescope. It is not correlated in this article to current increase in solar output. :)

This could all get very interesting very soon. After all, I personally have never seen an Eskimo with a sunburn not the result of reflection off the snow...

It's getting interesting right now. :lol: The rapid recession of sea ice in the arctic is threatening the polar bears and the seals & therefore the livelihood of the Innuit. They face a more critical concern than sunburn.

:eek: :D :hihi: :ud: :sun: :boy_hug: :boy_hug: :lol: :omg:

PS I don't have a link, but I hear that as the permafrost is melting in Alaska & other polar regions the vegetative material is starting to rot & is releasing considerable methane gas.
PPS Here's that link, just a year old:
http://www.guardian....1546824,00.html

:cup: :D :eek2: :eek2: :sun: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:



#21 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 03:55 PM

Here's the thing about carbon from forest fires. The carbon got INTO those trees by coming out of the atmosphere.

Therefore, putting it back INTO the atmosphere is less of a disaster than putting carbon into the atmosphere that's been buried underground for 50 million years.

TFS

It doesn't matter where it comes from the fact is that greenhouse effect refers to atmospheric CO2. It claims that the CO2 in the atmosphere is significan't higher (according to ice core samples) than it has been in the past 400 years (not 400,000 as posted above) because they believe they can go that far back in their core sampling (of course there is no garauntee that they can positively identify a sample from say 1776 because that sample may have melted completely away to expose the previous years sample). They say that it is higher because of human industrialization. What has been provided here is evidence that human production is a drop in the bucket to the wildfires over the past 10 years.

Also the NASA site on the receding of the Polar caps on Mars, does not say anything about them receding more in recent years than in past years. It simply shows that every year the dry ice part of the caps recedes. If you can find a better study and site it that would be evidence against greenhouse effect global warming and for solar effect global warming, but that site in post 15 is worthless in this discussion.

#22 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 06:11 PM

It doesn't matter where it comes from the fact is that greenhouse effect refers to atmospheric CO2. It claims that the CO2 in the atmosphere is significan't higher (according to ice core samples) than it has been in the past 400 years (not 400,000 as posted above) because they believe they can go that far back in their core sampling (of course there is no garauntee that they can positively identify a sample from say 1776 because that sample may have melted completely away to expose the previous years sample).

Actually it is more like 200,000 years they have ice core data for from Greenland. I hear figures as high as 600,000, but here's from the horses mouth as it were:

Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climatic variations reaching more than 100,000 years back in time.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...ummit/document/

:) :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :sun: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:



#23 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 15 August 2006 - 08:30 PM

Actually it is more like 200,000 years they have ice core data for from Greenland. I hear figures as high as 600,000, but here's from the horses mouth as it were:

:) :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :sun: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


November 28, 2005 Researchers have recovered a nearly two-mile-long cylinder of ice from eastern Antarctica that contains a record of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane--two potent and ubiquitous greenhouse gases--spanning the last two glacial periods. Analysis of this core shows that current atmospheric concentrations of CO2--380 parts per million (ppm)--are 27 percent higher than the highest levels found in the last 650,000 years.

http://www.sciam.com...23883414B7F0000

:sun: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :sun: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:



#24 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 08:43 AM

The following websites are on my recommended reading list before you get into any debate on Global warming. These are scientific and blog sites, so read them carefully and extract the viable data from them and the ideas presented for the ACCURACY of data presented.

The simple fact is that while there is reason for some concern, the amount of data is lacking, and the accuracy of that data is of serious concern.

1) The data that is supposed to show CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok, Russia station 11 years ago used a lot of other global data to make estimated guesses at what year each ring on the core referred to. This is because if there were a significant enough warming trend the year after the ice was made, the data for that year could have been completely lost. (After all isn't this what brought up the concern over global warming, that polar caps can and are melting away?) If that really is the case then how can there be 400,000 years of rings?

2) Global temperature readings via land stations and satellites have dramatically increased over the past 100 years (after all we didn't have any satellites to measure temperature 100 years ago.) However, the location of these stations has remained largely urban, and largely land based (not on the ocean or large lakes like the great lakes.) This will of course skew the results. They are also largely northern hemisphere and on the European and North American continent. (map on one of the sites listed below shows them) Also the accuracy of these has greatly increased over the past 100 years, (how accurate was a thermometer made in 1900 compared to the digital type that are constantly recalibrated from 2000.)

The fact of the matter is that there is way more data to be skeptical about it than to be supportive of it. That being said, there is no reason why scientists and businesses alike shouldn't take precaution and reduce the amount of CO2 production by industry worldwide even if it does only contribute 0.28% annually (again see the websites below.)

Does this satisfy you?




http://www.clearligh...s/ice_ages.html

http://oceanworld.ta...eforwarming.htm

http://www.thedailys...l_warming_2.php

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

http://www.fathersfo...A/warming10.htm

http://polynya.gsfc....s_image_10.html

#25 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 08:49 AM

... That being said, there is no reason why scientists and businesses alike shouldn't take precaution and reduce the amount of CO2 production by industry worldwide even if it does only contribute 0.28% annually (again see the websites below.)

Does this satisfy you?

Indubitably. :) I said as much somewhere in one of the myriad threads here on the topic. Maybe we need a new sub-forum for just global warming?:hihi: Global warming; it's here & it's queer.;) :cup:

#26 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 10:21 AM

[SATIRE]
You can post all the links you want about permafrost and ice caps, but that's just a bunch of scientific media frenzy trying to work up agitation on something which is completely and perfectly natural. It hasn't changed for a long long time... even before Jesus... so it won't change any time soon. It's a bunch of hogwash...
[/SATIRE]

Damn it's hot right now... We need a sweaty smilie! :hihi:

#27 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 01:11 PM

Whoa... memory lane needs a driveby from the street sweeper more often :evil:. Here are some other parellel or related ideas that I've presented:

http://hypography.co...0116-post4.html

http://hypography.co...084-post14.html

http://hypography.co...0253-post5.html

http://hypography.co...787-post54.html

http://hypography.co...607-post40.html

#28 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • 2853 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:06 PM

How will we know when it's cold enough? How cold do we want it? Assuming that we are the root cause of global warming, and that we can reverse it, how cold do we want it to be? Not too long ago, New York City would get many feet of snow in the winter, would we prefer that?

#29 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:08 PM

pgrmdave, you addressing anyone in particular?

#30 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6056 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:21 PM

...Also the accuracy of these has greatly increased over the past 100 years, (how accurate was a thermometer made in 1900 compared to the digital type that are constantly recalibrated from 2000.)...

Nope. Not a single percent increase in measurement accuracy. Sorry. This is a famous (and particularly silly) strawman argument fashioned by the 'There is no Global Warming' crowd.

And the reason for this is that mercury have expanded and contracted through heat input exactly as much a hundred years ago as last year. Or the year before. Or today.

The last few years have been the hottest on record. And our records, made with kick-*** reliable mercury thermometers calibrated at the freezing and boiling points of water (which, incidentally, haven't changed over the last hundred-odd years, either) go back a good hundred and fifty/two hundred years. Now what on earth does that tell you? Yeah! There's nothin' wrong! It's all a big hoax!

Err on the side of caution, like my momma always used to say. Because the alternative is unthinkable.

#31 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • 2853 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:41 PM

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not. If there is no determined desirable temperature, then I would think that finding the ideal temperature would be the first priority. If there is an ideal temperature, I'm interested in what it is and how people came to that conclusion. Of course my questions are more directed at those who think that humans can reverse the warming trend, though.

#32 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 14883 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:49 PM

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not. If there is no determined desirable temperature, then I would think that finding the ideal temperature would be the first priority. If there is an ideal temperature, I'm interested in what it is and how people came to that conclusion. Of course my questions are more directed at those who think that humans can reverse the warming trend, though.

On the "good" temperature question, I think giving a temperature answer is silly. One only has to live with one other person in the house to see no agreement is possible even between two on what the ideal temperature is.
Sorry for taking questions not directed directly toward me.:eek2: ;) I think people need to reduce their contributions now and that any schemes to sequester large amounts of carbon consider very carefully the law of uninteneded consequences.:eek: :eek: :fly: :evil: :hyper: :D

#33 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • 6056 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 02:56 PM

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not.

There's no 'good temperature', as far as I know. This is to say if you want to peg down the average Summer/Winter temperatures to a few degrees. It will always vary from year to year. There have been Ice Ages followed by warm ages according to the ice cores, and they have been cycling for millions of years.

The problem comes in when the temperatures climb or fall too quick. A drop (or rise) of a few degrees on average over a thousand or so years is completely natural. The same change over a few decades is disastrous.

The rate of change is the enemy here - but if you want to define a 'good temperature' for Earth, I suppose that'll be any temperature that allows life. Problem here, of course, is that the variation in that specific 'good temperature' will be from -80C to more than 180C if you allow for extremophiles... :evil:

#34 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 03:01 PM

Nope. Not a single percent increase in measurement accuracy. Sorry. This is a famous (and particularly silly) strawman argument fashioned by the 'There is no Global Warming' crowd.

And the reason for this is that mercury have expanded and contracted through heat input exactly as much a hundred years ago as last year. Or the year before. Or today.

The last few years have been the hottest on record. And our records, made with kick-*** reliable mercury thermometers calibrated at the freezing and boiling points of water (which, incidentally, haven't changed over the last hundred-odd years, either) go back a good hundred and fifty/two hundred years. Now what on earth does that tell you? Yeah! There's nothin' wrong! It's all a big hoax!

Err on the side of caution, like my momma always used to say. Because the alternative is unthinkable.


Boer, I don't know what scientific background you have. Thermometers more than 100 years ago were made with mercury. Funny thing, mercury can evaporate. Thermometers break and mercury gets out. So then they started using alcohol in thermometers (and most thermometers in the developed world were exchanged for these new ones). Then along came the personal computer with thermistors which are accurate down to the thousandth of a degree. These coupled with wireless communication made it possible to place electronic (not mercury) thermometers all over the place as long as they had a power line and communications equipment to transmit these things.

Now you ever use a mercury, alcohol, and digital thermometer in a hot water bath? Which one are you going to trust to be accurate? Since every grade schooler in the US has done this experiment and realized that the glass tubes holding the liquids can move up and down according to the scale just by picking the thermometer up off a shelf, they all learn to use the digital. Then when they learn how easy it is to calibrate the digital by running a simple piece of software, and that they can get an accurate reading down to the thousandth of a degree, verses maybe an inaccurate tenth using a liquid based thermometer, they never go back.

Now besides the innacuracies of the measuring device, let's consider number of devices and locations. 100 years ago, how many locations were attempting to record an accurate temperature? Were these recording the temperature of the ground or the air? Were they dry or were they being affected by relative humidity? Were they in urban environments only or were they spread equally all across the surface of the earth (land and sea)? You go draw up a bath of water and vary the temperature while your filling it and stick one thermometer in after you are done. Is that thermometer going to accurately read the temperature of the entire bath? NO. Just one single point. Will data based on that point represent the trend of the entire bath? NO. Just one point.

How do you compare data from the past 100 years when you keep adding new points, methods, equipment, etc.? You try to find a datapoint for which these things has not changed.
So they went to the poles. What did they find? Not a temperature, but a trend between thickness in the ice and CO2 trapped within that band of ice.
Well that's a start, now we have a good idea that temperature of the air and thickness of the ice are related, and we have a strong correlation between thickness and CO2, and we believe that we can say that the CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in a very long time (again how long is questionable) and we can begin to say that there might be some relationship between that and industrialization. Except that industrialization began more than 100 years ago, and the temperatures only appear to have begun rising in the past 30 years and before that they were actually falling enough to make some people think we were entering another ice age (look at those people now and shake your head shamefully). So now someone needs to provide data on whether industrialization 30 years ago suddenly drastically increased in production of CO2.
Oh and don't even try to say that it took a while for the increase in CO2 to kick in. The study of the 2 mile deep core sample in Vostok shows that there is a strict relationship between air temperature and CO2 levels (not an offset of 70 years relationship but a strict relationship meaning every hot year there was an abnormally high amount of CO2).

Now take into consideration the effects of the sun on Mars on the movement of the dry ice from one pole to the next and the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmospher when this happens. On the hottest years more CO2 is realeased into the atmosphere, thus the following year more is frozen into the ice because there is more in the atmosphere to freeze out. Seems like CO2 from an ice core sample should follow the hot years (of course on earth we don't have dry ice at the poles, we have gas bubles in the ice.)