No more global warming?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well?

I am a complete sucker for sensationalist media. First of all I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', and I was sure global warming was happening and it was going to be serious. But sometimes I see things like this and I'm not so sure. I just don't have the core knowledge to make a serious decision, and I suspect 99% of the population are the same.

But what do the fine, educated minds of the Backroom think?

[Beskar]

There are reasons why this is the case, from Oceans absorbing CO2 to the temperature rise is being off-set by the ice-caps melting to things like colder winters in the south. (Remember, the global temperature is generally north+south, where is it opposite seasons).

There are lots of many factors, however, what is funny, the biggest contributor to global warming is infact, vocano's and the 2nd biggest factor is Cows (and domestic lifestock) who produce lots of methane. Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon) and additional input into the atmosphere.

Anyway, there are always periods of warming and cooling, a temporary cooling is the equalivant of moving a cold bottle of water over your body. It is temporary and not the solution.

They should use this time as an opportunity.

[Whacker]

I've read enough to be heavily, heavily skeptical of the whole thing. This does get annoying and/or amusing when I run into those mindless eco-nuts who preach it as gospel and refuse to believe otherwise.

That said, I am 100% for preserving the environment and drastically reducing humanity's impact on nature.

[CountArach]

This is built on the fallacious assumption that global warming would be a constant trend. It is not.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've read enough to be heavily, heavily skeptical of the whole thing. This does get annoying and/or amusing when I run into those mindless eco-nuts who preach it as gospel and refuse to believe otherwise.

That said, I am 100% for preserving the environment and drastically reducing humanity's impact on nature.

This. Help preserve our environment, but don't base it on this. I hesitate to call it an outright lie, but toying with the truth would certainly be accurate, especially for the way it is being hyped up.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon)

No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.

The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event.

The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.

[Lord Winter]

There are reasons why this is the case, from Oceans absorbing CO2 to the temperature rise is being off-set by the ice-caps melting to things like colder winters in the south. (Remember, the global temperature is generally north+south, where is it opposite seasons).

There are lots of many factors, however, what is funny, the biggest contributor to global warming is infact, vocano's and the 2nd biggest factor is Cows (and domestic lifestock) who produce lots of methane. Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon) and additional input into the atmosphere.

Anyway, there are always periods of warming and cooling, a temporary cooling is the equalivant of moving a cold bottle of water over your body. It is temporary and not the solution.

They should use this time as an opportunity.

Do you have a source for those claims. According to the EPA the bulk of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and not methane. In addition the volclano claim is false:
From the USGS:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[LittleGrizzly]

Wouldn't the cow issue be related to our interference. Im fairly sure we made them bigger and beefier, combined with the fact we have made more than there were to being with....

Im pretty sure trees do actually take in some C02 (mostly in but occasionally they release some) and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing I don't think this too much harm planting a few, we have cut down counltess numbers over the years so I wouldn't say its a bad thing. Trees are quite nice also....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Do you have a source for those claims. According to the EPA the bulk of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and not methane. In addition the volclano claim is false:
From the USGS:

I am not certain about volcanoes, although I tend to lean on Beskar's side (volcanoes have always been the decisive factor in climate shifts), but I will have to point out that CH4 is precisely twenty times more potent grenhouse gas than CO2. In addition to CO2, volcanoes likewise produce a plethora of other gases. Which are generally more pivotal than the CO2, as carbon dioxide is a relatively light compound, quite weak as a "greenhouse gas".

EDIT:

Im pretty sure trees do actually take in some C02 (mostly in but occasionally they release some) and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing I don't think this too much harm planting a few, we have cut down counltess numbers over the years so I wouldn't say its a bad thing. Trees are quite nice also....

Plant as many as you wish, but you are wasting your time, effort, and funds, climatologically speaking. I repeat: while they take in some CO2, counting on them to lower the planet's temperature is akin to trusting a single maggot to digest a bull, isntead of letting a tiger loose. Dump ground iron in the oceans, and that is a quite sure bet to cool down the Earth as well as increase its oxygen supply. But that coupled with global dimming and the possibility of an impending natural Ice Age will turn our planet into a snowball one. I would rather let global warming do its job, if it is still in force.

[Beskar]

As for sources, it is standard science at a GCSE level (actually, even lower too) in Britain. In otherwords, common knowledge domain.

Also, Aemilius Paulus raised the other point. It isn't just CO2, there are many others such as methane, which as he said, are twenty times more potent.

[Lord Winter]

I am not certain about volcanoes, although I tend to lean on Beskar's side (volcanoes have always been the decisive factor in climate shifts), but I will have to point out that CH4 is precisely twenty times more potent grenhouse gas than CO2. In addition to CO2, volcanoes likewise produce a plethora of other gases. Which are generally more pivotal than the CO2, as carbon dioxide is a relatively light compound, quite weak as a "greenhouse gas".

EDIT:

Plant as many as you wish, but you are wasting your time, effort, and funds, climatologically speaking. Dump ground iron in the oceans, and that is a quite sure bet to cool down the Earth as well as increase its oxygen supply. But that coupled with global dimming and the possibility of an impending natural Ice Age will turn our planet into a snowball one. I would rather let global warming do its job, if it is still in force.

The EPA figures were adjusted for the effect of the gas on global warming. While it's true Volcano's have been a factor in global climate change isn't it true that we're not experiencing the same level of volcanic activity that has occurred in the past? I've also heard from my geology teacher that CO2 levels are raising faster today then they were during those extinction events although I'm having trouble finding a source for that.

EDIT: All the sources I'm seeing are conflicting with what your saying Beskar. You're going to need sources to back up your assertions. I've provided mine.

[LittleGrizzly]

and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing

so I wouldn't say its a bad thing.

Two important parts of my post AP. I wasn't aruging that planting trees to combat CO2 is a good idea (although they take in small amounts) I was arguing that planting trees is a bad thing, thier pretty, do some small work towards converting CO2 to O, and are a good supply of wood....

But I do agree as a strategy for stopping global warming not great...

I wouldn't want something to drastic done about global warming as you said we could go to far the other way (or just mess up something else) I would rather we reduced (or somewhat nuetralised) our effect. Only if we are in serious trouble should we go to dratic measures (if were dead if we dont) otherwise we could just makes things worse...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well?

I am a complete sucker for sensationalist media. First of all I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', and I was sure global warming was happening and it was going to be serious. But sometimes I see things like this and I'm not so sure. I just don't have the core knowledge to make a serious decision, and I suspect 99% of the population are the same.

But what do the fine, educated minds of the Backroom think?

One can try to replace an inductive method by a deductive method. That is, to try not to discover global warming from temperature recordings, but from simple principles.

The amount of CO2 in the atmposphere is a constituant of the earth's climate.
So any decrease or increase of CO2 has a climatological result.

Few scientists would dispute this.

From there, it is really simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so releasing it has an effect. And not just on earth, for really spectacular global warming effects, try Venus:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm


A hot year, or ten cold years, neither prove nor disprove global warming anymore than a particular cold day in July does. What matters is that one constituent of the earth's climate is drastically changed through human working, in a particularly short amount of time.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When a tree dies, the carbon that is stored in it is released again. Otherwise known as rotting. What would help, is dead trees sinking in the mud instead of rotting away. Then they can slowly turn themselves into oil and gas again.

However, I'd say that humanity's ability to burn the carbon locked in oil and gas is much greater than nature's capacity to form oil over millions of years again. So no, trees are not the solution.

There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event

Fascinating reads.

Give me an unlimited budget and a few decades, and I'll give you any climate you want on earth. From tropical paradise or iceworld.

Bizzarly, it isn't all that expensive or difficult to remove any amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that we want. I think this ought to be the focus of climate change debate.

We are not victims of nature's wrath. We are in the process of becoming its master. The question is not how to stop climate change, but how to work towards the climate we desire.

[Fragony]

ask yourself this, why is there doubt, in your heart? you are not invited to my party

the screamers here EVEN FASTER turned out to 'accidently' meassure higher temperatures much to the amazement of serious scientists who got different results. Faulty equipment, oops. Yeah that can happen, didn't the ipcc miss an icemass the size of texas. oops?

[Samurai Waki]

I kind of realized that when we were hit by a massive snow storm, and twenty degree weather all last week. I'm ready for warm again! and summer ended only a couple weeks ago...

[InsaneApache]

Well the eco nutjobs didn't help their cause with the 'hockey stick', did they?

Then there's Lords Melchitt and Porrit who want to limit/reduce the human population to sustainable levels.

So I say, let's bring it on. Pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can manage. Paint the poles jet black. Get your electric fire outside and on full bore. Get that temperature up guys.

Then when the ice cap melts and releases all that water, drowning a significant amount of people, we can reduce our carbon footprint for those that are left. The greens will be happy and so will I. I live atop a mountain.

Jobs a good 'un.

[Furunculus]

The amount of anthropogenic warming has been overstated.
The amount of anthropogenic warming from CO2 has been greatly overstated.

This directly results from Louis's deductive method when applied to a complex system where the record is uncertain, and the model is poorly understood.

The computer model looks at x amount of past warming, along with y concentration of CO2, and extrapolates z amount of future warming, and yet people are surprised when the model doesn't work because they refuse to recognise the contribution of a, b, and c to natural climate variation.

none of which means that i do not believe their could be catastrophic climate change in our near future, but it does mean that i believe spending trillions worrying about CO2 is an utter waste.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Paint the poles jet black.

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?

Wrong, our population is falling too quickly, whereas the Poles are falling at a slower rate.

As for the apparent growing scepticism of global warming in .Org, I will however have to point out that the Arctic icecap is melting, and that is highly abnormal, as it has never done so for millions of years, not since the time before the First Ice Age.

[Furunculus]

my skepticism has been on the IPCC4 'consensus' and it has remained pretty consistant.

the only firm opinion on polar icecaps, is that we've had one for 700,000 years, and maybe longer...............

whereas the number of glacial/interglacial periods is huge, even over the tiny period of 5.5m years as covered by the sediment record.

[Hooahguy]

the graphs, charts and predictions regarding global warming are a farce. there are so many factors regarding the climate change that even if there was a .0001 change in one factor it would drastically change the graph.
or so says my calc professor.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure we predict stuff with close to as many variable as global warming in other areas too... I bet the other one hasn't got a well funded campaign denying it either..

I think Louis put it quite well earlier....

The world is getting warmer...

more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer (by letting less heat escape)

We pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere...

Man made acceleration of global warming proven at grade school level

[rvg]

Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.

However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html

Global warming *is* happening.

[Lord Winter]

As I see it, even if global warming is overstated there are still other benifits from fighting it besides a lower amount of CO2. Lowering emmissions will increase air quality, public transportation will also do the same as well as being a massive convienence to the population. I think everyone also agrees that we should move away from fossial fuels even if global warming wasn't happening. I don't see how one could argue against any of these as worthy goals.

@Hooah I wouldn't call a calc professor a reliable source on global warming. Complelty different subjects.

[Hooahguy]

@Hooah I wouldn't call a calc professor a reliable source on global warming. Complelty different subjects.

not necessarily about climate change, but on the validity of the predictions. the fact is, you cant predict these things.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, friend, I live in Minnesota.

At this very moment, I am looking out a window and watching snow fall.

Which, by the way, is just WRONG because we shouldn't get snow for another month. At least, I don't remember snow in early October happening very often. In fact, I remember the last couple years when you could see grass in January and February.

We're already hitting temps of 30 and 20 during daytime, no doubt quite a way below zero at night. (Last year we fell below -50F).

So suffice it to say that we are NOT suffering from global warming up here.

(By the way, if you have any, you're welcome to send it up here.)

[LittleGrizzly]

the fact is, you cant predict these things.

Well time to stop watching the weather then... do you now how many variables there are even in short term forecasting ?

Are you saying we can't predict them to a good enough degree of accuracy or are you saying we cannot predict them at all...?

Edit: the ironic thing about global warming is us poor sods in Britian are actually going to get colder because of it. Stop global warming, save Britians summers!

[Hooahguy]

the fact is, you cant predict these things.

Well time to stop watching the weather then... do you now how many variables there are even in short term forecasting ?

Are you saying we can't predict them to a good enough degree of accuracy or are you saying we cannot predict them at all...?

Edit: the ironic thing about global warming is us poor sods in Britian are actually going to get colder because of it. Stop global warming, save Britians summers!

youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.

[Furunculus]

Im sure we predict stuff with close to as many variable as global warming in other areas too... I bet the other one hasn't got a well funded campaign denying it either..

I think Louis put it quite well earlier....
The world is getting warmer...
more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer (by letting less heat escape)
We pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere...

Man made acceleration of global warming proven at grade school level

you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.

and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.

that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.