Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

[pete.dakota]

Here's an important read: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The actual report is a bit of a grind, but the Wiki page summarises it all quite nicely.

Here's a link to the actual report.

Read it, before you say it's not credible. Also, consider what the IPCC is: A UN established scientific body. Essentially a think tank; they do not carry out research, basing it's findings on "peer reviewed and published scientific literature".

 

[tblaxland]

EDIT: Also, nature is inherently Inbalance. The problems happen when humans try to balance nature.

I suggest some reading on entropy, particularly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Ice_melting_example

Nature is chaotic, to be sure, but chaos does not imply imbalance.

 

[Moonwalker]

...anybody who wanders over Earth with an open eye will have a hard time to find a spot not formed by humans.

If I take a look to the Earth's surface via Google Earth, I realize that a vast part of the Earth's surface is neither inhabited, nor altered by humans.

About 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water already. Further, the Arctic as well as the Antarctic is almost uninhabitated and unaltered. All in all, only about 1 million humans live in the Arctic regions while the Antarctic is basically inhabited by only between one to four thousand scientists. Beside the industrial countries and big cities on our planet, the remaining Earth's surface contains huge landscapes and deserts which are largely inhabited and unaltered. Especially Alaska, Canada, South America, Africa, Russia and Australia has a lot of inhabited and unaltered nature. But also in Europe, China and the USA you'll find huge inhabited landscapes.

I don't have any numbers, but I think that only a very few percent of the overall Earth's surface (meaning everything, including the areas of water) is inhabited.

...practically all scientific research into man's effect on climate change suggest, with very little doubt, that our actions are contributing and exacerbating global warming.

That's what the majority of climatologists do imply indeed. But predictions of the future Earth's climate and possible impacts of global warming still is guesswork (might, could, likely,...).

...consider what the IPCC is: A UN established scientific body.

It's an UN established bureaucratic political body. Don't think this makes it reliable and impeccable all along and that it's the be-all and end-all. Compare all of their predictions and conclusions, past and present ones and take care of footnotes.


Don't take climate science too much conclusively.

 

[Omhra]

I sure as *heck* will not take your word over theirs.. specially when I understand the science and I can replicate the measurements myself... what do you have for me to try... just your empty statement that bureaucrats compiled the data? This is data available to anyone... they only compiled it... you... you just repeat the same thing over and over... if you look at goggle earth you can plainly see the damage made by man...
This is getting funny....
for the record I love the addons you make, but your politics (and your science) make me tickle inside...

 

[Moonwalker]

I sure as *heck* will not take your word over theirs.. specially when I understand the science and I can replicate the measurements myself...

How do you replicate which measurements youself?

what do you have for me to try... just your empty statement that bureaucrats compiled the data?

What do you expect to get from me?

if you look at goggle earth you can plainly see the damage made by man...

If I look at certain areas, yes. I'm aware of deforestation.

This is getting funny....
for the record I love the addons you make, but your politics (and your science) make me tickle inside...

Don't take global warming debates personally

 

[tblaxland]

I don't have any numbers, but I think that only a very few percent of the overall Earth's surface (meaning everything, including the areas of water) is inhabited.

Inhabited perhaps, but man's touch goes well beyond inhabited areas. You mentioned the uninhabited areas of Australia. Consider the decimation (not implying it is good or bad, since that is a separate argument) of native flora and fauna in vast tracts of Australia due to feral rabbits and grazing cattle. Most of these areas don't need a human within a bull's roar of them to feel the direct impact of mans' actions. The point is that you cannot dismiss humans as insignificant in terms of their impact on the global environment, whether the topic at hand is global climate, erosion, ecosystems, etc.

Another example of man's reach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_debris#The_Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

But predictions of the future Earth's climate and possible impacts of global warming still is guesswork (might, could, likely,...).

And your predictions for the future are that human actions will have no (or insignificant, if so quanitfy) impact on the climate? What confidence level would you ascribe to said prediction?

BTW, the terms "likely", "very likely", etc have well defined probability boundaries when used in IPCC reports, eg, "very likely" = ">90%", so don't let the apparent ambiguity of the language fool you.

Don't take climate science too much conclusively.

Above all else, I am a skeptic

 

[Moonwalker]

And your predictions for the future are that human actions will have no (or insignificant, if so quanitfy) impact on the climate? What confidence level would you ascribe to said prediction?

I don't have any predictions or beliefs of the future climate and the causes of climate changes. Nobody can predict it, not even the IPCC.

BTW, the terms "likely", "very likely", etc have well defined probability boundaries when used in IPCC reports, eg, "very likely" = ">90%", so don't let the apparent ambiguity of the language fool you.

Of course not, since such nice defined terms do not prevent significant changes of predicted temperature and sea level rise, which has happened, cause by protests of some scientists.

 

[Omhra]

On a debate (or you, since you asked) I expect constructive understanding of what is actually happening.
Instead what we get from the political think-tank of our oil entrepreneurs and their adepts is a persistent asking, from us, to not continue improving our technologies; because we are not hurting anything.
Meanwhile our planet is in the hot leg of the climate cycle and we have all this data which correlates with CO2... Be reasonable is what we ask... or be experimental...

--ice in water... ice in salt water... permutations of those... jars... scales... thermometers... sunlight... freezer......
or dry ice... 2 big jars... one with D.I. one without... thermometers... sunlight (tip: the thermometers go inside the jars)
It is urgency what you detect not personal.

 

[Melocoton]

Three letters - l o l.

I figured this topic would pop up, and I wasn't surprised it went popular fast. Honestly, I think it is a problem and does exist. (although it isn't "Global Warming" anymore, but I'll settle for the title) Ignoring the previous debates on evidence, I'll just say that, yes, it is often Politics and Religion that push the yay or nay vote on wether we are the problem, but the real solution lies past that. Really, the subject we need to face is the fact that, regardless if this change in climate is our fault, we still need to pull ourselves out of this climb from the Industrial Revolution. Who cares if our CO2 emitions are affecting this planet or not.. They're enough that we need to reduce them. And they alone are less than half our problem.

I guess after days and days of hearing these debates I'll just end off with saying: No, I do not believe this climb in temperature will continue on for too long of a period. (The data also says it will not) Yes, we will plunge in to a cold snap after this. Yes, the fact that some places in the world are experiencing worse winters in relation to temperature DOES relate to Climate Change. It's called Negative Effect.

Hmm.. Guess that's all I have to say for now.

 

[Bj]

Take a look at this page

about 1/3 of the way down where it says;

Carbon dioxide (co2) emissions (metric tons)

right now its at 19,810,490,000 (It is going up so fast that I cannot even keep up)


also this page shows the CO2 emissions by country.
Also notice it says;

Total: 22,829,463.2 DEFINITION: CO2: Total Emissions (excluding land-use) Units: thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide

keep in mind, this is 2003 alone

Also keep in mind, this is the emissions by humans using coal, or gas, ext. (Not natural)

 

[Melocoton]

Being too lazy to just look through all the pages here, . . Has anyone yet mentioned the statistics on the changes in our weather patterns, storm behaviors, or numbers in general?

 

[tl8]

[FONT=&quot]Global Carbon Cycle - The Woods Hole Research Centre: http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I love this image. It is so simple but explains alot.

Basically they are saying the the 6% extra CO2 will do the damage.
[/FONT]

 

[zerofay32]

Evidence, please.

Saying it's not a issue, citing SUV-based metaphors, and the enormity of the atmosphere is not enough to dismiss the solid, scientific research that you, as an internet user, are privy to, and need to understand.

If you want sources I can send you a hefty list. While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming." Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening. While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming." I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket. I don't think that pollution is a good thing, but saying that we are distroying the planet is ridiculous. The first bacteria to inhabit the planet thrived off of an atmoshere that was mostly CO2 and expelled a highly corrosive gas (Oxygen) as a byproduct. Eventually these organisms died out and ones that could live in an environment with increased levels of O2 took over. Those original organisms polluted their invironment to the point of extinction. No one cries obout that. Unfortunately humans have two qualities that will come back to bite us. One, we have a strong urge to change our environment to what we want it to be. And two, we have a strong will for self-preservation.

Zerofay32

I had to laugh... If we try to reduce emissions we are meddling? and if we burn fossil fuels we are not... do you even read what you type?...

EDIT:Who said anything about emissions? Did you even read what I typed? I was speaking of more than just car emissions and other pollutants. Global climate is more than what is in the air.

EDIT2:My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth. The end of humans' dominance on the planet, probably.

 

[Bj]

While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming." Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening.

Definition of global warming;

by Wikipedia;

Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.

by the free dictionary;

global warmingn. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.

And are you saying whats not happening is the CO2 emissions, or the global warming?

While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming."

True enough, it only went up a little PPM, however a little can go a long ways;

http://zfacts.com/p/205.html

Human-Caused Warming Has Been Very Slight
The consensus is that tropical oceans are about 0.5° C (slightly less then 1° F) warmer. This is so little that computer models of hurricanes predict only a very slight increase in hurricane power.

But Hurricanes are Very Sensitive to Tropical Sea Temperature
That’s where Dr. Kerry Emanuel’s Nature article comes in. He did not look for global warming; he just looked at how hurricane power has related to tropical sea temperature for the last 61 years. His data show the computer models are wrong, and a 0.5° C causes a much larger impact.

I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket.
Zerofay32

Ok so lets say that it is perfectly natural for the climate to change (which it is, but to a degree).

So are you saying that even if it isn't humans fault for climate shifts, you still would not do anything to research the climate shift and develop new technology? So what if it is/isn't mankind's fault. Are you just going to 'take it?'

Edit; To what cost? Are you going to wait for Earth to become Venus (I know, extreme but hey ) or freeze over again? (whatever the possible outcome could be)

 

[zerofay32]

Edit; To what cost? Are you going to wait for Earth to become Venus (I know, extreme but hey ) or freeze over again? (whatever the possible outcome could be)

Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.

What gives us the right to judge what is best for the planet? Nothing. What is comes down to is all we are doing is look out for ourselves. (that whole self-presurvation thing again) Ok, now I'm done. Have fun with the rest of the discussion. Nothing like the exchanging of ideas...

Zerofay32

 

[simonpro]

I can't believe this is still going on. Climate change is happening and Humans are at least partially responsible. People who think otherwise are most likely in need of a course in climatology.

If you want sources I can send you a hefty list. While the planet has been in a warming trend since 1850, this is not becase of "global warming."

So you're saying that the fact that the planet is warming on a global scale is not caused by global warming?
Well of course it's not. Warming is the result, not the cause (although it can be a strong reinforcer for future climatic trends).

Global Warming is described as an increase of "greenhouse gases" causing an increased amount of solar heat to be held by the atmoshere. This is not happening.

No it isn't.

While CO2 levels have be on the rise, it has gone from 377 parts per million to 386 in four years (go to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for graph), that is only a six parts per million increase in the main cause of "global warming."

You tell us later in your post about how different locations do different things, yet here you use a graph representing just one location. You'd have been better off looking at the lower graph. Even if we just go from that graph, the rise you mention (which isn't 6ppm, it's 9. 386-377=9) is still about 2%. A 2% increase in anything related to our atmosphere inside 4 years is impressively worrying. If you examine the data to the right of the screen you'll also see that CO2 hasn't just been rising for the last 4 years (I have no idea why you seem to think climate change has just been happening for 4 years), it's been rising in every year they have records for. Overall the increase is on the order of 15% over 40 years, that's a big jump.

I attribute the warming trend to be in part a natural cycle of a planet that has existed for five billion years and has had three different atmospheres, and a growing increase of types of land use, ie cities. Also, local phenominon can't be looked at as proof. One location may get warmer, another may get cooler, but the current trend in a system that is as complex as a climate for an entire planet is just a drop in the bucket.

Of course it's part of a natural cycle, but we are part of nature and as can be seen from the figures, we have a large affect on the system as a whole.

I don't think that pollution is a good thing, but saying that we are distroying the planet is ridiculous.

I don't recall anyone outside of the sensationalist media saying we're destroying the planet.

EDIT2:My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth. The end of humans' dominance on the planet, probably.

You've not encountered nuclear weapons, then?

 

[Bj]

Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.

Yes they are very complex, I agree 100%. However what the graphs are showing is data, not predictions...

What gives us the right to judge what is best for the planet?

I dont know,
who gives Judges the right to sentence you to prison?
Who give the supreme court the right to do whatever they do...

Earth is an object, not a person with feelings. So just like any possession that you have, you have to take care of it.

Now how do you take care of it?
One example in medicine,

When they develop some medicine, they cannot find the cure for cancer if they don't research it. But ( absolutely no attacks on anyone whatsoever) its almost exactly like people are ignorant of cancer and do not acknowledge its existence. The only difference is that cancer is (almost) never self inflicted.

From valid data, you can determine a cause/s and solution/s.

 

[Urwumpe]

Looks like I can't keep my promise in my last edit. Just keep in mind that computer models of complex systems are highly inaccurate to actual outcomes. Just take them with educated scrutiny.

That's why they come with a nice invention called "error bars".

But when even the most conservative calculation results in a massive warming, you can't say that there is still hope for something else happening. Something between best and worst case will happen (if the model is correct).

Now, the important question is: Are the latest computer models of our climate correct?

For knowing this, we need to know not only the relations between the variables, but also the correct input functions and the correct initial state.

 

[Moonwalker]

My last comment on the subject is that no matter what we do that infuences the climate, we will never distroy the Earth.

Yes. We are energetic dwarfs related to the nature, solar system and the universe. And we always will be. Our technologies and some sciences make some people believe that we are the center of all and everything and that we have to decide almost all and everything, yet even global climate changes.

I have (the right to have) strong doubts that the current measured very slight increase in global mean temperatures, and the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are only 6% to 7% of the global natural CO2 emissions, would have catastrophic effects in the future. It's all just guesswork. No more, no less. No matter what the so called vast majority (NASA) of climatologists do believe (related to their data), which by far is not all scientists on the planet. Concerning the German geophysicist Georg Delisle (who researches permafrost) as one example, there probably is a disagreement between climatologists and the rest of the earth science communities, since it is recognisably that climatologists tend to play down past climate changes to reinforce their predictions and believes.

 

[Urwumpe]

We also don't need to destroy Earth. Just making it a so unpleasant world that we can not survive on it is enough.