News   May 02, 2024
 772     1 
News   May 02, 2024
 226     0 
News   May 02, 2024
 304     0 

Who will be the next Liberal leader?

When was the industrial revolution? Where? What part of the world?

C02 output from industry and automobiles was a fraction of what it is today before 1930, yet half of the apparent warming since 1880 happened between that year and the late 1930's.

Look at the dates I pointed out. From the late 1930's to the late 1970's globally averaged temperatures dropped. By the 1970's there were concerns about an impending return of the ice-age. But what happened during that time? World War Two, the industrialization for that war, and the massive post-war industrial efforts. Those were the largest jumps in output of C02 in human history.

Then again, why restrict yourself to 1880? Why not look at climate variability before that? Why not ask whether the same forces at work for those past shifts are not in process today? Clear understanding of these issues will be necessary in formulating useful policies. Or do you want to operate on the basis of prejudices, beliefs and fears?
 
are you taking in to account the 1.3 billion people in china and a 1 billion in India using coal to power much of thier industries? because they are pumping out more crap into the atmosphere than ever before, and 9 out the last 10 years were the hottest on record.
 
Climate record...and it dosent matter if a country has signed the kyoto accord, who is enforcing it? Global warming is happining because we (as a planet) are pumping 70 million tonnes of CO2 into the atomsphere every day or about 25 billion tonnes a year and you say that has nothing to do with the rise in temperatures. what are your sources for your therory?
 
So if the Kyoto accord does not matter, and if there is no one enforcing it, then why all the bother? Let's call it what it is: a political document and nothing more.

Actually, "we" (humanity) pump about 5.5 gigatons of C02 annually from all our activities. About 750 gigatons resides naturally in the atmosphere. There is interchange between between ocean and atmosphere of about 90 plus gigatons, and an interchange between atmosphere and plant life of about 60 gigatons. The numbers can vary for a variety of reasons. Quantifying the global carbon cycle is, at best, extremely difficult (and I've left other quantities out). Beyond carbon dioxide, water vapour is the single largest greenhouse gas by both volume and effect. If you look at the scientific criticisms of the IPCC, it is that the effects of water vapour are handled poorly in their modelling.

Concerning theory, as you are the one suggesting that there is something specific happening, you should outline your theory (and there is no "theory" of global warming. There is just a correlation). Remember that the suggested global increase in temperature is of 0.6C. But remember, this is a global temperature statistic, and not a temperature. The planet is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, so there is no single temperature. What you do have are many records of warmings and coolings at different places around the globe for a variety of reasons, and this does not establish whether the earth is any warmer or cooler than it was in the past. The climate is not in equilibrium; it is always dynamic and turbulent.

Rather than just looking at one side of the argument, why don't you take a step and look at the criticisms (and there are many) of this assertion? Try to look for good sources, as there is tons of bullshit on the extremes of either side of this debate. It is always worth asking critical questions about your assumptions and beliefs. That's how things are learned.

If the apparent warming is happening, and if there is agreement that sources are not just human activity (as is now stated), then it is worth asking questions. If there is evidence of, for example, averaged global temperature shifts that match very well with sunspot cycle length, then it is worth asking questions. If that apparent warming only has a semi-reasonable match with C02 concentration increases, then it requires further investigation. If we know that the sun makes climate on earth (and can also indirectly affect C02 concentrations), but don't have a full understanding of all the effects that the sun has on the climate of earth, then we have more questions. We don't have final answers.
 
The 'debate' *is* over. Anyone still claiming otherwise is now in the wilderness and irrelevant, period. Accept reality and ****in' deal with it, before it deals with us.


=====================================
=====================================


"Landmark UN study backs climate theory"


2,000 scientists all but end the debate: Human activity causes global warming

January 19, 2007
Peter Gorrie
Environment Writer

www.thestar.com/printArticle/172778


A major new United Nations report shows global scientists are more convinced than ever that human activity is causing climate change, the Toronto Star has learned.

The rate of warming between now and 2030 is likely to be twice that of the previous century, it says.

And it concludes that most of the global warming since the middle of the last century has been caused by man-made greenhouse gases.

The report, to be released in Paris Feb. 2, should all but end any debate on climate change and compel governments and industries to take urgent measures to deal with it, scientists say.

"It is very likely that (man-made) greenhouse gas increases caused most of the globally average temperature increases since the mid-20th century," states the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the clinical language of science, it paints a stark picture of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions:

"Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including continental average temperatures, atmospheric circulation patterns and some types of extremes."


It is "very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." Storm tracks will move from the tropics toward the poles.

The widely anticipated report is the fourth by the IPCC, which every few years publishes the definitive conclusions of about 2,000 scientists who are recognized as experts in their respective fields. Each one has moved closer to closing debate on the causes and effects of climate change.

The portion of the report obtained by the Star is called the final draft of the "Summary for Policy Makers."

The summary states that the warming effect of greenhouse gases increased by 20 per cent during the past decade � "the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years."

Global warming would be even greater had it not been slowed by other forms of pollution that stopped some of the sun's energy from reaching the Earth.

Rebutting one of the main arguments of climate change skeptics, it says observations of temperature increases and shrinking ice cover, "support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years" was caused by solar flares or other natural events.

Eleven of the past 12 years have been the hottest in Earth's recent history, it says.

All the continents except Antarctica have warmed during the past half-century, with the biggest impacts in Canada's Arctic and other northern regions.

Research since the third report was released in 2001 increases the certainty about climate change and the likely scale of most of its effects, including warmer temperatures and severe weather, the report states.

One crucial prediction has been made a bit less worrying: Although sea level is rising � for now, mainly because the oceans are warming to a depth of at least 3,000 metres, and expanding � the estimates for how much it will go up have been lowered.

The summary also notes that there has been, as yet, little change in the North Atlantic Drift, the warm current that gives Britain and northern Europe a relatively temperate climate and that is expected to slow, or stop, as climate change alters the ocean.

It will slow, but not abruptly during the coming century, the report says.

For the most part, though, the conclusions point in a single direction:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."

The report estimates that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be kept below 550 parts per million � which would take a major worldwide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions � the average global temperature would rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius above the level before the Industrial Revolution started about 250 years ago.

The current carbon level is about 380 parts per million and rising steadily, compared with 280 at the time humans began burning large amounts of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

The temperature estimate depends on which combination of computer model and research data is used.

The upper forecast is higher than in previous reports.

"Values higher than 4.5 C cannot be excluded" because of "feedbacks," such as the increased ability of the atmosphere to absorb water vapour � an extremely potent greenhouse gas � as it heats up, and the greater warmth absorbed as Arctic ice melts.

Regional forecasts of climate change effects are better than in the previous report, and they predict the greatest warming at northern latitudes and high altitudes, and the least over the North Atlantic and the southern oceans.

The north faces the biggest increase in precipitation.
 
The 'debate' *is* over. Anyone still claiming otherwise is now in the wilderness and irrelevant, period. Accept reality and ****in' deal with it, before it deals with us.

Brilliant conclusion! Good to see you are putting your efforts into keeping an open mind and supporting reasoned discourse (well, your set of reasons that is). Nothing like a newspaper headline to cement reality in place. No doubt such pronouncements should pave the way to closing down the entire research field as you have deemed it all to be irrelevant. Nothing like trying to marginalize points of view you don't like.

The portion of the report obtained by the Star is called the final draft of the "Summary for Policy Makers."

And I bet that in the Scientific Summary you will find far more tentative language than in the summary written by and for policy-makers. This is evident in all previous IPCC publications. You may have also noted (no, you couldn't have, because you have not looked through the actual IPCC documents) that the power of GCM's devolve from "models" to "scenarios" indicating a move away from pronouncements of what "will" happen in the future, to just what the word "scenario" would imply: a brief outline of possibilities, and not a fact.

Maybe you are confusing your desire to shut ongoing research efforts down with such a conclusion. Needless to say, whether you like it or not, there is still considerable research going on in this field (I can only assume that must annoy you). Climatology and understanding the extremely complex structure of the climate of this planet is a relatively new science, it is hardly finished or over.

Your mind is yours; to keep open, or to close.
 
I agree that the arguement that climate change is far from over, however it seems that it getting warmer all over the globe, you hear stories of ice shelves breaking up and floating off into the ocean (read Larsen B in 2002, and The Ayles Ice Shelf 2006) and it seems that this not a therory, but indeed a fact, there is tangible proof that the planet is warming, could this be natural? sure. however how likley is it? not very. considering that the artic ocean has been covered in ice since the last ice age, and its now receded to the point where in the next 30 years the Northwest passage could be open for a good part of the year, if not year round. and in the antarctic it rained for the first time in 2002 in recorded history, I just have a hard time believing that this is natural, we have been pumping record amounts of GHG into the atmosphere, and as the 3rd world becomes more industrilzed the amount will climb, there are too many coincidences for this to be natual, massive droughts in africa, whilst india has record rains, Hurricanes off Brazil, and severe heatwaves in North America and across Europe leads me to belive we are at least aggrovating the situation.
 
Ice shelfs break off all the time. Their break-off is a function of more than temperature alone as they are in contact with an active body of water. According to the temperature data computed by the Hadley Centre, the average temperature across the Arctic has been pretty constant from 1930 to 2000 (temperature records are pretty much unavailable before that as no one was flying to the arctic to establish weather stations). That being said, different regions of the arctic have shown variation in temperature, with some warming up slightly and others cooling down. The reason why such region variations occurs is unknown.

As for the arctic ocean being covered in ice since the last ice age, it still gets covered in ice in the winter and undergoes considerable melting in the summer. Since the end of the last ice age (a massive climate change event) there have been considerable fluctuations in global climate (more variation in climate). Simply put, there is no natural constant for global climate.

With the evidence of a long history of climate fluctuations, can you be absolutely sure that the present and slight variation in temperature is caused by carbon dioxide?

As for ancient records of temperature around the world, remember that the first national collection of temperature in Canada started only in 1948 - and this should in no way suggest that there is a temperature record for every place in the country. There isn't. While other countries have temperature records that go back further, but no national records go back beyond 1860. Before that, temperature collection becomes more sporadic until there are simply no records of thermometric measurement.

Also, there is no way to take the temperature of the atmosphere for the entire planet. The 0.6C degree increase in temperature you hear about is a statistic. It is the result of collecting temperatures from a variety of places around the world (primarily in the Northern hemisphere) and averaging them. Collect a different sample and average them, and you may get an entirely different result.

As for the weather events you have pointed out, these things change all the time.

The unfortunate thing about the excessive worries of global warming and climate change is that all attention has been shifted onto this issue at the expense of all other issues, some of which do great damage each and every day.
 
from the Globe and Mail...

Warming study promises 'smoking gun'
SETH BORENSTEIN

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report.

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week. Written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, it includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon, a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report yesterday.

That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Dr. Solomon said.

Dr. Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics, but said the 12-page summary for policy makers will be released to the public Feb. 2.

The full report will be issued in four phases over the year.

Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Dr. Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who lives in Boulder, Colo. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."

Look for an "iconic statement," a simple but strong and unequivocal summary, on how global warming is occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

The second part of the report, to be released in April, will feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, the author.



...more to come on the 2nd.
 
The IPCC is by and large the main promoter of this whole "end of the world" scenario. The panel cherry-picks what goes into the report. It is not a compendium of all knowledge related to climate. It is a panel that has made a decision in the 1990's that infrared absorbing gases emitted from human activity are to blame for problems that have yet to happen.

It's idiocy to look at "gases" when issues such as human health problems have a greater relationship to so many other sources.
 
Just curious, bizorky, what would it take to convince you that increased emission of certain gases due to human activity is affecting the climate?
 
Proof.

The claim that C02 is the cause of warming is being made while neglecting the general lack of understanding concerning the complexity of climate. Right now very little is fully understood about the global climate. This is not a crackpot assessment. Go outside the political realm of climate change, read what researchers have to say of climate dynamics, and this fact becomes very clear.

For example, there is, as of now, very little understanding with respect the role of the sun, the effects of irradiance, variability, cycles or how these have an impact on planetary climate. The sun is the single largest driver of climate; without it there is no climate (and there is very little understanding of the complexity of the sun). As of now, there are a number of very interesting correlations between changes in the sun and climate change that require more investigation, and the research is underway. While the level of understanding is low, the sun most definitely plays a role in climate. Even the IPCC suggest that the sun has a role in climate change, but claims the role is small. Unfortunately the claim based on a lack of knowledge (which is admitted to in the document).

The moon plays has a role in climate, too. There are variations in the tide raising force that appear to follow cyclical patterns. The stronger the tidal force, the more water is pulled from deep cooler layers. Oceanographers know of cyclical patterns that coincide with other climate change events, like the Little Ice Age. What impact does this have on present climate? The tidal force effects of the moon are not mentioned in the IPCC report (I have not seen the latest version). Does this effect have a role in contemporary climate change, if so, to what degree?

The effect of aerosols (pollen, soot, sea spay, dust... the list is long) are not understood particularly well, either. Do they warm or cool the troposphere? The level of scientific understanding is low, yet it is clear that aerosols play an important role in climate. The IPCC provides what amounts to guesses as to what the effect is, both locally and globally, of aerosols. Hardly conclusive science. Another case of low scientific understanding that is assigned low status.

Short-term cyclical patterns in the weather, like El Nino-Southern Oscillation, or the North Atlantic Oscillation (and there are a number of others) are not well understood. These oscillations don't conform to predictions, but they do have an impact on weather in cyclical patterns. There is no fully clear explanantion available for the El Nino oscillation that is affecting our weather this year. While these oscillations are not well understood, the IPCC has had great confidence for many years in making predictions of what climate will be like in 100 years.

There is the problem of randomness, as well. The global climate is not a greenhouse, nor does it resemble a greenhouse. It is not a fixed system of simple cause and effect. It is a incredibly complex interlocking non-linear dynamical system. There are no ready-made equations available to tell anyone what it will be doing in the next few minutes. As such, there is no "theory" of climate. This lack of understanding has to be respected and recognized.

I'll be a little more brief now because the list is long (and not complete). Comprehensive understanding of ocean currents is presently lacking. The impact of water vapour is not well understood (and is belittled as an effect, but not a cause, by the IPCC). Temperature records based on thermometer readings (upon which present knowledge of temperature change is based) are actually quite thin and biased to the Northern hemisphere. Many historical locations for measurement (such as airports) are now surrounded by urban development, potentially contaminating the data. The numbers of surface station readings have actually declined in numbers since the 1980's. While some measures have gone up, other records show a downward trend. What we are left with is a temperature statistic actually based on very little data. Earlier temperature data based on proxies is certainly not accurate to tenths of a degree. There are conflicts between satellite data and ground data as well. Ocean temperature records have an even shorter history.

Even the records of C02 in the atmosphere have been open to questioning. Direct measures of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have only been carried out since 1958. Before that, ice core records are consulted. But it takes anywhere from ten to one-hundred years for the air bubbles to be sealed in the ice. When statistical measures are added in (because ice does not come with dates) ice core samples are often dated in odd ways. The older the sample, the less this matters (as in thousands of years). But there is nothing that says that a sample purported to be from 1950 is actually reflecting the atmosphere (and carbon dioxide levels) of 1880. So how accurate and how relevant are those more recent carbon dioxide samples to understanding the climate of the last 100 years? What is the margin of error?

All of this ends up being factored into the Global Circulation Models that are supposed to tell everyone what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years. National policies are to be based on these "predictions."

Yet these very complicated computer models cannot model something as incredibly complicated as the climate - never mind the atmosphere. It is simply beyond our capability. There is no computer that can model a hurricane with accuracy, so there is no way to know exactly how or when a given hurricane will form, how much energy it will have, exactly how it will move, how much moisture it will move, or how long it will last. This kind of modelling can't even be done with thunderstorms, never mind hurricanes. And yet, on the basis of considerable missing information, we are supposed to know what the climate will be like in 100 years?

I don't see clear evidence as of yet.
 
just going back to the comment that Ice Shelves break off all the time...untrue, Glaciers break off all the time its called calving, Ice shelves are not supposed to break up, and when Larson B broke away it was a chunk of ice larger than Rhode Island. Ice Shelves are sea ice anchored usually by land, so when an Ice Shelf breaks up its usually preatty bad. and if it hapened all the time scientists would freak out when it happened.
 
Ice shelves are not supposed to break off? According to what specific set of imposed rules? Ice shelves are structures of ice that float down to a coastline and then onto the surface of the water. It is a product of a glacier.

pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arc...9-1-15.pdf

As to your assertion, what does this prove?

Are you suggesting that ice shelves are supposed to be permanent structures?
 

Back
Top