Global Climate Change

posted on July 23rd, 2008, 11:46 pm

To Eufnoc, for his post "we will adept, many anaimals will die and a few humans but we will be far from extint."

This isn't Startrek: we don’t have replicators for our daily dietary needs. We are in the midst of a modern mass extinction, and the victims of all mass extinction are those at the top of the so called food chain. *Cough* . We humans are no different, and although we might possibly be more resourceful, then say the dinosaurs, 6.8 billion of us still need to eat and drink. Unless you plan on becoming a strict vegan (somehow managing to survive without dietary supplements created by our smog belching factories ironically), or learn to survive on small rodents, your fate is sealed. We humans are already experiencing severe droughts in once fertile regions… have you noticed food prices are up too (it’s not ethanol alone that’s doing it)? Drinking water will soon become our most pressing need, as shortages are showing up more and more frequently in the Middle East, China, parts of the Midwest and Southern United States. This water shortage is not hearsay, nor conjecture, it is current events.

If you are well informed, and read/watch the arguments presented in that “Great Global Warming Swindle” thing, you will find that most are based on conjecture, or on merely emphasizing that not everything is for certain. A few are outright stupid-the cosmic ray one for example-because cosmic ray fluctuation is miniscule and hits high atmosphere: they never even encounter but the extremely occasional water molecule! By the way, that was their strongest point : “Research, presented in this film, apparently showed that the effect of cosmic radiation, and solar activity may explain fluctuations in global temperatures more precisely than the carbon dioxide theory”. Many of the “scientists” they listed on that site had no credentials, or were mere bachelor degree students. A Lancaster University study (the one in that video was not actually a study, just musings), proved empirically that the Sun’s changing activity has NO effect on modern-day climate change.

To Funnystuffpictures, for his post “In the last 1,000 years, North America was covered in glaciers. Compared to how old the Earth is, thats not very long. Those glaciers melted in a short period of time, but they melted before humankind ever even begun to use fosil fuels.”

First off, the last iceage ended 11,000 years ago, and began 2.58 million years ago, and the glaciers in North America are still receding (but much accelerated by current climate change if you listen to any news or read any scientific studies). Saying it has not been a very long time is no argument. Ice ages are periodic. The current climate change is not: it has vastly accelerated. In an equivalent timescale, if you like, the entire ice age would have to occur in a time span of something like a hundred years. 

From his book, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum ( you can see it on the Wikipedia article): “William Ruddiman has proposed the early anthropocene hypothesis, according to which the anthropocene era, as some people call the most recent period in the Earth's history when the activities of the human race first began to have a significant global impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems, did not begin in the 18th century with the advent of the Industrial Era, but dates back to 8,000 years ago, due to intense farming activities of our early agrarian ancestors. It was at that time that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations stopped following the periodic pattern of the Milankovitch cycles.”

What many of the people responding on this thread fail to do, is to put everything together. Maybe someone says carbon dioxide, another methane… but no one seems to understand that the combination of deforestation, sulfur dioxides, habitat loss, pollution in our water, and the above mentioned things (among many other toxins/events) have affected us, and create climate change. Anthropogenic climate change is definite. If there was a cycle, we are speeding it up. If there wasn’t, we created it. End of story.

To Svarsmannen for his post : “it doesnt matte if the global warming thingie ist true or not. no one seems to get the point, even if we reduce the co2 emissions tomorrow to zero the average global temperature will still increase over the next 5 to 10 years and then stays at that level for several hundred years. thats way the hole discussion about emission reduction ist just bullshit and wont help anyone except the people who make money with fossil energy”

…except that if you continue pouring in chemicals (not just carbon dioxide), it’ll only get worse than that estimate.

To Jan:

Incidentally, El Nino and La Nina are both getting stronger due to climate change… and their circulation pattern is changing for that reason as well. If you read any of the multitude of papers submitted to the UN, as part of the “climate change analysis,” you would see that they all posit that it is extremely likely, or definite, that climate change is anthropogenic. That is, that we are responsible for Global Warming.

I’m sorry that you believe that scientists are only going for break through: at the University that I work at, and the students/professors that I know at several others, this is certainly not the case. The “breakthroughs” you hear  about are a minute portion of the amount of scientific studies going on at this very minute, and only make news because the public at large think they are important to their lives. Probably very little of my own work will ever be talked about among you, or your friends, but the type of work I do is characteristic of my field.

By the way Frodo, I’m being nitpicky here, but a volcano would cool down the Earth, not heat it up. (And as I already discussed, the Sun’s changing activity has no effect)

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on July 24th, 2008, 12:55 am

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on July 24th, 2008, 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have to say, I agree with Dom about scientists, since I also work with academics every day, and they are typically more focussed on ideas than status. So I see that previous post as typical anti-intellectualism, and I think the anger of the post reflected that chip-on-the-shoulder.

However, with regard to warming, remember that skepticism itself is not evil, and is an important quality for a scientist. The planet certainly warmed in the 20th century - it warmed quite a lot - and therefore we would expect extreme weather events and droughts. But we really don't have any idea how much of this warming was caused by humans. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't warming lead to droughts and catastrophes even if it wasn't caused by humans?

As a physicist I was always puzzled at how (supposedly) the scientific community could make such definite statements about the human origin of global warming - natural climate change fluctuations are quite considerable, even over thousands of years, generating lots of "noise" - so you can't possibly say anything definite until you've watched the graph for centuries, or even longer. For those who will jump on me for this, note that the same applies if the temperature had gone down (as it almost did during the last ten years); you still can't form any conclusion from it (however some will form a conclusion - bad science).

As the following link says, if we are in a natural warming cycle, we may not notice the natural cooling back to normal for centuries. I'm not saying we're not causing any warming, but would anyone like to place a bet on how much of it we caused? 90%? 50%? 5%? This is important, as is having a healthy skepticism. As with anything political, there may well be a problem, but our leaders may have exaggerated it for control purposes, or (more probably) they may have misunderstood the science. The so-called consensus does not really exist, unless you count the politicians on the IPCC as scientists. And, far more importantly, science does not operate by consensus, it makes progress by breaking the consensus. In any case, it is a fallacy that consensus has anything to so with truth value. It does not.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4025

By the way, just to acknowledge the point you made Dom about our ability to make the natural cycle worse, yes I agree with that to some extent, since we can generate a positive feedback loop (with methane being a major problem); however I have been reminded before that nature also has negative feedback loops. As a matter of fact, if only positive feedback existed, it would not take much warming to tip the planet into runaway warming. Think about how much warmer it was during the time of the dinosaurs - tropical northern Europe? What happened to methane stores back then, i.e. why did we not turn into Venus? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm really interested in the answer.

posted on July 24th, 2008, 1:44 am

We can say exactly be cause we just started looking for all the sores of amitons but baring the discovery of a new specie that perdures more methane then a factory Humans are the biggest cause by far.


The resin that researchers may have said this is because they rather be wrong and crate jobs and a clean system then be right and do nothing. I cant say for Sherrie but this is my guess or they relay found some thing we have not understood yet.

The worming cycle that is predictable and is natchraly crated.

[Svarsmannen]

posted on July 24th, 2008, 10:36 am

Last edited by Svarsmannen on July 24th, 2008, 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Dominus_Noctis: have you ever heard of a plan that excludes burning all fossil fuels until theres nothing left? i havent. which means all we are doing is slowing the expected process down. so we are far from stopping or reversing the warming.

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on July 24th, 2008, 11:46 am

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on July 24th, 2008, 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

All I know is, as I learned when I studied statistics, that you have to be very careful when analysing data. An amateur statistician may see trends and patterns which do not exist, or are not called for because the result is not "statistically significant". Believe it or not, most scientists do not have this expertise, and the politicians certainly don't.

Note that the claim of "settled science" is highly suspicious, since there is no such thing. Ask any lawyer in a crime case, having a forensic expert on the bench is their worst nightmare. Even the best forensic technique has a well known uncertainty associated with it, and even when under pressure, the expert cannot claim that even a DNA test is infallible. The lawyer wants certainty but does not understand that this is not possible. How much more so is this true for the complex climate system? Be very suspicious of anyone who makes claims of certainty. A scientist who does, has done so under duress.

So in light of what I've just said, when I look at those temperature graphs with all of their ups and downs over decade scales, I conclude nothing - anyone who does conclude that the planet is about to melt is a bad scientist. Greenhouse gases are only one contributor to all of that "noise" - and I'm not talking here about magnetic solar activity, which seems to play a minor role. Climate is significantly affected by the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the variation of the tilt of the Earth's axis, and the precession of this axis so that it "wobbles" like a spinning top. And yet the media and politicians don't even mention this stuff, they would have us believe that only greenhouse gases, with only positive feedback loops, can ever effect our climate.

Even the famous "hockey-stick" graph (or infamous if you believe the people who say that it is a flawed piece of work) does not tell us anything about where the climate is going from a statistical point of view. You can take a number of spikes earlier in the century (those jaggedy lines remember), and if you extrapolate, they shoot up into the sky like the hockey stick graph. The gradient of those fluctations are very large, and taking the derivative of this "function" is a useless activity (those of you who know calculus will know what I mean). Such extrapolation from the nineties data predicted wild warming, but instead we got a flat average or, according to some reports, a cooling which wiped out the entire previous century of warming.

I don't want to distract from my first post though - I'm still interested in why the warming up to and including the dinosaur era did not cause runaway warming, turning us into venus. 

[ewm90]

posted on July 24th, 2008, 12:07 pm

Last edited by ewm90 on July 24th, 2008, 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I get my information are companies that makes Sherrie they have the data checked well. NOVA, NASA, NOAA, plus other sores from new I way the information I hear and go with what seems most likely to me.


Look if you out to prove me wrong you may or may not do that but you will be no more smarter for it you will just feel write.

But if you are interesting in getting to hart of the matter what ever it mite be I am all for that.

posted on July 24th, 2008, 5:52 pm

Ewm, the responsible course of action in this case is to actually respond to Laz's posts.  After all, he did go through the process of writing them.

The least you could do is actually acknowledge their existence.

If you can't think of anything to reply with, I suggest you be quiet.

One last thing, Ewm: an uninformed call to action is a very foolish endeavor.

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on July 24th, 2008, 11:53 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on July 25th, 2008, 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I’ll try to give a brief explanation in lieu of my girlfriend responding (she’s busy calibrating the Mars rovers right now). The reason the Earth did not become Venus-like follows several reasons. Assuming that there was indeed much higher methane concentrations in the age of the dinosaurs (this for example puts warming as caused more by the much elevated CO2 levels, as they are actually measurable BBC News | ENGLAND | Dinosaurs felt the heat). Methane is rather short lived atmospherically (compared to any of the other green-house gasses): if it is not replenished constantly, the gas will simply be broken down by the Sun’s radiation, as well as exposure to copper, bacteria etc. The reason for Venus’ current climate is due to how close it is to the Sun, as well as the contribution of constant methane production. Water as a liquid vaporizes and cannot exist for very long before the radiation from the sun ionizes it and results in the precipitation of sulfuric acid. This creates permanent clouds which enhance global warming as the ionized water molecules are an extremely potent greenhouse gas. On Earth this does not happen nearly to the same degree as we are too far from the Sun. Global Warming for the Earth is thus never permanent, as the cycle cannot be kept up (unless of course carbon dioxide and methane and water vapor is continuously pumped into the atmosphere). Even though we can learn things from the other planets about our own, it is not feasible, nor does it make sense to compare the planets in the manner in which you have suggested. There are too many other variables to consider, such as mass, density, radius, and distance from the sun etc, to state that just because several planets are warming currently, we must be experiencing this “natural cycle” as well. Also, if you do read the study which I mentioned in the other post, you will see that it is very likely that the Sun’s relative change in activity has no effect on our global climate, and certainly not due to cosmic rays. Does that answer your question?

Regarding the article that you posted, I find it a bit curious that it is not peer reviewed, and yet claims to hold more weight than the articles which were brought to the U.N. (those were peer reviewed). Likewise, the math is a little bit… strange. The article’s math shows that its reasoning is that there may be doubt, not that there is a definite case for some. In their calculations they make a lot of strange assumptions, such as that the Earth is a black body, and that correlation must imply causation (As when they determined that the Sun’s activity correlates and thus causes the temperature changes on the Earth). This, as already discussed, is not the case (notice that the review you cited did not measure that condition specifically like the Lancaster study, it merely suggested that the correlation implied reason to believe BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'No Sun link' to climate change , and again here Solar activity 'not behind climate change' - Telegraph ... by the way if you read those articles you’ll see that both state human massive industrial production of greenhouse gasses corresponds and correlates strongly with global temperature increase). The Lancaster Study proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Sun’s activity does not affect our climate. NASA’s official statement (unless it has suddenly changed) is that global warming is currently occurring (If you recall, about two weeks ago there was a shakeup because NASA was asked to edit out their official statements and state that the climate was not experiencing any change by the Bush Administration). I am not sure where you are getting the data about a temperature decrease, as NASA’s data here shows that not to be the case: Data @ NASA GISS:
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs . As you can see, the trends are all upwards, quite significantly so, I might add. This is one of the articles that states that it is 90% certainty that humans are the cause of the current global warming: Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind - earth - 02 February 2007 - New Scientist Environment
…and this is why the cooling that you were describing after the 1940’s took place: Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
Again, human caused (aerosol production.... which when it was partially dropped, let the warming continue). Likewise, if you read the article, and look at the graphs (yes, I know statistics: but they are very staunch), you’ll see that natural variation does not explain the current trend, and thus we are responsible for this cycle in probably its entirety (I.E. our deforestation, crop choice, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, factories etc… ). Consensus may indeed be as you say, but this is not consensus. These are individual studies that all arrived at the same conclusion. It is indeed not perfect, but as we get more and more data, the picture becomes clearer. After all, this was predicted in the 1970’s and earlier, and what we have now shows that not only were those predictions accurate, but that the truth is worse. The reason that “Climate is significantly affected by the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun, the variation of the tilt of the Earth's axis, and the precession of this axis so that it "wobbles" like a spinning top” are not mentioned is because they are accounted for in the “natural” cycle. However, we are not following natural trends, yet our orbit, tilt, and precession are hardly as variable (and since we know what the climate was thru mathematical models according to these things, we can “subtract” their effects somewhat… although not perfectly obviously). The temperature data as well as the greenhouse gas graphs are not based off individual peaks, but off the trend over a long period of time (millions of years). The nineties data predicted less warming than we have experienced actually… look at NASA’s website for information.

The most impressive negative feedback loop in this case will be our extinction (cynic here). We stop methane production/carbon dioxide emission, and the Earth’s temperature drops down after a few hundred years. Otherwise, we probably will end up similar to Venus. Of course we can never conclude anything, but I am sure some people will be saying that even as water floods their houses and carbon dioxide chokes their dog.


To Svarsmannen for your post “@Dominus_Noctis: have you ever heard of a plan that excludes burning all fossil fuels until theres nothing left? i havent. which means all we are doing is slowing the expected process down. so we are far from stopping or reversing the warming.”


Many of the plans actually. Most call for a reduction of 60% of greenhouse gasses by 2050  (according to 1980 levels) as well as boosting solar, wind, and hydroelectric or nuclear power, many others call for seeding plankton etc… Again however, the problem isn’t just global warming, it is everything that accompanies it as I have often stated. Habitat loss, polluted water, invasive species, heat pollution of oceanic currents, the Gulf Stream alteration… these are also things that are caused or altered indirectly by global warming or have accompanied our rise into the 21st century.

Oh, and finally, if you go to Argo's site: Argo - part of the integrated global observation strategy ... you'll see that it directly contradicts what your cited article stated about the Argo floats ironically, Laz. Sea ice coverage is decreasing, sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate... etc. Strange huh? That article also contradicts NASA's official statements and data as well... which is also weird (and why it is even more necesary that an article like that be peer-reviewed).

Offtopic: Redshirt, what the heck is this?: “Ewm, the responsible course of action in this case is to actually respond to Laz's posts.  After all, he did go through the process of writing them.”

You never really respond to my posts or to Laz’s either (I’ll admit, you have responded to Ewm points a lot of times)… as in the gun debate for example. In my case you mentioned a few issues and then brushed aside the bulk of my argument multiple times. In Laz’s you merely congratulated him, without even reading his post thoroughly apparently. I understand you get frustrated, but please let’s keep this debate moderately friendly (I realize that right now I am guilty of the same thing though)

posted on July 25th, 2008, 1:06 am

Offtopic: Redshirt, what the heck is this?: “Ewm, the responsible course of action in this case is to actually respond to Laz's posts.  After all, he did go through the process of writing them.”

You never really respond to my posts or to Laz’s either (I’ll admit, you have responded to Ewm points a lot of times)… as in the gun debate for example. In my case you mentioned a few issues and then brushed aside the bulk of my argument multiple times. In Laz’s you merely congratulated him, without even reading his post thoroughly apparently. I understand you get frustrated, but please let’s keep this debate moderately friendly (I realize that right now I am guilty of the same thing though)

Well, the reason I have rarely responded to Laz's posts as of late is that I have been in complete agreement.  I've simply had nothing to add.  Ewm, on the other hand, has taken opposite sides regarding the issues being discussed, but has continued on as if Laz hadn't even said a word.  This is intellectual laziness.

The reason I haven't responded to your posts consistently is that I simply haven't had the time to tackle them on a point-by-point basis.  Ewm's postings tend to be shorter and much easier to address. This isn't a matter of laziness; this is a busy summer schedule coupled with holding down a job.

Oh, and the only times I have gone out of my way to respond to you have been when you have specifically referred to me.

posted on July 25th, 2008, 2:21 pm

I I had seen them I don't replay to very post but I certainly don't willfully ignore them with out good a resign.

No its a matter of time energy and typing/reading ability. I have other things in the day I need to get done that I put for importance to than posting here.

Don't assume that what I am doing is out of laziness.

posted on July 25th, 2008, 8:21 pm

Well, I have one general question for DN.

Since you (well, either you or your astrophysicist girlfriend) seem to have some grasp on the scientific basis for what climate change is occurring, what do you recommend as the proper course of action to stop it, and why?

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on July 25th, 2008, 11:07 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on July 26th, 2008, 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Before stating anything on the subject of a proper course of action, I’d like to say that it is easier to observe and see the effects of Global Warming and other environmental catastrophes, but it is a whole lot more difficult to give a definitive plan to insure these things don’t happen.

Now, first off I’d like you to read this article: The Green Issue - Climate Change - Environment - Energy Efficiency - Consumption - New York Times

In my opinion it is rather well written and basically suggests courses of action and why they are practical for the common consumer (and why they matter in the greater scheme of things). This is not some grandiose plan to bring about a decrease in global warming thru seeing plankton on the oceans, but rather what every individual can choose to do to make a cumulative large difference.

With that said, one of the most important things is to become informed: think things through in the long term. For example: when someone like Frodo says “i switch off my lights and tv cos it saves me money. not a polar bear. i walk to the town cos its healthier, not cos it cools the planet down. we're not all gonna die cos a few cows are farting and a tv is left on” he does not consider what happens when more than just a few cars or a few people or a few industries release chemicals/gasses, whatever. Although he may switch off his lights to save money now (and not the polar bear), this is only taking care of his current immediate issue. Assuming one lives in a home, if that person bought some solar panels to power the TV, or changed the lights/added a skylight, not only would they save more money in the long term, but it would be cutting down on that individual’s ecological footprint. Buying a diesel-electric hybrid may be more expensive initially (actually, not by much though), but not only do many people not travel more than the plug-in mode allows, but the thing gets phenomenal gas mileage (Just look at Saturn’s up and coming E-flex line Chevy Volt goes to Europe: Opel Flextreme Concept has ultra-low emissions of 40g/km of CO2 (!) and two on-board Segways - AutoblogGreen … Detroit 2008: Saturn Flextreme E-Flex Concept - AutoblogGreen). I’m not saying those are the best ways, but those are ways. Likewise, the death of those polar bears is just a herald. Just as the canary in the coal mine. There are untold numbers of animals (bugs, bacteria that sorta stuff) that are going extinct at this moment (way way above the normal rate). Thinking on an ecological scale, that is scary, but thinking on a scale to relate it to you and me... most of our drugs and medication are derived through animal processes... how many "cures" are we losing really? If we had lost willow trees ages ago we would not have aspirin. Losing certain types of bacteria means we wouldn't have the antibiotics we have now. ...not to mention how many ways of understanding our planet are we losing.

Again, read the article, as that is much better written and more helpful. There are so many little things that one can do and which reduce our problems tremendously.

... but right now, I must go, for I too have two jobs and need to take care of my girlfriend. 

posted on July 27th, 2008, 11:26 pm

U all realise that by responding to him you only serve to intertain him. you wont change his views. he is posting theise just to troll

posted on July 28th, 2008, 1:44 am

So I suppose because Dominus_Noctis has views that differ from yours that his must be less legitimate. He must just be trolling considering how long his posts are usually on these debate threads especially when he is responding to someone else who asked him a direct question/extreme sarcasm/.

That being said, as someone who has expertise in fields relating to those that encompass the issue of global warming (i.e. planetary science). I would like to express my deep frustration to people who just don't seem to get it. While the climate changes rapidly due to human influence (and, yes, I consider this to be an indisbutable fact no made what NASA scientist the Bush administration decides to silence), the earth is going to be just fine. The earth will go on doing what it does.

It is LIFE on earth that will have to change dramatically to accomodate these climate changes. So sure, a bunch of animals will die, but what will become of us? I mean, we're more sophisticated, right? Well, that sophistication has put us at "the top of the food chain", right? And does anyone remember from middle school biology class what happens to the predators at the top when the animals/plants it feeds upon go away?

But our inguinity should transcend that, yes? Sure, but just for a select few that can afford expensive food synthesizers from Star Trek. For the 6.8 billion others, well...

And thats just the food issue. What about plant-based medicines that cannot be synthesized? What happens when those resources become scarce? And what about the water shortages?

Since this is a pretty bleak outcome, what is the point of trying to stop it? Resistence is futile. Well, maybe we don't have to make it as[i][/i] bad. There is no denying that everyone's way of life is going to change. But if we all chip in, we can begin to atone for our rape of the planet Earth.

So as a woman who has seen many dead worlds, I urge you to take a look around (yes, stop staring at the computer screen and go outside). Enjoy it while you can, because it may be very different a few years from now.

posted on July 28th, 2008, 5:38 am

We got you think this is a waste of time you dont have to keep reminding us we get it.

I am having a hard time reading all this text. By typing more dose not credibility or Value to you point it just makes it so there is more to read. Can please sum up our posts when posable.

U all realise that by responding to him you only serve to intertain him. you wont change his views. he is posting theise just to troll