Forums - General Discussion - Anybody who believed global warming was man made are having questions now?

Never believed in GW to start with. And i just love how they all say the world will flood. That takes the cake.



Around the Network
megaman79 said:
Sqrl said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:

I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

On the other hand we don't really know that it doesn't affect anything in a way that could tip something irreversible. We just don't know enough to say either way. For instance, just because no one knew of calculus and gravity before Newton, doesn't mean those laws didn't exist beforehand. There has always been a cost/risk with many decisions, and I wager that the risk here far outweighs several trillion dollars in potential damages.

Except that people in third world countries are dying because of environmental policies meant to fight global warming.  Without access to their country's coal to raise themselves out of poverty, like the developed world was able to do, they are living a life where survival is constantly in doubt. 

In short, to the extent that there are things we can do that genuinely do not have downsides (such as conservation, advancing research in Fusion power, etc...) we should absolutely do whatever we can because those things have other upsides typically as well.  But that line has to be drawn at policies which do have a cost measured in human lives and yes even monetary costs that threaten economic stability.

Link that for me please.

I know of two major effects on the third world, severe and extended droughts and also food pricing due to biofuel production, but i have never heard that coal is restricted in these countries at all, and further more that is our fault for causing it.

A lot of this issue was hashed out after AR2 (the first IPCC report to officially attribute GW to man), at the time I believed the AGW theory and it is what initially got me interested to study the matter.  As a result of the timing most of this is archived info, but I dug up an article from the period as an example of what I was referring to:

Link - This is an archived NYT article from 1997 (AR2 was released around 1995 iirc).

....

"Very many of us are struggling to attain a decent standard of living for our peoples," he said, "and yet we are constantly told that we must share in the effort to reduce emissions so that industrialized countries can continue to enjoy the benefits of their wasteful life style."

The issue is more complicated -- and possibly less intractable -- than it might seem on the surface. The arguments conceal factors believed by many, including Mwandosya, to contain elements of a constructive approach.

One good sign, the Third World countries say, is that they have already lessened the rates at which their emissions are increasing. A recent study by the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based research organization, found that many key Third World countries, have cut or eliminated energy subsidies and as a result are emitting less carbon dioxide than they otherwise would have.

Cutting the subsidies has raised energy costs and thereby discouraged the burning of coal and oil. The pricing changes were undertaken for economic reasons, not environmental ones, the report said, but the effect on carbon emissions was the same.

....

I doubt you will take my word for it, but the stuff about "economic" reasons was political BS from the time.  A fact that should make quite a bit of sense to anyone who is familiar with the process of economic development.  Coal and oil were and are crucial to developing industrialized economies* that can help sustain (and improve the quality of life for) the populations of an already stressed third world country, there are no real economic reasons for third world governments to discourage it in that situation**, but there are plenty of environmental reasons (the specter of global warming chief among them). 

*A quote from the paper, the bracket notes are added by me for context: "The principal findings are that energy used per unit of economic output has declined [industrialized nations], but that this is to a  large extent due to a shift in energy use from direct use of fossil fuels such as coal to the use of higher quality fuels, and especially electricity. When this shift in the  composition  of  final  energy  use  is  accounted  for,  energy  use  and  the  level  of  economic activity are found  to remain fairly tightly coupled."

**(I'm sure there might be specific countries with an odd set of circumstances but by in large this is true)

This whole debate at the time really brought a lot of third world countries to the table in the hopes that they could draw money out of industrialized nations.  This is what shaped the current debate into a discussion of wealth transfers like some of those discussed at Copenhagen recently.  In a lot of ways it has lampooned the efforts for any serious progress on the matter, but that is really a whole other topic. 

The bottom line is global warming policies do advocate that third world countries stop using or at least limit the use of hydrocarbons while the use of those hydrocarbons is linked to the economic growth that would quite literally save lives the same way our own economic development has helped the industrialized world live longer and healthier lives. Let me know if you disagree with this.



To Each Man, Responsibility
tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

I'm not sure you followed my point (this may be my fault).  Allow me to rephrase.

If I take it under consideration that the models indicate a 5-10% increase in hurricane activity over a doubling of C02 then my first thought is that we are talking about something we can analyze with empirical data.  In this instance we are talking about a basic logarithmic relationship in which each unit of additional increase in atmospheric C02 has an exponentially smaller impact on the increase in hurricane intensity (in the form of some unspecified measurement). 

The important thing to note here however, and I want to stress this, is that when someone tells me "Models predict 5-10% increase from a doubling of C02." I take away the fact that they've identified a logarithmic trend and then I consult the emprical evidence for the details of the impact of that logarithmic trend.  A model is, as I said, not science by itself but merely a hypothesis which is of course just a very early step in the scientific process.  The crucial step of gathering and testing data comes after that step.  The models, like a hypothesis, are a research guide telling us where to look in the vast sea of emperical data, they are not a substitute for actually looking at that data.

In short, I take the model as meaning I should look for a logarithmic relationship between atmospheric C02 and hurricane intensity.  When I look at the emperical data I find that there is no evident trend during decades where annual mean temperatures increased or decreased.  I then analyze this discovery in the light of the decreasing efficacy of logarithmic relationships leading me to the conclusion that if the relationship does exist it is negligible.

Please advise me of where I've gone wrong in this analysis.



To Each Man, Responsibility
tombi123 said:
sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

We shouldn't be throwing exorbitant amounts of the people's money on what ifs. I could tell you that Skittles cause cancer, and you could possibly die a horrible death as a result of eating them with no proof whatsoever. Would you give me millions of dollars with no discernable proof to force people to stop eating them?

Increasing hurricane intensity due to increasing land surface temperature (relative to ocean surface temperature) isn't a what if. It is a fact. 

Just so you know, my position on Climate Change is in between the advocates and sceptics. I believe we are contributing to global warming because carbon has been shown to absorb/trap heat, and we emit carbon. But I think we need more data to get a clearer idea of how much we are contributing to global warming.  

With respect, I believe it is possible your information might actually be out of date in certain respects: 

"Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming" (News Article) - (Research Paper[2008]). 

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet."

It is fair to point out that Dr Emanuel is an AGW proponent so the point of my linking him is not to claim he supports everything I say, but merely to exhibit that credentialed experts in the field of hurricane activity have in fact "hedged their bets".



To Each Man, Responsibility
FootballFan said:
finalrpgfantasy said:
i believe in Global warning, the evidence:
-the rise in CO2, with more CO2 more temperature.
-the polar ice caps are smaller compare to decades ago
- terrible hurricane seasons.
- the temperature on earth surface and sea has risen( this is what defined global warning)


Why is it Britain has had the coldest Janurary in 50 years?

Evidence to suggest otherwise previously in this thread.

Also maybe its not fair to measure temperature increase by a single month, however, Britian's peek in temperature was the 1920's. If Global warming is true then why hasn't that temperature been exceeded in any decade since?

because britain is close to the arthic, GW doesn't mean that snow and cold will dissapear. Is like that heat wave in 2003 in europe, northern europe was not effect that much compare to the center.



Around the Network
sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
HappySqurriel said:
tombi123 said:
sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

We shouldn't be throwing exorbitant amounts of the people's money on what ifs. I could tell you that Skittles cause cancer, and you could possibly die a horrible death as a result of eating them with no proof whatsoever. Would you give me millions of dollars with no discernable proof to force people to stop eating them?

Increasing hurricane intensity due to increasing land surface temperature (relative to ocean surface temperature) isn't a what if. It is a fact. 

Just so you know, my position on Climate Change is in between the advocates and sceptics. I believe we are contributing to global warming because carbon has been shown to absorb/trap heat, and we emit carbon. But I think we need more data to get a clearer idea of how much we are contributing to global warming.  

Its not a fact, its an unproven theory that many climate scientists believe ...

Climatology is a science that is in its infancy, and we don’t know nearly enough about the complex interactions within the system to make accurate predictions about how the influence of one variable will impact the system.

There is plenty of evidence and it is well understood that generally a higher temperature gradient leads to a more intense storm.

Having a an idea of something is not fact.

There is no point discussing climate change with you because you have already shown in this thread that you are closed minded and irrational.



finalrpgfantasy said:
FootballFan said:
finalrpgfantasy said:
i believe in Global warning, the evidence:
-the rise in CO2, with more CO2 more temperature.
-the polar ice caps are smaller compare to decades ago
- terrible hurricane seasons.
- the temperature on earth surface and sea has risen( this is what defined global warning)


Why is it Britain has had the coldest Janurary in 50 years?

Evidence to suggest otherwise previously in this thread.

Also maybe its not fair to measure temperature increase by a single month, however, Britian's peek in temperature was the 1920's. If Global warming is true then why hasn't that temperature been exceeded in any decade since?

because britain is close to the arthic, GW doesn't mean that snow and cold will dissapear. Is like that heat wave in 2003 in europe, northern europe was not effect that much compare to the center.

 

Few points, first NASA has attributed the low 2007 minimum and the preceding several years worth of ice loss to the changes in the winds. Not to rising temperatures in the arctic.

....

"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said."

....

When ocean ice migrates to lower latitudes it's going to melt.  More to the point however I would point out that citing sea ice extent is somewhat comical at present given the (legitimate) calls of "Weather is not climate!" from several in this thread and around the debate in general in regards to recent snowfall totals (Something the GCMs didn't predict - in fact they predicted the opposite).  2007 was certainly a striking year if you just look at a line on a graph...but it was still one year and subsequent inquiries that go deeper than a line on a graph reveal a different story than the typical assumption of a warming arctic. 

Second, on the issue of glaciers I would start by pointing out that glaciers are responsive to a whole lot more than simple temperature for their melt and growth.  To see this in action you can look at some of the major glaciers that are in fact growing right now such as the Himalayan glaciers (among several others - I can get you links if needed).  If global temperature changes were a primary driver of glacial melt this would not be the case (they are certainly important, but factors often local to the glaciers play a critical role as well), or to put it another way, it's more complicated than hot=melt, cold=grow.

From here I would point out that we are just now in the past couple of years getting quality measurements of glaciers and we are finding that our numbers might not be what we thought they were:

"Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS – CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated."

And finallly, I would add that we are currently in the midst of the Holocene Interglacial, several glaciers were formed when average global temperatures were 6C(~11F) lower than they are today over 12,000 years ago.  And the real kicker is that for large extents of those 12,000 years the temperature has actually been a bit higher than it is now:

 

The idea that now suddenly under this recent allegedly human induced warming the glaciers are just rapidly dissapearing as a result seems a bit far-fetched when you look at the full context of temperature on the timescales of a glacier's lifespan. 

With all of that said it may actually be the case that glaciers are retreating right now, but understanding why is a lot more difficult than simply pointing out that they are (or pointing out that a few others are growing as I did, for that matter).  Given the issues involved in accurately measuring glacier retreat/growth I find recent satellite data to be most reliable but I don't doubt that some glaciers are melting as your graph points out.  But simply being in retreat is not abnormal for glaciers during any period over the last 12,000 years and it's certainly not a case for AGW.



To Each Man, Responsibility
tombi123 said:
sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
HappySqurriel said:
tombi123 said:
sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

We shouldn't be throwing exorbitant amounts of the people's money on what ifs. I could tell you that Skittles cause cancer, and you could possibly die a horrible death as a result of eating them with no proof whatsoever. Would you give me millions of dollars with no discernable proof to force people to stop eating them?

Increasing hurricane intensity due to increasing land surface temperature (relative to ocean surface temperature) isn't a what if. It is a fact. 

Just so you know, my position on Climate Change is in between the advocates and sceptics. I believe we are contributing to global warming because carbon has been shown to absorb/trap heat, and we emit carbon. But I think we need more data to get a clearer idea of how much we are contributing to global warming.  

Its not a fact, its an unproven theory that many climate scientists believe ...

Climatology is a science that is in its infancy, and we don’t know nearly enough about the complex interactions within the system to make accurate predictions about how the influence of one variable will impact the system.

There is plenty of evidence and it is well understood that generally a higher temperature gradient leads to a more intense storm.

Having a an idea of something is not fact.

There is no point discussing climate change with you because you have already shown in this thread that you are closed minded and irrational.

No need to throw insults, rather typical though. You are saying someting is a fact. Facts are things that have been proven to be the case. This is a theory, from people who's motivations have been proven to be dubious at best. I'll spell it out for you...T-H-E-O-R-Y. Basic scientific principals that are needed to get to facts. Who really is being close minded and irrational here?



finalrpgfantasy said:

because britain is close to the arthic, GW doesn't mean that snow and cold will dissapear. Is like that heat wave in 2003 in europe, northern europe was not effect that much compare to the center.

Why do you use 2007?  There are data for 2009:

As you can see, since 2007 the extent has returned to approximately the average for 2002-09.  So far in 2010 the extent is again normal.

But I digress.  Over the last 30 years, the only years in which we've had accurate measurements (this is a very short period of time for this sort of thing, so it's hard to draw conclusions regardless), Arctic sea ice has had a declining trend.  However, Antarctic sea ice has had an increasing trend over that period of time, hitting record highs in 2007 (alongside the Arctic minimum).  If the theory of global warming is true, wouldn't we expect BOTH poles to have less and less sea ice over time?

In any case, even a loss of all Arctic sea ice wouldn't be catastrophic, even though it is unlikely.  It's happened before, if we look at historical records.  Even in Greenland, Viking ruins have been discovered underneath retreating glaciers, indicating it was warmer, or about as warm, during the Medieval Warm Period than it is today.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

elprincipe + sqrl = win



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.