The North Pole is melting - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 09-14-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Nice example of how “correlation doesn’t prove causation” vanishes like a ghost whenever global warming deniers talk about sunspots.

Nice example of something Ustwo never said.

Ustwo · 09-14-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

I'm glad we have actual scientists on the board but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret the data. No offense meant to raveneye or Ustwo, its just that most members aren't practicing scientists, and I don't think thats necessary to have an informed opinion on global warming. I've said this before in similar threads, just open your eyes and look around, profound changes are already under way. A constant barrage of "this is a natural cycle" isn't going to cut it anymore. Theres nothing natural about burning untold billions of tons of fossil fuels over several hundred years. Almost anyone can see that. Almost.....

And how would you know what that natural cycle is to know its not cutting it?

If there was a natural warming and cooling cycle (and I only say if as it applies the current trends, we know there IS one regardless) how would you know if it 'cut it'?

Saying things like 'profound changes' mean nothing, we don't even know what normal changes are. How long have we been studying this kind of thing with any precision? Decades at best, with a smattering of temperature data and some anecdotal reports.

I can make two claims with equal certainty. The earth as some point in the future will be warmer. Likewise the earth as some point in the future will be colder. We know this, it happened 1000's of times in the past, and quite personally I'm far more worried about humanity and the next ice age than humanity and global warming, but still both will happen to us.

To sit here and decide that we MUST be doing it based on what we currently know is almost a form of hubris. Some things, man just doesn't have that much say in, one way or the other.

DaveOrion · 09-14-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And how would you know what that natural cycle is to know its not cutting it?

Refer to the pretty graph I posted on the first page, that may help.

pai mei · 09-14-2007, 05:09 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm

Quote:

The most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up fully for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.

Historically, the passage that links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic has been ice-bound.

Baraka_Guru · 09-14-2007, 07:17 PM

The North Pole melting wouldn't be such a bad thing. Canada and Russia would stand to benefit. We could open up more trade routes and perhaps would have more territory for finding resources. Could you imagine finding a bunch of oil up there, maybe some diamonds?

raveneye · 09-14-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Nice example of something Ustwo never said.

Perhaps then you can explain the relevance of Ustwo's sunspot butterfly diagram without pleading that correlation implies causation. Ustwo seems to be suddenly reticent about the topic himself.

ottopilot · 09-15-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We need to reclaim the CO2 from the air, and fast. Cutting emissions isn't enough, really. We need to actually take the CO2 out of the air, and convert it to electricity.

Just a general comment about the whole CO2 and greenhouse gas problem... Is everyone aware of the impact the world meat industry has in regards to greenhouse emmissions and environmental degredation? The meat industry generates more CO2 than all combined motorized transportion in the entire world (just under 20% of all sources according to the UN's FAO - check website for stats). This doesn't account for huge quantities of more dangerous greenhouse gases like methane, and numerous other nasty details that the meat industry unleashes on the environment.

Now I like a good steak any day of the week, but why is the single largest culprit in greenhouse emmissions never mentioned by environmental groups? Well there's PETA (check out their website too). Al Gore doesn't seem to mention this one in his "documentary" and tasty meat products were plentiful at Live Earth.

Faster than buying a Prius and installing flourescent lighting (which both depend on horribly toxic materials and processes to produce), going vegetarian would be the quickest single measure in the world that would reduce CO2 and greenhouse gasses immediately. ...however, the economic impact would be devasting.

At some time in history, I believe "Greenland" was named that for a reason.

tecoyah · 09-15-2007, 02:58 AM

Somehow, I find the opinions of those in a position to actually see all the Data a bit more compelling than speculative guessing by the masses. As complex as this issue is, we are forced to trust in the scientists that have the time, and resources to devote to its study:

Quote:

Bush aide says warming man-made

Professor John Marburger is Mr Bush's top science advisor
The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.

Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".

His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at the UN and the Washington White House.

There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/n...stm?globaloney

raveneye · 09-15-2007, 11:40 PM

The Executive Summary on the status of the polar bear was just released to the US Fish and Wildlife Service on Sept. 7, and you can read it here:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special...ve_summary.pdf

As many of us here are aware, the USFWS proposed to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species act in January of this year. At that time they ordered the USGS to assemble the best science available on the viability of the polar bear population to inform recovery efforts. This Executive Summary is that report.

It is not good news. Here are some excerpts:

Quote:

Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.

Their predictions are derived from a simple calculation of the environmental carrying capacity for the bear population:

Quote:

1. We divided the range of the polar bear into 4 ecoregions based on major differences in current and projected sea ice conditions. These “ecoregions” were the:

-- Seasonal Ice Ecoregion which includes Hudson Bay, and occurs mainly at the southern extreme of the polar bear range,
-- Archipelagic Ecoregion of the Canadian Arctic,
-- Polar Basin Divergent Ecoregion where ice is formed and then drawn away from near-shore areas, especially during the summer minimum ice season, and
-- Polar Basin Convergent Ecoregion where sea ice formed elsewhere tends to collect against the shore.

Dividing the range of the polar bear into these 4 ecoregions allowed us to make inferences from available knowledge about subpopulations in each ecoregion to the entire ecoregion.

12. Ultimately, we projected a 42% loss of optimal polar bear habitat during summer in the polar basin by mid century.

13. Due to unavailability of telemetry data showing habitats chosen by polar bears in the archipelagic and seasonal sea ice ecoregions, we were unable to project habitat changes in these ecoregions for this analysis.

14. Using a simple deterministic model of future carrying capacity for polar bears, we forecasted that polar bears could be extirpated in the divergent ice ecoregion within 75 years, assuming that sea ice decline follows the mean trajectory predicted by the 10 models we used. If sea ice decline follows the minimum trajectory predicted, extirpation in this ecoregion could occur by year 45.

15. Using the carrying capacity model, we projected populations of polar bears in all other ecoregions to decline at all time steps, with severity of decline dependent upon whether minimum, maximum or mean ice projections were used. The only exception was a slight, temporary, increase in the polar basin convergent ice ecoregion for the 45 year timestep and the maximum ice scenario.

16. Based on a first-generation Bayesian Network model incorporating a range of factors affecting polar bears, we forecasted extirpation of polar bear populations in the seasonal sea ice and the polar basin divergent ecoregions by 45 years from present.

17. We forecasted extirpation of polar bear populations in the polar basin convergent ecoregion by 75 years from present. In the archipelagic ecoregion, polar bears could occur through the end of the century, but in smaller numbers than now.

This is a very optimistic analysis, as it ignores recent data that suggest the sea ice is disappearing at a much faster rate than assumed here, and it completely ignores other factors that can cause extinction such as genetic inbreeding and random drift, demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and hybridization with the grizzly bear. Even if a few polar bears are theoretically capable of subsisting on the dwindling habitat, the probability that they are wiped out by disease or chance climate fluctuation or just bad luck during any given year will be very high.

I think that by mid century, and perhaps well before that time, the population will be mostly genetically subsumed by the grizzly bear, since they seem to be hybridizing more and more frequently as the grizzlies migrate ever more northward with the warming climate.

ratbastid · 09-16-2007, 04:57 AM

Meanwhile, while we sit here yabbering, as of this month the Northwest Passage is navigable for the first time in recorded history.

SOMETHING is happening. And it's a bigger SOMETHING than humanity has ever witnessed before. It would be logical to see if it's something we can do anything about.

tecoyah · 09-16-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Meanwhile, while we sit here yabbering, as of this month the Northwest Passage is navigable for the first time in recorded history.

SOMETHING is happening. And it's a bigger SOMETHING than humanity has ever witnessed before. It would be logical to see if it's something we can do anything about.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell we are powerless to change something as complex and overwhelming as a change in Climate. Instead we might work on adaptation and contingency plans. At this point it makes little sense to point fingers at the cause....but lowering emissions is a good idea from virtually every conceivable angle regardless.

raveneye · 09-16-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell we are powerless to change something as complex and overwhelming as a change in Climate.

Precisely engineer fine details of climate, no. But we certainly can strongly influence the global mean temperature, as we have been doing for the last 50-odd years.

And we can continue to do so in the future, as the IPCC has carefully shown in its physical basis report:

scenarios.gif

And here are the scenarios referred to in the figure:

Quote:

Box TS.1. The Emissions Scenarios of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

A1. The A1 storyline and scenario family describe a future world of very rapid economic growth, global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid introduction of new and more efficient technologies. Major underlying themes are convergence among regions, capacity building, and increased cultural and social interactions, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. The A1 scenario family develops into three groups that describe alternative directions of technological change in the energy system. The three A1 groups are distinguished by their technological emphasis: fossil intensive (A1FI), non-fossil energy sources (A1T), or a balance across all sources (A1B) (where balanced is defined as not relying too heavily on one particular energy source, on the assumption that similar improvement rates apply to all energy supply and end-use technologies).

A2. The A2 storyline and scenario family describe a very heterogeneous world. The underlying theme is self-reliance and preservation of local identities. Fertility patterns across regions converge very slowly, which results in a continuously increasing population. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and per capita economic growth and technological change more fragmented and slower than in other storylines.

B1. The B1 storyline and scenario family describe a convergent world with the same global population, which peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, as in the A1 storyline, but with rapid change in economic structures towards a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource-efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives.

B2. The B2 storyline and scenario family describe a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social, and environmental sustainability. It is a world with continuously increasing global population, at a rate lower than in A2, intermediate levels of economic development, and less rapid and more diverse technological change than in the B1 and A1 storylines. While the scenario is also oriented towards environmental protection and social equity, it focuses on local and regional levels.

An illustrative scenario was chosen for each of the six scenario groups A1B, A1FI, A1T, A2, B1, and B2. All should be considered equally sound.

The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg3/015.htm

Ourcrazymodern? · 09-16-2007, 10:01 AM

OK. Which alternative included the people coming to understand each other?

Love conquers everything except hate, and understanding without love is not.

(I'll confess idiocy)

thingstodo · 09-17-2007, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We need to reclaim the CO2 from the air, and fast. Cutting emissions isn't enough, really. We need to actually take the CO2 out of the air, and convert it to electricity.

The easiest way to do this is to stop cuting all the Amazon forest. No one talks about that - just the carbon cars and planes produce. We can have balance but we keep cutting down the filtration/processing/conversion system!

Seaver · 09-17-2007, 04:17 AM

Quote:

The easiest way to do this is to stop cuting all the Amazon forest. No one talks about that - just the carbon cars and planes produce. We can have balance but we keep cutting down the filtration/processing/conversion system!

Actually no one talks about it but Plankton are many, many times greater more responsible for CO2 fixation than the rain forest.

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

Not that I'm all for cutting it down, don't get me wrong, but once again I see a nature will balance aspect to which these scaremongers completely ignore anything which doesn't go their way. Increased temperatures will increase enormously the amount of water fertile to plankton, which will in turn enormously increase the carbon fixation rate.

Ustwo · 09-17-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Actually no one talks about it but Plankton are many, many times greater more responsible for CO2 fixation than the rain forest.

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-02.html

Not that I'm all for cutting it down, don't get me wrong, but once again I see a nature will balance aspect to which these scaremongers completely ignore anything which doesn't go their way. Increased temperatures will increase enormously the amount of water fertile to plankton, which will in turn enormously increase the carbon fixation rate.

I haven't had time to really sit down and sift through this thread in the last couple of days, but 'they' always forget the oceans here.

This is where the scare tactics, 'fear not facts' come into play.

These are the same type who said that cutting down rain forest would get rid of the worlds oxygen not long ago.

The rain forest could be utterly destroyed and not much would change, in 02 or in C02, as you said its mostly the oceans.

But this does cut to the heart of the environmentalists who support this kind of thing but are not just useful idiots like our boat climbers from another thread. They figure that you can't get stupid joe six pack to care about bio-diversity. He might not care that a species of frog is about to go extinct or the like, so lets scare him into supporting the cause. It doesn't matter if its honest or not.

The problem, besides being a liar, is that Joe Six pack might be uneducated but hes not completely stupid. Sooner or later the lie is discovered, and nothing changes long term.

DaveOrion · 09-17-2007, 04:50 AM

As I'm sure everyone knows, its not just the north pole, but Antarctica is melting as well. With the loss of the the sea ice, the loss of the krill that live under it is almost certain. Why should we care???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krill

Quote:

Krill occur in all oceans of the world. They are considered keystone species near the bottom of the food chain because they feed on phytoplankton and to a lesser extent zooplankton, converting these into a form suitable for many larger animals for whom krill makes up the largest part of their diet. In the Southern Ocean, one species, the Antarctic Krill, Euphausia superba, makes up a biomass of over 500 million tons, roughly twice that of humans. Of this, over half is eaten by whales, seals, penguins, squid and fish each year, and replaced by growth and reproduction. Most krill species display large daily vertical migrations, thus feeding predators near the surface at night and in deeper waters during the day.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarc...al_warming.htm

Quote:

Krill shortages

Studies (November 2004) have shown that stocks of krill in Antarctica have declined dramatically in recent years. The reason for this is likely to be a fall in the amount of sea ice in the winter months particularly in the Antarctic Peninsula region.

Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago. The decline in krill may in turn account for the decline in the numbers of some penguin species.

Dr Angus Atkinson from British Antarctic Survey, says:

"This is the first time that we have understood the full scale of this decline. Krill feed on the algae found under the surface of the sea-ice, which acts as a kind of 'nursery'.

The Antarctic Peninsula, a key breeding ground for the krill, is one of the places in the world where there has been the greatest rise in temperatures due to global warming. This region has warmed by 2.5�C in the last 50 years (much more than the mean global rate), with a striking consequential decrease in winter sea-ice cover.

"We don't fully understand how the loss of sea-ice here is connected to the warming, but we believe that it could be behind the decline in krill."

There are commercial implications as well as scientific ones. The Southern Ocean is a valuable fisheries resource, many of the species caught feed on krill. Thousands of tourists are also attracted to Antarctica to enjoy the spectacular wildlife, most of which feed on krill.

There has been previous speculation that krill stocks might have decreased, based on smaller more localized surveys over shorter time periods. This new finding comes from data from nine countries working in Antarctica who pooled their separate data covering 40 Antarctic summers, in the period between 1926 and 2003. This is the first time such a large-scale view of change across the Southern Ocean has been seen.

Another animal that feeds on the same phytoplankton food as krill, jelly-like colonial animals called salps that drift in the ocean currents have increased in the same time the krill have decreased.

This decline in krill will also make it more difficult for the great baleen whales to return to pre-exploitation levels following their decimation in numbers during the years from approximately 1925-1975.

raveneye · 09-17-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The problem, ..., is that Joe Six pack might be uneducated but hes not completely stupid. Sooner or later the lie is discovered, and nothing changes long term.

Actually, check out the recent polls. About 60-70% of Americans believe global warming is real, caused by humans, and are concerned enough about it that they have made personal sacrifices to cut down their energy use.

It appears that Joe Six Pack has no problem at all telling the difference between the fringe loonies and the scientific consensus. And by loonies, of course I mean the global warming deniers

ladiesman24 · 09-19-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by World's King

I'm gonna run outta ice for cocktails.

hahaha

Zeraph · 09-19-2007, 10:41 AM

It's all pretty simple to me. Global warming is real and so are the global changes in weather. The question is how much we had to do with it, and how much we can control it. The good news is theyre both linked. If we caused it then we can learn to control it and probably will. If we can't control it then all we can do is go on as we are and there isn't much to say.

BigBaldRon · 09-19-2007, 07:32 PM

If you've spent the time to watch the Al Gore global warming tour movie, take a while to watch these. (the entire 9 part series is on google video)

Google Video

Google Video

And this

Glenn Beck - Global Warming Montage: the OTHER side of the global warming debate

raveneye · 09-21-2007, 02:26 AM

Big Bald Ron wants us all to go watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, which is a very nice example of how not to do effective political propaganda: for example, if you display a phony temperature graph that “disproves” global warming, don’t say you got it from NASA.

"The original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr. Durkin said. You can't make this stuff up

And the list goes on, phony science, phony scientists. One truly wonders why people choose to be fooled by this stuff.

Quote:

The real global warming swindle

A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors

By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

One of the principal supports for his thesis came in the form of a graph labelled "World Temp - 120 years", which claimed to show rises and falls in average global temperatures between 1880 and 2000.

Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

The programme-makers labelled the source of the world temperature data as "Nasa" but when we inquired about where we could find this information, we received an email through Wag TV's PR consultant saying that the graph was drawn from a 1998 diagram published in an obscure journal called Medical Sentinel. The authors of the paper are well-known climate sceptics who were funded by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and the George C Marshall Institute, a right-wing Washington think-tank.

However, there are no diagrams in the paper that accurately compare with the C4 graph. The nearest comparison is a diagram of "terrestrial northern hemisphere" temperatures - which refers only to data gathered by weather stations in the top one third of the globe.

However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.

http://www.news.independent.co.uk/en...cle2355956.ece

BigBaldRon · 09-21-2007, 11:25 AM

So, the director of the film used bad graphs. I guess that negates the climatologists with PHD's opinions, right?

Its all mans fault! Lets all turn off our computers and stop using cars!
Lord knows that mankind caused the last ice age to end, right?
This is a cycle. The world has always been cyclical in regards to temperature. But now, since MAN is here, its all MANs fault! This shit was going to happen sooner or later. Whether you and Al Gore agree or not, the planet would continue to get warmer if every single human on this planet died today. That's a fact. Nobody can change it.

raveneye · 09-21-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBaldRon

So, the director of the film used bad graphs. I guess that negates the climatologists with PHD's opinions, right?

Yup. Funny thing about data, you can pretend it doesn't exist as much as you want, but it still doesn't go away.

BigBaldRon · 09-21-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Yup. Funny thing about data, you can pretend it doesn't exist as much as you want, but it still doesn't go away.

Yup, funny thing about all the other facts that are known that you don't seem to be concerned with.

Like the fact this is a normal cycle in the earth's temperatures.
Like methane contributes to this as well.
Like Atmospheric circulation bringing warmer air to the poles.
Like normal ocean currents bringing warmer water to the poles.
Like clearing sulfuric aerosols from two large volcanic explosions(1982 and 1991) are allowing more direct sunlight into the atmosphere.
Like increased solar activity, which is known to have a direct impact on temperatures.
Like differences in global orbits and the angle of tilt of the axis cause more direct sun to be shining on the planet, causing warmer temperatures.
Like cutting down large wooded areas which contribute to warmer temperatures.
Like water vapor in the atmosphere, which is responsible for trapping twice as much heat as CO2 emissions.

All of those factors, which with the exception of the loss of forests are 100% out of the hands of MAN, contribute to global warming.

raveneye · 09-21-2007, 11:26 PM

> Big Bald Ron:

> Like the fact this is a normal cycle in the earth's temperatures.

Nope, as has been shown in this very thread.

> Like methane contributes to this as well.

So if we reduce our methane emissions, that will reduce global warming? I agree with that

> Like Atmospheric circulation bringing warmer air to the poles.

Uh, atmospheric circulation can't cause global warming, unless you think that the earth is immune from the 1st law of thermodynamics.

> Like normal ocean currents bringing warmer water to the poles.

Ditto.

> Like clearing sulfuric aerosols from two large volcanic explosions(1982 and 1991) are allowing more direct sunlight into the atmosphere.

Aerosols disappear very quickly from the atmosphere. Mt. Pinatubo's were completely gone by 1994. Any effect on the global temp was a short blip.

> Like increased solar activity, which is known to have a direct impact on temperatures.

Except that solar activity has been declining (if anything) over the last 50 years, as was shown in this thread.

> Like differences in global orbits and the angle of tilt of the axis cause more direct sun to be shining on the planet, causing warmer temperatures.

Sure, and these changes in orbits occur over tens of thousands of years. They can't possibly explain the sudden increase in temperature during the last 25 years.

> Like cutting down large wooded areas which contribute to warmer temperatures.

Yep

> Like water vapor in the atmosphere, which is responsible for trapping twice as much heat as CO2 emissions.

Sure, but water vapor's residence time in the atmosphere is very short, on the average of about 10 days. So it can't be a forcing. It is certainly a feedback, however. Whenever surface temperatures change, the water vapor adjusts very rapidly, maintaining a constant relative humidity. For example after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, temps declined slightly for 3 years and the water vapor declined also in response.

> All of those factors, which with the exception of the loss of forests are 100% out of the hands of MAN, contribute to global warming.

Except for the ones that don't contribute

09-14-2007, 07:17 PM	#45 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	The North Pole melting wouldn't be such a bad thing. Canada and Russia would stand to benefit. We could open up more trade routes and perhaps would have more territory for finding resources. Could you imagine finding a bunch of oil up there, maybe some diamonds? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-16-2007, 10:01 AM	#53 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	OK. Which alternative included the people coming to understand each other? Love conquers everything except hate, and understanding without love is not. (I'll confess idiocy) __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

09-21-2007, 11:26 PM	#66 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	> Big Bald Ron: > Like the fact this is a normal cycle in the earth's temperatures. Nope, as has been shown in this very thread. > Like methane contributes to this as well. So if we reduce our methane emissions, that will reduce global warming? I agree with that > Like Atmospheric circulation bringing warmer air to the poles. Uh, atmospheric circulation can't cause global warming, unless you think that the earth is immune from the 1st law of thermodynamics. > Like normal ocean currents bringing warmer water to the poles. Ditto. > Like clearing sulfuric aerosols from two large volcanic explosions(1982 and 1991) are allowing more direct sunlight into the atmosphere. Aerosols disappear very quickly from the atmosphere. Mt. Pinatubo's were completely gone by 1994. Any effect on the global temp was a short blip. > Like increased solar activity, which is known to have a direct impact on temperatures. Except that solar activity has been declining (if anything) over the last 50 years, as was shown in this thread. > Like differences in global orbits and the angle of tilt of the axis cause more direct sun to be shining on the planet, causing warmer temperatures. Sure, and these changes in orbits occur over tens of thousands of years. They can't possibly explain the sudden increase in temperature during the last 25 years. > Like cutting down large wooded areas which contribute to warmer temperatures. Yep > Like water vapor in the atmosphere, which is responsible for trapping twice as much heat as CO2 emissions. Sure, but water vapor's residence time in the atmosphere is very short, on the average of about 10 days. So it can't be a forcing. It is certainly a feedback, however. Whenever surface temperatures change, the water vapor adjusts very rapidly, maintaining a constant relative humidity. For example after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, temps declined slightly for 3 years and the water vapor declined also in response. > All of those factors, which with the exception of the loss of forests are 100% out of the hands of MAN, contribute to global warming. Except for the ones that don't contribute Last edited by raveneye; 09-21-2007 at 11:39 PM..

09-16-2007, 04:57 AM	#50 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Meanwhile, while we sit here yabbering, as of this month the Northwest Passage is navigable for the first time in recorded history. SOMETHING is happening. And it's a bigger SOMETHING than humanity has ever witnessed before. It would be logical to see if it's something we can do anything about.

09-19-2007, 10:41 AM	#60 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	It's all pretty simple to me. Global warming is real and so are the global changes in weather. The question is how much we had to do with it, and how much we can control it. The good news is theyre both linked. If we caused it then we can learn to control it and probably will. If we can't control it then all we can do is go on as we are and there isn't much to say.

09-21-2007, 11:25 AM	#63 (permalink)
BigBaldRon Tilted Location: St Louis	So, the director of the film used bad graphs. I guess that negates the climatologists with PHD's opinions, right? Its all mans fault! Lets all turn off our computers and stop using cars! Lord knows that mankind caused the last ice age to end, right? This is a cycle. The world has always been cyclical in regards to temperature. But now, since MAN is here, its all MANs fault! This shit was going to happen sooner or later. Whether you and Al Gore agree or not, the planet would continue to get warmer if every single human on this planet died today. That's a fact. Nobody can change it.