Global Warming, just a hoax?

[Stramash]

Yes...

The 'hockey stick' graph showing man's effect is skewed. It's a snapshot of a tiny time frame. When we look at the big picture, it's a blip.

Ever stood on a mountain and found a shell fossil? This stuff has all happened before and will again.

The projections are hopelessly inaccurate - ignoring things as basic as water vapour. IPCC Projections predicted temperature rises of 3 degrees for the past 10 years... They were out by 300% . Imagine the cock-ups they'll make over 100 years!

Sorry about the lefty, beardy references - I know you miss your beard and nights in reading Trotsky.

sigh...

[Hobbes]

Get a glass - put some water in it, then add a couple of ice-blocks so that they float freely. Now mark the water level on the side, and wait for the ice to melt...it will be exactly the same level (excluding loss due to evaporation) as when they were ice-blocks - this is because the mass of water displaced by the mass of ice remains the same even of course after the ice returns to a liquid state.

This is NOT true... After the ice has melted, the water level will be lower... Because ice (frozen water) expands, so taking up more space.... Only if the ice is under water... So if you push the icecubes under water, mark the water level, wait until it melts, and measure again, the waterlevel is lower than it was than with the icecubes...

try it... grezzzy was right. It's the weight of water that causes the displacement. The weight doesn't change when water freezes.

Sure the mass of the water stays the same but the volume and hence the level changes. The density of water changes depending on the physical condition water is in. Since the mass is constant, the volume has to change to achieve the change in density.

When Arctic ice which is floating in the Arctic ocean is melting, sea levels would actually drop because of reducing density when melting and hence reducing the volume. Most of the ice shelfs are on land, like Greenland and Antarctica, and when melting will cause a rise in sea levels since this molten water is added to the oceans.

[eagle]

Yes...

The 'hockey stick' graph showing man's effect is skewed. It's a snapshot of a tiny time frame. When we look at the big picture, it's a blip.

Ever stood on a mountain and found a shell fossil? This stuff has all happened before and will again.

The projections are hopelessly inaccurate - ignoring things as basic as water vapour. IPCC Projections predicted temperature rises of 3 degrees for the past 10 years... They were out by 300% . Imagine the cock-ups they'll make over 100 years!

Sorry about the lefty, beardy references - I know you miss your beard and nights in reading Trotsky.

Even if you doubt the statistics just look at the population and water issues climate changes etc. Deforestation and in the oceans you have massive decline in plant life also. I don't know how anyone can say everythings ok.

[Hobbes]

There's a growing body of scientists who believe global warming causes more carbon dioxide - wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that explain the carbon lag better than the current theories?

No. Actually most climatologists already know that. That's the thermal runaway that they are trying to warn us about. I used to think the lag was disproof of AGW, but on closer inspection it just supports the thermal runaway aspect of AGW.

Yep... they keep coming up with more and more theories to explain the many anomalies... like how global warming is creating drops in temperature all over the Antarctic and that's why sea ice is thickening... right... more heat = more ice.

Sure, and because of those 'drops' in temperature a large chunk of the Wilkins ice shelf has only yesterday being reported to have broken off...again (here a link to an earlier report of the self breaking off). A process which started in the 1990's.

That temperatures in other parts of Antarctica or regions of the Arctic are dropping is not proof that GW is not happening and a reality. The current increase of global temperatures of 0.4 (I think) Degrees doesn't sound all that dramatic either but it is a global average. Some regions already have experienced much higher average temperature increase and some regions none at all.

I know the vast majority of people beliefs like you this is just a big conspiracy. Scientists don't know jack-**** and are anyway just attention-seeking, money-grabbing socially-inept spoil sports. Those that research cancer treatments or the next generation of higher density digital storage medium will probably not be quite as ridiculed, yet they too are scientist.

Because the vast majority of people like you prefers to bury their heads in the sand (or some other dark place) and ignore that which is pretty obvious but yet so damn inconvenient I have decided a long time ago not to reproduce because I do not fancy having to explain to my children in 20 or so years why we f**ked up so badly whilst it was still possible to do something about it but we were to busy enjoying the party and to greedy to leave anything to those that follow.

As for your claim that there are more pressing issues in this world than trying to halt GW you are again wrong. Nothing threatens the future survival (not ours of course which is why most people just don''t give a ****) of our species (and most mammals) more than letting GW increase to a point where self-amplifying processes will tip it over a point of 'no return', which is the often mentioned 2 Degrees Celsius (which is a best estimate based on current models and research and not a fixed value as such) in global temperatures.

Sure once we discussed this whole topic to death without taking much action, doubting anything to the nth degree white-coated, bespectacled, bearded scientists tells us that would require us to lower our 'standard of living' somehow a bit we'll soon reach the tipping point. And then we may as well burn all the rest of oil, gas and coal and just party on. :roll:

[LakeGeneve]

English Bob wrote

Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points

I think thats propaganda from businesses who don't want the environment getting in the way of them making money. I hear it all the time and I don't think there is a conspiracy against businessmen, but there is a political party who wants you to like them because they will help keep pollution standards low so you can make money.

If you REALLY believe all the stuff you're posting, do something about it - change your lifestyle completely. Go and live in a wooden shack (made from renewable timber). Eat fruit that falls from the tree. Eat only stuff that can be carried by hand to your dwelling. Wash your clothes in a stream without soap. Give up your mobiles, cars, and mass-produced clothing. If you don't want to do all that, quit bleating and enjoy life...

Unless your referring to that island in the pacific populated by sex-starved, amazonian women, WTF are you on about?!

I always find it interesting that a common response to the proposition that we need to modify our lifestyles in order to live more in harmony with the biosphere, is some extreme vision that somehow we have to live like 'cavemen' without any technology. What reactionary and irrational crap.

Has anyone during this discussion even come close to suggesting such a remedy? There may be a few radicals in the world advocating such but the majority are working within the framework of ammending our current lifestyle habits to reduce our negative impacts WHILST we still have the choice. (If we miss the boat, one day we may not have the choice ). Simple things which can make a big difference until public policy regulates less choice. Everyone does what they can in the circumstances.

I probably have a lower carbon footprint than virtually all the farangs posting on here. The difference is - I don't pontificate about what a virtuous, earth-loving wundkind I am.

I am sure that I have a bigger carbon footprint than you given the amount of times I fart a day. But even if you have the lowest carbon footprint of anyone on TF forums you are able to reduce it if you are disposed to do so. And your current low carbon footprint will still be many times greater than 75% of the planets pop.

However, I don't see anyone here saying that they are an angel or that they have all the answers. Neither do I see anyone stating that your 'bad Dave', with a greater cupability for GW. We all share the burden of responsibility, especially anyone living a 'first world' lifestyle to whatever degree. Pls don't mislead and wank on about hypocrisy as we are all hyprocrites in our own way on this issue.

[eagle]

English Bob wrote:

If you REALLY believe all the stuff you're posting, do something about it - change your lifestyle completely. Go and live in a wooden shack (made from renewable timber). Eat fruit that falls from the tree. Eat only stuff that can be carried by hand to your dwelling. Wash your clothes in a stream without soap. Give up your mobiles, cars, and mass-produced clothing. If you don't want to do all that, quit bleating and enjoy life...

I do what I can recycle, compost ,conserve water, support organic food and non factory farmed meat, The company I work with in construction uses FSC certified wood products and lots of recycled materials. If everyone did something as we find better cleaner ways to live with our luxury I believe we will survive. Saying yes we can is a start.

[Mister Moobs]

Global warming is a farce dreamed up as one more way for the elite to control the delusional masses.

We all die.

[eagle]

Global warming is a farce dreamed up as one more way for the elite to control the delusional masses.

We all die.

Yea we all die but its how comfortable you are till you do thats determined by the climate. Maybe it doesn't matter at the moment but it is an issue we will all deal with like it or not.

[Mister Moobs]

I do not think we will all deal with it.

Before it becomes a problem, IF it becomes a problem....most of those now discussing it will be long since dead.

Between now and that time, much can and will happen.

The century is young. Give humanity time. We will once again be at each others throats. We are very nearly there. Only the "great" nations are remaining barely "civil." Once we are drawn into violence, global warming will be the least of our worries.

[Crustyjuggler]

I've visited small cities within China where you can't physically breath without a mask and the height of mid-day looks like a misty orange dusk which the sun never breaks through... Everyday 365 days a year. Granted the world has taken it's natural shocks of warming up and cooling down countless times but incredibly poor air quality is certainly our gift back the planet...

I would like to see the words 'global warming' sidelined for a while so everyone can concentrate a little more on air quality which is undeniably our fault.

Maybe if all the scientists in the world concentrated on this certainty rather than wasting time proving each other wrong then our immediate problems would be helped. Granted we can't stop another ice-age or warm up and rightly so, how dare we compete with the Sun and Universe.. But we can help with the growing epidemics and viral threats as well as protecting our children from rapidly growing respiratory diseases; wouldn't this be an incredible start?

So many smart minds sidelined... that's the real tragedy.

anyway i'll let you guys carry on with your facts, figures and pie charts, but i'll tell you this much... it aint helping :wink:

[Hobbes]

Yes...

The 'hockey stick' graph showing man's effect is skewed. It's a snapshot of a tiny time frame. When we look at the big picture, it's a blip.

Ever stood on a mountain and found a shell fossil? This stuff has all happened before and will again.

The projections are hopelessly inaccurate - ignoring things as basic as water vapour. IPCC Projections predicted temperature rises of 3 degrees for the past 10 years... They were out by 300% . Imagine the cock-ups they'll make over 100 years!

Sorry about the lefty, beardy references - I know you miss your beard and nights in reading Trotsky.

sigh...

Indeed Iain but I'll still raise you a:

Not that it will make any difference though. :roll:

[Hobbes]

To those that do not acquire their wisdom from such 'scientific' publications like "The Sun", "NotW", "The Daily Mail" or "Bild" or somesuch but hence find all these arguments in this thread rather confusing, there is an informative FAQ published here by the IPCC to answer all the questions you may have but never dared asking.

It is as clearly laid out and written as can be hoped for by a bunch of 'bearded, leftist, money-grabbing' scientist on a mere 35 pages. Some basic understanding of Natural Sciences would still be very helpful for understanding it but there are also a lot of pretty pictures and diagrams complementing all those densely written paragraphs.

It provides the scientific consensus on the stand of 2007 (when the last IPCC report was published) giving all the if's, but's and uncertainties any scientific work inherently contains.

This document may also be a handy for helping your teenagers with some science related home work. :wink:

[eagle]

I do not think we will all deal with it.

Before it becomes a problem, IF it becomes a problem....most of those now discussing it will be long since dead.

Between now and that time, much can and will happen.

The century is young. Give humanity time. We will once again be at each others throats. We are very nearly there. Only the "great" nations are remaining barely "civil." Once we are drawn into violence, global warming will be the least of our worries.

thank you Steven King :shock:

[eagle]

si6,

What is causing global warming is the same thing thats causing poor air quality. In the US air was thick with coal dust a hundred years ago and streams ran black in the east. It got better and is still getting better. Some say its hopeless but we have to try.

[SiamHotel]

>

[Bruce551]

Humans Halfway to Causing Dangerous Climate Change

? By Alexis Madrigal April 29, 2009  |  2:39 pm  |  Categories: Climate, Energy, Environment, Sustainability

When human injection of carbon into the atmosphere reaches 1 trillion tons, dangerous climate change with average global warming of more than 2 Celsius degrees will likely occur, a new analysis finds.

And humans are hurrying toward that 1 trillion mark.

]So far, We?ve added about 520 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. With the addition of an estimated 9 billion tons of carbon a year ? a number that?s been growing since 1850 ? dangerous warming is likely to occur within half a century.

That?s the message from a new paper in the journal Nature, which ? along with half a dozen other papers in the issue ? provides a simpler way of looking at the climate change problem. What matters is the total amount of carbon that we release into the atmosphere, and focusing on that number as a budget can shape the way policymakers look at the problem, argues Myles Allen, lead author of one of the papers and a climatologist at the University of Oxford.

?The important thing about the cumulative budget is that a ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. If we release it now, it?s a ton we can?t release in 40 years? time.

Every ton we put out is using up a ton of that atmospheric capacity,? Allen told Wired.com. ?Reducing emissions steadily over 50 years is much cheaper and easier and less traumatic than allowing them to rise for 15 years and then reducing them violently for 35 years.?

Previous climate change efforts have tried to find the correct ?stabilization level? for which to aim. Policymakers would try to craft scenarios showing that the world?s people should aim to peg the concentration of carbon dioxide at 350 or 450 or 550 parts per million. Beyond the scientific complexity of finding what that number should be ? which Myles called ?a nightmare? ? the esoteric nature of those numbers made the climate problem difficult to communicate to populations across the world.

Allen hopes his team?s new analysis, along with a similar paper lead-authored by Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, will let people look at the problem square on.

The numbers presented in their research are probabilistic. They look at different levels of carbon and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and try to assign the likelihood that a certain emissions level would equate to a temperature change across the Earth. The two papers use different periods of analysis and base cases, but they are broadly consistent in their findings that it?s the total amount of carbon added to the atmosphere that will determine the peak warming of the globe.

Where Allen?s team found that adding 480 billion tons of carbon from here on out would push the risk of 2 degrees of warming to over 50 percent, Meinshausen?s team found even more alarming results.

The German team estimates that 310 billion tons is all that would be needed. Without policy changes, that means humans would hit dangerous warming levels in 20 years (Meinshausen) to 40 years (Allen) .

?The bottom line? Dangerous change, even loosely defined, is going to be hard to avoid,? write Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science and David Archer, a geoscientist at the University of Chicago, in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

?Unless emissions begin to decline very soon, severe disruption to the climate system will entail expensive adaptation measures and may eventually require cleaning up the mess by actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.?

Forcing emissions to decline will require changing the way the world uses fossil fuels. In Allen?s view, humans can pull a trillion tons of carbon-rich fossil fuels out of the ground and burn them with risks that have been deemed acceptable by most people. But it?s the second trillion tons of fossil fuels, largely in the form of coal and oil shale, that will determine how recklessly humans play with the climate system.

?From all the incredible arcane arguments that go on, in the end, it?s really a very simple question: what are we going to do with the second trillion tons?? Allen asked.

Fossil-fuel?reserve estimates vary. While it?s clear that there is a lot of coal and oil shale on Earth, there is intense debate over how much of that fossil fuel will be economical to mine. Allen?s group used the World Energy Council?s estimates, which show nearly 6 trillion tons of fossil fuels still left to be mined. Other scientists believe that fossil fuel reserves could be much lower.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/04/humans-halfway-to-causing-dangerous-climate-change/

"It took us 250 years to burn the first half trillion," he said, "and on current projections we'll burn the next half trillion in less than 40 years." Myles Allen

(BBC)

The Nature papers emerge in a week that has seen the inaugural meeting of President Obama's Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a new version of a body created under President Bush that brings together 17 of the world's highest-emitting countries for discussion and dialogue.

During the opening segment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-affirmed the administration's aim of cutting US emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 - a target espoused by some other developed countries.

But according to Malte Meinshausen's analysis, even this reduction may not be enough to keep the average global temperature rise within 2C, assuming less developed nations made less stringent cuts in order to aid their development.

"If the US does 80%, that equates to about 60% globally, and that offers only a modest chance of meeting the 2C target," he said.

Last week saw the publication of data showing that industrialised countries' collective emissions rose by about 1% during 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Change data analysis seems to be getting better. And the action needed to "slow down" the build up of CO2 is more clearly defined. I believe it's possible for USA to drastically reduce CO2 emissions using "Smart Grid" and "Universal Grid" technologies.

These technologies with addition of renewable energy, energy efficiency, better mass transit, and electric cars could make a big difference in the reduction of CO2 emissions and create more jobs that pay a decent wage.

The shutting down of coal plants will probably will be the most difficult issue, as people in the midwestern states depend upon coal fired plants for electricity generation and are used to paying relatively low rates.

We are going need to shut down coal plants until "clean coal" technology becomes viable.

It's really time for a WWII type of collective co-operation to do everything humanly possible reduce the rate of CO2 build up.

[English_Bob]

Yes... very good... funny pictures...

The sky is falling down.... the sky is falling down!!!

Aye.... we're all doomed.

[Neo]

Yes...

The 'hockey stick' graph showing man's effect is skewed. It's a snapshot of a tiny time frame. When we look at the big picture, it's a blip.

The hockey stick is wrong, but not because of the time scale. It's wrong becuase of the biased interpolation algorithm used. However, an unbiased interpolation still shows the warming trend that's causing all the fuss.

Ever stood on a mountain and found a shell fossil? This stuff has all happened before and will again.

Tectonic shift creates much of the world's mountain ranges. When this happens the sea floor can be raised up to high altitudes. It doesn't mean that the sea level was as high as the current height of the mountain.

The projections are hopelessly inaccurate - ignoring things as basic as water vapour. IPCC Projections predicted temperature rises of 3 degrees for the past 10 years... They were out by 300% . Imagine the cock-ups they'll make over 100 years!

I'm guessing that's from an anti-GW site, since the facts don't back that statement. The projections from the 2001 IPCC report show that the measured temperature increase (using HadCRUT and NASA GISS data) was *greater* than projected, and that CO2 emissions were also greater than projected.

You are entitled to your opinion English_Bob and a little skepticism is a good thing, but please don't mislead others by quoting poor research or untruths.

[warren]

Carbonations

It is often cold in January, at this latitude, so it is perhaps unfair to mock the global warming alarmists at this time of year. That it is an exceptionally cold winter, right around the northern hemisphere, after an exceptionally cold one, right around the southern hemisphere, after an exceptionally cold one, right around the northern -- is perhaps worthy of note. But this is only by comparison to recent years that were warmer.

The average temperature on the surface of the planet is obviously dropping at the moment (as the Google-searcher may quickly determine through innumerable links to environmentalists trying to explain this away), but that is still anecdotal. The weather works on heat differentials, after all, not on arbitrary statistical averages; and both overall, and regionally, there are cycles within cycles within cycles. Choose 1970 as your base year and we have "long-term global warming." Choose 1940 instead and we have longer-term cooling. Choose six million years B.C. and you will see that we "ain't seen nothin' yet."

Both Barack Obama in the U.S., and Stephen Harper up here, are on the cusp of announcing ambitious new "climate" plans founded upon last decade's laughably "settled climate science." They may be chastened by the economic downturn, and even by the progressive disintegration of the global warming lobby, but the bureaucratic machinery to fight "global warming" is a very great ship, and it is too late to steer her off the shoals. The only new thing will be the excuses.

The current excuse is that governments are on the verge of legislating millions of new "green jobs." This imposture will work only as long as people refuse to devote the necessary four minutes to thinking the matter through.

The only way to reduce energy consumption is by penalizing it in some way; generally by driving up prices, but occasionally by ham-fisted legal action. Driving up prices does not save jobs, at least, not in that part of the economy responsive to market forces (which generates the taxes to support the rest). It can only cost jobs -- as energy itself, and energy-intensive products, are priced out of reach to those whose wealth is diminished. That wealth is diminished, like a candle burning at both ends, by inevitably higher taxes at one end, and inevitably higher prices at the other.

A great deal of theatrical flatulence has been directed against the drivers of SUVs, and other stage villains of the global warming propaganda. It is as reasonable to attribute excess CO2 generation to Al Gore's 191-megawatt mansion in Nashville, or to the footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration party (575 million pounds of carbon, according to the U.S. Institute for Liberty, equivalent to 60,000 years of fossil-fuel burning in a house like Al Gore's).

Arguments that hose the reader with a large number of de-contextualized facts are used by all sides in all contemporary debates, but especially by the side that benefits less from context.

Cars, regardless of size, and how they draw their power, are a big issue, and so is heating and air conditioning. Vladimir Putin's sick little power game with Ukraine and Europe, in which he has cut off Russia's supply of natural gas to them in the middle of a wickedly cold winter, should help bring home, at least to the Europeans, what energy is used for. It is used to cook food, and to avoid freezing to death; or to provide alternatives to walking ten miles to work. These are the job-rich activities that "government action" will restrict and curtail.

And while the penalties against energy consumption may eventually lead to technological innovations that increase efficiency, so would any kind of prospective shortage. The difference is that when the government wades in, it distorts investment in new technologies, by making the leading criterion for them, how to satisfy government regulators. It is pure coincidence when this also reduces energy use, overall. The usual effect is to transfer the burden -- from efficient gasoline engines on the spot to distant coal-fired electricity generating plants, for instance.

The myth that a government can somehow "create" jobs or wealth has been deeply inculcated, not only by governments but by the many vested interests that profit from the transfer of other people's wealth to themselves, through mixed-economy shell games. Governments take wealth that was created elsewhere and "spread it around," in the U.S. President-elect's quaint but accurate phrase. Don't be fooled: this is also what thieves do.

David Warren

[Neo]

The weather works on heat differentials, after all, not on arbitrary statistical averages; and both overall, and regionally, there are cycles within cycles within cycles.

That's weather, not climate. Different subject.

Choose 1970 as your base year and we have "long-term global warming." Choose 1940 instead and we have longer-term cooling.

Anyone can cherry pick figures from an unusual high to an unusual low. That's taking facts out of context to mislead people. But if you look at a graph of 5 year average temperatures it's perfectly clear that global average temperatures are increasing, and at quite an alarming rate.

Choose six million years B.C. and you will see that we "ain't seen nothin' yet."

The point is that it seems that we are the cause of the current warming, and if it keeps going we will find ourselves in a world that we cannot live in. Just like 6 million years ago.

Don't be fooled: this is also what thieves do.

Don't be fooled. Quoting a few facts out of context is what anti-science people do 8)

[robbie36]

I wonder when humanity has succeeded in wiping itself off the earth (and of course assuming there is still an earth left) who will takeover. Richard Dawkins reckons it will be rats. I have always thought that ants are so busy they must be planning something big. And cats always look at you in a 'one day I will be running this place' kind of way. Maybe they are, they seem to have a very good life.

[Mister Moobs]

I wonder when humanity has succeeded in wiping itself off the earth (and of course assuming there is still an earth left) who will takeover. Richard Dawkins reckons it will be rats. I have always thought that ants are so busy they must be planning something big. And cats always look at you in a 'one day I will be running this place' kind of way. Maybe they are, they seem to have a very good life.

Cockroaches.

They can survive nuclear radiation.

They can survive intense cold, intense heat and almost anything else you can throw at them. Except a shoe.

Global Warming is just another mechanism for the DNC and leftist anti-everything generation to control the general populace of idiots on the planet. lol

[robbie36]

I wonder when humanity has succeeded in wiping itself off the earth (and of course assuming there is still an earth left) who will takeover. Richard Dawkins reckons it will be rats. I have always thought that ants are so busy they must be planning something big. And cats always look at you in a 'one day I will be running this place' kind of way. Maybe they are, they seem to have a very good life.

Cockroaches.

They can survive nuclear radiation.

They can survive intense cold, intense heat and almost anything else you can throw at them. Except a shoe.

Global Warming is just another mechanism for the DNC and leftist anti-everything generation to control the general populace of idiots on the planet. lol

Well Dawkins did see it as almighty battle between cockroaches and rats, he just thought rats would win in the end. (the Ancestors Tales)

[Stramash]

I wonder when humanity has succeeded in wiping itself off the earth (and of course assuming there is still an earth left) who will takeover. Richard Dawkins reckons it will be rats. I have always thought that ants are so busy they must be planning something big. And cats always look at you in a 'one day I will be running this place' kind of way. Maybe they are, they seem to have a very good life.

Cockroaches.

They can survive nuclear radiation.

They can survive intense cold, intense heat and almost anything else you can throw at them. Except a shoe.

Global Warming is just another mechanism for the DNC and leftist anti-everything generation to control the general populace of idiots on the planet. lol

[warren]

neo wrote;

The point is that it seems that we are the cause of the current warming, and if it keeps going we will find ourselves in a world that we cannot live in. Just like 6 million years ago.

warren wrote;

The point is that earth is but a small speck in a vast and infinite universe; it would be naïve to think we have any control over global temperature changes.

By the way; isn?t it peculiar what was once called ?global warming? now has a new politically correct name? Now the mass media refers to it as ?climate change?