Global Warming

[Saintandy666]

If you look at the graphs 1997 was a spike and since then there has been no rise, but a slight fall which suggests that the cyclical climate pattern has now peaked and we are heading for another natural cooling period.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201001-201010.gif?

 

Nope, I definitely see an overall trend towards rising here...

 

And it makes sense in conjunction with the fundamental principles of the greenhouse effect.

[dune]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201001-201010.gif?

 

Nope, I definitely see an overall trend towards rising here...

 

And it makes sense in conjunction with the fundamental principles of the greenhouse effect.

 

It's falling, as much as you'd love it to be rising (to prove a point) and I would love it to be rising (because global warming is better than global cooling for the UK)

[aintforever]

Only the retarded resident nazi could interpret those graphs as falling temperatures.

[Saintandy666]

It's falling, as much as you'd love it to be rising (to prove a point) and I would love it to be rising (because global warming is better than global cooling for the UK)

 

Global Warming for the UK could ironically probably lead to an overall cooling in this area.

[Saint Billy]

And what are your scientific qualifications, and what is your evidence for dismissing science as 'in the pockets' of co-conspirators to fool the public? Honestly, I find this beyond nuts.

 

Why do I have to have a scientific qualification?

 

Example: Nuclear power, some would argue that this is a less harmful way of creating power. Nuclear weapons, could wipe out mankind in the wrong hands/political powers. Created by scientists, controlled by government.

[dune]

Global Warming for the UK could ironically probably lead to an overall cooling in this area.

 

LOL.

 

I thought the last cold winter that never happened, the barbeque summer that never happened, and this mild winter that hasn't happened was going to be because of global warming. Now the climate is cooling (and it is cooling) is because of global warming and burning fossil fuels. You couldn't make it up.

[Saintandy666]

LOL.

 

I thought the last cold winter that never happened, the barbeque summer that never happened, and this mild winter that hasn't happened was going to be because of global warming. Now the climate is cooling (and it is cooling) is because of global warming and burning fossil fuels. You couldn't make it up.

 

No, we in the UK have a very mild climate despite our lattitude being similar to Siberia. Now, this isn't solely because of the North Atlantic Current, but the NAC plays a large role. Warming leads to the current weakening and too much warming could lead to it stopping and so we would experience an overall cooling effect.

 

Your post concentrates on WEATHER forecasts... not climate. Once again, people seem to confuse the two.

[Saint Billy]

For your information, the Millenium Bug was real. Computer systems the world over would have failed or generated unpredictable results, except that thousands of IT staff, myself included, worked their socks off in the 18 months running up to the turn of the century, reprogramming and rewriting code to correct the issue. The fact that there were only "minor issues" is testament to their efforts. In the case of my work place, the only system that failed was the networked backup system, which as 1999 ended, switched it's clock back to 1900 and refused to make any security copies as the databases were 99 years 'younger' than the last recorded tape copies. ( This was based on a promise made by the software supplier that the system would not suffer any issues ).

Now if we could only put a similar amount of effort into managing climate change.

 

And as for historical data, we can go back many tens, if not hundreds, of thouands of years in measuring CO2 levels in ice cores, and can extrapolate temperatures based on what we have observed, and built the models on.

 

That is exactly what I mean, mass hysteria when infact the problem was in the main under control.

 

"Many systems, such as embedded systems and chips, did not fail from Y2K because they did not even run on Julian calendars, says J. Greg Hanson, executive vice president at technology services company Criterion Systems.

"The clock on the computer chip is not based on calendar time." Y2K was mostly a problem associated with business software, says Hanson, who at the time was chief software engineer for the US Air Force and led its $345 million Y2K program".

 

As far as Global warming is concerned, what scientist do you believe?

[dune]

No, we in the UK have a very mild climate despite our lattitude being similar to Siberia. Now, this isn't solely because of the North Atlantic Current, but the NAC plays a large role. Warming leads to the current weakening and too much warming could lead to it stopping and so we would experience an overall cooling effect.

 

Your post concentrates on WEATHER forecasts... not climate. Once again, people seem to confuse the two.

 

the met office prediections of hot summers and mild winters were supposed to be because of global warming. It's hilarious how the goalposts keep getting moved.

[badgerx16]

 

As far as Global warming is concerned, what scientist do you believe?

In the main, the ones that Dune dismisses, though that isn't the reason for doing so; I merely believe the evidence for the 'pro' argument wins out.

[Jonnyboy]

It's falling, as much as you'd love it to be rising (to prove a point) and I would love it to be rising (because global warming is better than global cooling for the UK)

 

so ignorant

[Verbal]

Why do I have to have a scientific qualification?

 

Example: Nuclear power, some would argue that this is a less harmful way of creating power. Nuclear weapons, could wipe out mankind in the wrong hands/political powers. Created by scientists, controlled by government.

 

Well it might help if you had SOME basis for dismissing scientists as in some collective sense corrupt and venal - rather than just relying on some internet-inspired fear frenzy, or in a dunderheaded word, dune. And I'm sorry but what IS the point you're making with nuclear fission - that scientists shouldn't have discovered it in the first place?

 

There is a relationship between science and politics, but - such is the balance of power - it's one in which scientists have little influence, EXCEPT in the sense that their findings and discoveries can provide compelling reasons to do things. For example, the discoveries of the ozone layer and acid rain led directly to multilateral agreements banning the use of CFCs and controlling the emissions of SO2 respectively. These actions were taken because politicians couldn't, in the end, deny what was staring them in the face. And these political measures WERE effective.

 

It would be so with climate change, but for the internet frenzy about a non-existent conspiracy. But then the internet is awash with such garbage - from racists barely concealing their hatred for Obama by claiming he's not American, to pathetic wannabe investigators who have convinced themselves that the planes on 9/11 were actually remote-controlled missiles timed to go off with controlled explosions, and various sideshows about how the moon landings never happened, etc, ad nauseum.

[Saintandy666]

the met office prediections of hot summers and mild winters were supposed to be because of global warming. It's hilarious how the goalposts keep getting moved.

 

No... that is a WEATHER forecast for one area. Nothing to do with global warming or climate change or whatever.

[buctootim]

There isnt much point putting facts in front of Dune. He isnt able to assimilate them. For the others, actual recorded temepratures and warmest years on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

[Saintandy666]

There isnt much point putting facts in front of Dune. He isnt able to assimilate them. For the others, actual recorded temepratures and warmest years on record.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

 

So that is 2009 being the second warmest year on record and the naughties being the warmest decade on record!

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Saintandy666
missed putting in second!

[buctootim]

So that is 2009 being the warmest year on record and the naughties being the warmest decade on record!

 

Yes and the first 11 months of 2010 were on a par with 2005 as the warmest year since records began. Obviously it been cold in western europe in December but it will still be one of the top five years I expect. .

[Saintandy666]

Yes and the first 11 months of 2010 were on a par with 2005 as the warmest year since records began. Obviously it been cold in western europe in December but it will still be one of the top five years I expect. .

 

So basically, all this **** dune has been spouting about this decade being 'cooler' than past decades is a load of bull.

[buctootim]

So basically, all this **** dune has been spouting about this decade being 'cooler' than past decades is a load of bull.

 

I know, Dune spouting ********, its a shocker isnt it?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/

[Johnny Bognor]

So that is 2009 being the second warmest year on record and the naughties being the warmest decade on record!

 

Yep, 2009 is the warmest year since 1860, and the naughties were the warmest decade since the 1860-1870's.

[buctootim]

Yep, 2009 is the warmest year since 1860, and the naughties were the warmest decade since the 1860-1870's.

 

You're missing the point Johnny. The real concern isnt the small temperature rises to date. The real concern is that we know greenhouse gases trap heat and that those levels are higher today than they have been for 650,000years. We also know that the atmosphere was stable at 200-260ppm for millennia. 200-260ppm gives a global temperature about 20c higher than it would be without any CO2 - so what climate will we have when the full effect of the 380ppm we have today is felt? What will a world with 450ppm be like, because we are likely to get there by 2050. It takes decades for the world to warm up because the oceans are very big, very deep and very cold, but when they do it MAY BE, that it positive reinforcements kick in and it becomes too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

The real significance of the modest temperature changes to date is that they are proof that what you would expect to happen with much higher CO2 levels is in fact actually starting to happen.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by buctootim

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You're missing the point Johnny. The real concern isnt the small temperature rises to date. The real concern is that we know greenhouse gases trap heat and that those levels are higher today than they have been for 650,000years. We also know that the atmosphere was stable at 200-260ppm for millennia. 200-260ppm gives a global temperature about 20c higher than it would be without any CO2 - so what climate will we have when the full effect of the 380ppm we have today is felt? What will a world with 450ppm be like, because we are likely to get there by 2050. It takes decades for the world to warm up because the oceans are very big, very deep and very cold, but when they do it MAY BE, that it positive reinforcements kick in and it becomes too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

I think that we just do not know.... something that is highlighted by the highly inaccurate forecasts on our weather. Now I do not pretend to be a scientist but we are betrter to be addressing population and the rape and pillage of sea life. As it happens I believe that it will be disease that gets us.

[buctootim]

I think that we just do not know.... something that is highlighted by the highly inaccurate forecasts on our weather. Now I do not pretend to be a scientist but we are betrter to be addressing population and the rape and pillage of sea life. As it happens I believe that it will be disease that gets us.

 

I agree excessive population, atmospheric CO2 and resource depletion are inextricably linked and all present major threats to mankind. The only one we have a simple answer to is CO2. The fact that we dont have an easy answer to over population and resource exhaustion isnt a good reason for doing nothing on CO2 imo.

[Saintandy666]

Yep, 2009 is the warmest year since 1860, and the naughties were the warmest decade since the 1860-1870's.

 

The greenhouse effect is a fact. We'd all be dead without it. Let me detail the basics to you at a level that you deniers can understand.

 

1. Radiation from the sun hits the earth. This is mainly in the form of higher frequency visibile and UV radiation.

2. The earth absorbs the radiation. The earth is warmed.

3. The earth can then re-emit this warmth as infra red radiation.

4. Greenhouse gases stop some of this infra red radiation from escaping and so keep it within the earths system. This creates warming in 2 ways;

 

- The first way is that the energy the greenhouse gases absorb is then re-emitted by the greenhouse gases themselves. Some of this re-emittance will be in the direction of earth. More energy = more heat.

- The second way is that when the radiation is absorbed it causes the greenhouse gases bonds to vibrate more than they usually would. This energy is then transferred to nearby molecules when they bump into each other. This increases the average kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere. And again... more energy = more heat.

 

A certain amount of this going on is good. In fact, without this effect we would all never have existed as the earth's average temperature would be below zero. The point is the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more of what I just described goes on. This is not disputed science, it is hard fact and something some people on here need to accept and move on.

 

More greenhouse gases = less energy escaping earth = higher temperatures.

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Saintandy666
added a not!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I agree excessive population, atmospheric CO2 and resource depletion are inextricably linked and all present major threats to mankind. The only one we have a simple answer to is CO2. The fact that we dont have an easy answer to over population and resource exhaustion isnt a good reason for doing nothing on CO2 imo.

 

Dare I say it following on from the Boxinday meet thread, generally my experience of over population in wildlife is that nature throws up a disease to bring it under control.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The greenhouse effect is a fact. We'd all be dead without it. Let me detail the basics to you at a level that you deniers can understand.

 

1. Radiation from the sun hits the earth. This is mainly in the form of higher frequency visibile and UV radiation.

2. The earth absorbs the radiation. The earth is warmed.

3. The earth can then re-emit this warmth as infra red radiation.

4. Greenhouse gases stop some of this infra red radiation from escaping and so keep it within the earths system. This creates warming in 2 ways;

 

- The first way is that the energy the greenhouse gases absorb is then re-emitted by the greenhouse gases themselves. Some of this re-emittance will be in the direction of earth. More energy = more heat.

- The second way is that when the radiation is absorbed it causes the greenhouse gases bonds to vibrate more than they usually would. This energy is then transferred to nearby molecules when they bump into each other. This increases the average kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere. And again... more energy = more heat.

 

A certain amount of this going on is good. In fact, without this effect we would all never have existed as the earth's average temperature would be below zero. The point is the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more of what I just described goes on. This is disputed science, it is hard fact and something some people on here need to accept and move on.

 

More greenhouse gases = less energy escaping earth = higher temperatures.

 

I think that even the boldest of scientists would call this a theory. Temperature is fact; the last four years progressively colder winters is fact.

[Verbal]

The greenhouse effect is a fact. We'd all be dead without it. Let me detail the basics to you at a level that you deniers can understand.

 

1. Radiation from the sun hits the earth. This is mainly in the form of higher frequency visibile and UV radiation.

2. The earth absorbs the radiation. The earth is warmed.

3. The earth can then re-emit this warmth as infra red radiation.

4. Greenhouse gases stop some of this infra red radiation from escaping and so keep it within the earths system. This creates warming in 2 ways;

 

- The first way is that the energy the greenhouse gases absorb is then re-emitted by the greenhouse gases themselves. Some of this re-emittance will be in the direction of earth. More energy = more heat.

- The second way is that when the radiation is absorbed it causes the greenhouse gases bonds to vibrate more than they usually would. This energy is then transferred to nearby molecules when they bump into each other. This increases the average kinetic energy of molecules in the atmosphere. And again... more energy = more heat.

 

A certain amount of this going on is good. In fact, without this effect we would all never have existed as the earth's average temperature would be below zero. The point is the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more of what I just described goes on. This is disputed science, it is hard fact and something some people on here need to accept and move on.

 

More greenhouse gases = less energy escaping earth = higher temperatures.

 

That's as succinct an explanation as I've seen in a while (although I think you missed a 'not' in the penultimate sentence.) Add Tim's numbers to this and it's hardly surprising the climate-scientific community en masse is pretty alarmed.

[Saintandy666]

I think that even the boldest of scientists would call this a theory. Temperature is fact; the last four years progressively colder winters is fact.

 

No, this is not a theory. This a fact. If you say the greenhouse effect is wrong, you are literally breaking science.

[buctootim]

Dare I say it following on from the Boxinday meet thread, generally my experience of over population in wildlife is that nature throws up a disease to bring it under control.

 

It has though. Diseases such as cholera, typhus, typhoid, bubonic plague were what kept the human population to sustainable levels for centuries. Medical advances, one of mankinds crowning achievements may ultimately be its undoing.

[Verbal]

I think that even the boldest of scientists would call this a theory. Temperature is fact; the last four years progressively colder winters is fact.

 

If you really, think this, then you need to try and understand how scientists construct their theories, collect evidence, and verify their hypotheses. No it's not just 'a theory'.

[Whitey Grandad]

I think that even the boldest of scientists would call this a theory. Temperature is fact; the last four years progressively colder winters is fact.

 

Technically it is a hypothesis until proven. Then when it is widely accepted it becomes a theory until disproven. The winters in Britain have been getting colder, yet the world has been slowly warming up. There is some evidence that the rate of rise has slowed in recent years. The earth has certainly been far warmer many times in its history and has often been completely ice-free. CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in the last 20million years, and the lowest they have ever been if you look back longer than 50million years. They were 10 times higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If you really, think this, then you need to try and understand how scientists construct their theories, collect evidence, and verify their hypotheses. No it's not just 'a theory'.

 

What is a theory then if it is unproven? It is certainly not fact.

[Saintandy666]

What is a theory then if it is unproven? It is certainly not fact.

 

The Greenhouse Effect is proven.

[buctootim]

(CO2 levels are)......the lowest they have ever been if you look back longer than 50million years. They were 10 times higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

 

Yes thats true. CO2 levels have been much higher than currently - when global average temperatures were around 23 degrees C compared with 12c today. What is now Northern Europe was so hot large cold blooded dinosaurs were able to thrive here. The dislocation of the whole of the global society and economy in a climate with daytime summer temperatures of 40 degrees c in Britain and up to 60degrees around the equator doesnt bear even thinking about. We wont get to that stage because the case for action would become overwhelming long before.

[Verbal]

What is a theory then if it is unproven? It is certainly not fact.

 

You missed the rest out! Besides, the processes explained by Andy are well understood and not contested by atmospheric chemists, or by any scientist worthy of the name - and if THEY turned out not to be true you'd be forced to concede that basically chemistry itself is fundamentally wrong.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You missed the rest out! Besides, the processes explained by Andy are well understood and not contested by atmospheric chemists, or by any scientist worthy of the name - and if THEY turned out not to be true you'd be forced to concede that basically chemistry itself is fundamentally wrong.

 

So is it proven? Then it can only be a theory.

[Saintandy666]

So is it proven? Then it can only be a theory.

 

No, it is proven that molecules absorb radiation. The electrons rise to higher energy levels and then re-emit the energy they absorbed when they drop back down to a lower energy level. If this is wrong, then as Verbal says, chemistry is wrong and nothing at all is right. This stuff has been proven for a while now.

[Verbal]

Technically it is a hypothesis until proven. Then when it is widely accepted it becomes a theory until disproven. The winters in Britain have been getting colder, yet the world has been slowly warming up. There is some evidence that the rate of rise has slowed in recent years. The earth has certainly been far warmer many times in its history and has often been completely ice-free. CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in the last 20million years, and the lowest they have ever been if you look back longer than 50million years. They were 10 times higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

 

Technically hypotheses are derived from theories and observations - and it can get quite circular because no observation is independent of an underlying hypothesis. Hypotheses do not develop into theories but are to some extent derived from them. A theory in this case could be anything from the fundamentals of atmospheric chemistry and physics to a model of climate dynamics (models and theories are pretty interchangeable in this latter instance, in a way that hypotheses and theories are not.)

 

Scientists don't mean the same thing as you or I when they refer to 'theories'. No scientist worth his or her salt, for example, would argue that the theory of quantum mechanics is wrong (incomplete, yes; but wrong, no) - and if it were wrong, we'd be in a very troubling state of ignorance. Theories are not 'guesses' but 'research programmes'. And theories tend not to be displaced by evidence but by better theories - which still doesn't mean the old theories are not practical (the moon landings were plotted using Newton's theory of gravity, not Einstein's)

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Verbal

[Jonnyboy]

What is a theory then if it is unproven? It is certainly not fact.

 

A theory can only disproved, the theory of gravity could be disproved tomorrow if apples started flying up.

[Whitey Grandad]

Technically hypotheses are derived from theories and observations - and it can get quite circular because no observation is independent of an underlying hypothesis. Hypotheses do not develop into theories but are to some extent derived from them. A theory in this case could be anything from the fundamentals of atmospheric chemistry and physics to a model of climate dynamics (models and theories are pretty interchangeable in this latter instance, in a way that hypotheses and theories are not.)

 

Scientists don't mean the same thing as you or I when they refer to 'theories'. No scientist worth his or her salt, for example, would argue that the theory of quantum mechanics is wrong (incomplete, yes; but wrong, no) - and if it were wrong, we'd be in a very troubling state of ignorance. Theories are not 'guesses' but 'research programmes'. And theories tend not to be displaced by evidence but by better theories - which still doesn't mean the old theories are not practical (the moon landings were plotted using Newton's theory of gravity, not Einstein's)

Well, there is a very long list of discredited scientific theories including the phlogiston one which I was taught at school, God alone knows why. As for the moon landings, there was some talk in the sixties that the Russians needed less mid-course corrections because their mathematicians were better at solving differential equations than the Americans who used iterative solutions generated by their more powerful computers. At the speeds involved, Newtonian mechanics were accurate enough.

[Whitey Grandad]

A theory can only disproved, the theory of gravity could be disproved tomorrow if apples started flying up.

 

There is no real theory for gravity. Its origins are not understood in the least. Neither is magnetism really, which brings me on to the other big potential cataclysm, the reversal of the earth's magnetic field which is showing some signs of taking place now. That really is a big unknown.

[Verbal]

Well, there is a very long list of discredited scientific theories including the phlogiston one which I was taught at school, God alone knows why. As for the moon landings, there was some talk in the sixties that the Russians needed less mid-course corrections because their mathematicians were better at solving differential equations than the Americans who used iterative solutions generated by their more powerful computers. At the speeds involved, Newtonian mechanics were accurate enough.

 

If you were taught phlogiston you're not kidding about your grandad status! Karl Marx was making fun of it in 1848! It was a seventeenth century theory that was overthrown by the eighteenth century - and was a failed attempt at dealing with alchemists' ideas, especially that there were four basic elements, fire, water, air and earth. Phlogiston was added as a correction to alchemy. So its status as science is open to question. Phlogiston was of course replaced by a better (and scientific) theory and discovery - oxidation and oxygen.

 

With the essentially anti-science stance of many deniers, there is a growing divide between them and the scientific community - for which the febrile and nonsensical world of the internet is largely to blame. As some of the arguments on here have shown, we're heading back to a world where modern-day equivalents of phlogiston theory are preferable simply because they yield a more comforting result. The idea of what counts as a scientific theory, or a hypothesis, or observation, or verification, has basically gone to hell in this weird world of denial.

 

Your point about the moon landings isn't essentially different from mine, is it? Or have I missed something? Newtonian gravity rules over short distances (relatively speaking!).

Edited 27 December, 2010 by Verbal

[Whitey Grandad]

I suspect we were taught phlogiston in order to help us to realise that scientific theories are fluid. They are only useful to the extent that they model activities and events in the world around us and enable us to predict the outcome of our actions. When they start failing to do that then it's time to get new ones.

 

I'm not disagreeing about the space shots, just pointing out that there are both theoretical and practical solutions to the same objectives.

[Verbal]

There is no real theory for gravity. Its origins are not understood in the least. Neither is magnetism really, which brings me on to the other big potential cataclysm, the reversal of the earth's magnetic field which is showing some signs of taking place now. That really is a big unknown.

 

Einstein's general theory of relativity IS a theory of gravity, as are Newton's equations. The problem with gravity isn't to do with origins, but rather that Einstein's theory describes only the weakest of the four forces of nature, and quantum theory describes the other three. The problem for physics is: how can we make sense of a world that requires one theory of the universe at large scales (including gravity), and another theory to explain the universe at very small scales (quantum theory). Hence the proliferation of GUTs - Grand Unified Theories. This is not to say that relativity and quantum theory are wrong - but incomplete. String theory, for example, is a mind-bogglingly complex series of mathematical equations that attempts to unify general relativity and quantum theory by proposing a universe that exists in eleven dimensions rather than four. (This is why string theory is called a 'theory of everything, by the way - not because it can explain why Turkish picks his nose, but because it purports to combine all known forces in the universe.) String theory itself may be supplanted by another theory of everything with greater explanatory power - but that doesn't mean the theory is wrong in the sense of being useless (useless in the sense that phlogiston theory was).

 

All of which is to say that scientific theories do not have the meaning that we commonly ascribe to the word in everyday usage. So to say, in scientific terms: 'it's just a theory' is more often than not nonsensical. Climate science theorises - models - climate change, and is also built on the foundations of organic chemistry and atmospheric physics. Layers of theory producing testable hypotheses and experiment designs - the very definition of a successful research programme.

 

In the face of this, dune looks out the window and says no.

Edited 28 December, 2010 by Verbal