BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 28 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2009, 06:45 PM   #406
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:58 PM
James Cameron hates America
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-22-2009, 11:02 PM   #407
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
An interesting TED Talk (and once again, it's not Al Gore).
[Emphasis mine]

You already showed a video that has ice increasing since 2007 with satellites which show much more area than photographs. BTW, ice melting only proves that ice is melting. It doesn't prove that it's not natural, hence the debate about places like Greenland:

World Climate Report � A Christmas Story: Some Facts about Greenland



Quote:
Annual Greenland temperatures were higher in 1930 than today. The rate of warming in the past was much greater than the current rate of warming. Greenland warmed fastest before the concentration of greenhouse gases increased substantially. Greenland cooled substantially from 1930 to 1980 … during a period of greenhouse gas concentration increase.
The Castro quote is a joke about him accusing Copenhagen having rough police which is laughable coming from a dictator known for worse tactics. Why you think that is an argument over sources or a scientific argument is beyond me.

The Royal Society source you show doesn't quell skepticism in the least. If anything it enhances skepticism.

Misleading argument 1: ’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’:

Quote:
It is true that the world has experienced warmer or colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. There have also been regional changes such as periods known as the 'Medieval Warm Period', when grapes were grown extensively in England, and the 'Little Ice Age', when the River Thames sometimes froze over. [I thought the tree data eliminated those periods?] However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three-quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for by natural factors alone.
Quote:
Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'. [Which is it? Climate change or Global Warming? You can't have it both ways].
Quote:
So what is causing this increase in average global temperature? The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps the Earth around 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be and, without it, the Earth would be extremely cold. It works because greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, but mostly water vapour, act like a blanket around the Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach the Earth's surface but hinder the heat they create from escaping back into space. Indeed, the ability of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap heat in this way has been understood for nearly 200 years and is regarded as firmly established science.
Established with who? Skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen and John Christy have already got studies that challenge this.

Misleading argument 2: ’CO2 not responsible for global warming’

Quote:
Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas. It occurs naturally, although global warming caused by human activities will indirectly affect how much is in the atmosphere through, for example, increased evaporation from oceans and rivers. This will, in turn, cause either cooling or warming depending on what form such as different types of clouds the water vapour occurs in.
Again Richard Lindzen (Iris effect) and John Christy already have studies that challenge this. BTW the climategate emails also laughably show predictions for 2009 to be the hottest year on record being questioned internally because of the S02 cooling factor by the Chinese that are not in the climate models. BTW 2009 is over and it's not the warmest on record. So much for those models in predicting even 1 year ahead let alone decades.

Misleading argument 3: ’Rises in CO2 occur after global warming, not before’

Quote:
It is true that the fluctuations in temperatures that caused the ice ages were initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which, in turn, drove changes in levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is backed up by data from ice cores which show that rises in temperature came first, and were then followed by rises in levels of carbon dioxide up to several hundred years later. The reasons for this, although not yet fully understood, are partly because the oceans emit carbon dioxide as they warm up and absorb it when they cool down and also because soil releases greenhouse gases as it warms up. These increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then further enhanced warming, creating a positive feedback'. [This science is NOT settled yet after Lindzen and Choi. Roy Spencer is arguing for negative feedback].
Misleading argument 4: ’Temperature observations don’t support the theory’

Quote:
It is fair to note that in tropical regions of the world there are still some discrepancies [again?] between what computer models lead us to expect regarding temperatures at the surface and in the troposphere and what we actually see. However, these disagreements are within the bounds of the likely remaining errors in the observations and uncertainties in the models.
Again skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer would have a go at this.

Misleading argument 5: ’Global warming computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable’

Quote:
It is important to note that computer models cannot exactly predict the future, since there are so many unknowns concerning what might happen. Scientists model a range of future possible climates using different scenarios of what the world will 'look like'. Each scenario makes different assumptions about important factors such as how the world's population may increase, what policies might be introduced to deal with climate change and how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases humans will pump into the atmosphere. The resulting projection of the future climate for each scenario, gives various possibilities for the temperature but within a defined range.

While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies.
What a mess!

Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’

Everyone knows this. It's one important factor but not the only factor.

Misleading argument 7: ’The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays’

The caption admits it could have an effect (again not the only effect). It's funny how they argue against isolating one factor like the sun or cosmic rays but are okay with isolating C02.

Another scientist with a different angle:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming - insciences

Quote:
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.
There's obviously a lot more work to be done to iron out the actual causes because correlation does not prove causation.


Misleading argument 8: ’The negative effects of climate change are overstated’

Again, climate change or global warming? There's even some who are calling alarm for cooling:

Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared | Mail Online

Quote:
The real science points to the sun’s magnetic cycle as the key driver by unknown mechanisms. Right now, Nasa is throwing its hands up and saying ‘we’ve never seen anything like it and can’t tell what it is going to do next’.

Many scientists expect a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter – and famine spread through Europe and China.
The only way to have a "consensus" is to ignore these different claims and create a special group that pushes people out of the debate, but that's not going to work anymore after those climategate emails.

What are the negative effects of cooling? What are the positive effects of warming? Cold weather kills crops and less food doesn't help poor countries (which is another argument against bio-fuels that are increasing food prices).

There are lots of unanswered questions of climate's past as addressed here:

YouTube - The Essence of Copenhagen
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is online now  
Old 12-23-2009, 12:27 AM   #408
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Your first article is from WorldClimateReport (produced by New Hope Environmental Services, a climate denial PR firm run by Patrick J. Michaels), read about it on some other sites.

World Climate Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Climate Report - SourceWatch
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: World Climate Report

The post takes two papers as evidence against anthropogenic warming effecting the Greenland ice sheet.

The first is 'Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability' which was published in the Journal of Climate, here is a link to the original article http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMG...ng_jc_2009.pdf

The article is technical, and I don't have a background in meteorology, but it made the point that the cooling trends recorded in the graph are related to sulphate aerosols from volcanism and the deficit in the ice-sheet mass balance (the gap between melting ice and replacement) is set to increase Greenlands deglaciation. Here is the final paragraph of the discussion, it makes the point clearly.
Quote:
Climate warming has pushed the Greenland ice sheet beyond its threshold of viability in recent years (Rignot et al. 2008). The ice sheet seems poised not to grow without substantial regional and global climate cooling. It therefore seems much more likely than not that Greenland is and will be for the foreseeable future be a deglaciating Pleistocene Ice Age relic.
That conclusion goes directly against what the climate denialist website was trying to claim, they misrepresented a citation because of their political agenda.

If you are genuinely sceptical then you would start weighing evidence against interest (question PR firms paid off by the oil and automotive industries), and doubt sources which misrepresent the facts.

The second article published in Nature Geoscience relates to how warming impacts the melting of glaciers, importantly the study used computer models to identify what processes dominated melting, the conclusions relate to how melting might proceed in future and whether we can extrapolate current trends into the future. Once again the study doesn't support the claim that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a communist plot.
Quote:
In a different study, published in Nature Geoscience last week, Andreas Vieli and Faezeh Nick from Durham University found the reasons for rapid ice loss in outlet glaciers.

Whereas the loss of ice in the land-terminating Russell Glacier in Shepherd's study is dominated by surface melt, Vieli unearthed a different mechanism for ice loss in outlet glaciers.

Vieli and his team found that the Hellheim Glacier, in east Greenland, speeds up in response to changes at its calving end - the part of the glacier that juts into the sea.

They wanted to see how different effects on the glacier compared with the ice loss researchers have witnessed. So they used computer models to test how various scenarios affected the glacier.

When they increased meltwater lubrication at the glacier's base, unlike Shepherd's study, the glacier didn't speed up towards the ocean. But when they decreased the stability at the front end of the glacier - such as would happen in a warming climate - ice thinning, acceleration and retreat quickly spread far up the glacier. This exactly mimics what researchers have seen in Greenland.

'Essentially, higher air temperatures and warmer seas mean you're going to get more calving in a glacier like the Hellheim Glacier. But as these glaciers retreat inland more, maybe surface melt will become the dominant factor making them lose ice,' says Vieli.

Vieli is keen to point out that you have to be careful about extrapolating ice loss from just a few years' observations into the future. Researchers are still a long way off predicting how fast sea levels will rise as Greenland's ice sheet disappears. Even so, both of these studies are a step forward in refining the ice aspect of current climate models.
Glacier's speed doubles two hours after daily peak surface melting
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-23-2009, 12:30 AM   #409
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:58 AM
One minor point Purpleoscar, the symbol for oxygen is the letter O, and not the numerical 0, you wrote CO2 as C02 and SO2 as S02.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-26-2009, 08:43 PM   #410
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
James Cameron hates America


He loves the $$$$$
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 12-30-2009, 03:03 PM   #411
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Your first article is from WorldClimateReport (produced by New Hope Environmental Services, a climate denial PR firm run by Patrick J. Michaels), read about it on some other sites.

World Climate Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Climate Report - SourceWatch
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: World Climate Report
You won't be able to avoid skeptical arguments with this junk. Right now Pachauri is under investigation and many people like Al Gore (already guilty of conflict of interest) are not trusted anymore. To ignore PR on your side when it's obvious is just an easy argument for me to bring up. What about those emails? They are not going away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The post takes two papers as evidence against anthropogenic warming effecting the Greenland ice sheet.

The first is 'Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability' which was published in the Journal of Climate, here is a link to the original article http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMG...ng_jc_2009.pdf

The article is technical, and I don't have a background in meteorology, but it made the point that the cooling trends recorded in the graph are related to sulphate aerosols from volcanism and the deficit in the ice-sheet mass balance (the gap between melting ice and replacement) is set to increase Greenlands deglaciation. Here is the final paragraph of the discussion, it makes the point clearly.That conclusion goes directly against what the climate denialist website was trying to claim, they misrepresented a citation because of their political agenda.
Here's the abstract on your source:

Quote:
Thus, it is expected that the ice sheet melt rates and mass deficit will continue to grow in the early twenty-first century as Greenland’s climate catches up with the Northern Hemisphere warming trend and the Arctic climate warms according to global climate model predictions.
Then blogs quoting from studies:

Quote:
Vieli is keen to point out that you have to be careful about extrapolating ice loss from just a few years' observations into the future. Researchers are still a long way off predicting how fast sea levels will rise as Greenland's ice sheet disappears. Even so, both of these studies are a step forward in refining the ice aspect of current climate models.
Quote:
We predict that longer-term rates of mass loss, at least for Helheim Glacier, may be less marked than observed in recent years.” The last sentence in their abstract is a dagger as they conclude “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” Enough said.
The point by the blogger is that their climate models still need help. I'm sure there are lots of predictions for Greenland to melt. These predictions need better models, especially when comparing natural and man-made causes.

Until the models are refined a political agenda of world government/cap and trade is not going to happen. What is natural and what is man made? Nobody knows for sure. What we do know is that it was warmer in the past and it is not accellerating (actually cooling now) despite increased CO2. There are obviously many natural variables and we need to study them more before we single out CO2 as the main driver. Remember. Pointing out melting is not causation by humans. You have to prove it is mainly caused by humans. This is why I hate the term "climate change". It's loaded terminology that assumes man is responsible for all climate change without being specific. Even Gordon Brown is trying to say that it's all to do with us. The reality I suspect is that man has some influence and nature most of the influence otherwise these models wouldn't have trouble predicting a few years let alone decades into the future.

At least when I posted about communists I actually provided them in my videos and that article about Maurice Strong. Some scientists just want money and any government that wants catestrophic claims will pay for them. BTW do you think that people who angle for government funding are going to tell us this in their studies? The evidence is in the policies the governments propose in response to the IPCC and the shrill end of the world predictions and scenarios used to drum up financial and political support. James Hansen actually predicted that New York would be underwater by 2008:

Stormy weather - Salon.com

Quote:
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
This is why credibility is lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
If you are genuinely sceptical then you would start weighing evidence against interest (question PR firms paid off by the oil and automotive industries), and doubt sources which misrepresent the facts.
Hello U.N! It's mystifying why you can't feel skeptical about the U.N. when your own posts show enormous uncertainty over predictions. Face it. You need the world to go into catestrophic apocalypse predictions to scare the public into giving money (they don't have) to bureaucrats and scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
One minor point Purpleoscar, the symbol for oxygen is the letter O, and not the numerical 0, you wrote CO2 as C02 and SO2 as S02.
You should be tougher on me. The "2" should be in subscript. I now go bash my head against a wall.
__________________
purpleoscar is online now  
Old 12-30-2009, 03:06 PM   #412
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
James Cameron hates America is a V.
__________________
purpleoscar is online now  
Old 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM   #413
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Stormy weather - Salon.com



This is why credibility is lost.
So one scientist has some slightly wacky predictions and that means that credibility for the entire movement is lost?

Quote:
Face it. You need the world to go into catestrophic apocalypse predictions to scare the public into giving money (they don't have) to bureaucrats and scientists.
Let's lighten up on the histrionics a bit.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 12-30-2009, 06:09 PM   #414
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 05:58 PM
We have Waxman-Markey in the House, the president bloviating in Copenhagen, and the EPA conveniently horning in on carbon control after the Senate blocked cap and tax.

Maybe some histrionics are warranted
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 07:25 PM   #415
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 05:58 PM
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 12-31-2009, 08:00 PM   #416
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Is Oscar Connie Meskimen?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-01-2010, 01:07 PM   #417
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
So one scientist has some slightly wacky predictions and that means that credibility for the entire movement is lost?
If James Hansen from NASA is discredited then I think that should be a problem and it makes any future catestrophic end of the world scenarios less likely for people to believe. He also had some large claims about 1998 being the hottest year on record that were proven false due to the urban island heat effect. 1998 is now considered cooler than the hottest years in the 1930s.

Oops. Some more uncertainty:

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing?

Quote:
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started losing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Let's lighten up on the histrionics a bit.
It's hard to argue with people who admit in their own posts that models are over-abstract and then put enormous faith in their predictions.
__________________
purpleoscar is online now  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:05 PM   #418
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 05:58 PM
Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:14 PM   #419
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:58 PM
It's cold in January, holy shit! WHERE'S THE COAL?? WE NEED TO POLLUTE AGAIN!!
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 01-02-2010, 06:53 PM   #420
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
It's cold in January, holy shit! WHERE'S THE COAL?? WE NEED TO POLLUTE AGAIN!!
So you're saying global warming, if true, has some positives? Tell us more as we never seem to hear about those.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com