Thread: "Countdown to global catastrophe" according to international scientists

Originally Posted by Cato

The local environment changes all the time. There use to be a rainforest in my backyard - 30 million years ago - now there's snow.

yes. we all know this.

Is this global or local?

intense weather events have been reported from many places around the globe in recent years.

Actually, the empirical data doesn't prove that out. Carbon is less than 3% of the atmosphere, and we're responsible for a miniscule fraction of that carbon. Does it make sense that our miniscule contribution would cause dramatic effects?

Of the .7 degree C temperature change since 1900, half came before 1940. In contrast, CO2 levels grew much more quickly after 1940 - what caused the temperature change before 1940? Ice core records show that, at the end of each of the last three ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased. What caused the changes then, when no industrialization was around?

most reports show that increases in global temperature have been more rapid in the second half of the twentieth century. There was an increase in temperatures during the thirties recorded at a few sites globally, however there have been blips like this on a number of occasions. Trends are more important than individual year variations.

I dealt with the ocean temperatures in the last post. The geologic record from ice cores do not show that temperatures are increasing at a faster rate than at any other time. Here's a graph from a global warming site (look to the bottom for the Vostok Ice Core Series). Note the wide fluctuations in this data set. We're in the time at the very right where temperature has hardly changed over the past 12,000 years or so. In one decade, the global temperature rose 8 degrees; 9 degrees in another 50 year period. Clearly, we're in no dramatic temperature rise period.

Actually, I think this data goes as far back as 1805. Mean sea levels near Britain were approximately 6,900 mm then and have risen to about 7,100 mm now. But the problems in these measurements are manifold. Mean sea level measurements can be influenced by these variables: coastline and seabed topography, ocean current, meteorological effects of wind and pressure, sun/earth/moon orbital variables, etc.. In fact, finding a global mean sea level is impossible.

other sources show different information. I don't have time to search out links now, but I am sure you can find them.

Aside from all of that, so what? Is this a natural change or a man-made change?

...we also need to make sure we know what the problem is, whether we can effect it, whether we should, what the best course of action is, and what negative effects those actions will bring about. Isn't this prudent?

... I don't think we can just accept that we need to hamstring our economies because a few scientists say we should. We should question their claims. We should ask them to provide proof. Isn't this reasonable?

Here's a good article on how many climatologists actually believe that global warming is caused by humans.

"...a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far)." (emp. mine)

where are these scientists then? why don't they speak out? and why do so many high profile scientists argue the contrary?

I don't have a problem with this. But I would argue that we are investing in alternative energy sources. Maybe not as quickly as you or I would like, but as quickly as the market and the climate demands.

I think if you look at the rate of support given to the petrochemical industry in a variety of forms and compare it to the amount of support available to alternative technology, you get a fair idea of why alternate technology is not moving ahead.

I am also interested to see how much Northern European countries invest in this compared to how much the US invests - it looks like some regard it as more a priority than others - if its not for the US - perhaps its because fossil fuels are too cheap. A 5c/litre surcharge on petrol (which would still keep your fuel prices well below ours, and even more below European prices) - a kind of 'pollution tax' could be used to fund research into alternative energy sources.

Couldn't it get worse?

It will get worse anyway.

and finally - when so many different sources are producing information that is pointing in the same direction there is cause for concern and a need for us to consider the implications. If it were only one branch of science that was coming up with empirical data that suggests correlations between human activity and global warming it would be much easier to dismiss.

Originally Posted by daisym

yes. we all know this.

So, the Earth is in a constant state of change and always has been. Why do you think the changes we're going through now are anthropogenic?

intense weather events have been reported from many places around the globe in recent years.

And? Intense weather events have been going on since the planet began. There's been no increase in intense weather events. Why do you think something that has been occuring for 4.5 billion years is caused by man?

most reports show that increases in global temperature have been more rapid in the second half of the twentieth century.

No, they don't. Would you believe this without proof? Can you produce the proof? Do you even want to try?

There was an increase in temperatures during the thirties recorded at a few sites globally, however there have been blips like this on a number of occasions. Trends are more important than individual year variations.

A few sites globally? The temperature at a few sites tell us the global temperature? If you're going to assert that CO2 is related to global temperature, shouldn't we see a correlation between CO2 and temperature; when one goes up the other goes up? We don't see that. Do you have data that shows that more CO2 means higher temperatures?

other sources show different information. I don't have time to search out links now, but I am sure you can find them.

No, I can't find them. They don't exist. The Vostok Ice Core Series is the longest continuous history on climate and environment that we have. If you can find other sources that show we are experiencing a dramatic shift in temperature, and this is even one of the fastest temperature changes in history then I would love to see it.

I'm beginning to believe that you just want to believe this is a problem, daisym.

where are these scientists then? why don't they speak out? and why do so many high profile scientists argue the contrary?

Why do you think these high profile scientists are high profile? What's going to get more press, the planet is going along as it always has, or "MAN ABOUT TO DESTROY PLANET IN CATACLYSMIC GLOBAL WARMING DISASTER - BLOOD, DEATH, HORRIFYING END!"?

I think if you look at the rate of support given to the petrochemical industry.../...a kind of 'pollution tax' could be used to fund research into alternative energy sources.

As I said, you and I don't disagree on this. But if the point is to reduce global warming, shouldn't everyone be participating?

It will get worse anyway.

That's right. So why do anything about something we can't control?

and finally - when so many different sources are producing information that is pointing in the same direction there is cause for concern and a need for us to consider the implications. If it were only one branch of science that was coming up with empirical data that suggests correlations between human activity and global warming it would be much easier to dismiss.

First of all, there is no empirical data that suggests correlations between human activity and global warming. Secondly, here are some other examples of this train of thought:
1) removing a few pints of blood from a patient will cure any ail,
2) fever after childbirth is not infectious,
3) puerperal fever is not contagious,
4) Jews, gypsies, the mentally incompetent, blacks, and those born with birth defects are poisoning the gene pool and need to be removed,
5) pellagra has nothing to do with diet,
6) continental drift is a ridiculous theory

And there are thousands of others. ALL of these assertions, ALL of them, had support from scientists and learned men in their time. ALL of them claimed to have evidence to support their theories, but they did not. ALL of them derided and harrassed those who questioned the popular view. And ALL of them were proved wrong.

Originally Posted by Cato

So, the Earth is in a constant state of change and always has been. Why do you think the changes we're going through now are anthropogenic?

And? Intense weather events have been going on since the planet began. There's been no increase in intense weather events. Why do you think something that has been occuring for 4.5 billion years is caused by man?

No, they don't. Would you believe this without proof? Can you produce the proof? Do you even want to try?

A few sites globally? The temperature at a few sites tell us the global temperature? If you're going to assert that CO2 is related to global temperature, shouldn't we see a correlation between CO2 and temperature; when one goes up the other goes up? We don't see that. Do you have data that shows that more CO2 means higher temperatures?

No, I can't find them. They don't exist. The Vostok Ice Core Series is the longest continuous history on climate and environment that we have. If you can find other sources that show we are experiencing a dramatic shift in temperature, and this is even one of the fastest temperature changes in history then I would love to see it.

I'm beginning to believe that you just want to believe this is a problem, daisym.

Why do you think these high profile scientists are high profile? What's going to get more press, the planet is going along as it always has, or "MAN ABOUT TO DESTROY PLANET IN CATACLYSMIC GLOBAL WARMING DISASTER - BLOOD, DEATH, HORRIFYING END!"?

As I said, you and I don't disagree on this. But if the point is to reduce global warming, shouldn't everyone be participating?

That's right. So why do anything about something we can't control?

First of all, there is no empirical data that suggests correlations between human activity and global warming. Secondly, here are some other examples of this train of thought:
1) removing a few pints of blood from a patient will cure any ail,
2) fever after childbirth is not infectious,
3) puerperal fever is not contagious,
4) Jews, gypsies, the mentally incompetent, blacks, and those born with birth defects are poisoning the gene pool and need to be removed,
5) pellagra has nothing to do with diet,
6) continental drift is a ridiculous theory

And there are thousands of others. ALL of these assertions, ALL of them, had support from scientists and learned men in their time. ALL of them claimed to have evidence to support their theories, but they did not. ALL of them derided and harrassed those who questioned the popular view. And ALL of them were proved wrong.

How were studied and predicted all those assertions?

Can anyone tell me what other effects on weather there might be other than man?

How about sunspots and CME's?

Did you ever hear about the Day the Solar WInd Stopped?

The Sun looks different than when I was akid, it is much more white. It burns my skin much easier now and I am not sure it is just because of pollution and the ozone.

If anyone is interested in the solar wind info, check this out..............

Dec. 13, 1999: From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared -- the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.

Dropping to a fraction of its normal density and to half its normal speed, the solar wind died down enough to allow physicists to observe particles flowing directly from the Sun's corona to Earth. This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth's magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...t13dec99_1.htm

also see............

NASA study finds increasing solar trend that can change climate


Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=32945

Great post, Norrin Radd. The sun's the biggest other theory out there. Which makes sense, it's the biggest other thing out there that impacts our world.

Other theories typically revolve around some natural increase in GHGs. There's no denying that more GHG in the atmosphere can increase temperatures. After all, without GHG we wouldn't be here. However, the largest GHG by far is water vapour. CO2 accounts for about 3% of the atmosphere. We humans put about 5 to 6 billion tons of carbon into the air. The natural processes between ocean and atmosphere, and plant life and atmosphere account for about 150 billion tons of carbon. So, comparatively we're responsible for a miniscule (about 4%) amount of CO2. So, proponents of anthropogenic global warming would like us to believe that we're controlling the entire planet by having a 4% effect on 3% (or .0012%) of the atmosphere.

Source