Posted February 12, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...zing-again.html Share this post Link to post
Posted February 12, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...zing-again.html I've been reading about things like that for the last year or so, about the possibility of a Grand Minimum. Sleepy Suns make for wars and cold and bad times down here. Share this post Link to post
Posted February 12, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...zing-again.html *yawn* The disinformation machine at it again... http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/ "Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”. This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997." A little history: In the 1970's, there was a book on a coming ice age in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight i.e. global dimming. It's not even comparable to a consensus of scientists that have an avalanche of scientific material being published, etc. Global warming already had a foundation decades before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall 1850’s “He was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius 1900 “Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. This simplified expression is still used today: ΔF = α ln(C/C0)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callendar_effect 1930 “His main contribution to knowledge was propounding the theory that linked rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to global temperature. This eventually became known as the Callendar effect.” 1931 “[…] calculation shows that doubling or tripling the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average [surface] temperature by 4 and 7 degrees K respectively” – E. O. Hulbert, Physical Review 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass “From 1956 onwards he published a series of papers on the topic, partly based on advanced calculations of the absorption of infrared radiation, and he made use of early electronic computers.” [Resolved absorption bands – water vapor and carbon dioxide didn’t overlap] 1957 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle “Revelle and Suess described the "buffer factor", now known as the "Revelle factor", which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry.” This was bipartisan. Share this post Link to post
Posted February 14, 2012 I think it is real, but not caused entirely by human's. I think that soon this will lead to a new era, like the ice age was but with different effects. Share this post Link to post
Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) *yawn* The disinformation machine at it again... Perhaps it is. However I'm afraid your post is in no way convincing as it is simply you copypasta-ing your way through a load of articles. If you could actually explain - in your own words - what you're trying to say then I would pay more attention to it. So, your starter for ten - explain to me the relevance of ΔF = α ln(C/C0) to this discussion. What it means, how it was formulated, a short proof or relevant worked examples perhaps? Edited February 14, 2012 by Kestra15 Share this post Link to post
Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Perhaps it is. However I'm afraid your post is in no way convincing as it is simply you copypasta-ing your way through a load of articles. If you could actually explain - in your own words - what you're trying to say then I would pay more attention to it. Why? I clearly picked out the relevant parts in the articles. In fact, you're criticizing me for this when you posted an article with no commentary, and it was just a hit piece. During that week, the WSJ also published a hit piece that was full of shoddy science and bias. The news sites do this all the time, so you need due diligence. Here’s an example of how the disinformation machine works: http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-07-...aper-by-ideolo/ "This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is “very important” on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using “alarmist” or “alarmism” 15 times in nine paragraphs." But sometimes it backfires on them! http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/skeptic-f...96#.Tzqm5XHOymE "In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly. The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data." Funded by the Koch brothers So, your starter for ten - explain to me the relevance of ΔF = α ln(C/C0) to this discussion. What it means, how it was formulated, a short proof or relevant worked examples perhaps? There's no need to get into the technicalities of this. The point is that global warming had a foundation long before partisan lines were drawn. If you insist, though, it’s about radiative forcing. The right side of the equilibrium equation is CO2 concentration. “If the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2) increases (in the atmosphere) in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.”-- Svante Arrhenius, 1896 Now my turn! I agree with everything here - except your assertions that it is humans who are 'speeding it up.' Given that all the CO2 ever given out by humans since the beginning of the Industrial Age is a negligible fraction of what is naturally in the air already. We have not 'sped it up so much.' Sea levels rise and fall, ice caps expand and retreat, thus is the way of the world. I’m assuming you mean atmospheric composition of all gases because CO2 levels can be monitored, and we’re on our way of doubling it in decades via emissions. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon together comprise more than 99 percent of the atmosphere. None of these gases absorb either visible or infrared light. If we’re referencing near the surface of the earth, water vapor comprises only 0-4% depending on location and other factors. CO2 is like a thermostat. Water vapor is a feedback effect. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/...emperature.html "A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect." Edit: Image too big. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/488311m...ck-forcings.jpg Despite the fact that greenhouse gases comprise a small part of the atmosphere, they have a large effect on surface temperatures. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/c...nge1/02_1.shtml The Earth is freshly emerging out of an ice age and as such everything is indeed melting, sea levels rising, etc. Because that's what happens when things heat up. We did not engineer this, since this heating process has been around longer than we've been industrial. We haven't sped it up in any appreciable way. snip http://green.harvard.edu/your-planet-needs...years-earth-day "But climate change scientists warn of a 4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by year 2060" That’s not natural change. That's over 10 times the natural rate of recovery after an ice age. In fact, I’m surprised you’re saying this because climate scientists point out that the change in recent history is statistically significant and doesn’t jive with natural fluctuations. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/...rming/page4.php “These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.” http://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-o...the-planet-1544 Fun fact: The radiative forcing from all the CO2 output by humans is equivalent in energy terms to almost half a billion Hiroshima bombs each year. Edited February 14, 2012 by Alpha1 Share this post Link to post
Posted February 14, 2012 Excellent, something approaching a real explanation. I posted the article as a discussion point. My problem with your posts is that you 'argue' a point simply by posting links, copying in segments, but never actually forming any cohesive argument or statement - which is why I frankly don't read your posts, as there is no cohesive theme or element, and why making any real counter to this post is sadly not worth-while as you have again slipped into large chunks of copy-and-paste and no real sensible segue between them. Sadly climate change, since it is a hot political topic, is full of woolly science which makes it such a frustrating and difficult topic to debate about - and when you have things like the CRU scandal and other such problems on both sides of the debate, it becomes more a mud-slinging contest than anything else to the public eye. Share this post Link to post
Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) My problem with your posts is that you 'argue' a point simply by posting links, copying in segments, but never actually forming any cohesive argument or statement Eh? I got $20 from a global warming discussion once. I’ve also received compliments from various people. If you can learn one thing from Kent Hovind, it’s to use machine-gun tactics. In this case, facts instead of factoids. You could clarify more why you think I need to point out what that equation meant. The sentence above the equation already said, ”[…] speculate that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.” Without saying, I would think most would understand that the equation was about the above, and the fact that it’s still used today shows that global warming had a foundation before politics got involved. Moreover, responding to only a portion of a post frequently means that a person thinks he or she would have difficulty with other parts, so they’ll attack what they think is the weakest. - which is why I frankly don't read your posts, as there is no cohesive theme or element, and why making any real counter to this post is sadly not worth-while as you have again slipped into large chunks of copy-and-paste and no real sensible segue between them. I’ll explain my response to your first quote as an example of why it was sensible. You said, “Given that all the CO2 ever given out by humans since the beginning of the Industrial Age is a negligible fraction of what is naturally in the air already.” The image clearly debunks that poor argument. It’s a poor argument because nitrogen, oxygen, and argon don’t absorb infrared or visible light. The greenhouse gases are negligible in comparison to the amount of other gases in the atmosphere, yet the science says they greatly affect temperatures. Since CO2 emissions are at the forefront of the debate, I also pointed out using a .gov site that CO2 is believed to be the main gas responsible for most of the radiative forcing. What was so hard to follow? I’d also like to add you should look into how you present your views. You’re putting your thoughts into your own words, but don’t cite where they’re coming from. How did you come to the conclusion that it was natural? Sadly climate change, since it is a hot political topic, is full of woolly science which makes it such a frustrating and difficult topic to debate about - and when you have things like the CRU scandal and other such problems on both sides of the debate, it becomes more a mud-slinging contest than anything else to the public eye. This isn’t true. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/...7.full.pdf+html “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Shoddy science arguments include: 1. One volcano puts out more CO2 than we do each year! 2. It’s the sun, stupid! [Never mind decades of satellites measuring irradiance show that the sun isn’t a significant player] 3. Water vapor makes up 95-98% of the greenhouse gas effect! 4. If we can’t predict tomorrow’s weather, how could we predict what it’ll be like decades from now!? 5. Greenhouse gases are negligible compared to other gases in the atmosphere. How could the Earth possibly heat up? Etc. Notice how it's all from the skeptics side? This is not unlike the chlorofluorocarbon debate. You had prominent scientists, corporations, and sympathizing politicians arguing against the scientific consensus that CFC's would harm the ozone layer. Despite much lower emissions than CO2, CFC's also would have exacerbated the warming because their heat capacity is thousands of times higher than the deniers' darling water vapor. The scientists who worked on analyzing the affects eventually got the Nobel Prize. Similarly, this is like the debate on the link to cancer from smoking. You had top scientists like Fred Singer defending the tobacco industry, while the consensus was that it was harmful. Once a scientific consensus has formed, skeptics should be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve never come across an argument that couldn’t be refuted using .gov and .edu sites or scientific journals. Maybe you could be the first. Edited February 15, 2012 by Alpha1 Share this post Link to post
Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I think you would find Climate Audit a very interesting site, if you haven't taken a look for yourself yet. There's a good bit of interesting info with a minimum of snark from the host. Edited February 15, 2012 by Princess Artemis Share this post Link to post
Posted April 1, 2012 No being mean to people about their choice.It's their decision on what they choose. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 1, 2012 Global warming is happening. Don't try to believe that what you cannot grasp does not exist. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) I really don't know how to jump into this discussion, as it seems to have thinned to two users... I'm not even going to try to get into the science behind Global Warming or what have you. I'll just present it so that normal people can understand, since frankly, all of this talk about CO2 and the like is unlikely to be understood by 90% of the people discussing GW. Global warming *is* real, but it isn't the cause of fluctuating winters. Global warming can only truly be seen when looking at the past couple centuries/decades. A few degrees in average temperature is really all that has risen. As others have said, Earth is currently coming out of an ice age, which it has done many times before we were here to discuss it. Its just that ice ages last so long (hundreds or even thousands of years) that this is the first/only major one since history started being recorded. Think about it, there have been several ice ages, which means there have been several of these warming times. The polar bears and other species are STILL AROUND. That means they can obviously adapt, even if they might not have been quite like our polar bears the last time around. This is really more of a logic explanation, but nevertheless, there's my opinion. Edited April 1, 2012 by HollyTheColliegirl Share this post Link to post
Posted April 1, 2012 I really don't know how to jump into this discussion, as it seems to have thinned to two users... I'm not even going to try to get into the science behind Global Warming or what have you. I'll just present it so that normal people can understand, since frankly, all of this talk about CO2 and the like is unlikely to be understood by 90% of the people discussing GW. Global warming *is* real, but it isn't the cause of fluctuating winters. Global warming can only truly be seen when looking at the past couple centuries/decades. A few degrees in average temperature is really all that has risen. As others have said, Earth is currently coming out of an ice age, which it has done many times before we were here to discuss it. Its just that ice ages last so long (hundreds or even thousands of years) that this is the first/only major one since history started being recorded. Think about it, there have been several ice ages, which means there have been several of these warming times. The polar bears and other species are STILL AROUND. That means they can obviously adapt, even if they might not have been quite like our polar bears the last time around. This is really more of a logic explanation, but nevertheless, there's my opinion. Obviously animals can adapt. The problem is that our warming period is happening TOO QUICKLY for evolution to properly occur. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 1, 2012 Obviously animals can adapt. The problem is that our warming period is happening TOO QUICKLY for evolution to properly occur. How do you know? Were you there to measure the optimum length of time for evolution to work? Or...not? Share this post Link to post
Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) Well, there is proof of global warming out there, you just have to look for it: Also something to consider: Edited April 3, 2012 by olympe Share this post Link to post
Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) I for one don't believe in it... Edited April 23, 2012 by Darien Share this post Link to post
Posted April 23, 2012 How do you know? Were you there to measure the optimum length of time for evolution to work? Or...not? I don't know about an optimal time for evolution or if changes in climate will just naturally wipe out animals not built to handle it, but we are already seeing threats to many amphibian species because of global warming. There is a decline in quite a bit of amphibian species because of warming and the effects of warming. Of course, a lot of what happens will be affected by human reaction to global warming and how much the Earth actually warms. Can amphibians take the heat? Vulnerability to climate warming in subtropical and temperate larval amphibian communities Author(s): Duarte, H (Duarte, Helder)1; Tejedo, M (Tejedo, Miguel)1; Katzenberger, M (Katzenberger, Marco)1; Marangoni, F (Marangoni, Federico)2,3; Baldo, D (Baldo, Diego)2,3,4; Beltran, JF (Francisco Beltran, Juan)5; Marti, DA (Andrea Marti, Dardo)2,3; Richter-Boix, A (Richter-Boix, Alex)6; Gonzalez-Voyer, A (Gonzalez-Voyer, Alejandro)7 Source: GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Pages: 412-421 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02518.x Published: FEB 2012 Predicting the biodiversity impacts of global warming implies that we know where and with what magnitude these impacts will be encountered. Amphibians are currently the most threatened vertebrates, mainly due to habitat loss and to emerging infectious diseases. Global warming may further exacerbate their decline in the near future, although the impact might vary geographically. We predicted that subtropical amphibians should be relatively susceptible to warming-induced extinctions because their upper critical thermal limits (CTmax) might be only slightly higher than maximum pond temperatures (Tmax). We tested this prediction by measuring CTmax and Tmax for 47 larval amphibian species from two thermally distinct subtropical communities (the warm community of the Gran Chaco and the cool community of Atlantic Forest, northern Argentina), as well as from one European temperate community. Upper thermal tolerances of tadpoles were positively correlated (controlling for phylogeny) with maximum pond temperatures, although the slope was steeper in subtropical than in temperate species. CTmax values were lowest in temperate species and highest in the subtropical warm community, which paradoxically, had very low warming tolerance (CTmaxTmax) and therefore may be prone to future local extinction from acute thermal stress if rising pond Tmax soon exceeds their CTmax. Canopy-protected subtropical cool species have larger warming tolerance and thus should be less impacted by peak temperatures. Temperate species are relatively secure to warming impacts, except for late breeders with low thermal tolerance, which may be exposed to physiological thermal stress in the coming years. Facing Extinction in Real Time David B. Wake Science 2 March 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6072 pp. 1052-1053 DOI: 10.1126/science.1218364 A sense of impending doom has enveloped the community of amphibian biologists for more than two decades, as evidence has built that the subjects of their research are in severe difficulty. What at first was a puzzle based mainly on anecdotes (1) became an evident fact when intensive studies were completed: Throughout the world, amphibians are in decline, and many species—perhaps 40%—face imminent extinction (2). Recent studies have elucidated some agents for amphibian losses and projected the likely prospects for amphibian survival across the globe. The picture that emerges is disturbing. [...] Hof et al. (8) remind us that there are other major factors besides chytridiomycosis in the general decline and paint a gloomy picture for the future of amphibians. The authors project that multiple drivers of extinction will become increasingly important, with more intense impacts than previous assessments have found (2). Some regions with high species richness face the greatest risk. Climate change alone is projected to negatively affect as many as 73% of the frog species in the northern Andes and 66% of the local salamander fauna in one part of Central America; taking into account the other variables makes matters worse. The substantial overlap of threats in areas of high species richness is troubling. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity Author(s): Hof, C (Hof, Christian)1,2; Araujo, MB (Araujo, Miguel B.)1,2,3; Jetz, W (Jetz, Walter)4; Rahbek, C (Rahbek, Carsten)1 Source: NATURE Volume: 480 Issue: 7378 Pages: 516-U137 DOI: 10.1038/nature10650 Published: DEC 22 2011 Amphibian population declines far exceed those of other vertebrate groups, with 30% of all species listed as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature(1-3). The causes of these declines are a matter of continued research, but probably include climate change, land-use change and spread of the pathogenic fungal disease chytridiomycosis(1,4,5). Here we assess the spatial distribution and interactions of these primary threats in relation to the global distribution of amphibian species. We show that the greatest proportions of species negatively affected by climate change are projected to be found in Africa, parts of northern South America and the Andes. Regions with the highest projected impact of land-use and climate change coincide, but there is little spatial overlap with regions highly threatened by the fungal disease. Overall, the areas harbouring the richest amphibian faunas are disproportionately more affected by one or multiple threat factors than areas with low richness. Amphibian declines are likely to accelerate in the twenty-first century, because multiple drivers of extinction could jeopardize their populations more than previous, mono-causal, assessments have suggested. Climate change is linked to long-term decline in a stream salamander Author(s): Lowe, WH (Lowe, Winsor H.) Source: BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION Volume: 145 Issue: 1 Pages: 48-53 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.004 Published: JAN 2012 Amphibian declines have been documented worldwide and several have been linked to climate change, but the long-term data needed to detect declines are largely restricted to pond-breeding species. This limits our knowledge of population trends in other major groups of amphibians, including stream salamanders, which have their greatest diversity in North America. I hypothesized that increasing air temperature and precipitation in northeastern North America caused abundance of the stream salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus in a New Hampshire population to decline between 1999 and 2010. I found a significant decline in abundance of G. porphyriticus adults over this 12-year period, and no trend in larval abundance. Adult abundance was negatively related to annual precipitation, which is predicted to increase further in the Northeast due to climate change. Analysis of a 6-year capture-mark-recapture data set for the same population showed no temporal variation in larval and adult detectability, validating the abundance data, and no variation in larval and adult survival. However, survival during metamorphosis from the larval to adult stage declined dramatically. These results suggest that increasing precipitation is causing a decline in adult recruitment, which, if it persists, will lead to local extinction. A likely mechanism for the decline in adult recruitment is mortality of metamorphosing individuals during spring and fall floods, which have increased in volume and frequency with the increase in precipitation. More broadly, this study presents strong evidence that the amphibian decline crisis extends to North America's stream salamanders, and shows the critical need to collect population data on these species. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. It's true that any number of things could be compounding to produce results like this and perhaps extinctions/possible extinctions are just part of a natural cycle we're looking at more closely because of the threats of global warming, but I do think it is something to consider. ^^ Share this post Link to post
Posted April 23, 2012 but I do think it is something to consider. ^^ Yes, it's something to consider. Asking questions is good when the answer isn't known. Predicting the biodiversity impacts of global warming implies that we know where and with what magnitude these impacts will be encountered. That's a good quote. It says a lot about what they are unwilling to do because they don't know. "I don't know" isn't a bad answer in science. It sets people to keep looking, rather than to narrow their focus and discard possibilities. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) The Earth has experienced many global warmings, so I have no reason not to believe this is all natural. Just because we are indeed polluting the atmosphere doesn't mean we are causing global warmings. Sure, several species like the Polar Bear may die out, but if it is natural then there isn't a thing we can do. Species come and go. I for one, say global warming is natural, since the Earth has experienced plenty before. However, we may be contributing to the effect. Edited April 24, 2012 by rampaging wyvern Share this post Link to post
Posted April 24, 2012 I know. I didn't expect to have to write up a full complex survey on global warming...but if you like I can edit. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 24, 2012 Well this IS a debate topic. I'm not asking you to write me an essay, but, yes, we usually do go back-and-forth. Share this post Link to post
Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Yes, it's something to consider. Asking questions is good when the answer isn't known. That's a good quote. It says a lot about what they are unwilling to do because they don't know. "I don't know" isn't a bad answer in science. It sets people to keep looking, rather than to narrow their focus and discard possibilities. So true. One reason science is just so beautiful. :3 Because of what we do know we are largely contributing to, extinction is a worry for me, but mitigating that really boils down to something we should be doing anyway - mitigating and geoengineering to stop and perhaps undo some of the damage we've already done. It's not the Earth that's in danger; it's us. x3 That doesn't mean we aren't contributing to it. Yep, and a large number of climatologists now agree that anthropogenic forcing is causing rapid and destructive changes already and will continue to snowball, if you will, into bigger effects further down the line. (To clarify, many climatologists agree that anthropogenic forcing is a rather large part of the change but there are varying thoughts on exact impacts down the road.) Edited April 24, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts