Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 85

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    313

    Global Warming

    Is Global Warming a real problem ?

    http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/GLOBAL_WARMING.HTM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    America
    Posts
    249

    Global Warming: Stormin Norman Style

    We have all heard stories of sea levels rising, icebergs the size of Rhode Island breaking off the main ice shelves, and glacier melts causing devastating Laharres. In addition, many note droughts, shifting weather patterns, increased flooding and rising disease as direct effects of this phenomenon called global warming. Since kindergarten, many have been taught about this principle in little detail. The theory of global warming has reached the status of a doctrine or creed. Who would dare question an idea proposed by the top scientists of the day? Taken on faith by the majority of people who lack the scientific background to review the scientific literature, climate change is viewed as a factual occurrence. Simply look at the record highs reached this year alone in many locations, to obtain irrefutable evidence of this fact. Many years ago we were faced with the same situation when most of the population of the western world were convinced that the earth was flat. If someone were to tell them the earth is a sphere, they would have laughed in the face of the opposition. Certainly anyone alive can see this lack of critical thinking taking form again today, as it pertains to global warming.

    Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. If surface temperatures are actually increasing and CO(2) levels are increasing, one could deduce that the two have a cause and effect relationship. However, the scientific evidence for this is not entirely conclusive. As a matter of fact, there are many reasons to believe that the hypothesis of climate change being directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels is erroneous. In order to understand on of the most controversial issues of the day one must understand the theory, the physics, and the scientific method. A detailed look at the theory and problems with that theory must be considered before a person pledges an allegiance to such an idea. These issues will be the focus of this paper, as an investigation into the framework of the debate is thoroughly scrutinized. It will be necessary to lay out the actual theory and lay behind some myths attributed to global warming.

    Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other hydrocarbons are at the heart of the issue, because they fuel our economy and remain byproducts of other process. Here is a site I hope familiarizes the reader with some of the main greenhouse gases and the levels produced.

    Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    The reason greenhouse gases remain so controversial is largely due to the physics associated with certain types of molecules. All matter emits radiation at a level dependent upon its temperature and type of material, and is given by:

    Radiation Law (applies to all objects in the universe, large or small, hot or cold)

    R = eps*sig*(T^4)

    Where

    epsilon = emissivity of the object, and is a property of the material
    epsilon = Ratio of R of object/R of black body
    Sigma = Stephan Boltzman constant = 1.38x10^-23 J/K
    T = temperature in Kelvin

    The earth emits mainly infrared radiation. The source of this heat comes mainly from geothermal processes and the absorption and re-radiation of solar energy. The earth’s climate is due to a number of factors, the list is numerous and exceeds the topic of this paper. For our purposes we will discuss the temperature aspect. Let us consider the earth to be the system of interest, and the universe to be the surrounding environment. The process of heating the earth remains a continuous, transient process (depending on your view). The temperature variable depends on the amount of heat energy absorbed minus the heat energy released back into space. The earth’s atmosphere plays a crucial role in the regulation of heat loss to the surroundings. Overtime the flow-rates of the incoming radiation and output radiation reach some sort of equilibrium. This equilibrium is what allows for the temperatures conducive to life on this planet. The atmosphere can either reflect radiation back into space, or it can trap the radiation and prevent heat loss. Greenhouse gases are known to absorb radiation and because of their molecular properties radiate energy back towards the earth. The unique properties of the greenhouse gases remain the reason for concern over burning fossil fuels and the HVAC industries. However, due to the industrial implications both the left and the right have politicized the issue. Unfortunately, the science has suffered as a result.

    Next, specific misconceptions about greenhouse gases must be shed for an objective look at the two sides of the issue. First of all, it was demonstrated that greenhouse gases are a necessity for life on earth. The reasons for this are listed above. Therefore, any idea that all greenhouse gases are bad should be thrown out. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane are a fact of life, and would exist with or without human beings. Clearly, you can see how anyone calling for an all out ban on greenhouse gases is an idiot. Please don’t make the mistake of proving you are capable of a flat earth mentality.

    Secondly, global warming or the majority of green house gases does not cause Ozone depletion. That is false. Chloro-fluorocarbons (CFC’s) have the ability to react with Ozone (0(3)). The chlorine can rapidly catalyze a reaction with oxygen gas being the major product. This phenomenon has been proven without a shadow of doubt. Ozone depletion results in a bombardment of ultra-violet rays, which are harmful to living organisms. This problem is entirely different than that of the global warming scenario, and should not be confused. With its discovery and acceptance, CFC’s were effectively banned from use and the ozone hole has demonstrated massive improvement. Yes CFC’s do exhibit greenhouse behavior, yet the concentration of CFC’s is too minute to make a real difference in the global warming issue.

    Link to a site describing some ozone reactions: Ozone Reactions

    With a decent discussion of global warming theory, the science behind the theory, and some of the fallacies that accompany its use, we can now look at the problems with the data and the results.

    In March of 1994, Scientific America published an article related to errors that scientists were making when they gathered data for their hypothesis. Most of the errors were in regards to making accurate measurements. Since then the methods have become more reliable, but it does raise a question. It was during this time period that popularity for this theory really started to snowball. Given the amount of grants and funding going into this research did scientists overstate the problem in order to secure future funding? Did the liberal media use this as a way to spread an environmentalist agenda regardless of the lack of clear evidence?
    Why am I so opposed to socialism/communism? Because I understand the difference between people who can and those who can't. People with the skills needed to operate a business or develop new technology are a rare gift and deserve the fruits of their own labor, like all other people. When you start breaking down the distinction between somebody who maximizes their potential and somebody who does not, by saying that playing field ought to be leveled to accommodate those who do not, you effectively decrease the incentive for achievement. Assuming that this is true, I believe it is; where does that leave those of you who do not know the slightest bit about extracting the world's resources, engineering products for consumption, and creating new markets for the betterment of all humanity? Where is the incentive for educating one's self in these high arts? How does your egalitarian view solve these problems without first considering this perspective?-ME

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    America
    Posts
    249

    Global Warming: Stormin Norman Style Part II

    With a decent discussion of global warming theory, the science behind the theory, and some of the fallacies that accompany its use, we can now look at the problems with the data and the results.

    In March of 1994, Scientific America published an article related to errors that scientists were making when they gathered data for their hypothesis. Most of the errors were in regards to making accurate measurements. Since then the methods have become more reliable, but it does raise a question. It was during this time period that popularity for this theory really started to snowball. Given the amount of grants and funding going into this research did scientists overstate the problem in order to secure future funding? Did the liberal media use this as a way to spread an environmentalist agenda regardless of the lack of clear evidence?

    Inaccuracies in ice core sampling with regard to tracking CO(2) emissions persist. It has been shown that CO(2) concentrations increase after the initial deposition of the ice sheet. However, other methods were developed and also show a similar, yet less drastic increase in CO(2) concentration in the atmosphere, post industrial revolution. One such method is stomatal frequency analysis of leaves buried in peat deposits. This approach is more precise than that of the ice core sampling. The evidence obtained from this method corresponds to variations in CO(2) concentrations during glacial-interglacial periods. Furthermore, it has been used to estimate levels during the Miocene, Pliocene, and Pleistocene eras. Studies in the Netherlands have been conducted to investigate CO(2) emissions during the Late Glacial and Holocene periods. The results from these experiments have shown that High rises in CO(2) levels in less than a century have occurred, prior to the industrial revolution. These increases have occurred on the order of roughly 65 ppmv. A cooling occurred 300 years later and was substantiated by interpolating C-14 and O-18 fluctuations relative to one another. This occurrence is called the Preborial Oscillation. In addition, this method lines up closely with other methods of detection, mainly uranium-thorium and carbon-14 dating of coral reef. Not only does this data show a linkage between carbon emissions and global climate, but also it shows that this process has happened over time resulting from natural process. The natural process has led to concentrations similar to those that persist today and those projected for the future. These natural processes have led to a natural cycle of temperature fluctuation and should be a consideration when discussing greenhouse emissions. It appears the earth has a mechanism for balancing concentration levels in the long term, which is good news for those who fear global warming marks the beginning of the end for humanity.

    Source: Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO(2) concentration
    By: Wagner, Friedrike, et al

    My greatest concern about the global warming theory is derived from the way such predictions are made. Currently, many proponents for the global warming theory claim that they have a model to predict future weather patterns. Anyone who has relied upon a local weather report to plan a day’s events should remain skeptical of such models. How can computer simulations, which fail to account for an infinite number of variables predict the climate 100 years out, when they can not even tell me with a large degree of certainty if it will rain tomorrow? Computer simulations have yet to be considered a good model by anyone, except for the people who are creating the software. It is widely accepted that such simulations are inaccurate in many other fields as well. Although the future of such devices seems promising, they currently lack the sophistication to be considered the final word on such matters.

    In continuation, these models have predicted long term effects resulting from global warming. Most noted is prediction for a 4.5-6.0 degree Celsius rise in temperature resulting from a doubling of current concentrations. In addition, the same models have predicted an increase in atmospheric temperature. The Goddard Institute of Space Physics (GISS) has shown warming since 1979, where as, many other methods have not. Other methods of observation include satellite based Microwave Sounding Units (MSU’s), weather balloons, and sea level derived temperatures. The only method mentioned, which shows an increase since 1979, is the GISS. All others show very little change at all. Furthermore the atmospheric temperature has failed to increase as predicted by the computer models, providing further proof of the inaccuracies of computer simulations. It has been stated that the GISS model is more suited for the theory of the heat island effect than global warming.

    Source: Inconsistencies in data

    There are countless reasons why the global warming theory should not be taken as a matter of faith. Problems with the working model remain the most notable. Failures in atmospheric temperature changes failure to materialize in reality is yet another. In addition, to the problems with the simulations clear evidence has been provided that suggest perturbations in climate have occurred naturally, independent of man’s devices. This suggests that nature has a coping mechanism to deal with high concentrations of CO(x) gases and hydrocarbons, which are known to be greenhouse gases that exist naturally. Finally, there is ample reason for scientists to overstate the problem, as this issue has been politicized and many scientific grants are issued to investigate the matter. For every scientist that claims global warming exists, another scientist can be produced who states global warming is a farce. Perhaps, people should wait until all the facts are in and the scientific community has reached a consensus before they pledge allegiance to one view or the other. That is especially if they do not understand the issue and have failed to investigate the literature for themselves.

    In conclusion, there are many others theories that offer a reason for a rise in global temperature. One such theory cites a correlation between the solar cycle and the fluctuations in surface temperature. This is surely a reasonable suggestion considering that most of the earth’s heat energy comes from the sun. Another theory claims that the earth’s core is a nuclear reactor and that there exists a relationship between the shifting of the magnetic polarity of the earth and previous climate changes. Whatever the answer, we should refuse to let science become the dogma that subjugates the masses like the religion of the Dark Ages. Every legitimate claim should have evidence to support its claim, but if further investigation rules that theory improbable that theory should be abandoned and replaced with a better explanation.
    Why am I so opposed to socialism/communism? Because I understand the difference between people who can and those who can't. People with the skills needed to operate a business or develop new technology are a rare gift and deserve the fruits of their own labor, like all other people. When you start breaking down the distinction between somebody who maximizes their potential and somebody who does not, by saying that playing field ought to be leveled to accommodate those who do not, you effectively decrease the incentive for achievement. Assuming that this is true, I believe it is; where does that leave those of you who do not know the slightest bit about extracting the world's resources, engineering products for consumption, and creating new markets for the betterment of all humanity? Where is the incentive for educating one's self in these high arts? How does your egalitarian view solve these problems without first considering this perspective?-ME

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,532

    Global carbon dioxide levels hit landmark high

    Global carbon dioxide levels hit landmark high
    Peter Hannam
    Published: May 11, 2013 - 9:51AM

    The planet has set a significant – and unwelcome - landmark with the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passing 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in more than 3 million years.

    Slipping back into drought
    New danger zone
    While the 400 level had been reached at some measuring sites last year, Thursday saw the daily average top that rate at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa station for first time.

    “Humanity has never been here before,” John Connor, chief executive of The Climate Institute, said in a statement. “We are in dangerous and uncharted territory, with little time to ensure a safe and sustainable future.”

    A report on the website of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the concentration of carbon dioxide had increased each year since the Mauna Loa site began tracking the greenhouse gas in 1958. In the late 1950s, the annual increase of the gas was 0.7 ppm and it has since tripled to 2.1 ppm a year during the last decade, NOAA said.

    “The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global CO2 emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas is driving the acceleration,” said NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, according to the website.

    Australian heat

    Climate scientists in Australia say global warming resulting from the increased concentration of greenhouse gases is already contributing to the country’s extreme weather conditions, including to this past summer’s record heatwaves.

    Since December, Australia has posted its hottest day, hottest month and hottest summer in more than a century of records.

    The unusually warm conditions over the country have persisted far into autumn with the departure from the norm over the past week greater than during the blisteringly hot first week of January when national average maximums topped 39 degrees for seven consecutive days.

    Nationally, the week ending May 8 saw average maximum temperatures 5.35 degrees above normal compared with 4.53 degrees during the week ending January 8, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

    Average minimum temperatures for the week were 3.43 degrees above average compared with an anomaly of 2.04 degrees during that early week in January.

    “Obviously the absolute temperatures are different, so the impact is different,” Karl Braganza, manager of climate monitoring at the bureau, said. “In terms of climate anomalies, it’s really a standout event.”

    Cities such as Melbourne and Adelaide posted well above average temperatures in the past week, while Mount Wellington near Hobart on Friday smashed its May maximum temperature record by 2.4 degrees.

    Sydney, meanwhile, remains on course to post days of 20 degrees or warmer until at least next Friday. If the forecasts are realised, that would make 27 consecutive days of such weather, eclipsing the previous record of 25 days this late in the season set in 1987.

    The string of heatwaves have been notable in their geographic spread, with cold fronts effectively pushed south of the continent, taking the rain with them.

    "You’re getting most of the country under a single system," Dr Braganza said. "I’d be surprised if we’ve had more than one other summer, if any, where you’ve had a sequence of heatwaves that have done the same thing."

    Rapid rise

    Carbon dioxide levels averaged about 280 ppm before the industrial revolution and temperatures have risen about 1 degree since then as the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased.

    Scientists estimate that 450ppm levels of the gas will see temperatures warm by at least another degree. That concentration level may be reached by 2037, The Economist magazine reported this week.

    “Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended,” NOAA said on its website.

    ‘‘It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,’’ Maureen E. Raymo, a Columbia University earth scientist, told the New York Times.

    Clock runs down

    Both Labor and the Coalition are committed to reducing Australia’s annual emissions by at least 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020, and may aim for deeper cuts if other nations set more ambitious goals.

    “Because it’s in our national interest to avoid further dangerous warming, Australia joined the US, China and over 170 other countries to commit to avoid a 2°C warming,” Mr Connor at the Climate Institute said. “We have no time to lose.”

    The 400-ppm mark “is one more clear alarm bell which we ignore at great risk, because, when it comes to extreme weather and climate impacts, ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’,” he said.

    This story was found at: Global carbon dioxide levels set landmark high | Climate change

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    7,822
    The world is doomed owing to corporate pigs who don't care about humans and other life forms.
    Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not hurl them at me. Wafa Sultan

    “War is an American way to teach geography,” British soldier

    War is sweet to those who have not tasted it, but the experienced man trembles exceedingly at heart on its approach. – Pindar

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    Quote Originally Posted by simone View Post
    The world is doomed owing to corporate pigs who don't care about humans and other life forms.
    Amen! I hate those corporate bastards and b-i-tches. They are a bunch of rapacious crooks protected by their buddies, the politicians. The government is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. The poor? the poor are powerless, most of them are dupes anyway who believe in the system and think their votes count. The play straight in the hands of the oligarchs who run the show. America is only a democracy on paper, in reality it is a kleptocracy.

    The bankers and financiers are a bunch of greedy for riches, selfish, hypocritical liars who think that the 'corporate world' they live in will be safe of the damage that they had caused to the world the rest of us live in. They think that their wealth, privilege, and gated communities will save them. Or maybe they do not think about the future at all. But the death they have unleashed, the relentless contamination of air, soil, and water, the physical collapse of communities, and the eventual exhaustation of coal and fossil fuels themselves, will not spare them. One day their glass towers will crumble and they will suffer just like us. The sooner the better for the sake of this poor planet.

    Greed and selfishness are, by the way, solely human attributes. Pigs, fowl, cattle of every kind et cetera are cruelly slaughtered by the thousands every day, after living horrific lives.
    I don't eat any animal products apart from dairy products.
    Last edited by Winston Smith; 05-13-2013 at 12:43 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Smith View Post
    Amen! I hate those corporate bastards and b-i-tches. They are a bunch of rapacious crooks protected by their buddies, the politicians. The government is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. The poor? the poor are powerless, most of them are dupes anyway who believe in the system and think their votes count. The play straight in the hands of the oligarchs who run the show. America is only a democracy on paper, in reality it is a kleptocracy.

    The bankers and financiers are a bunch of greedy for riches, selfish, hypocritical liars who think that the 'corporate world' they live in will be safe of the damage that they had caused to the world the rest of us live in. They are wrong, one day their glass towers will crumble and they will suffer just like us. The sooner the better for the sake of this poor planet.

    Greed and selfishness are, by the way, solely human attributes. Pigs, fowl, cattle of every kind et cetera are cruelly slaughtered by the thousands every day, after living horrific lives.
    I don't eat any animal products apart from dairy products.
    Yes animals that are used for dairy products are given a comfortable retirement.....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    I think its hard for many to see a change in climate, and harder still for many to believe that humans could even affect something as large as the planet and its atmosphere. That's not to say people don't admit it because they are stupid and ignorant, more because humans inherantly cant get their heads around huge numbers and volumes. we hear things like per head humans produce 3 metric tonnes of carbon annually. I doubt many people could picture that. Let alone then multiplying that by the population of just the U.K for example i.e 60 million. you get to a point when the numbers are huge and have no meaning. Similar to trying to get someone to imagine 400 billion galaxies in the universe.

    So how do we "bring the mountain to Mohammed", films, books, better education. "Chasing Ice" is a great documentary just released looking at the retreat of major glaciers across Iceland, Greenland and North America. It does a great jobs of visualizing the point but then many could simply say it was a cyclical event. Show someone a chart of the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere vs Global average temperature and the response you will get will generally be one of caution, emphasizing that data can be proved to explain anything you wish. Some people of course will be shocked and explain vehemently that they will recycle and get the bus from now on but many aren't making long term lifestyle changes.

    In my opinion the irony is that global warming itself is not the problem. Industrialists in the 18th/19th & even 20th centuries couldn't really be expected to understand the long term effects of what they were doing, they lacked the science and technology. Climatology has only really proven the situation we are about to face relatively recently (in my view at least), and even then predictions among experts and climate models can vary widely. Many people unsure on its validity seem to make the assumption that because climatologists don't agree on how bad the damage is, maybe their isn't any damage. Preconceptions and science crying wolf, from avian and swine flu to SARS. The the problem is that we lack the will as a society to affect any real change because who wants to get rid of their dodge charger and take the bus? who would want to holiday in Cornwall rather than fly to Thailand? maybe some, but for many, the steps required to bring back balance is too much to ask of a society. Governments need to take those steps for the people, but that is unpopular and therefore any government that tries would be superseded by a popularist reversal. Humans need a reason to endure sacrifice it seems and since most of the damage is done and we are now awaiting the effects. The question really, if you accept that climate change is coming of course, is how much can we do to dampen its impact and reduce its extremity.
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,532
    "Humans need a reason.. ?

    Let me think for a microsecond.. OK what about if we do nothing we'll destroy our habitat and perish. i.e. if we do nothing we'll go the way of the inhabitants of Easter Island and so many other now extinct populations. But now it will be global.

    The damage is just beginning the worst is to come and it will come for it is already according to many scientists too late. The over population of the planet is the problem. With a low population, a fraction of the present one, everybody could own a dozen Dodge Chargers without causing any damage.

    So let's keep dancing on the deck of planet Titanic and avoid looking at the hole in the hull. Enjoy while it last for it's never been this good in the history of the human (disg)race and never will again. Ever!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    109
    I've read a bit about this.

    The IPCC's 4 report said that the worst case scenario was for a 69cm sea level rise if we had a 6.4oc temperature rise by 2100.

    That temperature rise has since been revised down a lot but the 5 report has a figure of (I think) 89cm.

    How many cities do people think are going to be lost to the waters due to a less than 1m sea level rise?

    Also where is the water coming from? As far as I can see there is no significant volume of ice which is at all vulnerable to melting by a 7oc rise never mind the lesser figure.

    If you can point of what I'm missing and show me where all this ice is I'd appreciate it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Why are all those climate scientists lying to us by insisting that global warming is real?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
    Why are all those climate scientists lying to us by insisting that global warming is real?
    Global warming is real. The world has warmed up a bit.

    The noise out of the warmist brigade however drowns out the real science which says that it's not a problem.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
    Global warming is real. The world has warmed up a bit.

    The noise out of the warmist brigade however drowns out the real science which says that it's not a problem.
    The real science which says that it's not a problem?

    What is it exactly that qualifies you to make that determination?

    The fact that you have read a few articles on the internet or something?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
    The real science which says that it's not a problem?

    What is it exactly that qualifies you to make that determination?

    The fact that you have read a few articles on the internet or something?
    Some articles, some scientific papers, the ability to add up and the lack of anyone who can show me a problem from something which is at worst likely to be a less than knee high sea level rise and a bit of warming which will be nice, plus a large increase in fertility especially in the tropics. All sounds good to me, unless you own a ski shallet which might end up being on the wrong mountain when the ski slopes have to move to a higher mountain.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
    Some articles, some scientific papers, the ability to add up and the lack of anyone who can show me a problem from something which is at worst likely to be a less than knee high sea level rise and a bit of warming which will be nice, plus a large increase in fertility especially in the tropics. All sounds good to me, unless you own a ski shallet which might end up being on the wrong mountain when the ski slopes have to move to a higher mountain.
    There are people who have read some articles, some scientific papers that have the ability to add up and the lack of anyone who can show them a problem with their theory and they think that it proves that Bigfoot exists or vaccines are dangerous.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •