-
There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Global Warming Just Happened
- Thread starter Wing_Z
- Start date
- Status
Hey All,
***** has it right. The science is solid.
I said earlier that you need to look at the "big picture" "weight of evidence". See page S26 in this document for trends in 11 different indicators of global warming.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...-sotc-2009-chapter2-global-climate-lo-rez.pdf
This is from the report State of the Climate in 2009 released about 24 hours ago. Here is the source.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php
Among the more important indicators suggesting that CO2 is the cause is the downward trend in stratospheric temperature because if the sun were causing global warming this indicator would increase as well.
-Ed-
Where are those stars coming from? I typed ***** - Wing Z
***** has it right. The science is solid.
I said earlier that you need to look at the "big picture" "weight of evidence". See page S26 in this document for trends in 11 different indicators of global warming.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...-sotc-2009-chapter2-global-climate-lo-rez.pdf
This is from the report State of the Climate in 2009 released about 24 hours ago. Here is the source.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009.php
Among the more important indicators suggesting that CO2 is the cause is the downward trend in stratospheric temperature because if the sun were causing global warming this indicator would increase as well.
-Ed-
Where are those stars coming from? I typed ***** - Wing Z
Cratermaker
Charter Member
A nice oversimplification of the report. You do know that www. providingnews.com is a site where anyone can send in "news" articles, correct?
What, exactly, suddenly confirmed global warming? This is the third report? 50 years of instrumental data? Why not a single year? Or a hundred?
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
I am currently (I have morphed more than once in my life) an environmental engineer. I make a nice living consulting and providing emissions reduction equipment to companies who are forced to buy it by the EPA.
So, all you Global Warming naysayers, HUSH. I don't want you to mess up my little gold mine.
Seriously, as I tell people at conferences where I sometimes speak, whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't matter. Our governments thinks it is true. That means it will cost each of us.
Expect me, of course. :d
So, all you Global Warming naysayers, HUSH. I don't want you to mess up my little gold mine.
Seriously, as I tell people at conferences where I sometimes speak, whether or not global warming is real or not doesn't matter. Our governments thinks it is true. That means it will cost each of us.
Expect me, of course. :d
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
Wing_Z, you have said earlier that there are two institutes that agree on the existence of global warming. I want to add to that that they are way more actually. The old German Max Planck Institute (that is where Einstein comes from, for those who don't know) says the same, the NASA does, several British and French institutes and other European institutes and universities do. In Japan you'll find many too. If you sum it up, over 90% of al scientists world wide agree that global warming is happening.
It's also interesting to look further than climate scientists. Zoologists, Biologists, Oceanographists, or other people who can tell you about the change in natural respones in nature. NASA has actually summarized such a study out of 29,500 data sets and concluded that 90% of the observed changes point "in the direction expected as response to warming".
Another interesting thing to look into is the private commercial sector. One of the biggest world wide reinsurance companies, the Münchner Rück, concluded after a study of several years to be used as the basis for world trend analyses in natural disasters, that disasters related to weather extremes are increasing rapidly world wide.
If we look at the broad picture we are really presented with a picture from all sorts of corners that indicates that something is going on.
I also want to say something about the "urban heat island" myth that has been mentioned earlier on in this thread. Basically it goes like this: The asphalt, parking lots and buildings of all those cities warm up the cities and eventually warm up the atmosphere. This is one of the most famous arguments you will hear from the anti AGW crowd. The problem is, it is disproven.
The problem of the argumentation the denialists can't really explain away is that the warming zones of the earth during all measurements taken during the last decades never match the urban zones of the earth. Never, not even once. Just overlay a map of the global warming zones over a map of urban zones, and you'll notice that they don't match at all. Following the "urban heat island" myth you would expect those urban concentrations, Europe, the American east cost, west coast, etc to show up as red or orange zones don't you? Well they don't. There is simply no correlation between the two.
Do you really think, all scientific institutes, like NASA, NOOA, and other worldwide research institutes would have been so foolish not to look into the effects of urbanization? Of course not. For those interested, you can read more here: Urban Heat Island. For those who want to read further there are also some papers from NASA about this if I remember well.
It's also interesting to look further than climate scientists. Zoologists, Biologists, Oceanographists, or other people who can tell you about the change in natural respones in nature. NASA has actually summarized such a study out of 29,500 data sets and concluded that 90% of the observed changes point "in the direction expected as response to warming".
Another interesting thing to look into is the private commercial sector. One of the biggest world wide reinsurance companies, the Münchner Rück, concluded after a study of several years to be used as the basis for world trend analyses in natural disasters, that disasters related to weather extremes are increasing rapidly world wide.
If we look at the broad picture we are really presented with a picture from all sorts of corners that indicates that something is going on.
I also want to say something about the "urban heat island" myth that has been mentioned earlier on in this thread. Basically it goes like this: The asphalt, parking lots and buildings of all those cities warm up the cities and eventually warm up the atmosphere. This is one of the most famous arguments you will hear from the anti AGW crowd. The problem is, it is disproven.
The problem of the argumentation the denialists can't really explain away is that the warming zones of the earth during all measurements taken during the last decades never match the urban zones of the earth. Never, not even once. Just overlay a map of the global warming zones over a map of urban zones, and you'll notice that they don't match at all. Following the "urban heat island" myth you would expect those urban concentrations, Europe, the American east cost, west coast, etc to show up as red or orange zones don't you? Well they don't. There is simply no correlation between the two.
Do you really think, all scientific institutes, like NASA, NOOA, and other worldwide research institutes would have been so foolish not to look into the effects of urbanization? Of course not. For those interested, you can read more here: Urban Heat Island. For those who want to read further there are also some papers from NASA about this if I remember well.
Cratermaker
Charter Member
Ah yes, the old "we accounted for that, we tweaked for that, we adjusted for that" mantra, somehow without EVER introducing error bars. 
cheezyflier
Charter Member
hey mr! that's infringing on my territory! don't make me file a grievance with the local union of gas emitters!
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>Your'e right, far be it from me to try to present reasonable facts rather than wide eyed speculation. I will be sure not to do that again.<o
></o><o
></o><o
></o><o
></o>I was thinking about this on the long drive home last night. What could have caused such a dramatic increase in temperatures so recently? Unchecked forest fires were around long before man came along; steam engines have been here since the 1700s; factories, mills and electric plants since the 1800s; cars and planes since the 1900s. And I clearly and distinctly remember the cries of a coming global cooling event during the 1960s and 1970s. Why the sudden cry and supposed evidence for global warming in the past decade?<o
></o><o
></o>Then, it hit me like a ton of pig iron. There has been a major change in the past few decades, but not in nature -- after all we know it is steady state and never changes. No, it has to be with mankind, and I have found it. And, it needs to be address immediately.<o
></o><o
></o>Back in the 1960s and 1970s; coal fired steam engines were still to be found. While steam locomotives disappeared from North America at the beginning of that time, they were still found elsewhere in the world. Steam powered pumping stations and other industrial facilities were still common, and old coal and oil fired power plants had not yet been retired by a wave of new nuclear power plants.<o
></o><o
></o>Now, steam engines are external combustion engines. That means they burn fuel slowly in a boiler, rather than quickly in a cylinder or combustion chamber. The end result is they produce low oxides of oxygen and nitrogen; but since they were capable of burning heavy fuels, they produced particulate matter in addition to steam.<o
></o><o
></o>Now steam is not a problem; because we have been assured that water vapor is neutral as a greenhouse gas. Particulates were considered a problem because of issues like smog and acid rain; so in addition to the installation of emission control equipment on coal fired power plants, the world's remaining steam engines have rapidly been retired.<o
></o><o
></o>China tried to get rid of all the remaining steam locomotives on China Railways to clean up the air for the Beijing Olympics; and number of working steam locomotives and steam powered sugar mills in Cuba and Indonesia has been in sharp decline in the past decade. Also, with the rise in fuel and scrap metal prices, the world's remaining steamships have likewise been in sharp decline in the past decade; only a tiny handful are left.
<o
></o>And yet, in the same decade, global temperatures are shooting through the roof! What is happening! The answer is very simple – all those steam engines were acting like miniature volcanoes. They were producing enough particulate matter to keep global temperatures down, like we have seen with volcanoes in the past. We took them away; and without the “volcano effect,” temperatures are soaring.
<o
></o>So, I am proposing an immediate resumption of the production of coal fired steam locomotives and ships. Since we cannot produce them fast enough, I am proposing that steam locomotives currently in parks be restored to operational status immediately, and all steamships currently sidelined be returned to full service.
<o
></o> Part two of my initiative is to halt the immediate production of plastic toys, and replace them with cast iron toys and steam pop-pop boats. Although small, they will help us reverse this dreadful crisis.
<o
></o>While all of this coal fired power will result in a resumption of acid rain and smoke; this is a small price to pay to save the planet. And any lives lost due to respiratory problems will help the problem with greedy, selfish, short-sighted two legged parasites taking over the planet.
<o
></o>Now, little people, I must be going so I can prepare my private steam train and steam yacht for my worldwide speaking tour. But, be not alarmed; the millions I make from my speaking engagements will be invested in building factories for coal scoops and boiler plate; which will help us with this crisis. (Though I will also set up my headquarters in a restored mansion once owned by one of the industrial robber bandits.)
<o
></o>-J Hefner
Formerly of the Surviving World Steam Project;
Now CEO of the World Steam Revival Project<o
></o>
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
Jhefner,
I think your post is tongue in cheek, so I won't respond to it. But you mentioned again the '70s ice age prediction", as some other have in the two threads, and I would like to pick that up to inform the readers here about that one. The "70's ice age" myth is one of things that just seem impossible to be corrected. It's one of the most well known crocks out there, and is unfortunately repeated over and over again to the public. It goes mainly back to the popular media back in the time, picking up a then ongoing scientific debate, mainly two press articles, one in Time magazine 1974, and one in Newsweek 1975. It's foremost the latter one which is quoted, or better said, misquoted and misused today by the organized denial machine. Already back in the time, the articles got picked up and spread around by a sensationalist press and media, and important parts were left out, for example that is was stated that only a small fraction, a minority, of the scientists believed global cooling was possible, and probably not in the next 40,000 years, and that already then the major part of scientists actually believed warming was much more likely than cooling. Of course, those parts of the texts have been forgotten, or not mentioned with intent. That are the parts you will never hear from the denialists -- instead you will hear "that scientists predicted a new ice age", so those dam scientists just can't get their facts right, correct? Newsweek published a correction some 4-5 years back, and some of the scientists that thought cooling was a possibility "somewhere in the next 40,000 years" apologized publicly for their mistake, which has to be put into the context of a climate science which was in it's infancy back then and the lack of data sets and analysis we have today. What was misquoted and distorted back then maybe out of laziness or journalistic commercial reasons, is picked up today by a lobby that wants to misinform the American public.
I think your post is tongue in cheek, so I won't respond to it. But you mentioned again the '70s ice age prediction", as some other have in the two threads, and I would like to pick that up to inform the readers here about that one. The "70's ice age" myth is one of things that just seem impossible to be corrected. It's one of the most well known crocks out there, and is unfortunately repeated over and over again to the public. It goes mainly back to the popular media back in the time, picking up a then ongoing scientific debate, mainly two press articles, one in Time magazine 1974, and one in Newsweek 1975. It's foremost the latter one which is quoted, or better said, misquoted and misused today by the organized denial machine. Already back in the time, the articles got picked up and spread around by a sensationalist press and media, and important parts were left out, for example that is was stated that only a small fraction, a minority, of the scientists believed global cooling was possible, and probably not in the next 40,000 years, and that already then the major part of scientists actually believed warming was much more likely than cooling. Of course, those parts of the texts have been forgotten, or not mentioned with intent. That are the parts you will never hear from the denialists -- instead you will hear "that scientists predicted a new ice age", so those dam scientists just can't get their facts right, correct? Newsweek published a correction some 4-5 years back, and some of the scientists that thought cooling was a possibility "somewhere in the next 40,000 years" apologized publicly for their mistake, which has to be put into the context of a climate science which was in it's infancy back then and the lack of data sets and analysis we have today. What was misquoted and distorted back then maybe out of laziness or journalistic commercial reasons, is picked up today by a lobby that wants to misinform the American public.
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
So: accepting that Part I is done with, as we have, because you would be posting in the other thread if you didn't... :d
What's the best way to deal with the issue?
Could it be that the profit model is not the best possible solution?
Vested interest companies would prefer a growing crisis scenario, where energy gets more and more expensive, (and profits get better and better).
At the point where the fossil fuels effectively run out, or become too expensive for comfort, they will make the jump into alternative energy sources.
But we'll be paying heavily along the way!
Might it not be smarter to spend money developing those sources instead, before crunch time?
What's the best way to deal with the issue?
Could it be that the profit model is not the best possible solution?
Vested interest companies would prefer a growing crisis scenario, where energy gets more and more expensive, (and profits get better and better).
At the point where the fossil fuels effectively run out, or become too expensive for comfort, they will make the jump into alternative energy sources.
But we'll be paying heavily along the way!
Might it not be smarter to spend money developing those sources instead, before crunch time?
Sorry; but I remember those days, and it was more than Time and Newsweek. I had a poster from the National Geographic on the wall of my bedroom, which illustrated the various forms of land, water, and air pollution, and how the smoke from burning solid wastes and other sources could cause global cooling. The only debate was would smoke and particulates would cause global cooling more than CO2 would cause global warming; and like water vapor, it is not the sealed up matter you claim it to be.
While my posting was tongue in cheek; the fact is that what I wrote could just as easily be true as anything else I have read to date. The fact of the matter is, even if you consider the global warming data to be correct (and I would argue that point, though I know it is to no avail); you still haven't prove it was caused by man's burning fossil fuel; nor can you explain why suddenly after roughly 300 years of man's activity, the world is suddenly warming up (acording to the data you believe.)
As others have pointed out, while tons of CO2 sounds impressive, it is still a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere. While you can dismiss other factors in your mind with a wave of your hand; you don't have the scientific evidence for doing so. So, point one may be true for a very, very short period of time, and you have a long way to go before you can even begin to discuss point two with any seriousness. After all the hijinks pulled by the U.N. Climate Council and others, and given what we know about the earth and future trends; you have zero chance of proving man-made global warming at this time.
As others have pointed out, while tons of CO2 sounds impressive, it is still a tiny, tiny percentage of the atmosphere. While you can dismiss other factors in your mind with a wave of your hand; you don't have the scientific evidence for doing so. So, point one may be true for a very, very short period of time, and you have a long way to go before you can even begin to discuss point two with any seriousness. After all the hijinks pulled by the U.N. Climate Council and others, and given what we know about the earth and future trends; you have zero chance of proving man-made global warming at this time.
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
It is true that a debate was ongoing in science at the time. But of all science articles published about the issue between 1965 and 1975, only 4 predicted global cooling, 44 predicted already then global warming. For some reason, and that is probably because the 70's were a cool decade, the minority or the "cooling" scientists got media coverage, especially in popular mass media. It is however totally false to claim that "the majority of the scientists in the 60-70's" predicted global cooling. Today, it's the Newsweek article that is misquoted the most often.
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
OK listen up:
Accept the planet is warming for a moment, alright?
This will be relatively painless...see, did that hurt?
Now, would you recommend that as a species, we pump a significant amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? No?
I didn't think so.
You know, we had the same kind of issue with CFC's and the ozone layer.
The aerosol and refrigerant guys just went away and invented a better substitute.
What's the difference here?
Accept the planet is warming for a moment, alright?
This will be relatively painless...see, did that hurt?
Now, would you recommend that as a species, we pump a significant amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere? No?
I didn't think so.
You know, we had the same kind of issue with CFC's and the ozone layer.
The aerosol and refrigerant guys just went away and invented a better substitute.
What's the difference here?
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
The data is sufficiently correct. And it doesn't come "from approx 1,200" measurements stations like some want you to believe. An absurd number, since we have already some tens of thousand stations in Germany alone. But that on a side note, even if some data is incorrect it would only concern a fraction in the whole data set which is negligible. Something deniers rarely tell you is that much comes from military sources too. Just the American military for example has contributed with countless data sets on the polar ice sheets. I find it hard to believe that some can still claim the data is certainly so incorrect that global warming must be questioned. That would mean at least minimum 20-30% of the data, if not more, has to be outright wrong. Laughable, if you consider data is collected in all parts of the world, by hundreds of international scientific institutes, universities, big players like NASA, the military, NOOA, private corporations and many others.
The indications are overwhelming. And it can very well be proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That has already been done in the 19th century. Any physics teacher in a normally equipped high school classroom can repeat those experiments. To dismiss the significance of billions and billions and tons of C02 mankind has put into the atmosphere, while we have so many experiments that prove the effects of CO2, is in my eyes something i can hardly understand.
Of course I can. That is simply because we haven't put much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the last 300 years, but mainly in the last 100, especially in the last 50-60 years.
No. We can for example see the effects of volcanoes in the last 100 years clearly as "bumps" in the climate curve. Not even the deniers deny that one. They even use them, deceitfully of course, for their propaganda. But we emit 8000 times more CO2 then all volcanoes globally combined. Still, the deniers insist that this cannot be of importance. Do you not think that there is something wrong here ?
That is a wrong understanding of science. If I throw a rock at your head, and you scream in pain, you will no doubt claim that gravitation has been proven. You will be very upset, while you hold your head in pain, to hear that your "proof" will be dismissed by the scientific community. You have to reformulate the question: Do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming? Yes. Do we have put it into the atmosphere in great quantities? Yes. Is the earth warming globally? Yes. Do we have disrupted weather patterns, and weather extremes? Yes. Does nature change it's natural responses because warm and cool periods change ? Yes. Do we have global and detailed measurements and data sets ? Yes we do. Are science predictions and understanding ever more precise? Yes they are.
It comes down to risk management. When you drive a car and you see a wall approaching, you will pull the steering wheel quickly, because you know the chance that wall is a fata morgana caused by heat from the asphalt is only very small, too small to trust your life in it. That is were we are now. We cannot afford to gamble on a imaginary possible "natural cause" while all possible natural causes, like the sun, and so on have been ruled out a long time ago. The possibility of a natural cause has even less proof than the man made one. It would be pure foolishness to bet your life on it.
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
If you want a philosophical or sociological point of view: I have come to the understanding, or call it interpretation, that is so difficult to accept for some, especially in the American public, because it questions the deep American belief in a way of life of endless resources. The American land, lifestyle, and great spaces favors that belief.
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
It may be that America is at that particular point in its history, but it's by no means an American thing.
In the 19th century Africa had great herds of antelope - vast migrations that would take days to pass.
The colonists from Europe saw it as a place of infinite abundance, and killed them in enormous numbers.
Eventually the great herds were depleted, and with it the realisation that in fact the resource was not unlimited.
Nowadays we treat those resources as things to be managed and nurtured.
If the climate battle is to be won, it must be led by North America, simply because it will have the best effect.
There are encouraging signs already - the companies that built gas guzzler behemoths have learned the hard way, that there is no longer a future in that mindset.
Hopefully the smarter outfits will read the signs, and move early.
In the 19th century Africa had great herds of antelope - vast migrations that would take days to pass.
The colonists from Europe saw it as a place of infinite abundance, and killed them in enormous numbers.
Eventually the great herds were depleted, and with it the realisation that in fact the resource was not unlimited.
Nowadays we treat those resources as things to be managed and nurtured.
If the climate battle is to be won, it must be led by North America, simply because it will have the best effect.
There are encouraging signs already - the companies that built gas guzzler behemoths have learned the hard way, that there is no longer a future in that mindset.
Hopefully the smarter outfits will read the signs, and move early.
K
KOM.Nausicaa
Guest
Yes, and that is the reason why the denialist machine targets massively the American public and American ruling elite. You must always remember; every year of delay of action is money in the pocket of the fossil energy industry.
- Status