Global Warming/Climate Change

[Mayhem]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities. In 2010 that finding was recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized nations. Affirming these findings in 2013, the IPCC stated that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation. Its 2013 report states


Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95-100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. - IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Discourse_about_global_warming

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change. A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made. In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 American scientists working in academia, government, and industry. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring, only 5% disagreeing that human activity is a significant cause of global warming. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present (2013), with the base period 1951-1980. The black line is the annual mean and the red line is the five-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006).] The graph shows an overall long-term warming trend. In the 1890s, the global temperature anomaly was on average slightly below -0.3 °C, with an error range of roughly -0.2 and -0.4 °C. In the 1940s, the global temperature anomaly was on average slightly below +0.1 °C, with an error range of roughly 0.0 and +0.15 °C. In the 2000s, the global temperature anomaly was on average slightly below +0.6 °C, with an error range of roughly +0.6 and +0.5 °C.

 

[MustBeGood]

Great idea mayhem bringing a sub topic debate with a new thread.

I'm neutral on the debate. Unless a study is done where we enforce co2 emissions reduction for a study on current data with the earth temp changes from now will it prove that climate change is real.

However we still live in not learning from the past like how climate change happen in the little ice age in Europe and NE North America. In Gore's film he explains how we go from extreme hot to cold and this last winter might be a indication.

Lets debate.

 

[Jagger69]

There's no debate other than one that is contrived. The climate is changing for whatever reason. It's only the degree to which the activities of mankind are contributing that can be questioned. Even then, man has most certainly been a contributing factor to some degree (a significant one in my view). To deny same is like maintaining the Earth is flat.

 

[Mayhem]

 

[mongo18]

I admit there is plenty I don't know about it, but the same could be said about just about anything we believe because scientists and researchers tell us so. If they are wrong or if some of them are spreading bullshit, they get caught and called out pretty quickly by their peers. It's a system that we've used since the dawn of time that has worked pretty well, since none of us can know everything (and some seem pretty talented at knowing nothing). But it seems like this has been around long enough, and enough people have contributed to the ever growing pile of supporting evidence, that it's time (or well beyond time, I'm sure many would argue) to start listening to what they're saying. It seems to me that anyone who still denies it is doing so out of convenience or their bullshit political stance.
But regardless of whether we're seeing global warming or climate change or any other name, and regardless of whether we are in fact causing or contributing to it, to me it makes all the sense in the world to try to cut down on emissions anyway. I'm sure plenty of Chinese people would agree.
Sure, there's plenty more oil out there, but it's getting harder to find and more expensive (not just financially) to get at. I think we should be putting everything we've got into solar. Every building has a roof, why can't all those roofs be covered with solar panels? And not just generation but storage. If a single charge could get you as far as a tank of gas, and your car's batteries could be recharged as quickly as a tank could be filled, then we wouldn't even need gas. The technology is out there, it just needs to be developed - http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/st...h-can-charge-from-flat-to-full-in-30-seconds/

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

There's no debate other than one that is contrived. The climate is changing for whatever reason. It's only the degree to which the activities of mankind are contributing that can be questioned. Even then, man has most certainly been a contributing factor to some degree (a significant one in my view). To deny same is like maintaining the Earth is flat.

Sometimes I really want to hug you...with my penis.

"Global warming" is the notion that CO2 emissions by man are changing the earths climate. What data do you base this conclusion on?

Science says nothing is certain and everything can potentially be proven wrong. Morons claim that global warming is above debate. Hence, global warming is bullshit from the get go.

There has only been reasonably accurate temperature data collected for a few hundred years. Still, this data is highly skewed because of deforestation and the formation of cities. To believe in global warming you are saying that you believe this tiny blip of data represents the appropriate global temperature and that this current time is the only appropriate temperature. That, is idiotic. There have been many ice ages. Many of these ice ages melted and formed long before humans even existed. The formation of an ice age requires a large portion of the globe to cool for an extended period of time. The cessation of an ice age requires warming for a much longer period of time. The fact that I’m not currently standing on a 500’ thick sheet of ice suggests that the earth goes through natural temperature fluctuations that have nothing to do with my SUV. Anyone who believes in global warming is a twit.

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/b...-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17
http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/debunking-the-u-n-climate-change-conspiracy-20131021
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ink-to-comedic-lows-with-polar-vortex-excuse/
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...1/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition

To my mind it is the height of human arrogance to believe that we can affect global climate change in such a drastic way. Mt Pinitubo erupted back in 1991 and it released more cfc's than all of the automobiles on Earf combined could release in ten years. The Earth continues to change in a cyclic way. It's done so for billions of years. Or six thousand years if you're Will.

 

[mongo18]

I think it's the height of human ignorance to have so many qualified people tell us that this is happening but a significant chunk of the population refuses to believe it because they did a little bit of googling and found some talking heads that tell them not to.
Nobody is disputing that the climate has always changed, what's being discussed is the rate at which it's changing and whether some or all of that can be attributed to human activity.

 

[Mayhem]

No one is denying that the "Earf" undergoes continuous temperature and weather cycles. But using that as a crutch has been scientifically disproven. As the video shows, the pollution from elsewhere is negatively altering glaciers. Also the release of fossil fuel emissions are killing the oceans by increasing mercury levels.

I honestly don't know what point you think you're making by bringing volcanoes into this. What point are you making? And why are you clinging to automobiles when the rest of us are talking about coal fired plants and petroleum fueled industry? But if you want to cling to automobles, have you seen pictures of Beijing lately?

We invented nuclear weapons and allowed them to proliferate to the point where the possibility of global annihilation was disputed by no one. But it's "arrogance" that we can affect our planet? We have nuclear power (which I'm not necessarily against) but Chernobyl and its surrounding area is inhabitable for the next 10,000 years. So we're back to that whole "arrogance" thing.

 

[Jagger69]

Sometimes I really want to hug you...with my penis.

Better get plenty of that talcum powder you keep claiming to be purchasing at "Wegman's" (whatever the fuck that is).

 

[Lacey Black]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the climate is changing and the water temperature is rising. The problem is figuring out if there is anything we can do about it now. Even if the US completely stopped putting C02 emissions into the atmosphere the problem would barely slow down. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, it just means the world is going to have to come together to lower emissions and pull C02 out of the atmosphere. Sadly I don't see that happening until it is too late.

Great episode, great show.

 

[xfire]

Never mind the fact that the oceans are being over fished and massively polluted, I'm sure there's a way to blame it on natural cycles

 

[MustBeGood]

Sometimes I really want to hug you...with my penis.




To my mind it is the height of human arrogance to believe that we can affect global climate change in such a drastic way. Mt Pinitubo erupted back in 1991 and it released more cfc's than all of the automobiles on Earf combined could release in ten years. The Earth continues to change in a cyclic way. It's done so for billions of years. Or six thousand years if you're Will.

I think it's the height of human ignorance to have so many qualified people tell us that this is happening but a significant chunk of the population refuses to believe it because they did a little bit of googling and found some talking heads that tell them not to.
Nobody is disputing that the climate has always changed, what's being discussed is the rate at which it's changing and whether some or all of that can be attributed to human activity.

To really be informed with facts, you just can't trust anything on the net unless you are finding peer reviews from professional in the field. Just google your subject and add peer reviews to find non opinion PDF's articles that are based on research and not opinion from both sides of the debate,

 

[Will E Worm]

:yoda:

 

[bobjustbob]

Anyone with half a brain knows that the climate is changing and the water temperature is rising. The problem is figuring out if there is anything we can do about it now. Even if the US completely stopped putting C02 emissions into the atmosphere the problem would barely slow down. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, it just means the world is going to have to come together to lower emissions and pull C02 out of the atmosphere. Sadly I don't see that happening until it is too late.Great episode, great show.

I'm with you on that. There are things we can do to make our places cleaner and we have taken steps. Cars don't consume as much gas. Energy efficient lighting and appliances are on the market. Healthier lifestyles and recycling is the norm. We are now aware of what we do to the oceans and air and measures are in place to clean these places up too. However, is mankind powerful enough to change the climate of an entire planet? We are smart enough to do only what we can control. I do not believe that we can affect the tides. I do not believe that we can change the trade winds. I do not believe that we can control what the Sun does to Earth. We are little bitty shits here and to think that can do anything about the next asteroid flying in or a continental plate shift is fucking lunatic. Projection are great to bet on but no one is going to be here to see them pay off.

 

[SFW]

Word.

 

[Will E Worm]

Biodiversity: Politics & Religion of the Environmental Movement, Part 1 (1995) | Agenda 21 Link

Biodiversity: Politics & Religion of the Environmental Movement, Part 2 (1995) | Agenda 21 Link


False Choices: Agenda 21 and Your Property Rights Link

 

[Philbert]

People stopped listening and started laughing years ago...zeebolowschicken-little type pschoBullshit. are still mildly amusing, but the same "half" truth Al G. used is seen in mayhems lame post and the graph he posted; the same graph also in this video...he left out the Mankind using fossil fuels and level of use graph; and of course the sun's activity (ie sunspots, solar storms, etc) which follows exactly the tempreture fluctuations in Mayhems "parts missing" graph. Really what I expected from PschoMayhem... PsychoBabble.

 

[Red XXX]

Read slowly .... and understand ;-) http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/keep-in-mind-scientific-and-societal-meanings-of-collapse-when-reading-antarctic-ice-news/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1& Not often you get a good article on so called global warming!

 

[Philbert]

'That’s why it’s important to get beyond headlines — including the titles of papers — in considering new research pointing to the inevitable “collapse” of ice sheets in West Antarctica. To the public, collapse is a term applied to a heart attack victim on a street corner or a building stricken by an earthquake or bomb. To a glaciologist, it describes the transition to unavoidable loss of an ice sheet — a process that can take centuries to get into gear, and millenniums to complete.
Except possibly for the lowest-melt scenario, the simulations indicate that early-stage collapse has begun. Less certain is the time scale, with the onset of rapid (>1 mm per year of sea-level rise) collapse in the different simulations within the range of 200 to 900 years.

To translate a bit, that means sometime between 200 and 900 years from now the rate of ice loss from this glacier could reach a volume sufficient to raise sea levels about 4 inches (100 millimeters) a century. At that point, according to the paper, ice loss could pick up steam, with big losses over a period of decades.* But in a phone conversation, Joughin said the modeling was not reliable enough to say how much, how soon.
Here’s an excerpt describing how the measurements on the six glaciers in the study relate to projections of sea-level rise:


These glaciers already contribute significantly to sea level rise, releasing almost as much ice into the ocean annually as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet. They contain enough ice to raise global sea level by 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are melting faster than most scientists had expected. Rignot said these findings will require an upward revision to current predictions of sea level rise.

“This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come,” Rignot said. “A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea.”
Disturbingly, you can backtrack to 2009 and see a similar burst of “collapse” news around the release of two Nature papers, even though the science then also spoke of sea-level changes over millenniums. "


Thank you Ms Red, that's a good article and gives me hope some in the scientific disciplines concerning Planetary climatatology are still rational and careful...


What was the time frame Al G gave in his great epic "An Inconvenient Truth: The Sage of Chicken Little"? Something like "His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause a 20-foot rise in sea level 'in the near future'.”?
The actual scientific prediction is a 20 ft rise in sea level in approximately 1000 years...

If he believed this nonsense, explain why he bought luxury digs at sea level in Montecito, Ca., and San Frisco?

Future 911 call:

"911...What is your emergency?"

"Hello? I've got another Polar Bear trying to get into my apartment!"

"What is your address, sir?"

"Uh... 19347 Old Riverside Freeway, 4th floor apt 6. Hurry...he's trying to smash the living room window to get in!"

"A Coast Guard Animal Control Cutter is on it's way...try to go to a floor above the water level, and remain calm."

 

[Philbert]

meant to say Montecito, Ca., and San Francisco...