Global warming- past point of no return

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 31, 2008 19:16
VIEWED: 7063
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:31 PM

Massive loss of Arctic ice means global warming is now past the point of no return, say scientists

Quote:
Steve Connor, Science Editor
16 September 2005

...Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years... This year's record melt means that more of the long-term ice formed over many winters - so called multi-year ice - has disappeared than at any time in recorded history.
... As more sea ice is lost during the summer, greater expanses of open ocean are exposed to the sun which increases the rate at which heat is absorbed in the Arctic region

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.e
ce

And here we have a classic dscription "positive feedback" (the result of an input increases the input).

Everything's just fine. Not to worry.

Please don't think they give a shit.

GEEZER

Friday, September 16, 2005 7:40 PM

So should we encourage India and Pakistan to have a little atomic war, bringing on "nuclear winter" to cool things down?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SICKDUDE

Friday, September 16, 2005 10:24 PM

That's dang depressing...

If I recall correctly, there was an article about a month ago that basically stated that the 'inertia' of warming meant that it would continue to warm for the next hundred years even if all global emissions of greenhouse gases were completely eliminated.

Did anyone happen to see the special on Nova called "What's Up with the Weather"? It was very well done. The punchline was that there are no viable energy sources right now. Not coal, natural gas, uranium, fuel cells, wind, solar, nothing....

Did anyone read the article in Scientific American about what Global Warming entailed? It dovetailed nicely with this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/16/more.big.hurricanes.ap/inde
x.html

We're so screwed. Like a really good show on Fox.

"Don't say 'ka' until you've tried it." Daniel Jackson

HERO

Saturday, September 17, 2005 4:28 AM

So essentially its too late. So why worry?

I'm going outside to cut down a tree, who's with me?

H

CHRISISALL

Saturday, September 17, 2005 5:01 PM

I recall saying exactly this to Hero not too long back, nice that scientists are agreeing with me- sad that I seem to be right.

Everybody get your parkas ready....

Hot...then cold Chrisisall

MAYLEESBOY

Saturday, September 17, 2005 6:48 PM

Hello, this is my first post. Yea, and on the eighth day Joss made Firefly.

Anyhoo, I hereby state that the evidence available for global warming is inconclusive, and very inconclusive at that. The reason has to do with statistics, but all that needs be known is that the melting and "warming" that is occuring cannot be tied to any specific cause. In fact, what is occuring is not a significant deviation from hot and cool periods during the earth's history (from what we can tell, which is pretty limited). Thus, we don't know why it is happening, but we do know that either it is natural or it is the result of human activity. This is no argument against the ecological movement--I am very green myself. I mean only to point out that there is absolutely no grounds for worrying. In fact, several years ago I read a paper that argued (poorly) that we should be more worried about global cooling than global warming. So don't give up hope or move to the outer rim just yet.

Timmers

FALLENANGEL

Sunday, September 18, 2005 7:54 AM

Reading that article just suddenly reminded me of the movie Day After Tomorrow. Has anyone seen that?

If we r screwed then I recomend that everyone should see that movie and take a few notes. As for me. since I saw that movie, I know what to so, I'm heading towards Mexico. I have family there so I'm all set. Anybody wanna come?

Mother Nature reared its uglly head. What a bitch.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
May have been on the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:02 PM

Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not buying this 'Global warming ' bit as being anything more than the Earth's natural cycle. We might not understand it or how it all works, but there's a history of the Earth that predates man. Virtually all of it,actually. The Mesozoic inland sea which covered the interior of the United States...you think they got lots of water in New Orleans after Katrina!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:19 PM

It's my position the global climactic changes are occurring, and that they are part of a natural cycle, just sped up 20% or so by human activity.
If that's the case, we'd better be ready for some changes.
If that's not the case, we'd better be ready for some changes.

I think we have some time Chrisisall

GROUNDED

Sunday, September 18, 2005 5:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not buying this 'Global warming ' bit as being anything more than the Earth's natural cycle.

What would it require for you to believe otherwise?...

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 18, 2005 8:13 PM

It would take about several hundered years of statistical analysis.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Monday, September 19, 2005 8:00 PM

Sad, but interesting.

I think it elucidates the question 'is it soot or greenhouse gases'? Obviously it must be gases. When the ice melts the soot disperses and sea ice forms as a fresh clean surface all over again. Ergo, no soot build-up and no soot effect.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:45 PM

Quote:
It would take about several hundered years of statistical analysis.

Failing that, maybe five Category 4 hurricanes in a row, the complete disappearance of glaciers, or the disappearance of the Gulf Coast, parts of Florida, and the barrier islands? Some people can't see the forest for the trees (or the facts for the statistics)

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It would take about several hundered years of statistical analysis.
Failing that, maybe five Category 4 hurricanes in a row, the complete disappearance of glaciers, or the disappearance of the Gulf Coast, parts of Florida, and the barrier islands? Some people can't see the forest for the trees (or the facts for the statistics)

Please don't think they give a shit.

Yes, because I don't agree w/ the chicken littles of the world, I must not 'give a shit'. Fact of the matter is more likely that increased solar flares, and not anything humans have ever done, has more to do w/ the sky falling.... Or it could just be the natural order of things, and there's not a damn thing any of us could do about it, even if we wanted.

- A recent study by researchers at Duke University and the Army Research Office has found new evidence of a link between solar flare activity and the earth's temperature. The work is another contribution to the ongoing debate over global warming and its causes. A strong link between solar flares and our climate, if it exists, could override the influence humans have on the temperature of our environment. One of the challenges of determining the connection between solar flare activity and the atmosphere stems from the fact that the motion of the air that blankets our planet is turbulent and complex. A sudden burst of solar activity would, in effect, be smeared out by moving air and its interaction with the earth's surface. Any temperature increase caused by a given period of solar flare activity would be difficult to determine, at best. Rather than focus on such challenging one-to-one correlations, the new study compares the form of the statistical fluctuations in solar flare activity with the form of the statistical fluctuations of the earth's temperature. .....the research suggests that for the large part variations in global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy of the sun's activity. (Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physical Review Letters, 20 June 2003)

Number 642 #2, June 19, 2003 by Phil Schewe, James Riordon, and Ben Stein http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FIVVER

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:36 PM

Here's a link to an article that came out today.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

And a clip from that article:

Quote:

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

'three Mars summers' equals about 6 Earth years.

But it's still Bush's fault.

Fivver

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Here's a link to an article that came out today.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

And a clip from that article:

Quote:

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

'three Mars summers' equals about 6 Earth years.

But it's still Bush's fault.

Fivver

Haliburton must be involved, too... somehow. You can bank on that.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:59 PM

Wow. Six years of comparison between Earth and Mars. And you're willing to run with that? I must say, I'm impressed. Do us all a favor: See if you can find a comparison that goes back a few thousand years. Or even a few hundred. (The ice caps of Mars have been studied for over a hundred years by telescope, so the Mars data should be easy to find.) Just so you know where I'm going with this: If you can find a correlation between Earth and Mars polar caps that extends over a hundred years or so, then maybe you've got something there.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Wow. Six years of comparison between Earth and Mars. And you're willing to run with that? I must say, I'm impressed. Do us all a favor: See if you can find a comparison that goes back a few thousand years. Or even a few hundred. (The ice caps of Mars have been studied for over a hundred years by telescope, so the Mars data should be easy to find.) Just so you know where I'm going with this: If you can find a correlation between Earth and Mars polar caps that extends over a hundred years or so, then maybe you've got something there.

.

Read the article. It's not a observatin of Mars via a telescope, but from the Mars Global Surveyor.

And yes, I'm willing to run w/ that too, when you stop to consider the facts. There are no internal gas combustion engines on Mars. No SUVs. No aerosol spray cans, no factories, oil refineries, no power plants, ...and still the polar caps are receeding. Mars if further away from the Sun than Earth, and still feels the effects of solar flares.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:24 PM

Auraptor- Did you read the abstract or the paper on solar flares and climate change? They make the connection on the basis that solar flare variations look like climate and weather variation. There is no direct correlation between solar flares and global temperature... not even over the reasonably predictable 11-year solar cycle. "Because" weather changes with the same frequency/intensity that solar flares change, "therefore" the two are directly connected? I dunno... since Levy-walk stats describe a number of unconnected phenomenon, wouldn't the similarity in stats (w/o correlation) simply be a product of describing the same thing? (Global energy dynamics in fluid systems?)

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:28 PM

Quote:
Read the article. It's not a observation of Mars via a telescope, but from the Mars Global Surveyor.

Yes, but so what? It's still only eight years of data. In fact, depending on the Mars Global Surveyor actually makes the study LESS valuable because you artifically eliminate years and years worth of valid data. It would be like limiting our study of earth's climate to 1960 (when the first polar orbiting statellies went up.)

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- Did you read the abstract or the paper on solar flares and climate change? They make the connection on the basis that solar flare variations look like climate and weather variation. There is no direct correlation between solar flares and global temperature... not even over the reasonably predictable 11-year solar cycle. "Because" weather changes with the same frequency/intensity that solar flares change, "therefore" the two are directly connected? I dunno... since Levy-walk stats describe a number of unconnected phenomenon, wouldn't the similarity in stats (w/o correlation) simply be a product of describing the same thing? (Global energy dynamics in fluid systems?)

*One of the challenges of determining the connection between solar flare activity and the atmosphere stems from the fact that the motion of the air that blankets our planet is turbulent and complex. A sudden burst of solar activity would, in effect, be smeared out by moving air and its interaction with the earth's surface. Any temperature increase caused by a given period of solar flare activity would be difficult to determine, at best. Rather than focus on such challenging one-to-one correlations, the new study compares the form of the statistical fluctuations in solar flare activity with the form of the statistical fluctuations of the earth's temperature

All I know is what is reported. That Mars polar caps are shrinking and the cause has nothing to do w/ SUVs or depletion of the rain forest.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:46 PM

Quote:
still the polar caps are receeding. Mars if further away from the Sun than Earth, and still feels the effects of solar flares.

What would you conclude if over a hundred years or so the polar caps on Earth and Mars showed no correlation? What would you conclude if the extent of the changes on Mars were much less - or much greater- than on Earth? Mars' climate has changed, just as Earth's has changed (yup, even before cars and aerosol cans!) But you're presuming the cause on eight year's worth of data (two of which don't correlate to our Earth experience). And even if you could show a robust correlation between Earth and Mars- which you haven't done, but which would be worth trying- you haven't shown a correlation between solar flares and global climate. We could simply have drifted into a realm of space dust. Or Mars' orbit might be wobblier than ours... or more stable. Nobody is saying that climate is inherently stable- but you haven't made a good case for solar flares.

Please don't think they give a shit.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That Mars polar caps are shrinking and the cause has nothing to do w/ SUVs or depletion of the rain forest.

The alien atmosphere processor has been switched on, and is using the ice of Mars to produce air.
There can be no correlation with the Earth's warming. Stop being silly.

Gif deeze peepul ayahh! Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:08 PM

Quote:
Long lines of cars are heading out of coastal Texan towns as Hurricane Rita gains strength to become a Category 5 storm with maximum sustained winds of 165 mph.

"Mother of Storms"

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:09 PM

Quote:
but you haven't made a good case for solar flares.

I'm not the one making the case, just reporting it. NASA seems to be the one making the case, as well as others at Duke University and elsewhere. The more information we have to go on, the less need for wild speculation.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Long lines of cars are heading out of coastal Texan towns as Hurricane Rita gains strength to become a Category 5 storm with maximum sustained winds of 165 mph.

"Mother of Storms"

Please don't think they give a shit.

Yeah, real bad. Cat5. Might even be as bad as Katrina by the time it makes landfall. Or maybe even Camille. Camille was in 1969.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:19 PM

Quote:
I'm not the one making the case, just reporting it. NASA seems to be the one making the case, as well as others at Duke University and elsewhere. The more information we have to go on, the less need for wild speculation.

NASA has NOT made the case for solar flares. All they said was: Mars appears to be undergoing some sort of very short-term climate change. They made no mention of duration, cause, extent, or correlation to Earth. As far as Duke University "and others" -that's the Army. There are no other similar papers out there- I looked for them. So far, the whole solar flare causality itself seems to be just wild speculation.

This was educational-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
Specifically there has been a notable increase in cat 4&5 hurricanes in all six hurriance basins. Also

Quote:
Under the assumption that the six basins are statistically independent except for the effect of global warming, Stoft has carried out the obvious paired t-test and found that the null-hypothesis of no impact of global warming on the percentage of category 4 & 5 hurricanes can be rejected at the 0.1% level—there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of simultaneously finding the observed six increases in the cat-4&5 percentages.

However, you have to note that they ASSUME there is no other common factor between the six hurricane basins other than global warming. That assumption may not be true.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:39 PM

SignyM.... you believe what you want. I see what's been reported and am drawing my own conclusions. You don't have to like or agree with it. I'm not having a debate, as that is a waste of time. Call me 'close minded, narrow minded, blind to the facts, stubborn, etc.... ', all you wish. As more info comes in , it'll only reaffirm how I see things, or I'll change my view as the situation dictates. As of now, the shrinking of the Mars polar caps reaffirms my view that any global warming we may be experiencing is not man made.

Check back in 5 - 20 years, I'll tell ya what I think of the issue then.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:49 PM

Actually, I was hoping that you would help us all out and bird-dog the idea of an Earth-Mars correlation. I'm sure the idea has occurred before, there have GOT to be papers exploring the connection. See if you can find further or better evidence. It would be interesting.

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:19 AM

Well heck. If you won't, I will. This one talks about Mars' ice ages, and ties them to orbit wobbles.

www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/documents/2957.pdf

This is exactly what I was looking for, but only has data for 6 years and is fomr 1985

www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=92c210d0961f457697
d258e12dfdce2e&referrer=
parent&backto=issue,5,6;journal,106,212;linkingpublicationresults,1:400258,1

I'll have to sort this one out later!
www.planetary.brown.edu/planetary/documents/3101.pdf

Please don't think they give a shit.

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:45 PM

Quote:
SignyM.... you believe what you want. I see what's been reported and am drawing my own conclusions.

No, you are demanding "hundreds" of years of statistics to make the case for global warming, but are willing to accept six (six!!) years of data from Mars. You're the one with the heavy data filter, not me.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, September 22, 2005 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
SignyM.... you believe what you want. I see what's been reported and am drawing my own conclusions.
No, you are demanding "hundreds" of years of statistics to make the case for global warming, but are willing to accept six (six!!) years of data from Mars. You're the one with the heavy data filter, not me.

Please don't think they give a shit.

You start w/ the premise that global warming is true. I don't. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon YOU to make your case, not me to disprove it. Since we really don't know with any great certainty as to exactly how the weather is effected here on Earth, not to mention Mars, it'll take some time to see exactly what causes what. As for Mars, we're seeing things which haven't occured since we started studying it, and that is noteworthy on its own merrit. Our rocky neighbors in the solar system tend to have static enviroments, for the most part, since we've been able to view them. When events occur before our very eyes, we can't help but ask 'what's that ? how'd that happen?', and so on.

That is all.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, September 23, 2005 1:05 AM

Quote:
You start w/ the premise that global warming is true. I don't. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon YOU to make your case, not me to disprove it. Since we really don't know with any great certainty as to exactly how the weather is effected here on Earth, not to mention Mars, it'll take some time to see exactly what causes what. As for Mars, we're seeing things which haven't occured since we started studying it

Logically-speaking, if you really think the last six years on Mars are noteworthy and represent significant support for solar flares as the cause of global warming, then you would have to make the case that the Earth has also undergone similar, exceptional warming in the past six years. If you reject the hypothesis of terrestrial global warming, then you have to reject solar flares as a probable cause. How can I make this clearer? You can't have it both ways. Then we are back to disussing whether global warming is occurring on Earth, and dismissing the Mars data as interesting but irrelevant.

Quote:
Our rocky neighbors in the solar system tend to have static enviroments, for the most part

Au contraire. Our rocky neighbors are very dynamic. So are our gaseous neighbors. One only needs to look at the meteor strikes, the volcanic eruptions, the storms, the orbital wobbles, to know that a lot is happening on our neighbors.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 23, 2005 11:49 AM

Quote:
Logically-speaking, if you really think the last six years on Mars are noteworthy and represent significant support for solar flares as the cause of global warming, then you would have to make the case that the Earth has also undergone similar, exceptional warming in the past six years. If you reject the hypothesis of terrestrial global warming, then you have to reject solar flares as a probable cause. How can I make this clearer? You can't have it both ways. Then we are back to disussing whether global warming is occurring on Earth, and dismissing the Mars data as interesting but irrelevant

Actually, I can have it both ways. Solar flares don't affect 2 planets the same way, for one. That much was pointed out in one of the articles. And to clarify, I don't assign global warming HERE as being the result of solar flares solely. But it does make the point that solar flares (increased sun activity ) do affect a planets atmosphere. It can't be overlooked that a planet which has no SUV's, no factories, etc.. is undergoing a warming process at the same time. Bottom line, there are factors which occur in nature which have far MORE to do w/ global warming than humanity's comings and goings.

Quote:
Au contraire. Our rocky neighbors are very dynamic. So are our gaseous neighbors. One only needs to look at the meteor strikes, the volcanic eruptions, the storms, the orbital wobbles, to know that a lot is happening on our neighbors

I meant w/ in the scope of human history. I didn't think I needed to point out the obvious ( impact craters ) and the like, but I should have. And while the red spot on Jupiter has been around since it was first observed via telescope, it's clear that the atmosphere of our gas giant sisters are quite dynamic. Which is why I directed my point toward the rocky planets. And I know we've seen sand storms on Mars, but nothing like the dramatic changes in polar caps or the formation of new gullies. Polar caps have been seen receeding seasonally, but not to this extent. Things are a changin'. They tend to do such.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Friday, September 23, 2005 1:53 PM

So in other words, you're saying that plants warm up and cool down w/o human intervention. REALLY????? Gee, I thought we already knew that! The Earth has its own history of ice ages and warm periods. The question is whether THIS period of global warming is human-caused, not whether planets have hot and cold climatic variation. (By the way, one of the articles I linked says Mars had ice ages too, when the polar caps extended down to the latitude equivalent to Saudi Arabia or southern USA.)

And while solar flares wouldn't be expected to affect each planet to the same extent, you would think (wouldn't you?) that they would at least affect them more or less at the same time.

Oh, and, by the way, you keep saying that we have "never" observed this kind of polar melting on Mars before w/o actually bringing up any comparative data that goes back more than eight years. Also, do you have ANY data that shows that the past six years have been particularly intense in terms of sunspot activity? I'm not making strange or unusual requests- not "hundreds of years of statistics" but preferably enough to span at least two 11-year sunspot cycles - just some simple basic data to support your ideas.

Oh well- you believe what you want to believe. If you come up with some data then we can discuss it. Until then, I think this discussion is pointless and therefore closed.

Please don't think they give a shit.

RUE

Saturday, September 24, 2005 3:15 AM

Quote:
It can't be overlooked that a planet which has no SUV's, no factories, etc.. is undergoing a warming process at the same time.

This is a bogus statement which has been covered before in another thread. You know AUraptor, just b/c you repeat the same dumb stuff over and over doesn't make it true.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=8177

http://eaa.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=eaa%2F4430%40eaa-xml
Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics
"In the solar system, the Earth, Mars and Neptune's major satellite Triton are known to possess polar caps."
http://www.plutoportal.net/aboutplutocharon.htm
"the (Pluto) maps reveal polar caps and other high-contrast surface units. Perihelion was reached in 1989; the system is now receding from the Sun."

That both of Earth's polar caps and its glaciers are receding is not in doubt.

Mars's polar caps undergo seasonal growth and retreat. The southern polar cap may possibly be retreating, but that conclusion is not certain because it was only a one year observation.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html
There is no evidence of any kind the north polar cap is shrinking year to year.

There is a site that indirectly indicates Triton's southern polar cap is growing. http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/ v30n3/dps98/247.htm

As for Pluto/Charon, one site indicated the polar caps grow and shrink with the seasons. However, since the Pluto is receding from the sun, I don't think the polar caps will be shrinking soon.

There is no generalized 'melting' of polar caps, whether ice, CO2, methane or nitrogen going on for the solar system as a whole. However, there IS a generalized melting of water ice on Earth.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, September 24, 2005 2:23 PM

Yes rue, if you don't agree w/it, it MUST be 'dumb stuff'.

I think we've all made clear our positions on the matter. Your use of derogatory remarks isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Global Warming is not an issue I lie awake at night and fret about. To me, there is no issue. But by all means, knock yourself out and don't hold back. Just try to be a tad more civil about it in the future, if ya can.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:41 AM

Quote:
It can't be overlooked that a planet which has no SUV's, no factories, etc.. is undergoing a warming process at the same time.

Quote:
{disagree but) Just try to be a tad more civil about it in the future, if ya can.

The fact is, your statement IS bogus and dumb, and me calling it that was the most uncivil thing I said.

So, if you are trying to say I can disagree as long as I don't actually say anything negative about your statements, you've pretty much claimed for yourself the role of chief ideas censor.

ECLIPTIC

Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:07 PM

Solar flares effect the earth's magnetic field which effects our weather.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 25, 2005 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
It can't be overlooked that a planet which has no SUV's, no factories, etc.. is undergoing a warming process at the same time.
Quote:
{disagree but) Just try to be a tad more civil about it in the future, if ya can.
The fact is, your statement IS bogus and dumb, and me calling it that was the most uncivil thing I said.

So, if you are trying to say I can disagree as long as I don't actually say anything negative about your statements, you've pretty much claimed for yourself the role of chief ideas censor.

There's nothing 'dumb' about my statements in the least, you just don't like them. Basically, you can't handle the truth, so you invent false premises and spin the issue to suit your needs. Man is not the cause for any global warming. I know that shakes your tree house, but that's how it is.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:53 PM

Auraptor- Your idea that solar flares cause global warming is an interesting idea, but you provided no evidence to back it up. You cited a Mars study that shows six years (Wow, six years!) of polar ice cap melting of unknown historical significance and unknown connection to solar flares. You cited one study showing the statistical similarity between solar flare variability and earth weather/climate variability. And from there, you leapt to the idea that solar flares cause global warming. So, I'm going to ask you- again- for some basic evidence that supports your theory

Please find data on Mars polar caps that go back maybe a couple dozen years (enough to cover two 11-year solar flare cycles).

Please find the correlating data on solar flare maxima and minima.

Please find the correlating data to Earth polar cap melting.

If you REALLY want to get fancy, please find correlative data to orbital wobbles to rule that out as a factor.
-------------------------

I mean, for someone who demands "a couple hundred years" of statistics on Earth's climate to support a hypothesis, this really isn't too much to ask, is it? This question bears repeating...

IS IT?
IS IT???

I will interpret lack of supporting evidence/ no answer to mean that you think it IS too much to ask for supporting data. And that would lead me to conclude that you have a "belief" that you refuse to hold up to scientific examination. And THAT pretty much casts doubt on ALL of you ideas about global warming and climatic change. SO, w/o getting all tetchy and diverting the discussion from the paltry data supporting your notion, just be a good fellow and go find that data- OK? Thanks.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 25, 2005 7:17 PM

Sig - I have no theory on solar flares. I merely point out what others have observed. I'm not a scientist, nor am I pretending to be one on the internet. (are you?) I've stated my opinion, and given out what info I've seen which forms the basis for my opinion. Sorry you don't like it, but I'm under no obligation what so ever to submit anything to you. You want to claim victory because I'm not gonna play dueling documentry evidence? Have at it, you won. But global warming is still a myth. Fin.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 25, 2005 8:21 PM

Yes, actually, I am a scientist (chemist). As far as your opinion is concerned, it remains just an opinion w/o supporting evidence. So feel free to continue believing what you want- I think at this point we all pretty much know what it's worth.

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:02 PM

Quote:
So feel free to continue believing what you want

Oh thank you! Thank you massah Sig! thank you!!

Free at last, FREE at last!! God almighty...FREE AT LAST!!!

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Monday, September 26, 2005 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
global warming is still a myth.

Uhuh. What else do you think is a myth AURaptor?
George Bush?
Saddam Hussain?
Al Qaeda?
Hitler?
The Holocaust?
Anything that doesn't make rich people money (you know Morallity, ethics etc)?

As a sweeping statement backed only by opinion thats quite possibly one of the best I've seen on these boards.

There is such a thing as global warming, it does exist. The planet IS getting warmer. Deal with it.
The issue is the cause, and whatever that happens to be, pumping tons of crap into the atmosphere that prevents solar/heat radiation from escaping isn't exactly going to help a great deal, is it.
And more over, the enviromental effects of the pollution we pump out is far wider than global warming, cases of asthema are on the rise, drinking water is contaminated, these are facts.

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 26, 2005 3:50 PM

Quote:
Uhuh. What else do you think is a myth AURaptor?

Loch Ness Monster
Big Foot
Alien encounters ( the outter space kind, not illegal ones

)
Chupacabra
Noah's Ark
...... Just to name a few.

Over the roughly 4.6 billion yrs this planet has been around, the global climate has cooled and heated up again more than a few times. And amazingly, long before mankind was even around. Eventually, it'll heat up one last time as our sun heaves its last gasp and bakes this planet to a cinder. I trust we won't be around for that day. Any of us.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, September 26, 2005 3:56 PM

So, just out of curiosity Auraptor, do you disbelieve that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases? (ie. let visible light through but absorb infrared radation?) Do you also disbelieve that soot particles efficiently absorb light and convert it to heat? Do you also disbelieve that albedo has any effect on global energy balance?

Please don't think they give a shit.

CITIZEN

Monday, September 26, 2005 3:58 PM

But we are in agreement, the planet is warming up, therefore global warming is a reality .
I happen to agree, believe it or not. The planets average temperature is actually higher than the temperature of the planet now, if you catch my meaning.

But, we are pumping stuff into the atmosphere that is speeding up this change. And speed is a factor. A gradual change means animals, people, vegitation, and the enviroment can adapt. A sudden change (relativly speaking), means that the equilibrim of the enviroment may suddenly shift, which means bizarre weather patterns, extinction of species, plant and animal, and good bye coastal cities...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

RUE

Monday, September 26, 2005 4:38 PM

AUraptor

Quote:
global climate has cooled and heated up again more than a few times

We've been over this before as well. The large swings in earth's past climate had a cause which is not in effect today. I know what that cause was, and I challenged you to name it. You did not. So here is that challenge again - what was the cause for Earth's massive climate shifts in the past? (Hint - it has to do with orbit.)

PS I am an atmospheric chemist. And you?

Please don't think they give a shit.

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 26, 2005 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AUraptor
Quote:
global climate has cooled and heated up again more than a few times
We've been over this before as well. The large swings in earth's past climate had a cause which is not in effect today. I know what that cause was, and I challenged you to name it. You did not. So here is that challenge again - what was the cause for Earth's massive climate shifts in the past? (Hint - it has to do with orbit.)

PS I am an atmospheric chemist. And you?

Please don't think they give a shit.

Already said I wasn't a scientist, so I guess you win. I'm wrong, you're right. Of course, it was folks like you who mistakenly gave us visions of doom and gloom concerning the enviromental catastrophy resulting from the 700 oil well fires back during the Gulf War. My whole point is that we DON'T know, not with any great amount of certainty, as to what we're doing is really affecting the Earth or not.

p.s. I don't know of any ONE cause for the drastic changes in the Earths climate. You'd have to be less vague as to what time period you're speaking. The shifting of the continents over millions of years undoubtably altered the climate from say..the Jurassic to the Cretaceous. But as for your question, please..enlighten us all.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Monday, September 26, 2005 5:13 PM

Your argument seems to be, we don't know so lets stick our heads in the sand and carry on poisoning the enviroment...
Surely it would be best to assume it is happening? Cleaning up our act is not going to harm us in any great deal if it isn't happening, but not doing anything if it is...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

AURAPTOR

Monday, September 26, 2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your argument seems to be, we don't know so lets stick our heads in the sand and carry on poisoning the enviroment...
Surely it would be best to assume it is happening? Cleaning up our act is not going to harm us in any great deal if it isn't happening, but not doing anything if it is...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you're suggesting we 'clean up our act', fine... I'm all in favor of that. Cleaner burning fuels, recycling, conserving energy,...heck yeah, I do my part there. But if you mean something on the level of, say, the Kyoto Protocol, then I disagree. Even Tony Blair has come to realize what a fiasco that misguided treaty would be.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Monday, September 26, 2005 5:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I said seems, as in my interpretation, my interpretation of what you were saying was evidently wrong. But I was not putting words in your mouth.

I am curious though, what exactly are your reservations on the Kyoto Protocol, or schemes on that scale?

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

SIGNYM

Monday, September 26, 2005 6:36 PM

Auraptor- I am curious as to what you place in the category of "myth". I'm not sure if you think global wamring is ocurring- you seem to waffle on that point. (At times you say

Quote:
You start w/ the premise that global warming is true. I don't

At other times you say

Quote:
Man is not the cause for any global warming.

which presupposes that ti exists. So, can you come down on either side of the question on this one?

Also, since I'm trying to figure out what you consider as "fact" and what you consider as "myth" please be so kind as to answer my previous questions:

Are carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases?
Or, more broadly, do you think there are a class of gases that transmit visible light and absorb infrared?

Does soot efficiently convert visible light to infrared radiation?

Does the albedo of the Earth's surface affect global energy balance?

Still trying to figure out your logical and factual framework.

Please don't think they give a shit.

BARNSTORMER

Monday, September 26, 2005 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your argument seems to be, we don't know so lets stick our heads in the sand and carry on poisoning the enviroment...
Surely it would be best to assume it is happening? Cleaning up our act is not going to harm us in any great deal if it isn't happening, but not doing anything if it is...

Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you're suggesting we 'clean up our act', fine... I'm all in favor of that. Cleaner burning fuels, recycling, conserving energy,...heck yeah, I do my part there. But if you mean something on the level of, say, the Kyoto Protocol, then I disagree. Even Tony Blair has come to realize what a fiasco that misguided treaty would be.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Auraptor,

I think that your views are much the same as mine.

Here is a summation,

1. I believe in Global Warming

2. I believe in Global Cooling

3. I believe that 1 and 2 above are a natural phenomemom.

4. I am not convinced that "Global Warming" is caused by man made pollution.

5. I am not convinced that man made pollution has absolutely no part in "Global Warming".

6 I am convinced that the scientific community does not know enough about long term climate change and the cause of them.

7 I am convinced that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

8. Due to 7 above I am totally against proposed fixes to "Global Warming" such as burying CO2 (carbon dumps).

9. I am convinced that eliminating man made pollution is a good idea. Not because of "global warming", but because it is a good idea.

10. I am convinced that people who contribute to the "Global Warming" hysteria are part of the problem, not a part of the cure.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

HERO

Monday, September 26, 2005 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, you are demanding "hundreds" of years of statistics to make the case for global warming,

Leading experts disagree about global warming. Thus we have to look at what evidence we have of past centuries. That evidence does not consider the recent weather or climate issues to be unusual. If anything they fit a larger typical pattern that can be traced back thousands of years.

Now, I'm no expert, but I can predict that the coming century will see hurricanes, floods, blizzards, droughts, earthquakes, Tsunamis, tornados, and extinctions.

Ooops, I was referring to the 20th Century...or maybe the 19th...hmmm, could have been the 18th...nope, definately the 17th, yep...wait, forgot the 16th...no, no definately the 15th...damn those 14th century storms was sumtin fierce they were...and Sygny, remember the mid 13th Century, those were wild times...but nothing compared to the 12th...now the 11th was nothing special...not at all like the 10th, what being the turn of the millenium, now that was the end of the world for you....but then there was...

In Ohio it rained all day today. God help us all.

H

SIGNYM

Monday, September 26, 2005 8:18 PM

Hero, its awfully nice of you to stick up for Auraptor, but your post contributed NOTHING to the discussion. BTw- you "forgot" to add the context of my comment to Auraptor- which was that (s)he is willing to accept only six years of Mars data (of unknown significance) simply because it fits in with his pre-concieved notions but requires "hundreds" of years of data for an idea that he doesn't "believe" in. My point wsa that the data filtration was rather heavy.

Please don't think they give a shit.

BARNSTORMER

Monday, September 26, 2005 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, its awfully nice of you to stick up for Auraptor, but your post contributed NOTHING to the discussion. BTw- you "forgot" to add the context of my comment to Auraptor- which was that (s)he is willing to accept only six years of Mars data (of unknown significance) simply because it fits in with his pre-concieved notions but requires "hundreds" of years of data for an idea that he doesn't "believe" in. My point wsa that the data filtration was rather heavy.

Please don't think they give a shit.

Yes, just like the Mann report and the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph. The data filtration was rather heavy. Of course that did'nt stop it from being quoted as proof of "Global Warming" ad naseum.

Bye the way, I think Auraptor was referring to one of these reports (in relation to Mars Climate):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18
.xml

There are more like it if you look for it. It's more research, more possible links to the current warming trend. More information to add to the puzzle. After all, as any true engineer or scientist will tell you:

Information is the Key, and without the key, the door to true understanding remains locked.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

BARNSTORMER

Monday, September 26, 2005 8:57 PM

Oh, bye the way, SignyM and Rue,

Please explain to me why, if the global temperature is as high now, as it was during the mideival warming period, how come we did'nt pass the point of no return back then?

Come to think of it, there were'nt a whole lot of cars and stuff to produce man made pollution back then, so why in the heck did it get so hot in the first place?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:47 PM

Quote:
There are more like it if you look for it. It's more research, more possible links to the current warming trend.

I did actually look for it. In fact, I posted more links to the concept than Auraptor. But since it was Auraptor's idea, I think the burden of looking for evidence is on him, not me, which is why I REPEATEDLY asked for correlative data on sunspots and Earth's climate. Which Auraptor rather pointedly did not provide.

Please don't think they give a shit.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Ooops, I was referring to the 20th Century...or maybe the 19th...hmmm, could have been the 18th...nope, definately the 17th, yep...wait, forgot the 16th...no, no definately the 15th...damn those 14th century storms was sumtin fierce they were...and Sygny, remember the mid 13th Century, those were wild times...but nothing compared to the 12th...now the 11th was nothing special...not at all like the 10th, what being the turn of the millenium, now that was the end of the world for you....but then there was...

In Ohio it rained all day today. God help us all.

Ich hoffe, wann Sie kommen, das Wetter bin mild.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

RUE

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 2:38 AM

Quote:
IF the global temperature is as high now, as it was during the mideival (sic) warming period

Big if.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
IF the global temperature is as high now, as it was during the mideival (sic) warming period
Big if.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

No, not so big. It's born of the same data that is used to show that Global warming is happening.

Can't have it both ways. To even try is to undermine your whole point.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

HANS

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Call me a skeptic, but I'm still not buying this 'Global warming ' bit as being anything more than the Earth's natural cycle. We might not understand it or how it all works, but there's a history of the Earth that predates man. Virtually all of it,actually. The Mesozoic inland sea which covered the interior of the United States...you think they got lots of water in New Orleans after Katrina!

This is one of the arguments I hear most from global warming nay-sayers, and it's one of the ones that frustrates me more than anything.

Yes, there has always been a variation in temperature over time on the earth. But it's always been gradual changes over a period of thousands of years. What we are noticing now is a rapid, noticeable, unprecedented change that's taking place at exactly the same time as a huge increase in industrial output. Look at a graph, and the correlation between the two is undeniable.

And note that I said correlation, not causation. The environment is an extremely complicated system, and "proving" that one thing causes another is essentially impossible. It's the old "butterfly flaps it's wings in Tokyo, causing a hurricane in Mexico" thing - you'd never be able to track your way backwards from the hurricane to the butterfly and prove that it caused the event. Likewise, you'd never be able to "prove" that Katrina (or the recent droughts in Europe, or the other examples of extreme weather we've seen) had anything to do with global warming and human activity, so nay-sayers like you can always shrug their shoulders, hop into their SUV, and drive away.

(And no, I'm not saying that Katrina specifically had anything to do with global warming. I'm saying it's possible there's some relation between the two, and even if there isn't, Katrina is a perfect example of what will be happening if we don't take action now.)

So if you can't prove a connection between human activity and environmental change, what's left? All you can do is make reasonable guesses about what's happening and go with the most likely answer. The simple fact is that there's near consensus in the scientific community (if you leave out those scientists who work directly for big oil, or are in the pocket of the Republican party) that human activity is having a negative effect on our environment. Is it provable, in an absolute sense? No. Is it a reasonable conclusion based on what we've observed? Absolutely, yes.

I'm curious if the anti-environmentalists think that human-caused global warming is a complete fiction, or if they just think it is simply unlikely? The reason I ask is, most people take reasonable precautions to avoid a disater even when they think a disaster is unlikely. Almost everyone who owns a house has fire insurance, yet the chance of your house burning down is extremely low (1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? Lower?). So why do people own house insurance? Because the consequences of your house burning down are so horrific, it's better to take precautions. So, global warming sceptics, what do you think the odd are that the environmentalists are right? 1 in 100? 1 in 20? At what point are the odds high enough that you think it's worth taking precautions?

Last, but not least, just because there's been ice ages and other examples of extreme weather in pre-history is no reason to think that it's something that it would be easy to survive this time. Yes, the Earth itself might survive, but that doesn't mean we will. If global warming is inevitable and has nothing to do with human activity, all we can do is hunker down and get ready for some miserable decades ahead. But if there's even the tiniest chance that it's human caused, shouldn't we try to do something before it's too late?

Hans

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Yes, there has always been a variation in temperature over time on the earth. But it's always been gradual changes over a period of thousands of years. What we are noticing now is a rapid, noticeable, unprecedented change that's taking place at exactly the same time as a huge increase in industrial output. Look at a graph, and the correlation between the two is undeniable.

Thank you, that is a point I tried to raise earlier on, but unfortunately it was ignored.
The Earth's temperature and environment have changed constantly over the years; in fact we are still cooler than the Earths average temperature. The thing is these temperature changes have always been gradual, allowing all the various environmental mechanisms and eco-systems to adapt. The current change is happening much faster.

Whether or not the warming trend is caused by Human activity is irrelevant. The fact is this is the fastest it has ever happened according to all available data. So what’s the variable added to the mix that wasn't there before? Human activity...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."

ECLIPTIC

Monday, October 17, 2005 1:24 PM

On the note of the hurricane caused by global warming. That is outright wrong.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Worldandnation/Storm_frenzy_is_not_a
.shtml

Quote:
Now climatologists say frenzied hurricane seasons will be a fact of life for the next 10 to 20 years, part of a lengthy cycle of stormy eras followed by calmer ones.

Quote:
At a time when some are theorizing that global warming may be the reason for more intense hurricane seasons, climatologists say the AMO is the real culprit.

"The consensus among hurricane researchers and forecasters is that the hurricane landfalls of 2004 resulted from the AMO, a natural cycle of hurricane activity, combined with a lapse in the incredibly good fortune of the previous 35 years," Hugh Willoughby, a hurricane researcher at Miami's Florida International University, wrote in an essay last fall.

"The effect of global warming was at most second order," he wrote, "and probably not present at all."

Also to those that think natural global climate changes happen slowly, have you never heard of the Little Ice Age of Europe?

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

Quote:
1595: Gietroz (Switzerland) glacier advances, dammed Dranse River, and caused flooding of Bagne with 70 deaths.
1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's.
1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen.
1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms.
1710-1735: A glacier in Norway was advancing at a rate of 100 m per year for 25 years.
1748-50: Norwegian glaciers achieved their historical maximum LIA positions.

CITIZEN

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:44 PM

So a global temperature change is explained away by short term local fluctuations?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:16 PM

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest level on record

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5io8-mhR216BbP-65r8IrK1C6y8ZQD92QRQD
81