Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1330 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 15 - 10:26pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Global warming, fact or farce?
 

  Re: Global warming, fact or farce? 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Next >>
Sander Sassen Mar 26, 2008, 10:41am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 149 - Views: 14205
It wears me out, the whole carbon dioxide and global warming discussion. There's no solid scientific basis for any of it, nor for the doomsday scenarios being pitched by politicians hoping to get your vote. What's your take on the matter?

Best regards,


Sander Sassen
Editor in Chief - Hardware Analysis
ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Mark Mar 26, 2008, 10:50am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Good article Sander, I agree that politicians over hype the global warming way too much. I agree 100% with you on the matter.

----------------------------------------------
- Intel Pentium G2020
- Asus 8800GT 512MB w/Glaciator Fansink
- Antec True 650w
Bungle Mar 26, 2008, 11:03am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 26, 2008, 11:09am EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I say farce. The earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, we know that there have been mulitple periods of warming and cooling in the distant past none of which were caused by coal power plants, SUV's, or incandescent lightbulbs. But this time, it's our fault if it wasn't for us greedy capitalists and our industrialized world everything would be pristine and perfect forever.... right.

we have what 30? 40? 50? years of data, whatever it is it isn't enough for us to really say we have any idea how the climate works. To fully understand it we would need all the variables and we quite frankly don't have them all. our current models don't take into account things like solar activity, rain, or cloud cover. pretty vital stuff if your'e trying to get a complete picture of what is happening with the climate... This winter was supposed to be a warm mild one but because of decreased solar activity we have snow pack that is 50% above average, I had 4.5 feet in my front yard, and the snowboarding has been awesome. So much for mild winter.

should we try to take care of the environment? yes! should we try to decrease emissions? yes, nobody likes acid rain. should we do so at all costs? no, there is no conclusive proof that any of the changes in the climate have been our fault so why destroy the economy chasing phantoms?

Let me clarify, man-made global warming = farce

Core i7 4770K @ 4.4GHz | Corsair H110 | Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD5H | 32GB 1866MHz Corsair Vengeance
2x EVGA GTX 780 SLI | 256GB OCZ Vector SSD | 4TB Hitachi 7K4000
Corsair AX1200 PSU | Corsair 650D | Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Beavis Khan Mar 26, 2008, 11:46am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
So I am sure we can all agree the world is warming up, most likely caused by a natural global temperature cycle that takes 100s, 1000s or even billions of years and to which we as humans are not really a contributing factor, nor of any influence if we wanted to.


It always amuses me when people decide there is not enough science to say we're causing/impacting global warming/climate change, but somehow there IS enough to say that there is no way we could possibly impact the climate even if we wanted to. Do we understand climate and climate change, or do we not?

Also my opinion - the chances that, by burning fuel that took millions of years to create in the span of hundreds of years, we are NOT somehow impacting the Earth's climate, is about zero. I have no idea what the ultimate impact will be (warming, cooling, growing a third eye, etc), but it's really laughable to think that it could have no impact whatsoever. The sooner we all stop thinking the impact is nothing, or the impact is instant armageddon, and concentrate on the more likely outcomes in the middle, the better.

Anyway, bottom line is we ought not be such a bunch of reckless a**holes when it comes to the environment. The current global warming debate only seems to have served as a straw man in this discussion. Instead of having an intelligent debate on policy, people just say "omg I had 20 feet of snow this year...stupid Al Gore always saying the sky is falling"... ad nauseum.

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
Rooin Mar 26, 2008, 11:48am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I think I saw this posted here on the forums before, but I understand this guys view.
Its the first thing I thought of after seeing this article.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7798836073699069426&am...;plindex=5

================================================================
"Even Satan wouldn't use customer service as a form of punishment." - Lucas http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com
Brandon Davis Mar 26, 2008, 11:52am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”
link: http://www.infowars.com/?p=824

...apparently there's a flaw in the basic computational model (who knew?), that a Hungarian scientist - Ferenc Miskolczi - pointed out last year.

The problem with "the [original] formula" is that Milne's original 1924 work on greenhouse emissions - that all modern computer models are based upon - uses an "infinitely thick" atmosphere ...to wit, the atmosphere doesn't extend to the ends of the universe. Oops ...damn variables, anyways.

(Miskolczi's corrections accurately predict observable phenomena on not just Earth, but also on Mars. What a surprise.)

"Flat earthers" indeed. (Galileo could not be reached for comment.)

(cross-posted from somewhere else, since I've been spreading this around)

Bitmap Mar 26, 2008, 12:01pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?

________
"None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. YOU'RE locked up in here with ME." - Walter Kovacs, A.K.A. Rorschach.
dirtfarmer Mar 26, 2008, 12:14pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
it never fail to surprise me on how many idiot there are in the world--

earth warming is a fact

the fact is all most all major scientist agree on that,, and as a farmer I see it each day--

people who talk the loutish are for the most part people that live in the city- that would not know the different from there ass to a hole in the ground, like the author of this site and there few the have put there view on it so far there it all noting to do about noting-- well you dead wrong

yes the e arth is old,, but you forgot one thing mankind-- he done more damage the earth in 100 year then mother nature could do in million, but I guess some people are not smart enough to see that-- can see pass there own nose-- well people the time for talk is over- it a fact-- live with it


I guess the north pole ice is melting is friction

I guess the polar bears downing at sea is friction

I guess the sea level raises is friction
people the world full of idiot-- like the idiot Editor that wrote this article

Sander Sassen Mar 26, 2008, 12:28pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Dirtfarmer,

earth warming is a fact

people the world full of idiot-- like the idiot Editor that wrote this article


I'm sorry, come again? You did not read the article fully, or might not have read it at all, in the last paragraph I wrote:

So I am sure we can all agree the world is warming up, most likely caused by a natural global temperature cycle that takes 100s, 1000s or even billions of years and to which we as humans are not really a contributing factor, nor of any influence if we wanted to.


So who's one of those idiots now? It certainly isn't me, as you've so eloquently pointed out yourself. People that don't read, don't think, and just take everything that's served up to them as facts are the idiots, which in this case applies to you I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Sander Sassen
Editor in Chief - Hardware Analysis
ssassen@hardwareanalysis.com
dirtfarmer Mar 26, 2008, 12:35pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
humans are not really a contributing factor, nor of any influence if we wanted to.


glee god you really can not be that supid

jean-pierre liebaert Mar 26, 2008, 12:49pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I'm only a poor, little french speaking belgian people. My english knowledge is limited to the IT domain and this subject is too sensitive. So I'm sorry to speak my mother language.
Perhaps, you will find someone able to translate this.

1. 100% des scientifiques ne seront jamais d'accord, c'est impossibe. Il y en aura toujpurs un vendu au pouvoir.
2. si un médicament ne guérit pas tout le monde, allez-vous por cela ne plus le prendre?
3. la terre a connu des changements de climat, c'est vrai, mais jamais en moins de 50 ans. Il y a des centaines de preuves que le réchauffement est dû à l'activité de l'homme seulement.
4. je ne crois pas me tromper beaucoup en pensant que beaucoup d'intervenants sur ce site sont américains et que la majorité d'entre eux ne pensent pas beaucoup au reste du monde, surtout s'ils risquent de gagner moins d'argent s'ils le faisaient.
alors je propose 2 sujets de réflexion

1. Citez-moi UN produit qui ne demande pas de pétrole pour ^tre produit? J'ayyends vos réponses.

2. NE VOUS ETES-VOUS JAMAIS DEMANDE POURQUOI TANT DE CATASTROPHES VOUS ARRIVENT (11/09, Irak, Afghanistan, New-Orleans etc...?

Jean-Pierre L
Belgique



Stephen Duckworth Mar 26, 2008, 01:21pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 26, 2008, 01:28pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Most of these responses are pretty uninformed. Global warming is scientific fact. What is not proven is a link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming and therefore theres still a question of whether the current global warming is human induced. Theres strong evidence to suggest it is, I was unable to argue that there is no link last time I had to debate it with my tutorial group at uni.

Its known that carbon dioxide molecules vibrate when solar radiation hits them and therefore logically dissipate the energy they gain into the atmosphere in the form of heat. Its also known that the levels of carbon dioxide are now higher than they have ever been over the past 3000 or so years and that the peaks in temperature in the past have occurred just following a peak in carbon dioxide concentration. There may or may not be a link but there's overwhelming evidence that there is a link. If that's the case then human actions do cause global warming since its known that we actively increase the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and also reduce the rate at which it is removed.

As a side note, we usually just discuss carbon dioxide because it potentially has by far the greatest warming effect since it exists in much higher concentrations than the other greenhouse gases even though some of them are able to absorb a greater range of radiation frequencies and therefore have a potentially greater warming effect when compared to one molecule of carbon dioxide.

Jim H was particularly uninformed, you said that its known there have been multiple periods of warming and cooling which is correct since the climate is cyclic however you then went on to say that we have a maximum of 50 years of data. How would we know the climate is cyclic if we could only measure the past years? There are a variety of methods to measure climate variations in the distant past which when used together are accurate within a maximum and minimum band, this band is taken into account when researching into climate change.

Its also just plain wrong to say current models don't take into account solar activity and also to say that accurate extrapolation of climate requires the rain and cloud cover to be taken into account. Both those variables are highly dynamic and unneeded when your predicting the climate since climate is defined as an average of the weather over 30 years. Over 30 years the average cloud cover and average rainfall remain the same, im also unclear as to why rainfall needs to be taken into account at all? Clouds can intercept radiation causing increased warming but rainfall has very little effect.

Finally, we're dealing with climate change, not the weather in your front yard - there's quite a fundamental difference.

Should we try to take care of the environment? Nah, not when there's a significant number of biased countries/corporations who stand to loose money in a capitalist economy if they do anything about their emissions levels, it wont have a noticeable impact unless everyone stops ignoring the problem.

Sander and anyone else who's interested, reading the IPCC working group one summary would be a good idea, its a consise, easy to understand and scientifically sound summary of what's currently known and what's unknown.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Stuart K Mar 26, 2008, 01:33pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I've seen some evidence that global warming and other environmental changes are due at least in part to human activities.

I don't wish to argue with anyone about that though. I hope we can agree to disagree. :)

On the other hand, I would like to discuss my feeling that we as a race should be concerned about the ecology of our little blue planet, and that we should do whatever we can to avoid despoiling it further.

I support efforts to reduce pollution, energy usage, carbon emission, etc. I think we can do things to lessen our impact on the environment.

For instance, I try to choose more "eco-friendly" products when buying something. It's a mindset I would like to encourage, and I do so by "voting with my pocketbook."

I also agree with turning off lights when they're not being used and the other things we can each help out with by changing our behavior.

It's sometimes not clear what's best though. How much energy and what impact on the environment is involved with making a compact fluorescent lamp? If switching such a lamp on and off a lot reduces its lifespan; at what point does it stop making sense to shut off the lights?


FordGT90Concept Mar 26, 2008, 01:38pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 26, 2008, 01:45pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I'd be more concerned about Yellowstone spewing millions (if not billions) of tons of volcanic material into the atmosphere than man-made CO2. Geological records indicate that the last major caldera volcano eruption triggered the last major ice age. Yellowstone, by comparison, is much larger. In fact, dig deep enough as far east as Nebraska and you'll find a foot of ash from the last time Yellowstone erupted. When that beast blows (which is thousands of years overdue), "global warming" really isn't going to carry any meaning.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Brandon Davis Mar 26, 2008, 01:41pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
The earth is old, indeed. But. You. Are. Not. You conflate your minimally temporal "evidence" with scientific fact, when you tell me what your "experience" tells you. I call bs: you don't know the difference between data and anecdote. You are giving anecdotal "evidence" that doesn't mean squat in the timescales concerned. (Funnier still: you're ignoring that in the 1970's, the scientists were worried about global cooling ...I recall stories about the coming Ice Age from the period.)

I recall fall & winters being a lot colder (frosts, ice, etc.) 45 years back (and yes, I lived here then, so I'd know). So what? It. Means. Nothing. That's not enough of a time span to know squat (even if it does mean that I know enough to put my tomatoes out earlier now ...and the growing season will last longer now.

Over the span of aeons, 45 years of "now" knowledge don't mean squat.

If you knew how to read a history book - ANY history book - you'd know that we've (we as in "human history") have experienced cooling and warming before (the Little Ice Age of the medieval period for example). IF YOU WERE A SCIENTIST ...you'd know that data from various core samples (ice, ocean bottom, trees, etc.) is an accurate sample of global temp variable. And that data trumps your short little time on earth ...and isn't purely anecdotal.

If you were a mathematician, or were involved in computer modeler in climatology, (or you just knew hot to exercise some common sense logic), you would understand how very, very important the post I linked earlier was in the global warming debate.

The issue with "global warming" and man's influence has ALWAYS been a concern about the liklelihood of what are called runaway greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from increased carbon output of industrial processes). And ALL such models rely for their base computational analyses upon Milne's original formula's from the 1920's ...which formulas have a basic, undeniable flaw: to wit, Milne originally hypothesized an atmosphere that was infinitely thick (and not one that was something like 78 miles deep). So the climate models have ALL been wrong. Because the original math was ...flawed.

Which is why the undeniable global cooling (because you don't pay attention, you probably didn't know that we've been in a cooling period for awhile, did you) of approximately the last 10 years or so, since 1998, has puzzled the climatologists and modelers so much. It shouldn't have been ...well, according to the models.

NOW that the basic math has been corrected, we find that NONE of the climatological conditions for man-induced catastrophic run-away greenhouse warming can ever occur (at current and foreseeable population and industrial densities). Because the actual atmospheric feedback mechanism of the planet is short-term (meaning over the span of a few decades) self-correcting.

Let me make this very, very clear: if you think that man-induced runaway greenhouse warming is a problem, you are simply not paying attention to the actual science.

Last. If you think a "global consensus" of "scientists" means a damn thing, you aren't just wrong, you're wrong-headed (and not very bright). All that "global consensus" means is that everyone can be wrong at the same time. Especially when the science has become so deeply politicized by the politically correct morons of the media.

There's no long term, man-induced, threat of catastrophic global warming. The planet's atmosphere is pretty reliably self-correcting in the short term. And that IS the current science on the matter.

You heard it here first, dirtfarmer (although you weren't the first to hear it).

Here's a good, easy-to-read link to start re-learning what you think you "know":
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

(Sasser: this comment really wasn't pointed at you. I had few problems with your post, even if I disagree with the "everyone knows, everyone agrees" assertion. Actually, it would have been more correct to say "everyone knew, but they're not so sure any more".)

Aks Awal Mar 26, 2008, 01:42pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
Saying that global warming is a political game with no proofs is like saying that unicorns exist. Of course there is no proof that they don't just as there is no proof that they do.

Funnily enough the author feels OK in dismissing any trends that emerge from the data of the past 150 years for the data of past 100,1000s or millions of years that he does not know anything about!

Earth is a large system and for the most part, we do not know anything about the climate.

But in the global warming debate, whether or not it is happening because of human occupation, there are larger things at stake such as the arable land that we all depend on for our food, earth's fresh water resources which are drying up, hurricanes and other natural disasters which are directly an effect of earth's ever changing climate
And quite right we all depend on oil and natural gas which are only going to last us for another 100 years or so. A simple principle of basic economics would warn us to save our limited resources for the future and develop technologies to help us cope with the effect of losing oil and natural gas. To produce crops which are more resilient to climate change - whether it is cooling or warming.

The author of this article very easily points the fingers at the politicians and claim them as fear mongerers but he himself is debating about something he knows little about (he has I assume like everybody else read some of the studies that say that climate change do not exist - thereby believing some scientist - which of course what we all do when we use the value of 'G', 'g' or 'M' the mass of earth).

Perhaps what we need is people who would be more apt at learning new skills as the world and it's political, economic and climate climate changes.

Peter Helbing Mar 26, 2008, 02:14pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
I'm from germany, excuse my limited knowledge of the english language.
dirtfarmer is doing harsh words, but as an ordinary worker I fully agree with him.
4,5 billion years of earth history, that`s right. but most of this time it was a
living hell for animals like us unable to exist. From this ancient times there left a
lot of waste. Organic material compressed and stored deep under the surface where our
fragile climate situation is save for it. Also a heavy load of frozen gas named methan is stored in deep seabottom and permafrozen surface too. From old times on mankind used coal and oil when they found it for energy, burning it. This was very limited. But then technology gave them the ability to explore it in quantity. To call it "natural" and save co2 for me is idiotical. They should have left it where evolution has put it.
The opponents of the global warming theory always argument with temperatures of the atmosphere. They never speak about the seawater. Why when the atmosphere is not warming the seawater becomes warmer? Why the ice is melting? Here in Middle Europe the spring time is becoming more colder the last years. The golf stream bringing warm water from the golf of Mexico to the northern Atlantic is becoming weaker because of all the melting ice in the north. Changes are dramatically. A golden age of mild well balanced climate in europe is going to end. But even in this period a lot of earth`s surface is not a place to life. Deserts are stretching out more and more. But in the end i think the methan will blow us away. You all know a dead planet. Look to Mars. Dreaming of sending spaceships there and recreating it, what idiots. They don`t understand what is happening here and not able to control it or just handle it.

Rooin Mar 26, 2008, 02:14pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Mar 26, 2008, 02:21pm EDT

 
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
jean-pierre liebaert said:
I'm only a poor, little french speaking belgian people. My english knowledge is limited to the IT domain and this subject is too sensitive. So I'm sorry to speak my mother language.
Perhaps, you will find someone able to translate this.

1. 100% des scientifiques ne seront jamais d'accord, c'est impossibe. Il y en aura toujpurs un vendu au pouvoir.
2. si un médicament ne guérit pas tout le monde, allez-vous por cela ne plus le prendre?
3. la terre a connu des changements de climat, c'est vrai, mais jamais en moins de 50 ans. Il y a des centaines de preuves que le réchauffement est dû à l'activité de l'homme seulement.
4. je ne crois pas me tromper beaucoup en pensant que beaucoup d'intervenants sur ce site sont américains et que la majorité d'entre eux ne pensent pas beaucoup au reste du monde, surtout s'ils risquent de gagner moins d'argent s'ils le faisaient.
alors je propose 2 sujets de réflexion

1. Citez-moi UN produit qui ne demande pas de pétrole pour ^tre produit? J'ayyends vos réponses.

2. NE VOUS ETES-VOUS JAMAIS DEMANDE POURQUOI TANT DE CATASTROPHES VOUS ARRIVENT (11/09, Irak, Afghanistan, New-Orleans etc...?

Jean-Pierre L
Belgique



Translated Via dictionary.com translator (its not 100% but I think its close)


I' m only has poor, little french speaking belgian people. My english knowledge is limited to sensitive the IT domain and this subject is too. So I' m sorry to speak my mother language.
Perhaps, you will find someone whitebait to relocates this.

1. 100% of the scientists will be never of agreement, it is impossibe. There will be of it toujpurs one sold with the capacity.
2. if a drug does not cure everyone, will you por that more take it?
3. the ground knew changes of climate, it is true, but never in less than 50 years. There are hundreds of evidence that the warming is due to the activity of the man only.
4. I do not believe to especially mislead me much by thinking that many speakers on this site are American and that the majority of them do not think much of the rest of the world, if they are likely to earn less money if they did it.
then I propose 2 subjects of reflection

1. Quote to me a product which does not require oil for ^tre produced? I ayyends your answers.

2. YOU SUMMERS you NEVER REQUEST WHY SO MUCH FOR CATASTROPHES ARRIVE to YOU (11/09, Iraq, Afghanistan, New-Orleans etc…?

Jean-Pierre L
Belgium




EDIT: After reading this post in its entirety I want to make it known that I do not agree with the above statements I was simply trying to help everyone be able to read his post, in after doing so I now realize it may cause a bit more discussion in this thread then it maybe was intended? But thats Sander for ya, always trying to raise a nice discussion.

================================================================
"Even Satan wouldn't use customer service as a form of punishment." - Lucas http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com
Guillaume Girard Mar 26, 2008, 03:45pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
The farce is not the Global warming awarning. In fact, this topic is a big farce itself... :~

Chip King Mar 26, 2008, 04:07pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?
DirtFarmer....

Sorry about us all being idiots.

If you're into science as you imply, then read up on the previous periods of the world. You will find that many times in our past, the poles had no glacial features and in fact were temperate regions.

For humans to be so self indulged in making sweeping conclusions over data we have collected for only 150 years, and think we have all the answers?

Sorry DirtFarmer you are too smart to be convinced of anything logical.

Stephen Grinwis Mar 26, 2008, 06:26pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: Re: Global warming, fact or farce?


A few points.


A farmer observing the weather around him cannot make an accurate assessment of global temperature variations. I strongly doubt that he can make an accurate assessment of his local climate conditions. How's that $10 thermometer from walmart treating you? How close is it to your house, or your barn, or your manure pit? How do you think that might impact the reading it's giving? How acurate do you think it is? How precise do you think it is? What algorithm are you using to determine an accurate average? What is your sampling rate? How long have you been collecting data? Not as simple as it seems is it?

I have read some of the IPCC reports. If you go and read them you notice a marked trend in the gradual decrease in their predicted temperature gains over the lifespan of the reports, as accurate measurements of global temperature fail to meet the predictions of computer models. One problem that i believe they ran into initially is Urban heat islanding, and a non-uniform distribution of weather stations. Weather stations tend to be set up near cities, because most people live in cities, and people tend to want to know what the weather is like near cities. The problem with doing this, is that cities are warmer then their surroundings. If you read the latest report, they comment on the apparent discrepancy between satellite based readings, and terrestrial readings. It was terrestrial readings that lead to the initial catastrophic reports of massive warming on a global scale. If you read the latest report, it reads more like a the progress report of a bored committee then a final warning to humanity.

The IPCC's conclusions in a nutshell? Yes, the average temperature is increasing, we have models that predict this is the result of CO2, and we can prove that CO2 will increase global temperatures.

My beliefs based on what i know? (I am not a climatologist, but neither is anyone on this board)

1) The oceans hold 50 times more CO2 then the atmosphere does. It is effectively a CO2 dump for us.

2) As CO2 levels rise, vegetation becomes more active. An increase in the amount of CO2 in the air leads to more plant growth, which naturally sequesters a massive quantity of CO2. Vegetation actually grows 30% faster now, then it did 200 years ago. This is a secondary carbon dioxide sink for us. Incidentally, as the planet gets warmer, you begin to extend the growing season in the northern regions, yielding further consumption of atmospheric CO2 levels (although this effect is admittedly small).

3)I do not see these effects mentioned anywhere in the IPCC reports, although they might be there and i haven't seen them yet (those reports are somewhat large). I believe that nature has provided a set of feedback mechanisms to control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and i believe they will continue to work as intended.

4) It has been both much warmer, and much colder then present over the course of geologic history. Look up the Holocene Optimum.

5) Whoever said that global warming was a bad thing was a liar. During the medieval warm period, another warm time in North America and western europe, it was much warmer then it is now. And what disastrous result occurred? Well.. lets see.. it was a time of great wealth, and advancement, and to this day, you can see churches in norther england decorated with pictures of Vineyards.

6) @people concerned with global warming raising sea levels due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Try this: Pour your self a glass of water. Put an ice cube in it. Watch the ice melt, and the water level not change. hrmmm... Wonder what happened? Well... the ice is floating, so the ice was displacing it's weight in water. And because the density of ice is pretty much the same as water, when it melts there's not much difference in the total volume. And how much ice is gonna melt anyways? Most of the artic is stuck at - 45 C. heaven forbid if, over the course of the next 200 years, it should become -40 C!! What you'll see is the gradual meltdown of the sides of the ice cap, causing minuscule changes to ocean levels over time. not a Day of Judgment crisis.

7) Where did this whole "Scientists agree about global warming" thing come from? A lot of scientists disagree. I encourage everyone here to check out http://www.globalwarmingisafarce.com




Write a Reply >>

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Next >>

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.