The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Obviously, all those scientists worldwide are part of the vast, liberal, "Warmist" conspiracy of insidious Global Deception...

...and with the Soviets, no less!

At which point, debating the topic is now moot, as all opposing scientific evidence becomes merely dismissable as fabrications manipulated by the worldwide elitist conspiracy that has been falsifying records since the 1800s, and all that remains for the thread is espousing ideology.

[hym 358]

I have moved our most recent global warming discussion to its appropriate thread.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Whether Global Warming is real or not (I think it's likely to be real), let's have a look at these two scenario's

 

1) Best Case: What if Global Warming is not as bad as we think it is, but we have taken precautions. The climate problems would be quite small, but we'll still live in a cleaner world. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but in return we are prepared for the Worst Case Scenario. That couldn't be that bad...

2) Worst Case: What if Global Warming is as bad as we think it is, but we haven't taken precautions. We don't know what consequences there are with climate changes. Some regions get dryer, some get more wet, some get warmer and some get colder. Although these changes are subtle, it could mean more failed crops, more food shortages and more hunger and even war for food (if the situation gets really desperate). Also, the sea level will rise (not just by melting polar caps; most of it is caused that water simply decreases density when it heats up, meaning that it takes up more space). And since a lot of people live near the coast (for example large metropolises as New York, Tokyo, LA or some countries like the Netherlands and Indonesia) a large part of the world population are endangered by flooding. In short, a whole lot of consequences that would hit all the countries in the world. 

The decision is up to you which scenario you want to see...

Best,
Maarten

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: svachon

Hi, I love you quote in your signature, "belive nothing no matter where you read it... unless it agress with your own reason and your own common sense."  Common sense tells me that no real scientist would destroy data that supports his sciencific theory.  quote>

No need to quote my post if you're going to ignore what is written into it 

But anyway, you tell me that these scientists destroyed data that didn't support their views, but I only see allusions to past e-mails? e-mails aren't climate data sets afaik.

Adding and substracting tendencies from graphs is a normal procedure(a trick if you want to call it like that) too. The normal thing when your results don't agree with what other hundreds of competing teams have found is to suspect an intrinsic bias in your data, not a worlwide conspiracy. If averaging the real temps gave back a tendency consistent with the other results, no destruction happened. A real statistic difference should have survived such an indiscriminate manipulation.

Out-of-context quotes don't allow me to say or suspect much more....(using the third quote in my signature)

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: mrtnrln

Whether Global Warming is real or not (I think it's likely to be real), let's have a look at these two scenario's

 

1) Best Case: What if Global Warming is not as bad as we think it is, but we have taken precautions. The climate problems would be quite small, but we'll still live in a cleaner world. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, but in return we are prepared for the Worst Case Scenario. That couldn't be that bad...

2) Worst Case: What if Global Warming is as bad as we think it is, but we haven't taken precautions. We don't know what consequences there are with climate changes. Some regions get dryer, some get more wet, some get warmer and some get colder. Although these changes are subtle, it could mean more failed crops, more food shortages and more hunger and even war for food (if the situation gets really desperate). Also, the sea level will rise (not just by melting polar caps; most of it is caused that water simply decreases density when it heats up, meaning that it takes up more space). And since a lot of people live near the coast (for example large metropolises as New York, Tokyo, LA or some countries like the Netherlands and Indonesia) a large part of the world population are endangered by flooding. In short, a whole lot of consequences that would hit all the countries in the world. 

The decision is up to you which scenario you want to see...

Best,

Maartenquote>

I think a lot of people forget climate change means every were.In some places were its dry and cold now with climate change will they be warm and wet and ready to be exploited to grow food?

Climate change may turn the Sahara back into the Savannah it used to be a few 1000 years ago.

The nearly empty states  in north central USA, Montana, the Dakotas, would  become warmer for longer and allow for more crops to be grown?

personaly i think it will all even out we will just have deserts in different places then they were before.

Does anyone realy think the amount of water on earth will change? Only its state and location.

the earth will not turn into Arrakis.

 

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: svachon

Hi, I love you quote in your signature, "belive nothing no matter where you read it... unless it agress with your own reason and your own common sense."  Common sense tells me that no real scientist would destroy data that supports his sciencific theory.  quote>

No need to quote my post if you're going to ignore what is written into it 

But anyway, you tell me that these scientists destroyed data that didn't support their views, but I only see allusions to past e-mails? e-mails aren't climate data sets afaik.

Adding and substracting tendencies from graphs is a normal procedure(a trick if you want to call it like that) too. The normal thing when your results don't agree with what other hundreds of competing teams have found is to suspect an intrinsic bias in your data, not a worlwide conspiracy. If averaging the real temps gave back a tendency consistent with the other results, no destruction happened. A real statistic difference should have survived such an indiscriminate manipulation.

Out-of-context quotes don't allow me to say or suspect much more....(using the third quote in my signature)
quote>

I actually thoroughly enjoyed using your quote while ignoring the rest of your post.  The emails are from people who are in charge of the data and are questioning their own theories.  If this doesn't at least make you question things, then I wish not to argue with you any longer.  Everyone needs something to believe in.

[mightygoose 92]

the debate is not about whether or not global warming is occurring; instead about whether humanity is to blame or the earth itself on a periodic cycle.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem really is that the issue is very political. "ZOMG Global Warming!" is an alarmist tool used to push an anti-corporate environmentalist agenda first, and science second.

The most hilarious concept is this idea that we need to be taking measures to stop it. We need to reduce emissions to 1990 levels! Yeah, um... the US alone put over 5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 1990. It's closer to 6 billion per year these days (source). No matter what way you slice it, we've already put a lot of carbon in the atmosphere and will be continuing to do so for years to come, even with all the efforts in the world to be more efficient and use more renewable energy. And what's more, all of that carbon isn't going anywhere. If it is in fact the key factor in climate change, then the ship has already sailed and we would be better off spending our efforts buffing up to deal with the coming changes which are now inevitable than pretending we're somehow going to reverse the trend.

Of course, nobody is going to say that, because by admitting that, we lose the ability to use global warming as a political tool.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: Easy BakesI think a lot of people forget climate change means every were.In some places were its dry and cold now with climate change will they be warm and wet and ready to be exploited to grow food?

Climate change may turn the Sahara back into the Savannah it used to be a few 1000 years ago.

The nearly empty states  in north central USA, Montana, the Dakotas, would  become warmer for longer and allow for more crops to be grown?

personaly i think it will all even out we will just have deserts in different places then they were before.

Does anyone realy think the amount of water on earth will change? Only its state and location.

the earth will not turn into Arrakis.quote>

It's not getting any warmer here in Wisconsin.  The past several summers have been a lot cooler than they where 15+ years ago.  On average we'd have no less than than 5-10 or more days during the summer with temps soaring above 90, nowadays we're lucky if gets above 90 for more than a few days during the summer [minus this past summer when we had at least 7 in my area].

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: mrtnrln

Whether Global Warming is real or not (I think it's likely to be real), let's have a look at these two scenario's

[snip]

Best,

Maartenquote>

I think a lot of people forget climate change means every were.In some places were its dry and cold now with climate change will they be warm and wet and ready to be exploited to grow food?

Climate change may turn the Sahara back into the Savannah it used to be a few 1000 years ago.

The nearly empty states  in north central USA, Montana, the Dakotas, would  become warmer for longer and allow for more crops to be grown?

personaly i think it will all even out we will just have deserts in different places then they were before.

Does anyone realy think the amount of water on earth will change? Only its state and location.

the earth will not turn into Arrakis.

quote>

1. True

2. Opposite: Climate change, as predicted by models, will intensify desertification and turn sub-Saharan Africa into desert also.

3. Could be

4. Purifying spring water is easier than desalinating (possibly polluted) ocean water.

[One Rincon Hill 0]

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I have seen reports, which are not to hand, that the earth orbit has been changed slightly to be more circular which will bring us, generally, closer to the sun but we will remain in the goldilocks zone.  Geological evidence has been found that there have been climate changes of this type in the past, and that there is no reason that they won't occur in the future or even now.

The ring of fire is being especially active, the oceans have had some warming as evidenced by the cyclonic storms being more severe than in the past, and there is evidence that the Greenland ice-cap is being more stressed than normal.  There seems to be some action in Antarctica with big hunks breaking off the Ross Ice Shelf.

The ring of fire can put more junk into the atmosphere than man has since he crawled down from the trees.  It can do it in weeks or even days.  If the Yosemite caldera ever lets go, we won't have to worry about it, because most of us will be dead.  People on the west coast of North America have absorbed the information that the Cascadia fault is likely to let go anytime soon, as it is now due given historical records.  The world will do its thing, and man must adapt or die.

If the ocean depths warm too much, and the permafrost melts on the tundras, the release of methane will be such that any gases man has put in the atmosphere will be on the order of traces.

I have these things in front of me because of all the research that has been done on climate change in the last few years.  Now that it is pretty much confirmed, the ostriches had better get moving on plans or they will have to become ducks or dolphins.

[One Rincon Hill 0]

"The ring of fire is being especially active"

It's not being any more active than it ever has been. There are many facts in the form of reports on yearly earthquakes, what's your proof though?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I concede you may be correct, however, news reports have been more thorough lately, and there have been some interesting news reports.  Since I am not a geologist, I don't aver to offer proofs.  If you want proofs, try the NOAA web site.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Carbon dioxide levels in the past might have been as much an effect as a cause. The sun fluctuates its output throughout time and that usually has the greatest effect on the temperature. Low solar output can kill of animals faster than plants because there has always been a wide range of plants for all climates. Increased solar output (without massive solar storms, those would cause mass die-offs) makes the planet more hospitable and there would be a large surge in animals. Volcanic activity and cellular respiration were pretty much the only sources of greenhouse gasses from the time the earth became green to the invention of fire. Anaerobic bacteria produce more greenhouse gasses than aerobic organisms. In the 90s, the sun was in a high output season and had the highest recorded amount of solar storms out of all of history (which for this does not go very far back) and will still hold the record for a long time. Because the sun is no longer kicking it into overdrive, the earth might experience some cooling.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, the Atlantic rift, on which Iceland sits, might just have a few more contributions.  The recent European air travel problems, not the snow storms, were caused by the vulcanism in Iceland, and this is expected to continue indefintely.  Iceland is totally volcanic, having been built up from the rift over a hot spot.  New islands occur in that region for the same reason.

Volcanos release a wide mix of gases and particulates, often propelled at considerable velocities into the atmosphere.  A really big one, like Krakatoa or Santorini can cause a year or more of no summer.  This has serious implications for agriculture.

According to history, the Cascadia fault offshore of north western US and BC, is due to let go.  The last time was in the 1700s and the resulting Tsunami inundated a village in Japan and the entire North American west coast.  A big quake here might easily activate Mt. St. Helens and the other volcanos in this cordillera.  This can produce some considerable cooling, but the current warming trend might start releasing the methane from the tundra, and this is a positive feed-back loop.  There is some apparent evidence that parts of Alaska were once under a warm sea.  Tectonic mountain building has since produced features like Mt. McKinley which is the highest peak in North America.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Duke87

The problem really is that the issue is very political. "ZOMG Global Warming!" is an alarmist tool used to push an anti-corporate environmentalist agenda first, and science second.

The most hilarious concept is this idea that we need to be taking measures to stop it. We need to reduce emissions to 1990 levels! Yeah, um... the US alone put over 5 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere in 1990. It's closer to 6 billion per year these days  (source). No matter what way you slice it, we've already put a lot of carbon in the atmosphere and will be continuing to do so for years to come, even with all the efforts in the world to be more efficient and use more renewable energy. And what's more, all of that carbon isn't going anywhere. If it is in fact the key factor in climate change, then the ship has already sailed and we would be better off spending our efforts buffing up to deal with the coming changes which are now inevitable than pretending we're somehow going to reverse the trend.

Of course, nobody is going to say that, because by admitting that, we lose the ability to use global warming as a political tool.

quote>

This is a great point.  Scientists funds to continue their research is now dependant on money from politicians and worse yet political activist groups.  Science and politics do not mix and when it does science is bastardized. 

[fukuda 351]

So.. Accusing an entire field of science of academic dishonesty (a grave accusation) is your latest resort? ._.

Weather station funding does not depend on the existence or not of climate change, weather satellites will continue to measure surface temps independtly of this debate's direction.

You say the issue is political, but there's more than one side in politics... The negationist side has enough money and political power to fund researchers and build research centers too.. Where are they?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You don't understand the political bunch associated with denial of climate change.  First, like King Knut, they try to command it to stop, then having a few backers, they try to find a means to make it stop.  You can't fight them, and you can only hope they'll find a new "cause" soon.

As you indirectly point out, fukuda, facts are facts.  If you look at current weather patterns world wide, any subsistence farmer will tell you things have changed.  Snow in Atlanta; snow in Southern California;  lots more snow where I am; floods in Queensland.  There is more water vapor in the atmosphere, clearly.  How did it get there?  From warmer oceans.  There is no other place that all this water is available.  Ah, facts!  Aren't they nice?  No?  Well, deny all you want, you foolish people, the tide will come in, will you, nil you.

The monsoon season in the Indian Ocean should be the first step in wiping out Bangladesh.  These people had better be prepared to move or drown.  You might be able to live in a swamp, but you can't live underwater.

[soltangris 42]

First of all, Global warming doesn't mean necessarily warmer winters, less snow and scorching summers. If it were only that, it would be fairly easy to cope with it.

1. Global Warming can change wind patterns, water current patterns, which in turn might lead to changes in local climates all over the world. Do you know how much the Gulfstream contributes for mild weather in Europe? Do you know what's gonna happen if it dissapeares all of a sudden? 
Besides, the problem is in the major unpredictability of what exactly is gonna happen where. If it were just 'rain in the desert, heat in Philadelphia', it would be OK. But it's impossible to predict if it's gonna be so. 

2. Have you watched the news lately? As in, last couple of years? How big of a part have natural disasters taken? Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tzunamis..... the list goes on. Well, you can pretend this is all natural, but all of those happening in the same time? 

3. Climate change won't affect only humans and our cities. It will affect wild life as well. How much of it will turn up to be unprepared to adapt to changes? As in entire fish colonies dying, entire herds of animals, birds falling from the sky.... Now, how much will this affect total natural balance?  
Of course, you can pretend that all this doesn't concern us - we don't eat wild animals after all. The problem is, however, that the whole biosphere is interconnected (you learn this in elementary school), and this means if a large part of it is affected by a sudden change, the rest of it will be affected as well. So, our crops might start dying all of a sudden because of some obscure microbe, or our lifestock might sicken because of something else.

4. The total amount of water on Earth is constant, more or less, granted. However, a large part of it is in the form of ice on the two poles, and the ice on the South pole is all on land (or mostly). Which means that its mass doesn't contribute to the world oceanic level. YET. 
Now, what happens when all this mass turns liquid and goes into the ocean? 
Can you guess? 
What happens when you drop ice in a glass of water? If the glass is already full? 

New York, Rio de Janeiro, Marseilles, Brisbane, San Francisko, New Orleans, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. 

How many of these disasters our society will stand before falling apart? 

Oh yeah, we could disregard this 'world climate change' conspiracy, and continue working on new TV technology, and more cellphone designs. And more comsetics.

Or we can pull our heads from the friggin sand and do something.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Or we can pull our heads from the friggin sand and do something.quote>

Like what?  It is a geologic phenomenon and we can't stop it in spite of all the rationalization going on.

It is not even new.  We are at the end of the last ice age, and are transitioning into the next era.  In 10 decades we'll be basking in the new climate, boating in the New York archipelago, SCUBA diving in L.A., and wondering what to do with all those wandering Bangladeshis, whose country is now under six fathoms of water.  Of course, most of us will have shuffled off our mortal coil by then.  I would be nearly 200 years old then.

If anyone thinks this doesn't happen to cities, go visit Alexandria, Egypt.  Most of the great pharos is fallen underwater into the harbour because the ground it stood on sank in an earthquake.  Of the seven wonders of the ancient world (pick one of the disputed seven), only the pyramids are still around.  And we are only talking some six thousand years.  Geologically, not even a tick on the clock.

A minor increase in the temperature of the oceans has brought you the hypertyphoons and category 5 huricanes.  I think the hurricane scale is going to need revision soon.  The Beaufort scale is already obsolete.  Admiral Beaufort based it on how much sail his flagship could carry.  A modern hurricane would blow his ship to matchsticks.

So, it is time to button down, and figure out how to live on the new earth rather than longing for the good old days.  The time to start planning is past.  We are late, and we have to run very fast to catch up to where we should be.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: soltangris Have you watched the news lately? As in, last couple of years? How big of a part have natural disasters taken? Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tzunamis..... the list goes on.quote>

Wait, global warming causes earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? Amazing!

Climate change won't affect only humans and our cities. It will affect wild life as well. How much of it will turn up to be unprepared to adapt to changes? As in entire fish colonies dying, entire herds of animals, birds falling from the sky.... Now, how much will this affect total natural balance?quote>

Your point is valid, but I must point out that the whole birds falling from the sky thing is a non-story. Sudden mass die-offs of wild animals happen all the time and have been for the longest time, it's just that now all of a sudden the media started noticing.

[Easy Bakes 253]

How high would the ocean level have to rise before the  connection between the American continents

is under water?

if that were to happen everything would would change with such a difference in ocean currents.

[morriswalters 16]

Think about this.  When the tempature is at or near 98^oF and the Relative humidity is close to 100%  Man can't survive any lenght of time without protection.  The body can't work.  The current average temp at the equator is 80^oF and humidity of 80% or better.

[soltangris 42]

You know, people persist in thinking that Global Warming means hotter summer, warmer winter, rain in the desert and some cities under water. That's amuzing....

There is a huge difference between the rise of the tempretures with 2 degrees and 4 - 5 or more degrees. Indeed, we probably can't prevent the former, but we can and should prevent the later.

[mightygoose 92]

yeah i have read similiar things, that towards the middle end on the 21st century some tropical regions will be uninhabitable for up to 6-9 months of the year as the heat index will be fatal to anyone not in an isolated atmosphere suit.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: soltangris

You know, people persist in thinking that Global Warming means hotter summer, warmer winter, rain in the desert and some cities under water. That's amuzing....

There is a huge difference between the rise of the tempretures with 2 degrees and 4 - 5 or more degrees. Indeed, we probably can't prevent the former, but we can and should prevent the later.quote>

Sorry, we can't do anything about it if that is what is in the cards.  The earth and the rest of the solar system are well beyond our control, and cutting CO₂ is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the green house effects of CH₄.  If the temperature rises enough to free the methane from the tundra, let alone the deep oceans, earth will be too hot to sustain most life as we know it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

How high would the ocean level have to rise before the  connection between the American continents

is under water?

if that were to happen everything would would change with such a difference in ocean currents.

quote>

Gatun Lake (which the Panama canal passes through) has an elevation of about 40m (130 ft).

By comparison, current melting trend calls for about 20 feet of rise over the next couple centuries.

So, don't hold your breath.

When you think about it, really, 20 feet of rise isn't all that much. The area of land that's below that is pretty small, unless you live basically right on the coast you aren't going to get flooded out of your home.

The real problem with a little sea level rise isn't "climate reffugees", it's the staggering amount of infrastructure whose function is dependant on the sea level being where it currently is. A rise in sea level would mean the following:

- every port, dock, marina, etc. in the world (save for those on inland lakes and waterways) would be inundated and have to move to higher ground

- various structures whose function depends on access to water (wastewater treatment plants, power plants, etc.) will have to be moved to higher ground

- bridges which cross tidal waters will have their clearance reduced, and will be compromised by having sections of the structure not designed to be underwater end up so. Lower bridges will be flooded out completely.

- tunnels which cross tidal waters will also be in trouble if one of their portals has a rim below the elevation of the sea level rise (likely).

- major roads and railroads which run along the waterfront will end up underwater

- a rise in sea level will inevitably lead to a rise in the water table even in areas not innundated, which will cause problems with basements, subway tunnels, etc.

Fortunately, this will happen very slowly, so we have plenty of time to prepare for it.

[mightygoose 92]

duke i would beg that climate refugee might disagree with your analysis of the severity of their problem XD

[Duke87 1,070]

Yes, well, I'm not talking about the problem to any individual here, I'm talking about the big picture.

Besides, the sea level rise is slow enough that the affected areas can be gradually abandoned. Nobody has to move out anytime soon. But maybe when they inevitably eventually do, whether or not someone else should move in ought to be called into question.

Although, then you have the economic problem of previously very valuable waterfront property becoming worthless.... while the land immediately behind it suddenly becomes more valuable,

My father used to always joke about how he was looking forward to global warming because it meant we would have beachfront property.

Of course, the joke was ruined once we looked into it and discovered that we live at too high an elevation for the sea to ever come anywhere near us even with complete icecap melt.