Anybody here actually believe in all this Global Warming malarky?

The thing about global warming seems to be if you send the same message out to the public enough times it eventually becomes fact, I love it that in the media it is now reported as an absolute truth and how so many people are sucked into this and blindly believe what they are spoon fed by the media and the world Governments

Global Warming is a theory and not a Fact, there are many Scientists world wide who believe that the theory is wrong.

Much of the data we have is very conflicting:-

Sea Levels are rising - Scientists can not even agree on how sea level should be measured let alone that it is rising, also much of the land is still rising after the last ice age.

CO2 levels - the amount of CO2 output by Volcanoes, the sea and land is a large proportion of the total annual amount.

Water Vapor - could turn out to be a bigger contributor to climate change than CO2.

Ice Caps melting - some are some are not, 90% of the ice in the world is in Antarctica, the central icecap is getting thicker, the margins getting thinner. Some of the worlds glaciers are meting, some are getting larger (Mount St Helens is one).

Land Temperature - figures may be skewed by the heat output by towns & cities also the data is pretty sketchy and only goes back a few years.

Recent Past - 2000 Years ago the Romans grew grapes in Northern England, Mini-Ice Age in the 1700's both long before the industrial revolution.

The Sun - data is starting to come in that the output form the Sun is increasing and has been for several years, this will have a bigger impact on Climate Change then anything else.

Myself I do not believe in Global Warming, but I do believe in Climate Change which is just a natural process of this planet and started when the first rain drops fell.

In the end mankind with either adapt or will be wiped out, but the life and the planet will go on for a long time yet.
 
No it is a FACT and not a theory. Nothing else can account for the recent warming. There is not a infinitude of factors that can account for this etc. Climate is about thermodynamics basically as that is well understood by science.
 
conundrum said:
No it is a FACT and not a theory. Nothing else can account for the recent warming. There is not a infinitude of factors that can account for this etc. Climate is about thermodynamics basically as that is well understood by science.
Click to expand...


If you claim to know as much as you act like you do about the subject you should know that it is a theory, and a relativly contriversial one at that. The earth is one of most complicated things imaginiable. Climate in layman terms is yes basicly thermodynamics, but theres a massive difference between understanding climate, let alone climate change, and your basic rate of heat change between two different temperatures in contacting pieces of material. Which is thermodynamics. Somthing as complicated as climate change involves hundreds if not thousands of variables, and CO2 immisions is just a part of it. And like said before volcanoes and other natural occurances create huge amounts of CO2.
 
Last edited:
conundrum said:
No it is a FACT and not a theory. Nothing else can account for the recent warming. There is not a infinitude of factors that can account for this etc. Climate is about thermodynamics basically as that is well understood by science.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I do not think you understand Science at all, Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven.

So Global Warming Theory is not a FACT as nothing in Science ever is.
 
Arcade Fire said:
That's 30 billion people, with 99% of people living in poverty. Realistically there's no way that the earth can comfortably support that many people. We can't even comfortably support 6.5 billion people without having most of them living like peasants. The average estimate for 'comfortable' standards of living seems to be between 2 and 5 billion people (source).

Population growth is by its nature exponential. What might be considered important is the 'doubling time' which is the time it takes for the population to double (surprisingly). The current rate of growth is between 1 and 1.5 percent per year, which gives a doubling time of approximately 50 to 70 years. So by 2075 we might expect to have 13 billion people on the planet, if growth rates remain approximately constant.

At some stage though, there is going to come a point where we physically can't support everybody on the earth, at any standard of living whatsoever. We'll be so grossly overpopulated that we wouldn't be able to feed everyone if we tried (at the moment we have enough food for 10 billion people, we're just extremely bad at distributing it). Let's say that stage is your figure of 30 billion people. When we reach that, we'll enter a period of massive population crash known as 'die-off', where famine and pestilence will be at unheard of levels, and we'll very quickly decrease to a more manageable population. There's an example in the page I linked to where 19 reindeer were introduced to an area. Their population increased to over 6,000 at which stage the area could no longer support them, and they died in droves over a very short period, until there were less than 50 remaining.

What's shocking, though, is that we'll have almost no warning of this until it happens. Even twenty years beforehand it will look like we have enough resources to go around. Consider bacteria living in a petri dish, which has enough space to support a million bacteria. Let's say they double every minute (unrealistic, but it helps for the example) and that they'll reach maximum population in 60 minutes. At 59 minutes they'll only fill up a mere half of the dish and they won't see any problem at all. It's only at about 59 1/2 minutes that they'll start to think that it's getting a bit crowded. So that's 59 1/2 minutes of perfectly happy growth, and then 30 seconds warning before they all start dieing. Scary, huh?
Click to expand...

Woah, steady on there Malthus! I think you missed the point about famine, pestilence and vice. :p

Maybe you'd like to comment on Boserup's theory.
 
It is fact within the bounds of our present knowledge and understanding. Sure something could come along and poo poo the entire climate change science of thermodynamics but I doubt it somehow. What you are talking about is rare and does not happen often. Just typical philosophical hype.
 
danrok said:
The fact is sea levels are rising. This means that, most likely within our lifetimes, large areas of land will be reclaimed by the sea. It just isn't always possible to build better sea defences, they cost too much.
Click to expand...

this is also a simplified myths. Sea level around coast lines have actually droped by an average of 0.6mm its not untill you get into deep wate that sea levels have actually risen, If i remember its something like 1.2mm...
It was in the new scientist a few years ago..
 
Arcade Fire said:
What's shocking, though, is that we'll have almost no warning of this until it happens. Even twenty years beforehand it will look like we have enough resources to go around. Consider bacteria living in a petri dish, which has enough space to support a million bacteria. Let's say they double every minute (unrealistic, but it helps for the example) and that they'll reach maximum population in 60 minutes. At 59 minutes they'll only fill up a mere half of the dish and they won't see any problem at all. It's only at about 59 1/2 minutes that they'll start to think that it's getting a bit crowded. So that's 59 1/2 minutes of perfectly happy growth, and then 30 seconds warning before they all start dieing. Scary, huh?
Click to expand...

What you're talking about is that the population is doubling itself over a said time - now we're bordering the land of demographics. The problem is you're assuming that this is how the human race will develop. What if a couple were to just have two children? This would effectivley just be replacing themselves. You're not considering fertility, migration, birth and death rates, the age of the population either.

Some states implement methods to control population growth - India gave free vasectomies and China adopted the one child policy. The problem with China is the case of the "little emperors" as all families wanted a male child etc and now there will be an uneven balance in a generations time.

The UK is considered under-populated and the simple argument for this is based on economics - the government wants you to have children. If they didn't you wouldn't get child benefits, instead they would make it considerabley more difficult for you to have children. In China, if a family have two children, they are heavily taxed.

What a lot of you people have started to debate about is the argument between population vs. production / resources and the carrying capacity of a given nation.

I suggest you read or look up:

Thomas Malthus (Malthusian Model)
Ester Boserup (Boserup thesis) [Strong Anti-Malthusian]

There is also lots of material out there based on population demographics.
 
Nix said:
The UK is considered under-populated and the simple argument for this is based on economics - the government wants you to have children. If they didn't you wouldn't get child benefits, instead they would make it considerabley more difficult for you to have children. In China, if a family have two children, they are heavily taxed.

What a lot of you people have started to debate about is the argument between population vs. production / resources and the carrying capacity of a given nation.
Click to expand...

The issues are linked. Our government preaches of the need to lower CO2 emissions while simultaneously espousing economic and population growth, giving the go-ahead for new airports etc which inevitably leads to increased CO2 output.

In any event, as someone said earlier, man learns to adapt to his environment and we should do that rather than try to alter the world's climate which I find laughable, and we have about as much chance of doing as Canute did at stopping the tide.
 
conundrum said:
No it is a FACT and not a theory. Nothing else can account for the recent warming.
Click to expand...

Thats RUBBISH!
My previous post outlines at least one factor (possibly) responsible for recent temperature change. You cant simply say "Its all humans and not cycle" blah blah. May I ask who you are to make sweeping remarks without quoted sources or references? I could point you to a number of scientific papers that explain the diversity of factors affecting global temperatures.

Anthropogenic greenhouse effect - yes - could be responsible for some of the temperature raise, but no-one knows how this effect compares to the magnitude of the effect from natural sources. Temperatures 125,000 years ago exceed our current average temperature yet humans emerged approximatly 100k years ago and so cant be to blame for that.

conundrum said:
Man made climate change is not caused by known cycles
Click to expand...
Of course not - because the cycles are natural. My point is that you can't dismiss the cycles as you dont know how they compare. my previous post showed that contributions from CO2 estimates and the effect of low cloud cover (natural) are almost equal in magnitude. Now that just one possible natural explanation. It really does go above just orbital periodicites (Milankovitch Cycles) as you seem to suggest.
 
Last edited:
Like I say, all naturally occuring cycles are accounted for in the scientific literature. My main supply of scientific inforamtion is from www.realclimate.org which was setup by the climate science group at NASA and which involves large numbers of artciles and discussions from climate sciencetists in general. All material is strictly science based.

Here is one such article from the site relating to alleged new evidence stating that we can see human mande climate change as long ago as 8000 years. The work appeared in scientific american (as controversial work often does) and a full discussion of it is presented here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=223

The site deals with all climate related issues in the same manner. Detailed and deep as it is written by climate scientists for the initiated.

This site above all others tells you that humanmade climate change via fossil fuel burning is the current best explanation for current rising global temperatures and I challenge you to one respected alternative !!! ??
 
conundrum said:
Like I say, all naturally occuring cycles are accounted for in the scientific literature.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the full effects of solar cycles for example can not be fully understood and therefore cannot be modelled.

I've kind of lost what you are trying to say on the issue:- You've said that its all attributed to human influence above the natural cycles. Well thats kind of obvious to say that anything un-natural is.... well from un-natural methods.

What I'm saying is that scientists are not sure how the magnitude of human effects compares to inherant effects from natural methods. Yes the cycles may be well understood, i.e orbit inclination - albedo and so forth, but subtleties such as how increase in UV emissions affect aerosols in the atmosphere is not well understood.
The discovery of the modulation of cosmic ray flux is a very new theory with some evidence to suggest it plays a role in climate variation - but I stress it plays a part.
 
I am sure that climate science probably would like to take into account other factors but from I can understand of this site and the links it posts to tell me and leave me in no doubt that human made climate change is currently the best answer to the recent climate changes and rising temperatures experienced here on earth.

This from Gavin Schmidts web site regarding recentclimate change.

Modelling recent climate change
This topic is a main focus of work at GISS, and recently, I have been working with Drew Shindell and others in examining whether the some specific circulation changes in recent Northern Hemisphere climate (the Arctic Oscillation trend) can be reproduced in models. Interestingly, it appears that only models that include a well resolved stratosphere capture this part of climate change realisticly. Two papers discuss this in more detail: a 1999 Nature article and a more thorough explanation in more recent paper. There is also a popular science report that explain this more clearly. A comparison of all the models in the IPCC AR4 project has recently also been completed (Miller et al, (submitted)). One region where the combination of dynamic and radiative impacts appears to be clear is in the Southern Hemisphere around Antarctica. There the combination of stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gas changes is discussed in Shindell and Schmidt (2004).

The popular science report he refers to is here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_04/

As opposed to the real scientific stuff posted in the same article tells me that rising global temperatures are human made.

Tell me otherwise
 
There are many good reasons for reducing man made emissions other than it's postulated contribution to the Greenhouse Effect.

For instance methane is a far more effective GHG than CO2 (4-5 times more effective if memory serves) but it is also broken down into a free radical by UV light in the upper atmosphere which in turn breaks down ozone.

An another effect of the increased Co2 concentration is that more carbon dioxide is absorbed by the sea. This can be seen as a good thing as this is a carbon sink ie counters the greenhouse effect.
Unfortunately the CO2 in the ocean increases the acidity fractionally (it's dilute Carbolic Acid, like fizzy pop). Israeli research has shown (sorry no link) this has a detrimental effect on tiny crustacea with limestone shells at the base of the foodchain.
 
conundrum said:
Tell me otherwise
Click to expand...

I've tried... The scientific community is split over this topic. Some (like you) are adament that anthropogenic greenhouse effect is the only factor. Others (like me) acknowledge that the question is which effect dominates. Is the current rise primarily due to humans or are we seeing natural variation with a little human added? Finally there are those that deny any temperature increase at all (believe it or not). Belief that we know outright how much is due to human influence due to our 100% correct models is a real stretch of my scientific mind, based upon my research.

M Lockwood "A doubling of the suns coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years" Nature volume 399 page 437 (1999)
E Friis-Christensen "Solar variability and climate: a summary" Space Science Review 94 page 411 (2000)
N Marsh & H Svensmark "Cosmic rays, clouds and climate" Space science review 94 page 215 (2000)
H Svensmark "Cosmic rays and the Earths Climate" Space Science Review 93 page 175 (2000)

^The first paper by a lecturer of mine details recent solar variation breakthrough, followed by a few review papers that tie solar variation to climate.

The problem with these ideas, is they get shot down by political science, despite having conclusive evidence that support them. The politicians want "the" answer, and the truth is there isn't one universal constant to describe whats going on - we have yet to tie it all together.

I'm just going to end up repeating myself now. I know I'm not an expert, but I've read around and can appreciate the complexity to the extent where someone saying "we know all" is rubbish.
 
I am not saying "we know all" but if you look closely at the detractors you will find that what they put forth is actively criticised by the majority of climate scientists. Now as we both agree that it is a complex topic it is WISE to take a consensus view and that view is that human made climate change is real.

Rather than denying the solar radiation issue they actively discuss it here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

But in the end they do a good job of refuting it, there is not politics, only science.
 
As long as we both agree. An interesting read, but it deals with only one method of sun-earth-climate interaction (concentration of radionuclides). I'm unsure of their conclusion of the last 50 years having no change in solar variation... but I suppose thats open to the individual's interpretation.. [/politics] ;)
 
A recent study of a 2 mile long ice bore from Antarctica shows that the current level of carbon dioxide is 22% higher than the highest levels for the last 650,000 years!!!
Mickey_D said:
That's what they said about the earth being flat
Click to expand...
The general view, even in 500AD, was that the Earth was a sphere, not a flat disk. It's a common myth, but many people wrote about the curvature of the Earth in the middle ages. Even back in the time of the Greeks a few people had worked out the size of the globe to within 5% of the known value!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom