Global Warming

[G4Z]

found this link, looks like we dont need to worry about global warming anymore



http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html


well, maybe we do, I dunno what do you guys think?

[Paul Adams]

I seem to recall some TV programme where someone (possibly Jeremy Clarke?) was grilling some Green guy over the actual contribution man has made to wrecking the ozone layer, and at one point got him to admit the total that we contribute has been estimated at around 2%.

It seems to be a popular opinion that man is so arrogant to think he has made such an impact on the planet or the ecosystem, and that ice ages are cyclical in nature - the Earth warms up and cools down every few hundred/thousand years, and we are looking at a (relatively) very short span of time on the upwards slope of the temperature cycle.

Personally it's of more concern that we rely on fossil fuels to the extent we do, with no significant (visible) effort being put into renewable energy sources.

[DaBeeeenster]

Erm, there has been a sudden rise in the temperature of the planet that coincides perfectly with a huge rise in world C02 levels, that also co-incides perfectly with the revolution that was the industrial age.

To suggest that global warming is either not here, or not man made, is to very definitely bury one's head in the sand.

I have been living in Australia for the last year, and let me tell you that the hole in the ozone layers (which was also man made) is very real.

[G4Z]

the ozone layer is a different subject really, that is caused by cfc and hcfc emissions not co2. What this article is getting at is that during earths past the temperature has been higher than it is now, usually just before an ice age and that we are in fact near the end of earths natural warm period and heading into another ice age.

[DaBeeeenster]

the ozone layer is a different subject really, that is caused by cfc and hcfc emissions not co2. What this article is getting at is that during earths past the temperature has been higher than it is now, usually just before an ice age and that we are in fact near the end of earths natural warm period and heading into another ice age.

I brought up the Ozone layer to demonstrate that man can have a significant impact on the earth and its eco-systems.

If we are heading into another ice age, why is the temperature going up, rapidly?

[G4Z]

Well, If you read the webpage it gives an explanation why. Its because the earths climate has many cycles within cycles due to the factors of orbit,tilt and output of the sun. I agree we can have a significant impact on the earth and teh ozone problem is an obvious example of this. After reading that page I have to say that global warming doesnt seem that much of a problem and we should keep going with adding co2 to the atmosphere to keep the warm period going as long as possible before the next ice age.

[turkster]

This is not bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish! It is actually quite true. I studied this abit as an archaeologist and the earth does go through cycles of hot and cold which can fluctuate quite rapidly. The quantites of CO2 in the air do also vary together with these fluctuations.

That does not mean that the present increase in CO2 levels isnt being caused by pollution.

Saying that if we are coming up for another iceage we are in just as much rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish as if the world were going to warm up a lot.

The hole in the ozone is a different matter though.

OF course the actual pollutants being produced by chemical plants and cars etc are probably just as serious as the threat of global warming. Physical and bio-accumulation of such pollutants is an increasing problem and one that could seriously effect humans in a much shorter time span than global warming.

[spazman]

If there was another ice age over half the UK would be under ice, if not more.

[Pete]

so how many years until this next ice age?
and will humans live through it?
Pete

[DaBeeeenster]

The biggest report ever undertaken on climate change is this one:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

There are some interesting points in the report, but most shocking (IMHO) are some of the graphs that were put together...



and

[DaBeeeenster]

And:

[G4Z]

dabeenster, those are graphs for surface temperature, this is not accurate due to the "asphalt effect" basicaly the heat generated from cities and roads. According to that source I gave satalite measurements have shown that there isnt much of a rise in temps overall.

[DaBeeeenster]

Do you have scientific evidence of this G4Z? Both the links to the "urban heat island effect" are broken...

http://www.marshall.org/response.html
http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/...ol97_20566.asp

Sorry, but that sounds a little dubious to me...Furthermore, do you have evidence that the temperatures used in the graph I supplied would have been affected by the urban heat island effect? I draw your attention to this part of the report I linked to...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#222

The last paper also separates rural temperature stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (Peterson and Vose, 1997) from the full set of stations which, in common with the other three analyses, have been screened for urbanisation effects. While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80°C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92°C/century). However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant. In addition, while not reported in Peterson et al., the 1951 to 1989 trend for urban stations alone was 0.10°C/decade. We conclude that estimates of long-term (1880 to 1998) global land-surface air temperature variations and trends are relatively little affected by whether the station distribution typically used by the four global analyses is used, or whether a special effort is made to concentrate on rural stations using elaborate criteria to identify them. Part of the reason for this lack of sensitivity is that the average trends in available worldwide urban stations for 1951 to 1989 are not greatly more than those for all land stations (0.09°C/decade). The differences in trend between rural and all stations are also virtually unaffected by elimination of areas of largest temperature change, like Siberia, because such areas are well represented in both sets of stations.

Are you suggesting that this web page you have provided holds more scientific credibility than this one:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

???

Additionally, how do you account for the enormous increase in C02 levels in the last century and a half?

[G4Z]

Well, I just read that page and it sounded credible to me. I have found a rather interesting weblog that covers some of the issues we are talking about here and the guy actually questions weather satelite data is actually any good. It would seem that the scientific community is just as divided on this as anybody.

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

Also dabeensteer, according tro my original source co2 levels are actually lower than they have been in earths past. " Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

I dunno, the more I look into this the less I can make up my mind about who is right on this.

[DaBeeeenster]

Well, I just read that page and it sounded credible to me. I have found a rather interesting weblog that covers some of the issues we are talking about here and the guy actually questions weather satelite data is actually any good. It would seem that the scientific community is just as divided on this as anybody.

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

Also dabeensteer, according tro my original source co2 levels are actually lower than they have been in earths past. " Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."

I dunno, the more I look into this the less I can make up my mind about who is right on this.

Mate; the oil lobby have been peddling this stuff for years. It is propaganda. There is no science behind what they say.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/n...3/wigley2.html

New Look at Satellite Data Supports Global Warming Trend
BOULDER—A new analysis of satellite data collected since the late 1970s from the lowest few miles of the atmosphere indicates a global temperature rise of about one-third of a degree Fahrenheit between 1979 and 1999. The results are at odds with previous analyses that show virtually no warming in the satellite record over the 20-year period. The findings will be published by the journal Science at its Science Express Web site on May 1.

Really, it's propaganda.

[Blub2k]

Certainly if you took away the oil lobby funding of some of the research groups then the "scientific" ( this term must be used loosely) community is not quite as split.
There has been a recent outcry by scientists to have the scientific domain returned to them just as the intelligence community sold out to politics in the run up to the war, scientists now play to their funders.