A Global Warming Poll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 11 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]301987[/snapback]</div>

GOOD GRIEF MAN! :angry: Did you even bother to read what was posted! All that you are asking for is in the post! Cites, names, credentials and publications EVERYTHING! Go back and read it again.

Why am I not surprised that you have not seen evidence that you distorted facts?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT?!?

Even if I did and even if you did distort the facts I would still not be surprised that you didn't see any evidence. <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 12 2006, 12:46 AM) [snapback]301995[/snapback]</div>

I went back and read your post. Every bit of analysis you quoted is from Michaels, as I said. You're quoting from a blog, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If you want to have a scientific debate, stop quoting from a blog, and find a credible source.

I'm not going to waste my time discrediting Michaels. He has already been discredited (ref. wikipedia).

Wildkow said, in reference to my beliefs:

I feel like I'm having a debate with Stephen Colbert! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 11 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]301890[/snapback]</div>

There's nothing arrogant, elitist, or ignorant about accepting reality.

 

Saw a scientific show recently that said temperatures may be rising, due to our reduction in air pollution. It seems the pollution we had in the 1950's-1970's restricted some of the sun's energy from getting down to the ground and caused temperatures to be lower than they otherwise would have been.

 

How can the record temperatures recorded in each state of the US be explained if humans contribute significantly to global warming ?

http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm

The record high temperatures were mainly recorded in the 1930's or earlier. Check out California's 134 degrees in 1913, yikes ! How'd you like to be in that with no aircon ?

Of the 50 states looks like only about nine states have a record high past the 1950's. Since there are way more humans now since the 1930's, more cars, more industry what gives ?

 

Global Warming is more than air temperature.

Global Warming is more than regional.

Global Warming is more than melting icebergs.

Global Warming is more than just atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

Is is global warming a religion ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 12 2006, 04:24 AM) [snapback]302048[/snapback]</div>

Except Colbert is FUNNY and SMART (and does it ironically, in case anyone wondered).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]302596[/snapback]</div>

No. But a whole lot more people better get sufficient faith in believing in it or the world WILL end...not soon, no. But, me, I want to make as sure as I can my kid's grandkids AND theirs have a habitable planet to live on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ Aug 13 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]302553[/snapback]</div>

This is referred to as Global Dimming. The increase in pollution may explain the dip in the global temperatures during the 60's/70's, before strict pollution standards were put in place, dispite increased GHG emissions. Then after the reduction in pollution, the temperatures are seen rising again.

Karnac asked:

Good question. It's because GW is a measure of global climate averages, not a measurement of regional record high temperatures. Also, the temperature rise tends to be more extreme at higher latitudes.

Then Karnac asked:

No, it's a measureable fact. Is your Prius MPG a religion?

 

Yep, I preach enough about my Prius MPG that my friends are convinced it is a religion with me. Only there I have the facts to back it up.

I read the whole thread here today, it is an interesting discussion but I didn't find evidence that there is a substantial human contribution to Global Warming.

To prove it to myself in a simple way I thought I'd just look up record high US temperatures thinking that they would be within the last 10 years because there are more people, cars and industry now than say 50 years ago. However, I learned that the record temperatures are not recent, in fact most record highs were way back in the 1880's to 1930's when there were a lot less people, cars, industry.

Taking the suggestion above to look at the whole planet, same thing is true for the whole world. The record high temperatures aren't recent, all are during the same period of time way back in the 1880's to 1930's when there were a lot less people, cars, oil and industry.

Africa - El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136 58
US - Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 134 57
MIddle East - Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129 54
Austrialia - Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 128 53
Europe - Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122 50
South America - Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120 49
Saskatchewan, Canada July 5, 1937 113 45
Middle East/Asia Persian Gulf Aug. 5, 1924 96 36
Antarctica Vanda Station Jan. 5, 1974 59 15
South Pole Dec. 27, 1978 7.5 -14

So if worldwide, all of the continents have record high temperatures 70- 110 years ago from the 1880's - 1930's when there fewer people, cars and industry than now , how is the human contribution to Global Warming explained ? If it can't be explained but is instead belief (like a religion), it is OK there is nothing wrong with that.

 

One more time.

Global Warming isn't just record high temperatures.

Did you read all of the LINKs and not just the content of the posts?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 05:28 PM) [snapback]302689[/snapback]</div>

Really interesting data. I like the way you think, and I really like that you are doing your own research, and using good sources!

Here's a way you can see the data in terms of climate, rather than just the single highest events. Look for annual mean temperatures. Here's NY City:

http://home.att.net/~ny_climo/NYAVMEAN.gif

and Los Angeles

http://home.att.net/~station_climo/LACVANN.GIF

and Minneapolis/St Paul

http://home.att.net/~minn_climo/annmean.gif

Here's Australia

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_.../20060104.shtml

This one shows the global and U.S. data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]302576[/snapback]</div>

for Olympia other than a three day stretch in 1967, all 100+ degree days were recorded in 1989 or later

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 01:54 PM) [snapback]302596[/snapback]</div>

No, silly, it's a floor polish.

No, wait, it's a desert topping.

No, wait, it's both!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 13 2006, 01:41 PM) [snapback]302591[/snapback]</div>

Global Warming is both a desert topping, and a floor wax!

Act now; operators are standing by.


You know, all being silly aside, it's amazing to me, that anyone who has lived in the USA the last thirty years can't see the negative side effects of all the pollution. I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, but man. I just know the planet is ill.

And, since I don't have kids to worry about, I'm just trying to help the planet since, you know, it helps me by providing me with air and things like that there.

Yeah, simple to say, simple thinking, but why make this so difficult? Clean air is a good thing, and we should all be trying to make the air we breath, less polluted.

Okay, so now all you serious types, can get back to saying you're right, you're wrong. I'll just do my bit and encourage others to help out as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Aug 13 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]302788[/snapback]</div>

need to clarify this post since it doesnt read right. actually all current record high temperatures over 100º were set in1989 or later except the 1967 stretch.

more importantly, my area only averages 9 days a year in the 90's. we have more than doubled that average 3 times in the past 4 years. only last year (14) didnt. so if looking at record highs, sure some areas have old records. if looking at overall weather, some areas seem average. despite the surge in 90º+ days here, we still are near 50-50 in days above average and below average (52-48 doesnt count days that hit the average) over the past 3 years. (summer times only, too lazy to look at winter)

to put it in perspective, average summer highs for June 72, July, 78, August, 76. so as you can see, 90º is WAAY over average

 

I like doing my own research to learn about a topic. I've found that so much of TV, radio, internet and print media is information that is taken out of context to make a point.

Dragonfly, I checked out the data you linked and it shows a definite recent heating trend in major cities, however, it is only over a speck of time in the 4 billion year history temperature cycle of the planet. So I thought what has happened in those cities you listed over the last 50 years that could have increased the temperatures and I had (for me) a brillant thought, could it be that there is more asphalt, concrete and buildings over the last 50 years in those listed cities ? Turns out there have been studies on that and it can have a big impact.

http://www.nus.edu.sg/corporate/research/g.../research34.htm

The mystery still remains though. Can't figure out why the record worldwide high temperatures were set back in the 1880s to 1930s. Could be an artifact. To prove that we'd need alot more infomation over time. Meaningful surface temperatures only began being recorded after 1860's so there is pretty much no long term cyclical data. We are missing about 4 billion years of information.

DaveOlyWA, I looked up the overall record high temperature for the state of Washington, it was 118 degrees, Aug. 5, 1961 at some place called Ice Harbor Dam at an elevation of 475 ft. Were the recent Olympia temperatures taken downtown among building, concrete and asphalt ?

 

Like stated above, Global Climate Change is based on average temp increase or decrease, not nessecarily isolated peaks in cities which could also be suffering from "urban heat islands" or other anomolies.

A lot of the misinformation going around can be blamed on BIOSTITUTES and media hype over FRONTIER SCIENCE as apposed to the more widely professionally accepted CONSENSUS SCIENCE.

It's a well known fact that we know alot about our climatic systems YET there is also a lot we don't understand and as such conclusions to gathered data are going to vary. That being said the vast majority of climatologists and others in very closely related fields agree that global climate change is occuring and anthropogenic factors do play a part.

Generally speaking, most people think that the planet is this stable environment and has been throught its history. That is not the case at all. There have been very large climate fluctuations in the past that would make the last ice age look like a cool summer breeze. The "Snowball Earth" (where 90%+ of the earth was covered in snow and ice) events occuring 750-630 Mya were followed by extremely hot conditions and it is hypothisized that it only took 1,000yrs or so to melt the majority of the planet's ice. That is, geologically speaking, a very short amount of time for such a massive climate change. My point is that the climate is not stable. It can and has shifted rather dramatically and as stated in this thread, what appears to be a very small change in temp. can have catestrophic effects on ecosystems as well as our daily lives since we rely 100% on the environment.

One last opinion.... Many people argue that large scale volcanism (a huge producer of CO2) in the past has dumped high volumes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and we survived and the world didnt end, yet what they fail to recognize is that durring the time period of those "super volcanoes" there was very little in the way of anthropogenic pollution or systems degredation yet climate changes were recorded. Now, saturate the atmosphere with anthropogenic pollution, severely damage carbon sequestration systems, then have one of these "Super Volcanoes" go off and tell me what you think will happen? For fun and truely spectacular effects we can warm the planet enough (a couple degrees) to melt methane hydrate (23 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) deposits and release those into the atmosphere further warming the planet. Not enough? Well there is also the tundra regions and the melting of their permafrost soils which acts as a HUGE carbon sink. Allow the soil to defrost and organic materials begin to decompose and release CO2 back into the atmosphere. Positive feedback loops can have some amazing results

Some Sources:

Lost World
Snowball Earth
Sustaining the Earth
Ecological Literacy
State of the World 2006-Special Fouc China and India
Crimes Against Nature - Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Living in the Environment

The other info is based on schooling and studying California ecosystems (Western/Eastern Sierra, Central Valley, Coastal Range and White/Inyo Mountains as as the foothills)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 15 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]303719[/snapback]</div>

Not that I have confirmed that these temperature records from the 1880s to 1930s that you speak of are real - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that.... But what people in this thread have already pointed out is to you is that AVERAGE temperatures are higher these days than they were in the past. The fact (if true) that many one-day temperature records were set a lifetime ago doesn't contradict this at all. Maybe you need to study statistics too.

Meanwhile, here's a super simple example that might show what I mean. Consider two sets of numbers. What is the average for each group?

3 + 6 + 7 + 3 = 19 the average is 4.75

4 + 6 + 5 + 5 = 20 here the average is exactly 5

But the first set has the highest number i.e the "record".

Catfish?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 15 2006, 04:03 PM) [snapback]303719[/snapback]</div>

Yes, absolutely right, dark surfaces absorb heat; light surfaces reflect it. So there is definitely a potential effect here. To test it, we need to look at cities that have had relatively stagnant growth over the past 50 or 100 years, or else look at areas not near cities. I'll see if I can find anything out there. Another thing to look at are the satellite measurements, since they don't distinguish between populated areas; these do show a similar temperature rise (ref. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery), but from what I understand, what you are looking for are direct measurement to back up these graphs. I'll see what I can find.

It is an interesting question. The dust bowl was in the 1930's. Maybe this accounts for the anomalies during that time.

Anyhow, as has been said a few times, GW is based on averages, so these anomalies don't do anything to discount GW.