Looks like global warming is a scam

One of the problems is that in the last several years, CO2 levels have taken off like a bat out of hell. These levels are higher than we have measured recently and are really accellerating. It's actually really disturbing; some have suggested that we have filled up whatever Carbon sink was keeping levels in check for the last several years.

See: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

This was pointed to by nerfer in another thread. The irony of it is that it's on a page decrying global warming as myth.

EDIT: Ah yes. And the salient point is that, in a general sense, temperatures trace CO2 levels in the atmosphere. While people can argue about the small temperature changes that we are seeing, there's no mistaking that huge spike in CO2 levels. I really, really, really, hope I'm wrong, but the danger is that we won't know until it's too late.

 

Global warming doesn't mean every locale will get warmer. Some will be cooler, some wetter, and some drier. It's no stretch to say that weather prediction will become even more difficult than it is now.

 

Yes. Good point. "Global warming" tends to lead to greater temperature extremes. That is, hotter summers and colder winters. This is why it always annoys me when someone says, "Wow. What a cold winter we're having. All those global warming people must be wrong." :blink:

 

Global Warming is nothing new, it has happened before and will happen again, we are just here now while it is happening, it's a natural cycle and nothing we do will stop it, are we causing it to be more severe? Perhaps a little, but not as much as many would like us to believe.

 

It's unfortunate to see such ignorant blather in the Times of India. India will make a large difference in future CO2 emissions.

For discussion of the facts of global warming with actual scientists, see
http://www.realclimate.org/

 

Yes, these are all second, third, fourth order effects. A warmer global temp is a reality. And as people have already mentioned, it's the RATE OF CHANGE that is alarming. As I've said before, during the Cretaceous Period global temps were way higher. CO2 levels were MUCH higher. It also took millions of years to get that way, not 400. That's the difference.

 

Climate, by definition, is based on the most recent 30-year means. Weather is defined as what is happening today and this week. The average person cannot objectively judge if climate is changing. Instead, we rely upon major indicators such as CO2 levels, ocean temperatures and greenhouse gases.

Climate is not simply temperature, but involves effective moisture, soil temperature and soil water-holding capacity, moisture surplus and deficit, net primary productivity (grams per square meter per year), Index of Aridity, Index of Humidity, Heat Index, the summer coefficient of potential evapotranspiration and other measurements. Objective climate assessment requires measured daily values for precipitation, temperature potential and actual evapotranspiration.

Current apparent temperature increases in some areas (i.e., the poles) and increases in CO2 are major indicators. As others have stated, some areas may be cooler, wetter, more or less cloudy. Climate assessment is a "big picture" not a brief snapshot. You cannot judge climate by the seat of your pants.

 

Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now. Never before has the temperature risen so quickly. The innocent bystander theory is not well supported.

 

Hmmmmmm, would anyone dare say "Cherry Picking" the evidence? Come on I double dare ya! :lol: Just one Bush Basher from the Bush is a liar topic stand up and say this is Cherry Picking the evidence.

Wildkow

 

as others have pointed out, global warming means several things and BESIDES the increase in CO2 which is indisputable.

there is also a full calorie difference between the amount of heat shined onto the Earth from the Sun and the amount of heat reflected back into space. therefore, global warming is a fact and the increased level of CO2 is the reason why its happening. the CO2 acts as a blanket.

the problem is, and the reason why scientists feel that in 10 years we will be beyond the point of no return is that the Siberian tundra, if it thaws, will release billions of tons of methane and carbon dioxide. these gases are currently frozen but will thaw if the warming trend continues. this is a huge input of greenhouse gases that will result without burning a drop of oil.

 

Yes. I agree with you. If this one glacier retreating were the only evidence of global warming, this would be clear evidence of cherry picking. And, if the report is correct, it seems like the Lake Argentina evidence doesn't support large scale glacial melting at that location. However, there are examples of glacial retreating all over the world, including Greenland and Antarctica. These larger regions and larger-scale effects are what's really important; not what's happening in one lake.

I don't think we've seen anything like what we're likely to see in the near future with this global warming. As I said in a previous post, just look at the CO2 numbers.

 

In a December 17th Fox News story (See full report here) Steven Milloy comments on a lecture by Lonnie Thompson at the Annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. He uses a common ploy of truncating what Thompson said, to ensure that a quotation fits with his message. According to Milloy, Thompson said, “Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system.†But what he actually said was “Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don’t, we should be extremely cautious in how much we ‘tweak’ the system.†(see full press release here). Such manipulations are designed so that Milloy can’t be accused of misquoting, but clearly, he completely contorts Thompson’s point. Milloy also misunderstands the science.

In his talk, Thompson described two samples of moss that are 5,000 and 50,000 years old, respectively (based on radiocarbon dating). These samples have been revealed as the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru receded over the last few years. Milloy argues that “the plant find is a strong indication that, thousands of years ago, the high Andean climate must have been warm enough to cause the glacier to be recessed and to allow for the plants to grow in the first place…â€. That is correct. But he goes on to say, “So if natural forces caused those climate changes, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that perhaps natural forces might also be largely responsible for whatever climate changes may be occurring now?†Unfortunately, that isn’t reasonable.

Milloy makes the common mistake of confusing (1) different factors that cause climates to change (see forcings) and (2) the rates of climate change. Warming in the early to mid-Holocene (the post-glacial period that covers the last 12,500 years) resulted from changes in the earth’s orbit (as described by Milankovitch). In the western United States, many glaciers disappeared altogether at this time, only to re-form around 4500 years ago. The temperatures slowly changed as the earth’s position altered, in relation to the sun, causing the distribution of energy received on earth to change geographically and seasonally. The changes observed by Thompson (since he started studying the Quelccaya ice cap in the late 1970s) have been extremely large and rapid; in fact, the rate of ice recession has increased over time. Thompson noted in a 2003 peer-reviewed article, that “The rate of retreat from 1983 to 1991 was three times that measured from 1963 to 1983.†(Climatic Change, vol 59, p.137-159). Evidence of glacier retreat has been observed in almost all parts of the world in the 20th century, and the rate of retreat has also increased in the latter half of the 20th century. This has nothing to do with the slow changes that result from orbital forcing. It is a consequence of rapid worldwide global warming, the rate of which has increased in the last 20 years. As discussed elsewhere in these pages, there is strong evidence that anthropogenic effects are largely responsible for this warming.

On a more general point, uninformed commentators often refer to periods in the past when it was warmer, then claim that this somehow “proves†that contemporary changes are “normalâ€. But there were countless warm periods in the past that resulted from quite different conditions than those prevailing today (see this link on the Medieval period, or this link on the "mid-Holocene" period). In some cases, these were due to a different orbital configuration, or different levels of greenhouse gases, or even different world geography (lower mountain ranges, ocean seaways altered, no polar ice sheets etc). What makes the recent changes stand out is that they are extremely rapid and global in extent. Another error commonly made is to pick one spot on earth where it may have been warm, and claim that this demonstrates that the earth as a whole was warm at that time. This is also incorrect. If it was warmer in southern Greenland when the Vikings arrived, this tells us nothing about conditions in the Pacific, or Eurasia or South America. To get a true picture of whether there was “global warming†at that time requires, not surprisingly, a set of data from many places around the globe (see this discussion on one of the popular "myths" regarding past climate history). Thus, Thompson’s observation about the retreat of the Quelccaya ice cap would be interesting, but not that important, if it was the only data point we had. But it isn’t — we observe similar things happening in virtually all mountainous regions of the world.

Written by:
Raymond S. Bradley

Ray Bradley is Director of the Climate System Research Center (www.paleoclimate.org) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences. His interests are in climate variability and why climate changes, over a wide range of timescales. He did his graduate work at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. He has written or edited ten books on climatic change, and authored more than 100 refereed articles on the subject. In 2004, he received a Doctor of Science (D.Sc) degree from Southampton University (U.K.) for his contributions to the field of paleoclimatology.

 

I just yesterday recived my annual report from BP (I invested in them due to their Solar panel interest), and there were 2 very interesting numbers in there. They had actually reduced their CO2 emissions by about 3 megatons from 2004 to 2005 and had plans to reduce it further, and they mentioned that they predicted they had about 40 years of oil left, although they mentioned efficiency improvements could extend this. I guess the originator of this post would say that BP's been scammed. I would say that they are able to see the forest for the trees. One huge March snowfall does not mean global warming isn't happening, and one hot day in January doesn't mean it is.

 

This is a factual statement but there are several that will try and debunk this thread... There are people on the leaf/right & in the center who believe this is a natural cycle and not caused soley by what we humans drive heck we all exhale co2...

Its kinda like death, a dead body heats up and cools down as part of the natural order of decomposition..

Is there documentation of past scientists like from the 15-1800's that document the rise and fall of the temps regarding global warming?

It would be interesting to see the facts and figures instead of speculations from that era and before.. I mean the first time I heard about global warming was 20 yrs ago..

 

This has been said earlier, but I feel it needs to be said again. It's not just the fact that the Earth is warming up that concerns scientists. It's the fact that the Earth is warming up really, really fast. Sure, the global temperature has fluxuated by the same amplitude before. HOWEVER, those changes typically happen over hundreds of thousands of years. The changes that we're seeing now are much more rapid then changes that have happened in the past.

And, really. Look at the rate of change of the CO2 numbers. If that doesn't scare you, then I don't think that I can say anything to convince you.

 

I understand your question and while I do not have specific citations I am sure others will. Temperature estimates in pre scientific eras are based on examination of the types of flora that existed and their relative quantities at any particular time. This is done by evaluating pollen etc. in well dated samples (carbon dating etc.) Ice cores from glaciers being one source. Ice cores are also a primary source of atmospheric carbon dioxide content by measuring the CO2 trapped in air bubbles at a particular strata. Just one of many types of data that are out there in support of Global Warming. Hopefully, others will provide the citations so that you can decide for yourself.

jchu

 

As a scientist whose job it is to measure smog generated & report results to Federal & State governments, the theory of Global Warming baffles me. Yes, I am aware of more CO2. But I also know that plants need CO2 just like we need Oxygen to live. And I also am aware that CO2 is the result of a complete combustion (as over against an incomplete combustion) of gasoline. Now, CO (Carbon Monoxide) would be one of the results of incomplete combustion; we have all heard the stories of people who have been killed by CO poisioning.

Not that there isnt a problem, there is. Forests have been burned to make way for expanding human populations; much of the earths greenery has disappeared under concrete. Here in Orange County, California, Orange trees are uncommon. Instead, there are many new houses. Don't get me wrong; we need to house the worlds population. We also need to think before we tear down too much of our natural resources. And that is one reason why I bought my Prius.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finally_got_one @ Mar 29 2006, 04:10 PM) [snapback]231840[/snapback]</div>

I'm somewhat surprised by your response. What level of scientist are you? Do you have experience interpreting the data that you collect? I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but it just seems like your response avoids the main question of global warming as I understand it. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted something.

Too much of a good thing can be bad. Yes, CO2 isn't necessarily bad, but it appears that the average global temperature has roughly traced the CO2 content in the air: More CO2 content = Warmer average temperatures.

See: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_50k_yrs.html

Over the last 50K years, global temperature has roughly traced the CO2 content. Notice the huge spike in CO2 that occurs in the "present day" bin. The temperature hasn't spiked like that yet, but if we believe that the previous behavior of the climate is generally representative of what will happen, I don't think that you can believe that we aren't in some pretty serious trouble if we don't get the CO2 levels down.

I would actually be quite interesting in hearing your opinion on this. Why shouldn't I be worried?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ Mar 28 2006, 04:06 PM) [snapback]231543[/snapback]</div>

Maybe the snow came from the north pole?

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environme...al_Sea_Ice.html