What's new
By:
Filters
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Global warming?

  • #41
xvart said:
We also live on a planet that looks nothing like it ever has before and has had severe weather and climate changes so many times.

xvart.
Click to expand...

also just try looking at forest covers all over before civilisation

8.gif


Having lived in India and travelled to many of the Indian places by road...I can CONFIDENTLY say that there is no such tropical forest there apart from its remnants which are small patches. :(

Life on earth has evolved for millions of years. Forest fires have burnt down big great forests, but they have then been rejuvinated as the nutrients are returned to the soil.

All I can say is: Try to take an outsider perspective. Imagine yourself for a second being a spectator looking at earth hundreds of years ago: Its diversity and richness. Compare that to now. Just look at how useful trees are to soaking up the carbon. Once again....a forest is not the same as having an exotic tree planted in your backyard. In the forest, each tree is its own ecosystem. Everything eventually boils down to "wise use". Yes, there have been hotter years before, but look at the data people posted above: nearly more than 5 to 6 years since 2000, global temps are hitting an all time high. There is increased flooding and other natural disasters. There is an attenborough video which shows how ice is just collapsing at the poles.


aahh...I know I veered off into another topic. But, still they are all related.
 
  • #42
vraev in the last 4000 years the Sahara region went from grasslands to desert, suppose that was our faul as well? not disagreeing that mans wiping out forests in areas but MAJOR changes also started before the industrial revolution.

Finch.....they must not have changed it everywhere......i know they are being damn quiet about changing the data.

go here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

and start ranking the years........NASA has just fixed these numbers in the last week or two. what apparently happened is a math/statistics nut type person was looking over NASA's graph of data of temps over the lat 100 years and noted a statistical anomaly with the data from Jan. 1 2000 to present. this guy looks at numbers all day every day and something didnt look right. he contacted NASA for their algorithm. NASA refused so by going by thier data he reverse engineered the algorithm. and sure enough their was a "bug" in it as a result of Y2K. Steve McIntyre contacted NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen(the guys who put together the graph) and showed them the problem, Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

so NASA's old data is screwed up, any stories using that data are WRONG........please see the above list i posted and see if you come up with a different ranking from th 1-10 list i posted above.................
 
  • #43
Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org, while inspecting historical temperature graphs, noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide [McIntyre ]with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

[McIntyre] notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
 
  • #44
It's amazing how desperate people with latch on to any tiny anomaly in hopes that it's make the truth go away.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

To quote the webpage, which actually does real analysis, the effect of this correction is absolutely insignificant.

And rattler, desertification is a red herring - it has more to do with management of soil and water resources than actual temperature. The Dust Bowl happened in the US because of poor soil management, not temperature. Try to stay on topic.

Mokele
 
  • #45
what in the hell does the dust bowl have to do with anything..........i didnt once bring it up......what i brought up is the fact that one of the main places ppl screaming about global warming saying that present day is warmer than the past as far as scientifically recorded temps is WRONG cause they f'ed up.

yah know what...................im done...................
 
  • #46
what i brought up is the fact that one of the main places ppl screaming about global warming saying that present day is warmer than the past as far as scientifically recorded temps is WRONG cause they f'ed up.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the link? Evidently not. The previous difference between 1934 and 1998 was 0.01 C, and now it's 0.02 C in the other direction.

That the largest point changed is totally irrelevant - what matters is the statistical results which showed that there was no significant difference.

You want to know the *REAL* truth? We moved to a new data source, and in spite of calibrations, there was a miniscule offset which snuck through. It was quickly spotted and corrected, and this alteration had no effect whatsoever on the overall conclusions beyond a trivial re-ordering of a list.

Read. The. Links.

Mokele
 
  • #47
You! Over there! Your mother wears combat boots!

And you! Over there! I know you are but what am I!?!

OK, now that we're past all that, let's look for some common ground here. I think just about all of us can (or should) agree that Al Gore is an awful front man for any cause he might step in front of. We should also agree that both sides have a large number of uninformed zealots. I won't say which side I think has more, because I'm looking for common ground. Finally, I think we should all agree that various industries are bankrolling the anti-global warming advocacy movement not out of some newfound concern for truth, but because they make money from the existing framework. Anyone who can't agree with those three points is a fool.
 
  • #48
AND... whether or not global warming is fact or fiction, I believe it has at least to some degree got people about thinking about important life decisions and making people become better consumers in terms of renewable resources and environmental effects.

xvart.
 
  • #49
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewable resources (the sooner the better) that don't pollute not only for environmental concerns but also for this country's independence from foreign fuel. However I'm very skeptical and admittedly unread on this topic because I just don't believe good predictions can be made about the climate. For instance I believe it was in 70's when scientists were crying Global Cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling). I mean common our weather meteorologists with X dopplar radars can't even predict tomorrows weather forecast correctly and sometimes not even the day of (unless you're lucky enough to live in San Diego).
 
  • #50
Three things:

1) Global cooling never had any scientific support - it was just a media scare. Contrast that with the indisputable scientific consensus on global warming.

2) Local, small-scale effects are hard to predict because minor and unknown variations can effect them. Global, large-scale effects are easier to predict because local, small variation is insufficient to affect the system as a whole. For example, say I weight a pair of dice so they should come up with high numbers more often. I cannot possibly predict what the next roll will be, only that over the next 30 rolls the average will be greater than 7.

3) Actually, climate simulations are quite good at predicting climate, though of course they continually need to be refined. In fact, the first major climate model to address global warming, produced in 1988, has predicted the past 20 years quite well for something that came out a computer with maybe 10 megs of RAM. See here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/#more-447

So basically, global cooling is not a worthwhile comparison, there are valid reasons why large-scale modeling is easier than small-scale, and climate models have actually proven themselves to be accurate.

Mokele
 
  • #51
This just in from the Washington Times....

Article published Aug 14, 2007
Inside the Beltway


August 14, 2007


John McCaslin - Before Gore

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

Worth pondering

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
 
  • #52
Irrelevant.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Basically, the climate has been warming since the 1850's, but in the 1940's, the trend reversed due to increased sulfate aerosols. When the aerosol concentration diminished again, warming resumed. In essence, we had a temporary reprieve (which was not without its own consequences, namely acid rain).

Your cited article is meaningless, and only points out that there were warming trends both before and after the sulfate dip. It in no way undermines anthropogenic climate forcing.

Mokele
 
  • #54
Lordy! Is this thread still alive? ???
 
  • #55
not yet *cocks gun.

Lets put it out of its misery…



BANG
 
  • #56
bpullin, how about a source of information that *isn't* totally discredited?

If you actually do some real research, you find that global-warming skepticism is like creationism: a bunch of objections which may superficially make sense, but evaporate upon examination.

Mokele
 
  • #57
Finch missed. The only way to end one of these things is to turn it into religion-based free-for-all. You ever notice how Jesus was thin, neat and single and travelled around with twelve men who were the same? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
  • #58
Mokele did mention the word creationism which tends to open the pandoras box of religious free-for-all and causes debates to quickly decend into people calling each other ignorant. Which is always the best kind of debate.:-))
 
  • #59
OK, we're waiting . . .

. . . hmmm, maybe all the religious people are busy burning books and oppressing their women.
 
  • #60
Well, today is supposed to be the Sabbath. Maybe they are saving their energy for tomorrow when they all go to church?



:-))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top