Discuss.
Specifically, why has temperature not risen by ~10°C?
source images:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … 400kyr.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … -petit.png
Discuss.
Specifically, why has temperature not risen by ~10°C?
source images:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … 400kyr.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … -petit.png
Not enough time to rise by 10C. You have to consider the fact that oceans and forests act as carbon sink. When they stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it, we're in real trouble - deforestation at a truly staggering rate doesn't help.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
we need to stop deforestation (god damn i sound like a hippie), but the industries arent as bad as the seem as the ocean holds more carbon than we as humans can produce in 100 years
I would agree that we need to stop deforestation as well. There are more immediate and less debatable concerns connected to pollution, and we need to address those.
But then also look at more detailed graphs of recent temperature change, eg:Spark wrote:
Not enough time to rise by 10C. You have to consider the fact that oceans and forests act as carbon sink. When they stop absorbing CO2 and start releasing it, we're in real trouble - deforestation at a truly staggering rate doesn't help.
And you can see that that huge spike of CO2 emissions is actually only having a very small effect (~0.05-0.1°C between 2000 and 2004, judging from above graph) whereas something clearly had a huge driving effect on pre-historical temperature change.
Could not that something still be the main driving factor?
Addendum:
William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine wrote:
"I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
source: http://www.livescience.com/environment/ … rming.htmlRichard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial last April for The Wall Street Journal wrote:
"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.
"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-03-23 07:55:09)
My physics professor always quoted a guy who said: "Never trust statistics that you didn't fake yourself."
Did you ever question yourself how one could have measured temperature anomalies of about 0.1° in the year 0, or even the meedieval times? After hundreds of year we can just estimate the approximate temperatures, so the graphs given are some nice fiction.
I wonder how much he got paid for this statement - I mean, what do you think, who's got the better paying lobby: Those who want to sell their fossil fuels or those, who... who... well, the others, you see!
Oh by the way: The worst things are rice fields and farms in general. They produce hell-a-lot of CH4 (methane). This one is really 'killing' us, if anything. Also, planes, which produce exhaust gases that can't be filtered, of course, are quite bad. But that's it more or less.
Anyway, we'd rather keep an eye on chinese paddy fields, it's not necessary to have rice growing in steadily rotting water.
Did you ever question yourself how one could have measured temperature anomalies of about 0.1° in the year 0, or even the meedieval times? After hundreds of year we can just estimate the approximate temperatures, so the graphs given are some nice fiction.
Yeah, so he's never heard about the fact that a higher amount of Carbondioxide in the atmosphere affects light/energy absorption, meaning that a lesser amount of the energy/warmth delivered by sunrays will exit our atmosphere again?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine wrote:
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
I wonder how much he got paid for this statement - I mean, what do you think, who's got the better paying lobby: Those who want to sell their fossil fuels or those, who... who... well, the others, you see!
Oh by the way: The worst things are rice fields and farms in general. They produce hell-a-lot of CH4 (methane). This one is really 'killing' us, if anything. Also, planes, which produce exhaust gases that can't be filtered, of course, are quite bad. But that's it more or less.
Anyway, we'd rather keep an eye on chinese paddy fields, it's not necessary to have rice growing in steadily rotting water.
Last edited by Stormscythe (2007-03-23 08:42:20)
What do the differently coloured lines represent?
They're different reconstructed temprature profiles from the different methods of reconstructed said profiles - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.aardfrith wrote:
What do the differently coloured lines represent?
And the two graphs I used to construct the comparison graph in my OP, came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change.
I specifically picked these graphs because they're from the Wikipedia sections on global warming. These are the graphs that the 'human causes camp' use to back-up their claims. See my reply to aardfrith, above, for sources...Stormscythe wrote:
My physics professor always quoted a guy who said: "Never trust statistics that you didn't fake yourself."
Did you ever question yourself how one could have measured temperature anomalies of about 0.1° in the year 0, or even the meedieval times? After hundreds of year we can just estimate the approximate temperatures, so the graphs given are some nice fiction.
Hey, he's the "hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University" not me.Stormscythe wrote:
Yeah, so he's never heard about the fact that a higher amount of Carbondioxide in the atmosphere affects light/energy absorption, meaning that a lesser amount of the energy/warmth delivered by sunrays will exit our atmosphere again?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine wrote:
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
Also I love the way you underlined the part that says exactly what you said in your first point which is also exactly what I'm actually saying - which is "question everything"...
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-03-23 10:15:17)
And yet, we've come to a point where we should not only question everything, but also understand what the problems are.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Also I love the way you underlined the part that says exactly what you said in your first point which is also exactly what I'm actually saying - which is "question everything"...
And I can only repeat and repeat it: CO2 hinders thermal radiation to be emitted into space. Basically, every molecule does this to photons, it changes their direction. Now, the larger the molecules are, the higher the chances that a photon will change it's direction between two of them. That's also why CH4 is even worse than CO2.
My point is that we mustn't say: Hey, it's not CO2, so let's go on and pollute everything! We obviously forget that what is not a problem yet, may eventually become one. China with it's uprising economy blows their CO2 and whatever out of their chimneys - unfiltered. If we don't understand what this means for our environment, how should one ever be able to realize it in a controlled country like China?
Global temperature change is not affected by CO2 levels, global temperature change affects CO2 levels. Basically, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2, and warmer temperatures are caused by solar changes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Here are a few graphs to compare...
Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by FAR:
Although CO2 is the second most prevalent gas, all of the other greenhouse gases combined including CO2 account for very little compared to water vapor, about 5% of greenhouse gases.
Atomspheric water vapor is almost entirely caused by nature:
Even when looking at CO2, human impact is dwarfed by nature's:
So the percent of greenhouse effect that is caused by human activity is only around 0.28%
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Here are a few graphs to compare...
Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by FAR:
Although CO2 is the second most prevalent gas, all of the other greenhouse gases combined including CO2 account for very little compared to water vapor, about 5% of greenhouse gases.
Atomspheric water vapor is almost entirely caused by nature:
Even when looking at CO2, human impact is dwarfed by nature's:
So the percent of greenhouse effect that is caused by human activity is only around 0.28%
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
Last edited by LawJik (2007-03-23 15:23:39)
A very interesting programme. I missed it when it was on TV - my housemates saw it and gave me the lowdown. Thanks for posting it. +1LawJik wrote:
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Ice cores.Stormscythe wrote:
My physics professor always quoted a guy who said: "Never trust statistics that you didn't fake yourself."
Did you ever question yourself how one could have measured temperature anomalies of about 0.1° in the year 0, or even the meedieval times? After hundreds of year we can just estimate the approximate temperatures, so the graphs given are some nice fiction.Yeah, so he's never heard about the fact that a higher amount of Carbondioxide in the atmosphere affects light/energy absorption, meaning that a lesser amount of the energy/warmth delivered by sunrays will exit our atmosphere again?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine wrote:
"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
I wonder how much he got paid for this statement - I mean, what do you think, who's got the better paying lobby: Those who want to sell their fossil fuels or those, who... who... well, the others, you see!
Oh by the way: The worst things are rice fields and farms in general. They produce hell-a-lot of CH4 (methane). This one is really 'killing' us, if anything. Also, planes, which produce exhaust gases that can't be filtered, of course, are quite bad. But that's it more or less.
Anyway, we'd rather keep an eye on chinese paddy fields, it's not necessary to have rice growing in steadily rotting water.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Are you going to try and actually debunk Scorpion's soruces?LawJik wrote:
Global temperature change is not affected by CO2 levels, global temperature change affects CO2 levels. Basically, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2, and warmer temperatures are caused by solar changes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Here are a few graphs to compare...
Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by FAR:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270f.gif
Although CO2 is the second most prevalent gas, all of the other greenhouse gases combined including CO2 account for very little compared to water vapor, about 5% of greenhouse gases.
Atomspheric water vapor is almost entirely caused by nature:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270a.gif
Even when looking at CO2, human impact is dwarfed by nature's:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270b.gif
So the percent of greenhouse effect that is caused by human activity is only around 0.28%
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
And be realistic here. How would you graph CO2 vs. 400 000 years using hte same scale, without making it ridiculously small or ridiculously long?
Also: NATURAL VARIATIONS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAPPEN INSIDE A HUNDRED YEARS.
Once again:
Source: US Govt.
Last edited by Spark (2007-03-23 17:16:33)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The most important fact remains that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming IS occuring BECAUSE of human inteference.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
great my heating bill will go down and I will use less fuel which will cause less global warming. doh, I swear I just can't win.Spark wrote:
The most important fact remains that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming IS occuring BECAUSE of human inteference.
Do NOT quote my post if you aren't even going to read it.Spark wrote:
The most important fact remains that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming IS occurring BECAUSE of human interference.
I specifically mention that TEMPERATURE DRIVES CHANGES IN CO2 levels, NOT the other way around, that's why your graph looks so believable.
You see the gap from 1940-1960, around the time where there was a huge up swing in industrialization and man-made CO2 emissions, but temperature drops. The documentary goes into much more detail about this period of time but long story short, your wrong.
If you actually read my post, and watched that documentary, you would understand that you have been misled, and CO2 has little to no affect on global temperature, especially man-made CO2.
Edit: Saying natural variations don't occur over 100 years is soooo incorrect. Look at your graph, or any graph, looks like alot of change, think if we zoomed in on a 100 year scale there would be no movement? That does not make any sense at ALL. Also, why did you feel the need to post 3 times in a row? Got Edit?
Last edited by LawJik (2007-03-23 19:45:07)
Think about the affect plant life can have on this "global warming"(yes i am a sceptic), but if we have ons of plant life everywhere (stoping deforestation and a big replanting project) i bet that our CO2 levels would drop like a rock. (plant+co2=oxygen)
I agree that stopping deforestation is crucial, and that large scale forest replanting needs to take place.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
Think about the affect plant life can have on this "global warming"(yes i am a sceptic), but if we have ons of plant life everywhere (stoping deforestation and a big replanting project) i bet that our CO2 levels would drop like a rock. (plant+co2=oxygen)
...and, to get the best results, turn highways and airports back to forests first.
And my point is that we musn't say: "Hey, it's CO2, so let's just ignore everyone that's saying it might not be CO2".Stormscythe wrote:
And yet, we've come to a point where we should not only question everything, but also understand what the problems are.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Also I love the way you underlined the part that says exactly what you said in your first point which is also exactly what I'm actually saying - which is "question everything"...
And I can only repeat and repeat it: CO2 hinders thermal radiation to be emitted into space. Basically, every molecule does this to photons, it changes their direction. Now, the larger the molecules are, the higher the chances that a photon will change it's direction between two of them. That's also why CH4 is even worse than CO2.
My point is that we mustn't say: Hey, it's not CO2, so let's go on and pollute everything! We obviously forget that what is not a problem yet, may eventually become one. China with it's uprising economy blows their CO2 and whatever out of their chimneys - unfiltered. If we don't understand what this means for our environment, how should one ever be able to realize it in a controlled country like China?
Cutting back on CO2 is a 'good thing'TM either way. But if CO2 isn't the cause, we could end up backing ourselves into disaster because we're too busy looking the wrong way...
and that's all that matters.Spark wrote:
The most important fact remains that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming IS occuring BECAUSE of human inteference.
These morons can site GOVERNMENT graphs all they want. If 95%+ of ACTUAL scientists say somethings wrong, your unscientific theorized bullshit means nothing.
1. yes natural variations can happen inside a hundred years. In fact every day teh tempurature fluctualtes around 20FSpark wrote:
Are you going to try and actually debunk Scorpion's soruces?LawJik wrote:
Global temperature change is not affected by CO2 levels, global temperature change affects CO2 levels. Basically, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2, and warmer temperatures are caused by solar changes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Here are a few graphs to compare...
Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by FAR:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270f.gif
Although CO2 is the second most prevalent gas, all of the other greenhouse gases combined including CO2 account for very little compared to water vapor, about 5% of greenhouse gases.
Atomspheric water vapor is almost entirely caused by nature:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270a.gif
Even when looking at CO2, human impact is dwarfed by nature's:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270b.gif
So the percent of greenhouse effect that is caused by human activity is only around 0.28%
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
And be realistic here. How would you graph CO2 vs. 400 000 years using hte same scale, without making it ridiculously small or ridiculously long?
Also: NATURAL VARIATIONS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAPPEN INSIDE A HUNDRED YEARS.
Once again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lation.jpg
Source: US Govt.
2. U.S. goverment has, and always will be, full of shit
As I said in an earlier post - I used those graphs 'cos they're the ones the 'human CO2' camp use to back-up their arguments. I was just pointing out that those graphs don't actually show what those people say they show (that CO2 drives temperature). In fact they show quite the opposite. They show that temperature isn't driven by CO2...LawJik wrote:
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
Gee, what a great response. Fantastic way to argue that a source is bad, they're 'full of shit'. Well done.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
1. yes natural variations can happen inside a hundred years. In fact every day teh tempurature fluctualtes around 20FSpark wrote:
Are you going to try and actually debunk Scorpion's soruces?LawJik wrote:
Global temperature change is not affected by CO2 levels, global temperature change affects CO2 levels. Basically, warmer temperatures cause the oceans to release more CO2, and warmer temperatures are caused by solar changes.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:
[google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831[/google]
Here are a few graphs to compare...
Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by FAR:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270f.gif
Although CO2 is the second most prevalent gas, all of the other greenhouse gases combined including CO2 account for very little compared to water vapor, about 5% of greenhouse gases.
Atomspheric water vapor is almost entirely caused by nature:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270a.gif
Even when looking at CO2, human impact is dwarfed by nature's:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageM … ge270b.gif
So the percent of greenhouse effect that is caused by human activity is only around 0.28%
Scorpion used a terrible graph, why you would think superimposing a graph which on the x-axis changes in units of 200 with a graph with an x-axis changing in units of 50,000 would show precise changes?
And be realistic here. How would you graph CO2 vs. 400 000 years using hte same scale, without making it ridiculously small or ridiculously long?
Also: NATURAL VARIATIONS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAPPEN INSIDE A HUNDRED YEARS.
Once again:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … lation.jpg
Source: US Govt.
2. U.S. goverment has, and always will be, full of shit
Natural variations - don't be a complete idiot. You know perfectly well that I mean (and everybody else means) AVERAGES.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
As I mentioned, forget about climate change, what about the pollution in the air, poisoned rivers, poisoned fishes that we EAT from the ocean.
