BF2S Forums global warming

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

I'm kinda in shock here. firstly vilhelm. how can you be so quick to moan about everybody just saying things without backing them up? when all you have done with your UV issue is to say that it does melt ice fact. i have no sources but i don't need any because it is a fact........erm if you can find some sources to backup this fact then you will add more credibility to your argument.

secondly your arguing that UV from the SUN IS MELTING THE ICE CAPS, yet it is our fault that the temperature is rising. if it is so then why this emphasis on the sun?

and just to reiterate. we cannot stop global warming. we do not have the technology. Whether we agree that we caused global warming or not. the evidence agrees that if we stop polluting the temperature will not stay the same. as before we were here the temp changed. so if we pretend not to be here it will still change. so how does anybody propose to stop the temperature changing?

and i understood the link to the planets. he wasn't saying it as a proof merely showing that the sun is likely to be effecting other planet's climates. so it will be effecting ours as well.

kr@cker wrote:

the one area that humans have impacted, the ozone layer, has been repairing for years now, just a few links of many


http://www.livescience.com/environment/ … _hole.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1050495.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1050495.stm

Vilham wrote:

we CAN NOT rely on fossil fuels for energy, they quite simply are one of the least worthwhile ways of making energy with lots of energy being wasted.

can you show me one better? if it's so bad then why is it still the most used? the fact is that every so called "green" energy source, has it's own crippling achilles heel, my company specializes in alternative forms of energy production, from windmills to solar cells, and believe me, if solar cells could replace Plant Scherer, we would know about it, as well as be trying to sell a new solar plant

my company's website, just a quick link to a small wind project, there's probably more, but truth be told i never want to look at my work's site

http://www.noresco.com/site/content/news_pr_353.asp

Darth_Fleder wrote:

I think that some have missed this so I would like to again point out...CO2 is NOT pollution, it is as essential to life on this planet as oxygen. 

and Vilham...

The Alfred Wegener Institute wrote:

3. Does a growing ozone hole result in faster ice melting in the polar regions?
No, there is no direct link between melting ice in polar regions and the hole in the ozone layer.
Sunlight is made up of different classes of electro-magnetic radiation. There is heat energy (infra-red or IR radiation), which, for example, results in a feeling of warmth when the sun shines on our skin. There is also the visible radiation (VIS), which allows our eyes to see and to distinguish colours. Another important portion of sunlight is not visible to human eyes: the ultraviolet, or UV radiation. This is the fraction responsible for sunburn if we sunbathe for too long. The ozone layer absorbs a large proportion of the UV radiation in sunlight, whereas infra-red and visible radiation passes through it more or less unhindered. This means that, in areas beneath an ozone 'hole', higher UV radiation is found, while the intensity of IR and VIS radiation is hardly different. That is, it does not become warmer or brighter. Accordingly, no more ice melts beneath an ozone hole than beneath an intact ozone layer.
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/ClickLear … ma3-e.html

...once again because I notice you still cling to the notion.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

...once again because I notice you still cling to the notion.

mooncricket wrote:

It's real. This summer has been the hottest ever in the United States. It's been close to 100 here in Alabama every day. Never happened before.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2006-07-20 17:08:21)

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64 wrote:

A survey of state climatologists by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that there is little support for the global warming hypothesis. When asked if they agreed with the statement by President Clinton, "The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact, that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate." 36 percent agreed, while 58 percent disagreed.

Asked whether "recent global warming is largely a natural phenomenon," 44 percent said yes while 17 percent said no. Nine out of ten surveyed agreed that "scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time." Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors," and 61 percent said that the historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels." http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=64

S. Fred Singer wrote:

The ambiguous phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" has been (mis)interpreted by policymakers to mean that a major global warming catastrophe will soon be upon us;

wikipedia wrote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
This figure summarizes the 400 years of regular sunspot number observations. Since ~1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figure are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).

The most prominent feature of this graph is the ~11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.

On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principle causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png

Little Ice Age From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling lasting approximately from the 14th to the mid-19th centuries (some say from 13th to 17th), although there is no generally agreed start or end date: some confine the period to 1550-1850.

SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project wrote:

Is the climate stable or is it changing?

The climate is never just "average"; it changes all the time, from season to season, year to year, and over the millennia. And that includes not only temperature, but rain, snow, droughts, storms, and every conceivable feature of the weather. So watch out when you read about the "hottest year", "longest drought", or "biggest hurricane".

But are there long-term climate trends? Is it getting warmer or is it getting colder?

The correct answer is: Yes. It all depends on the time scale you choose. The global climate has warmed over the last 100 years, but not appreciably over the last 50 years. And it is colder now than it was 1000 years ago. And did you know that over the last 50 years the frequency of hurricanes has been dropping?

Are human activities influencing climate?

Yes, of course. The rise of agriculture and the growth of cities have changed the local climate significantly. With rising populations and rising industrial activity there have also been some worldwide changes: Temperature extremes have softened, the stratosphere is cooling, the frequency of hurricanes has been diminishing--all of these are thought to be human influences on the atmosphere. But this does not mean that there will be a catastrophic or even a substantial warming of the climate in the next century.

But isn't there climate warming already because of the increased burning of fossil fuels--oil, gas, and coal--that creates more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

True, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are rising, but the climate seems not to be warming. It did warm greatly between 1880 and 1940--long before CO2 increased significantly. But since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed--even though CO2 levels rose.

And why hasn't climate warmed, when theory clearly expects this to happen?

The answer must be that even our best current models of the atmosphere are incomplete and leave out important features. Only in the last few years have modelers started to include ocean currents, atmospheric aerosol particles and dust into climate models. Most now suspect that clouds are the reason why models and observations do not agree.

So, would a global warming be good or bad?

Probably both, but warming is definitely better than cooling. It is certainly better for agriculture and therefore for basic human existence. All historical evidence shows that during the warm periods of the Middle Ages people were better off than during the hard times of the "Little Ice Age" (1650-1850) when crops failed and people starved.

When it comes to it, what can we do about climate warming?

We can do little about the climate itself, but we could try to stop the increase of atmospheric CO2. Even that task is daunting; it requires that we cut emissions--worldwide--by 60 to 80 percent. In effect, this means cutting energy consumption by comparable amounts--including all transportation, heating, air conditioning, and electricity use. It would have an enormous negative impact on people's welfare--particularly for the poor and those in developing countries.

http://www.sepp.org/

IPCC wrote:

there are particular uncertainties associated with clouds and their interaction with radiation and aerosols.

IPCC (again) wrote:

Clouds and humidity remain sources of significant uncertainty but there have been incremental improvements in simulations of these quantities

IPCC wrote:

Confidence in the ability of models to project future climates is increased by the ability of several models to reproduce the warming trend in 20th century surface air temperature when driven by radiative forcing due to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. However, only idealized scenarios of only sulphate aerosols have been used.