Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Coragyps · 05-07-2002, 07:04 AM

Moon, you forgot the winkyface graemlin!!!

Hastur · 05-07-2002, 07:55 AM

<<Staring morosely at the fat, ugly, vile flakes dropping like frozen fairy turds to the ground outside>>

Global warming my ass. Can't get here soon enough to suit me.

Late_Cretaceous · 05-07-2002, 08:11 AM

That disgusting white stuff just missed us by a few miles. You know, maybe it's anectdotal but spring comes later and later each year. Here it is a whole week into may and the trees are still barren, the grass is still brown, there is still ice in my rain barrel. It looks more like the end of march then the begining of may. I think the likely hood of a new ice age is more probable and more daunting then an extended growing season

Gooch's dad · 05-07-2002, 08:29 AM

As others have pointed out, global warming IS happening, the question is whether humans are accelerating it significantly.

There are naysayers, but they are often pulling some of the tricks that creationists pull. I've seen a 'scientific paper' circulated on the internet that claims to prove that GW isn't real. Problem is, the research cited in this paper is either distorted or long out of date.

I've heard it put this way--we are conducting an experiment with our entire ecosystem, and we don't know the likely outcome. Does it make sense to just shrug and say 'well, we'll see what happens'? Or would it make a lot more sense to trust the early indications, that the anthropogenic effects ARE very real? If so, we really ought to be considering the consequences, and alter our policies.

Scientists aren't really arguing over whether GW is happening--the question is whether the global mean temperature will go up 1.5 deg C or 8.5 deg C in the next 100 years.

-Kelly

Morat · 05-07-2002, 08:42 AM

Late: Just because average global temperature is increasing doesn't mean it's getting hotter in your neck of the woods.

Climate is quite complex, you know. From what I recall, the offshoot of current global warming trends would be a cooling trend in the SE United States.

It's perfectly possible, and indeed expected, for some areas to get cooler and wetter.

The nasty part of global warming isn't so much the temperatures, or the sea level, as much as it is the potential for large scale shifts in weather patterns. Minor changes in annual rainfall, for instance, can screw some locations completely.

Late_Cretaceous · 05-07-2002, 09:07 AM

I have heard that a study of ice cores tropical glaciers indicate that the last couple of decades have been the warmest in several thousand years. So lets say the world is in a warming trend. Is that trend likely to continue in that same direction?

Could a slightly warmer arctic/antarctic may experience more snowfall in the winters, and contribute to growing glaciers if the summers there are not warm enough to melt all the accumulated snow?

Could increased rainfall and growing seasons, along with increased human produced CO2 enhance plant growth on such a scale that net CO2 absorbtion actually increases?

There are probably many systems that could respond in such a way as to create negative feed back loops as well as postive.

My point is that a trend may be evident, but that does not necessarily mean that it will be a sustained trend.

Ultimately, I think there is evidence for vast changes in climate over time, both long and short term. THere is evidence that not all climate changes have been slow. Undoubtably almost any human activity influences climate (the mere presence of cities, dams and farmland change weather patterns). We live in a world where climate is in a state of flux, and just about anything we do on large scales can influence the climate. The thing is that it is far far to complex to predict. We should accept the reality that climate change happens, and that yes we do have an influence/impact on it. If should somehow try and engineer, modify of mitigate the climate it would likely proove to be even more disasterous.

Alonzo Fyfe · 05-07-2002, 10:29 AM

If it turns out that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have no effect on the planet, we will need to rethink and redo a lot of basic chemistry and physics.

Some people think that the global warming thesis says, "Look, the planet is getting warmer. What could be causing this? Maybe it is human emissions of greenhouse gasses." To refute this line of reasoning, skeptics look for other potential causes (such as solar radiation and natural variations).

In fact, the global warming thesis was first presented 100 years ago, and it effectively states that, "given what we know about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2, methane, and similar glasses, the emission spectrum of the sun, and the emission (reflection) spectrum of the earth, if we significantly increase CO2 concentrations, the planet should get warmer."

100 years later, we now have significantly greater concentrations of greenhouse gasses (CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppmv to 370 ppmv).

These increased concentrations are most reasonably attributed to human action (humans are putting 7 ppmv additional CO2 in the atmosphere each year, though atmospheric concentrations are only going up at 3.5 ppmv/year, reasonably suggesting that nature is absorbing the other 3.5 ppmv but can't quite keep up with us).

So we are now in the midsts of a huge planet-wide experiment. If the planet gets warmer, we see that those 100-year-old assumptions hold up. If not, we need to rethink those 100-year-old assumptions.

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

scombrid · 05-07-2002, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous:
<strong>That disgusting white stuff just missed us by a few miles. You know, maybe it's anectdotal but spring comes later and later each year. Here it is a whole week into may and the trees are still barren, the grass is still brown, there is still ice in my rain barrel. It looks more like the end of march then the begining of may. I think the likely hood of a new ice age is more probable and more daunting then an extended growing season</strong>

Spring was about three weeks early here this year. It really frigged with my sample design for my thesis as my design was based on the arrival and spawning of fish. Early spring meant early spawning run.

Anyhow, warming appears to be occurring on average. That doesn't mean that every year is going to be warmer. The weather is rarely average. If you look at graphs of annual mean temperature for any one location, they tend to look like seismographs. With annual variation of the magnitude that we see it is hard to guage on feeling "well this year was certainly cold". People tend to remeber the extremes. Smoothing out the annual variation at most reporting stations world wide reveals an upward trend in mean temperature over the last century. Additionally satellite imagery reveals an earlier annual start to the growing season worldwide. Warming appears to be real but might be an extension of the post glacial-maxima warming that has led to the recent increase in sealevel and the formation of my favorite estuary, the Chesapeake Bay.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased. <a href="http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/figures/co2mm_mlo.jpg" target="_blank">CO2</a>
We may well be accellerating warming. Whether we are or not isn't as of much concern to me as the fact that we have actually been able to measure a shift the composition of the atmosphere as a result of human activity. Even if we aren't influencing climate we still need to concern ourselves with discharge to the atmosphere. I really don't like the fact that I have to be careful what pelagic (never been near our polluted coasts) fish I eat because of the atmospheric depostion of mercury to the open ocean.

Alonzo Fyfe · 05-07-2002, 01:20 PM

One of my favorite fallacies with respect to global warming is "I haven't noticed much of a difference where I live, therefore global warming is not happening."

It's a bit like saying that "my stock in XYZ Company is up 10% this year, therefore the economy is not in a recession."

cheetah · 05-07-2002, 03:47 PM

Whether it's manmade or not, I think the idea that there is warming is undeniable, no? I mean, look at the Antarctic and the vast expanses of ice and glaciers that have sloughed off and melted in the last few decades, or Glacier National Park, or the Arctic Circle, or some scientific research that is better than me just naming names...

Is it man-made? I personally think we have a lot to do with it. But what I think doesn't matter, because I don't know. I do know that if it is nature so be it, and if it is man made, it pisses me off. I'm very double standardish that way.

A funny thing I once read (sorry that I cannot remember where) is that the most significant amount of greenhouse gases come not from our cars, but from the livestock required to maintain our nutritional lifestyle. AKA the cows are pooping and farting too much and the methane is starting to ahve a bad effect on our atmosphere.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2002, 07:04 AM	#11
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Moon, you forgot the winkyface graemlin!!!

05-07-2002, 07:55 AM	#12
Hastur Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Carcosa Posts: 238	<<Staring morosely at the fat, ugly, vile flakes dropping like frozen fairy turds to the ground outside>> Global warming my ass. Can't get here soon enough to suit me.

05-07-2002, 08:11 AM	#13
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	That disgusting white stuff just missed us by a few miles. You know, maybe it's anectdotal but spring comes later and later each year. Here it is a whole week into may and the trees are still barren, the grass is still brown, there is still ice in my rain barrel. It looks more like the end of march then the begining of may. I think the likely hood of a new ice age is more probable and more daunting then an extended growing season

05-07-2002, 08:29 AM	#14
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	As others have pointed out, global warming IS happening, the question is whether humans are accelerating it significantly. There are naysayers, but they are often pulling some of the tricks that creationists pull. I've seen a 'scientific paper' circulated on the internet that claims to prove that GW isn't real. Problem is, the research cited in this paper is either distorted or long out of date. I've heard it put this way--we are conducting an experiment with our entire ecosystem, and we don't know the likely outcome. Does it make sense to just shrug and say 'well, we'll see what happens'? Or would it make a lot more sense to trust the early indications, that the anthropogenic effects ARE very real? If so, we really ought to be considering the consequences, and alter our policies. Scientists aren't really arguing over whether GW is happening--the question is whether the global mean temperature will go up 1.5 deg C or 8.5 deg C in the next 100 years. -Kelly

05-07-2002, 08:42 AM	#15
Morat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 932	Late: Just because average global temperature is increasing doesn't mean it's getting hotter in your neck of the woods. Climate is quite complex, you know. From what I recall, the offshoot of current global warming trends would be a cooling trend in the SE United States. It's perfectly possible, and indeed expected, for some areas to get cooler and wetter. The nasty part of global warming isn't so much the temperatures, or the sea level, as much as it is the potential for large scale shifts in weather patterns. Minor changes in annual rainfall, for instance, can screw some locations completely.

05-07-2002, 09:07 AM	#16
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	I have heard that a study of ice cores tropical glaciers indicate that the last couple of decades have been the warmest in several thousand years. So lets say the world is in a warming trend. Is that trend likely to continue in that same direction? Could a slightly warmer arctic/antarctic may experience more snowfall in the winters, and contribute to growing glaciers if the summers there are not warm enough to melt all the accumulated snow? Could increased rainfall and growing seasons, along with increased human produced CO2 enhance plant growth on such a scale that net CO2 absorbtion actually increases? There are probably many systems that could respond in such a way as to create negative feed back loops as well as postive. My point is that a trend may be evident, but that does not necessarily mean that it will be a sustained trend. Ultimately, I think there is evidence for vast changes in climate over time, both long and short term. THere is evidence that not all climate changes have been slow. Undoubtably almost any human activity influences climate (the mere presence of cities, dams and farmland change weather patterns). We live in a world where climate is in a state of flux, and just about anything we do on large scales can influence the climate. The thing is that it is far far to complex to predict. We should accept the reality that climate change happens, and that yes we do have an influence/impact on it. If should somehow try and engineer, modify of mitigate the climate it would likely proove to be even more disasterous.

05-07-2002, 10:29 AM	#17
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	If it turns out that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have no effect on the planet, we will need to rethink and redo a lot of basic chemistry and physics. Some people think that the global warming thesis says, "Look, the planet is getting warmer. What could be causing this? Maybe it is human emissions of greenhouse gasses." To refute this line of reasoning, skeptics look for other potential causes (such as solar radiation and natural variations). In fact, the global warming thesis was first presented 100 years ago, and it effectively states that, "given what we know about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2, methane, and similar glasses, the emission spectrum of the sun, and the emission (reflection) spectrum of the earth, if we significantly increase CO2 concentrations, the planet should get warmer." 100 years later, we now have significantly greater concentrations of greenhouse gasses (CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppmv to 370 ppmv). These increased concentrations are most reasonably attributed to human action (humans are putting 7 ppmv additional CO2 in the atmosphere each year, though atmospheric concentrations are only going up at 3.5 ppmv/year, reasonably suggesting that nature is absorbing the other 3.5 ppmv but can't quite keep up with us). So we are now in the midsts of a huge planet-wide experiment. If the planet gets warmer, we see that those 100-year-old assumptions hold up. If not, we need to rethink those 100-year-old assumptions. [ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

05-07-2002, 01:20 PM	#19
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	One of my favorite fallacies with respect to global warming is "I haven't noticed much of a difference where I live, therefore global warming is not happening." It's a bit like saying that "my stock in XYZ Company is up 10% this year, therefore the economy is not in a recession."

05-07-2002, 03:47 PM	#20
cheetah Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,118	Whether it's manmade or not, I think the idea that there is warming is undeniable, no? I mean, look at the Antarctic and the vast expanses of ice and glaciers that have sloughed off and melted in the last few decades, or Glacier National Park, or the Arctic Circle, or some scientific research that is better than me just naming names... Is it man-made? I personally think we have a lot to do with it. But what I think doesn't matter, because I don't know. I do know that if it is nature so be it, and if it is man made, it pisses me off. I'm very double standardish that way. A funny thing I once read (sorry that I cannot remember where) is that the most significant amount of greenhouse gases come not from our cars, but from the livestock required to maintain our nutritional lifestyle. AKA the cows are pooping and farting too much and the methane is starting to ahve a bad effect on our atmosphere.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.