News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.3K     0 

G

ganjavih

Guest
Now, let the non-scientist neo-con dismissing begin!

Panel affirms rising Earth temperature

U.S. scientific body studied warming data

By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published June 23, 2006

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the pre-eminent U.S. scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth have risen by an average of about 1 degree over the last century, a development that "is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

The report from the National Academies of Science also concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."

Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system," the new study signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

The academies' review focused on the controversial "hockey stick" graph, which shows Earth's temperature rising abruptly to its highest point in 1,000 years after a long period of stability.

The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and error are responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies have confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change ... or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Science Committee, who requested the study in November.

Geophysicist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that introduced the hockey stick graph, said it's time "to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties."

Though scientists have documented global warming in myriad ways--including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide--the hockey stick stood out for summarizing the issue in an instantly recognizable way.

The graph shows a stretch of stable temperature lasting for 900 years that suddenly arcs upward in the last century, resembling a hockey stick laid on its side.

"It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph," said Roger Pielke, director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research.

The graph actually drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It also became an easy target. "If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science," he said, "the hockey stick would be a lightning rod."

One attack came from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee demanded information about their data and funding sources--an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.

The crux of the dispute is that humans have had thermometers for 150 years. To determine temperatures before that time, scientists have to rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements and cave deposits.

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlate well with actual measurements during that period. They concluded that, "with a high level of confidence," global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

The report also said the panel was "less confident" that the 20th Century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data prior to 1600.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
 
Ganjavih, are you going to see An Inconvenient Truth?

“Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.“

The movie is narrated by Al Gore and is based off his book An Inconvenient Truth.

Looks pretty good although I can't find a place in the city that's going to show it yet.
An Inconvenient Truth
 
Hmm is this global warming thing really happening?

You'd need to have an accurate picture of the temperature patterns for tens of thousands of years at least in order to say with any degree of certainty that what we're experience is a) a normal earth temperature cycle, b) answer a slightly accelerated by human activity or c) global warming. Why can't a weather curve resemble a hockey stick? Do we know this hasn't happened before?

The time intelligent beings have been on this planet equates to the blink of an eye in the bigger picture. Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything in our power to to reduce our wasteful nature, it just means that we may be overreacting, which probably isn't a bad thing if government's force corporations and their citizens to clean up their act.
 
wonder,

It's important enough that we should stop poking the metaphorical bear in the eye. Climate change has the potential to disrupt our civilization to such an extent that even if it is only a slight risk it is worth short-term economic adjustment to avoid.
 
It's important enough that we should stop poking the metaphorical bear in the eye. Climate change has the potential to disrupt our civilization to such an extent that even if it is only a slight risk it is worth short-term economic adjustment to avoid.

As I mentioned, we should be doing our best to reduce emissions and harming the environment anyway. I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, it's just possible that this is the earth running it's normal course.
 
An Inconvenient Truth is playing at Bayview Village, the Cumberland, and Canada Square.

Showtimes.

We saw it on the weekend - highly recommended. Very enlightening and entertaining.

I can't believe that Wonderboy actually thinks that global warming isn't caused by human activity. Maybe you watch too much FoxNews?

Only the scientists who work for Exxon Mobile say that the humans have nothing to do with it.
 
Hmm is this global warming thing really happening?

Yes. It. Is.

You need to be taken to school. By Al Gore.

"You are hearing me talk" - Al Gore 'action' figure.
 
Whistler, yeah, I've seen it. I'd highly recommend it especially since the scientific community seems to agree with most of it.

algore.jpg


"Celebrate good times, come on!"

Al Gore: I will.
 
Now, let the non-scientist neo-con dismissing begin!

The trouble is that such a view is actually held against scientists. The task of scientists is to always question data, not to shut up. Science only advances when ideas are questioned in a clear and concise manner. If solid scientific questions are raised, they deserve respect, not political censorship. Since scientists can have considerable impact on public policy decisions, there is nothing wrong with questions arriving from non-scientists. "Arguments from authority" carry little weight. The "authorities" have been wrong in the past, and they will be wrong in the future.

Consider one aspect of the debate. There is considerable discussion concerning carbon dioxide, and the evidence to show increasing quantity of C02 in the atmosphere. Yet the most abundant cause of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is water vapour. There is no clear evidence whether abundances of water vapour have changed in the last century, or what the local variations may be. There is no clear understanding whether clouds contribute to the greenhouse effect, or reduce it by refelcting sunlight. The research to collect such information is only getting under way. As a result, no one knows for sure if the existing computer models (and they are extrapolated simulations based on very small quantities of data when compared to the actual physical environment) are accurately depicting what is happening in the atmosphere. These issues are not the conncerns of "neo-con" dismissers, but of atmospheric scientists who are actually trying to understand the complex nature of the atmosphere. Their interest is in basic science, not political jousting or public policy debates.

Climate change is as old as the planet because the planet is active. Period. The difficulty is in attempting to separate out human contributions and effects from naturally occuring processes. This difficulty is further compounded by not having any fine data concerning climate variability in the past. This is a serious problem. But it does not mean that human beings are not having a negative impact on the environment.

With respect to the issue of carbon dioxide, far too many popular press articles make carbon emissions stand alone. Carbon dioxide in the air is not at all deadly with respect to the typical quantities found in the atmosphere. Yet most of the sources of those emissions are also the causes of considerable pollutants, and have been so for a very long time. It might be time to stop making carbon stand out alone and wrap it up into air pollution issues as a complete package. It might make things more complicated, but at least it would be more honest.
 
I don't understand how you can say with absolute certainty that global warming is happening.

Please show me the earth's temperature and all weather patterns for the past several million years (still a tiny blip in terms of the earth's existance but since humans didn't evole and start polluting until very recently this should be a sufficient sample). Can you say with certainty that what's happening has never happened before? Remember that this planet's been through several ice ages.

Either way, I agree that we need to drastically clean up our act, and regardless as to what is causing the climatic changes we need to prepare for them.

*edit* bizorky well said, all I was doing was questioning how we can know this for sure... you were far more articulate.
 
I don't understand how you can say with absolute certainty that global warming is happening.


Or put another way, a warming trend as compared to what? Ten years ago? Fifty? Ten thousand? Ten million years?
 
Meh, somebodies got to keep those Glaciers away. Plus it isn't at record highs yet.

image161.gif
 
Link to image

From the journal Science, Nov 2005. Past 650,000 years. Top chart shows CO2 concentrations, and bottom shows glacier ice thickness (a measure of temperature). A direct corrleation can be seen.

An alternate view including CH4 (Methane).

"The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years of ice have now been analysed for greenhouse gas concentrations saved in tiny bubbles. The records for CO2, CH4 and N2O both confirm the Vostok records that have been available for a few years now, and extend them over another 4 glacial-interglacial cycles. This is a landmark result and a strong testament to the almost heroic efforts in the field to bring back these samples from over 3km deep in the Antarctica ice. So what do these new data tell us, and where might they lead? First of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the relationship between climate and CO2 that had been deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust. This is despite a significant change in the patterns of glacial-interglacial changes prior to 400,000 years ago. The 'EPICA challenge' was laid down a few months ago for people working on carbon cycle models to predict whether this would be the case, and mostly the predictions were right on the mark. (Who says climate predictions can't be verified?). It should also go almost without saying that lingering doubts about the reproducibility of the ice core gas records should now be completely dispelled. That a number of different labs, looking at ice from different locations, extracted with different methods all give very similar answers, is a powerful indication that what they are measuring is real."
 
The trouble is that such a view is actually held against scientists. The task of scientists is to always question data, not to shut up. Science only advances when ideas are questioned in a clear and concise manner. If solid scientific questions are raised, they deserve respect, not political censorship. Since scientists can have considerable impact on public policy decisions, there is nothing wrong with questions arriving from non-scientists. "Arguments from authority" carry little weight. The "authorities" have been wrong in the past, and they will be wrong in the future.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with this paragraph. The only people trying to shut up scientists are the neo-cons and oil execs who have a stake in all this. The belief in global warming caused by man is nearly unanimous in the scientific world, though you wouldn't get that impression by reading the lay press.

"There is near unanimous scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity will change Earth's climate."
Lancet. 2006 Mar 11;367(9513):859-69.

Consider one aspect of the debate. There is considerable discussion concerning carbon dioxide, and the evidence to show increasing quantity of C02 in the atmosphere. Yet the most abundant cause of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is water vapour. There is no clear evidence whether abundances of water vapour have changed in the last century, or what the local variations may be. There is no clear understanding whether clouds contribute to the greenhouse effect, or reduce it by refelcting sunlight. The research to collect such information is only getting under way. As a result, no one knows for sure if the existing computer models (and they are extrapolated simulations based on very small quantities of data when compared to the actual physical environment) are accurately depicting what is happening in the atmosphere. These issues are not the conncerns of "neo-con" dismissers, but of atmospheric scientists who are actually trying to understand the complex nature of the atmosphere. Their interest is in basic science, not political jousting or public policy debates.

Mann agreed, and said it would be "shortsighted to talk only about C02."

"It is extremely misleading, however, when scientists cite the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas," Mann explained. "The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere can not be controlled by us directly. It is fixed by the surface temperature of the Earth."


- Michael Mann, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author

With respect to the issue of carbon dioxide, far too many popular press articles make carbon emissions stand alone. Carbon dioxide in the air is not at all deadly with respect to the typical quantities found in the atmosphere.

That's the problem with the popular press. They don't know the difference between toxic pollution and the greenhouse effect.

Yet most of the sources of those emissions are also the causes of considerable pollutants, and have been so for a very long time. It might be time to stop making carbon stand out alone and wrap it up into air pollution issues as a complete package. It might make things more complicated, but at least it would be more honest.

I don't see what's so dishonest about saying increased CO2 is likely warming the planet. Air pollution is another issue.

No, science isn't perfect, but when there's near unanimous agreement in the theory of global warming in the scientific community and most of the bickering is coming from Republicans and oil men, guess where I put my money.
 

Back
Top