Global Warming, A Good Thing? - Page 12

glyn · 02-02-2007, 19:42 PM

In the UK most people seem to think that scientists are right, and reducing "carbon footprint" is likely to become a national sport. One of the reasons for this zeal is the high taxes on fuel here. In the US your fuel although dearer than it was appears cheap in our eyes. There isn't the same incentive but the US seems to be in the Kyoto fold now - according to the newscasts I've heard. The figure bandied about is the US contributes 22% of the planets pollution, but I've not heard the Chinese or Indian figures mentioned. One disturbing fact was that Brazil clears an area of Amazonian rain forest the size of a football pitch every 18 seconds. Over-population and the rush to industrialisation by 'third world' countries certainly aren't helping matters, but it is a global problem we must all seek to address.

dave lukins · 02-02-2007, 20:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

In the UK most people seem to think that scientists are right, and reducing "carbon footprint" is likely to become a national sport. One of the reasons for this zeal is the high taxes on fuel here. In the US your fuel although dearer than it was appears cheap in our eyes. There isn't the same incentive but the US seems to be in the Kyoto fold now - according to the newscasts I've heard. The figure bandied about is the US contributes 22% of the planets pollution, but I've not heard the Chinese or Indian figures mentioned. One disturbing fact was that Brazil clears an area of Amazonian rain forest the size of a football pitch every 18 seconds. Over-population and the rush to industrialisation by 'third world' countries certainly aren't helping matters, but it is a global problem we must all seek to address.

Glyn as soon as the US Signs up then we will address the "problem" or please correct me ,have they signed the KYOTO Agreement?

highsea · 02-02-2007, 20:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave lukins

...have they signed the KYOTO Agreement?

No. And Canada is opting out, since they can't exploit the Oil sands without massive penalties under Kyoto. Australia has also refused to ratify.

Kyoto is a non-starter. A more balanced approach might have more success.

dalem · 02-02-2007, 23:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mostlymad

well, looks like more than a few right wings joined this religion:

So what? Science is not left or right wing.

-dale

highsea · 02-02-2007, 23:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

So what? Science is not left or right wing.

-dale

Hmm. Dale, I think the so-called environmental sciences are very left wing these days. Maybe I just know to many Greeners, lol.

While the scientific method per se is apolitical, the global warming crowd is a decidedly liberal bunch in aggregate, at least from my experience.

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 00:54 AM

Quote:

Evidence of Human-caused Global Warming “Unequivocal”, says IPCC

Paris, 2 February 2007 – The first major global assessment of climate change science in six years has concluded that changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps show unequivocally that the world is warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidence” (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than what could be achieved in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report.

Today’s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that the marked increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1750 is the result of human activities.

An even greater degree of warming would likely have occurred if emissions of pollution particles and other aerosols had not offset some of the impact of greenhouse gases, mainly by reflecting sunlight back out to space.

Three years in the making, the report is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available worldwide. It describes an accelerating transition to a warmer world marked by more extreme temperatures including heat waves, new wind patterns, worsening drought in some regions, heavier precipitation in others, melting glaciers and Arctic ice and rising global average sea levels. For the first time, the report provides evidence that the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are slowly losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.

“This report by the IPCC represents the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment possible of the current state of climate science and has considerably narrowed the uncertainties of the 2001 report,” said Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “Progress in observations and measurements of the weather and climate are keys to improved climate research, with National Meteorological and Hydrological Services playing a crucial role.”

“While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities. The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries. It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said.

“In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,” said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which, together with WMO, established the IPCC in 1988.

“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive. Momentum for action is building; this new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

The report also concludes that:

• If atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, this would “likely” cause an average warming of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a range of 2 - 4.5°C (3.6 - 8.1°F). For the first time, the IPCC is providing best estimates for the warming projected to result from particular increases in greenhouse gases that could occur after the 21st century, along with uncertainty ranges based on more comprehensive modelling.

• A GHG level of 650 ppm would “likely” warm the global climate by around 3.6°C, while 750 ppm would lead to a 4.3°C warming, 1,000 ppm to 5.5°C and 1,200 ppm to 6.3°C. Future GHG concentrations are difficult to predict and will depend on economic growth, new technologies and policies and other factors.

• The world’s average surface temperature has increased by around 0.74°C over the past 100 years (1906 - 2005). This figure is higher than the 2001 report’s 100-year estimate of 0.6°C due to the recent series of extremely warm years, with 11 of the last 12 years ranking among the 12 warmest years since modern records began around 1850. A warming of about 0.2°C is projected for each of the next two decades.

• The best estimates for sea-level rise due to ocean expansion and glacier melt by the end of the century (compared to 1989 – 1999 levels) have narrowed to 28 - 58 cm, versus 9 - 88 cm in the 2001 report, due to improved understanding. However, larger values of up to 1 m by 2100 cannot be ruled out if ice sheets continue to melt as temperature rises. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume caused the sea level to rise by 4 to 6 m.

• Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century if human emissions reach the higher end of current estimates. The extent of Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by about 2.7% per decade since 1978, with the summer minimum declining by about 7.4% per decade.

• Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially in spring. The maximum extent of frozen ground in the winter/spring season decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere over the latter half of the 20th century. The average freezing date for rivers and lakes in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 150 years has arrived later by some 5.8 days per century, while the average break-up date has arrived earlier by 6.5 days per century.

• It is “very likely” that precipitation will increase at high latitudes and “likely” it will decrease over most subtropical land regions. The pattern of these changes is similar to what has been observed during the 20th century.

• It is “very likely” that the upward trend in hot extremes and heat waves will continue. The duration and intensity of drought has increased over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. The Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia have already become drier during the 20th century.

• The amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now in the atmosphere far exceed pre-industrial values going back 650,000 years. As stated above, concentrations of carbon dioxide have already risen from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to around 379 ppm in 2005, while methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,774 in 2005.

• A number of widely discussed uncertainties have been resolved. The temperature record of the lower atmosphere from satellite measurements has been reconciled with the ground-based record. Key remaining uncertainties involve the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere (glaciers and ice caps), oceans, deforestation and other land-use change, and the linking of climate and biogeochemical cycles.

The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

The Summary for Policymakers for IPCC Working Group I, which was finalized line-by-line by governments during the course of this week, has now been posted in English at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The full underlying report – “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” – will be published by Cambridge University Press.

The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.

The Working Group II report on climate impacts and adaptation will be launched in Brussels on 6 April. The Working Group III report on mitigation will be launched in Bangkok on 4 May. The Synthesis Report will be adopted in Valencia, Spain on 16 November. Together, the four volumes will make up the IPCC’s fourth assessment report; previous reports were published in 1990, 1995 and 2001.

Press Releases February 2007 - Evidence of Human-caused Global Warming “Unequivocal”, says IPCC - United Nations Environment Programme

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 01:10 AM

Global Annual Temparature Trends..1976-1999

Source UNEP,WMO,IPCC...Feb 2007.

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 01:17 AM

Global surface temparature Change graph showing change in temp for last 1000 years in Northern Hemisphere and 140 yrs globally..

Source:UNEP,WMO,IPCC

gunnut · 02-03-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sombra

if you dont want to believe it dont believe

Al Gore said the debate is over.

I say it becomes a religion when the debate is over.

gunnut · 02-03-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarquezRazor

Global surface temparature Change graph showing chenge in temp for last 1000 years in Northern Hemisphere and 140 yrs globally..

Source:UNEP,WMO,IPCC

Wow, we can determine the earth's behavior and health from less than 1000 years of incomplete data. 1000 years isn't even enough to generate a trend when you're talking about time on the geological scale. Dinosaurs died off more than 65 million years ago. It took them hundreds of thousands of years to become extinct, yet it is a blink of an eye in earth's history, and we're still baffled by that.

The global warming cultists are more arrogant than I thought.

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Wow, we can determine the earth's behavior and health from less than 1000 years of incomplete data.It took them hundreds of thousands of years to become extinct, yet it is a blink of an eye in earth's history, and we're still baffled by that.

The global warming cultists are more arrogant than I thought.

Well its give in the diagram upto which is by direct measurement and which is by proxy with the help of computer models.

Quote:

1000 years isn't even enough to generate a trend when you're talking about time on the geological scale.Dinosaurs died off more than 65 million years ago.

Yes..and notice that they DIDNT give the data for the last 65 million years.And thats true 1000 years is nothing compared to the geological time scale.Thats why the data is NOT absolute,it is just a trend.

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Wow, we can determine the earth's behavior and health from less than 1000 years of incomplete data.

From the Feb2007 report posted above....

Quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidence” (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than what could be achieved in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report.

gunnut · 02-03-2007, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarquezRazor

From the Feb2007 report posted above....

And who programmed the weather model? I bet it's those scientists who believe in global warming. Garbage in, garbage out. You program the computer with a bias, the models will come out with your bias built into them.

We don't know enough about the earth's long term weather pattern to know what exactly is the norm. If we don't know what is the norm, we can't tell what is not the norm. We only assume the current trend is not the norm, based on the best educated guess we have with decent data from the last 30 years, and incomplete data from the last 1000 years.

What plunged the earth into an ice age? We weren't there.

What got the earth out of an ice age? We weren't there either.

What does it look like when the earth comes out of an ice age? Could it be...global warming?

MarquezRazor · 02-03-2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

And who programmed the weather model? I bet it's those scientists who believe in global warming.

The findings are being accepted by these following :

1.UNEP
2.WMO
3.IPCC
4.National Meteorological and hydrological services.

If they accept a data ,I am certainly not qualified to dispute them.

Added later from the report:

Quote:

The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.

Quote:

I bet it's those scientists who believe in global warming. Garbage in, garbage out. You program the computer with a bias, the models will come out with your bias built into them.

Any proof/sources saying the same?

Quote:

We don't know enough about the earth's long term weather pattern to know what exactly is the norm. If we don't know what is the norm, we can't tell what is not the norm. We only assume the current trend is not the norm, based on the best educated guess we have with decent data from the last 30 years, and incomplete data from the last 1000 years.

Yes..we dont know a lot of things and its not possible. to know ...and it is an educated guess.And here the guess is being made by qualified people and lots of research...and authenticated by various reputed organisations.

highsea · 02-03-2007, 03:06 AM

Even the models of just 10 years ago were way off. Hell, we can't even predict weather 2 weeks out with any degree of reliability.

The models are nowhere near what some people claim. You know how they calibrate them? They run them backwards against known temps in the last decade and adjust the parameters to match the records. Then they extrapolate that model out 100 years and call it a "high degree of reliability".

Lol. It's ALL guesswork.

Chaos Theory tells us that these models are only a WAG. There is no way we can define the initial conditions with the level of accuracy needed to get an accurate prediction a century out. It's arrogance on a grand scale to claim so.

02-02-2007, 19:42 PM	#166 (permalink)
glyn *Military Professional* Join Date: 09-15-06 Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK Posts: 6,886	In the UK most people seem to think that scientists are right, and reducing "carbon footprint" is likely to become a national sport. One of the reasons for this zeal is the high taxes on fuel here. In the US your fuel although dearer than it was appears cheap in our eyes. There isn't the same incentive but the US seems to be in the Kyoto fold now - according to the newscasts I've heard. The figure bandied about is the US contributes 22% of the planets pollution, but I've not heard the Chinese or Indian figures mentioned. One disturbing fact was that Brazil clears an area of Amazonian rain forest the size of a football pitch every 18 seconds. Over-population and the rush to industrialisation by 'third world' countries certainly aren't helping matters, but it is a global problem we must all seek to address. __________________ Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

02-03-2007, 03:06 AM	#180 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,585	Even the models of just 10 years ago were way off. Hell, we can't even predict weather 2 weeks out with any degree of reliability. The models are nowhere near what some people claim. You know how they calibrate them? They run them backwards against known temps in the last decade and adjust the parameters to match the records. Then they extrapolate that model out 100 years and call it a "high degree of reliability". Lol. It's ALL guesswork. Chaos Theory tells us that these models are only a WAG. There is no way we can define the initial conditions with the level of accuracy needed to get an accurate prediction a century out. It's arrogance on a grand scale to claim so. Last edited by highsea : 02-03-2007 at 03:09 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iraq fuels Global Jihad	Ray	Political Discussions	4	12-23-2006 12:43 PM
One time filtering out sharpshooter is a good thing	Lunatock	Pics & Videos	0	01-03-2006 17:28 PM
new modeling for global warming	Parihaka	Science & Tech	8	10-20-2005 21:43 PM
Global warming ,colder weather , ICE AGE!!!	Commando	The Western Alliance	66	03-07-2005 02:39 AM
The Kyoto Protocol is Dead	Gio	Current Affairs	48	01-07-2005 03:53 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)