Author Topic: what do you think about the global warming crisis (Read 6618 times)

emzvab12 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 07, 2007 - 01:29:18 PM »

It most definetly is a consensus among real scientists that Global Warming is indeed a problem and is caused by human effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report in February of 2007 that stated humans are causing Global Warming. The report was based on the work of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries, and concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. The IPCC was founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in recognition of the problem of global warming. The recent report issues by the IPCC, named AR4 is the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130 countries are contributing to this assessment, which represents six years of work. More than 450 lead authors have received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.

Here are some signs of Global Warming that are happening now:

� Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

� The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

� The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

� Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

� Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting�for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

� Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching�or die-off in response to stress�ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

� An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

And about the "global cooling," there was never a consensus among scientists, nor any scientific proof behind that theory, it was just hyped by the media. Global Warming may be discussed by the media often, but also has the scientific proof behind it that global cooling never had.

As far as Greenhouse Gases, a National Research Council study dated May 2001 stated, �Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth�s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and sub-surface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.� In the U.S., our greenhouse gas emissions come mostly from energy use. These are driven largely by economic growth, fuel used for electricity generation, and weather patterns affecting heating and cooling needs. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from petroleum and natural gas, represent 82 percent of total U.S. human-made greenhouse gas emissions. Another greenhouse gas, methane, comes from landfills, coal mines, oil and gas operations, and agriculture; it represents 9 percent of total emissions. Nitrous oxide (5 percent of total emissions), meanwhile, is emitted from burning fossil fuels and through the use of certain fertilizers and industrial processes. Human-made gases (2 percent of total emissions) are released as byproducts of industrial processes and through leakage.

Pistol Gripper · « **Reply #46 on:** July 07, 2007 - 02:51:44 PM »

OK,

Real scientists ?

OK, I'll post it again: Of the 19,700 signatures that the global warming project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data.

While most of your points can be refuted by quoting different studies or organisations, it still boils down to man isn't causing it, if it is even happenning at all. At 3/10 of one percent contribution, someone needs to explain to me how man is at all to blame.

And before anyone calls BS on me, I'll quote a couple studies on the other side of the isle.

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

In a study reported in The Holocene 11:563-577 (2001), Dr. J.N. Kasper and Dr. M. Allard examined the growth and decay of ice wedges on the shore of Hudson Strait in northern Quebec.

As described by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (www.co2science.org), "Ice wedges are a widespread and abundant form of ground ice in permafrost regions of the world that deform and crack the soil. During colder periods, ice wedge activity is enhanced, while in warmer periods it is minimized, thus providing a record of climate change."

Studying the ice wedge record of the Hudson Strait over the past 4,000 years, Kasper and Allard discovered the following: Cold conditions existed from the beginning of the record until about 140 A.D. Between 140 and 1030 A.D., however, the climate warmed. From 1040 to 1500 cold conditions recurred, and the cold spell dramatically accelerated from 1500 to 1900 during the Little Ice Age. A short warm period prevailed from 1900 to 1946, since which time the climate has once again cooled.

According to the IPCC, the earth warmed from 1900 to 1940, cooled from 1941 to 1965 and has warmed
since that time (see graph in reference 1.1).
The IPCC bases its statements on surface temperatures or temperatures measured very near the earth's
surface. They indicate a warming since 1980 but satellite-based temperature measurements, taken across all
of the earth's surface, including oceans and sparsely populated areas, indicate no measurable change in the
last 30 years (see reference 1.2).

References
1.1 IPCC graph at http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/small/05.16.jpg
1.2 "Globally-Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures" at http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

We can go back and forth all day, but in the end, man's contribution is so small that it is insignificant. Certainly not deserving of the wasting of trillions of dollars on.

P.G.

chevyconvert · « **Reply #47 on:** July 07, 2007 - 03:39:41 PM »

With all due respect, anyone with half a brain knows that without the Suns energy the Earth would be a dark lump of ice. (Think about it for a second before reacting/responding)

You agree with that right? (if not, I can not help you)

OK...Now with that in mind doesn't it make sense that small changes
in Solar radiation would affect our temperature more than anything else?

And the Sun does change with Flare-ups and sun spots etc..

The Suns is what we revolve around and depend upon for everything. We are miniscule in comparison. Over one million earths would fit inside of the Sun.

And our little Mopars, factories etc. are a bigger influence on the Earth's temperature than the Sun ?

Come on get real.

emzvab12 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 07, 2007 - 05:09:44 PM »

Well there have been many studies on the impact of sunspots and the sun in general and their impact on global climate change. While sunspots do alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, they do not alter it enough to impact global climate change.

Sunspots are magnetic disturbances that appear as cooler, dark patches on the sun's surface. The number of spots cycles over time, reaching a peak every 11 years. The spots' impact on the sun's total energy output is easy to see. "As it turns out, most of the sun's power output is in the visible range�what we see as brightness," said Henk Spruit, study co-author from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany. "The sun's brightness varies only because of the blemishes that are also visible directly on pictures: the dark patches called sunspots and the minute bright points called faculae. In terms of brightness changes, in large part, what you see is what you get." But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests. The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

The researchers obtained accurate daily sunspot measurements dating as far back as 1874 from institutions such as the Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, California, and the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England.

Older records exist all the way back to when the telescope was invented in the 17th century, though the data become increasingly patchy with age.

The team also derived the sun's historic strength by looking at the presence or absence of isotopes, such as beryllium 10, in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctic that reflect the past contents of Earth's atmosphere.

Such isotopes are formed when cosmic radiation penetrates the atmosphere.

In periods of high activity, a brighter sun emits more magnetic and plasmatic particles that shield Earth from the galaxy's rays, resulting in fewer isotopes.

Measuring the historical record of such isotopes from ice yields useful, though debatable, estimates of the sun's past power on Earth.

"If you see that these isotopes were low for 50 or 100 years, it's a darn good bet that the sun was more active then," Foukal said.

As far as human activities affecting tropospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases... humans have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the troposphere by burning fossil fuels, clearing and burning forests and grasslands, raising large numbers of livestock such as cattle, planting rice, and using inorganic fertilizers. Since 1861, the concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O in the toposphere have risen sharply, especially since 1950. Current CO2 levels in the troposhere appear the be higher than tey have been in at least 160,000 years. According to the IPCC three human activities have emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases into the troposhere at a faster rate than natural processes can remove them. One has been the sharp rise in the use of fossil fuels, which release large amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the troposphere. Electricity generates by coal is responsible for about 42 percent of this input, transportation 24 percent, industrial processes 20 percent, and residental and commercial uses 14 percent. A second process is deforestation and clearning and burning of grasslands to raise crops and build cities, which release CO2 and N2O. Third is the raising of an increasing number of cattle and other livestock that release methane as a result of their digestive processes. A fourth process is cultivation of rice in paddies and use of inorganic fertilizers that release N2O into the troposphere.

Most climate scientists agree that human activities have influenced recent temperature increases during this century. In 1990, 1995, and 2001 the IPCC published reports that evaluate how global termps changed in the apst and are likely to change during this century. The IPCC reached its conclusions on the basis of scientific principles governing climate, data from past events, human emissions of CO2 and other geenhouse gases, current temp measurements, and global climate models. The report found, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." A 2001 report byt the National Academy of Sciences and a 2002 Bush administration report, prepared by various US govnerment agencies for the United Nations, reaches similar conclusions. In 2004, the American Geophysical Union repleased a position statement that said, "Scientific evident strongly indicates that humans have played a role in the rapid warming of the past half century." And it is "virtually certain" that increasing greenhouse gases will warm the planet.

As far as money goes....

It will very likely cost us less to help slow and adapt to global warming now than to deal with its harmful effects later. According to a 2001 study by the UN Environment Programme, projected global warming will cost the world economy more than $300 billion annually by 2050 unless nations make strong efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

come on you get real.

Alaskan_TA · « **Reply #49 on:** July 07, 2007 - 05:45:26 PM »

Is it time to ban "political" threads maybe? Other car sites do it and for good reasons.

I can agree to disagree, but the way this thread is headed it could get heated. No pun intended.

As far as the methane goes, most of that in my fault.

Barry

Plum6Pak · « **Reply #50 on:** July 07, 2007 - 05:54:57 PM »

This subject hits a nerve as far as the politcal BS side of this goes. I'd say no comment is the best comment on this one to avoid a lengthly heated discussion. And I do know about that methane Barry's talking about, it does come from Alaska by way of the jet stream and boy can it get nasty!

Alaskan_TA · « **Reply #51 on:** July 07, 2007 - 05:57:03 PM »

Carlwalski · « **Reply #52 on:** July 07, 2007 - 06:51:39 PM »

As far as I know, no one here is a professional in the fields of the subject. I too can go Google and research a little but at the end of the day, the people doing these things, no a heck of a lot more than we do and even more than you think you do too! (what a mouthful). Stick to cars, let the pros do the work.

Pistol Gripper · « **Reply #53 on:** July 07, 2007 - 07:22:12 PM »

I guess I'll leave the thread alone. But if anyone can tell me how man's 3/10s of one percent contribution has any bearing on the climate, let alone wasting trillions of dollars on, let me know.

P.G.

jeryst · « **Reply #54 on:** July 07, 2007 - 08:27:18 PM »

I think the thing that a lot of people overlook, is that many, many things in nature are on a very delicate balance, and it doesn't take much to push it over the edge. A penny doesn't weight much, but if you were sitting in your Cuda (or Challenger), and you were precariously hanging over the edge of a cliff, the weight of a penny could decide whether you plunged into the abyss below, or stayed safe until help arrived. The earth is slightly tilted on its axis, yet that slight tilt causes us to have seasons. So it's not neccessarily a matter of numbers and percentages. It's more a matter of degree of change, and sometimes, that degree only has to be very, very small.

BTW, I was an Earth Sciences major before I went into Computer Science, so I know a little about it, even though that was a long time ago.

And remember, the difference between life and death, is only one heartbeat.

Alaskan_TA · « **Reply #55 on:** July 07, 2007 - 08:55:57 PM »

Basic thermal science that (hopefully) everyone can agree on.

Items whether hot or cold transfer temperature to their surroundings. Examples;

The sun heats the earth, while ice cubes cool your ice tea.

So, if we as a society feel the earth is in trouble of overheating, then not adding any additional heat to the earth would be a great place to start, right?

So, think about these;

No heat in your home.

No hot water.

No hot coffee or tea.

No oven.

No campfires.

No fireworks.

No light bulbs.

No hot tub.

No internal combustion or jet engines.

No food at all, even raw actually because the body produces heat as calories are processed.

So, does anyone care to help the earth in it's alleged problem by doing any or all of those things?

jeryst · « **Reply #56 on:** July 07, 2007 - 09:00:50 PM »

Quote from: Alaskan_TA on July 07, 2007 - 08:55:57 PM

No heat in your home.

No hot water.

No hot coffee or tea.

No oven.

No campfires.

No fireworks.

No light bulbs.

No hot tub.

No internal combustion or jet engines.

No food at all, even raw actually because the body produces heat as calories are processed.

Always though that was what Alaska was like.

Alaskan_TA · « **Reply #57 on:** July 07, 2007 - 09:11:55 PM »

Well, we do not need ice for our "ice tea" at least.

merlin969 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 08, 2007 - 01:32:09 PM »

Quote from: chevyconvert on July 02, 2007 - 08:24:53 PM

sorry mate..not true. There are plenty of scientists who disagree

and so starts the "heat"

You mean the ones who work for Exxon?

merlin969 · « **Reply #59 on:** July 08, 2007 - 01:34:21 PM »

Quote from: Pistol Gripper on July 03, 2007 - 06:38:16 AM

OK,

Man makes LESS than 3 tenths of one percent of the Greenhouse gasses produced, the earth itself produces 99.7 percent. Still think we're causing this? (Even though it probably isn't happenning at all. )

If we do reduce our contribution the cost is about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 �C.

I'm not selling my childrens future for this politically driven junk science.

P.G.

I'm curious as to where you got these numbers?

Author Topic: what do you think about the global warming crisis (Read 6618 times)

emzvab12

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Pistol Gripper

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

chevyconvert

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

emzvab12

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Alaskan_TA

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Plum6Pak

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Alaskan_TA

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Carlwalski

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Pistol Gripper

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

jeryst

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Alaskan_TA

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

jeryst

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

Alaskan_TA

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

merlin969

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis

merlin969

Re: what do you think about the global warming crisis