Global Warming - Real Science?

[Raybo]

Another tidbit.....


ISLAND SNOW: Last week when NASA's Terra satellite orbited over Europe, it saw something very unusual. The normally temperate British Isles were completely covered by snow. From an altitude of 420 miles, Terra's MODIS (Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) camera snapped this picture:

​

It's not only Britian. Heavy snowfall and record-low temperatures have spread across Europe, closing schools, paralyzing airports, and downing power lines. Much of North America and parts of Asia are experiencing the same brutal cold.
The cause of the phenomenon could be the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO is a seesawing strengthening and weakening of semi-permanent areas of low and high atmospheric pressure in the Arctic and the mid-latitudes. One consequence of the oscillation’s negative phase is cold, snowy weather in Eurasia and North America during the winter months. The extreme negative dip of the Arctic Oscillation Index in December 2009 was the lowest monthly value observed for the past six decades.
On the bright side, these conditions are ideal for many forms of atmospheric optics and fantastic patterns of frost on the ground and other surfaces.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

Could someone explain me something that proofs that video arguments to be wrong? So far I've shown the video to many "green" people and still no one has given me answers, however they said a random video ate my head and that how can I believe anything of what they said -.- I'll repost them:

The film begins by highlighting what its makers assert are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.
EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.
Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.
Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount - just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[19]))
Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[20] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

 

[denton808]

science may not be able to prove humans are "causing" global warming, but fact is CO2 is a green house gas. should we not worry about it and just keep burning more and more so that it does become a problem?

if the argument fits that global warming isn't real cuz it's inconclusive, then it should also fit that we should still be weary of CO2 production because there is no conclusive evidence it doesn't.

and for those of you mixing green people up with global warming, they are 2 different groups of people. green people are concerned with our impact on the world as a whole and pollution and the ways in which we change our environment. global warming may be one of those possible topics, but it's not the central goal. i think people confuse green people and global warming as much as people mix up evolution/creationism and the big bang. there are so many videos that are just inconsistent and not any better than the previous thoughts just different. it's just like that video about health care and guns by roger more. they aren't any more open minded... they are stll very skewed and only tell one side, just the other side. this is true for any topic.

in summary, my main idea is this. we should do our best to save the environment. we shouldn't waste unnecessarily anyways. we shouldn't concern ourselves with CO2 problems only after it becomes a problem. it's like trying to get money only after you find out you need more. should save and do our best to prepare for a better future and save the world we live in. i'm not a tree hugger or extremist, i'm just someone who does small things to help the world we live in.

 

[Deleted member 8382]

well, the main point of the video isn't that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, it says that global warming is real but that we aren't causing it. I know what does green mean, my GF is studying environmental sciences (I don't know if that exists in USA), and she already explained me that concept, however she fails at rebating the arguments on that video ¬¬

 

[Cyparagon]

should we not worry about it and just keep burning more and more so that it does become a problem?

But I thought we only had five more years of oil anyway! :undecided:

 

[pullbangdead]

well, the main point of the video isn't that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, it says that global warming is real but that we aren't causing it. I know what does green mean, my GF is studying environmental sciences (I don't know if that exists in USA), and she already explained me that concept, however she fails at rebating the arguments on that video ¬¬

To me, debunking is not the appropriate approach to take with such a video. I can sit down and look up papers and spend countless hours going point-by-point over every point in a video like that.

When really, a much simpler and faster approach, and one we use a lot in science, is to consider the source. What is the source of the video? What are their sources? In science we depend on the sources.

We do this every day in semiconductors. A new paper comes out, and we see the results. Are their results plausible? Well before we go running off to try whatever thing they're doing, we look at the source. What is the journal/medium they're published in? Who are they? What company/university do they work for? What are their previous results? Who are they using as sources? Using these things, one can come to a much faster conclusion about if they should be trusted.

For instance, there was a recent paper about GaN solar cells that my officemates were perusing. It was published in a lesser-known journal, one that we know has a much more lax reviewing procedure. The work was from an unknown group of authors, from a small, unknown university in Asia. They had few previous publications (none we knew of off-hand, which is a red flag already), and their sources were lesser-known. So right off the bat, this paper made several people wary. And sure enough, once people starting looking at the paper, there was nothing immediate that jumped out and screamed "this is wrong", but once you spent an hour or 2 on it, you found some thing that didn't jive. A little more time with a calculator, and sure enough, the results were not just implausible, they were physically impossible as presented in the paper (efficiency >100% from a solar cell, once you dug into the calculations some more).

Now, instead of spending a few hours looking point-by-point at the video and digging deeper into peer-reviewed research on each topic presented, let's analyze the source of the video. First, it's on youtube, that's a strike. Second, the title is "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Clearly, this video was producing with an agenda in mind. As much as the video would like to portray that climate scientists act with an agenda, that's not how real science works. Science starts with a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven, not an agenda towards which all evidence should be aimed. It's not clear who or what entity sponsored the video or their "research", so I can't ascertain if their previous work was good, bad, etc, so I certainly can't trust their conclusions without thoroughly checking each one. Finally, look at their sources. They interview a dozen or so scientists of questionable credentials (I've never heard of them, so they're questionable to me until they're proven to be reliable on previous work), who all agree with them. No different viewpoints on an issue they admit is controversial. No outside data. All they give is a hypothesis and the word of a dozen unknown people to back that word.

So no, I have not debunked and I probably never will debunk that video or it's conclusions, because in my mind, the video can't stand on its own merits as a piece of responsible scientific journalism. Based on what I've seen, I wouldn't trust any scientific conclusions garnered from such a source until they were backed up by more respected sources (the real, peer-reviewed scientific literature, not the popular-press articles that often incorrectly summarize the science literature results).

 

[mfo]

This forum has members from all over the world who experience their local weather every day.
Question: Is it getting warmer where you are at?

Here in North Iowa, we had about two weeks of real summer but it was generally mild. My swimming pool never got warm. Now, in early winter, we have record cold and heavy snow fall. The summer of 2008 was maybe a little better but still not hot like in the past.
The climate of this little planet has changed forever but now MAN is being held responsible for these changes.
What did MAN do to end the last ice age in North America and cause the glaciers to go back to get more rocks?

HMike

It seems global warming can actually increase snow fall. The heat would cause more water to evaporate, thus saturating the atmosphere with more moisture. Now if that moisture moves to a cold region and condensates...

 

[Hemlock_Mike]

mfo ---
Correct. That water vapor can:
1. Create more snow in some areas provided it is COLD. This can be basic climate change as has gone on for the earth's existance. Climate variability is expected.
2. Create more clouds to both blanket the earth and reflect IR from the sun. Last I heard, the computer program didn't account for water vapor or clouds.
3. Water vapor is the most potent green house gas.
4. Global warmer people say that it can get colder. That's like a company paying to both parties before an election. It's called hedging your bet. "Heads I win, Tails, you loose". We are loosing.

The glaciers started retreating many years ago from North America -- Who told it to stop at some line as we define? How did man cause the retreat in the first place?

HMike

 

[Tech_Junkie]

Wow...some great debates. Sorry I dont have the patience to read them all.

My opinion is this...

Take a days emissions of one car. Then multiply that by the number of cars in a city. Then multiply that by the number of cities in a state. Then multiply that by how many states are in a country, then by the countries in the word. Add those up and you will not even come close to the pollution big industry puts out. This has been going on for decades. Now add the pollution from live stock to feed the world, and the pesticides used to grow the worlds food. The list of pollutants is epic, and has been going on for many years.

I cannot believe we dont have something to do with global warming.

I dont understand why people are against going green. Beside being a small change in our lifestyle, I dont see the negatives in going green. They are predicting , on both sides, that the worlds "cheap oil" is gone in 15 to 20 years. That's not that far off. It will effect every part of our lives when this happens. Check the list of what is made by using oil, once again its epic. Gas in your car, and heat in your home is the least of your worries. Why shouldn't we be proactive? I dont see the negatives in this.

All those anti green groups just want you to keep using up the resources. Why? Because they make huge amounts of money off it. When it all comes crashing down, they are the ones who will be sitting pretty. This goes well beyond some pro-green guy that does not want to lose his job.

[/rant]

 

[daguin]

Global warming and cooling have been happening since the coalescing of the planet. They were happening long before humans arrived on the scene. They will continue long after we have gone extinct.

Have we sped it up? Maybe. Who cares. We cannot stop it. The only difference is will it be my grandchildren that will suffer or my great great grandchildren who will suffer.

Thinking in human time scales is useless when considering geologic time scales. It is a wonderful thing to study. However, we will NOT significantly alter the course of the planet. It is only an "issue" because it helps create jobs, gets folks elected/re-elected, and serves to feed our delusions of grandeur.

We have over populated the planet. It cannot sustain us at these numbers. Our numbers continue to increase far faster than our technology can deal with. Either the planet or us will go. You want to guess which will win?

Peace,
dave

 

[Tech_Junkie]

Bring it on LOL. I too think mankind is far from reprieve. One day the Earth will just shake us off.

 

[daguin]

Bring it on LOL. I too think mankind is far from reprieve. One day the Earth will just shake us off.[/QUOTE]

As it has done to other spieces before us. I wonder if the trilobites had delusions of grandeur?

Peace,
dave

 

[Tech_Junkie]

No..I think that's exclusive to mankind only. I cant wait to see the superiors drop to their knees and cry like babies. I'll be sitting on the beach with my girl, and a 5th of Remy Martin Cognac Louis XIII Grande.

 

[HIMNL9]

We are not the first species to have effected our environment. I doubt we shall be the last.

You know ? ..... i'm not too much preoccupied about the species that may have affected this environment before us (trilobites included, LOL) ..... i'm more preoccupied about the possibility that we can end being the last one, without a bit of care for that what, after all, is the environment in which we live .....

Now, the only problem is transfer a bit of the same preoccupation in the head of the peoples that "rule" the world ..... (uhm, maybe a 10Kg hammer can help, in this operation ..... J/K)

 

[daguin]

You know ? ..... i'm not too much preoccupied about the species that may have affected this environment before us (trilobites included, LOL) ..... i'm more preoccupied about the possibility that we can end being the last one, without a bit of care for that what, after all, is the environment in which we live .....

Now, the only problem is transfer a bit of the same preoccupation in the head of the peoples that "rule" the world ..... (uhm, maybe a 10Kg hammer can help, in this operation ..... J/K)

We will NOT be the last. We were already in the middle of another great extinction phase before global warming became an issue. The world could easily shrug off global thermonuclear exchange just as it has shruggd off major asteroid impacts, and global volcanic release. The dominant species would change, as before, but Gia will go on.

Until the sun expands, the planet is safe.

Maybe we should all begin believing in trans-species reincarnation.

Am I a man dreaming I am a cockroach; or am I a cockroach dreaming that I am a man dreaming that he is a cockroach?

Peace,
dave

 

[Cyparagon]

^Both, and yet neither. That was my feeble attempt at a profound answer, by the way.

3. Water vapor is the most potent green house gas.

Kinda gives a new perspective to hydrogen fuel where "the only emission is harmless water vapor."

the planet... cannot sustain us at these numbers.

Sure it can. Well... not the planet itself - more like the infrastructure we build for ourselves.

...and a 5th of Remy Martin Cognac Louis XIII Grande.

Does it have a nickname? That's quite a mouth full.