Global warming really global

Aren’t you just parroting the assertions of Republicans and SUV owners and engaging in “proof because it’s in my own selfish interest”?

Flipper and co.

Before you parrot the standard moron rebuttal to anything remotely environmental or so called left wing or socialist by calling it scare mongering look at these pages.

Welcome to your first day at paleoclimate school- Sit up straight , open your copybooks and let’s get to work…you’ve got a lot of study to do

secretsoftheice.org/icecore/warming.html

ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa … olast.html

‘Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. The similar characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides greater confidence in the following important conclusions:
• Dramatic global warming has occurred since the 19th century.
• The recent record warm temperatures in the 1990’s are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years’

To answer standard references to mini freezes and scaremongering being comparable to the current ‘scare’ of global warming

ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwa … riffa.html

'A team of scientists has developed a circum-northern Hemisphere network of temperature sensitive tree-ring density data that was used to generate a 600 year record of Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures in this study. The calibration of tree-ring data to instrumental temperature records yielded a high-quality quantitative record of past hemispheric summer temperatures.

The data used in this study are distinct from the data used in other long temperature reconstructions, none of which have been based solely on tree-ring data.

[quote=“headhonchoII”]

Wow, so all those mosquito bites I got as a child in Chicago, 30 years ago, were my imagination?? I mean, hey, if they couldn’t breed in the summer months – hey, waitasec, were they breeding in the winter months, d’you mean?? Giant ice mosquitos, skating across the frozen tundra in the driving snow, biting me through my parka. . . .

Malaria in the continental U.S. must have been a mass hallucination back in the 1800s. (Thank Dow for DDT – it sure fixed those mosquitos’ little red bloodmobiles.)

I think you’re missing the opportunity here. We can set off lots of nuclear weapons – France can even re-nuke the South Pacific – and kick up lots of dust into the stratosphere. That’ll effect global cooling, and then we can run our furnaces 24x7 all winter long! (Just like I did the winter before last – it was bloody freezing in Seattle.)

Sadly, none of it matters, since the Sun’s neutrino flux is too low, probably indicating that the solar core has gone out. We’re all going to freeze soon when it stops shining. Don’t tell anyone, though – we want to avoid mass panic.

eso.org/gen-fac/libraries/li … kmanj.html

The Maunder Minimum and Climate Change

While there has not been great resistance to Eddy’s arguments for a lull in solar magnetic activity during the Maunder Minimum, one of the main reasons why his ideas caught the imagination is more contentious. He claimed that the Maunder Minimum coincided in time with an era of colder weather, and that by implication the absence of magnetic activity was accompanied by a net fall in the total radiative output of the Sun. An implicit corollary is that in the intervening period the radiative output has been increasing, with a consequent warming of the Earth. This basic idea has been taken up by a section of the solar physics community, and a good recent summary of the evidence for the proposition that solar variability is an agent, if not the main agent, of the perceived recent climate change associated with global warming, is given in Hoyt & Schatten (1997).

One should be wary of jumping to conclusions about the role of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere in procuring a generalized warming of the Earth, given the great complexity of physical processes inherent in the reaction of the atmosphere-ocean system to a change in atmospheric transparency, knowing that such a change is in fact occurring as a result of the emission of gases in industry and transport. To this area of doubt the advocates of solar global warming have been able to add their element of confusion. Maybe we are experiencing a steady rise in the solar constant, accompanying a similar rise in solar magnetic variability, and maybe the greenhouse effect is not the main agent, or even a cause, of global warming. The novelty of the use of the Maunder Minimum in this context is the hypothesis that the time-scale associated with any change may be of order hundreds rather than tens of years, which would be the scale for changes directly linked to individual 11- or 22-year cycles.

[“It’s European, it must be good.” – the editor.]

I’m sorry Flipper but I’m angry now because you are proud of your ignorance and pseudo science. It’s time you were shown up.

Why do you react so strongly to these experts in the field reaching these conclusions. First you denied global warming, now you are forced to accept if but you try to deny it in a different manner.

What do you mean by this. We are in an interglacial period for the last 10,000 years. Each ice age lasts from 100,000 to 1 million years. From my memory an interglacial period usually lasts 10,000 to 20,000 years. The island of Ireland where I am from has gone from tundra to forests to swamps back to forests and then to farmland in that time. I didn’t introduce the details of pre 1000 years because I will add complexity . However there is plenty of evidence that this is the warmest period since the start of the interglacial period ten thousand years ago, it certainly is in my homelands place and many others. That is happens to coincide with massive increases in known greenhouse gases seems to be a very strong correlatory evident. When you see a strong correlation in science you don’t stick your head in the sand , you look at it some more. That is what scientists have been doing and disturbingly , instead of removing this correlation which usually happens in the process of science (scientists just LOVE to disprove each other) they are backing each other up.

If you read any of my links you would know that the science of detecting temperature changes season to season is quite advanced and certainly doesn’t need a thermometer. You can detect changes from isotopes in the ice, gas ratios in ancient rocks and soil, fossils, pollen, tree rings and other sources. You can use these resources to make pretty accurate temperature charts stretching back thousands of years.

So what, we only have one earth. If it warms up a lot we have a lot of troubles. Beside I will explain again it’s the warmest period for 1000s of years not just 600. The fact that is occurs and shows a clear and accelerating trend from 1920 does not strike you as strangely coinciding with massive increase of CO2? The fact remains it might not be the cause but it also remains that it is the ‘most likely’ cause.

[quote]why do you bring up mini cold events when nobody has mentioned anything about them?
[/quote]

I’ll reference a quote for you so you can remember more clearly although this came from MaPoDuFu, it is a classic refutation of global warming that is seriously wrong

I can almost write the 1770s quote above word for word for you. This refers to the brief times when you could ice skate on the Thames and they had fireworks parties on the ice in Paris and London. This type of brief fluctuation was most likely from a volcanic event. It’s found it lots of history books and used as a throwaway remark by people with superficial knowledge.

Yes I did, because I wanted to show all the information is at your fingertips, you just have to read it and CRITICALLY UNDERSTAND IT FROM A UNBIASED VIEWPOINT.

Yes over millions of years you are correct but if the temperature change is rapid it will certainly seriously affect it. Plus we don’t know the degree of temperature change. That reef is a tropical reef not related to deep sea reefs or cold reefs. .
You are confusing your time scales and history to a large degree. Because the planet was undergoing a global ice age concentrated in the northern hemisphere doesn’t mean it didn’t have tropical currents around Australia at the same time. From a quick search I see that the current point is that it is less than a million years old, down from a previous estimate of 20 million, still bloody old and dating back to during the ice age. Something like the barrier reef can easliy adapt to slow changes in the environment, but the current reef but be badly affected by rapid changes in years or decades

Itchiness…

To be serious I have heard no history of mosquitoes in Ireland until recently. The earliest reference was in the 20th century I have heard in a very localised swampy area. They may have been around for centuries but there is no reference from folklore for them.
They never spread from that area but they were there for about 100 years. But about five years ago I noticed them appearing in my bedroom at night. Then I have been hearing more and more stories and I heard there was tonnes of them this year. THis is VERY unusual.

The planes get the mosquitoes in. Global warming helps spread the disease to previously untouched areas.

Conclusion of my argument:

You guys first resist the idea of global warming. Why? Then you accept it but do your best to not read any of my links or suggestions and parrot some stuff about ‘jumping to conclusions’.
I’m a scientist, I spent my life before trying not to jump to conclusions and I try not to now. But I can also see that the danger that it is human caused is real and very possible. That danger is so great it warrants us to produce an action. Mr Bush can produce a War in Iraq with mysterious weapons of mass destruction. Am I wrong when I give you much more solid evidence reviewed worldwide and think that this warrants action to?
What have you got to lose? Are you afraid you can’t live your life of freedom ‘cos I got da right ta get da biggest truck I wan’ if ‘I con pay fer it’? ‘I don kare bout no stoopid bangladeeshis’

Do you like that stereotype cos that’s where your arguments are heading.

It apears to my admittedly hungover mind that we’re arguing from two different perspectives here.

The chill, grab a cube of that rapidly melting berg crew seem to be viewing climate change from what the Annales historian [Oh! and it is European, and yeah, it’s great!] Fernand Braudel called the longue duree, or the longer term. For those interested check out his history of the mediterranean. Put awfully simply (I did say I was hungover), he views history at different levels, the first of which is geology - or the long-term.

As for myself I’m more interested in the what Braudel could crudely have referred to as the flotsam or jetsam. The shit that’s likely to occur in my and my sons life.

It’s great that I’m sure the world and all the little creatures in it will evolve to deal with the stress we are currently placing upon it. But being the conservative bastard I am, I’d rather wake up in 20 years and see Australia’s barrier reef much as it was when I viewed it 30 years ago.

Bangladesh developing dykes to counter raising ocean levels? Sorry mate, not in my bloody life, nor my sons either. Frankly, to quote Pauline Hanson, “I just don’t like it.”

HG

(Edit - nice one Head honcho! I was stabbing away at this while you hammered that out.) Panadol . . .

The world according to Flipper,

Minute changes in ocean temperatures are causing reefs to die off (and consequently the ecosytem around it).
But today Flipper saw an [artificial concrete] reef in a aquarium and several reefs on TV documentaries.
Hence reefs must be blossoming everywhere despite the odd fact that reefs are sensitive to temperature changes. Somehow if reefs die off, others will blossom. Just like the beef shanks that magically appear everyday packaged in saran wrap out of thin air for Flipper to buy.

Between the Permian period and the present, the earth changed a “few degrees”.
Hence, what’s another few more degrees in the next 25-50 years. He’ll just turn up his aircon and everything will be dandy.

Canada and Finland will become prime property in the next “few years”, so everything will be all good.
No problem, since Flipper will still be around in another 200 million years give or take a “few years”.

Bangladeshis may suffer in the meantime, but it doesn’t matter since Flipper is (A) not a Bangladeshi and (B) does not know a Bangladeshi and © does not know or care where Bangladesh is.

On another note, Tampa Bay lost the championship to the Dallas Cowboys when the kicker missed a field goal in the final seconds of the game by a mere 2 feet. But what’s a few feet.

who resisted the idea of global warming? read my posts. nowhere do i deny that the earth has warmed. in fact, i’ve been asserting that global warming has been a GOOD THING. it’s the global cooling i’m scared of. :stuck_out_tongue:

as a scientist, i’d like to hear you explain why the CURRENT temperature/water level/rainfall amount/etc is the optimal for life on this planet. scratch that. we all know we’ve gone to hell the last few decades, let’s take say, the temperature/water level/rain amount from 100 years ago.

i agree change is annoying, but is the change actually bad? it’s one thing to shout “global warming is changing the planet and making things different”, but it’s quite another to shout “global warming is changing the planet and destroying life as we know it”.

in short, i agree the earth is warming. i disagree that it’s necessarily a bad thing.

For global warming we can use a good example such as the ozone layer that someone brought up.

The ozone layer hole was clearly detectable and measures were taken globally to fix this problem which are now bearing fruit. Global warming is a more complex problem with less obvious symptoms and more insidious symptoms. Much like HIV it’s an agent that spreads and slowly works its way into the environment, causing massive changes in the host.
Unlike HIV it is also a phenomenon which occurs naturally in the cycle of the planet. However even if we don’t know all the reasons behind global warming and know its destructive level we can look in hindsight at previous effects of humanity and draw some depressing conclusions.

I’m not a greenie greenie guy. I strongly support GMO and biotech for instance. I don’t see the argument for damage from these areas is warranted. I do see good arguments for reducing CO2 emissions and cutting level of pesticides. If I see that I wont be swayed by my political persuasion.

Global warming is not neccessarily a bad thing, but it will increase the extinction rate of many species , of that there is no doubt.
To answer question why is the current condition the optimum, I admit, there is no ‘optimum’. However I would believe it is the ‘rate of change’ which is the problem. Since the rate of change in every environment on earth is accelerating rapidly already it is the added pressure of global warming which ratchet up things.
The pressure from overpopulation and resource exploitation probably will allow new ecosystems to flourish or take their time to establish like they would have previously.

Should we make a fuss about the ozone hole because it clearly helps cause skin cancer and not make a fuss about global warming which is probably from human interference and which would have a much stronger effect on our lives or rather our children’s lives?

The case is not proved it will be detrimental but we can already see some results around us.

[quote=“Flipper”]who resisted the idea of global warming? read my posts. nowhere do i deny that the earth has warmed. in fact, I’ve been asserting that global warming has been a GOOD THING. it’s the global cooling I’m scared of. :stuck_out_tongue:

as a scientist, I’d like to hear you explain why the CURRENT temperature/water level/rainfall amount/etc is the optimal for life on this planet. scratch that. we all know we’ve gone to hell the last few decades, let’s take say, the temperature/water level/rain amount from 100 years ago.

I agree change is annoying, but is the change actually bad? it’s one thing to shout “global warming is changing the planet and making things different”, but it’s quite another to shout “global warming is changing the planet and destroying life as we know it”.

in short, I agree the earth is warming. i disagree that it’s necessarily a bad thing.[/quote]

A) I don’t think folks are saying change is bad. that’s stupid. change is inevitable. but logically, most of it has been “natural change”. this includes the contribution and interaction of all organisms, life, non-life, and natural forces together. humans are part of that too.
however, i think the issue is, given our technology and society, we make a greater and more far-reaching impact on the world in a shorter time than any species has (I would assume) on this earth. Animals for example, don’t make such radical changes to modify entire regions. Natural forces, like volcanoes and hurricanes, are not that common or sustained. Therefore for the purposes of this discussion, I arbitratrily mark the modern era (lets just say 20th C onwards) as being outside of this natural change, ie our contributions.
B) now add our impact to the global warming issue. our actions may be one reason of several; it may be the primary reason. I’m not sure how it can be quantified if we don’t understand the ‘natural’ changes. but I believe we are adding to the effects regardless.
C) I don’t think global warming is bad per se. It’s a loaded statement to begin with. I prefer not to think about it that way. what is good and bad? BUT I think we have to be careful about the consequences of our actions and impact on this world, little of which we understand.
D) I personally would like to see the reefs flourish, evolve or perish as with much of the rest of the world “ON ITS OWN” meaningin the natural sense, meaning that I would rather not see the human race as the scourge of all life and non-life on earth. I would not like to see mass extinctions, because of our actions. Mass extinctions whether by earth forces, or extraterrestrial (ie stellar, LOIS (large objects in space)) are not comparable to mass extinctions by the human hand.
E) speaking of mass extinctions, I love seafood. I love fish: tuna, salmon what have you. But if it means rationing the amount of fish sold and eaten per human being, so that fish (in the wild) do not die out, then I am for it. (and fish farms have their problems too)

Not a bad thing as it “Aint my problem.” or not a bad thing as in “This global warming thing is a good thing.”

Do you know how the green house effect works? Do you know that it is directly linked to the emmisions from all the machinery us humans are building?

So are you saying that the use of cars and stuff is a good thing too? If your answer is yes… ok :?

hey kenny, i guess i never knew that the temperature around the great barrier reef stayed at a constant for millions of years, devoid of even the minute fluctuations that cause it so many problems today. even through the pleistocene epoch, the reef was able to bear the brunt of climate changes, but today even a tiny amount of temperature change puts it in danger. no need to provide any facts or statistics because we all know writing things in a satricial tone means it must be true. :wink:

actually the “no facts or statistics portion” is part of my parody of someone, and not because of the general nature of satire. These are different things, my main man [in fake iraqi accent].

not a bad thing as in it’s what the earth does and we’re not going to be able to stop it.

not a bad thing as in it does not significantly affect the natural balance of life for most other lifeforms on this planet. it will detroy the habitat for one and create a new habitat for another.

will it have a huge effect on humans? sure, as much as any other natural disaster. a volcano burying a city is a tragedy, but should we be spending our time trying to keep the volcano from erupting, or trying to make sure the villagers are prepared for it when it does?

is a volcanic eruption a bad thing? is a lightning strike setting off a wild brushfire a bad thing? is the movement of tectonic plates a bad thing?

i’m not saying we shouldn’t spend time and effort helping bangladeshis prepare for the consequences of global warming. but since i believe global warming to be a NATURAL thing, i do object to trying to use everything in our power to stop it. global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. the accerleration of the warming by human actions is debatable, but global warming and cooling are occuring and have been occuring forever.

Flipper

It’s the rate of change and the additional factors of human origin (listed in order of danger in my opinion- introduced species, effluent from farms and development in Queensland, ozone hole, pesticides, hormones, tourism) that may cause problems for something such as the Great Barrier Reef to adapt to. Of course it can survive under this pressure as any evolutionary pressure, yet it will also lose a large part of its biodiversity and uniqueness.

Global warming and cooling have been occuring but the rate of emission of CO2 currently is phenomenal. Some estimates say we increased CO2 about 30% since 200 years ago.
cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

I admit I find this hard to follow too in its effect but you could probably measure the rate of increase. Looking at the graph it looks pretty exponential to me so I guess that ath CO2 may reach double previous pre-human conc’ns in the future. If you think that doesn’t have an effect you’d probably be doing some wishful thinking. Since we can’t detect an overall cooling trend but can clearly detect a warming trend correlating and accelerating at a similar speed to CO2 concentration we could be genuinely concerned they are linked together. BTW the CO2 that is increasing HAS BEEN proven to be of human origin many times so is not a result of global warming per se.

[quote=“Flipper”]not a bad thing as in it’s what the earth does and we’re not going to be able to stop it.

not a bad thing as in it does not significantly affect the natural balance of life for most other lifeforms on this planet. it will detroy the habitat for one and create a new habitat for another.

will it have a huge effect on humans? sure, as much as any other natural disaster. a volcano burying a city is a tragedy, but should we be spending our time trying to keep the volcano from erupting, or trying to make sure the villagers are prepared for it when it does?

is a volcanic eruption a bad thing? is a lightning strike setting off a wild brushfire a bad thing? is the movement of tectonic plates a bad thing?

I’m not saying we shouldn’t spend time and effort helping bangladeshis prepare for the consequences of global warming. but since I believe global warming to be a NATURAL thing, I do object to trying to use everything in our power to stop it. global warming is not a man-made phenomenon. the accerleration of the warming by human actions is debatable, but global warming and cooling are occuring and have been occuring forever.[/quote]

then in this sense i agree with you. if that’s how you define global warming. I agree that natural forces like your volcanoes and lightning strikes and movement of tectonic plates are not “good or bad”. They just are.

I thought the question was, what are we doing to global warming? You say the above things are not “bad”. to contrast,

is dumping concentrated amounts of effluence like mercury or cadmium in what was previously a “clean” (ie previously without such high concentrations of such chemicals) river a good thing? (ok this isn’t exactly heating up the river or something, but it creates consequences that require energy ie energy to clean the river, or to replace the water source (eg a bottled water factory, a desalination plant, a filtering plant). all this energy and its byproducts (from combustion) adds to the eventual “heat”)

is pumping out billions of m3 of gases (take your pick, sulphur dioxide, fluorocarbons, CO2) into what was previously “clean” (again what previously lacked such concentrations)

I think we are talking about manmade consequences here and you’re talking about natural consequences to GW. (global warming) so it’s back to the causes and effects game.

I just threw this part in. I see what your saying about the whole naturalness of it, but here’s my thing. Us humans could be doing some fly ass shit, like refining conciousness and what not, but most of us do not. Your argument about it being a natuaral thing is kind of like saying “Wars are a natural part of being human. Why stop them?”. Nothing wrong with this kind of thinking, but it’s not my style.

I hope that we as a race see the day when we live happily together with the planet chillin’ eatin’ coconuts. :sunglasses: (I also hope that I get to see the day that I’m living happily with the planet chillin’ eatin’ coconuts :smiley: .)

Hey their MY coconuts, give 'em back!

Hey there MY coconuts, give 'em back!