Page 10 of 111 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314152060110 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 2209
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am really glad you like the New Scientist article Insertion posted, too. Finally we can agree on something. As mentioned, I also totally agree with Insertion that it offers a clear, concise, balanced and up to date evaluation of what we know about the present climate and how it will most likely develop, specially if we don't do anything about CO2 emissions. It also shows the gaps and uncertainties, and the arguments of scientists who are sceptical about global warming. It is very nicely written. Here are some paragraphs I found particularly interesting:

    "In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere."

    "The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from 1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation."

    "Indeed, new research based on thousands of different climate simulation models run using the spare computing capacity of idling PCs, suggest that doubling CO2 levels could increase temperatures by as much as 11 °C (Nature, vol 434, p 403)."

    "Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming effect."

    "Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686): "Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

    "Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale"



    So obviously, there is a broad consensus among the leading (also the leading US) scientists, that man-made global warming is real. Yet some of you think this is wrong, so apparently you know better... how come? Do you have some supernatural ability to predict future climate changes, or the lack thereof? Why do you know better than the scientists, who can show you their data, and who's data are constantly challenged by sceptic scientists? Are you more intelligent than they are, or do you have better data? What is it that allows you to be so sure that you are right and they are wrong?

    These highlighted points exhibit a lot of faith. I for one would like to see the poll they did on the vast majority of scientists. Knowing the questions asked which led to the concensus would be enlightening at least. Also, what was the definition of scientist used to determined who qualified to take the poll?


    Kinda reminds me of stuff you hear people say. "Experts say that...". What experts? who made them experts and who asked them the questions they were so willing to give opinion about.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  2. #182  
    "He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."


    I think you missed a crucial piece of that article clulup. and if it cannot be found in that one, I will highlight it and provide it here shortly.
    what was left out was the evidence that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY being emitted by the sun has been increasing by 0.05 % every decade I believe. so while the sunspots remain constant, the energy output of the sun HAS NOT, clulup. this is what could very well be one of the primary causes of the problem.
    I will provide the link to this study when I get home.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    "He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."


    I think you missed a crucial piece of that article clulup. and if it cannot be found in that one, I will highlight it and provide it here shortly.
    what was left out was the evidence that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY being emitted by the sun has been increasing by 0.05 % every decade I believe. so while the sunspots remain constant, the energy output of the sun HAS NOT, clulup. this is what could very well be one of the primary causes of the problem.
    I will provide the link to this study when I get home.
    I doubt it makes sense to debate details of an isolated study. What matters is the overall picture provided in the New Scientist article quoted by Insertion (and later by me), the one you found so interesting, too.

    According to that overall picture, the results are clear. Please refer to the total view summarised above, and to the question why you know better than the scientists dealing with those questions on an everyday basis. Are you more intelligent, do you know more about what influences the climate, do you have better data, or what is it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #184  
    another interesting point brought up here involves the concern that carbon dioxide gas released into the atmosphere has been rising.
    well, the intial ingredient that drives photosynthesis, clulup, along with the sun, is carbon dioxide! so while I would think the CO2 levels might raise temperature levels, might it not also benefit the planet's forests and plant life - which would produce greater amounts of oxygen as a result? how might this affect our atmosphere?
    now I am not an expert on this science, but much of this would make sense - CO2 is a recyclable element, it would be another problem altogether if it could not be metabolized and simply built up into harmful concentrations.
  5. #185  
    Greetings everyone, I know I am getting into this conversation late, but I think the thread is interesting and I have done a literature search on the causes of global warming, trying to sort out the best references from journals such as Science, Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, over the last several years. I have posted the conclusions from the abstracts and the journal,volume and page. I will let you all make your own conclusions, but it seems clear to me, and to the vast majority of scientists in this area that man-made causes are a significant contributor to global warming.

    Nature 399, 569- Conclusion: For the warming from 1946 to 1996 regardless of any possible amplification of solar or volcanic influence, we exclude purely natural forcing, and attribute it largely to the anthropogenic components.

    Science, 299, 2005- Conclusion: Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections. In light of these uncertainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.

    Science, 289, 270 -Conclusion: The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000*years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

    Science, 287, 2246- Conclusion: Results from a set of six integrations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model suggest that the warming of the early 20th century could have resulted from a combination of human-induced radiative forcing and an unusually large realization of internal multidecadal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere
    system.

    Science, 292, 267 - Conclusion: The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.

    Science, 290, 2133 - Conclusion: A comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model shows that both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century temperature changes. The model successfully simulates global mean and large-scale land temperature variations, indicating that the climate response on these scales is strongly influenced by external factors. More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10-*to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings. Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101,16109 - Conclusion: We posit that feasible reversal of the growth of atmospheric CH4 and other trace gases would provide a vital contribution toward averting dangerous anthropogenic interference with global climate. Such trace gas reductions may allow stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at an achievable level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, even if the added global warming constituting dangerous anthropogenic interference is as small as 1°C. A 1°C limit on global warming, with canonical climate sensitivity, requires peak CO2 ? 440 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is +0.5 W/m2, but peak CO2 ? 520 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is -0.5 W/m2. The practical result is that a decline of non-CO2 forcings allows climate forcing to be stabilized with a significantly higher transient level of CO2 emissions. Increased “natural” emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 are expected in response to global warming. These emissions, an indirect effect of all climate forcings, are small compared with human-made climate forcing and occur on a time scale of a few centuries, but they tend to aggravate the task of stabilizing atmospheric composition.
  6. #186  
    you know, I find your arrogance to be a major flaw in your ability to debate these topics, clulup.
    it is interesting that we find YOU of ALL PEOPLE, to be the one asking others why they think they are more intelligent than the experts. clulup, your manner of discourse on these boards would have most people believe you think YOU are more intelligent than anyone else. I mean, truly, it is YOUR conceit which I would hold into question here, not mine.
    you are always, invariably, the one on these boards who pervasively expresses yourself with a tangible air of condescension, smugness and general arrogance.
    I find it laughable and very ironic that YOU are trying to take such a postion against anyone else here. if anyone on this board, clulup, I think it is YOU who should explain yourself as to why YOU think you are more intelligent than the scientists who YOU try to arrange arguments around. And im surprised more people here do not call you down on this situation.

    laughable, clulup. truly.
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    another interesting point brought up here involves the concern that carbon dioxide gas released into the atmosphere has been rising.
    well, the intial ingredient that drives photosynthesis, clulup, along with the sun, is carbon dioxide! so while I would think the CO2 levels might raise temperature levels, might it not also benefit the planet's forests and plant life - which would produce greater amounts of oxygen as a result? how might this affect our atmosphere?
    now I am not an expert on this science, but much of this would make sense - CO2 is a recyclable element, it would be another problem altogether if it could not be metabolized and simply built up into harmful concentrations.
    There is no "concern" that CO2 levels are rising, this is a plain an totally undisputed fact. It's really sad that you didn't to look at the New Scientist article Insertion provided, there is a nice graph about that.

    I am well aware of the role of CO2 in photosynthesis, as are - of course - the scientists working in this field. Increased levels of CO2 MAY increase plant growth, but that is far from certain, plant growth depends on many factors, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor. Those questions are of course part of the models the scientists use, so there is nothing new in the points you bring up.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What I really like about science is that it is not dogmatic, there is always room and openness for new ideas and views, as long as there are results and findings of an acceptable quality which support those views. I have never seen a scientific publication which passed off opposing views as sillyness, at least not as long as the claims had a valid basis data-wise. There are, however, a large number of sites/people who dismiss scientific findings about man-made global warming as sillyness, without having valid data which say they are right and the others wrong.
    Yes, you are correct. I should probably had been more clear in that. It is the skeptics on either side that often ridicule, and not scientific publications.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    We need to keep an open mind about ALL results of climatology. However, it is just a fact that there is quite a broad consensus among scientists that global warming due to man-made greenhouse gas emission is a serious risk regarding agriculture, water supply, floods, frequencies of hurricanes, etc.
    The term "consensus" is used time and time again. Have you available results of a poll? Who exactly are these people? Surely it wasn't every climatologist, was it? How many participated? what are their backgrounds?

    I don't ask this to be a smart ***, nor am I passing off the consensus as nonsense. But I am genuinely curious as to who it was asked to, and what if any biases they may have.

    I know you're not American, so this may not sink in, but in American Football, there is a consensus among Raider fan that they will win the Super Bowl every year.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It is true that we don't know everything about the future climate and what influences it in every detail. The problems could be smaller than predicted. But they could also be greater than scientists predict today, we don't know for sure...
    Thank you. This is my problem with the Global Warming mantra. Nobody knows what will happen. It always seems to me that the message put forth by people who support the theories is of doom and gloom. I'm far more receptive to someone who admits they don't know. Even though I don't fully support the man-made warming theories, I can admit that I have no idea what will happen thirty years from now.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    I think it is YOU who should explain yourself as to why YOU think you are more intelligent than the scientists who YOU try to arrange arguments around.

    laughable, clulup. truly.
    Now wait a sec... where did I assume I was more intelligent or knew more about the subject than any scientist you or anybody else quoted? Where did I "arrange arguments around", please show me... I hope you don't mean Solnaki, where I quoted himself saying greenhouse gasses were more important for the climate than the increase in solar activity he found?

    Please, quote me... you know what, I think you will not find anything.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #190  
    clulup how come you havent responded to either of my posts regarding the topic of faith in this discussion? Nothing there?

    Also as I said before Insertion so kindly asked again, where is the poll and what is the criteria for the scientists to participate in the poll, which led to this concensus you keep mentioning. Lets see some data.

    So far it's just "experts say...", "scientists agree..." "they say...". Let's see the list of scientists who participate in this concensus and the list of all scientists so we can compare and see if we do actually have a "vast majority".
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #191  
    "please, quote me... you know what, I think you will not find anything."

    you've got to be kidding me. you mean to tell me that you do not see the degree of pretentiousness in the manner with which you handle the majority of debates you participate in?
    oh, and clulup, I want YOU to quote where I say im more intelligent than any scientists of mention here. can you locate an exact statement anywhere in these threads where I say exactly that? to use YOUR WORDS, clulup, I think you will find nothing to support such a silly claim.
    again, the single most ridiculous thing here is that YOU are accusing ME of such posturing.
    like I said, laughable.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    This is my problem with the Global Warming mantra. Nobody knows what will happen. It always seems to me that the message put forth by people who support the theories is of doom and gloom. I'm far more receptive to someone who admits they don't know. Even though I don't fully support the man-made warming theories, I can admit that I have no idea what will happen thirty years from now.
    I have to admit I did not know fully either, but after reading the literature myself (see my post above), I now know that man-made global warming phenomena is not a theory or a mantra. It is an accepted fact based on good science. To just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand is reckless.
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I have to admit I did not know fully either, but after reading the literature myself (see my post above), I now know that man-made global warming phenomena is not a theory or a mantra. It is an accepted fact based on good science. To just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand is reckless.
    Just as to blindly follow it would be reckless.
    Just a few points in your above posting:
    Science, 299, 2005- Conclusion: Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events.
    It is CONCEIVABALE. Conceivable is not the same as factual.
    Science, 287, 2246- Conclusion: Results from a set of six integrations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model suggest that the warming of the early 20th century could have resulted from a combination of human-induced radiative forcing and an unusually large realization of internal multidecadal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere
    system.
    COULD HAVE...then again, could not have.
    Science, 292, 267 - Conclusion: The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.
    Again, MAY is not definite. It may not have been the result of...

    But as you say, you don't know what will happen and neither do I. It is conceivable to me that you and Clulup may be right. Doesn't mean I know you are, nor does it mean I know I'm right.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  14. #194  
    If you want to learn for yourself about the causes of global warming.

    Go to http://scholar.google.com/

    search "causes of global climate change"

    Read the abstracts from the most relevant and recent Nature and Science articles that come up.
  15.    #195  
    No need to Google, this whole thread is a result of Google searches.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    If you want to learn for yourself about the causes of global warming.

    Go to http://scholar.google.com/

    search "causes of global climate change"

    Read the abstracts from the most relevant and recent Nature and Science articles that come up.
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    clulup how come you havent responded to either of my posts regarding the topic of faith in this discussion? Nothing there?
    Science is not about faith in the way religion is about faith. Science tests methods, verifies the accuracy of the instruments used, cross-checks conclusions, publishes only things which have been approved in a process called peer-review and makes sure results are reproducible.

    Of course, if you are absolutely determined to split hair, faith is involved everywhere. You have to have faith in the fact that your house will not collapse any minute, you need faith in assuming the driver of your cab will not drive off the bridge as soon as he starts driving, etc. In science as much faith is removed from the process as possible, faith is replaced by measuring in a reproducible way. It is not fools-proof, but very solid and probably the most reliable process ever developed.


    Also as I said before Insertion so kindly asked again, where is the poll and what is the criteria for the scientists to participate in the poll, which led to this concensus you keep mentioning. Lets see some data.

    So far it's just "experts say...", "scientists agree..." "they say...". Let's see the list of scientists who participate in this concensus and the list of all scientists so we can compare and see if we do actually have a "vast majority".
    Please refer to the original publication and the references therein, it is all described there: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

    BTW, "Science" is one of the most renowned scientifc publications the US have to offer, so please be careful with dismissing everything written there as bogus.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    It is conceivable to me that you and Clulup may be right. Doesn't mean I know you are, nor does it mean I know I'm right.
    The question which is being addressed here is: "Is there a significant chance that man-made activities contribute to global warming?"

    The answer to that question based on these studies is "yes, there is"

    Lets say you do not absolutely know for sure, but there is a significant chance you are going to drive off a cliff further down the highway. If you could, would you want to do something to decrease that risk just in case it happens?
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    No need to Google, this whole thread is a result of Google searches.
    yes, ok, please give me your search criteria and lets see what shows up
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    "please, quote me... you know what, I think you will not find anything."

    you've got to be kidding me. you mean to tell me that you do not see the degree of pretentiousness in the manner with which you handle the majority of debates you participate in?
    oh, and clulup, I want YOU to quote where I say im more intelligent than any scientists of mention here. can you locate an exact statement anywhere in these threads where I say exactly that? to use YOUR WORDS, clulup, I think you will find nothing to support such a silly claim.
    again, the single most ridiculous thing here is that YOU are accusing ME of such posturing.
    like I said, laughable.
    See, I was right, you didn't find anything of the sort you accused me of...

    Now to your latest accusation: I did NOT say you had claimed to be "more intelligent than any scientist here".

    I DID ask, though, what made you so sure that man-made global warming does not happen. As shown many times now, most scientists in the field agree that global warming takes place. You disargee. From that follows you think you know better. I would like to know why.

    I offered the following possible reasons:

    1. You have better data
    2. You have better knowledge about the underlying climatic processes
    3. You are more intelligent and hence draw more correct conclusions from the available facts
    4. Other possibilies not mentioned so far.


    (A) most climatologists say man-made global warming is a fact
    (B) treobk214 says man-made global warming is a myth

    Why do you know better, if none of the points 1.-4. suggested above apply? My theory is you don't really know better, you just claim you know better based on nothing.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Please refer to the original publication and the references therein, it is all described there: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

    BTW, "Science" is one of the most renowned scientifc publications the US have to offer, so please be careful with dismissing everything written there as bogus.
    Here is the conclusion from that December 2004 article, I think it speaks for itself:

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

    The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

    Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Posting Permissions