Global Warming

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I think your wrong. Yes CO2 levels are rising and yes it currently seems that the earth is warming but this world has been around for many years with many changes in her shape and climate. I feel that the earth is not in any danger. I think Climate change is happening however. The earth will continue to make changes to her shape and climate, very much like she has done millions of time. Only time will tell whether the human race is doomed however in the short term i do suggest we stop using all these natural resources which will soon run out and then we are in trouble...

SNOW-MAN2006

Hi SM2006

This graph has appeared on numerous threads now

Click Here

What I said, was there is a correlation between CO2 rising, and temperature rising. The graph, whether you like it or not, shows that there is a correlation.

What ever you believe (and I didnt actually say what I did), that is a good correlation. Good enough, that it would be silly to just ignore it.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Hi SM2006

This graph has appeared on numerous threads now

Click Here

What I said, was there is a correlation between CO2 rising, and temperature rising. The graph, whether you like it or not, shows that there is a correlation.

What ever you believe (and I didnt actually say what I did), that is a good correlation. Good enough, that it would be silly to just ignore it.

There may well be a correlation but hasnt the earth Had many climate shifts and how do we no this isnt another? I see your and many other people's point that yes CO2 levels are rising but i fail to see how this is making the weather change when in previous years the climate has changed and it hasnt been blamed on CO2 levels.

SNOW-MAN2006

[parmenides3]

There may well be a correlation but hasnt the earth Had many climate shifts and how do we no this isnt another? I see your and many other people's point that yes CO2 levels are rising but i fail to see how this is making the weather change when in previous years the climate has changed and it hasnt been blamed on CO2 levels.

SNOW-MAN2006

Yes, S-M2006, this is another climate change, but I would caution you against anthropomorphising 'The earth', a la Lovelock, as being responsible. We know this is unlike other changes in the climate because what has been measured doesn't fit any understood patterns, unless we add in the greenhouse effect. When we do that, the patterns match the observations. There are explanations of this in some of the links on the pin at the top of the Environment Change board.

The other worry I have about your post is that you seem to be referring to climate in one instant, and weather in the next; it is important to remember that the two are not the same. The weather can change in all sorts of ways from day to day and season to season, but the climate is something we measure changes to in terms of years, decades and centuries (or more). This is why one cold or warm Winter would not tell us anything on its own about a change to the recent trend of warming in the global climate.

The link between CO2 and climate change is best understood by reading one of the links in the pin. You may well see some posters challenging the connection, and some doubting it, so remember to keep an open mind. Remember, also, that most climate scientists accept that CO2-induced warming is now a proven fact; whether you accept their conclusion is also up to you.

Hope this helps.

:)P

Edited September 24, 2006 by parmenides3

[Gray-Wolf]

I think the other thing to hold in mind is that within climate some positives can go to prove a negative. For example the recent oceanic cooling (since 2003) would appear a godsend to the I.A.N. worshipers but then would they take the time to note that sea levels were still rising over that same period (instead of falling due to the 'contraction of the 'cooler water') pointing towards an even greater ice sheet/glacier run off feed (i.e. increased melting).

I think the oceanic warming has been likened to climatic 'speed bumps' within overall global warming trends and would imagine that the working atmosphere is potentially full of such 'speed bumps' .

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I think the other thing to hold in mind is that within climate some positives can go to prove a negative. For example the recent oceanic cooling (since 2003) would appear a godsend to the I.A.N. worshipers but then would they take the time to note that sea levels were still rising over that same period (instead of falling due to the 'contraction of the 'cooler water') pointing towards an even greater ice sheet/glacier run off feed (i.e. increased melting).

I think the oceanic warming has been likened to climatic 'speed bumps' within overall global warming trends and would imagine that the working atmosphere is potentially full of such 'speed bumps' .

GW

No it isn't a godsend to IAN worshippers as he expects oceans to kep warming...FOX was totally unaware and did not expect this cooling. I e-mailed him with the link to obtain response and other than quote 'unaware' there has been no reply.

BFTP

? I see your and many other people's point that yes CO2 levels are rising

SNOW-MAN2006

Are they???? Guys still re reading and checking for debunking ...oh it is an interesting read

BFTP

[parmenides3]

GW

No it isn't a godsend to IAN worshippers as he expects oceans to kep warming...FOX was totally unaware and did not expect this cooling. I e-mailed him with the link to obtain response and other than quote 'unaware' there has been no reply.

BFTP

Are they???? Guys still re reading and checking for debunking ...oh it is an interesting read

BFTP

Come on, Blast, now you're just teasing... you know we'll have a go at whatever you give us, anyway; that's part of the fun.

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

Hi SM2006

This graph has appeared on numerous threads now

Click Here

What I said, was there is a correlation between CO2 rising, and temperature rising. The graph, whether you like it or not, shows that there is a correlation.

What ever you believe (and I didnt actually say what I did), that is a good correlation. Good enough, that it would be silly to just ignore it.

CO 2 levels will rise with increasing temp because CO2 is less soluble with increasing temp. The question is which comes first ? Ice core data says that CO2 follows temperature up, but with a time lag.

[parmenides3]

CO 2 levels will rise with increasing temp because CO2 is less soluble with increasing temp. The question is which comes first ? Ice core data says that CO2 follows temperature up, but with a time lag.

Yes, they did when there was nobody around to pump it artificially into the atmosphere; but the ice cores also show how the increased CO2 concentrations accelerated the wariming phases. This is the uniqueness of our situation; we are creating the conditions for warming which would have occured 800 years after a 'natural' shift in temperature regimes.

:)P

[SMU]

Yes, they did when there was nobody around to pump it artificially into the atmosphere; but the ice cores also show how the increased CO2 concentrations accelerated the wariming phases. This is the uniqueness of our situation; we are creating the conditions for warming which would have occured 800 years after a 'natural' shift in temperature regimes.

:)P

I didnt really know where to post this...

Has anyone seen the film/Docu film called the inconvienent truth- Its with Al-Gore the guy who so VERY nearly made it the whitehouse...

He is Obsessed with Global Warming- However in terms of a film he presented the facts in a very clear way and would I believe lead the 'ordinary' person in the street to have at least a little impulse to correct their behaviuor in terms of input to help reduce Co2 Emissions-

http://www.trailerdownload.net/movies/An_Inconvenient_Truth

ive managed to find a link to an importnant slide in the movie-

http://flickr.com/photos/ari/sets/72157594146919096/show/

The third one in on the top row-

It basically explains that out of a sample of 928 climate change articles 0% disagreed that Global warming was the cause, however a sample of 636 articles from related press releases gave a figure of 53% casting a doubt over global warming-

Talk about the press giving its own spin to the matter-

If anyone is interested in this subject Matter I urge people to go & see it-

regards

Steve

[Mr Sleet]

Yes, they did when there was nobody around to pump it artificially into the atmosphere; but the ice cores also show how the increased CO2 concentrations accelerated the wariming phases. :)P

Well I haven't heard that one before, moreover I don't think there is any evidence for a statement like that.And the reason I think that it is incorrect is that the cooling after the interglacial warm phase was over was just as rapid as the warming on the way into the interglacial ( ie like falling off a cliff) despite CO2 levels remaining high.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

I didnt really know where to post this...

Has anyone seen the film/Docu film called the inconvienent truth- Its with Al-Gore the guy who so VERY nearly made it the whitehouse...

He is Obsessed with Global Warming- However in terms of a film he presented the facts in a very clear way and would I believe lead the 'ordinary' person in the street to have at least a little impulse to correct their behaviuor in terms of input to help reduce Co2 Emissions-

http://www.trailerdownload.net/movies/An_Inconvenient_Truth

ive managed to find a link to an importnant slide in the movie-

http://flickr.com/photos/ari/sets/72157594146919096/show/

The third one in on the top row-

It basically explains that out of a sample of 928 climate change articles 0% disagreed that Global warming was the cause, however a sample of 636 articles from related press releases gave a figure of 53% casting a doubt over global warming-

Talk about the press giving its own spin to the matter-

If anyone is interested in this subject Matter I urge people to go & see it-

regards

Steve

This is as good a place as any, Steve. Perhaps you could do a review in the reviews section as well?

The numbers you mention say a lot about why there is still doubt and confusion about this subject. Whether we like it or not, we generally depend on the press for a lot of the time when it comes to news; unless you are a dedicated web browser on a mission, it's easy to accept what you read as being broadly 'true'. But the tone and implications of these articles do influence our own feelings, either positively or negatively. Even when we use other sources of information, it's not always easy to know what or who to trust/believe. The key impression given by the media in this case is that there is still debate in climatology circles about GW, when, in fact, there isn't. Sometimes it makes me want to spit!

:)P

Well I haven't heard that one before, moreover I don't think there is any evidence for a statement like that.And the reason I think that it is incorrect is that the cooling after the interglacial warm phase was over was just as rapid as the warming ie like falling off a cliff despite CO2 levels remaining high.

This might help:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

Filed under: Paleoclimate Greenhouse gases FAQ— group @ 9:42 am - ()

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [but it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine

Courtesy RealClimate.org

If you want, I'll find a link to the Caillon article as well.

:)P

[parmenides3]

I really must kick this double-posting habit. Here is a link to a brand new article by Jim Hansen et.al. called 'Global Temperature Change'. It is one of the most worrying scientific articles I have read in a long time. I can pretty much guarantee that it will be the subject of a huge amount of debate on the various climate websites, so here's a chance to get ahead of the game. It's quite technical in places, but most of the supporting material is on a different link (the PNAS). If you have an interest in CC or GW, please read this article.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288

P

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I really must kick this double-posting habit. Here is a link to a brand new article by Jim Hansen et.al. called 'Global Temperature Change'. It is one of the most worrying scientific articles I have read in a long time. I can pretty much guarantee that it will be the subject of a huge amount of debate on the various climate websites, so here's a chance to get ahead of the game. It's quite technical in places, but most of the supporting material is on a different link (the PNAS). If you have an interest in CC or GW, please read this article.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288

P

You are of course absolutely right Para, but I suspect that the ostriches amongst us will continue to squeak about 'proof' and 'natural cycles' and 'no evidence' etc etc etc, probably until the water is lapping around Buckingham Palace, and even then, I suspect, they will still be saying 'it wasn't us, it wasn't us, it would have happened anyway..............' which is another way of saying 'it wasn't me, it was something else, I'm not responsible, it wasn't my fault, there was nothing I could do'. Phrases that involve Nero and fiddles springs to mind, or perhaps 'dereliction of duty', 'abrogation of responsibilty', or 'in denial' may be more apt !

Edited September 26, 2006 by Pennine Ten Foot Drifts

[Dawlish]

I really must kick this double-posting habit. Here is a link to a brand new article by Jim Hansen et.al. called 'Global Temperature Change'. It is one of the most worrying scientific articles I have read in a long time. I can pretty much guarantee that it will be the subject of a huge amount of debate on the various climate websites, so here's a chance to get ahead of the game. It's quite technical in places, but most of the supporting material is on a different link (the PNAS). If you have an interest in CC or GW, please read this article.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/39/14288

P

You are just an article hound P3! Please have a read, if you are interested in the subject. It really is quite something and is, as you say, worrying. I rather hope some of the conclusions (discussions) are wrong!

Paul

PS Thanks for rooting it out. It couldn't possibly be more up-to-date; it was only published yesterday! How do you come across research like this? I'm in awe!

Edited September 26, 2006 by Dawlish

[parmenides3]

This was a lucky accident, Paul. I was checking out blog called Climate Progress http://climateprogress.org/

by Joseph Romm. It seems pretty up to date. Credit to Mr. Romm, really.

In a few days, this will probably be the next 'nine day wonder' on CC/GW. Watching the shenanigans should be rather entertaining.

Thanks for the kind comments, anyway.

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

Very interesting, but worrying, although they do not yet suggest that all is lost and there are still steps that can be taken. Question is, will anybody listen. I doubt very much whether such a paper will get house room in New Delhi or Beijing, never mind Washington DC.

[parmenides3]

Very interesting, but worrying, although they do not yet suggest that all is lost and there are still steps that can be taken. Question is, will anybody listen. I doubt very much whether such a paper will get house room in New Delhi or Beijing, never mind Washington DC.

Normally, Viking, you might be right, but this is, I suspect, a'biggie'. Hansen has a lot of clout in climate change circles, and in political circles in the US. Of course, there is no way they are going to introduce an immediate 'zero emissions' policy, so the question is going to be 'how much s&$t is going to hit the fan? Even China can't ignore a sea-level rise of a metre or more; a huge proportion of its development is taking place in coastal and marginal areas, and several major cities would be seriously effected. Oh, and, if it's right, we can kiss goodbye to most of Southern Florida, Rotterdam and most of Bangladesh in about 90 years' time.

:)P

[Mr Sleet]

Did anyone hear the Conservationist on Radio Five Live yesterday bemoaning the 75% drop in numbers of Barn Owls ? He was asked why and said that it was due to the "very cold" winter. He then went on to say that such "extreme" weather was due to global warming and humans are to blame.

This is the type of fashionable but irrational thinking that so irritates me, AGW is the explanation for every slightly unusual event that happens these days.Unfortunately most of the listeners would have taken that as fact, I'm sure.

Rant over, had to get that off my chest :-)

Edited September 27, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Guest Mike W]

Compared to winters that occured 20+ years ago like 81/82 78/79, 84/85 even 76/77 and 77/78 would make last winter look mild by comparrison. For that reaeson I find a somewhat extreme to to call last winter a very cold winter, a chilly or maybe even a just a cold winter would be nearer the mark, I think chilly winter would be the best description. Eg: 90/91 more referred to as just a cold winter yet: 4.1, 3.2, 1.5 is how it went and they are calling 4.4, 4.3, 3.7 very cold, odd to say the least. A very cold winter is 78/79, 62/63 definately. More to the point Barn Owls were still around then and still survived all those proper severe winters so what what makes this one special, certainly not temperature, the dryness was notable only.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Mike W

[Gray-Wolf]

Cheers for the read Para3 I'll need to whizz through it a few more times to get a better 'flavour' (you never know I may even read it all ) but it is not unexpected ,from where I view the world at least. The 'super El-Nino ' section caught my eye as I'm not too convinced, in a changing world, that we are experts in predicting the strengths of these events in todays world (and just when we thought we had got a handle on the thing!).

I post this with the developing El-Nino in mind as ,as far as I am led to believe, it is set to be a 'mild' event and this prediction is backed up with plenty of 'old world/climate' stat's but I'm not too sure whether I can trust this any more. In the same way C.C.cops the blame for all manner of things then El- Nino seems to be treated in a similar way. Let's see what the next 18 months of climate and weather bring and how how much blame is put at El-Nino's door and how much at G.W.'s door.

[VillagePlank]

The globe is not warming.

(at least the one my desk isn't)

Edited September 27, 2006 by Wilson

[Gray-Wolf]

The globe is not warming.

(at least the one my desk isn't)

Regards, G.W.

[VillagePlank]

I've found that if I heat the globe on my desk with a candle it tends to sponaneous combust; if this is any sort of parallel to what might happen to the world, should I be scared?

[parmenides3]

I've found that if I heat the globe on my desk with a candle it tends to sponaneous combust; if this is any sort of parallel to what might happen to the world, should I be scared?

Hello again, Wilson. I presume you're implying that the paper is all alarmist nonsense. Or are you saying that it's not relevant because there's nothing we can do about it? Or are you just stirring things up?

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Just stirring, I'm afraid; haven't even read the paper to be honest; just spreading my brand of humour around for the afternoon. My wife says it reminds her of a five-year old :blush:

Edited September 27, 2006 by Wilson