Global warming the fuck exists

GreenTeaDisease

it's actually called global climate change now.

just a technicality.

but yes it exists, and yes, it is at least predominately the fault of fossil fuel consumption.

Abookamongstthemany

ClimberInOz wrote:

You could probably spend the next decade bouncing these contradicting reports and articles of each other and never reach agreement. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't often produce concrete answers, especially when the context of the system under investigation is both large and chaotic, as the earth's climate is.

Instead, a situation such as this relies on weight of evidence, which is why citing individual cases from either side of the argument is a pointless exercise. A broken ice shelf in anarctica means as little to the science of this discussion as does a short term reduction in global temperatures.

Trends, such as a global reduction in glaciation over many years are a more valuable form of scientific evidence then individual cases, but still do not allow concrete conclusions to be drawn.

Personally, accumulated evidence that I have read indicate to me that the higher probability is the global warming is occuring and that anthropogenic factors are primarily to blame. The majority of the world's leading scientists also take this position. A few oppose it for reasons of inconclusive evidence and a few on both side take a definite position.

In my mind this is an ideal situation to apply the precautionary principle. Although, for those of you that need something more definite, the problem of ocean acidification (increased CO2 absorbtion in the oceans = reduced ocean pH = probable massive reduction in coral reefs) is backed by more conclusive science and has some very serious environmental and economic concerns.

Either way, we need to drastically reduce our CO2 outputs...
Steve

baraka wrote:

Really good post Climber, I personally appreciate it. I'll add a bit to it. There are two ways to prove beyond scientific doubt that there is a cause-effect relationship in science, and neither has been achieved in AGW (anthropogenic or human caused GW.) The first one is an indisputable derivation of the relationship from well-known physical laws, which makes accurate predictions of the observed correlation, and which indicates the causality. The second is experimental. Perhaps in another 30 or 40 years after we 'change our ways' or cut down drastically on our CO2 we will have that. It is true that scientifically, there are INDICATIONS, like the prediction of SOME models, and the observed correlation of CO2 and warming. But none of this is yet at the stage where the relationship has been scientifically proved without any reasonable doubt, like it is, for instance, concerning the prediction of the next solar eclipse, or the prediction of the current that will flow in a given resistor when exposed to a certain voltage or anything of that kind. There are a lot of computer model that need 'phenomenology' like cloud formation, soil response, vegetation response and all that, and on these things there's so much uncertainty that you can 'warm' or 'cool' as you like. This is not to say that this is not a good approach, just that the problem (science) is simply VERY complicated. So, in other words, the INDICATIONS point toward AGW. It would be reckless for us to continue on like we are.

Thank you both for these informative posts.

fanch75

Obi Once wrote:

Recycle.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5305645&postcount=72

Obi Once

fanch75 wrote:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5305645&postcount=72

Hi fanch homeboy! I saw your post after I posted mine.. Luckily for me "I don't see race" nor feel guilt about my waste. If we'd all simply recycle we could reduce the natural resources needed now (yeah I'm no phun on this topic). Peace out (and recycle!)

depopulationINC

There is a reason it is no longer referred to as "Global Warming" by experts. It is now referred to as "Global Climate Change."

It is irrefutable that the world is warming. It is irrefutable that plankton deposits are shrinking (this is the world's REAL concern...because that is what would truly screw us). It is irrefutable that ice caps are shrinking.

Fact...it has been proven that the average atmospheric temperature cycles +/-3.6C every 136 years. That means from peak to peak the is a 7.2C change. This was discovered by researching polar core samples. We are about 80% into the upward cycle right now.

Fact...why is Greenland called Greenland...from the ice? No...because it was once a fertile vineyard area. Thats right...the land used to have the climate to make premier wines.

The climate changes in cycles. Ethiopia was once a grain growing capitol.

I am not saying that how we live does not hurt the environment, and probably does speed up the cycle...but in the long run...mother nature IS out of our hands.

depopulationINC

OH, and by the way...in this years nuclear summit pretty much all of those 'models' were TOTALLY discredited due to the fact that they are purely based on measurable, anticipatable factors such currents, temperature, gamma, etc. The do not account for things such as solar winds or flares, entire layers of the greenhouse that little to nothing is known about, the effects of natural disasters (remember the years of aftermath caused be Mt St Helen's eruption), etc

he still stands

depopulationINC wrote:

Fact...why is Greenland called Greenland...from the ice? No...because it was once a fertile vineyard area. Thats right...the land used to have the climate to make premier wines.

Hmmm... I have always read, been lectured, etc etc... that Greenland is named as such because vikings were tricking rival clans/groups/etc into thinking Greenland was green and Iceland was mostly ice, which in fact it is just the opposite. This was done to confuse invading tribes in regards to their location.

And I certainly haven't ever heard of grapes being grown in Greenland. Weird.

Although I have seen on the History channel that vikings did inhabit Greenland in places that are now uninhabitable... but they certainly weren't "fertile vineyard areas" either.

Just sayin'...

On a different subject, what in the world is your (not replying to depopulationINC here) agenda if you are trying to disprove global warming or man's causation of global warming? Does it really matter if it really is our fault? Shouldn't we be protecting this beautiful earth which we cannot exploit to its end because we have nowhere else to fucking go? Shouldn't we conserve natural resources, keep the earth clean, and BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND? Please tell me why we SHOULDN'T!!!

Even if it is a "left winger radical conspiracy," don't the means justify the end? Isn't it a good thing if we wean ourselves off of Saudi Arabia's giant oil titty? The only people who believe oil is a renewable resource are the stupid Rush Limbaugh cronies. So shouldn't we get started transitioning to clean energy (renewables, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, even natural gas)??? If not because it has to be done sooner or later, because it just might mean a cleaner, safer earth that is livable?

rah0027

polaris wrote:

this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...

a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...

do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?

Ice melts big deal.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=60

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13134-melting-ice-may-not-explain-warming-arctic.html

eekamouse

rah0027 wrote:

Ice melts big deal.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=60

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn13134-melting-ice-may-not-explain-warming-arctic.html

Good articles, but they are inconclusive to be fair.

From the second article:

TFA wrote:

"We are not saying this is the only explanation," says Graversen, "this could explain maybe 25% of the amplification of warming in the Arctic."

That first article was a tad sensationalist for me to take it too seriously.

rah0027

polaris wrote:

this article is the funniest ... it's like you have a fever and one day it's down a tenth of a degree - now, everything is ok ... the point is you are still running a fever! ...

a big chunk of the wilkins ice shelf the other day ... we are seeing more extreme weather conditions throughout the world ... it is upon us ...

do you naysayers really think the world is gonna get together every year to try and find a solution on some hocus pocus iffy science?

There is more ICe today in Antarctica than in 1980.

Here check the NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER.

http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/wist/wist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=75&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&wcf=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=02&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=02&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2008&year1=1980&.cgifields=no_panel

DriftingByTheStorm

Have we gotten anywhere in this debate yet?


Arguing global "warming" is almost as bad as arguing abortion.


Only total dolts fail to recognize that weather patterns are shifting, and that measurable changes are occuring. Only a few more ingorami (lol, plural much?) deny that human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes ...

... but where the real debate lies is, what do we do,
and SHOULD IT BE MANDATED.

Right?

rah0027

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Have we gotten anywhere in this debate yet?


Arguing global "warming" is almost as bad as arguing abortion.


Only total dolts fail to recognize that weather patterns are shifting, and that measurable changes are occuring. Only a few more ingorami (lol, plural much?) deny that human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes ...

... but where the real debate lies is, what do we do,
and SHOULD IT BE MANDATED.

Right?

So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-research.php

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=49

DriftingByTheStorm

rah0027 wrote:

So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-research.php

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=49

I guess i failed to seperate those two sentences\seperate thoughts properly.
So i will do numerals.

1. The climate is changing. I don't mean hotter or colder, but patterns are changing, and measurable differences in certain quantifiable things like plankton, ice melt, sea level, rain fall patterns, etc.

2. Humans are very capable of causing certain environmental problems that can become global in their scope.

I didn't say, or mean to imply ANYTHING about a direct link between humans and temperature or weather patterns directly. And honestly, i could care less about those direct connections.

What I view (and a whole lot of scientists) as undeniable is that human activities can very clearly contribute to certain potentialy catastrophic problems that affect ecosystems (and if you want to try to bridge the gap in current scientific understanding, possibly weather... hey, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right?) ... So when i said "human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes", i meant things like deforestation around coast lines tends to sever the process of evapotranspiration from coastal lands to inlands. This thus furthers the process of desertification... since, as water is no longer evaporating from trees on the coast, hitting the clowds, blowing inland, and raining on the interior forests, those trees begin to dry and die. In turn, the loss of CO2 absorbing plant life can add Co2 to the atmosphere, and also the loss of the cooler microclimate created by tree cover leads to more rapid and severe warming of the interior landscapes.

And that is just ONE example of how humans can, by a process seemingly "unrelated" to "weather" have an effect on "weather". Chop down enough trees, you affect the weather.

See where i'm going with this?

And i do NOT dispute that solar flares are intensifying ... and i also find that to be quite troubling\worrisome. But i'm also not stupid enough to deny that man has a VERY real and (in some cases) measurable adverse affect on his own global ecosystem. :(

Also, FYI, my opinion on automobiles is that the greatest problem they pose (besides that their increasing use in once pedestrian countries like China is sucking the remaining global oil reserves dry, thus leading to an impending food production collapse and mass starvation) is NOT their emissions (which, if all cars were destroyed today, would have the smallest of measurable affects on the environment, by what calculations i have seen) ... it is the PERMANENT LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE ECOSYSTEMS ... in other words, pavement is, for all practical purposes, UNRECLAIMABLE land. The increasing "road-ification" of the world is destroying ecosystems. The amount of land already permanenetly taken out of any sort of bioloigical production by roads is fucking staggering, and it will only get worse and worse. Further, the simple act of bisecting lands with roads really fucks shit up. You cut off migratory patterns of some species, you seperate some predators from their prey, you infring on the necessary foraging requirements of some species that MUST have X amount of available acres available in order to sustain life, you damage mating habits, lets not forget about just blanket infilling and paving over of important ecosystems like swamps, wetlands, and marshes ... to be honest, we aren't even aware of some of the affect building roads has on ecosystems. THAT kind of shit is the stuff that can really fuck the world. Not silly old emissions.

WMA

rah0027 wrote:

So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-research.php

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=49

"It is the sun." is a pretty bold claim. Anything to support it?

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

...
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
...

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
...

DriftingByTheStorm

But again,
i'd just like to point out that after 3 pages of arguing and debate,
we have done little (okay, NOTHING) to address the ISSUE AT HAND:

WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?



I'll be brutaly honest here.
After years of hobbyist interest in environmental issues, i think i have to side with the NWO crew.
Mass reduction of humanity is necessary for the continued sustenance of ALL life.

Thats not mental masturbation, thats the hard truth.
The global resource base is WAY over extended. We are over-leveraged on natural resources worse than the banks are currently on their credit. Oil production is starting to decrease while demand is still increasing.
Population is WAY unsustainable by ANY historical measure.
Oil will run short and people will starve in unthinkable numbers.
Anyone done any looking at current grain\staple crop reserves?
They are at like 30-70 year lows.
The global population is within just a few short years of being able to consume annually more food than all the arable lands of the world can realisticaly (not to mention SUSTAINABLY) produce. Current agricultural production is already (and has been for quite sometime) 100% unsustainable ... it is run on the back of cheap oil ... and not only is that cheap oil running out ... it is running the top soil in to the ground (hah, no pun) ... seriously, petrochemical fertilizers FUCK the soil ... and BAD.

What are we going to do?
The darwinian answer at hand seems to be that oil supplys will do what they are going to do ...
and so will the global population.

This is not a situation humanity is going to solve with our ingenuity ... it is one we are going to have to accept at a devastating human cost. The laws of nature will play out ... food production will start to fall, as population in the 3rd world continues to attempt to rise ... and at some point famine will right the balance. :(

If you're wondering WHAT that has to do with global warming, it is my opinion that the majority (if not all) of the problems with human impact on the environment are not so much related to WHAT we are doing but in what QUANTITY we are doing it. In other words 100million people with cars may not be a problem for the world, but 100billion is. As oil runs out and runs the population back down to what this planet can sustain without petro-subisidy, i fully believe that life will continue forward without much problem.

rah0027

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I guess i failed to seperate those two sentences\seperate thoughts properly.
So i will do numerals.

1. The climate is changing. I don't mean hotter or colder, but patterns are changing, and measurable differences in certain quantifiable things like plankton, ice melt, sea level, rain fall patterns, etc.

2. Humans are very capable of causing certain environmental problems that can become global in their scope.

I didn't say, or mean to imply ANYTHING about a direct link between humans and temperature or weather patterns directly. And honestly, i could care less about those direct connections.

What I view (and a whole lot of scientists) as undeniable is that human activities can very clearly contribute to certain potentialy catastrophic problems that affect ecosystems (and if you want to try to bridge the gap in current scientific understanding, possibly weather... hey, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right?) ... So when i said "human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes", i meant things like deforestation around coast lines tends to sever the process of evapotranspiration from coastal lands to inlands. This thus furthers the process of desertification... since, as water is no longer evaporating from trees on the coast, hitting the clowds, blowing inland, and raining on the interior forests, those trees begin to dry and die. In turn, the loss of CO2 absorbing plant life can add Co2 to the atmosphere, and also the loss of the cooler microclimate created by tree cover leads to more rapid and severe warming of the interior landscapes.

And that is just ONE example of how humans can, by a process seemingly "unrelated" to "weather" have an effect on "weather". Chop down enough trees, you affect the weather.

See where i'm going with this?

And i do NOT dispute that solar flares are intensifying ... and i also find that to be quite troubling\worrisome. But i'm also not stupid enough to deny that man has a VERY real and (in some cases) measurable adverse affect on his own global ecosystem. :(

Also, FYI, my opinion on automobiles is that the greatest problem they pose (besides that their increasing use in once pedestrian countries like China is sucking the remaining global oil reserves dry, thus leading to an impending food production collapse and mass starvation) is NOT their emissions (which, if all cars were destroyed today, would have the smallest of measurable affects on the environment, by what calculations i have seen) ... it is the PERMANENT LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE ECOSYSTEMS ... in other words, pavement is, for all practical purposes, UNRECLAIMABLE land. The increasing "road-ification" of the world is destroying ecosystems. The amount of land already permanenetly taken out of any sort of bioloigical production by roads is fucking staggering, and it will only get worse and worse. Further, the simple act of bisecting lands with roads really fucks shit up. You cut off migratory patterns of some species, you seperate some predators from their prey, you infring on the necessary foraging requirements of some species that MUST have X amount of available acres available in order to sustain life, you damage mating habits, lets not forget about just blanket infilling and paving over of important ecosystems like swamps, wetlands, and marshes ... to be honest, we aren't even aware of some of the affect building roads has on ecosystems. THAT kind of shit is the stuff that can really fuck the world. Not silly old emissions.

Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests. That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating. Sea temperatures incidently cause most of our weather patterns.

I think the earth can recover quite well from most things humans can do. Lake Erie used to be so polluted it caught on fire. It is much better now. Animals can adapt. It's amazing how animals adapt to what people do. Somthing will fill the gap. Look at the peppered moth. There are bacteria that eat oil. We killed most of the predators in the Northeast, and the deer have taken over. They should probably bring the predators back, but something filled the gap.

rah0027

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

But again,
i'd just like to point out that after 3 pages of arguing and debate,
we have done little (okay, NOTHING) to address the ISSUE AT HAND:

WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?



I'll be brutaly honest here.
After years of hobbyist interest in environmental issues, i think i have to side with the NWO crew.
Mass reduction of humanity is necessary for the continued sustenance of ALL life.

Thats not mental masturbation, thats the hard truth.
The global resource base is WAY over extended. We are over-leveraged on natural resources worse than the banks are currently on their credit. Oil production is starting to decrease while demand is still increasing.
Population is WAY unsustainable by ANY historical measure.
Oil will run short and people will starve in unthinkable numbers.
Anyone done any looking at current grain\staple crop reserves?
They are at like 30-70 year lows.
The global population is within just a few short years of being able to consume annually more food than all the arable lands of the world can realisticaly (not to mention SUSTAINABLY) produce. Current agricultural production is already (and has been for quite sometime) 100% unsustainable ... it is run on the back of cheap oil ... and not only is that cheap oil running out ... it is running the top soil in to the ground (hah, no pun) ... seriously, petrochemical fertilizers FUCK the soil ... and BAD.

What are we going to do?
The darwinian answer at hand seems to be that oil supplys will do what they are going to do ...
and so will the global population.

This is not a situation humanity is going to solve with our ingenuity ... it is one we are going to have to accept at a devastating human cost. The laws of nature will play out ... food production will start to fall, as population in the 3rd world continues to attempt to rise ... and at some point famine will right the balance. :(

If you're wondering WHAT that has to do with global warming, it is my opinion that the majority (if not all) of the problems with human impact on the environment are not so much related to WHAT we are doing but in what QUANTITY we are doing it. In other words 100million people with cars may not be a problem for the world, but 100billion is. As oil runs out and runs the population back down to what this planet can sustain without petro-subisidy, i fully believe that life will continue forward without much problem.

Dude, chill out. Plenty of room for everyone. Thats just hysteria.

DriftingByTheStorm

rah0027 wrote:

Dude, chill out. Plenty of room for everyone. Thats just hysteria.

you got any science or fact to back that statement up?
Otherwise i will continue to be "paranoid".

Either way, i'm not unchill.
i'm PERFECTLY chill.
i'm just pointing out an "inconvenient truth".
har har.

rah0027

WMA wrote:

"It is the sun." is a pretty bold claim. Anything to support it?

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml


http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

This is Sep 12 2007
"Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The earth will be just fine. It's people that won't be.

Exponential population explosion. The framework is being quietly put into place to cope with societal unrest. I think there's going to have to be a cull of some sorts unless people can evolve faster than the resources/proximity equation.

On a brighter not I believe the just came out with a 3x more efficient solar panel for the same price/materials.

Every suburbia will become it's own mini city, and everything goes electric.

Google the great pacific garbage patch (I already posted a rather informative thread on it a while back)....that's some messed up shit... fish ingesting plastic and that goes up through the food chain to people.... not good.