Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Guess that global warming stuff was right
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
Guess that global warming stuff was right
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/climate_change

Seems a little fishy to me. But, I'd like to read the report and not make rash judgements.
06-22-2006 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,314
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 542
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #2
 
I don't think most people deny global warming... the issue is what causes the global warming. Is it natural, is it man made? If it is man made, what is causing it? Polution? Nova had a show in a few weeks back saying we have cut down on large particle pollutants which allows more sun light down the the surface, then it gets trapped due to more green house gasses.

Another question is whether or not polution controls are the answer to stop the warming. Is there a better solution some where else?
06-22-2006 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
 
Exactly correct, mlb. So it's the hottest it's been in 400 years. Read that closely, it's the "hottest it's been in 400 years".


Ok, what exactly does that say?
06-22-2006 02:08 PM
Quote this message in a reply
uhmump95 Offline
Race Pimp
*

Posts: 5,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 50
I Root For: all my hoes!
Location:

Crappies
Post: #4
 
It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).
06-22-2006 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,626
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #5
 
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).


It's like taking the stats for rainfall in Arizona for two days, and if it rained both days declaring it a swamp.
06-22-2006 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,419
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2019
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #6
 
If one looks at historical temperatures, there's a very strong correlation between high global average temperature and periods of intense solar activity.

What makes the Earth warm to begin with? The sun.

The Earth is warming up?

WELL LET'S SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE SUN THEN YOU EFFING MORONS!

01-wingedeagle
06-23-2006 01:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomorrowHerd Offline
Protecting the Northern Flank
*

Posts: 2,604
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Pie!!!!
Location: Anchorage, AK

Donators
Post: #7
from my post on herd fans
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Quote:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."



Quote:
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.



Quote:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.



Quote:
"The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."




Quote:
But Karl?n clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans.




Quote:
"Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."


Quote:
Karl?n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl?n



Quote:
The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."


Quote:
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
06-23-2006 01:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #8
 
mlb Wrote:I don't think most people deny global warming... the issue is what causes the global warming. Is it natural, is it man made? If it is man made, what is causing it? Polution? Nova had a show in a few weeks back saying we have cut down on large particle pollutants which allows more sun light down the the surface, then it gets trapped due to more green house gasses.

Another question is whether or not polution controls are the answer to stop the warming. Is there a better solution some where else?

I'm just pointing out that the advocates for GW are smart enough to address these questions.
The question now becomes, are their points VALID? I don't know w/o studying it further.
That's the danger here, are these advocates so zealous that they are violating their scientific integrity?

I have seen them do it on occasion re: this issue, w/ inappropriate data analysis and unfounded conclusions.

Are they doing it now, or do they have ample evidence?
06-23-2006 07:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ShoreBuc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,679
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 297
I Root For: ECU
Location: Hilton Head Island
Post: #9
 
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.
06-25-2006 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


niuhuskie84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,930
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #10
 
ShoreBuc Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.

and yet we have made more of an impact on this planet in that short time than any other species. scary.
06-25-2006 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthGAEagle Offline
Overzealous Admin
*

Posts: 8,203
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Mercer & USM
Location: Woodbridge, Virginia

SkunkworksDonatorsFolding@NCAAbbsCrappiesCrappiesSurvivor Champion
Post: #11
 
ShoreBuc Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.

Are you sure it's that long? That actually sounds high... I do a timeline with my Geology students where we compress the history of Earth onto a 100 foot tape measure, and humans appear at 99 feet 11 inches, and our entire written history is on the black line that marks 100 feet.

Interestingly, dinosaurs roam the Earth for almost 4 feet.
06-25-2006 10:40 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
 
OptimisticOwl Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).


It's like taking the stats for rainfall in Arizona for two days, and if it rained both days declaring it a swamp.

Sure, because Ford Taurus's pollute more than Haleakala, Vesuvius, St. Helens, etc., etc., etc. 01-wingedeagle
06-26-2006 07:32 AM
Quote this message in a reply
ShoreBuc Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,679
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 297
I Root For: ECU
Location: Hilton Head Island
Post: #13
 
SouthGAEagle Wrote:
ShoreBuc Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.

Are you sure it's that long? That actually sounds high... I do a timeline with my Geology students where we compress the history of Earth onto a 100 foot tape measure, and humans appear at 99 feet 11 inches, and our entire written history is on the black line that marks 100 feet.

Interestingly, dinosaurs roam the Earth for almost 4 feet.

Your right I think it is actually 8 seconds. I remember listening to a Scientist at the Smithsonian talking series and that was the first time I heard it.
06-26-2006 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #14
 
niuhuskie84 Wrote:
ShoreBuc Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.

and yet we have made more of an impact on this planet in that short time than any other species. scary.

A. Why is that "scary", or do you just like throwing out ominous, important-sounding comments w/ no data to back it up.

B. Is this even true? What about earthworms? or ants? Of course there are several species of ant, but what about the most prevalent species? Or perhaps some bacterium. Mammals are outnumbered by many other classes of animal.
06-27-2006 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
 
DrTorch Wrote:B. Is this even true? What about earthworms? or ants? Of course there are several species of ant, but what about the most prevalent species? Or perhaps some bacterium. Mammals are outnumbered by many other classes of animal.


Yeah, but they don't drive those evil SUV's. [/liberal]
06-27-2006 07:14 AM
Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
 
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:If one looks at historical temperatures, there's a very strong correlation between high global average temperature and periods of intense solar activity.

What makes the Earth warm to begin with? The sun.

The Earth is warming up?

WELL LET'S SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE SUN THEN YOU EFFING MORONS!

01-wingedeagle

Wow - thankfully we have sports fans to figure out stuff that wouldn't have been thought of otherwise... :rolleyes:

To be honest, this notion seemed pretty ridiculous on the face of it, so I didn't bother to even do a search when I first heard of it. Turns out, they may attribute up to 1/4 of the warming effect to transient solar cycles - that's pretty significant, but not helpful to the observed warming.

This is not really too complicated - the earth is basically at steady state. There are very few possibilities:
  • More energy is provided as input to the earth
  • There is a change to how much energy penetrates the earth atmosphere
  • There is less energy emitted from earth
  • Earth is heated from energy released from a stored energy source (fossil fuel, nuclear).
  • Redistribution of energy on earth to surface heat (e.g. the earth's core vents heat to the surface increasing surface temperature, but not the overall heat of the earth)
  • The data indicating surface warming is wrong
    [/list:u]

    The effect from a warmer sun is the first item, and it just takes variation of a fraction of 1% to account for warming of about 1 degree. One problem with the sun as primary cause is that the timeframes don't mesh very well with data observations (proposed timeframes for solar warming are either in 1000s of years, or 11 year cycles).

    The second possibility from the list could be accounted for by ozone holes, though I haven't seen any suggestions that this is the case, and it appears on the face to be highly unlikely. In fact, the reverse appears to be the case (smog and such prevent energy from getting to the earth's surface).

    The third item on the list is the greenhouse effect.

    The fourth and fifth items seems highly unlikely to me, just included for completeness.

    I won't consider the fifth item here because acceptance of the data is implied by proposing solar warming as a cause of global warming.
06-28-2006 05:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #17
 
SouthGAEagle Wrote:
ShoreBuc Wrote:
uhmump95 Wrote:It is insane to take 400 years of data and make an assumption about a planet that has been in existance for hundreds of thousands of years (maybe even millions).

If you compressed the Earth's history into a 24hr clock, mankind has been on the planet for 18 seconds.

Are you sure it's that long? That actually sounds high... I do a timeline with my Geology students where we compress the history of Earth onto a 100 foot tape measure, and humans appear at 99 feet 11 inches, and our entire written history is on the black line that marks 100 feet.

Interestingly, dinosaurs roam the Earth for almost 4 feet.

5000/4000000000 = 0.0000125
1/1200 = 0.00083
18/60/60/24 = 0.0002 ... if you count mankind as 70000, then 1.5 seconds is more appropriate, assuming 4 billion years as earth's age (from memory - somehow my own age seems like less of a good excuse for memory errors now).
06-28-2006 05:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
 
Incidentally, these links are informative - Congress commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review the study cited in the UN-ish report on global warming (I posted the link some time ago). This is the study that also prompted the letter from professors complaining that Congress was putting pressure on the author of this study (I think DrT posted info on that).

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (edit: This is, by the way, The Report that is referenced by Dr. Torch's post that started this thread).
Podcast: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (MP3 - one hour) ... If you want to listen, the meat of the presentation is about 6 minutes into the podcast, and runs about 10 minutes. In many ways, the questions are more interesting, and fill out the rest of the press conference. Or you can read the report from the first link.
[code:1]<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:17:01 EST</pubDate>
<itunes:subtitle>Podcasts from The National Academies</itunes:subtitle>
<itunes:author>The National Academies</itunes:author>
"12
<itunes:summary>
There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report. There is less confidence in reconstructions of surface temperatures from 1600 back to A.D. 900, and very little confidence in findings on average temperatures before then.
</itunes:summary>[/code:1]
06-28-2006 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.