Oh..uh...about that "Global Warming" thing

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/climate_conference
The current year was also the most expensive for the insurance industry in coping worldwide with hurricanes, typhoons and other weather-related natural disasters, according to new figures released by U.N. environmental officials.


The release of the report by the World Meteorological Organization (news - web sites) came as environmental ministers from some 80 countries gathered in Buenos Aires for a United Nations (news - web sites) conference on climate change, looking at ways to cut down on greenhouse gases that some say contribute heavily to Earth's warming.



Statistics released at the climate change conference showed that natural disasters across the world in the first 10 months of the year cost the insurance industry just over $35 billion, up from $16 billion in 2003.


Munich Re, one of the world's biggest insurance companies, said the United States tallied the highest losses at more than $26 billion, while small developing nations such as the Caribbean islands of Grenada and Grand Cayman were also hit hard.

iirc 31 hurricanes (typhoons) formed between The Philippines and Japan this year. That map makes it look like only five occurred.

:evilgrin:

Global warming is myth! Sean Hannity said so and he also said they found nuclear missiles in Iraq, so I have every reason to believe him!

:bounce:

Prepare to meet your doom!

:puke:

Combined with an La Nina Southern Oscillation

It is a fact that we experienced an warming cycle pre industrial revolution during the middle ages.

If we didn't create greenhouse gases back then, why did it get warmer?

Hint: That big yellow ball in the sky has cycles.

Greenland used to be green. Is that a bad thing?

We need to be environmentally friendly and leave a better world for our children, but not cut off our nose in spite of our face.

because of the experts reporting of the global ice age twenty plus years ago.

Oh' I almost forgot the mass starvation across the globe, because of the billions of people that populate it. That never happened.

(mass starvation is a political problem not an overpopulation problem when it occurs in an area.)

Oh' yeah. The oil shortage was really terrible that was predicted also.

Can you name one thing the environmental scientific community has predicated correctly in the last 30 years.

Until then, I'll sleep O.K. at night.

...therefore ALL predictions are wrong?

Using that logic, I guess we should have never invoked the Endangered Species Act which brought the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction since they would have magically bounced back without our intervention?

No, never implied that. You assume that.

The difference between bringing back the bald eagle from extinction and trying to understand global warming is akin to making a apple pie and building a cold fusion system. You can't compare the two.

BTW, you haven't posted one prediction that was correct? There may be, I can't think of one.

...and other greenhouse gasses with periods of global warming over the last 420,000 years, I'd say the theory that massive amounts of humans engaging in activity with increases the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a pretty good science.

So when do we wait to correct our behavior? When there is so much proof that our polar ice caps are gone and the breadbasket of America falls prey to desertification?

You ever heard the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

I guess we can dispense with the services of astronomers then, can't we? :eyes:

have your head in the sand. You discount all these predictions just because they haven't come true YET? That kind of thinking will win you the Darwin Award.

And I DO believe that global warming due to carbon emission is fact... looking at maps and data for one single year and saying "oh, it was hot that year" does not prove global warming. Just like the converse ("hey, last winter was pretty cold, huh? global warming my ass...) is BS.

The trend is clear. The earth is warming. OK, go ahead and believe it's some kind of solar cycle, but certainly, the huge amounts of crap we're putting in the atmosphere don't help the situation.

I just don't think we have a lot to do with it. I'm not so sure it's a bad thing either to be in a warming cycle.

There are plenty of good things that can happen because of it.

1. What is the current concentration of atmospheric CO2 compared to concentrations circa 1750 AD?

2. How much (roughly) net carbon enters the atmosphere each year as a direct result of human activity - that is, carbon beyond the ability of the biosphere to sequester in plants, trees, algae, etc.?

3. What are the greenhouse gases? How many are there and what are their names?

....but that doesn't mean we weren't responsible for the passenger pidgeon, buffalo, and Carolina parakeet going extinct (to name a few).

I presume you mean the North American Bison....these guys:

Do you deny that?

Nice attempt at evading the point though.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Got nothing? Call your adversary a freeper.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And I was very willing to discuss the issue at hand until you copped that attitude.

You were, and are, being pretty facetitious.

namely that the warming trend can be attributed to natural oscillations in atmoshperic and sea surface conditions, and a talk given by Michael Crichton.

Yet, despite those counterpoints, I'm being called freeperlike and "facetitious"... whatever that word means.

I think I'll go with 95% of the scientific community who agrees that global warming IS real, that it IS largely caused by our CO2 emissions, and that it WILL have some pretty devastating effects on human civilization.

Of course, if you'd rather believe a pulp fiction writer with little more than a cursory knowledge of the issue, that's your perogative.

Has he studied or earned degrees in atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric physics, climatology, glaciology, oceanography, marine biology, zoology or botany?

Has he published peer-reviewed science on any of these or on any other climate-related topics?

...point that simply because something CAN occur naturally we can ignore the possibility that humans MIGHT have an impact on our own enviroment.

We did almost entirely wipe out the American Plains Buffalo. Why did you feel a need to miss that point?

It became apparent, though, that when you call the North American Bison extinct, you may not know what you're talking about.

It's clear he knows what he's talking about. If it hadn't been for early conservation efforts, the same kind of efforts hoping to prevent global warming, the North American Bison would have gone the way of the dodo, it came very close to doing so.

I had no idea that an extinct bison was causing global warming. Maybe I should tell the folks across the street at NOAA that they're barking up the wrong tree. :shrug:

Just don't get upset when people accuse you of play silly logic games, because that's exactly what you're doing and you're being very disruptive while you're doing it. Regardless of motive.

Since this thread, I've developed a healthy disregard for them grass chompers.

Don't take yourself so seriously.

This had been a pretty good thread.

That the near extinction of the bison as well as the extinction of other species in our history was caused by global warming. Are you honestly trying to say that's how you interpreted that?

ROTFLMAO!

Come now. You aren't stupid and neither am I, so please don't continue to insult the intelligence of everyone on the board with that kind of tactic of pretending you didn't understand the point. It's disingenuous and unworthy of you.

global warming on the laps of humans without examining processes that have been ocurring for millenia.

for millenia. If you're going to argue something at least get yourself informed first.

That was the point.

You wanted to play games instead of simply taking the point in the spirit in which it was made.

Why be rude to someone for the sake of being rude?

Are bison causing global warming? :shrug:

Those scoundrels.

It's crazy antiscience day at DU today.

That is a scientific fact.
I think the reason is simply not just greenhouse gases. I think they play a very small part of a lot larger complex system of cause and effect.

Scientists, however, disagree with you.

There are scientists who think global warming is a fairly tale. An M.I.T. professor just published an article on that very fact. Go tell him he's wrong.

There is in fact no general consensus on the causes global warming among the scientific community.
The consensus is, it is warming up. But, the complete story is far from locked down.

I don't think Rush is part of that group.

In fact, most disagree with you.

Do you have a link to the article? Do you have a citation or journal number? What did he say?

Unfortunately, Lindzen contradicts himself. he signed on to the NAS's "Analysis of Key Questions" that confirms the findings of the IPCC.

A great national geographic came out a few months before the election. The prime example of global warming was the permafrost melting in the northern boreal regions and complete forests literally tilting sideways...

Also this discussion reminds me of my favorite Bill O'Reilly quote:
'I'm not a conservative, I believe in global warming!'

Uh... I'm sorry to say... but you don't 'believe' in science, people. Same with evolution 'believers'.

As a Bio person, I can't stand to listen to him because he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. Yet yet people refuse to scientists who spend their whole lives studying global warming.

n/t

You would understand that there is a direct correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and periods of global warming throughout the Earth's history.

gases people make though industrial development.

You do know the vast majority of greenhouse gases are natural occurring?

Of course, Limbaugh just talks about single point sources and not all anthropogenic sources combined.

Oh! Lookee here!



Boy oh boy. Funny how all that carbon coincides with the industrial revolution. Must be a coincidence.

While we're at it lets cut down them pollution causing trees.

Bison are livestock, just without the spots.

thanks for providing a great argument linking industrial revolution to global warming and greenhouse effect.

god, it really does seem like anti-science day at DU.

(oh well, getting plenty of sleep in here though... zzz)

Just kidding wrt the Conanism :)

But seriously, I think this graph actually hurts your case. And here's why.

One reason has to do with the cyclic nature of the graph. There is a period of about 100,000 years between peaks. Now why is this? Do you believe CO2 ought to have such a period? What would account for this?

There are elements of earth's orbit that have a period of about 100,000 years. Could this really affect CO2 first, before temperature, or is it the other way around?

The second thing is the presence of CH4 which seems to track both temperature and CO2. Again, what is the cause? Why the 100,000 year period? You have the same problem as you have with CO2. What could cause a 100,000 period? And even more significantly, it tracks very well with CO2. This can't be coincidence. And from the graph, you could just as well argue that it's CH4 and not CO2 that causes warming since it also correlates with temperature.

Finally, from the graph, you could argue that it's temperature that causes increases in CO2 and CH4. One hypothesis is that warming reduces the amount of CO2 that will dissolve in the oceans.

The graph is really poor support.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases and rising temperatures.

It doesn't mean that such events can not happen in nature, nor does it discount the fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen steadily since the the industrial revolution which just happens to coincide with the massive use of fossil fuels which release said gasses.

While we cannot discount that there MIGHT be a natural cause for said rise in our global temperature, when do we make the decision? After the damage is done?

That seems like one hell of a gamble to me and an unecessary gamble at that.

Take another look at the graph. If the period holds, we should soon be slipping into the next ice-age. Some of the declines in temperature are very dramatic and rapid.

Perhaps by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we'll be allowing another ice-age to occur.

Do you really want to take that chance?

you might want to consider more carefull phrasing.

man-made or natural, it's still something to be taken into account.

It was always covered with ice. That name could be called one of the earliest "marketing" tricks.

Here is a picture of the arctic ice cap, then (1979) and recently (2002).




And here is a picture of Greenland with the areas in pink illustrating the areas that now melt in the summer that didn't melt before:

In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in a.d. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name.

"Greenland used to be green"

Actually, the vikings gave Greenland and Iceland deceptive names, to fool others. Iceland was actually the hospitable place, and Greenland was actually always harsh and icy.

hippy
LIBERAL!
Buyin' in to junk science.
pish tosh

Not that this is a BAD thing, but when he shows me a doctorate in METEOROLOGY, I think I'll take his musings more seriously.

Doesn't mean anybody takes him seriously.

...cause the immune deficiency syndrome that 99% of scientists do believe.

Hey, some "scientists" believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

I don't understand why some people cling to the extreme minority opinion and dismiss the peer-reviewed research of the vast majority.

(not referring to you, just supporting your assertion that people LISTENING and reviewing the extreme fringes of theory does not mean it is taken seriously or believed or worthy of dismissing the vast majority of scientific research on a topic)

You don't mean this Gene Ray?

www.timecube.com

Please say it ain't so.

Apparently there's video somewhere.

i just saw that website... and I must say, wasn't it just precious!?!? :D

ha ha ha, that's absolutely the most hysterical thing i've seen in ages.

fun with quotations!

"3 EQUATOR 4 CORNER EARTH TIME ROTATES 96 HOURS AS A SIMULTANEOUS 4 DAY CUBE.

YOU WERE TAUGHT THAT THE EARTH HAS ONLY ONE EQUATOR AS IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT. YOU WERE TAUGHT IGNORANCE

CREATION HAS TWO SEX POLES & 4 CORNER RACES OF HUMANS.

GOD IS CORNERED AS A QUEER.

GENE RAY, CUBIC "

oh man, that made me tear up, so funny!

PS: God is cornered as a queer. my new battlecry.

There's no going back once you've encounted the four-sided harmonic timecube.

lock up that wackadoo, for his own safety!

:evilgrin:

Feast on this:
http://www.great-debate.com/tcc-techtv.wmv

What's your point? That smart people cannot behave stupidly?

...see Easter Island.


NOTE for those with limited abstraction abilities: I am not saying that the now extinct natives of Easter Island are the cause of Global Warming.

Clap, clap, clap...very well done!

What are the chances of that? :scared:

I've had insects (esp. ladybugs) in/around my house in December.

the one constant sentence in the majority of press conferences on climate change research has been "this is happening faster than expected"

That means the change is occurring at a pace our scientists admit is faster than our ability to monitor.

Tens of thousands dead in European heat waves. Typhoons continuing months past the Pacific season. Windstorms shutting down Tokyo. last time that happened? Never. Massive plankton die-off from temperature shock. The glaciers of the pacific northwest gone. We're in the middle of climate change right NOW. Only the US is in denial about it.

It is true that the evidence on climate change is technically 'inconclusive' because the geological record does point to temperature oscillations. However, knowing what we know about ecology, ecosytem integrity, climate science, and the biosphere, it's pretty damn safe to say that human impact is having an effect on the climate. Read any book that talks about the Gaia hypothesis to get a real understanding of the biosphere and the implications of changing and removing the major players (forests, ice caps, etc.). Global patters are (were) the way that are because the biosphere reached some sort of equilibrium, with oscillations like any biological equilibrium... but ridiculous increases in such a short geological timespan? Seriously... the warming itself is threatening to kill off species at an alarming rate. When I was in northeastern australia this summer, the people were extremely worried because another few degrees celsius rise in temperature will kill of much of the coral reef and an insane amount of tropical forest species. Mass extinction used to occur because of asteroids hitting the earth... now it's happening because of a species that was born of this planet. And the extinction rates are comparable on the geological timescale... not a 'random' oscillation.

that science will somehow swoop in and save them from any real catastrophe. They have no concept how much of our modeling is theoretical. Environmental science is in its infancy, and underfunded at best.

We almost lost the city of New Orleans this year, yet Bush talks about the thinning Arctic ice as opening new areas for oil exploitation. Maddening!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/17/MNGARADH401.DTL

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming
Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Friday, December 17, 2004


More...
Printable Version
Email This Article

Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly, and scientists comparing old photos taken up to a century ago with digital images made during climbing expeditions today say the pictures provide the most dramatic evidence yet that global warming is real.

more:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/17/MNGARADH401.DTL

The pictures don't do the story justice. The glaciers were still there 20 years ago.