14 Jun 06
Originally posted by belgianfreakDON'T YOU THINK THAT WAITING FOR "PROOF THAT SATISFIES YOU" WILL BE TOO LATE AND HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH ???
I disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on Global Warming but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the climate change over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves global warming because average temperatures are going up - the world has had much wilder swings of iceages and anit-iceages (whatever the reverse is) before ...[text shortened]... bal Warming isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor
Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.
The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.
Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"
The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."
He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.
"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming."
America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon.
Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said.
The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center.
They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.
"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming."
Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world.
Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by 667joe* in the last 100,000 years. They were higher up until about 400 million years ago. You wouldn't want to live back then though, you wouldn't be able to breathe the air.
The proof is that CO2 levels have never been higher than thy are now. Never*.Man's industrial activities have been the cause of the rising CO2 levels. Other eras may have been hotter, but not because of CO2. This warming going on now is greatly influenced by man made CO2.
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by Sambo69HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T YOU THINK THAT WAITING FOR "PROOF THAT SATISFIES YOU" WILL BE TOO LATE AND HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH ???
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor
Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the ...[text shortened]... us strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by belgianfreakEvery year for the last 20 has been, on average, warmer than the long term average. The chances of this are around a half million to 1. Not definative proof, but I'd be starting to get worried.
I disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on Global Warming but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the climate change over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves global warming because average temperatures are going up - the world has had much wilder swings of iceages and anit-iceages (whatever the reverse is) before ...[text shortened]... bal Warming isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
14 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69Like I said, I don't deny Global Warming and I don't suggest that we wait to see if it's true befor acting - that'd be silly. I was however refuting the claimn that GW was proven, which I did in the hope that someone would show me/us some convincing evidence.
DON'T YOU THINK THAT WAITING FOR "PROOF THAT SATISFIES YOU" WILL BE TOO LATE AND HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH ???
I'm not dissing the guys from your post, but there's no proof there - just guys saying that an undisclosed report really truely shows that their computer models match global warming. I'd need a bit more detail of what they were modeling and how it proved GW to take it as proof. I'd be interested if you have any links I could chase.
14 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzbeing daft again - can you explain this a bit? Warmer tahn what average, taken over what time period? Just because it's been getting hotter year on year for teh past 20 years how does this prove GW? Is this kind of increase in temp so rare in earths history?
Every year for the last 20 has been, on average, warmer than the long term average. The chances of this are around a half million to 1. Not definative proof, but I'd be starting to get worried.
Honestly interested to know
BF
14 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakThe NOAA website is very useful for this type of evidence.
being daft again - can you explain this a bit? Warmer tahn what average, taken over what time period? Just because it's been getting hotter year on year for teh past 20 years how does this prove GW? Is this kind of increase in temp so rare in earths history?
Honestly interested to know
BF
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2004/ann/global.html
Taking a look even just at the graphs should tell you quite a bit.
And from the IPCC website;
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
14 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by belgianfreakI disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on terrorism but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the terrorism over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves terrorism because average terrorism media coverage is going up - the world has had much wilder swings of violence and peace(whatever peace is) before 9-11 started to have any influence.
I disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on Global Warming but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the climate change over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves global warming because average temperatures are going up - the world has had much wilder swings of iceages and anit-iceages (whatever the reverse is) before bal Warming isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
I'm not saying that terrorism isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by flexmorehmmm... IMHO a bad analogy. 9-11 was proof positive that terrorism is happening as it was a proven terrorist act (unless you subscribe to a US gov conspiracy theory or class the perpertrators as freedom fighters). There is no doubt that man caused this to happen. The air/ocean being hotter this year than 20-40 years ago is proof that the world has fluctuations in temperature, not proo fthat man has caused this effect.
I disagree. A lot ahs been postulated on terrorism but I have yet to see catagoric proof. It's no good looking at the terrorism over the last few hundred years and saying that this proves terrorism because average terrorism rates are going up - the world has had much wilder swings of violence and peace(whatever peace is) before 9-11 started to have any inf ...[text shortened]... t terrorism isn't happeneing, but I yet have to see anything approaching proof for it.
nb. I am playing devils advocate here in the hope of getting some convincing arguments that GW is a fact...
15 Jun 06
6 edits
Originally posted by belgianfreak9-11 was one violent act against civilians ... proof positive that violence can happen.
hmmm... IMHO a bad analogy. 9-11 was proof positive that terrorism is happening as it was a proven terrorist act (unless you subscribe to a US gov conspiracy theory or class the perpertrators as freedom fighters). There is no doubt that man caused this to happen. The air/ocean being hotter this year than 20-40 years ago is proof that the world has fluc ...[text shortened]... aying devils advocate here in the hope of getting some convincing arguments that GW is a fact...
it is only analogous to one hot day ... proof positive that warming can happen.
you say one hot day does not prove sustained global warming ...
similarly one violent act does not prove systemic murder of civilians, sufficient to justify war ... but of course it does go down well in the media ... so what?
now don't get me wrong: there does seem to be systems of violent murder of civilians ... and similarly there is global warming ... we do not ask for 100% proof of one ... but we do ask for 100% proof of another.
allow me make a new analogiy 😉
proof positive of global warming is like asking for proof of eternal love ... it will never be 100% until we reach eternity (by which time it is too late).
as long as there is only 99.99% proof there will be doubters (mostly with financial interests profitting from co2 production).
sufficient proof is out there, but not easy to access scientifically ... what is required is a media spectacle ... especially one which makes people feel personally threatened by global warming.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by flexmoreYour analogies are spot on. You've said exactly what I was thinking !
9-11 was one violent act against civilians ... proof positive that violence can happen.
it is only analogous to one hot day ... proof positive that warming can happen.
you say one hot day does not prove global warming ...
similarly one violent act does not prove systemic murder of civilians, sufficient to justify war ... but of course it does go down ...[text shortened]... is out there, but not easy to access scientifically ... what is required is a media spectacle.
15 Jun 06
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhat you are looking for is not proof of global warming, but that global warming is as a result of man's activities?
hmmm... IMHO a bad analogy. 9-11 was proof positive that terrorism is happening as it was a proven terrorist act (unless you subscribe to a US gov conspiracy theory or class the perpertrators as freedom fighters). There is no doubt that man caused this to happen. The air/ocean being hotter this year than 20-40 years ago is proof that the world has fluc ...[text shortened]... aying devils advocate here in the hope of getting some convincing arguments that GW is a fact...
There are very good graphs of CO2 conc. vs global temprature over both short term (last 100 years) and longer terms (last 400,000 years or so). We do know that CO2 emissions by industry are currently huge, and there is a good correlation between emissions and global temperature. One can stick ones head in the sand if they want.
15 Jun 06
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1439
"Natural Variability, Rather Than SUVs, Causes Climate Change
Global Warming: The Worst of All Environmental Scares
by Sen. James Inhofe
Posted Aug 06, 2003
...
Climate alarmists see an opportunity here to tax the American people. Consider a July 11 op-ed by J.W. Anderson in the Washington Post. In it, Anderson, a former editorial writer for the Post and now a journalist in residence with Resources for the Future, concedes that climate science still confronts uncertainties.
But his solution is a fuel tax to prepare for a potentially catastrophic future. Based on the case I’ve outlined today, such a course of action fits a particular ideological agenda, yet is entirely unwarranted.
It is my fervent hope that Congress will reject prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet from catastrophic disaster. I urge my colleagues to put stock in scientists who rely on the best, most objective scientific data and reject fear as a motivating basis for making public policy decisions.
Let me be very clear: alarmists are attempting to enact an agenda of energy suppression that is inconsistent with American values of freedom, prosperity, and environmental progress.
Over the past two hours, I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation’s top climate scientists.
What have those scientists concluded?
The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.
Sen. Inhofe is Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Jun 06
one of the tests to see if gloabal warming is happening is computer modeling. the test is how do you know if the model is an accurate description of what happens in the real world is to start it 100 years ago and see if it accurately predicts todays climate. our current models do. given we have reasonable models of the earths climate the next step is to run them again for the last 100 years but take out human emmisions. that way you can see how big an impact man made emmisions have had. you discover that leaving out man made emmisions you get barely any warming the temperature stays within the normal fluctuations we have seen over the last few thousand years. with our CO2 emissions in the model the you get the actual temperature increase. how do you know the model works without the man made emissions, bechause the test starts out before man made global warming kiks in and the model is accourate over that time. that coupled with the known corellation between CO2 and global temperature and you have your selves a ball game. global warming is happening, you can measure the temperature rise. and the vast proportion of it is demonstrably human made.