Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by PhiloNysh, Oct 5, 2003.


If global warming an environmental concern?

  1. Yes -humans caused it

    38 vote(s)
  2. No- it is a natural cause

    26 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    17 vote(s)
  1. David Mayes Registered Senior Member

    He might be someone who is paid x amount of $ to moniter so many forums or perhaps this one exclusively.

    He like many others are torture victim creations of society, IOW, his abuse as a small child didn't allow him to become all he could, he was repeatedly told by his father, EDUFERRRRRRRRRRRR, "Don't forget to wipe your bummy"

    This trauma has enraged Edufer and he takes his hate out on nature.

    This thread is about to be closed and you David Mayes better READ THIS: Im not going to tollerate your immaturity.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Your doctors are giving you the wrong medication. Your relatives should seek another mental institution with more skilled psychiatrists.

    Your psychological prisoner? Now you are being really funny!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (Easy on your pot smoking)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    I think this heated thread accounts at least for 0,35 percent of the global warming process
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Madscientist1 Registered Member

    I hv rec'd an email from Nasa Earth...(be damned if i can find it though) it was an article of how the earth's magnetic sheild over the arctic (in some undisclosed location) has a hole it it. Now theres a topic for conspiracy theories..
  8. a98madison Registered Member

    One important point that cannot be overstated enouigh is...

    CO2 Science Magazine is a disinformation site.

    There specific unstated goal is to basically try to prove that CO2 has vitamin C in it and you should just eat it up. The site is just a dubious as tobacco companies used to be (and pretty much still are).

    While looking for infomration realted to global warming in general you can't help but have this site pop up several times. For one thing or another you can see their point of veiw. But if you review the whole site it basically conflicts with itself and every article is basically "hey look over there. nothing to see here. everthing is fine citizen. go back to work".

    While two rational people can have a difference of opinion on CO2 and global warming what CO2 Science Magazine does is just disinformation.

    The problem I have with CO2 Science Magazine today?

    The crying shame this disinfomation site is a good deal better and presenting and displaying facts than normal sites.


    What is wrong with the chart. Absolutly nothing. The problem is that battelle has linked to a disinfomation site becuase if you click just about anywhere else on the site it basically says that the CO2 sequestriation effort is a waster of time and thing will be lovely once CO2 concerntration are quaddrupled.
  9. a98madison Registered Member

    So after the little rant what is most important to remember?

    That temperatures are rising.

    While it has been hotter in the past it is getting hotter than has been recently. Did my grandfather and great grandfather make it though much worse times than I ever have seen? Yes. Does that mean I can do the same? No.

    To bring the point home. Rice yeilds are on the decrease. Who eats the most rice? China. What happens if China doesn't get all the rice it needs? Let us just say that the goverment there doesn't have worry about reelection. And that going to war to get food is a much easier sell than whatever people think Iraq is about.

    So it doesn't matter why the temperatures are rising nor that it has been hotter in the past nor that there has been counter trends in a few regions for a few years. What matters is the impact of the rise where it is happening.

    If we can do something about it and that relates to CO2 then it should be done. If CO2 is not the root cause then consideration of what to do about the realted issues like rice production is needed.
  10. Andre Registered Senior Member

    I have developed a computer model and fed it data that shows that the average human height has increased by 6 inches in the last 100 years. My computer model indicates that this trend will continue, or even increase through time as nutrition and medicine continue to improve. The net result is that the average human height will approach 10 feet in 2150.

    As a result of this amazing find, I get the governments of the world to spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to identify all the problems resulting from 10 foot tall humans, and then recommend that we lower the quality of the food we eat, to avoid the inevitable problems of huge people.

    Because the concept of human height and nutrition are more widely understood, no one would pay me to do such research. I would be scorned, and rightly so. But climate change is much more complicated and the people paying the bucks don't really understand what is going on. Because they are ingnorant, they believe that climate models actually have some ability to forecast future climate. In reality, the models are fiction, just like my height prediction model.

    The whole global warming hype based on that fiction. It is a 'what if' report, like 'What if the moon really was made of green cheese?' It is a mental excercise; a game. It is not real science, because the conclusion was set before the research began.

    And now when the hockeystick got broken, the most definite proof of Global warming a plain fake, how long will it take that we realize this.
  11. weed_eater_guy It ain't broke, don't fix it! Registered Senior Member

    It's all just a scam to make the otherwise stupid Kyoto protocol sound like a good idea. China gets to MAKE MORE emissions, while america and the rest of the developed world has to cut down. And if people havn't been watching China's progress these past few years, they're building cruise missiles (comparable in tech level to america's if not better), a navy, have a rapidly developing economy, and holy shit, they're COMMIES!!!! And they are just ITCHING to blow the everlasting crap out of Taiwan... Global warming is a hoax.
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Wow, the hoax must be huge, I mean even the Bush administration has cracked under the pressure of mounting evidence (which obviously must be false everyone here seems to think so) and quietly admitted to global warming existing as well as it being caused by human factors. The administration just does not want to do anything about it.
  13. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Yes, resistance is futile. Here is why:

  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I don't see how that is evidence against global warming.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. cardiovascular_tech behind you with a knife Registered Senior Member

    look at my post troposhpere I have a pretty good argument I think there against global warming, the troposphere is actually cooling at 3k and above, who knows if it will pull closer into our regions but I do think it will maintain us in a pretty good temp range. With that said I think it would be even more possible for the effects to get worse, IE more huricanes tornados flooding and such before you see any further cooling or heating of the world, but at the rate its cooled the heat will not break the cooling at this point and yes I know that could change at anytime.

    On another note if humans caused global warming I would really like to see a 10,000 - 100,000 year old engine out of a car hell any piston motor for that matter, because greenhouse gases increased more in or past then they are at present day.
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

  17. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Sure! They secure their budget by scaring stiff all those ignorant government officials and stupid politicians. They got a lot of funding thanks to their ozone hole scare; now is the global warming. You, taxpayers, are paying their party!
  18. cardiovascular_tech behind you with a knife Registered Senior Member

    I agree regional cooling is a effect but what I was refering to was world wide the troposphere is cooling world wide at 3k and above this is from the sats in orbit are saying not me.

    I agree NASA is nothing but alarmists just like the UN.. but if it wasn't them it would be someone else.

    But I truely think there is more invovled in the climate change then greenhouse gases, I think its a combination of things like the level of sun spot the mag field the ocean currents, volcanos, earth quakes the earths orbit it all plays a key role in our climate and for that reason we will never truely understand it.
  19. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Another thing. The link to the NASA page is an article by James Hansen where the only references are: <b>"his own papers!"</b> Ludicrous! (Could that be a joke by Hansen?)
  20. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Electric, I wonder if you have read those links. They are from the most biased organizations and media on Earth's surface. And they are already more than 2 years old.

    I don't particularily like Mr. G.W. Bush, but I have to make tribute to the truth: it is not the Bush administration the one who's against the Kyoto Protocol and the GW hoax. Back in 1997, the US Congress voted 95 to 0 a bill rejecting any initiative that could lead to a reduction on fossil fuel burning in the US. And Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn't send the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate to be ratified - they knew it would have been rejected.

    It is the People of the US - through their representatives - that's against the Kyoto Treaty.

    A clear memory helps when you are trying to reach the truth in any issue.
  21. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    There is a report in nature in which climatic changes in europe could be partly attributed to human influence. A commented summary is given here:

    News and Views
    Nature 432, 559 - 560 (02 December 2004); doi:10.1038/432559a

    Climate change: Hot news from summer 2003


    1 Christoph Schär is at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH, Winterthurerstr. 190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland.
    2 Gerd Jendritzky is with the German Weather Service, Human Biometeorology, Stefan-Meier-Str. 4, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany.

    The European heatwave of 2003: was it merely a rare meteorological event or a first glimpse of climate change to come? Probably both, is the answer, and the anthropogenic contribution can be quantified.

    The European summer of 2003 was characterized by highly anomalous meteorological conditions1, and was extremely hot and dry2, 3. In the northern parts of the continent, the summer was perceived as beautiful and warm. But in central and southwestern Europe, the heat was prolonged and intense, and the economic and societal consequences were disastrous (as described in Box 1).

    Given the heatwave's severe repercussions, the question has arisen whether the summer of 2003 is evidence of man-made climate change. On page 610 of this issue, Stott, Stone and Allen4 take a major step towards answering this difficult question. Previous studies had found that recent changes in the European summer climate were consistent with climate-change scenarios5, 6, but there had been no attempts at a rigorous attribution of cause and effect. Indeed, because the atmosphere is a chaotic dynamical system, it is impossible to attribute — in a causal sense — an individual episode of extreme weather to changes in atmospheric composition. Nevertheless, it is feasible to estimate the probability or risk of occurrence of a certain weather event under natural and modified climatic conditions. This is the avenue taken by Stott and colleagues.

    Using one of the leading global climate models available, the authors derive the probability distributions of European summer temperatures for two sets of climate simulations, each covering the period since 1900. The first set accounts for the past effects on climate that were due to variations in solar and volcanic activity, as well as to man-made influences (including increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations). The second set mimics a natural climate by prescribing natural factors alone. Stott and colleagues then calculate the changed risk of extremely hot summers that is attributable to past anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, using a comparison of observed and simulated summer temperatures to account for uncertainties in man-made warming and natural variability. They find, at a confidence level of greater than 90%, that more than half of the risk of 2003-like extreme European summers is attributable to human influences on the climate system.

    Methodologically, Stott and colleagues4 use an approach developed for detecting global climate change and attributing causes to the changes identified. There is long experience with such studies, all of which find that a significant anthropogenic contribution is required to explain the observed global climate records of the past 30–50 years7, 8. The new study fits into these results, as the probability of extreme heatwaves must change as mean temperatures increase. The details of the analysis are rather complex. But the basic interpretation of the main result is comparatively straightforward: anthropogenic warming shifts the statistical distribution of summer temperatures towards warmer conditions, and this has a dramatic impact on the chance of temperatures exceeding some threshold out in the upper tail of the temperature distribution.

    What about the limitations of the new work? We will mention two. First, Stott et al. address the whole summer of 2003 (and not the extreme heatwave in early August), and all of continental and southern Europe (not the much smaller central European region where the heatwave was most intense). Consideration of shorter-term and smaller-scale heatwaves will require higher computational resolution9, and will need to take the complexities of land-surface processes into consideration1, 3. Accounting for these factors is a challenge. Second, representing natural climate variability is a general difficulty in studies attempting to attribute causes to particular effects. Stott et al. show that their model appropriately represents the spectrum of continental-scale European climate variability on interannual to interdecadal timescales. But more detailed studies will be needed to corroborate this conclusion, as there are large uncertainties in the estimates of natural climate variability-derived from both models and observations8.

    Nonetheless, Stott and colleagues' work constitutes a breakthrough: it is the first successful attempt to detect man-made influence on a specific extreme climatic event. Such events are among the most notable features of a changing climate, not least given their impact on human affairs. Another article in this issue, by Allen and Lord (page 551)10, discusses how refined analyses might lead to liability claims for costs incurred by climatic shifts. The advent of such 'attribution studies' might profoundly affect the course of international negotiations on ways to mitigate, adapt to and ultimately pay for the consequences of climate change.


    1. Black, E., Blackburn, M., Harrison, G., Hoskins, B. J. & Methven, J. Weather 59, 217–223 (2004).
    2. Luterbacher, J. et al. Science 303, 1499–1503 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
    3. Schär, C. et al. Nature 427, 332–336 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
    4. Stott, P. A., Stone, D. A. & Allen, M. R. Nature 432, 610–614 (2004). | Article |
    5. Pal, J. S., Giorgi, F. & Bi, X. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L13202 (2004). | Article |
    6. Meehl, G. A. & Tebaldi, C. Science 305, 994–997 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
    7. Hegerl, G. C. et al. J. Clim. 9, 2281–2306 (1996). | Article |
    8. Mitchell, J. F. B. et al. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 605–738 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).
    9. Christensen, J. H. & Christensen, O. B. Nature 421, 805–806 (2002). | Article | ChemPort |
    10. Allen, M. R. & Lord, R. Nature 432, 551–552 (2004). | Article |
    11. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent: World Disasters Report
    12. Hémon, D. & Jougla, E. Surmortalité liée à la canicule d'août 2003 (INSERM, Paris, 2004);
    13. Koppe, C. & Jendritzky, G. in Gesundheitliche Auswirkungen der Hitzewelle im August 2003 (Sozialministerium Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, 2004);

    © 2004 Nature Publishing Group
    Privacy Policy
  22. Andre Registered Senior Member

    The hot summer of 2003 is not visible at all on the global temperature trends

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The meteorologists who also watched the phenomenon, saw a prolonged large cold spot in the sea surface temperatures of the North Atlantic, were normaly the cold air and the warm tropical air meet to form low pressure frontal systems, that are usually send to Europe, causing wet and cool conditions.

    Apparantly the cold spot (size half a continent) prevented the usual pattern and practically no low pressure frontal systems were send to Europa for months in a row, depriving the continent of it's natural air conditioning.

    A cold spot did it, had nothing to do with global warming. But then again:

  23. cardiovascular_tech behind you with a knife Registered Senior Member

    Andre, also to back that up a little for you it was reported that the fishing season was delayed due to colder then normal temps it was delayed for over 3 weeks and made some major news papers.

Share This Page