Page 2 of 3

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 20 Oct 2013 23:05
by Peter
I just finished an interesting book that makes the point that the pollution we create has a balancing effect on global warming and keeps it in check. Thats not to say there is no global warming but that we are now deeply embedded in the balance required. The idea was that if we stopped of production of carbon pollutants the effect would show up in a matter of weeks and lack of carbon (think it was carbon) would then allow the current balance to be upset and we would see very quick temp rises.

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 00:41
by Summerlander
I used to work for "green" company called First Impressions. It is not a case of saving the planet, as it were. It is a case buying time, eking out survival time. Make no mistake about it, no matter what we do, we are still fucked. It is a matter of when.

Unless, of course, we have a major scientific breakthrough that will help us to rectify the problem. First Impressions were pretty much up to snuff with the science. We sometimes discussed what we did not divulge to the client. We wanted to sell our clean product.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 00:48
by WildCat23
Peter wrote:I just finished an interesting book that makes the point that the pollution we create has a balancing effect on global warming and keeps it in check. Thats not to say there is no global warming but that we are now deeply embedded in the balance required. The idea was that if we stopped of production of carbon pollutants the effect would show up in a matter of weeks and lack of carbon (think it was carbon) would then allow the current balance to be upset and we would see very quick temp rises.

Considering it's all just speculation, I'd say it has about the same credit as any other book on predicting the future climate.
Summerlander wrote:I used to work for "green" company called First Impressions. It is not a case of saving the planet, as it were. It is a case buying time, eking out survival time. Make no mistake about it, no matter what we do, we are still fucked. It is a matter of when.

Unless, of course, we have a major scientific breakthrough that will help us to rectify the problem. First Impressions were pretty much up to snuff with the science. We sometimes discussed what we did not divulge to the client. We wanted to sell our clean product.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Let me just say, I'm all for saving the planet. The problem is, it's just incredibly hard to do. People want easy, cheap fuel, but that causes pollution problems and kills ecosystems. The other problem is that no matter what people think, the answer is NOT solar.

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 02:29
by mikeg313
This proves here that we are divided and kept in the fear of dying, exactly what governments wants. Most people miss the big picture that the governments want you to spend your hard earn buck so that they can spend part of it on the scientists and keep everyone in order. If everyone was united, you wouldnt live in poverty or go hungry. It would be you the people that tell the governments what to do. They live Grand and we live poor scarping a living.

Today is global warning tomorrow its something else keeping you in fear.

Aliens, nuks, economic collapse, meteors, supper volcanoes and so on.

Its all about money as usual.

Its in the tv, papers ,internet.

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 06:23
by Peter
This proves here that we are divided and kept in the fear of dying


I have no fear of dying and the news or speculation has no effect at all, I think there is an equal amount of BS from both sides of the debate and we need to make peace with ourselves and be happy with what we do and how we feel we contribute to the planet.

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 07:29
by lucidinthe sky
Peter wrote:I just finished an interesting book that makes the point that the pollution we create has a balancing effect on global warming and keeps it in check. Thats not to say there is no global warming but that we are now deeply embedded in the balance required. The idea was that if we stopped of production of carbon pollutants the effect would show up in a matter of weeks and lack of carbon (think it was carbon) would then allow the current balance to be upset and we would see very quick temp rises.


This is called "global dimming" and yes it's offsetting the effects of global warming. Temperatures should actually be higher than they are right now. There is 10% less light reaching the planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution, I think that's where they start tracking it. The ironic part about it that as we clean up the air, assuming we even do that, we make the problem worse.

I will look through the charts that were presented, though I did see one that I always get a laugh from. The one that shows how hot it was during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, etc. Yes the Earth was hotter at may points in it's history, but there were no humans around then either, who knows what kind of insane weather they had or how hot their summers were, probably hellish.

The sad part about this is that humans are the ones causing it and humans are the most adaptive of all animals and will have the best survival ability. The rest of life on this planet will suffer more, but of course that will ultimately effect humans. I think most people have no idea how bad it's going to get. I just hope if I'm around I don't ever have to listen to someone bitching about how "if I only knew". Don't expect any mercy from the planet.

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 07:33
by lucidinthe sky
WildCat23 wrote:Let me just say, I'm all for saving the planet. The problem is, it's just incredibly hard to do. People want easy, cheap fuel, but that causes pollution problems and kills ecosystems. The other problem is that no matter what people think, the answer is NOT solar.


This is true, it is very difficult but not impossible. The goal is to slow it down, buy as much time as possible. Why keep your foot on the gas pedal when you are going to hit the wall?

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 07:44
by lucidinthe sky
Here's an interesting chart to show the how recent increase in Arctic Ice is pretty much meaningless although global warming skeptics have jumped on this as "proof" that the planet is actually in a long term cooling trend.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378692793547/ArcticEscalator450.gif

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 21 Oct 2013 15:06
by Summerlander
I couldn't agree more with you lucid. Spot on! B-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Re: The Global Warming Debate Thread

Posted: 22 Oct 2013 01:59
by lucidinthe sky
Drawing conclusions from a short, selected 10 year period of global temperatures is a little like looking up at the eye of a hurricane and predicting that's it's over.

Check out this graphic. It's called "up the down escalator"

http://www.motherjones.com/files/SkepticsvRealistsv3_0.gif

I just read an article in the National Geographic, part of which is quoted below. So it looks like the oceans absorbed more of the heat than the atmosphere in the past 10 years, but the heat didn't disappear, just got dumped somewhere else, equally as bad.

I read this in an another article
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc

"claiming that global warming has "paused" is deeply misleading. The IPCC explained as much in its just-released report, where it noted that although the rate of warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, selectively seizing on this period, from 1998-2012, basically represents a case of bad statistics.

After all, the year 1998 was a record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. So by making it the first year of an analysis you're stacking the deck. "If you shift just 2 years earlier, so use 1996-2010 instead of 1998-2012, the trend is 0.14 C per decade, so slightly greater than the long-term trend," explains Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at NASA who was heavily involved in producing the IPCC report. This is why climate scientists generally don't seize on 15 year periods and make a big thing about them."

Here's the National Geographic article


"...the real anomaly in the recent climate record is not the last decade but the year 1998, which saw a sharp spike in atmospheric temperatures. "If you take 1998 out, there is no pause," he said. According to NASA data, the ten hottest years since 1880 have all happened since 1998, with 2010 being the hottest of all.


In 1997 and 1998 there was a strong El Nino event in the equatorial Pacific, meaning that the surface water there was unusually warm. As Alley explained in an American Geophysical Union talk recently, the El Nino cycle has a strong impact on how much of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases spreads to the ocean. In 1998, a warm ocean absorbed less heat—which caused the atmosphere to heat up more.


Since 1998, however, the equatorial Pacific has tended more often to the cooler La Nina state. Because a cool ocean absorbs atmospheric heat more readily, that has partially offset the atmospheric warming caused by greenhouse gases. "In the last decade the system has dumped more of the heat in the ocean and less in the atmosphere," Alley said.

The modeling work by the Scripps researchers, Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie, supports this idea. So do measurements of ocean temperatures, which show that warmer temperatures are spreading into the deep abyss. According to the BBC, the draft IPCC report suggests that the oceans have been absorbing more heat than expected, in effect insulating global surface temperatures from greater change."