Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[The Battousai]

You got any proof it was a meteor? That's right, thought not.

Yucatan Peninsula. Crater. Dates back to the correct time period.

A meteor strike of that magnitude would hit the ground would such force that it would send millions of pounds of debris into the air as well as in the direction of impact. Such an event would cause a severe change in the atmosphere - causing the sun to warm very little - until the debris finally settled. This would be an example of unnaturally-caused climate change.

This is markedly DIFFERENT than natural climate change.


And yes, there is evidence for this.

What you have failed to take into account is the orientation of the continents and the climates of the various regions as well as other environmental factors and wildlife. It was not even close to the same as it is now.

That also isn't proven, it's a theory.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, ocean trenches, magnetic polar events, mountains, volcanoes, lava floes, geysers, etc. would have to disagree with you. Plate tectonics has been confirmed for several decades now.


Also, "theory" in science does not mean "guess" or "hypothesis".

A scientific theory is the best explanation of a group of phenomena (accounts for the most evidence), and is able to make testable predictions.

I can't even remember how many times I've had to say this in the past - particularly in the Religion thread

 

[Excel]

So Barack went to Copenhagen to get the Olympics in Chicago...but wont go for climate change?

 

[SuBe]

Is anyone surprised?

Politicians: "Do as I say, not as I do"

Populace: "Shut up, and stop telling me what to do"

Politicians: "No"

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm really hoping The Ace of Knaves is being facetious.

 

[SuperFerret]

Yucatan Peninsula. Crater. Dates back to the correct time period.

A meteor strike of that magnitude would hit the ground would such force that it would send millions of pounds of debris into the air as well as in the direction of impact. Such an event would cause a severe change in the atmosphere - causing the sun to warm very little - until the debris finally settled. This would be an example of unnaturally-caused climate change.

This is markedly DIFFERENT than natural climate change.


And yes, there is evidence for this.

What you have failed to take into account is the orientation of the continents and the climates of the various regions as well as other environmental factors and wildlife. It was not even close to the same as it is now.



Earthquakes, tsunamis, ocean trenches, magnetic polar events, mountains, volcanoes, lava floes, geysers, etc. would have to disagree with you. Plate tectonics has been confirmed for several decades now.


Also, "theory" in science does not mean "guess" or "hypothesis".

A scientific theory is the best explanation of a group of phenomena (accounts for the most evidence), and is able to make testable predictions.

I can't even remember how many times I've had to say this in the past - particularly in the Religion thread

It's still not undeniable and definite fact either, it's just as close to it as we've gotten thus far.

 

[The Battousai]

It's still not undeniable and definite fact either, it's just as close to it as we've gotten thus far.

I know that. The best thing about theories is that they are falsifiable and subject to modifcation when the need arises; eg. evolution, gravity, etc.

However, I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion about the philosophy of certainty, logic, and the reliability of our thoughts

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm really hoping The Ace of Knaves is being facetious.

He's not.

 

[:eek:]

Climate is a very complex thing. Just look at how October turned out:

The globe recorded its sixth warmest October since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated October 2009 as the 2nd warmest October on record, falling 0.06°C short of the record set in 2005, while the UK HADCRUT3 data set rated October the 7th warmest (this data set does not include most of the Arctic, Antarctic, and Africa, where there are few land stations). NOAA rated the year-to-date period, January - October 2009, as the fifth warmest such period on record. The October satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere were 6th - 7th warmest on record. Global ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies were the 5th warmest on record.

Meanwhile in America:

Third coldest and top wettest October on record for the U.S.
For the contiguous U.S., the average October temperature was 4.0°F below average, making it the 3rd coldest October in the 115-year record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The cold was centered in the Midwest, where Oklahoma had its coolest October on record and ten other states had a top five coolest October. The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches. Three states (Iowa, Arkansas, and Louisiana) saw their record wettest October. Fourteen other states had precipitation readings ranking in their top five category. Only three states (Florida, Utah, and Arizona) saw below normal precipitation. Arkansas continued its remarkable run of wetness in 2009. The state has seen four months with top three precipitation ranks this year (May, 1st wettest; July, 3rd wettest; September, 2nd wettest; October, 1st wettest). As a result, the state's year-to-date average is the wettest in 115 years of record keeping. This contrasted with persistent dryness in Arizona, which saw its second-driest year-to-date period

 

[Heretic]

Leaked documents from Copenhagen reveal that the treaty will make the IMF a global governing body over everyone...which is EXACTLY what the conspiracy theorists have said for decades.

The leaked documents will hand power over to the IMF, 2% of our GDP will be paid to the banks to fund this government, and there will be taxes on fuel as well as tracking devices added to vehicles to track the populace and tax travel.

developing countries are in an uproar over this, as they will be hit heaviest and will not be allowed to further develop. Meanwhile, the London Telegraph is reporting that Obama will FORCE the US to go along with regulations and taxes by having the EPA go along with it regardless of what Congress says. Not coincidentally, the EPA just released a statement that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant...humans exhale it, plants breathe it...but its deadly and needs to be taxed and limited.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

If it'll give me more opportunities to "share my body heat" with women, I'm all for it.

 

[Paradyme]

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
​

And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.
​

In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
​

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record

 

[Metamorpho1977]

This article says if Greenland were to melt due to global warming the Earth could be in an ice age within months. Does this scare anyone else?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

just buy a thick coat and quit yer belly-achin'.

 

[SuBe]

Oh, because apart of the conspiracy to hoax was done 10 years ago, it doesn't matter anymore. Right....

 

[Paradyme]

Population control called key to deal


COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said.
This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm

...

 

[BlackLantern]

Oh, because apart of the conspiracy to hoax was done 10 years ago, it doesn't matter anymore. Right....

all conspiracies have a shelf life....didn't you hear??

 

[Heretic]

And also rule number 2 of conspiracies..."no matter how much of a conspiracy theory is proven right, the rest of the details are still crazy until proven right, and then the rest are still crazy..."

 

[SuBe]

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009
By Pete Winn and Christopher Neefus

(CNSNEws.com) - Which is it--6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Holdren and Lubchenco were the only two witnesses called to testify at the Global Warming committee's Dec. 2 hearing, which was titled "The State of Climate Science."

In his written testimony Holdren, whose official title is “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,” wrote that changes in temperature from global warming could bring about what he called “tipping points” in the climate system--which he defined as “thresholds beyond which a small additional increase in average temperature or some associated climate variable results in major changes to the affected system.”

Examples of “tipping points” that he cited include:

--“the complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice in summer, leading to drastic changes in ocean circulation and climate patterns across the whole Northern Hemisphere;

--“drastic acceleration of the rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, driving rates of sea-level increase that could reach 6 feet per century or more; [emphasis added]

-- “ocean acidification from CO2 absorption reaching a level that causes massive disruption in ocean food webs; and a flood of carbon dioxide and methane from warming tundra and thawing permafrost, accelerating the onset of all of the other impacts of concern.”

However, on the same day, Dr. Lubchenco told members of the same House committee that the maximum sea level rise would be 3.5 feet.

“The amount of sea level rise likely to be experienced during this century depends mainly on the expansion of ocean volume due to warming and the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets,” the NOAA chief said [emphasis added].

“Complex processes control discharges from polar ices sheets and some are already contributing to sea level rise. In addition regional affects from changes in ocean circulation and geological and human processes that affect the elevation of the land above sea-level can either add to or subtract from the global mean sea level rise projected to be as high as 3.5 feet in some scenarios of increasing heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

Calls by CNSNews.com to Holdren’s office and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for explanations of the difference between Hodren's and Lubchenco's predictions for the potential increase in sea levels were not answered by press time.

But Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a Republican member of the committee, told CNSNews.com that the discrepancy “raises the issue of the credibility of proponents of the argument that the globe is both warming and the cause of that warming is man-made from greenhouse gases.”

Shadegg said the estimates--“if they are to be believed”--differ “by almost 100 percent.”

“These are the two most prominent--at least from the standpoint of government position--scientists in the nation on this issue, and they can’t agree,” Shadegg said.

“And yet, we’re being told the science is settled, and Mr. Gore is saying there’s no longer a debate. That’s funny, it looks to me like--there may not be a debate, but there certainly is not a consensus and there certainly are discrepancies by the two top scientists within the government supposedly on the entire topic.”

“I don’t think that somebody who is involved in a public policy position can rely on data that is that inherently inconsistent,” he added.

“I’m sure they’ll have an explanation--they always have an explanation,” Shadegg said. “But it seems to me that before . . . policy makers, or quite frankly the White House and its EPA, force on the American people dramatic and even draconian changes in public policy that could – and will --significantly affect the lives of the American people, I would suggest they need to get their act together.”

Calculations to predict a rise in sea level are subject to a great deal of uncertainty, Jonathan H. Sharp, professor of oceanography at the University of Delaware, told CNSNews.com. "Sea level rise is not just a function of the sea, but a function of the land," said Sharp. "It's a very complex calculation and there are many other things related to climate change that are much firmer."

 

[SuBe]

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009
By Pete Winn and Christopher Neefus

(CNSNEws.com) - Which is it--6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Holdren and Lubchenco were the only two witnesses called to testify at the Global Warming committee's Dec. 2 hearing, which was titled "The State of Climate Science."

In his written testimony Holdren, whose official title is “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,” wrote that changes in temperature from global warming could bring about what he called “tipping points” in the climate system--which he defined as “thresholds beyond which a small additional increase in average temperature or some associated climate variable results in major changes to the affected system.”

Examples of “tipping points” that he cited include:

--“the complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice in summer, leading to drastic changes in ocean circulation and climate patterns across the whole Northern Hemisphere;

--“drastic acceleration of the rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, driving rates of sea-level increase that could reach 6 feet per century or more; [emphasis added]

-- “ocean acidification from CO2 absorption reaching a level that causes massive disruption in ocean food webs; and a flood of carbon dioxide and methane from warming tundra and thawing permafrost, accelerating the onset of all of the other impacts of concern.”

However, on the same day, Dr. Lubchenco told members of the same House committee that the maximum sea level rise would be 3.5 feet.

“The amount of sea level rise likely to be experienced during this century depends mainly on the expansion of ocean volume due to warming and the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets,” the NOAA chief said [emphasis added].

“Complex processes control discharges from polar ices sheets and some are already contributing to sea level rise. In addition regional affects from changes in ocean circulation and geological and human processes that affect the elevation of the land above sea-level can either add to or subtract from the global mean sea level rise projected to be as high as 3.5 feet in some scenarios of increasing heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

Calls by CNSNews.com to Holdren’s office and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for explanations of the difference between Hodren's and Lubchenco's predictions for the potential increase in sea levels were not answered by press time.

But Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a Republican member of the committee, told CNSNews.com that the discrepancy “raises the issue of the credibility of proponents of the argument that the globe is both warming and the cause of that warming is man-made from greenhouse gases.”

Shadegg said the estimates--“if they are to be believed”--differ “by almost 100 percent.”

“These are the two most prominent--at least from the standpoint of government position--scientists in the nation on this issue, and they can’t agree,” Shadegg said.

“And yet, we’re being told the science is settled, and Mr. Gore is saying there’s no longer a debate. That’s funny, it looks to me like--there may not be a debate, but there certainly is not a consensus and there certainly are discrepancies by the two top scientists within the government supposedly on the entire topic.”

“I don’t think that somebody who is involved in a public policy position can rely on data that is that inherently inconsistent,” he added.

“I’m sure they’ll have an explanation--they always have an explanation,” Shadegg said. “But it seems to me that before . . . policy makers, or quite frankly the White House and its EPA, force on the American people dramatic and even draconian changes in public policy that could – and will --significantly affect the lives of the American people, I would suggest they need to get their act together.”

Calculations to predict a rise in sea level are subject to a great deal of uncertainty, Jonathan H. Sharp, professor of oceanography at the University of Delaware, told CNSNews.com. "Sea level rise is not just a function of the sea, but a function of the land," said Sharp. "It's a very complex calculation and there are many other things related to climate change that are much firmer."

 

[Paradoxium]

You guys are going to love the EPA's political blackmai...ultimatum for Crap and Trade.

 

[Carcharodon]

Obama’s Top Climate Advisers Can’t Get Doomsday Story Straight While Testifying Before Same Committee on Same Day
Thursday, December 10, 2009
By Pete Winn and Christopher Neefus

(CNSNEws.com) - Which is it--6 feet or 3.5 feet?

Last week, White House science czar John Holdren told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of 6 feet or more in a century.

But Joan Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the same committee on the same day that changes in global temperatures could mean a rise in sea levels of up to 3.5 feet in this century.

Holdren and Lubchenco were the only two witnesses called to testify at the Global Warming committee's Dec. 2 hearing, which was titled "The State of Climate Science."

In his written testimony Holdren, whose official title is “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,” wrote that changes in temperature from global warming could bring about what he called “tipping points” in the climate system--which he defined as “thresholds beyond which a small additional increase in average temperature or some associated climate variable results in major changes to the affected system.”

Examples of “tipping points” that he cited include:

--“the complete disappearance of Arctic sea ice in summer, leading to drastic changes in ocean circulation and climate patterns across the whole Northern Hemisphere;

--“drastic acceleration of the rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, driving rates of sea-level increase that could reach 6 feet per century or more; [emphasis added]

-- “ocean acidification from CO2 absorption reaching a level that causes massive disruption in ocean food webs; and a flood of carbon dioxide and methane from warming tundra and thawing permafrost, accelerating the onset of all of the other impacts of concern.”

However, on the same day, Dr. Lubchenco told members of the same House committee that the maximum sea level rise would be 3.5 feet.

“The amount of sea level rise likely to be experienced during this century depends mainly on the expansion of ocean volume due to warming and the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets,” the NOAA chief said [emphasis added].

“Complex processes control discharges from polar ices sheets and some are already contributing to sea level rise. In addition regional affects from changes in ocean circulation and geological and human processes that affect the elevation of the land above sea-level can either add to or subtract from the global mean sea level rise projected to be as high as 3.5 feet in some scenarios of increasing heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”

Calls by CNSNews.com to Holdren’s office and to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for explanations of the difference between Hodren's and Lubchenco's predictions for the potential increase in sea levels were not answered by press time.

But Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), a Republican member of the committee, told CNSNews.com that the discrepancy “raises the issue of the credibility of proponents of the argument that the globe is both warming and the cause of that warming is man-made from greenhouse gases.”

Shadegg said the estimates--“if they are to be believed”--differ “by almost 100 percent.”

“These are the two most prominent--at least from the standpoint of government position--scientists in the nation on this issue, and they can’t agree,” Shadegg said.

“And yet, we’re being told the science is settled, and Mr. Gore is saying there’s no longer a debate. That’s funny, it looks to me like--there may not be a debate, but there certainly is not a consensus and there certainly are discrepancies by the two top scientists within the government supposedly on the entire topic.”

“I don’t think that somebody who is involved in a public policy position can rely on data that is that inherently inconsistent,” he added.

“I’m sure they’ll have an explanation--they always have an explanation,” Shadegg said. “But it seems to me that before . . . policy makers, or quite frankly the White House and its EPA, force on the American people dramatic and even draconian changes in public policy that could – and will --significantly affect the lives of the American people, I would suggest they need to get their act together.”

Calculations to predict a rise in sea level are subject to a great deal of uncertainty, Jonathan H. Sharp, professor of oceanography at the University of Delaware, told CNSNews.com. "Sea level rise is not just a function of the sea, but a function of the land," said Sharp. "It's a very complex calculation and there are many other things related to climate change that are much firmer."

LOL..."Joan Lubchenco."

 

[Carcharodon]

Not coincidentally, the EPA just released a statement that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant...humans exhale it, plants breathe it...but its deadly and needs to be taxed and limited.

They never said it was dangerous because it has a toxic effect. Way to take the claim completely out of context. Then again, why am I surprised?

 

[:eek:]

The end of the decade is upon us, and this decade was the warmest decade on record, according to NOAA and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The decade of the 2000s was 0.17°C (0.31°F) warmer than the 1990s, according to NOAA. The "official" scientific assessments on climate change, the IPCC reports, have been predicting that Earth's temperature rise should average about 0.19°C per decade, due to human-caused global warming. Thus, the warming over the past decade is about 10% below predictions--well within the uncertainties that natural variation in the climate can bring. Of course, one can look at shorter time periods and say that no warming is occurring. The hottest year on record globally was 1998, according to the UK's HadCRUT3 data set, and was 2005, according to the data sets maintained by NASA and NOAA. It is apparent from the plot of global temperature anomalies (Figure 1) that the global temperature rise has flattened out since 2005. One can correctly say that global temperatures have not increased since 2005. However, climate is measured on time scales of decades, so it is incorrect to say that the climate has not warmed since 2005. It is meaningless to any statement about climate on any time scale less than ten years. Thirty years is better, since the atmosphere has natural multi-decadal oscillations, and the solar cycle of 11 years is also important. Global average temperature oscillates 0.1°C between the maximum and minimum of the solar cycle, and we are currently in an unusually long minimum.

 

[Erzengel]

I can't wait to live in a world like Hoth. F'ing Wampas and Tauntauns!!!

 

[Paradyme]

The real inconvenient truth

The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy​

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438​

This type of thought process scares me.​

​

 

[Carcharodon]

This type of thought process scares me.​

​

Which scares you more: overpopulation, or government control? It's really a matter of priorities.