Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[bell110]

So, has this climategate craziness blown over yet?

 

[Paradoxium]

No, looks like the Ruskies might be involved heh

 

[Paradoxium]

130 Poor nation representatives "Walk Out" of Copenhagen... Summit in Chaos

 

[imdaly]

I guess you could say things are really heating up at the Climate Summit!

 

[Paradoxium]

oh noes, you didn't just make that pun

 

[SuBe]

oh noes, you didn't just make that pun

Chill Out dude...

 

[Paradoxium]

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up

 

[Backdrifter]

@imdaly and @SuBe



Oh, man, that made me chuckle DEEP! Very funny.

 

[SuBe]

I guess the best way to convince people of your position is to make them shut up and not ask questions.

 

[BlackLantern]

and beat them up

 

[SuBe]

For those of you that DON'T think that this Climate Change bull crap is not about redistributing wealth and political power to fascists: http://www.trinicenter.com/venezuela/161209b.html

 

[Paradoxium]

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

 

[Paradoxium]

It would seem BBC is trying to paint all skeptics as loser (my emphasis) males. This is of course an ad hominem.

This is an attempt to force people into group think, because no one wants to be the loser.

Why are virtually all climate "sceptics" men?

 

[Carcharodon]

We all admit that corn that could be used for food is being used for an ineffective fuel...

Third world countries are screaming at the tp of their lungs that the plicies are killing their people because there isnt the extra food they need.

Yet you need proof...

But proof isnt even good enough.

If your claims are true, there must be some type of support other than pure conjecture. Yet you consistently refuse to provide any. Strange. Actually, it's not strange at all, it's exactly what I expect from you.

In any case, as I keep telling you, we won't need to use food to produce ethanol anymore. It's a pretty cool thing. I was staunchly against ethanol as an alternative fuel until that particular development.

Mike Nature Trick was used to hide the decline in temperatures. yet you refuse to believe there was a trick...

When did I refuse to believe there was a trick again? If I recall, when this stuff first broke out I was one of the first on these boards to denounce any unethical actions by these scientists. It's in the political forum. Go check it out.

refuse to believe Mike had any connection to it...

Show me where I said that. Honestly. You're really good at putting words in peoples' mouths. Usually a technique adopted when somebody has no legitimate arguments.

...refuse to believe there was a decline and refuse to believe that they wanted to hide it.

I never refused to believe that. Again. You're just wrong, and it's embarrassing for both of us.

There own words isnt enough proof for you because you, like the scientists who are about to be arrested and have their careers ruined, can ignore what in front of your face in order to keep believing what you politically want to believe.

I've pretty roundly established previously with this response that you're full of **** and enjoy making assumptions with no basis in fact whatsoever, so it would be redundant to do so here.

See 'ya round.

 

[Carcharodon]

For those of you that DON'T think that this Climate Change bull crap is not about redistributing wealth and political power to fascists: http://www.trinicenter.com/venezuela/161209b.html

Deny ocean acidification.

Aaaand....go.

 

[Paradoxium]

Please tell more about ocean acidification. Kind of interested in reading up on it. I say this in a neutral sense.

 

[SuBe]

Deny ocean acidification.

Aaaand....go.

Explain to me what that has to do with Chavez getting Standing Ovations at Copenhagen when he talks about the Evils of Capitalism and the wonders of Socialism and how that is related to the "Greed", err…I mean, "Green" movement.

 

[Paradoxium]

That's a good point. If I am not mistaken Carcharodon is no fan of the carbon credit. Bit surprised he replied to what he replied.

 

[The Overlord]

Explain to me what that has to do with Chavez getting Standing Ovations at Copenhagen when he talks about the Evils of Capitalism and the wonders of Socialism and how that is related to the "Greed", err…I mean, "Green" movement.

Does any of that disprove ocean acidification?

 

[Carcharodon]

Explain to me what that has to do with Chavez getting Standing Ovations at Copenhagen when he talks about the Evils of Capitalism and the wonders of Socialism and how that is related to the "Greed", err…I mean, "Green" movement.

Well, let's see.

You seem to be making the assertion that Chavez's speech is evidence that the entire "Green" movement is a corrupt attempt at wealth redistribution, correct? I mean, come on, it's pretty obvious that you find the entire movement to be some corrupt scheme. "Greed movement." Very subtle, by the way.

My point with that particular response is that there are merits to the effort to curb carbon emissions, regardless of whether you believe that it's all one big scheme. That doesn't mean that you need to support this particular strategy, but to belittle the entire movement based on such a belief is irresponsible.

Some of us actually care about the environment, and some of us aren't so blinded by political and economic ideology that we can't see the potential (and imminent) danger of continuing to pollute at the current rate.

That's a good point. If I am not mistaken Carcharodon is no fan of the carbon credit. Bit surprised he replied to what he replied.

I'm not a fan of that policy at all. It's not going to fix anything. I do, however, believe that steps need to be taken. I'm certainly no fan of the notion that no action should be taken.

 

[Carcharodon]

Does any of that disprove ocean acidification?

I don't think I made my point clear. It was meant rhetorically.

 

[The Battousai]

A biologist on the tree-ring data:

Local Commentary: Thoughts on ‘Climate-gate’: Mitigate our impact

By Pete Wyckoff


Is the planet cooling? “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline,” writes climate scientist Phil Jones in a stolen 1999 e-mail which has caused a frenzy. FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a ‘smoking gun’—proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…(I’ve never really understood the goals of the evil scientific conspirators).

The planet is warming. The data are unequivocal and based on measured temperatures (corrected for things like the “heat island” effect, so please don’t write an angry response claiming that the thermometers are wrong). What Phil Jones was referring to is something else: past temperatures estimated via tree rings. Since 1960, the rings in trees seem to have lost some of their power to record temperature.

Why should tree rings indicate temperature at all? As most of us learned in childhood, the trunks of trees at our latitude tend to put on a distinct growth ring every year. All other things being equal, when the trees are happy, they put on a large ring. When the going gets tough, the rings get thin. What makes a tree happy? Light, nutrients, lack of disease, and warmth (to a point). What do trees despise? Drought. By careful interpretation of past tree growth patterns, we can learn a lot about past climates.

Scientists have spent many years developing the techniques needed to reconstruct climate via tree rings. The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is famously a gas that heats the planet (the greenhouse effect is real and uncontroversial), carbon dioxide also directly impacts plants. Carbon dioxide fuels photosynthesis, and increased carbon dioxide in the air can both speed-up plant growth and make plants less sensitive to drought.

Decreased drought sensitivity is an expected response for plants exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide. All along the underside of a plant’s leaves are little holes called “stomata.” These holes can open and close. A tree must open its stomata to take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Unfortunately, plants lose water out of their open stomata. Plants growing in air that has lots of carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of time their stomata are open, thus making them lose less water and become less susceptible to drought.

Biologists call the concept here “water-use efficiency,” and it is of crucial interest to farmers and foresters alike. Carbon dioxide causes warming that will likely make west central Minnesota a drier place in the future. At the same time, increased carbon dioxide in the air makes plants growing in our region less susceptible to drought. The balance between these two forces will be crucial.

The changing relationship between climate and tree growth is a hot topic of research at your local university. Last Friday, Dr. Chris Cole and Dr. Jon Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris, published a paper in the journal “Global Change Biology” showing that aspen trees in Wisconsin are growing faster than they used to, and much of the increase is attributed to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Two weeks ago, a former student and I published a paper in the “Journal of Ecology” showing that oak trees in west central Minnesota became less sensitive to drought during the 20th century. If “dust bowl”-severity droughts come again soon, we project that the local oaks will suffer 50 percent less mortality than they likely did in the 1930s.

So what does this all mean? The relationship between tree rings and climate is becoming muddied by the rapid recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. For most of the past 10,000 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained reasonably stable. Now they are skyrocketing. Modern tree rings are no longer the reliable recorders of temperature they once were. It is a good thing that we now have thermometers.

What does Phil Jones’ stolen e-mail not mean? It does not mean that global warming is a hoax. It does not mean that there are really any cracks in the scientific consensus that humans are causing dangerous alterations to the global climate.
We humans are changing the climate, largely by emitting vast quantities of carbon dioxide via the way we heat our houses, fuel our cars, and generate our electricity. This is unwise. Yes, the future climate, along with the increased carbon dioxide, may be good for some. For most people, however, the downsides of climate change are likely to far outweigh the benefits. Don’t let Fox News mislead you. As a prudent, conservative people, we should take serious steps to mitigate our impact.


Dr. Pete Wyckoff is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris.

 

[The Battousai]

Also, a handy chart comparing the positions of climate skeptics and supporters with the evidence at hand:

Spoiler

 

[Carcharodon]

Holy crap, the guy on the left is Heretic!

 

[bell110]

Global warming is real because the smart people said so.