Turn on thread page Beta

Why Bush doesn't care about global warming watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Indeed, this isnt about Bush at all. Whatsmore, its Christian conservatives who most strongly in favour of changes to environmental policy.
    There are some Christian fundies who do want to make the environment a priority, but they make up a tiny minority of the Christian fundies and an ever smaller portion of the Republican party. The individual states that decided to comply with Kyoto are the most left-wing states in the country (i.e. New York and California, along with a few other states in the northeast and northwest). Strangely enough Schwarzenneger promised to reduce emissions by a substantial amount and left open the possibility of imposing emission caps on private firms, which is contrary to Bush's position.

    On a national level, there is absolutely no support for Kyoto or any other method of reducing emissions. The Republicans either deny that global warming is taking place or claim that their pork-laden ($100 billion of it) energy bill will solve this problem, while Democrats tend to agree that global warming is taking place but don't want to do much other than bash Bush for not admitting that it's occurring. The only way the US federal government will sign Kyoto is if enough individual states do so first, which sadly looks like a real possibility.

    (Original post by Alexdel)
    What a nice meeting of mutual agreement between our yank friends here..nice to see that the view of the outside world gets its fair attention over the pond.
    And then people wonder why the US is the wealthiest country in the world (excluding Luxembourg). What else can we expect from people who are willing to destroy their own economy on the off-chance that they'll prevent global temperatures from rising 0.1F.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    you might like to read this.
    http://tinyurl.com/8csmu
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    he probably cant count past 5, therefore cant forecast more than a week... so global warming doesnt exsist for him?

    the point about gloabl warming theory not being true.. and that we're part of the 'warming up' cycle..
    well even if we are, i think by our contribution in industrialization in the last hundred years, we have infact increased the rate of increase ._.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KidA)
    you might like to read this.
    http://tinyurl.com/8csmu
    And you may like to read this:

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/other...edt-ref09.html

    There are so many articles out there on this subject and the only thing you can really conclude is that scientists haven't got a clue. All of the nations that are trying to comply with Kyoto are risking harming their economy for something that may or may not exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    And you may like to read this:

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/other...edt-ref09.html

    There are so many articles out there on this subject and the only thing you can really conclude is that scientists haven't got a clue. All of the nations that are trying to comply with Kyoto are risking harming their economy for something that may or may not exist.
    So why have the IPCC, the American National Academy of Sciences and the British National Academy of Sciences (arguably the three most legitimate authorities on climate change science imaginable) all come to the conclusion that man-made climate change is real and occuring? Why does the IPCC predict that if we continute to increase emissions levels at the current rate we could see a global temperature rise of 6 degrees in the next hundred years?

    Bear in mind that the last 6 degree temperature rise destroyed ninety percent of life on earth. Trying to cloud the issue of climate change by denying the science is a dead art - the world's governments, the world's scientists and increasingly, the world's population know it is happening. The question is one of response - whatever Kyoto's flaws (and it has a great many, largely thanks to US lobbying and the work of the Umbrella Group) it is infinitely preferable to continuing to increase carbon emissions. The continued US avoidance of this issue is particularly damaging because it provides the developing world the excuse it needs to ignore the issue too (despite the fact it is largely the developing world that will suffer most).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    And you may like to read this:

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/other...edt-ref09.html

    There are so many articles out there on this subject and the only thing you can really conclude is that scientists haven't got a clue. All of the nations that are trying to comply with Kyoto are risking harming their economy for something that may or may not exist.
    what a useless link!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phil23)
    what a useless link!
    Well, that was something I came up with after a google search that took all of 30 seconds. The best link I have ever seen in refuting the global warming hysteria is this link:

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

    It's a Canadian-produced documentary. I mentioned it before, but I think it bears repeating, since it is so well-researched and well done. Download all the videos....with broadband each one shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Even the left-wing socialist Canadians are asking questions about the science behind global warming.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have any statistical evidence of global warming existing.

    All I'm hearing is the repeated opinions of some scientists.

    Time to dispell the myths of 'Global warming'

    The earth heats and cools in cycles.
    The earth was a warmer place in the 14th entury (recent history)
    Average temperatures were falling between 1940 and 1970 so much so that there were scientists predicting we were entering an ice age
    The chemistry behind the theory is perfectly sound, ie molecules like Carbon dioxide and methane can act as a greenhouse letting heat in but not letting it out. However Carbon Dioxide levels were considerably higher 50 million years ago when we still existed. in fact CO2 levels have been falling continuously since our planet was formed until the 1980s and has risen from 0.03450% to 0.03457%, hardly a significant rise. The average volcanic eruption emits the same amount of Carbon dioxide and Methane than the US emits in 2 and a half years. Therefore greenhouse gas levels are relatively hard to control by cutting emissions. In fact the cause of this rise is the huge scale of deforestation.

    Now I hear you all saying about all the scientists that say that global warming exists. Scientific research is a business. It is muh more lucrative for a research company/university etc to study a topic like global warming and come back with results sayin well we think that the earth is heating unusually and could rsults in unbareable temperature but we need to do more tests etc. Please can we have some more money. That is why scientific studies are never conclusive. They are hardly going to go back and say well global warming exists/doesn't exist at all.

    Even if global warming does exist then it won't be catastrophic. if the ice caps melt, we will hardly notice the difference. An object only displaces its weight when floating but displaces it's volume when in the water. But this doesn't make any difference because the ice is the same as water so sea levels will remian constantish. There may be a small change bevause the ice caps are pure water and the sea is salt water but it wouldn't be noticeable. Us in Britain would not see scorching summers because the cold water from the artic ice cap would paralyse the gulf stream and therefore make us a colder country.

    To explain the recent rise in temperature since the 1970/80s, we look at the strict regulation that have come in to industry. Most gases absorb the energy from the sun before it reaches us. Very few gases are emitted now and therefore tempratures have risen.

    Whilst I don't like bush and believe him to be quite a cretin, I feel he has the right approach to this 'problem'

    Hopefully this should settle this thread as these are statistics not opinions.
    Any question or queries about this, please feel free to post back or message me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OK
    Science proves that there has been an aversion in the CO2 trends in our atmosphere...
    The little bit of paper bush has with 35000 scientists on it saying it is rubbish is infact incorrect...a lot of the people whos names are listed there are not even specialists in the field (e.g. geophysicists - they look at earthquakes, gravity, but definately not climate).
    A massive majority of climatologists are very concerned about this, and rightfully so.
    The reason bush doesn't care, is probably because he doesn't understand (he does have an IQ of less than 100 remember...), and he is being told by his corporate backers, which sadly for the american electoral system seems to be the main reason anyone can get into office (I'm sure bismarck will put me straight on a few points there, so i apologise in advance!).
    The thing is...america right now is in first place in the "game" (world) at this moment, and if your in first place when the game (world) ends, that makes you the winner...and you know how much they hate losing things!
    Economically it is just impossible to turn round to the people who have put you in office and tell them they have to cut back so drastically - it will keep them out of power for a long time (if i am correct corporate sponsorship represents millions to electoral campaigns, and they would get nowhere without them...)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    because he is silly
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    A massive majority of climatologists are very concerned about this, and rightfully so.
    Of course they are very concerned, if they say the climate is perfect then they are out of work. By saying they are concerned but they need to do more research allows them to continue getting paid for the forseeable future.

    I Don't like bush but he is right on this one.

    He is representing what the american people believe and want, unlike our Prime minister (IRAQ war). It is not in the oil companys favour for them to bribe etc to mislead the public as the truth will always out and then their reputation will poor and profits will fall. They realise the science behind global warming but the big question is the effect. As I said earlier the average volcanic eruption emits as much Carbon dioxide and methne as america does in 2 nd a half years. Deforestation is the reason for a small increase in Carbon Dioxide levels. The scare mongering of 'scientific models' that say the temperature could rise by 6C in the next 100 years is completely incorrect. the climate is so complicated and variable that you cannot create accurate scientific models to predict. the chances are that the effect of global warming is more likely to be a 0.25C rise in the next 1000 years.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    Of course they are very concerned, if they say the climate is perfect then they are out of work. By saying they are concerned but they need to do more research allows them to continue getting paid for the forseeable future.
    according to my reading and researching of the subject the majority of the scientific community is in agreement that climate change is happening as a result of human activity and that its results will not be as rosy as you make out. but assuming as you say that well respected climatologists are just making up excuses for their jobs existance why is the planet warming?, why are glaciers retreating?, why is spring coming earlier than ever before?

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    It is not in the oil companys favour for them to bribe etc to mislead the public as the truth will always out and then their reputation will poor and profits will fall.
    surely if the oil companies accept climate change and people start trying to do something about it, like using the cars less, this will also effect oil company profits?? and i'm afraid your statement that oil companies would prefer to protect their reputation rather than their short term profits really is laughable.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    Deforestation is the reason for a small increase in Carbon Dioxide levels. The scare mongering of 'scientific models' that say the temperature could rise by 6C in the next 100 years is completely incorrect. the climate is so complicated and variable that you cannot create accurate scientific models to predict. the chances are that the effect of global warming is more likely to be a 0.25C rise in the next 1000 years.
    what are you sources for the facts and figures you have given above and in the earlier post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First up, I'm not offering an opinion here as to which outlook on climate change is wrong or right, and I'm certainly not getting drawn into whatever Dubya may think personally.

    Hoooowever, can I puh-lease touch on some of the science being waved around? From a Geography standpoint.

    (and don't make any colouring in jokes :p: )

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    Does anyone have any statistical evidence of global warming existing.
    Yup, plenty of people. But we'll go with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), as they're the big one - the pre-eminent international authority on the subject. They produce a comprehensive report every 5 years, the last one being 2001. This 34 page pdf is just the summary, and contains pretty much all the statistical evidence you need. Interestingly, and crucially, for the first time, they specifically state that a marked anthropogenic influence exists on the warming evident.

    The earth heats and cools in cycles.
    Yes, they're called Milankovich cycles. However, the scale is significant. The three different climatic change mechanisms run on cycles of 100,000 years, 40,000 years, and 23,000/19,000 years. Far too long term to account for the marked warming we have seen in recent times. We are currently experiencing the hottest temperatures for the last 1000 years, and by some margin. The 'hockey-stick' graph shows a large upturn over the last 100-150 years. It's in that link, I think. With natural milankovitch cycles unable to account for this shorter term variation, possibly explanations include sunspot activity, volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation, El Nino, and oh yeah, anthropogenically induced global warming.

    The earth was a warmer place in the 14th entury (recent history)
    Wrong, sorry. See above.

    Average temperatures were falling between 1940 and 1970 so much so that there were scientists predicting we were entering an ice age.
    They dipped a little before rising again, yes. But the levels were still above the majority of the last 1000 years, and certainly nothing approaching an ice age.

    The chemistry behind the theory is perfectly sound, ie molecules like Carbon dioxide and methane can act as a greenhouse letting heat in but not letting it out. However Carbon Dioxide levels were considerably higher 50 million years ago when we still existed. in fact CO2 levels have been falling continuously since our planet was formed until the 1980s and has risen from 0.03450% to 0.03457%, hardly a significant rise.
    CO2 has been rising since 1800, at least. And the rise is significant. To give you some idea of how modern industrialisation has affected it.
    Pre-industrial average CO2 concentration = 280 ppmv
    2003 CO2 concentration = 376 ppmv

    Now I hear you all saying about all the scientists that say that global warming exists. Scientific research is a business. It is muh more lucrative for a research company/university etc to study a topic like global warming and come back with results sayin well we think that the earth is heating unusually and could rsults in unbareable temperature but we need to do more tests etc. Please can we have some more money.
    Sorry, that's ludicrous. To suggest that scientists would propagate a massive myth like this, one that has vast and far reaching effects on economics, communities, the planet just to stay in a job, is barmy.

    But this doesn't make any difference because the ice is the same as water so sea levels will remian constantish.
    Oh dear me no. Sea levels will rise if the ice caps melt. We won't just float on top and all move up a bit.

    There may be a small change bevause the ice caps are pure water and the sea is salt water but it wouldn't be noticeable. Us in Britain would not see scorching summers because the cold water from the artic ice cap would paralyse the gulf stream and therefore make us a colder country.
    You've seen the Day after Tomorrow then? Actually, it's solid science, though they ever so slightly accelerated the timescale. Just a wee bit. Think decades rather than hours. But yea, the THC circulation shutting down from largescale freshwater input is definitely a possibility.

    To Meat Loaf Rocks (and I disagree with you there too, sorry! He really doesn't!), I'm not meaning to be rude or even harsh, so please don't take offence. I've just got a different view on it, based on the science I've been taught. I'm perfectly willing to debate it, but bearing in mind that's pretty much come straight from my university lecturers, it's pretty reliable!

    Cheers
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    First up, I'm not offering an opinion here as to which outlook on climate change is wrong or right, and I'm certainly not getting drawn into whatever Dubya may think personally.

    Hoooowever, can I puh-lease touch on some of the science being waved around? From a Geography standpoint.

    (and don't make any colouring in jokes :p: )



    Yup, plenty of people. But we'll go with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), as they're the big one - the pre-eminent international authority on the subject. They produce a comprehensive report every 5 years, the last one being 2001. This 34 page pdf is just the summary, and contains pretty much all the statistical evidence you need. Interestingly, and crucially, for the first time, they specifically state that a marked anthropogenic influence exists on the warming evident.


    Yes, they're called Milankovich cycles. However, the scale is significant. The three different climatic change mechanisms run on cycles of 100,000 years, 40,000 years, and 23,000/19,000 years. Far too long term to account for the marked warming we have seen in recent times. We are currently experiencing the hottest temperatures for the last 1000 years, and by some margin. The 'hockey-stick' graph shows a large upturn over the last 100-150 years. It's in that link, I think. With natural milankovitch cycles unable to account for this shorter term variation, possibly explanations include sunspot activity, volcanic activity, changes in ocean circulation, El Nino, and oh yeah, anthropogenically induced global warming.


    Wrong, sorry. See above.


    They dipped a little before rising again, yes. But the levels were still above the majority of the last 1000 years, and certainly nothing approaching an ice age.


    CO2 has been rising since 1800, at least. And the rise is significant. To give you some idea of how modern industrialisation has affected it.
    Pre-industrial average CO2 concentration = 280 ppmv
    2003 CO2 concentration = 376 ppmv


    Sorry, that's ludicrous. To suggest that scientists would propagate a massive myth like this, one that has vast and far reaching effects on economics, communities, the planet just to stay in a job, is barmy.


    Oh dear me no. Sea levels will rise if the ice caps melt. We won't just float on top and all move up a bit.


    You've seen the Day after Tomorrow then? Actually, it's solid science, though they ever so slightly accelerated the timescale. Just a wee bit. Think decades rather than hours. But yea, the THC circulation shutting down from largescale freshwater input is definitely a possibility.

    To Meat Loaf Rocks (and I disagree with you there too, sorry! He really doesn't!), I'm not meaning to be rude or even harsh, so please don't take offence. I've just got a different view on it, based on the science I've been taught. I'm perfectly willing to debate it, but bearing in mind that's pretty much come straight from my university lecturers, it's pretty reliable!

    Cheers
    I understand your not trying to be rude or harsh, it's quite obvious you are putting you opinion forward. I will agree that you are likely to know more of the science behind it than me, considering your doing a geography degree.
    I would like to clear a few points up.
    1. You say that the speed in the upturn of temperatures does not fit the cycles. I would agree. But is there not the possibility that there are more cycles that have not been noticed. You say that the earth cannot warm so quickly on it own cyles but why then did it cool for only 30 years between 1940-1970. that doesn't fit the cycle either.
    2.You are correct CO2 levels have risen and mostly I agree by synthetic means, but this is a combination of two things, the world becoming idustrialised and the wide scale deforestation. the later having the greater effect.
    3. There is also global dimming which is caused by pollutants in the air, this has been steadily reduced over the past 20-30 years as impurites have been removed from fuels therefore the effect of dimming has lessened and therefore temperatures have risen.
    4. I would expect you to know this, but maybe it was the way I discibed it. Assuming the ice caps where salth water if they melted then the sea level would remian the same. Agree? The ice caps however aren't salt water they are pure water with gases trapped in the ice. This simply means that there will be a small rise in sea level if the ice caps were to melt.
    5. I wasn't isinuating that climatologists would fabricate results as such. This is what happens. Some scientists notice the earth has been heating over the past few decades and would like to study it to learn why. they appeal for a grant from an organistion, lets say the government. They study and realise other factors like CO2 levels have been rising etc. They cannot go back to the government and say yes or no there is global warming, as this would be them sticking their neck out. So they sit on the fence and quite fairly so and ask for more money to do research. the press hears about it and makes a meal out of it, ie the world will burn in 15 years. All the climatologists want is to learn and understand their field better. therefore they are always likely to come back with fence sitting answer to keep their job security but most importantly so they can do what they enjoy, learning about their field.
    6. the day after tomorrow was a good watch but poor science and to even suggest that it could happen in decades is ludicrous.We have been heating fast since 1970, therefore that already 3 decades.
    7. You are being taught by people very well informed of the field, ie lecturers. However they cannot teach what their opinion is only what the syllabus says, others wise you will have the wrong opinion when it comes to the exams. Unless you are at one of the very top institutuions then I doubt the lecturers are doing the research themsleves, more likely is they are regurgitating other climatologists beliefs. Please don't take this bit the wrong way, I'm not saying you university education is worthless mearly that sometimes you need to think about it urself as well as listening to the lecturers opinions.

    I Don't and won't argue that global warming doesn't exist because nobody has the evidence to do that, it is too early to have a real succinct understanding of why the world is heating like it is. I doubt the timescale and the overall scales published. The key is no-one really knows enough and no scientific model can make a presage of the future, due to the complexity of our world

    Last thing just look at quantum mechancs, if you understand the priciples(I don't mean to be patronsing). Quantum behaviour is completely random, or at least there is no theory to explain it anyway. Could the same not be true of certain systems like the climates, so that certain things are unpredictable. This is just a suggestion, do you know hen a gust of wind will blow, even if you had all the data. Can you see what I'm getting at.

    Hope you want to debate, i'm always willin to learn something new.

    cheers
    MLR (James)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    cowvindaloo, your post was brilliant.

    My science and geography is rubbish but I DO believe in global warming and your post summed my thoughts and gave me some excellent evidence!

    I just think it's very strange for all of us to constantly pollute our planet and atmosphere with a variety of noxious gases and elements and NOT expect there to be a nasty reaction. And people muttering on about how trying to tackle this problem will lead to economic decline etc - I'm sorry, but I just disagree with you. I don't see how trying to reduce CO2 and other gas emissions and replacing it with healthier, renewable energy source is going to suddenly make us all pverty stricken. How can people say that money is more important than our world and the people living in it, not to mention fuure generations? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    1. You say that the speed in the upturn of temperatures does not fit the cycles. I would agree. But is there not the possibility that there are more cycles that have not been noticed. You say that the earth cannot warm so quickly on it own cyles but why then did it cool for only 30 years between 1940-1970. that doesn't fit the cycle either.
    well looking at the graph here: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html
    the overall trend is up, you can't just take a 30 year period on its own, you have to look at the whole trend, and place that in the context of the temperature cycles.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    2.You are correct CO2 levels have risen and mostly I agree by synthetic means, but this is a combination of two things, the world becoming idustrialised and the wide scale deforestation. the later having the greater effect.
    what? your agreeing but disagreeing.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    3. There is also global dimming which is caused by pollutants in the air, this has been steadily reduced over the past 20-30 years as impurites have been removed from fuels therefore the effect of dimming has lessened and therefore temperatures have risen.
    so we should pollute the earth more?

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    4. I would expect you to know this, but maybe it was the way I discibed it. Assuming the ice caps where salth water if they melted then the sea level would remian the same. Agree? The ice caps however aren't salt water they are pure water with gases trapped in the ice. This simply means that there will be a small rise in sea level if the ice caps were to melt.
    if the polar ice cap at the north pole melted it wouldn't have an effect because it is already floating on the arctic ocean, but if the ice at the south pole and on greenland melts then it will have a dramatic effect. because the ice is not floating on water but is on land.
    sea levels will rise not only as a result of the ice caps melting though but also because of the rise in temperature of the oceans.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    5. I wasn't isinuating that climatologists would fabricate results as such. This is what happens. Some scientists notice the earth has been heating over the past few decades and would like to study it to learn why. they appeal for a grant from an organistion, lets say the government. They study and realise other factors like CO2 levels have been rising etc. They cannot go back to the government and say yes or no there is global warming, as this would be them sticking their neck out. So they sit on the fence and quite fairly so and ask for more money to do research. the press hears about it and makes a meal out of it, ie the world will burn in 15 years. All the climatologists want is to learn and understand their field better. therefore they are always likely to come back with fence sitting answer to keep their job security but most importantly so they can do what they enjoy, learning about their field.
    what a very interesting take on the academic and research world, sadly your agrument is fatally flawed by the fact that scientists aren't sitting on the fence. a majority have come out and said global warming is happening and we have to do something about it or we all fry(maybe not in those exact words)

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    6. the day after tomorrow was a good watch but poor science and to even suggest that it could happen in decades is ludicrous.We have been heating fast since 1970, therefore that already 3 decades.
    i didn't see it so i couldn't possibly comment

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    7. You are being taught by people very well informed of the field, ie lecturers. However they cannot teach what their opinion is only what the syllabus says, others wise you will have the wrong opinion when it comes to the exams. Unless you are at one of the very top institutuions then I doubt the lecturers are doing the research themsleves, more likely is they are regurgitating other climatologists beliefs. Please don't take this bit the wrong way, I'm not saying you university education is worthless mearly thatsometimes you need to think about it urself as well as listening to the lecturers opinions.
    i don't want to be condescending but you seem to believe that university is the same as GCSE or A Level with an exam board setting everything, it's not the lectures will generally have written or had an input into the syllabuses for the course modules they teach on, and they will be the ones marking the exams.
    why does it somehow make the information being taught of less value if the lecturer hasn't done the research themselves??
    you don't have to have taken the readings yourself to be able to perform calculations and draw conclusions from it.


    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    I Don't and won't argue that global warming doesn't exist because nobody has the evidence to do that, it is too early to have a real succinct understanding of why the world is heating like it is. I doubt the timescale and the overall scales published. The key is no-one really knows enough and no scientific model can make a presage of the future, due to the complexity of our world

    Last thing just look at quantum mechancs, if you understand the priciples(I don't mean to be patronsing). Quantum behaviour is completely random, or at least there is no theory to explain it anyway. Could the same not be true of certain systems like the climates, so that certain things are unpredictable. This is just a suggestion, do you know hen a gust of wind will blow, even if you had all the data. Can you see what I'm getting at.
    so we agree that the earth is getting warmer and you believe that nobody can predict what will happen because of it. think for a minute not about the science involved, but the human and animal cost of pollution and deforestation. we know that car fumes aren't healthy, cutting down too many trees causes soil erosion. so rather sitting on our hands because the science and affects of global warming aren't crystal clear we know that globally environmental protection is vital.

    again can i ask for some sources for all your fact and figures?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey hey;

    Happy to respond... though I suspect on some points we'll just have to agree to differ.

    (Original post by Meat Loaf Rocks)
    1. You say that the speed in the upturn of temperatures does not fit the cycles. I would agree. But is there not the possibility that there are more cycles that have not been noticed. You say that the earth cannot warm so quickly on it own cyles but why then did it cool for only 30 years between 1940-1970. that doesn't fit the cycle either.
    Mmm, I'm not sure - I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not aware of any short term repeating cycles. The 1940-1970 cooling is by and large attributed to a combination of decreased solar activity, and as you say, cooling attributed to aerosol emissions.

    2.You are correct CO2 levels have risen and mostly I agree by synthetic means, but this is a combination of two things, the world becoming idustrialised and the wide scale deforestation. the later having the greater effect.
    Again, I'm not 100% on this, but as far as I know, deforestation and its effects account for a little under 50% of the increased CO2 emissions, with burning of fossil fuels accounting for the slightly larger share. But I don't have the figures for this. What I do know is that no climate model can account for the recent warming unless a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions is factored in.

    3. There is also global dimming which is caused by pollutants in the air, this has been steadily reduced over the past 20-30 years as impurites have been removed from fuels therefore the effect of dimming has lessened and therefore temperatures have risen.
    Yes, their effect has been lessened, but it's not an overriding factor in temperature rise, though obviously it contributes. NASA climate scientists say - "No model that does not include a sharp rise in greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally CO2, is able to match up with recent warming. Thus the conclusion that GHGs are driving warming."

    4. I would expect you to know this, but maybe it was the way I discibed it. Assuming the ice caps where salth water if they melted then the sea level would remian the same. Agree? The ice caps however aren't salt water they are pure water with gases trapped in the ice. This simply means that there will be a small rise in sea level if the ice caps were to melt.
    Well, if you'd consider 60 metres a small rise. Cause that's the estimated figure if Antarctica were to go. Greenland is somewhat less - 6 or 7. But still enough to send us all running to the Scottish Highlands...

    5. I wasn't isinuating that climatologists would fabricate results as such. This is what happens. Some scientists notice the earth has been heating over the past few decades and would like to study it to learn why. they appeal for a grant from an organistion, lets say the government. They study and realise other factors like CO2 levels have been rising etc. They cannot go back to the government and say yes or no there is global warming, as this would be them sticking their neck out. So they sit on the fence and quite fairly so and ask for more money to do research. the press hears about it and makes a meal out of it, ie the world will burn in 15 years. All the climatologists want is to learn and understand their field better. therefore they are always likely to come back with fence sitting answer to keep their job security but most importantly so they can do what they enjoy, learning about their field.
    Still don't agree with you here, sorry. I don't believe they'd deliberately withhold opinions in the name of job security. I guess I'm just slightly less cynical towards the scientific community.

    6. the day after tomorrow was a good watch but poor science and to even suggest that it could happen in decades is ludicrous.We have been heating fast since 1970, therefore that already 3 decades.
    Oh, there's plenty of articles out there dissecting the science behind the film. Essentially they ignored the laws of thermodynamics, which I guess makes for more money at the box office.

    7. You are being taught by people very well informed of the field, ie lecturers. However they cannot teach what their opinion is only what the syllabus says, others wise you will have the wrong opinion when it comes to the exams. Unless you are at one of the very top institutuions then I doubt the lecturers are doing the research themsleves, more likely is they are regurgitating other climatologists beliefs. Please don't take this bit the wrong way, I'm not saying you university education is worthless mearly that sometimes you need to think about it urself as well as listening to the lecturers opinions.
    Actually, they can, and do teach their opinions. The point is that they make sure they present fact separately, and nearly always offer the counter argument, even if they don't agree with it. There's no syllabus - just an agreed lecture programme which is tailored around the course lecturers own personal research interests, and ensuring the relevant material for future studies is covered, etc. The lecturers then set the exam questions themselves, based on what they've taught. As such, people doing geography degrees at different institutions will likely cover a whole variety of different content, purely due to the staff in the department. And as for top institutions, when it comes to Geography, Durham is right up there.

    Last thing just look at quantum mechancs, if you understand the priciples(I don't mean to be patronsing). Quantum behaviour is completely random, or at least there is no theory to explain it anyway. Could the same not be true of certain systems like the climates, so that certain things are unpredictable. This is just a suggestion, do you know hen a gust of wind will blow, even if you had all the data. Can you see what I'm getting at.
    Mmm. Quantum mechanics was always one of those things I ignored, on the basis it sounds rather scary. As such, no comment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Junkscience, I am not going to debate with you unless you can stop being antagonistic and argumentative. Take cowvindaloo lead, he/she is doing a degree on the particular area but is still willing to debate and reason instead of asserting that he/she is right.

    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Hey hey;

    Happy to respond... though I suspect on some points we'll just have to agree to differ.


    Mmm, I'm not sure - I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not aware of any short term repeating cycles. The 1940-1970 cooling is by and large attributed to a combination of decreased solar activity, and as you say, cooling attributed to aerosol emissions.
    You are likely to be more of an expert than me on this. What I'm trying to get at here is the possibility that there are some short term cycles that havn't been discovered/documented. Decreased solar activity doesn't really fit in my mind, please correct me, but I would assume that it's due to our constant movement away from the sun and the heating cycles/solar flares etc from the sun. The problem I see is neither of these change very quickly, infact I am sure it would be slower than the earth cycles you are quoting. More interestingly I think though is the fact that the global dimming attributed to aerosols etc has been reversed in a quick time(20/30 years). therefore could the same not be true of GHG's. Also climatologists at the time really thought that we were entering an ice age, we know now with hindsight that is ridiculous but I am very wary of the same thing now with gloabl warming and suggesting of perpetual warming and a 6C rise in the next 100 years.


    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Again, I'm not 100% on this, but as far as I know, deforestation and its effects account for a little under 50% of the increased CO2 emissions, with burning of fossil fuels accounting for the slightly larger share. But I don't have the figures for this. What I do know is that no climate model can account for the recent warming unless a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions is factored in.


    Yes, their effect has been lessened, but it's not an overriding factor in temperature rise, though obviously it contributes. NASA climate scientists say - "No model that does not include a sharp rise in greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally CO2, is able to match up with recent warming. Thus the conclusion that GHGs are driving warming."
    just under 50% is a sizeable chunk really. Especially as it has knock on effects, ie we cant magic up loads of trees in a few minutes it would takes decades/ therefore CO2 trend would continue for decades even if C)" emission were cut to zero. No climate model is accurate. Would you not agree that there is so many variables unpredictable factor and unknown factors to creat a realistic model. it like trying to predict when there will be a gust of wind and how hard and it geometry and trajectory. It's too complicated and too much unknown to predict accurately


    [QUOTE=cowvindaloo]Well, if you'd consider 60 metres a small rise. Cause that's the estimated figure if Antarctica were to go. Greenland is somewhat less - 6 or 7. But still enough to send us all running to the Scottish Highlands...{/QUOTE] AS someone in a previous post said and corrected me. there would be a significant rise in sea level. the artci wouldn't be affected becasue it's floating but greenland and antartica would have a big effect. Although I would have thought your figures are based on entire ice caps melting not partial melting.


    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Still don't agree with you here, sorry. I don't believe they'd deliberately withhold opinions in the name of job security. I guess I'm just slightly less cynical towards the scientific community.
    Again I feel you haven't quite grasped what I was trying to say. If a friend calls you and asks you if you want to have lunch next friday, what do you say if your not compleetly sure if your free. Yes it will be fine, No can't do it or let me get back to you in a few days. it's the same with scientists, if there not completely sure of the implications of their results. I'm cynical about the scientific data in the press. My strengths are in science so I'm quite a fan really.


    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Oh, there's plenty of articles out there dissecting the science behind the film. Essentially they ignored the laws of thermodynamics, which I guess makes for more money at the box office.
    LOL, if they ignored one law of physics they will ignore another. How long does it take for the earth to naturally enter an ice age, thousands of years? Do you honestly believe that the human race can accelerate the process so that it happens in a few decades, as you previously suggested.


    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Actually, they can, and do teach their opinions. The point is that they make sure they present fact separately, and nearly always offer the counter argument, even if they don't agree with it. There's no syllabus - just an agreed lecture programme which is tailored around the course lecturers own personal research interests, and ensuring the relevant material for future studies is covered, etc. The lecturers then set the exam questions themselves, based on what they've taught. As such, people doing geography degrees at different institutions will likely cover a whole variety of different content, purely due to the staff in the department. And as for top institutions, when it comes to Geography, Durham is right up there.
    I may and quite probably am a little ignorant on this area but I can still deduce certain things. there may be no syllabus but all geography course in all HE instituions mst cover certain foundations and also teach roughly the same things, otherwise industry would have no use for geography graduates. Durham is a very good uni, congratulations for getting in most of been tough.

    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    Mmm. Quantum mechanics was always one of those things I ignored, on the basis it sounds rather scary. As such, no comment.
    Do you understand what I'm trying to get at by comparing it to quantum mechanics.
    Cowvindaloo, I would like to thank you fro debate and discussing instead of asserting your opinions, which you could easily could of considering you doing a geography degree at Durham and I have just finished my GCSEs LOL.
    Apologises for the poor typing, i'm on my dads laptop which i'm not used to.

    cheers
    MLR (James)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowvindaloo)
    You've seen the Day after Tomorrow then? Actually, it's solid science, though they ever so slightly accelerated the timescale. Just a wee bit. Think decades rather than hours. But yea, the THC circulation shutting down from largescale freshwater input is definitely a possibility.
    That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the day after tomorrow is based on solid science! All scientists have had comments like these about the movie:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...michaels_x.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the day after tomorrow is based on solid science! All scientists have had comments like these about the movie:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...michaels_x.htm
    Oh, I know. As I said in my second post, they completely ignored the laws of thermodynamics, which renders the rest useless, designed for hollywood show.

    However, the underlying theory which I meant was solid science is that a large freshwater injection to the thermohaline circulation could result in it shutting down, and hence significant cooling. That's a valid scientific premise, as THC is driven by salinity. However, as the article points out (and I've read it before) the other bits of science they convienently ignored meant their portrayal was bogus.

    If you're in the UK, (which judging from your user name, there's a fair chance you're not, but never mind!) there was a really good Horizon documentary a few months ago which looked at the realistic scenarios involving the gulfstream.

    So no, I'm not saying the film was valid science, it clearly wasn't. However, before Hollywood got their hands on it, there was a genuine scientific premise in there, which is what I meant.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,436

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.