Is Global Warming happening?

[Radio Frequency X]

But the lack of evidence is just that , a lack of evidence . It does not support one side or the other .

True. This is purely an assumption on my part and one that I am willing to change in the future.

 

[kreeden]

All major industrialized nations have made pledges to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, yet mostly failed to deliver.

Not quite . The Kyoto Protocol allowed for a 8% target increase in Australian emissions . China also claims the protocol to be unjust because it has low per capita emmisions and a population control measure in place .

While Canada has agreed to the protocol , we tend to look at Australia and wonder ... The two countries are about the same in size and population , but hey , it is cold up here ....

 

[Halcyon]

The mean global temperature has risen between 0.5 and one degree centigrade (depending on who you ask) over the last one hundred years (reading from my uni notes). An increase in temperature = warming, therefore global warming is happening.

Here's a graph, graphs a fun.

Notice the correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature changes.

Also, using just a smidgen of common sense - if you burn a store of carbon that has been collecting beneath the earth's surface for half a billion years, you release half a billion years worth of CO2 back into the atmosphere - if that doesn't have an effect then i'm a mutant en:.

Here's some enjoyable reading.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4864

 

[Yerda]

A noticable difference in the global temperature is what I meant.

The fact is that we can tell the average temperature of the Earth for around two million years past. Human influence is indicated by the almost vertical spike in global temperature in the past hundred years or so.

 

[Bishka]

You didn't say global warming in your last post, you said environment. I think Radio X admits humans are trashing the environment, but he believes global warming is something else.

I never said you should "just bow out now and leave 'real scientists' to do their work."

I'm sorry. I just got frustrated.

 

[Callous]

I’m not a scientist or climatologist but I do work on the North Slope in Alaska and have for the last 12 years. I have seen the effects of receding permafrost causing caves and heaves in the ground. Now frost heaves are from the permafrost heaving out of the ground similar to platonic shifts or earth quakes only on a much smaller scale. The caves are caused by the permafrost melting leaving caverns or recess the ground.
In order to cause deep permafrost caves the ground has to retain more heat for longer periods. We are talking just a few degrees to make this happen.
I would say we are in a warming trend the effect man my have on it could be less than the few degrees that it takes to start melting the permafrost but it most certainly is a factor to be add in.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The fact is that we can tell the average temperature of the Earth for around two million years past. Human influence is indicated by the almost vertical spike in global temperature in the past hundred years or so.

That simply is not true. I'd be interested to know who told you that.

 

[Bishka]

That simply is not true. I'd be interested to know who told you that.

Do you have any evidence to show it isn't?

 

[Flappycat]

But the question is, does pollution add to it enough to make a noticeable difference?

Really now? From what I've found, volcanic eruptions emit 145 to 255 tons of CO2 a year. While cars in the US alone emit 314 tons of C02 a year.

I don't think that it does

You're flat wrong.

But as long as we can all agree that pollution is bad for humans, then that's enough for me.

We're still trying to convince you on it. Sell the SUV, and get a real car, yuppie.

 

[nutshell]

You're flat wrong.

We're still trying to convince you on it. Sell the SUV, and get a real car, yuppie.

Chill with the name calling and personal attacks, Flappy.

As an independant observer, I haven't seen much evidence come forward on either side.

I did like the graph Halcyon shared, but I'd like more explanaton as to what "antarctic ice core" meant.

 

[spacemonkey]

Here's the real question, is global warming a bad thing? An increase in temperature and CO2 would logically seem to lead to an increase in vegitation that is the base of the food chain.

 

[quadrophenic_9]

Yup. But I will miss the glaciers even though we'll get more plants. I think it's just another one of the earth's cycles. I had a geology teacher that told us humans only account for about 2% of greenhouse gasses. I guess the earth is delicate enough to be affected but resilient enough to fight back. We just gotta help by wasting a little less I guess.

 

[Valjean]

I'm pulling my hair out here! People are offering opinions who clearly have no familiarity with the evidence!

Go to the scientific literature! It is voluminous. It is unanimous! The real experts are all in agreement and have no doubt.

And what's all this about "no real proof." Of course there's no proof! Where were you in Middle School science class? Science doesn't proove things. Mathematics prooves things. There's no proof that the Earth is spherical or that it revolves around the Sun, but these are still facts.

 

[Halcyon]

I did like the graph Halcyon shared, but I'd like more explanaton as to what "antarctic ice core" meant.

An ice core is when they drill a cylinder of ice out of, well, somewhere icy.
Obviously the deeper you go, the older the ice becomes. We can tell the composition of the atmosphere at the time the ice formed by studing the ice cores, so if we drill down to ice that's 100,000 old, we can see what the atmosphere was like at that time.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I'm pulling my hair out here! People are offering opinions who clearly have no familiarity with the evidence!

Go to the scientific literature! It is voluminous. It is unanimous! The real experts are all in agreement and have no doubt.

This simply isn't true. This debate has been heating up for the last thirty years with scientists on both sides of the issue. The trouble is finding scientists that haven't been bought by special interests. When you do find independent scientific analysis, it is often split.

What has been proven is that humans are polluting the earth (which I am passionately against). What has been proven is that humans have increased specific greenhouse gases. What has been proven is that the earth is experiencing a warming pattern. What has not been proven is that this pollution or these greenhouse gases has had a meaningful effect on the global temperature.

 

[Ryan2065]

Do you have any evidence to show it isn't?

You are asking him to show that we cannot do something? So shall he start going through the infinite ways it might be done and prove it cannot be done or should we possibly ask the person who said it can be done to give his evidence?

Go to the scientific literature! It is voluminous. It is unanimous! The real experts are all in agreement and have no doubt.

And what's all this about "no real proof." Of course there's no proof! Where were you in Middle School science class? Science doesn't proove things. Mathematics prooves things. There's no proof that the Earth is spherical or that it revolves around the Sun, but these are still facts.

Are you willing to say that the man causing global warming theory is as universally accepted as the theory of gravity or evolution? How about this... There is no hard evidence to suggest that humans are the cause of global warming. Sure there is evidence of this, but then again there is evidence that we are not =)

An ice core is when they drill a cylinder of ice out of, well, somewhere icy.
Obviously the deeper you go, the older the ice becomes. We can tell the composition of the atmosphere at the time the ice formed by studing the ice cores, so if we drill down to ice that's 100,000 old, we can see what the atmosphere was like at that time.

I am not so sure this is very detailed though... Or is it? Would a 50 year spike in world temperature actually show on this dating method or is it just hit and miss? Basically how narrow can they actually show the temperature... Is it they can estimate every 100 years, 1000 years?

 

[Valjean]

You are asking him to show that we cannot do something? So shall he start going through the infinite ways it might be done and prove it cannot be done or should we possibly ask the person who said it can be done to give his evidence?

Are you willing to say that the man causing global warming theory is as universally accepted as the theory of gravity or evolution? How about this... There is no hard evidence to suggest that humans are the cause of global warming. Sure there is evidence of this, but then again there is evidence that we are not =)

I am not so sure this is very detailed though... Or is it? Would a 50 year spike in world temperature actually show on this dating method or is it just hit and miss? Basically how narrow can they actually show the temperature... Is it they can estimate every 100 years, 1000 years?

Yes. Among real scientists human mediated global warming is as accepted as evolution or gravity. It's difficult to find even an Exxon or BP engineer that doesn't accept this.
Global warming is a hot scientific topic. There are tens of thousands of research papers in reputable journals on the topic and not a single one maintains that the warming isn't real or that man is not a significant contributor.

Of course there are many other factors influencing climate, and climate has varied a lot in the past with no input from man, but the current trend correlates so closely with well understood warming factors clearly created by human activity that no-one who seriously examines the issue has any doubt.

 

[Sunstone]

Did anyone catch the British report on global warming that was released by Blair yesterday? From what I understand, one of its conclusions is that it would be much cheaper to do something about global warming than it would be to ignore the problem. The cost of ignoring the problem, according to the report, could amount to 5% to 20% of the world econonomy within our lifetimes.

 

[spacemonkey]

Did anyone catch the British report on global warming that was released by Blair yesterday? From what I understand, one of its conclusions is that it would be much cheaper to do something about global warming than it would be to ignore the problem. The cost of ignoring the problem, according to the report, could amount to 5% to 20% of the world econonomy within our lifetimes.

So we lose a little coastline... we get Canada and Greenland in return.

 

[Yerda]

That simply is not true. I'd be interested to know who told you that.

Professor Sir David King, Cheif Scientific Advisor to H.M Government.

He also maintains, quite in line with what Seyorni has said more than once, that there is no debate amongst scientitsts that the change in the climate cycle is due to anthropogenic effects.