The Official Global Warming Thread

[Trielelvan]

I think burgundy streaks would look awesome on you.

[10sun]

C02 being one of the key ones, while it did exist, it existed in a balance with plant life and foliage on Earth. With thousands upon thousands of miles of Rain forest, vegetation, and other trees being cut down daily reduces the amount of Co2 that can be tolerated in the environment. Increase in one thing, decrease in its balance will deffinatly dramatically effect the atmosphere.

The net oxygen produced by all the rainforests in the world is neglible.
I think that the rainforests should stay due to the uncatalogued biodiversity, however they simply do not play a role in this topic.

If you want to talk about the impact of soil erosion on phytoplankton & other forms of microalgae, then we can chat.

-Adam

The net oxygen produced by all rainforests is not neglible at all. Especially when you couple them with Mass clear cutting of non rain forest areas, among other vegitation and plant life that is disturbed and destroyed.

It does play a role in this topic, because it does, and will continue to effect the environment as the years past. Im certainly no tree hugging hippie, but i cant believe you would say that cutting down trees has no effect on the environment.

If you would like, we can chat about microalgae also.

The largest impact that clearcutting has on our global ecosystem is the soil erosion which eventually reaches the ocean and causes all sorts of shitty things to happen.

The net effect global CO2 conversion attributed to Rainforests is less than 1%.

You covered the point that microalgae is in fact a vital role in the oxygen production / CO2 reduction in our world.

[Xaiveir]

I think burgundy streaks would look awesome on you.

I would have to agree here.

[Narrock]

Here's Canada's reaction to algore's lunacy:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[araby]

I think burgundy streaks would look awesome on you.

ooo!! good idea =) going to try this...

[Tikker]

Here's Canada's reaction to algore's lunacy:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Here's Canada's reaction to Mindia:


Fuck off Mindia!

[Scatillac]

Here's Canada's reaction to algore's lunacy:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

The University professor that is calling Gore out is in Australia...

You are awar that the only 2 countries that did not sign the Kyoto Act are The United States and Australia right?

Hes on the corporate payroll.

[Scatillac]

Narrock's arguments in this thread have not been in any way based on religious beliefs, nor has he cited any religious dogma as a reason for his views on the subject.

Do not change the focus of an otherwise innocent thread to personal squabbling.

Lueyen

[Scatillac]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Later this week in Paris, climate scientists will issue a dire forecast for the planet that warns of slowly rising sea levels and higher temperatures.

But that may be the sugarcoated version.

Early and changeable drafts of their upcoming authoritative report on climate change foresee smaller sea level rises than were projected in 2001 in the last report. Many top U.S. scientists reject these rosier numbers.

Those calculations don't include the recent, and dramatic, melt-off of big ice sheets in two crucial locations:

They "don't take into account the gorillas -- Greenland and Antarctica," said Ohio State University earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson, a polar ice specialist. "I think there are unpleasant surprises as we move into the 21st century."

Michael MacCracken, who until 2001 coordinated the official U.S. government reviews of the international climate report on global warming, has fired off a letter of protest over the omission.

The melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are a fairly recent development that has taken scientists by surprise. They don't know how to predict its effects in their computer models. But many fear it will mean the world's coastlines are swamped much earlier than most predict.

Others believe the ice melt is temporary and won't play such a dramatic role.

That debate may be the central one as scientists and bureaucrats from around the world gather in Paris to finish the first of four major global warming reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel was created by the United Nations in 1988.

After four days of secret word-by-word editing, the final report will be issued Friday.

The early versions of the report predict that by 2100 the sea level will rise anywhere between 5 and 23 inches. That's far lower than the 20 to 55 inches forecast by 2100 in a study published in the peer-review journal Science this month. Other climate experts, including NASA's James Hansen, predict sea level rise that can be measured by feet more than inches.

The report is also expected to include some kind of proviso that says things could be much worse if ice sheets continue to melt.

The prediction being considered this week by the IPCC is "obviously not the full story because ice sheet decay is something we cannot model right now, but we know it's happening," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate panel lead author from Germany who made the larger prediction of up to 55 inches of sea level rise. "A document like that tends to underestimate the risk," he said.

"This will dominate their discussion because there's so much contentiousness about it," said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a multinational research effort. "If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than one meter (about 39 inches of sea level rise), there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know."

In the past, the climate change panel didn't figure there would be large melt of ice in west Antarctica and Greenland this century and didn't factor it into the predictions. Those forecasts were based only on the sea level rise from melting glaciers (which are different from ice sheets) and the physical expansion of water as it warms.

But in 2002, Antarctica's 1,255-square-mile Larsen B ice shelf broke off and disappeared in just 35 days. And recent NASA data shows that Greenland is losing 53 cubic miles of ice each year -- twice the rate it was losing in 1996.

Even so, there are questions about how permanent the melting in Greenland and especially Antarctica are, said panel lead author Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

While he said the melting ice sheets "raise a warning flag," Trenberth said he wonders if "some of this might just be temporary."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said Greenland didn't melt much within the past thousand years when it was warmer than now. Christy, a reviewer of the panel work, is a prominent so-called skeptic. He acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, but he believes it is not as worrisome as advertised.

Those scientists who say sea level will rise even more are battling a consensus-building structure that routinely issues scientifically cautious global warming reports, scientists say.

The IPCC reports have to be unanimous, approved by 154 governments -- including the United States and oil-rich countries such as Saudi Arabia -- and already published peer-reviewed research done before mid-2006.

Rahmstorf, a physics and oceanography professor at Potsdam University in Germany, says, "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk."

[araby]

well I think this thread should be dedicated to al gore, he made it possible.

[Narrock]

algore is a flaming homotard

[araby]

algore is a flaming homotard

[araby]

Global warming man-made, will continue

By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago

PARIS - International scientists and officials hailed a report Friday saying that global warming is "very likely" caused by man, and that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, called it a "very impressive document that goes several steps beyond previous research."
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change

[Ginzburgh]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

In a 21-page report for policymakers, the group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

So I guess my question is, how much more will it take to convince people like Mindia? At this point, I don't even know why the nay sayers have any doubts.

[Lyion]

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/opinion_colum ... 90,00.html

Global warming is a very real phenomena being accelerated by our ever-increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. Scientists agree that the average temperature around the world has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century.

Temperatures regularly go up and down up as much as 100 degrees because of latitude, altitude, summer vs. winter, night vs. day, changes in the jet stream, El Nino effects and random variation. And yet Al Gore and his crowd would have you believe that a 1 degree rise in global warming is responsible for every ill that currently befalls mankind. This mindset is so strongly entrenched that arguing against these claims is hopeless.

Most scientists use computer models that predict further increases of 2 or 3 degrees in the next century. A few scientists have predicted rises of 10 degree or more and these are the figures we are most apt to read about together with the dire consequences of the ocean rising and massive flooding and the like. Again, to argue against these claims is hopeless.

Therefore, I believe it useful to review some basic facts on global warming. First, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Rather, it is the natural product of burning fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas or coal. The only way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to burn less fossil fuels.

The well-known Kyoto Protocol essentially asks us to reduce our current emissions by 25 percent. To meet this goal, we would have to reduce the gasoline and diesel use by cars and trucks, including the 18-wheelers on the interestate, by 25 percent. We would have to reduce freight train operation, airline travel, energy for home heating and air conditioning, the production of electrical energy, all by 25 percent. We would have to cut the energy use by factories and offices for heating and industrial processes by 25 percent. Finally, we would have to cut many other activities such as operation of retail stores, sporting events, cruise ships, and so on.

If we actually made these cuts, our economy would be in shambles and our way of life would be down the toilet. There is no way that new technologies, conservation or the smoke and mirrors of carbon credits can side step the problem. And building a few hybrid cars or asking for better mileage on new cars would only provide a tiny drop in the bucket in solving the problem.

Even if our country did make these cuts, most of the nations already signed onto the Kyoto Protocol are not meeting their goals. In addition, China and India are rapidly growing contributors to carbon dioxide emissions and yet they are exempt from these requirements as are most third world countries.

Those are the technical realities of the situation. And the political reality is that the American people would never endorse these massive sacrifices for the benefit of people fifty or a hundred years from now.

Nancy Pelosi is determined to enact legislation to reduce emissions. As Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote in Newsweek, the probable outcome is that polices may be enacted "that hurt the economy without much curbing of greenhouse gasses."

So let us forget about the problem and enjoy the lower heating bills and the warm weather and the fact that plant life will grow faster as the CO concentration goes up (no kidding!) Prepare to book your next vacation in sunny Siberia, and then a hundred years from now it will become obvious that all the scare stories of today were simply massive exaggerations.

Oh, by the way, many scientists were warning about global cooling back in 1970.

[Arlos]

Funny, I believe a worldwide coalition of environmental scientists over one random asshat with an opinion blog. Also, his assertion that to reduce CO2 levels it would require an equal amount of burning less fuels is simply untrue. There are NUMEROUS ways to reduce CO2 emissions, but big business doesn't want to pay the money to enact them. On coal power plants, for example, it's fully possible to put in CO2 scrubbers on their emissions stacks, which drastically cut down how much CO2 they emit. That's just one case.

And funny, if all those other countries have signed onto the Kyoto protocols, and have enacted reforms to at least attempt to meet the limits, by this guy's logic, their economies should all be in shambles. Oddly enough, I haven't heard recently about the entire world'd economy being in the toilet, because of the horrible costs of the Kyoto protocols. Which says to me that these dire predictions of economic chaos are just so much BS.

Lastly, what are this guy's credentials? What proof is there he knows jack shit about climate change, environmental theory, meteorology, or even in-depth economics? Odds are, given your proclivity of posting, that he's some random ultra-conservative asshat, who doesn't know fuck-all about what he's blogging about.

-Arlos

[Ginzburgh]

Hey, i'm not a scientist and know very little about this subject but I keep seeing articles by the worlds top climate scientists saying that we're in for a shit load of trouble because of man made global warming. So what you're saying is, those top scientists are wrong and...republicans and retired electrical engineers who are guest columnists on some website on the internet? I guess I am more inclined to believe the scientists.

[Lyion]

Maybe because they aren't doing much to try and enact the Kyoto accord?

So, the EU is ignoring it. China, Russia, India, etc are exempt from it. Why should we even give a shit about Kyoto?

I think we should work to bring down greenhose gases and become more environmentally friendly, but I think the Kyoto accord is worthless.

The only dire predictions that are full of shit are the ones Al Gore makes while flying around in his private jets to warn us to slow down on our CO2 use. Bullshit and Hypocritical all at once!

There's a reason Kyoto was rejected 95-0 in the Senate, Ginz. It has nothing to do with us working on being more green, which I'm all for.

[Ginzburgh]

Lastly, what are this guy's credentials?

He's a member of Mensa! I have a friend who is a member of Mensa, he's a cook.

[Lyion]

It's 6 degrees here. Can we please have some more global warming ASAP.

[Ginzburgh]

The only dire predictions that are full of shit are the ones Al Gore makes while flying around in his private jets to warn us to slow down on our CO2 use. Bullshit and Hypocritical all at once.

I am curious, are republicans less inclined to take global warming seriously because of the statistics or because Al Gore is the spokesman? If it's the latter, I think it's pretty sill to let your political beliefs jeopardize our planet's well being.

[Ginzburgh]

It's 6 degrees here. Can we please have some more global warming ASAP.

That means nothing. It's been in the 40s-60s here all winter and phoenix arizona has had more snow than we have had in connecticut, 1 inch.

[Arlos]

The big mistake people make about global warming when they hear about an aggregate temperature rise of 1, 2, 3, 4 degrees, etc. is to think that that means that where THEY are will be effected by that much. The thing is, that's hte AVERAGE for the entire planet. Different localized areas are going to be effected differently.

Also, there's a whole shitload of synergistic effects that arise from temperature changes that aren't temperature related themselves. Warmer atmosphere means more energy available to weather systems. That means more violent storms, stronger winds, etc. Stronger Hurricanes are just one symptom; more frequent tornadoes, biger rainstorms, and even stronger blizzards are all impacts of the global temperature changes.

ALso, some climatological processes are very delicately balanced. Look at the current system in the oceans that has the cold dense water sinkning, circulating in the deep sea, and coming back up and going along in a convection cell. One of the most well-known of these is, you know, the gulf stream. Just in the changes we've already gone through, this system has slowed down considerably due to the influx of fresh water (less dense than seawater). The Gulf Stream is singularly responsible for keeping all of northern europe, including Britain, etc. as warm as they are. If the gulf stream were to shut off (a very real possibility) Birtain turns into siberia. So yes, you WILL have places that get COLDER as the result of global warming.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

It's 6 degrees here. Can we please have some more global warming ASAP.

That means nothing. It's been in the 40s-60s here all winter and phoenix arizona has had more snow than we have had in connecticut, 1 inch.

Hartford Weather
US Geography / US Weather / Connecticut Weather / Hartford


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Avg. High 34° 37° 46° 58° 68° 78° 84° 81° 74° 64° 51° 38°
Avg. Low 16° 18° 27° 37° 47° 56° 62° 60° 51° 40° 32° 21°
Mean 25° 28° 37° 48° 58° 68° 74° 71° 64° 52° 42° 30°

Avg. Precip. 3.3 in 3.0 in 3.4 in 3.8 in 4.0 in 3.8 in 3.6 in 3.5 in 3.6 in 3.5 in 3.7 in 3.6 in

[Ginzburgh]

That's great but I don't live in hartford.

And Mindia, are you going to answer my question? Or do you not bother answering questions like these?