Global warming the evidence.

Typedef

Global warming the evidence.
From http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
quote:


Ice cores taken from the Dunde Ice Cap in the Qilian Mountains on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau indicate that the years since 1938 have been the warmest in the last 12,000 years.



I myself drive a motorcycle, so I'll admit an element of hypocrisy at the very outset. That said, if current climate changes continue at the arguably noticeable rate that has been evidencing itself over the last few years, post-apocalyptic films like 'Waterworld', may in fact be a foreboding parody of a future to come.
quote:

The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.



Ok, so the Waterworld analogy may be spurious, as it would seem that sea levels have decreased by some 2.5 inches in certain control areas between the years of 1990 to 2000.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html
quote:


In the early 1990s, scientists forecast that the coral atoll of nine islands - which is only 12ft above sea level at its highest point - would vanish within decades because the sea was rising by up to 1.5in a year. However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.



However, truth be told, it would be highly illogical to presume that with more liquid being released into the watercycle from melting glaciers (which are melting at a much greater rate, arguably because of human industrial activity), the ocean levels will most likely rise, or extreme weather events due to higher levels of heat and precipitation (leading to more melting of glaciers and so on), will take place.

I don't mean to shout the odds, but, it seems like such an abrogation and mockery of logic, that while global warming is taking place, the 'powers' on this planet, blocs of nations are vying over control of Iraqi oil stocks, the use of which (the stocks) will cause yet more warming of the planet.

It is from an environmentalist standpoint a highly self-destructive thing for the most powerful blocs (read amorphous groupings of people called 'countries') to be engaged in.

Mr_Roger_Bongos

Americas teh starting point. I dont think anyones realised but they didnt sign the kyoto argreemnet. The amount of stuff teh give off in waste, the oil they use and teh **** they give off into teh atmosphere would have teh same effect, arguably over a longer time period, even if all the other countries were to completely stop. The worlds most powerful country needs to be put of a leash.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

smiles

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521010683/qid=1046089044/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-7921342-8766344?v=glance&s=books&n=507846#product-details

"The Sceptical Environmentalist" deals with this very well.

It's a good read for anyone whos very green and wants some balanced views.

<< Fio >>

Kell

Originally posted by smiles
[BIt's a good read for anyone whos very green and wants some balanced views.

<< Fio >> [/B]

But thats what makes the boards go around. Unbalanced views and real expression.

Having seen some photo's taken ten years ago and present from the place in Tibet that Typie refers to, it is really quite scary. You can see exactly how much ice has receeded. Also, the current carbon content samples that are being taken from some of the polar ice caps are higher than what was recorded and dated from the industrial revolution where not a toss of consideration was given to the environment.

Kyoto treay indeed. Greenpeace are of the opinion that Exxon, who funded the bulk of Bush's presedential campaign are the main reason behind the abstinence signing the Kyoto treaty and also the obvious absence from the Johannesburg conference, until the 11th hour when Powell waded in and said "This is the way it's going to be". I was deeply gratified when a bunch of environmentalists picketed outside the Esso garage in Rathmines on Saturday as Greenpeace have encouraged peope to do all across the UK. Their motto is to hurt them where it hurts. At the pumps.

Yoda

Originally posted by Mr_Roger_Bongos
America's the starting point. I dont think anyone's realised but they didn't sign the kyoto argreement. The amount of stuff they give off in waste, the oil they use and the **** they give off into the atmosphere would have the same effect, arguably over a longer time period, even if all the other countries were to completely stop. The world's most powerful country needs to be put on a leash.

Does it indeed? And what about our small little country, where every bank is still drooling to give us motorloans (but not loans to double-glaze one's drafty flat), where government takes no interest in the national rail network nor in a realistic and useful bus/metro/rail network in the capital city. Easy to kick at the US, but we aren't doing so very well over here, now, are we?

Nevyn

no rain, sleet hail or snow on Paddies day what more edivence do they Need ?

Gaffo

I think there's still a complete irreverence by the masses on the whole subject cos too many people still believe that the greenhouse effect means sunnier summers.

This winter has to be the warmest I've ever seen in all my 21 years and last summer was one of the wettest. I don't think it'll be long until we have our very own monsoon season in Ireland.

Yoda is right. We need to start where we can make an effective difference ie. our own homes.

America is a big problem(I think Texas produces more toxic waste than Ireland) but the real problem lies in educating people about the real effects that global warming causes.

mike65

Originally posted by Gaffo


America is a big problem(I think Texas produces more toxic waste than Ireland).

Well its economy and population are bigger than Irelands....

The best place to start is ones own home and car, so turn off the lights notch down the heat at little and learn to drive without harsh braking or acceleration. The best way to approach energy saving is to think of your money being saved, which is why there's something to be said for a carbon tax.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Qutie true.

There is a lot to be said for putting your own house in order before you go deriding others for their bad practices.

For example, Ireland & the UK out of all EU member states have the lowest incidence of recycling in the entire community.

Shockingly Ireland & Britain also have the hightest incidence of binge drinking.

Conslusion : People in the British isles are larger louts, who couldn't give a toss about the environment, but are quite prepaired to deride the US for withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol, that's what the evidence suggests.

Hmm, well before we go pointing the finger here in Ireland, exactly how much has this country done reduce carbon emissions from cars, reduce emissions from Peat & Coal power stations, provide a real solution to the country's second largest city's sewerage treatment facilities? How much has this country done to hold the produces of waste acountable to it's safe disposal, or recycling as for example Germany does?

The answer is very little. So jaundiced is this country in it's regard for environmentalism as a 'leftie' concept that environmentalism is regarded with disdain, but, if the environment can be used as a stick with which to beat others, suddenly you have throngs of envrionmentalists materialising from thin air (pardon the pun) to scream bloody murder.

Gaffo

Exactly. This country still doesn't have a tertiary water processing plant(the stage that removes phosphates before releasing the 'purified' water to rivers and streams). Across Europe this is a basic stage in the cleansing of water.

Some progress is starting to happen. I was delighted to get a green bin and it often fills up before the regular bin does. People won't wake up to it though until it starts to hurt them most i.e. their pockets.

I think Supermarkets have a lot to answer to as well, with the amount of wasteful packaging that gets passed on to the consumer.

Trebor

i agree with with most of the points stated but would like to ask would you all be willing to pay higher taxes for these idea's to be implemented, i for one would but only if the taxes where monitored to make sure that it went to envoirnment issues

banquo

this always puzzled me...

take 1 litre of water; it occupoies a certain amount of space.

freeze it - now it takes up more space.

melt it again and it will take up less space again.

so; would the icebergs melting not actuallt reduce water levels?!?

bonkey

Originally posted by smiles
"The Sceptical Environmentalist" deals with this very well.

It's a good read for anyone whos very green and wants some balanced views.

I seem to recall that this was rubbished from a scientific quality point of view when it was first reviewed in Scientific American.

If its the book I'm thinking of (and the author's name rings a bell on it), SciAm ran something like a 20-page special on it, dealing with 4 major sections in his book, and getting 4 experts in the relevant fields to review his arguments and conclusions.

The concensus was that he seemed to be completely cherry-picking his statistics. On one hand, he would happily accept figures from publication X as being the best available, and then turn around and rubbish or ignore other figures from the same publication which countered his arguments, without ever presenting any logical reasons for why some figures in a given report were good and others were bad.

I'm not saying that the reviewers were right, but at the very least it shows the massive rift in terms of agreement. It also highlights the problems presenting the lay-person. How can we possibly identify good material on the subject - thus becoming informed and able to make somewhat educated decisions - when the experts themselves cannot agree.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by robbb_mm
this always puzzled me... take 1 litre of water; it occupoies a certain amount of space. freeze it - now it takes up more space. melt it again and it will take up less space again. so; would the icebergs melting not actuallt reduce water levels?!?

Not directly. Icebergs are part-in, part-out of the water, as the mass is "constant", the variables are volume and density.

As iceberg cools further, it expands further and the density drops, the iceberg rises further in the water.

As the iceberg warms up, it increases in density and sinks back into the water. It doesn’t take up less water displacement, it takes up less air displacement.

However, from 0 to 4 degrees, the volume of water will decease and over 4 degrees will expand again. One way to observe this is to have your “iceberg” in a sealed container of a material of density 1g/ml.

I don’t know the coefficient of expansion for ice, so take the attached diagram as demonstrative only.

---

The melting of Antarctic and Greenland glacier and general warming of the sea will raise sea levels (evaporation aside).

banquo

wow, ok then. cool.

Keeks

Originally posted by bonkey
The concensus was that he seemed to be completely cherry-picking his statistics. On one hand, he would happily accept figures from publication X as being the best available, and then turn around and rubbish or ignore other figures from the same publication which countered his arguments, without ever presenting any logical reasons for why some figures in a given report were good and others were bad.

I've read the book and didn't really see that much cherry picking. He mainly used offical UN statics to back up his points, usually taken from FAO, WHO, Worldbank, IPCC etc. What did come through was his apparent opposition to certain paties such as Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace, WWF and Paul & Anne Ehrlich. He basically accuses them of profits from their "doomsday" predictions without actually saying it.

The whole idea of the book is to show us that the world is in good shape but could be better.

jumpingjack

Originally posted by Mr_Roger_Bongos
Americas teh starting point. I dont think anyones realised but they didnt sign the kyoto argreemnet. The amount of stuff teh give off in waste, the oil they use and teh **** they give off into teh atmosphere would have teh same effect, arguably over a longer time period, even if all the other countries were to completely stop. The worlds most powerful country needs to be put of a leash.

it is very easy to point the finger at someone else and blame them but would it not be better to look at what we are doing ourselves.ireland the "green" country isnt great either.recycling systems and facilities are so much better in the states and a lot of research into the state of the environment is carried out in the states.

i think we would be better off putting our energy into setting an example for other countries by doing our bit for the environment.
so far we are all talk and very little action

bonkey

Originally posted by Keeks
I've read the book and didn't really see that much cherry picking.

No offence Keeks, but unless you read the entirety of each report which he referenced, you wouldnt be able to tell if he was cherry-picking or not.

The point made was that when he saw a fact in a credible (or semi-credible) report, he used it to back up his argument. When the same report contradicted other points, he blithely ignored the fact that it did so, not even bothering to explain why it mightnt be applicable in most cases.

Imagine you have a report which says that global warming is in no way conclusively linked to CO2 emissions. The same report also goes on to say that CO2 is responsible for massive ecological damage in other areas.

You decide to use this report. You use the report to back up the assertion that CO2 is not conclusively linked to global warming. Fair enough.....no problems.

Then you go on to discuss the impact of CO2 in other areas of the environment. Rather than using the same report, or explaining why its not applicable for this argument, you ignore what it says, and find another report which says "CO2 effects on the environment in general are not significant".

Now..you have an argument which uses reports from credible sources to back it up. Only it only uses the bits of the reports which agree with it....and ignores the bits of the same reports which do not agree.

That is not objective, nor good scientific reasoning. It is cherry-picking...almost to the point of being deceptive.

jc

Keeks

Originally posted by bonkey
No offence Keeks, but unless you read the entirety of each report which he referenced, you wouldnt be able to tell if he was cherry-picking or not.

Having read the book I found it very consistent in the reference to reports. It didn't look like cherry picking.

If you look at the whole global warmng section of his book you will see that he refences mainly one soucre and tha tis the IPCCs report on climate change.

I know what you're saying about being not objective, nor good scientific reasoning. THis is actually a charge he makes at certain peopl within hs book. Particulary in the First chapter, which he calls the Litany. He shows up orgainisations like Worldwatch Institue, Greenpease and WWF for their "cherry-picking" of reports.

An example of this is a report by the WWF claiming that two-thirds of the worrlds forests were lost forever. This was supposed to shown in new research by the WWF. When lomborg asked to see the report, he was told that no report had ever existed. Yet the WWF still claimed the fact 2/3 of the worlds forest were lost based on a report that never existed

Go figure

Capt'n Midnight

NO: Floating icebergs displace an amount of water equal to their weight - so ignoring water expansion then no change.

If you take into account the thermal expansion of the water, remember the average depth of water is about 2 miles so even a 0.1% expansion would not be the best news for those who live near the sea or close to rivers that are near sea level (ie. most of the worlds population)


Methane hydrates and the amazon rain forest ..
At present half of the rain fall in the amazon is recycled - and is just enough to stop the pampas spreading - if the rainfall falls further then there will be more fires , the pampas will spread and because there will be less vegetation to act as a buffer a large proportion will will burn off - giving enough CO2 to heat the oceans enough to allow the methane to boil off (methane and ice only form hydrates below certain temperatures) so runaway warmings.

if sea levels rise - remember the shannon has a very low fall over most of it's lenght - all the bogs in the midlands were once the bottom of one very large lake .

look up megachad - a prehistoric lake (inland sea) in the sahara. 5-7 thousand years ago the black sea was cut off from the med,which flooded in giving rise to flood legends. there was a shallow sea over much of bulgaria c~20K years ago,
The vikings may have stopped on islands that no longer exist in the north sea.

Point being that what we consider dry land is not permenantly so..

Then there is the whole Ob plan - the idea was to divert the Ob southwards into the caspian (have you seen the caspian sea monster ?) - one side effect was that with less fresh water in the artic it would not freeze as easily - less ice (and a side effect of that was to divert the gulf stream...) More water in central Asia would also have changed the weather there too.

But the main reason our climate is the way it is, is because of the circumpolar current - not long ago in geological time south america was further south than now, ie. not joined to the north - but was linked to antartica - all the water sloshing around the globe was diverted up the coast of chile and out in to the carribeen - nice mixing of warm/cold - keeping the global climat even. - now there is less mixing of hot /cold so the climate is very extreme (poles are way colder than anytime in last couple of hundred milllion years)

BTW in the times of pangea up to 40% of the landmass was below sea level...

So lots of big engineering plans - wall across Drakes channel - using space mirrors to heat up parts of the ocean to get rain on the sahara/australia - big nuke to reduce the earths tilt (you blow it up on the moon - keep the greens happy one side effect is we get more solar eclipses )

bonkey

Originally posted by Keeks
Having read the book I found it very consistent in the reference to reports. It didn't look like cherry picking.

If you look at the whole global warmng section of his book you will see that he refences mainly one soucre and tha tis the IPCCs report on climate change.

Hera a look here to see the type of stuff I was talking about. The links off the bottom are pretty good reading.

At the end of the day, its a question of who to believe...

1) The environmentalists who say that this political scientist is drawing the wrong conclusion and not presenting his arguments using the full data available (and misinterpreting the significance of other data),

...or...

2) the political scientist who argues that his statistical interpretation of the findings in a number of fields he is far from an expert in is more sound and relevant than the findings of the experts in those fields.

Having read through the to-and-fro from SciAm, I would tend to side with the former. You may differ.

jc