Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Global Warming?


Recommended Posts

There's no evidence to support the theory that the climate is changing any faster than it would normally.

If you believe that then I'd ask you to please consider the following scientific observations and conclusions:

- The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

- The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).

- The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution.

- Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.

- Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850).

- Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.

- Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.

- Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.

- There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.

- The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.

- It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.

- It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century.

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Personally, I do believe Mother Nature will eventually sort everything out and recover whatever happens, but at what cost? I suspect the cost will be a large number of human lives, if not the very existence of humanity itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If you believe that then I'd ask you to please consider the following scientific observations and conclusions:

- The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

- The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).

And...

There is probabaly more Pepsi being produced now than 650,000 years ago, it doesn't mean it results in Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...

There is probabaly more Pepsi being produced now than 650,000 years ago, it doesn't mean it results in Global Warming.

Eh? What I posted above is just some scientific evidence that the world is warming up. I don't think many people would dispute that (are you saying the world isn't warmer now than it was, say, 100 years ago?).

What people are disputing is whether this warming up is caused by human activity or is just the result of some naturally occurring long-term cycle. The latest IPCC report concludes that people are at least partially contributing to climate change - hence why I'm throwing it into this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting documentary on a while back about this subject and how there is no hard proof 'we' are causing any more damage or change than has gone before. I for one believe that we are probably speeding up a natural process and in a manner that may not allow the earth to recover, whilst we are on it. We pop our clogs as a species, earth has a rest and then starts all over again. Ask the sharks and crocodiles.

The interesting point that 'was' raised in said documentray was in reference to the scare mongering and the resulting effect on society. Instead of encouraging us all to change our ways it does infact lead us/most to assume (even at a subconscious level) that any small effort is pointless so why bother. We give up hope of change and in so doing negate any good intention that lay behind the headlines in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two I picked out prove that Carbon Dioxide and Methane are increasing, not that they are causing Global Warming.

Carbon Dioxide and Methane are both classed as Greenhouse Gases and the increase in their levels in the atmosphere is contributing to Global Warming because it is causing the planet to warm up. This is a scientific fact (or it was when they taught me in Geography at school). I assume you do not believe this to be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're referring to the documentary on channel 4 called the great global warming swindle or something similar then the producer that has been very much dis-credted in the mainstream press and at least one of the scientists included in the program has said he was tricked into it and the views expressed were taken hugely out of context.

Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment

Yeah I refer to that documentary. Not saying I believed a word of the science. The section about scare mongering whether intentional or not I'd say rings true...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that then I'd ask you to please consider the following scientific observations and conclusions:

- The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

- The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb).

- The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land-use changes also make a contribution.

- Nitrous oxide concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial value of 270 ppb to a 2005 value of 319 ppb. More than a third of this rise is due to human activity, primarily agriculture.

- Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850).

- Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.

- Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.

- Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.

- There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.

- The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.

- It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.

- It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century.

Source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Personally, I do believe Mother Nature will eventually sort everything out and recover whatever happens, but at what cost? I suspect the cost will be a large number of human lives, if not the very existence of humanity itself.

There's no way of taking real readings from 150,000 years ago. Results could well have been distorted or coloured due to outside interference. Unless you had a time machine and could travel back in time and collect un-coloured samples there's no 'real' way to prove that those figures are credible (i do acknowledge that there's no real way to prove they aren't credible either).

We are also a lot more skilled at taking measurements now than in 1850 or 1900 and the equipment available now is a lot more accurate. Who's to say that whoever was taking readings up until a certain point hadn't made a right pigs ear of it? We even thought the Earth was flat at one point and that little spirits moved blood around in our bodies. Who's to say that these guys aren't wrong as well. All i ask is that people take a broad minded approach to scientific results and how to interpret them. We were always taught to take results from particular eras in science with a pinch of salt. You should do the same.

I'm not denying Global Warming or saying that Humans don't contribute to it at all, but there is a large amount of postulation and not a large amount of hard fact involved in global warming. Just because the Earth is a little bit warmer than it was in 1900 doesn't mean that the sky is going to fall and the End Of Days will be upon us.

I also love the use of the phrase 'very likely' in that spiel. Very scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the seasons are slowly going to flip and we will probably have the warmest parts of the year over the November/December period and the winter months over June/July.

Now I'm confused - could you explain how that is going to happen? I was under the impression that the timing of Summer and Winter was down to the relative position of the earth to the Sun. Is the planet going to turn upside down or something?

The Earth has a good way of keeping itself balanced anyway.

Indeed it does. It kills off what is causing the problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm confused - could you explain how that is going to happen? I was under the impression that the timing of Summer and Winter was down to the relative position of the earth to the Sun. Is the planet going to turn upside down or something?

If the poles were to flip (obviously not the Earth Turning upside down) due to global warming it would, with the North Pole exhibiting the climate of the South Pole and Vice Versa. It's not like a light on light off sort of situation with the weather. We're currently having Spring weather in summer and summer weather a lot later in the year.

It's happened before in major climatic upheavals on Earth so it could happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the poles were to flip (obviously not the Earth Turning upside down) due to global warming it would, with the North Pole exhibiting the climate of the South Pole and Vice Versa. It's not like a light on light off sort of situation with the weather. We're currently having Spring weather in summer and summer weather a lot later in the year.

It's happened before in major climatic upheavals on Earth so it could happen again.

What do you mean by the poles 'flipping'? And how would global warming cause this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way of taking real readings from 150,000 years ago. Results could well have been distorted or coloured due to outside interference. Unless you had a time machine and could travel back in time and collect un-coloured samples there's no 'real' way to prove that those figures are credible (i do acknowledge that there's no real way to prove they aren't credible either).

There is actually, quite a few different methods. Analysing samples of ice taken from deep down in the poles is one example that springs to mind.

Exactly what are you a "scientist" in? I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by the poles 'flipping'? And how would global warming cause this?
He might be confusing it with the magnetic poles flipping (which has happened before) that will cause some problems, but nothing catastrophic. This has nothing to do with global warming, however, and if he is talking about some other form of pole-flipping, I'd be happy to hear it :)

Yes thats what i mean, and climatic changes are a bi-product of that if you read into it. And i didn't say that Global Warming was the cause of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is actually, quite a few different methods. Analysing samples of ice taken from deep down in the poles is one example that springs to mind.

Exactly what are you a "scientist" in? I'm curious.

Those are the samples that can be coloured, ask your girlfriend ;)

You know what i am qualified in and before you start, just because i choose not to do it as a profession doesn't mean i know nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes thats what i mean, and climatic changes are a bi-product of that if you read into it. And i didn't say that Global Warming was the cause of it.
If the poles were to flip (obviously not the Earth Turning upside down) due to global warming it would, with the North Pole exhibiting the climate of the South Pole and Vice Versa.

And I still don't understand how the Earths polarity has anything to do with when it's summer, or winter. Is it not due to the tilt of the Earth's axis? i.e. Northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun in summer so is warmer?

I'm not having a go btw, I just don't follow your reasoning.

You know what i am qualified in

He maybe does, but I don't and I'm curious now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I still don't understand how the Earths polarity has anything to do with when it's summer, or winter. Is it not due to the tilt of the Earth's axis? i.e. Northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun in summer so is warmer?

I'm not having a go btw, I just don't follow your reasoning.

He maybe does, but I don't and I'm curious now...

Ok, maybe the 'seasons' wouldn't change (as in they'd still be winter and summer) the weather would just be very different. Have a look for articles on pole switching.

I am a Biochemist, out of interest, and i've done studies on soil and ice samples taken down to depths that relate to periods of the time frames we've been talking about. I've also done Zoology, Ecology and other subjects that can be related to global issues.

I'm by no means saying i'm a world authority on anything but i do know quite a bit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Savant
I'm by no means saying i'm a world authority on anything but i do know quite a bit it.

Not having a go, but what makes you think you know better than a scientist (who's working as a scientist) who publishes papers on his findings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not having a go, but what makes you think you know better than a scientist (who's working as a scientist) who publishes papers on his findings?

Didn't say i did. It's just my opinion. In the case of the articles you posted it was due to the lack of actual fact in them and the whole basis of their 'findings' being on unsubstantiated evidence.

Every one on here seems to think that as long as it's in black and white and findable on the internet it's absolute fact. No one seems to think outside 'the box' anymore, which is the whole point of science and why i did it (and fundamentally why i didn't follow on into a straight career in science and why i want to teach people science- Biology if anyone is interested).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Savant

A fair point, but when it comes down to it I don't think we can keep pumping out CO2 while diminishing the natural thing that converts that CO2 back into oxygen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

surely whether you believe in global warming or not everyone can see that to reduce carbon emissions and to generally clean up our act would lead to a better quality of life for the whole world regardless. so we should all have a go anyway.

Yes, this i totally agree with. It would definitely make our standard of life better and i advocate anything that would improve the way we live (i've never said otherwise). I just don't think it'll have any effect of 'Global Warming'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...