Global Warming

Anthropogenic global warming is not some conspiracy. The scientists aren't in some sort of cahoots with the left. It is very real. I have tests all week, but give me until saturday, and I will post all that I know on the subject to back my claim.

Anthropogenic global warming is not some conspiracy. The scientists aren't in some sort of cahoots with the left. It is very real. I have tests all week, but give me until saturday, and I will post all that I know on the subject to back my claim.

*noted.

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effectNew derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center. After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week. "Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount. How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution. Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always. So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year. Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results." His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary. The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured. The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates. However, not everyone is convinced. Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible". Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory. Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is an extremely good fit with observational results. For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.

Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...s_N.htm?csp=34

Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate Enlarge By Paul Richards, AFP/Getty Images A polar bear with her cub on the edge of Hudson Bay outside Churchill, Mantioba, Canada, in November 2007. Eskimos in Alaska and Canada have joined to stop polar bears from being designated as an endangered species, saying the move threatens their culture and livelihoods by relying on sketchy science for animals that are thriving. Although they say sea ice has melted, some Natives question the accuracy of the most dire predictions of a warming climate in the Northern Hemisphere, and members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seek evidence that a change would seriously harm the bears. Their stance has put them at loggerheads with a usual ally: environmentalists who say the bears need protection now to survive a warmer climate in the future. "It would have a really big effect on us Inuit, because we go by dog team to traditionally hunt polar bears," said Jamie Kablutsiak, who guides U.S. trophy hunters for big money onto the ice on Canada's Hudson Bay. As for the bears, "I don't think they're decreasing because there's usually lots, even in summer time," he said. A decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will come soon, spokesman Bruce Woods said. The petition marks the first time a healthy species would be considered at risk under the Endangered Species Act and the first time global warming would be officially labeled a species' main threat. Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today. The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition in 2005 for endangered species protection based on projected habitat loss due to global warming. The petition resulted in a 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey, which predicted a loss of two-thirds of the world's polar bear population by 2050, based on a projected 42% summertime loss of "optimal polar bear habitat" such as shallow-water sea ice. Some scientists, however, question predictions that sea ice will disappear, and even that polar bears would disappear if it did. Richard Glenn, an Alaskan Inuit hunter and ice researcher, told U.S. senators in January that "marginal ice," which freezes in winter and melts in summer, will grow as multiyear ice disappears. "Even the Fish and Wildlife Service study acknowledges that … may be beneficial to ice seals and polar bears," he said. The aim of the environmentalists is to use the Endangered Species Act to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming, said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. It would require federal agencies "to look at the cumulative effect of greenhouse gases on polar bears" and limit emissions by cars and power plants, Siegel said. Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin disagrees with that approach. "If you want to address climate change, address it directly," said Doug Vincent-Lang, Palin's coordinator for endangered species. To the Inuit, the polar bear has been a source of food, clothing and income for millennia, said Duane Smith, president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Canada, which represents Inuit across Canada. The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which represents Native communities in Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Russia, wants Fish & Wildlife not to make a decision until Natives have a greater role, Chairwoman Patricia Cochran said. Any decision should be based on "sound science," which includes traditional knowledge, Cochran said. Big money is at stake. Sport hunters pay between $25,000 and $30,000 each to bag a polar bear. The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, which represents Eskimos on polar bear issues, supports the listing as long as it allows subsistence hunting by Alaskan Inuit to continue. Executive Director Charlie Johnson said the group chose to avoid clashing with U.S. environmentalists. The conservation scheme works because "it's in the best interest of the (Inuit) people out there to maintain the (bear) populations," Smith said. But it may end if the bear is listed because U.S. hunters will be banned from importing any part of the bear, such as a pelt, Smith said. "The numbers of polar bear are good," said Smith, a former conservation officer for the Canadian government. Steven Amstrup, chief polar bear researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, said climate models predict that it will be warmer by midcentury than "ever in the course of polar bear evolution." Other scientists question that view. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said far too few data were used to make predictions about both climate change and polar bear behavior and populations. "We looked at historical studies. The first thing you notice is the whole climatic system undergoes huge fluctuation," Soon said. Over the possibly 200,000 years the polar bear has existed as a species, it has survived "very harsh conditions" of extreme cold, such as ice ages, and warmth, such as the last interglacial period, 100,000 to 110,000 years ago, Soon said.

I've been told that for years and have decided to just let the two sides battle it out and learn about it as much as I could. I favor that it's bullshit tbh.

The world changes naturally. Some form of nitroglycerin changed freezing temperature worldwide. All monkeys learned to use a tool simultaneously. People believe Bush is a pretty cool guy. These are all anomalies.

But the world goes through a pattern as the poles near their flip. It's a natural cycle.

I suppose that the tropical climate of the dinosaurs was caused by car emissions.

Just wanted to let you know, I still intend on responding. I haven't forgotten about this, just been busier than I anticipated.

I figured as much, I didn't assume you were ignoring it

There are two comments above I am compelled to respond to.

The first thing that comes to mind when I doubt man made global warming is the climate change throughout history and corrosponding CO2 levels coupled with the fact that the Earth moves on it adapts and corrects.

This is a fairy tale. The earth neither adapts nor corrects. In fact, such diction is nonsensical in this context. The earth does not need to adapt nor correct. It will persist regardless of whether or not life perishes. There will be no spontaneous rectification. The earth does not exist for the preservation of life. It will impetuously turn as hostile as Venus given the first chance. Your teleological argument is extraordinarily dangerous and naive.

we belong here, the planet made us and I believe it can take what we throw at it.

We don't belong here. We are a transient species. Believing that life will persist despite what we do is once again an endearing thought, yet horrifically naive.

Adrenachrome, you somewhat scare me. You claim to be unbiased on the issue, however your sources are highly prejudicial. You will not find an unbiased presentation of the facts on a site like iceagenow.com. Cherry-picking from sites espousing your personal views is worse than merely ignoring evidence; it is self-proselytization.

Credible sources do exist that argue against anthropogenic global warming, however they are the minority. Your sources, however, are not exactly what one would call credible. Some deny global warming altogether. Denying anthropogenic global warming is one thing, however denying global warming altogether is simply absurd. Some of your sources have an obvious conservative bias. Other sources are news reporters. News reporters are not exactly the best scientific commentators. For instance, here some news reporter claims that scientists have confirmed an extraterrestrial signal. Though an anomalous extragalactic signal was picked up that day, nobody seriously thought that this was confirmation of extraterrestrial contact. My point is that the general media is not a completely credible source for scientific reports.

So what constitutes a credible source? Anything from a respected peer-reviewed journal works. I provided links as examples in another thread, but I will provide some more examples. For instance, you claimed earlier that Greenland recovered all its lost ice. This is simply fiction. In fact, the arctic lost ice the size of Texas and California combined in 2007 alone. A climate model based on conservative estimates of climate change has us with an ice-free arctic by 2030. How credible can your sources be when they directly contradict empirical evidence? [1-2]

To understand global warming one must have a basic understanding of the greenhouse effect. It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss the geochemical processes involved in the greenhouse effect, but I will discuss it on a superficial level briefly.

The greenhouse effect is a consequence of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. This heat is radiated down, thus increasing global temperature. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The greenhouse effect is a natural process on earth, and without it the average temperature on the surface of this planet would be -19 degrees Celsius as opposed to 14 degrees Celsius as it is now.

It is imperative to understand that humans have significantly increased the greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere through activities such as burning fossil fuels and biomass. This has also introduced aerosols into the atmosphere, which play a very similar role. Though greenhouse gases and temperature vary through natural causes, there is apodictic evidence which should lead us to conclude that human activity has played a very significant role in increasing the greenhouse gas content, and as a corollary, the temperature on earth.

Over the past 650,000 years, the natural range of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been 180-300 parts per million. [3] It is currently at 380 ppm. By the end of the 20th century scientists predict it will be in between 490-1260 ppm.[4] Either nature is inherently anomalous during times when the industry flourishes, or we need to seriously consider the cause of global warming to be anthropogenic.

It is not difficult to see that greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the industrial revolution.

Carbon Dioxide


Methane


Nitrous Oxide


[5]

Notice how that instead of the gentle cyclic pattern that is normal, we see sharp spikes around the advent of the industrial revolution when we should be seeing drops in greenhouse gas concentration. Consequentially, this is exactly the time we also start seeing a global rise in temperature. [6] Nature did not decide to fool us by waiting for the industrial revolution before warming the globe by releasing enormous amounts of greenhouse gases from hidden sources. This is our doing.

The increase in temperature will not be evenly distributed throughout the earth. The change will become more severe as you approach the poles. One or more biomes may disappear completely and there will be species extinctions associated with the loss of those biomes. There is already concern about the survival of polar bears in the wild. We are already seeing ice thinning and the reduction in the size of glaciers at high latitudes and altitudes. We will probably have to change the name of Glacier National Park sometime this century.

In terms of global warming effects on the U.S., some models predict a major eastward movement of the latitude where the rainfall exceeds 20 inches. The current line is at the 100th meridian (near San Antonio), it may move as far east as the Mississippi river. If you look at a map of the U.S., there are no major cities west of the 100th meridian, with the exception of Denver, until you get to the West Coast. The lack of rainfall and water is the major reason. If this model is correct, Texas will not have enough water to support its large cities. [3]



[1] Stroeve, J., M.Serreze, S. Drobot, S. Gearheard, M. Holland, J. Maslanik, W. Meier, and T. Scambos. 2008. Arctic Sea Ice Plummets in 2007. EOS Transactions. Vol 89, No. 2, pp 1-2. January 8, 2008.

[2] Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., Serreze, M. (2007). Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(9) DOI: 10.1029/2007GL029703

[3] Campbell, N., Reece, J. (2005). Biology. Pearson.

[4] Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Joseph Alcamo, Gerald Davis, Bert de Vries, Joergen Fenhann, Stuart Gaffin, Kenneth Gregory, Arnulf Grübler, Tae Yong Jung, Tom Kram, Emilio Lebre La Rovere, Laurie Michaelis, Shunsuke Mori, Tsuneyuki Morita, William Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, Lynn Price, Keywan Riahi, Alexander Roehrl, Hans-Holger Rogner, Alexei Sankovski, Michael Schlesinger, Priyadarshi Shukla, Steven Smith, Robert Swart, Sascha van Rooijen, Nadejda Victor, Zhou Dadi (1996). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. IPCC.

[5] www.epa.gov

[6] Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K. (1998). . Nature, 392(6678), 779-787. DOI: 10.1038/33859

Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it.

. There is already concern about the survival of polar bears in the wild.

Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.

7778897ii

Wow! You've really outdone yourself this time, Adrena! The polar bear defense is infallible! How did I not see it before?!

You're looking at the subject with blinders. Polar bear population has increased due to hunting of polar bears being restricted. The loss of the tundra would be a calamity for the polar bear. Again, such parochial views are irresponsibly dangerous.

See:

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all
http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/publica...%20Warming.pdf
http://umanitoba.ca/ceos/files/publications_pdf/058.pdf
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...f-sea-ice.html
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/44/2/163
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?di...CIA%2Foverview
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?requ...F2006-180&ct=1
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic52-3-294.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2193%2F2006-180
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special...ast_lowres.pdf
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/facul...imate_2007.pdf

Your rebuttal to that post is a nitpick on polar bears? Anything else to add...?

Don't be mean to the polar bears, shiznad.

My opinion. Global warming sucks.

Don't be mean to the polar bears, shiznad. My opinion. Global warming sucks.

As in the phenomenon itself sucks, or that the theory sucks?

As in the phenomenon itself sucks, or that the theory sucks?

Phenomenon, I guess. Theory bullshit, it's happening.

Global warming is real, the new argument is if it's man-made or not. Now, go!

Man-made, if we all died, the world would be healed.

7778897ii

...l...LMFAO.

...l...LMFAO.

I don't think adrenachrome will reply

What a suprise, Chrome has bought in to even more republican bullshit. Do you seriously not believe global warming is man-made? Of course the earth heats itself, but not at the rate that we're making it heat. I never would have expected you of all people to be a fucking redneck republican. Let me guess, you don't like them coloureds either, and you think racism is a lie, but you're probably racist against hispanics every chance you get. Grab your guns, boys, we gotta go take our country back from these illegals!

Oh my...

http://zelaron.com/forum/showpost.php?p=275406

Republicans>Democrats.