Global Warming? Rising sea levels or CO2? Melting Ice?

[evanny]

in my point of view it is simple. climate changes and that is it. it always has and always will. it just that people starting to notice it more so they get scared since - well it is a change and who knows what will happen with their beautiful lawns. personally i don't care since nature is nature and it will do as it please. and to think after all that has happened to this planet - pole shifts, asteroids, ice ages, plate tectonics and world wide fires - we, humans, are going to put this blue-green ball in danger? we can launch all of our nukes and it won't even scratch the surface of the planet and after some 30 000 years when radiation is gone everything will be back to normal and life will go on.
only question is will we stay.

i also red an interesting article. it said that cars and the rest of man-made greenhouse gasses are nothing next to a simple volcano eruption a week long which throws in the atmosphere more sulphur and aids warming the same way humans do in 20 years.

[AlexisSalas]

Originally Posted by Nippom

Thank you very much for your response.

In reply to AlexisSalas signature, I would recommend www-dot-japanesepod101-dot-com, the 'Premium' not the 'Premium Plus' (which costs a lot more for only a little extra).
Enormous language resource and very cheerful and positive attitudes with tons of written, audio, and video by really friendly and highly motivated people, including an active support forum.
I would say to join with their 'free lifetime account' version first, and don't buy anything immediately.
That in turn will give them an address to start sending you their many discount offers to, and you can save a bundle on one of those, compared to their normal full-rate offer.
I hope my pitch here is not considered spamming, as I'm in no way connected with them.

I saw once somewhere that passive listening to the language even when you don't have subtitles, doubles your progress to study and learn it the traditional way.
It stimulates your mind to start trying to make sense out of the speech patterns you're hearing even before you actually understand it.

Well ill may try it later cause some other guy told me HUMAN JAPANESE was way lot better than rosetta stone so i decided to give it a chance, if it doesnt works ill try your method, Thanks though.

[WingsToDiscovery]

I actually agree fully with GoNative. I don't really believe there is such thing as atheist extremism, simply beating back what's had our culture in a choke hold for two thousand years when obliged. Although I think that there are plenty of people out there who don't believe in global warming even without religion, so I wouldn't put that as solely to blame. It's more in part to people just not having the proper education and rather make claims based on hearsay without actually doing the research themselves. It's until you examine the evidence for certain topics that you can make your own informed decision.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by evanny

in my point of view it is simple. climate changes and that is it. it always has and always will. it just that people starting to notice it more so they get scared since - well it is a change and who knows what will happen with their beautiful lawns. personally i don't care since nature is nature and it will do as it please. and to think after all that has happened to this planet - pole shifts, asteroids, ice ages, plate tectonics and world wide fires - we, humans, are going to put this blue-green ball in danger? we can launch all of our nukes and it won't even scratch the surface of the planet and after some 30 000 years when radiation is gone everything will be back to normal and life will go on.
only question is will we stay.

i also red an interesting article. it said that cars and the rest of man-made greenhouse gasses are nothing next to a simple volcano eruption a week long which throws in the atmosphere more sulphur and aids warming the same way humans do in 20 years.

You obviously missed the bit about mankind producing 135 times the amount of CO2 than from volcanoes in 2010. I also posted a scientific paper that clearly shows that mankind on average produces far more CO2 than volcanoes do.
Sulphur actually helps to cool the atmosphere not warm it as long as it is ejected up high into the stratosphere. It forms sulphur aerosols which reflect more sunlight causing cooling in the troposphere. It's only the really big eruptions that do this though. Pinatubo was a good example of this occurring. Injecting sulphur aerosols ourselves into the stratosphere is actually one of the main ideas out there to attempt to rein in the warming.
I don't know where you read that crap evanny but believe me it is utter crap or you just didn't really understand what you were reading.

Yes the climate has always changed and always will. The mechanisms for natural climate change are now pretty well known. As I said previously, most of the natural factors suggest we should currently be cooling but we are not. This is some of the best evidence of how big a role greenhouse gases like CO2 play in our climate and the fact that we have been artificially raising their concentrations in our atmosphere is not something that there is any real debate on. We also know that the earth has been far hotter and far cooler than it is currently. We have pretty good ideas as to why as well. The fact that the climate has varied so much in the past quite naturally shows us clearly that it is very susceptible to subtle changes. And the changes in the level of CO2 in our atmosphere since industrialisation haven't been all that subtle. The big fear is if we artificially raise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere enough we'll reach a sort of tipping point where we'll have runaway greenhouse effect (it's happened before) that will entirely melt the ice in Antarctica and Greenland.

If this occurs in a reasonably rapid timeframe (say within the next few hundred years) it will have catastrophic effects. Most of the worlds major cities will be under water. Massive regions where billions of people currently live will also be inundated (much of the worlds' population lives close to the ocean). Regions that are major agricultural areas may become deserts or too wet. Such upheaval on a global scale would almost certainly lead to wars and incredible hardship and global economic crisis.

Anyway as I've said most people have little to no understanding of even the most basic concepts of science. We've seen plenty of that on this forum already. And human kind as far as I'm concerned is primarily motivated by greed. So I have little hope at all that anything will be done that will avert a rapid warming of the planet. Maybe our only hope will be science and technology coming up with some viable solutions. Because I can't see nations changing anything they currently do that would overly affect peoples lifestyles and threaten the viability of some of the biggest companies on the planet.

'Nature is nature and it will do as it pleases'. Yep nature will do what it does and life on planet earth will likely survive anything we could possibly do to it. Thing is do we care about the lives of future generations or not? Or are we just concerned with our own selfish wants and desires now? I suspect the later for most people.

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by GoNative

But to accept those things as possibilities means that you have to ignore science. It's not being open minded at all. Science is all about having an open mind but with a healthy bit of scepticism.

Science can't co-exist with religion if you want to believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived at the same time (even as remotely possible). There is no evidence whatsoever of this. In fact all the evidence supports that the last of the dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago and the human species just wasn't around at that time. You also can't accept as even a remote possibility that the earth is only 6,000 years old because all of the scientific evidence shows that it is much, much older. There is such overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old that it truly is ridiculous to consider otherwise. It is the sort of evidence that anyone of any religion or cultural backcground could do experiments to verify and all come up with the same results if the same good scientific methodology is followed.

The sort of thinking you are talking about is credulous thinking. Where anything is possible regardless of any evidence to support it. So you believe in one of the myriad of gods that have been worshipped over the millenia and basically there is virtually nothing you could consider impossible once you start down that road. There is just as much proof in the existence of vampires, fairies, werewolves, ogres, etc, etc. You believe in something for which there is no proof whatsoever and are unconvinced by things for which there are mountains of proof by some of the most intelligent people the human race has ever produced. If this isn't idiotic I don't know what is.

When you have schools teaching kids creationism over evolution or that dinosaurs co-existed with humans once upon a time then we have a huge problem. If you teach that the earth is only 6,000 years old instead of billions then religion negates science. We may as well accept that all human advancement over the years has been for nothing if we cannot accept that our understanding of the world has moved on quite a bit since some old blokes sat around a few thousand years ago and assembled a book of stories called the bible.

The biggest hypocrasy of fundamentalist religious nutters is that most of them happily live in the modern world using the creations of science and technology whilst denying the basic precepts of the science that helped create such things. Surely there is something mentally wrong with people who support such delusions?

Please understand, I never said I believed those things to be true. I believe they could be true, of course, that is my belief as a person with religion. However, I wouldn't necessarily assert it as absolute truth. I deliberately stated that I could appreciate their possibilities; considering what they would entail. Science has, no doubt, provided explanations for many things we witness, but the nature of science suggests there is always more to learn. I am, in fact, alluding to the point of open-mindedness.

Referring to what RealJames stated - and I'm using this as an example - he considered the Earth being 6,000 years old as ridiculous... which is not uncommon. I'm significantly interested in the reason for this. Of course, the answer is relative to Science, I could be called an idiot again, and the question will end there; However, I believe the issue may also delve much deeper: Psychology. It's obvious there are established beliefs for this specific topic, one of them being that the world is billions of years old. I find it unlikely, however, that either of us has extensively researched the possible age of the Earth. Frankly, our beliefs, based on separate logic, are both the product of faith; a confidence or trust in something we have no first-hand observance or knowledge of. That notion aggravates many anti-religious, self-proclaimed intellectuals whom I've talked to, which I also find interesting, as it's founded on the basis of objectivity.

Not that you can observe age to prove it, of course, we need tools... allowing me to include my next questions: Are our methods adequate? Are they accurate? I say 'our' because I'm not just arguing out of pride. Believe it or not, I am genuinely curious about the topic, as it does concern the history of our species. These questions should be asked if we're to determine the truth, shouldn't they?

I am not ignorant of science, simply because I don't want to be. I don't doubt, in all certainty, the validity of science and Global Warming. If you read my first post, I have no qualms about taking precautions. I certainly don't doubt that science can/does/will accomplish finding answers for our inherent questions as human beings, nor do I that science hasn't accomplished wonderful achievements from which we can take advantage of... but I also don't doubt our hubris. The fact is, our technology and subsequent ability to determine absolute truth, although admirably developed, isn't perfect. And this isn't an argument compelled by religion; it's reality. Science should be able to speculate the unlikelihood of something, but it should also hold itself to a certain humility, paving the way for new discoveries.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by GoNative

Sangetsu I reckon I could probably guess the psuedo-science websites you're getting that BS from (it's practically word for word I've seen on some sites). It's the same BS that all denialists circulate over and over again throughout the internet. And for people with no background in science (I guess you have little to none) it's impossible to guage what is right and what is wrong.

In actual fact warming has continued unabated through the naughties with global average temperatures surpassing the average of the 90's significantly. 2010 was the equal warmest year on record globally (equalling that of 2005). 9 of the top 10 warmest years on record were recorded in the 2000's.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010

You state that not one single climate model has proven accurate. In fact the opposite is true. The latest models have been supprisingly accurate in their forecasts with actual temperatures following the models well. It really depends on what you mean by inaccurate. Will they exactly predict the temperature in years to come? Of course not, hell we can barely forecast weather a few days out with a great deal of accuracy. What they have been pretty good at is showing likely trends. To test accuracy of models they do a thing called hindcasting. This is where they run the model say from 1900 and see how it does against the actual temperature record. If it does pretty well then it is reasonable to have some confidence that it will be somewhat accurate if continued on into the future. The IPCC has used a fair number of models and got a range of expected temperature and sea level rises out to around 2100. So far the actual observed temperatures and sea level rises have been right at the upper end of the forecasts of the models. So if anything the IPCC has probably underestimated and understated the likely effects.

Yes there has been many 100's of millions of dollars put into the science around global warming and guess what? It has had results! We now understand climate and weather far better than we ever did and the fact the mankind is affecting the climate (warming it) through increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is not even debatable anymore. There's virtually no government in the world now that doesn't agree with the scientific concensus on this (especially now that the old mate of the oil industry Bush is out of the picture). You talk about the money involved in research on climate change as though it's a large amount. It is but a small drop in a vast ocean when compared to the money involved in the fossil fuel industries like oil and coal and the downstream industries these support. That's the gravy train that has the most to lose and has been muddying the scientific waters for years with pseudo-science and misinformation (just like the tobacco industry did).

The data for your article was derived from ground temperature stations, which have long been subject to manipulation. Nearly two years ago Russia filed a formal complaint with the UN stating that IPCC scientists cherry picked temperature data from Russian weather stations, and used data only from stations where increases could be found, and disregarding those with showed neutral or cooler readings.

Look at the GSS satellite record for world temperatures, they are available to the public. The GISS satellites measure temperatures from the upper atmosphere, and are not subject to the same fudging which occurs with readings from ground stations. Look carefully and tell me which way the trend is running. Since 1998 world temperatures have decreased, have they not? And, if temperatures have not increased, where is the global warming? During this time, Co2 levels have increased about 5 parts-per-million. According to the established "science" of the UN, temperatures should have increased, but they haven't, have they?

It was this specific flaw in global warming theory (and it is A "theory") that necessitated the change in terms from "global warming" to "climate change". I don't need to read articles from alarmists or skeptics when I can see the data myself. Just as Bob Dylan said "you don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...".

[GoNative]

Are we meant to take any of the above seriously in any way at all? Or did you post it all for the laugh factor at how ridiculous it all is? You don't actually believe any of that crap do you???

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Look at the GSS satellite record for world temperatures, they are available to the public. The GISS satellites measure temperatures from the upper atmosphere, and are not subject to the same fudging which occurs with readings from ground stations. Look carefully and tell me which way the trend is running. Since 1998 world temperatures have decreased, have they not? And, if temperatures have not increased, where is the global warming? During this time, Co2 levels have increased about 5 parts-per-million. According to the established "science" of the UN, temperatures should have increased, but they haven't, have they?
...".

This is one of the reasons why people with little to no science in their backgrounds are so easily manipulated by pseudo-science and misinformation. Again I assume you have never studied any science Sangetsu beyond the absolute basic stuff we all get in secondary education?

In a warming troposphere scenario we actually expect to see cooling in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere). Here's a link that explains why this is so in nice basic language even the scientific illiterate like yourself may understand.

- Cooling

In regards to your assertion the IPCC only chose sights where warming was recorded I suggest you take a look at the following. 'The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was created to make the best possible
estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record of measurements as possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and elimination of systematic biases.'

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (

It is the most comprehensive project to bring as much temperature data together as possible form around the world. They have expanded the dataset of stations from 7,280 (used by the IPCC) to 39,390. The project has been fully supported by both sides of the debate and is deemed as independent from bias.

Their initial findings were rescently presented to the House of Representatives.

Imporatantly they found the following

We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly from the complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results are shown in the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.

So your assertions that site selection by the IPCC has biased the temperature record is without any basis whatsoever and is just part of the denialist blogosphere unsupported by any actual proof.

Specifically in relation to US weather stations and siting which has come under a lot of criticism by climate denialists in recent years they have the following to say.

Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, or close
to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the current stations
in the US Historical Climatology Network would be ranked “poor” by NOAA’s own
standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C.
Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve
studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.
The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations in the
U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations.
Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not appear
to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important.

[Ryzorian]

I'm an Enviromental Science Major, who graduated with Honors in my field, Go Native. This Global warming thing everyone is complaining about...BIG DEAL...You heard me, big woopie.

Back in the 1300's, they grew wine grapes in Britain 300 miles farther North than they do now, They were so good at it France considered going to war over it. They can't grow them now because despite your "global warming" scarefare.. it's TOO COLD.. That's historical fact, it was warmer in Europe 700 years ago than it is today, so cry me a river over your global warming sob story, it just isn't as big a threat as you want to make it out as.

Oh yea, communist do actually run much of the "global warming" fear factory. It's the reason one of the world's leading scientists droped out of the earth day thing, cause it was full of political idealoges and not actual scientists.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

I'm an Enviromental Science Major, who graduated with Honors in my field, Go Native. This Global warming thing everyone is complaining about...BIG DEAL...You heard me, big woopie.

Back in the 1300's, they grew wine grapes in Britain 300 miles farther North than they do now, They were so good at it France considered going to war over it. They can't grow them now because despite your "global warming" scarefare.. it's TOO COLD.. That's historical fact, it was warmer in Europe 700 years ago than it is today, so cry me a river over your global warming sob story, it just isn't as big a threat as you want to make it out as.

Oh yea, communist do actually run much of the "global warming" fear factory. It's the reason one of the world's leading scientists droped out of the earth day thing, cause it was full of political idealoges and not actual scientists.

We've all said it before Ryzorian and I'm we'll all say many times in the future. You are an idiot. Not only do you believe in religious fairytales but now it seems you believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories. Like all conspiracy theories they cannot be proved or disproved. A bit like religion really so I can see why they might appeal to you. I mean really communists run the global warming fear factory?? You really, really are an absolute idiot. I expect nothing more from you though considering the utter crap you keep inflicting us with on this forum.

The fact the climate has changed in the past is proof of how susceptible it is subtle changes in the forcings that drive it. Plus what you are attempting to talk about and revealing just how terribly ignorant you are is the medieval warm period.

From wiki

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.[13]

So yes there was a warm period back then but it was not as warm as it is now. If you want links to actual scientific papers I'm happy to supply them as we all know that wiki isn't the most reliable source but in this case it certainly agrees with the mainstream scientific concensus.

Where do you get your science from? The christian science monitor or something similar? LOL