Visual evidence for global warming

[CB..]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Of course global warming isn't a joke. Of course it needs to be taken seriously, and what can be done needs looking into.

The original post, however, was a joke, and every mention of anything relating to any major issue hardly needs to be answered with yet another tirade or rant.

i see.....parody then

[joea]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

<smacks Joea> IT'S NOT FUNNY! <smack> You have no right to say that! <smack> Don't you know we're all going to die?

Sorry missed my slapping around. Anyway I am far from perfect but I do some small things like biking everywhere or walking. Saving electricity where I can and stuff like that.

Scientist are theorist not factualists.


A few hundred years ago millions belived the World was Flat because scientist said it was. Just as they said on the day the first Car was produced “The human body could not tolerate speeds beyond 100 miles an hour”.

It is interesting to observe that the todays doom day merchants, who all began the Global warming theory with the Ozone layer, Showing us all those nice colurful pictures of it slowly eroding, have never once mentioned or used the example of the state of the ozone layer since.

WHY?

Because the Ozone layer is recovering. Not getting worse.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...300_Ozone.html
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...g.html?3052006


To keep every one thinking that there is a problem helps fund the massive growing billion dollar industry which it gains from the Echo manic population. It also prevents countries in Asai and Africa with growing econimies to grow, while the west keeps strong. It keeps control of the Oil reserves that are left on the Planet, which Scientist estimate will all run out within 100 years

There is a bigger game being played here, and with questions from scientist who are against the theory of Global warming asking, How do Ice ages, which act as a pendulum through out Earth History keep disappearing and appearing, if man was not around with his deodarant can and car ?
There has been many global warming periods all in evidence through the geolocial structure of our planet.

After Kyoto, one of the most eminent scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted. Since his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:
'The National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
'As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
'Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.
'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.
'We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.
'What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.
'The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
'The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.
'The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
'Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'
As Professor Philip Stott wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:
'"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance of the earth.
'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's HadleyCenter for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.
'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with population growth, industrialization, the car, development and globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr. Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'

Go figure.
http://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/person...ty&who=lindzen

http://www.greenspin.blogspot.com/

[Skybird]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...062922540.html

Scientists from NASA and other agencies have concluded that the ozone hole over the Antarctic will recover around 2068, nearly 20 years later than previously believed.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2006.htm

20 October2006 NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists report this year's ozone hole in the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has broken records for area and depth.
"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Annual record since 1979

The severity of the ozone hole varies somewhat from year to year. These fluctuations are superimposed on a trend extending over the last three decades. The graphs below show these variations. The red bars indicate the largest area and the lowest minimum value.


Year-to-date

The depth and size of the Antarctic ozone hole are governed by the temperature of the stratosphere and amount of sunlight reaching the south polar region. The graphs below show the progress of this year’s ozone hole, compared to the highest and lowest values measured since 1979.

I wouldn't put so much trust into economists and their magazines when it comes to question of climate and environmental protection. Economists are neither specialists for that stuff, nor are they free from bias and self-interest. the conspiration theory outlined by Narcosis is simply that: a conspiration theory.

Originally Posted by Skybird

I wouldn't put so much trust into economists and their magazines when it comes to question of climate and environmental protection. Economists are neither specialists for that stuff, nor are they free from bias and self-interest. the conspiration theory outlined by Narcosis is simply that: a conspiration theory.

Skybird,

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted about Global warming. As pointed out above. He is not an Economist.
He was one of the eleven "Scientist" who wrote the report on Global warming and he said
"I can state that this is simply untrue what media reports are saying about global warming."


I think you need to read what i added into the debate again. All the comments were from Scientist invloved in the debate.
Though the ozone links you gave, like mine showing the fact that it is recovering in NASAs evidence. Proves the point from the comments i added from the scientists. It can not be Man causing global warming if we are using more fossil fuel this year than ever we have in our history. When the Ozone is recovering.

[CB..]

i think this falls into the catorgory of not letting your right hand know what your left hand is doing..


all arguments are completely reversed when it comes to MARS
here's a terrforming simulator knock your selves out..


http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/simul.htm

dunno how accurate it is im not a scientist..and these days on this subject it probably wouldn't make any difference if i was..lol
lets face up to it sooner or later other wise we will be still arguing about it whilst were using the principles to transform another planet..

i think what ever the facts turn out to be we can be fairly sure our governments (and us as citizens as well) are not going to risk any damage to their economys at this sensitive time in order to significantly reduce emmisions..(other than the introduction of more effecient technology)

so this falls into the same puzzling black hole that the oil crisis has fallen into...."crisis ..what crisis?" (come back supertramp all is forgiven lol)

i wonder what the acceptable casualty figures are ?

you know there on file some where

[Hylander_1314]

What's interesting is how the ocean convection is being affected by the warmer temps.

But the earth has gone through warm and cold phases without mans help. If anything humans will only accelerate the process. But look what happenned back when the volcano on the island of Tamboura blew back in 1815. So much material was blasted into the atmosphere that whole northern hemisphere was adversely affected with thousands starving due to having no spring or summer the next year, and it took several years to get back to normal.

[Skybird]

Ozon levels are not as directly linked to the use of fossil fuels as they are linked to FCKWs, for example (and many of the replacement substances like HCKW as well! Many of these substitutes have a better reputation than they deserve). Burning fossil fuelsthe leads to a concntrattion of CO2, methane, and other gassesm that somewhat reflect warmth from the earth back to earth, thus the tmeeprature is rising. Is anyone seriously trying to tell me that the global temperature is not rising? The scieitifc data oin that is overwhelming, and my subjective experience in my usual life is as well. I will leave any discussion where such nonsens still would be claimed.

I do not search and put it together, you can google yourself, but the reports - not just by medias - pointing at the increasing pollution levels of industrial and traffic exhaust-gasses I cannot ignore. Such data is not only coming from "left think tanks", but conservative universities from various countries, NASA and ESA as well (search their homepages, I just found several such things two hours ago when researching for the reply to your fist posting, I am too lazy to do it again). It is beyond doubt, I claim, that man is tremendously adding to speading up the cycle of shifts in global temperature. There are probably supercycles which led to winters and summers in Earth'C climate - but usally over centuries if not millenias. The speed at which Earth currently is heating up is without precedent in Earth's history as far as we can record it back, and that is several thousand years at least.

On the Ozon level, I again point at the latets data by Nasa, as given above, and I want to point at the many links on the pages where I linked to. While global ozon levels and polar ozon holes are not the same thing, it is worth to note that nnevertheless the absence of ozon at the poles hits all time record heigths this year. Many of the substances that cause the killing of ozon over the last decades have half-life values measured in decades, 50 years often is mentioned. that means they remain active for dman long time and keep on killing ozon even when further emission of these substance would be broght to nil. While you link to a staudy saying there is a trend in ozon recovering, I think that it takes a bit longer time of constant improvements before you can talk of a trend. Note that latest data and assessement by NASA from this month just led them to say that recovering of the ozon löayer will take roughly 20 years longer than previously estimated.

Much of all this may be academical hairsplitting, but I find it dangerous and comfortable to say general statements like "It's all okay, ozon is no ral problem and will be solved soon, and man has no responsebility in global warming anyway. No need to change, guys, so let's have business as usual!" That the climate becomes more intense in it's symptoms, and that extreme weather phenomenons increase both in frequencyand intensity, should already have been noted by even the last man on earth. The dramatical chanes in the atmosphere cannot be explained by natural meta-cycles alone. Opposiong "arguments" that I have heared of, red or saw oin TV seem to have come from guys with links to the industry and free economy. You do not violate the interests of the hand that feeds you and pays your bills. Occasionally, such data is given by scientist in German economical papers, trying to raise doubts that things like emission control are needed, and oinustrial procedures need to be adjusted. Usually, these opinions get busted sooner or later by some more competent people. that'S why I refereed to the untrustworthiness of exmaoinations financed and published by the economy. You referred to the Wall Street Journal, that's why.

Some people simply do not see a need (or want to see it) to adopt or change (even as a precautionary measure) until some smart guy has showed them a calculation that is precise two the 7th number behind the decimale, has been unopposed by anybody for decades and generations and is accompanied by visible symptoms and ophenomenons that are so harsh and intense that even the most lethargixc person can no longer afford to ignore them. but then it might be too late. If you are coming under fire, you do not ask wehre it is coming from, and by whom, and why, and what typ of ammo, and weapon: you take cover and adress the immediate and urgent needs of the siutation, and act accordingly. It would be stupid to say that one does not plan to move and take cover as long as these questions have not been thoroughly answered.

Kyoto is overestimated, imo, taken for itself it's goals are too small and too watered and too unimportant as that they can really be of help and calming effect. Also, it is not followed consequently by too many - may it be that it is intentional, or due to lacking ability.

[Skybird]

BTW, what has all this to do with the initial cartoon on top...? We would be closer to the original intention if discussing preferences concerning ladies' lingerie

[CB..]

Originally Posted by Skybird

BTW, what has all this to do with the initial cartoon on top...? We would be closer to the original intention if discussing preferences concerning ladies' lingerie

perhaps it's the female desire to "shop till you drop?"
in this case on a species wide scale...

he he!! well it's a sort of connection...

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Narcosis

Scientist are theorist not factualists.

Interesting how one can post something like that on the 'net using a computer of some kind... or do you consider that little thingie that puts the words onto your screen for the rest of the world to read mere 'theory' too instead of the concrete, physical manifestation of centuries of accumulated "theory".

I love it when people try and use the famous false predictions to debunk completely unrelated things as though the one refuted the other when they have nothing to do with each other.

Yes, once upon a time people believed the world was flat. And also that it was the center of the universe (by the way they were not scientists, since modern science did not exist back then). Then along came folks like Magellan (who was not a scientist by the way either), who proved the world was actually round - though he died before the voyage was completed and most educated people knew this already anyway (only it had not yet been proven) - and Copernicus who first proposed the heliocentric model of the universe that was (much) later scientifically verified by Galileo... who was able to do so thanks to a primitive scientific instrument that would be a toothpick, literally, compared to what modern astronomers use today.

Yes you can attribute false predictions to many scientists, yet you miss the point entirely which is that they are famous for what they got right and the discoveries and technologies that their findings led to (often indirectly and long after they've died, as today everything from the space shuttle to the PC is rooted in physics and mathematical "theories" that were developed centuries ago)... what they got wrong is merely a footnote curiousity made so only because of the accomplishments they were famous for.

And global warming/climate change is not a single, unified theory that can be simply proven or disproven; it is rather a consensus among the scientific community, as a whole, based upon observed and verifiable events. It is not a "theory" that the climate is changing, it is a fact and there is agreement that we are the ones responsible for the change and that if its left unchecked the consequences will be catastrophic.

The only "theory" remaining is in the timeline and in precisely how the changes will unfold...

The thing with you flat earth types is that you don't realize that there's not going to be a Magellan to come along this time to demonstrate to you what everyone else has already accepted, since for proof of the catostrophic consequences to occur they must already take place, and by then you will already be extinct.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...443287,00.html

Scientists like to emphasize that they can't give precise prognoses on climate change, and miscalculations do creep in from time to time -- just recently, for example, the "Remo" model by the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg both over- and underestimated a set of climate prognoses for the German government. But experts agree that the consequences of global warming, overall, have become unavoidable. "We have to adapt today to avoid getting run over tomorrow by the economic and social consequences," (...) "The idea is to avoid the uncontrollable and to control the unavoidable," (...) By now one thing has become crystal-clear: The results of global warming are going to cost us dearly. In the past 10 years alone, extreme weather events have caused damages in Germany of roughly €16.5 billion, according to Troge. Global economic damage as a result of such "acts of God" could amount to $2 trillion by 2050, according to an estimate by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), assuming a one degree rise in temperature. The German portion of that total could be about $137 billion. (...) there remains another significant detail: Countries like China and India, with their huge populations, are just starting to develop the economic engines that have led to environmental misery in the West. If these states refuse to play along with international climate politics, then German initiatives will have a negligible impact on the global problem.

[joea]

Can't you people take a joke and lighten up a bit? Do you have to ruin every thread like this?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joea

Can't you people take a joke and lighten up a bit? Do you have to ruin every thread like this?

Now, that is so very typical - the planet brakes down, climate goes to hell, and all ozon levels are falling - but it's always the same people who nevertheless only think about their shallow entertainment and how to get amused.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Climate chaos? Don't believe it


Daily now, more and more are seeing through the Scientist unproven theory that climate change is to do with man.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...FSFGGAVCBQ0IV0


Scientist should come with a Health warning:

"May cause Panic attacks & are prone to BS statements, which the easy fooled will fall for"


Scientist are a funny breed. Scientist in the 1980s warned us all of an Ice age coming. How did they get their facts Sooooooo Wrong?


Another Example of Scientist getting their facts wrong:

Scientist have only 100-150 years or weather records and think they know every thing about weather climate paterns on Earth for millions of years (Arrogant Idiots).
Yet, only in the last few decades, with the help of evidence from Satellite images, have discovered what they said was IMPOSSIBLE.
Tales of murderous rogue waves that sink massive tankers which Weather Scientist once dismissed as seafaring myths. But Using Complex mathematical models have started to lend credence to these observations, showing that huge waves can blow up out of nothing. After all, with photographs taken from satellites how can they waffle it is a myth.

Scientist have also said these Freak waves that sink the bigger ships, only happen once every 10000 years. It was not until Nasa took images of the whole south Atlantic did they see the waves were happening daily.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html
http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt...gue_waves.html
http://seastead.org/localres/misc-ar..._06_30_01.html


NASA has also debunked the scientist claiming that man is to do with weather change. I find it strange that no scientist yet, have said NASA have it wrong.