Politiscience....Global Warming

Where are all these criticisms coming from? The only ones I ever hear are from Crichton, that guy who typed 700% instead of 70% for icecap mass, and I guess Rush Limbaugh counts ("somehow we're warming up the ice caps even though our cars and smokestacks are here in America, hah-hah").

Someone's got link me up on the doubters news train, yo.

Originally Posted by NYRSkate

Before 1750, the atmosphere, on average, contained 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. As of February 2005 that number is at about 375 ppm (source), and of course, steadily increasing. Say what you want about man's activities having a minimal effect on the heating of the planet, but hard numbers don't lie.

You can bump the numbers higher if you like! Which is hilarious because the UK was all like "if we go over 400 that's the tipping point and baaad things will happen."

Quote:

...his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

An experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century (my old boss was involved in it). It includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric Greenhouse Gases have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases, temperatures have fallen.

Was it this study? Or a similar one? (Controversy bolded)

Quote:

Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere's lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now, two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations...when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, conceded Thursday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.

"Our view hasn't changed," Christy said. "We still have this modest warming."

Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Or of course you can look at recent data, if you like

Quote:

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test, but it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be said that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to Greenhouse Gases will nullify the initial temperature rise.

Could you explain the negative feedbacks? Most of what I've heard has been positive feedbacks. Which are "supposedly" what scare the scientists shitless.

• Heating decreses glacier surface area, decreasing white space on the earth, increasing thermal radiation pick-up, which melts further ice...
• Heating kills plants, which release CO2, which further heats, which...
• Heat causes summer droughts, which speeds CO2 release from peat bogs, which, causes harsher droughts, which...
• Heating melts methane hydrates, which...

etc. etc. until you weep for the baby owls or something.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

I do believe that the planet is very, very resilient and humans can certainly withstand heat increases, what with genetically-altered crops to get us our food. And we'll certainly protect the animals we like.

This goes for the entire 6 billion of us, does it? :eyebrow: It's a good thing farmers are wealthy and dynamic enough to move, or retrain and retool for new crops, if the climate shifts. Then there's the fact that we never get food from say, trees that have to be decades old for harvesting. And it's also good that the moving of sea level or the drying of rivers or the chaning of weather patterns can't impact access to freshwater or good farmland. We're a pretty fucking lucky species.



...But I agree that Kyoto is bullshit

Quote:

One of the most ambitious is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Only just up and running, this allows rich countries which are unable or not keen to cut emissions at home to invest in emission-reducing industrial projects in poor countries and then claim carbon credits for the greenhouse gas reductions achieved.

...an offshore oil production works in South Vietnam and two coal mines in China are hoping to gain more than 17 million credits for capturing and using the methane released as part of their operations.

...The very idea that vast plantations of eucalyptus or palm trees could be used to earn carbon credits for large companies to get rich country governments off the hook of cutting emissions at home appalls many

It's not that Kyoto is subsidizing Chinese coal plants, oh no! It's investing in Chinese efficiency for the good of the planet!!


Bush was completely right to ditch Kyoto, unfortunately. No one is going to cut their air travel, which alone is almost enough to "fuck the planet" (if the enviros are right). The only reason part of Europe even got a good start was because they (stupidly) started building natural gas plants. They stopped doing it, so they're screwed. The other countries are even worse off. Enjoy paying "we failed, we suck" money to a stupid treaty instead of investing it in research or efficiency, suckers! What's that money going to go towards anyway?

Most amazing jew boots