Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Aug 5, 2012.
Except when it does.
So what are YOU going to do about it?
I'll start by trying to convince you and other skeptics that it's a real problem.
How's that working?
Can you explain this?
EDIT: not a good graph (thus keep link if you want to see it) see below (post #7) for peer reviewed ones.
How much of that data do you think is accurate, and what data do you think disproves global warming?
I suggest you contact a scientific journal and get that graphic published.
I wonder what you're going to do with all the fame and riches earned by disproving Climate Change.
You must be very excited.
But just in case you're curious, here's a recent article from the New York Times (please note paragraph 2) ...
No idea really on the verity of the graph; just found one similar to what I wanted to portray, but I agree I should have found a proper graph... keep reading this reply
Well, let me see if I can find either the ecology book or the PPT my Ecology Professor gave me while in College some years back (can't remember if it was a graph in the book or his ppt so there might be some Professor bias)...
No one says that there isn't climate changes or increased CO2, but the question is if our meddling has cause global warming or increased it.
Here are some papers you might have missed: (not hyperlinked, but wanted to underlined and make them blue for easier read of post; you can find the actual articles if you want)
Lets start with SCIENCE:
Science 20 July 2012:
Vol. 337 no. 6092 pp. 315-320
2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia
Martin Melles1,*, Julie Brigham-Grette2, Pavel S. Minyuk3, Norbert R. Nowaczyk4, Volker Wennrich1, Robert M. DeConto2, Patricia M. Anderson5, Andrei A. Andreev1, Anthony Coletti2, Timothy L. Cook2,†, Eeva Haltia-Hovi4,‡, Maaret Kukkonen1, Anatoli V. Lozhkin3, Peter Rosén6, Pavel Tarasov7, Hendrik Vogel1, Bernd Wagner1
The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn in northeastern (NE) Russia provides a continuous, high-resolution record from the Arctic, spanning the past 2.8 million years. This core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary; for marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31, maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation values are ~4° to 5°C and ~300 millimeters higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show that these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.
Bunbury, J. and Gajewski, K. 2012. Temperatures of the past 2000 years inferred from lake sediments, southwest Yukon Territory, Canada. Quaternary Research 77: 355-367.
Copard, K., Colin, C., Henderson, G.M., Scholten, J., Douville, E., Sicre, M.-A. and Frank, N. 2012. Late Holocene intermediate water variability in the northeastern Atlantic as recorded by deep-sea corals. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 313-314: 34-44.
Divine, D., Isaksson, E., Martma, T., Meijer, H.A.J., Moore, J., Pohjola, V., van de Wal, R.S.W. and Godtliebsen, F. 2011. Thousand years of winter surface air temperature variations in Svalbard and northern Norway reconstructed from ice-core data. Polar Research 30: 10.3402/polar.v30i0.7379.
The figure, the 11-year running-mean peak winter temperature of the Medieval Warm Period was approximately 9°C greater than the end-of-record 11-year running-mean peak winter temperature.
Wu, W., et al., 2012. Sea surface temperature variability in southern Okinawa Trough during last 2700 years. Geophysical Research Letters, in press.
Do I believe in Global Warming? IDK , there are 2 bands and some care for global warming initiatives to be taken before we are fudged (as they say) others that are backed up by big companies that want to keep making money tend to support others; while some are in the middle road between them. At the end IDK who really says the truth w/ this subject. I do believe in increased CO2 caused by us, not so much global warming per se.
ALSO, you link NYT which has a guy talking about his findings, but there is no actual peer reviewed scientific paper link that I see, only his book. They are in the process of being peer reviewed, but anyways their graphs only go to 1750, to see the cycles you would need to go way back some more which unfortunately they don't have.
That however seems like the easiest step to take.
We know that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere corresponds with increased temperature.
Why would you believe that CO2 caused by humans would be any different?
Yes, but the issue I have w/ it is that the extra CO2 by humans is not relevant to the overall temperature and wouldn't really make a difference in climate changes that can really affect us.
Here is an interesting read by former NASA Supervisor (Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon) which tends to go w/ similar thoughts as mine:
So you believe that scientists are incapable of measuring things.
Personally, I believe that scientists can.
It's like ... their job.
Since you seem genuinely interested in the truth (as opposed to a clear agenda of obfuscation), I would very strongly recommend "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes for a different perspective on climate change. It's an interesting read, and sourced all the way through so you can check up on stuff yourself if you want to know even more.
Regardless of whether climate change is manmade or not, the potential catalyst is a huge problem, which is pollution. Either way, we're wrecking planet Earth. When someone tells me global warming is a conspiracy, I just smile and say "ok"...and then ask them even if global warming is a conspiracy if they can at least identify that the harm being done to the environment is still of monumental concern. Even if the climate change is a completely natural event (I personally believe its both natural and man-fueled), the need for people to go out of their homes wearing a mask due to air pollution or not being able to swim in a lake due to excessive human waste or runoff is definitely not...and the lack of concern over it is worrisome.
Yes it does.
Look at the Mauna Loa charts of CO2 and the temp trend
Look at how the Hadley Cell is widening as a result of changing the radiative balance from GHG
Look at how the annular modes are shifting/trending to a more positive index
Look at these videos from a Professor in my program
Look at this as well for an artistic touch
The debate is not if man made CO2 is warming the planet....it is...it is around what are the feedbacks associated with it? More clouds? What types of clouds as different types have different radiative qualities? How about where the CO2 cycle is occurring? What % in land/ocean/atmos? How are each realm responding? How do other species offset this change? etc