Global Warming

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.

The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.

Read More...

The greenhouse effect has been part of the earth's workings since its earliest days. Gases like carbon dioxide and methane allow sunlight to reach the earth, but prevent some of the resulting heat from radiating back out into space. Without the greenhouse effect, the planet would never have warmed enough to allow life to form. But as ever larger amounts of carbon dioxide have been released along with the development of industrial economies, the atmosphere has grown warmer at an accelerating rate: Since 1970, temperatures have gone up at nearly three times the average for the 20th century.

The latest report from the climate panel predicted that the global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit if the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice the level of 1750. By 2100, sea levels are likely to rise between 7 to 23 inches, it said, and the changes now underway will continue for centuries to come.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,453 • Replies: 23

No top replies

Now.
Some say that the U.S. is the only country dragging their feet on the issue.
But consider this. You see, the U.S. is too busy occupying three countries to worry about increasing temperatures and melting caps. so, just let it go.......

We'll cross that bridge when we get there!!!

0 Replies

And a lot of other stuff as well.

Anybody who leads the race to be greenest will be hung out on the washing line to dry in the sun like they do with wombat skins.

Chad is a very green country I gather. It can't match in a year what the Bali jamboree put out.

0 Replies

Re: Global Warming

CharlieZ wrote:

On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.

Funny how we used to talk about temperature change over the past century.

But then greenies got too embarrassed when it was continually pointed out that the 1930's were the hottest decade of the century.

So now let's just talk about the past 50 years. Yeah right.

The inventor of the internet carefully times his noise to be heard in August, when folks seeing it on the news will think 'boy you know, it HAS been pretty hot lately!'

But hey, he has to do what it takes to make his shot at the Presidency. He's hoping for a coronation when the convention deadlocks, and it's even money that he'll get it.

How come almost no one discusses the little ice age and how we are likely still recovering from it?

How come almost no one discusses agriculture in Greenland 1000 years ago when it was much warmer there than now?

How come almost no one discusses that as Arctic ice melts, Antarctic ice cover is growing quickly?

0 Replies

the 1930s were accompanied by an intense rise in volcanic activity if I'm not mistaken.

0 Replies

rl wrote-

Quote:

How come almost no one discusses the little ice age and how we are likely still recovering from it?

How come almost no one discusses agriculture in Greenland 1000 years ago when it was much warmer there than now?

How come almost no one discusses that as Arctic ice melts, Antarctic ice cover is growing quickly?

Because they are pointless subjects.

The real subject is American hypocrites polluting the world in pursuit of their gratuitious self indulgence whilst bleating piteously about the effects of them doing so in order to raise their profile as virtuously concerned citizens and maybe to make some money.

Filibustering one might call it.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

the 1930s were accompanied by an intense rise in volcanic activity if I'm not mistaken.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html

Didn't see anything from the 1930's but sure is a lot recently though

0 Replies

So bloody what.

Can we do anything about eruptions?

Not a chance.

We might be able to do something about American hypocrites polluting the world in pursuit of their gratuitious self indulgence whilst bleating piteously about the effects of them doing so in order to raise their profile as virtuously concerned citizens and maybe to make some money.

There is a faint hope of that.

Eruptions from the re-cycling mantle are a cute distraction allowing American hypocrites polluting the world in pursuit of their gratuitious self indulgence whilst bleating piteously about the effects of them doing so in order to raise their profile as virtuously concerned citizens, and maybe to make some money, to continue in the manner to which they have become accustomed, which is a big factor in high profile divorce cases.

A very faint hope.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:
the 1930s were accompanied by an intense rise in volcanic activity if I'm not mistaken.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html

Didn't see anything from the 1930's but sure is a lot recently though

I somehow doubt that that's a complete list, what with the fact that no activity was reported outside of the USA for a roughly 80 year stretch.

spendius wrote:

So bloody what.

Can we do anything about eruptions?

Not a chance.

We might be able to do something about American hypocrites polluting the world in pursuit of their gratuitious self indulgence whilst bleating piteously about the effects of them doing so in order to raise their profile as virtuously concerned citizens and maybe to make some money.

There is a faint hope of that.

Eruptions from the re-cycling mantle are a cute distraction allowing American hypocrites polluting the world in pursuit of their gratuitious self indulgence whilst bleating piteously about the effects of them doing so in order to raise their profile as virtuously concerned citizens, and maybe to make some money, to continue in the manner to which they have become accustomed, which is a big factor in high profile divorce cases.

A very faint hope.

Spendi, I'm not even sure who the hell you're preaching to here, but you've completely missed the point. Someone asserted that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record or something like that, and I countered that it was also a highly volcanically active period. During highly volcanically active periods, the global average temperature rises, thus explaining the 1930s bump.

0 Replies

Vengoropatubus wrote:

real life wrote:
Vengoropatubus wrote:
the 1930s were accompanied by an intense rise in volcanic activity if I'm not mistaken.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html

Didn't see anything from the 1930's but sure is a lot recently though

I somehow doubt that that's a complete list, what with the fact that no activity was reported outside of the USA for a roughly 80 year stretch.

I wondered that myself. And I was somewhat surprised to see the USGS logo on the list.

I doubt it is an 'official' list . I'd be interested to see if anyone can dig up a more complete list. I've not had time to do so.

Still, lots of recent activity , don't you think?

0 Replies

It was on Sky News Weather this afternoon that the warmest six years in the last hundred years were the last six years. And each getting warmer.

I don't necessarily believe it mind you. I'm just reporting what they said.

Winters are definitely warmer here but I wouldn't have the nerve to say what was causing it. But I do know that a very great deal of previously locked up stores of the sun's energy has been unlocked during the last hundred years. A very, very, very great deal and there's no end to the prospect of the process growing at about 3% a year for as long as we can manage it.

For all I know it is a good thing. We might all be better off living at higher altitudes.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Vengoropatubus wrote:
real life wrote:
Vengoropatubus wrote:
the 1930s were accompanied by an intense rise in volcanic activity if I'm not mistaken.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html

Didn't see anything from the 1930's but sure is a lot recently though

I somehow doubt that that's a complete list, what with the fact that no activity was reported outside of the USA for a roughly 80 year stretch.

I wondered that myself. And I was somewhat surprised to see the USGS logo on the list.

I doubt it is an 'official' list . I'd be interested to see if anyone can dig up a more complete list. I've not had time to do so.

Still, lots of recent activity , don't you think?

Certainly, there is a lot of recent activity, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere about some 70 odd volcanic incidents per year on average. Not necessarily eruptions, but just some sort of activity. This is a very vague memory, mind you.

spendius wrote:

It was on Sky News Weather this afternoon that the warmest six years in the last hundred years were the last six years. And each getting warmer.

I don't necessarily believe it mind you. I'm just reporting what they said.

Winters are definitely warmer here but I wouldn't have the nerve to say what was causing it. But I do know that a very great deal of previously locked up stores of the sun's energy has been unlocked during the last hundred years. A very, very, very great deal and there's no end to the prospect of the process growing at about 3% a year for as long as we can manage it.

For all I know it is a good thing. We might all be better off living at higher altitudes.

You're right spendi, the sun does release a great deal of energy.

0 Replies

Did you know Vengo that if you imagine a sphere with a 93 million mile radius using 4/3 pi r cubed to calculate its surface area and then a little circle of a mere 4,000 miles radius you will get a good idea of how much a "great deal" actually is and particulary on those days when you can fry an egg on the sidewalk.

0 Replies

And that the most insignificant hiccups in the Sun's chemistry would wipe the Iowa caucusing off the news without a trace.

0 Replies

I take it then that you don't consider sunspots or solar flares to be "hiccups."

0 Replies

Re: Global Warming

real life wrote:

CharlieZ wrote:
On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.

Funny how we used to talk about temperature change over the past century.

But then greenies got too embarrassed when it was continually pointed out that the 1930's were the hottest decade of the century.

According to what science? Hadcrut3 lists every year but one in the 1930s as being lower than the 30 year average of 1960-1990.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
GISS lists all the years but 3 of the 1930s as being below the average.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Who is going to be embarrassed by your idiotic claim? It isn't any "greenies."

The 1980s were warmer than the 1930s. The 1990s were warmer than the 1980s.

Quote:

So now let's just talk about the past 50 years. Yeah right.

No, lets talk about the 1930s and this claim you made. What do you have to support it?

Quote:

How come almost no one discusses the little ice age and how we are likely still recovering from it?

Why don't you present your evidence?

Quote:

How come almost no one discusses agriculture in Greenland 1000 years ago when it was much warmer there than now?

What would you like to discuss about it?

Quote:

How come almost no one discusses that as Arctic ice melts, Antarctic ice cover is growing quickly?

This has been discussed extensively.

0 Replies

Vengo wrote-

Quote:

I take it then that you don't consider sunspots or solar flares to be "hiccups."

That's right. Those are itches.

0 Replies

Re: Global Warming

parados wrote:

Quote:

How come almost no one discusses that as Arctic ice melts, Antarctic ice cover is growing quickly?
This has been discussed extensively.

Really? I didn't know the antarctic ice cover has been increasing? I remember reading about the ice shelf's breaking off several years ago...

0 Replies

Yah, I think the increasing antarctic ice cover was even a topic covered in an inconvenient truth.

0 Replies

There's a lot of it about these days Vengo. I wouldn't worry about it if I was you. You must have dealt with "inconvenient truths" before.

It's called "living".

0 Replies

Global Warming

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know