Global Warming.. Real?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.
By "they're" I assume you mean a very small minority.
I thought that the National Geographic News article was a fairly credible source. Anyway...let me get this straight...are you saying that these scientists from the National Oceanography Centre in England are wrong since they're a very small minority? I'm not sure what to make of your comment.

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Me thinks that scientists are like adolescents who think they know everything, but in reality know so very little about WHY things happen they way they do.

You clearly know very little about science.
Evidently you know much more about science than I do...so tell me...do you KNOW what causes global warming? Some scientists say CO2, some say natural variation in the climate system, and some say variations in the sun's energy output. What say you? And then show me your proof. While you at it, please explain what caused global warming 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, 325,000 years ago, 410,000 years ago, etc. since it can't be ascribed to human activities (hmmm...I think there may be a some sort of cyclic pattern here...just a thought). Also, please explain to me why the ice core data consistently shows global warming PRIOR to elevated CO2 levels. This is contrary to the idea that elevated CO2 levels cause elevated global temperatures. Please explain. I may not know a lot about science...but I do want to learn.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?
You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

Exactly. All scientific evidence shows that the current global warming trend is not a normal earth weather cycle and the evidence also shows that the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases are the reason. Not only is nothing being done about it but we have people, and worse yet elected officials, that refuse to even acknowledge it. I don't have the answers - I wish I did but I'm sadly I'm not that smart. However, I do know the 'head in the sand' solution isn't working.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,693
2,155
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I don't get this. There are plenty of other subjects about which we have far less information and research about that people accept without complaint. What degree of proof do you require in order to do something?!? Keep in mind that if global warming proponents are right, time is running out. (or may have already run out). Can you provide examples of what sorts of experimental results would be necessary to convince you? If so, can these be accomplished?
You misunderstand. I won't speak for others, but I am not disputing anything. What I am saying is that knowledge of the existence of the danger does not necessarily instruct us to what would be the best course of action. Meaning, ok global warming... now what are we supposed to do about it? I have no doubt that many might think that's an easy question with an easy answer, but it is not by any means (and IMO ridiculous to think so).

IMO the so-called "proponents" of global warming irreparably damage their own cause by making it something about extremist viewpoints and chicken little-ism. This is an issue that requires compromise and intelligent discussion in order to choose and then follow the best course of action, and they eliminate that possibility.

To start with, quit denying it's an Issue and do something about it. The Causes are aleady known, the solution is to Decrease those Causes. The Amount of Decrease is also known, that's all that is needed to begin doing something.

Exactly. All scientific evidence shows that the current global warming trend is not a normal earth weather cycle and the evidence also shows that the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases are the reason. Not only is nothing being done about it but we have people, and worse yet elected officials, that refuse to even acknowledge it. I don't have the answers - I wish I did but I'm sadly I'm not that smart. However, I do know the 'head in the sand' solution isn't working.

I'd like to see a link for the bolded. It is not a good idea to claim that ALL science says this.

 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.
If you read the whole article they are clear that it is only a possibility. They are not trying to say that doom is nigh.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evidently you know much more about science than I do...so tell me...do you KNOW what causes global warming? Some scientists say CO2, some say natural variation in the climate system, and some say variations in the sun's energy output. What say you? And then show me your proof.
That's easy. All 3 affect global climate. Proof for the CO2 effect can be found by comparing these two graphs: graph 1 + graph 2. Proof for natural variation can be found in the chart you were commenting on earlier. (Taking longer to find proof for the Sun's affect so I will leave that out for now).

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
While you at it, please explain what caused global warming 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, 325,000 years ago, 410,000 years ago, etc. since it can't be ascribed to human activities (hmmm...I think there may be a some sort of cyclic pattern here...just a thought).
That is a natural cycle based on the Earth's orbit about the sun I believe. Regardless, it is clearly a natural cycle. The current climate shift is not.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Also, please explain to me why the ice core data consistently shows global warming PRIOR to elevated CO2 levels. This is contrary to the idea that elevated CO2 levels cause elevated global temperatures. Please explain. I may not know a lot about science...but I do want to learn.
I am not sure how you are reading the graph, but I do not see anywhere that the temperature rises before CO2 levels. I could show you what I mean with an image editor, but I don't have anywhere to upload the image right now.

Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Robor
Exactly. All scientific evidence shows that the current global warming trend is not a normal earth weather cycle and the evidence also shows that the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases are the reason. Not only is nothing being done about it but we have people, and worse yet elected officials, that refuse to even acknowledge it. I don't have the answers - I wish I did but I'm sadly I'm not that smart. However, I do know the 'head in the sand' solution isn't working.
I'd like to see a link for the bolded. It is not a good idea to claim that ALL science says this.
I'm not sure if you are commenting on the fact that he claims that science unanimously supports the claim, or if you doubt the claim itself.

The IPCC group, for one, has accurate temperature data over long periods of time. Data for recent history shows a clear rise in temperature that coincides with the spread of human industry. That would be a pretty substantial coincidence. The nature of the data is not subject to the effects of long-term (100,000 year) global climate shifts.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
link no good

I can't confirm with out looking at the study, but i wonder if it takes in to account the growth of concert and asphalt when taking measurements over the years.
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad

It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

When you squeeze out dissenting opinions and contrarian evidence from the conversation you lose all scientific credibility. Such is the state of the GW "debate" (if you can still call it that).
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,658
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad

It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

When you squeeze out dissenting opinions and contrarian evidence from the conversation you lose all scientific credibility. Such is the state of the GW "debate" (if you can still call it that).

If it's Natural, it is unprecedented. There would be ample evidence of Natural causes, that is lacking. There is tons of evidence of Human Emissions.
 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad
It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

When you squeeze out dissenting opinions and contrarian evidence from the conversation you lose all scientific credibility. Such is the state of the GW "debate" (if you can still call it that).
I am open to the idea that man is a minor factor, but so far the evidence I have seen and the majority of opinions I have heard do not point that way. I can not accept that it is just a coincidence. I'm not willing to take that risk. If a peer-reviewed study can show firmly that man is not an important factor, then I will consider it. Got a link?

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Enig101
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Scientists were predicting the onset of an Ice Age in the 70's. Then they witnessed global warming and predicted apoclyptic effects. Now they're predicting another Ice Age (Mini Ice Age May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns Hmmmmm.
If you read the whole article they are clear that it is only a possibility. They are not trying to say that doom is nigh.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Evidently you know much more about science than I do...so tell me...do you KNOW what causes global warming? Some scientists say CO2, some say natural variation in the climate system, and some say variations in the sun's energy output. What say you? And then show me your proof.
That's easy. All 3 affect global climate. Proof for the CO2 effect can be found by comparing these two graphs: graph 1 + graph 2. Proof for natural variation can be found in the chart you were commenting on earlier. (Taking longer to find proof for the Sun's affect so I will leave that out for now).

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
While you at it, please explain what caused global warming 130,000 years ago, 240,000 years ago, 325,000 years ago, 410,000 years ago, etc. since it can't be ascribed to human activities (hmmm...I think there may be a some sort of cyclic pattern here...just a thought).
That is a natural cycle based on the Earth's orbit about the sun I believe. Regardless, it is clearly a natural cycle. The current climate shift is not.

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Also, please explain to me why the ice core data consistently shows global warming PRIOR to elevated CO2 levels. This is contrary to the idea that elevated CO2 levels cause elevated global temperatures. Please explain. I may not know a lot about science...but I do want to learn.
I am not sure how you are reading the graph, but I do not see anywhere that the temperature rises before CO2 levels. I could show you what I mean with an image editor, but I don't have anywhere to upload the image right now.

Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Robor
Exactly. All scientific evidence shows that the current global warming trend is not a normal earth weather cycle and the evidence also shows that the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases are the reason. Not only is nothing being done about it but we have people, and worse yet elected officials, that refuse to even acknowledge it. I don't have the answers - I wish I did but I'm sadly I'm not that smart. However, I do know the 'head in the sand' solution isn't working.
I'd like to see a link for the bolded. It is not a good idea to claim that ALL science says this.
I'm not sure if you are commenting on the fact that he claims that science unanimously supports the claim, or if you doubt the claim itself.

The IPCC group, for one, has accurate temperature data over long periods of time. Data for recent history shows a clear rise in temperature that coincides with the spread of human industry. That would be a pretty substantial coincidence. The nature of the data is not subject to the effects of long-term (100,000 year) global climate shifts.
link no good

I can't confirm with out looking at the study, but i wonder if it takes in to account the growth of concert and asphalt when taking measurements over the years.
Woops, I thought I edited it to fix the links. Guess it didn't work. They should be good now.

The charts show a clear correlation between the human Industrial Revolution, levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and a rise in temperature.
 

bobdelt

Senior member
May 26, 2006
918
0
0
yesterday it was 50 degrees. Today was 22. The earth is getting colder!!! If it keeps this up I'll be frozen to death in a couple days. Start Polluting!
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: bobdelt
yesterday it was 50 degrees. Today was 22. The earth is getting colder!!! If it keeps this up I'll be frozen to death in a couple days. Start Polluting!

Today it was 8 degrees in the morning, and by 2:00PM, it was 22 degrees! At this rate, we'll all be dead by tomorrow!

AHHHHHH!!! Run for the hills!!!!
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

Except its not natural. We have signifcantly deviated from the warming/cooling cycles of the past 650,000 years
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,434
491
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad

It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

When you squeeze out dissenting opinions and contrarian evidence from the conversation you lose all scientific credibility. Such is the state of the GW "debate" (if you can still call it that).

If it's Natural, it is unprecedented. There would be ample evidence of Natural causes, that is lacking. There is tons of evidence of Human Emissions.

OK ...lets get this right....Its Mechanical Emmisions.

Unless you say global warming is caused by farts

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,658
126
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
I cannot believe 1/4th of everyone in this forum has fallen into the propaganda that it's fake/we caused it... sad.. just sad

It's like a frickin' religion with you people. You're not even open to the possibility that man is a minor contributing factor to an otherwise natural process. (A process that has cycled many, many times without out our assistance)

When you squeeze out dissenting opinions and contrarian evidence from the conversation you lose all scientific credibility. Such is the state of the GW "debate" (if you can still call it that).

If it's Natural, it is unprecedented. There would be ample evidence of Natural causes, that is lacking. There is tons of evidence of Human Emissions.

OK ...lets get this right....Its Mechanical Emmisions.

Unless you say global warming is caused by farts

Hehe, ok, that's more precise.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

Here's an example. How is it that the CO2 concentration has remained constant in the atmosphere durring events such as the industrial revolution, volcanic eruptions, and others that would increase the CO2 input into the enviornment.

There is really 2 questions here:

Does global warming exists? Probably
Is human activity responsible for global warming? Probably not

The enviornment is far too complex to make predictions. Even computer models in the past have been way off.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
It should be a simple calculation to find the exact CO2 released into the atmosphere from human activity. Billions of tons a year, changing the percentages of the gases in the air. CO2's effects are cumulative and long lasting. What we put into the air today will be there for the next fifty years.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,131
5,658
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

Here's an example. How is it that the CO2 concentration has remained constant in the atmosphere durring events such as the industrial revolution, volcanic eruptions, and others that would increase the CO2 input into the enviornment.

There is really 2 questions here:

Does global warming exists? Probably
Is human activity responsible for global warming? Probably not

The enviornment is far too complex to make predictions. Even computer models in the past have been way off.

1) Not "Probably", it is.
2) Not "Probably not", it is

You really need to read up on the issue. Just a few more points:

1) CO2 concentrations have Not remained constant. In fact, they have increased far beyond what has occured on the planet since Humans have existed. Even the most tumltuous Nartural Phenomena never came close to increasing CO2 concentrations like they have since the Industrial Revolution

We have numerous methods of Measurement and though we can't minutely predict detailed effects of Climate Change, we have enough knowledge to know if/when it is going to occur. We are already going through it, where it ends is still an unknown.

You may want to checkout the video in the other thread titled Global Dimming, it deals with another aspect srelated to Global Climate Change and shows some of the Simple and more Complex kinds of Experimentation going on and the results gathered. It's also not filled with a bunch of technical jargon, making it interesting to watch for us not steeped in the Climatologist World.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Fern
Is Global warming real, and are we the responsible?

I, like some others here, am of the opnion that the Earth does go through climitoligical (sp?) cycles. Whether or not any current cycle will prove significant is, IMHO, still an open question. When I was much younger science was certain we were facing a cooling trend, not a warming trend like now.

I have lived through so much, "butter is bad, margerine is good", no wait "margerine is bad, butter is good" type scientific reversals I remain doubtful that they have the ability to accurately gauge/forcast such trends. I.e., I really doubt the scientific community has "cracked" the all the complicated "secrets" of the Earth. Time has taught me to be very sceptical of anyone who says they have.

Are we the cause? Notwithstanding the above question, I do not find it hard to belive that we humans have some effect, the unresolved question in my mind is "how much"?. We (humans) tend to overestimate our presence in every possible way, and underestimate the impact of natural forces. I am doubtful our impact is as great as claimed, and doubtful of the ability of present day science's to both accurately identify all factors involved in any changes as well as understand the complexity of the interrelationships of such factors.

It was much simpler when I was in college. I just believed in what the "experts" taught us.

Fern

I'll get tired of repeating this eventually, but not yet.

-yes, the earth undergoes cycles.
-no, what we have today is not a cycle, its a spike caused by the industrial revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

If you'd like to disagree, please:
-provide a counter example (show that this isn't a human-caused spike but a natural event)
-provide an alternate explanation (something that explains the spike, but doesn't involve humans)
-revise your view to fit the accepted one.

Here's an example. How is it that the CO2 concentration has remained constant in the atmosphere durring events such as the industrial revolution, volcanic eruptions, and others that would increase the CO2 input into the enviornment.

There is really 2 questions here:

Does global warming exists? Probably
Is human activity responsible for global warming? Probably not

The enviornment is far too complex to make predictions. Even computer models in the past have been way off.

1) Not "Probably", it is.
2) Not "Probably not", it is

You really need to read up on the issue. Just a few more points:

1) CO2 concentrations have Not remained constant. In fact, they have increased far beyond what has occured on the planet since Humans have existed. Even the most tumltuous Nartural Phenomena never came close to increasing CO2 concentrations like they have since the Industrial Revolution

We have numerous methods of Measurement and though we can't minutely predict detailed effects of Climate Change, we have enough knowledge to know if/when it is going to occur. We are already going through it, where it ends is still an unknown.

You may want to checkout the video in the other thread titled Global Dimming, it deals with another aspect srelated to Global Climate Change and shows some of the Simple and more Complex kinds of Experimentation going on and the results gathered. It's also not filled with a bunch of technical jargon, making it interesting to watch for us not steeped in the Climatologist World.

I wrote a paper on this for my Intro Environmental Science class once. I'll get you the data when i get home.

What i meant was that CO2 concentration did not increase proportional to its input. It has been increasing steadily even with sporadic events like volcanic eruptions and the industrial revolution (sporadic from a geological perspective). This suggests a geological sink for CO2.

Also, I think the correlation of temperature with sun spot activity is underestimated. I know correlation does not equal causation but in this case it is very unlikely that the earth is affecting sunspots on the sun or that some other force is influencing both sun spots and the earth's temperature.
 

xxxInfidelxxx

Member
Feb 19, 2006
187
1
0
I thought we were all going to starve to death from the coming ice age. Wasn't the latest fad (reads: alarmist-sky-is-falling-so-we-need-government-dollars-for-research) global cooling? Didn't they also consider melting the ice caps? lol Well, we are! Wake me up when NOAA gets the 5-day weather forcast spot-on...can't even tell me whether or not it is going to rain next Friday, let alone what the Earth will be like, say, 10-years from now.






"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne

April 28, 1975 Newsweek


There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ? with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ? parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia ? where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.


The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ? a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ?A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,? warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ?because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.?

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth?s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras ? and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.

Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ?little ice age? conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 ? years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ?Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,? concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ?Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.?

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases ? all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. ?The world?s food-producing system,? warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA?s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, ?is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.? Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
My point exactly. There are two many variables many of which are unknown involved in chimate change. This is why many predictions ahve been innacurate.
 

Enig101

Senior member
May 21, 2006
362
0
0
So for the love of all that is intelligent, let's err on the side of caution, OK?

You people are insane.
 

xxxInfidelxxx

Member
Feb 19, 2006
187
1
0
Originally posted by: Enig101
So for the love of all that is intelligent, let's err on the side of caution, OK?

You people are insane.

And melt the Artic caps? That's what the last guy who said "let's err on the side of caution, ok?" suggested.

 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |