U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2007, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,072,238 times
Reputation: 1197

Advertisements

Of course it is easy to debate. That is the nature of science. But again...the overwhelming scientific groups have concurred that man plays a role to a significant degree in this warming. I did not see anything in any of poptechs articles refuting this. Of course man may not be the only factor...but apparently the scientists (not Al Gore) are saying it is an important factor. I don't see this as a Republican/Democratic issue like others do...these scientists get paid to do their research and this is what they have come up with, so if we just ignore them all why have science? (Rick, sorry if I did not answer your challenge before, honestly I must have missed it.)

Any way, here is a partial list. And maybe they are all just a bunch of alarmists snowing the world for giggles in a vast conspiracy. Could be, who knows.

1) THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 45,000 MEMBERS
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."
Human Impacts on Climate (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html - broken link)

2) THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (ALONG WITH THE NAS OF THE G8 NATIONS), FOUNDED IN 1863, OVER 2,000 MEMBERS, OVER 200 NOBEL PRIZE MEMBERS
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf (broken link)


3) THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOUNDED IN 1888, OVER 20,500 MEMBERS
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.

Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate


The Geological Society of America - Proposed Position Statement on Global Climate Change

4) THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1876, OVER 160,000 MEMBERS
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century."

http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf (broken link)

5) THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGY SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 11,000 MEMBERS
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change


6) THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATED IN 1988, HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM OVER 130 NATIONS
"Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increased markedly as a result of human activities. In 2005 CO2 exceeded by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations...2007-09-07.pdf



7) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, FOUNDED IN 1848, SERVES 262 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION INDIVIDUALS
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

8) THE NOAA'S NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER PALEOCLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, FOUNDED IN 1992, HAS THE LARGEST ARCHIVE OF CLIMATE AND PALEOCLIMATE DATA
"Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

"Over the past century, atmospheric carbon dioxide (as measured from ice cores) has increased due to human activities from 300 to 380 parts per million (ppm), and the average Earth temperature has increased approximately 0.7°C (or about 1.3°F)."

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

9) THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, FOUNDED IN 1960, OVER 120 MEMBERS, SERVES OVER 62 PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS
"Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:

1) Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2) As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3) Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming."

Climate Change and Global Warming - Present: Earth is Warming (http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp - broken link)

10) THE NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, FOUNDED IN 1961, SPECIALIZES IN SPACECRAFT OBSERVATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
"A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."

Some continued global warming will occur, probably about 0.5C (0.9F) even if the greenhouse gases in the air do not increase further, but the warming could be much less than the worst case scenarios," said Jim Hansen, lead researcher on the study from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), N.Y. This research was a collaborative effort of 19 institutions, including 7 universities, federal agencies, private industry and other NASA centers.

NASA GISS: Research News: Climate Change: 50 Years Past and Possible Futures
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:00 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,139 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
You're assuming that all the ice is floating freely in the ocean. That isn't the case. Some glaciers are ON continents and islands and will slide off, other ice floats but is suspended with only part of the ice underwater (the liquid isn't displaced by the parts of the ice that are above the sea level). Do you really think that something like that would be overlooked? That thousands of climate scientists are really THAT stupid? Really?

And of course non-manmade catastrophes have happened in the past-- that doesn't mean we have no responsibility to change course if our current one is expected to increase their frequency and devastation.
No, I don't think they are stupid, I think it was intentionally over-looked. And, most of the arctic glaciers are floating on the ocean, and there is actually very little solid landmass in the Arctic circle. The antarctic is a different story, but a substantial amount of glaciers are still sea-bound.

29.2% (148,939,100 Square Kilometers) of Earth's surface is land, meaning 70.8% (361,126,400 Square Kilometers) of Earth's surface is water. Do you have any idea how much snow and ice would have to melt off of land to cause sea levels to raise that much? So much that the snow melting and running off would cause as big a problem, if not a worse problem, than the sea level rising.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:06 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,139 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
You're still talking about yearly or short-term fluctuations (in weather, storms, climate, temparature), although you claim not to. It's not important whether hurricanes/tropical storms increase between 2004 and 2005, it's important whether they increase between 1900-1910 and 2000-2010. You can't extrapolate a "global cooling trend" from two years of data, from 2005-2007, that's ridiculous. Climate is always fluctuating -- it's long term trends we're worried about. As with the hurricane example, it isn't important whether 2007 is hotter than 2005 so much as it's important that 1990-2000 was considerably warmer than 1900-1910, or 1910-1920, or 1920-1930...
Ok, for the sake of argument, I will say it again. The image of the graph I posted starts in 1979, shows an increase to 1998, then a decrease to 1999, then a steady point from then on. That encompasses almost 30 years overall, and 9 years since the reference point of 1998 (it is 2007, you know?). How that is looking at short term is beyond my understanding, I guess...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:11 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,139 times
Reputation: 52
Excellent post bily4! That is what this is about, not bickering about how liberal or conservative a talk show is. We have thrown ours, you have thrown yours, give me some time to look over these links you've posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Arizona
5,396 posts, read 7,072,238 times
Reputation: 1197
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
Excellent post bily4! That is what this is about, not bickering about how liberal or conservative a talk show is. We have thrown ours, you have thrown yours, give me some time to look over these links you've posted.
Sure Rick...and I am not trying to mud sling...I would be happier than anybody if this all turns out to be undue alarmism.

I am just a casual observer to all this, like most of us...I understand that science is about debate and continual exploration and discovery, and I certainly would not state that this is wrapped up by any means...however, it is difficult for me to just dismiss all of these statements by these various large scientific organizations as having no validity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:22 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,575,525 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
No, I don't think they are stupid, I think it was intentionally over-looked. And, most of the arctic glaciers are floating on the ocean, and there is actually very little solid landmass in the Arctic circle. The antarctic is a different story, but a substantial amount of glaciers are still sea-bound.

29.2% (148,939,100 Square Kilometers) of Earth's surface is land, meaning 70.8% (361,126,400 Square Kilometers) of Earth's surface is water. Do you have any idea how much snow and ice would have to melt off of land to cause sea levels to raise that much? So much that the snow melting and running off would cause as big a problem, if not a worse problem, than the sea level rising.
If people who studied it "intentionally ignored" what you describe, and their findings weren't caught by peer reviewers and debunked or revised, then there would be little reason to put any trust in the whole process, yet "the process" has brought us countless technological advancements and a vastly improved understanding of the way the universe works. Many things occur that are counterintuitive, and you didn't address my point about the liquid water that isn't currently being displaced by the parts of the ice that are floating ABOVE the surface, rather than below. If the ice contracts some when it melts, but more of it is "in" the water after the melting rather than above it, then there could still easily be a net increase in water level, and it won't take Al Gore-magnitude levels to swamp large populations in many developing countries that are least prepared to handle the displacement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,575,525 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
Ok, for the sake of argument, I will say it again. The image of the graph I posted starts in 1979, shows an increase to 1998, then a decrease to 1999, then a steady point from then on. That encompasses almost 30 years overall, and 9 years since the reference point of 1998 (it is 2007, you know?). How that is looking at short term is beyond my understanding, I guess...
9 years is pretty short-term, especially compared to an entire century of relatively precise data. The other 21 correspond to the trend, and there's a very discernible upward slope from the end of the 1999 "spike" towards where we are now. If you drew a regression line from the end of the spike to 2007 it would slant towards higher temperatures/later times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:29 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,139 times
Reputation: 52
Again, good thread. Some of them I couldn't help but scoff at, admittedly. Especially those that went so far as to blame asphalt and cement construction as a possible cause. However, one big beef I have with the majority of them is that they say global warming melts glaciers. From a little looking I have found that it actually isn't surface temperature that melts glaciers, it's geothermal, which isn't related to air temperature at all. (first topic on Global Warming Research | cooler heads (http://www.globalwarming.org/research - broken link) , I didn't want to link directly to a .pdf file; requires Acrobat Reader).

I guess the real big issue is that Pro-GW's claim "There is no question... the debate is over" seems like they are trying to force something, that is as of yet unproven. Until we have strong statistical data for time periods far greater than the 25 years we have had accurate temperature readings for this planet, we will not know for sure. Until then, it is obvious an effort to reduce pollution and toxic gases is being made. CFC's are no longer allowed, and coal plants are "cleaning up" their emissions. Diesel and Combustion engines now have new, stricter emissions requirements.

Though this may be a bit off-topic, one of the problems of the Global Warming problem is that all that is ever said is "It must be stopped". No one is yet able to offer a viable solution to the demands nations on this planet have for fossil fuels. One that has is nuclear power, but that has problems all its own.

Even if we are in part responsible for Global Warming (which I am yet to be convinced we play a role in it at all, much less a major role), until a globally, economically, and industrially acceptable alternative is offered, we will rely on fossil fuels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2007, 11:38 PM
 
86 posts, read 133,139 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
...and you didn't address my point about the liquid water that isn't currently being displaced by the parts of the ice that are floating ABOVE the surface, rather than below. If the ice contracts some when it melts, but more of it is "in" the water after the melting rather than above it, then there could still easily be a net increase in water level...
My above post was in reference to all water on Earth's landmass, which is the only water that would effect the level of the water. When a glacier floats on water, it doesn't just displace an equal amount of water as to what is under the surface, it displaces water based on the mass of the object, this can again be represented by the same "Ice-cube in a glass" experiment. To step it up a notch, fill the glass 3/4 of the way with ice, then 1/4 the way with water, mark its level. When all of the ice has melted into the water, you will see the level does not change. That is why your glass of iced-tea will never overflow on a hot summer day (besides the fact that you are probably drinking it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger View Post
9 years is pretty short-term, especially compared to an entire century of relatively precise data. The other 21 correspond to the trend, and there's a very discernible upward slope from the end of the 1999 "spike" towards where we are now. If you drew a regression line from the end of the spike to 2007 it would slant towards higher temperatures/later times.
Didn't you just say we need to look at it in terms of 10 years? And when I show that it was looked at in a range of 30, you up to 100? Besides, it is an admitted fact, of both sides of the debate, that our only real accurate reading of global temperature started with satellite temperature reading in the early 1980's. Besides, that photo shows an upward increase in temperature to 1998, then a decrease, then an increase to 2004, then a decrease, which has been a trend since 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2007, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,575,525 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickM View Post
My above post was in reference to all water on Earth's landmass, which is the only water that would effect the level of the water. When a glacier floats on water, it doesn't just displace an equal amount of water as to what is under the surface, it displaces water based on the mass of the object, this can again be represented by the same "Ice-cube in a glass" experiment. To step it up a notch, fill the glass 3/4 of the way with ice, then 1/4 the way with water, mark its level. When all of the ice has melted into the water, you will see the level does not change. That is why your glass of iced-tea will never overflow on a hot summer day (besides the fact that you are probably drinking it).
Here you go, I'll let actual physicists who know far more than I do argue for me

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

Also, I'm pretty sure that, while I guess it's conceivable that "above water floating ice" could cause additional displacement by compressing the water (although that doesn't seem physically possible), I'm also ENTIRELY sure that the water level rises when I push the part of the ice floating above the water down into the water. Above-water ice doesn't displace water like the ice below it does, because it's not taking up the water's space, it's taking up the air's space. As far as I know, water is only displaced by the equivalent volume of the portion of the solid that actually intrudes where it would otherwise go, not by the part above that part.

Quote:
Didn't you just say we need to look at it in terms of 10 years?
Yes, in terms of comparing average temperatures of 10 year periods to earlier 10 year periods, not in terms of comparing years within decades, over a period too short to discern any significant trends.

Quote:
And when I show that it was looked at in a range of 30, you up to 100?
The "range" of 30 still displays the general warming trend. You have to look at the graph with pretty biased eyes to not notice the solid positive regression line that would be formed if one were to draw it, whether between 1979-1999 or between 2000 and 2005, or even 2000 and 2007.

Quote:
Besides, it is an admitted fact, of both sides of the debate, that our only real accurate reading of global temperature started with satellite temperature reading in the early 1980's. Besides, that photo shows an upward increase in temperature to 1998, then a decrease, then an increase to 2004, then a decrease, which has been a trend since 2004.
There are other ways of measuring past global temperatures, not as precise, but still quite "accurate." Of course the graph shows continual fluctuations, increases and decreases, if it didn't then we would either live in a very different world from the one we live in, or the data would be completely false and useless... between 1998 and 2007 you're still talking about fluctuations, although a general (yet very choppy) positive trend is still apparent from looking at the graph between those two years.

Last edited by fishmonger; 11-19-2007 at 12:24 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:56 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top