01 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarDoes it matter? Obviously it is not a well defined time period but that does not make it any less real.
[b]Yes: Global warming is when the overall temperature of the earth increases IN THE LONG RUN.
What period of time is the long run? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10 000 years?[/b]
-lets say, for the sake of argument, about 40 years -but sometimes it can be more of this and sometimes less depending on the severity of natural variations that occur at the time which can temporarily swamp the long-term trend of global warming.
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by Eladar…A real scientist would support what I believe about global warming. . …
[b]Why don't you go to real scientists about all this
I'd say your reasoning is pretty circular. A real scientist would support what I believe about global warming. If a scientist says something different, then he isn't a real scientist.[/b]
That’s simply not true.
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarIs that only in the northern hemisphere or globally?
Look at least year's temps. Look at the temps so far this year. Look at the amount of arctic ice we have this year. You may not like what you see, but doesn't change the fact that last year the earth actually cooled off.
Arctic ice is not the only indicator of global weather. Do you have any evidence that on average, glaciers got longer this year? What about global sea temperatures?
Do you have any information about multi year global weather cycles?
If there is a cycle that warms surface water some years and lower water other years (as is well known to take place in the Pacific), then we would expect short term fluctuations.
01 Oct 08
Is that only in the northern hemisphere or globally?
Try reading this link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
As you can see, the answer is global, not northern hemisphere. You can do a google search on each of the four global metrics. I remember reading that one of them bases their measurements on ocean temps, but I forget which one.
02 Oct 08
Originally posted by dannyUchihaExcept republicans.
I don't think Katrina was the only consequence of Global Warming for the US.
The number of tornadoes has increased dramatically in the states that compose the "tornado alley". There has also been an increase in average temperature as well as an increase in the number of days with temperatures reaching over 100 degrees Farenheit, especially in the hott ...[text shortened]... xplains most of these phenomena in a way that's easy to understand for any type of viewer.
05 Oct 08
the easiest is to say its all a natural event.
Palin and the republicans in general will never say its manmade.
Who cares anyway ? Green parties in Europe predicted global warming some 30 years ago, but back then no-one wanted to listen. Nowdays still no-one wants to listen. Let us not pretend we care, because there is no money to be made in global warming
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by pietjesMaybe not, but lots of money to LOSE to global warming. Nobody wants to think about that.
the easiest is to say its all a natural event.
Palin and the republicans in general will never say its manmade.
Who cares anyway ? Green parties in Europe predicted global warming some 30 years ago, but back then no-one wanted to listen. Nowdays still no-one wants to listen. Let us not pretend we care, because there is no money to be made in global warming
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by timebombted
[b]Not playing with words, just trying to be clear.
We know that before man was on this planet, global warming happened through several oscillations. Thus it is not man made.
However man is now influencing and accelerating the current global warming cycle to a level that could be disastrous, thus the problem is of course man made.
I was just distin ...[text shortened]... cooling part of the cycle, so much of the actual warming is likely being hidden by this trend.
h
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by dannyUchihaHey there.
I don't think Katrina was the only consequence of Global Warming for the US.
The number of tornadoes has increased dramatically in the states that compose the "tornado alley". There has also been an increase in average temperature as well as an increase in the number of days with temperatures reaching over 100 degrees Farenheit, especially in the hott ...[text shortened]... xplains most of these phenomena in a way that's easy to understand for any type of viewer.
So, I am a meteorologist who studies tornadoes. Any attempt to identify an increase in tornadoes is highly questionable, and if such an increase were even true, to link it to human-driven global warming is rather difficult. Our climate models can't resolve tornadic storms, but a reasonable conjecture based on what we understand about the atmosphere is that an overall warming trend (or even the far more plausible trend of the poles warming a great deal and the tropics rather little as proposed by Kerry Emmanuel) would more likely *decrease* the number of mid-latitude tornadic storms (which will hopefully happen far enough in the future that my job will remain secure!).
That being said, no question exists within the atmospheric sciences community on this point: humans are having a very significant impact on climate change. I personally am about as far to the Left as is possible, but a few of my colleagues are about as far Right as a person can be and still be a conservative and not a fascist, and none of them consider there to be any scientific controversy on this point. There is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that global warming is real, and there is an overwhelming amount of theoretical evidence that pollution from human sources is the major cause.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarThat's not true.
I think the term "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change" because now we are seeing a cooling trend. Many scientists see the lack of Sun activity and a weak Schwabe cycle as a cause of the cooling.
"Climate change" is now used mainly because the phenomenon is quite complex, and "global warming" does not adequately express the nuance. Not to mention, there's some questions surrounding whether or not an ice age could be rapidly triggered (although it would look NOTHING like that movie Day After Tomorrow!).
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarWe really don't on this point.
So scientists disagree.
Since the earth has been cooling as of late, I think the guys I believe are correct.
Much like the supposed controversies in evolutionary biology, the argument is entirely manufactured by interests external to the scientific community, who let their political agendas trump the search for truth.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectEven if theory can't predict the 'tornadic storms', you can still count them year by year and if say from 1850 to 1900 there were 100 tornadoes in the midwest (# picked out of a hat) and from 1900 to 1950 there were 110 and from 1950 to 2000 there were 150, doesn't that count as an indication something is going on tornado wise?
Hey there.
So, I am a meteorologist who studies tornadoes. Any attempt to identify an increase in tornadoes is highly questionable, and if such an increase were even true, to link it to human-driven global warming is rather difficult. Our climate models can't resolve tornadic storms, but a reasonable conjecture based on what we understand about the atmo ...[text shortened]... erwhelming amount of theoretical evidence that pollution from human sources is the major cause.
What do the real numbers read? Has there been an increase in the # of tornado's in the midwest like the guy says?
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectPerhaps you don't understand what I'm saying they disagree about. I'm not trying to say that greenhouse gasses do not make the atmosphere warmer, I'm saying that the degree to which man's pollution is causing the warm up is debated.
We really don't on this point.
Much like the supposed controversies in evolutionary biology, the argument is entirely manufactured by interests external to the scientific community, who let their political agendas trump the search for truth.
As I pointed out, the sun's cycle plays a big part in whether the earth is in a warming or cooling cycle. The ocean currents also play a part. Nature also has a way of spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. So how much of the warm up is completely due to man is in question.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarI'm a real scientist, as is everyone I know, and you are just plain wrong. The websites you refer to are crackpot pseudoscience. And before you accuse me of being politically motivated, you should know that the two people in my department who believe Sarah Palin should be president of the USA would dismiss your claims as roundly as I do. (And we're all atmospheric scientists!)
[b]Why don't you go to real scientists about all this
I'd say your reasoning is pretty circular. A real scientist would support what I believe about global warming. If a scientist says something different, then he isn't a real scientist.[/b]
If you do want to maintain a political agenda that is pro-business and anti-environmental-regulation or otherwise pro-pollution, the intelligent and scientifically sound tactic to take these days is to point out that our climate models are not very good at predicting much besides a few very general quantities (like surface temperatures), and that any claims made about weather pattern changes are highly questionable, or to look up any of the other actual real scientific questions about climate change (such as: "what's up with clouds?"😉. It's the "maybe global warming won't be so bad" tactic, coupled with the "we don't know if it's going to be doomsday" defense. To suggest that we are really undergoing "global cooling," or that variations in solar radiation have a greater effect on climate than greenhouse gases, or that natural cycles trump anthropogenic forcings, is to entertain pseudoscience. If we are presented with real evidence that the current scientific consensus is wrong, trust me: we'll change our minds (we really don't like the rather dreary outlook) and it will be the headline of every newspaper in the world!
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, the problem is that the areas in which tornadoes happen were very sparsely populated until quite recently. They can only get reported if someone notices them. And if you look at any graph of the numbers of known tornadoes or tornadic storms, you'll notice a jump in the mid-1980s. This is because of the WSR-88D radars. There is an increase in the number of reported tornadoes, but that is a consequence of the fact that (a) there are more people there to see them and (b) our radars and techniques for resolving and identifying mesocyclones have improved. These effects cannot possibly be separated out to get a real number of tornadoes.
Even if theory can't predict the 'tornadic storms', you can still count them year by year and if say from 1850 to 1900 there were 100 tornadoes in the midwest (# picked out of a hat) and from 1900 to 1950 there were 110 and from 1950 to 2000 there were 150, doesn't that count as an indication something is going on tornado wise?
What do the real numbers read? Has there been an increase in the # of tornado's in the midwest like the guy says?
And, at any rate, global warming will more likely *reduce* the number of mid-latitude tornadic storms than *increase* them, at least that's the most reasonable conjecture at this point. The work that has been done in this area is rather shoddy, so there isn't even a sound scientific hypothesis to advance.