It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by grover
To suggest as you consistently do Muaddib that the amount of chemicals we pump into the air be it CO2 or hydrocarbons or other pollutants have no effect on our planet or its environment or climate is nothing short of foolishness. You can throw all the graphs you want at me, I really do not care because the historical evidence proving you wrong is also there.
What exact historical evidence do you have? We are talking a relative sliver of time in Earth's history? To corralate a GLOBAL rise in tempreatures that happen at the same timeframe as human made emissions increase does not necessarily make a link that is irrefutable.
Unrelated events sometimes appear to be connected when they are not. Just like the CO2/Temp increase relationship in a certain sense.
I know I am beating a dead horse here but is it your contention Grover that Mankind is the primary (more than 50%) cause of the warming we are seeing? Also how much of Mankind's impact is due to A.) Population growth and B.) Industrialization. These are important factors in the GW debate. I know you constantly say that mankind is not the only factor in GW, but I get the distinct impression from you that without mankind's contribution, there would not be any GW. Is that a fair impression? I look forward to your reply.
Originally posted by SwatMedic
Thank you for keeping my faith in this board alive.
Originally posted by grover
I think what is missing is the acknowlegement of the scale of human activity over the past 150 and that makes the world of difference. Do humans cause global warming? No. Do we contribute to it? I personally think the evidence is there that we most certainly do. As to the amount i would suggest as in above the scale of 1 degree out of 4 and while that may not seem like a lot there is the snowball effect to be considered and that is what I am talking about. Small changes can and do create larger changes. That is how I understand the notion of the roll of human activity plays in global warming.
Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) in the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
“If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present,” Akasofu said. He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming starting from the early 1700s, temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660, and ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.
Some of the weak points in the present IPCC Report are:
There has recently been so much attention focused on the CO2 effect, the Little Ice age has been forgotten. The recovery rate from the Little Ice Age may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years, comparable to the present warming trend of 0.6°C/100 years. The warming caused by the linear change must be carefully evaluated and subtracted in determining the greenhouse effect.
There was no critical analysis of the mid-century change; the temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, similar in magnitude and rate to the present rise after 1975. Further, the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that the release of CO2 increased rapidly. At that time, we had similar debates about imminent “global cooling” (the coming of a new ice age) in the 1970s.
It is crucial to investigate any difference between the 1910-40 increase and the increase after 1975, since the former is likely to be due to natural causes, rather than the greenhouse effect.
The most prominent warming (twice the global average) took place in the Arctic, particularly in the continental arctic, during the last half of the 20th century, as stated in the IPCC Report, but it disappeared during the last decade or so. Further, the IPCC models cannot reproduce the prominent continental warming, in spite of the fact that the measured amount of CO2 was considered. This particular warming is likely to be part of multi-decadal oscillations, a natural cause.
It is also important to know that the temperature has been increasing almost linearly from about 1750, or earlier, to the present, in addition to multi-decadal oscillations, such as the familiar El Niño. These are natural changes.
Both changes are significant. Until they can be quantitatively more carefully examined and subtracted from the present trend, it is not possible to determine the manmade greenhouse effect. Therefore, there is no firm basis to claim “most” in the IPCC Report.
The IPCC should have paid more attention to climate change in the Arctic.
The mid-century (1940-1975) alarm of a coming Ice Age teaches a very important lesson to all of us, including climate researchers. It is not possible to forecast climate change (warming or cooling) in the year 2100 based on a few decades of data alone.
Further, it is very confusing that some members of the media and some scientific experts blame “global warming” for every “anomalous” weather change, including big snowfalls, droughts, floods, ice storms, and hurricanes. This only confuses the issue.
Late holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at whitewing
3 mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA
4 Constance I. Millar a,⁎, John C. King b, Robert D. Westfall a, Harry A. Alden c, Diane L. Delany
Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry to be significantly warmer (+3.2°C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (−24 mm annual precipitation) than present, resembling values projected for California in the next 70–100 yr.
© 2006 Published by University of Washington.
The results show high climate variability and contrasting
SSTs between the North-Iceland Shelf and the
Vring Plateau for the last eight centuries. Between
1250 and 1400 AD, i.e. at the end of the Medieval
Warm Period (MWP), the Vring Plateau experienced
warm SSTs preceding an abrupt temperature cooling
of 1.5C within a decade that lead to the Little Ice Age.
At the same time, North-Iceland Shelf was warmer than
present during the MWP, but was followed by an even
warmer period between 1400 and 1650 AD. Surface conditions
improved over the Vring Plateau after 1600 AD,
while SSTs cooled on the North-Iceland Shelf. These
results thereby indicate that during a strengthening of
the NwAC, the East Icelandic Current is also strengthened
and/or the Irminger Current became weaker. This
climatic antiphase relation documented between these
two areas suggests an atmospheric circulation pattern
similar to the recent North Atlantic Oscillation, however
with centuries duration.
Climatic variations in the Argentine plains during the last 18,000 years
Martin H. Iriondoa and Norberto O. Garciab
a CONICET, Casilla de Correo 487, 3100, Parana, Argentina
b Fac. de Ing. y Recursos Hidricos, UNL, Casilla de Correo 495, 3000, Santa Fe, Argentina
Received 28 January 1992; accepted 25 May 1992. ; Available online 14 April 2003.
Abstract
The last deglacial hemicycle was characterized by a general increase in temperature and precipitation in the region, with a few significant departures from this general trend. The present NE-SW climatic gradient was maintained throughout the entire period, except in the Upper Holocene. The following sequence of events is apparent if the present climate is taken as a reference base:
1. (a) 18,000–8500 yr B.P.: Arid and cool, with aeolian sand ad loess deposition. Patagonian fauna. Climatic isolines (temperature, precipitation, etc.) were located some 750 km northeast of their present positions.
2. (b) 8500-3500 yr B.P.: Humid subtropical, with Brazilian fauna. Pedogenesis and fluvial dynamics. Climatic limits migrated about 800/900 km southwest of their former positions.
3. (c) 3500-1000 yr B.P.: Dry subtropical; aeolian dynamics. The normal latitudinal climatic gradient was interrupted by the occurrence of an anticyclonic centre, which stabilized the climate over an area of some 1,600,000 km2.
4. (d) 1000 yr B.P.-Little Ice Age: Climate was similar to the present one over much of the plains, but the northeastern extremity was warmer.
5. (e) Little Ice Age: Climatic deterioration in the southern belt was characterized by generalized aeolian activity and migration of isolines more than 150 km to the northeast in that area.
6. (f) Present climate: 19th and 20th centuries. Subtropical, humid in the east and dry in the west.
Originally posted by pavil
lurkinggherkin,
Again it seems as if you have not found anyone else who has claimed to be misquoted in the video.
You do seem to be adding more personal commentary which tends to not make it an impartial review of the matter. The rambling (sorry, they are verbose), line by line dissecting of every one's statements don't do much in the way of debate IMO, but feel free to do them.
Documentaries such as this one as a genre are supposed to present their case, not knock holes in their own arguments.
Have you done a person by person investigation of each person in An Inconvenient Truth to see if as you would say "The point is to examine An Inconvenient Truth and see if it stands up to scrutiny". I would be very curious if you have done the same review process of that video. Have you? Questioning minds should question all sides, should they not. If not that implies they are not as open as they claim to be.
Did you expect most of the people quoted in the video to have contrary views to what they presented? It is a surprise that many of them have the history behind the explains their beliefs? It was not just a scientific video, the input of others, not adding science facts in the video rounds out the whole debate, not invalidates their contribution to it. GW is not solely a Science based debate, even though it should be grounded in the facts of science. It has become a big business on both sides of the fence. One must be aware of all the factors involved in the debate.
Originally posted by lurkinggherkin
I apologise for adding more 'personal' commentary on this one. I'll admit that I found Calder's statements quite annoying.
Originally posted by lurkinggherkin
However I don't think my analysis of his input is dishonest or incorrect. I'm trying hard to stay as impartial as I can. Please feel free to criticise me if you think I've strayed too far from the path of neutrality (I'm sure Muaddib probably thinks I do that with every sentence I write....).
Originally posted by lurkinggherkin
Naturally. But they shouldn't try to support their case with distorted or incorrect information. There was just too much of this in Calder's input.
06 April 2007
New Study Shows Tragic Consequences of Environmentalists\' Campaign to Ban DDT
Next week, government officials from around the world will meet in Stockholm to sign the Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), an international treaty that bans or greatly restricts the use of 12 chemicals. Included in the list of chemicals to be restricted is DDT, which has saved millions of lives and remains the most cost-effective way to prevent malaria, a disease that kills up to 3 million people every year.
The new study, by Roger Bate and Richard Tren, documents the attempt by environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and WWF, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to ban the so-called 'dirty dozen' chemicals. A ban on DDT use would have had an enormous human cost. However, due to fierce lobbying by humanitarian NGOs, DDT was given a partial exemption.
"The DDT exemption from the POPs treaty comes at the great relief of public health doctors in poor countries and humanitarians everywhere," says Dr Bate.
Originally posted by lurkinggherkin
The third debate is the only one where politicians need to get involved, but all too often people simply see politicians 'involved in global warming', period, so they see it as a political issue, period. I think that Durkin's video actively sought to tar the whole debate as a political one. It's hard to watch it and not draw this conclusion.
Originally posted by lurkinggherkin
Naturally. But they shouldn't try to support their case with distorted or incorrect information. .................
I haven't, as yet. I may do so after I've finished looking at TGGWS.