Global Warming

[Ziggy]

http://www.thegwpf.o...eading-ice-age/

 

Just saw this on some news station. I am forever a skeptic of anyone who makes predictions of what the future holds, or think they know how something as complex as our plant or solar system works well enough to make predictions. But what happens to all the people who jumped into the global warming boat if we end up going into a mini ice age, or even have global temperatures fall back into "normal" ranges?

they will be happy that our planet averted disaster and still push for a healthier planet because it is the right thing to do and better for the inhabitants and cheaper and more sustainable.

 

also, i am not sure the global warming policy foundation is the most reliable source of information.

 

I know little to nothing about Global warming policy foundation, just happened to be the website that had the information first when i googlized it. I mean i am all for green energies, and recycling but some people who push the global warming thing are borderline zealots. But because of politicization and peoples constant need for bad news, anytime we have cold spells it is the beginning of an ice age, or we get a couple of hot years and its global warming, we get a drought for two summers and its because when we traveled to the moon it changed its gravitational pull and we are all doomed. Its been about 12 years since we have had a global rise in temperature, but still we use CO2 emissions to blame on man made global warming, yet CO2 has gone up more than expected and yet temperatures have yet to follow.

 

Another link about the Russian scientist claiming a new ice age.....http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/05/russian-scientist-warns-global-temperatures-to-fall-1-5c-by-2050-and-global-cooling-refuges/

[Junior]

http://www.thegwpf.o...eading-ice-age/

 

Just saw this on some news station. I am forever a skeptic of anyone who makes predictions of what the future holds, or think they know how something as complex as our plant or solar system works well enough to make predictions. But what happens to all the people who jumped into the global warming boat if we end up going into a mini ice age, or even have global temperatures fall back into "normal" ranges?

they will be happy that our planet averted disaster and still push for a healthier planet because it is the right thing to do and better for the inhabitants and cheaper and more sustainable.

 

also, i am not sure the global warming policy foundation is the most reliable source of information.

 

I know little to nothing about Global warming policy foundation, just happened to be the website that had the information first when i googlized it. I mean i am all for green energies, and recycling but some people who push the global warming thing are borderline zealots. But because of politicization and peoples constant need for bad news, anytime we have cold spells it is the beginning of an ice age, or we get a couple of hot years and its global warming, we get a drought for two summers and its because when we traveled to the moon it changed its gravitational pull and we are all doomed. Its been about 12 years since we have had a global rise in temperature, but still we use CO2 emissions to blame on man made global warming, yet CO2 has gone up more than expected and yet temperatures have yet to follow.

 

Another link about the Russian scientist claiming a new ice age.....http://notrickszone....ooling-refuges/

 

Sorry, but this isn't "a couple of hot years and its global warming". Climate scientists are studying polar ice caps, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. They don't just say "Well hell! It was 95 yesterday, must be global warming!"

[Ziggy]

Southern polar ice caps are expanding, global temperatures has been steady for 10+ years, yet still "green house" gases are growing at larger than expected numbers.

[Junior]

Southern polar ice caps are expanding, global temperatures has been steady for 10+ years, yet still "green house" gases are growing at larger than expected numbers.

 

Do you have sources for that?

[Junior]

http://www.dw.de/pol...ever/a-16432199

 

"Thanks to the accuracy of our data set, we are now able to say with confidence that Antarctica has lost ice for the whole of the past 20 years. In addition to the relative proportions of ice that have been lost in the northern and southern hemispheres, we can also see there's been a definitive acceleration of ice loss in last 20 years. So together Antarctica and Greenland are now contributing three times as much ice to sea levels as they were 20 years ago," says the Professor of Earth Observation.

 

According to the study, melting ice from both poles has been responsible for a fifth of the global rise in sea levels since 1992, 11 millimeters in all. The rest was caused by the thermal expansion of the warming ocean, the melting of mountain glaciers, small Arctic ice caps and groundwater mining. The share of the polar ice melt, however, is rising.

 

 

From the same article:

 

In the Antarctic, the situation is a more complex one. Scientists distinguish between the West and East, which are being affected differently by climate change. West Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate. Many of the region's glaciers are by the sea, which is warming. It is only to be expected that the ice is melting faster here, says Shepherd.

 

In the huge area of East Antartica, the ice is mostly above sea level, Shepherd explains. The air temperature is also much lower, and the experts do not expect the ice to melt on account of rising temperatures. In this part of Antarctica, the ice sheet is actually growing as a consequence of increased snowfall. This has led some critics to question the global warming theory. However for Shepherd and his colleagues, the changes are all consistent with patterns of climate warming, which leads to more evaporation from the oceans and in turn more precipitation, which falls as snow on the ice sheets.

[Junior]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/25/scientists-long-winter-in-u-s-the-result-of-melting-arctic-ice-cap/

 

Both the extent and the volume of the sea ice that forms and melts each year in the Arctic oceanfell to an historic low last autumn, and satellite records published on Monday by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, show the ice extent is close to the minimum recorded for this time of year.

 

“The sea ice is going rapidly. It’s 80% less than it was just 30 years ago. There has been a dramatic loss. This is a symptom of global warming and it contributes to enhanced warming of the Arctic,” said Jennifer Francis, research professor with the Rutgers Institute of Coastal and Marine Science .

 

According to Francis and a growing body ofother researchers, the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere which shifts the position of the jet stream – the high-altitude river of air that steers storm systems and governs most weather in northern hemisphere.

 

“This is what is affecting the jet stream and leading to the extreme weather we are seeing in mid-latitudes,” she said. “It allows the cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. The pattern can be slow to change because the [southern] wave of the jet stream is getting bigger. It’s now at a near record position, so whatever weather you have now is going to stick around,” she said.

[Junior]

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/07/why-global-temperatures-held-s.html

 

They took data collected between 1998 and 2008 on several factors that can affect the climate, including greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, and sulphur pollution from burning coal and other industrial activities.

Then they plugged the information into their model, ran it for the 1998-2008 period, and asked: does it replicate what global temperatures actually did?

The short answer is yes. In the model, global temperatures held steady, showing no significant rise over the study period.

A major reason for this is the rise in coal use in China. This produces a lot of sulphur particles, which cool the global climate. This more-or-less cancelled out the warming effect of the greenhouse gas emissions.

That shouldn't come as a surprise. It's well-established that aerosol particles can have a major impact on the climate. In south-east Asia, particularly China and India, there is often a "brown haze" of pollution that has an overall cooling effect on the planet.

With the two human-produced effects cancelling each other out, natural variation in the climate took hold. As it happened, two of the natural trends were towards cooling.

The first was the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a cyclic change in the behaviour of the Pacific Ocean. 1998 saw the system in an extreme state, so the Pacific dumped a lot of heat into the atmosphere and surface temperatures spiked as a result. Since then ENSO has gone in the other direction, so the Pacific has taken heat from the atmosphere.

 

And the second shift came from the sun, which goes through a regular 11-year cycle of changing activity. From a peak in 2000, solar activity fell steadily to a low in 2007, so it sent less radiation our way.

...

 

So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary.

 

[The Dude]

Don't know if this has been shared yet. Interesting site refuting the most common "arguments" against anthropogenic global warming. Also offers different levels of explanation for those of us who aren't the most scientifically literate.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[Ziggy]

The end of global warming is here. http://phys.org/news/2013-05-scientists-co2-sequestration-technique-supergreen.html

 

We get CO2 levels taken down, Hydrogen Fuel, and the Oceans are back to normal PH.

[Junior]

http://www.slate.com...every_year.html

 

 

The solid black line is the amount of sea ice over the year averaged from 1979 – 2000. The dashed line is the amount in 2012, and the brownish solid line is this year, up to late May. As you can see, we’re right on track to match last year—which was way below average. This plot is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, and they have an interactive version where you can add or subtract various years. You can see we are headed for serious trouble, and soon. The ten lowest maxima for extent in the satellite record all occurred in the last ten years.

 

Obviously, Arctic ice grows every winter and melts every summer. In March 2013, the Arctic ice reached its maximum extent, which was the sixth lowest on record (it naturally fluctuates a bit year to year, but the trend is definitely downward). It drops to its minimum extent in September, but on top of that, over time, the minimum amount itself is shrinking.

 

Look again at the graph, at the bottom of the y-axis. That line is 0, meaning zero ice, essentially nothing but liquid water at the Earth’s north polar regions; that means this graph gives you an absolute scale. Then note that the past year’s minimum was only half the amount of ice we had on average from 1979 – 2000. If you click on previous years to add them to the graph, you’ll see that the past ten years or so have had very low ice minima; these correspond to most of the warmest years on record.

[tschu]

http://io9.com/scientific-consensus-on-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-1499762156

[carlfense]

http://io9.com/scien...ng-a-1499762156

From your link:

 

 

I listened to a radio program recently discussing a strategy employed by tobacco companies when scientific evidence was piling up that cigarettes were/are extremely unhealthy. Basically, they commissioned their own studies and emphasized that "the science isn't settled." "Scientists disagree . . ." "There is much controversy . . ." etc.

 

The more things change, eh?

[knapplc]

A reasonably non-hysterical article on climate change.

 

A good chart from the above article all blown up nice and pretty.

 

I'm not "afraid" of a warming Earth. I'm afraid of a catastrophically warming earth, about as much as I'm afraid of catastrophic pollution (think Chernobyl or Fukishima).

 

We are most definitely having an impact on this planet's climate. It's prudent to minimize that impact, and if we can do that via limitations in CO2 emissions, let's work on that. We made it to the Moon 66 years after the first ever powered flight. We're smart enough to figure this out.

[Junior]

A reasonably non-hysterical article on climate change.

 

A good chart from the above article all blown up nice and pretty.

 

I'm not "afraid" of a warming Earth. I'm afraid of a catastrophically warming earth, about as much as I'm afraid of catastrophic pollution (think Chernobyl or Fukishima).

 

We are most definitely having an impact on this planet's climate. It's prudent to minimize that impact, and if we can do that via limitations in CO2 emissions, let's work on that. We made it to the Moon 66 years after the first ever powered flight. We're smart enough to figure this out.

 

No question that we are smart enough to figure this out. The problem is we have to many people, lawmakers in particular, who prefer to pretend nothing is happening or that it is some scientific conspiracy. That's the first problem we have to fix before we even have a chance to fix the global warming problem.

[AR Husker Fan]

The thought that keeps going through my head is that the Earth tends to have a sort of self-regulating mechanism. In past eras, extreme heating resulted in, and somehow triggered, global cooling and ice ages. Scientists don't yet understand it, but it makes me wonder whether we are setting up the world for a new, sudden ice age. Certainly not in our life times (and especially not Knapp's), but some day...