Global Warming

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SpidermanTuba, Feb 22, 2010.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    When anyone wants to talk about the science of global warming, please chime in here.

    Note that by science I do not mean any of the following:

    The politics of global warming

    News articles written about a journalists interpretation of something a global warming said or wrote

    Blogs, for or against, global warming

    Articles written by PR firms or political think tanks
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
  3. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Gullible warming is all about the politics.

    That's why those pushing the scam have to use duplicitous semantics, cherry pick data, destroy data they don't like, threaten and blackball publications that print authors and information they don't like, browbeat energy producers and pump politicians for more funding, so they don't have to go out and get real jobs producing something useful.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Bullshit. What they said was they found an error in calculations, and a misinterpretation of data. And that they did not, at present, know whether the IPCC prediction was too high or too low.

    Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk

    The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

    In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

    "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

    A study done by the authors of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, in real time observations, states that right now the sea level rise is right at the upper limit of the probability cone of the IPCC prediction.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Right. Dooodeee..... knows all about real jobs:lol:

    And the vast majority of the scientists in the world state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. But ol' Dooodeee..... knows better. Sure.........
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,952
    Can someone please perform the following scientific experiment:

    Take 2 100,000 gallon fishtanks, in the first fill it with Earth's current atmosphere, in the second Earth atmosphere then add a generous 100/PPM extra CO2, fuck it, let's go ape shit and add 200PPM of CO2

    See what, if anything, happens in the second tank.

    Can we do that? Is that so fucking difficult?

    Shouldn't the second tank generate spontaneous mini hurricanes and tornadoes and melt the glass?
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Frank, you silly retard, the experiment has been done repeatedly with the whole of the Earth's atmosphere. And when vast amounts of GHGs were added rapidly, the weather, indeed, went 'apeshit'.

    Methane Catastrophe

    Permian global warming would have had several additional consequences. It would have increased the rate of evaporation, making the continents more dry even while making the atmosphere more humid. It also would have increased the amount of water that the atmosphere could hold, and, because water itself is the dominant greenhouse gas, that water would have contributed to still further global warming. Cloud cover would have increased, but the role of clouds in determining climate is a matter of continuing discussion and much serious investigation among scientists, because clouds on one hand increase Earth's albedo (thus reflecting more solar radiation back into space) and cool the planet, and, on the other, increase the amount of warmth trapped beneath them. It is still unknown whether, on balance, clouds contribute more to planetary warming or cooling, though the answer is sure to be different for different types of clouds. As we have already seen, some clouds -- polar stratospheric clouds -- may have helped warm the polar regions at the beginning of the Eocene.

    More water vapor in the atmosphere, however, would have meant more precipitation, and this precipitation would have come in the form of more severe storms. Some continental areas therefore may have been subject to a kind of double whammy: drying out more because of increased evaporation, and then periodically getting hit by powerful storms. This is a prescription for drought punctuated by flash floods and rapid erosion, and would have imposed difficult living conditions on the many of the creatures of the affected areas. Other areas simply received more precipitation, which ameliorated harsher climates and made arid climates less so (Retallack, 2003).

    In South Africa's Karroo Basin, the additional precipitation may have been responsible for changing river dynamics and altering meadering rivers (which sweep in great curves across their valleys) to braided rivers (which are comprised of many interwoven strands). Although numerous factors control the specific shapes of rivers, the amount of flow is an important one, and braided rivers tend to indicate higher flow rates than meandering ones. The major extinction of terrestrial plants, whose root systems tend to anchor soils, is also a likely factor in altering river shape (Ward, 2000).


    Though the study of the effects of warming on terrestrial species (the Thomas, 2004, study) examines only present-day global warming, its application to the end-Permian is obvious. While the initial triggering mechanism is different -- the anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide in the present versus direct oceanic warming and indirect CO^2-induced global warming caused by Traps volcanism at the end of the Permian -- the effects would have been the same. The atmosphere warmed, and the ocean and the terrestrial surface with it. Huge numbers of species were not able to survive the changed conditions, and they died.
     
  9. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,952
    Do you know what an experiment is?
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,210
    Thanks Received:
    14,906
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,952
    1. You still don't know what an experiment is.

    2. You didn't even bother to read your article which blows up whatever stupid argument you thought you were making

    "It may be that Erwin realized that his model was severely limited by the great length of time over which he believed the extinction to have taken place. He thought that the extinction had taken place over a period of about three million years, "and perhaps as many as 8 million years" (1993, p. 226). Over such extended lengths of time, neither methane nor additional carbon dioxide would have had much effect -- if any -- on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide or ocean chemistry."

    3. We talked here at USMB and were going to send you a sunlamp so you can pretend you're always subject to Global Warming.
     

Share This Page