backtop


Print 117 comment(s) - last by Kurz.. on Aug 21 at 7:34 PM


  (Source: Rensselaer)
New State of the Climate report provides evidence

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its 2009 State of the Climate report, and found that the past nine years (between 2000 and 2009) have seen the warmest temperatures since the beginning of modern temperature records, and concluded that global warming is undeniable

The report included research on 48 countries conducted by more than 300 scientists using 700 weather stations. According to the report, the year's 2000 to 2009 were warmer than the 1990's, and the 1990's were warmer than the 1980's. In addition, each consecutive year from 2000 to 2009 was hotter than the year before.

Since the 1960's, there has been an average surface air temperature rise of 0.6 degrees. While this may seem small, the scientists noticed warming climate effects in the increased sea level and humidity, declining glaciers, snow and sea ice and increased lower atmospheric and land temperatures. Signs of warming has also been found as far as two kilometers down below surface in the oceans, since, according to the report, 90 percent of warming has been absorbed by the Earth's oceans.

"Don't be fooled by anyone telling you that global warming is caused by the urban heat island effect or problems with thermometers - the satellite data don't suffer from these issues," said Neville Nicholls, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Nicholls also noted that since the satellite record began in 1979, the warming trend has been "identical" for thermometer and satellite data. 

Australia, in particular, was hit by three noteworthy heat waves in 2009. These occurred in the months of January, August and November. January's heat wave claimed hundreds of lives due to the heat and brushfires. August's broke heat records, and November's caused the city of Adelaide to witness eight consecutive days above 35 degrees. 

While warming continues to show its presence, cold spells are still expected to arise occasionally, but not often, according to the report. 

"The mid-Atlantic coast of the U.S. was extremely cold and snowy," the report stated. "At the same time, other regions were unusually warm and the globe as a whole had one of the warmest winters on record."

While this new report from the NOAA represents their firm stand on the side of global warming,not all scientists are pro warming. According to a report from the Canada Free Press, 31,486 Americans with science degrees (9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM and 12,714 BS or equivalent) have "signed on" with the Global Warming Petition Project, which sends the message that "the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not the issue
By Spivonious on 8/5/2010 11:43:20 AM , Rating: 5
I think most reasonable people agree that Earth's temperatures are rising. The important piece, which is as of yet unknown, is whether or not human-released greenhouse gases are to blame. There are many studies indicating that many other factors contribute greenhouse gases naturally (e.g. cattle), and others that indicate warming is a function of solar activity, and still others that claim the warming is simply part of a natural cycle between ice ages and tropical ages.

We need to construct scientific experiments to test the various factors before coming to the conclusion that the global warming being experienced is something unnatural.




RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By YashBudini on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/2010 3:10:43 PM , Rating: 5
the raising of cattle can certainly be connected to human activity.

but you lose credibility when you try to claim that there is something "unnatural" about eating animals.

We evolved to eat fucking animals. This is undeniable. no way in hell the apes that climbed down from the trees and stuck to eating grapes and berries would have ever achieved the necessary protein compliment to sustain the evolving human brain.

IN FACT, the only way that we now have nearly comparable protein compliments in plant matter (as we find in meat) is due to our generations of human cultivation of plant matter, FOR OUR BENEFIT. Humans surviving purely on flora is in no way "natural."

"Morals" about eating animals? wtf.

Does the ave. American diet contain too much eat? pretty much. Is the ave american population compared to the world population, and our typical dietary compliment a huge factor when you consider the world population? I'm not so sure, but I'm inclined to say "not likely."


RE: Not the issue
By ClownPuncher on 8/5/2010 3:56:30 PM , Rating: 5
To be honest, I've been eating bacon for every meal for 16 years and I can move objects with my mind.


RE: Not the issue
By quiksilvr on 8/5/2010 4:38:39 PM , Rating: 5
I'll have what he's having.


RE: Not the issue
By HostileEffect on 8/5/2010 6:10:49 PM , Rating: 1
Same here, ketogenics FTW.


RE: Not the issue
By jmunjr on 8/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By gixser on 8/5/2010 4:21:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We evolved to eat fucking animals.


Can't we at least wait until they have finished?


RE: Not the issue
By Suntan on 8/5/2010 9:25:38 PM , Rating: 5
Ah, but they taste much better when they are all sweaty...

Anyway, most every documentary I've seen on Animal Planet shows that other carnivores on this planet tend to kill there prey by clamping down on their throats and slowly suffocating them over the span of a couple minutes before promptly eating them in front of their family/group...

...But we're the unethical ones.

-Suntan


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
The noble preying mantis will get his head bitten off whilst in the act. The much larger female having done nothing but eat will devour the male mid-coitus.


RE: Not the issue
By spoerad1 on 8/5/2010 4:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
while i myself eat meat and agree that it is natural, what is natural has little to do with what is moral or ethical. Its natural for animals to do many things unthinkable to us. How ever this line of thinking quickly snowballs, where do we stop. Why is wrong to eat animals? if its because they suffer during the raising and slaughter process, we can prevent that, if its simply morally wrong to eat other living creatures than you could add flora to the list of living beings and say eating is morally wrong. Not that any of this is really has any validity of others but ethics is a tricky, subjective matter at best.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was actually saying that what is unnatural is that we have morals at all. Instead we should live like the animals just killing each other off in droves so there would be no advancement in society and we would be living like we were back in the stone age. Oh wait, some still live that way.


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that eating MEAT was unnatural.
But it certainly can be said that eating TOO MUCH meat is unnatural. Especially when in our society, we have no natuaral predators who will hunt down and eat the fat ones.
That is what I was referring to when I mentioned morals. We do not believe that murder should be allowed as a society. Animals murder themselves all the time. That is how carnivores get their food in most cases.

I think people missed the part about me agreeing with the OP's premise.

I love meat. I don't wish the cow to be extinct. But without human intervention, I believe it would be.

And that is why I said 'cattle' shouldn't be placed in the 'natural' category of possible global warming causes.


RE: Not the issue
By Aenslead on 8/6/2010 10:35:13 AM , Rating: 1
At the risk of stating the obvious, I beleive he meant that 40% of methane gas in the atmosphere as of now is created by cows. They fart a lot. Specially with the diet they are fed with.


RE: Not the issue
By The Raven on 8/11/2010 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically, I pass 40% more gas after eating delicoius beef jerky. Where will it end?!!


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/2010 12:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a great argument for why the global temperatures rising is unnatural:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c... (From David MacKay's (University of Cambridge Physics professor) book, "Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air".)
Start at the bottom, "The climate-change motivation."
Here's a small excerpt:

"We start with the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations are rising. Figure 1.4 shows measurements of the CO2 concentration in the air from the year 1000AD to the present. Some “sceptics” have asserted that the recent increase in CO2 concentration is a natural phenomenon. Does “sceptic” mean “a person who has not even glanced at the data”? Don’t you think, just possibly, something may have happened between 1800AD and 2000AD? Something that was not part of the natural processes present in the preceding thousand years?
Something did happen, and it was called the Industrial Revolution."

It is my great hope that after this read you will be convinced that human development has initiated global warming.


RE: Not the issue
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:45:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh the polite global warming alarmist.

Tell me then, when David MacKay states that a "skeptic" is "a person who has not even glanced at the data" did he ignore the entire 1970's cooling cycle when analyzing manmade global warming? You know, back when a family sedan gave off 100 times more CO2 than a Hummer? Back when coal made up 90+% of our energy supply? Back when scientists were telling us that we were entering a new ice age?

I'll entertain this dope smoking hippie professor's opinion when he stops insulting those who would argue against it.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Ammohunt on 8/5/2010 1:27:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, are you saying you'd rather believe scientists from the 1970's than scientists in today's day and age?


So are you saying that trust modern scientists over the Einstein's of the last century? Besides that my answer would be yes! Political agenda's weren't near as rampant in science as they are today.


RE: Not the issue
By Paj on 8/9/2010 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the manhattan project was politics free!


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:18:13 PM , Rating: 1
Well my question would be; What initiated global warming after all of the past Ice Ages? Man was not here to do it, so I guess it was the dinosaurs, oops they died during the ice ages, or well before the ice age, so I guess it was the mammoths, but they died during the ice ages also so it wasn't them.

Well I'm all out of ideas what caused the warming after the ice ages, seems everything was dead except the sun.


RE: Not the issue
By roadhog1974 on 8/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...


RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:08:38 AM , Rating: 2
Weather changes, changes to the chemical layout of the atmosphere, etc.

For instance, the last Ice Age was caused due to Antartica and South America still being joined together, preventing the warm waters of the Atlantic from interacting with the Pacific, which caused a cooling feedback loop. The Ice Age ended when Antartica and South America split up. In short: Weather patterns have a major effect on global temperatures.

Likewise, previous warming cycles have been connected to changes in the layout of the earths atmosphere. In particular, theres a great deal of coverage between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures...


RE: Not the issue
By DarthKaos on 8/5/2010 12:59:48 PM , Rating: 5
I think it is funny that anyone can stand firmly on one side of this issue or the other at all. We have been on this earth for such a short amount of time. The planet may have destroyed and rebuilt itself hundreds or thousands of times before humans or this generation of humans existed.

So there was a cold snap in the 70's. This does not mean people are wrong about the earth warming now. Maybe the cold snap in the 70's would have been much worse if there had not been so much man made CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. Maybe the man made CO2 caused the normal cooling and warming cycle to be disrupted and we needed to have a small ice age to avoid a severe warming. Maybe we are not affecting the earth as much as we think and the cooling and warming would have taken place regardless of human intervention.

No matter what the cause scientists from all over the world using sophisticated equipment have discovered that for the last 30 years average temperatures have been going up. I don't know what that means but I know that we should prepare for warmer climates globally or at least have some sort of plan b in case things to get much warmer.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Da W on 8/5/2010 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 1
Is burning oil a good thing? No? Then try to burn as little as possible, that's all.


RE: Not the issue
By ppardee on 8/5/2010 3:53:09 PM , Rating: 4
Burning oil is bad? How so? There are some that believe that it is the only worth-while contribution humanity can make to the future of the world. Burning oil releases carbon. All life (that I know of, could be wrong) on the planet is carbon-based. Carbon is a finite resource. We are freeing it from its rocky tomb (you like that? I'm a poet!) making it more available for living organisms to use.

Saying that burning oil is bad is like saying chocolate is bad. Just because your mother (or Al Gore) told you it is so, doesn't make it so. Chocolate is a very nutrient dense food with lots of happy vitamins and minerals. Oil is dark like chocolate... need I say more?


RE: Not the issue
By gixser on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/5/2010 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 5
Except CO2 levels were what? 8 times during the Dino age.
That time period had great levels of diversity in the ecosystem. CO2 is plant food pure and simple.

With that plants getting what they need we get energy from them. Win win

I still don't get how something that makes up .03% of the atmosphere lead to global warming.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/5/2010 7:36:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well the unexplained fact they never want to discuss is that 8 times greater CO2 concentration in the past. The simple fact that when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere existed we also had one of the highest growth rates for plants and not a total global meltdown killing all life on earth that their models say will happen at levels 2 times what they are now.

If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?

Maybe the CO2 levels increasing and warmer temperatures in the last 200 years coincide with the industrial revolution because the warmer temperatures allowed man to be more productive with his time instead of spending most of it trying to gather food and fuel to survive the long hard winters. Just something to ponder.


RE: Not the issue
By Laitainion on 8/6/2010 4:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
One possibility is that global conditions were different in general, the location of the continents was completely different, air/sea currents were different. Who can say what effect that would had? I agree, the current predictions that doubling CO2 levels will kill everything is likely wrong as I think there are too many variables involved but I don't agree that comparing it to a different situation from millions of years ago is proof of this.


RE: Not the issue
By JediJeb on 8/6/2010 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I have been saying for a while now. There are just too many variables to consider to place one above all others as causing changes in climate. Solar output varies, our orbit varies slightly, heck it was even shown that after the earth quake in Haiti and Chile that the rotational period of the earth changed minutely. Now with a study pointing to soot being stronger at warming than CO2, what else are we not seeing that can cause it. How much do we know about warming periods after ice ages in ancient times to say wether or not temps will rise quickly or slowly? One article this year even pointed out that tree rings do not necessarily grow faster in warmer years but seem to also be dependant on the levels of cosmic radiation. Who knows, what we are experiencing now may be perfectly normal and yet we are trying to stop it.

Reduce pollution for the sake of a cleaner world, reduce energy usage for the sake of saving money and prolonging our supplies. It has been warmer in the past, it will be warmer in the future even if man disappeared from the face of the earth today. We need to learn how to adapt to the changes more than worry about our tiny contribution if any to the changes.


RE: Not the issue
By gamerk2 on 8/8/2010 3:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong conclusion. For one, its a known fact that weather patterns were significantly different in the past. For example, Dinosaurs didn't need to worry about coastal flooding overruning the world centers of commerce. Likewise, with so much plant life, the sustained warmer temperatures wouldn't have had a major effect on the food chain. [The opposite is true now, especially considering we already have a food supply problem...]

quote:
If doubling or tripling the levels of CO2 will cause the world to turn into deserts and the oceans to cover most of the land mass, then why did it not do that when the levels were many many times more that the supposed critical level in the models now?


Different weather patterns. Remember, the geology of the contenints is totally different now, and the land/ocean layout plays a significant role in global weather patterns.


RE: Not the issue
By cerx on 8/6/2010 11:56:38 AM , Rating: 2
We've also had several ice ages and other climate changes since then ... do you think humanity (as we know it) could survive another? Not saying a thinning of the herd wouldn't be good ... I just think it's already too cold where I live ...


RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/21/2010 7:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
Then move?


RE: Not the issue
By the3monkies on 8/6/2010 1:21:21 AM , Rating: 3
I too believe that this AGW stuff is nonsense; but I recognize that a little proactive ass-covering is called for just in case Florida disappears under the waves. So what I've done is construct my argument in such a way that regardless of what global temps do, I can never be wrong. (You might object that this is the position taken by most of us AGW deniers, but I think I deserve credit for putting it all in black and white.) Here it is:

Scenario 1) global temps don't rise, therefore the theory is obviously wrong and I'm right.

Scenario 2) global temps do rise, in which case I'll explain it away as just another example of natural variation in the earth's climate and not proof of AGW, and therefore I'm right again.

So take that you liberal, tree-hugging, Frenchie-loving fairies - I am invincible!


RE: Not the issue
By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 5:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, I'm extremely liberal and I don't believe in AGW. Neither do most liberals I have talked with.

The fact is that global temperatures RISE AND FALL.... they don't stay the same forever, they are constantly varying with various things.

It could also be that the temperatures are RISING because we are still coming out of a time when the world was COOLER than it should be.


RE: Not the issue
By the3monkies on 8/18/2010 12:36:17 AM , Rating: 3
Yes but only liberals believe this nonsense.

In any case, I think it's our duty not only to expose the lie of AGW, we also need to explain why practically every climate scientists on the planet is deliberately deceiving the public. I mean, this is serious stuff! I can think of no other instance where the vast majority of the professionals in any scientific discipline have set out to deliberately and maliciously spread obvious lies. So either all these PhD's and technicians are too dumb to see what is obvious to non-scientist, casual web surfers like us, or there is a vast conspiracy to delude mankind. I know that greed plays a role here, but surely, given the extent of the fraud, something more sinister is going on!


RE: Not the issue
By hashish2020 on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By cocoman on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Kurz on 8/5/2010 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
We did look at the variables and the way climate scientists record and manipulate data is shameful.


RE: Not the issue
By zinfamous on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By hr824 on 8/6/2010 10:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about not looking at the data, the 1970's were a bit cooler then the 60's because of el nina but was still warmer than the 50s , 40s 30s, ect.

"Back then" there were only 4 papers the predicted global cooling and one of them made the news but there were 40 papers predicting global warming but hey lets just ignore them.

Oh and lets not forget there are 2 billion + more people in the world then in the 70's and oddly enough the warming seems to follow the rise in population ahhh must be a coincidence.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By chripuck on 8/5/2010 12:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
A relatively constant level of CO2? Do you even understand what you're talking about?

Research oh I don't know, the entire age of the dinosaurs. The Earth was a giant greenhouse for MILLIONS OF YEARS before man ever climbed out of the trees.


RE: Not the issue
By tbhuang2 on 8/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not the issue
By Schrag4 on 8/5/2010 1:45:00 PM , Rating: 1
I think you missed the point. Scientists tell us that the atmostphere used to have 10x the concentration of CO2 (you know, all the CO2 that's trapped in the form of oil) compared to today, and life THRIVED under these conditions. Nobody's claiming that it's not warming. We're just not convinced that it's a bad thing. Many of us aren't convinced that the CO2 concentration has a huge influence on global temperatures either (but instead it's minor). It seems that it was 'better' for life on this planet back then, so why would it be 'worse' this time around?


RE: Not the issue
By Exodite on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By jbartabas on 8/5/2010 1:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's important is what we're doing to combat the problem, regardless of cause.


You can't combat a problem efficiently if you don't know its cause. Not knowing the cause limits you to an adaptation strategy, and pretty much rules out any mitigation potential. But even considering the adaptation approach only, how do you scale your effort if you don't know the cause, hence can't project the amplitude of the problems to come. It seems that there isn't much you can do without knowing the cause.


RE: Not the issue
By theapparition on 8/5/2010 2:21:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What's important is what we're doing to combat the problem, regardless of cause.

Are you that dense?

If it's not caused by human activity, then there is very little chance that we have any mechanism to combat it.

Tell me, what are you going to do when a Volcano erupts and temporarily emits 100X the current level of CO2? Anyway to stop that?


RE: Not the issue
By Exodite on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By CarbonJoe on 8/5/2010 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Tell me, what are you going to do when a Volcano erupts and temporarily emits 100X the current level of CO2? Anyway to stop that?


The best way I can think of is to fill all of the volcanoes with lawyers and politicians... It's worth a shot, right?


RE: Not the issue
By sweetspot on 8/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 8/5/2010 6:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Stop living in denial that we humans did not severly alter the planets eco system, we have/did.


You know you people talk as if we invaded this planet from space. That we are not, in fact, indigenous to Earth. And that we, unlike every other life form here, don't have the right to live and breed and impact the eco-system. News flash, EVERY creature that lives on Earth "alters" the planet in some way. Just because man has a conscience suddenly means we can't live here too?

There's no going back, so just deal with it. Sorry but it's the truth. Even if we were all to accept the premise that this terrible climate ( is it honestly THAT bad by the way? ) is all our fault. The only possible solution would be to reduce the population by hundreds of billions of people and revert to a pre-Industrialized society.

Now I know that to YOU people that sounds like a great idea. But to the rest of us, you're freaking nuts. I'll happily accept all the greatness and achievement man has created so far for a potential and unproven 3 degree average increase in temperatures. Or carbon levels that don't even come close to what they were BEFORE MAN EVEN WALKED THE EARTH.

Just take a pill or something kid. Earth is fine! It's purpose is to support life, and it's doing a damn nice job of that.


RE: Not the issue
By Dorkyman on 8/7/2010 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 1
You mean "hundred of millions," don't you?

"Hundreds of billions" is a fragment that would accurately apply to the amount of money our Messiah in the White House has wasted. So far.


RE: Not the issue
By Magius on 8/17/2010 8:48:39 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the hundreds of billions wasted by the Messiah previous to the current one, right? Right?


RE: Not the issue
By NullSubroutine on 8/5/2010 10:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
I could have swore that 2007 or 2008 was one of the coldest on record...maybe it was northern hemisphere only.


RE: Not the issue
By rhjames on 8/6/2010 2:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly right, though the magnitude of the warming (0.7 degC over the past 160 years) may be overstated.
So far, all the mathematical models have failed to match real data - eg they don't predict the lack of warming over the past 12 years - 1998 was still the warmest year in very recent times. There's normally three stages in testing a model,(1) use early data to create the model. (2) See whether the model predicts the remaining data. (3) If so, see if it predicts data as it happens now. The models fail.


RE: Not the issue
By cerx on 8/6/2010 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, the REAL issue is that its happening, whether it is man-made or not. And if we don't do anything to stop it (burning less oil for example) then bad shit could happen (idk, like an ice age).

I think it's hilarious how many arguments there are on this site about man-made vs. natural ... and how ignorant most of the arguers are ... when the real issue is even if it is natural, the "natural" result is a drastic change in weather that would kill almost everyone. Solid.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki