Great Barrier Reef: not really dying?

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by RichConley
Thats just a huge cop-out.

We stopped being a natural population about 500 years ago. We dont even feel evolutionary pressures on us anymore.

Actually we do... our brains are still changing (structure), the appendix and little toe will be a thing of the past in a few centuries or more and we are growing taller by the year.

As far as a natural population... any population is 'natural' unless its created mechanically and we are not doing that yet. If my natural, you mean unhealthy or too large, well thats natural too and eventually things will balance out.

Its called climatology....there are ways of calculating historical temperatures...if you don't believe it....do your research...by the way there is some temperature data that goes back well more than 50 years. Its accelerating...face it. We'll live...I just feel sorry for people living close to sea level. The world's gonna end...that's good rationale for sitting with our hands in our pockets while fat cats are DRIVING species into extinction. Its already clear you don't care by your lack of knowledge on the subject. The bleaching of our coral reefs is not highly understood...but I'm on the side that wants to help fix it.

50 years is hardly a good sample when compared to 10000 or more years. While a warming trend can be seen, its causes are guesswork until a statistically significant data set can be done.

You can see the effects of global warming every Hurricane season and every summer across America and Europe as each year the heat the forest fire and the droughts go to some new record levels. Its only a matter of a few years, before we get the "perfect disaster" something like the Midwest with 130 Deg Temp and a massive power outgage hitting from Air Conditioner Overload. This would be like what happened in France but only worst. It's not till something like this happens or say a 250 MPH Hurricane that goverments will stop debating and start doing something about it.

Funny... the Weather Service and plenty of forecasters, weather scientists etc have said over and over again the hurricanes are in a cycle, a natural cycle, similar to what happened into the 60s'-70's. It happens every 30 years or so.

OK. I just don't see the science in calling crude oil the MOST natural substance. Sure its the carbon sink for the carbon cycle that is a very natural process that we are upsetting, but wouldn't water probably be the most important (I said it, uneqivocally important) substance for life. Just because oil is natural doesn't make burning it natural. I understand that there is less respect for science and more acceptance for "pseudo"-science that supports biased agendas...however, isn't chalking up the disruption of the entire biosphere by a single species worthy of concern?

We are recycling.... on a very long term scale. Oil is a renewable resource, it just takes a very long time for it to replenish.

Animals disrupt their biospheres all the time.. many animals are herd animals.. why do they herd?? Because they eat just about everything then move on. There are primates (other than us) who engage in warfare. There are numerous species who push others to and beyond extinction. Extinction is a natural occurance and happens with or without our activties.

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by HippieSmell


Yeah, it's been a fine line. You aren't the anti-christ? Dangit.

Do you know where he is?

No I don't sorry to say..... but I hear his name is Eric Cartman and he doesn't like Hippies

[reeformadness]

To Dave J. what's your point, wrong, right but wrong, and just plain evil... we're not losing our little toe...its called natural selection, what's selecting against it? if we're beyond natural selection then we aren't natural), we do have significant data sets that go back more than 10000 years (climatology once again, look it up)....hurricane intensity is significantly correlated with global sea surface temperatures which are rising at an unprecedented rate (although you are correct about the multidecadal hurricane cycles) I have a good paper on this....the last statement is just an example of natural human selfishness

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by reeformadness
To Dave J. what's your point, wrong, right but wrong, and just plain evil... we're not losing our little toe...its called natural selection, what's selecting against it? if we're beyond natural selection then we aren't natural), we do have significant data sets that go back more than 10000 years (climatology once again, look it up)....hurricane intensity is significantly correlated with global sea surface temperatures which are rising at an unprecedented rate (although you are correct about the multidecadal hurricane cycles) I have a good paper on this....the last statement is just an example of natural human selfishness

What we have that goes back that long is not precise enough and consists mainly of biological evidence such as tree rings etc and those are impacted by other factors such as drought etc as much as temp. They are good tools for estimates, but nothing pinpoint. Also the hurricane data is only really accurate back to the 60's or 70's. Before that all we really have is a best guess at wind speeds and intensity etc. Much too little to start claiming findings on.

A recent quote about Hurricane intensity...

Some scientists still think it's too premature to make any definitive links between sea surface temperatures and hurricane intensity.

"We simply don't have enough data yet," said Thomas Huntington in of the U.S. Geological Survey. "Category 5 hurricanes don't come around very often, so you need the benefit of a much longer time series to look back and say 'Yup, there has been an increase.'"

Huntington is the author of a recent review of more than 100 peer-reviewed studies showing that although many aspects of the global water cycle � including precipitation, evaporation and sea surface temperatures � have increased or risen, the trend cannot be consistently correlated with increases in the frequency or intensity of storms or floods over the past century.

Huntington's study was announced this week and is published in the current issue of the Journal of Hydrology.

Link to the Journal if your interested in reading his paper.

Journal Link

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by DaveJ
As far as a natural population... any population is 'natural' unless its created mechanically and we are not doing that yet. If my natural, you mean unhealthy or too large, well thats natural too and eventually things will balance out.

But you must realize that there are huge diffrences from our species to every other species on the planet? How can you say we are no diffrent than anything else in nature? Show me one example of a self aware animal in nature. Or how about an animal that has a language, art, complex tools, the ability to leave to go anywhere in this world (and even beyond to space). No single organisim can give all those charcteristics like we can. And yet we still are no diffrent than anything else in nature? Humm, can't see your reasoning on this. Yes I guess we are all made of organic compunds, and are not mechanical. But would you consider:
* Americium symbol Am, atomic number 95
* Berkelium symbol Bk, atomic number 97
* Bohrium symbol Bh, atomic number 107
* Curium symbol Cm, atomic number 96
* Californium symbol Cf, atomic number 98
* Dubnium symbol Db, atomic number 105
* Einsteinium symbol Es, atomic number 99
* Fermium symbol Fm, atomic number 100
* Hassium symbol Hs, atomic number 108
* Lawrencium symbol Lr, atomic number 103
* Mendelevium symbol Md, atomic number 101
* Meitnerium symbol Mt, atomic number 109
* Neptunium symbol Np, atomic number 93
* Nobelium symbol No, atomic number 102
* Rutherfordium symbol Rf, atomic number 104
* Seaborgium symbol Sg, atomic number 106
* Darmstadtium symbol Ds, atomic number 110
* Roentgenium symbol Rg, atomic number 111
to be natural elements? They are made of the same protons neutrons, and electrons any other atom is made of. But do not occur in nature (they must be produced in a lab). I find your assertion that humans are natural as equaly rediculas as saying those elements are found in nature.

Beyond the argument that if man is natural or not we must say for the sake of argument that we are not. Because it is obvious we have a choice here. And to say we are just natural and go with the flow destroys this argument without reason or cause.

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by jent46bow
But you must realize that there are huge diffrences from our species to every other species on the planet? How can you say we are no diffrent than anything else in nature? Show me one example of a self aware animal in nature. Or how about an animal that has a language, art, complex tools, the ability to leave to go anywhere in this world (and even beyond to space). No single organisim can give all those charcteristics like we can. And yet we still are no diffrent than anything else in nature? Humm, can't see your reasoning on this. Yes I guess we are all made of organic compunds, and are not mechanical. But would you consider:
* Americium symbol Am, atomic number 95
* Berkelium symbol Bk, atomic number 97
* Bohrium symbol Bh, atomic number 107
* Curium symbol Cm, atomic number 96
* Californium symbol Cf, atomic number 98
* Dubnium symbol Db, atomic number 105
* Einsteinium symbol Es, atomic number 99
* Fermium symbol Fm, atomic number 100
* Hassium symbol Hs, atomic number 108
* Lawrencium symbol Lr, atomic number 103
* Mendelevium symbol Md, atomic number 101
* Meitnerium symbol Mt, atomic number 109
* Neptunium symbol Np, atomic number 93
* Nobelium symbol No, atomic number 102
* Rutherfordium symbol Rf, atomic number 104
* Seaborgium symbol Sg, atomic number 106
* Darmstadtium symbol Ds, atomic number 110
* Roentgenium symbol Rg, atomic number 111
to be natural elements? They are made of the same protons neutrons, and electrons any other atom is made of. But do not occur in nature (they must be produced in a lab). I find your assertion that humans are natural as equaly rediculas as saying those elements are found in nature.

Beyond the argument that if man is natural or not we must say for the sake of argument that we are not. Because it is obvious we have a choice here. And to say we are just natural and go with the flow destroys this argument without reason or cause.

There are huge differences and many similarities.. We are very close in dna and genome structure to some of the primates such as chimps and the like. Some would argue that we are not even the most intelligent animal on the planet.

Give me the definition of self-aware you are using and I'll take a stab at that one.

Language.. animals communicate with each other all the time. Its not spoken, but who's to say a grunt or click etc is not language. Just because we can't understand it, doesn't mean they don't communicate. Dolphins do it, whales do it (they even sing) even insects do it such as bees etc. A honeybee can give precise directions to his hive-mates by a series of shakes, turns and wing-beats. Art... give me a definition of art.. I know several chimps have become painters, you can even buy their works. On their own though, and for 'enjoyment' purposes I can't come up with one, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. Complex tools... many primates use tools. Sticks, rocks and such, they also use them as weapons on occasion. If you're talking about machines.. we are the only ones so far that we know of. Ability to travel.. Albatrosses cover a wide distance, so do whales etc lots of animals have large migration patterns. Some even are able to move from their primary environments from water to land and back etc. Space no.... we hold claim to that one alone thus far.

As far as the elements.. I consider those to be artificial. They exist, but are artificial. Humans, if you believe in evolution, rose from the apes.. we are natural and we are animals. We even have our own classification.

What sets us apart is our ability to adapt and create so well, its no different than the apes only in its scale and complexity.

[Nabber86]

OK, so I was trolling. I thought this great debate was dying and was just tying to stir the pot a bit. Sorry for that.

Anyway, I have a really serious question that would help me to understand the the heart of this thread. Sorry if that is a self centered concept, but I would like to understand Global Warming!

I just have one simple question. One that the scientists amongst us should be able to help with. It has to do with "measurements" and how fast the world is really changing temperatures. Thusly, "how exactly do the climate scientists measure the earth's temperature"?

I measure temperture a lot. I brew beer in 5-gallons containers and measure the temperature of the brew. I lagar the beer in a spare frigde with a temperature contoller and use several high tech temperature probes equipped with data loggers to monitor the progress. I have a reef tank with several other temperture measuring/control/logging devices. I have a huge garden, keep track of the outside temperature, and stay awake at night after watching the local weather forcast worrying about frost. I routinly measure the temperature of groundwater (and many other parameters) while monitoring the condition of the groundwater with respect to the cleanup of toxic substances. Even with probably close to a thousand dollars of equipment at my disposal I know that although it is a simple concept, accurate temperature measurement is ellusive. No data that I have ever collected agrees beyond a decent attemp to gte a handle on the situation.

So the direct question is this. How exactly does one get an accurate estimation of the earths temperature? How many measurements are taken? Where are the measurements taken? In the atmosphere? In the oceans? At what depths or altitudes? All over the globe, or just the poles and the equator? I would like to see one study that reveals the actual data points. Not one that just states, "According to the data that we collected, we have come to the conclusion that the earth's temperature is rising". Gimme the data points and I will draw my own conclusions. Is that too much to ask?

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by Nabber86
OK, so I was trolling. I thought this great debate was dying and was just tying to stir the pot a bit. Sorry for that.

Anyway, I have a really serious question that would help me to understand the the heart of this thread. Sorry if that is a self centered concept, but I would like to understand Global Warming!

I just have one simple question. One that the scientists amongst us should be able to help with. It has to do with "measurements" and how fast the world is really changing temperatures. Thusly, "how exactly do the climate scientists measure the earth's temperature"?

I measure temperture a lot. I brew beer in 5-gallons containers and measure the temperature of the brew. I lagar the beer in a spare frigde with a temperature contoller and use several high tech temperature probes equipped with data loggers to monitor the progress. I have a reef tank with several other temperture measuring/control/logging devices. I have a huge garden, keep track of the outside temperature, and stay awake at night after watching the local weather forcast worrying about frost. I routinly measure the temperature of groundwater (and many other parameters) while monitoring the condition of the groundwater with respect to the cleanup of toxic substances. Even with probably close to a thousand dollars of equipment at my disposal I know that although it is a simple concept, accurate temperature measurement is ellusive. No data that I have ever collected agrees beyond a decent attemp to gte a handle on the situation.

So the direct question is this. How exactly does one get an accurate estimation of the earths temperature? How many measurements are taken? Where are the measurements taken? In the atmosphere? In the oceans? At what depths or altitudes? All over the globe, or just the poles and the equator? I would like to see one study that reveals the actual data points. Not one that just states, "According to the data that we collected, we have come to the conclusion that the earth's temperature is rising". Gimme the data points and I will draw my own conclusions. Is that too much to ask?

before I respond to this post I would like to reply to the one before it. First my example of self aware may be bad since no one can 100% prove that animals are not self aware. But for me to be self aware you must exhibit all of the following:
1) a concept of death....not that you just don't want to die but what it accually means to die
2) an understanding that you are diffrent than any other of the same species and same sex
3) exhibit emotion (some would argue that emotion is emarly a byproduct of being self aware)

Some animals may exhibit some traits towards a few of these items. But as far as I know none exhibit all of them.

Also you state that our DNA is very close to primates. I would go ahead and extind this to say our DNA is accually very close to every living ANIMAL. But many beleave that DNA is the building block of life. So if this is true what differs DNA from the protons and electrons in those elements. Are those not the building blocks of atoms? I am sorry this is a sorta cryptic argument but I guess what I am saying is if you include us in nature you must include every single thing that exist part of nature. Because after all we are made of the same things. We all have the same origin long LONG ago (big bang).

now in reply to the quoted post:
You have bite off a huge topic. So be prepared for a very long post.

To describe this (in a readers digest version) I am going to follow you through the path sun light energy would take once it hits our earth.

When this energy comes to earth at first some of it is immedaitly reflected back to space (about 30% infact). This is called the albedo effect. It is due to the light hitting reflective surfaces like white clouds, ice caps, snow, even water can contribute.

This is a photo to show you how bright snow covered areas reflect a lot of light/energy back to space.
One thing scientest are worried about is as tempratures increase the decrease in snow could reduce the albedo effect and cause more energy to hit the earth. But at the same time a warmer temp may cause more evaporation which increases cloud coverage. and thus increases the albedo. Of course clouds can warm us also (think about how a blanket works). So there are a lot of things that we don't know how in the end it will effect us.

Now lets talk about the 70% of the energy from the sun that does get to earth. This energy is what is called shortwave energy. CO2 and H2O have nothing to do with the energy at this point. these GHG's (green house gases) have no effect on shortwave radiation. The prominate gas in the atmosphere that does have an effect is O3 (ozone). Think of this as earths natural sun screen.

Now what energy that does not get hit by all those things accually hits the earths surface. This causes a warming effect as you might have all expeinced while standing in the sun. The earth warms and this warmth is released as Infared Radiation (long wave radiation). Now I am going to try to not get too scientific but the amount of IR radiaiton released is based on the temprature of the object and the amount of short wave that is entering the object. Of course nothing quite fits this ideal model but things come very very close. What you really need to know is basicly the amount of energy hitting the earth's surface (shortwave and longwave) is equal to to the amount being released in longwave radiation.

So as this earth radiates long wave radiation this radation is absorbed by GHG's. The most prominent in the atmospher is water. The second most abundent gas is of course our friend CO2. As these gasses collect long wave radiation they emit it. This emition of infared radiation (heat) goes partly back to space and partly back to earth. This is infact the green house effect. As said earlier the increase in temprature may cause an increase in cloud coverage from higher evaporation rates. Well since H2O is the single most important GHG it may also increase the green house effect in itself. Once again another feed back we are not sure 100% how it will effect everything.

The green house effect is a very very good thing. It is the reason why life on earth can exist. It took a very long time for earth to get in semi balance with this effect.

A few things we know FOR SURE. CO2 will absurb and release long wave radiation. So it is a GHG, and can increase temp. We just don't know how the other factors will counter act or increase this effect.

Here are a few graphs pulled from wikipedia:




^^ notice how we have never reached CO2 concentrations like we are at now
SOLAR OUTPUT CYCLE:




here is the wikipedia artical for your inspection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Now to your other question. How most of this info is collected. The amounts of atmospheric gas concentrations are collected from air pockets that have been frozen in ice. They remove large ice 'cores' and look for these pockets and then analize the gas concentrations within them.

Now adays concentrations are measured from islands that are as far from civilzation as possible. At these islands they take air samples. They may not be perfect but they are as far from anything and as close as we can get. There are other methods in development for monitoring from space but these methods are by far unproven and unused in most creditibale research right now.

Tempratures are currently measured from space though. They measure the long wave radation that is being radiaiated from earth. The albedo effect has little effect on these collections because that is a reflection of short wave radiation. These are considered to be very very accurate meassurements. Here is a map of such temprature collection:



I hope that anwsers most of your question....please feel free to ask or correct me on anything (such a long post it would not suprise me if I made a mistake). Thanks for reading.

[edr42]

Alright, i'll pitch in with a little theory. All these predictions are based on what data has already been collected, but there are so many unknown factors involved in the processes contributing to a global temperature rise that the vast majority of these will turn out to be wrong, and the people who put out this data know this, and will be continually modifying their predictions as more data comes in. The people who know the facts and what is really going on are quitely collecting their data and gathering observations, not throwing out wild statements to the media. You can safely disregard anything that comes from the media, because almost all of it will be wildly exaggereted from what was said just to make a good story. So take everything with a grain of salt, from both sides of the debate.

The other thing that most people seem to ignore is the fact that fossil fuels will soon become used up. All the major petroleum companies know this and are quietly preparing the change to other fuel sources. At the moment there is a massive boom in the number of mining and oil companies recruiting uni students. They are snapping up all the geologist and environmental scientists they can get their hands on, and for good reason. The most probably outcome is that coal and oil will become obsolete in around 40 years, and by that time hydrogen and ethanol will become the dominant fuel sources, as well as solar, and geothermal energy powerstations. This will dramatically reduce the greenhouse gas emission rates.
The damage has already been done, but no one knows just how bad it will be.
All this stuff about the increasing hurrucane intensities has only really been picked up after New Orleans was hit, but take a look around the rest of the world and you will see that they are not really that rare. So far this year Australia has had 3 category 5 cyclones hit the coast, one of these (called larry) hit where i am living at the moment, and it seems that no one is really surprised. There have been two big category 5 cyclones hit Queensland (in Aus) in the last two years.

It is undeniable that the planet is changing because of our actions, but it is still way to early to declare the end of the world.
Also it would be interesting to know how many people posting here have degrees in science or work in the industry?

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by edr42
The other thing that most people seem to ignore is the fact that fossil fuels will soon become used up. All the major petroleum companies know this and are quietly preparing the change to other fuel sources. At the moment there is a massive boom in the number of mining and oil companies recruiting uni students. They are snapping up all the geologist and environmental scientists they can get their hands on, and for good reason. The most probably outcome is that coal and oil will become obsolete in around 40 years, and by that time hydrogen and ethanol will become the dominant fuel sources, as well as solar, and geothermal energy powerstations. This will dramatically reduce the greenhouse gas emission rates.
The damage has already been done, but no one knows just how bad it will be.

Also it would be interesting to know how many people posting here have degrees in science or work in the industry?

This point is my single biggest reason on why we should move from fossile fuels. The longer we wait the harder the switch is going to be. It is not like that if we can delay it long enough we wont have to switch, it is just a matter of time. And also the longer we wait the damage just continues to build up. But I have stated all this in earlier post too.

For your last bit. I accually work for the EPA/NFS (National Forest Service). And although my branch does not make suggestion on global warming we do a lot of data collection. We also are developing new way to monitor air quality. My job there consisist of stuff as boring as fixing the servers, and administration. But the parts that I really enjoy is I help build the software that these new monitoring equitment runs on. So I do infact work in the industry, even though you may not call me a scientist I talk with them everyday, and am constantly exposed to this kind of information.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by DaveJ
Actually we do... our brains are still changing (structure), the appendix and little toe will be a thing of the past in a few centuries or more

Do you have any evidense of that? Why would that be so? Neither of those are breeding pressures. You dont pick a mate because of the size of her pinky toe, and nobody dies from having a pinky toe thats too big. Theres no evolutionary pressure on that.

As to the appendix, almost nobody dies because of appendix failure anymore, and you certainly dont choose a mate based on her appendix.

These things may have been evolutionarily relevant to things a thousand years ago, but they arent any more.

FWIW, not even serious diseases like diabetes (which I have), MS, etc are evolutionary selectors anymore. Why? Because theyre not killing their victims before breeding age.

and we are growing taller by the year.

A good deal of that is the increased amounts of food we eat.

The rest of it? I would call it selective breeding, and not really evolution. Women like taller men. You're no more likely to survive being tall than you are being short, so while it is a breeding selector, its not really an evolutionary selector.

The problem is, not enough of us die for us to have any real evolutionary pressures. Our phenotype is being shaped more by culture, than it is by any environmental pressure.

[Nabber86]

Jent46Bow,

Those sure are some pretty pictures that you posted and I am sure they go a long way to to impress the uneducated masses if they were shown on CNN.

But they do not really answer the question. How did they actually measure the temperature of the earth in several of the cartoons? I especially love the one that goes back 100,000 BP. and correlates CO2 to temperature. I would like to see the assumptions and math that went into the development of that corelation.

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by Nabber86
Jent46Bow,

Those sure are some pretty pictures that you posted and I am sure they go a long way to to impress the uneducated masses if they were shown on CNN.

But they do not really answer the question. How did they actually measure the temperature of the earth in several of the cartoons? I especially love the one that goes back 100,000 BP. and correlates CO2 to temperature. I would like to see the assumptions and math that went into the development of that corelation.

Umm try reading my post and not just looking at the pictures. If you read the bottom I state that modern global tempratures are measured from satalite. They recored the amount of IR that the earth is emiting. It is averaged over a period of exposure. And the CO2 is measured on islands that are considered as remote from civilization as possible. I also talk about how they determine the date from earlier years. I recomend you re-read my post instead of just surfing the pictures.

[Nabber86]

I read your post. It dosent tell me how the data in the pictures was collected, correlated, massaged if you will. Where was it collected, etc? How about the statistical analysis of the data, that is something that I can understand.

And I do love the Wikkipedia website, but it isnt the place that I go to do research. It is the place I send my kids when they are "researching" a junior high science fair project.

The last one is good and does help a lot. Your caption explains how we measure the temperature of the earth's atmosphere today. However, how long has that technology been around? 10 years?? The picture shows a single point in time. How does that one data point fit with the data that goes back 100,000 years BP? Was it a forward projection, or backward?

[wetWolger]

I just sumbled across this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4888946.stm
according to that article it is already too late. (IMO I too beleave it is already too late also). But just because we know things are going to be bad does not mean that we should not change to prevent them from being worse.

According to the artical levels should be kept below 400ppm of CO2 to prevent the measure the artical talks about. It does not say but currently worldwide we are at an average of 370ppm. To give you an idea of how close we are.

It also talks about hunger as a problem with this. And this is a good isues but it does not say why food production may be a problem. The reason is the increase in CO2 and thus the increase in tempratures will mostly effect winter, and night time. We wont see much of the temp increase in the day. Well at night plants don't photosynthesis. Infact they consume O2 and exhale CO2. In doing this they are burning up the energy they made in the day. Some plants have found methods to make this less of an impact. For example corn uses a C4 chain instead of C3 which allows it to store more energy. But if tempratures increase (mostly at night) it will make this resperation even a larger problem for plants. They wont be as productive in proding energy to grow on. They will be respiring more CO2 durring the night making them less efficent at converting O2 to CO2. It could be a whole mess. I am disapointed the artical did not point this out as a major factor that could come from global warming.

[wetWolger]

Originally posted by Nabber86
I read your post. It dosent tell me how the data in the pictures was collected, correlated, massaged if you will. Where was it collected, etc? How about the statistical analysis of the data, that is something that I can understand.

And I do love the Wikkipedia website, but it isnt the place that I go to do research. It is the place I send my kids when they are "researching" a junior high science fair project.

The last one is good and does help a lot. Your caption explains how we measure the temperature of the earth's atmosphere today. However, how long has that technology been around? 10 years?? The picture shows a single point in time. How does that one data point fit with the data that goes back 100,000 years BP? Was it a forward projection, or backward?

Yea I aggree wikipedia is not good for fine points. It is great for getting a semi-balanced view of a topic. It is also good in understanding the general overview of a subject.

Maybe I should not have included the photos. For the reason being I was not trying to make an argument for global warming. I just wanted to show some examples of the data that scientist are working with. They look at thing like the solar output, like the infared light emitied from earth, like the CO2 disolved levels. So please don't try to make any assumptions for or against global warming based on those photos. I can not verify how the data was collected or when for those exact examples. I do know that they were collected from a variety of sources.

But do look at them to see the kind of data that we are looking at, the kind of things that can influnce this subject. There are even more objects of study than discussed there, for example the earths tilt and distance from the sun are slowly changing. One more variable in modern models to see how temperatures will change over time.

Hope that helps, sorry maybe I should not have included the photos. I thought it would make a long post more intresting. I did not intend to make it support one side or another. Although a slight biased may have accidently flown in (i did try my best but something that happens).

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by jent46bow
Maybe I should not have included the photos. For the reason being I was not trying to make an argument for global warming. I just wanted to show some examples of the data that scientist are working with.

FWIW - I am not necessarily arguing againts Global Warming. I just want to see the actual data so I can draw my own conclusions.

[Nabber86]

Originally posted by jent46bow
Maybe I should not have included the photos. For the reason being I was not trying to make an argument for global warming. I just wanted to show some examples of the data that scientist are working with.

FWIW - I am not necessarily arguing againts Global Warming. I just want to see the actual data so I can draw my own conclusions.

[MCary]

Jent,

The problem I have with your graph of global temps, is that when I look for data I get this:



Now of course this is just USA temps and yours was global temps, but I have to ask, how did they get global temps in 1900. Was their a guy in a loin cloth in the middle of the Congo with a clock, calender and thermometer? From the beginning of the data collection until the present were all reporting stations exactly alike. We're talking in 10th's of degrees here. Did the have exactly the same calibrated equipment. This winter I watched my thermometer in my pickup as I went from the top of a hill to the bottom of a hill .5 miles and saw the temp change 3 degrees. If the earth's rotaion changes even slightly, does the location of the temperature reporting station change. What if the reporting station is close to a urban center and must be moved to avoid radiant heat from the pavement. As a laymen does everyone understand what a standard deviation is. What is the standard deviation of the data set (+ or - margin of error, it could show that 99 degrees and 100 degrees are statistically the same number) Of course doesn't mean it isn't happening. I just want to point out the constraints of the collecting the data.

When laymen with little understanding of scientific method get passionately into this debate its almost laughable. I love to watch Bill Maher on HBO go into his rants on global warming. "How can you say there's no Global Warming, its hot outside". Let me try to explain scientific method without being to patronizing. Most of you know this, just reinforcing. I'll keep it simple.

1. You make an observation.
2. You form an hypothesis
3. You make a prediction.
4. You experment under controlled conditions and try to prove yourself wrong.

What makes Global Warming so difficult scientifically is that because of the size and complexity of the problem it is virtually impossible to duplicate it in the laboratory. In modern times when something is beyond the scope of the lab, scientists attempt a better understanding using computer models. While this is useful and sometimes interesting, using models to make a conslusion is psuedo-science. A best guess. Dependent of the skill of the programmer and the input of all relevant data. Observations must be made in the physical world not the virtual one.

I would just suggest that those so feverish about this subject might want to do some cost benefit analysis. Would the trillions of dollars spent to fix a problem that may not exist or may not be fixable, be better spent on something else? Aides, malaria, poverty, infrastructure. For the better safe than sorry crowd. Yes there is a down side to allocating resources to this problem if it doesn' exist.

Dave, thanks for pointing out the hurricane data. The national hurricane center and its scientists clearly and often stated that the intensity and number of hurricanes last year was not due to global warming. Those that said it was were politicians, actors, and the media. You know, REAL scientists.

[JmLee]

omg mod plz drop a bomb on this thread, this has become so pointless

[reeformadness]

I as a real scientist I disagree with the previous comments. I have taken recent course work in fisheries oceanography\climatology as well as a course on climate change. Actually, a 1 degree Celcius change is quite substantial. The impacts are more than one would imagine. As far as the hurricane question...I live on the MS gulf Coast and have done plenty of research in regard to this subject. Hurricane intensity is governed by sea surface temperature. MOST EVERY hurricane scientist agrees on this. The three worst modern US hurricanes (Camille, Andrew, Katrina) all occured in August, when SST are highest. Nature has a wonderful arcticle explaining this...ironically, this was published a month before Katrina. The "theory" is that intensity will continue to increase. The "fact" is that it already has because of SST's. It however made no assertions as to storm FREQUENCY being tied to SST's. This is not to say that it is not possible...remember last season we went through the alphabet. The most substantiated estimates I have heard estimate we are on the high end of a cycle that should last another 5-15 years. Get out your checkbooks. Indeed other factors are important other than SST such as decadal occillations and others that can change wind sheer and steering currents. Ocean current played a huge role in Katrina as the Loop Current (LC) sat barely south of the MS River mouth as Katrina approached...providing some VERY, VERY warm water. At a conference I attended with highly regarded oceanographers, a NOAA scientist reported individual waves at 90 feet! That was in the open ocean, however, and the coastline saw waves much smaller than that. The storm surge was huge though. Unfortunately the LC has not moved much since the storm which is unprecedented as well as dangerous...for me. I feel I may have gotten off subject. I just hope those that claim to be scientist are, because I would hate to see people being misinformed...the only way to make your own decision is to read the literature for yourself. Its out there. Get off the internet and go to a university library if you feel so passionate about the subject.

Read this nature arcticle. Nature by the way is one of the oldest and most reputable scholarly journals that exists.

Emanual, Kerry. 2005. "Inceasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years." Nature Vol 436 (August 4, 2005) pp. 686-688.

[MCary]

Just curious JmLee, if so pointless why are you here? There are currently 181,664 threads in this section. Why don't you read one of the others?

[JmLee]

because i am facinated with pointlessness

[reeformadness]

Oh another great arcticl on the subject of the scientific consensus on global climate change is

Oreskes, Naomi. "The scientific consensus on climate change" Science 306:1686. (December 3, 2004)

JSTOR should be able to link you to these arcticles

[Weatherman]

A few comments about the hurricanes…

1) The Loop Current hasn’t moved because it’s a persistent feature governed by the location of various land masses in the area (Florida, Cuba and the Yucatan)

2) We are about ten years into a 30 year upswing in hurricane activity in the Atlantic. This is nothing unusual. The ‘40s and ‘50s were especially bad years for Florida.

3) The huge losses incurred from hurricanes over the next two decades will be driven mostly because of the huge increase in population and property along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. Hurricane intensity variations will be a very minor variable.