d'oh, i need to read more carefully in the future. nm bunge.
i was really surprised to find out that the dust bowl during the Great Depression had more of an effect than anything we've been burning and running for the last 20 years. i wouldn't have thought that dust would have such an effect.
i was really surprised to find out that the dust bowl during the Great Depression had more of an effect than anything we've been burning and running for the last 20 years. i wouldn't have thought that dust would have such an effect.
Me too. Is that everything combined that we've burned over the past 20 years, or is that on a year for year basis?
My overall point is that even if SUVs haven't contributed to Global Warming yet, they will. And humanity's contribution, however small, is a potentially deadly shift in the ecosystem.
that's everything combined. i'll see if i can scan in the graph while i'm at work. turns out both only really make a difference in the night time temperature. daytime hasn't shifted much at all.
night time temps. are a different story. cloud cover.
I trust you, no need to scan it for me unless everyone else is curious. The ecosystem is a curious balance. We may have 1% of play in the numbers, we may have 20%. All we know is that the less we change them the better.
Neither link works for me!?! Can anyone post a new one, this article sounds very interesting. Does it say what the implications for the sun are due to the rising temps or is it earth centric?
as for CO2 being this big bad greenhouse gas, IIRC the largest producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet is cattle, not cars. they produce methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 anyway.
saw another link today. this one over at the Telegraph. See here
Quote:
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
sounds like they're going to blow the entire global warming argument out of the water. it will be interesting to hear what the reply is to this. i've wondered before if the timeframe was too short to know for sure if global warming is caused by humans.
Quote:
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."
guess they just say that they disagree. this will be good though, spart some debate and open thought/research on the subject again.
guess they just say that they disagree. this will be good though, spart some debate and open thought/research on the subject again.
The argument isn't (or shouldn't be) if the temperature now is hotter than ever, but just simply if the temperature now has significantly increased (or decreased for that matter) because of human interference.
So, even if the temperature was higher in the middle ages, what should the temperature be right now? Or, what would it be if we could subtract the human element? The average temp might have been 5 degrees warmer in the mid-ages, but what if our current temperature is 10 degree warmer than it would have been if we hadn't been burning all those fossil fuels?
That just means if the 'natural' temperature ever gets as high as it was in the middle ages, the overall temperature could be another 10 degrees higher than that. Our interference might not have pushed us higher than ever before, but it may have pushed the temperature up significantly, even if it's still within 'natural' limits.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
i have to wonder though if these temp. increases are really based on what we've done, or more on a natural reheating of the earth. problem is i'm not sure there's any way to really measure that in a reasonable time frame.
has there been any evidence that we're actually the cause of the temperature increases we've seen over the last 100 years? i know the temps have gone up, it just seems that as we learn more, it shows that we know less about the root causes of these changes.
I think there's a difference between the mechanism and the end result. We know that we produce greenhouse gases. We also know what greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do - they keep us warm (obviously, the greenhouse effect is a good thing).
It seems to me to be similar to the argument about tobacco - we know the mechanism by which taking tobacco smoke into your lungs should cause problems, but because you can't experimentally manipulate it, all you really have is the mechanism and the trend showing increased lung cancer, emphysema, etc.
Same thing here - there is a warming trend, and there is a mechanism that can explain it. But you can't definitively prove that the trend is due to the mechanism. I just have to wonder how the warming trend could NOT be due to the increased ouput of greenhouse gases.
But then why isn't the increase in greenhouse gases causing an increase the greenhouse effect, and therefore warming?
well, considering that we have a hard time predicting weather more than 5 days out, i'm not instilled with a great sense of confidance that they're able to predict the interactions between CO2 and the entire world.
for all we know increasing CO2 just promotes plant growth which pulls it right back out. the earth is not at all a static system, it reponds to everything. it's when people try to say exactly how that things get fuzzy.
it's when people try to say exactly how that things get fuzzy.
That's why I said:
"The argument isn't (or shouldn't be) if the temperature now is hotter than ever, but just simply if the temperature now has significantly increased (or decreased for that matter) because of human interference."
Anyone arguing that the earth is hotter now than ever before is just being dumb. But anyone arguing that the earth would have to be hotter now than ever before in order for there to be a problem is just as dumb.
Don't hate SUVs. Hate technophobic, unimaginative, irresponsible, and lacking-of-any-prescience-at-all American automotive companies. The technology is there to have 30 to 40 mpg SUVs (and 40 to 60 mpg regular cars), but they don't want to do it until the foreign car companies start eating into the bottom line when gas prices go up. If and when gas prices go up, we'll probably see a repeat of what happened to the American automotive industry in the 70s and 80s.
i think Ford is planning on releasing a hybrid Escape by the end of this year, that should get approx. 40 MPG. it'll be nice to see more and more cars go down this road, i think there's a lot of demand, so the first to capitalize makes some bucks.
Comments
i was really surprised to find out that the dust bowl during the Great Depression had more of an effect than anything we've been burning and running for the last 20 years. i wouldn't have thought that dust would have such an effect.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i was really surprised to find out that the dust bowl during the Great Depression had more of an effect than anything we've been burning and running for the last 20 years. i wouldn't have thought that dust would have such an effect.
Me too. Is that everything combined that we've burned over the past 20 years, or is that on a year for year basis?
My overall point is that even if SUVs haven't contributed to Global Warming yet, they will. And humanity's contribution, however small, is a potentially deadly shift in the ecosystem.
night time temps. are a different story. cloud cover.
Originally posted by alcimedes
that's everything combined.
I trust you, no need to scan it for me unless everyone else is curious. The ecosystem is a curious balance. We may have 1% of play in the numbers, we may have 20%. All we know is that the less we change them the better.
for some reason when i link the yahoo article it breaks after a few hours. odd.
Originally posted by bunge
Not in the least.
I wasn't talking about you.
Originally posted by alcimedes
...
as for CO2 being this big bad greenhouse gas, IIRC the largest producer of greenhouse gasses on the planet is cattle, not cars. they produce methane, which traps way more heat than CO2 anyway.
So McDonald's is the root of this problem?
Oh, wait— you said cattle, not horses.
This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
sounds like they're going to blow the entire global warming argument out of the water. it will be interesting to hear what the reply is to this. i've wondered before if the timeframe was too short to know for sure if global warming is caused by humans.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."
guess they just say that they disagree. this will be good though, spart some debate and open thought/research on the subject again.
Originally posted by alcimedes
guess they just say that they disagree. this will be good though, spart some debate and open thought/research on the subject again.
The argument isn't (or shouldn't be) if the temperature now is hotter than ever, but just simply if the temperature now has significantly increased (or decreased for that matter) because of human interference.
So, even if the temperature was higher in the middle ages, what should the temperature be right now? Or, what would it be if we could subtract the human element? The average temp might have been 5 degrees warmer in the mid-ages, but what if our current temperature is 10 degree warmer than it would have been if we hadn't been burning all those fossil fuels?
That just means if the 'natural' temperature ever gets as high as it was in the middle ages, the overall temperature could be another 10 degrees higher than that. Our interference might not have pushed us higher than ever before, but it may have pushed the temperature up significantly, even if it's still within 'natural' limits.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
i have to wonder though if these temp. increases are really based on what we've done, or more on a natural reheating of the earth. problem is i'm not sure there's any way to really measure that in a reasonable time frame.
has there been any evidence that we're actually the cause of the temperature increases we've seen over the last 100 years? i know the temps have gone up, it just seems that as we learn more, it shows that we know less about the root causes of these changes.
It seems to me to be similar to the argument about tobacco - we know the mechanism by which taking tobacco smoke into your lungs should cause problems, but because you can't experimentally manipulate it, all you really have is the mechanism and the trend showing increased lung cancer, emphysema, etc.
Same thing here - there is a warming trend, and there is a mechanism that can explain it. But you can't definitively prove that the trend is due to the mechanism. I just have to wonder how the warming trend could NOT be due to the increased ouput of greenhouse gases.
Originally posted by BRussell
I just have to wonder how the warming trend could NOT be due to the increased ouput of greenhouse gases.
Because the sun is heating up?
Originally posted by Argento
Because the sun is heating up?
If the sun were heating up at the speed the earth is heating, we'd all be dead in 50 years.
Originally posted by Argento
Because the sun is heating up?
But then why isn't the increase in greenhouse gases causing an increase the greenhouse effect, and therefore warming?
But then why isn't the increase in greenhouse gases causing an increase the greenhouse effect, and therefore warming?
well, considering that we have a hard time predicting weather more than 5 days out, i'm not instilled with a great sense of confidance that they're able to predict the interactions between CO2 and the entire world.
for all we know increasing CO2 just promotes plant growth which pulls it right back out. the earth is not at all a static system, it reponds to everything. it's when people try to say exactly how that things get fuzzy.
-- pissed Civic owner
Originally posted by alcimedes
it's when people try to say exactly how that things get fuzzy.
That's why I said:
"The argument isn't (or shouldn't be) if the temperature now is hotter than ever, but just simply if the temperature now has significantly increased (or decreased for that matter) because of human interference."
Anyone arguing that the earth is hotter now than ever before is just being dumb. But anyone arguing that the earth would have to be hotter now than ever before in order for there to be a problem is just as dumb.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I still hate SUVs.
-- pissed Civic owner
Don't hate SUVs. Hate technophobic, unimaginative, irresponsible, and lacking-of-any-prescience-at-all American automotive companies. The technology is there to have 30 to 40 mpg SUVs (and 40 to 60 mpg regular cars), but they don't want to do it until the foreign car companies start eating into the bottom line when gas prices go up. If and when gas prices go up, we'll probably see a repeat of what happened to the American automotive industry in the 70s and 80s.