Science Fiction Fantasy  
Go Back   Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums > Discussion > World affairs

World affairs News and political events for discussion

LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 23rd May 2007, 02:32 PM   #121 (permalink)
Registered User
Arnold Magnum's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 4
Re: Global Warming....

It appears our Carbon Footprint is extending into the Solar System as well.
Arnold Magnum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2007, 10:13 PM   #122 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
HardScienceFan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Originally Posted by Arnold Magnum View Post
It appears our Carbon Footprint is extending into the Solar System as well.
B***** **ll,where do these climate scientist come from?
Solar Variability,that old deus ex machina,strikes again.
Nice heuristics.
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2007, 09:03 AM   #123 (permalink)
Shiny! Let's be bad guys.
Joel007's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 1,797
Re: Global Warming....

The Sun has always been the main cause of climate change on Earth.
Joel007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2007, 04:16 PM   #124 (permalink)
Red Rane
Rane Longfox's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Manchester
Posts: 3,342
Re: Global Warming....

So Ben, are you denying that the sun, and thus the major source of heat in the solar system, has anything to do with planets heating up?

Last edited by Rane Longfox; 26th May 2007 at 04:51 PM.
Rane Longfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2007, 04:53 PM   #125 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
HardScienceFan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox View Post
So Ben, are you denying that the sun, and thus the only source of heat in the solar system, has anything to do with planets heating up?
Let me get back to you on that.Have to read the Solanski article for that,AT LEAST,and some new GCM modelling articles for Mars,including dust cloud effects.And possibly the Byrne these on stratiform ice deposits on the South pole of Mars.
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2007, 08:07 PM   #126 (permalink)
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 4,702
Re: Global Warming....

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox View Post
So Ben, are you denying that the sun, and thus the major source of heat in the solar system, has anything to do with planets heating up?
Of course the sun heats up the planet but, apparently, excess carbon dioxide is preventing it cooling down again.
mosaix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2007, 08:59 PM   #127 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
HardScienceFan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

A different choice of weights may
well give somewhat different results. The far better agreement

of the Frohlich and Lean composite with the Mg II
core-to-wing ratio, the standard proxy of UV irradiance
(which also agrees well with the UV-irradiance reconstruction
of Fligge and Solanki [2000]), also provides strong
support for this composite. In view of this and the arguments
presented by Frohlich and Lean [1998b] we conclude
that the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global
warming since 1970 (unless it is through a channel not
considered here).
Bard et al, EPSL,2006

Several studies clearly suggest that solar output has

varied on a time scale longer than the 11-yr sunspot
cycle. It appears that solar fluctuations were involved in
causing widespread but limited climatic changes, such
as the Little Ice Age (15001800 A.D.) that followed
the Medieval Warm Period (9001400 A.D.).


For the 1700-to-present interval for which the

International Sunspot Number time series (SIDC,
2001) is available as an indicator of solar activity, a
wavelet cross correlation between annual sunspot
numbers and tree ring widths was performed to study
the evolution of their correlation coefficient (energy
transmission) and relative phase difference (time
response). The phase results seems to evidence
very complex temporal changes in Space-Earth
and zillion others

But.....cripes,frankly I give up.
Seems Dynamic Fraction Area models have been developed,with good results,to account for nonlinearity.New ice ablation computations,etc.

I've encountered too much Total Solar Input Models already.
Okay,everybody calorific solar output minus atmospheric and/or blackbody
effects equals.......
if anything sunspots lower temperature,of course.
Studies of pollen variations in Holocene ombrotrophic peats have also pointed to variations,with DeVries cycles evident???
Attention worldbuilders:there is archeological evidence that sunspot variability has influenced human migration in Holland,due to changes in the moisture constant,thus influencing soil moisture content,and stability of dwellings.
Now who wants to build his house on a marsh?You,Daisybee
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2007, 09:06 PM   #128 (permalink)
The Wicked Sword Maiden
Rosemary's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia, Western Australia
Posts: 4,063
Blog Entries: 34
Re: Global Warming....

Australia and the Climate Change. Article in the West Austalian, no reporters name on the article.

Australia must prepare to take in more refugees from the Pacific if the worst fears of climate change are realised. There must be a strategy to relocate thousands of islanders when their island homes become uninhabitable.
Low-lying Pacific island nations like the Marshall Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu – which sit just a few metres above sea level – are at risk of being swamped as global warming forces sea levels to rise.
“There should be an international coalition which is prepared to do our fair share of aiding these nations” said one Environment Minister.
“Security risks could also arise from the displacement of these people” said another Minister. Does security take precedents over life, I wonder?
There will be millions of people losing their homeland in the coming decades and Australia has to take some responsibility for that. There are already 10 million environmental refugees worldwide.
Despite that another Senator was quoted as saying “rising sea levels were not yet regarded as inevitable. But to be planning in this year for something that may not happen for another 20 to 40 years, or may not happen at all, is wrong.”
The ice is breaking free from the Antarctic, glaciers are melting at a steady pace. Are these politicians so blind or paid too much to ignore these warning signs of global warming? So what will happen when the sea levels do rise, and as I see it, they certainly will? Do we wait until these people are sitting on the roofs of their houses before anything is done to help them? What is wrong with planning ahead?
Rosemary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2007, 11:07 PM   #129 (permalink)
Senior Member
Urien's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vatican City
Posts: 1,144
Re: Global Warming....

If the sea levels rise, and it is an if. Sea levels if they've risen at all (and it's surprisingly hard to tell with any certainty), have not risen nearly as much as predictions ten years ago.

The climate is immensely complex. It was assumed that a warmer planet would automatically mean sea levels would rise. However, as the air is warmer it carries more mositure, there is a greater weight of ice in the Antarctic than ten years ago. It's snowing more down there.

What gets reported is dramatic slabs of ice breaking off the shelf. Not the deepening of the ice mass over the land.

Again what is news? It's pretty much always bad news. Hence any story of future horror, or any linkage to a problem of the age is bunged in there. The media likes to scare people.

Further caveats both to what I'm saying and what others might say is that 10 years is a very short time in weather system terms, the chaotic nature of the global weather system is very hard to predict, computer models are built on a lot of assumptions, the computer models of ten years ago have not been very accurate about todays weather.

It does seem clear that the world is warming. It has done so many times in the past. There is doubt as to whether we're doing it or whether it's the sun causing it. If the latter then there's not much we can do about it.

Nevertheless it seems logical for a myriad of reasons to reduce or end our dependence on polluting forms of energy.
Urien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2007, 11:48 PM   #130 (permalink)
Registered User
daisybee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK: ENGLAND:
Posts: 523
Re: Global Warming....

Now who wants to build his house on a marsh?You,Daisybee[/quote]

Snitch! Besides the marsh is way over there..

I figure if we are having even the slightest effect on the climate (pollution etc) it makes sense to you know, stop. As soon as possible.
Makes sense to me anyway.
Rosemary, that must be really frustrating-if we don't plan now, when will we? Isn't that the point of planning, to cover all eventualities??
We have the other environmental extreme-all the way to fines on wheely bin "misuse". Whatever that is. Crazy world.
daisybee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2007, 09:21 AM   #131 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
HardScienceFan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

So you are agreeing with me there,Andrew?On the fact there is less certainty,IMO, than publicly displayed in reports?
Mind you,I I have always thought that we would have to cut down emissions and pollution,before anybody knew that GHG means Greenhouse Gasses..
Now why don't we hear about the Ozone Hole anymore?Slightly offtopic,
I suppose ,but..
BTW there are studies underway modelling PM distribution fractally in lung trachea ,instead of by chemical diffusion.Particulate matter on the submicron scale does seem to build up in the lungs ,and health effects are uncertain.
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2007, 04:37 AM   #132 (permalink)
j. d. worthington's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,572
Re: Global Warming....

Well, here's the latest I've seen from this side of the pond:

Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln - Yahoo! News

Title: "Damage from climate change may cost Alaska $10 bln", from Reuters, by Mica Rosenberg, datelined Tue., May 29, 2007.
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd June 2007, 05:42 PM   #133 (permalink)
I am only an egg
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

They call this a consensus?
Al Gore’s views have credible dissenters.

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

So said Al Gore ... in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.
Today, Al Gore is making the same claims of a scientific consensus, as do the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of government agencies and environmental groups around the world. But the claims of a scientific consensus remain unsubstantiated. They have only become louder and more frequent.
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.
What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world’s top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. “The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world,” the IPCC Secretariat responded. “The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007.”
An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC’s comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they consider a sham review process have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicinebetween 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occured, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.
Such diversity of views is also present in the wider scientific community, as seen in the World Federation of Scientists, an organization formed during the Cold War to encourage dialogue among scientists to prevent nuclear catastrophe. The federation, which encompasses many of the world’s most eminent scientists and today represents more than 10,000 scientists, now focuses on 15 “planetary emergencies,” among them water, soil, food, medicine and biotechnology, and climatic changes. Within climatic changes, there are eight priorities, one being “Possible human influences on climate and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases and tropospheric ozone).”
Man-made global warming deserves study, the World Federation of Scientists believes, but so do other serious climatic concerns. So do 14 other planetary emergencies. That seems about right.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 04:33 PM   #134 (permalink)
Spiff's Stunt Double
Coolhand's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 481
Blog Entries: 5
Re: Global Warming....

Interesting column from Orson Scott-Card about the famous "Hocky Stick Graph" that for a long time was a key pillar of the "man-made CO2 climate change" position. It's the graph Al Gore was waving around in "An Inconvenient Truth.”

Whilst Card obviously has a "viewpoint" to what he writes, and that has to be kept in mind, the basic facts about what happened with Mann’s graph do appear to be correct, from what I've read, even from various pro GW groups.

Civilization Watch - March 4, 2007 - All in a Good Cause - The Ornery American

Last edited by Coolhand; 6th June 2007 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Spelling. Again. DOH!
Coolhand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th June 2007, 08:31 PM   #135 (permalink)
Wherever I Am, I'm There
Dave's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Greater London
Posts: 14,143
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Faking results is appalling. They should never work again. However, while you can pick and choose tree rings to count, you cannot fake Ice Cores. If the "hocky stick graph" you mention is the atmospheric CO2 then that is real. I don't disagree with Orson Scott Card's conclusions though:
Right now, let's start demanding that whenever the local newspaper or TV stations say anything about Global Warming, they back it up with actual data that takes into account the solar oscillations, the real climate history of the earth, and the facts about what CO2 actually does in the atmosphere.
Dave is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.