Global Warming

So it's been said that Global Warming is a myth or a hoax. So I thought we could have a little chat about it. First off, here is a list of scientific organizations that agree with the anthropogenic global warming model:

 

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

* The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -

* American Geophysical Union (AGU):

* American Meteorological Society (AMS):

* American Institute of Physics (AIP):

* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):

* American Meteorological Society (AMS):

* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

* Royal Society of Canada

* Chinese Academy of Sciences

* Academie des Sciences (France)

* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

* Indian National Science Academy

* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

* Science Council of Japan

* Russian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Society (United Kingdom)

* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

* Australian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

* Caribbean Academy of Sciences

* Indonesian Academy of Sciences

* Royal Irish Academy

* Academy of Sciences Malaysia

* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

 

 

Second off, some graphs!:

http://i32.tinypic.com/35jihl0.gif

One of the oft argued points is that earth is constantly heating and cooling, which is correct. Two problems: one is that we should be in a global cooling stage right now, and second is that CO2 is used in every climatological model to predict temperature, so if you want to argue that human based global warming is a hoax, you'd have to explain why we are warming right now without using CO2 as a factor. Also, those giant upticks in the global temperature? Global temperature is rising at ten times that rate right now.

 

http://i26.tinypic.com/2i1m795.gif

As you can see, there is a definite linear regression of global increase here.

 

But soma, wasn't there a broad scientific consensus about global COOLING just a few decades ago? No, there wasn't. Were there some concerns? Yes, though most were of the press and not the scientific community. The only peer-reviewed journals of the time concluded that they could not predict the future climate with their current models and data, and there were some hypotheses that gross elevation of aerosol particulates would decrease global cooling.

 

And finally my favorite:

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

tl:dr

 

It was really hot outside yesterday though. ; )

Who would have thought that each year for the last 10 years have been record breakers in terms of "hottest year".

our planet is dying at an alarming rate....

 

why is nothing really happening to stop the damage ?

 

answer: MONEY...PROFIT...China.... America....Cows... yes.. cows....its crazy the amount of damage they do to the enviroment

 

we could fix it but... that means we have to change our lifestyles from what we eat,drive,how we play and even stopping 3rd world countries from developing...

 

2012 is comming ... so soon it will be all over...

 

and then ,, problem solved......

who knows ? maybe Al gore would of done something,, but no... seems , big indusrty,oil,eletric,car manufacturers didnt want him anywhere near the white house

 

 

remember, if you want to be cool... and hang out with all the cool kids,

 

vote for mr. cool..... he has really no experience for the job.... but.... he looks great in a suit and can read really well off a teleapromter ... did i mention ... hes soo cool and seems

 

the ladies love him...so vote ....

 

GWB .... aka ... OBAMA

 

im sure he can fix the our countries problems with the power of coolness... including our problem with the poor honeybees ,,, they are dying off ...

 

There was so much info there it had to be separated into 3 posts.

hmmmm, what a post to wake up to. This post will be my playground this weekend. =)

 

First off. Lets take the smartest man on the planet. whoever it may be. You decide. Steven hawkings, whoever it is. anyone you deem to be THE SMARTEST person on this planet.

 

Now lets take him and put him on another planet, and say. "Ok, reproduce earth's weather system."

 

What do you think his answer would be? you're right. "I can't" he doesn't know how. There are so many factors about earth's climate that are unknown that it can't be fully understood.

 

So how in the hell, if we don't know everything about something, especially when we can't reproduce it, are we going to "fix something that is supposedly wrong with it"?

 

WE CAN'T.

 

 

Again I say to you. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, all by itself. With polar ice caps, growing and expanding towards and away from the equator, glaciers leaving large deposits of soil and minerals, forming our lakes, rivers, waterfalls, etc.

 

Who made it do that? Pygmie farts? Cows? Or maybe it does it naturally.

 

So who are we to say that right now, RIGHT NOW, is how warm the planet is supposed to be. Maybe it's SUPPOSED to be a degree or two warming than it is now? Maybe Greenland is named that because it was once completely Green due to worlds climate.

 

I will continue to post here this weekend, I will leave you with this though for now.

 

In the Blue Corner - SOMA

 

In the Red Corner - Ezmira

 

Keep it above the belt! Ding ding!

Red 4 Life \m/

This thread is going places.

 

Today's date on the Mayan calendar is 12.19.15.6.14. My how close we are coming to 13.0.0.0.0, the last b'ak'tun of our time before we undergo a paradigm shift (or apocalypse). /brings marshmallows.

Red 4 Life \m/

F$%^ing communist!

This thread is going places.

 

Today's date on the Mayan calendar is 12.19.15.6.14. My how close we are coming to 13.0.0.0.0, the last b'ak'tun of our time before we undergo a paradigm shift (or apocalypse). /brings marshmallows.

 

 

now the question is.... what are you going to do for the next four years?

now the question is.... what are you going to do for the next four years?

 

 

drop it like it's hot,

drop it like it's hot.

 

 

lol.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Darch

lol global warming who the hell cares really? i know i dont cause a) i dont belive in it just my opinion and b) lets say the world is goinng to just end and blow up or overheat or w/e...i know i dont care lol...and i have a feeling we will be LONG GONE when that happens lol

lol global warming who the hell cares really? i know i dont cause a) i dont belive in it just my opinion and b) lets say the world is goinng to just end and blow up or overheat or w/e...i know i dont care lol...and i have a feeling we will be LONG GONE when that happens lol

 

 

A bit selfish but I agree with one thing. That is that we will be long gone when it does happen. Even though we are like quadrupling the damage we've been doing to the planet each year pretty much, it's not going to end in the next 4 years.

 

Now that's not to say we should attempt to change the way we do live in hopes of slowing down, and/or haulting the damage we are doing. Not everyone is going to care about how we treat the plant for this reason, but we should still think about it.

 

The way I look at it is we should take care of the earth, not only for future generations but what if reincarnation is a factor. What if when you die you're born as something new. No one knows for sure if this is true, but what if it is. You're really only hurting yourself in that case.

 

I don't know where I'm going with this but yeah! And I'm pretty sure I contridicted myself?

Edited May 30, 2008 by Darch

hmmmm, what a post to wake up to. This post will be my playground this weekend. =)

 

First off. Lets take the smartest man on the planet. whoever it may be. You decide. Steven hawkings, whoever it is. anyone you deem to be THE SMARTEST person on this planet.

 

Now lets take him and put him on another planet, and say. "Ok, reproduce earth's weather system."

 

What do you think his answer would be? you're right. "I can't" he doesn't know how. There are so many factors about earth's climate that are unknown that it can't be fully understood.

 

So how in the hell, if we don't know everything about something, especially when we can't reproduce it, are we going to "fix something that is supposedly wrong with it"?

 

WE CAN'T.

Again I say to you. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, all by itself. With polar ice caps, growing and expanding towards and away from the equator, glaciers leaving large deposits of soil and minerals, forming our lakes, rivers, waterfalls, etc.

 

Who made it do that? Pygmie farts? Cows? Or maybe it does it naturally.

 

So who are we to say that right now, RIGHT NOW, is how warm the planet is supposed to be. Maybe it's SUPPOSED to be a degree or two warming than it is now? Maybe Greenland is named that because it was once completely Green due to worlds climate.

 

I will continue to post here this weekend, I will leave you with this though for now.

 

 

Why would you take an physicist, and how would any scientist recreate a weather system?

 

If scientists believed in the notion that because something is really hard to understand, we should just throw our hands up, then we'd all be in quite a mess. We do know things about climatology: the five salient factors in warming and cooling are ozone, sulfates (aerosols), volcanoes, solar energy, and greenhouse gasses. You say that the earth warms and cools "naturally." That doesn't actually mean anything. We know what is warming and cooling the earth, and we know what role we have in those factors.

 

You mentioned the changing ice caps. (Ew, right click and view image this graph, doesn't work so well on our forum)

 

http://i26.tinypic.com/1zv69t0.gif

They have been freezing and melting over the past fifty years, but with an aggregate reduction in total ice volume.

 

Greenland was named by Erik the Red, an exile who wanted to attract people to a new colony. The ice cap that is on Greenland is hundreds of thousands of years old, and covers sheet rock. Turns out that the vikings there refused to adapt to a polar lifestyle, still trying to life as Europeans - they didn't fish, they raised livestock in barns. Oh, and they mostly died.

 

But on a larger scale, let's say that Greenland was once a lush verdant land. Greenland is not the world. I mean, right now Antarctic ice caps are growing. But you have to take aggregate change. If one room in my 30 room mansion is cooling, while the rest are warming, we can make a pretty fair statement that there is global mansion warming.

 

We may be in a global warming cycle, although evidence from the past 120,000 years through ice cores suggest we should be cooling. But if we are in a warming cycle, we are warming at 10 times the rate ever calculated for a global warming cycle.

 

No one debates that there is a climate change cycle to the world (barring perhaps young earth creationists?), but the key word is cycle. Climatologists have identified the cycle, and we are going way out of bounds of the cycle. And that's the problem!

Edited May 30, 2008 by Soma

Greenland was named by Erik the Red, an exile who wanted to attract people to a new colony.

 

 

True BUT Erik the Red was the father of Leif Eriksson, and Leif Eriksson discovered the world, so if it weren't for him, we wouldn't even be here. Also, October 9th is Leif Eriksson day, mark your calendars. What is this post about again?

If one room in my 30 room mansion is cooling, while the rest are warming, we can make a pretty fair statement that there is global mansion warming.

 

I think I might be able to help you with your problem. You see the easy way to prevent global mansion warming is to call your local A/C repairman. Its an amazingly simple fix for what they charge. However, by solving your global mansion warming issue, you have now caused a global warming issue for the earth, and should feel ashamed that you were so selfish that you only care about global mansion warming.

 

So in essence, support glabal mansion warming!!! This will resolve all problem, and make the rich much less comfortable as well. However when winter rolls around, support global mansion cooling!!!

 

Also, I throw my full support behind Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson, without Vikings, we wouldn't have Viking helmets with horns on them, and those things are always good for a laugh.

but vikings didn't actually wear helemts with horn on them lol

Consider the following partial differential equation and associated inital and boundary conditions:

 

PDE: dθ/dt = d²θ/dt² [1]

 

IC: θ = θo (θo a constant)

BC1: dθ/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

BC2: θ = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

To solve by separation of variables, we assume the solution is of the form

 

θ = T(t)X(x) [2]

 

where T(t) and X(x) are independent functions. If this is not the form of the solution, the equation will fail to separate, and another method must be tried.

 

Differentiating [2] to obtain terms like those in [1], we see

 

dθ/dt = X * dT/dt [3]

d²θ/dx² = T * d²X/dx² [4]

 

Substituting [3] and [4] into [1], we get

 

X * dT/dt = T * d²X/dx². Moving like variables to same sides,

 

(1/T)dT/dt = (1/X)d²X/dx²

 

Now we have two variably independent functions (and their derivatives) set equal to each other. It is obviously the case that this can only be true if both sides of the equation are equal to some constant, which we shall call ±λ². Thus we obtain two ordinary differential equations:

 

(1/T)dT/dt = ±λ² [5]

(1/X)d²X/dx² = ±λ² [6], where the sign on λ² will be determined by trial and error. Starting first with -λ², [5] and [6] are

 

dT/dt + λ²T = 0

d²X/dx² + λ²X = 0

 

From ODE, we know the solutions to these two equations, and they are

 

T = C*exp(-λ²t) [7]

X = A*sin(λx) + B*cos(λx) [8]

where A, B, and C are constants of integration.

 

Given these solutions, it is apparent that the choice of -λ² was appropriate, since using +λ², would have produced

 

T = C*exp(λ²t)

X = A*sinh(λx) + B*cosh(λx), and hyperbolic functions do not represent meaningful solutions in spatial dimensions.

 

Now all that is left to do is find the constants of integration to complete the solution. Looking back at the initial and boundary conditions, for θ(x,o) (that is, holding t constant), the original conditions become:

 

dX/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

X = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

Differentiating [8] w.r.t. x, we get

 

dX/dx = Aλ*cos(λx) - Bλ*sin(λx). When x = 0, by the boundary conditions we see dX/dx = 0, so

 

0 = Aλ*cos(0) - Bλ*sin(0) = Aλ, which implies A = 0.

 

So with that in mind, [8] is now

 

X = B*cos(λx). Looking now at the condition x = L, we see X = 0, so

 

X = B*cos(λL) = 0. This equation can only be 0 when either B = 0, or cos(λL) = 0. If B = 0, then all solutions are trivial (since A is also 0), so we ignore that possibility. Setting cos(λL) = 0,

we see that this equation is true for λL = π/2, 3π/2, 5π/2, etc. In general terms,

 

B*cos(λL) = 0 when λ = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

We were unable (so far) to determine the precise value of B, but we do know X has an infinite number of solutions of the form

 

Xn = Bn*cos(Λnx), where Λn = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

Note [7] also has an infinite number of solutions, which are

 

Tn = Cn * exp(-Λn²t).

 

By the superposition property of PDEs, and remembering our solution should be of the form [2],

the complete solution to [1] is

 

θ = Σ(Bn*cos(Λnx))*(Cn*exp(-Λn²t)).

 

Since Bn and Cn are both constants, and the product of two constants is another constant, we will call Bn*Cn = Dn (for ease), and the solution is,

 

θ = ΣDn(cos(Λnx)*exp(-Λn²t)).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is how I feel about global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

Consider the following partial differential equation and associated inital and boundary conditions:

 

PDE: dθ/dt = d²θ/dt² [1]

 

IC: θ = θo (θo a constant)

BC1: dθ/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

BC2: θ = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

To solve by separation of variables, we assume the solution is of the form

 

θ = T(t)X(x) [2]

 

where T(t) and X(x) are independent functions. If this is not the form of the solution, the equation will fail to separate, and another method must be tried.

 

Differentiating [2] to obtain terms like those in [1], we see

 

dθ/dt = X * dT/dt [3]

d²θ/dx² = T * d²X/dx² [4]

 

Substituting [3] and [4] into [1], we get

 

X * dT/dt = T * d²X/dx². Moving like variables to same sides,

 

(1/T)dT/dt = (1/X)d²X/dx²

 

Now we have two variably independent functions (and their derivatives) set equal to each other. It is obviously the case that this can only be true if both sides of the equation are equal to some constant, which we shall call ±λ². Thus we obtain two ordinary differential equations:

 

(1/T)dT/dt = ±λ² [5]

(1/X)d²X/dx² = ±λ² [6], where the sign on λ² will be determined by trial and error. Starting first with -λ², [5] and [6] are

 

dT/dt + λ²T = 0

d²X/dx² + λ²X = 0

 

From ODE, we know the solutions to these two equations, and they are

 

T = C*exp(-λ²t) [7]

X = A*sin(λx) + B*cos(λx) [8]

where A, B, and C are constants of integration.

 

Given these solutions, it is apparent that the choice of -λ² was appropriate, since using +λ², would have produced

 

T = C*exp(λ²t)

X = A*sinh(λx) + B*cosh(λx), and hyperbolic functions do not represent meaningful solutions in spatial dimensions.

 

Now all that is left to do is find the constants of integration to complete the solution. Looking back at the initial and boundary conditions, for θ(x,o) (that is, holding t constant), the original conditions become:

 

dX/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

X = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

Differentiating [8] w.r.t. x, we get

 

dX/dx = Aλ*cos(λx) - Bλ*sin(λx). When x = 0, by the boundary conditions we see dX/dx = 0, so

 

0 = Aλ*cos(0) - Bλ*sin(0) = Aλ, which implies A = 0.

 

So with that in mind, [8] is now

 

X = B*cos(λx). Looking now at the condition x = L, we see X = 0, so

 

X = B*cos(λL) = 0. This equation can only be 0 when either B = 0, or cos(λL) = 0. If B = 0, then all solutions are trivial (since A is also 0), so we ignore that possibility. Setting cos(λL) = 0,

we see that this equation is true for λL = π/2, 3π/2, 5π/2, etc. In general terms,

 

B*cos(λL) = 0 when λ = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

We were unable (so far) to determine the precise value of B, but we do know X has an infinite number of solutions of the form

 

Xn = Bn*cos(Λnx), where Λn = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

Note [7] also has an infinite number of solutions, which are

 

Tn = Cn * exp(-Λn²t).

 

By the superposition property of PDEs, and remembering our solution should be of the form [2],

the complete solution to [1] is

 

θ = Σ(Bn*cos(Λnx))*(Cn*exp(-Λn²t)).

 

Since Bn and Cn are both constants, and the product of two constants is another constant, we will call Bn*Cn = Dn (for ease), and the solution is,

 

θ = ΣDn(cos(Λnx)*exp(-Λn²t)).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is how I feel about global warming.

 

Yes.

Consider the following partial differential equation and associated inital and boundary conditions:

 

PDE: dθ/dt = d²θ/dt² [1]

 

IC: θ = θo (θo a constant)

BC1: dθ/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

BC2: θ = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

To solve by separation of variables, we assume the solution is of the form

 

θ = T(t)X(x) [2]

 

where T(t) and X(x) are independent functions. If this is not the form of the solution, the equation will fail to separate, and another method must be tried.

 

Differentiating [2] to obtain terms like those in [1], we see

 

dθ/dt = X * dT/dt [3]

d²θ/dx² = T * d²X/dx² [4]

 

Substituting [3] and [4] into [1], we get

 

X * dT/dt = T * d²X/dx². Moving like variables to same sides,

 

(1/T)dT/dt = (1/X)d²X/dx²

 

Now we have two variably independent functions (and their derivatives) set equal to each other. It is obviously the case that this can only be true if both sides of the equation are equal to some constant, which we shall call ±λ². Thus we obtain two ordinary differential equations:

 

(1/T)dT/dt = ±λ² [5]

(1/X)d²X/dx² = ±λ² [6], where the sign on λ² will be determined by trial and error. Starting first with -λ², [5] and [6] are

 

dT/dt + λ²T = 0

d²X/dx² + λ²X = 0

 

From ODE, we know the solutions to these two equations, and they are

 

T = C*exp(-λ²t) [7]

X = A*sin(λx) + B*cos(λx) [8]

where A, B, and C are constants of integration.

 

Given these solutions, it is apparent that the choice of -λ² was appropriate, since using +λ², would have produced

 

T = C*exp(λ²t)

X = A*sinh(λx) + B*cosh(λx), and hyperbolic functions do not represent meaningful solutions in spatial dimensions.

 

Now all that is left to do is find the constants of integration to complete the solution. Looking back at the initial and boundary conditions, for θ(x,o) (that is, holding t constant), the original conditions become:

 

dX/dx = 0 at x = 0, t > 0

X = 0 at x = L, t > 0

 

Differentiating [8] w.r.t. x, we get

 

dX/dx = Aλ*cos(λx) - Bλ*sin(λx). When x = 0, by the boundary conditions we see dX/dx = 0, so

 

0 = Aλ*cos(0) - Bλ*sin(0) = Aλ, which implies A = 0.

 

So with that in mind, [8] is now

 

X = B*cos(λx). Looking now at the condition x = L, we see X = 0, so

 

X = B*cos(λL) = 0. This equation can only be 0 when either B = 0, or cos(λL) = 0. If B = 0, then all solutions are trivial (since A is also 0), so we ignore that possibility. Setting cos(λL) = 0,

we see that this equation is true for λL = π/2, 3π/2, 5π/2, etc. In general terms,

 

B*cos(λL) = 0 when λ = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

We were unable (so far) to determine the precise value of B, but we do know X has an infinite number of solutions of the form

 

Xn = Bn*cos(Λnx), where Λn = (2n + 1)π/2L.

 

Note [7] also has an infinite number of solutions, which are

 

Tn = Cn * exp(-Λn²t).

 

By the superposition property of PDEs, and remembering our solution should be of the form [2],

the complete solution to [1] is

 

θ = Σ(Bn*cos(Λnx))*(Cn*exp(-Λn²t)).

 

Since Bn and Cn are both constants, and the product of two constants is another constant, we will call Bn*Cn = Dn (for ease), and the solution is,

 

θ = ΣDn(cos(Λnx)*exp(-Λn²t)).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is how I feel about global warming.

 

 

Someone that knows what the hell you're talking about went --------------------------> that way. You should go find them.

That it's too complex for a lay person and should be left up to the climatologists? That's why I first referenced scientific organizations which support anthropogenic global warming, because they are a lot smarter than me.

 

My conservative brother got drunk over the weekend, and my moderate scientist brother and I all got into some very interesting arguments (He called me Kim Jong Il because we are both short). Global warming came up, and the drunk conservative brother said that there is no consensus on it. I said, there is scientific consensus on it. Drunk brother said, "Well I'm no scientist...." and moderate scientist brother and myself said in unison; "WE KNOW."

 

There are scientists that will dispute AGW. But a 95% ratio means that there is a consensus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...aclimate130.xml

 

I found this.

 

So even the scientists can't make up their minds. Thank God I don't have faith in them.

 

I'm a big fan of everyone being entitled to an opinion... Mine, in a condensed version, is that the whole global warming thing is crap. Nothing said here is going to change my mind on that. I do like to see what other people think though. I also think that viking hats are about to make a major fashion comeback! =)