Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Warming takes another thrashing
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rather_Dashing



Joined: 07 Sep 2004

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:05 am    Post subject: Global Warming takes another thrashing Reply with quote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=AFEMUXZED02Z3QFIQMFCM54AVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=16640

Highlight:

Quote:

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.


As this article suggests, global warming is far from the "scientific concensus" and there is real debate as to its causes (and even if it's happening!).

Chicken Little is the best book ever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:40 am    Post subject: Re: Global Warming takes another thrashing Reply with quote

Rather_Dashing wrote:

As this article suggests, global warming is far from the "scientific concensus" and there is real debate as to its causes (and even if it's happening!).


-You wish. Go back to reading chicken little.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gmat



Joined: 29 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rather_dashing: Thanks for the article. I want to clarify one thing for those who did not read the entire article. I believe that there is a general agreement in the scientific community that there has been a slight increase in global temperatures.

The argument is over man's contribution to the temperature increase. The lack of consensus which you quote refers to the disagreement regarding the extent to which the increased temps are caused by man. This is where there is No Consensus, as you rightly point out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nowhere Man



Joined: 08 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

As I understand it, the world is supposed to be headed for an ice age.

I really don't have much to say scientifically about global warming, but I do remember snowball fights on Thanksgiving. That is a memory.

But, let's entertain ideas here. Suppose there is no global warming. What should we do?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But, let's entertain ideas here. Suppose there is no global warming. What should we do?


Am I missing something here? If there is NO global warming, then there is nothing to do but go outside and enjoy the milder winters we've been having.

It's only if there is significant human influence on the climate that we need to do something. And personally, I'm with the young people on this one. Party now and worry later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2005 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the sounds of many of the lame posts on this topic, I'd say many of you should do some reading and get a grounding in the basics before spouting "global warming is a joke, lets party".

CNN - Experts cite 'strong evidence' of global warming;
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/13/global.warming/

Global warming evidence is mounting
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

surface temperature rises
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068916?OpenDocument

Evidence of global warming, with photographs
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm


I could post 100 links, but obviously it will never defeat peoples basic need to believe everythings ok.
Obviously the long arguments on here previously in which I have shown NASA images of shrinking polar ice, retreating glaciers, crashing populations of the worlds flora and fauna, with corresponding dramatic rises in CO2, and industrial pollution etc hold no weight, and its preferable to believe some disgruntled scientist who analyses a lot of papers and sits in the urban North of England without contact to whats really happening in nature.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EXHIBIT A.

let me present: The Muir glacier in Alaska.

��We Won��t Sink With Our Ice��
An Inuit group says that climate change is jeopardizing its people's livelihood--and that U.S. gas emissions are to blame.



Receding: The Muir Glacier in Alaska, as it was in 1941 (left) and in 2004

By Ginanne Brownell
Newsweek
Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET Feb. 3, 2005Feb. 3 - The Inuit living in some of the world��s iciest regions are feeling the effects of global warming. The ice caps where they hunt are thawing earlier every year; polar bears are hunting in unfamiliar places; non-indigenous species are being seen in the Arctic and last summer local inhabitants saw their first wasp on Canada��s Baffin Island. None of this is news to global-climate experts, who are meeting this week in Exeter, England, to discuss the scope and rate of climate change. Indeed, the English conference comes on the heels of a warning released last week by the International Climate Change Task Force that politicians have less than a decade to prevent worldwide disasters caused by global warming.

advertisement

But for the 155,000 Inuit spread across Russia, Canada, Greenland and Alaska, the issue has taken on a greater urgency. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), says that the Inuit livelihood is being affected by the changes--and that the United States is at least partly to blame. Watt-Cloutier and her group are planning to file a petition in the next few weeks with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that their human rights have been have been endangered due to excessive U.S. gas emissions. In a phone interview from her home in Iqaluit in northern Canada, Watt-Cloutier spoke to NEWSWEEK��s Ginanne Brownell about the group��s plans and the Inuit experience of climate change. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What effects of global warming have you seen?
Sheila Watt-Cloutier: Over the last decade our hunters have been witnessing changes in certain areas. For example, some are saying that polar bears seem to be much thinner, and they have been finding bears closer and closer to food sources, places where they did not [previously] venture. The weather has become very unpredictable and that creates a lot of havoc not only with those of us who hunt on the sea ice, but with animals, as well. New species of fish and birds have been spotted up in the Arctic that are not indigenous. People [have also] witnessed changes where ice forms later [and] the river ice breaks up so much earlier; it used to be in mid-June, and now it has been as early as mid-May. There is not as much snow, and the snow we get melts much earlier. In terms of summertime, in the course of my own life it was very rare that we ever used to wear shorts and T shirts because it never got warm enough. But today because there are such long heat waves where it is 30 Celsius [86 degrees Fahrenheit] for an entire month, the whole community goes to the beach and swims. It gets so hot that bugs do not even come around anymore.


Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How have these changes affected the lives of the Inuit people?
We come from a wise culture and are attuned to the cycles of life. But lately there has been confusion: our ancient wisdom says we have no control over weather and environment, but we now understand [that there is] a connection. Just as the world came together to do the right thing on the contaminants issue at the Stockholm Convention [a global agreement reducing emissions of persistent organic pollutants ] we must do the same on the greenhouse-gas emissions. It��s not just an environmental issue, but also a health issue and a survival issue.

Has the ICC always been political or is this a new direction you have been taking the group?
We have been trying to find ways in which to put ourselves on the political map in a world where you have a powerful country like the United States that is staunchly standing for the status quo and does not want to change its economic policies and move away from dependence on oil gas and fossil fuels. We have a challenge on our hands. How do 155,000 Inuit of the world defend themselves in a world of billions and how do we make this a real people issue? We do not see it in terms of technology and politics. We see it as something that is changing our way of life everyday as we live it.

So is this why you are pursuing this as a human-rights case--to get the world to listen?
We have explored what international instruments are out there to protect us. The U.S. and others feel they can continue business as usual when our entire way of life as we know it may end in my grandson��s lifetime. So those are the issues, that is our strategy and we are moving forward with it and see in coming months how this will pan itself out.

Later this spring the scientific report from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) will be published. Its overview, published last November, gave the most detailed account of how climate change has affected the Arctic. Your reaction to the report?
The ACIA work is groundbreaking on many levels. It is the first comprehensive regional climate-change assessment ever taken. Over 250 scientists worked on the project, but also it is a marriage of Western and indigenous knowledge. We have been studied to death for decades up here in the Arctic, and we have not been part of the actual research itself. So with the ACIA we wanted to ensure that there would be indigenous knowledge injected into the process as much as possible.

What was the most surprising finding?
It did make for stark reading. The two conclusions [that affect us the most] are that the marine species that are dependent upon sea ice are likely to decline--with some facing extinction--and that for the Inuit, warming could disrupt or destroy hunting. One of the things that people cannot fully understand or appreciate is the actual power of the hunt and hunting culture. People think, ��Oh they are just killing animals��... When we go out on the land and teach [our children] to hunt, it��s not just about aiming the gun and skinning the seal. It is also teaching courage and patience and how not to be impulsive and to use sound judgment. It is character skills that are transferable to the modern world.

Your ICC offices in Ottawa received a call recently from the U.S. Embassy in Canada asking how long you were going to be holding your post. How did you interpret this and were you upset that you were ruffling feathers?
I am not upset at all [but] it is interesting that they would call to find out when my term is over. It means we are making our mark somewhere and getting under the skin of certain players. It does not surprise me, and I do not think we can go through with our work and not expect some criticism. The U.S. is a large and powerful country whose economic policies we do not feel are good for the planet. I am not in this work to be in conflict with others, but I am trying to say this is what is happening �� We are now changing the manner in which climate change is being debated and put it in the arena of human rights. It might make people nervous because these are countries that pride themselves in being very strong on human-rights issues.


© 2005 Newsweek
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well the above evidence is obviously enough to silence the debate. if not, there is an UNLIMITED supply of more.

I cannot believe people think global warming is some sort of hoax. Wake up for pity's sake! Rolling Eyes Exclamation Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hank Scorpio



Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rapier wrote:
I cannot believe people think global warming is some sort of hoax. Wake up for pity's sake! Rolling Eyes Exclamation Idea


The earth has warmed an average of 1.8 degrees fahrenheit in the past 100 years, and frankly, I take the temperature reports of 1905 with a big grain of salt, further back than that is stretching it even more.

The fact is that human industry is a paltry thing when it comes to climactic change. The entirety of manmade pollution can't even come close to competing with the effects of a moderate sized volcano erupting. Furthermore, CO2 is hardly the primary malefactor when it comes to trapping heat. You know what is? H20. Yep, it's water vapor. That shroud of gaseous liquid that encircles the earth is the main thing trapping heat on earth.

I'll readily concede that the earth is slightly warmer right now than it has been in the recent past, but is that because of mankind? I have strong doubts on that score, because the science is in it's infancy. We've gone through centuries long warm and cold spells in the past. Hell, the 16th century was probably the coldest in human memory. Was that somehow the cause of man, or was it just a natural cycle of change?

I'll stick by my global warming/environmentalist as alarmist anti-corporatist luddites theorem, thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hank Scorpio wrote:

I'll readily concede that the earth is slightly warmer right now than it has been in the recent past, but is that because of mankind?


The evidence proves global warming is man made.

Published on Saturday, February 19, 2005 by the lndependent/UK
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people UK Times online, Feb 18.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

Troposphere studies prove global warming man-made
(The Times, 6 may 2004).
http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hank Scorpio



Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, hell, I can't argue with commondreams.org Rolling Eyes

Keep sounding the warning siren, though, Rapier. It's been world changing thus far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hank Scorpio wrote:
Well, hell, I can't argue with commondreams.org Rolling Eyes
.


"Commondreams" quotes an article from "the Independent".
I couldn't provide a link directly to the newspaper, as you need to be a suscriber to view it.

Obviously you haven't even read the links. I realise that accepting undeniable proof is optional in your world.
Which is why there is little point argueing with yourself -or gord. You simply refuse to believe the work of thousands of scientists.
A bit like the Bush administration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hank Scorpio



Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rapier wrote:

Which is why there is little point argueing with yourself -or gord. You simply refuse to believe the work of thousands of scientists.
A bit like the Bush administration.


Or could it be that I just don't care? You people have been harping on global warming for 20 years now, and I have yet to notice it personally in my life one iota. Before that you were talking about the coming ice age.

Read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and get back to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord



Joined: 25 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rapier wrote:
Obviously you haven't even read the links. I realise that accepting undeniable proof is optional in your world.
Which is why there is little point argueing with yourself -or gord. You simply refuse to believe the work of thousands of scientists.
A bit like the Bush administration.


Never mind that you can't spell the word "arguing", don't drag me into your game of insults. I've tried to discuss the issue with you and as soon as anyone says "science", you scream like a little girl and hide in the corner before busting into a name-calling rant.

While it's amusing that you insist on trying your hand at talking about science you don't understand and pretty much everything you have claimed is wrong, you keep setting yourself up as a hypocrite. You promote eating beef while choosing to ignore that the methane gas cows produce and that methane is an exceptionally more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide which you base your every emotional appeal around. And methane has been increasing at 1% a year while carbon dioxide in the air has risen a total of 20% in 60 years. Though cows aren't the only source of methane production. Rice fields are huge producers of methane.

Luckily methane isn't exactly the most durable of compounds and when it breaks down, it forms carbon dioxide, water, and ozone which are also all greenhouse gases but far less effective.

We've already established a couple times now that you don't know anything useful and that when you get called on your false claims that your greatest cash card is the "don't you care about the environment?" appeal in the hope you can shift the conversation away from your false claims.

Once again I am playing the science-only card. From this point on you are only allowed to discuss things you can prove and understand from a science viewpoint. That means no empty claims but only cold proof and formulas.

Last time I played that card you suddenly went silent. Will you be joining the science coversation this time or will your silence greet us yet again? Come sit at the big kids' table if you think you can handle it. And that means you can't try to distort what the facts say and what others say. Scarecrow arguments are not allowed because that's not science talk, which sadly is your primary fallback style. If you say anything else other than what would fall under a science conversation, I will quote it and ask why you are hiding and cowering away in a corner away from the big bad science talk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rapier



Joined: 16 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord wrote:

Once again I am playing the science-only card. From this point on you are only allowed to discuss things you can prove and understand from a science viewpoint. That means no empty claims but only cold proof and formulas.


Gord: if you backed up your chat with actual evidence occasionally, you may get some cred. But you are never able to show any reports, charts, papers or links to prove your claims. When you do provide a link (once every 50 posts), it usually contradicts what you're trying to say.

Once again (as always), you immediately ignore the scientific evidence I've already presented. Scroll up a bit to my previous posts on this thread.

But I guess we can post ita ll over again for baby. I know you have chronic ADD, but listen and read carefully, then we can move onto the next step!. However, if you are going to damn State-funded scientists as "environmental extremists" and call the University of washington an "advocacy group", stop reading HERE and go back to sleep.

SCIENTISTS CLAIM FINAL PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING
By Mark Henderson

Science Correspondent, The Times, 6 May 2004

POWERFUL evidence for global warming has been discovered by scientists funded by the US Government, demolishing the chief argument of sceptics who deny that the phenomenon is real.

A new analysis of satellite data has revealed that temperatures in a critical part of the atmosphere are rising much faster than previously thought, strengthening the scientific consensus that the world is warming at an unnatural rate.

The discovery resolves one of the most contentious anomalies in climate science, which has often been invoked by the Bush Administration to question whether man-made global warming is happening.
While it is generally accepted that surface temperatures are increasing by an average of 0.17C (0.31F) per decade, satellites have been unable to detect a parallel trend in the troposphere — the lowest level of the atmosphere, extending 7.5 miles above the ground, in which most weather occurs.

This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained by a team led by Qiang Fu, of the University of Washington in Seattle.

His research reveals that the troposphere is warming almost precisely as the models predict it should: by about 0.2C (0.4F) per decade. Satellites have not previously detected the trend as they have been confused by colder temperatures in the atmospheric layer above.

The findings, details of which are published today in the journal Nature, provide one of the final pieces of proof that global warming is taking place, and that it is a human-induced phenomenon.

Sceptics have often argued that if temperatures are rising at all, this is down to natural variation in the climate as the world emerges from a ��little Ice Age��. The tropospheric trend, however, is precisely what scientists would expect to see if man-made emissions of greenhouse gases were causing it to heat up.

��I think this could convince not just scientists but the public as well,�� Dr Fu said.

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: ��It will become that much harder for people to claim that the world isn��t warming and that the warming isn��t caused by greenhouse-gas emissions.��

In their study, the Washington team examined atmospheric temperature data collected between January 1979 and December 2001 from satellites operated by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.

These satellites used instruments known as microwave-sounding units to measure microwave radiation emitted by oxygen molecules, and thus to calculate the temperature.

The raw data for the troposphere, as measured by the instruments�� channel 2 setting, showed no pronounced warming trend.

Dr Fu realised, however, that about a fifth of the signal picked up on channel 2 in fact originated in the stratosphere — the higher level of the atmosphere between 10km and 50km above the Earth��s surface. This had skewed the data, as the stratosphere is known to be cooling rapidly.

��Because of ozone depletion and the increase of greenhouse gases, the stratosphere is cooling about five times faster than the troposphere is warming, so the channel 2 measurement by itself provided us with little information on the temperature trend in the lower atmosphere,�� Dr Fu said.

His team then used measurements from weather balloons and from another channel on the microwave units to determine precisely how much of the channel 2 signal was coming from the stratosphere.

Once this stratospheric error was eliminated, the remaining data showed that the troposphere had indeed been warming, by about 0.2C (0.4F) a decade.

��This tells us very clearly what the lower atmosphere temperature trend is, and the trend is very similar to what is happening at the surface,�� Dr Fu said.

The new tropospheric data does not suggest that the pace of global warming is increasing or decreasing. The research was funded by the US Government, through the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and Nasa. (Credible enough for you?)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures will rise by an average of between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Dr Hulme said that while the results further confirm the overwhelming scientific consensus that man-made global warming is a proven phenomenon, he would be surprised if it were accepted by critics.

��I��m under no illusions that it will knock down the critics altogether,�� he said. ��In some quarters, people hold almost fundamentalist beliefs that are immune to carefully reasoned argument (Gord, take note).. A new paper that seems to take the legs away from one of their critiques may unfortunately not make much difference to their arguments.

��It is the totality of the evidence that has convinced the vast majority of experts that the planet is warming: surface temperature recordings, rises in sea level, retreating glaciers, shifting species domains.

��The compendium of evidence from all these different sources means the overwhelming majority of scientists feel justified in warning society about this.��

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International