I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
Global warming is a combination of natural forces that have been around for millions of years and man-made greenhouse gases resulting from the industrial revolution and population growth. It's not an either-or matter.
I agree with Ralph, our presence is another variable among many in the global warming equation. We are putting more carbon dioxide and other emission gases into the atmosphere then there were millions of years ago. The hole in the ozone layer is evidence of this increase in man-made gases which is effecting our climate by increasing the level of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. This is one of the components of global warming we are now experiencing.
Carbon dioxide doesnt affect the ozone layer, its what burning of trees, bushes and plants, and the plants themselves that emit during the daily oxygen/carbon dioxide release cycle. This is commonly confused with carbon monoxide and carbon trioxide.
Ralph is correct. It is a combination of man-made and natural occurrences. Although, a lot of the media hype we hear over the topic of Global Warming is a little much. Yes, Global Warming is an issue. Yes, we should all try to not be wasteful and learn to recycle. However, the amount of fear the media tries to evoke in us all is a little extreme.
I tend to follow the money. There are so many big business interests out there trying to make us believe that man doesn't contribute to climate change. Study after study that denies our envolvement can be traced back to them.
By that same token, there are so many organizations and individuals who profit from the belief that humans are significantly attributing to climate change. The problem in my mind is that it is mostly based on modeling that have been proven to be inaccurate.
Twenty years ago, they predicted that it would be far warmer now than it is.
By that same token, there are so many organizations and individuals who profit from the belief that humans are significantly attributing to climate change. The problem in my mind is that it is mostly based on modeling that have been proven to be inaccurate.
Twenty years ago, they predicted that it would be far warmer now than it is.
Can you name individuals and organizations that are profiting from global warming contraversy? I suppose the Sierra Club, a non-profit organization, may have used the climate issue for recruiting. This is nothing compared to EXXON, the Koch Brothers, electric power companies, the coal industry, etc.
From many books, i have learnt that the global warming is result from the econmical development and human destroy. To be honest, within my limited 25 years life, I really can't have a very obvious sense of the changing, but i need to admit the weather is becoming more and more sophisticated.
Global warming is one of those things that people don't agree on. Personally, I believe that the warming we saw in the 1990s was due to the sunspot cycle. At the time, sunspot activity was up. I've seen a lot of abnormal cold in the last few years, and sunspot activity in this cycle is way down.
Of course, you have many other people that think that it's warming.
That's true, the vast majority of the scientists who have studied climate change.
That's simply not true. I posted my experience with the corruption in 'science' due to politics. Any scientists that have a differing viewpoint than 'man is evil-wrecking the planet' has to find their own funding for research, they're not 'eligible' for grants.
I'd like a citation on that, please, but even if it is true, I'm sure the millions they get from oil companies more than makes up the difference.
You keep talking about the IPCC, even though they have shown time and time again that they are only pushing an agenda. We have proof that they have manipulated data, presented opinion as verified fact, etc, etc...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=17155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R … ontroversy
You can find more on your own. They manipulate data, they change the measuring methods to be more focused on metropolitan areas, and they make data up.
As for the arctic, maybe you should take a look at volcanoes.
Michel Chossudovsky, the guy behind "Global Research, ca." is not a scientist. He is a fringe, far right wing economist crack pot propagandist who expresses extreme views on several subjects including global warming.
Ok, so you want to attack the person, not the data. Fine.
I was just pulling two quick references for you to show the corruption of the IPCC. Maybe if you look at some actual data and do your own research, rather than just dismissing things, I wouldn't have to point everything out to you.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/ … o-accident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … rs-mistake
" the IPCC said "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.""
Murari Lal said "“We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”"
There is much more, but if you just want to dismiss it, that's your right.
What data are you referring to? The data I've seen support the conclusion that greenhouse gases are contributing to the increase in the earth's temperature. I'm not interested in reading "data" from extremist crackpot non-scientists like Chossudovsky. I'm not suggesting that the IPCC studies have been perfect. But the general conclusion that it is prudent to begin taking measures to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases is widely accepted except for a few scientists who have been funded by the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in denying that CO2 is affecting the climate.
The data that the IPCC uses has been shown to have been tampered with. They changed historical temperatures and changed measuring methodology to make it look worse than it really is.
The page from Chossudovsky was just a report. I gave you two valid news sources on the same topic. You dismiss data based on the source without looking at the data. It's not that the IPCC isn't perfect, it's that they are manipulating information to suit a political agenda.
I've personally seen the political corruption of science in greenhouse gasses. I know a man who can't get a grant because he spoke out against it originally, with a study showing other contributions to increasing temperatures other than CO2.
All of your reports deal with a single incident. You do realize there is a mountain of evidence right? Of course you don't. I'll side with every single major scientific organization who are all in agreement, over you and "this guy you know." BTW - it is YOUR interpretation as to why your buddy didn't get a grant. It is YOUR claim that YOU KNOW the reason for it...which amounts to what I just picked up outside after walking my dog.
You sit in your dorm alot don't you? You should get out. College is fun. You don't own a black trenchcoat do you?
Seriously Texas... you jump into a discussion guns blazing at anything you even think might be a target.
I was talking to Kerry about the IPCC and the scandals they have had with global warming topics. I posted 2 examples of such scandals.
Your post about my reports was just me posting two other sources for one incident. Of course both of those were about the same incident, that was the point.
That's just one personal example I have of the political corruption of science. I have more, but there's little point in going into anything with someone who doesn't care about the truth. You already know the truth, so anything contrary to that is 'what you picked up after your dog walk'.
I could come up with other scientists and organizations, but you would probably just discredit them. Why don't you go look for the truth yourself?
No, he was completely shunned after submitting his papers. It's not open to personal interpretation. Anyone involved knows exactly what happened.
I worked with my dad doing consulting work for researchers who were submitting requests for grants. We would look for any bad buzzwords in the research proposal and change them... keep the meaning there but disguise it. Often, the same proposal that was denied would be accepted after modifying those buzzwords. Global warming is one of those buzzwords.
I'm not in college Texas. You're a little late for that.
Ah, so "this guy you know" and "your Dad" huh? I think I'll take the side of 98% of the scientific community over your Dad.
Not in college? I was wrong. I would have bet on it. Did you go? You should go. So, what is it you do? Just curious. I am in logistics as a matter of disclosure.
I don't spend a great amount of time looking into the data on global warming, I'll readily admit that. I buy it. I think it is common sense. I see a picture of an ice field from 30 years ago, and today it is dirt. I understand how the influx of water as a potential cause for redirecting currents. I understand how our atmosphere holds in particular gases, and I go outside and can see weather patterns drastically different than when I was a kid, even from 15 years ago. I've read caption articles from several major organizations and then read the counterpoints by the detractors which are all easily linked to making their personal incomes by denying said change. I saw how the conservatives used junk science with cigarettes and health care, and it appears to be the same tract being used. I understand that if corporations acknowledge our involvement, their involvement, that it would cause their overhead to raise, and I know and can see daily examples of corporations doing anything they can to eliminate any and all overhead costs. I get from reading your posts that you, personally, will apologize for so far everything the rich and the corporate class will do. Not once have I seen you acknowledge a single transgression, so hey...basic logic dictates that you are full of it and an apologist. Am I wrong? Well, you still haven't admitted to a single wrongdoing by any corporation nor wealthy individual. Seems pretty simple to me.
Yes, I did go to college. I still buy textbooks for reading material. That's the point, I'll never be done learning. You seem to think that it's a bad thing.
Yes, I told you my experiences are subjective and personal. But, they happened.
You are one of the loudest proponents I've seen around of making sure you know what you are talking about. Yet, you criticize me for being open to other causes of global warming(we don't even know how much the earth has warmed), because you know what is right, based off what you hear in the media and see outside... doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?
I have never made any supportive claim about fraud or anything like that. In fact, I have said that I don't like everything our government and some corporations have done. You still want to inject arguments into me that I haven't made. I'm a proponent of truth, and I speak out when glaringly false statements are made.
I actually have, but you don't seem to read that carefully. I've said multiple times I don't like what our government and some corporations/people have done.
The Himalayan glacier thing was a mistake that has been corrected.
The scientists involved in so-called "ClimateGate" have been exonerated of scientific wrongdoing by at least six independent investigations. The most they're guilty of is making bitchy remarks about their colleagues, and that, though it hardly reflects well on their characters, is not a crime.
As for the IPCC itself, the 2007 report is well known to be outdated and inaccurate. The problem is, it's mostly outdated and inaccurate in the direction of dramatically under-estimating the speed and extent of climate impacts. Check out the plot of observed Arctic ice loss vs IPCC models that I posted earlier for just one example:
As for volcanoes, I've addressed them several times already in this thread in my conversation with wilderness:
If you want to give me something more substantive to work with than "maybe you should look at volcanoes", I'll be happy to discuss your arguments.
It was an intentional mistake. Murari Lal said "“We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”". In other words, they knew it wasn't true, but pushed it anyway. That is 100% politics, and 100% pseudo-science.
Yeah, of course they were exonerated... it's no surprise. Have you looked at the information yourself? There is no disputing they manipulated data. It's there for anyone to see.
They use one set of data to show how temperatures used to be, but say that the same data doesn't work today... If it were scientific, a method of measuring something either works or it doesn't.
Seriously, go look at the information... from a scientific standpoint it's appalling. But, scientists working around global warming have to play the part they are given if they want to remain a part of the community.
We can definitely talk about volcanoes. I'm not talking just about CO2 either. Over the last decade we have discovered a lot of active undersea volcanoes under the arctic ice cap. I haven't been able to find any published research on them, which is unfortunate.
What is truly unfortunate is the lack of study that goes into all the possible contributors to global warming.
Again, the IPCC admitted to and corrected the mistake about the glaciers. Yes, it should have been investigated more closely before getting into the report in the first place, but one mistake does not invalidate the report as a whole.
What does invalidate it is the ~five years of date that has been collected since, which overwhelmingly (at a rate of 20 to 1, according to one recent survey of the scientific literature) shows that the impacts of global warming are happening faster and stronger than the IPCC predicted.
"They use one set of data to show how temperatures used to be, but say that the same data doesn't work today"
I assume you're referring to the divergence in tree ring data involved in the "hide the decline" non-scandal. To the best of my knowledge, scientists do not know why tree ring data from the Northern and Southern latitudes suddenly diverged after centuries of close correlation, but there are several different theories, the problem remains under active study, and it is openly discussed both in scientific literature relating to climate change and the IPCC report itself. The scientists used the Southern data that correlated more closely with observations while trying to figure out why the Northern tree rings diverged. I really don't see what the problem is.
"Over the last decade we have discovered a lot of active undersea volcanoes under the arctic ice cap. I haven't been able to find any published research on them, which is unfortunate."
Probably because you were Googling Arctic and they're actually Antarctic.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 104755.htm
I haven't seen any estimates on their strength, but given that there's only 12 of them (and it sounds like only 7 are active), they'd have to be pretty darn powerful to make a dent in the difference between human and volcanic emissions. Remember, we'd need the equivalent of 11,200 more Kīlaueas or 3500 more Mount St Helens annually.
"What is truly unfortunate is the lack of study that goes into all the possible contributors to global warming."
Like what? Wilderness asked earlier about waste heat and over-harvesting of fish and whales and I hope I was able to provide a satisfactory answer to both. If I know something about the research being done into a particular possible contributor to global warming that you think is inadequately studied, I'll be happy to give you a rundown of it, and if I don't, then I'll enjoy the opportunity to learn something new. Climate science fascinates me.
No, it does go to show the character of the researchers. They care more about their point than the science. It's like, was it Kerry who said 'I know the documents are false but I still believe the story is true'...
I just support real science. Not manipulating data.
I'm not necessarily disputing global warming as a fact. What I have a problem with is pseud-science declaring the source of the problem without investigating other sources. It's political, and it's pretty clear to see that.
The problem is, they are using data that they don't consider to be reliable, as a reference point to the past. Saying 'it doesn't work now, but it works for back then'. There are so many things that can affect what we think the earth's temperature was... I advocate being open-minded and studying all aspects.
More than that, they change their base data completely at the right end of the charts. These records suddenly go from projecting slight increase, to matching perfectly with our temperature records.
We've found them at both poles, actually.
Nobody has studied the effect of the heat released by the volcanoes, let alone the CO2/other particle emmissions. There is a mindset of 'we already know the problem, so this isn't that important' that just grates the wrong way against me as a student of science.
I'm not saying I'm necessarily right or wrong, or what is causing global warming. I'm saying there is obvious corruption and manipulation. If you research deep into the changes in measuring mean earth temperature, you'll probably start questioning motives a little more.
"The problem is, they are using data that they don't consider to be reliable, as a reference point to the past. Saying 'it doesn't work now, but it works for back then'. There are so many things that can affect what we think the earth's temperature was... I advocate being open-minded and studying all aspects."
No, they have good reason to believe it's reliable in the past and are actively trying to figure out why it (apparently) ceased to be reliable. How is that not "studying all aspects?"
"We've found them at both poles, actually."
Gakkel Ridge? That was more than 10 years ago, though.
"Nobody has studied the effect of the heat released by the volcanoes"
At least one group of scientists have, actually:
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040301/ … 301-1.html
"In 2001, the amount of heat energy produced by volcanoes was 1000 times less than the energy consumed by the United States, the researchers report in the current issue of Geology."
A larger eruption (the article mentions Mount St Helens, a VEI-5) can produce more, but I am not sure that larger volcanoes occur consistently enough to produce the kind of warming we've seen over the last few decades.
"let alone the CO2/other particle emmissions."
Those have been pretty extensively studied, I believe.
The point is, if its not reliable now, we can't consider it to be so reliable for the past. It's extremely unscientific to do so.
We don't have very much monitoring up there. It wasn't until 2007 that anyone even got a look at it, and that was just one excursion with basically a homemade robot-sub with a camera. They found out that one eruption was similar to Pompeii in scope. Funny thing is, that corresponds very closely to when the arctic cap started to have problems. We don't know how many eruptions there have been, we find new ones, and new volcanoes.
I mean the heat of these volcanoes under the ice caps. They are largely ignored, after all, it doesn't help the political view that man is killing polar bears.
Not the undersea volcanoes. We're pretty new in our studies of them. I'm just pointing to them as one example of factors that just aren't studied properly.
"I mean the heat of these volcanoes under the ice caps. They are largely ignored, after all, it doesn't help the political view that man is killing polar bears."
Possibly because even skeptics agree that they're not affecting the ice in any significant way?
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008 … rctic-ice/
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ … c-sea-ice/
from what i have been reading lately i'm starting to wonder about global warming. many parts of the world are actually colder then they were 50 years ago and the ant arctic ice shelf is getting thicker i read so it's hard to say. we are polluting our planet , that's a sure thing but as for global warming, i don't believe it is true.
Global warming does indeed seem to be factual. The only question then becomes what is the primary cause, and the jury is very much out on that, as others have said.
The jury financed by the Koch brothers and Exxon may be out, but the science on the effect of greenhouse gases is well documented and widely accepted.
Oh sure. What isn't accepted is how much of the total is attributable to the effect of greenhouse gases produced by man.
Strangely enough, while Exxon may conveniently "forget" to include half of what man produces, the greenies seem to "forget" to include half of the natural causes of warming.
Exxon gets their income from oil that produces these gases, the greenies owe their job to proving that it is only man, not nature, that causes the damage. Both have a lot to lose if the eventual decision goes against them. Everyone has an axe to grind, but then what's new about that?
As Ralph and melpor said, the current global warming/climate change is a combination of natural and man-made factors, with man-made factors accounting for the majority of the warming in the last ~30 years and natural factors being more significant for the warming in the first part of the 20th century.
Here is a useful graphic explaining some of the ways we know humans are primarily responsible for the current warming:
If you have any questions about any of the points, I'll be happy to try and explain them.
My only comment would be that of all the little boxes, exactly one is a cause of warming. The rest are all effects. (I see I missed the carbon in the ocean, but don't know how that warms the atmosphere anyway)
While we all know man is putting fossil fuel hydrocarbons in the air, there is nothing to indicate that this is the primary reason for overall warming. A contributory factor, of course, but not the primary reason.
"My only comment would be that of all the little boxes, exactly one is a cause of warming. The rest are all effects."
The effects are how we know we're responsible. The graphic is actually making two arguments: first, that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is primarily responsible for the warming, and second, that humans are primarily responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
To take an example from the graphic, one of the key fingerprints of warming caused by greenhouse gases is that nights warm faster than days, because the gases trap heat longer near the surface. If the sun (for example) was causing the warming, daytime temperatures would be rising faster, because the sun would warm the Earth more during the day, but the heat would quickly escape once the sun went down.
This and the other observable effects shown in the graphic demonstrate that the rise in CO2 is responsible for the current warming.
The increase in fossil fuel carbon in air, trees, corals, and the ocean demonstrates that humans are primarily responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. Scientists can identify the source of atmospheric CO2 (and carbon locked in plants, corals, and the ocean) with a fair bit of accuracy based on carbon isotopes. CO2 from burning fossil fuels has a different isotope ratio than other sources of atmospheric CO2.
Sorry, Kerry, those are false arguments. What you are actually saying is that man provides some of the greenhouse gases (irrefutable) and therefore is responsible for the majority of global warming (does not follow at all).
Greenhouse gases cause warming. Volcanoes produce greenhouse gases that are identifiable as non-fossil fuels. Therefore volcanoes are responsible for most of the effect by using the same reasoning.
It just doesn't follow. We can't even say for certain that CO2 is the primary cause, let alone that the portion caused by man is primary.
Man has eliminated mega tons of animal life that produces CO2 as well as megatons of plant life that converts it to O2. We put out enormous amounts of heat simply by lighting North America and Europe (perhaps the biggest reason for night time increases?). Volcanic activity is up some, particularly those that produce ash, - what's the net effect? Man prevents forest fires, eliminating both heat and CO2. Cities cover thousands of square miles with mostly light colored (reflecting) surfaces. They also produce large quantities of heat. There are thousands upon thousands of things that will affect warming both ways. Some from man, some not.
No one is willing (or able?) to consider all sources of global warming. Instead they typically look at CO2 from fossil fuels and announce that man's activities produce some warming and are therefore the root cause of global warming. It won't wash.
"What you are actually saying is that man provides some of the greenhouse gases (irrefutable) and therefore is responsible for the majority of global warming (does not follow at all)."
It follows very clearly. The Earth's natural carbon cycle is pretty well balanced and has been for thousands of years. As a result, the issue isn't the total amount of CO2 being released by all natural and man-made processes, it's the extra that can't be reabsorbed by the ocean, plants, soil, etc. Here's a chart (a couple years old, unfortunately) showing the approximate stats:
As you can see, at this point the natural carbon cycle is still able to absorb approximately 40% of human emissions, so even today only about 18 billion tons of the ~30 billion tons that humans emit annually are actually causing warming. Unfortunately, several of the best carbon sinks, including the oceans and the Amazon rainforest, are showing signs of saturation, so we may soon have to bear the full brunt of our own excesses.
"Greenhouse gases cause warming. Volcanoes produce greenhouse gases that are identifiable as non-fossil fuels. Therefore volcanoes are responsible for most of the effect by using the same reasoning."
The effect of volcanoes is complicated. In the short term, they actually cause cooling because of the large amounts of aerosols they spew out. Concerning their contribution to atmospheric CO2, however, the important thing to know is that human activities add about ~30 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere and oceans, whereas volcanic activity has ranged from about 65 to about 319 million tons in recent years.
I am not positive, but I believe volcanic emissions are accounted for in the above carbon cycle chart under "Vegetation and Land." Even if they're not, they're a pretty small percentage of the "extra" 18 billion tons that's causing the trouble.
"We can't even say for certain that CO2 is the primary cause, let alone that the portion caused by man is primary."
We can't say for certain that gravity exists, either, but the evidence certainly points in that direction!
"We can't say for certain that gravity exists, either, but the evidence certainly points in that direction!" No, the evidence points to volcanoes. At least as long as you ignore or falsify all other evidence that doesn't agree.
Have you ever seen figures for how much heat mankind adds? Straight energy, in the form of heat? Light bulbs, Nuclear plants, brake shoes slowing a car, air resistance to a plane, heat from furnaces and air conditioners, etc. etc. etc? I know I haven't.
Have you ever seen figures for how much CO2 is 'lost' from decimating fish and whale populations? I haven't - just CO2 'gained' from decimating rain forests. Why is that? Because it would mean man hasn't added as much CO2 as the "researchers" want to see?
The point is not that these figures may be (and almost certainly are) low compared to increased heat from the CO2 man puts into the air, it is that no one knows. No one cares. No one checks.
So when someone claims that the CO2 mankind produces from fossil fuels is the sole cause of global warming I take it with a ton of salt. The constant mantra is to stop burning oil, but we could ruin our economies and kill billions of people doing just that only to find that it hasn't helped at all. Find instead that the REAL cause is something else entirely and the warming from CO2 emissions isn't a drop in the bucket. Shoot, we could stop burning oil and producing those greenhouse gasses and find that they were the only thing keeping us out of an ice age. We just don't know.
Why don't we get 1000 people together from 50 nations to find an answer? People that don't own stock in oil countries or manufacture solar panels. People that aren't greenies but don't ride around in personal jets either. People that are willing to do a job, and do it right without worrying about what answer is wanted? Why is that so impossible?
"No, the evidence points to volcanoes. At least as long as you ignore or falsify all other evidence that doesn't agree."
Um, no. Humans produce anywhere from about 100 to more than 400 times the CO2 of current volcanic activity. You'd need about 11,200 more Kīlaueas or 3500 more Mount St Helens annually to equal the CO2 emissions of humans.
"Have you ever seen figures for how much heat mankind adds? Straight energy, in the form of heat? Light bulbs, Nuclear plants, brake shoes slowing a car, air resistance to a plane, heat from furnaces and air conditioners, etc. etc. etc? I know I haven't."
I have, in fact. It's called waste heat and it is certainly does have a local (urban heat islands, etc.) and sometimes even regional effect, but it is believed to account for only about 1% of anthropogenic forcing globally. Global forcing from waste heat was 0.028 W/m2 in 2005, while total anthropogenic forcing was about 2.9 W/m2 and net anthropogenic forcing (because we also release a lot of aerosols, which have a cooling effect) was around 1.6 W/m2.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 … 6465.shtml
http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-h … rming.html
"Have you ever seen figures for how much CO2 is 'lost' from decimating fish and whale populations? I haven't - just CO2 'gained' from decimating rain forests. Why is that? Because it would mean man hasn't added as much CO2 as the "researchers" want to see?"
Actually, whales and large fish play a major role in carbon sequestration, so decimating fish and whale populations "gained" CO2, it didn't "lose" it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … cycle.html
"The point is not that these figures may be (and almost certainly are) low compared to increased heat from the CO2 man puts into the air, it is that no one knows. No one cares. No one checks."
Clearly not true.
"The constant mantra is to stop burning oil, but we could ruin our economies and kill billions of people doing just that only to find that it hasn't helped at all."
In the unlikely event that it turns out burning fossil fuels is NOT causing global warming, there are still tremendous benefits to be gained from dramatically reducing our reliance on them. Mining/drilling for coal, oil, natural gas, etc are among the most environmentally destructive activities on the planet, and burning them releases many other pollutants that cause or contribute to the deaths of millions of people every year. In fact, an economics study released just last month concluded that coal in particular causes more economic damage than it does good.
Original study: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi= … 101.5.1649
Layman friendly discussion of study: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/1 … n-damages/
"Shoot, we could stop burning oil and producing those greenhouse gasses and find that they were the only thing keeping us out of an ice age. We just don't know."
I actually consider this to be a more likely possibility than finding out that fossil fuels and other human activities aren't the primary cause of global warming, but I would argue if it does turn out to be true, at least we know what we have to do!
"Why don't we get 1000 people together from 50 nations to find an answer? People that don't own stock in oil countries or manufacture solar panels. People that aren't greenies but don't ride around in personal jets either. People that are willing to do a job, and do it right without worrying about what answer is wanted? Why is that so impossible?"
I think scientists are doing a much better job of exploring every possible explanation than you think.
Don't get me wrong, I am very sure that GW is real (I dispute how serious of a problem it is - we just have to raise cloud cover)...
... but to brush off the current costs that our societies will have to bear as "create a better world for nothing" is a bit misleading.
Billions, if not trillions, of dollars are being spent on addressing this problem throughout JUST the US.
That is a HUGE cost.
The point of the cartoon is that solving climate change solves many other problems as well, so the money being spent to mitigate climate change is also increasing energy independence, improving energy efficiency, reducing air pollution, preserving ecosystem services, and many other benefits. It's not JUST reducing carbon emissions.
"we just have to raise cloud cover"
I disagree that raising cloud cover is ALL we have to do, but it's a good start, and it's extremely simple to do. We (the human race, not the US specifically) just have to replant an area approximately the size of the continental United States in trees. Much like other methods of fighting climate change, trees offer many additional benefits, from cleaner air and higher property values to flood mitigation to fruits, nuts, and forage for livestock and people to lumber.
99% of the scientists who have studied climate support what Kerry has said.
Ok. So the consensus here seems to be that it's actually both part of a natural cycle and man-made. How do we know this is the case?
Why are there people who adamantly disagree with the man made part? What would they say to my opening question? What would they back up their view with?
Is there good research to back it up? Why are there still people who deny the human factor?
Is research in this area like the research around the negative health effects of non-ionizing radiation (i.e. from cell phones, microwave towers, WiFi etc)? I won't even get into dirty electricity...or maybe I'm surronded by it - lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhp8t6rVews (dirty electricity)
For example, industry funded research finds 20% in favor of radiation health/bio-effects while non industry funded research finds in favor of an 80% likelihood of harm from such radiation: http://www.microwavenews.com/
Being Canadian, i can vouch for the fact that winters are definitely warmer and shorter up her than they used to be. So yes Global Warming and Climate Change does exist.
The real question is how much of it actually human responsibility, and I will be the first to admit I have no idea.
There's a huge problem that makes it nearly impossible to find out exactly how much of Global Warming is man-made, or how much Global Warming there really is.
My dad is a botanist, and one of his close friends from college is a volcanologist. About 15 years ago he submitted a research paper that showed the effects of underwater volcanic activity on the mean temperature of the earth. Up until he submitted his findings, he was well-respected, and had good access to grant money. Well, his findings showed that a decent portion of the rise in temperature had to do with volcanic activity and its effects on the oceanic currents. After submitting his papers, he has been unable to get any other grants for studies. Many of his colleagues that were friends don't associate with him anymore.
When politics get involved in science, human knowledge suffers. And of course, there is the scandal of the researchers changing historic temperatures to make it look even more like man had caused the problems.
I think it's not as big of a deal as 'they' would have us think. The earth has the tremendous ability to even things out.
And that's the problem here - far too few so called "scientists" are actually interested in finding the truth of the matter. They are only only interested in being paid, and continuing to be paid, for their "work".
That poor vulcanologist is a casualty of the money war. That and the politics.
Or creationism. Or ID. It's all the same thing.
Produce nearly any evidence at all that there is any possible cause for global warming that is not caused by man and you are immediately black listed.
It isn't possible. Man is the only cause. Anyone that indicates differently is traitorous and wanting to destroy the world.
It is a very political, emotionally laden question, and facts just don't matter much. Perception and who wins financially does.
Global warming and global cooling are natural phenomena. Over hundreds of millions of years, Earth's temperatures fluctuated. However, it is irrefutable by now that human activities are affecting the planet's climate. Climate change deniers are no different than 9/11 truthers and Holocaust deniers in that they all try to poke holes without offering new evidence of their own.
You are 100% correct. Man is affecting the climate. Burning one gallon of oil or turning on one light bulb for one hour will do that.
The only real question is how much of the current warming trend is due to man's activities? 1%? 99%?
Everything I've seen says one or the other but they can't both be true. In addition, neither side is willing to provide ALL the facts, just the ones that support their view (and sometimes lie about even them...).
Check out these resources:
"Time to Eat the Dog?" by Robert and Brenda Vale. With a great subtitle, this book is extra unique because it comes out of New Zealand. YouTube had some very interesting interviews with "folks on the street" about it's contents.
The film "Not Evil, Just Wrong" from Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. There were also some great YouTube speeches from McElhinney that every parent should listen to with their children.
I was thinking just today of picking this topic up again, but this forum makes me want to write about how scientists are being shunned and shut out if they don't follow the green theme line on global warming. You might like to see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc … al_warming
Also, reading up on just how scientists who openly oppose the green theme on global warming is eye-opening work.
Reminds of a Lincoln quote that goes something like, "You can say a dog has 5 legs if you call the tail a leg, but that doesn't make the tail a leg."
I'm not an expert on global warming, but as far as climate change, it's been changing since time began. We went through a major and sevreal mini ice ages in the last 100,000 + years.
The BBCode syntax in the message is incorrect. Quote tag missing end bracket.
Yes it does.
I trust Richard Mueller's assessments. You can watch his videos with a simple google search and decide if his arguments are persuasive enough.
The point is not whether or not Global Warming is man made. It's what we can do about the effects. Every dollar that gets spent on "reducing carbon emissions" is one dollar less that is spent on remedying the real problems low lying areas are facing up to.
Global warming may or may not be real - and lets be honest here, why are they calling it Climate Change now? Because the GW branding has failed. When the politicians, business and activists agree on something, you just know you're being conned.
You are being conned alright, by propaganda from the Koch brothers, Exxon and the international oil companies, the electric power companies, and the coal companies. The scientific evidence is quite clear.
"Every dollar that gets spent on "reducing carbon emissions" is one dollar less that is spent on remedying the real problems low lying areas are facing up to. "
Actually, you've got that backwards. Every dollar we spend on reducing carbon emissions to prevent catastrophic global warming is many, many dollars we don't have to spend adapting to it.
Our current emissions pass is actually worse than the worst case IPCC scenario, which would already have the globe warming an average of 8-10 degrees F by 2100 (20-30 degrees in the Arctic), sea level rise of 6 feet or more, and atmospheric CO2 over 800ppm. Under this scenario, significant areas of the world (including much of the southwestern and central US and the Mediterranean region of Europe) would essentially turn into deserts and the ocean food chain would collapse due to ocean acidification. One study has put the cost of adapting to circumstances like these at $1240 trillion.
GW probably isn't a very serious problem.
In Mueller's video -- he's a very serious and trust worthy scientist -- he lays out in the very beginning the simple fact that "if we just were able to increase cloud cover, then it wouldn't be much of a problem".
That makes so much sense to me, and it seems like the trillions of dollars being spent to reduce carbon could probably be better spent research how to increase cloud cover.
Come to the UK and then tell me you want increased cloud cover!
LOL - obviously he meant in massive quantities.
I believe his argument was something to the effect of "increase cloud cover by around 5%"
Sure, the 5% is a small number, but I'm sure it's the equivalent of creating a sustainable cloud the size of Alaska.
Nevertheless, you should have more. In primeval times, England was about 80% forested. Now it's about 12%.
Oh I'd say medieval rather than primeval!
Most UK cloud cover now is generated by the North Atlantic.
I've heard it was already pretty heavily deforested by Roman times, but there certainly was more left in medieval times. Losing so much coppice in the 19th and early 20th centuries probably made a big dent, too, even though it was managed forest cover rather than wild. Incidentally, reviving coppice forestry seems very promising to me as a way to increase global forest cover without sacrificing economics.
And of course young growth soaks up more CO2 than mature growth, another benefit of coppice.
Yes, although I'm wary of that argument because it's been used to justify cutting down old growth and replacing it with monoculture plantations. In reality, there's a tradeoff there even if you're looking purely from a carbon perspective, since young growth stores less carbon than old growth, and of course the difference in biodiversity and ecosystem services between a mature forest and a crop of babies is incalculable. The idea should be to increase total forest cover, not replace one sort with another. For example, there's some interesting research being done in Minnesota into using hazelnut and chestnut coppice for food, feed, and fuel, and I think if the project is successful it would be a great replacement for corn in many parts of the US.
Another point to keep in mind is that many parts of Europe were reforested after the Black Death wiped out significant portions of the population. In places where whole villages were wiped out, or so many people died that the villagers relocated, the forest generally overtook the villages once again.
That was one of the advantages of the Black Death (if you can find a silver lining in something so horrific). Before the plague, people were barely subsisting and land was scarce. Afterwards, the peasants were able to get their own land and wages went up, because now they no longer needed to remain tied to their land as a serf (although in many instances the nobility tried to keep the status quo by force).
Have you read Brian Fagan? I'm forgetting the name off the top of my head, but one of his books has some really fascinating stuff about the interplay between population, plague, climate, and forests in the years leading up to and following the Black Death. I think in the coming decades and centuries it will be very interesting to see if similar patterns result from the current warming, though I can only pray we achieve population reduction through voluntary methods and not anything as nightmarish as the plague!
You started your post with:
"The point is not whether or not Global Warming is man made. It's what we can do about the effects."
Then made the following argument:
"Global warming may or may not be real - and lets be honest here, why are they calling it Climate Change now? Because the GW branding has failed. When the politicians, business and activists agree on something, you just know you're being conned."
The other area to look into are the errors made in much of the research. Of course, errors are part of research and are accepted, and, indeed welcomed. They give scientists a chance to correct their thinking and reinforce their direction.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of errors have erred on the side of Global Warming likelihood. In other words, the research was NOT unbiased.
"Unfortunately, the vast majority of errors have erred on the side of Global Warming likelihood. In other words, the research was NOT unbiased."
You've got that backwards, too. Although there have been a couple high profile errors in the other direction (most notably the Himalayan glaciers thing), the vast majority of studies are finding that climate change is happening faster than previously believed and producing impacts that are more severe than expected.
To name just one example, as recently as the 2007 IPCC report (the most recent one) many scientists thought the Arctic wouldn't be ice-free in summer until 2100. After the death spiral of the last five years, it's now more likely that it will be ice-free in summer by the 2020s or 30s. This graph models the observed Arctic ice loss (red line) against the 2007 predictions of the IPCC:
Global warming do exist..and it is caused by man made activities like pollution, use of chlorofuorocarbons, and other things. You may refer wikipedia for details. Thank you!
The cure for global warming is nuclear winter. The massive release of organic material from the billions of war dead will refresh the soil, reduce world poverty, hunger, ignorance and pollution. Exterminating humanity will fix everything wrong with the world.
You play fallout to much Good for you, it's a wonderful game
I will be looking that game up. Haven't played it but since humanity is reaching its end and America will lead the way, I could use the distraction.
I think lots of people and organizations don't want to believe that human activity is changing the Earth's climate. In general, people believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. There really isn't much more to the counter argument than that.
Of course global warming exists. Like some others have said, it's a combination of natural and man-made. How much of it is man-made is where the real debate is.
Weather is complex and so is climate.
Is it pure coincidence that we have so much more warming going on now when so much more fossil fuel is being burnt.
Earth can recover from some, but where does one draw the line? How can we tell when Mother Nature is telling us -- "Enough is enough!"
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and our fossil fuel burning creates tons of this. In fact, Venus is suffering from runaway greenhouse effect because of its thick blanket of carbon dioxide -- about 90 atmospheres of pressure at the surface and hot enough to melt lead. Ouch!
Increased heat in the oceans results in increased evaporation. But as many already know, evaporation creates cooling, so there are offsets. And yet, incessant heat trapping (greenhouse effect) can cancel out the overall cooling effect of evaporation. This is shown in the ocean level rise worldwide, inundating many flat islands and even threatening London as well as other coastal and near-coastal cities.
The trouble is, if we finally get around to agreeing that it's largely man-made, it'll likely be too late to do anything about it. So, pack up New York, Boston, London and every other low-elevation city and town on planet Earth and move then inland, or otherwise build a massive dike around each. Expensive!
But not only that, we have flora and fauna disappearing because of climate change. And some of that flora gives us our oxygen. Gasp!
"Earth can recover from some, but where does one draw the line? How can we tell when Mother Nature is telling us -- "Enough is enough!"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/planet … are,20639/
"Earth can recover from some, but where does one draw the line? How can we tell when Mother Nature is telling us -- "Enough is enough!"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/planet … are,20639/
I guess the earth has been giving us tell tale signs for some time since the 1950's. The Scientists have been watching and predicting and advising Governments. It has been politically easier to stick our heads in the sand and come up with familiar denial patterns as humans tend to do.
incredible set of views and opinions here lots and lots to think about. I reject the nuclear winter idea as recovery strategy.
My question here becomes: what is an objective appraisal or summary of the available research on global warming?
For example, in the emf negative bio and health effects research, more than 80% of say cell phone etc studies support that non ionizing (non heating) radiation from these sources is seriously harmful. http://su.pr/25EeBH
Is this the case in global warming research? For instance is there any truth to the idea that the "green movement" has itself become a profit driven multi-billion dollar industry that skews the research for cash?
"My question here becomes: what is an objective appraisal or summary of the available research on global warming?"
I think with AGW the problem is that neither side will agree on what constitutes an objective summary by the other. Attempts by scientists are rejected by deniers, attempts by deniers are rejected by scientists, etc. To get an objective understanding, you need to spend a lot of time reading the arguments of both sides and most people don't have the time or interest to do that. Depending on their level of science education, they may not even be capable of doing that. Far too many laymen on both sides seem to confuse the global warming issue with the ozone hole issue, for example, plus if you don't have at least a basic background in science, you'll be susceptible to any number of ridiculous claims by supporters of both sides.
"For instance is there any truth to the idea that the "green movement" has itself become a profit driven multi-billion dollar industry that skews the research for cash?"
As in any industry, there are ethical "green" businesses and unethical ones. I've written here about greenwashing in the organics industry, for example, and there's really a depressing amount of it. On the other hand, there are also many producers who go above and beyond the standards set by the USDA in their attempt to produce humane and environmentally sustainable food.
I am with you ThunderKeys, Professionals keep going back and forth over this issue of Global warming. People are lied to so often I have a hard time believing those that say the sky is falling.
I have questions if Global Warming as horrible as we make it out to be then Riddle Me This:
* When Have We Ever Stopped Air Shows All Around America?
* When Have We Stopped Car Racing All Around The Country?
* When Have Stopped Boat Racing, Tractor Pulling All Around The Country?
Because of Global Warming.
I'm guessing those events don't effect the atmosphere but that can of hair spray is killing us.
Actually, I'm not anywhere to be with, on this issue. That's why I started the thread to try and learn more about what science is saying objectively about global warming; - or is the subject matter to complex for an objective conclusion?
Is it that there are profit motives on both sides? Are there motives unrelated to profit? Are there too many variables for any reliable or valid scientific conclusion? Is it simply a matter of opinion to fall on either side of the debate?
It has been pointed out on TV where I've seen that profit does have a factor in selling new products for this so-called new enviroment. With so much going back and forth on this issue does indicate maybe they don't understand what's going on with the planet and that wouldn't be the first time we gotten it wrong.
Global warming has become a massive industry. Millions and billions of dollars have been invested in enterprises that depend on global warming being believed. Then there are also the grant seekers, whose livelihood and reputations depend on it as well. So yes, there are no altruistic motives, just profit.
Is there no objective summary of the major research and the extent to which it's funded and by whom?
In the non-ionizing radiation bio/health effects research for example (i.e. cell phone/cancer link) industry funded sources find a 20% link and in the non industry funded, the research finds an 80% link.
There's really no such thing as objectivity in an area as heated as this. Whoever conducts any summary is ever mindful of what they will be doing in 5 years time. Where will their work come from, if they give what they might see as the wrong answers? And that goes for both sides.
Climate science is a vast field compared to something like the cell phone cancer link, involving dozens of different disciplines. The IPCC report is an attempt to objectively summarize the research, but deniers claim it's not as objective as it tries/claims to be, and the latest report was issued in 2007 and is already considered horribly out of date. The next should be out in 2013 and 2014.
As I suggested earlier, the only real way to develop an objective understanding is to read as much of both sides of the argument as you possibly can. Some starting points from the pro-AGW side of the argument include:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/issue/ (formerly ClimateProgress)
General science websites to check out:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_ … l_warming/
Somebody else is probably better able to give a list of the best anti-AGW resources, but mine would include:
It has been shown conclusively that the planet is undergoing a major climate shift. That is not in dispute. What is being disputed is whether or not mankind is responsible for the change. I think we should prepare for drastic changes world wide. The fact is, is that the world has been warming since the peak of the last ice-age. There are other factors which speeded things up, but Ice even in the Himalayas is melting. Hudson Bay is now more passable by ship than at any time on record. Can we say: Northwest Passage. We will soon... that much is clear. Great White sharks have been encountered off the central Oregon coast in waters that were always considered too cold for that species. Some bear species are not going into hybernation, or hybernating for too short a time. Fish species are being caught far outside their traditional territories and migration patterns are off for some fish, bird and animal species. The permafrost in the arctic is beginning to thaw...any idea at all why they call it permafrost? Buck up and don't panic. Adapt or die.
Why Greenland called what it is? The planet is constantly changing and adapting is the key, whatever the cause. Sure, it makes sense to protect the environment, err on the side of caution.
The politics is the problem. If you're saying the science is settled, and call people deniers, or anti-GW, then it would hardly be surprising that they don't "warm" to your point of view?
"Why Greenland called what it is?"
For the same reason real estate ads describe houses that are practically falling down around their owners' heads as "needing a little TLC." It was mainly propaganda.
Greenland was greener during that period, but not to the degree that many people believe, and, more importantly for our present situation, most of the other regions affected by the so-called Medieval Warm Period saw whole civilizations collapse due to extreme drought. Europe was the only region that saw a net positive, and even that is questionable given that it led to a population boom that was followed by famine and plague when the warm years went away.
Yes, I've seen the footage of giant glaciers falling into the sea. I've witnessed the weather changes as well. I'm not really interested in politics. I'm just wondering about the science that explains the changes or not. Is there an valid, objective scientific conclusion about what's causing these changes independent of politics or subjectivity?
There is a claim of 'consensus', even when many scientists don't agree. Some scientists have even come out and spoken about how they have been denied funding and ridiculed for not accepting the 'consensus'. Of course, those who are in the 'consensus' group attack those who aren't...
In my opinion, there is no true consensus.
In science, consensus doesn't matter. All theories are subject to challenge no matter how popular.
Even the theory of "intelligent design?"
The increase in the earth's temperature isn't a theory. It's been measured. So has the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever looked at the methods used to measure the Earth's mean temperature?
No. I assume they aren't perfect, but the best available.
Yes. I don't keep up constantly, but in the 2000-2005 timeframe the IPCC was still using statistics from ground temperature sensor readings, which are biased toward civilized areas with extra heat output.
The 2007 report shows they are using a mix of ground and satellite readings. More interestingly, they use peak 2005 temperatures (+0.5 degrees C) instead of averages, or more recent 2006/07 data, which goes as low as -0.03 degrees C.
These pseudo-scientists are upset that the temperatures aren't matching what they have been predicting for years. 2008 the mean temperature was under 0 for all 12 months. At the end of 2010 we were lower than the end of 1990... there are all sorts of things 'wrong' with the earth's temperature, according to these people.
Actually, looking at things even more closely, I really don't know where they are getting their figures. They quote a 2005 peak of +0.92 degrees C when the actual peak was +0.36 for the globe. They seem to be using a 'minimum' temperature reading for that figure.
One of the sets of satellite readings. Right now we're sitting around +0.12
"in the 2000-2005 timeframe the IPCC was still using statistics from ground temperature sensor readings, which are biased toward civilized areas with extra heat output."
Did you see the preliminary results of Muller's study?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 27348.html
They found negligible impact from urban stations.
"2008 the mean temperature was under 0 for all 12 months. At the end of 2010 we were lower than the end of 1990... "
Where are you getting these stats? Even your own link doesn't show that, and you say it's only one set of satellite readings.
NASA has the mean global temperature anomaly at +0.44 for 2008, despite a strong La Nina and the lowest solar minimum in decades. NASA and NOAA have 2010 tied for the warmest year on record, and the Hadley Center puts it #2.
I'll have to take a look at their information. Unfortunately their data sets aren't loading at the moment. I'm interested in their claim of 1-2 degree increase, as that is so far outside anything else I've seen.
About 2008, you're right, I must have been looking at something else. 8 of the months were under 0. The average month was -0.04. The end reading for 2010 was 0.18, the end reading for 1990 was 0.14. Again, I must have been looking at different data than UAH when I wrote that. I'll have to look and see which I was looking at. Thanks for correcting me, but the point still stands.
I'm going to do a detailed analysis of the other data sets.
NASA has some inconsistency problems with different areas of their website, different scientists, and different reports. Those you are showing are based off of different land-measurement methods. By their own methods, temperatures differ as much as 50% from the mean from method to method. There are many problems with using ground stations to measure global mean temperature. There are also problems with satellites, and don't even get me started with tree rings(again).
Have you heard of peer review? That's how validity of scientific studies is determined.
But when any review that is against the trend is simply dismissed, the author attacked, or completely ignored... then the scientific community has a problem.
Whether the one in 100 denying review is disregarded might depend on it's data, reasoning, originality and quality. It could be correct or partially so, but the odds are against it. Gallileos only come along every hundred years or so.
Like you said, the point of peer review is for the scientific community to work together. For instance, the FTL neutrinos. That's real science. These guys get some data that shouldn't be the way it is. They study it for 6 months before releasing it, trying to find any flaws. Then they ask everyone to help them look for errors. Then they get people to help them re-test it.
With climatology, well-respected, published scientists are dismissed for submitting contrary reviews. The information isn't addressed, and the personal character of the scientists is attacked. It's a completely different type of community, and it's not 'scientific' in the least.
These are review papers from college students. They are experts in their fields. Political corruption damages their careers though. It's really a shame.
Global warming, just like the female orgasm, is an unproven lie made up by scientists to bother men and keep them busy worrying
Global warming and global cooling have always been natural phenomena. However, there is a mound of scientific evidence showing human activity has accelerated this process.
polluting the world, yes. global warming no. this world has seen ice age and warming age in it 17000 of existence. if no carbon, we die. fact. man stop killing plant life , there no carbon problem. the problem is greed by forest clearing and polluting. there more than enough flat lands to build. stop clearing woods, plant more tree and stop letting big business polluting for there money and we can fix what we letting happen
"Climate change is making the impassable passable. The legendary and treacherous Northwest Passage, once believed to be unnavigable by larger ships, has been successfully traversed by a commercial cargo ship. Satellite photos had shown the passage to be open as early as 2007, but it wasn't until a few days ago that the navigability of the route was empirically proven."
In regard to climate warming, there is emprical evidence of trends of both heating and cooling cycles. There is a p;hysics law that states when something is compressed it gfenerates heats. The inverse is also true: when something expands, heat is released (refridgerant principle).
Given this law if one reviews empirical evidence from multiple sources, not limited to: ice cores, ocean floor cores, tree rings, geology, etc... there is a cyclical trend that is correlated with the earth's position in the solar system.. Nope: not astrology!
There are gravatational forces exerted upon the earth. These forces are primarily from the moon, sun and minor influences from other planets and sometimes their aligment in respect to the earth.
When the gravitation forces compress the earth it heats... and the opposite is true. The current heating cycle is due to wan around 2020...
The carbon impact is minimal upon the earht's climate... Recent discoveries have indicated significant amounts of carbon being absorbed in the ocean...
"There are gravatational forces exerted upon the earth. These forces are primarily from the moon, sun and minor influences from other planets and sometimes their aligment in respect to the earth. When the gravitation forces compress the earth it heats... and the opposite is true. The current heating cycle is due to wan around 2020..."
This was a new one to me, but it appears to have been debunked:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Astrono … ycles.html
"Recent discoveries have indicated significant amounts of carbon being absorbed in the ocean..."
We've known for some time that the oceans absorb substantial amounts of carbon, including about 40% of humanity's emissions. Unfortunately, this is causing the oceans to become more acidic, a major problem because it interferes with calcification by corals, shellfish, and certain types of plankton.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What … ication%3F
The article you noted gets tripped by the myopic view of a short cycle... Go back millions of years.
Do you agree there are gravatational forces that compress the earth? Do you agree with the laws of physics?
I am not referring to the earth's moon's gravatational distortion of the earth on a daily basis... Cycles that are ocurring consistently over millions of years...
Wow. So many theories and beliefs. But are there any objective evaluations of the combined body of research related to so called global warming? Has there been any reliable conclusions related to "natural" vs "human" causes?
I know that people didn't "cause" the last ice age.....
There are groups like the IPCC that try and define a consensus, but on the other hand there are individuals who claim to have lost funding and been ostracized for claiming the opposite.
Any time a scientific subject is deeply political, I put on the rubber boots to try and wade through all the bs.
Ok, so there's no objective summary of the global warming research? So man-made or "natural" both are still just theories? And the planet is warming as we speak....that's not contested.....is it?
It's contested by three percent of scientists. The other 97% believe there is ample cause for concern. And if we don't start to do something soon to stop putting CO into the atmosphere it will be too late to prevent very bad consequences for life on our small planet.
Most scientists believe that the climate at any given time is affected by a comgination of natural forces beyond our control and by increasing amounts of CO pumped into the atmosphere due to increased population and industrialization. The earth's increasing temperature and amount and effect of greenhouse gases has been confirmed by scientific measurements. The natural forces are not so susceptible to predictions. In the future they could cancel or accelerate the effect of greenhouse gases or have no effect.
Global warming versus natural forces isn't an either/or matter as depicted by it's deniers and some proponents. The fact is that the earth is warming and is likely to continue to do so.
That's at least the fifth time you've asked specifically about an objective overview of climate science and you've now had multiple people attempt to answer the question for you. What do you not understand about our answers that makes you keep repeating the same question over and over again?
I'm restating the question because I keep getting volumes of new perspective and highly informative exchanges each time I do. Sorry you wasted your time collecting these 4 links from my thread, but my question was also repeated because its simply has not been answered yet. Maybe because it can't be?
Now in case someone who knows the research, and who has not posted a reply missed my last "clarifying" and new question:
Ok, so there's no objective summary of the global warming research? So man-made or "natural" both are still just theories? And the planet is warming as we speak....that's not contested.....is it?
We know that the earth naturally changes in temperature. We also know that the earth has warmed. That's as far as the consensus goes.
How to measure temperature is disputed. Different methods put us between 0.1 degrees C above the 1990 baseline and 1.5 degrees above. Scientists who pretend to know the answers are usually the ones you need to worry about. The more 'humble' scientists are the ones who understand how little we know.
If we can't agree on what the average temperature of the earth is RIGHT NOW, how can we expect to agree on what the average temperature has been for the last 1000, 100,000, or million years?
A lot of the data that is available for temperatures isn't original data. Unfortunately, researchers at UEA have a bad habit of not keeping original data/files/agreements. Most of what we have now is just processed, modeled information.
For instance, when you look at a chart showing the CO2 levels for the past 500,000 years, there's actually a ridiculous amount of gaps between the actual data points. 5,000 year gaps, or more. Then we plot those data points against temperature data points that are only a few hundred years apart, and look for correlation. When you are looking for cause/effect, that's a horrible way to go about it.
If we go with the research, we've increased CO2 by 100 parts per million in the past X years, and we've increase the temperature nearly 1 degree C.
Well, 500 million years ago the CO2 concentration was 5000 parts per million higher than it is now, so we would assume the temperature to be 50 degrees C higher back then, but it wasn't. It was around 5 degrees C higher.
"Well, 500 million years ago the CO2 concentration was 5000 parts per million higher than it is now, so we would assume the temperature to be 50 degrees C higher back then, but it wasn't. It was around 5 degrees C higher."
500 million years ago, the sun was about 4% weaker than it is today, so you'd need much more CO2 to get the same change in temperature.
I think it's also worth noting that there were no land-based life forms of any sort 500 million years ago, so the effects of any change in temperature would also be substantially different than today. If you want a picture of what's coming down the pipe, you're much better off checking out the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum about 55 million years ago.
Source? Also, would you like me to increase the Carbon=temperature ratio by 4%? How about 50%? It still won't show any correlation.
From 60 million years ago to 50 million years ago the temperature rose from 8 to over 12. The carbon levels were at the same as 100 million years ago when the temperature was 3-7 degrees lower.
It's an estimate based on our understanding of the standard solar model.
There is no carbon-temperature ratio. It's something you made up out of ignorance or in an attempt to make climate scientists look ridiculous, so it doesn't much matter how much you increase or decrease it.
"The carbon levels were at the same as 100 million years ago when the temperature was 3-7 degrees lower."
??? The mid-Cretaceous had major volcanic activity and some of the warmest average temperatures in Earth's history.
We have theories for the increase in carbon. We don't know. Compare the actual temperatures and co2 levels to today.
And IPCC absolutely claims a ratio between carbon levels and temperature. They state in their reports "If carbon goes to x ppc temp will go to Y. If carbon goes to Z temp will go to A". Do you need a link for it? That is absolutely what they say.
About my quote, you misunderstand. 40 million years before the Cretaceous period carbon levels were the same, and the temperature was 3-7 degrees lower.
"They state in their reports "If carbon goes to x ppc temp will go to Y. If carbon goes to Z temp will go to A". Do you need a link for it? That is absolutely what they say."
The estimates for future temperature changes that I've seen from the IPCC are not ratios at all, but calculations based on climate sensitivity and radiative forcing, so I would love to see a link claiming a direct ratio.
"From 60 million years ago to 50 million years ago the temperature rose from 8 to over 12. The carbon levels were at the same as 100 million years ago when the temperature was 3-7 degrees lower."
"About my quote, you misunderstand. 40 million years before the Cretaceous period carbon levels were the same, and the temperature was 3-7 degrees lower."
50-60 million years ago = Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (actually about 55 mya, but 50-60 is close enough)
100 million years ago = mid-Cretaceous
40 million years before the Cretaceous = Jurassic, about 185 million years ago
Can you kindly clarify which of these you're claiming is 3-7 degrees cooler? All three are pretty well known for both high CO2 and warm temperatures.
If you want an objective view, I can give you a partial one. Not every scientist believes in global warming and more of them are turning away from the global warming religion. I call it a religion because it requires a measure of faith, and global warming is just a theory. I say this because there are so many factors that can affect our environment, there is no way anyone can understand every single natural event and cycle and include them all in their calculations. We can NOT accurately measure the relationship between our behavior and weather/temperature trends. What we can say is that we live in an age of technology and pollution never before seen on this earth. We can say that our weather is acting up. So perhaps there is a connection.
Something is definitely going on. But we can't ignore the fact that earthquakes are on the rise too. And some might argue this point, but we have more wars going on everywhere now than ever before: the middle east is in constant upheaval, Muslim fundamentals are terrorizing Europeans and Asians, and in America, the political divide is growing teeth and claws. Not to mention N. Korea and whatever else I have gladly missed in the news.
For me, I think we are ignorant to ignore the weather changes, and everything else I mentioned, but people are jumping on the global warming band wagon. And although I disagree with the global warming theory, I'm not going to say it's impossible, it's just not likely we are going to burn the atmosphere away in mere decades when the earth has stood for thousands of years. I think we're going to have to work a lot harder and longer to get there.
My own opinion on the matter is that through sin man is causing, and actually has already been causing earth's destruction since our ejection from Eden. All these weather abnormalities, earthquakes and wars are predicted end time events and global warming proponents are preaching the wrong message.
It all boils down to the idea that man can save himself versus needing God to save us. Please note I did offer a "partial" objective view at the beginning of my comment :-) And for the record, I think the liberals are right that we are experiencing very strange weather changes all over the world, and that we do need to treat our environment better. I also hate how mainstream conservatives completely deny there is a problem when we have smog clouds hanging over our cities and increased cancer rates. I am NOT against technology, but we should use it a little more wisely.
It's simple....if you are a scientist and you disagree with the whole we are destroying the planet deal you lose your funding. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Here, just to show how ridiculous it is, I made a chart. The data is only taken every 50 million years, but it shows the point pretty strongly. I weighted CO2 levels to equate 100ppm to 1 degree C, which is what the current 'consensus' claims.
500 million years ago the temperature was +6 degrees. Carbon was 5000 ppm. 50 million years ago the temperature was +6 degrees. Carbon was about 800 ppm. 200 million years ago the temperature was where it is now, and carbon was between 1200 and 2000 ppm(we are at 375 ish)
If this consensus were true, those two lines should follow each other very closely. There is vitually 0% correlation.
Dude, you sound at least moderately educated about the science, so you have to be aware that the chart is nonsense. If not, then for heaven's sake, go back to school!
Temperature does not rise in direct proportion to CO2 concentrations and no climate scientist would ever claim that it does. The cause of temperature changes is calculated by calculating the radiative forcing of multiple factors, including CO2, methane, solar irradiance, aerosols, cloud albedo, and more.
Kerry, the mainstream claim is that the majority of warming is caused by C02 emissions. I'm just showing how ridiculous that is. Every claim by the IPCC has a direct ratio between CO2 and temperature change. It's just that it changes every report.
The most recent is between 0.5 degrees and 0.7 degrees for every 100ppm.
I'm going to explore this statement.
“human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” "Only about half the general public agree while almost all climate scientists do"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2 … ge-denial/
Is the divide between pro and con on the human factor in climate change really scientist vs non-scientist?
Yes but more so scientists versus the vested interests: the international oil industry, the coal industry, the electric power industry and the auto industry.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/G … Record.htm
Study on the time-relation of CO2 increase and temperature increase in historic records:
"The time lag of the rise in CO2concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
Why would the CO2 wait 400 years to rise if it was the cause of the earth warming?
If it will only take four HUNDRED years to murder all of humanity, then let's just ignore it!
Phew, that's a load off my mind! Sorry great great great grandkids, but you're screwed!
Haha, you completely missed the point Evan. The point is that CO2 goes up when the temperature goes up. The temperature doesn't go up because of CO2.
Cause and effect: A 'cause' makes an 'effect' happen. This study shows that the 'cause' of the temperature rising makes the 'effect' of CO2 rising happen.
You can't just reverse cause and effect. Effects don't make causes happen.
I must admit that I agree that this entire CO2 thing is really blown out of proportion.
IF "we" as a government MUST do something about rising temperatures, we should invest in increasing cloud cover more so than with reducing CO2.
Instead of reducing future CO2 exhaust by 90%, increase cloud cover by 10%, and let the natural demand for energy efficiency and high prices bring down CO2 levels.
Nope, you missed the point. You're confusing positive feedback with cause and effect.
Warmer temperatures create many types of positive feedback that cause CO2 to be released, raising the temperature further. These positive feedback loops include an increase in forest fires and peat fires due to increased drought, melting permafrost, and the release of the methane clathrates, to name some of the most well-known examples.
Positive feedback loops go into effect whatever the cause of the initial warming. If the initial cause of the rise in temperature is an increase in solar irradiance, then yes, the rise in CO2 will come some time after the rise in temperature. If it's the rise in CO2 that causes the rise in temperature, then you'll just get more CO2.
This is one of the reasons it's so critical to keep atmospheric CO2 levels below 450ppm (preferably below 350ppm). The higher CO2 goes, the greater the risk of setting off the positive feedback loops. At ~400ppm, we are already seeing some of this with melting permafrost and wildfires in the Amazon, but it could get much, much worse, and if we manage to set off the methane clathrates (a very real risk), civilization as we know it is probably done for. The clathrates are a primary suspect in multiple mass extinctions, including the Permian-Triassic event that was the worst mass extinction ever.
Kerry, there is still no solid data showing the actual effect of CO2 on increasing temperatures. Any positive feedback from it would be minimal. People use these charts as evidence that CO2 causes warming, when the evidence points to it being simply correlation(and it's not just a few years, these were 400-1000 years after). CO2 is completely political.
Actually, CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since 1859.
Yes, we know it's a greenhouse gas. No, we don't actually know the total effect it has. Most estimates I've seen have been very small. CO2 is typically named as the main culprit in global warming. It's ridiculous.
The latest estimate of CO2's radiative forcing that I've seen is +1.66 Wm-2, which doesn't sound like much, but is actually equivalent to a warming effect of 800 terawatts, more than 50 times the world’s average rate of energy consumption, which is currently about 15 terawatts.
The carbon cycle is not creating the heating cycle.. See my prior statement in terms of the heating - cooling cycle of the earth. The earth will start cooling off 2020...
If you go by satellite measurements we've already started cooling off.
You never did link me to a peer reviewed paper explaining that prediction. (Or even a non-peer reviewed paper in a reputable science magazine directed towards laymen.) Does one exist?
*October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month. link October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.
*Germany recorded in 2009 its lowest October temperature in history link. New Zealand had record low October temperatures and record late snows link (not shown - last time I indicated research links, I was banned 4 days))
Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010 link European and Asian temperatures in the winter 2009-2010 were well below normal
*According to the NCDC U.S. temperatures in October 2009 was on average the third coldest in 116 years, November was the 4th coldest, and February 2010 was the 29th coldest. U.S. temperatures December '09 - February '10 were well below normal link. UK experiences coldest May temps in 15 years link , October '09 through March '10 was the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere
*In the U.S. temperatures cooled in five of the last seven decades even though CO2 levels increased steadily throughout this period.
*In February 2010, the Northern Hemisphere had the second largest area of snow coverage ever recorded link and North America had the most snow cover ever recorded. Snow coverage in the Northern hemisphere has been growing since 1998. Snow in areas where it usually does not snow can only be because temperatures are colder, and not from global warming. The additional snow was not because of higher levels of humidity, according to NCDC February '10 was the 47th driest in 116 years.
July 2010, South America experiences historic cold weather link Argentina experiences coldest winter in 40 years
Summer 2010, record cold in Australia
Cold weather kills 600 rare Penguins in South Africa
In spite of all the hot weather of late, according to NOAA 62% of the continental U.S. had below normal temperatures January-July 2010
August 2010, hundreds die in Peru from record cold link October 2010, hundreds of thousands of sheep die in New Zealand from winter weather
Early December 2010, snow impacts millions in Europe link Denmark experiences coldest November 2010 temps in 131 years link Sweden braces for coldest November 2010 temperatures in over 100 yearsl link UK midlands expect coldest November temps in 134 years
December 2010, The central England temperature record in early December was the second coolest since records began in 1649, UK experiences coldest December in history link UK is paralyzed by blizzards. Only essential travel allowed.
Near record cold in Europe, India, and Asia
January 2011, 7,000 buffaloes die from cold in Vietnam link Bitter cold sets records in Korea link 800,000 animals lost from cold in Mongolia link Snow flattens 100,000 homes in China
February 2011, Moscow has coldest winter in 100 years . Record low temperatures in San Francisco and Spokane link Link Minneapolis has most snow emergency days in city's history link New York City and Philadelphia shatter snowfall records
Winter 2010-2011 in the US, 39th coldest in 113 years of records. Temperatures are dropping an average of 4.1 deg F per decade
Coldest March ('11) in Australia history link Global temperatures in first 3 months of '11 are the coolest in the past decade link May '11 Australian ski slopes to open early with early cold link Seattle has coldest April in history in 2011 Darwin Austalia has coldest May and June 2011 temps in history
Northern Australia has coolest May in history link Record 2011 US snowpacks threaten western states link Record Sierra Mtn snowfall link Record 2011 snowpack in Rockies
July 2011, South America gripped by brutal winter link July 2011 New Zealand sets record for coldest day ever link Unusual snows hit South Africa in late July 2011
August 2011, Auckland New Zealand has coldest temperature in history, and first snow since 1939 link New Zealand worst blizzards in 50 years
Sept '11 Minnesota has record low temperatures and tie earliest snow record linkParts of the UK have the coolest summer in 20 years, butterfly population suffers link Switzerland has record September snows
October '11, extremely rare early snow in Germany link Earliest snows in Ireland since 1964 link New York City has largest October snow since the Civil War link Many records set for earliest snow and most snow in the northeast USA for October, millions without power link Many snow records broken in New England. link Colorado ski resorts have ealiest season opening in history link 80% of Australia cooler than normal in first ten months of 2011 link Record 2011 snow in U.S.
November '11 British Columbia ski resort has earliest opening in its history link record Alaska snow link Russia south hit with record low temps link Northern Hemisphere has record snow cover extent for this date link Fairbanks Alaska has record low temps of -41F, 39 degrees below avg temp.
The best and most accurate way to measure global temperatures are from satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures. See how atmospheric temperatures have changed since the start of measurement in 1979
This information can be verified by YOU doing YOUR own research!
You're mistaking climate for weather - a very common error. Global warming does not mean that we will never again register a record low temperature (in fact, if the Gulf Stream shuts down - a real possibility - global warming will paradoxically result in a lot of them in some regions), it just means the statistical probability of setting a record high temperature is much greater.
And this is in fact exactly what we see. Here is a useful graph of the ratio of record high to record low temperatures in the US since the 50's:
Source: http://www2.ucar.edu/news/1036/record-h … -across-us
The hottest new trend in climate change may be global cooling, some researchers say.
Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon.
“Rather than global warming at a rate of 1 F per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030,” said Easterbrook, speaking on a scientific panel discussion with other climatologists. This, he says, will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell from 2060 to 2090.
Easterbrook spoke before a group of about 700 scientists and government officials at the fourth International Conference on Climate Change. The conference is presented annually in Chicago by the Heartland Institute, a conservative nonprofit think tank that actively questions the theory of man's role in global warming. Last year the Institute published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive reply to the United Nations' latest report on climate change.
"Global warming is over -- at least for a few decades," Easterbrook told conference attendees. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for even greater concern."
Easterbrook made several stunning claims about the effects of the coming cold. There will be twice as many people killed by extreme cold than by extreme heat, he predicted, and global food production will suffer because of the shorter, cooler growing seasons and bad weather during harvest seasons.
But not everyone is breaking out the overcoat and mittens.
“It's absurd to talk of global cooling when global heating is with us now and accelerating," said Dan Miller, managing director of the Roda Group, and an expert on climate change. "According to NASA, this past April was the hottest since temperature measurements began. And 2010 is on track to be the hottest year since temperature records began.
“North America was relatively cool last year, but the Earth as a whole was much warmer than average,” he said.
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) also points to a warming trend. The agency recently reported that global land and ocean surface temperatures for the first four months of 2010 were the warmest it had on record.
Easterbrook, one of 75 climate and policy experts presenting at the conference, uncovered sudden climate fluctuations of warming and cooling -- all of which occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide levels began to rise sharply -- through geologic evidence.
Ten big climate changes occurred over the past 15,000 years, and another 60 smaller changes occurred in the past 5,000 years.
Based on new analysis of ice cores from Greenland to Antarctica, Easterbrook said global temperatures rose and fell from 9 to 15 degrees in a century or less -- swings that he said were "astonishing."
In addition, he explained that energy consumption will rise -- and consumer prices will rise along with it -- and political and social instability could result as the world population grows 50 percent in the next 40 years while food and energy demand soars.
Another presenter at the conference, James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is already happening. Based on figures provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, he noted that snow records from the last 10 years exceeded the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.
A sign of global cooling? This past “decade set a record for largest average global snow extent,” Taylor said.
A very small amount (about 1%) is generated in the very outer crust by "tidal" friction caused by the moon's gravity. The effect of the moon's gravity is altered to a small extent by that from Jupiter, Saturn and a bit by Venus. Over the course of many revolutions of the Earth this could have a noticeable effect on that component of the surface temperature which has resulted in a build up of heat from tidal friction. This could explain long term cooling and warming, such as that seen since the 17th century. The warming effect of Jupiter has been increasing in that period, but will turn to cooling in another 50 years or so. Saturn is already starting to cause a smaller cooling effect which could last until about 2028. It would be difficult to quantify the possible effect of planetary orbits, but just as difficult to disprove the possibility of any effect. This plot calculated from planetary orbits has an uncanny correlation with past and present temperature trends.
Still no peer reviewed paper explaining this theory - again, does one exist?
The short answer is, "No."
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's the long answer, too. The heat flux from the interior simply does not influence the surface temperature significantly; that was determined by Joseph Fourier, the famous mathematician, in 1824 using borehole temperature measurements. Conductivity is just too low.
Science since has had no need to revise his conclusions, except to incorporate the radioactive decay heat which helps sustain the Earth's interior temperature.
According to an article in this morning's NYTimes, "global carbon dioxide emissions 1n 2010 show the biggest jump ever recorded."
Global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record last year, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery.
China Outlines Cuts in Carbon Emissions (November 23, 2011)
Times Topic: Carbon Dioxide
"Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to an analysis released Sunday by the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists tracking the numbers. Scientists with the group said the increase, a half-billion extra tons of carbon pumped into the air, was almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution, and the largest percentage increase since 2003.
"The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades.
"The researchers said the high growth rate reflected a bounce-back from the 1.4 percent drop in emissions in 2009, the year the recession had its biggest impact.
"They do not expect the extraordinary growth to persist, but do expect emissions to return to something closer to the 3 percent yearly growth of the last decade, still a worrisome figure that signifies little progress in limiting greenhouse gases. The growth rate in the 1990s was closer to 1 percent yearly.
"The combustion of coal represented more than half of the growth in emissions, the report found." MORE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/scien … ef=science
Global warming is one of the big problem of this world we have to make peoples aware to it and what are the effects of this..you can see the effects of global warming in the Antarctica where glaciers are melting and it will lead to grow the sea level and many of cities will be in danger zone in future time..
by Holle Abee6 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Tumbletree5 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by Will Apse4 years ago
The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.They have respect for science, though, and...
by sannyasinman7 years ago
The majority now disbelieve global warming propagandaFriday, February 5, 2010The BBC have just published details of a poll conducted by Populus that shows a big drop in belief in AGW. Here's an excerpt from their...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.