New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: cloaked4u



You will be happy to know that lumber and paper companies (such as Weyerhaeuser and International Paper) plant more trees than they harvest, year in and year out.

I am very glad to hear that. Now all we need is for the rest of the populace to get into action. NOW. OH and by the way. Land without trees is the problem. If i have 10 acres of land and plant 20 acres of trees, well do the math. Alot of open land without trees. I'm glad foresters are planting more, but the amount of land that they plant on is but a small portion campared to planet earth and the resources that get used up right away. More populous, more resources needed and used, thus more planted. The world cannot keep up to the demand of the world populous. This is an isssue that needs to be adressed and have something done about it. NOW. I will be going to school for conservation forester soon to help in the battle to plant more trees. The earth and your land and all over look better, smell better,breath clean air and help wildlife grow and keep greenhouse gases down. A big huge plus for all life on earth. Lets bring back the woods to our comunities, Plant some trees in your area for god sake and help the planet and your future grow. The stupid human will never accomplish this, when only a small handful of people are doing something about the problem. We need all hands on deck, NOW.
Care NOW, before it is too late.

a reply to: cloaked4u

You better flag this guy, he's a land lover. Ok boss, flagging now.

Project CLOUD at CERN reported findings that the strongest cause of warming was increased cloud cover caused by cosmic rays...i.e. Solar radiation. Not sure why this never hit the news. a reply to: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: angst18
Project CLOUD at CERN reported findings that the strongest cause of warming was increased cloud cover caused by cosmic rays...i.e. Solar radiation. Not sure why this never hit the news. a reply to: tothetenthpower

Another thing not said is that geologists are finding glass layers in some portions of continents. Why is that? What causes it to get so hot it melts dirt into glass? Interesting find tho. One has to wonder if earth goes thru space in cycles and one or part of a cycle is blasting enormous heat from somewhere. Maybe SUN.

a reply to: cloaked4u

I am not sure what you are talking about. There is obsidian, which is volcanic glass. There are the glass spherules that indicate impacts by meteors. Can you be a bit more specific?

I am not aware of any mysterious "glass layers" unless they are from the above sources which are not particularly mysterious.

a reply to: bbracken677

Maybe you need to watch the history channel, news sources, the internet and geologists. Your next question will be, show me the evidence. I will gladly do so, if asked polite.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Bilk22

The pause will only be important if the trend of the last 100 years or so is reversed.

Short term relationships between co2 and temps not correlating is well documented and illustrates the point that other factors play a heavy part in climate change. Same lack of correlation has been shown in very long time frames. The correlation only shows in medium range (so to speak) time frames.

As I have stated previously co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm in the past, as opposed to today's less than 400 level. At levels of 4000 ppm and 7000 ppm conditions were still excellent for life. In fact, during those periods diversity was exceptional.

The pause also highlights difficulties with the IPCC climate change model.... a model that fails time, and time again to predict real world phenomena. The scientific method demands they stop promoting the model's results as factual, and that they take it back to the drawing board until it can make somewhat accurate predictions.

Well then maybe we need to start looking at something other than CO2

Edit: Thing is - IS THERE PROFIT IN IT?

originally posted by: Bilk22
Not sure if this was posted. Haven't read all 16 pages. Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months

Oh right, the "pause" what about this "pause" thing...

Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.

Oh. It's based purely on RSS. Remember RSS from earlier?

originally posted by: Greven
Get the picture yet? Lemme help you out. Use this tool and pick a starting date. Nobody has complained about the source, so even if you might complain about the site, it's an invalid complaint. I'll save you some time, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

There are 8 data sets: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid.
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

RSS tends to be an outlier and usually shows less warming than the other data sets.

a reply to: cloaked4u

No, I am a geologist. Semi-retired and no longer "practicing".

I just do not know what glass you are speaking of. Which is why I asked for you to elucidate a bit more. I am not aware of any mysterious glass, so what I would presume likely would be obsidian or impact spherules. However I suspect that is not what you are speaking of, so please, elaborate a bit so I can check it out.

A link would be great, but a simple description of some type may also suffice.

originally posted by: mbkennel



You don't understand enough of the physics.

Stop using that claim as if it refutes anything... Do tell me what law of physics IN SPECIFIC do I not understand or corroborates your claim of AGW?...

Physics encompasses a large field of study and just the mere mention of "you just don't know enough about the physics" only shows that YOU do not understand it at all...

originally posted by: mbkennel


The greenhouse effect from water vapor is a response, not a driver, because it is in statistical equilibrium with the enormous amount of water in the oceans.

What the hell?... That statement made no sense whatsoever... First of all, when an atmosphere warms it allows it to contain MORE water vapor. The more water vapor and atmosphere has during a warming cycle the WARMER it becomes. This is a driver from a natural feedback loop and not just a response.

October 3, 2013 Water vapor in the upper atmosphere amplifies global warming, says new study

A new study shows that water vapor high in the sky and the temperature at the Earth‘s surface are linked in a “feedback loop” that further warms our climate. Published today, this study gives the first estimate of the size of the feedback‘s effect, which may help researchers improve modeling to better understand climate change. “Water vapor in the stratosphere increases in tandem with increases in the Earth‘s surface temperature,” said coauthor Sean Davis, a scientist with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder, who works at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. “Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this generates additional warming. We show that this feedback loop could be about 10% of the climate warming from all greenhouse gases.”
...

cires.colorado.edu...

Now, before you jump the gun notice that this study is about water vapor in the stratosphere and not the troposphere. In the troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect.

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

originally posted by: mbkennel
Humans are responsible for the change in radiative forcing over the last few decades.

Tell me, how in the world did humans cause underwater volcano activity to increase and to warm the oceans including the Antarctic?...

How did mankind affect the Earth's magnetic field, or the Sun's activity, or the fact that the entire Solar System has been moving towards a new region of space which seems to have been affecting many if not all planets and the Sun in our Solar System?...

Of course, people like you will claim CO2 is more important than the Sun, or anything else, but it is quite the contrary.

originally posted by: mbkennel
You mean Science one of the two top scientific journals on the planet?

Oh please, don't hide behind those claims SHOW PROOF, and not claims that are obviously false and biased...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Tell me, how in the world did humans cause underwater volcano activity to increase and to warm the oceans including the Antarctic?... How did mankind affect the Earth's magnetic field, or the Sun's activity, or the fact that the entire Solar System has been moving towards a new region of space which seems to have been affecting many if not all planets and the Sun in our Solar System?... Of course, people like you will claim CO2 is more important than the Sun, or anything else, but it is quite the contrary.

You are pointing out the errors in the IPCC's climate model. There is no money, there is no agenda without manmade co2 being the culprit. People follow the mantra because otherwise there would not be a thing we could do.

Problem is, we do not know enough to accurately model future developments and we do not have the ability to "change" climate change in any meaningful way. What we are seeing is exactly what has happened in past interglacial periods. In fact, we have not even reached the higher temps that existed during the previous interglacials. Man will not perish if the temperatures increase unless they hit significantly higher levels. We are approaching the end of our current interglacial.

If people think that global warming is bad, they are going to think that global cooling is a disaster of unprecedented proportions (except that it will not be unprecedented).

We have a few theories floating around regarding what causes the ends of the interglacials, but there is nothing certain. It is generally thought to be a combination of factors of which the major aspect is astronomic as a leading cause.

It is telling that glaciation has kicked in during previous highs of co2 levels. It is telling that when warming occurs at the end of glacial growth that co2 levels lag the temperature increases. It is telling that as the oceans warm, co2 is released. Co2 is also trapped as the oceans cool. How much of what we see in the data is due to co2 causing the conditions and how much do we see where co2 is a result of the conditions? Yes, I am aware of positive feedback, but this does not explain the ending of interglacials by a long shot. It appears that regardless of co2 and other GHG interglacials end.

Conditions that make ice ages possible still exist: The presence of a continuous land mass from North Pole to South Pole, earth tilt and variation of the distance of earth to the sun.

In the far past co2 levels reached highs of 4000 ppm up to 7000 ppm. There is much evidence that suggests that as co2 levels increase (GHG) their effect is not increased similarly. In other words, right now we are approaching 400 ppm...if co2 levels reached 800 we would not see double the greenhouse effect. In fact, far from it. The decrease in effect change appears to be logarithmic.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Man will not perish if the temperatures increase unless they hit significantly higher levels.

The question is the ability of technological civilization to support 9 billion people in peace and prosperity. And yes significantly higher levels are coming. Right now the climatologists only project to 2100 (in public).
At the end of those charts, the curves have very positive slopes. What comes after that? Privately they say that it's so dire (but there are many uncertainties from new mechanisms) that if they gave their honest best guess it would be considered so "alarmist" that nobody would take them seriously now and it would hurt the application of needed action (which so far has been none).

If people think that global warming is bad, they are going to think that global cooling is a disaster of unprecedented proportions (except that it will not be unprecedented).

Yeah, 6 degrees C ice age would be very bad with 9 billion people, but it ain't gonna happen. 6 degrees C heat age would also be extremely bad, and it sure looks like it could be coming without emissions restrictions, which is the course we're on.

That's the global average over all time/seasons/latitude including the 70% of water, it's obviously extremes that hurt the most. Potential for 15-20 C climate excursions over land----imagine humid Alabama summers at 145 F for 4 months, literally biologically impossible for human survival).

Conditions that make ice ages possible still exist: The presence of a continuous land mass from North Pole to South Pole,

But there isn't one. There's no land mass on the North Pole and there's a big Southern Ocean.

In the far past co2 levels reached highs of 4000 ppm up to 7000 ppm. There is much evidence that suggests that as co2 levels increase (GHG) their effect is not increased similarly. In other words, right now we are approaching 400 ppm...if co2 levels reached 800 we would not see double the greenhouse effect. In fact, far from it. The decrease in effect change appears to be logarithmic.

Well so what? Without the greenhouse effect we'd be 30C cooler and the planet totally frozen over.

a reply to: mbkennel

*sigh* North America, Central America, South America fulfill the needs, as shown during the last several glacial growth periods. Not to mention Europe and Africa. It's all about the restriction of currents. The conditions exist.

Edit coming to refute the last couple of sentences

Edit: This is virtually high school physics:
The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter.
The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 cubic meter volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude.
This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33C. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but dastardly scientists can twist.

I used dastardly in a sentence again! Yeah! *high fives myself*.

Too many people to support with finite resources are just too many people to support. Nothing to argue about there.

a reply to: bbracken677

According to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, for any given difference in altitude (height) the increase in specific potential energy (gdh) must be offset by a corresponding decrease in thermal energy (CpdT) and a corresponding decrease in temperature. Thus in a gravitational field an atmosphere in equilibrium must have a non- isothermal decreasing temperature distribution with altitude. This is true in an isolated air column and this basic physical phenomenon exists independent of any input/output of other energy sources such as ground temperature, convection, radiation, convection, etc.
And of course the equation can be rewritten as: dT/dh = -g/CpT = -9.8 K/km
which is a temperature profile often observed in our atmosphere on a daily basis. This static temperature lapse rate (in this model atmosphere) is identical to the dry adiabatic lapse rate theoretically derived in Meteorology for a convective adiabatic air parcel. In both situations it is solely a function of the magnitude of the gravitational field and the heat capacity of the atmospheric gas, and nothing else. And this relationship aptly describes the bulk of the 33C so-called “Greenhouse Effect” that is the bread and butter of the Climate Science Community.

The above is from: Jelbring, Hans R. The Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass, Energy and Environment, Vol.14, Nr 2&3, 2003.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: cloaked4u

You will be happy to know that lumber and paper companies (such as Weyerhaeuser and International Paper) plant more trees than they harvest, year in and year out.

That truly is something to be applauded.

There are times here at ATS when I feel a bit schizo... For anyone unfamiliar with my posts, it's understandable if I seem a bit of a 'multiple' target. One does what they have to when there are kids to feed and I've worn many hats over the years.

The last guy I worked for before I gave up on IT for good (other than friends and family) surprised me one day by talking about a plot of land he had been thinking of buying. He had everything laid out in a sketch showing how many trees spaced by how much distance and a lot of other details.

Just when I had started to consider changing my opinion of him, he went into the methods of periodic pruning per species in order to produce the most value per tree at harvest for veneer (we did a lot of work for furniture companies).

Not sure what to expect as far as this Fall because it will be the first year since I've been unable to take care of the leaves. I do know this, however. My neighbor to the West may gripe about the leaves but she has no idea of how much money we save her on utilities...

That doesn't even factor in the aesthetics. When we moved in we already had two large silver maples. Our kids each planted a silver maple, a tulip poplar (our state tree) and a Hawthorn, respectively. My wife also planted dogwood.

We live on the side of town that is seeing older homes go with more and more frequency. In fact, when my wife and I first moved in there were still stakes in the ground from the original woven wire fence up front. We are now almost a mile from the Northern city limits.

On a humid Southern Indiana day I can't imagine preferring a vacant lot to a backyard that is shaded from sunrise to sunset.

(If I could when my time comes, I'd be composted.)

a reply to: CornShucker

lol @ composted!

I used to have a large yearly compost pile. Lots of work involved periodically.

I agree with trees and shading and just the feel of being in a wooded yard. Nothing like it.

Unfortunately some people prefer to take the "safe" route and cut the trees to eliminate the possibility a tree will fall on house or car.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: mbkennel

*sigh* North America, Central America, South America fulfill the needs, as shown during the last several glacial growth periods. Not to mention Europe and Africa. It's all about the restriction of currents. The conditions exist.

Edit coming to refute the last couple of sentences

Edit: This is virtually high school physics:
The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter.
The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 cubic meter volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude.

True, and so what?

This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33C. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but dastardly scientists can twist.

You're missing physics. The infrared radiation from the upper atmosphere which is the mechanistic cause of the greenhouse effect is not from Maxwellian blackbody radiation and hence only temperature dependent and independent of the chemistry, it is specific to the particular species of molecules. The infrared which is emitted then is not in thermal equilibrium with its immediate surroundings but is re-emitted isotropically and a fraction of it re-intersects the Earth's surface (with the obvious property that ground is opaque and atmosphere is mostly clear).

The combined thermodynamics & radiative transfer of the atmosphere has been studied for many decades, this is firmly known science at the core of atmospheric physics since the start of the field, and well before any anthropogenic global warming became such a pressing political and scientific subject.

a reply to: mbkennel

You obviously missed the points.

If gas law explains virtually all of the 33C heat that "climate scientists" claim comes from GHE, then ...

Come on, I know you can do it. Put 2 and 2 together....

BTW... to your first reply which was "true, and so what" ... that was in reply to your statement that there was not a continuous land mass from North Pole to South Pole. So your reply is rather ... odd.