Isn't Global Warming obvious?

reply to post by Essan


And of those 18 million how many do you think have a background in the subject and have thoroughly researched it? How many were not shown the proposal at all?

I'm done work and going out partying for the weekend so I won't be back on this thread for a few days. Good debate guys.

You can't prove it either way as Essan posted. I'm just in a devil's advocate mood today.

Scurvy you have no idea what you are talking about. The Oregon petition is dubious to say the least, see here. I give it no credence at all. As the link shows the definition of scientists is interesting and there aren't many who actually work in climate science. There are certainly not 18000 "credible" scientists who signed this petition.

As to who has done research I would be interested to find out what reasearch you have done into the subject and who you may have discussed this topic with. Personally I have direct contact with numerous oceanographers, ice scientists, climate modellers and atmospheric scientists. I have published research in the areas of oceanography and polar physics in major international journals. Of course this will just mean that you will suggest that therefore I am in on the conspiracy and so be it.

Climate change is real but is not caused by any thing that we are doing. If we, as humans, are responsible for the climate change then why are all the planets in our solar system experiencing "global warming". I didn't know we had uncontrolled construction, CO2 emissions, and SUV's, cows and unabated deforestation on other planets:

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds

Climate change hits Mars

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Tracking down abrupt climate changes

In an article in the scientific magazine Nature Geosciences, the geoscientists Achim Brauer, Peter Dulski and Jörg Negendank, (emeritus Professor) from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Gerald Haug from the DFG-Leibniz Center for Surface Processes and Climate Studies at the University of Potsdam and the ETH in Zurich, and Daniel Sigman from the Princeton University prove, for the first time, an extremely fast climate change in Western Europe. This took place long before man-made changes in the atmosphere, and is causatively associated with a sudden change in the wind systems.

source

WHO IS APS:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

source

Additionally this latest report from APS indicates in its abstract:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more
than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
1. Radiative forcing DF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter k; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

source

Also see this thread:
The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Humans are not the problem.

-Euclid


[edit on 22-8-2008 by euclid]

[edit on 22-8-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclid
Additionally this latest report from APS indicates in its abstract:

Oh dear...

It's not from the APS. It was a non peer-reviewed article in a minor APS forum newsletter written by the non-scientist and think-tank denier, Lord Chumley-Monckton - what, what, what!.

The APS hasn't reversed its stance at all - but just ignore the facts, ignore the deception found in your source, and the disingenuous tactics of the likes of Monckton and his cheerleaders.

APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change
American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, DC — American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

“Global warming and energy use have been on the minds of many Americans for quite some time. Recognizing the importance of these issues, the governing body of the American Physical Society announced its position on Climate Change on November 18, 2007. The Society’s position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in this issue that has considerable international consequences.

“APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

“Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, ‘Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,’ which was attached to the newsletter article.”

www.aps.org...

Now, don't forget who the APS are, you highlighted how expansive this group is - 50,000 did you say? Suppose some find that impressive.

Also see this thread:
The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.

Oh dear.

From two probes of the Uranian upper atmosphere in
November 6, 1998, we derive equivalent isothermal temperatures
of 116:7 § 7:9 K for immersion, and 124:8 § 15:5 K for
emersion, indicating that the warming trend observed between
1977 and 1983 has reversed. If interpreted as a purely temporal
change, the 1998 observations indicate a cooling rate of3Kyr¡1.
This cooling rate cannot be caused by radiative processes alone.
Thus, the observations presented here strongly suggest that there
is a nonradiative energy sink in the Uranian upper atmosphere.
Possibilities for the sink include thermal conduction to the stratosphere,
and adiabatic cooling.

www.boulder.swri.edu...

[edit on 22-8-2008 by melatonin]

Fortunately the planet is an intricate and considered energy, if the US refuses to get involved in renewable energy, others will. In the meantime, argue the toss about industry funded research vs academic research, but while I trust the oil industry to maximise production, I trust the academics on principles about research and its results.

How about looking at the data instead of arguing? Any scientist, mathematician or educated person should be able to look at the data to see if the conclusions drawn make sense.

If you want to look at the recent sunspot activity data and draw your own conclusions a decent site is:
www.dxlc.com...

Individual graphs of each cycle for 1 to 20 are at: Solar cycles 1-20 www.dxlc.com...
And the last three cycles 21, 22, and 23 can be seen at www.dxlc.com...


A thing of interest to note is the monthly average sunspot activity for minima is normally around 10 or more. The last couple of cycles have had minima of 20 or more and now the average is 5 or less and has been for about a year. Also the last couple of cycles have had very high peak numbers of sunspots compared to the other 20 cycles. Low activity cycles seem to occur about every 100 years. I think this is why a low activity cycle is predicted for cycle 24. A low activity minima seems to precede a low activity cycle.
The were a large number of sunspots during the past few cycles. Direct satellite measurements of irradiance indicate sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise. If sunspots and earth temperature correlate as some have indicated then we may be entering a period of cooling.

Please note. Although the sunspot/earth temperature correlation has been known for 200 years or more nothing was ever said about climate and sunspots until the Oregon group brought the subject up a couple of decades ago. Statistics are statistics you don't have to be a climate scientist to look at the data and decide if someone is bull s@@ting you. As a lab manager I have found “consensus” is the term the boss uses when he wants a decision that is contrary to the scientific facts. I have been fired a number of times for having data that proves a “consensus” was flat out wrong. Follow the money. Academia is not without financial pressure.

Wow, this thread got out of hand quickly. I'm sorry, I'm gonna rephrase my original post. First of all, I'm not entirely sure if we are contributing towards global warming. Maybe we are, maybe it's a natural process.

But what I meant to say was, I think that everything is being blamed on our production of CO2 from cars for example. But I think that is making air conditions worse (which certainly could be a factor in global warming), when really there is another whole addition that could be adding to global warming that nobody has really confronted, and that's the design of our civilization.

Gigantic buildings in cities that just become huge heat sources from the sun. Cities that are being expanded at a quick rate are just adding more to this. Construction of our cities and our lifestyle (roads for example) could have a bigger addition than adding CO2 but we have no real way of recording the temperatures.

I thought your post was well-worded and clear. The problem is the misunderstanding of global climatology among the populace, aggravated by claims from those who either have an agenda or who themselves know little about the subject.

As to CO2 emissions, there is no doubt that humans are burning large amounts of fossil fuels, nor that fossil fuels produce CO2 when burned (along with water), nor that this is contributing to a (slightly) larger observed quantity of CO2 in the present atmosphere. The debate is more about what this CO2 level may do to the general climate, or whether it is responsible for a period of observed temperature increases.

There are many reasons why I consider present Global Warming 'science' to be nothing but bunk:

1) The science is concentrating on CO2. CO2 is not only a harmless gas in the atmosphere, but a requirement for life on earth to exist. Compared to methane, for example, it is also a very poor 'greenhouse gas', absorbing only 6% of UV energy in the absorption spectrum specific to it. While it would be ludicrous to ignore the possibility that CO2 has an effect, it is equally ludicrous to assume that no other phenomena could be responsible.

2) A great deal of energy is spent on propagandizing of the 'facts'. Every attempt is made to place blame for any observed temperature increase, no matter how small, isolated, or temporary, on CO2 emissions. Any suggestion of other sources of temperature anomaly are ridiculed and/or ignored. Witness the posts on this thread.

3) The models used to make dire predictions are not public. While the results are published regularly, the details of how these reports are generated seem to be especially difficult to locate. As an example, the data from Mauna Loa observatory concerning CO2 levels detected are easily found, yet little to no data on the emissions from Mauna loa (the volcano) itself exist.

4) A great deal of money is being made due to the 'science'. I do not refer here to scientific funding, but to private investments/businesses that have great stake in the findings of any research being performed. Not only is this a serious conflict of interest, but it damages credibility as to the results of the research. It is very common for those in financial conflict with research, or for those with a vested interest in specific results, to produce faulty and/or misleading data in order to further self-interests. This is simple human nature, and the reason serious experimentation is carried out in double-blind experiments.

5) The leading spokesmen are both financially involved with the results and ignorant of the science. Yes, I refer to Al Gore here. Yes, I know he is not the only proponent of GW. But this still damages the credibility of the science. He is one of the largest individual producers of CO2 in the world today, by choice, and yet he advocates a system tyo 'punish' those who produce too much CO2. Leadership by example? Certainly NOT!

6) Taxation is being proposed as a solution, even though no method of using the collected taxes to avert the proposed problem is presented. The only way this would work is if the problem was a lack of money by the taxing authority. It is not; the stated problem is CO2 levels.

7) Other proposals besides taxation, more apt to resolving the stated problem, are ignored and/or opposed by those advocating the taxation as a solution. Recently, a CO2 scrubber for personal use was introduced by Columbia University. It is reported to remove one ton of CO2 per day, resulting in the removal of one year's worth of personal CO2 contribution in 18 days. It is opposed by Greenpeace, a leading supporter of carbon cap/trade, for stated reasons that it would lead to more use of fossil fuels.
Source: www.heartland.org...
Thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

8) The problem is obviously one of global proportions, since there is no separation between one area of the atmosphere and another, yet proposed treaties stated to address the problem ignore certain areas and concentrate on others, even though the areas ignored are developing CO2 production capabilities at the highest rates of any countries. Yes, I am referring to Kyoto. Yes, I mean China/India.

9) A 'consensus', although far from extant, is said to be the final word. There are two problems to this: one, a consensus indicates a lack of serious oppositional claims, where in reality there are claims to the contrary of the 'established' opinions. Secondly, a consensus does not always equate with fact. Witness the previous scientific consensuses throughout history that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that 'bad blood' was the cause of disease (and that the cure was bleeding the patient to death), and that the speed of sound could not be exceeded. All of these things at one time were believed by the scientists of that time, yet all have been disproven and are now summarily dismissed.

Taken all together, this appears more to be a political ploy backed by those who have grudges against a particular industry than true science. The OP has a very valid point, stating one of the possible causes of global temperature changes. His idea gains respect when one realizes that the Northern Hemisphere is the one which is experiencing the vast bulk of temperature increase, and is also the hemisphere which contains the most industry, therefore the most industrialized (concrete/asphalt) areas.

Another possibility is wind turbine overuse. No system can have energy withdrawn without resulting in a lower system energy. That includes the wind patterns across the planet. It is interesting that the major temperature increases began during the early 1980s, about the same time that wind farms became popular. The majority of wind farms are located in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Coincidence? Maybe, probably even, but shouldn't that at least be considered?

All the energy in the planet is said by science to be supplied by the sun, but every attempt to mention the possibility that the warming of the planet (along with the observed warming of other solar planets) is dismissed out-of-hand. Is it not logical to investigate any such possibility thoroughly, especially since no one has yet proposed how an abundance of CO2 on earth can create warmer temperatures on Saturn.

All in all, I think the OP's suggestion is definitely something that should be considered, if the intent is to account for the single-degree increase in global temperatures.

TheRedneck
(waiting on melatonin's reply I know he'll disagree with something in all that)

TheRedneck
(waiting on melatonin's reply

I know he'll disagree with something in all that)

I'll answer just for you.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
1) The science is concentrating on CO2. CO2 is not only a harmless gas in the atmosphere, but a requirement for life on earth to exist.

Irrelevant.

Compared to methane, for example, it is also a very poor 'greenhouse gas', absorbing only 6% of UV energy in the absorption spectrum specific to it.

Not sure why UV absorption would be relevant. It is a weaker GHG than CH4. However, it has a longer half-life and is being released in larger quantities.

Indeed, CO2 is a major GHG.

While it would be ludicrous to ignore the possibility that CO2 has an effect, it is equally ludicrous to assume that no other phenomena could be responsible.

No-one in science does. A quick perusal of the IPCC report would show this. However, CO2 is a very important contribution, and will be so in the future.

2) A great deal of energy is spent on propagandizing of the 'facts'. Every attempt is made to place blame for any observed temperature increase, no matter how small, isolated, or temporary, on CO2 emissions. Any suggestion of other sources of temperature anomaly are ridiculed and/or ignored. Witness the posts on this thread.

Nah, not true. For example, no matter how many times the anomalous 1998 temperature is associated with the strong El Nino, 'sceptics' ignore this and use it as a chance to claim warming is over. Indeed, they also ignore the presence of La Nina for this past year for the same game.

Climate science is well aware that climate is a multicomponent chaotic system.

3) The models used to make dire predictions are not public. While the results are published regularly, the details of how these reports are generated seem to be especially difficult to locate. As an example, the data from Mauna Loa observatory concerning CO2 levels detected are easily found, yet little to no data on the emissions from Mauna loa (the volcano) itself exist.

Abstract
The annual quiescent CO2 emissions from the summit of Mauna Loa volcano between 1959 and 1999 were calculated from atmospheric measurements made 6 km downslope at the Mauna Loa Observatory MLO. Volcanic CO2 is trapped beneath a tens of meters thick temperature inversion at night and produces excess CO2 mixing ratios of up to tens of ppm above background. Measurements of the excess CO2, as a function of height above the ground, and wind direction are combined with the downslope wind speed to estimate the total flux of CO2 trapped near the ground, which provides a minimum estimate of the total volcanic emissions. The CO2 emissions were greatest shortly after each eruption and then decreased exponentially with 1/e time constants of 6.6, 6.5, and 1.6 years for the post-1950, 1975, and 1984 periods. Total emissions for these periods were 3.3, 1.9, and 2.5 x 10^8 kg, respectively. The distribution of quiescent volcanic CO2 with wind direction shifted eastward after the 1975 and 1984 eruptions by a few degrees, coinciding with a shift in eruptive activity from the SW rift (1950) to the NE rift (1984). A broadening of the distribution in 1993–1995 and 1998 is interpreted
as indicating a new source high on the SW rift.

Ryan, S. (2001). Chemical Geology, 177, 201+

Scientists are clever-clogs. The article is a good explanation of what goes on at Mauna. If you want it, just ask.

4) A great deal of money is being made due to the 'science'. I do not refer here to scientific funding, but to private investments/businesses that have great stake in the findings of any research being performed. Not only is this a serious conflict of interest, but it damages credibility as to the results of the research. It is very common for those in financial conflict with research, or for those with a vested interest in specific results, to produce faulty and/or misleading data in order to further self-interests. This is simple human nature, and the reason serious experimentation is carried out in double-blind experiments.

There would be a conflict of interest if the people who had a great stake in the businesses and investments funded the research. However, in the US (and elsewhere) the funding generally comes from government agencies - a government which is well-known to be much less than willing to accept the findings from its scientists. Indeed, one of these agencies had become so politicised that it attempted to gag one of its foremost scientists, and the GOP was advised on FUD by Luntz.

However, the links between industry and many of the deniers is well-established. That is a conflict of interest. Pity Exxon et al don't just bother funding science, rather than think-tanks who spread media FUD and BS. Wonder if it's a cost-benefit analysis...

5) The leading spokesmen are both financially involved with the results and ignorant of the science. Yes, I refer to Al Gore here. Yes, I know he is not the only proponent of GW. But this still damages the credibility of the science. He is one of the largest individual producers of CO2 in the world today, by choice, and yet he advocates a system tyo 'punish' those who produce too much CO2. Leadership by example? Certainly NOT!

Aye, Gore is fat.

6) Taxation is being proposed as a solution, even though no method of using the collected taxes to avert the proposed problem is presented. The only way this would work is if the problem was a lack of money by the taxing authority. It is not; the stated problem is CO2 levels.

Eh? The idea I would think would be to change the behaviour of the Homo economicus amongst us.

7) Other proposals besides taxation, more apt to resolving the stated problem, are ignored and/or opposed by those advocating the taxation as a solution. Recently, a CO2 scrubber for personal use was introduced by Columbia University. It is reported to remove one ton of CO2 per day, resulting in the removal of one year's worth of personal CO2 contribution in 18 days. It is opposed by Greenpeace, a leading supporter of carbon cap/trade, for stated reasons that it would lead to more use of fossil fuels.
Source: www.heartland.org...
Thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, it eats up lots of energy, up to around a 1/4-1/3 of the energy produced by a plant for large scale systems.

That's a choice we would have to make - less CO2, but use resources faster. Not ideal, but better than nothing. Ultmately, who cares what greenpeace think? I don't. I'd have increasing numbers of nuclear power stations myself, sure they'd hate that too.

8) The problem is obviously one of global proportions, since there is no separation between one area of the atmosphere and another, yet proposed treaties stated to address the problem ignore certain areas and concentrate on others, even though the areas ignored are developing CO2 production capabilities at the highest rates of any countries. Yes, I am referring to Kyoto. Yes, I mean China/India.

Aye, t'is a problem. But we also have to weigh the rights of less developed countries to develop comparable to western societies. If we just tell them to live in the squalor they have been, they will ignore the issue all together. So we have to do a 'slowly slowly catchie monkie'.

9) A 'consensus', although far from extant, is said to be the final word. There are two problems to this: one, a consensus indicates a lack of serious oppositional claims, where in reality there are claims to the contrary of the 'established' opinions. Secondly, a consensus does not always equate with fact. Witness the previous scientific consensuses throughout history that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that 'bad blood' was the cause of disease (and that the cure was bleeding the patient to death), and that the speed of sound could not be exceeded. All of these things at one time were believed by the scientists of that time, yet all have been disproven and are now summarily dismissed.

Heh. Suppose this is an off-shoot of the the 'they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright brothers etc'. And in response, I say 'they also laughed at Coco the Clown'.

There are always claims to the contrary, some even still claim the earth is flat. However, very few of them are worth a second glance. It will always come down to evidence, not some dude being contrary.

The majority of wind farms are located in the Northern Hemisphere as well. Coincidence? Maybe, probably even, but shouldn't that at least be considered?

Could also be that a large number of really cool people died in the 60s and 70s, reducing the coolness of human society.

All the energy in the planet is said by science to be supplied by the sun, but every attempt to mention the possibility that the warming of the planet (along with the observed warming of other solar planets) is dismissed out-of-hand. Is it not logical to investigate any such possibility thoroughly, especially since no one has yet proposed how an abundance of CO2 on earth can create warmer temperatures on Saturn.

Not at all. Indeed, the IPCC report and various studies show an effect of solar variation this century. However, solar activity appears to have been going nowhere for decades.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

1) The science is concentrating on CO2.

But that's the point: the science is not concentrating on CO2. The science is equally examining urbanisation, deforestation, afforestion, black soot, aerosols, ozone, contrails - as well as solar variation, oceanic currents and other natural factors.

It's the media, politicians and 'deniers' who concentrate on CO2 as if it's the be all and end all.

reply to post by melatonin

I'll answer just for you.

Thank you. I knew you would anyway.

Not sure why UV absorption would be relevant. It is a weaker GHG than CH4. However, it has a longer half-life and is being released in larger quantities.

I do not see how the action of CO2 can be irrelevant, either chemically or energetically. CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs light from the UV spectrum and converts it to heat, rather than allowing it to reflect back into space. That is the crux of the CO2 debate.

As for quantities, you are absolutely correct it far exceeds methane production. Methane also tends to oxidize in the atmosphere (not radiate, as implied by a half-life) into CO2 and H2O.

No-one in science does. A quick perusal of the IPCC report would show this. However, CO2 is a very important contribution, and will be so in the future.

Actually, yes they do. And so does the populace, as is evidenced by this thread and the responses to a possible contributor to GW. As political as this subject has become, it is now being driven not only by science, but by (usually misinformed) public opinion.

Nah, not true. For example, no matter how many times the anomalous 1998 temperature is associated with the strong El Nino, 'sceptics' ignore this and use it as a chance to claim warming is over. Indeed, they also ignore the presence of La Nina for this past year for the same game.

Climate science is well aware that climate is a multicomponent chaotic system.

True enough about the 1998 readings. That was an anomaly, and according to the NOAA website, the temperature averaged over a period of years is still climbing. It also shows that temperature climb decelerating into a flat curve.

I'll agree the obfuscation of reality is evident on both sides.

Scientists are clever-clogs. The article is a good explanation of what goes on at Mauna. If you want it, just ask.

Thank you, I will. That is precisely what I had been trying to locate.

There would be a conflict of interest if the people who had a great stake in the businesses and investments funded the research. However, in the US (and elsewhere) the funding generally comes from government agencies - a government which is well-known to be much less than willing to accept the findings from its scientists. Indeed, one of these agencies had become so politicised that it attempted to gag one of its foremost scientists, and the GOP was advised on FUD by Luntz.

However, the links between industry and many of the deniers is well-established. That is a conflict of interest. Pity Exxon et al don;t just bother funding science, rather than think-tanks who spread media FUD and BS.

Here again, I agree there is obfuscation on both sides, But there is still obfuscation.

I have to again bring up Al Gore (yes, I know you don't like him either). He is presently making millions from Global Warming hysteria. As to be expected, he is also supporting the agenda. He is not the only one; tax incentives for wind turbine power are at an all-time high. There is a blending tax credit for oil companies who use ethanol (proven to be unproductive either for price or CO2 emissions, as well as harmful to our food supply). Then there is the carbon-credit scheme which allows larger companies to simply 'buy out' their competition's ability to operate, stifling competition. All of these are examples of public funding of private companies, under the guise of 'environmentalism'.

Yeah, it eats up lots of energy, up to around a 1/4-1/3 of the energy produced by a plant for large scale systems.

That's a choice we would have to make - less CO2, but use resources faster. Not ideal, but better than nothing. Ultmately, who cares what greenpeace think? I don't. I'd have increasing numbers of nuclear power stations myself, sure they'd hate that too.

If the end result is to remove excess CO2 from the air, why worry about energy use?

You're right that we have to make a choice, but it seems that those behind this agenda want to have neither choice. If we remove CO2, we are using too much fuel. If we don't remove CO2, we're killing the planet. If you want this movement to have weight, someone needs to decide which way to steer the bus.

The simple truth is that the real agenda is to reduce fossil fuel use. Now, we can debate on that topic, but when it is disguised as environmentalism, that is outright fraud on the people of the planet.

Oh, and I like nuke plants, too.

Aye, t'is a problem. But we also have to weigh the rights of less developed countries to develop comparable to western societies. If we just tell them to live in the squalor they have been, they will ignore the issue all together.

I will agree that other countries have a right to advance technologically. But if you are going to clean up the atmosphere, it does little good to clean one area at the expense of that people, while totally ignoring other areas. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we must clean CO2 out of the atmosphere of the planet, it must be for the whole planet. Otherwise you're spraying air freshener in one corner of a pig sty.

Heh. Suppose this is an off-shoot of the the 'they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright brothers etc'. And in response, I say 'they also laughed at Coco the Clown'.

There are always claims to the contrary, some even still claim the earth is flat. However, very few of them are worth a second glance. It will always come down to evidence, not some dude being contrary.

Agreed. So why all the concern over some mythological 'consensus'?

Could also be that a large number of really cool people died in the 60s and 70s, reducing the coolness of human society.

As I recall, that did happen. I take it we agree here as well. I'm wondering where the disagreement between us lies.

Indeed, the IPCC report and various studies show an effect of solar variation this century. However, solar activity appears to have been going nowhere for decades.

You said to ask, and I will. If there is no solar activity adding to the warming trend, then why are the other planets exhibiting temperature changes? I'd like to see the raw data from solar observations.

TheRedneck

The raw data for the suns energy is in the post I made about sunspots.

If you want to look at the recent sunspot activity data and draw your own conclusions a decent site is:
www.dxlc.com...

Individual graphs of each cycle for 1 to 20 are at: Solar cycles 1-20 www.dxlc.com...
And the last three cycles 21, 22, and 23 can be seen at www.dxlc.com...

The enegy output of the sun increase with the number of sunspots. I do not think there is debate about that.

Also as the orginal post stated Blacktop causes a rise in temperature in the micro climate near it. That may have an effect on the temperatures recorded since they are often taken at airports.

Graph of temperatures wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...

reply to post by crimvelvet
Thank you for the link. It'll take me some time to go over it all, but this is a wealth of pertinent data.

TheRedneck

Here's a very simple answer to the OP's question:

Global Warming may be obvious, but the root cause of it is far from obvious (or even known).

reply to post by TheRedneck


Here's the Mauna Loa paper I mentioned a while back, RD.

www.sendspace.com...

Enjoy.

I'll try to get to your post soonish...

Originally posted by Essan
If they imposed a 20% tax on petrol due to declining elephant populations would you concentrate your energies on trying to prove that elephant populations were not declining?

Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on showing that the taxes will not have any effect on elephant populations?

You have actually hit the nail on the head.

Are the elephant populations declining due to the use of petrol? Perhaps the two incidents aren't related yet some find the correlation between the two. Perhaps another action (cutting down habitat) is the cause for the decline. To link the petrol to the decline seems obvious ie, an increase in petrol use while elephant populations decline, but is an erroneous assumption.

What I am saying is that yes, climates change, they have for as long as hominids have been on the Earth. To take data and models that you can't extrapolate back to other pre industrial warm periods and get similar results should tell you that, most probably either your model is wrong or your data has no dirrect correlation to the effect that you are monitoring.

I think everyone here acknowledges that the Sun, orbital variations and the Oceans have more control over the overall Global climate that any AGW caused by humans and their energy needs. Your thoughts?

I

isn't it obvious that the earth is flat?

perception is easily compromised by persuasion, isn't it? the premises of AGW are simplistic and logically unsound, any change in climate would be considered man's fault under the existing paradigm. i'm not going to reiterate everything i posted over time, just refer to an old thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2008.9.8 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I do not see how the action of CO2 can be irrelevant, either chemically or energetically. CO2 does not reflect heat, it absorbs light from the UV spectrum and converts it to heat, rather than allowing it to reflect back into space. That is the crux of the CO2 debate.

I think you might be confusing short-wave UV with long-wave IR absorption. The absorption in UV isn't so important here.

Short wavelenghts come into the earth, are absorbed and emitted as long waves. CO2, as a GHG, traps (or more specifically, slows emission to space of) this radiation in the troposphere.

Methane also tends to oxidize in the atmosphere (not radiate, as implied by a half-life) into CO2 and H2O.

Aye, so methane has a double whammy. Just gotta hope those clathrates will stay stable...

Actually, yes they do. And so does the populace, as is evidenced by this thread and the responses to a possible contributor to GW. As political as this subject has become, it is now being driven not only by science, but by (usually misinformed) public opinion.

Nah, the problem is that CO2 appears to be the major human contribution, it is also the easiest to control, the best understood, and it is the one that really pisses 'contrarians' off.

So discussions always focus on GHGs. As Essan continually points out, there are other human influences. And they are studied and discussed in documents from the IPCC.

No-one in science suggests that CO2 alone is the cause. There are human effects along with natural effects. It's not a black and white situation.

True enough about the 1998 readings. That was an anomaly, and according to the NOAA website, the temperature averaged over a period of years is still climbing. It also shows that temperature climb decelerating into a flat curve.

I'll agree the obfuscation of reality is evident on both sides.

I think there is a greater degree on the contrarian side. They have to - a fair assessment of the evidence doesn't help. But the media isn't the best source of information. It tends to be written by people with not the best understanding of the issue.

Here again, I agree there is obfuscation on both sides, But there is still obfuscation.

To a degree. Special interests exist supporting and denying the science. However, again, I think the obfuscation tends to come moreso from the people defending the status-quo. People arguing from their wallets, emotions, consequences (e.g., some irrational fear of 'regulation').

Then there is the carbon-credit scheme which allows larger companies to simply 'buy out' their competition's ability to operate, stifling competition. All of these are examples of public funding of private companies, under the guise of 'environmentalism'.

Nah, it means that some companies could trade their CO2 credits.

I doubt they will eat as much public cash as the bail-outs due to the effects of free market fundamentalism on the banking system might attract.

Perhaps the US government will make a profit from this nationalistation.

I don't see why you are scared of expanding new forms of energy. We prosper when we encourage innovation and competition. And if the innovation will have positive environmental effects, what's the problem? People in the current administration are probably making dosh from the current tours of the middle-east (or will do, like those supporting tobacco interests did).

Gore is little more than an environmental lobbyist now. No different than all the other influences on your government.

If the end result is to remove excess CO2 from the air, why worry about energy use?

You're right that we have to make a choice, but it seems that those behind this agenda want to have neither choice. If we remove CO2, we are using too much fuel. If we don't remove CO2, we're killing the planet. If you want this movement to have weight, someone needs to decide which way to steer the bus.

I suppose it's not the most efficient process with a finite resource, but if we have no other choice, fine by me.

You are suggesting that people like greenpeace are the people behind the agenda? Heh. They are just one group amongst many trying to influence policy. They are just reactin to the science.

The simple truth is that the real agenda is to reduce fossil fuel use. Now, we can debate on that topic, but when it is disguised as environmentalism, that is outright fraud on the people of the planet.

Nah, the real agenda is to reduce emissions from fossil fuels due to the warnings from scientific evidence. Numerous ways we can go about it.

Oh, and I like nuke plants, too.

Aye, I'll trade off possible risks from that energy source for the future scenario of increasing CO2 emissions.

I will agree that other countries have a right to advance technologically. But if you are going to clean up the atmosphere, it does little good to clean one area at the expense of that people, while totally ignoring other areas. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we must clean CO2 out of the atmosphere of the planet, it must be for the whole planet. Otherwise you're spraying air freshener in one corner of a pig sty.

Well, its not to clean CO2 out the atmosphere, although that's an option to reduce impact. More that we need to stop our increasing emissions.

We can afford to focus on developing new technologies, introducing other forms of energy (renewables, nuclear, 'clean' fossil-fuels, being more efficient). They can't to such an extent. We reduce our emissions of CO2 over time, moving to cleaner forms. We allow them a chance to develop using the cheaper forms and when possible renewables for a time. Eventually, we all move to less problematic energy sources.

This should help to keep the effects of GHGs to a more manageable level.

Agreed. So why all the concern over some mythological 'consensus'?

It's not mythological. the consensus is in the literature.

Thus, even though I could find a good number of batty YEC creationists with biology degrees, there is still a consensus on evolutionary theory and the age of the earth.

You said to ask, and I will. If there is no solar activity adding to the warming trend, then why are the other planets exhibiting temperature changes? I'd like to see the raw data from solar observations.

Only a few planets are. It doesn't really mean that much. Many have their own completely unrelated explanations (e.g., mars and dust storms). There are dozens of bodies in the solar system - they can warm, cool, stay the same. Not a surprise to see some warming.

Solar activity has not been increasing cf. 1940-50, and any effect cannot account for the warming we have observed, never mind 2'C on Pluto (inverse-square law, anyone?):

Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.

Solanki, Usoskin et al.2004

Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

Foukal, Frohlich et al., 2006

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

Lockwood & Frohlich, 2007

This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

Solanki & Krivova, 2003

Between not much and 30%. With the most recent paper showing solar activity reducing for over 20 years. It's not the best graph, but it's big:



Which is based on this (Krivova & Solanki):



[edit on 8-9-2008 by melatonin]