reply to post by ElectricUniverse
All you have shown is to be ignorant of the facts. Every one of those claims you excerpted has been debunked by REAL scientists. From the claim
that "95% of scientists endorse the consensus" which is a lie.
I have proven in past threads that many scientific groups are just touting the AGW bandwagon just to get more funds.
The position written in the websites of scientific groups which claim are a consensus on AGW does not speak for the majority of the scientists which
are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more
grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change.
Here you go, actual opinion polls of professional climatologists, not board directors or random chemists:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received
replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who
"listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of
climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a
significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels,
and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters,
with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that: It seems that
the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances
and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
That research made by Wilson was only from 1978 -2002, and the research showed that until the end of the research the sun's output HAD BEEN
INCREASING, and not decreasing like the AGW fans like to claim.
Directly from your link:
The new study shows that the TSI has increased by about 0.1 percent over 24 years. That is not enough to cause notable climate change, Willson and
his colleagues say, unless the rate of change were maintained for a century or more.
All other studies I have found claimed that TSI stayed relatively constant or slightly decreased over the last 30 years. TSI directly measured by
sattelites may differ from TSI computed from suns intensity on Earth because it does not take into account that higher TSI increases albedo (promotes
cloud formation - nucleation). That is negative feedback mechanism which decreases effect of changing TSI on our climate, so ALL studies taking into
account actual energy that reaches lower levels of athmosphere show constant or decreasing TSI -
Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas
eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the
University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot
frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice
cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the
mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The
temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring
the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront
of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over
the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the
temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature
has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal
point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along
with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be
investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s
temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and
director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
The solar contribution is assessed to be in the range 0.06 – 0.30 Wm–2. Note that when calculating solar radiative forcing it is necessary to
scale the total solar irradiance at the Earth by a factor taking into account geometric considerations as well as the planetary albedo. Thus the RF
due to a change in TSI of 1 Wm–2 is about 1/6 Wm–2, or a change in TSI of 0.7 Wm–2 since 1750 is equivalent to RF = 0.12 Wm–2. The actual
variations in TSI over the past few centuries is very uncertain (see Section 4.2) and the change in TSI depends crucially on the starting date (chosen
as 1750 by the IPCC to represent the pre-industrial atmosphere): choice of earlier or later in the 18th century would have given an increased solar
RF. Thus the value of solar radiative forcing in the IPCC figure is largely indicative. Taking a value of the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.6 K
(Wm–2)–1 suggests that a global average surface warming of less than 0.1 K since 1750 could be ascribed to the Sun.
"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to
explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a
longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also
some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first
half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However,
these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean
temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.
Variations in solar output simply do not have the required power to explain recent climate change, even if they were slightly increasing as shown in
your link. (1960-2010).
This is the problem with people like you.. You want to claim that mankind caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but atmospheric CO2
levels have risen naturally many times in the past. Only a small percentage of that increase is anthropogenic, but again you people need to try to
"scare" those who are not informed.
Show me actual scientific studies which quantify and prove that only a small portion of increase in anthropogenic, because every study I found on the
subject has shown the contrary (at least 50% of the increase is definitely anthropogenic).
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human
emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while
CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg. carbon atoms with
differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in
the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The
C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Yes, it was hotter in the distant past, so its perfectly safe to double the amount of atmospheric CO2 in just 200 years and rapidly change the climate
even if now all life and human settlemements are adapted to current conditions. Its the same logic like saying its OK to blow up whole planet with
nuclear weapons, because in the distant past it was just a ball of molten rock - if our planet suddenly reverted to climate conditions that were here
milions of years ago, it would be catastrophic.
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence,
atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The
recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
As I have already said, Its the RATE of change that is important here, not absolute values. Naturally occuring cycles would never change CO2 levels
and climate so rapidly. If CO2 would rise from preindustrial 280 ppm to current 390 or even higher ppm in natural time span (10 000 years), there
would be no problem. But we have managed to do it in less than 200 years.
When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate.
For example the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field have also been shown to affect the climate.
Not significantly enough to explain the observed changes.
Desertification is mainly due to annual-plow agriculture.
Source? Are you saying that the whole sahara desert is caused by bad agriculture?
Desertification is MAINLY due to temperatures. I am not saying that other effects do not contribute, but its really lame excuse to say "bad
agriculture contributed a bit to desertification, so its perfectly safe to add another powerful forcing agent causing it (temperature), becasue not
all desertification was directly casued by temperature".
domestic livestock is causing global warming from methane emissions. And through the destruction of habitat is driving extinction.
Methane emissions from livestock contribute max. 2% to observed global warming ( www.animal-science.org...
). Also, its
not fossil source, so its natural and in balance with methane sinks (does not add to the cycle in the long run).
So far you haven't mentioned even 1. The cons you mentioned were only marginally related to "global warming", which we already know is mainly
driven by methane from factory meat farms.
So far you have not refuted even 1 of these, or shown that they are only "marginally" related to GW:
-Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
-Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
-Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt (Westerling 2006)
-Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)
-Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
-Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
..methane from factory meat farms? Are you really making this up on the fly?
Oh noooo..... rainforests, and animals were doing fine with temperatures 3-5C higher than today's?..... Who would have thought this?......
Well, I guess ANOTHER lie of the AGWers is dead.... BTW, the above DOES NOT PROVE that CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the AGW fans, it
just shows that giant forests and animals have existed and thrived with warmer temperatures than at present.
It is absolutely IRRELEVANT that life existed even with higher temperatures in the past, no one is saying it wasnt, it was adapted to such temperature
and climate. But what would happen if you SUDDENLY decreased the temperature by 3-5 degrees? For the life and climate adapted to warm conditions it
would be catastrophic change. Exactly what would happen to current life and climate if we so suddenly increase the temperature now. Its not so much
about the absolute level of CO2 and temerature but THE RATE OF CHANGE. Got it already? Increasing CO2 by 38% in 15 000 years is NOT the same like
increasing it in 200 years. Increasing it by 400% to prehistoric levels by burning all fossil fuels in 400 years time frame cannot in any way be
compared to change of the same amount occuring in natural time frames.
We are living in a carbon based world, and in fact the Earth is STILL CO2 starved... It is another fact that the green biomass of the Earth, and
even the oceans has been increasing, and this means MORE FOOD for animals, and mankind.
Its not that simple. The increase in CO2 would bring both positive and negative changes in crop amount and quality:
Even if the net effect on vegetation is positive, it would not offset the negative effects on climate mentioned above.
You can't have it both ways. Either you have predominantly positive feed back mechanisms which mean we will all fry or the negative and positive feed
backs cancel each other out in which case you have little or no warming.
Why? You cannot imagine positive feed back mechanism which significantly amplifies something but still does not cause it to rise without bound?
(multiplication by fixed constant)? There are many systems that work that way.
Here is a breakdown of the process for you:
1. CO2 rises by some amount causing temperature to go up by x.
2. this rise causes water vapor content to go up by y%.
3. this increase in turn causes further rise in temperature by, lets say x/2
4. this rise causes water vapor to go up by y/2%
5.this increase causes temperature to go up by x/4
6. this rise causes water vapor to go up by y/4%
7. this causes temperature to increase by x/8
And so on till the effect diminishes..
and so on. If we integrate all temperature rises caused by feedback: x/2 + x/4 + x/8 etc. we get significant increase in addition to original x caused
by co2 alone. Empirical studies show it roughly doubles it, so I was not that off in the above example
edit on 6/10/10 by Maslo because: