More about the scam called "Global Warming"

[PsuedoGhost]

The problem here is that there are so many interdependent cycles that it is almost impossibly difficult to tell what is causing what, if anything at all. All we can say is that there is a correlation between increased CO2 output and a slight increase in global temperature. Any scientist worth his weight in gold will tell you though, that correlation does NOT equal causation. Therefore, we cannot say with any legitimacy that CO2 is for sure causing the increased temperatures we have been experiencing. To even begin to grasp the situation with the climate you have to begin acknowledging all the parts of the cycle, including both positive and negative feedback systems.

People are crying about the end of the world over a lack of information. Sure we can establish general trends and predict our future, but we cannot with any certainty state that what we are experiencing is outside the normal realm of the history of the Earth.

If you go back through history, you'll find that it was warmer than it was today in the middle ages. The dinosaurs lived in a climate that was MUCH warmer than the current era. In fact based on our temperatures relative to historic highs and lows, we are fairly temperate right now.

Anyone claiming that, "GLOBAL WARMING IS ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED" is full of shit. We can only state with certainty that we are warmer now, then we were within the previous 100 years, but keep in mind that 100 years is nothing on a geological timescale.

 

[bobn]

The problem here is that there are so many interdependent cycles that it is almost impossibly difficult to tell what is causing what, if anything at all. All we can say is that there is a correlation between increased CO2 output and a slight increase in global temperature.

Well it's more than just a correlation. The physical process by which increased co2 causes increased temperature is known.

To even begin to grasp the situation with the climate you have to begin acknowledging all the parts of the cycle, including both positive and negative feedback systems.

and that is what climate scientists have been doing for the last few decades, and currently they conclude that much of recent warming is likely due to increased co2 concentration.

Sure we can establish general trends and predict our future, but we cannot with any certainty state that what we are experiencing is outside the normal realm of the history of the Earth.

Nothing in science is certain. But then the conclusions of climate scientists are based on weight of evidence and not claims of absolute certainty.

If you go back through history, you'll find that it was warmer than it was today in the middle ages. The dinosaurs lived in a climate that was MUCH warmer than the current era. In fact based on our temperatures relative to historic highs and lows, we are fairly temperate right now.

I don't see how the temperature in the past has any bearing on temperature change now. I also don't believe global temperature was higher in the middle ages than it is now.

Anyone claiming that, "GLOBAL WARMING IS ANTHROPOGENICALLY CAUSED" is full of shit. We can only state with certainty that we are warmer now, then we were within the previous 100 years,

And we can see that increased co2 levels are likely the main cause.

but keep in mind that 100 years is nothing on a geological timescale.

Exactly, that is why the recent warming is quite rapid because it is happening in such a short time period.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Actually, the majority of the cause of global warming is....water vapor. 95% of all greenhouse gases, both by volume and by effect, are just water vapor, primarily from Earth's four oceans.

there are 5 oceans.

 

[Hobbit]

there are 5 oceans.

Last time I checked, we had the Arctic, Indian, Atlantic, and Pacific. Which 5th one are you thinking of? Note that if it has the words sea, gulf, bay, etc. in it, it isn't an ocean.

 

[Hobbit]

I still only count 4.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Count all you want!

http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/oceans.htm

The planet is approximately 71% water and contains (5) five oceans, including the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Pacific and Southern. Their borders are indicated on the world image (right) in varied shades of blue.

For many years only (4) four oceans were officially recognized, and then in the spring of 2000, the International Hydrographic Organization established the Southern Ocean, and determined its limits. Those limits include all water below 60 degrees south, and some of it, like the Arctic Ocean, is frozen.

(oceans by size)
#1 Pacific (155,557,000 sq km)
#2 Atlantic (76,762,000 sq km)
#3 Indian (68,556,000 sq km)
#4 Southern (20,327,000 sq km)
#5 Arctic (14,056,000 sq km)

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Well it's more than just a correlation. The physical process by which increased co2 causes increased temperature is known.

True, but we cannot state with any certainty that it is CO2 that is causing all of the warming, or any of the warming. Perhaps the CO2 levels are not significant enough for us to notice any difference. You have to realize that when scientists are talking about raising levels of CO2, they are still discussing relatively minute quantities in terms of the overall atmosphere, on the level of parts per million.

and that is what climate scientists have been doing for the last few decades, and currently they conclude that much of recent warming is likely due to increased co2 concentration.

Some scientists have, but any scientist worth their weight in gold again says, that it cannot be discerned with any credibility that it is in fact CO2 emissions that are causing the increase in global temperature. In fact, methane may be the cause of the increase in temperature since it is a more efficient greenhouse gas then CO2, and the methane levels are off the charts relatively speaking.

Nothing in science is certain. But then the conclusions of climate scientists are based on weight of evidence and not claims of absolute certainty.

So then how can you claim with any certainty that it is CO2 that is causing the warming trend that we are noticing? Keep in mind that even though we are warming we are still far below geological highs.

I don't see how the temperature in the past has any bearing on temperature change now. I also don't believe global temperature was higher in the middle ages than it is now.

The temperature in the past has a DIRECT correlation to the temperature in the present. If you look at the temperature data collected throughout the years from ice core samples, and climate modelling, you would notice that temperature increases and decreases are cyclical. In fact if you looked at it even more, you would notice that we are still coming out of the last ice age (a little over 10,000 years ago). The trends predicted by these cycles indicate that we should begin to cool off here in a few decades after the temperature increases more.

And we can see that increased co2 levels are likely the main cause.

Again. Correlation does not equal causation.

Exactly, that is why the recent warming is quite rapid because it is happening in such a short time period.

Again, historical evidence suggests that climate changes often occur rapidly, and that such changes are not uncommon throughout the history of the world (on a geologic timescale).

 

[Hobbit]

Count all you want!

http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/oceans.htm

This is the first world map I've ever seen that has a "Southern Ocean." If it's actually accepted, then it's happened since I last took a geography related class...in 1999.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is the first world map I've ever seen that has a "Southern Ocean." If it's actually accepted, then it's happened since I last took a geography related class...in 1999.

In the words of Stephen Colbert: Apology accepted!

 

[bobn]

True, but we cannot state with any certainty that it is CO2 that is causing all of the warming, or any of the warming.

We can say with certainty that CO2 is causing some of the warming. It would be physically impossible for an increase in co2 would not have a warming effect. How much is a different question. Short of other candidates for the recent warming, co2 increase looks the most likely. It can account for most of the recent warming.

Perhaps the CO2 levels are not significant enough for us to notice any difference. You have to realize that when scientists are talking about raising levels of CO2, they are still discussing relatively minute quantities in terms of the overall atmosphere, on the level of parts per million.

Yes but that very small amount of co2 is responsible for about a quarter of the greenhouse effect. That's very roughly about 8C.

Some scientists have, but any scientist worth their weight in gold again says, that it cannot be discerned with any credibility that it is in fact CO2 emissions that are causing the increase in global temperature.

It is a very credible candidate because it is the main candidate

In fact, methane may be the cause of the increase in temperature since it is a more efficient greenhouse gas then CO2, and the methane levels are off the charts relatively speaking.

It's also even more dillute than co2, in parts per billion rather than parts per million. It does contribute to the overall greenhouse effect, but not as much as c02 because there is far more co2. But yes methane increase will also add to the warming.

So then how can you claim with any certainty that it is CO2 that is causing the warming trend that we are noticing? Keep in mind that even though we are warming we are still far below geological highs.

I said it is most likely. That means it might not be, but by it is the best candidate for the recent warming. If the temperature or co2 level today switched to geological highs we would all be dead. But I don't see how that is relevant to the cause of warming today.

The temperature in the past has a DIRECT correlation to the temperature in the present. If you look at the temperature data collected throughout the years from ice core samples, and climate modelling, you would notice that temperature increases and decreases are cyclical. In fact if you looked at it even more, you would notice that we are still coming out of the last ice age (a little over 10,000 years ago).

We aren't coming out of the last ice age, we have been out of the last ice age for the last 10,000 years. That is the warming after the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Since then the earth's temperature has been static relative to that timescale, if not cooling slightly. The recent sharp spike in temperatures is abnormal in that it cannot be attributed to any known natural cycle. Nothing like the last century appears in the temperature records of the last 10,000 years. So what has changed now?

The trends predicted by these cycles indicate that we should begin to cool off here in a few decades after the temperature increases more.

Specifically which cycle are you talking about?

Again. Correlation does not equal causation.

But we don't just have correlation. We also have the fact that co2 is a major component of the greenhouse effect and it has increased by 30% in the last 250 years.

Again, historical evidence suggests that climate changes often occur rapidly, and that such changes are not uncommon throughout the history of the world (on a geologic timescale).

Great, but that does not explain what the cause of recent temperature increases is. Climate scientists have looked at a variety of candidates for the cause and have concluded that greenhouse gas increase is likely to be the main one.

 

[Annie]

We can say with certainty that CO2 is causing some of the warming. It would be physically impossible for an increase in co2 would not have a warming effect. How much is a different question. Short of other candidates for the recent warming, co2 increase looks the most likely. It can account for most of the recent warming.



Yes but that very small amount of co2 is responsible for about a quarter of the greenhouse effect. That's very roughly about 8C.



It is a very credible candidate because it is the main candidate



It's also even more dillute than co2, in parts per billion rather than parts per million. It does contribute to the overall greenhouse effect, but not as much as c02 because there is far more co2. But yes methane increase will also add to the warming.



I said it is most likely. That means it might not be, but by it is the best candidate for the recent warming. If the temperature or co2 level today switched to geological highs we would all be dead. But I don't see how that is relevant to the cause of warming today.



We aren't coming out of the last ice age, we have been out of the last ice age for the last 10,000 years. That is the warming after the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Since then the earth's temperature has been static relative to that timescale, if not cooling slightly. The recent sharp spike in temperatures is abnormal in that it cannot be attributed to any known natural cycle. Nothing like the last century appears in the temperature records of the last 10,000 years. So what has changed now?



Specifically which cycle are you talking about?



But we don't just have correlation. We also have the fact that co2 is a major component of the greenhouse effect and it has increased by 30% in the last 250 years.



Great, but that does not explain what the cause is. Climate scientists have looked at a variety of candidates for the cause and have concluded that greenhouse gas increase is likely to be the main one.

For your consideration:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=417722&postcount=6

 

[bobn]

For your consideration:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=417722&postcount=6

I agree that Kyoto is rubbish. a) it would have virtually no effect on greenhouse gas emissions anyway, and b) Anything like Kyoto is futile as it runs against human nature. We expand and grow and consume, that is what all life on this planet does. Typical tragedy of the commons situtation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This kind of thing is unstoppable in a free society.

Then again while I believe Kyoto is a waste of time I won't pretend that the recent warming is part of some unknown natural cycle. It most likely isn't. And most of the myths and mistakes out there over the data are actually being committed by the skeptics.

 

[Annie]

I agree that Kyoto is rubbish. a) it would have virtually no effect on greenhouse gas emissions anyway, and b) Anything like Kyoto is futile as it runs against human nature. We expand and grow and consume, that is what all life on this planet does. Typical tragedy of the commons situtation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This kind of thing is unstoppable in a free society.

Then again while I believe Kyoto is a waste of time I won't pretend that the recent warming is part of some unknown natural cycle. It most likely isn't.

I have a problem with 50's-80's 'science' being used or 'science' given a bye because of limitations then. Truly, I think there is a combination of human impact and regular cycles going on. We DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH to lable what is going on. Which is the reason for 'global cooling', then 'global warming' now 'human impact.' It's all just raw data which doesn't say sh*t.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

We can say with certainty that CO2 is causing some of the warming. It would be physically impossible for an increase in co2 would not have a warming effect. How much is a different question. Short of other candidates for the recent warming, co2 increase looks the most likely. It can account for most of the recent warming.





Yes but that very small amount of co2 is responsible for about a quarter of the greenhouse effect. That's very roughly about 8C.



It is a very credible candidate because it is the main candidate



It's also even more dillute than co2, in parts per billion rather than parts per million. It does contribute to the overall greenhouse effect, but not as much as c02 because there is far more co2. But yes methane increase will also add to the warming.



I said it is most likely. That means it might not be, but by it is the best candidate for the recent warming. If the temperature or co2 level today switched to geological highs we would all be dead. But I don't see how that is relevant to the cause of warming today.



We aren't coming out of the last ice age, we have been out of the last ice age for the last 10,000 years. That is the warming after the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Since then the earth's temperature has been static relative to that timescale, if not cooling slightly. The recent sharp spike in temperatures is abnormal in that it cannot be attributed to any known natural cycle. Nothing like the last century appears in the temperature records of the last 10,000 years. So what has changed now?



Specifically which cycle are you talking about?



But we don't just have correlation. We also have the fact that co2 is a major component of the greenhouse effect and it has increased by 30% in the last 250 years.



Great, but that does not explain what the cause of recent temperature increases is. Climate scientists have looked at a variety of candidates for the cause and have concluded that greenhouse gas increase is likely to be the main one.

Greenhouse gases fluctuate naturally over time as well. Who is to say that these levels are not unheard of, (there is some ice core evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions have been higher).

Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas then CO2, which is why a significant increase in its levels would be more problematic than an increase in CO2.

You are not understanding that there are natural cycles at play here. If you look at the ice core data for the past couple hundred million years, you would notice that we are at a fairly cool state compared to where the Earth's temperature has been in the past. This could indicate that we are overdue for rapid heating. Climate change is now believed to occur rapidly, not over millions of years. This could be a part of the natural cycle.

Yes, we are still in an interglacial period.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring negative feedback cycles that are already kicking in. The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the more falls as carbonic acid. The more carbonic acid that falls, the more that continental rocks are weathered into limestone, locking away that CO2 into rock. An increase in global temperature will also theoretically mean that we should have larger forests, and vegetation growth. This negative feedback cycle would also reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Hobbit]

And in addition to all that, some people fail to realize that when you factor in water vapor (most doomsday scientists don't do this because they're funding hungry frauds), which accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases by volume and effect, human beings account for about 5-8 ppm of all greenhouse gases. That means that for every 1 million cubic inches of greenhouse gas, human beings account for only 5-8 cubic inches. Our impact is statistically insignificant.

 

[bobn]

Greenhouse gases fluctuate naturally over time as well. Who is to say that these levels are not unheard of, (there is some ice core evidence to suggest that CO2 emissions have been higher).

Actually it is ice core data that shows co2 levels have spiked higher than they have been in over 500,000 years. And we have pumped adequate amounts of carbon into the atmosphere to account for that rise. In fact two times over. Half of it is currently getting absorbed.

Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas then CO2, which is why a significant increase in its levels would be more problematic than an increase in CO2.

But there is far less of it, which it has less effect than the increase in co2.

You are not understanding that there are natural cycles at play here.

If you look at the ice core data for the past couple hundred million years, you would notice that we are at a fairly cool state compared to where the Earth's temperature has been in the past.

Over the last 10,000 years temperature has cooled. In the last 100 it has spiked suddenly, much of the warming being in the last 30 years.

Moreover, you are completely ignoring negative feedback cycles that are already kicking in. The more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere the more falls as carbonic acid. The more carbonic acid that falls, the more that continental rocks are weathered into limestone, locking away that CO2 into rock.

Im not totally ignoring it. I have factored that in. Carbon sinks can only absorb so much carbon a year. Currently we are overloading the sinks and so co2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.

An increase in global temperature will also theoretically mean that we should have larger forests, and vegetation growth.

And larger deserts...and less ice...yea

 

[bobn]

And in addition to all that, some people fail to realize that when you factor in water vapor (most doomsday scientists don't do this because they're funding hungry frauds)

Water vapor is factored in. But it is a radiative feedback and not a forcing. ump more co2 into the atmosphere and you get more precipitation. This causes water vapor to return to a level of equillibrium.

which accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases by volume and effect

Incorrect. Water vapor is about 95% of volume, but only about 65% of the greenhouse effect.

human beings account for about 5-8 ppm of all greenhouse gases.

There isn't even 5-8ppm of methane in the atmosphere. And we have contributed to a co2 concentration increase of 30% since records began, which is far more than 5-8ppm

That means that for every 1 million cubic inches of greenhouse gas, human beings account for only 5-8 cubic inches. Our impact is statistically insignificant.

Now your maths is screwed up as well as your figures. If you cube stuff the proportions don't stay the same.

I don't mind you attacking global warming, but now that you have attacked the scientists and labelled them as liars and frauds I feel quite happy to point out that your own errors are totally beyond comprehension. It is you and your fellow skeptics who are putting out the vast majority of myths, false "facts" and misunderstandings.

 

[sitarro]

I don't mind you attacking global warming, but now that you have attacked the scientists and labelled them as liars and frauds I feel quite happy to point out that your own errors are totally beyond comprehension. It is you and your fellow skeptics who are putting out the vast majority of myths, false "facts" and misunderstandings.

Are you saying that putting the word "scientist" on your business card means you won't manipulate findings for the person signing the check that funds you? They are beyond reproach because they have chosen science as their life? What do you think of homosexual Priests that molest alterboys, does that actually happen?

If you do, I have some beautiful property in the 9th ward of the gorgeous, modern, thriving city of New Orleans I would give you for a great price.

 

[Hobbit]

Water vapor is factored in. But it is a radiative feedback and not a forcing. ump more co2 into the atmosphere and you get more precipitation. This causes water vapor to return to a level of equillibrium.



Incorrect. Water vapor is about 95% of volume, but only about 65% of the greenhouse effect.



There isn't even 5-8ppm of methane in the atmosphere. And we have contributed to a co2 concentration increase of 30% since records began, which is far more than 5-8ppm



Now your maths is screwed up as well as your figures. If you cube stuff the proportions don't stay the same.

I don't mind you attacking global warming, but now that you have attacked the scientists and labelled them as liars and frauds I feel quite happy to point out that your own errors are totally beyond comprehension. It is you and your fellow skeptics who are putting out the vast majority of myths, false "facts" and misunderstandings.

These aren't my "maths," they were done by an intercollegiate meteorological society, and I think you misunderstand the thing about the 5-8 ppm. That's for all greenhouse gases, not each greenhouse gas individually.

Now, I'm no weather expert, but the guys who did this math have several dozen Ph.D.s among them, all of them in some area of meteorology. You gonna tell them that you're smarter than they are?

 

[bobn]

These aren't my "maths," they were done by an intercollegiate meteorological society, and I think you misunderstand the thing about the 5-8 ppm. That's for all greenhouse gases, not each greenhouse gas individually.

Now, I'm no weather expert, but the guys who did this math have several dozen Ph.D.s among them, all of them in some area of meteorology. You gonna tell them that you're smarter than they are?

All I am going to do is point out that just one greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has risen over 90ppm in the last 250 years and is currently rising at about 1.5ppm per year. So what does that 5-8ppm represent?