Naturally Occuring Global Warming

[jtoups]

Originally posted by Jackal1

Which has no answer. The 95% is a long stretch also.
 

Global warming is pretty much accepted, but the cause is unknown.  That is why some governments refuse to limit polution.  I didnt background my statements because I assumed everybody knew the background, i guess i was wrong.

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Yes indeed the earth is warming, it's not strictly because of human habits or volcano's or any other single cause....not even cow farts as some fringe "scientists" have claimed. It's natural process, we may be accelerating the process with pollution & farming (basically just overpopulation) etc. but it would happen regardless even if humans were not present. How much we are accelerating this process, if any is the big question mark.

Well, I think I can agree with that. There are natural warming and cooling cycles, but the current warming cycle might be made much more severe because of man made carbon emissions and water vapor emissions (from aircraft exhaust etc.) The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small at around 0.05%, but plays a vital role in keeping the planet warm. Without it, the earth would be about 18°C cooler on average. But with too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth will overheat. And at the current rate of output, man is set to release as much CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 60 years as is currently out there right now. Still waiting for Lazs - or anyone - to explain to me why this will not have an effect on the warming of the earth.

[lazs2]

neither you nor anyone else knows how much c02 we will add in the next 60 years.   neither you nor anyone else knows how much co2 will be absorbed by the oceans or used by plants.   Neither you nor anyone else knows how much the percentage of co2 has to rise before we get one degree of increase in temp.

We do know that global climate changes are the only constant with or without man even being on the planet.    We do know that sun activity matches rises and falls in global temp.

lazs

[Holden McGroin]

Just some food for thought:

source

Chris Landsea PhD, NOAA

Today a new paper by Gabe Vecchi and Brian Soden has been published:

Vecchi G. A., B. J. Soden (2007), Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08702, doi:10.1029/2006GL028905. (PDF)

My reading of the paper by Vecchi and Soden is that this is a very important contribution to the understanding of how global warming is affecting hurricane activity. The study thoroughly examines how the wind shear and other parameters that can alter the number and intensity of hurricanes because of manmade global warming. What they found - surprisingly - is that in the Atlantic that the wind shear should increase significantly over a large portion of where hurricanes occur - making it more difficult for hurricanes to form and grow. This was identified in all of the 18 global climate models they examined. (Perhaps it's not that surprising given that Knutson/Tuleya 2004 showed some of the same signal for the more reliable models back then. Now the signal is in ALL of the CGCMs.) Even the MPI changes in the Atlantic appear mixed, due to the smaller SST increases there (with more uniform upper trop temp changes) compared with the rest of the global tropics/subtropics.

One implication to me is that this further provides evidence that the busy period we've seen in the Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to natural cycles, rather than manmade causes. We've seen a big reduction in wind shear in the last thirteen hurricane seasons, which is OPPOSITE to the signal that Vecchi and Soden have linked to manmade global warming changes. Another implication is that this paper reconfirms earlier work that suggests that global warming will cause very small changes to Atlantic hurricanes, even several decades from now.

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by lazs2
neither you nor anyone else knows how much c02 we will add in the next 60 years.  

Worldwide, we release 25bn tonnes a year. At the current rate of output (which is what I said in my previous post) that equates to 1,500,000,000,000 tonnes in the next 60 years.

neither you nor anyone else knows how much co2 will be absorbed by the oceans or used by plants.

There must come a point when the oceans and plants are maxed out on CO2 and can absorb no more. I feel confident that this is a known quantity.

Neither you nor anyone else knows how much the percentage of co2 has to rise before we get one degree of increase in temp.

We know that if that 0.05% of CO2 was not there in the atmosphere, we would have a temperature drop of 18°. Therefore a 1° change would be made if the CO2 concentration changed by 0.0028% of the total atmosphere.

STILL waiting for you to tell me why the release of 1,500,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 in the next 60 years will have "no effect" on global temperatures. Oh, and by the way, I realise some of that might be absorbed by plants/ocean, but the level of man made CO2 output is set to increase dramatically in the next ~15 years.

[moot]

Originally posted by FastFwd
At the current rate of output [...] There must come a point when [...] I feel confident that this is a known quantity. [...]

[lazs2]

fastfwd... so you really don't know anything about it do you?   You are using a very simple model that takes nothing but co2 into account and assuming that no strides in science will be made in the next 60 years.   great.

and who is it that you trust?  why... scientists.. not just any scientists but the ones who think man is causing the normal global climate changes... the ones who told you last year or so that we would have lots of hurricanes cause...

well... their model said so... you bought it..

Now they are telling you that man is making for less hurricanes... are you buying it this time?

Will you buy what they say next year?

or will you just admit....

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

[oboe]

Here is a scientist who says the Sun is to blame for global warming

If you read the story though, you'll learn

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

and also

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.  He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

[lazs2]

well... at least they are admitting that the sun has "significant" impact  this week...

They got angry when co2 was dismissed and claimed the sun had no part... now.. they are retreating.

maybe even admitting equal parts or... that they can't tell which has more effect...

How can this be? they were so sure last year.   They had the computer models... what happened to the models?

maybe... just maybe.. the debate it good.  maybe shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing and that once the whole sun activity thing got out of their control they had to admit to it?

I believe that if algore and company could make the whole sun part of the equation just go away... just supress it... they would.

You have to drag every admission out of the hand wringers.. they have too much at stake.

The world will go into a cooling cycle soon... the alarmists know that they have to push as hard as they can before that happens if any money and fame is to be made.

sheep.


lazs

[lazs2]

I am not against science.. the people that make sense to me on the subject are renown in the fields they talk about..

no... I think science is a brave and interesting world.. for instance.. Have all the theories about black holes you want...  the more the better..

Hell... I don't even care if "hundreds" of scientists all agree on what black holes are... it is interesting to me.. and..  I don't get upset when a couple of years from now they all change their minds and black holes are revisited by new scientists debunking the old..

And why is that?  the black hole theories don't really affect me other than maybe funding the research.. they aren't asking millions of people to starve or lower their income over the damn theory.

They are not social activists first and scientists second.  or... if they are.. they don't have a hook.  They are just brilliant eccentric kooks.

lazs

[oboe]

Originally posted by lazs2
...maybe... just maybe.. the debate it good.  maybe shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing and that once the whole sun activity thing got out of their control they had to admit to it?

I believe that if algore and company could make the whole sun part of the equation just go away... just supress it... they would.

If you think shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing, why would you end so many of your global warming posts with "ITS THE SUN, STUPID!".   That seems more like a tactic to get in the last word and stifle debate to me.

I think Al Gore basically did what you suggest in his film, unfortunately, by ignoring to convey the important fact that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, not vice versa.   Perhaps he was just trying to dumb down the theory to make it easier for simple minds to understand and accept, but I think it was a disservice to science.    I can see that omission causing many people to doubt the film's conclusion and accuse him of propagandizing.

btw, NASA's James Hansen said in a piece recently that the IPCC's report didn't include projections of the Antarctic Ice Sheet melting, and if it did, the ocean's rise would be 16-19', not a few inches as the IPCC report suggested.   I'd heard that criticism of the report previously but never with a reference to such a large rise in sea level.      That WOULD be disastrous.

[lazs2]

oboe.. I have listened to the doom and gloomer "scientists" say outrageous things for decades.. they have an unblemished record of not only being wrong but... hugely wrong.

fastfwd loves carl frigging sagan for instance.. thought he was a science god..

so did cnn of course... during the first gulf war I watched as sagan predicted a winter that would kill tens of millions from famine if the sadman even lit half the kuwait oil fields on fire.  Of course... not only did that not happen but...  nothing bad at all happened.. nature corrected almost at once.

the "scientists" of the 70's told me that I would be butt deep in ice here in northern kalifornia bu the year 2000 from the ice age that man was creating with pollution at the time.

The scientists of around the same time talked of the man made "population bomb" that would cause the end of the world by the 2000's  but.. we see population dropping in white nations..  your-op is decaying and dying from lack of a vibrant population.

These things all have a common thread... just like algores co2 crap.

ITS THE SUN STUPID

is a way to get the debate started not ended.   There is no debate.. do you hear debate on NPR?  yeah... on what we should do about the co2 and how much we should all pay...  not if it is even happening..  debate is over for them..  the terms "man made global warming" and "man made global climate change" roll off their tounges like some great truth not to be even thought about.

Where is the "swindle" documentary?   It was very well done and for the most part.. no one can dispute the claims..   why is it not given equal time in the U.S.

I have shown it to people and they all say how fascinating and informative it is but.... they all say that they now want some debate.. their faith in the whole man made thing has been shaken.

Why not show it here?   I bet it would get really good ratings.

lazs

[FastFwd]

Originally posted by lazs2
fastfwd... so you really don't know anything about it do you?  
.
.
.
and who is it that you trust?  why... scientists.. not just any scientists but the ones who think man is causing the normal global climate changes... the ones who told you last year or so that we would have lots of hurricanes cause...

Lazs - you said I didn't know how much CO2 man would release in the next 60 years. I told you that at the current rate of output (25bn tonnes a year according to US Deopartment of Energy) that in 60 years, man would have released as much CO2 as is currently in the atmosphere right now, using the figures given by your fellow global warming denialist, Mace2004. I've also posted a link which explains why some CO2 in the atmosphere is vital and acts like a blanket, without which the earth would be inhospitably cooler. The converse is also true - too much CO2 and it becomes inhospitably warmer.

You are using a very simple model that takes nothing but co2 into account and assuming that no strides in science will be made in the next 60 years.   great.

Which part of "at the current rate of output" don't you understand? And LOL! - you go off panning scientists like all the other denialists, but then you place faith in "strides in science" that you're expecting in the next 60 years.

It's like this. Most people have the mental faculties to see that global warming isn't just a "liberal concept to extort cash for a political agenda or religion" but is a meteorological fact that is happening, right now, which even you now concede. And because most people accept this, countries around the world are now taking steps to avert the disaster that would occur if no changes were made. In your own parlance, "strides in science" are being made.

• Several countries around the world (Australia, Britain, plus the US state of California) are to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of high efficiency neon types which use about 80% less electricity.
• Finland was one of the first countries to announce that it was increasing its proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power by 10%.
• Brazil is now a world leader in producing "carbon neutral" fuel for road vehicles from crops - other countries will follow
• Britain is enacting legislation to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050.
• And California recently announced legislation to cut carbon emissions by 25% by 2020.

IT'S THE SUN STUPID

But Lazs, the sun has been there for millions of years - at least as long as the earth has existed. Can you tell us why global warming is now occurring at an unprecedented rate? Or do you deny this, just as you used to deny that the earth was warming at all?

I have listed ^ some of the changes that have already been announced, and it's only 2007. It is not an exhaustive list but a few examples. New measures taken will add to that list. I believe we will see more electricity being generated by nuclear power.

In 60 years time when these strides in science have been taken, and ecological disaster has been averted, you'll be able to look back as you rock back and forth in the rocker on your stoop, with a cat in your lap, and claim you were right all along.

And your epitaph will be "it's the sun stupid"!

[lazs2]

fstfwd... so even with the normal increases in tech that we experiance...   you admit that using any model for what will happen in 60 years so far as co2 is silly.

computer controlled fuel injection was not possible in the 50's  or, more importantly, in the 70's when the worst smog legeslation was passed... they made things worse not better..  cars ran worse and got worse milage and put out more smog... when tech caught up... computer controlled fuel injection solved the problem without even going after the smog problem.

nuke plants will happen cause we need the power and oil is getting to expensive.   Not because we want to get rid of co2.

The suns activity has fluctuated for all of time.. it mirrors the heating and cooling of the globe... co2 trails the heating.

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

[Mak333]

Global Warming is a theory and only that.  If there is a hole in our ozone layer, please point it out to me on a Golly-geen map, because I can't find it.

It makes me laugh to hear scientists saying that even smoking cigarettes are causing this global warming to happen.