Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[AOK Tiger]

Whoa.. did not think this would create such emotion.

Just wanted to clear a few things…

I WAS an AGW sceptic and the general scientific consensus made up my mind to accept AGW (after all they know WAY more than I do .. in spite of Varvoche’s inane blather).

However .. lately NONE of the big pointers that would back AGW theories are coming true. So my scepticism re-emerged.

Recent relooks at things have shown the scientist may have been WRONG.. god forbid.

Do you guys just believe and believe for ever in spit of new evidence ?

I also wanted to have a go at the ADMIN.. I got censored for calling a poster a moron, when he called me clueless.. he has since called others stupid etc.. where is the consistency here ???

Maybe mhaze is right.. I have never noticed any bias here before.

Why cant anyone here put in simple terms what THEY think is mans overall contribution to GW ?.. I have attempted it MANY times with NO real attempt to refute it ?

 

[mhaze]

Whoa.. did not think this would create such emotion.

Just wanted to clear a few things…

I WAS an AGW sceptic and the general scientific consensus made up my mind to accept AGW (after all they know WAY more than I do .. in spite of Varvoche’s inane blather).

However .. lately NONE of the big pointers that would back AGW theories are coming true. So my scepticism re-emerged.

Recent relooks at things have shown the scientist may have been WRONG.. god forbid.

Do you guys just believe and believe for ever in spit of new evidence ?

I also wanted to have a go at the ADMIN.. I got censored for calling a poster a moron, when he called me clueless.. he has since called others stupid etc.. where is the consistency here ???

Maybe mhaze is right.. I have never noticed any bias here before.

Why cant anyone here put in simple terms what THEY think is mans overall contribution to GW ?.. I have attempted it MANY times with NO real attempt to refute it ?

Cog Dissonance. Consistency?

BWAHAHA!

 

[Piggy]

However .. lately NONE of the big pointers that would back AGW theories are coming true.

You're wrong. If you think this, you can't have done any serious looking into the subject. The process is moving faster than expected.

 

[Lonewulf]

You're wrong. If you think this, you can't have done any serious looking into the subject. The process is moving faster than expected.

Not only that, but there have been rather surprising effects of global warming.

From the Top 10 Surprising Effects of Global Warming.

Apparently, according to number 4, small amounts of carbon dioxide is even starting to drift up into the topmost layers of the atmosphere, condensing and cooling at the area (before the AGW "skeptics" start saying "BUT HOW CAN IT COOL IF IT HEATS LOL?!", the greenhouse gas effect is supposed to trap the gas at the lower ends of the atmosphere), and is allowing satellites to stay in orbit longer. So hey, for satellites, it seems like it's arguably a good thing (although it might affect logistics some).

From the site:

A primary cause of a warmer planet's carbon dioxide emissions is having effects that reach into space with a bizarre twist. Air in the atmosphere's outermost layer is very thin, but air molecules still create drag that slows down satellites, requiring engineers to periodically boost them back into their proper orbits. But the amount of carbon dioxide up there is increasing. And while carbon dioxide molecules in the lower atmosphere release energy as heat when they collide, thereby warming the air, the sparser molecules in the upper atmosphere collide less frequently and tend to radiate their energy away, cooling the air around them. With more carbon dioxide up there, more cooling occurs, causing the air to settle. So the atmosphere is less dense and creates less drag.

A better explanation can be found here.

And before people ask for the evidence, according to this, this comes from the National Center for Atmospheric Research: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21442

More information from the same center on global warming in general can be seen here: http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/

Something worth seeing from the same website is How do we know the World is warming now?

Furthermore, global warming is suggested to be linked to the ever-expanding ocean "deserts". here is an abstract, but apparently you have to pay to read it in full. Another article can be found here. With global warming warming the oceans, it's causing the oceans to have a rather crazy effect... apparently (according to the theory), the reason is because:

The science at work is pretty straightforward. As the surface of the water warms, it becomes more stratified (imagine it like a cake -- upper layer warm water, lower layer cold water). That prevents the colder, nutrient rich water from mixing with the upper layers. Without the nutrients, there's nothing to feed algae that help sustain other marine life.

I really don't get how anyone can claim that there's no evidence/effect from global warming so far. It strikes me as very surprising that someone can claim that.







Just a side note: I never got a chance to respond to any of the claims that, in the '70s, the "world is cooling" was the pop science at the time (even though there was no real science backing it, natch). But even assuming that scientists did suggest that the "world was cooling" 30 years ago (or whenever it was, it was probably before I was born), it's immaterial to modern findings and models. To put it another way, if you find scientists being wrong as a sign that scientists cannot be right and that their new model is false... well, you must not believe in any of Einstein's Relativity, notably what he had to say on light. Y'know, since scientists were actually wrong about Luminiferous Aether, so therefore, they must not be able to get any theories of light right.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Lonewulf…

I don’t have problem with GW (maybe its extent is an issue) its just wether man is causing it and if so how much.

Have you EVER seen anywhere someone state man is responsible for x % of GW and here is why .. ????

I sure haven’t !

If it SO damn obvious we are to blame why is it so damn hard to state HOW !

 

[Spud1k]

Have you EVER seen anywhere someone state man is responsible for x % of GW and here is why .. ????

To continue my 'stuck record' theme, the IPCC report has a nice graph that even mhaze likes to flash around from time to time (figure SPM.2 in the executive summary of WG1), which shows the mean radiative forcing contributions and finishes by divvying it up according to natural and man-made influences. If you want to know the 'why's, just carry on reading the report and follow up the references. It's all in there.

 

[a_unique_person]

If it SO damn obvious we are to blame why is it so damn hard to state HOW !

No one said it was obvious, and the short answer to your question is because it's so complex. I don't expect anyone to give me an easy to understand explanation of quantum dynamics either.

 

[a_unique_person]

I certainly don’t now of any who think it’s possible, at least not in the way Dave Rodale implies. A true Venus style runaway greenhouse effect would require boiling away the oceans before the runaway could begin. Clearly this is something no one is predicting.

It also depends on what you mean by runaway. No one, AFAIK, is predicting Venus, but runaway also means an increase that is much higher than the accepted range, due to much more powerful feedback effects. Although deniers are always complaining about scientists overstating the case, it's entirely possible they could underestimate it too. The IPCC documents are the result of a process that is partly political, but there have been plenty of scientists complaining the political interference has been used to make the estimates too conservative.

 

[Spud1k]

No one said it was obvious, and the short answer to your question is because it's so complex. I don't expect anyone to give me an easy to understand explanation of quantum dynamics either.

It's worth mentioning that the statement that the biggest part of global warming is very likely as a result of man's activities is based on the culmination of decades of research on a truly international level. The answer is fairly certain now, not because it is obvious (although people can claim to have been predicting it for a while), but because of the sheer amount of collective work that has gone into it.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Whoa.. did not think this would create such emotion.

Just wanted to clear a few things…

I WAS an AGW sceptic and the general scientific consensus made up my mind to accept AGW (after all they know WAY more than I do .. in spite of Varvoche’s inane blather).

However .. lately NONE of the big pointers that would back AGW theories are coming true. So my scepticism re-emerged.

Recent relooks at things have shown the scientist may have been WRONG.. god forbid.

Do you guys just believe and believe for ever in spit of new evidence ?

I also wanted to have a go at the ADMIN.. I got censored for calling a poster a moron, when he called me clueless.. he has since called others stupid etc.. where is the consistency here ???

Maybe mhaze is right.. I have never noticed any bias here before.

Why cant anyone here put in simple terms what THEY think is mans overall contribution to GW ?.. I have attempted it MANY times with NO real attempt to refute it ?

You used figures that made no sense and didn't tell us where they came from. I used your crude method with realistic figures and got a figure in terms of deg C ten times yours.

So, I refuted your bizarre claim on its own terms.

If you want to know how it really works, you need to do some reading and not expect answers from simple arithmetic.

What big pointers were you expecting anyway?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Just a side note: I never got a chance to respond to any of the claims that, in the '70s, the "world is cooling" was the pop science at the time (even though there was no real science backing it, natch). But even assuming that scientists did suggest that the "world was cooling" 30 years ago (or whenever it was, it was probably before I was born), it's immaterial to modern findings and models. To put it another way, if you find scientists being wrong as a sign that scientists cannot be right and that their new model is false... well, you must not believe in any of Einstein's Relativity, notably what he had to say on light. Y'know, since scientists were actually wrong about Luminiferous Aether, so therefore, they must not be able to get any theories of light right.

I remember the 'Global Cooling' scare well. It was all about the media and not about the science, but denialists never stop repeating the myth. See here and here.

 

[Piggy]

Lonewulf…

I don’t have problem with GW (maybe its extent is an issue) its just wether man is causing it and if so how much.

Have you EVER seen anywhere someone state man is responsible for x % of GW and here is why .. ????

I sure haven’t !

If it SO damn obvious we are to blame why is it so damn hard to state HOW !

You've already been given an article in which the researcher states that there is no doubt, based on the evidence, that the majority (50%+) of GW is human caused.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's worth mentioning that the statement that the biggest part of global warming is very likely as a result of man's activities is based on the culmination of decades of research on a truly international level. The answer is fairly certain now, not because it is obvious (although people can claim to have been predicting it for a while), but because of the sheer amount of collective work that has gone into it.

I am strictly an amateur at this, and it has taken me years to understand the little that I do. It is very interesting when I get to catch up with my friend who is actively working on models, or I try to read the more esoteric papers on the subject. It takes little time for me to get right out of my depth. The only rational course of action is to rely on the experts. They might be wrong, but at least they have put a lot more work into it than I have, and the knowledge that I have gained allows me to understand what they are getting at.

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf…

I don’t have problem with GW (maybe its extent is an issue) its just wether man is causing it and if so how much.

Have you EVER seen anywhere someone state man is responsible for x % of GW and here is why .. ????

I sure haven’t !

If it SO damn obvious we are to blame why is it so damn hard to state HOW !

Well, I obviously can't tell you within a single paragraph all of the details, but there are certainly lots of collections of data made available as to how much gas is being produced, and their potential influences have been measured. For instance, you talk about "how" -- well, uh, ignoring all the very basic descriptions of "how" that's made available to everyone of every age group that have probably been repeated over and over again, you're looking at 3 different gasses. They're CO₂ gas, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. All of these have varying influences on the atmosphere, but mostly, they're capable of trapping heat.

If you want an example of an extreme of global warming, look at Venus. Venus is a hell planet, and is at EXTREME temperatures, even though it's own distance from the sun, in comparison with our own, is not extremely different. The main reason is that Venus has a majority atmosphere of CO₂ gas. Now, it's unlikely we'll ever see the extremes of Venus on Earth, unless we manage to keep producing CO₂ gas even after we're all toast, but the concept in itself isn't exactly very questionable. With enough of this kind of gas produced, it starts to trap heat.

Nitrous Oxide and Methane aren't as commonly produced by humans as CO₂, but they're also an influence. Methane and Nitrous Oxide, though made in much smaller amounts, have much more bang for their buck. For instance, Nitrous Oxide is considered far worse than CO₂, pound for pound, because Nitrous Oxide can stay in the atmosphere up to 296 times longer.

And there's no question that humans the world over are producing massive amounts of CO₂, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Just all of the livestock and land use are responsible for, like, 20 to 23% of total gasses. Manure, for instance, puts up lots of nitrous oxide and methane.

Then there's the many businesses. For every city, there's major industrial centers. For small towns, there's smaller industrial centers, but there's certainly always something being done. Even using energy requires use of energy, which has to be made available by various power plants, the majority of which in use today use coal and various fossil fuels.

There's really nothing in there that should be all that surprising, really. I don't see why some people think it illogical to conclude that so much production could cause man-made warming. I mean, really, some claim that we're hardly putting up anything, but... I mean... we run our businesses nearly 24/7, every day, in every place populated by humans (outside of the most destitute of regions). And we're able to measure what we're putting up into the atmosphere.

 

[mhaze]

To continue my 'stuck record' theme, the IPCC report has a nice graph that even mhaze likes to flash around from time to time (figure SPM.2 in the executive summary of WG1), which shows the mean radiative forcing contributions and finishes by divvying it up according to natural and man-made influences. If you want to know the 'why's, just carry on reading the report and follow up the references. It's all in there.

Oh, this chart which points out the disingenuous nature of the products produced by the IPCC? By the way, don't believe the title- actually this is their estimate of changes in forcing since 1750.

 

[Spud1k]

Oh, this chart which points out the disingenuous nature of the products produced by the IPCC? By the way, don't believe the title- actually this is their estimate of changes in forcing since 1750.

That's the beast. Not sure what you find so disingenuous about it, though. And as for the title, this is footnote 2 on page 2 of the report (bolding mine):

Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In this report, radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square metre (W m^–2). See Glossary and Section 2.2 for further details.

So what's there not to believe?

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Spud1k
To continue my 'stuck record' theme, the IPCC report has a nice graph that even mhaze likes to flash around from time to time (figure SPM.2 in the executive summary of WG1), which shows the mean radiative forcing contributions and finishes by divvying it up according to natural and man-made influences. If you want to know the 'why's, just carry on reading the report and follow up the references. It's all in there.

Oh, this chart which points out the disingenuous nature of the products produced by the IPCC? By the way, don't believe the title- actually this is their estimate of changes in forcing since 1750. But sure, read the references and compare their biased selection with the actual scientific literature.





How about the IPCC's feedback inflation? Factor "f" is quite interesting, isn't it? But don't worry, "believe the experts". Except, would that be the dissenting experts whose comments were edited out IPCC, or those that toed the line of predetermined conclusions?






Meanwhile, in the real world, what 's going on with the Sun? First calendar month with no sunspots since 1913? Predictions by solar scientists of solar cycle 25 to be one of the lowest in centuries? Are coming decades going to cool or warm, and why? Wait, don't worry - the IPCC says solar influence at 0.12 watts per meter squared, insignificant. (0.12 --> change in T of 0.03C).




Wait, don't worry - the IPCC says solar influence at 0.12 watts per meter squared, insignificant. (0.12 --> change in T of 0.03C).

Ridiculous!

In the real world, it is necessary to explain the Little Ice Age, not ignore it or try to "Make it go away" as the IPCC tried to do.

Solar Irradience
1610 —- 1364.7338 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age starts)
1710 —- 1363.6195 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age)
1810 —- 1363.7976 W/m^2 (Little Ice Age stops)
1885 —- 1364.7394 W/m^2 (Warming Era)
1910 —- 1364.6566 W/m^2
1985 —- 1365.6506 W/m^2
1998 —- 1366.1111 W/m^2 (warmest year of the decade)
2000 —- 1366.6744 W/m^2
2007 —- 1367.15 W/m^2 (from recent measurements obtained from satellite devices)

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

 

[lomiller]

It also depends on what you mean by runaway. No one, AFAIK, is predicting Venus, but runaway also means an increase that is much higher than the accepted range, due to much more powerful feedback effects.

That tends to be referred to as a “tipping point” by climate scientists, and it goes away once you once you near a new equilibrium, unlike a true runaway that doesn’t stop. Even if you accept that you could call something like this a runaway, there is a deliberate attempt to conflate it with the real planet destroying runaway.

 

[lomiller]

Factor "f" is quite interesting, isn't it? But don't worry, "believe the experts".

Positive feedback amplifies the effect of an input signal. That’s a mathematical certainty, so I take mathematics is now one of those sources you think no one should appeal to?

Except, would that be the dissenting experts whose comments were edited out IPCC, or those that toed the line of predetermined conclusions?

I know of no comments that were edited out. Perhaps you mean the species comments by non-expert Vincent Gray? Have you actually read those comments? When someone like Grey who has no relevant expertise whatsoever gives no reasons or justification and simply orders the lead writer to change virtually every line of the report to sat things that are in complete opposition to everything the other reviewers are saying… well lets just say his input was questionable, I’m surprised he was dealt with as politely as he was.

 

[mhaze]

I know of no comments that were edited out. Perhaps you mean the species comments by non-expert Vincent Gray? ...

Odd you would contradict yourself so quickly. Wait, you could easily go find the comment list by reviewers.

As can anyone.