Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[AOK Tiger]

Ok.. sorry I have been so long joining back in.

Been some good debate on both sides.

It does seem the sceptical AGW group is certainly less dogmatic than the pro AGW group. But both sides have made good points… however..

The pro AGW side only seems to point to GLOBAL WARMING as an issue not the supposed man made causes.

My point is IF (and that’s is a bit less debatable) it is happening IS man a major cause ?

NOT ONE of Piggy’s articles refers to man being the cause of global warming !!!!


I want to break this down and make it REALLY simple !

Here are the significant facts that makes me so sceptical.

95 % of Greenhouse gas (gas that causes warming) is water vapour. (and yes man can affect this to some minor degree with farming and irrigation methods but the vast quantity of it comes from the oceans)

5 % of Greenhouse Gas (for want of a better term) comes from Carbon, Methane etc.

5 % of the non water vapour greenhouse gas is generated by man !

This is indisputable.

This means man is responsible for 0.025 % of the Greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

NO science has yet shown reducing this will affect our climate !

 

[AOK Tiger]

I meant to add.. I am very pro the search for alternative energy and clean energy does have other pollution reduction advantages.. so I am not a shill for big oil etc.. in fact I detest those money grubbing hounds… anything that bursts there bubble is ok by me.

I do have a particular problem where I live.

The Australian Govt is about to embark on an ambitious Carbon Trading scheme well in advance of other countries.. I don’t mind us being broken if the cause is worth it.. but is it ????

 

[BenBurch]

DDT does indeed thin eggshells and prevent viable eggs from being laid. So, I don't think your point is sound.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure what your comments add up to. They are more complaints than anything else: You don't like that he discussed Albany for a page and a half, that he only used 8 stations, that local results are not regional or global, that some of the runs were not initialized to start conditions.

Thanks for your comments.

The main thing I want to know is why they only presented data on what is plainly the station with the worst agreement with the models. That one is not representative (or at least it certainly doesn't look so by eye), and so presenting it as if it was without comment is dishonest. It makes me suspicious of their motives.

More generally, I don't really understand their point. While I know very little about climate models, I do know a lot of physics. If I set out to model climate, I would never expect my model to produce accurate predictions for anything remotely local in either time or space. Weather is chaotic - it is inherently impossible to predict. Climate, on the other hand, might be possible, but by climate I mean weather averaged over both space and time.

Just to give an example, suppose you had a model that predicted the weather very accurately in time, but only with a spatial resolution of a few hundred miles. The weather in Albany is very different from the weather in Buffalo, or Boston, or New York. So your model would necessarily be very far off in all but one of those places, and yet such a model would be extremely useful and more than adequate for determining long-term global climate trends. So I don't see that their paper shows anything very interesting, let alone shows that "climate models have no predictive value".

 

[a_unique_person]

I meant to add.. I am very pro the search for alternative energy and clean energy does have other pollution reduction advantages.. so I am not a shill for big oil etc.. in fact I detest those money grubbing hounds… anything that bursts there bubble is ok by me.

I do have a particular problem where I live.

The Australian Govt is about to embark on an ambitious Carbon Trading scheme well in advance of other countries.. I don’t mind us being broken if the cause is worth it.. but is it ????

You are assuming it will break things.

 

[Pixel42]

Here are the significant facts that makes me so sceptical.

95 % of Greenhouse gas (gas that causes warming) is water vapour.

I doubt if any of the regulars here have the patience to explain this yet again (it's brought up by a newbie about once every three months), so can I point you to this free Open University course which should provide you with the information you need:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

From section 1.2.2:

Averaged over time and around the globe, water vapour represents about 0.5% of the total atmospheric gas. This relatively high abundance makes water vapour the single most important natural greenhouse gas: it contributes about 60% of the surface warming attributed to the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, the second most abundant, contributes a further 25% or so; most of the rest is due to the other three trace gases in Table 1, which have much lower atmospheric concentrations.

 

[Alex Libman]

Sheer weight of numbers of reputable scientists who agreed that AGW was real convinced me there was something to it.

How many of them work for governments and government-controlled organizations?

 

[fsol]

Of course it has facts. But it does seem to poke fun at Dr. James Hansen and his ever-trending upward predictions, doesn't it? Why does every single comedian that ever bit into the Global Warming made the butt of his jokes the alarmists? It has intrinsic humor value. I can't make this stuff up, it is already out there.

Except you just did make it up, because there are comedians who poke fun at the denialists. I've heard them on the BBC, so they are not exactly hiding away somewhere.



Contains swearing.

 

[Dancing David]

DDT does indeed thin eggshells and prevent viable eggs from being laid. So, I don't think your point is sound.

Thanks for addressing the spin.

I suppose some people will just deny anything.

 

[a_unique_person]

95 % of Greenhouse gas (gas that causes warming) is water vapour. (and yes man can affect this to some minor degree with farming and irrigation methods but the vast quantity of it comes from the oceans)

There is also the issue of what is causing change. The term they use is 'forcing'. Water vapour isn't causing any changes, but CO2 is.

 

[mhaze]

I doubt if any of the regulars here have the patience to explain this yet again (it's brought up by a newbie about once every three months), so can I point you to this free Open University course which should provide you with the information you need:

http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2805

From section 1.2.2:

Quote:
Averaged over time and around the globe, water vapour represents about 0.5% of the total atmospheric gas. This relatively high abundance makes water vapour the single most important natural greenhouse gas: it contributes about 60% of the surface warming attributed to the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide, the second most abundant, contributes a further 25% or so; most of the rest is due to the other three trace gases in Table 1, which have much lower atmospheric concentrations.

Even Gavin Schmidt at Realclimate.org cites a wide range of uncertainty for the contribution of water vapor and for the relative importance of water vapor vs. co2. The numbers that you have cited as authoritative of 60%, 25%, and 0.5% are not facts but are biased opinion, as much else in this document (which I some time ago labeled "propaganda, not science").

It's easy to show why these numbers are not known with certainty, by the way. No one disputes that (Well, with the exception of Open University eco-theists).

 

[lomiller]

Here are the significant facts that makes me so sceptical.

95 % of Greenhouse gas (gas that causes warming) is water vapour. (and yes man can affect this to some minor degree with farming and irrigation methods but the vast quantity of it comes from the oceans)

5 % of Greenhouse Gas (for want of a better term) comes from Carbon, Methane etc.

5 % of the non water vapour greenhouse gas is generated by man !

Not all greenhouse gasses have the same strength. CO2 represents 30% - 35% of the total greenhouse effect of ~35 deg. Human activity has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere from ~275ppm to 390ppm

 

[Pixel42]

It's easy to show why these numbers are not known with certainty, by the way. No one disputes that (Well, with the exception of Open University eco-theists).

You mean with the exception of Aussie Thinker, who quoted a figure of 95% for water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse gas effect and declared

This is indisputable.

So why didn't you correct him?

The OU quote qualifies the figures it gives with "about" and "or so" so your claim that they dispute these figures are not known with certainty is self-evidently ridiculous.

 

[varwoche]

IF you want me to base my actions on the outcome of CM:s ...

It's not just the models. It's also the observations.

If they are not I will not believe their output, despite the lame excuse of "but we have nothing else".

Clearly I wasn't precise enough with my challenge to ty_13 and it may cost me so I'm going to try and be a little more careful here...

Can you cite even one example of anyone (who counts) making such a statement?

What can if anything can humans do about it? What would the results be and how long would it take to have a significant impact? What would those costs be? What are the opportunity costs? What other things could be done that would have a greater benefit to humans with those funds?

Excellent, necessary and exceedingly complex questions.

Will any greenpeace funded peer reviewed paper do or just in climate science?

Hopefully tyr_13 accepts that I meant within the field of climate science. (But if s/he rejects that contention, I'd pay up anyway.)

From Greenpeace's website. "We commission many scientific research reports and investigations to support our campaigns." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/greenpeace-science-unit-2

I'm hoping for a concrete example of Greenpeace funding a climate study. (see my comments to Bluefire above)

 

[tyr_13]

Hopefully tyr_13 accepts that I meant within the field of climate science. (But if s/he rejects that contention, I'd pay up anyway.)
I'm hoping for a concrete example of Greenpeace funding a climate study. (see my comments to Bluefire above)

Don't worry, I'm not about to hold you to a forum challenge anyway. I don't even know what I'd do with a JREF membership. At any rate, the page I linked to has it's main page link at the bottom. On this page there are papers concerning climate and CO2. I know they are hard to find what with all the papers saying we are destroying the planet, opposing every and all ways to fix or stop hurting the environment, and everything we do destroying the environment, but they are there.

http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=326&parent=321 is one.

Johnston, P., Santillo, D., Stringer, R., Parmentier, R., Hare, B. & Krueger, M. (1999). Ocean disposal/sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel production and use: an overview of rationale, techniques and implications. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 01/99, March 1999.....is another.

It has been difficult getting accurate records, and even though as a not-for-profit their records in the US are a matter of public record, this is not so in many of the countries the operate in (and in Canada, they aren't even considered a charity). They seem to do a pretty good job of hiding their $360 million dollar a year budget (and that's just the main branch). I bet if I just sent then an e-mail asking they'd be happy to point me to the papers in question.

At any rate, Greenpeace does more spinning and distributing their claims about what research says (which at times has been opposed by the researchers themselves). Looking at the papers that Greenpeace has published, I am even more distrustful of them and their spin. It is really incredible how they hate everything besides their own organic food products.

Sorry, I haven't looked up any WWF stuff yet. I'm betting they just have a lot of misreporting of real research, like the polar bear stuff.

 

[lomiller]

http://www.carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=326&parent=321 is one.

Johnston, P., Santillo, D., Stringer, R., Parmentier, R., Hare, B. & Krueger, M. (1999). Ocean disposal/sequestration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel production and use: an overview of rationale, techniques and implications. Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 01/99, March 1999.....is another.

I personally wouldn’t consider either of those a published paper as they don’t seem to have been published in a journal of any note (unless I’m misreading something). Where a paper is published matters because journals can be peer review in name only. This is especially true when they are dedicated to a particular position. Greenpeace press is no more a serious peer review source then Energy and Environment.

Here is a pretty good starting point for spotting a good/bad journals.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4050

 

[tyr_13]

I'm well aware of this, and have listened to that skeptoid a few times. My entire point is that they aren't reputable.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Originally Posted by mhaze
It's easy to show why these numbers are not known with certainty, by the way. No one disputes that (Well, with the exception of Open University eco-theists).

You mean with the exception of Aussie Thinker, who quoted a figure of 95% for water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse gas effect and declared
Originally Posted by Aussie Thinker
This is indisputable.

So why didn't you correct him?

Pixel,

That’s because I didn’t say anything that was incorrect.

I did not say what water vapour’s % effect was to warming.

As it turns out I wasn’t sure of the % effect.

So if the Carbon effect is a disputable high of 30 % it means that man 5 % contribution would be making a 1.5 % effect on Global Warming… still doesn’t sound shattering ?

 

[balrog666]

I have to wonder ... if we got no real warming for the next two years, or four years, or eight years, or ...

at what point would we all call this a failed hypothesis?

 

[Piggy]

NOT ONE of Piggy’s articles refers to man being the cause of global warming !!!!

Interesting. I just browsed over there and this is the top article:

Drier, Warmer Springs In US Southwest Stem From Human-caused Changes In Winds

Then there's this:

NASA Study Improves Ability To Predict Aerosols' Effect On Cloud Cover

Using a novel theoretical approach, researchers from NASA and other institutions have identified the common thread that determines how aerosols from human activity, like the particles from burning of vegetation and forests, influence cloud cover and ultimately affect climate. The study improves researchers' ability to predict whether aerosols will increase or decrease cloud cover.

"We connected the dots to draw a critical conclusion, and found evidence over the Amazon that traces the direct path of the effect of human activity on climate change by way of human-caused aerosols," said study co-author Lorraine Remer, a physical scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "During the dry season in the Amazon, the only aerosols of any magnitude are from smoke emerging from human-initiated fires."

That's also from page 1, the 10 most recent stories.

I can cite more if you like.

But keep in mind, too, that the scientific community already accepts that global warming is being caused, in part, by human activity.

Therefore, when they speak of "global warming" they don't bother to add "which, by the way, is driven largely by human activity".