Global Warming?

[momalle1]

If the warming that has been observed is natural, what is the cause? Even if the warming is not caused by humans, there still must be some forcing to skew the radiative budget. The Earth doesn't change temperature for no particular reason. I am not trying to be dissmisive, just trying to understand your reasoning.

As I said originally, I don't know, no one has any definitive answers, but the earth does change, we had an ice age, there were no humans to interfere then, so a natural cause must have been the reason, right? Hurricanes and cyclones exist to expel excess energy created around the equator, so there may be a perfectly natural reason for warming. We may never know the cause, or have a cure, but we may be able to prepare ourselves.

 

[Maxwell511]

This is from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Basically it tells you what chemicals and processes cause warming and which ones don't and the level of scientific understanding of the effects. You should notice that CO2 is the biggest contributor and very well understood. Btw human activity produces alot of CO2.

Of course this is all nonsense since everybody knows that global warming and climate change are just the fabrication of the leftist elite to scare monger governments to relax regulation of nuclear energy production so that they can breed an army of super mutants inside the reactors and establish a communist world government.

 

[JVD]

What is the ideal climate? Is it the climate of 1860?, or of one million years ago?, or is it the climate of 1950? What exactly is the ideal climate for the earth?

And once that is decided, how do we keep it there?

The chart above from IPCC is a great example. First, it shows many of different things that change climate. But it does not show how these different inputs interact with each other and it also does not show all the inputs.

In fact, all these different interactions are still very poorly understood. And it is very possible that many estimates could be way off. Solar activity is a great example and one on which we have very little control.

Methane listed above is 4 times more effective in global warming than is Co2...yet scientist are still trying to find where it all comes from.

There are many more inputs than are mentioned in this chart and most of them are poorly understood.

 

[Billnew]

Well, lets see,
The worlds temp has risen .1c in the last 2-3 miillllliooon years?

That would of course be assuming the world is that old.
and that everything we know today hasn't changed anything in their abilities to guess(eduacted guess) at pre-historic temps.

From what I hear the earth warms and cools in cycles.
We are in a warming cycle, but is this normal or not?

If global warming is so imortant to prevent, why not make green house gas prevention across the board,
equal to all countries? I think its just another way to restrict big industrial countries, and allow the smaller countries to attract big buiness because they have less restrictions.

 

[Maxwell511]

What is the ideal climate? Is it the climate of 1860?, or of one million years ago?, or is it the climate of 1950? What exactly is the ideal climate for the earth?

And once that is decided, how do we keep it there?

I'm gonna say the one that we have adapted too. Since the majority of the world lives on coastal regions. I think that any rise in sea level due to melting of the ice caps might be undesirable. Plus less energy absorbed in the atmosphere means less energy to release in storms. Always a good thing.

The chart above from IPCC is a great example. First, it shows many of different things that change climate. But it does not show how these different inputs interact with each other and it also does not show all the inputs.

What do you mean does not show how the inputs interact? If you look at the chart it shows what the inputs do. Superimpose the effects and you get how they interact.

In fact, all these different interactions are still very poorly understood. And it is very possible that many estimates could be way off. Solar activity is a great example and one on which we have very little control.

They have an idea. If you look at the part of the graph for Solar. The box is what they think the effect is. The vertical line with the horizontal lines at the ends is the region where after considering possible errors where it could be. Solar effect taken at it's maximum possible effect is still less than carbon dioxide.

Methane listed above is 4 times more effective in global warming than is Co2...yet scientist are still trying to find where it all comes from.

No methane is 3 times less effective than carbon dioxide from the graph. It's the area inside the relative boxs.

There are many more inputs than are mentioned in this chart and most of them are poorly understood.

What are these other inputs?

 

[JVD]

Turns out I was remembering wrong. Methane is actually 20X as effective as Carbon Dioxide in trapping heat. As per EPA

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period

Above from http://www.epa.gov/methane/

The vertical line that shows possible variations in their calculations also shows that they are trying to cover themselves by admitting that they might be wrong. How do they know that vertical line covers all the possible miscalculations? The fact is that they don't know. They are making the best guesses that they can make, but they are still really guesses.

This has become very political. A realistic look at this would force one to conclude that we don't know enough to force large shifts in human behavior based on very incomplete knowledge.

Look here for just a few more possible implications.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.e...ects-of-well-mixed-greenhouse-gases/#comments

 

[Maxwell511]

From what I hear the earth warms and cools in cycles.
We are in a warming cycle, but is this normal or not?

There are cycles but we seem to be making the situation worse.

If global warming is so imortant to prevent, why not make green house gas prevention across the board,
equal to all countries? I think its just another way to restrict big industrial countries, and allow the smaller countries to attract big buiness because they have less restrictions.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories.

 

[HouseApe]

I tend to be on the conservative side, so if the vast majority of degreed climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming, I'll tend to trust their opinion long before that of Joe-Bob down the street scoffing at them "librul tree-huggers".

One of the interesting concepts I've run across on the issue, and I will readily admit I don't have the qualifications to validate any of them, is that global warming can be catastrophic very, very quickly. Simply because water is ice at 32 degrees fahrenheit, and just one degree higher and it's water. That little change of one degree for a long enough period of time at the poles can catastrophically change the world, and it can happen in a matter of just a couple of years.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

well I have always wanted some beach front property...

 

[trunks2k]

So warm up or Ice Age? Nobody knows.

The two are actually not mutually exclusive. What is feared is that the warming earth (which climatologizts have pretty much agreed IS happening), will melt the polar ice caps. The melting polar ice caps will dilute the ocean. This dillution will mess up major ocean currents that regulate the temperature of the northern hemisphere in the atlantic (i.e. the Gulf Stream). Causing the temperatures to plunge in the nothern hemisphere, especially in Europe.

 

[trunks2k]

Weather is chaotic. Small changes can make very big differences.

Even within heat itself, small changes make big differences. Much of the climate has some pretty strong positive feedback loops.

Remember not too long ago the huge chunk of ice that fell off the ice shelf in the arctic? That was much more than a sign of warming temperatures. It also has a lot of effects on the temperature of the water. Ice reflects upwards of 90% of the energy it recieves from the sun. Water, on the other hand absorbs 90%. So now there's a large section of exposed water, that's warming up the water (IIRC, the water temp has already risen a bit under a degree, which is a large jump for such a short time), which is making the rest of the ice shelf melt more easily, which will further warm up the water, wich will melt more of the shelf, etc..

 

[Maxwell511]

Turns out I was remembering wrong. Methane is actually 20X as effective as Carbon Dioxide in trapping heat. As per EPA




Above from http://www.epa.gov/methane/

Sorry I should have said has had less of an effect.

The vertical line that shows possible variations in their calculations also shows that they are trying to cover themselves by admitting that they might be wrong. How do they know that vertical line covers all the possible miscalculations? The fact is that they don't know. They are making the best guesses that they can make, but they are still really guesses.

This has become very political. A realistic look at this would force one to conclude that we don't know enough to force large shifts in human behavior based on very incomplete knowledge.

Interesting approach. Do you feel that economics also should not be used to influence policy?

 

[chaim]

I am not asking you to prove anything. Science has nothing to do with proof. Science is about collecting evidence and trying to explain it.

The vast, vast majority of evidence for global warming (climate models, paleo-climate records, satellite observations etc) points to unprecedented climate change largely caused by anthropogenic influence. I am asking what evidence you see that makes you think otherwise?

== If global warming is not real and their is so little evidence for it, I am sure you could show me some solid scientific evidence that it is not happening?

You're asking me to prove a negative?

Those who make the claims of global warming, and add to the environmentalist hysteria and anti-American sentiment (Kyoto) are the ones with the burden of proof, not vice versa.

 

[chaim]

Your time scales are a little off. The Earth has warmed 0.1 - 0.3 C in the past 25 years. Not millions of years.

The earth has been through warming and cooling cycles before, however the smae people who are telling you this are also saying that the current warming is unprecedented. And yes all the evidence points to the fact that the earth is old.....l

Well, lets see,
The worlds temp has risen .1c in the last 2-3 miillllliooon years?

That would of course be assuming the world is that old.
and that everything we know today hasn't changed anything in their abilities to guess(eduacted guess) at pre-historic temps.

From what I hear the earth warms and cools in cycles.
We are in a warming cycle, but is this normal or not?

If global warming is so imortant to prevent, why not make green house gas prevention across the board,
equal to all countries? I think its just another way to restrict big industrial countries, and allow the smaller countries to attract big buiness because they have less restrictions.

 

[chaim]

What will the climate be in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

In 100 years between 2 and 11 degrees warmer. In ten years approximately 0.2 C warmer.

Some people say it will be hotter. Some even say the earth warming up might actually be good for us.

If you live in the mountains in Canada it may be a good thing, if you are like most of the worlds population and live in a costal region it will be worse than Katrina....

Others say it will be colder. I'm not sure how good that will be.

So warm up or Ice Age? Nobody knows.

Some say the present warm up is man made. Others say sunspots. Again nobody knows.

Who says it will be colder? Where are you getting this information? Why do you think it is sunspots? I really am curious as to where these ideas come from.

What if we manage somehow to make it cool down. And then enter an Ice Age. Will we have fouled up?

 

[one love]

however I don't know anyone who is basing their oppinion on this movie.

What is more common: that the general population reads Nature and Science and is consistent without reports on climate change and the possible effects on human society, or that millions of people gorge themselves with popcorn, soda, candy, chips, cookies, etc and watch a hollywood thriller either in their homes or at the theatre?

I have a friend up until a few months ago who still thought NASA launched manned missions to the moon.

I am myslef rarely read climate change articles because I find it very hard to keep up with what is being presented and it is not my thing.

But I garuntee you this, the geologist and climate scientist of the world have not come to a consensus on what global warming is, if it exist and what it means to the human society. The weather is chaotic.

 

[chaim]

The public also doesn't keep up with paleontology, but hopefully most of them don't base their knowledge of human evolution on "Encino Man".

What is more common: that the general population reads Nature and Science and is consistent without reports on climate change and the possible effects on human society, or that millions of people gorge themselves with popcorn, soda, candy, chips, cookies, etc and watch a hollywood thriller either in their homes or at the theatre?

I have a friend up until a few months ago who still thought NASA launched manned missions to the moon.

He doesn't believe this anymore? Has he gone off his meds?

I am myself rarely read climate change articles because I find it very hard to keep up with what is being presented and it is not my thing.

But I garuntee you this, the geologist and climate scientist of the world have not come to a consensus on what global warming is, if it exist and what it means to the human society. The weather is chaotic.

We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. The climate is not a chaotic system and can and has been modeled with some accuracy.

There is still debate as to the magnitude of global warming and the social consequences. However there is as close as you are ever going to get to consensus amongst atmospheric scientists on the occurrence of anthropogenic global warming. I can think of three dissenting atmospheric scientists, two of whom are well funded by the oil industry, otherwise essentially all atmospheric scientists and more importantly almost all peer reviewed journal articles agree with the concept of anthropogenic climate change.

The question I am really looking for an answer to, is why, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary do people doubt the concept of anthropogenic climate change?

 

[JVD]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a warming trend.

I am raising questions about what causes it, and can it really be controlled.

I do agree that many of the causes are man-made. But many of the causes are not man-made. And the way the climate changes is not understood. There are in fact changes that can cause chaos, but that may not be avoidable.

I do not agree that we should make major shifts like the Kyoto agreement. That was mainly an attempt to decrease productivity in devoloped countries and increase productivity in undeveloped countries.

Since undeveloped countries would have had less stringent requirements made of them, there would be incentives for multi-national corps to move their production facilities there in addition to making their current locations less polluting.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Does it make any sense on any level to continue burning the levels of fossil fuels we currently burn, and wasting energy at the level we currently waste it?

We know that coal oil and gas are formed from the remains of animal and plant life which existed when the world had a very different climate. We know that the carbon which is locked away in these deposits was originally part of that climate - over a long period of time the plants absorbed it from the air, they died or were eaten and along with animals turned into coal oil and gas. In the last century (a short period of time) we have reintroduced much of this carbon back into the atmosphere, without really understanding what consequence that will have. Does it make any sense to continue down that path?

On another level as far as we know we have limited resources of these substances, which are actually used for far more than fuel. Imagine not being able to make plastic - what effect would that have on the modern world. Does it makes sense to continue using this substance as fuel in incredibly inefficient ways?

I find it really hard to understand the lobby of people who react against the climate change model and who refuse to alter their behaviour until we know more about what is being done to our climate. It seems analagous to me to driving a car at 80mph down a road, and being told there may or nmay not be a wall across the road in the near future. Do we slow down or accelerate while we find out?

On another front, one which is now beginning to be more widely understood, consuming fuel at the current rate that the US does is not sustainable. It means that your national security is de[pendant on the stability of some of the most unstable regions of the world, and beside that there simply is not enough for other developing countries to do so at the same rate. Conserving fuel saves money!

It makes no sense to me on any level to continue down our current path.

 

[Zlex]

We are not talking about weather, we are talking about climate. The climate is not a chaotic system and can and has been modeled with some accuracy.

Much of the Northern Hemisphere used to be an ice cube. Of course there is global warming, if we believe the record.

I disagree with your assessment of climate modelling. In my salad days, I spent a year modeling the atmosphere. It was fun with numbers, and it was extremely hard to do two things; a] obtain sufficient model grid data, and b]avoid getting any results you wanted by simply tweaking the models with uncalibratable constants. Today, the grid data is much better, but the various coarse models for weather employed today are still widely variant and at most usable out to one or two weeks. To believe that we today have sufficient model data for climate modeling, or are not subject to the saem uncalabratable ability to model any r4esult we want, is naive to the extreme. Take 5 minutes, search the web, and for instance, look at all the conjecture about the influence of anomolies in the ocean theromcline have on the models. Even today, we do not have anything close to simultaneous real time profile data for the oceans and atmosphere for right now., even with all the satellites and bouys and remote sensing. 100,000 years ago?

Please, we sniff a few entrained samples of air embedded in polar ice, and we are somehow going to reproduce the entire record for the earth, including all of the variations in ocean thermocline? We can tweak any result we want from climate models.

Actually, my salad days were back when disco was king. You need to and discuss recursively complex patterns, but when you do, have this thought in mind;

'Climate' is to 'weather' as 'history' is to 'news.' The random scales of fluctiations that we call 'weather' have analogs on longer timescales.

Get used to it, the place jiggles.

As for the manmade nudges down in the noise, we'd be hardpressed to control the weather, much less the climate, even if we deliberately tried to do same. That's not an excuse not to be as smart as we can about what we do, and avoid poluuting the commons, but computer generated climate modeling is certainly no definitive basis to go off half cocked as an excuse to implement some worldwide command and control economy, which is the real basis for this endless climate model pimping.