Global Warming

[RichardT]

I was wondering if I could get some expert opinion on this issue. If you know a lot about the subject or have degrees in climatology, then this thread is for you. I was wondering if you could answer a couple of questions that I have.

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

Zero.

Humans contribute zero to CO2 (0.038% of our atmosphere) and humans contribute zero to the climate.

The Sun controls the climate not CO2.

Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it is freezing cold.

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

No. The temperature is not rising. It is falling. And if it were rising it would be due to heliogenic causes.

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

It is not possible. Even if you spent trillions of dollars to remove the 0.038% of our atmosphere that is CO2 which would kill every living thing on Earth.

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?

No. The government is stealing billions of dollars from us in order to combat windmills and redistribute wealth to Communist elites.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

Some. It's tough to quantify exactly.

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

Like in answer 1, I'm not sure. I do think, however, that the less we add to the environment, the better it is. Whether or not we're causing warming or cooling, I think we can all agree that lessening our impact and letting the environment do its own thing is the right course of action.

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

Yes, by a combination of climate-affecting means. Should we? That's an entirely different question, which has no easy answer.

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?

I'm not sure the Kyoto protocol is helping much, because the Kyoto Protocol allows 'developing countries' (china and india) to get away with rampant pollution. But if we can get them on board with something reasonable, I think it would go far to lessen our impact as a species.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Zero.

Humans contribute zero to CO2 (0.038% of our atmosphere) and humans contribute zero to the climate.

Why does what fraction of our atmosphere is CO2 factor into this? What fraction of the atmosphere would be CO2 if humans didn't contribute? We do, by the way, what exactly do you think comes out of your car, and coal burning power plans, and etc. etc.

The Sun controls the climate not CO2.

Prove this. Prove that CO2 is not a green house gas is basically what I'm asking.

Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it is freezing cold.

This proves your point not at all. In fact, this shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

No. The temperature is not rising. It is falling. And if it were rising it would be due to heliogenic causes.

Where is the temperature falling? And is it rising anywhere? Use evidence to back up your reply.

It is not possible. Even if you spent trillions of dollars to remove the 0.038% of our atmosphere that is CO2 which would kill every living thing on Earth.

How? And is anybody trying to remove ALL the CO2 from the atmosphere? Who?

No. The government is stealing billions of dollars from us in order to combat windmills and redistribute wealth to Communist elites.

The government is combatting windmills? I thought they were building them. And who are these commie elites? Prove to me that they are commies. If they were commies, wouldn't they be distributing wealth and assets according to needs and abilities, rather than hoarding them?

There is something important to understand here that most people do not: While our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere may be small, it is none the less significant. Imagine that the atmosphere is a bathtub. The CO2 that nature puts in is like the water coming out of the faucet. CO2 sequestration by natural processes (photosynthesis and such) acts as the drain at the bottom of the bathtub. The Earth (the bath tub) is generally at equilibrium... the water coming out of the faucet is equal to that going down the drain, and the bathtub stays empty. Our contribution as humans throws this equilibrium off. It's like adding an extra cup of water to the bathtub every day. Those cups will eventually fill the tub up. That's when you get climate change. It may be small, but over time it adds up, and we get to a tipping point. We're there.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Why does what fraction of our atmosphere is CO2 factor into this?

Because numbers are how we measure things.

What fraction of the atmosphere would be CO2 if humans didn't contribute?

The Earth's atmosphere is 0.038% CO2.

Humans contribute nothing to that and we can't change that even if we wanted to.

Therefore CO2 would be at 0.038% with or without human beings.

We do, by the way, what exactly do you think comes out of your car, and coal burning power plans, and etc. etc.

What percentage of the Earth's CO2 do you claim is anthropogenic?

No matter what percentage it is (0% in reality), the total net effect on CO2 will be essentially zero since CO2 is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere.

 

[RichardT]

Some. It's tough to quantify exactly.

I agree.

Like in answer 1, I'm not sure. I do think, however, that the less we add to the environment, the better it is. Whether or not we're causing warming or cooling, I think we can all agree that lessening our impact and letting the environment do its own thing is the right course of action.

We depend on the use of industries that emit a lot of gases into the atmosphere, how will we lessen our impact without also causing detrimental economic effects?

I'm not sure the Kyoto protocol is helping much, because the Kyoto Protocol allows 'developing countries' (china and india) to get away with rampant pollution. But if we can get them on board with something reasonable, I think it would go far to lessen our impact as a species.

I don't believe that Kyoto is helping much either. What do you think of restrictions of carbon emissions set by governments? I believe that because we depend on these industries, it will have detrimental economic effects, especially in countries that are not very developed.

 

[Kharak]

Because numbers are how we measure things.

Indeed, for example: AoS made "Zero" effort in contributing actual knowledge to a discussion.

If we contributed "zero" carbon-dioxide to the atmosphere (like you use zero effort in understanding any science for that matter), you probably have no idea how chemical reactions with hydrocarbons work. Psst: The carbon isn't destroyed.

You also have zero evidence to remove carbon-dioxide as an effective green house gas, and zero evidence to support claims that it is not added to the atmosphere. You also have zero knowledge of Martian atmospheric conditions for that matter: Mars' atmospheric pressure is many times smaller than earth's (less than 1% that of Earth's, in fact), and the pathetic level of sunlight in which carbon-dioxide can absorb does not produce any noticeable effect.

I would also point out that the atmosphere is responsible for ensuring that one side of the Earth is not frying while the other side is well below freezing, but you typically ignore most points anyway and move on to claiming conspiracies or something along those lines.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I was wondering if I could get some expert opinion on this issue. If you know a lot about the subject or have degrees in climatology, then this thread is for you. I was wondering if you could answer a couple of questions that I have.

Richard, I am not a climatologist but I am an interested observer. Here's some info as I understand it.

FIRST: a few helpful links:

Realclimate.org: Several real climatologists discuss the science behind global warming.

"How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic": a nice explanation of global warming skepticism points and rebuttals.

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

This is, as others have said, somewhat difficult to quantify but models using hindcast data (data from the past that has already occured) show better fits with "human activity" factors in the model than natural factors only (LINK)

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is significantly higher than it's been in 15 million years and studies of isotopic make -up of the CO2 indicate humanity is responsible for a large portion of that recent run up (LINK1, LINK2, LINK3)

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

Many of the experts in the field feel immediate action is the only answer. Hansen from NASA may be one of the louder of these experts, but he did indeed predict in 1988 some of the trends that came to pass in the ensuing 12 years based on his model inputs.

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

Apparently we are still able to change the trend but because CO2 has long "residence time" or "lifetime" in the atmosphere it will take some time for it to come back down. There's a "lag" in response because of natural CO2 cycling into and out of the atmosphere.

The main things we'll have to do is scale back, significantly, our combustion of carbon-based fuels and other materials that put other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

When I saw Hansen speak here in California a year or two ago he was talking about some drastic measures to get away from coal fired powerplants that will likely not be too palatable to the general public. I am unsure of what the best middle road is in some of this

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?[/quote]

Unfortunately the only thing that will likely really have any effect is concerted, immediate effort. The downside is that that is hard to do without government mandate. THe even worst side is it is hard to enforce globally.

In the end onl we can control ourselves. Action at a local level is where it has to start. Action at a global level is where it has to go.

Just my dos centavos.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I was wondering if I could get some expert opinion on this issue. If you know a lot about the subject or have degrees in climatology, then this thread is for you. I was wondering if you could answer a couple of questions that I have.

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?

I remember you from a few years ago. Seems a few things have changed.

As for your questions, humans definitely factor in to the equation. However, the sun is responsible for some of it. Environmentalism in general needs immediate attention. The things wrought from climate change research will be better technologies for the planet's health overall anyway. As for if reversal is possible, that depends on how much humans actually contribute to global warming. If it's a lot, then new technologies, planting more trees, etc will certainly help. If not, then we won't have as much of an effect. For the last question, I think government regulation is necessary. Corporations don't exactly have a history of good will without a government dragging them along and forcing them to spread that good will.

 

[sbvera13]

I recall seeing a study recently that said if we stop carbon emissions by 100% immediately, the warming trend would still continue for the next hundred years.

Anyone know of it? I can't seem to find it at the moment.

If true, it would make the whole point moot. Our focus would need to be on predicting, and managing the effects of the climate changes (given that the change is inevitable). Given that the changes are already occuring, we should probably be doing this anyway, whether the study is true or not.

 

[dad]

I was wondering if I could get some expert opinion on this issue. If you know a lot about the subject or have degrees in climatology, then this thread is for you. I was wondering if you could answer a couple of questions that I have.

1. How much would you say humans contribute to the rising average temperature of the earth compared to "natural" causes. (IE. Solar Variation)

2. Do you believe that the human contributions to the rising average temperature need immediate attention and immediate action?

3. Do you believe that it's possible to change the current trend in the rise of average global temperature? By what means?

4. If Anthropogenic Global Warming needs immediate attention, do you think that government intervention (IE. Kyoto Protocol) is a better solution than solutions that the market could offer?

All warming of the earth speculation is based on old age religion. They interpret the fossils, and everything else only within a present based assumption. Since the mass extinctions were not that long ago, all claims the eco fraudsters make are utterly bogus.

 

[thaumaturgy]

All warming of the earth speculation is based on old age religion. They interpret the fossils, and everything else only within a present based assumption. Since the mass extinctions were not that long ago, all claims the eco fraudsters make are utterly bogus.

You mean "old age" as in 1850?

So the "Split" that occured in Old Testament times occurred sometime after 1800 AD?

Sorry but your one trick pony of "different state past" doesn't work here.

 

[dad]

You mean "old age" as in 1850?

So the "Split" that occured in Old Testament times occurred sometime after 1800 AD?



Sorry but your one trick pony of "different state past" doesn't work here.

That is, of course unworthy nonsense. The claims of climte change go back far far into the dreamscapes of the foggy mists of imagined time,

The examples are impossible to avoid, and anything but hard to find.


"
To find out how coral reefs might respond to climate change we can look at what has happened to them in the past.
Museum scientist Ken Johnson studies coral reefs in the Late Cenozoic era, between 30 million years ago and the present day. In this time, many reef-corals became extinct in the Caribbean on 2 occasions...


...In the 10s of millions of years following this demise, new kinds of corals evolved that were able to live under the changed conditions...."


Extinction of coral reefs | Natural History Museum


etc etc


The recent changes since a few hundred years are only one part of the claims. Alone, they are pretty flimsy. The actual timeframes are all important in graphing what really happened, that is obvious.

 

[Doveaman]

Global Warming Not Man Made

Global Warming Scandal

---------------------Peer-Reviewed Bible On Global Warming----------------

And they say Peer-Review isn't biased. Yeah, right.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And they say Peer-Review isn't biased. Yeah, right.

You know, I hear this sort of stuff from folks. Why don't you put up your bona fides on this, Dove?

What is your experience with peer review in the sciences?

I'd love to know!

Really. Man up (don't "dove up") and tell us what your experience is in this area?

Me? I've been a peer reviewer in chemistry for several journals. I even reviewed an article that critiqued one of my earlier papers and it was so good I voted to get that article published!

So, man up and tell us what your experience is in this area.

 

[dad]

Global Warming Not Man Made

Global Warming Scandal

---------------------Peer-Reviewed Bible On Global Warming----------------

And they say Peer-Review isn't biased. Yeah, right.

With the latest scandal, some call ecogate, the false front of science is peeled away.


Themat

If all the data went back no further than a few hundred years, I would have no problem with climate change. I think it may indeed be changing. However, resting projections upon old ages is a false premise. The reason it will likely accelerate in a great way, is because this world will no longer exist under the present laws! Of course there will be climate change, and of course the climate was greatly different before the flood...so?

 

[Doveaman]

You know, I hear this sort of stuff from folks. Why don't you put up your bona fides on this, Dove?

What is your experience with peer review in the sciences?

I'd love to know!

Really. Man up (don't "dove up") and tell us what your experience is in this area?

Me? I've been a peer reviewer in chemistry for several journals. I even reviewed an article that critiqued one of my earlier papers and it was so good I voted to get that article published!

So, man up and tell us what your experience is in this area.

If only all peer-reviewers were as honest as you we wouldn’t have this global warming scandal. Any credibility peer-review might have had left has been significantly diminished even further by this scandal. All peer-review sources will now be viewed with a great deal more skepticism because of this.

But all this was predicted many years ago, long before modern science:

“Cursed are those who put their trust in mere humans...It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” – Jer 17:5, Ps 118:8.

 

[MoonLancer]

Looking at the emails as a whole shows it is not a scandal. Its only looking at isolated emails without the context of the other emails that it appears scandals.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If only all peer-reviewers were as honest as you we wouldn’t have this global warming scandal. Any credibility peer-review might have had left has been significantly diminished even further by this scandal. All peer-review sources will now be viewed with a great deal more skepticism because of this.

Thank you, but I still didn't see where you told us your experience with peer review.

Any time I read someone's declarations of peer review this or that I wonder what their experience is. I'm still quite curious.

 

[sbvera13]

Creationists must have made a real effort to regress to this level of ignorance.

You've gotta respect religious people. After all, it takes real dedication to so thoroughly and completely deny reality for so long. That takes guts! -George Carlin, paraphrased because I can't remember it exactly