Not ready to buy into global warming being explained by co2, too many variables go into water vapor density. Pehaps a forum on cow flatulence? But the majority of charts I see show an increase in global temperature over the last ten years, not a decrease.
"You have no basis for that assertion. Also, the "global temperature" has been flat or even slightly decreasing for the past decade.so I don't see your point. "
Now whether they are large enough to cause a cataclysmic event or are just a paleoclimatic anomaly on a several thousand year scale has not been established. And the beat goes on Have to give the nudge to vchiu on this one.
Record, or near record, warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature did not receive a boost from an El Niño in 2005. The temperature in 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by a “super El Niño” (see below), the strongest El Niño of the past century.
Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say “most global warming occurred before 1940.” A better summary is: slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975, followed by rapid warming at a rate ≈0.2°C per decade. Global warming was ≈0.7°C between the late 19th century (the earliest time at which global mean temperature can be accurately defined) and 2000, and continued warming in the first half decade of the 21st century is consistent with the recent rate of +0.2°C per decade.
The conclusion that global warming is a real climate change, not an artifact due to measurements in urban areas, is confirmed by surface temperature change inferred from borehole temperature profiles at remote locations, the rate of retreat of alpine glaciers around the world, and progressively earlier breakup of ice on rivers and lakes (10). The geographical distribution of warming (Fig. 1B) provides further proof of real climate change. Largest warming is in remote regions including high latitudes. Warming occurs over ocean areas, far from direct human effects, with warming over ocean less than over land, an expected result for a forced climate change because of the ocean's great thermal inertia.
I got your point and I agree that H2O vapor is a big contributor. The example I took did not aim to be a model for earth GW but an illustration that all other things being equal, if the CO2 concentration increases, then the temperatures will increase. Of course I can not discuss by how much because it will depend on many other conditions.
We have scientist that say its man made global warming. We also have scientist that say the universe is expanding, that the sun is getting hotter and larger, that the moon is getting farther from the earth, that the earth has tilted more on its axis and the the poles are swapping ends, etc, these are all items of major change. When I look at the large picture I see where YES we should reduce the crap we are putting in our skys but dont make it into a "the sky is falling" problem. This earth is in perpetual change and has been sence day one (a few zillon years ago), mankind is nothing but a short lived bug in earths long history. We must change to survive as the earth changes, if not we are soon to go the way of the unicorn !
To those that say its all mankinds fault.....well there is only one way to slow mankinds contribution......STOP MAKING PEOPLE !
P.S......awhile back I read where cows flatuses, volcanos and the fires in the west add more to the problem then all the vehicles on earth conbined !
My original statement was: What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2is a significant contributor to global warming...
to which you responded: Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics.
and I replied: You missed the keyword "significant" in my comment and in the Evans' article.
If you didn't miss the word "significant" then please explain why you completely changed the meaning of what I said by leaving it out in your reply?
And if you don't mind me going philosophical for a moment or two, I'd like to comment on the common phrase "as it is basic physics" that is bantied about rather frequently. Basic or fundamental physics comes down to a small handful of "laws" that govern the behavior of matter and energy. They are fairly straighforward and simple laws. They work great when considered in isolation.
However, when you put large quantities of mass or energy or both in proximity, set them all to just this side of equilibrium and let the quasi-cyclic stew boil for a good long time then the result is a system of almost imponderable complexity. Living matter, including you and me, is governed by that basic physics and yet is incredibly complex.
Global climate is extraordinarily complex as well and is subject to a myriad of influences. To focus on a single second tier agent (CO2) while ignoring or dismissing out of hand the many major influences (that's the IPCC charter!) is to do a great disservice to humanity.
When the world finally discovers that CO2 is not the offending agent and given (merely for the sake of argument) that "global warming" is real, several decades will have been lost that could have been better spent (a) finding the real culprit and (b) developing means or technology that would allow adaptation to new conditions. Will your grandchildren wonder why the earlier generations squandered their time to find real solutions?
Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" but so is H2O. However, the impact of water on climate (global or local) far surpasses what a few dozen parts per million that CO2 could possibly do. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation, biomass, CO2 sinks and sources, the Sun and on and on all play very significant roles in global climate yet they are all swept aside in favor of a very low level player.
When you focus on secondary and tertiary influences and limit yourself to convenient subsets of data you will often be working at the level of statistical noise and can use it to convince yourself (and others) of almost anything.
It is antithetical to science when investigators routinely and casually dismiss data that does not support their intended conclusions and they do so with no legitimate justification whatsoever.
But the majority of charts I see show an increase in global temperature over the last ten years, not a decrease.
The majority of charts that are readily available are (a) cherry picked data and (b) intended to convince you to support the author's claims. You should take a look at the article by Evans that I posted earlier and have a look at Lawrence Solomon's book (The Deniers) for a more complete picture. Also have a look at the chart I displayed above.
There is no dispute that climate change has taken place continually on our little planet. There is serious question about whether mankind has contributed to it - either adversely or beneficically. It is even questionable whether CO2 plays a significant role. In fact, historical data shows that global warming precedes increases in CO2 levels. Moreover, global warming is being observed on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and even little planetoid Pluto. This clearly suggests that something else is going on besides man's usage of fossil fuels.
Indeed, when GW aka GLOBAL WARMING is is almost like a human Pavlovian Response. Goes to prove that in GW, it is a doggie dog world and belivers are.... conditioned dogs.
To focus on a single second tier agent (CO2) while ignoring or dismissing out of hand the many major influences (that's the IPCC charter!) is to do a great disservice to humanity.
Translation for everyone : It's like having lung cancer, diabetes with gangrene on your leg, and a 5" nail in your skull, and all your doctor is focused on is the splinter you have under your finger-nail.
To me this is the reason we have a GW Cult in the World. We had leaders with an AGENDA. Selling Carbon Credits was a scheme cooked up in the mind of Al Gore many years ago. He used his position of authority to squelch any dissent.
On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.
This did not particularly bother me, though, since I knew that as an employee of an Executive Branch agency my ultimate boss resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction given by my superiors.
So it is OK for Clinton/Gore to influence policy as long as it looks Green? The ECO FREAKS are headed for a BIG FALL. IMO they have done more to harm the cause of conservation than good.
"...It is antithetical to science when investigators routinely and casually dismiss data..."
I think you make a very significant point. Today you see so much "dishonest science" from both sides of this issue that it's difficult to base your beliefs on firm ground.
Compounding the problem is the dumbing down of the general population. Most folks have no sense of skepticism when the mass media parrots various agenda driven "studies".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Indeed, I posted the Wikipedia definition of Pavlovian response; which is something that anyone taking a high school psychology class has to/should understand. What is at work here is the psychological principle. Again SCARY!!
Since GW is even being used in the context of the most mundane of ( almost all human activity ) INCLUDING body weight and passing flatus :surprise: , there is getting to be some serious and massive cultist deprogramming that has to happen !!
Sounds to me like another wealthy elitist with a political agenda trying to undermine the current administration. An Obama supporter building a case for his choice for President. The CDC would do well along with the FDA to find out why people are getting salmonella poisoning. Why is every agency in the government jumping on the GW/CC bandwagon? Could it be a smokescreen to cover up their own inadequacies in administering their own agencies?
If the EPA were really interested in CO2 emissions they could have lightened up on NoX and let us drive diesel vehicles that put out less CO2 than conventional gas vehicles. GW is a POLITICAL not scientific issue. Every day more evidence points in that direction.
Is this science at its best?
Burnett — a grandson of high-tech entrepreneur David Packard and a member of the Packard Foundation's board of trustees — has given more than $129,000 to Democratic campaigns in recent years, including $3,600 to presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois. He did not identify who in the vice president's office called him.
I say cut off the air conditioning in the (global warming) summer and cut the furnance operations in the (lack of winter conditions due to global warming) winter to all Wash DC government buildings.
If a new Prius were placed head-to-head with a used car, would the Prius win? Don't bet on it. Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Päster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile. A used car, on the other hand, starts with a significant advantage: The first owner has already paid off its carbon debt. Buy a decade-old Toyota Tercel, which gets a respectable 35 mpg, and the Prius will have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up.
Better yet, buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. It gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap. Sure, the XFi has no AC or airbags — but nobody said saving the planet would be comfortable, or even safe.
California wanted all automakers to comply to 0% emission vehicles. Then, the Federal Government sued automakers who came up with the EV1. Oil Companies also said the vehicle was not efficient. I believe the public and the mandate for the EV1 proved wrong. But, beat the Federal Government. All electric vehicles had to be returned and later to be shredded. The people who owned these vehicles were all satisfied and happy. This automobile did not require oil changes. It did not require much maintenance. It was not much profit for automakers in the long run, and oil companies would also loose profit.
So when you stare into an active volcano or lava flow... what do you see?
I've never actually gotten to stare into an active volcano or lava flow but I did get to peer into some of the deep craters in Nevada left over from the above ground nuclear tests. I saw hope! The fact that mankind was able to see the real dangers of such testing and put an end to it meant that in the long run sensible people would prevail. I am hoping that mankind will see the folly of undermining the integrity of science to promote a destructive political agenda.
"Built in 1968, Vermont Yankee has been wracked by a host of safety concerns in recent years, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower last year and a fire that shut down the plant for three weeks."
And sounding just like the story you get when you ask to see the model used to calculate the amount of GW that's supposed to happen: "But in a court document filed in July 2007 by the New England Coalition, the group argues that Entergy’s figures are “flawed by numerous uncertainties, unjustified assumptions and insufficient conservatism, and produced unrealistically optimistic results.”
Hopenfeld — a former NRC employee with more than four decades of experience in design, project management and nuclear safety — said he performed his own fatigue calculations and obtained much different figures.
Nearly all of his calculations showed Vermont Yankee’s structures to be above the established safety thresholds and therefore at risk of safety-related failure."
How many other 35-40 year old nuclear plants are being kept open past their planned life-span? If these older nuke plants are shutdown, do you really think you're going to have electricity to recharge millions and millions of EV's? So we'll keep these nukes going and go to EV's just because CO2 MIGHT cause GW?
I am hoping that mankind will see the folly of undermining the integrity of science to promote a destructive political agenda.
I don't know tidester, equating "stoppage" of above ground nuclear testing to "stoppage" of mankind promoting a "go green" political agenda may be a little over the top. What exactly do you think will happen if the "science" of man made global warming triumphs? Europe is still standing... couldn't be that bad.
equating "stoppage" of above ground nuclear testing to "stoppage" of mankind promoting a "go green" political agenda may be a little over the top.
I wasn't equating them. The comparison was related to recognizing mistakes and taking corrective action which is certainly applicable to both situations. Nuke craters seemed fitting because of the question concerning active volcanoes and lava flows. Going green is fine with me but just don't base it on mythology and don't debase science in the process.
there is very little money made on natural global warming !
Actually the tourism to see the volcano over the last year has really increased for Hilo Hawaii
I know what you are saying. When real estate is hot you have 100s of new agents trying to get rich. Same goes now for Carbon Credit business. Didn't Big Al get about $500,000,000 from investors in his scam? I think that Google is backing him in hopes of getting all the advertising money. I have not seen anyone on the corner selling Carbon Credits YET! Probably in the big cities. They will be the "time shares" of the 21st Century. PT Barnum would be in all his glory with this Circus act.
Scientists at Columbia Univ. have developed a cheap, efficient CO2 scrubber. Each unit can remove 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere each day.
The scientists there are extremely surprised to find environmentalists adamantly opposed to such technology. The enviromentalists say that while this might solve the problem of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, it does nothing to stop people from putting it there in the first place.
This tells me what a lot of us already know. These people don't really care about the CO2, they just want to control what other people do.
For tons of info. on this new development just google Columbia Univ. CO2 scrubber.
Each unit can remove 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere each day.
At that rate, 1 MILLION of those units working day and night will take over 15 years to remove 1 solitary part million of CO2 from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, Al Gore tells us we have only 10 yrs. How fast can we build a BILLION of those units?
The issue is Al Gore and his followers want ALL of US driving electric cars in 10 years. Of course it will be interesting to see if Gore destroys his CO2 producing Gulfstream. Or any of his limos that were idling with the AC on while he gave a speech. A fact that was video documented by the real Greenies that attended the speech. I will believe he is sincere when I see him out by his 11,000 sq foot mansion chopping up all his limos and jets with a handsaw. To do anything less would tell me he believes that the rest of US need to cut back. NOT HIM!
Why should his wife and daughter ride in a Lincoln Town car, while my wife is in a Yaris or some similar little POC car? His money and elitism does not make him any better than anyone here or our families.
When Al Gore is looking and acting like the Jane Goodall of the early days, then I'll know he's serious. As long as he looks like the overfed on beef son of a rich Washington congessman who learned how to milk the system and the son who grew up in hotels in DC, I don't give him much credulity. That's especially true when he pontificates that he has the solution to what are many, massive systems involved in the earth's geosphere and biosphere.
If you had noticed, I did not imply that global warming was a function of c02 increase but rather stated that enough empirical eveidence was not in hand to base a logical conclusion.
But as to cherry picking charts... Humbly, I only have these hardly reputable sources to cite, but you have?
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
EPA Global Warming Site.
Geography 1012: Planet Earth [lecture outlines].
Global Climate Change: Causes & Methods of Study.
Introduction to Physical Geography II: Causes of Climate Change
Merritts, D., DeWet, A. Menking, K. (1998). Environmental Geology: An Earth System Science Approach. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, N.Y.
Purves, W. K., Orians, G. H., H. C. (1995). Life: The Science of Biology. Fourth Edition. Sinauer Assosiates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Rosenzweig, C. and Hiller, D. Potential Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Supply. Cornell University.
Schlesinger, W. H. (1991). Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY. The Greenhouse Effect. *National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, †Columbia University Earth Institute, and §Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and ¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. References ↵Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt GA, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bell N, et al. (9 28, 2005) J Geophys Res 110, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776. ↵Pierrehumbert RT (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:1355–1358. FREE Full Text ↵Lea DW (2004) J Climate 17:2170–2179. CrossRef ↵Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) J Geophys Res 106:23947–23963. CrossRef ↵Reynolds RW, Smith TM (1994) J Clim 7:929–948. CrossRef ↵Rayner N, Parker D, Horton E, Folland C, Alexander L, Rowell D, Kent E, Kaplan A (7 17, 2003) J Geophys Res 108, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670. ↵Hansen J, Lebedeff S (1987) J Geophys Res 92:13345–13372. ↵Hansen J, Ruedy R, Glascoe J, Sato M (1999) J Geophys Res 104:30997–31022. CrossRef ↵Comiso JC (2006) Weather 61:70–76. CrossRef ↵Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (2001) in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, eds Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). ↵Manabe S, Wetherald RT (1975) J Atmos Sci 32:3–15. CrossRef ↵Hansen J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R, Russell G, Stone P (1988) J Geophys Res 93:9341–9364. ↵US Senate Commission on Energy and Natural Resources (1988) Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change (Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC). ↵Crichton M (2004) State of Fear (Harper Collins, New York). ↵U.S. Senate Commission on Environment & Public Works (2005) The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making (Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC). ↵Barnes F (2006) Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush (Crown Forum, New York). ↵Hansen J (2005) Am Geophys Union, U23D-01. ↵Michaels PJ (2000) Soc Epistemol 14:131–180. ↵Fedorov AV, Philander SG (2000) Science 288:1997–2002. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Cane MA (2005) Earth Plan Sci Lett 230:227–240. ↵Bjerknes J (1969) Mon Wea Rev 97:163–172. ↵Collins M (2005) Clim Dyn 24:89–104. CrossRef ↵Ravelo AC, Andreasen DH, Lyle M, Olivarez Lyle A, Wara MW (2004) Nature 429:263–267. CrossRef ↵Held IM, Soden BJ (2006) J Clim 19:in press. ↵Knutson T, Manabe S (1995) J Clim 8:2181–2199. CrossRef ↵Vecchi G, Soden BJ, Wittenberg AT, Held IM, Leetmaa A, Harrison MJ (5 4, 2006) Nature doi:10.1038/nature04744. ↵Emanuel K (1987) Nature 326:483–485. CrossRef ↵Medina-Elizade M, Lea DW (2005) Science 310:1009–1012. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Stott L, Cannariato K, Thunell R, Haug GH, Koutavas A, Lund S (2004) Nature 431:56–59. CrossRef ↵Lea DW, Pak DK, Spero HJ (2000) Science 289:1719–1724. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Lea DW, Pak DK, Belanger CL, Spero HJ, Hall AM, Shackleton NJ (2006) Q Sci Rev 25:1152–1167. CrossRef ↵Dowsett H, Thompson R, Barron J, Cronin T, Fleming F, Ishman S, Poore R, Willard D, Holtz T (1994) Global Plan Change 9:169–195. ↵Kienast M, Hanebuth TJJ, Pelejero C, Steinke S (2003) Geology 31:67–70. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Hansen J (2005) Clim Change 68:269–279. CrossRef ↵Hare W (2003) Assessment of Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Change (German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin). ↵Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) Nature 421:37–42. CrossRefMedline ↵Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, et al. (2004) Nature 427:145–148. CrossRefMedline ↵Flannery T (2005) The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly, New York). ↵Benton MJ (2003) When Life Nearly Died (Thames & Hudson, London). ↵Saraswat R, Nigam R, Weldeab S, Mackensen A, Naidu PD (12 17, 2005) Geophys Res Lett 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024093. ↵Vimeux F, Cuffey KM, Jouzel J (2002) Earth Planet Sci Lett 203:829–843. CrossRef ↵Chapin FS, Sturm M, Serreze MC, McFadden JP, Key JR, Lloyd AH, McGuire AD, Rupp TS, Lynch AH, Schimel JP, et al. (2005) Science 310:657–660. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Archer D (2006) Rev Geophys, in press. ↵Hansen J, Sato M (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:16109–16114. Abstract/FREE Full Text ↵Cicerone RJ (2006) Clim Change 77:221–226. CrossRef ↵Crutzen PJ (2006) Clim Change 77:211–219. CrossRef http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html Downloaded Thursday, 24-Jul-2008 21:43:43 EDT
The present day is at the far right of the chart. What do we see? First of all, there’s quite a bit of fluctuation. There are long periods of time when the average global temperature was as much as 9 C degrees (16 F degrees) colder than now. These were ice ages. Much of the northern part of the world was covered with thick sheets of ice, much like we see today in Greenland and Antarctica. The most recent ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. There were also times when it was warmer than today. On the whole, we are in a relatively warm period. What causes these changes in climate? There are many factors. Even Industry.link title And to be totally fair, here's even a reference for your argument from those idiots at MIT. But don't they play good blackjack. link title Cherry pick, methinks thy doth call k
all of us could really dig poring over pages of boring references to umm...really "get" your point there. Paraphrase these things, man, this is the Internet! :P
..."Scientists at Columbia Univ. have developed a cheap, efficient CO2 scrubber. Each unit can remove 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere each day.
The scientists there are extremely surprised to find environmentalists adamantly opposed to such technology. The enviromentalists say that while this might solve the problem of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, it does nothing to stop people from putting it there in the first place.
This tells me what a lot of us already know. These people don't really care about the CO2, they just want to control what other people do.
For tons of info. on this new development just google Columbia Univ. CO2 scrubber"...
Interesting that they think 254.4 M Prius' are THE answer !!! They of course put out CO2
You are absolutely spot on!! It is truly a control others issue.
I saw a news clip on the local cable channel that environmentalists are AGAINST the current windmill farm in the Altamont Pass, CA (near Davis/Sacramento, CA area)
>What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2 is a significant contributor to global warming...
Well, CO2 and man-made GHG have been identified to peak since the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. On the same time frame GW is measured and leads many scientist to believe the CO2 and other GHG are responsible for it.
If CO2 and other GHG are not a significant contributor to GW, then what alternative explanation do we have ? There is no significant Volcanic activity increase and no significant Solar activity increase since the 1940 peak
>Living matter, including you and me, is governed by that basic physics and yet is incredibly complex.
Yes I agree that it is very difficult to use a phenomenon in isolation and deduct a working model as complex as earth.
>to focus on a single second tier agent (CO2) while ignoring or dismissing out of hand the many major influences (that's the IPCC charter!) is to do a great disservice to humanity.
I agree with that dismissing other key influences is wrong. But the IPCC is not dismissing other influences. On the contrary their work is to isolate the human contribution which is within the scope of decision makers. This contribution can vary from 0 to 100% of the phenomenon or rather between 0 and 1 for probability issues.
I understand from your view that you are convinced they would biaise reports in order to have human activity shoulder part or totality of responsibility for GW. This is a very strong accusation. While no report can be 100% accurate, can you practically tell me what is wrong / untrue /mistaken in their analysis ?
Frankly I don't see in their charter anything that would legitimate reports with false information. I am interested in knowing the human part too because this is the part we can change. It really does not mean playing down non human factors.
I need to understand your view about GW. Do you deny that there is ever GW? Or do you accept GW but deny Human responsibility? Maybe you accept both but consider that it is not a bad thing after all?
On the same time frame GW is measured and leads many scientist to believe the CO2 and other GHG are responsible for it.
From about 1940 to the mid 70's the Earth underwent considerable and notable cooling. In fact, people were becoming concerned about global cooling. All this happened while man made emission and atmospheric levels of CO2 were at record levels. Prior to that, we had significant warming trends during the 20's when CO2 levels were considerably lower than today. Today, CO2 levels are at their highest in a very long time and the Earth's temperature has been flat for the past 10 years. To infer that man made CO2 emission is responsible leaves quite a bit to be desired since there is no correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels throughout the 20th century. You cannot even make a case for CO2 being a signficant contributor with or without man's influence over that period of time. And, oh, surprise, mankind is not the only source of CO2.
If CO2 and other GHG are not a significant contributor to GW, then what alternative explanation do we have ?
I listed several previously. Incidentally, the historical record clearly indicates that elevated levels of CO2 are caused by global warming - not the other way around. Global cooling reverses that. I am afraid that the Sun just might be complicit here. When oceans warm they cannot hold as much CO2 as when they are cool.
Yes I agree that it is very difficult to use a phenomenon in isolation and deduct a working model as complex as earth.
Great! It's nice to see some agreement.
But the IPCC is not dismissing other influences.
By focussing on manmade contributions, real or imagined, they are absolutely dismissing other influences. That is especially true when CO2 is a minor player in the global temperature sweepstakes.
can you practically tell me what is wrong / untrue /mistaken in their analysis ?
I listed some of them earlier. See Evan's article. And I very strongly urge you to read Lawrence Solomon's book ("The Deniers"). He has PLENTY to say about the scientific shortcomings of the work done by IPCC and others related to global warming. In brief, the work falls far short of accepted scientific practice.
One small example is the famous "hockey stick" graph which has fundamental statistical flaws - i.e. the author didn't understand accepted practice. More seriously, the climate change models are just plain nonsense (from a physics point of view). As I (and many others) have already pointed out, many of the important and relevant physical principles are completely absent in the models or put into the models in an ad hoc manner without adequate justification. Finally, the data itself is flawed both in terms of sampling techniques and the HUGE error bars in long time scale proxy measurements are completely swept under the carpet. I.e. It's very bad science!
Incidentally, we cannot even be sure how much of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is due to mankind. The IPCC investigators use incorrect and misleading data on that front too. Remember, there are sources and sinks of CO2. IPCC assumes that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 50 to 75 years while it is well known that the time scale is only 5 to 10 years. Global climate models don't even bother to deal with sources and sinks of CO2 and that alone makes their results suspect.
no significant Solar activity increase since the 1940 peak
In fact, "global temperature" seems to track pretty well with solar activity. Much better than CO2 (see above). The Sun has been unusually quiet for the past decade and we have seen the warming trend come to a screeching halt. Coincidence?
Do you deny that there is ever GW?
I have already stated my position. Global warming and global cooling have always taken place on our planet. CO2 is simply not the driving agent and is, in fact, only a minor agent in the process. There is no evidence that mankind is driving the global climate and little evidence that CO2 even plays a significant role.
If CO2 and other GHG are not a significant contributor to GW, then what alternative explanation do we have ?
What about the much more potent and readily available GHG - water vapor? How has the water vapor in the air varied? What about methane? Since we have begun drilling for natural-gas I'm sure there is much more being released?
Well I believe some cars should not be allowed to be on the road. I see old beat up cars that literally stink up all the cars behind them. I think its rude and they should get a warning to actually get the car up to code, because if it stinks like that, there is something not right. Another issue is getting behind a stinky desiel truck, even the new ones are loud and smell up all the cars behind them. Plus, when they accelerate, all that black smoke is just thrown all over you. Seriously, I know like in California cars are required to be up to code, but around here, there not, but they should be, some cars should not be allowed to be on the road. If I were a cop, I would pull someone over if they were stinking everything up, because that is an indication that there car is not up to standards, and not working properly. But typically these people don't have the money to fix these problems. Plus, if it runs, well then drive it, a new car is not always worth it, but for pollution, it might be though.... Thats when a program for all people to get into a car more earth friendly car, see we just need the right person to run this. It can be done.
I think if we were able to get a way for everyone to drive a cleaner car, then it would help the environment. We have so many resources that could get these stinky cars off the road, and get them into something that is up to code, we literally have cars just sitting around, We could make a program to get this running efiiciently. I think it would be worth it. Now, the trucks that need the diesil, well, they need to be more strict on its pollution ratings. Seriously, who wants to be behind a stinky car, that smell is the smell of something wrong, therefore, poluting our air.
Anyway, just a few points I thought of while being blown away in black smoke from a nasty truck, a newer truck too. I want to tell the driver, I am not impressed! :lemon:
>Thats when a program for all people to get into a car more earth friendly car, see we just need the right person to run this. It can be done.
>I think if we were able to get a way for everyone to drive a cleaner car, then it would help the environment. We have so many resources that could get these stinky cars off the road, and get them into something that is up to code, we literally have cars just sitting around,
Are you trying to say that the public should buy cars for the individuals?!!!!
>From about 1940 to the mid 70's the Earth underwent considerable and notable cooling >Prior to that, we had significant warming trends during the 20's >and the Earth's temperature has been flat for the past 10 years
I would welcome some sources for those claims.
>Incidentally, the historical record clearly indicates that elevated levels of CO2 are caused by global warming
What natural phenomenon would be at the origin of CO2 increase if not human activity ? Only the oceans ?
>When oceans warm they cannot hold as much CO2 as when they are cool.
>One small example is the famous "hockey stick" graph which has fundamental statistical flaws - i.e. the author didn't understand accepted practice.
I mentioned this in an earlier post. Christopher Monckton is putting forward a graph which is pretty much contradicted by 10 others (also quoted). The problem I had is that I could not find the sources which CM's Graph is based upon.
>Remember, there are sources and sinks of CO2
Of course I do. Deforestation is also another source of CO2 increase as it cuts very important sinks. I mentioned in some earlier post that a strong and long term forest policy was also key in CO2 reduction. Topically, forest cover also decrease ground temperature.
>The Sun has been unusually quiet for the past decade and we have seen the warming trend come to a screeching halt. Coincidence?
Do you dismiss reports of record high global temperatures that are pretty numerous? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720215335.htm and other links in article Please note that the urban heat island effect is already well known and adjusted for. Many other measures are made in other places than cities and measured temperatures are considered pretty accurate now.
Regarding the troposphere temperatures, it seems they are not considered as significant enough. Recent studies show the Satellite readings have been influenced by the cooling of the stratosphere due to the ozone depletion.
OK I come now with my recommanded readings
Mark Lynas, High Tide: News from a Warming World, Flamingo 2004.
Spencer Weart: The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, 2003.
Bauer, E., Claussen, M., Brovkin, V. & Hünerbein, A.: Assessing climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1276 (2002)
Damon, P. E. and P. Laut: Pattern of strange errors plagues solar activity and terrestrial climate data. EOS, 2004, Vol. 85, 370–374
Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends, Nature, 429, 55–58, 2004
Lorius, C., et al., The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 1990. 347: 139–145.
Petit, J.R. et al., Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 1999. 399: 429–436.
Sabine, C.L., et al., The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2, Science, 305, 367–371, 2004.
>Scientists at Columbia Univ. have developed a cheap, efficient CO2 scrubber. Each unit can remove 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere each day.
I welcome any new idea to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We would need to check the energy balance of the device, because it would be unfortunate if it used such an amount of energy that it needed to burn more than it traps.
There is no way to go 100% electric for any device. The idea of Carbon trap is good to mitigate CO2 outputs. The best trap so far is the tree.
Comments
Yes I have from 10 different sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
> Also, the "global temperature" has been flat or even slightly decreasing for the past decade
Care to give credible sources ?
>You missed the keyword "significant" in my comment and in the Evans' article.
I did not.
Not ready to buy into global warming being explained by co2, too many variables go into water vapor density. Pehaps a forum on cow flatulence? But the majority of charts I see show an increase in global temperature over the last ten years, not a decrease.
"You have no basis for that assertion. Also, the "global temperature" has been flat or even slightly decreasing for the past decade.so I don't see your point. "
Now whether they are large enough to cause a cataclysmic event or are just a paleoclimatic anomaly on a several thousand year scale has not been established. And the beat goes on
Record, or near record, warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature did not receive a boost from an El Niño in 2005. The temperature in 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by a “super El Niño” (see below), the strongest El Niño of the past century.
Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say “most global warming occurred before 1940.” A better summary is: slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975, followed by rapid warming at a rate ≈0.2°C per decade. Global warming was ≈0.7°C between the late 19th century (the earliest time at which global mean temperature can be accurately defined) and 2000, and continued warming in the first half decade of the 21st century is consistent with the recent rate of +0.2°C per decade.
The conclusion that global warming is a real climate change, not an artifact due to measurements in urban areas, is confirmed by surface temperature change inferred from borehole temperature profiles at remote locations, the rate of retreat of alpine glaciers around the world, and progressively earlier breakup of ice on rivers and lakes (10). The geographical distribution of warming (Fig. 1B) provides further proof of real climate change. Largest warming is in remote regions including high latitudes. Warming occurs over ocean areas, far from direct human effects, with warming over ocean less than over land, an expected result for a forced climate change because of the ocean's great thermal inertia.
link title
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html">link title
<a href="
I got your point and I agree that H2O vapor is a big contributor. The example I took did not aim to be a model for earth GW but an illustration that all other things being equal, if the CO2 concentration increases, then the temperatures will increase.
Of course I can not discuss by how much because it will depend on many other conditions.
When I look at the large picture I see where YES we should reduce the crap we are putting in our skys but dont make it into a "the sky is falling" problem.
This earth is in perpetual change and has been sence day one (a few zillon years ago), mankind is nothing but a short lived bug in earths long history. We must change to survive as the earth changes, if not we are soon to go the way of the unicorn !
To those that say its all mankinds fault.....well there is only one way to slow mankinds contribution......STOP MAKING PEOPLE !
P.S......awhile back I read where cows flatuses, volcanos and the fires in the west add more to the problem then all the vehicles on earth conbined !
Can you give me the source study ? The link does not allow me to reach it
Thank you
My original statement was: What's missing is ANY evidence that CO2is a significant contributor to global warming...
to which you responded: Showing that CO2 is a contributing factor is easy, as it is basic physics.
and I replied: You missed the keyword "significant" in my comment and in the Evans' article.
If you didn't miss the word "significant" then please explain why you completely changed the meaning of what I said by leaving it out in your reply?
And if you don't mind me going philosophical for a moment or two, I'd like to comment on the common phrase "as it is basic physics" that is bantied about rather frequently. Basic or fundamental physics comes down to a small handful of "laws" that govern the behavior of matter and energy. They are fairly straighforward and simple laws. They work great when considered in isolation.
However, when you put large quantities of mass or energy or both in proximity, set them all to just this side of equilibrium and let the quasi-cyclic stew boil for a good long time then the result is a system of almost imponderable complexity. Living matter, including you and me, is governed by that basic physics and yet is incredibly complex.
Global climate is extraordinarily complex as well and is subject to a myriad of influences. To focus on a single second tier agent (CO2) while ignoring or dismissing out of hand the many major influences (that's the IPCC charter!) is to do a great disservice to humanity.
When the world finally discovers that CO2 is not the offending agent and given (merely for the sake of argument) that "global warming" is real, several decades will have been lost that could have been better spent (a) finding the real culprit and (b) developing means or technology that would allow adaptation to new conditions. Will your grandchildren wonder why the earlier generations squandered their time to find real solutions?
Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" but so is H2O. However, the impact of water on climate (global or local) far surpasses what a few dozen parts per million that CO2 could possibly do. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation, biomass, CO2 sinks and sources, the Sun and on and on all play very significant roles in global climate yet they are all swept aside in favor of a very low level player.
When you focus on secondary and tertiary influences and limit yourself to convenient subsets of data you will often be working at the level of statistical noise and can use it to convince yourself (and others) of almost anything.
The majority of charts that are readily available are (a) cherry picked data and (b) intended to convince you to support the author's claims. You should take a look at the article by Evans that I posted earlier and have a look at Lawrence Solomon's book (The Deniers) for a more complete picture. Also have a look at the chart I displayed above.
There is no dispute that climate change has taken place continually on our little planet. There is serious question about whether mankind has contributed to it - either adversely or beneficically. It is even questionable whether CO2 plays a significant role. In fact, historical data shows that global warming precedes increases in CO2 levels. Moreover, global warming is being observed on the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and even little planetoid Pluto. This clearly suggests that something else is going on besides man's usage of fossil fuels.
link title
The implications you see and are indeed SCARY.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=uah
Translation for everyone
On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.
This did not particularly bother me, though, since I knew that as an employee of an Executive Branch agency my ultimate boss resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction given by my superiors.
So it is OK for Clinton/Gore to influence policy as long as it looks Green? The ECO FREAKS are headed for a BIG FALL. IMO they have done more to harm the cause of conservation than good.
I think you make a very significant point. Today you see so much "dishonest science" from both sides of this issue that it's difficult to base your beliefs on firm ground.
Compounding the problem is the dumbing down of the general population. Most folks have no sense of skepticism when the mass media parrots various agenda driven "studies".
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Ex-EPA official says Cheney staff edited climate testimony (Tennessean)
They've been trying to keep NASA's James Hansen under wraps for years now. CNN
Indeed, I posted the Wikipedia definition of Pavlovian response; which is something that anyone taking a high school psychology class has to/should understand. What is at work here is the psychological principle. Again SCARY!!
Since GW is even being used in the context of the most mundane of ( almost all human activity ) INCLUDING body weight and passing flatus :surprise: , there is getting to be some serious and massive cultist deprogramming that has to happen !!
If the EPA were really interested in CO2 emissions they could have lightened up on NoX and let us drive diesel vehicles that put out less CO2 than conventional gas vehicles. GW is a POLITICAL not scientific issue. Every day more evidence points in that direction.
Is this science at its best?
Burnett — a grandson of high-tech entrepreneur David Packard and a member of the Packard Foundation's board of trustees — has given more than $129,000 to Democratic campaigns in recent years, including $3,600 to presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois. He did not identify who in the vice president's office called him.
Better yet, buy a three-cylinder, 49-horsepower 1994 Geo Metro XFi, one of the most fuel-efficient cars ever built. It gets the same average mileage as a 2008 Prius, so a new hybrid would never close the carbon gap. Sure, the XFi has no AC or airbags — but nobody said saving the planet would be comfortable, or even safe.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars
I've never actually gotten to stare into an active volcano or lava flow but I did get to peer into some of the deep craters in Nevada left over from the above ground nuclear tests. I saw hope! The fact that mankind was able to see the real dangers of such testing and put an end to it meant that in the long run sensible people would prevail. I am hoping that mankind will see the folly of undermining the integrity of science to promote a destructive political agenda.
"Built in 1968, Vermont Yankee has been wracked by a host of safety concerns in recent years, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower last year and a fire that shut down the plant for three weeks."
And sounding just like the story you get when you ask to see the model used to calculate the amount of GW that's supposed to happen: "But in a court document filed in July 2007 by the New England Coalition, the group argues that Entergy’s figures are “flawed by numerous uncertainties, unjustified assumptions and insufficient conservatism, and produced unrealistically optimistic results.”
Hopenfeld — a former NRC employee with more than four decades of experience in design, project management and nuclear safety — said he performed his own fatigue calculations and obtained much different figures.
Nearly all of his calculations showed Vermont Yankee’s structures to be above the established safety thresholds and therefore at risk of safety-related failure."
How many other 35-40 year old nuclear plants are being kept open past their planned life-span? If these older nuke plants are shutdown, do you really think you're going to have electricity to recharge millions and millions of EV's? So we'll keep these nukes going and go to EV's just because CO2 MIGHT cause GW?
I don't know tidester, equating "stoppage" of above ground nuclear testing to "stoppage" of mankind promoting a "go green" political agenda may be a little over the top. What exactly do you think will happen if the "science" of man made global warming triumphs? Europe is still standing... couldn't be that bad.
I wasn't equating them. The comparison was related to recognizing mistakes and taking corrective action which is certainly applicable to both situations. Nuke craters seemed fitting because of the question concerning active volcanoes and lava flows. Going green is fine with me but just don't base it on mythology and don't debase science in the process.
FOLLOW THE MONEY !
Actually the tourism to see the volcano over the last year has really increased for Hilo Hawaii
I know what you are saying. When real estate is hot you have 100s of new agents trying to get rich. Same goes now for Carbon Credit business. Didn't Big Al get about $500,000,000 from investors in his scam? I think that Google is backing him in hopes of getting all the advertising money. I have not seen anyone on the corner selling Carbon Credits YET! Probably in the big cities. They will be the "time shares" of the 21st Century. PT Barnum would be in all his glory with this Circus act.
The scientists there are extremely surprised to find environmentalists adamantly opposed to such technology. The enviromentalists say that while this might solve the problem of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, it does nothing to stop people from putting it there in the first place.
This tells me what a lot of us already know. These people don't really care about the CO2, they just want to control what other people do.
For tons of info. on this new development just google Columbia Univ. CO2 scrubber.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
At that rate, 1 MILLION of those units working day and night will take over 15 years to remove 1 solitary part million of CO2 from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, Al Gore tells us we have only 10 yrs. How fast can we build a BILLION of those units?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Why should his wife and daughter ride in a Lincoln Town car, while my wife is in a Yaris or some similar little POC car? His money and elitism does not make him any better than anyone here or our families.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But as to cherry picking charts...
Humbly, I only have these hardly reputable sources to cite, but you have?
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
EPA Global Warming Site.
Geography 1012: Planet Earth [lecture outlines].
Global Climate Change: Causes & Methods of Study.
Introduction to Physical Geography II: Causes of Climate Change
Merritts, D., DeWet, A. Menking, K. (1998). Environmental Geology: An Earth System Science Approach. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, N.Y.
Purves, W. K., Orians, G. H., H. C. (1995). Life: The Science of Biology. Fourth Edition. Sinauer Assosiates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.
Rosenzweig, C. and Hiller, D. Potential Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Supply. Cornell University.
Schlesinger, W. H. (1991). Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
The Greenhouse Effect.
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
†Columbia University Earth Institute, and
§Sigma Space Partners, Inc., 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025; and
¶Department of Earth Science, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
References
↵Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt GA, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bell N, et al. (9 28, 2005) J Geophys Res 110, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.
↵Pierrehumbert RT (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:1355–1358. FREE Full Text
↵Lea DW (2004) J Climate 17:2170–2179. CrossRef
↵Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) J Geophys Res 106:23947–23963. CrossRef
↵Reynolds RW, Smith TM (1994) J Clim 7:929–948. CrossRef
↵Rayner N, Parker D, Horton E, Folland C, Alexander L, Rowell D, Kent E, Kaplan A (7 17, 2003) J Geophys Res 108, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670.
↵Hansen J, Lebedeff S (1987) J Geophys Res 92:13345–13372.
↵Hansen J, Ruedy R, Glascoe J, Sato M (1999) J Geophys Res 104:30997–31022. CrossRef
↵Comiso JC (2006) Weather 61:70–76. CrossRef
↵Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA
(2001) in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, eds Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
↵Manabe S, Wetherald RT (1975) J Atmos Sci 32:3–15. CrossRef
↵Hansen J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R, Russell G, Stone P (1988) J Geophys Res 93:9341–9364.
↵US Senate Commission on Energy and Natural Resources (1988) Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change (Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC).
↵Crichton M (2004) State of Fear (Harper Collins, New York).
↵U.S. Senate Commission on Environment & Public Works (2005) The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making (Govt Printing Office, Washington, DC).
↵Barnes F (2006) Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush (Crown Forum, New York).
↵Hansen J (2005) Am Geophys Union, U23D-01.
↵Michaels PJ (2000) Soc Epistemol 14:131–180.
↵Fedorov AV, Philander SG (2000) Science 288:1997–2002. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Cane MA (2005) Earth Plan Sci Lett 230:227–240.
↵Bjerknes J (1969) Mon Wea Rev 97:163–172.
↵Collins M (2005) Clim Dyn 24:89–104. CrossRef
↵Ravelo AC, Andreasen DH, Lyle M, Olivarez Lyle A, Wara MW (2004) Nature 429:263–267. CrossRef
↵Held IM, Soden BJ (2006) J Clim 19:in press.
↵Knutson T, Manabe S (1995) J Clim 8:2181–2199. CrossRef
↵Vecchi G, Soden BJ, Wittenberg AT, Held IM, Leetmaa A, Harrison MJ (5 4, 2006) Nature doi:10.1038/nature04744.
↵Emanuel K (1987) Nature 326:483–485. CrossRef
↵Medina-Elizade M, Lea DW (2005) Science 310:1009–1012. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Stott L, Cannariato K, Thunell R, Haug GH, Koutavas A, Lund S (2004) Nature 431:56–59. CrossRef
↵Lea DW, Pak DK, Spero HJ (2000) Science 289:1719–1724. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Lea DW, Pak DK, Belanger CL, Spero HJ, Hall AM, Shackleton NJ (2006) Q Sci Rev 25:1152–1167. CrossRef
↵Dowsett H, Thompson R, Barron J, Cronin T, Fleming F, Ishman S, Poore R, Willard D, Holtz T (1994) Global Plan Change 9:169–195.
↵Kienast M, Hanebuth TJJ, Pelejero C, Steinke S (2003) Geology 31:67–70. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Hansen J (2005) Clim Change 68:269–279. CrossRef
↵Hare W (2003) Assessment of Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Change (German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin).
↵Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) Nature 421:37–42. CrossRefMedline
↵Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, et al. (2004) Nature 427:145–148. CrossRefMedline
↵Flannery T (2005) The Weather Makers (Atlantic Monthly, New York).
↵Benton MJ (2003) When Life Nearly Died (Thames & Hudson, London).
↵Saraswat R, Nigam R, Weldeab S, Mackensen A, Naidu PD (12 17, 2005) Geophys Res Lett 32, doi:10.1029/2005GL024093.
↵Vimeux F, Cuffey KM, Jouzel J (2002) Earth Planet Sci Lett 203:829–843. CrossRef
↵Chapin FS, Sturm M, Serreze MC, McFadden JP, Key JR, Lloyd AH, McGuire AD, Rupp TS, Lynch AH, Schimel JP, et al. (2005) Science 310:657–660. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Archer D (2006) Rev Geophys, in press.
↵Hansen J, Sato M (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:16109–16114. Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵Cicerone RJ (2006) Clim Change 77:221–226. CrossRef
↵Crutzen PJ (2006) Clim Change 77:211–219. CrossRef
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
Downloaded Thursday, 24-Jul-2008 21:43:43 EDT
The present day is at the far right of the chart. What do we see? First of all, there’s quite a bit of fluctuation. There are long periods of time when the average global temperature was as much as 9 C degrees (16 F degrees) colder than now. These were ice ages. Much of the northern part of the world was covered with thick sheets of ice, much like we see today in Greenland and Antarctica. The most recent ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. There were also times when it was warmer than today. On the whole, we are in a relatively warm period. What causes these changes in climate? There are many factors.
Even Industry.link title
And to be totally fair, here's even a reference for your argument from those idiots at MIT. But don't they play good blackjack.
link title
Cherry pick, methinks thy doth call k
I know but I thought the numbers were interesting.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The scientists there are extremely surprised to find environmentalists adamantly opposed to such technology. The enviromentalists say that while this might solve the problem of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, it does nothing to stop people from putting it there in the first place.
This tells me what a lot of us already know. These people don't really care about the CO2, they just want to control what other people do.
For tons of info. on this new development just google Columbia Univ. CO2 scrubber"...
Interesting that they think 254.4 M Prius' are THE answer !!! They of course put out CO2
You are absolutely spot on!! It is truly a control others issue.
I saw a news clip on the local cable channel that environmentalists are AGAINST the current windmill farm in the Altamont Pass, CA (near Davis/Sacramento, CA area)
Well, CO2 and man-made GHG have been identified to peak since the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st. On the same time frame GW is measured and leads many scientist to believe the CO2 and other GHG are responsible for it.
If CO2 and other GHG are not a significant contributor to GW, then what alternative explanation do we have ? There is no significant Volcanic activity increase and no significant Solar activity increase since the 1940 peak
>Living matter, including you and me, is governed by that basic physics and yet is incredibly complex.
Yes I agree that it is very difficult to use a phenomenon in isolation and deduct a working model as complex as earth.
>to focus on a single second tier agent (CO2) while ignoring or dismissing out of hand the many major influences (that's the IPCC charter!) is to do a great disservice to humanity.
I agree with that dismissing other key influences is wrong.
But the IPCC is not dismissing other influences. On the contrary their work is to isolate the human contribution which is within the scope of decision makers. This contribution can vary from 0 to 100% of the phenomenon or rather between 0 and 1 for probability issues.
I understand from your view that you are convinced they would biaise reports in order to have human activity shoulder part or totality of responsibility for GW. This is a very strong accusation. While no report can be 100% accurate, can you practically tell me what is wrong / untrue /mistaken in their analysis ?
Frankly I don't see in their charter anything that would legitimate reports with false information. I am interested in knowing the human part too because this is the part we can change. It really does not mean playing down non human factors.
I need to understand your view about GW. Do you deny that there is ever GW? Or do you accept GW but deny Human responsibility? Maybe you accept both but consider that it is not a bad thing after all?
Can not open link regretfully. Must be internet censorship in freedom-loving China
Will look further when back in France.
From about 1940 to the mid 70's the Earth underwent considerable and notable cooling. In fact, people were becoming concerned about global cooling. All this happened while man made emission and atmospheric levels of CO2 were at record levels. Prior to that, we had significant warming trends during the 20's when CO2 levels were considerably lower than today. Today, CO2 levels are at their highest in a very long time and the Earth's temperature has been flat for the past 10 years. To infer that man made CO2 emission is responsible leaves quite a bit to be desired since there is no correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels throughout the 20th century. You cannot even make a case for CO2 being a signficant contributor with or without man's influence over that period of time. And, oh, surprise, mankind is not the only source of CO2.
If CO2 and other GHG are not a significant contributor to GW, then what alternative explanation do we have ?
I listed several previously. Incidentally, the historical record clearly indicates that elevated levels of CO2 are caused by global warming - not the other way around. Global cooling reverses that. I am afraid that the Sun just might be complicit here. When oceans warm they cannot hold as much CO2 as when they are cool.
Yes I agree that it is very difficult to use a phenomenon in isolation and deduct a working model as complex as earth.
Great! It's nice to see some agreement.
But the IPCC is not dismissing other influences.
By focussing on manmade contributions, real or imagined, they are absolutely dismissing other influences. That is especially true when CO2 is a minor player in the global temperature sweepstakes.
can you practically tell me what is wrong / untrue /mistaken in their analysis ?
I listed some of them earlier. See Evan's article. And I very strongly urge you to read Lawrence Solomon's book ("The Deniers"). He has PLENTY to say about the scientific shortcomings of the work done by IPCC and others related to global warming. In brief, the work falls far short of accepted scientific practice.
One small example is the famous "hockey stick" graph which has fundamental statistical flaws - i.e. the author didn't understand accepted practice. More seriously, the climate change models are just plain nonsense (from a physics point of view). As I (and many others) have already pointed out, many of the important and relevant physical principles are completely absent in the models or put into the models in an ad hoc manner without adequate justification. Finally, the data itself is flawed both in terms of sampling techniques and the HUGE error bars in long time scale proxy measurements are completely swept under the carpet. I.e. It's very bad science!
Incidentally, we cannot even be sure how much of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is due to mankind. The IPCC investigators use incorrect and misleading data on that front too. Remember, there are sources and sinks of CO2. IPCC assumes that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 50 to 75 years while it is well known that the time scale is only 5 to 10 years. Global climate models don't even bother to deal with sources and sinks of CO2 and that alone makes their results suspect.
no significant Solar activity increase since the 1940 peak
In fact, "global temperature" seems to track pretty well with solar activity. Much better than CO2 (see above). The Sun has been unusually quiet for the past decade and we have seen the warming trend come to a screeching halt. Coincidence?
Do you deny that there is ever GW?
I have already stated my position. Global warming and global cooling have always taken place on our planet. CO2 is simply not the driving agent and is, in fact, only a minor agent in the process. There is no evidence that mankind is driving the global climate and little evidence that CO2 even plays a significant role.
What about the much more potent and readily available GHG - water vapor? How has the water vapor in the air varied? What about methane? Since we have begun drilling for natural-gas I'm sure there is much more being released?
And I heard they're opening a new coal-fired electric generation plant each day. Doesn't sound very CO2 friendly to me.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think if we were able to get a way for everyone to drive a cleaner car, then it would help the environment. We have so many resources that could get these stinky cars off the road, and get them into something that is up to code, we literally have cars just sitting around, We could make a program to get this running efiiciently. I think it would be worth it. Now, the trucks that need the diesil, well, they need to be more strict on its pollution ratings. Seriously, who wants to be behind a stinky car, that smell is the smell of something wrong, therefore, poluting our air.
Anyway, just a few points I thought of while being blown away in black smoke from a nasty truck, a newer truck too. I want to tell the driver, I am not impressed!
>I think if we were able to get a way for everyone to drive a cleaner car, then it would help the environment. We have so many resources that could get these stinky cars off the road, and get them into something that is up to code, we literally have cars just sitting around,
Are you trying to say that the public should buy cars for the individuals?!!!!
It's the owner's job to pay for their own stuff.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
>Prior to that, we had significant warming trends during the 20's
>and the Earth's temperature has been flat for the past 10 years
I would welcome some sources for those claims.
>Incidentally, the historical record clearly indicates that elevated levels of CO2 are caused by global warming
What natural phenomenon would be at the origin of CO2 increase if not human activity ? Only the oceans ?
>When oceans warm they cannot hold as much CO2 as when they are cool.
I don't see such information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sinks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Would you please quote your source too?
>One small example is the famous "hockey stick" graph which has fundamental statistical flaws - i.e. the author didn't understand accepted practice.
I mentioned this in an earlier post. Christopher Monckton is putting forward a graph which is pretty much contradicted by 10 others (also quoted). The problem I had is that I could not find the sources which CM's Graph is based upon.
>Remember, there are sources and sinks of CO2
Of course I do. Deforestation is also another source of CO2 increase as it cuts very important sinks. I mentioned in some earlier post that a strong and long term forest policy was also key in CO2 reduction. Topically, forest cover also decrease ground temperature.
>The Sun has been unusually quiet for the past decade and we have seen the warming trend come to a screeching halt. Coincidence?
Do you dismiss reports of record high global temperatures that are pretty numerous?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720215335.htm
and other links in article
Please note that the urban heat island effect is already well known and adjusted for. Many other measures are made in other places than cities and measured temperatures are considered pretty accurate now.
Regarding the troposphere temperatures, it seems they are not considered as significant enough. Recent studies show the Satellite readings have been influenced by the cooling of the stratosphere due to the ozone depletion.
OK I come now with my recommanded readings
Mark Lynas, High Tide: News from a Warming World, Flamingo 2004.
Spencer Weart: The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, 2003.
Bauer, E., Claussen, M., Brovkin, V. & Hünerbein, A.: Assessing
climate forcings of the Earth system for the past millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1276 (2002)
Damon, P. E. and P. Laut: Pattern of strange errors plagues solar activity and terrestrial climate data. EOS, 2004, Vol. 85, 370–374
Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, Contribution
of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature
trends, Nature, 429, 55–58, 2004
Lorius, C., et al., The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming. Nature, 1990. 347: 139–145.
Petit, J.R. et al., Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 1999. 399: 429–436.
Sabine, C.L., et al., The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2, Science, 305, 367–371, 2004.
I welcome any new idea to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
We would need to check the energy balance of the device, because it would be unfortunate if it used such an amount of energy that it needed to burn more than it traps.
There is no way to go 100% electric for any device. The idea of Carbon trap is good to mitigate CO2 outputs. The best trap so far is the tree.