Global Warming explained - "inconvenient" or otherwise!

[theCPE]

I don't believe I was disagreeing with facts, if anything my average ppm was off by 20ish....shoot me:)

 

What I am asking is what is the defining line by climatologist of a natural vs man made climatatic change?

 

There obviously must be a defining line. Otherwise we have no idea if we are fighting the inevitable or just being tidy campers!

[1veedo]

I was talking about the paleo-eocene maximum -- the basic fact that current temperatures are rising at a rate 10+ times faster then any other time in the history of the planet.

What I am asking is what is the defining line by climatologist of a natural vs man made climatatic change?

The effect on global warming from different sources are measured in W/m^2. Humans have the largest effect on warming, w/ 1.6 W/m^2 (Greenhouse gases such as CO2 actually have a larger effect, but we release pollutants that decrease the temperature of the Earth, so it all adds together at 1.6). The only measurably relevant non-human cause for warming is the sun, at .12 W/m^2, which is an entire order of magnitude smaller then humans.

 

 

"FIGURE SPM-2. Global-average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with th typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. Range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {2.9, Figure 2.20}"

 

Another relevant study specifically dealt with the percentage of influence that the sun has.

 

Stott, Peter et al. (2003). Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?"

 

According to this study, between 1900 and 1950, humans contributed 64% to 84% of global warming. Today, of course, this factor is even less (with over 90% of global warming being caused by humans).

[KLB]

Not at all. What I said is when an opponent to your theory provides scientific reason why it is wrong, you should refute the sciencetific reason presented....not point out how many articles back you.

Your logic is flawed. Like many people here and most people in the world I am not a PhD. I am a lay person. Any direct refuting I would do would be senseless because there is only so well I can understand the minute details of the science. This form of debating is simply a way for GW deniers to befuddle the lay person with misleading stats and figures that they can't possibly understand.

 

What I see is the GW deniers taking advantage of this to try and muddy the waters and convince the masses that there is more debate on this issue than there is. What I know is that rarely in my life have I seen more work on an issue than with GW. I also know that every one of the most respected scientific institutions that have taken a stand on this issue have said climate change is a real issue and that man is the primary cause. They have provided compelling evidence that I see no reason to doubt.

 

Given the sheer amount of research that has been done on this topic by so many scientists around the world and the fact that such a high percentage of them are in agreement on this matter. It seems highly dubious that the vast majority could be so wrong and that only a tiny minority of scientists have gotten this one right. Furthermore people claiming that GW is a giant conspiracy perpetuated by mainstream scientists is totally ridiculous

 

 

Pointing out how many papers have been published is not a scientific way of refuting opponents to your theory when they provide mathematical and scientific counter points.

Again given the sheer weight of evidence and research that has been conducted, I'd be stunned beyond disbelief if the vast majority of the scientific community got this so wrong. It just doesn't make any logical sense. What makes more sense is that the minority are making use of dubious science, misusing statistics or are failing to make proper correlations.

 

Sure there is a possibility that the vast majority of scientists got it wrong, but that possibility is so remote in comparison to the probability that the minority is getting it wrong. Furthermore:

1) the consequences of inaction are extremely dire if the majority is correct,

2) the unnecessary costs of action are realitively low if the majority is wrong,

3) the side benefits would still be great even if the majority was wrong.

As such there is little logical reason why we should not move forward with finding solutions to a problem that the vast majority of scientists have concluded is a very real and urgent danger.

 

Really, a century?

 

No, I hardly think so.

 

More like 20 years of GW "research". Climate records may have been going on for a century, but specific research and exploration on the idea of GW is very young.

You don't read my threads do you? Twice I have posted a link and summary of the history of the study of greenhouse gases and global warming. To save you the trouble of digging through this thread, I will provide you with the details again:

 

The very long history of studying greenhouse gases and global warming

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013101808.html

Highlights from above article:

1) Irish scientist John Tyndall establishes CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the 19th century.

 

2) British engineer Guy Callendar had compiled empirical evidence of CO2 released by fossil fuels was having a measurable affect on the earth's climates by the 1930's

 

3) Charles David Keeling implements a systematic monitoring program at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. By the 1960's he demonstrated conclusively that atmospheric carbon dioxide was steadily rising (President Bush awarded Keeling the National Medal of Science in 2002 for this work).

 

4) In a 1965 message to Congress President Lyndon Johnson stated: "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

 

5) In 1966 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, headed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald concluded that increased carbon dioxide might also lead to "inadvertent weather modification." Gordon MacDonald, later served on President Richard Nixon's Council on Environmental Quality.

 

Over time I will work on uncovering more of the history of the study of global warming, but the noise factor on this issue is so high in search results that it is hard to find papers that look the history of this issue.

 

How does scientist get research funding....

By being a GW denier:

 

Lobbying group offering scientists $10,000 for producing reports that cast doubt on global warming:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...004397,00.html

 

Exxon Mobil funnel $16 million to groups and individuals to "manufacturer" reports critical of global warming:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

 

Coal powered electric cooperative paid $100,000 environmental professor for being GW skeptic:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565

 

If money is tainting research surrounding the issue of global warming it is tainting the research conducted by the skeptics who are being actively funded by those with ties to the fossil fuel industry and thus the most to lose if society turns its back on fossil fuels. This is no different than the methods the tobacco industry employed to cast doubt on the health risks of smoking.

[theCPE]

veedo

 

How is man causing 90% of GW. CO2 doesn't account for but a fraction of the total GW process. And man doesn't even create the majority of that.

 

If you disagreed with my "hillbilly" link than could you provide a different one that shows the mathematical breakdown of how man is responsible for 90% of current GW because that is absurd.

[Icemelt]

On the top CO2 chart there's a greater increase starting about the point 500 years up to 40 years ago, than there is the last 50 years. What's up with that?

 

On the bottom chart...what's with those two colder spikes in the last 10 years?

 

Yes, you are correct with your observation.

The bulk of the observed increase in CO2 was indeed prior to 50 years ago !

That's the whole point, before industrialisation and not after !

The CO2 is rising anyway, without any help from man.

In the past a rise in CO2 has always lagged a rise in temperature by about 800 years.

An increase in CO2 has never caused a rise in temperature in the past, any increase in CO2 has always lagged behind and been the result of an increase in temperature.

 

With regard to sea levels, I have tried to keep everything on the same time scale, so that comparisons can be made between the charts. If I displayed it in centimetres then 50% would be off the page ! The point is to demonstrate that there is insignificant recent sea level rise in the overall picture. I have posted a more detailed sea level chart below, but this only serves to confirm my point. The rate of rise in sea levels has fallen by 98% over the past 12,000 years !

 

BTW

Well spotted on the temperature chart

My apologies

There was a minor glitch with a decimal place which caused the two spikes to which your refer

These have now been corrected - see below

 

[1veedo]

It seems highly dubious that the vast majority could be so wrong and that only a tiny minority of scientists have gotten this one right. Furthermore people claiming that GW is a giant conspiracy perpetuated by mainstream scientists is totally ridiculous

...

Again given the sheer weight of evidence and research that has been conducted' date=' I'd be stunned beyond disbelief if the vast majority of the scientific community got this so wrong. It just doesn't make any logical sense.[/quote']I don't know, this guy from West Virginia may be on to something. He's obviously uncovered a bunch of information that scientists are completely unaware of.

 

I don't know about you but I'm convinced. I now know that the scientific community is completely and utterly incorrect because this one minority website with fake numbers and poor logic says so.

How is man causing 90% of GW. CO2 doesn't account for but a fraction of the total GW process. And man doesn't even create the majority of that.

 

If you disagreed with my "hillbilly" link than could you provide a different one that shows the mathematical breakdown of how man is responsible for 90% of current GW because that is absurd.

Factually speaking' date=' humans have caused almost all of the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Albeit this may be a small portion of total CO2 but our contribution has knocked CO2 levels 79ppm above the natural range. Water vapor has increase markedly as a result of this extra CO2 that we've put in the atmosphere. Arguing on the grounds that scientists don't understand water's dominant role in the atmosphere is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Scientists do in fact understand water's role in the atmosphere. I don't think you've uncovered anything new here.

In the past a rise in CO2 has always lagged a rise in temperature by about 800 years.

Please read the thread before posting nonsense because more likely then not its' already been addressed.

This is factually not true. What you're referring to are about 800 years after a glacial period where temperatures rise before CO2. This is actually a very small portion of geological history (when we're talking about 25' date='40, and 100k year cycles) and definitely does not constitute "always."

 

Furthermore, what we've actually found out is that CO2 is a feedback agent. Higher temperatures cause more CO2 to be released in the atmosphere and at the same time, CO2 causes temperatures to increase. I remember learning at uni that the northern hemisphere gets uneven sunlight distribution that causes ice to melt in the north or something, which warms the Earth for about 800 years before CO2 kicks in. Without CO2, temperature variations in the past would not be nearly as large. The sun alone would change temperatures very little -- you need all of the different feedback agents at work to amplify the effect.[/quote']

 

 

Btw on the grounds of money, like KLB pointed out, it is the deniers who are getting paid. Everyone knows that to make money as a scientist you have to be a corporate scientist. Most scientists make very little money considering that they have phds (around 70,000 average, compared to a bachelors of computer engineering/science with a starting salary of about 90,000. A phd in computer science practically makes you wealthy). Research scientists working in any field do so because they love it, not because they want money. If they wanted money, they'd work for the Creation Institute, Exxon Mobil, Big Tobacco, or any number of institutions that pay scientists to disagree with contemporary research (they'd also loose their reputation and credibility by doing so).

[theCPE]

Ok, so you can't provide the link. You can only regergitate the same stuff about how man is responsible for X amount of GW without showing how.

 

Further, no one says scientist are unaware of things, they are completely aware, but it obviously benefits their results to exclude it. Especially when defending such legislation as the kyoto protocol.

 

You keep suggesting that the increased co2 causes an increase in water vapor, well then provide the correlation! If you or whatever scientific paper is making the claim, then show the correlation!!

 

And again it is profoundly entertaining how hence forth any climatic change is due to man when in the past far more drastic changes occured in the absence of man entirely; of course these such events can no longer be natural.

 

Does man add to GW a little...of course, is he responsible for 90% haha, no way. Of course you could always provide the numerical explanation of how.

[theCPE]

Better yet, just point out how hillbilly's numbers are bogus.

 

If you can't provide mathematical support of man causing 90% of GW.

[Icemelt]

1veedo

 

Originally Posted by Icemelt

"In the past a rise in CO2 has always lagged a rise in temperature by about 800 years"

 

Originally Posted by 1veedo

Please read the thread before posting nonsense because more likely then not its' already been addressed.

 

I really don't want to re-read your repetitive uninformed posts yet again.

I have really read enough of it

If you are going to post such dismissive crap, from now on I'm just gonna have to ignore your contributions altogether.

You seem to think you have some God given right to ridicule and trample on anything you disagree with, and you pull erroneous numbers and "facts" out of your hat like a very bad conjurer.

 

I’ve given you the hard facts you demanded on the charts, and it doesn’t take a genius to reach a sensible conclusion. Yet you want to strut around bandying words promoting panic and hysteria. If you can legitimately find some data in these charts that is wrong, then let’s hear about it, chapter and verse, and back it up with hard evidence please. I will of course render my apology and modify the charts accordingly. However, if you can’t find any errors, then I’ll take it that you agree with the charts, and your conclusions would therefore appear to be WRONG !

 

I've read your extraordinarily repetitive contributions over the past weeks in several different threads and conclude:

 

1) You are regurgitating a litany of the same old charts and misguided conclusions over and over again, as if they are divinely cast in stone, without taking into account anything that other contributors have posted.

 

2) You seem to think that if you submit incorrect data and conclusions over and over again and often enough, they will eventually become the truth (I was married to someone like that for a while) Hmmm !

 

3) Most importantly, it never seems to occur to you that those who have the temerity to disagree with you, are not by definition WRONG !

 

If your head hasn’t grown so tightly into your blinkers that you can’t get them off, maybe you could condescend re-examine all the evidence, instead of just the bits that happen to fit. You now it’s just so easy to trundle along with the media and the politicians claiming the World is flat (Getting your vote would be a doddle for Al). It’s much more of a challenge to thoroughly investigate the evidence that the scientists, who are frightened of losing their credibility and research budgets, have conveniently skipped over.

[KLB]

I don't know, this guy from West Virginia may be on to something. He's obviously uncovered a bunch of information that scientists are completely unaware of.

Back to the early topic of financial incentives tainting scientific research there can be few places where the financial incentive to disprove global warming is greater than in West Virginia as so much of WV's economy and employment base is dependent upon coal mining.

 

West Virginia coal mining facts

http://www.wvminesafety.org/wvcoalfacts.htm

• The West Virginia Coal Industry provides about 40,000 direct jobs in WV
  
• West Virginia produces about 15 % of total coal production in the U.S.
  
• West Virginia leads the nation in underground coal production.
  
• West Virginia leads the nation in coal exports with over 50 million tons shipped to 23 countries.
  
• West Virginia Coal accounts for about 50% of US coal exports.
  
• Taxes paid by the coal industry and by utility companies that make electricity using West Virginia coal account for two-thirds, or over 60% of business taxes paid in WV.
  
• The coal industry pays approximately $70 million in property taxes annually.
  
• The Coal Severance Tax adds approximately $214 million into West Virginia's economy.
  
• The coal industry payroll is nearly $2 billion per year.
  
• Coal is responsible for more than $3.5 billion annually in the gross state product.
  

 

Simply put the direct and indirect pressures upon a scientist in West Virginia to disprove global warming are absolutely phenomenal. Not only is his/her own economic interests at stake, but so are the economic interests of his/her friends, family and community. Under these conditions it is absolutely inconceivable that their research could remain untainted, objective or credible.

 

I don't know about you but I'm convinced. I now know that the scientific community is completely and utterly incorrect because this one minority website with fake numbers and poor logic says so.

Especially given the sheer scope of the conflict of interest I have detailed above.

 

Btw on the grounds of money, like KLB pointed out, it is the deniers who are getting paid.

One of those scientists I mentioned is a West Virginia scientist. I don't know if there is a connection or not, but with some digging I might be able to find one.

 

Everyone knows that to make money as a scientist you have to be a corporate scientist.

....

Research scientists working in any field do so because they love it, not because they want money. If they wanted money, they'd work for the Creation Institute, Exxon Mobil, Big Tobacco, or any number of institutions that pay scientists to disagree with contemporary research (they'd also loose their reputation and credibility by doing so).

EXACTLY! One does not get rich being a research scientist. They do what they do because they love their work. Most scientists are driven by the search for the truth and a desire to better understand our world. Those who are driven by greed and/or money will leave the academic research arena and go to work for corporations.

[1veedo]

Coal really is a big deal in this state. I personally don't know anyone who is directly employed by a coal company but I also live in a suburb of Charleston (capital and largest city of wv). But there are coal mines, processing plants, and really random piles of coal just about everywhere. And there are billboards all over the place that read "coal keeps the lights on" and more recently "coal is cleaner and greener..then ever before." There's been a new move to "clean" coal which really isn't all that clean. It is cleaner but we're just replacing "really dirty" with "less dirty then before."

 

edit -- I just realized that our state baseball team is called the "Power," referring to the coal industry! (One of the mascots is a miner). It really is everywhere like I said. Our baseball park is about three blocks from a random pile of coal.

If you can't provide mathematical support of man causing 90% of GW.

Well the thing is' date=' the mathematical proof is in post 102.

Humans have the largest effect on warming, w/ 1.6 W/m^2 (Greenhouse gases such as CO2 actually have a larger effect, but we release pollutants that decrease the temperature of the Earth, so it all adds together at 1.6). The only measurably relevant non-human cause for warming is the sun, at .12 W/m^2, which is an entire order of magnitude smaller then humans.

It's just basic data. 1.6 >> .12. The human contribution to global warming is more then ten times that of natural factors, or in other words, humans are causing more then 90% of global warming.

 

Btw Icement I don't like straw men, nor ad hominem posts. "panic and hysteria?" Not in the least. I was the one who posted earlier saying that the issue isn't about "saving the world;" the issue is just accepting that global warming is in fact real -- I do not advocate anything beyond that (although I do personally agree that we need to do something). I argue that global warming is real in much the same way I argue to religious nuts about evolution being real.

 

And I can assure you I don't just pull numbers out of a hat. Sometimes I put them down just out of memory but more often then not, if you look through this thread, I have provided a reference for every "number" I have used. If I have failed to do so I would happy to provide one for you.

 

Your charts really aren't all that important to the discussion either. You keep coming up with data for millions of years which venture into entirely different climates then today. What a lot of people don't realize is how different the Earth's climate has been throughout history. Just the movement of the continents is enough to dramatically shift the climate (this happens over millions of years though). What you're really trying to pull off here is a red herring. I actually have no problem with your charts (I've never looked to see where they come from but I'm just assuming they're correct). Demanding that I "agree with your charts" does not help your position out any because the validity of your charts has little to do with the validity of your arguments. Hence the logical fallacy here.

[theCPE]

Haha, ok well in that case my numerical data stands...especially if post 102 is the standard of "credible" mathematical explanation of how man is responsible for 90%.....

 

Heh.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

Temperatures are rising at a rate ten times faster then any other time in the history of the planet.

 

You do not know that, and neither does anyone else. We are still learning about past climate changes, and we cannot scientifically make such statements without totally destroying our credibility.

 

For example : very recently (the last month) some research was completed in the Antarctic, in which a core (of rock, not ice) was removed from under the Ross Sea, going back to represent a time 12 million years ago. Analysis of this core is still under way and will be for quite a long time. However, preliminary results show several times in the last few million years when the Ross Sea was completely free of ice. These are warmings that we did not even know existed until this research was done.

 

So be careful with your assertions. Humans are still learning of past warmings, and many surprises no doubt lie in wait.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

I actually have no problem with your charts (I've never looked to see where they come from but I'm just assuming they're correct). Demanding that I "agree with your charts" does not help your position out any because the validity of your charts has little to do with the validity of your arguments.

 

One of the commonalities I have seen in arguing with 1veedo is that he always falls back on authority. If the facts (like Icemelt's charts) do not agree with his views, then he will simply quote some statement or calculation result from IPCC and say that proves the facts are wrong.

 

In fact, I do not believe 1veedo has opinions, ideas or conclusions of his own. He is simply a distorted reflection of the IPCC reports.

 

I was in argument with 1veedo a while ago. He came up with a statement from someone in the IPCC that most of the warming since the year 1900 was caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. I showed from his own posted graphs that this was impossible. The temperature changes did not correlate with those gases. However, he remained unconvinced. Why? Because IPCC is God and mere facts cannot compete.

[KLB]

It is cleaner but we're just replacing "really dirty" with "less dirty then before."

It is all a matter of how you spin things to make them sound better.

 

"panic and hysteria?" Not in the least.

I agree. If we start to take action now, we can solve this problem without massive life disrupting changes. requiring car makers to increase the average MPG of cars and trucks by 10 mpg in 10 years (as currently proposed) isn't going to cause a massive disruption. People shifting to CFLs, LED and other high efficiency lighting sources is not going to disrupt life. Mandating minimum efficiency standards for new how construction and major renovations is not going to cause massive disruptions. Mandating tougher emissions controls on power plants and removing all subsidies from fossil fuel power generation projects so that said subsidies can be focused on alternative energies is not going to cause major societal disruptions.

 

These are the types of things people are proposing we do in response to climate change. I haven't seen any serious proposals that we immediately shut down all coal fired power plants and immediately turn in our cars for bicycles and bus tokens (although for some people this would be a completely viable option)

 

Your charts really aren't all that important to the discussion either. You keep coming up with data for millions of years which venture into entirely different climates then today. What a lot of people don't realize is how different the Earth's climate has been throughout history.

Very true, if all of a sudden we had the same atmosphere as the Carboniferous period (286-408 million years ago), there would be so much oxygen in the atmosphere (~33%) that every time one turned on a light they would be risking a spark that would cause an "explosion" and you could forget about smoking cigarettes simply lighting the match would be hazardous to your health.

 

This isn't a matter of preventing climate change for environmental reasons, this is a matter that human society has become dependent upon the climatic conditions that have prevailed for the past 300-400 years (sea levels, weather patterns, temperatures, etc.). Global warming threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of conditions that our society is so dependent upon.

 

If sea levels rise even six feet, millions of people will be displaced and billions (if not trillions) of dollars in infrastructure from cities to seaports will be lost. If weather patterns change tens of millions of acres of arable land could go fallow due to the lack of rainfall and wrong temperatures. This could leave millions of people without the ability to feed themselves. This is why we want to prevent climate change if at all possible.

[theCPE]

If sea levels rise even six feet,

 

Oh dear, the dramatized IF X occurs than humans DIE arguments.

 

Its the chewbacca defense of GW.

 

"If something terrible happens and could kill people, GW is man made!!!"

[KLB]

Oh dear, the dramatized IF X occurs than humans DIE arguments.

Okay, I'll put it this way, if we do not bring CO2 levels in the atmosphere under control such that we slow and then stop global warming, those things WILL happen. There is as close to scientific consensus on this finding as one is likely to find for ANY scientific theory.

 

Is there 100% agreement on these findings? No there is not and it is rare that any scientific finding garners 100% support from all scientists. The point is, however, the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions from around the world from different cultures and with different personal motivations have come to agreement on the issue of global warming and that man is the chief cause of it.

 

While maybe not all GW skeptics have conflicts of interest on this issue, a very significant number of the most prominent GW skeptics have been exposed as having conflicts of interest on this issue. In that they are actually receiving funding from corporations that have the most to gain by disproving global warming. Earlier in this thread I provided documentation exposing some of those GW skeptics who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and their proxy "think tanks", organizations, etc.

[theCPE]

Okay, I'll put it this way, if we do not bring CO2 levels in the atmosphere under control such that we slow and then stop global warming, those things WILL happen.

Actually, if we stopped GW than we would all die, our planet would be uninhabitable to pretty much every life form on the planet.

 

come to agreement on the issue of global warming and that man is the chief cause of it.

Couldn't be furthering from the truth.

 

The consensus if any of the scientifici community (unfortunately few climatologist and mostly biologist, zoologist, and oceanographers) is that man is causing significant portions of GW. Did you know that without the natural GW process the temperature on the planet would be about 50 C cooler? Man is completely incapable of causing such a massive temperature swing. In fact currently we have a 1 degree higher average surface temperature than around 1890ish. A far cry from what nature has provided us wouldn't you say?

 

While maybe not all GW skeptics have conflicts of interest on this issue, a very significant number of the most prominent GW skeptics have been exposed as having conflicts of interest on this issue. In that they are actually receiving funding from corporations that have the most to gain by disproving global warming. Earlier in this thread I provided documentation exposing some of those GW skeptics who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry and their proxy "think tanks", organizations, etc.

There is no more motivation on one side than the other for offering false results or misleading analysis.

[SkepticLance]

KLB said :

 

Okay, I'll put it this way, if we do not bring CO2 levels in the atmosphere under control such that we slow and then stop global warming, those things WILL happen.

 

Not six foot sea level rise, however. Current sea level rise is 3 mm per year. Over 100 years, that comes to 300 mm, which is about one foot; not six feet.

[KLB]

Actually, if we stopped GW than we would all die, our planet would be uninhabitable to pretty much every life form on the planet.

Ummm??? Saw what??? Stopping global warming simply means eliminating our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that the earth's temperatures stop getting warmer. Or more simply put, stopping the increase in average climate temperatures. This means the climate wouldn't be changing (at least because of man) and thus the climate conditions we see this year would be the same climate conditions we see ten years from now.

 

Couldn't be furthering from the truth.

Oh so I'm imagining that almost all of the major scientific institutions and organizations that have scientists researching disciplines related to climates and climate change have come out and stated that climate change is a very serious concern? Uh ya right. The vast majority of all scientific papers published on this issue in the past number of years have pointed to climate change and man's influence on it as a real concern and most well respected major science and research institutions have concluded that climate change is a real issue. The IPCC is simply the most visible front for this research.

 

Yes there are climate change deniers, but they are not from major scientific institutions and very frequently economic conflicts of interest have been tied to those scientists as their funding trail has traced back to those corporate interests that have the most to gain by disproving or at least sowing doubt in climate change science (e.g. the West Virginia GW skeptic that I pointed out who was receiving substantial funding from a coal powered energy company).

 

There is no more motivation on one side than the other for offering false results or misleading analysis.

Quite to the contrary. The fossil fuel industry and those who depend upon our civilization being addicted to fossil fuels have everything to lose by society diversifying our energy sources and the implementation of stricter emissions/energy efficiency standards.

 

They realize that if we build more efficient homes, drive more efficient vehicles and acquire our energy from renewable resources (e.g. solar panels on the roofs of our homes), we will be buying less energy from them and thus reducing the growth of their profits. For them disproving climate change is an important part of their being able to successfully lobby against stricter pollution control regulations on power plants and factories as well as the stricter enforcement of existing regulations.

 

If stricter pollution control regulations are implemented and enforced, the coal industry will be forced to make radical changes to coal fired power plants and potentially be forced to shut down coal mines that produce the dirtiest coal. For these corporations, there are massive economic interest in doing everything possible to block stricter regulations including producing and funding bad science to disprove or sow doubt with climate change (as has been documented throughout this thread).

[theCPE]

Ummm??? Saw what??? Stopping global warming simply means eliminating our contribution of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere such that the earth's temperatures stop getting warmer.

 

No, the popular definition of global warming became human caused warming of our planetary temperatures during the 1980s. Global warming is a natural process by which the atmosphere of the planet allows the planet to warm and thus not be a block of ice.

 

There really is very little in the latest of any of the posts from GW advocates that has anything to do with science or explanations. Just the same ole IPCC, peer reviewed, DOOM IS HERE, crap.

 

I am still waiting for the made up numbers I presented to be explained where and how they are false. And I am still waiting for a mathematical explanation of how man causes 90% of GW according to whomever that was....

[bascule]

No, the popular definition of global warming became human caused warming of our planetary temperatures during the 1980s.

 

Most of the average surface temperature changes in the past half century are due primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, yes. (Most scientists try to avoid the term "global warming" anyway)

 

Global warming is a natural process by which the atmosphere of the planet allows the planet to warm and thus not be a block of ice.

 

And your evidence for this position is...

 

There really is very little in the latest of any of the posts from GW advocates that has anything to do with science or explanations.

 

Maybe because you're saying the scientific evidence is wrong.

 

Just the same ole IPCC, peer reviewed, DOOM IS HERE, crap.

 

So you prefer pulling things out of your ass to peer reviewed scientific research? No wonder you're confused.

 

I am still waiting for the made up numbers I presented to be explained where and how they are false. And I am still waiting for a mathematical explanation of how man causes 90% of GW according to whomever that was....

 

Man doesn't cause 90% of GW. That's probably confusion stemming from IPCC's statement that they are over 90% certain that anthropogenic forcings are predominant.

 

[theCPE]

Yeh, this is a waste of time.

 

If you are doubting what the definition of global warming is or that natural global warming is necessary for our planet to sustain life.....then you have a lot to understand before this debate can even continue.

 

Here is a link from the epa...read about the first two paragraphs...

 

there you will read that greenhouse gases and GW are necessary for life as we know it......

[theCPE]

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

 

oh and also from the epa site....

 

Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

[1veedo]

You do not know that' date=' and neither does anyone else. We are still learning about past climate changes, and we cannot scientifically make such statements without totally destroying our credibility.

 

For example : very recently (the last month) some research was completed in the Antarctic, in which a core (of rock, not ice) was removed from under the Ross Sea, going back to represent a time 12 million years ago. Analysis of this core is still under way and will be for quite a long time. However, preliminary results show several times in the last few million years when the Ross Sea was completely free of ice. These are warmings that we did not even know existed until this research was done.

 

So be careful with your assertions. Humans are still learning of past warmings, and many surprises no doubt lie in wait.[/quote']Well right now contemporary thought is that temperatures are rising faster then they ever have for at least 65 million years, and probably Earth's entire existence. Scientists are fairly certain that within the past 65 million years the fasted shift in temperature occurred during PETM, and there is no indication that any event has surpassed it, with the exception of current warming. And even if it warming has occurred at a comparable rate in the past, the fact that this has not occurred in 65million years is a good indication that it is at least extremely rare.

 

This is why the "temperatures have rising in the past" argument doesn't work. Yes temperatures have risen before. Temperatures have been higher then they are today many times in the past. But that's not the point -- the significance of current warming is in rates, and we happen to know that this rate has been unmatched in 65million years, and again, probably the planet's entire existence (well after he had an atmosphere maybe 3billion years ago).

If the facts (like Icemelt's charts) do not agree with his views, then he will simply quote some statement or calculation result from IPCC and say that proves the facts are wrong.

That is absolutely not what I'm doing. You just don't seem to understand that a few million years ago, the Earth's climate was completely different. We're talking about what's happening currently, not what happened fifty million years ago. A fifty million year average may have "such and such" climate change, but we're talking changes in climate that is a direct result of continental shifts and other long term variability. You end up leaving out a lot of important details that are necessary to understand what's going on today.

 

This is really just basic science 101. When doing an experiment you alter one variable and rarely any more then one. When you go changing a bunch of things it becomes hard to deduce the relationship between variables. When we're looking at data that goes back 100 million years we're literally changing thousands and thousands of independent variables and we're looking at just a couple dependent variables so there is very little we can actually conclude. Icemelt is bringing the wrong tools for the job, so to speak.

Man doesn't cause 90% of GW. That's probably confusion stemming from IPCC's statement that they are over 90% certain that anthropogenic forcings are predominant.

Currently man is causing over 90% of global warming, and this comes with a 90% certainty . Previously we have not had nearly as great of an influence on global warming. Before 1950 it was about 64% to 84%. Recently though (after the mid-to-late 1970s), human influences have been an entire order of magnitude grater then non-human influences. Saying that all of global warming sense 1900 has been 90% caused by humans is however incorrect.

 

 

edit-- just so we know why 65 million years is important, and not a "random number" that I "pulled out of a hat," I'm referring to work done by Zachos et al, and verified data for 65 million years which is about as far back as you can go with oxygen isotopes while still keeping a small error margin , "Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present." Science (2001) 292, 686–693.

 

I assume too often that people know what I'm referring to that I forget to explain things. Any climate data after 65 milling years is largely unreliable on short time scales and is fairly inaccurate. Go back far enough and scientists are pretty much guessing what the climate was like. 'There were glaciers down to the equator? It must have been pretty cold!"