Climate Change...

[ginatubeo]

Are greenhouse gases contributed a lot in global warming? How this affect the climate change?

[swansont]

Yes. They trap some of the infra-red radiation that's trying to escape, warming the planet.

[Sirona]

It is the main contributor to global warming; mostly from CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) but also methane and Nitrous oxide. As Swansnot already stated, it traps heat. Different greenhouse gases trap different amounts of heat. For example, methane traps more heat per molecule than CO2, but there is a lot less methane in the atmosphere than CO2 so it does less damage overall as a result. There are more heat-trapping gases but there is less concentration of them atmosphere. Though, there are much more intelligent people here who might be able to explain it better than I.

[iNow]

 

More info on the greenhouse effect at the following link, and also in the video below: http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html

 

 

[MacDoc]

this is a very good source for the science of climate change

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

 

This is a good illustration of the various mechanisms in play

 

 

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_1997_big.gif

 

Fossil carbon emissions has altered the radiative balance so it's getting warmer until it reaches a new balance point in t a warmer world....because carbon dioxide is so persistent in the atmospher ....the effect is cumulative.

[HB of CJ]

I believe CO2 gets sucked up by land vegetation quite quickly. Green house plant growing studies? Consider Nitrogen? Consider water vapor? Volcanic CO2? Consider the Suns current activity? Curious how consensus can quickly change. A coming Solar minimum? Finally follow the money?

[swansont]

I believe CO2 gets sucked up by land vegetation quite quickly. Green house plant growing studies? Consider Nitrogen? Consider water vapor? Volcanic CO2? Consider the Suns current activity? Curious how consensus can quickly change. A coming Solar minimum? Finally follow the money?

What you believe doesn't matter. It's what you can show.

 

All of those things have been considered, and they can't account for the temperatures we see. We're past the latest weak solar maximum and have been setting temperature records the last 2 years and may set another one this year. A solar minimum may take the edge off of the warming, but that's a half a watt/m^2 variation in TSI, so the change in radiation that gets to the surface is smaller than that. Total anthropogenic forcings are significantly larger.

 

If you follow the money, you have to conclude that the fossil fuel industry is trying to obscure the reality of climate change.

[HB of CJ]

Ha ha ha. Again, follow the real money. Probably many cut outs. Correlation without establishing causality ? Has anybody determined real world temps vs guessed world temps over time ago? Enough empirical scientifically valid data to be considered? Do we have enough such data over 1000 years, (or over 10,000 years) with 1000 valid inputs per year? Over 10,000 years? If not, we are just whistling Dixie. The feeble point is that we do not have anywhere near enough or exact enough data source to even approximate some data showing global warming. You should know better.

[iNow]

The fact that you don't understand the work that's been done doesn't mean others who do should be scoffed or laughed at.

 

Your incredulity is not a valid argument.

 

Your unawareness of the mountains of consistent data collected over decades on this subject is not sufficient reason to dismiss it.

 

You should know better.

Edited October 23, 2016 by iNow

[swansont]

Ha ha ha. Again, follow the real money. Probably many cut outs. Correlation without establishing causality ? Has anybody determined real world temps vs guessed world temps over time ago? Enough empirical scientifically valid data to be considered? Do we have enough such data over 1000 years, (or over 10,000 years) with 1000 valid inputs per year? Over 10,000 years? If not, we are just whistling Dixie. The feeble point is that we do not have anywhere near enough or exact enough data source to even approximate some data showing global warming. You should know better.

I should know better? given the ignorance you're spouting here I don't see the validity of your claim. Of the two of us, I at least have some familiarity with science.

 

To paraphrase astrophysicist Katie Mack: I dunno, man, I already went and got a PhD in atomic physics. Seems like more than that would be overkill at this point.

 

For example, why do we need 1000 inputs per year to get a proxy for temperature? That's just some BS you made up. It sounds like it might be reasonable if you were to raise the issue of getting a good average and you're worried about sampling and cite Nyquist's theorem and all, but if you had any understanding of the situation you'd realize that the sampling methods, such as isotope ratios in ice cores, already do the averaging for you. So the only reasons to make that request is that either you know that it can't be satisfied, so it's an intellectually dishonest way to try and score a point if there are any uninformed people reading this, or you simply have no clue in the matter but have made up your mind anyway. Those options mean you are either being deceitful or foolish. Or perhaps you can come up with a third possibility.

[MigL]

That CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas is undisputed.

It can probably be verified by a simple lab experiment.

 

The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased during the last 100-150 yrs of coal and oil usage is also undisputed.

And it can also be verified.

 

Even if you weren't worried about climate change, these resources WILL run out.

Why not start looking at alternative energy sources ( fusion research, solar, etc. ) which will provide a continued supply of energy well into the future, and do it without affecting our environment.

[Strange]

That CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas is undisputed.

It can probably be verified by a simple lab experiment.

 

Here is a list of such experiments from 1861 to 2008.

 

 

The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased during the last 100-150 yrs of coal and oil usage is also undisputed.

 

And is consistent with other measures such as the growth of industrial/economic activity and the spectrum of radiation radiated from the Earth.

[swansont]

 

Here is a list of such experiments from 1861 to 2008.

 

I'm guessing you meant to actually include a list, or a link to one.

[Strange]

Ooops.

 

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

[HB of CJ]

Who determines the accuracy of the temperature measurements? In other words, who watches the watcher who set the gadgets? Do we have a valid continuity of temperature measurement over the last 1000 years that is exactly accurate? The answer is we don't. We can't. Such data does not exist. Which is my point.

 

And ...

 

Let's make this one easy. How many times in the geological past has Earths atmospheric CO2 levels been greatly elevated? Perhaps even much higher than today? Where did it all come from? A very long time ago. Repeated again and again. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Who caused it? Or rather what?

Edited October 25, 2016 by HB of CJ

[Essay]

Curious how consensus can quickly change.

I’d like to see what you think a good example would be, from science, of a circumstance where “consensus” did “quickly change.”

 

 

...

Let's make this one easy. How many times in the geological past has Earths atmospheric CO2 levels been greatly elevated? Perhaps even much higher than today? Where did it all come from? A very long time ago. Repeated again and again. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Who caused it? Or rather what?

Years ago I enjoyed this book, Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991, about Earth’s climate systems and how they developed, which explains “who (Or rather what) caused it.”

 

And with that understanding, it should be obvious why the current situation, where

CO2 levels now exceed anything seen since before our species evolved, is a critical concern.

 

Do you have a particular question, or concern of your own, about the level of that understanding and overall concern?

Edited October 25, 2016 by Essay

[swansont]

Who determines the accuracy of the temperature measurements? In other words, who watches the watcher who set the gadgets? Do we have a valid continuity of temperature measurement over the last 1000 years that is exactly accurate? The answer is we don't. We can't. Such data does not exist. Which is my point.

 

 

Then you must reject all science. There is no such thing as data that are exactly accurate. All measurements have uncertainty associated with them. The scientific view is how big the error bars are, rather than the wholly unreasonable assertion that because error bars exist the data are worthless.

 

This smacks of the bogus attitude that if we don't know everything, we know nothing. It's pointless to compare what we do know with perfection, since perfection can't be realized.

[Klaynos]

Who determines the accuracy of the temperature measurements?

Detailed analysis. To a certain extent overseen by WMO CIMO and WMO CCI. Understanding the accuracy of any measurement is important a lot of work happens in this area, for example there is an organisation called metrology for meteorology and climate.

 

 

Then you must reject all science. There is no such thing as data that are exactly accurate. All measurements have uncertainty associated with them. The scientific view is how big the error bars are, rather than the wholly unreasonable assertion that because error bars exist the data are worthless.

 

This not being understood is IMO a big failing of science education.

[Strange]

Who determines the accuracy of the temperature measurements? In other words, who watches the watcher who set the gadgets?

 

Peer review, primarily. And of course, you are free to check it as well.

 

 

Do we have a valid continuity of temperature measurement over the last 1000 years that is exactly accurate?

 

No data is ever "exactly accurate". That is a stupid question. By that standard all science and engineering is "wrong".

 

 

Let's make this one easy. How many times in the geological past has Earths atmospheric CO2 levels been greatly elevated? Perhaps even much higher than today? Where did it all come from? A very long time ago. Repeated again and again. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Who caused it? Or rather what?

 

The data to answer these questions is available but I get the impression you are not interested in the answers.

 

Your argument (such as it is) seems to be: "I don't know anything about climate change [hence all the questions] therefore it must be wrong". Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Ophiolite]

Let's make this one easy. How many times in the geological past has Earths atmospheric CO2 levels been greatly elevated? Perhaps even much higher than today? Where did it all come from? A very long time ago. Repeated again and again. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Who caused it? Or rather what?

The Earth has no problem dealing with high or low levels of CO₂. Life will adapt. That adaptation will involve the migration, extinction, or evolution of species. When a new equilibrium sets in the biosphere will recover from any negative consequences of the change. (The consequences are likely to be substantial in this iteration as a consequence of the unprecedented rapidity of change.)

 

Humanity should have no worries about survival. There are seven billion of us and we have proven to be a versatile species.

 

The problem arises if we wish to make it through the century without experiencing, at best, massive reductions in standard of living, and at worst, wide-scale famine, epidemic, and civil and international war, including nuclear incidents.

 

Even if we are entirely mistaken in the very sound science on which the concerns are based, a sensible approach would be to take some modest steps to substantially reduce the risk factors. Of course, if you are the sort of person who doesn't bother to check left and right when crossing the road, then I can understand why such actions would seem pointless to you.

[swansont]

 

Let's make this one easy. How many times in the geological past has Earths atmospheric CO2 levels been greatly elevated? Perhaps even much higher than today? Where did it all come from? A very long time ago. Repeated again and again. CO2 levels have varied greatly. Who caused it? Or rather what?

 

 

These are the wrong questions. The contention is not that CO2 has never been higher in the past, or that these past eras were not naturally occurring. But it is fallacious to insist that because CO2 has been higher in the past that the current rapid rise is from the same sources. That kind of reasoning can be used to insist that because fires happen naturally that arson doesn't exist, and that there is no way to tell if a fire was deliberately set by a human. Which is ridiculous.

[Phi for All]

Curious how consensus can quickly change.

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that this is waaaay beyond consensus of climatologists at this point. A consilience is when there is consensus between multiple disciplines, all arriving at the same conclusions. On climate change, we have a consilience in the conclusions of fields ranging from geology to paleoclimatology to meteorology to biochemistry to geophysics (and lots more), and they've all followed separate lines of evidence all leading to the same conclusions: humans need to cut back on carbon emissions or we'll seriously harm our present environment, and thus our ability to survive in it. The evidence also shows us that taking steps to prevent this can delay degradation and even reverse it, so it's possible to fix this if we make the necessary recommended changes.

[Strange]

Curious how consensus can quickly change.

 

Well, I suppose that makes a refreshing change from the usual complaint that scientists are too dogmatic and refuse to consider new ideas...

 

 

A coming Solar minimum? Finally follow the money?

 

Despite the question marks, these are not questions?

 

Perhaps, if you have a point to make, you should make it? Instead of posting sentence fragments? Which don't mean anything? In isolation?

[Ken Fabian]

HB of CJ certainly ticks many of the standard boxes when it comes to rejecting what science tells us about messing with the concentrations of greenhouse gases of our atmosphere. Follow the money? I think the bedrock foundation of high level mainstream political support for climate science denial and obstruction is about avoiding the perceived economic costs that flow from acceptance of climate responsibility. To what extent politics leads or follows is probably irrelevant but I think the most politically influential sector of modern nations is commerce and industry and the larger parts of those have decided where they stand based on how it affects their bottom lines in the near term; that desire to avoid the burden of costs by rejecting responsibility flows upwards from affected businesses as political lobbying, downward to their workforce as fears about job security and further downward into the gutters of PR, advertising, tankthink and other forms of ethics deficient opinion for hire.

 

Economic Alarmism tends to trump Environmental concerns - except that climate change is definitely a serious economic issue that will affect prosperity and international security on unprecedented scales. But the latter concerns are about timescales of multi-decades, centuries and millennia whereas the former impacts people and their choices much more immediately. It doesn't appear to much matter that solutions are within our reach and are unlikely to result in widespread economic disaster - for those sectors that are most directly affected, the burden of climate responsibility is indeed a financial disaster. Yet, unlike the more usual case for an activity that is shown to have serious harmful consequences, the opportunities for (unofficial) amnesty for past actions and an orderly transition that allows major investors to avoid major losses and liabilities are intrinsic to the policy responses proposed.

 

Science is conducted within institutions, conventions and practices that are bound by professional ethical standards - practices that are reinforced by accurate and open record keeping that allows and encourages independent expert review and critique. And then there are institutions like the National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society that call on the very best of scientific expertise to provide independent advice to policy makers.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[sethoflagos]

......Follow the money? I think the bedrock foundation of high level mainstream political support for climate science denial and obstruction is about avoiding the perceived economic costs that flow from acceptance of climate responsibility. To what extent politics leads or follows is probably irrelevant but I think the most politically influential sector of modern nations is commerce and industry and the larger parts of those have decided where they stand based on how it affects their bottom lines in the near term; that desire to avoid the burden of costs by rejecting responsibility flows upwards from affected businesses as political lobbying, downward to their workforce as fears about job security and further downward into the gutters of PR, advertising, tankthink and other forms of ethics deficient opinion for hire......

 

 

 

It's actually a little worse than that.

 

The energy sector is not short of capable people who understand the physics, their role in that physics, and the likely long term consequences of that physics. In most cases, they can call on much greater intellectual resources than any government department has immediately to hand, and more to the point, they know exactly how to do so, because getting the science right is the make or break factor in the development of their business.

 

At boardroom level, the evidence has been weighed, and the only sensible course of action decided.

 

They will strive to make as much profit as they can, while they can, before the manure hits the turboprop.