Climate Change due to Global Warming – a hoax?

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by prashamk

Latest to the above list is NF3 which is about ummmm 17,000 times "deadlier" than same amount of CO2.



SOURCE

Well a think tank was going to use factories that produce CF4 (a very strong GHG) to make Mars fully habitable within 1000 years.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by prashamk

I had read somewhere that if a giant volcane erupts, its possible that it may cover major part of our world under its dark cloud which would actually cause cooling of earth. Moreover if I remember well, there are reports that this kind of volcanic explosion happened in past.

Please correct if wrong.

So if regular volcanoes emits in millions while we (humans) are emitting in billions, can't it in a way compared to a huge volcanic erruption. Or does CO2's brain tell him the difference?

Because of the sulfates produced since they're reflecting aerosols. You would have heard of a sulfur shield by now, America's saving grace when the shit hits the fan. It will turn the sky white!!!

Solar shield could be quick fix for global warming - earth - 05 June 2007 - New Scientist Environment

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by stephexeter

whatever the case, being more environmentally concerned doesn't do us any harm and can benefit us in others ways - e.g. increasinging fitness by using nonfuel transport (cycling, walking), increasing social bonds (donating unwanted things, sharing things, shopping locally).

They've now found the elixir of being forever young. Exercise!!!
Mitochondria get old and don't work too well as you get old. Resistance exercise replaces old cells with new ones and a pop!! new energy from new mitochondria.

It shows why after 3 months of gym training once you've started that you can usually lift between 50% to 150% more weight than before you started. (an amazing change).

[SwitchBlade]

Originally Posted by prashamk

What I meant to say is that if large amount of CO2 released by volcanoes or super volcanoes can cool earth, Why can't the human released CO2 cool earth?

They work the same - but remember that in a volcanic eruption there are many other types of gases as well; sulfur in various forms, etc. I don't believe these gases are being added to the atmosphere in the same quantities and percentages as a volcano. Consequently they can't be directly compared - ergo a controversy.

[icareforyou]

In view of the other thousands of times more "deadlier" GHGs being released into the environment (like NF3), may be in small quantities, it is worthwhile in spending money on a reaearch to identify, quantify and find out the global warming potentials of such GHGs in our environment.

Before venturing into multi-billion dollar projects to capture CO2 in canisters and store them underground like nuclear waste, let us first spend a billion dollar in identifying other GHGs contributing to thr global warming.

NUCLEAR ISSUES

[prashamk]

Check out my post in some other thread. Water vapour: Biggest GHG?

I would add fuel to the current controversy.

[BestTimesNow]

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

"The American Physical Society (APS), representing over 50,000 physicists, has re-opened the discussion of the issue of global warming. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that more than half of the "Global warming" of the past 50 years (IPCC, 2007) had been caused by CO2 emissions from humans and that human activity would cause further rapid warming . That conclusion is now being challenged by new data and the failure of old data to predict what has actually happened to the climate since 2001."

Global warming challenged by new data and failed predictions


Here's the report. I hope you like math!

Discussion

"We have set out and then critically examined a detailed account of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. We have made explicit the identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables, many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or quantify. The IPCC’s method does not provide a secure basis for policy-relevant conclusions. We now summarize some of its defects."

(Too many to list, read the report)

Conclusion

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming." (+ much more)


APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

[ecofuse]

Originally Posted by icareforyou

I am surprized none replied for my comments on - Climate change due to global warming - hoax?

The climate change is most probably natural cyclic phenomenon.

On Tuesday, the LLAIMA VOLCANO in Chile's Conguillio National Park erupted. It brings out millions of tons of particles, debris and emitted unestimated amount of Greenhouse gases. The quantity may be equivalent to so many coal-based power plants.

This also proves that the climate change we are witnessing today is due to cyclic natural phenomenon.

I really shouldn't bother, but here you go anyway. Come back smarter:

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nick
ecofuse / Published News

[icareforyou]

Thanks for your advice ecofuse.

FIRST OPINION

[Bored Wombat]

Originally Posted by BestTimesNow

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

"The American Physical Society (APS), representing over 50,000 physicists, has re-opened the discussion of the issue of global warming. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that more than half of the "Global warming" of the past 50 years (IPCC, 2007) had been caused by CO2 emissions from humans and that human activity would cause further rapid warming . That conclusion is now being challenged by new data and the failure of old data to predict what has actually happened to the climate since 2001."

Global warming challenged by new data and failed predictions


Here's the report. I hope you like math!

Discussion

"We have set out and then critically examined a detailed account of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. We have made explicit the identities, interrelations, and values of the key variables, many of which the IPCC does not explicitly describe or quantify. The IPCC’s method does not provide a secure basis for policy-relevant conclusions. We now summarize some of its defects."

(Too many to list, read the report)

Conclusion

"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming." (+ much more)


APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Have you ever noticed that when a denialist story breaks, one of the most salient aspects is it's lack of truth.

In actual fact, the APS (representing 50,000 physicists), as they have seen fit to mention on the front page of their website, is unchanged:

APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

For context, this keeps them in line with these other scientific organisations that agree with the basics of anthropogenic global warming:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Statistical Association

Whereas these scientific organisations back the denialists:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

Similarly, the paper you mention, by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, represents the views of 0 physicists, and one journalist/politician.