Climate Change due to Global Warming – a hoax?

[flogger]

Human contributions are very significant. co2 up 33% in the last 200 years due to human activity

Prove it ?

to levels that aren't seen in records stretching back almost one million years.

BS

Solar variability measured by satellites over the last 30 years has been insignificant to explain to the warming seen.

BS x2

[Windguy]

Well two days ago a climatologist from Newcastle University had stated we are going through a cooler Summer than the last few years. It was due to extra clouding.

There ends Clouds being the only temperature moderating GHG out there. Cbacba you can still say it's Svensmark's theory (even though it is more likely La Nina) but you cannot say clouding can possibly explain our total temperature compared to a zero GHG planet the same distance away from the sun as you have said in this thread.

I knew another list was coming, that's the third or fourth time a list at such length has been produced and Flogger has ignored everyone of them. I like how Flogger resorts to BS when he has nothing to come back against it. Flogger it would be easier to jump to the AGW camp, since we don't need to be intelligent or a great story teller as we have science on our side, albeit boring science, but it works.

Cthulhu's comments have been explained quite a few times already and I don't think he needs to reprove his point for the umpteenth time.

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by flogger

Prove it ?

The rise from 280ppm to 380ppm
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...400kyr_Rev.png

Human co2 emissions in the last 250 years have been over 1100 billion tons (315 billion tons C x 3.6)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

If all of that had stayed in the atmosphere co2 would be even higher than 380ppm today!

Some of that co2 has been removed from the atmosphere, the only place it can go is natural sinks.

Clearly natural sources of co2 cannot have increased output in this time period so that nature was a net source, or again co2 would be even higher than 380ppm today.

BS

See first graph again:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...400kyr_Rev.png

Another ice core stretches back 800,000 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

Solar variability measured by satellites over the last 30 years has been insignificant to explain to the warming seen.

BS x2

Satellite composites show a few .% variation in solar irradiance in the last 30 years, not enough to explain the warming in this time (barely enough ot explain a few hundredth's of a degree change)
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

[cbacba]

Originally Posted by Windguy

Well two days ago a climatologist from Newcastle University had stated we are going through a cooler Summer than the last few years. It was due to extra clouding.

There ends Clouds being the only temperature moderating GHG out there. Cbacba you can still say it's Svensmark's theory (even though it is more likely La Nina) but you cannot say clouding can possibly explain our total temperature compared to a zero GHG planet the same distance away from the sun as you have said in this thread.

Hmmm, you mean the fact we just ended a fairly decent solar cycle and are in the minimum between cycles means that because we are seeing what would be expected from the CR cloud theory, the theory is negated? Also, what makes you think the la nina el nino effects aren't tied in with the solar cycle - albeit in a fashion that might not be the most simplistic fashion possibly conceived.

That brings to question your leap to claiming that clouds being the only temperature modifying ghg. Clouds have both warming and cooling effects, depending on where and when they exist and depending upon which type of cloud they tend to be. It would seem your understanding of them is almost as simplistic as the typical GCM.

I haven't said it's the only ghg or that ghgs have absolutely no effect. I did posit the notion that perhaps it could be the case or that clouds could even be far more important than ghgs - note that clouds are not water vapor but liquid and solid water not in vapor form.

I did mention that mars which has virtually no clouds or water vapor but has 40 times the number of molecules in the atmospheric column as earth seems to have virtually no effect from that co2 as compared to a body with no ghgs at that distance from the sun.

As with most things, our knowledge is far from complete and our understanding quite limited.

[flogger]

Cthulu wrote

Human co2 emissions in the last 250 years have been over 1100 billion tons (315 billion tons C x 3.6)

But thats still minute compared to natural emissions over the same period which are greater by a factor of around 400.

Heres something for you to ponder. Over the last 200 years there has been a 40% reduction in trees globally due to deforestation. Given that trees are by far the greatest remover of CO 2 from the atmosphere isnt it probable that we are looking in entirely the wrong place to explain rises in CO 2 ? Human emissions are atill minute compared to natural emissions annually. I doubt our 0.28% of CO2 (which itself in turn is a mere 3% of overall greenhouse gases) is having the climactic effects claimed for it. I simply cant square that with common sense frankly.

If all of that had stayed in the atmosphere co2 would be even higher than 380ppm today!

Given that we have an extremely poor understanding of oceanic emission and absorbtion of CO 2 viz solar variability etc thats difficult to sustain. This could just as easily be to blame.

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrati...lease20040802/

During the Carboniferous era its estimated that CO 2 reached 3000 ppm yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect indeed life thrived back then. Is there an 'ideal' CO 2 /Global Temperature we should be aiming for ?

Satellite composites show a few .% variation in solar irradiance in the last 30 years, not enough to explain the warming in this time (barely enough ot explain a few hundredth's of a degree change)
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

On the contrary I think Solar variability has been very much downplayed as a causational factor (see link) because it doesnt fit the theory of AGW.

This article does much to answer your claims and explain my great cynicism on this whole issue.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...11_science.pdf

And this explains our need to fear something. Global warming is just the latest in a long dreary catalogue of doom mongering. It seems to be part of the human condition that we have to create these fears for ourselves sadly.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

[bottleweb]

Originally Posted by cbacba

well bottleweb,

nice list of publications but I'm afraid that the study of a glacier and whether it is advancing or receding doesn't tell us whether it is anthropogenic in origin, although it might tell us the causes are not anthropogenic.

If you're refering to the Journal article by the International Journal of Remote Sensing, I suggest you read it before criticising. It's a little offensive when a list of credible publications which I have provided is written off by such a comment, which demonstrates that you haven't taken any time to look at the article at all.

What data provided by the article doesn't suggest AGW? Which method of collecting data showing a correlation between CO2 emissions and glacier recession is not valid? More importantly, what study suggests that the research documented in this particular report does not correlate warming to human CO2 emissions?

[bottleweb]

Originally Posted by flogger

Impressive lists are pretty meaningless without access to thier content.

Yes, which is why debates such as these are often so fruitless. The real debate is happening in the scientific community, where research is documented, correlated, peer reviewed and then used to initiate further research (or discredit prior studies). It's a slow and well documented process, but you need to read journals if you really want to see what is going on.

Quoting figures and web sites which may once have started as research - but have now been filtered through opinion, exaggeration and miscommunication - is totally pointless. It's happening on both sides. There is a lot of paranoia about global warming, and it's been blown out of proportion ever since the research started, but at the same time we have so many people denying completely credible research based on websites and online 'graphs' which 'disprove' AGW theory. It's very frustrating to see, and it's a shame that journals are not freely available sometimes.

[icareforyou]

An relevant and interesting article appeared in one of the newspapers authored by Kenneth Chang (NYT News service). One of the paragraphs is reproduced here:

Heat from a valcano could still be melting ice and contributing to the thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island Glacier. Most glaciologists say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause. In Antartica the scientists have seen for the first time a valcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet.

Melting of glaciers thus be due to the geothermal energy from the buried volcano released directly through ice sheets or via raising of temperature of ocean water.

http://icareforyou2007.blogspot.com

[flogger]

There is a lot of paranoia about global warming, and it's been blown out of proportion ever since the research started, but at the same time we have so many people denying completely credible research based on websites and online 'graphs' which 'disprove' AGW theory.

Theres credible research on both sides, but in the media only one ever gets airtime. Why is that ? Given that it seems a whole lot easier to find online research disproving AGW than proving it I cant square that circle at all.

On the CO2 front stating that we need to save the planet from it is such an emotive issue and one that people will obviously want to rally round. Its just a pity that few people are really prepared to ask the question does it really need saving ?

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by flogger

Cthulu wrote

But thats still minute compared to natural emissions over the same period which are greater by a factor of around 400.

It's simply an accounting issue, net natural contribution is an unknown variable but can be calculated from the two knowns.

Net Human contribution: +1100
Net Natural contribution: X
Increase observed: +600

600 = 1100 + X

Net natural contribution must be -500 to account for the rise.

Additionally if we remove net human contribution we get no increase. Ie the increase is caused by the human contribution.

Heres something for you to ponder. Over the last 200 years there has been a 40% reduction in trees globally due to deforestation. Given that trees are by far the greatest remover of CO2 from the atmosphere isnt it probable that we are looking in entirely the wrong place to explain rises in CO2? Human emissions are atill minute compared to natural emissions annually. I doubt our 0.28% of CO2 (which itself in turn is a mere 3% of overall greenhouse gases) is having the climactic effects claimed for it. I simply cant square that with common sense frankly.

Land use change is included as part of annual human co2 emissions. Each year human activity emits about 28 billion tons. co2 in the atmosphere only rises about 15 billion tons per year. It's easily explained as due to the emission of human co2.

In contrast how else can it be explained? That 28 billion tons has to go somewhere. Nature would have to be specially removing the 28 billion tons of human emissions into the atmosphere (exclusively because it's human emitted - of course in reality nature cannot know the source), while simultaneously replacing it with 15 billion tons of it's own.

Given that we have an extremely poor understanding of oceanic emission and absorbtion of CO 2 viz solar variability etc thats difficult to sustain. This could just as easily be to blame.

The sharp rise in co2, as well as the timing matching up with the co2 emission history (even matching up with the emission slowdown in years following the collapse of the soviet union) are strong signs that the co2 rise is not natural. There are other signs too, and that's asside from the accounting issue above. In my opinion it's very much beyond doubt that the recent co2 rise is human caused, and nature's only role here over the last 100 years has been one of absorbing co2 from the atmosphere as presently the amount in the atmosphere is way above the equillibrium level at which co2 would be maintained in the current climate.

During the Carboniferous era its estimated that CO 2 reached 3000 ppm yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect indeed life thrived back then. Is there an 'ideal' CO 2 /Global Temperature we should be aiming for ?

In distant time Earth might as well be a different planet with differnet continental configurations and different climate anyway. So I wouldn't expect it to match up with today's. Also enhanced historical greenhouse effect is one of the resolutions to the faint sun paradox.

On the contrary I think Solar variability has been very much downplayed as a causational factor (see link) because it doesnt fit the theory of AGW.

The link you posted first says:
"However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years"

This article does much to answer your claims and explain my great cynicism on this whole issue.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...11_science.pdf

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but at a quick glance it looks like a rehash of a lot of common arguments I have seen answered before.