Global Warming

[Michaelo]

Before you can lay claim to man-made anything, you need to show what changes occurred in the past in order to show why this change is somehow different.

I’ve already touched on this, but I will try to be more thorough. Also, I will continue to quote directly from sources so that I don’t lose anything in translation.

With regards to past climate changes caused by natural factors:

Causes of Change Prior to the Industrial Era (pre-1780)

Known causes, “drivers” or “forcings” of past climate change include:

* **Changes in the Earth's orbit**: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
* **Changes in the sun's intensity**: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)
* **Volcanic eruptions**: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
      o Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1816 as “the year without a summer.”
      o Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

source

And for more detail on each of these drivers…

1. Changes in Earth’s orbit:

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth’s ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

source

 

[Michaelo]

1. Changes in solar output:

The sun goes through roughly an 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back again. Solar activity often occurs near sunspots, dark regions on the sun caused by concentrated magnetic fields. The solar irradiance measurement is much higher during solar maximum, when sunspot cycle and solar activity is high, versus solar minimum, when the sun is quiet and there are usually no sunspots.

“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum,” said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”

Using SORCE, scientists have learned that about 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere during the sun’s quietest period. But when the sun is active, 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy reaches Earth. “This TSI measurement is very important to climate models that are trying to assess Earth-based forces on climate change,” said Cahalan.

Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth’s climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.

“Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth,” Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.

source

1. Volcanic eruptions:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities:

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

source

 

[Michaelo]

Talking about vague as though the 18,000 is the pillar of accuracy.

I for one demand proof that the last ice age ended 18,000 years ago and not 18,001 years ago.

And I also would like to know if it occurred in late afternoon or early morning.

Notice how I said it was about 18,000 years ago. Plus, the discrepancies you bring up are far more trivial than the identities of “nobody,” “some,” and “others” who allegedly are still fiercely debating the issue.

 

[Calliso]

Scientist is a very broad term. Exactly which fields do these 31,000 work in ? What are their credentials? What was your artical about? Who wrote the artical? Are you able to link to this artical?

I would also like to ask the question. Do you believe that our climate is currently changing? I think most of the posters on this thread agree that we are experiencing a climate shift. The disagreement comes weather its man made or its the natural cycle of the earth.

Please post a little more detail about your side of the argument. I am definatly intrested in why you think the way that you do.

I am not sure if he has…but I will oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf seems to be the right one

A few different looks at the survey

chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/

moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-1.html

moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html

skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html

And this article also includes links to the above articles and more links as well.

greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/

Long story short doesn;t seem too impressive to me. And yeah qualifications do matter. And it seems much of the signers aren;t even scientists! Much less ones that have expertise in climate science!

 

[Calliso]

About the global cooling thing again. As I understand it yes there was a period of cooling or of no warming for a couple decades or so this century. But as I understand it there unlike many skeptics would mislead people to believe there was not a ton of scientists no concensus or majority claiming that the cooling would be long term and that we would likely be heading into an ice age. And that since they were wrong about the whole long term cooling thing/ iceage we shouldn;t believe what they say about climate change/global warming now* But as the post and study linked to showed the idea that is nothing more then a myth. And that most either predicted warming over the long term or were neutral.

But yes there was cooling. in the middle of the century but once again the idea that scientists thought we were heading into an ice age or that the cooling would continue over the long term is false. I donlt know how I could make this clearer. Here is a direct link to the study by the way. ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf I should also note that the study specifically only looked at studies in a certain timeframe because the myth refers to the 1970’s. So in other words it wouldn;t make much sense to see what people were saying in the 50’s or the 80’s or the 90’s or so on.

Oh and actually I donlt use google at all really. I had seen that article before on realclimate a blog on climate science by climate scientists or those in related fields. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

As for the media…the media in general is all too often a bad source for science. Personally though I have seen the media support both the skeptics side and the warmists side. Course certain newspapers or other media sources often tend to lean towards one side or another. And some seem to try to provide a balanced view. Of course the fact that the media often doesn;t report the science accurately doesn;t mean the science isn;t accurate. It just means the media is often inaccurate. Which is unfortunate really because for many people their primary source of information is the media…so when they get all sorts on conflicting articles articles that are poorly written and misrepresent the science and what not well it’;s probably more then a little confusing.

 

[Michaelo]

So which is it? Was there a global cooling problem or not?

No, there wasn’t. Because aerosols have short residence times, as opposed to long ones for greenhouse gases, they only produce short-term cooling, so logically the majority of those scientific articles predicted future warming.

If there wasn’t, then how did our beloved government policies FIX that problem if it never really existed?? Does that mean that the government took action on something that wasn’t a problem?

You incorrectly assume that global cooling was the impetus for government action. Policies were implemented to reduce the atmospheric concentration of aerosols not out of fear of global cooling but rather to eliminate the adverse health effects associated with the emissions.

source

 

[Calliso]

No, there wasn’t. Because aerosols have short residence times, as opposed to long ones for greenhouse gases, they only produce short-term cooling, so logically the majority of those scientific articles predicted future warming.

You incorrectly assume that global cooling was the impetus for government action. Policies were implemented to reduce the atmospheric concentration of aerosols not out of fear of global cooling but rather to eliminate the adverse health effects associated with the emissions.

source

Thanks I think you explained it better then I did. I admit that whole 1970’s global cooling concensus myth has come up more then once this discussion and after awhile it gets old debunking it if you know what I mean!

 

[Oscarthecat]

I admit that whole 1970’s global cooling concensus myth has come up more then once this discussion and after awhile it gets old debunking it if you know what I mean!

I feel exactly the same way about all of the man made climate change myths.

This perpetual game of Environmentalist Whack-a-Mole gets very old, indeed.

 

[Michaelo]

I feel exactly the same way about all of the man made climate change myths.

Myths? Another bold claim with no substantiation…

 

[Calliso]

Myths? Another bold claim with no substantiation…

That seems to be alsmost the norm though doesn;t it? That we see very little actual solid science from the skeptic side here?

 

[Valke2]

Science unfortunately favors the fact of man’s influence on climatre change. Politics and special interests favor the skeptics.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Science unfortunately favors the fact of man’s influence on climatre change. Politics and special interests favor the skeptics.

As I’ve said before, human beings have been afraid of the weather turning against them for as far back as we have records.

The modern incarnation climate change anxiety is driven by the same instinct that motivated human beings to shoot arrows at clouds thousands of years ago.

The only difference is that Al Gore and GE are selling the arrows now.

Anyway, good luck shooting at those clouds- I really do wish you all the best of luck.

All I ask, and all I’ve ever asked, is that you don’t steal from me to buy your arrows.

 

[Michaelo]

Anyway, good luck shooting at those clouds- I really do wish you all the best of luck.

So have you conceded that humans are responsible for much of the recent climate change?

 

[vz71]

Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change

I had to hit this again because it apparently it is so ridiculous that some need to keep quoting from it without question.

Please clarify for us all, a century ago they were able to get a global temperature to within a tenth of a degree…how? Using what instruments? How did they achieve this accuracy? How many temperature samples were taken? Where were the samples taken from?

My 7 year old is learning a great deal about the simple question…“how do they know this?”
All to often, the answer is they can’t and do not. Information is simple being pulled out of their rear ends and the hope that no one will question them.

I asked all of those questions earlier in the thread, and still await an answer.
How is it that scientists of the time were able to come up with a global temperature accurate to tenths of a degree?

 

[Valke2]

As I’ve said before, human beings have been afraid of the weather turning against them for as far back as we have records.

That’s interesting. It doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific conclusions regarding global warming. But it is interesting.

The modern incarnation climate change anxiety is driven by the same instinct that motivated human beings to shoot arrows at clouds thousands of years ago.

You have no scientific data to back up that opinion.

The only difference is that Al Gore and GE are selling the arrows now.

Really? What does this have to do with Global Warming?

As I said in my previous post…

 

[a_burger]

Saying there ae 31000 real scientists will get you in trouble. You must be in touch with the UN scientists. If the people who run this post believe in Al Gore that is fine. I will believe in what Jesus says. This is my last post.

 

[Valke2]

Saying there ae 31000 real scientists will get you in trouble. You must be in touch with the UN scientists. If the people who run this post believe in Al Gore that is fine. I will believe in what Jesus says. This is my last post.

Jesus said something about your 31,000 scientists?

 

[Squishy]

Saying there ae 31000 real scientists will get you in trouble. You must be in touch with the UN scientists. If the people who run this post believe in Al Gore that is fine. I will believe in what Jesus says. This is my last post.

Their is nothing wrong with what you have been saying. The problem is it has been very little. Making the claims that you did piqued my intrest. I would have loved to know who all the scientists where. I would have also liked to read the artical that you said was intresting. As regarding Al Gore hes a poster boy nothing else. Its not him most people listen to. Its the scare mongering that goes on in the media that most people pay attention to.

You have said many times that you will listen to what jesus said. But I do not think you can relate the current climate change to anything ‘biblical’ But then i guess it depends on interpretation. If you gave a bit more detail in your posts we could start up a discussion. Then perhaps I could understand where you stand and why.

If you would could you at leaste post some more information about the artical that you read.

 

[Valke2]

One thing I do fear is the brain dead minimizing the wrath in the end days. Jesus promised us weather like no man has ever seen. It is in the book of Matthew. No person who calls themselves a Christian should be involved in this scam. We are ambassadors of Jesus Christ. What’s happens when this scam is totally exposed. Even the president of the EU was in NY City addressing the hoax. Are they going to believe you about Jesus or are they going to say those Catholics were involved in the global warming scam?

What to do? Martin Luther died saying the rosary. We need every one who calls themselves an apostolic Christian to pray the rosary. Remember the Jesuit priests who were eight blocks away from ground zero in Hiroshima. Not one of them were injured. Get your mind out of the Al Gore gutter and raise your mind to Christ.

For those of you who care Newt Gingrich has converted to Catholicism. If you’re NOT get HOT for Jesus. Don’t get spit out of his moth.

Keep praying. Just keep installing those solar panels while you pray. Like the Pope. If you think addressing global warming makes one brain dead, go talk to the Vatican.

 

[Calliso]

Their is nothing wrong with what you have been saying. The problem is it has been very little. Making the claims that you did piqued my intrest. I would have loved to know who all the scientists where. I would have also liked to read the artical that you said was intresting. As regarding Al Gore hes a poster boy nothing else. Its not him most people listen to. Its the scare mongering that goes on in the media that most people pay attention to.

You have said many times that you will listen to what jesus said. But I do not think you can relate the current climate change to anything ‘biblical’ But then i guess it depends on interpretation. If you gave a bit more detail in your posts we could start up a discussion. Then perhaps I could understand where you stand and why.

If you would could you at leaste post some more information about the artical that you read.

I know this is not directed towards me but I made a post with info on that article/petition going to copy and paste it again here.

I am not sure if he has…but I will oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf seems to be the right one

A few different looks at the survey

chriscolose.wordpress.com/200…l-a-consensus/

moregrumbinescience.blogspot…te-part-1.html

moregrumbinescience.blogspot…te-part-2.html

skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html

And this article also includes links to the above articles and more links as well.

greenfyre.wordpress.com/denie…egon-petition/

Long story short doesn;t seem too impressive to me. And yeah qualifications do matter. And it seems much of the signers aren;t even scientists! Much less ones that have expertise in climate science or other relevant fields.