Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Originally posted by Bicnarok
the scale of that chart is VERY misleading.
Given the average rise in temperature in the past 100 years is 0.5 degrees, the Y axis on that chart has been deliberately extended to flatten this effect.
If we charted only the values between 16 and 18, the way it should be, you would see (and can actually see from this graph anyways) a dramatic increase in temperature beginning in the 70s.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Is global warming still happening?Skeptical Argument:"Global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable."
What science says: Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.
...
To say we're currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.
A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? Figure 1 shows the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown sliver of "land + atmosphere" also includes the heat absorbed to melt ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.
In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.
Figure 1 also underscores just how much global warming the planet is experiencing. Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
How do we find out what's happened from 2003 until now? Unfortunately, there is no time series (that I know of) of the planet's total heat content up to present time. However, we do have the next best thing. Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 (Schuckmann 2009) analyses ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, constructing a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres. This is significantly deeper than other recent papers that focus on upper ocean heat, only going down to 700 metres. They constructed the following time series of global ocean heat:
Figure 2: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
Globally, the oceans continued to accumulate heat right to the end of 2008. Over the last 5 years, the oceans have been absorbing heat at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2. Combined with the results of Murphy 2009, we now see a picture of continued global warming.
How does this value compare to other estimates of energy imbalance? Willis 2004 combines satellite altimetry with ocean heat measurements to find an ocean warming rate of 0.85 ± 0.12 Wm−2 from 1993 to 2003. Hansen 2005, using ocean heat data, calculated the planet's energy imbalance in 2003 to be 0.85 ± 0.15 Wm−2. Trenberth 2009 examined satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation for the March 2000 to May 2004 period and found the planet accumulating energy at a rate of 0.9 ± 0.15 Wm−2.
These results all find broad agreement and all find a statistically significant positive energy imbalance. Our climate is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Sunspots probably don´t cause global warming, unless the magnetic structure influences it some way, but the Solar cycle does change and effect the earth FACT!!!
nobody has ever contended that fact. Frankly, until the 50s, a model based on solar activity does best fit the data, it is only since the 70s that anthropogenic CO2 dominates.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Bingo. And in that, you've captured what I was really getting at, earlier.I could browse that shit site that rages on and on about this anti-human caused global warming, even go to another cite that focuses much more on the science of it (but, I got tired of the shit slinging attempts every five sentences), and then find you lots and lots of academic sources (other than the 2 I gave you about the sun being the primary cause of global warming, in another thread), but is it REALLY necessary? What will it accomplish?
Fact: Most of the current (last 100 years) temperature increase occurred before 1940.
If you don't believe that there is just so much bullshit being placed on global warming, and the "man-made" portion of it, here's the damn list:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Also, the temperature changes and parameters is "rather modest, and certainly adaptable to."
I'd like to see some of the work he and his colleagues come up. No doubt, it would have to be peer-reviewed and found sound or else he would be out of a job.
I would say that co2science is a more objective source of information than either skepticalscience or globalwarminghoax...as far as global warming caused by humans is concerned. I just stumbled across it, looking for peer-reviewed material about global warming. It's got a lot of "no-nonsense" articles.
look, here is my take on it
about objectivity: I don't even care about this argument. It is impossible for anything to ever be objective, and what you define as objective is based upon the beliefs you hold prior to encountering the information, not after. For instance, it is because you think there is a valid scientific controversy that you think sources that incorporate such a controversy are more objective, not the other way around.
If you look at something like the "anti-darwin" crowd, it is their specific "wedge" strategy to make people believe not that creationism is correct, but rather that there is a valid controversy between the two ideas. It is the exact same here: The consensus among scientists who work in fields relevant to climate is astounding, and the lists of so-called-experts who question anthropogenic global warming, when not full of entirely invented individuals, is normally full of lobbyists, meteorologists and other people who really don't have the credibility to speak on the matter with any authority.
Further, when you look at the science itself, for the past 20-30 years there are incontrovertible documents showing that political and corporate interests involved in stifling research that showed man's impact on the world. Scientifically, it was known in the late 80s that man was impacting the arctic and antarctic regions in a very negative manner, but this has been attacked by those with vested political and financial interests, and a "controversy" has been created in the media and in the minds of the non-scientific public.
With a couple of exceptions, the "skeptic" crowd does not have a model of global climate. Largely, the arguments against anthropogenic warming come as anomalies or items that don't instantly make sense under the warming paradigm. So, if we look at this from a philosophy of science standpoint, we see how weak they actually are.
For instance: Scientific theories are conceptualized as containing a "core" idea from which research is generated, then layers of facts and findings that support the theory. These facts can be altered significantly without the core needing to change. So, if we use the "no warming seen from satelites" fact, we see that it does call into question some of the predictions from the core "man is making the world hotter" theory, but it really doesn't assail it in a significant way.
Why is this? Well, first, the data is not a competing theory, but would be a fact surrounding the theory "it isn't warming". If we compare the "its warming because of man" and "its not warming" theories, it becomes obvious that the satellite data is likely anomalous and needs to be explained in the context of "man made warming" rather than needing to redefine the entirety of evidence that shows a warming trend. This is largely based on Occam's Razor, but there is another issue too. You posted data that showed a link between climate and CO2, and you have never argued that CO2 did not drive climate. So, if we accept that the world isn't warming, WTF? CO2 is higher, therefore it should be warming. Redefining all the theories relating to CO2 and climate is MUCH less desirable than reinterpreting the satellite data as representing a measurement error, which a good argument can be made for anyways. In the tradition of Kuhn, it could be said that the current zeitgeist is not challenged enough by opposing fact to require a revolution.
So, aside from these "anomalies", there are some actual models that are competing with man made warming in the public sphere (as none represent any real consensus in the scientific community). The first is that it is the sun, which has been shown to be false. The second is that the world isn't warming, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of the data, and finally, that man couldn't be producing enough CO2 to effect the planet, which is, again, false.
If Earth is ''heating up'' or ''cooling down'' it is not because we're causing it (with barely 200 years of industry, versus Earth's 5.4 billion years of existence through absolute extreme atmospheric and natural changes), it is Earth merely getting rid of us - the self centred, self important egocentric arrogant pests, that humans are.
Look at us, we're going to change Earth somehow, cos we're that powerful, that amazing and that knowledgeable on anything and everything about this planet.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If Earth is ''heating up'' or ''cooling down'' it is not because we're causing it (with barely 200 years of industry, versus Earth's 5.4 billion years of existence through absolute extreme atmospheric and natural changes), it is Earth merely getting rid of us - the self centred, self important egocentric arrogant pests, that humans are.Look at us, we're going to change Earth somehow, cos we're that powerful, that amazing and that knowledgeable on anything and everything about this planet.
We've already produced dozens of brand new ecosystems (even before industry). Intentionally created new species of plants and animals (also before industry). Increased the acidity of the worlds oceans. Created an island of trash larger than most US states. Accidentally caused the total destruction of several species. Intentionally caused the total destruction of several species. And so on.
There's no way to dispute the idea that humans have long since altered the Earth in many different ways though you could argue that it won't necessarily kill us.
Originally posted by BackFire
Doesn't matter. We'll nuke ourselves into oblivion before we slowly heat up the world anyways.Also, zombies.
Good point🙂 rather go in style than die of a sun tan.
What amuses me is that all those people (and its a lot of people) ,have traveled to this Copenhagen global warming meeting which is going on, in doing so spewed more crap into the atmosphere by traveling there in the first place (mostly be airplane), and arn´t going to achieve anything, now how pathetic is that?? 😱 😆
Another thing I´d like to know, all those protesters are mentioned on the news, but what they are protesting about is never mentioned, does anyone know?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We've already produced dozens of brand new ecosystems (even before industry). Intentionally created new species of plants and animals (also before industry). Increased the acidity of the worlds oceans. Created an island of trash larger than most US states. Accidentally caused the total destruction of several species. Intentionally caused the total destruction of several species. And so on.There's no way to dispute the idea that humans have long since altered the Earth in many different ways though you could argue that it won't necessarily kill us.
I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.
Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.
To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.
Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.
single celled organisms, cyanobacteria, are thought to be responsible for one of the greatest changes in Earth's climate: The abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Organisms of all shapes and sizes effect the planet, and the data is there to show we are driving climate change today.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.
To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.
Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''.
Yeah. I agree. I read somewhere that humans contributed like .6% to global warming.
inimalist, I started typing a response to your post. It's on my laptop. Your post was almost a tl:dr for me, but I only have one more final and then I'm free for a month.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah. I agree. I read somewhere that humans contributed like .6% to global warming.
I know you don't trust the source, but:
How do Human CO2 Emissions Compare to Natural CO2 Emissions?The Skeptical Argument: The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce.
What the Science Says: The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.
...
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
The carbon cycle
Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.
Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.
Figure 1: Carbon dioxide sources and sinks (source: New Scientist)
Human CO2 emissions
As for human CO2 emissions, about 40% is being absorbed, mostly by the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,000 years (Brook 2008). A natural change of 100ppm takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Carbon isotopes - the human "fingerprint"
How can we know the rising CO2 levels are due to human activity? The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). Image courtesy of Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.
The ocean's diminishing ability to absorb CO2
While the ocean absorbs around half of human CO2 emissions, empirical observations reveal the oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2.
* Quéré 2007 found that the Southern Ocean has reached its saturation point, diminishing its ability to absorb more CO2.
* Schuster 2007 found that CO2 absorption by the North Atlantic has dropped even more dramatically, halving over the past decade.
* Park 2008 found a sudden, considerable reduction in the recent uptake of CO2 in the East/Japan Sea.If this trend continues, it potentially leads to a positive feedback where the oceans take up less CO2 leading to CO2 rising faster in the atmosphere leading to increased global warming.
Originally posted by dadudemon
inimalist, I started typing a response to your post. It's on my laptop. Your post was almost a tl:dr for me, but I only have one more final and then I'm free for a month.
cool, have at it
Originally posted by lil bitchinessI think that is a misunderstanding of what people mean when they say that. They mean we will destroy ourselves by changing the climate. Not that we destroy earth, earth should be fine for the about the next 5 billion years.
I am not saying we have no impact, I am saying that impact we have, is greatly, an I mean greatly overexaggerated.Earth has gone through 4 ice ages, catastrophic earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, meteoric extinction of species and so on and so on.
Just think everime someone says "Help save earth" they actually mean to add "for us humans".
To think that we will actually destroy it, after we evolved from single cell organisms and now are so arrogant to think we have such amazing power to kill off this planet is just ridiculous.
Au contraire, if anything or anyone is going to be destroyed or killed, it us humans. And at Earth's wish. And not because we have managed to ''destroy earth and therefore all human kind with it''.
So much for Copenhagen...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091223/ap_on_sc/climate_2
UN climate chief urges avoiding blame over summitAMSTERDAM – The top U.N. climate official said Wednesday that though the Copenhagen global warming summit went sour, countries should avoid blaming each other and get down to work on a better deal next year.
Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. climate change secretariat, also said it could take months before poor countries begin receiving billions of dollars in emergency funds to adapt to climate change and begin controlling their emissions of greenhouse gases.
A $30 billion fund over the next three years, scaling up to $100 billion a year by 2020, was a key element of the deal brokered by President Barack Obama with the leaders of China and other major developing countries at the 193-nation conference that ended last weekend.
But the brief Copenhagen Accord was vague about how the 2010-2012 money would be raised or handled, specifying only that it comes from "new and additional resources" rather than existing aid packages.
"I do not see that funding being disbursed until we have decisions on how that money is to be managed and what it is to be for," de Boer told The Associated Press. That cannot happen until another round of U.N. negotiations, which so far is not due until next June. Extra meetings could be scheduled before then, however.
The Copenhagen deal was negotiated in marathon closed-door sessions during the final day of the two-week conference among a select group of less than 30 countries. The three-page document was "noted" by the full conference after five countries blocked its formal adoption by consensus.
Since then, several countries at the center of the bargaining have distanced themselves from the accord.
The Swedish environment minister, speaking for the European Union, called the conference "a disaster." Britain accused China of vetoing the inclusion of specific emissions targets. China, dismissing Britain's charge of "hijacking" the conference, accused London of fomenting discord among developing nations. South Africa said the failure to produce a legally binding agreement was unacceptable. Brazil criticized the funding for developing countries as inadequate.
"I don't think we are benefited by countries pointing fingers at each other," de Boer said in a telephone interview from London. "The same countries will have to sit down together at the negotiating table next year, and it's better that they do that in a good atmosphere without recrimination."
In an earlier interview with BBC television, de Boer said countries had to work together.
"Yes, things may have gone sour in Copenhagen. Giving each other the blame for that is not going to help," he said.
Critics suggest the U.N. format involving virtually every country on the planet is a formula for deadlock.
De Boer rejected the idea of abandoning the cumbersome U.N. negotiations, which made limited progress on technical questions but failed to crack the tough political issues: setting legally binding emission targets for industrial countries, formalizing commitments by developing countries to restrain emissions growth, and the legal nature of the final agreement that is to be concluded next year.
"In the climate change process decisions are taken by consensus. If you want to change that you need a consensus decision. I don't think that is going to happen," he told AP.
He said the problem in Copenhagen was the result of a deal struck at the last minute by a small group of nations that left no time for the others to assess it and buy into it.
Alongside formal U.N. negotiations, Obama created a parallel track of informal talks among the world's biggest polluters called the Major Economies Forum. Yet another set of informal meetings — Denmark-sponsored retreats for a few dozen world leaders known as the Greenland Dialogue — also sought to tackle the core issues.
De Boer said those informal gatherings were valuable, but the lesson of Copenhagen was that "at the end of the day everything has to be brought back to the formal negotiating table" where all states can influence the outcome.
Save the whales libs....the japs will keep on killing them.