Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Yobarnacle · Feb 29, 2012

Boston said: ↑

I can't help but notice that the issue isn't one of relevance but one of simple credibility. Making one wildly inaccurate claim after another has nothing to do with relevance.

It also might be important to note that if a student in a math class insisted that 1+1=3 and demanded that his opinion receive its fair share of "tolerance" then it might be fair to say that student would most likely fail the class, miserably.
I see little difference in your wild claims that have absolutely no basis in the science and the students claims that 1+1=3. Neither have the credibility to be worthy of debate. Although ensuring that the other students in the group are not confused by the one students inability to grasp the concepts would be in order.

Thus its important to make the errors in your logic clear to our readers.

Once again there is no debate, the science is quite clear on this. What is worthy of effort is to counter the oil and gas industries disinformation campaign. Easily enough done except for one truism

You aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

I guess its easier to believe its not happening that it is to admit it is and something needs to be done about it.
Click to expand...

Boston
The very next time you post this tone, I'll ignore you forever! Your LAST CHANCE!

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

Yobarnacle said: ↑

co2 level is not relevant, does not drive climate change, man made co2 is less than 1 % of annual co2 emissions,CO2 as a causal factor is a wildly erroneous claim as you accuse others of, is rejected by many climate scientists in important positions in important universities as I've documented before.
higher CO2 lagged some hundreds of years behind higher temperatures throughout the eons. The baby can't create the parent. It's very very bad science Boston! Bad logic.
here is global warmings refutation.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

They admit CO2 lags temperature, admit don't know why, and still contend doesn't matter, obstinate that CO2 drive climate!

BAD SCIENCE!
Click to expand...

yikes

Again a storm of unsupported wildly inaccurate claims. Where to even begin.

OK so first wild claim about CO2
Discovered to be a greenhouse gas in the early 1800s is the byproduct of combustion. The only remaining element of the equation is whats being combusted. if you would actually read the previous posts you'll find that 80% of our present energy consumption is made up of fossil fuels. Wild claim number one, busted. CO2 is our most prevalent greenhouse gas and the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is easily traced through mas isotopic analysis ( again see previous ) to the burning of fossil fuels.

Second wild claim
CO2 doesn't drive climate change; again, yikes, where in the world do you come up with that. Every first year science student takes a basic chemistry class. CO2 was one of the first gasses discovered and its properties are extremely well understood. CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas and any alteration is the concentrations of it in the atmosphere must effect the radiative properties of that atmosphere. Its about as basic as basic gets.

Third wild claim
Man made CO2 is 1% of the annual average. The correct number is ~30% of the total atmospheric CO2. No sense glossing this huge increase over with anything but the grim truth.

forth wild claim
That many climate scientists reject the causal relationship between CO2 and climate shift. The correct number is something less than 3%. Given that the official consensus numbers among climate scientists are 97% agreement with the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift.

That last half truth
yes for some time it was not understood why CO2 looked like it lagged temp in the ice core data, the article you quote is 6 years old if I remember. However it is now understood that ice permeability varies dramatically and that variability is well within the lag found. As I have mentioned before in previous posts CO2s lagging temp is a function of ice permeability if you were to study the issue, you would find that the variability in the ice cores between the age of the ice and the age of the atmosphere locked inside is as much as 7k years. Well within range of variation. This is an issue that has been addressed recently and is easily found within the literature. If you read back through my postings you will find I went over this in detail with you ages ago. As usual, you aint going to learn, what you don't want to know.

In any case since we're quoting realclimate lets just include the entire section you cherry picked that last from

In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.

A final point. In Barton’s criticism of Gore he also points out that CO2 has sometimes been much higher than it is at present. That is true. CO2 may have reached levels of 1000 parts per million (ppm) — perhaps much higher — at times in the distant geological past (e.g. the Eocene, about 55 million years ago). What Barton doesn’t bother to mention is that the earth was much much warmer at such times. In any case, more relevant is that CO2 has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities.
Click to expand...

So once again the wildly inacurate claims punctuated with half truths and confusion is something that simply demands correction in no uncertain terms if we are to end this petty bickering brought about by a misinformation campaign hell bent on delaying positive action until its to late, and our childrens futures are lost to a run away greenhouse effect.

We must act and we must act now
lest we induce the next and greatest extinction
our own.

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

Yobarnacle said: ↑

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

Do you believe NOAA knows the weather better than global warmers? I do.

quote
" We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 3). In addition, a new study by Landsea et al. (2010) notes that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. In short, the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
Click to expand...

again your grabbing one sound bite and not understanding the big picture. This following review of the 06 conference of meteorologists makes it clear the dissension in the ranks as to whether hurricane season and intensity is increasing or dramatically increasing. But there is no real debate that its increasing. Also the record shows your man at the NOAA to be one of the contrarians. One of the 3% you mentioned earlier.

Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?
In September 2005, a paper published in Science magazine reported that worldwide, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had increased 80% in the past 30 years. The paper, (Webster et al., 2005), titled "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment", linked the rise in storms to increasing sea surface temperatures and concluded that "global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes." The authors, led by Dr. Peter Webster of Georgia Tech and Dr. Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argued that this was consistent with climate models that have predicted a future increase in frequency of the most intense hurricanes due to human-emitted greenhouse gases. This paper, along with another paper published in August, "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the past 30 years", by Dr. Kerry Emanuel of MIT, showing an increase in hurricane power and longevity in recent years, created a huge stir in the media. However, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the hurricane intensity data used by both papers, and their findings should be considered as preliminary evidence that the global incidence of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes may be increasing. There are good reasons to believe that the actual increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes is far lower than the 80% increase found by Webster et al.

Figure 1. Dr. Chris Landsea (right) and Dr. Greg Holland (left) presented their papers on the hurricane/global warming controversy at a January 31, 2006 session of the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society. The standing-room only crowd was treated to a clash of opinions about whether hurricane intensity is being affected by global warming.

Other hurricane scientists disagree
The papers by Webster et al. and Emanuel have created considerable controversy in the hurricane science community. Many hurricane scientists disagree with the new results, and have disputed them in new papers submitted for publication. I will examine the arguments of three of these scientists here. Keep in mind that the Webster et al. paper went through peer review--it was revised based on the recommendations of at least two anonymous reviewers who read the paper before publication. The arguments of the other scientists disputing the paper have not been subject to peer review, and may have more errors or omissions than peer-reviewed work would have. The three scientists are:

Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University, who is famous for his successful long-range hurricane predictions and nearly 50 years of hurricane research and forecasting, submitted his critique to Science for publication, but the journal rejected it, since the document had already been published (on Dr. Gray's web site). Journals typically do not publish material that has been published elsewhere. In his abstract, Dr. Gray says: "I do not agree that global Category 4-5 tropical cyclone activity has been rising, except in the Atlantic over the last 11 years. The recent Atlantic upsurge has explanations other than global temperature rise".

Dr. Chris Landsea, Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center, chaired a standing-room only session exploring the hurricanes/global warming connection at the 2006 meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). He presented a talk with additional evidence supporting Dr. Gray's position.

Dr. John Knaff, a hurricane researcher at the NOAA/Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere Colorado State University, has performed an extensive re-analysis of Northwest Pacific typhoons, and questions the intensity estimates used by Webster et al. for typhoons during the period 1966-1987. His paper, "Reexamination of Tropical Cyclone Wind-Pressure Relationships" has been accepted for publication to Weather and Forecasting, and will probably be published in late 2006.
Click to expand...

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

Looks like I missed that last concerning my tone. I'm completely within the bounds of civility to correct false or misleading statements concerning an issue so incredibly important as to effect the very future of all mankind. We either act now and effectively or enter into a period of run away greenhouse effect which has in every case, historically resulted in mass extinction. The short term issues are how does Global Climate Shift effect our inclinations towards use of the oceans. The long term issues are how do we even survive this at all. At no point in the historical record have changes in the atmospheric chemistry ever occurred this rapidly and not resulted in a mass extinction lasting millions of years.

I'd say the importance of trying to get the message across accurately and forthrightly is far more important than any single persons misperception of my tone. I've been clear and concise and yes, I've laughed a little in this latest exchange some to. Although I did switch from simply laughing my *** off at the wildly inaccurate claims made in a previous exchange to actually addressing them in this one. What can I say, I gotta mix it up a little, just to kinda keep my mind alive. Repeating myself over and over gets kinda old, so forgive me if I try getting the message across a little differently each time.

cheers
B

PS
You gotta admit
you do come up with some real whoppers
co2 level is not relevant, does not drive climate change
sorry but I got a real bang out of that one.

Yobarnacle · Feb 29, 2012

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Boston
Your post in 1780 shows scary pie charts of insignificant percentages. Total CO2 % in atmosphere is 39/thousandths of 1%. Of that minute fraction of a 1%, 97 % is natural emmissions and only 3 % is manmade. And CO2 is not even a strong greenouse effect gas! Water vapor is much more powerfull as greenhouse and is an almost negligible manmade water vapor % compared to natural causes.

The planet, it's peoples, it's governments are seeking new and renewable energy sources. We even admit there is a small if unlikely chance the dire predictions of global warmest models may occurr. I'm attempting to build a small energy efficient live aboard yacht.

You would better serve the forum and your fellow members, and yourself, if in this thread, you resigned your self appointed role as teacher.

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

not sure I like that tone

sorry but again with the wild claims about CO2. Care to explain exactly where you got your numbers from

CO2 is aprox 60% of the total greenhouse gas concentration
30% of that is the direct result of human activities

means that 2/3 is natural and 1/3 is manmade.

I know your really struggling with it but thems the facts

Yobarnacle · Feb 29, 2012

Boston said: ↑

not sure I like that tone

sorry but again with the wild claims about CO2. Care to explain exactly where you got your numbers from

CO2 is aprox 60% of the total greenhouse gas concentration
30% of that is the direct result of human activities

means that 2/3 is natural and 1/3 is manmade.

I know your really struggling with it but thems the facts
Click to expand...

Your data is erroneous. Again I post my sources.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

My numbers are far from erroneous, your attempting to compare apples to oranges.

of the greenhouse gasses CO2 makes up about 60%, its a simple fact. 30% of that is the direct result of mans activities

If you want to talk about the effect that has on the climate system then read this article ( reprinted with permission Jeff )

If you want to try and muddy the water again and confuse the issue by adding all components of the atmosphere and trying to imply by that the CO2 content is irrelevant then you might as well add the satellites and airplanes as well, you'd get about as accurate an idea of whats active and whats benign. Frankly I'd have to ask at some point why you keep up with the constant attempts to spread disinformation to the public. Are you getting paid to confuse the issue ? The oil and gas industry is famous for planting schills on various sites in an effort to spread there tripe. . Read the article, learn something, I'll go dig up the percentages of greenhouse gasses, although I doubt you'll be able to admit the error.

Two new research studies quantify greenhouse gas contribution and amplifying effect of CO2
It has long been understood that the natural greenhouse effect, the blanket of heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases, clouds, and water vapor keep Earth from being a frozen, ice-covered ball.
One principal skeptic argument regarding the role CO2 plays in global warming has been the vast preponderance of water vapor in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide. The logic being that water vapor would thus be the driving factor in any global warming, and therefore carbon emissions play little or no role. But this line of thinking is fundamentally mistaken, ignoring the role CO2 plays on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Many studies have confirmed the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, but a recent study by Andrew Lacis at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), published earlier this month in the journal Science, further demonstrates that increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in particular leads to more greenhouse warming than from just the heat absorbed in the gas itself.
Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at GISS and lead author of a companion study published in the Journal of the Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, says that of all the previous research done on the interplay of water vapor, CO2, and other greenhouse gases, none have systematically estimated the contribution of the “main players” to the greenhouse effect. Schmidt’s work set out to do just that – quantify the role of the various greenhouse gases to global warming.
The contribution of the constituent atmospheric greenhouse gases ”are among the most misquoted statistics in public discussions of climate change,” writes Schmidt’s colleagues in the report.
“The existing literature is quite confused,” Schmidt says. “If you ask a lot of climate scientists, straight up, ‘how much of the current greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide?’, you get all sorts of numbers.”
Schmidt’s study found that water vapor is indeed the largest single contributor to natural global warming, responsible for about 50 percent of the greenhouse effect. Following water vapor are clouds, contributing about 25 percent, and next comes carbon dioxide with 20 percent. The final 5 percent of the greenhouse effect comes from trace gases and aerosols – including methane and nitrous oxide. In other words, condensing gases – water vapor and clouds – comprise 75 percent of the greenhouse effect, and a variety of non-condensing gases only one quarter.
Condensing gas vs. non-condensing gas
Lacis’ research further showed that without the “non-condensing” gases in play, clouds and water vapor – that quickly condense and precipitate from the atmosphere – are unable to provide “the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.” The climate modeling showed that without the non-condensing gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect quickly collapses, plunging Earth into a frozen wasteland, clearly demonstrating that despite it’s larger contribution of the greenhouse effect, it cannot sustain that contribution without the support of the non-condensing gases, of which CO2 is the major player.
“Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics,” Lacis said, ”illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature.”
Research from both studies showed that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the greenhouse effect by a factor of five.
“When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City,” said GISS researcher David Rind. “Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the ‘superinterglacial.’”
“The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth,” Lacis said. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general.”
—–
Source: Global Warming is Real (http://s.tt/13dgj)
Click to expand...

Yobarnacle · Feb 29, 2012

Manmade global warming? Bad science by panic mongers.

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

and why did I think for even a second you'd actually read the article presented.

Oh well

again
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

PS
is that pie chart BS flavored

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

and as a percentage of total

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-459/fig1.gif

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

Here, let me help you with that reading problem a little ;-)

Lacis’ research further showed that without the “non-condensing” gases in play, clouds and water vapor – that quickly condense and precipitate from the atmosphere – are unable to provide “the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.” The climate modeling showed that without the non-condensing gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect quickly collapses, plunging Earth into a frozen wasteland, clearly demonstrating that despite it’s larger contribution of the greenhouse effect, it cannot sustain that contribution without the support of the non-condensing gases, of which CO2 is the major player.
“Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics,” Lacis said, ”illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature.”
Research from both studies showed that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the greenhouse effect by a factor of five.
Click to expand...

Yobarnacle · Feb 29, 2012

Boston said: ↑

and why did I think for even a second you'd actually read the article presented.

Oh well

again
you aint going to learn
what you don't want to know

PS
is that pie chart BS flavored
Click to expand...

Boston,
I told you I wouldn't tolerate any more disrespect from you. Warned you it was LAST chance. I'm at least as intelligent as you, more experienced because I'm older, and I unlike you, am sucessfull in life. I'm entitled to your respect. We can dissagree, but not disrespect. You are the original slow learner. You are on permanent ignore. Nothing you post will even be seen by me again. I've deemed you unworthy of notice!

hoytedow · Feb 29, 2012

Have some pi. 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265 3.14159265

Boston · Feb 29, 2012

a touch of sarcasm is always gong to slip into refuting climate denial. Its such a complete deviation from reality that its hard to take seriously. That and one wildly inaccurate claim after another, 1+1=3 stuff again. Its really hard to keep a straight face. Granted we're all going to be mistaken from time to time but its the consistency that so humorous after a while.

If you chose to bail thats your business but ignoring climate change and you ignore the changes to our oceans that are making such huge impacts in shipping every year these days. That northern rout that just opened up will effect world commerce in more ways than one. Before long those same changes will begin to impact yachting as well. Best be aware and prepared, rather than caught with your pants down.

or does ice melt when it gets colder

Log in or Sign up

Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Do you believe

Global Warming is occuring as a direct result of Human Activity.

IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Boston Previous Member

Boston Previous Member

Boston Previous Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Boston Previous Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Boston Previous Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

Attached Files:

Manmade warming.jpg

Boston Previous Member

Boston Previous Member

Boston Previous Member

Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

Boston Previous Member

Global humans, Is warming to blame?

Global Warming a New Report

Global cooling on the way, no warming at all!

More info on Global Warming

Nasa says no global warming

Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

warming OR cooling