Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by hansp77, Sep 11, 2006.

?

Do you believe

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

    106 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
    48.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Robert H. Essenhigh
    Does CO2 really drive global warming?
    I don’t believe that it does.
    To the contrary, if you apply the IFF test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. Of course, this raises a raft of questions, but they are all answerable. What is particularly critical is distinguishing between the observed phenomenon, or the “what”, from the governing mechanism, or the “why”. Confusion between these two would appear to be the source of much of the noise in the global warming debate.

    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

    Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

    The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments. If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!
     
  2. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

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

    TABLE 4a.


    Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
    Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
    % of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
    Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
    Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
    Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
    Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
    Total 100.00% 99.72 % 0.28%

    So only .28 of 1% of greenhouse gasses are manmade. Doesn't seem people are a causal factor to me even if greenhouse gas was a cause, which it ain't!
     
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Again people its got nothing to do with the fact that tempts change, its the rate of change that is the problem. At the present moment temps are changing faster than they have, ever as far as we can tell. Granted more research needs to be done however, never has atmospheric carbon levels changed this fast in the last million years or so and nor has temp. From what can be gleaned from longer ago. Its never happened even remotely this fast, and I mean by a factor of at least 1000 at any time in the last 600 million years.

    Lets try and at least get the argument straight
     
  4. Petros
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 2,934
    Likes: 148, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1593
    Location: Arlington, WA-USA

    Petros Senior Member

    How about some real data? Here is a estimated historical global temps, showing it was both warmer and cooler than current trends:

    [​IMG]


    Here is atmospheric CO2, do you see any correlation to temp above and CO2? Especially look at last major ice ages, CO2 was higher than today. Also note that CO2 levels are lower now than they were in last 200 million years. Every scientist that have studied this has found NO temp correlation to CO2.

    [​IMG]

    Charts showing only last 100-200 years are scientific fraud, timelines like that are way too small to draw correlation. Anyone who ignores all data is commuting fraud.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Lets get it straight. Are human beings causing climate change cooler, warmer, in any direction? No!
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    once again the actual topic of concern has been missed completely in all of these last arguments

    Its the rate of change, not change itself that is the problem

    also data going back more than say 1 million years or so is simply not robust enough to draw any significan't conclusions from. It would be imprudent to assess today's climate swing with less well understood and less complete climate data from to far beyond that.

    Oh there's a few periods like the high Permian that are well studied but lots of big holes in the time line from about a million years ago on.

    Again its not that change occurs, obviously it does, thats a straw man argument, its the rate of change that is the concern.
     
  7. CatBuilder

    CatBuilder Previous Member

    So, the derivative of the charts is the cause for alarm, then?

    There have been a lot of charts up here. Can you put the one with the derivative curve up again? I don't know where to find it.
     
  8. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Wrong again! The topic is "Are humans to blame?" No, nope, hell no!
     
  9. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I think it's curious that Boston claims 5 or 10 year periods too short to be significant and a million years too long. He only wants to select a period of time that seems to support his own position. VERY SCIENTIFIC Boston ! LMAO
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Bingo Cat

    The only thing that maters is the rate of change. That the whole issue in a nutshell. That our climate is changing so fast natural selection and evolution simply can't keep up. Thats why we are loosing species like a rocket. Its what causes the mass extinctions and its what will, inevitably overwhelm our own ability to survive.

    the resolution of the changes throughout the entire life of our planet is difficult to project in any single graph, simply because the rate of change is so damn fast. A chart that might show a million year period that fits on this screen won't show that last say 50 years very well. Also the rate has been increasing so much in that last 50 years that again the resolution would have to be in say 1 year increments in order to really see the acceleration of that rate of change. A chart of say the last billion years wouldn't even register the last 50. In the end most researchers build a graph beginning at about the start of the industrial revolution. Something in the 1800s somewhere. And then all the climate deniers come along and say oh but what about the 1700s or the 1600s and think they've found a flaw. Not so at all, its just what resolution works best to depict the rate of change. If we go back to the million year graph all your going to see is a dot of red representing the instrument record or from the start of the industrial age. Not very useful to depict rate of change.

    Cheers and nice to discuss it with someone who is actually open minded about it.
    B
     
  11. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    Eh? Yobernacle, I understand your opinion, but you need to re-read what Boston said, let's get it right. Laughing Your Arse Off with entirely wrong end of the stick makes others LMOA at you.

    To be accurate, Boston said that both a handful and even a million years sample (I'm paraphrasing) is not sufficient, and he appears to have been entirely consistent and, may I say, scientific about it.

    It's your turn to comment on his central argument of the rate of change, which is absolutely frightening, unique in the records and far worse than any scientists have predicted.

    If you want to attack science, as you frequently do, in this case you should be complaining that climate scientists have been criminally conservative.

     
  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The thing that matters, that's important, is integrity. Call it honor or honesty or credibility, whatever.
    It's always only about integrity. Manipulation is not integrity, it's deceit.
    I resent people trying to manipulate with scare tactics, like global warming.
    False data and false interpretations. It's fraud and deceit. The premise is false, the predictions false, the agenda false.
     
  13. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I am not required to comment on anything other than I choose. Nor are you or Boston. It's obvious nether you or Boston care to comment on the fact that water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 only a few %. Why not adress that? Because you can't argue with that. Your entire argument that manmade CO2 is driving climate change bites the dust where water vapor comes up and CO2 diminishes to insignificant.
    As far as catastrophic temperature changes, I don't see that ocurring. No data to support it exists. Just more hype! Wild claims to scare people.
    To what purpose?
     
  14. CatBuilder

    CatBuilder Previous Member

    Trained scientist, remember? :D

    So where do we download all of the climate temperature data points?

    We could then run our own Fourier analysis or at least an Excel regression fit to see the derivative values at different places throughout known history...

    Where do we download the data?
     

  15. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    As though he would know! :D Ha!
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.