Global Warming? are humans to blame?

No to be anonomys i woted here a while back on this subject, YES

 

As I said, the issue of the sun's influence is much more complex that the sun simply throwing more heat. Other energetic particles emissions come into play.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm


The cosmic ray bombardment theory coincides much more exactly (one might say perfectly) with the geologic teperature record using accepted reliable proxy data for both CO2 content and cosmic particle bombardment. The fact that atmospheric CO2 content and temperature don't track together terribly well in the past should also give you pause. Why didn't the earth 'overheat' when CO2 was at 6000 PPM? This is where the believers must come up with ever more convoluted arguments about the influence of CO2 as an important greenhouse gas. If the warming is truly 'global', then why the great difference between surface and upper atmosphere temps? If the warming were truly 'global' and truly the result of the 'greenhouse effect', then the warming would certainly be uniform throughout the atmosphere, but it is not. And no one, including the believers, is saying that it is uniform. Instead of admitting that this collapses the theory on the grounds that this observed warming cannot be due to the greenhose effect by our accepted understanding of the mechanisms of said effect, the believers simply look for a more complex way to explain the discrepancy. But these and other discrepancies between the observed atmosphere and the predictions of greenhouse gas warming are glossed over. In effect they say, "This observation does not match the theory, but the theory is still correct, we just don't understand it enough." How scientific is that??!!

The scientist you quoted stated with actually laughable confidence that:

This is laughable since we know SO little about the sun's effect on our planet, believe it or not:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html

Jimbo

 

To jimbo and all the other naysayers ,enjoying their contoversial positions...

Taura excreta non est disputandum.

 

Jimbo,


"Why didn't the earth 'overheat' when CO2 was at 6000 PPM?"

Good talking point, but did you look into this??

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5397/2199

"This period was NOT associated with catastrophic temperature increases using accepted reliable proxy data."

You have studied the current research? You are saying that the temps were not higher during the cretaceous?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040229231619.htm

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/7/585

Generally concidered that the sea level was 200 m higher at this time. Sure I like the beach so I wouldn't call it catastrophic, but interesting non the less.

You keep mentionioning the less than .04 composition as an example of why co2 content has neglible effect. Sound impressive, but is it suportable that quantity is determinate?

"No spike in CO2 levels is noted in the geologic record coinciding with the beginning of 'signicant' anthropogenic releases."

What do you mean by this??


"There is good evidence that the minor greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one, are NOT the regulators of the earth's temperature. If CO2 were a regulator, the system would have gone off equillibrium long ago, never returning."

Where is the research you are quoting?


"The natural variations in CO2 swamp out our tiny contribution"

You never addressed my question:

"What is the pre-human and post human co2 net gain in the atmosphere"

What is that contribution which can be attributed to human activity??

Tiny?? Care to put a percentage on it??

Solar variation is not neglected in the science.

You state:

"Even believers have acknowledge now that the sun's impact on climate change is the dominant one, and that it is far greater than all the greenhouse gases"

Where is the research you are quoting?

 

Just a guess.. You can't argue with ********. ? Sam

 

Since everyone seems to agree that global warming IS happening, the third post in this thread becomes relevant. Whatever the cause, can anything be done about it?
Should anything be done about it?
What interests me is what will be the consequences and how to prepare for them. Sam

 

I think it occurs in cycles naturally,i would be more concearned about pollution and just asking people to do their best to help out,i see all the big gas hog vehicles everyday and think of all the crap they emit into the air,i wish all large trucks were taxed hard enough to make people think hard enough about wheather its worth owning them.i once read that one of the first thing george bush did was to get rid of a mandate that coal burning powerplants had to have scrubbers.Ive traveled the usa and the amount of places with polluted water,where people cant eat the fish is very high.

 

If this merans what I think, then yes, you are right and that is why this naysayer has made no more posts on the subject. Its not worth my time. I am outnumbered by people with loads of BS

 

Taura excreta non est disputandum. I thik it means:

A sterile cow is not worth discussing.

 

"This period was NOT associated with catastrophic temperature increases using accepted reliable proxy data."

You have studied the current research? You are saying that the temps were not higher during the cretaceous?


From the very page you cited:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N5/EDIT.jsp

You keep mentionioning the less than .04 composition as an example of why co2 content has neglible effect. Sound impressive, but is it suportable in chemistry that quantity is determinate?

"No spike in CO2 levels is noted in the geologic record coinciding with the beginning of 'signicant' anthropogenic releases."

What do you mean by this??

"There is good evidence that the minor greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is one, are NOT the regulators of the earth's temperature. If CO2 were a regulator, the system would have gone off equillibrium long ago, never returning."

Where is the research you are quoting?

"The natural variations in CO2 swamp out our tiny contribution"

You never addressed my question.

"What is the pre-human and post human co2 net gain in the atmosphere"

What is that contribution which can be attributed to human activity??

Tiny?? Care to put a percentage on it??

Perhaps you could *actually read* this page this time since all of the above questions have already been covered:


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

Solar variation is not neglected in the science.

Really?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

Yet the global warming alarmists continue to search the garden for tiny CO2 pebbles ignoring the solar boulder upon which the whole garden rests.



You state:

"Even believers have acknowledge now that the sun's impact on climate change is the dominant one, and that it is far greater than all the greenhouse gases"

Where is the research you are quoting?

Researchers are not sure how cosmic rays contribute to cloud cover, though there are a couple of theories. Jasper Kirby and Frank Close, who work at the European particle-physics centre in Geneva, have devised an experiment to strengthen the connection. The researchers plan to use a modified cloud chamber (a box containing air super-saturated with water vapor) that can be used to replicate conditions in the atmosphere. By firing particle beams similar to cosmic rays through the box they can see whether clouds are formed. It may turn out that much of the small amount of warming that we have experienced in the last century is due to solar inconstancy (The Economist, April 11, 1998)

I answer with a graph and a counter question: If CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global climate change, and we can at least postulate mechanism(s) by which CO2 might do this, does CO2 also happen to cause the sun's activity to increase, and can you postulate a plausible mechanism to wit?

Ultimately, this question is not about the science; I keep coming back to that point. It's more about the way science gets funded and used and abused by various advocacy groups. It's about how politicians use scientists to buy a cloak of legitimacy the way kings of old did with clergymen. Politicians on the left side of the political spectrum are now and have been for some time, using scaremongering about a deteriorating environment to get people to vote for their anti-industrial agenda.

The right does this too, but not with the environmental issues. Their hobgoblin is a sort of xenophobia with national security overtones.

Our understanding of the earth's climate is an evolving science. The believers in the GHG/Global Warming thoery cast the debate as already decided when this is not the case, scientifically speaking at least.

Jimbo

 

Good- I see you can read as well:

"This incredible warmth, in their words, "implies a total absence of polar ice at these high latitudes, and contrasts dramatically with a present-day mean annual surface air temperature of about -15°C at 80 N." Indeed, the temperature difference between that earlier time and now exceeds a whopping 35°"

So you now understand that the Cretaceous saw remarkable higher temps and your statement:

"This period was NOT associated with catastrophic temperature increases using accepted reliable proxy data."

is now placed in perspective.

Give me five and I will get to the rest

 

Jimbo, I have said that in my opinion this subject is too complex to be analyzed by amateurs... but I still can read a graph .

Please take a look again. You can see that the solar wind reached a pick in 1977, then went down till 1979, went up again till 1982 ( but not above the 1979 max) then went rapidly down till the end of the time laps (1990).

During all this time, with ups and downs on the solar activity, the temperature is increasing as well as CO2. It is particularly significant from 1985 to 1990.

 

The page I cited taken from the page you cited had several key scientists sharply at odds with that 35 degree figure, which was conjured, BTW by the publisher's own computer model. The gist of their objection is that if one accepts the 35 degree figure then other more solid data goes out the window and we can't have that. The final analysis is that his model "needs more work" and can't be relied on. The conclusion is that 15 degrees is more like it. His 35 degrees is a stark departure from widely accepted data of that period being only~ 15 degrees warmer, which is precisely why it was noteworthy to begin with. This is another case where a believer is trying to make the data fit a model rather than vise versa.

High Five

Jimbo

 

Point taken,

Sloppy on my part- just trying to nail you on the whole issue of no higher temps associated with....... etc
Generally agreed that the Cretaceous was a hothouse. 15 degrees hotter is still a remarkable difference.

""Why didn't the earth 'overheat' when CO2 was at 6000 PPM?"

It did


-sent a pm to you-

 

Perhaps you could *actually answer* the question. As to this reference you did not provide it the last time you did not answer either:

"Most, if not all of your questions are answered in a post to another thread. To keep from re-posting it, I refer you to the post here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sho...&postcount=172"