Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Global warming is alchol related?

 

Could be!!!!!!---hic

 

Huh?

more warm weather means more cool beeeeerssss! Or just lit a few candle to surport global warming?

 

Institutionalized bias

This is just bullsh!t. The more I look into this, the more evidence comes to light that climatologists are intentionally misrepresenting the data. Were any of you aware that water vapor, NOT carbon dioxide, is the most abundant and most dominant greenhouse gas?

This paper is on the EPA's website. Scroll down to page 5. You'll see a table of greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is NOT in this table. Yet, right underneath the table, where they introduce a description of each greenhouse gas and its role in the atmosphere, the first greenhouse gas listed is water vapor. Let me quote them:

The other thing that floors me is that they mention in the same paragraph that water vapor has a self-regulating effect - that is, a hotter atmosphere means more water vapor, but more water vapor results in more clouds, which tend to reflect and absorb solar radiation. Says so right there in the EPA's paper!

Then, if you scroll down to page 9, they make an assessment of the warming potential of each gas - GWP, or Global Warming Potential, they call it. Yet, despite admitting in that very paper that water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas, they don't include its GWP! It's complete bullsh!t! They actually have the balls to state, right before they present the table, that because it's difficult to assess the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, they're basically just going to ignore it! Holy crap! This isn't bias! They're outright lying!

The more I read about this, the more it appears to me that this whole thing is a crock, and the Kyoto Protocol is nothing more than an attempt by the third world countries to get an ecomonic leg up on the 1st world countries. Sheesh!

 

Increase in climate mean more heat, heat mean unbalnce pressure, where the pressure go? We are now getting near the hot pot version of a paradise.

Topside of the planet change would lead to bottom of the earth also in swing. Just a possibility I guess.

Edit: Are we doin Hans77's homework? Where is his view and comment?

 

Ok stonebreaker,
I am going to try to be brief.
(no wei, you are not doing my homework, rather keeping me away from it!)

Yes I am aware that H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas.

For someone so opinionated and adamant as yourself, I am actually rather surprised that you didn't know that already.

The H2O argument is just one common one amongst many a climate change sceptic.
You are bound to find more, the internet is rife with such nonsense.

It is going to be a little exhausting to keep talking to you if don't at least try to do a preliminary critique of the information and theories that you are recycling here.

Do you really think that someone (as in a climatologist who has spent their lifetime studdying such) hasn't thought of that, or taken it into account?

Like you said, H2O does have a self regulating effect.
as a gas it lasts in the atmosphere for maybe a week. Then it turns to water again.
simplisticly,
the water vapour in the air traps more heat (remember those hot humid days?), temperature rises, evaporation increases, clouds form, shade forms, cooler patches forms, winds and weather form, clouds blow away and rain somewhere.
This is a shallow or quick feedback mechanism.
This will continue. Our weather probably couldn't without it.


CO2 is a different matter, along with some of the other pollutants.
CO2 will last in the atmosphere a lot LOT longer (up to 200+years).
This means that the gas is up there insulating heat in for that amount of time.
It gets pretty complicated to see how CO2 regulates itself, but it is a lot slower and a lot longer. A LOT.

I am not sure of the time frame, in millions of years, that it took for nature to remove the higher CO2 from the air that the dinosaurs breathed,
but it did take it out, by plants over millenia trapping it in their leaves and wood and burrying it in swamps where it condensed into coal and oil.
The same CO2 that we are pumping back out again- really really quickly.

I really got to sleep...
But do you see the difference?

You say that this evidence amounts to scientists "intentionally misrepresenting the data".
If anyone has done this, it is you.

You have completely isolated one piece of data from the context in which it must be understood.
data is not just data- it has to be presented within a theoretical framework, otherwise it can be made to look like proof for anything.

You say that this is ********.
That the more you look into this the more evidence comes to light proving it so.

Well, if you are happy to pounce upon theoretically dismembered facts, data and ideas, and hold them up against a broad consensus of scientific opinion, theory and practice-
then this is going to be an easy argument for you. You are already convinced you are right.
All you need to do is shift from one discrepency to the next, one misunderstood relation to a misinterpreted theory.
Plausable deniability is a wonderfull thing.

 

In the interest of scientific accuracy, I would like to encourage anyone replying to this thread with "facts" or "data" to provide proper references for this informaton. Please keep in mind that, from a scientific perspective, peer-reviewed journals are admissable, as are university papers, while newspapers, television and public Web media are not considered scientifically valid sources.
If anyone would like to take a scientific stance on the issue, I encourage you to also let us know what your scientific credentials are. It is very hard to take a supposedly scientific argument seriously unless sources and credentials are also present.
--
Matt
B.Sc.E (ENPH) candidate, Queen's University

 

I guess that one of the guys, if not the guy, that knows more about that is James E. Hansen

He is the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is a division of the NASA and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute located on the Columbia campus in New York City. Dr. Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995.

Dr Hansen primary research for the past 25 years has been on studies and
computer simulations of the Earth's climate, for the purpose of understanding the human impact on global climate.

This is what he says about the effects of Global Warming:


"The Time Bomb

The dominant issue in global warming, in my opinion, is sea level change and the question of how fast ice sheets can disintegrate. A large portion of the world’s people live within a few meters of sea level, with trillions of dollars of infrastructure. The need to preserve global coast lines, I suggest, sets a low ceiling on the level of global warming that would constitute DAI.

The history of the Earth, and the present human-made planetary energy imbalance, together paint a disturbing picture about prospects for sea level change.
To appreciate this situation we must consider how today’s global temperature compares with peak temperatures in the current and previous interglacial periods, how long-term sea level change relates to global temperature, and the time required for ice sheets to respond to climate change.
.....
This means that, with the 0.5°C global warming of the past few decades, the Earth’s average temperature is just now passing through the peak Holocene temperature level.

Furthermore, the current planetary energy imbalance of about ¾ W/m2 implies that global warming already “in the pipeline”, about another 0.5°C, will take us about halfway to the global temperature that existed at the peak of the Eemian period.

Sea level during the Eemian is estimated to have been 5-6 meters (16-20 feet) higher thanit is today.

Although the geographical distribution of climate change influences the effect of global warming on ice sheets, paleoclimate history suggests that global temperature is a good predictor of eventual sea level change. The main issue is: how fast will ice sheets respond to global warming?
....
(about 5 meters of sea level rise per century).

It can be argued that in this paleoclimate case the ice sheets had a long period of preconditioning before the ice collapsed. On the other hand, it should be noted that the forcing was small in the paleoclimate case and changed only slowly over millennia. Now, on the contrary, there is a continual relentless forcing caused by a large human-made planetary energy imbalance that provides ample energy to rapidly erase the cooling effect of melting ice that tends to slow the paleoclimate response.

.... Such a change would presage much larger sea level change over the next century or two, because of several long time constants in the system: (1) several decades required for major changes of energy systems and thus greenhouse gas emissions, (2) several decades to a century for the climate system to approach equilibrium with changed climate forcings, (3) the time required for ice sheets to respond in a substantial way to changed climate forcings and changed climate, which I suggest may be as small as several centuries or less.

Whatever the preconditioning period for ice sheet disintegration is, these long time constants and the associated system inertia imply that global warming beyond some limit will create a legacy of large sea level change for future generations. And once this process has passed a certain point, it will be impractical to stop. ....
I argue that the level of DAI is likely to be set by the global temperature and planetary radiation imbalance at which substantial deglaciation becomes practically impossible to avoid.

Based on the paleoclimate evidence discussed above, I suggest that the highest prudent level of additional global warming is not more than about 1°C. In turn, given the existing planetary energy imbalance, this means that additional climate forcing should not exceed about 1 W/m2.

Detection of early signs of accelerating ice sheet breakup, and analysis of the processes involved, may be provided by the satellite IceSat recently launched by NASA. IceSat will use lidar and radar to precisely monitor ice sheet topography and dynamics.

We may soon be able to investigate whether or not the ice sheet time bomb is approaching detonation......

A planetary energy imbalance of +1 W/m2, maintained for a century, would cause a sealevel rise of about 8 meters, if the energy went entirely into melting of ice (Box 4)."

http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf#search="defusing time bomb global warming"

You can access many good scientific papers about the subject here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_timebomb.pdf#search="defusing time bomb global warming"

 

I notice that the good Dr. Hansen bases his sea level rise on ALL the added heat from global warming over the next century going into melting ice. Dr. Hansen needs a refresher course in thermodynamics.

 

Why aren't politicians debating questions of fine art or the intricacies of boat design? The answer is: Because there isn't much that politicians can really do about it. Sure, global warming should be studied. Heck, worm holes and warp drives, hypersonic aircraft, Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, and Salvador Dali should be studied too. But politicians only really get involved when there is something they can do about it. Politicians don't get involved with egyptology until permits or restrictions are necessary. They don't get involved in rocket science until there is a threat that someone is going to blow up the neighborhood or else there is a need which is greater than the private sector can muster. What does this have to do with global warming?

I agree that the dominant issue in the study of global warming is sea-level change. However, that overlooks the first question which is, "is this important for politicians?" In order for it to be important to politicians, there has to be something they can do about it.

I don't think anybody disputes that global warming can be troublesome. The dispute is whether we can do anything about it. What are the effects of greenhouse gases? Is a significant portion of greenhouse gases generated by mankind? Or by volcanoes and other natural events?

I fall on the side of believing that volcanoes and other natural events can have a larger impact on the macroclimate than mankind has had up to this point. Sure, we can dirty cities and foul mountain basins with pollution for awhile, but dear god, have you seen the size of some of the world's volcanoes??!!!! And we haven't even put catalytic converters on those things yet!!!!

This isn't to say that mankind's "assistance" is trivial, but I don't think we are the sole producers of greenhouse gases.

Cows fart a lot.

 

Hans & Matt,

Hmmm, OK, so according to you guys, I shoud ignore this paper, because it's published by the Environmental Protection Agency, the main governmental policy maker for environmental law, and not in a peer-reviewed journal? Please.

Both of you guys failed to address the fact that the EPA paper magnified the impact of CO2 emissions by ignoring both the greenhouse effects and the buffering effects of water vapor. the fact that they were forced to acknowledge these effects exist, and yet still chose to leave it out of their calculations, simply underscores this as a deliberate misrepresentation.

Your assertion that I'm recycling old theories and misrepresenting data is patently false - since I didn't present any theories but simply pointed out obvious flaws in an existing paper; flaws so obvious that even a layman such as myself easily spotted them.

As far as not being informed, you are watching the process of me becoming informed. Up untill this discussion, I didn't really have an opinion about global warming. I sort of had a vague opinion that it was being blown somewhat out of proprtion, kind of like the Y2K bug, but that "we probably need to do something one of these days." Only after I got interested in this discussion did I start really checking up on it. And what I'm finding is convincing me that the liberal politics of environmentalism is getting in the way of hard, dispassionate science.

Scientists are resigning in protest over the political agenda of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. From an open letter from Dr. Christopher Landsea: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

In conclusion, from what I have been able to ascertain, global warming IS being blown out of proportion - but on a scale I would not have expected.

 

Hans and Matt,

Please don't bother with a response. He'll simply ignore any logic or facts you bring up and go on with something else. It was a familiar technique in Aristotle's time, and is known in some circles as "Argumentum Ad Ignoracio Elenchi." Which is to say, given that any points brought up are not addressed any further discussion is pointless.

BillyDoc

 

Dr Hansen has a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics, a M.S. in Astronomy and a Ph.D. in Physics. I don't think he needs a "refresher course in thermodynamics".

On the other hand if, after reading his article, you conclude that "the good Dr. Hansen bases his sea level rise on ALL the added heat from global warming over the next century going into melting ice", I think that it is not him who needs a refreshing course...and not exactly in Physics.

I will not continue this discussion (too political and not scientific), but let me point out Toot, that this issue is only a Political issue in the US. In Europe it is a big environmental problem and it is addressed at scientific level. A big problem that can jeopardize the future of our grand sons, and Politicians don't dare (and I think they have the good sense of not even trying) to go against the informed opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community.

Perhaps us, in the old world have a different conception of time. For a European, 200 or 300 years in the history of their countries is not a long time. We are surrounded with buildings and monuments that are a lot older than that (in the little town were I live the church is 750 years old). Perhaps that’s the reason we seem to care a lot more about what will happen in 100 or 200 years.

 

Nor will I. Climate change is not a political issue, it's a scientific issue. Scientists aren't arguing over whether it's happening anymore, or whether or not we're causing it, they're arguing over how soon it will become unstoppable and how much more severe it might get. The political issue is what to do about it before things get worse. There has been no rational discussion on any thread so far on that front.

Vega- thank you for properly citing your sources. All others, please try to do the same. It's very hard to believe the word of an online random, with no evidence of education or research. Legitimate sources are good for credibility. (The EPA, by the way, is a political organization, not a scientific one. So is the IPCC. All published materials from them, even ones based on scientific studies, are written to fit the political will of the day.)

 

Dude, Hansen said it, not me. Go back and read what you posted. He claims a 16-20 ft. rise in sea levels if all the extra heat coming from global warming went into the ice. I'd like to know how the idiot thinks the heat flow into the arctic is going to increase if the temperature of the temperate and tropic zones doesn't rise, which would have to happen for his statement to be true.

Every other site I accessed that favored global warming postulated a sea level rise between 10 cm and 1 meter over the next hundred years. Whether your guy has a Ph.D. or not, he's obviously not thinking things out before he speaks.