No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by melatonin

And the important thing is that oceans and terrestrial biosphere are removing CO2. The increase is human sourced. If you don't want to accept 100%, which it is, then 95% is a fair number.

And since we are in a warming period the oceans release more CO2, alongside with the fact that since it is getting warmer and CO2 levels have increased, this also affects plant life which tend to grow more when larger levels of CO2 are present in the atmosphere, and they in turn add more to the fluctuating CO2 levels.

Not only that but as i have presented evidence several times the magmatic and seismic activity of Earth has been increasing during this time of warming, which in large part has to do with the fact that as pressure is released from tectonic plates in the north and south and in some areas more pressure is added because there are areas which are increasing in ice mass; all this warming in turn also release CO2, methane and other GHGs.

95% anthropogenic CO2 accounting for the last 150-200 year rise in CO2 is an exageration on your part. I already gave also the opinion of another geologist who says the amount of anthropogenic CO2 we have been adding to the atmosphere all these 150-200 years amounts to no more than 0.1% of the CO2 increase, and he is not alone.

Originally posted by melatonin
It might well be, but that isn't so important. If you check the figures I posted above, the biosphere exchanges similar amounts (the amount released is taken up back up). We are adding an extra chunk, that is where the increase is coming from, a lot of the anthropogenic emissions are taken up in the biosphere. The rest is accumulating.

If that was true, that we are adding too much CO2, CO2 levels would have never raised again after the oceans would have absorbed them all, and we know that's not true.

The oceans have absorbed higher levels of CO2 than there are today in the atmosphere, and there was animal and plant life living just fine during those periods.

The fact is that temperatures and CO2 have different levels of fluctuations between the different Climate Changes that occur on Earth.

The longer periods of fluctuations happen in millions of years, and during these periods temperatures change 10C, and CO2 levels have changed from around 280 ppm to over 7,000 ppm.

One of those large periods was the Jurassic which was about 210 million years ago or so. At the beginning of this time period temperatures were much higher than today, about an average 22C, and CO2 levels were a bit over 1,000 ppm, yet there was plant life and animal life.

For over 50 millions years there was fluctuation in temperatures, but the bigger fluctuations were in CO2 levels, almost at the end of the Jurassic CO2 levels shot up about 1,000 ppm, yet temperatures did not raise much, but in fact two thirds into the Jurassic, temperatures began plummeting down, CO2 levels went down slowly and then went up again meanwhile temperatures were still going down, then as temperatures began to increase CO2 levels actually decreased once again, and they went from about 2,100 ppm to 900 ppm, meanwhile temperatures did not change that dramatically.

During the entire Cretacious period there were some fluctuations in temperatures and CO2 levels, but the changes between these smaller periods were not as dramatic -, yet CO2 levels on the overall decreased during this entire time period, and CO2 levels continued to decrease even almost until the middle of the Tertiary period, millions of years later. Only about over 100 million years later did temperatures actually decrease dramatically until they reached the present period.

In between these longer periods of Climate change there are smaller periods which occur around 20,000 - 100,000 years, and those periods are when the major glaciations occur, as in the last Ice Age which occurred 20,000 years bp, and that major glaciation is known as the Laurentide.

Here is a graph showing these Climate Changes as they occur within hundreds of thousands of years.



Here is a link with pictures of what parts of the U.S. and Canada looked like during the last 18,000, when te Last Ice Age was still ongoing and it shows what was happening to the U.S. and Canada as the Earth went into an interglacial period, that is what we are in now.

vathena.arc.nasa.gov...

Now those major glaciations are not always on time, which is why they can occur in 20,000 years or up to 100,000 years in between. Temperatures can change in these periods around 3C - 5C, and CO2 levels also change in these periods and the changes are around 80ppm to 120ppm, although most of the time the changes are 100ppm.

There are other smaller warm, and cold periods which happen between these major glaciations, and those can happen within a few hundred years, and some have happened within a decade. Temperatures normally change in these periods 1C-2C, and cause periods of warm such as the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, the Little Ice Age, and the current warming period.

Here are two graphs, one showing the periods of Climate Change within thousands of years, and the second one shows the Climate Chnages that happen within hundreds of years.






The last 15,000 years is a good example of these changes.

Here is a link to WHOI, with a graph and some information on some of those abrupt Climate Changes that have happened since the last Ice Age to the present.

www.whoi.edu...

Here is a small excerpt on abrupt Climate Changes from the WHOI website.

Are we overlooking potential abrupt climate shifts?
Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.

www.whoi.edu...

Perhaps the above can help some understand a thing or two about Climate Changes on Earth.

One more thing, the current Climate Change we are going through is not so "abrupt" as some would like to claim. The recent warm period began 260 years ago in most parts of the world and in some parts it began even earlier, 360 years ago. We are still going through those changes, and it will get worse before it gets better.

There are quite a few scientists who predict that after a decade or two of warming, we will go once again into a another Little Ice Age. But the thing is, noone can say for certain what will happen, because there are too many natural factors which do influence the climate and can change very fast.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Muaddib]

OK, you still need to answer these points.

6.2 GtC per year released into the atmosphere between 1991-1997 by humans. Where did it go?

2.8 Gtc per year increased in the atmosphere. Where did it come from?

Science 31 March 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and 13C
M. Battle, 1* M. L. Bender, 1 P. P. Tans, 2 J. W. C. White, 3 J. T. Ellis, 4 T. Conway, 2 R. J. Francey 5

Recent time-series measurements of atmospheric O2 show that the land biosphere and world oceans annually sequestered 1.4 ± 0.8 and 2.0 ± 0.6 gigatons of carbon, respectively, between mid-1991 and mid-1997. The rapid storage of carbon by the land biosphere from 1991 to 1997 contrasts with the 1980s, when the land biosphere was approximately neutral. Comparison with measurements of 13CO2 implies an isotopic flux of 89 ± 21 gigatons of carbon per mil per year, in agreement with model- and inventory-based estimates of this flux. Both the 13C and the O2 data show significant interannual variability in carbon storage over the period of record. The general agreement of the independent estimates from O2 and 13C is a robust signal of variable carbon uptake by both the land biosphere and the oceans.

The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are removing CO2. There is no net release from these sources.

Science 2 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5544, pp. 1012 - 1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Storing Carbon on Land
R. J. Scholes and I. R. Noble*

Each year, about 120 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) is exchanged in each direction between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; another 90 PgC is exchanged between ocean and atmosphere. For comparison, 6.3 PgC is emitted by burning fossil fuels, about half of which is taken up again by the biosphere within years to a decade (1). This net uptake, or "sink," is currently fairly evenly split between land and ocean, but the uptake processes are different, as are projected future behaviors of the two sinks.

120 PgC is exchanged by terrestrial. 90PgC exchanged by oceans. There is no overall release by these sources. What they emit, they absorb. That is why CO2 levels were pretty stable for the 800 years before we emitted millions of tonnes of CO2.

Title: OCEANIC UPTAKE OF FOSSIL-FUEL CO2 - C-13 EVIDENCE
Author(s): QUAY PD, TILBROOK B, WONG CS
Source: SCIENCE 256 (5053): 74-79 APR 3 1992
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 23 Times Cited: 224
Abstract: The delta-C-13 value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the delta-C-13 of atmospheric CO2 and the delta-C-13 value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years.

This shows decreases in 13-C at the surface of the oceans, as well as the atmosphere. Due to uptake of anthropogenic sources of CO2 from the atmosphere (which is predominately 12-C).

Are you seriously trying to say that 0.1% of the 2.8GtC per year for 1991-1997 is anthropogenic, when we actually released 6.2GtC per year?

Also, muaddib, why are you still presenting cartoon graphics with little idea of their source? I provided a nice peer-reviewed figure from Briffa & Osborne (2002) you could use for the last 1000 years:



Wouldn't like to think you want to mislead people...

[edit on 14-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Mauddib]The fact is that temperatures and CO2 have different levels of fluctuations between the different Climate Changes that occur on Earth.

The longer periods of fluctuations happen in millions of years, and during these periods temperatures change 10C, and CO2 levels have changed from around 280 ppm to over 7,000 ppm.

Maudib, none of your science includes the effects of planetary intrusions, meteors. We've had several hit that wrapped the globe in dust blocking sunlight wiping out billions of plants and animals. No solar cycles, which means no absorbers just rotting flora and fauna. This alone causes high CO2 whilst the temps plummet.

Originally posted by Mauddib]One of those large periods was the Jurassic which was about 210 million years ago or so. At the beginning of this time period temperatures were much higher than today, about an average 22C, and CO2 levels were a bit over 1,000 ppm, yet there was plant life and animal life.

For over 50 millions years there was fluctuation in temperatures, but the bigger fluctuations were in CO2 levels, almost at the end of the Jurassic CO2 levels shot up about 1,000 ppm, yet temperatures did not raise much, but in fact two thirds into the Jurassic, temperatures began plummeting down, CO2 levels went down slowly and then went up again meanwhile temperatures were still going down, then as temperatures began to increase CO2 levels actually decreased once again, and they went from about 2,100 ppm to 900 ppm, meanwhile temperatures did not change that dramatically.

Hear again, one of those periods where the plant life was extremely lush with high planet wide temps for what must have been a real greenhouse complete with sauna.

Originally posted by Mauddib]During the entire Cretacious period there were some fluctuations in temperatures and CO2 levels, but the changes between these smaller periods were not as dramatic -, yet CO2 levels on the overall decreased during this entire time period, and CO2 levels continued to decrease even almost until the middle of the Tertiary period, millions of years later. Only about over 100 million years later did temperatures actually decrease dramatically until they reached the present period.

Looking at todays rise, it's a little different. Meteor impacts wiped out the populations in a short time and cooled things. Warm periods have shown to have had lower CO2 concentrations with a type of forest that adapted to the climate. Out current forests are adapting with middle latitude trees growing farther north some. This also means the warmer and dryer regions move toward the poles into the current temperate zones. If the trade winds and westerlies change then maybe some areas like the western US could see more rainfall but the land is not good for crops. We as humans are going to have to adjust out farming practices to a different climate, moved to better regions or build something grow in. We as humands are altering the planet artificially just as a meteor but with CO2 and GHG that have not occured. We have a larger population of people who depend on global resources where previously it was regional. Where will food come from if the areas we depend on for growth cant sustain the plants anymore. Most of the valleys and open ranges we use now developed over centuries. Areas that might support planting in the future with ample rainfall and moderate temps may not be plowable land. Farmers will continue to try and produce on current farms until they realize it's not going to support the crops.
(I left off the quote about oscillations, that's a norm we all agree on.)


[edit on 14-4-2007 by AlabamaCajun]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by AlabamaCajun]

Originally posted by melatonin

Radiative energy comes at different energies - the electromagnetic spectrum. GHGs absorb strongly at particular wavelengths. The wavelengths that are not absorbed, or not so strongly absorbed, are readily emitted back to space.

yes, if there were lots of mirrors on earth,they (edit: wavelenghts) would be reflected back into space, but there aren't, so what gets past absorption lines and clouds will hit the ground or water. some will be reflected, depending on but Earth's albedo is not all that high, is it?

if you focus on CO2 you will ascertain what it does by itself you are not analysing the entire system, you are not accounting for balancing mechanisms. if there were none, any small change would result on a runaway effect in one way or the other (ice or hot, dry desert) because of the self-reinforcing nature of the greenhouse effect. the question should be how much balancing capability the biosphere has and in doing so, preservation of ocean life (and to a lesser degree forests on land) would probably be identified as the main contributors.

are today's CO2 centered policies doing anything wrt. actual protection of the environment?

judge for yourself: www.abovetopsecret.com...


PS: these details are what makes me extremely wary of anything related to GW, the Kyoto accords and anything which curtails energy use while, at the same time, the original goals of environmentalism are turned upside down or simply forgotten.

[edit on 14.4.2007 by Long Lance]

What am I trying to establish? I am focusing on a single part of the system for a particular reason - to show that human emissions of CO2, and other GHGs, are having an effect on climate.

When we establish that, we can talk about whatever you like.

but the links below should help for the radiation balance stuff:

eosweb.larc.nasa.gov...

eosweb.larc.nasa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org...:Greenhouse_Effect.png

[edit on 14-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

[edit on 14-4-2007 by melatonin]

Melatonin,

This graph seems to plot several different historical temperature anomolies from different researchers compared to 1961-1990 average global temp.

All I can base my comment on is the title of the plot and parameters quantified on each axis.

My comment/question is: If this represents the devaition from norms, how did the researchers determine the historical average global temperature and what was their margin of error?

I can grasp the methodology behind atmospheric composition reconstruction, but how did these researchers determine historical temps?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I can grasp the methodology behind atmospheric composition reconstruction, but how did these researchers determine historical temps?

Hi dbs,

the reconstructions are derived from temperature proxies. Obviously the observed climate records only go back a couple hundred of years. So, to get an indication of temperatures going back to these timescales, the paleoclimatologists use indirect measures. The proxies used are highly correlated with temperature and include: tree rings, corals, ice cores, sediments etc.

ABE: Ai, missed the margin of error bit - they do have uncertianties, some more than others. The high resolution proxies are calibrated against overlaps of instrumental records. Still uncertainties, of course.



I don't have a reference for that reconstruction, but it gives an idea of the error margin (the red line looks like Mann & Jones, 2003). The one below is definitely from Mann & Jones (2003; northern hemisphere) with 95%CI (also includes models).



[edit on 14-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin the reconstructions are derived from temperature proxies. Obviously the observed climate records only go back a couple hundred of years. So, to get an indication of temperatures going back to these timescales, the paleoclimatologists use indirect measures. The proxies used are highly correlated with temperature and include: tree rings, corals, ice cores, sediments etc.

Isn't that like trying to determine how many people were at yesterdays baseball game by counting the number of beer cups and peanut bags in the trash?

I'm acutally doing a double-report on the subject of global warming for English.

I'm currently working on the side, arguing that human aren't the "main" cause of global warming. However, I am unsure of some of my sources, and would like to be provided with maybe more credible or scientific information. Can you provide me link of the sources u got ur answer from? My questions are:

1) How much do carbon dioxide gas do human contribute annually?
-Energy Information Administration says 6.5 billion tons
-Wikipedia says 24 billion tons

2) How much carbon dioxide is recycle through the photosythesis process of trees and plants each year?

3) How much greenhouse gases does volcanos produce?
-One source says 110 billion tons
-The other says 10 billion tons

4) How many tons of carbon dioxide gases are stored in the ocean due to the Solubility Cycle each year?
-One of my sources say that the concentration level of Carbon Dioxide in the ocean is 50 times higher than the levels in the atmosphere, but thats to vague for me.

5) How effective is water vapor in aborbing heat?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways here are some facts as to why human can't be the main contributor to global warming, and why their contribution would matter.

- Lets assume human on average produce 24 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

- Natural decay can produce 220 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, excluding the carbon dioxide gas produce through biological process such as breathing (human produce about 450 Liters per day, compute all life on earth and thats alot!!)
- If one of the sources is true Volanoes produces 110 billion tons of green house gases each year.
- Due to the warming cycle, the sea probably has warmed up a little, disrupting the solubility cycle or equalibium that allows, releasing excess CO2 in the air.
- Disregarding water vapor which 95% of greenhouse gases is consist of, human only contribute 5% of all greenhouse gases. Whats 5% of 5% everybody? PRETTY D@NG SMALL!!

- Medieval Maximum was hotter than it was now today, after that ended the Oort Minimum occured and cooled the earth down by 2 degrees. With other previous warming and cooling periods on earth, the evidence have lead some scientists to suspect that the solar variable is the key factor behind the Earth’s short-term warming and cooling cycle, correlating with the solar activity cycle.

- Relating to the solar activity (intensity) cycle, the last minimum ended in the 1850, during the start of the first industrial revolution. A mere coincidence that have lead some people to suspect human are the cause.

- If one of my sources are true, the solubility cycle stores about 1/3 of human carbon dioxide in the sea each year. Depending on the right source the other 2/3 or 3/8 is recycle and absorb by plants and methanotrophic bacterias. If this is right then 17 billion tons of human greenhouse gases is being cycled.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by skyblueff0]

[edit on 15-4-2007 by skyblueff0]

Originally posted by skyblueff0

5) How effective is water vapor in aborbing heat?

Muaddib posted an overview graph a few pages back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

note that these are transmission figures, which means that a rating of 100% equals no absorption.


imho, the most convincing approach is to invalidate the more extraordinary claims, such as 'hottest year on record, possibly in thousands of years' by citing the existance of Viking settlements (and agriculture) on Greenland or evidence that receding glaciers in the Alps reveal remains of flora, indicating they simply did not exist at times in the past.

glacier reference: www.climate.unibe.ch...

i don't know how scientific your report should be, though, so relying on common sense alone may not be applicable (besides you can't talk half an hour about just a few points, can you?)

a downside is that these arguments are not effectively invalidating GW, just 'relativising', ie. downplaying its alledged consequences. in order to overthrow the GW paradigm, solid, irrefutible evidence to the contrary is required and as you can readily see in this thread, it hasn't arrived yet.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Isn't that like trying to determine how many people were at yesterdays baseball game by counting the number of beer cups and peanut bags in the trash?

Only if the amount of beer cups and peanut bags is highly correlated with the attendance of baseball games.

Originally posted by skyblueff0
Can you provide me link of the sources u got ur answer from? My questions are:

1) How much do carbon dioxide gas do human contribute annually?
-Energy Information Administration says 6.5 billion tons
-Wikipedia says 24 billion tons

2) How much carbon dioxide is recycle through the photosythesis process of trees and plants each year?

3) How much greenhouse gases does volcanos produce?
-One source says 110 billion tons
-The other says 10 billion tons

Science 2 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5544, pp. 1012 - 1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Storing Carbon on Land
R. J. Scholes and I. R. Noble*

Each year, about 120 PgC (1 PgC = 10 15 g of carbon) is exchanged in each direction between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; another 90 PgC is exchanged between ocean and atmosphere. For comparison, 6.3 PgC is emitted by burning fossil fuels, about half of which is taken up again by the biosphere within years to a decade (1). This net uptake, or "sink," is currently fairly evenly split between land and ocean, but the uptake processes are different, as are projected future behaviors of the two sinks.

(you can read these abstracts on the sciencemag website).

1. humans produced around 6.3 PgC in 2001. It is higher now.

1PgC = 1GtC (gigatonnes carbon) = 3.7Gt CO2.

So, 6.3 x 3.7 = 23.31 billion tonnes (metric) of carbon dioxide.

You need to be careful of the conversions and units.

2. Terrestrial sources of CO2 exchange 120PgC (444 billion tonnes). Note that this is exchange. What is emitted is taken back up elsewhere. The ocean and terrestrial systems are overall sinks (they take up more than they emit).

3. Volcanoes produce about 150-250 million tonnes a year (Gerlach, 1992). Humans produce over 100 times more CO2.

volcanoes.usgs.gov...

4) How many tons of carbon dioxide gases are stored in the ocean due to the Solubility Cycle each year?
-One of my sources say that the concentration level of Carbon Dioxide in the ocean is 50 times higher than the levels in the atmosphere, but thats to vague for me.

The oceans hold a lot of carbon. This UNEP figure will give an idea of the numbers.

www.grida.no...

Science 31 March 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and 13C
M. Battle, 1* M. L. Bender, 1 P. P. Tans, 2 J. W. C. White, 3 J. T. Ellis, 4 T. Conway, 2 R. J. Francey 5

Recent time-series measurements of atmospheric O2 show that the land biosphere and world oceans annually sequestered 1.4 ± 0.8 and 2.0 ± 0.6 gigatons of carbon, respectively, between mid-1991 and mid-1997. The rapid storage of carbon by the land biosphere from 1991 to 1997 contrasts with the 1980s, when the land biosphere was approximately neutral. Comparison with measurements of 13CO2 implies an isotopic flux of 89 ± 21 gigatons of carbon per mil per year, in agreement with model- and inventory-based estimates of this flux. Both the 13C and the O2 data show significant interannual variability in carbon storage over the period of record. The general agreement of the independent estimates from O2 and 13C is a robust signal of variable carbon uptake by both the land biosphere and the oceans.

So, oceans store 2GtC of carbon every year (7.4 billion tonnes). That is, overall, they remove 7.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. What they emit is taken up, they are sinks not sources.

5) How effective is water vapor in aborbing heat?

From the NASA-GISS model you get figures of 66-85% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and clouds. The other GHGs take up 15-34% (CO2 around 9-26%).

Ramanathan & Coakley (1978) suggest water vapour is about 36%. CO2 about 12%.

I'll ignore the rest of the stuff and hope your opponents know enough to easily counter those claims, a quick perusal of some of my posts in this thread, and this post, will show you why. I'd think the best approach would be to frame it as humans are not the main cause, but just another cause. However, I'm sure your teacher has a different idea...

[edit on 15-4-2007 by melatonin]

hey long lance and melatonin, thank you replying to my questions and informing me!! I appreciated alot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the way, hey melatonin, where did you get those sources from, it seems to me from academic journals, but I might be able to access them, through my school. Maybe providing me the links?

Oh and I'm sure my teacher has her own opinion, she a liberal, but I don't know if I've mention this, I have to write two papers on one topic, but each on the other opposing arguement. The second paper we right on is the side we argee on.

Would you suggest I change my information and sources in the paper (arguing human aren't the main cause of Global Warming)? OR...

Do you suggest I wait and use this sources to counter act statements from previous paper for my next paper, due to be written this weekend (arguing human are the main cause of Global warming.)?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. I'll post up the first paper (w/ biblography and citation) when I get it revised, hopefully by thusday.



[edit on 15-4-2007 by skyblueff0]

Originally posted by skyblueff0
hey long lance and melatonin, thank you replying to my questions and informing me!!

by the way, hey melatonin, where did you get those sources from, it seems to me from academic journal, but I might be able to access them, through my school.

You won't be able to access the full text, but you can access the article abstracts through the sciencemag website (oh, yeah, if your school has subscription to 'science', you will have access, but anyone can access the abstracts - googlescholar is another possible route).

www.sciencemag.org...

Just do a search with appropriate search terms (titles, authors and volume numbers etc).

www.sciencemag.org...

ABE:

Would you suggest I change my information and sources in the paper (arguing human aren't the main cause of Global Warming)? OR...

Do you suggest I wait and use this sources to counter act statements from previous paper for my next paper, due to be written this weekend (arguing human are the main cause of Global warming.)?

It's entirely up to you. I think the way the question is raised 'are humans the main cause' gives you a couple of options. Science could support for and against this. But, if you want to argue 'humans are having a negligible impact', you'll have more problems if you want to use science rather than opinion.

Most research suggests we are having a significant impact, whether we are the main cause is more debatable (i.e. we outweigh other effects). We are a cause.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, you still need to answer these points.

6.2 GtC per year released into the atmosphere between 1991-1997 by humans. Where did it go?

2.8 Gtc per year increased in the atmosphere. Where did it come from?

Already done that... Some of it is anthropogenic, a great part is natural.... Again, in warming cycles there is an increase of atmosphereic gases such as CO2 and H2Ov. Another fact you keep trying to avoid talking about...

Originally posted by melatonin
The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are removing CO2. There is no net release from these sources.

I have already stated several times that the fluctuations of CO2 levels in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times that of anthropogenic sources.

Global Variations in Oceanic CO2
The figures illustrate the horizontal and vertical changes in oceanic CO2 levels observed in the Indian Ocean. Fluctuations in these CO2 levels in the upper ocean can be 10 to 100 times more than the annual anthropogenic increase. Therefore researchers have to make hundreds of thousands of CO2 measurements to accurately distinguish the natural variability from the CO2 increase due to rising atmospheric concentrations.

www.agu.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
120 PgC is exchanged by terrestrial. 90PgC exchanged by oceans. There is no overall release by these sources. What they emit, they absorb. That is why CO2 levels were pretty stable for the 800 years before we emitted millions of tonnes of CO2.

If there was any truth to your claim that what the natural factors emit they always absorb, then as i have stated before we would never have seen CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase in the past when mankind was not around, and we know that is not true.

Originally posted by melatonin
Are you seriously trying to say that 0.1% of the 2.8GtC per year for 1991-1997 is anthropogenic, when we actually released 6.2GtC per year?

CO2 fluctuations in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times greater than that of all anthropogenic CO2 release...

Originally posted by melatonin
Also, muaddib, why are you still presenting cartoon graphics with little idea of their source? I provided a nice peer-reviewed figure from Briffa & Osborne (2002) you could use for the last 1000 years:

Cartoon graphics with no idea of the source?... These graphs have been used by several sources I have given in the past.

vathena.arc.nasa.gov...

Now, I would like to know why is it that you melatonin never explain that first, the "red line, sometimes blue" we see in those graphs you keep giving, are temperatures taken in cities which are heat sinks. Temperatures around cities are warmer than surrounding areas, and of course the temperature trends taken from the different core samples were not "giving temperature trends of modern cities, nor ancient cities"....

Second of all, I would like to know why you keep giving links to Mann's graphs....

Third of all, you ahve claimed several times that events such as the Roman Warming, the Medieval Warming, and the Little Ice Age periods were only local and nomatter how much evidence is presented of the contrary you keep claiming the same...

Here are two more sources, one from South America and the other from Japan, which show such events were global...not what you, Mann and colleages have been trying to claim......

Accumulation and 18O records for ice cores from Quelccaya ice cap. The period of the Little Ice Age stands out clearly as an interval of colder temperature (lower 18O) and higher accumulation. Such evidence demonstrates the Little Ice Age was a climatic episode of global significance. From World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (educational slide set).

academic.emporia.edu...

BTW, do take a good look at the graph in the above link, because again it shows the MWP was warmer than present temperatures. I couldn't upload the graph because it is too large.

It is probably going to get a lot warmer in the future, more so with the next solar cycle, which noone knows for certain if it has begun or if it will begin in 2008. This is supposed to be the longest and more powerful solar cycle we have seen in a while.

Climatic changes during the past 1300 years as deduced from the sediments of Lake Nakatsuna, central Japan

Authors
D. P. Adhikari, F. Kumon
Abstract
Limnological features and sediment characteristics were studied in Lake Nakatsuna, a mesotrophic lake in central Japan. The lake is dimictic, and is anoxic in the hypolimnion during thermal stratification from May to September. In an attempt to reconstruct paleoclimatic changes around the lake, a sediment core taken from the lake center spanning the past 1300 years was analyzed for its organic and inorganic contents. Climatic influences were examined on the variation of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and sand contents. Short- and long-term fluctuations in TOC, TN, and sand contents are evident, and variation in atmospheric temperature appears to be important for their long-term variability.

The sediment record from AD 900 to 1200 indicates hot summers and warm winters with less snow accumulation, whereas the record from AD 1200 to 1950 is characterized by high variation of temperature, with three cool phases from AD 1300 to 1470, 1700 to 1760, and 1850 to 1950. The warm period from AD 900 to 1200 corresponds well to the Medieval Warm Period, and the second and third cool phases are related to the Little Ice Age.

www.springerlink.com...

But i am sure you will try to continue to give credence to Mann and associates and dismiss any and all data that your "peer reviewed policymakers" want to dismiss...

Originally posted by melatonin
Wouldn't like to think you want to mislead people..

Why is it that you keep giving links to Mann's graph, as in your latest post?....

Why is it that you don't address for example Esper's graph by itself?.... Which gives a different picture to what you claim...

Are you trying to mislead people with more of the lies from Mann and associates?...

Here is a link which shows the decade "Global" changes in temperatures since 1850 till 2000.

The format is in png so it is too big to upload.

dataservice.eea.europa.eu...
"Copyright EEA, Copenhagen, (2005)"

It does show a different picture than the claims from the "Global Warming is cause by anthropogenic CO2 scaremongers"...

BTW, another fact i have been trying to point out is that it appears the warming is occurring more from the depths of the Earth than surface warming is occurring.

Study: Lake Superior Warming Quickly

(AP) -- Lake Superior has been warming even faster than the climate around it since the late 1970s due to reduced ice cover, according to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
Summer surface temperatures on the famously cold lake have increased about 4.5 degrees since 1979, compared with about a 2.7-degree increase in the region's annual average air temperature, the researchers found. The lake's "summer season" is now beginning about two weeks earlier than it did 27 years ago.
................
The study was first published by the American Geophysical Union on March 23.

www.physorg.com...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
Most research suggests we are having a significant impact, whether we are the main cause is more debatable (i.e. we outweigh other effects). We are a cause.

Not true in the least, some other members and I have been giving links, excerpts, graphs and information which contradicts melatonin, Mann and associates' claims...

In that last research/experiment that i gave excerpts and link to, it is clearly demonstrated that H2Ov (water vapor) is more significant as a greenhouse gas than CO2 ever will, and the amount of heat trapping efficiency of CO2 is "only noticeable" if we at least double the amount of CO2 that currently exists in the atmosphere.

The current level of CO2 is 380ppm, more than a double increase to 780ppm would only produce a 0.18 W/m2 heat trapping efficiency in CO2, meanwhile a 5% increase in H2Ov (water vapor) would increase the heat trapping efficiency of water vapor to 0.7 W/m2.

A doubling of present CO2 levels would not even come close to produce the warming that a mere 5% increase in water vapor would, and we have been going through a warming period, which increases naturally all GHGs. (greenhouse gases)

But do you know why people like melatonin, and scientists like Mann don't want to admit this? Because 99.99% of H2Ov is natural, meaning they can't blame mankind for this increase. There is one fact about warming cycles, as the climate warms, and much of the evidence points to the warming being natural, the levels of greenhouse gases raise naturally.

Yes, mankind is adding CO2 among some other GHGs, but another fact melatonin and his lackeys try to dismiss is that in the past warming cycles, there have been times when CO2 levels have increased "naturally" to levels much higher than those of today.

Again, not all warming cycles show a greater increase in CO2, but CO2 is known to lag temperature increases, and even during the present warming period temperatures around most of the world began increasing 260 years before CO2 levels increased, and in some areas the warming started 360 years before CO2 levels began increasing.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Already done that... Some of it is anthropogenic, a great part is natural.... Again, in warming cycles there is an increase of atmosphereic gases such as CO2 and H2Ov. Another fact you keep trying to avoid talking about...

Show me evidence that this is the case.

All you have done is hand-waved. I've presented evidence that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net sinks not net sources of CO2. You need to show that they are losing more CO2 than they are taking up.

Between 1991-1997 human sources emitted (6.2GtC), more than twice what is accumulating (2.8GtC). The ocean removed 2.0GtC, the land 1.4GtC. Do the maths.

Humans released 6.2GtC into the atmosphere.

2.8GtC accumulated in the atmosphere.

The oceans and land biospheres removed 3.4GtC.

2.8 + 3.4 = 6.2.

All the Sabine article is stating is that there is natural variability, yeah, of course, some areas of the oceans act as sinks, others as sources, certain seasonal variability is present - but they are still net sinks. We know there is much more natural CO2 in the oceans than anthropogenic, not really an issue. The data shows that taking the oceans as a whole, they are sinks, they are removing CO2, they are not a net source.

Now, this might change in the future. As oceans warm, their solubility does decrease, but this is not an issue at this point. It may well be in the future. They may start to release the anthropogenic CO2 - positive feedback, possibly a big problem.

Cartoon graphics with no idea of the source?... These graphs have been used by several sources I have given in the past.

vathena.arc.nasa.gov...

That webpage is using data from 1995, the webpage hasn't been updated for 10 years. Figures. You need to keep up.


[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Show me evidence that this is the case.

All you have done is hand-waved. I've presented evidence that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net sinks not net sources of CO2. You need to show that they are losing more CO2 than they are taking up.

The evidence is in the fact that in the past nature has released more CO2 than present levels of CO2 melatonin....

Originally posted by melatonin
Between 1991-1997 human sources emitted (6.2GtC), more than twice what is accumulating (2.8GtC). The ocean removed 2.0GtC, the land 1.4GtC. Do the maths.

And the upper oceans can have fluctuations in the uptake and sink of CO2 of 10 to 100 times that of all anthropogenic CO2 released in a year....

Originally posted by melatonin
That webpage is using data from 1995, the webpage hasn't been updated for 10 years. Figures. You need to keep up.

Does that mean accepting Mann and associates's graphs even after knowing that the present level of temperatures taken are done in cities which are heat sinks and are hotter than the surrounding areas?...

I have posted more than enough evidence from newer research which contradicts your claims...

Here is another graph with teh data from Espar and Mann which tell a different story, much more so when you don't include the "temperatures taken in cities which are heat sinks and are hotter than the surrounding areas...


www.worldclimatereport.com...

The blue line represents the Northern Hemispheric temperature history as constructed by Esper’s research team (source: Esper et al., 2002).

The Chief editor of that site i gave a link to and where that graph can be found has more credence than Mann, and associates.

Patrick J. Michaels
Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies

Pat Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. According to Nature magazine, Michaels is one of the most popular lecturers in the nation on the subject of global warming. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an author of the 2003 climate science "Paper of the Year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers, for the demonstration that urban heat-related mortality declined significantly as cities became warmer. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science; and his articles have appeared also in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and the Journal of Commerce. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's All Things Considered, PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

www.cato.org...

Keep trying melatonin...

and should we go back to showing what Briffa's graph by itself really shows instead of extrapolating a whole bunch of graphs which appart tell a different picture to what some try to claim?...




[edit on 16-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
The evidence is in the fact that in the past nature has released more CO2 than present levels of CO2 melatonin....

Yeah, maybe. But that is not evidence. The oceans are currently acting as a sink.

And the upper oceans can have fluctuations in the uptake and sink of CO2 of 10 to 100 times that of all anthropogenic CO2 released in a year....

You need to read articles closely. You can't just make stuff up.

The figures illustrate the horizontal and vertical changes in oceanic CO2 levels observed in the Indian Ocean. Fluctuations in these CO2 levels in the upper ocean can be 10 to 100 times more than the annual anthropogenic increase. Therefore researchers have to make hundreds of thousands of CO2 measurements to accurately distinguish the natural variability from the CO2 increase due to rising atmospheric concentrations.

The levels of CO2 in the upper Indian ocean fluctuate vertically (up and down) and horizontally (across; see the graphs). This fluctuation can be 10 to 100 times the increase of CO2 in the ocean due to anthropogenic activity.

What Sabine is talking about in this paper is the problems in assessing the uptake of human sourced CO2 in the ocean. Understand the natural fluctuations of CO2 in the oceans would help in this regard.

It says nothing about the increase in the atmosphere being due to natural sources. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.


.....

ABE: Is this the Pat Michaels you think is a respected figure in academia?

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

And I'm sure Briffa can present his own data in a suitable fashion:



[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]