No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by melatonin

Aye, my beliefs are evidence-based.

Oh yeah right.....*BS*...cough.. more BS...*cough*....

There is not one iota of evidence that shows Climate Change/Global Warming is manmade, all you do is claim, "that website is from the government"...or " that scientist is wrong, and only Mann et al are right"... Yet not one iota of evidence that anthropogenic CO2 (which is what scientists and idiots like Gore claim is the cause of the current Climate Change] has been presented...

[edit on 25-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is not one iota of evidence that shows Climate Change/Global Warming is manmade

That's because human effects, although significant, are just one of many in the current phase of climate change.

Guess that's a bit toooo complex for some, heh.

Originally posted by melatonin
[
Please re-check that 30 billion M.T. figure for the anthropogenic CO2 contribution.

CO2 = C + O + O

thus 27 billion tonnes of CO2 = some C + some 2xO

C = 12/44 x 27 = 7.4 billion tonnes C or 7.4GtC.

That would be good, and the masses utilized to determine the % composition are essentially correct, ( I am a mass spectrometer operator, among other things) but my chart specifically says CO2, not merely carbon. I would like a value that we can both agree with, for a paper I'm writing. Being established fact (well, almost. The D.O.E. and everyone else have to estimate these things. I was laughing out loud when I first read of the Monte Carlo method of checking the data. Sounds a lot like rolling dice, or drawing cards HA HA.) there should be little debate. What I want is the very best value for the estimated ONLY anthropogenic worldwide CO2 contribution in billions of tons for a recent year, like 2005. My 2005 U.S. D.O.E. chart lists it as 6.0086 billion tons for the U.S. only. Apparently my earlier chart is somewhat unclear on this. Worldwide it looks to be around 27 Billion tons, so my apologies to Smoky The Bear, whose 30 billion ton figure seems to be right in the ballpark. If you find a better figure, please let me know. Evidently, I was only looking at the U.S. contribution earlier. I know that there is a Helluva lot more to the world than just the U.S. unlike some of my arrogant countrymen. Let me apologize for them. So I have found, corrected and admitted to my own error, as we scientists must.






[edit on 6/25/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by melatonin

That's because human effects, although significant, are just one of many in the current phase of climate change.

Guess that's a bit toooo complex for some, heh.

Yeeeeah...such as the experiments imitating the mid U.S. which show a doubling of CO2 would increase temperatures by a whooping 0.014C?... Wow, that's really a scorcher...yeeeeah we should be getting ready for some really hot times because of anthropogenic CO2.... But i guess it is too complex for some to realize this....

Well, we better start moving populations of the world to the central US grasslands...

Title: Recent and future climate change in northwest china
Author(s): Shi YF (Shi, Yafeng), Shen YP (Shen, Yongping), Kang E (Kang, Ersi), Li DL (Li, Dongliang), Ding YJ (Ding, Yongjian), Zhang GW (Zhang, Guowei), Hu RJ (Hu, Ruji)
Source: CLIMATIC CHANGE 80 (3-4): 379-393 FEB 2007
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 37 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: As a consequence of global warming and an enhanced water cycle, the climate changed in northwest China, most notably in the Xinjiang area in the year 1987. Precipitation, glacial melt water and river runoff and air temperature increased continuously during the last decades, as did also the water level of inland lakes and the frequency of flood disasters. As a result, the vegetation cover is improved, number of days with sand-dust storms reduced. From the end of the 19th century to the 1970s, the climate was warm and dry, and then changed to warm and wet. The effects on northwest China can be classified into three classes by using the relation between precipitation and evaporation increase. If precipitation increases more than evaporation, runoff increases and lake water levels rise. We identify regions with: (1) notable change, (2) slight change and (3) no change. The future climate for doubled CO2 concentration is simulated in a nested approach with the regional climate model-RegCM2. The annual temperature will increase by 2.7 degrees C and annual precipitation by 25%. The cooling effect of aerosols and natural factors will reduce this increase to 2.0 degrees C and 19% of precipitation. As a consequence, annual runoff may increase by more than 10%.


Title: Regional climate simulations for the Barents Sea region
Author(s): Keup-Thiel E (Keup-Thiel, Elke), Gottel H (Goettel, Holger), Jacob D (Jacob, Daniela)
Source: BOREAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH 11 (5): 329-339 OCT 25 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 22 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: The vulnerability of the Barents Sea region to climate change is under investigation in the context of the EU Project BALANCE (balancel.uni-muenster.de...). Today's climate of the Barents Sea region has been simulated using the regional climate model REMO driven by Analysis (since 1994) and by Reanalysis (1979-1993) of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) from 1979 to 2000 with a horizontal resolution of about 55 km. The results have been validated using observations from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU data) for 2-m temperature and precipitation for land areas only. The differences between the REMO simulation results and the CRU data are of the same order of magnitude as the deviations between CRU data and ERA-40 data (Reanalysis data of the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts). To investigate a possible future climate development a 140-year-long transient simulation from 1961 to 2100 has been carried out using REMO. In this experiment, called the CCC run (Control and Climate Change run), REMO has been driven by ECHAM4/OPYC3 following the IPCCSRES B2 scenario. The annual mean 2-m temperature of the CCC run shows a clear trend as expected, the 2-m temperature increases by 5 C by the end of the century. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment reports a 1.5 degrees C temperature increase from 1960 to today, which is in good agreement with our results. From 1960 to 2000 the observed annual mean temperature for the Arctic rises exactly in the same way as in the REMO simulation for the Barents Sea only. Three 20-year periods have been defined in order to analyze differences among these time slices. A stronger warming in January than in July is evident for all time slices. As expected, the warming is enhanced for the period 2041-2060 as compared with that for the earlier period (2011-2030). The largest warming occurs along the sea ice edge and over Russia during the winter months.


Title: CO2 sensitivity of extreme climate events in the Western United States
Author(s): Bell JL (Bell, Jason L.), Sloan LC (Sloan, Lisa C.)
Source: EARTH INTERACTIONS 10: Art. No. 15 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 13 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: Based upon trends in observed climate, extreme events are thought to be increasing in frequency and/or magnitude. This change in extreme events is attributed to enhancement of the hydrologic cycle caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Results are presented of relatively long (50 yr) regional climate model simulations of the western United States examining the sensitivity of climate and extreme events to a doubling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These results indicate a shift in the temperature distribution, resulting in fewer cold days and more hot days; the largest changes occur at high elevations. The rainfall distribution is also affected; total rain increases as a result of increases in rainfall during the spring season and at higher elevations. The risk of flooding is generally increased, as is the severity of droughts and heat waves. These results, combined with results of decreased snowpack and increased evaporation, could further stress the water supply of the western United States.

Title: Transient climate change scenario simulation of the Mediterranean Sea for the twenty-first century using a high-resolution ocean circulation model
Author(s): Somot S (Somot, S.), Sevault F (Sevault, F.), Deque M (Deque, M.)
Source: CLIMATE DYNAMICS 27 (7-8): 851-879 DEC 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 96 Times Cited: 1
Abstract: A scenario of the Mediterranean Sea is performed for the twenty-first century based on an ocean modelling approach. A climate change IPCC-A2 scenario run with an atmosphere regional climate model is used to force a Mediterranean Sea high-resolution ocean model over the 1960-2099 period. For comparison, a control simulation as long as the scenario has also been carried out under present climate fluxes. This control run shows air-sea fluxes in agreement with observations, stable temperature and salinity characteristics and a realistic thermohaline circulation simulating the different intermediate and deep water masses described in the literature. During the scenario, warming and saltening are simulated for the surface (+3.1 degrees C and + 0.48 psu for the Mediterranean Sea at the end of the twenty-first century) and for the deeper layers (+1.5 degrees C and + 0.23 psu on average). These simulated trends are in agreement with observed trends for the Mediterranean Sea over the last decades. In addition, the Mediterranean thermohaline circulation (MTHC) is strongly weakened at the end of the twenty-first century. This behaviour is mainly due to the decrease in surface density and so the decrease in winter deep-water formation. At the end of the twenty-first century, the MTHC weakening can be evaluated as -40% for the intermediate waters and -80% for the deep circulation with respect to present-climate conditions. The characteristics of the Mediterranean Outflow Waters flowing into the Atlantic Ocean are also strongly influenced during the scenario.


Title: Transient future climate over the western United States using a regional climate model
Author(s): Snyder MA (Snyder, Mark A.), Sloan LC (Sloan, Lisa C.)
Source: EARTH INTERACTIONS 9: Art. No. 11 2005
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 32 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: Regional climate models (RCMs) have improved our understanding of the effects of global climate change on specific regions. The need for realistic forcing has led to the use of fully coupled global climate models (GCMs) to produce boundary conditions for RCMs. The advantages of using fully coupled GCM output is that the global-scale interactions of all components of the climate system ( ocean, sea ice, land surface, and atmosphere) are considered. This study uses an RCM, driven by a fully coupled GCM, to examine the climate of a region centered over California for the time periods 1980 - 99 and 2080 - 99. Statistically significant increases in mean monthly temperatures by up to 7 degrees C are found for the entire state. Large changes in precipitation occur in northern California in February ( increase of up to 4 mm day(-1) or 30%) and March ( decrease of up to 3 mm day(-1) or 25%). However, in most months, precipitation changes between the cases were not statistically significant. Statistically significant decreases in snow accumulation of over 100 mm (50%) occur in some months. Temperature increases lead to decreases in snow accumulation that impact the hydrologic budget by shifting spring and summer runoff into the winter months, reinforcing results of other studies that used different models and driving conditions.

Title: High-resolution climate change scenarios for India for the 21st century
Author(s): Kumar KR, Sahai AK, Kumar KK, Patwardhan SK, Mishra PK, Revadekar JV, Kamala K, Pant GB
Source: CURRENT SCIENCE 90 (3): 334-345 FEB 10 2006
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 28 Times Cited: 1
Abstract: A state-of-art regional climate modelling system, known as PRECIS (Providing Regional Climates for Impacts Studies) developed by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, is applied for India to develop high-resolution climate change scenarios. The present-day simulation (1961-1990) with PRECIS is evaluated, including an examination of the impact of enhanced resolution and an identification of biases. The RCM is able to resolve features on finer scales than those resolved by the GCM, particularly those related to improved resolution of the topography. The most notable advantage of using the RCM is a more realistic representation of the spatial patterns of summer monsoon rainfall such as the maximum along the windward side of the Western Ghats. There are notable quantitative biases in precipitation over some regions, mainly due to similar biases in the driving GCM. PRECIS simulations under scenarios of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and sulphate aerosols indicate marked increase in both rainfall and temperature towards the end of the 21st century. Surface air temperature and rainfall show similar patterns of projected changes under A2 and B2 scenarios, but the B2 scenario shows slightly lower magnitudes of the projected change. The warming is monotonously widespread over the country, but there are substantial spatial differences in the projected rainfall changes. West central India shows maximum expected increase in rainfall. Extremes in maximum and minimum temperatures are also expected to increase into the future, but the night temperatures are increasing faster than the day temperatures. Extreme precipitation shows substantial increases over a large area, and particularly over the west coast of India and west central India.

Temperatures have changed in the past, naturally, much faster and with more intensity than at present.

INTRODUCTION
The stable isotope paleoclimate proxies recorded in the ice cores of Greenland (GRIP, GISP2, NGRIP) show abrupt regional air temperature increases of up to 15o K occurring in just a few decades or even a few years, both during the last glacial period and in the transition to the present interglacial (Severinghaus and Brook, 1999; Johnsen et al., 1999). Following these rapid warming events there is a gradual cooling that lasts centuries to millennia, and then, abruptly again, the air temperature drops back to glacial values.
......................
Description of the abrupt climate change events
5000 year long time series of annual air temperature, averaged over the North Atlantic region, from the 3 simulations are illustrated in Figure 2.The simulated climate in the CTL experiment reaches a quasi-equilibrium state eventually. The overall mean is about 4.5oC and the standard
deviation rarely exceeds 1oC . As a comparison, the simulated LGM climate in the North Atlantic is also quasi-stationary with a − 4oC mean air temperature in the North Atlantic and a 1oC standard deviation.
Not surprisingly, the ICE experiment simulates an intermediate climate between CTL and LGM. The clear difference is that only in ICE does the air temperature undergo millennial scale oscillations. As depicted by Figure 2, air temperature swings back and forth between cold and
warm regimes.

Throughout the 5000 year integration the ice age cold regime is randomly interrupted by episodes of warm climate, which initiate as a rapid warming, followed by slow cooling lasting 200 to 500 years, and ending up in rapid cooling, forming saw-tooth shaped, pulse-like events, much like the DO oscillations.

www.geosci.unc.edu...

As many scientists have stated, we will probably have some more warm climate for a couple decades, maybe less, and then we will go back to global cooling.

It is the way it has been for millenia, and mankind is not going to change that with a 0.01% in crease in both anthropogenic and natural CO2. More so since CO2 levels have been much higher and the climate has been both cold and warm at different intervals in time.


[edit on 27-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Oh come on, Muaddib.

You presented a single RCM suggesting little effect from a doubling of CO2. Obviously you thought that model was good and reliable, otherwise why bother posting it. I have no issues with it.

So I presented several RCMs, all show significant effects from a doubling of CO2, then you ignore them.

I live in the central U.S. We are currently experiencing one of the coolest, wettest summers ever. I can't even get my swimming pool up to a reasonable temperature. So much for global warming. Send some heat our way, I miss my summertime.



[edit on 6/29/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
So I presented several RCMs, all show significant effects from a doubling of CO2, then you ignore them.

You did not do such thing...

You presented some research work which is saying due to Global Warming and "the water cycle" it is believed temperatures will raise some more.... There is nothing in any of the research you excerpted about a doubling of CO2.

the temr Global Warming can be construed by some as "anthropogenic warming", or "Climate Change in the form of warming".

BTW, are you also talking about the same GCMs which in many instances scientists had to change them sometimes because they overestimated the effects and at other times becaus they underestimated the effects?....

BTW, perhaps you forgot that i did not just give one experiment which show that water vapor increases temperatures more than CO2.

Originally posted by Muaddib
You did not do such thing...

You presented some research work which is saying due to Global Warming and "the water cycle" it is believed temperatures will raise some more.... There is nothing in any of the research you excerpted about a doubling of CO2.

Are you reading the same stuff as I posted?

I presented the abstracts from several Regional Climate Model studies, those easily found in the last couple of years (i.e. on the WOK bibliographic system), which is essentially what the Pielke study is.

So, if you criticise the reliability & validity of these studies, you are doing the same to the one you keep regurgitating (Pielke is using a RCM). I guess you'd rather just cherrypick the one study that suits your purposes though...

The future climate for doubled CO2 concentration is simulated in a nested approach with the regional climate model-RegCM2. The annual temperature will increase by 2.7 degrees C and annual precipitation by 25%. The cooling effect of aerosols and natural factors will reduce this increase to 2.0 degrees C and 19% of precipitation. As a consequence, annual runoff may increase by more than 10%.

To investigate a possible future climate development a 140-year-long transient simulation from 1961 to 2100 has been carried out using REMO. In this experiment, called the CCC run (Control and Climate Change run), REMO has been driven by ECHAM4/OPYC3 following the IPCCSRES B2 scenario. The annual mean 2-m temperature of the CCC run shows a clear trend as expected, the 2-m temperature increases by 5 C by the end of the century

Results are presented of relatively long (50 yr) regional climate model simulations of the western United States examining the sensitivity of climate and extreme events to a doubling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These results indicate a shift in the temperature distribution, resulting in fewer cold days and more hot days

During the scenario, warming and saltening are simulated for the surface (+3.1 degrees C and + 0.48 psu for the Mediterranean Sea at the end of the twenty-first century) and for the deeper layers (+1.5 degrees C and + 0.23 psu on average)

This study uses an RCM, driven by a fully coupled GCM, to examine the climate of a region centered over California for the time periods 1980 - 99 and 2080 - 99. Statistically significant increases in mean monthly temperatures by up to 7 degrees C are found for the entire state

PRECIS simulations under scenarios of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and sulphate aerosols indicate marked increase in both rainfall and temperature towards the end of the 21st century

Some use solely climate sensitivity (2xCO2) assessment, some use more complex IPCC emissions scenarios. But in most scenarios, we reach doubling before 2100 (around 70 years).

[edit on 29-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Chaoticar


....what has all of this got to do with carbon dioxide??? it's harmless, for all we know, and its effect as a greenhouse gas is limited by saturation, so why focus on it?

Oh for GOD's SAKE!!! Think for yourself, & realize the media is using the term "Carbon Dioxide", because it's simple.... before listening to Alex Jones without question, (I love the guy, but he REALLY screwed up on EndGame, &now everyone's getting copies, getting more confused, as to AGW, & It just means Ill have to make my own documentary) ... If they had to list all the things coming out of an exhaust pipe, there rwouldn't be time for a comertial break... I mean, even if it was not thousands of chemicals destroying the world & our own bodies, and only carbon dioxide, YES, it would be a imbalance, hense a problem. - People are focusing on CO2, because they have all been mislead. It's a toxic mess, a soup...

criticalunity.org... (my site)

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
I mean i cant argue with your philosophical debates, but that doesnt change the fact that small change CAN and DO have huge effects.

... and then the OP said "believe what you like, projecting his feelings about thinking he can disprove what he has misinterpreted that AGW has all started by Al Gore, & that if the OP would practice making a small change; That being; just relax with your opinionated stance there cowboy, & take a common-sense look around, & realize that there is a MAJOR imbalance... (in many regards, it appears to be).
Al gore & his Illuminati mingions are pshing the carbon footprint concept & global carbon taxes to make us feel dirty, & pathetic, & to give an excuse to start wiping us out. - And that will happen, because people are apparently still WASTING time arguing about this, when people swhould be demanding that it not be called 'man-made,' because it is only our fault for not demanding the free-energy technology & clean technology that has been develloped in Black projects with OUR TAX DOLLARS for 60+ years, & that they want to tax US, for a forced deppendancy on oil??? Spend more time demanding the existing solutions be disclosed, or suffer a reality of all of humanity being enclosed in a coffin, irreversibly.

I'm new to this thread. It was listed in 2007's top thread and it caught my attention. However I can't find the video listed in the OP.

all I got is this:
www.oism.org...

Is this working for anyone? (I've got Javascript enabled and the newest Flash player, tried it in both Firefox and IE)

So, obviously all these noxious gases and chemicals are helping us? They do not make humans stronger/healthier when smelling (inhaling) them, and obviously are not doing us a great deal of good.

Firstly, I do not see what your arguments are in regards to the global warming, however the fact is, C02 emissions(Im sure its not just carbon dioxide that is produced by the vast majority of industry) can contribute more than just a noticeable heat change, or melting of icebergs etc.

Diseases and ailments that were previously uncommon, or even unheard of are sprouting up like fire. Asthma, cancer just to name a couple are becoming way more common than they should. Nature designs us with the ability to fight against normal or uncommon diseases, yet we are slowly (In my opinion) not fighting these things, but becoming more suspect able to them.

I myself aren't an avid supporter of the global warming theory, however I feel the 'causes' that all the scientists and etc (I.E pollution, waste etc) are doing more to us, than anything our world could. The thing is also, that temperature is easily manipulated.

Firstly if you have a room, and burn some chemicals or fuel inside it... It heats up, and has a nasty smell or effect. The world is like that, its a big room, and people are constantly burning or using chemicals and of course it will probably get hotter.

I know what im stating is unproven myself, however to me these are my own personnel opinions and no im not a scientist (Nor did I do chem in high school) of even near it... just an average human being. I do not give my 'facts out' as proof, but merely something for the rest of you to listen too, and maybe comment on.

Here is Al Gores Damage Control campaign at work...

www.nytimes.com...