Is there Proof that Man isn't causing "Global Warming"?

Here's my inquiry to G.W. skeptics:

EDIT: I shouldn't have been so limited in the origiinal thread title/context.
Another example, besides the original below, would be something like: Is there Proof that the Sun is currently causing more heat? I've looked very specifically to the best of my ability on a couple occasion now and it's always inconclusive from my findings. The latest charts I could find conveniently cut off several years before today.

Is there proof or strong evidence that temperature drives CO2?

This is important to the issue. It's pretty obvious the Sun is going to be the most significant force on global heat. The link betwen the Sun and heat is self-evident, but can you 'prove' a link between heat and CO2?

Since the ice core data seems to show a clear rise in heat before a rise in CO2, it would seem you're almost there, but is there a clearcut irrefutable way to demonstrate a direct link between the 2?

I find this entire ordeal interesting because the GW premise seems to be that CO2 drives heat, more or less. Now if that's true, it would seem that if there's also a link betwen heat driving CO2 then these 2 forces would create a constant reverse-feedback-loop where each continues to drive a rise in the other, until the planet boils. This almost seems to be a catch22 if we're to listen uncritically to both sides of the debate. I've started a thread for the pro-GW's to attempt to 'prove' their side, as spin-free as possible, but here's your chance to do the same.
EDIT: The point is, if CO2 is such a big deal, and can be driven by 'the Sun', then it seems the planet would have aleady found it's own way into Al Gore's doomsday scenario on it's own.

Perhaps more importantly, is it a clear fact that 'the Sun' drives water vapor release?
If it does, but the earth doesn't go into constant feedback-loop inferno, then perhaps that would suggest that greenhouse gases aren't really a big deal whatsoever.

Since wator vapor is clearly more relevent than CO2, shoudln't the overall effects of it be the bigger issue in understanding what significance CO2 might actually have, since we can compare them with algebra?

[edit on 11-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It is well known that there is a lag during the glacial warming phase. Although a recent study does suggest this lag is much less that previously thought.

But we wouldn't expect CO2 to be emitted magically, we would expect another cause to intitiate the CO2 release. Then the released CO2 does its GHG thang.

The currently accepted explanation is that orbital variations invoke a temperature increase, eventually this temperature increase results in the emission of CO2 from the biosphere (along with methane). These gases enhance/potentiate the initial warming effect. Thus in this case, GHGs act as a positive feedback.

However, this does not mean CO2 cannot cause warming. In the current case, we know the CO2 is predominately anthropogenic. We emit more CO2 than accumulates every year - about 50% is removed by oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

Originally posted by melatonin
It is well known that there is a lag during the glacial warming phase. Although a recent study does suggest this lag is much less that previously thought.

This is what keeps getting on my nerves. I'd like to know the lag dynamics on average over the entire course. Every time I check into it they only mention the lag time associated with the glacial warming periods. Since there's supposidly 2 sides trying their best to prove their side, I don't understand why one of the sides has provided analysis to lay out specifically what's going on there. How can we access the raw "proxy' materials? Whenever I look at wikipedia or related online debates i see the same papers and graphs, and most of them only give data several years old. With all of the attention, there should be constant studies from 'proxies' and so on releasing all of the time.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
How can we access the raw "proxy' materials? Whenever I look at wikipedia or related online debates i see the same papers and graphs, and most of them only give data several years old. With all of the attention, there should be constant studies from 'proxies' and so on releasing all of the time.

I think you can actually get the raw data. I know that Lonnie Thompson's ice-core data is available online, a lot of the raw data is available.

sunsite.wits.ac.za...

Not sure what you'd want to do with though...

The important thing is that the lag is no great shakes really. Some will use it to cast doubt on CO2 as an important factor, but it doesn't really speak to that. It just suggests that CO2 does not initiate glacial cycles.

Essentially, CO2 acts a bit like water vapour is now, it acts in response to another variable and provides a potentiating feedback. Although, it will hang around a bit longer before reaching a more stable equilibrium.

ABE: but if you just want the most up-to-date science, the recent IPCC report will contain it. It's worth wading through on a rainy day if you're interested.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by melatonin]

I've been seeing in some of these videos that IPCC is biased, with an agenda, and a memeber/former-member of it has even come forward.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I've been seeing in some of these videos that IPCC is biased, with an agenda, and a memeber/former-member of it has even come forward.

With so many people involved in the IPCC, it is not surprising that some do not agree with the outcome. I assume this is about Chris Landsea, I guess some scientists like to throw their dummies out the pram if they don't get their way immediately. From what I gather, the part of the report he was peeved about (warming & hurricanes) came out the review end with nothing to conflict with his position on the issue.

The IPCC process is actually very conservative in its position on climate change. For example, there are papers predicting up to 6'C for climate sensitivity. It just contains the most accepted science in each area (hurricanes is one of the more controversial area ATM, no real consensus currently).

Here's a very recent paper on glacial termination III. The IPCC report section on paleoclimatology also contains a section on glacial cycles.

icebubbles.ucsd.edu...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by melatonin]

The interview I seen, I think it was in Doomsday Cancelled, he stated the agenda was to make it look as bad as possible so that the U.S. would bow down and enter things like the Kyoto treaty. He seemed to be one of the most credible on there. I need to start memorizing some of these names.

The lag of CO2 behind temperatures is a good indicator that the claim that "mankind has caused the current warming, or is making it worse" is not true.

Then you have experiments which imitate conditions in places like the central U.S. and which show that even a doubling of CO2 will only increase temepratures by a whooping 0.014C...

Of course we also have the dozens of other researchers around the world who they all say the current warming is neither exceptional nor was it the warmest for the past 1,000 years or 2,000 years.

But then you get the "let's blame mankind crowd" who claim only the data from Mann and associates is telling the truth.

Temperatures during the RWP and the MWP were warmer than at present according to the research done by others appart from Mann et al.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Then you have experiments which imitate conditions in places like the central U.S. and which show that even a doubling of CO2 will only increase temepratures by a whooping 0.014C...

Bingo. That's specifically the type of data I'm talking about. Do you have a link or way to check the gritty details on that? If that's true that's the thing everyone needs to look very closely at before going into pandemonium.

Much evidence has been posted, including that particular research and others which we discussed in the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Go back page by page and you will find that particular research which I posted.

if you go to the following page in that same thread, you will first find melatonin 's data and the links he excerpts, and then you find some of the research and data I have excerpted to back my statements.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Muaddib]

BTW, one of the main points which I have talked about in the past which proves that anthropogenic CO2, nor natural CO2 are the cause of the current warming is the fact that all warming of the Earth's surface, and weather events happen in the troposphere, and it is known as a matter of fact that in the troposphere water vapor contributes to total heating of the troposphere by 95%, while CO2 contributes total heating of the troposphere by 5%.

It is also known as a matter of fact that water vapor retains more than twice the amount of CO2, and since it exists in larger quantities in the atmosphere, it is the main GHG which causes warming on Earth.

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Anyways, i finally found that research i was talking about.

i had to search through the threads that we have been discussing this topic in to find it, as I usually add favorites to my computer by the dozens every week.

The contribution to maximum temperature is small for
2 X CO2 radiation, with a mean of 0.014 °C, while the
2 X CO2 biology indicates a relatively large cooling
contribution of 0.747 °C.

blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

hummm..... This is very strange, this particular research is nowhere to be found now, even though it existed a couple of weeks ago.

Actually a week ago i was able to open that link and view the research, now it is gone. Maybe they are having some problems or someone hacked into their site?

BTW, in case some of you don't know, that link and research are from the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Muaddib, I very much respect and agree with all the research and info you have gathered in regards to manmade GW... although I'm curious as to what your oppinion is, in regards to who it is promoting the disinfo, and what motive they have by making people believe it (manmade global warming). Just curious, seeing as how you're usually the first one to defend the American government and mainstream.

Not having a go at you... just curious as to what some other views are on the reasoning of this whole thing.


[edit on 11/6/07 by Navieko]

Originally posted by Muaddib
hummm..... This is very strange, this particular research is nowhere to be found now, even though it existed a couple of weeks ago.

Gotcha covered:
blue.atmos.colostate.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink">LINK
Bah. The link is freakin out. Just put your link into archive.org.

Thank you kindly. I gotta check into it all now...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 12-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 12-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by Navieko
Muaddib, I very much respect and agree with all the research and info you have gathered in regards to manmade GW... although I'm curious as to what your oppinion is, in regards to who it is promoting the disinfo, and what motive they have by making people believe it (manmade global warming). Just curious, seeing as how you're usually the first one to defend the American government and mainstream.

Not having a go at you... just curious as to what some other views are on the reasoning of this whole thing.

See, that's what people don't realize. I don't agree with everything the government has done, as for example the selling/leasing of U.S. ports to the Communist Chinese, and the policies with illegal aliens among others, but neither do I agree with the claims of some that it is becoming a dictatorship, or that some radical change is needed.

I don't bash and blame everything on the U.S. as some people do, as i think this is still one of the greatest country anyone can live at, and i know several professionals, as in engineers, geologists, etc, and regular people from other countries who live and work here and who agree with me.

Anyways, this is not the topic of this thread.

There are certain groups who want to use AGW as a pretext to impose some new global taxes, or some system in which people will have to pay more from their pockets and this will fill the pockets of those who have been spreading the propaganda on AGW.

Yes, the Earth is going through Climate Change, and it will probably warm more, but some research suggest that after the Sun's output and the increase in solar flare slows down, which will be in the next decade or two, we will be once again in another Little Ice Age. That's what the climate of Earth does, it changes all the time.

The claims that "the current warming is unprecedented and mankind is the cause of the current warming or that we are making it worse" is nothing more than pretexts and lies.

We should be more worried about cleaning up rivers, lakes, oceans from the toxins which are being released there. It has gotten better from what it used to be 50 years ago, but there are still many countries that need to pick up their act, such as China, and in the U.S. it should be up to each company which pollutes our rivers, lakes and oceans to clean them up and find better ways to do their business without damaging the environment.

CO2, natural or anthropogenic are not a pollutant. CO2 is in fact needed for Earth biosystem to exist. CO2 levels have been much higher than at present yet life in all forms thrived with no problems. Mankind itself has thrived more during warming cycles, such as the Roman Warming and the Medieval warming, which despite some claims were warmer than present yet CO2 levels were much lower.


[edit on 12-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

The contribution to maximum temperature is small for
2 X CO2 radiation, with a mean of 0.014 °C,
blue.atmos.colostate.edu...

So is there a 'paper' somewhere that 'proves' that the '1 X CO2' is only 0.007°C out there anywhere? If so, the entire Global Warming" argument would seem to be destroyed.

Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor.

www.eia.doe.gov...

Well that's interesting. So from that we need to know specifically how much CO2 heats per-percentage like from that other data, and then how much CO2 manages to get into the stratosphere. In the other thread it was said that up there it stays there for years - even decades. I'd imagine that we'd also need a specific number on that if such a thing is possible. Without at least the first 2 dynamics, I can't see how man can expect to have a clue about the truth of it, so therefore I sure hope such is known considering all of the controversy.

Have you guys ever heard of Scalar Weapons? Supposedly a type of satellite the russians are using to utilize clouds a certain way. Sounds crazy but supposedly this has to do with global warming. I suggest you guys check it out.

Originally posted by topsecretombomb
Have you guys ever heard of Scalar Weapons?
...supposedly this has to do with global warming.

Oh it does, just not in the way one would initially assume. Check into my materials and you'll probably figure it out.

I had a math prof in first year who was doing statistical research in this area. I couldn't tell you how he did this, but he told our class once that he calculated that there was only about a 1% chance that global warming was natural, and that it was 99% likely to be human intervention.

While I cannot tell you where he figured this out, I did find a bunch of his papers for download.

www.math.ualberta.ca...

Maybe somewhere in there he has his calculations. I don't know, I haven't gone through any of those papers. You could always email him and ask him, too. He's a nice guy.

edit to say that he told me this in early 2002, so any calculations he did on this would be prior to that. It should help a little in looking for the right paper, if it's on that website.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by DragonsDemesne]