TOO LATE? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

You can actually calculate the estimated contribution for the IPCC consensus: take the total forcing, divide by CO2 forcing (ABE: ca. 50%) - would give a number. Most agree, some think it's somewhat less (ABE: e.g., Pielke - ca. 30%), others more.

I'm sorry, you lost me there. Please remember, I am a layman, I need things explaining in easy language without technical jargon.

Are you saying that most agree that man-made CO2 is responsible for half of current deviations in global temperatures from the expected temperature due to natural fluctuations?

If yes, what is responsible for the other half?

You can answer these questions in the same post as my previous questions if that's ok. thanks.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by melatonin

 

OK, so please enlighten me? I'm actually wanting to learn and form an informed opinion.

Throwing questions about half-life's and vague statements of cycles doesn't help me, or any of the other uninformed people I'd guess.

Be sure that I am not going to 'roll over' and swallow any line if it sounds 'scientific enough' or 'over my head', although I doubt that is your intention in this case. However, I am willing to stretch myself to try to understand the science/sense behind the theories you are supporting/promoting.

Heh, sorry, just wanted you to think about it.

Water vapour is not a climate forcing. It is a feedback. It's presence in the system is controlled by other factors - mainly temperature. Thus, if I release a wad of water vapour, it just rains out. The system is controlled by other factors and rapidly reaches baseline within days (residence time about 10 days).

However, the carbon cycle is much slower. If I release a wad of CO2, about half will be absorbed by sinks, the rest remains to accumulate (residence time = 10 years to perhaps 100 years).

So, if we add consistent amounts of each over time. Water vapour will have minimal effect, CO2 a large effect. CO2 is a forcing. WV is a feedback.

It is a feedback because if I released another long-lasting GHG, it will increase temperatures, which then increases the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapour, which is a GHG.

So back to the reduce water vapour issue, essentially impossible. I could condense WV and it would be rapidly replaced. Indeed, models show that it would probably take just a few weeks to replace almost all (99%) the water vapour if it could be removed from the atmosphere on one go.

Originally posted by RogerT
I'm sorry, you lost me there. Please remember, I am a layman, I need things explaining in easy language without technical jargon.

Are you saying that most agree that man-made CO2 is responsible for half of current deviations in global temperatures from the expected temperature due to natural fluctuations?

If yes, what is responsible for the other half?

You can answer these questions in the same post as my previous questions if that's ok. thanks.

Using the recent Pielke et al data, we could say that about 50% accept it's around half (i.e., agree with the IPCC), some think more (20%), some think less (20%).

The other halfish of the positive forcings (i.e. a factor forcing warming) include many other human effects (e.g., CH4, CFCs, Black carbon) and natural (e.g., solar). Those are for the period 1750-2005.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks.

Re the first bit: water is feedback, CO2 is forcing. does the fact that warming causes more CO2 release not mean that CO2 is also feedback?

Re the second bit: just so I'm clear, are you saying that there are no natural causes of climate change? that 50% is due to man-made CO2 and the other half due to other man-made gases?

Yes the earth goes through cyclic changes, however in our greed we have upset the natural balance. For proof check out google earth and look at what is left of the amazon rain forest. Bear in mind these aren't real time maps, more like 4 to 6 years ago. Now the government is bailing out the top automakers, who are the ones who helped get us in this mess with their oversized low gas mileage vehicles. America uses more oil per capita than any other country in the world. Any shift towards alternative energy has been ridiculed or blocked by those in power in the past. Now that we need these technologies, our leaders scramble to make it happen, but the years that could have been spent developing these technologies have been wasted producing bigger low mileage vehicles. t However there was a story on the steve harvey radio show about a man who bragged to his autodealer during a checkup that his vehicle got 3 times the average gas mileage. So they had a closer inspection and found he had an experimental carbeurator from the automaker still installed. They promptly removed it and replaced it with a standard crappy carbuerator. His mileage went to normal and he wished he would have kept his mouth shut. This was around 2000 and where is this technology now? OPEC wants to cut oil production to boost the prices they have been getting, which is still very high, because the price of oil has dropped lately interfering with their ability to hold the world at ransom. It's my opinion record oil prices were the catalyst for the economic ruin we are seeing today.

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by bloodcircle

 

I would be very impressed to find that you went to all that trouble while still being 'on the fence', so to speak. I am interested in knowing how you believe the planet will 'discard' us; last time i checked it wasn't sentient and we were not ticks to be shaken off? Either way i lack the time to check up on the glaciers and will have to rely on all the other facts that invalidates the basic premises of 'global climate change' as result of human industrial activity.

Stellar

Quite easily, we will eventually either pollute ourselves into extinction or we will use up all of the natural resources we require to live.

As animals with an innate ability to break things, we are not infallible. It's happened to far more gracious creatures throughout history under far more hospitable circumstances. The difference is we have the nack of sticking bandaids on things as we go along, but that has no choice but to come to a end for us at some point.

I see how as the egotistical animals we are, we've got an absolute disregard for what we do to this planet for profit and/or power, so I do consider that if things point towards a sudden change in the global climate (Warmer or colder, I don't give a toot because it all ends up bad in the end) as a result of some of the things that we have done, then I will indeed make as much noise as those I see throw about glib insults and random facts without so much as a thought from their own brain even entering into it.

And if at the end of the day it turns out that -IF- the global climate is warming and it's completely natural, well think how much more pleasant it will be if we've stopped buggering up the atmosphere as opposed to not?

Ultimately, *I* have no control over what conglomero buiscorp does, so I'll just plod along, mostly trying to ignore the people who seem to be eager to use a big stick to beat people as soon as they mention GW.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by melatonin

 

Thanks.

Re the first bit: water is feedback, CO2 is forcing. does the fact that warming causes more CO2 release not mean that CO2 is also feedback?

Aye. It can also act as a positive feedback.

So in the past during ice-age warming, outside influences cause warming of the oceans. They eventually release CO2, which results in more warming. The feedback would also involve water vapour.

Re the second bit: just so I'm clear, are you saying that there are no natural causes of climate change? that 50% is due to man-made CO2 and the other half due to other man-made gases?

Nope, solar has certainly influenced warming this century. Less so in the more recent past (i.e., since about 1970s)

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin



Sorry, I know I'm being a bit slow on this, but then I still don't get what AGW proponents are claiming.

I asked if there was a consensus on how much the mmCO2 had affected climate, you said 50% and 50% other mm gases (mm = manmade )

Now solar has had an effect this century and less so since 1970.

I'm still not clear.

How much is 'an effect' and how much is 'less so'?

This would be easier face to face I know, but I'm willing to take the time to get clarity if you're up for the long haul

Originally posted by RogerT
Sorry, I know I'm being a bit slow on this, but then I still don't get what AGW proponents are claiming.

I asked if there was a consensus on how much the mmCO2 had affected climate, you said 50% and 50% other mm gases (mm = manmade

)

The rest is both other anthro effects and solar.

Now solar has had an effect this century and less so since 1970.

I'm still not clear.

How much is 'an effect' and how much is 'less so'?

This would be easier face to face I know, but I'm willing to take the time to get clarity if you're up for the long haul

Well, just assessing the solar data shows this:






The solar trend essentially peaked about 1950. It has been insignificant since about 1970, and according to Lockwood & Frohlich, gradually falling since about 1980.

IIRC, IPCC has solar activity at about 10% of the forcing since 1750-2005. I wouldn't get too caught up in the numbers, though, for various reasons.

Essentially the take home message is that the science suggests that CO2 is the largest single contributor, all anthro effects the large majority, and solar not so great (to recently negligible).

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Please stop misinforming people with your spoonfed propaganda. Your science has already been debunked by various people yet you still carry on to be a self acclaimed spokesperson for IPCC which are known for fabricating graphs and data to aid in their agenda.




RogerT I suggest if you wish to learn about the truths of Climate Change then search the internet, there's plenty of free information out there for you to learn about it & form an unbiased opinion if you read information from both sides of the fence. The link I posted earlier is a good start as it explains not only the truth behind the scam but also backs it up with real science to prove it's claim and not fabricated information

reply to post by majestictwo


Gloabl warming is not happening because of carbon emissions. They want us to believe it is our fault for a few reasons:
1) To use it as a scare tactic just like an other war.
2) To make us feel like we can fix it even though it is out of our hands.
3) To push their corporate agenda. Research and you will see that these "new" green friendly companies are owned by the same corporations that have help for years and year caused so called "carbon emission" problems.
and; 4) Because they truly do not know why the Earth is warming. (well they know what is causeing it, they just dont know why).

If you would research the Sun and its patterns and habits you would know this. The Sun works in 11 year cycles. At the beginning of a cycle the sun is relatively calm and by the end of the cycle there are several sun spot, solar flares, etc. The last Cylce that the sun was in was suppose to end sometime in 2002. However, this cycle did not end. This is evident because the Sun never became calm, in fact it has become more active. Recently (over the last five to eight years) the Sun has developed what seems to be a Pulse. This pulse is causing huge sun spot, solar flares, etc. These solar flares contain large amounts of radiation (which cause heat). Some of these solar flare have been documented reaching as far as the Jupiter. All of this has been researched and documented. Search Google or whatever your favorite search engine is type in Pulsing Sun, plenty of information with come up.

Now knowing all of this, lets think logically for a second. With that much radiation (heat) being pushed into our solar system by way of the sun, who in their right mind would think that global warming was being cause by us? I am interested to hear responses to this question.

I am absolutely amazed at how many folks there are on this board that think they know more than thousands of the best peer reviewed scientists in the world (who are all in agreement that we are in trouble). ATS is the "head in the sand" crowd on climate change if I have ever seen one. It's your kids and grand kids who would have a world because of your idiotic foolishness and arrogance!

reply to post by Discotech


Yes I visited the link.

My research is not confined to the posts of one person, but it is very useful to have a medium of exchange where one can ask questions and receive direct answers, rather than to simply read opinions.

The link you posted made a big deal about CO2 not being an effective greenhouse gas and water vapor being much more important, which I have also read before. Melatonin offers a different take on this. It was his challenge of the 'small quantities' argument that actually sent me to the page you posted (unless I am confusing you with another poster - apologies if so)

If you feel the info he has given is inaccurate, please post what and why. That would be a better use of the thread than mere mud slinging, assumptions and accusations.

I intend to take this one baby step at a time. There are many aspects of the issue to cover. Let's see who is lying, who is telling the truth and who simply is being misled.

Originally posted by melatonin
The rest is both other anthro effects and solar.

So mmCo2 is 50% of the global warming. Other mm gases plus solar is the other 50%

Good, we now have a yardstick to measure against.

Well, just assessing the solar data shows this:

The solar trend essentially peaked about 1950. It has been insignificant since about 1970, and according to Lockwood & Frohlich, gradually falling since about 1980.

What do you mean by 'solar trend'? Do you mean sunspot activity?

IIRC, IPCC has solar activity at about 10% of the forcing since 1750-2005. I wouldn't get too caught up in the numbers, though, for various reasons.

Essentially the take home message is that the science suggests that CO2 is the largest single contributor, all anthro effects the large majority, and solar not so great (to recently negligible).

Well thanks for distilling the science into a teaspoon , but I'd rather go a bit deeper than a 'take home message' if that's ok.

Let's leave CO2 be for the moment and look at the solar thing.

First off, do you intend to only use IIRC, IPCC published conclusions, or can we look at the huge amount of stuff these bodies omitted, either intentionally or because the data is new?

According to Tim Patterson (Canadian leader of the UNESCO supported International Geological Correlation Programme Project (IGCP) 495 "Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and appointed chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition in 2008)

"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index."

So it seems to contradict the IPCC version. Worth a closer look?

Can you comment on Svensmark's paper "Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions" which basically suggests that 'as the output of the sun varies, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet.'

This does seem to fit rather well with the recent and current solar activity and the corresponding temperature changes and backs up Patterson's assertion above.

news.softpedia.com...

www.technologyreview.com...

theres technology being built to counter our greenhouse gas emmissions. I think this is the smarter way to go because your not going to convince any industrial nation to just stop using gas while its available. Instead we need to suck the gasses back out of the atmosphere and reuse them as fuel. Recycle it instead of trying to cut emmissions. The more air cleaning plants you build, the more emmissions you could get away with. You could burn dirty coal all day long if there was a matching plant next door to suck all those gasses up and make it clean again.

reply to post by RogerT


Here is another interesting article for you to read. It debunks Melatonins claims about the amount of supporters for IPCC scams

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

edit* forgot to add link sorry

epw.senate.gov...


[edit on 10/12/08 by Discotech]

Originally posted by RogerT
What do you mean by 'solar trend'? Do you mean sunspot activity?

They are solar proxy until the 1970s. And sunspot activity is one proxy.

First off, do you intend to only use IIRC, IPCC published conclusions, or can we look at the huge amount of stuff these bodies omitted, either intentionally or because the data is new?

Well, IIRC, I'd rather listen to people who research this stuff.

The IPCC is a summary of the published research.

According to Tim Patterson (Canadian leader of the UNESCO supported International Geological Correlation Programme Project (IGCP) 495 "Quaternary Land-Ocean interactions" and appointed chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition in 2008)

They missed some of his credentials.

"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index."

So it seems to contradict the IPCC version. Worth a closer look?

It's a quote of an opinion. From a well-known oil-funded scientist. So, no, not really.

Also, what happened from the 1970s? Appears the correlation failed big time. He's stuck in a timewarp, research moves on.

Can you comment on Svensmark's paper "Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions" which basically suggests that 'as the output of the sun varies, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet.'

Yeah.

This does seem to fit rather well with the recent and current solar activity and the corresponding temperature changes and backs up Patterson's assertion above.

Cosmic rays have not varied. It's an interesting but very speculative hypothesis - not very well-supported.

Not quite as well-established as GHG-induced warming which has about 150 years of basic physics and climate science behind it, but I understand the need to grab at the most tenuous straws.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L15714, doi:10.1029/2005GL023621, 2005

A review of the solar cycle length estimates

R. E. Benestad

Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
New estimates of the solar cycle length are calculated from an up-to-date monthly sunspot record using a novel but mathematically rigorous method involving multiple regression, Fourier approximation, and analytical expressions for the first derivative based on calculus techniques. The sensitivity of the estimates to smoothing are examined and the analysis is used to identify possible systematic changes in the sun. The solar cycle length analysis indicates a pronounced change in the sun around 1900, before which the estimates fluctuate strongly and after which the estimates show little variability. There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth's climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth's global mean surface temperature. A further comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.

Received 25 May 2005; accepted 22 July 2005; published 13 August 2005.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, IIRC, I'd rather listen to people who research this stuff.

And the IIRC is what ? I did a google search for IIRC and there was nothing to do with research on the first page, just information for the various acronyms attached to it!

Originally posted by melatonin
The IPCC is a summary of the published research.

The IPCC just cherry picks out the published research to suit their fraudulent claims, tossing anything else out into disrepute, they HAVE used dirty tactics in the past to shun scientists away who disagree and have attempted to ruin those scientists credentials, IPCC is very underhand

Originally posted by melatonin
They missed some of his credentials.
It's a quote of an opinion. From a well-known oil-funded scientist. So, no, not really.

I see how it is, any scientist who disagrees with your opinion is an oil-funded liar ?

Originally posted by melatonin
Also, what happened from the 1970s? Appears the correlation failed big time. He's stuck in a timewarp, research moves on.

The correlation did not fail big time or do you fail to read the scientific studies done in the past couple of months which refute what you are saying ?

Originally posted by melatonin
Not quite as well-established as GHG-induced warming which has about 150 years of basic physics and climate science behind it, but I understand the need to grab at the most tenuous straws.

It would be nice if you gave a link to information when you cite it, otherwise you could just be making it all up

Originally posted by Discotech

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, IIRC, I'd rather listen to people who research this stuff.

And the IIRC is what ? I did a google search for IIRC and there was nothing to do with research on the first page, just information for the various acronyms attached to it!

Might be a reason for that.

The IPCC just cherry picks out the published research to suit their fraudulent claims, tossing anything else out into disrepute, they HAVE used dirty tactics in the past to shun scientists away who disagree and have attempted to ruin those scientists credentials, IPCC is very underhand

uh-huh.

I see how it is, any scientist who disagrees with your opinion is an oil-funded liar ?

Nope. Scientists funded by big-oil might well be oil-funded liars and/or shills.

Not all those who disagree with me are such characters.

The correlation did not fail big time or do you fail to read the scientific studies done in the past couple of months which refute what you are saying ?

uh-huh

It would be nice if you gave a link to information when you cite it, otherwise you could just be making it all up

Attaching a link to a string of words doesn't necessarily provide reliability.

Indeed, you're a great example of that. You talk about my being spoonfed, yet regurgitate a turd from Morano about 650 international scientists which includes the likes of John Kettley, Alan Titchmarsh, Lord Monckton What What What, Nigel Marvin, economists, philosophers, engineers, high school biology teachers, etc etc., a list that essentially involved Morano quote-mining innocent people, those long-emeritus, and the usual suspects.

You kinda scare me, in the freaky sort of way.

We need to find a way to prevent cows from belching... their methane output annually is causing outrageaous global warming issues!

I'm having a stupid moment I guess??

Surely we have the technology to do something ? enough to slow it down until we do what is needed?

Carbon Dioxide scrubbers, or Scrubbing? Carbon Dioxide scrubbers We seem to be fantastic at huge construction projects, why not build a few thousand huge , massive, Mega, whatever , Carbon dioxide scrubbers? construction wouldn't be hard to do, A huge holding cell, filled with the needed chemicals, and pump through the atmosphere.

I know daft huh?