My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Zythryn]

Nice list of opinions there FB, now what is the research? Just pick one, that should be a nice start.

 

EngineerDude, we started to have a nice discussion about the foundation of GW. Have you decided to discontinue it?

[Flying Binghi]

Nice list of opinions there FB, now what is the research? Just pick one, that should be a nice start.

 

Not sure what your about Zythryn :phones: I am presenting referenced sources to back up why it is that MY belief in Global Warming is getting shaky - infact, totaly shaken would be a good discripter.

 

More foundation shakers -

 

U. S. Senate Minority Report:

 

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

 

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84&CFID=52514045&CFTOKEN=68415685

 

 

UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

[Essay]

Nice list of opinions there FB, now what is the research? Just pick one, that should be a nice start.

Here's one I picked randomly last night: Professor Delgado Domingos

Why is it so frequently meteorologists and engineers (some geologists too) who are cited as doubters.

 

European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Professor Delgado Domingos, one of the leading Portuguese environment scientists, gave a long interview to the Sábado Notícias [saturday News] magazine, a supplement of the centenary Jornal de Notícias.

The last section of the interview touched on Climate issues and has been causing some impact in the local blogosphere. Following is an English translation of this final section of the interview.

Biographic Note

José Joaquim Delgado Domingos has a degree on Mechanical Engineering, achieved with distinction at the Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) in 1956. He became a Cathedrated Professor at IST in 1965 and retired in 2006.

He has more that 150 published articles in the research fields of Thermodynamics, Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics and Energy Transfer, Energy System Analysis, Energy and Environment Policy and Meteorologic Forecast.

 

One quote from the interview:

"There has been a warming period up to 1998, but it can't be guaranteed that it will continue in the following years or that it is solely related to carbon dioxide emissions." -DD

 

...no guarantee... ...not solely related to ...emissions.

I know there is a lot of public hype surrounding CO2 emissions, but just because scientists are more careful with their wording, doesn't mean they disagree with the science.

 

EngineerDude, we started to have a nice discussion about the foundation of GW. Have you decided to discontinue it?

...wondering the same thing myself.

...perhaps researching....

 

~ :phones:

[modest]

Nice list of opinions there FB, now what is the research? Just pick one, that should be a nice start.

Not sure what your about Zythryn :phones: I am presenting referenced sources to back up why it is that MY belief in Global Warming is getting shaky - infact, totaly shaken would be a good discripter.

 

Please observe the site rules:

 

4. Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion.

 

~modest

[goku]

I’m guessing goku’s speculating that, because CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are believed to increase the average temperature of the Earth’s, filling a house attic with greenhouse gasses would increase the temperature of the air in the house.

 

The flaw with this idea is that the greenhouse effect results from material – greenhouse gasses in the case of an atmosphere, glass or other transparent sheet material in a greenhouse, etc. – allowing visible sunlight to pass through it, but absorbing and reemitting or reflecting the infrared light emitted by the sunlit surfaces below. Since the roof of the usual house is opaque to light well above and below the visible range, the greenhouse effect doesn’t play much of a role with it, regardless of what kind of gasses fill its attic.

 

The purpose of attic insulation is preventing heat escaping the house by heating the roof. Fiberglass blanket insulation is good at this, because it contains many small cells that limits the ability of the gas it contains to transport heat via convection. Though heavier gasses could be used to make slightly more effective insulation, unless encased in a gas-tight envelope (which would make the blanket troublesome to cut), they’d escape the fiberglass mat and be replaced with ordinary air, so it’s easier and cheaper to just increase the thickness of the blanket.

 

If you did have a transparent roofed house, the transparent material itself would likely be a more effective infrared reflector than any greenhouse gas-rich gas with which you could fill a gas-tight attic, so there’d be no point in using a gas other than ordinary air. Keeping such a house warm at night could be tricky – using multiple sheets of transparent material with gas baffles between them might work. Keeping the house from getting too hot during the day would be a challenge.

 

hmm, so at night everything goes back to normal :)

[REASON]

hmm, so at night everything goes back to normal :)

 

:)

[Eclipse Now]

Actually that's very, very wrong. This pie chart shows the distribution of the main greenhouse gases:

 

 

As you can see above, CO2 constitutes a whopping 76% of all greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. As such, it is by far the biggest contributer. True, the other greenhouse gasses are many times more effective than CO2 in absorbing heat, but they don't last that long. Methane only lasts 10 years, while water less than a week...

 

Hi Logictech,

This graphic looks like it is illustrating the proportion of Anthropogenic greenhouse gases. That is, it's only measuring the significant stuff we emit that contributes to global warming.

 

I'll just add (before sceptics point it out again) that nature really dwarfs human beings in its own massive Co2 emissions each year. However, nature then sucks it all back in again. It "breathes" Co2 in and out in a seasonal cycle.

 

It's like a set of massive scales with equally matched boulders on each side. Yet there we are, throwing feathers at one side only. So the graph above measures those feathers we are throwing into the equation. At first they seem like nothing, but gradually those scales are tipping in the wrong direction....

[engineerdude]

Nice list of opinions there FB, now what is the research? Just pick one, that should be a nice start.

 

EngineerDude, we started to have a nice discussion about the foundation of GW. Have you decided to discontinue it?

 

I am not sure where to go from here with the discussion. I must say, hearing the AGW-people's arguments has much enlightened me as to why this debate is still continuing.

 

To summarize, most anti-AGW people and the pro-AGW people agree on almost everything. We generally all agree that the "greenhouse effect" is real, that CO2 follows temperature changes, and that the planet is getting warmer. The major point we seem to disagree on is whether the changes in CO2 we have observed are causing all this. There is no "head shot" evidence that can kill this idea, just as there is no irrefutable evidence to prove it. If AGW was easily disproved, someone more knowledgeable and eloquent than I would have already done it.

 

I mean no insult, but AGW definitely seems to parallel how a religion works. Prove Moses didn't part the Red Sea - you can't. Prove that God didn't create the universe in a week - you can't. Prove that our tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 doesn't have a feedback effect on Earth's climate - you can't. It seems obvious to me that the universe probably wasn't created in a week - but a few billion other people disagree with me on that one, and nothing I can say is going to change their beliefs.

 

Fortunately for us, we can observe what happens regarding AGW over time and revise our opinions accordingly. The Earth has been cooling for the past several years, and with the pacific flipping its temperature direction, I think we'll see significant cooling, enough to make the IPCC projections look really wrong. How many $billions will we waste until AGW goes away is any body's guess. (And to be fair, I assume pro-AGW people are irritated that we are not spending nearly enough).

[freeztar]

The major point we seem to disagree on is whether the changes in CO2 we have observed are causing all this.

 

When CO2 levels increase, so does the greenhouse potential of the atmosphere. It really is as simple as that.

 

Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Does CO2 account for *all* the temp change? No, but we do know that increased CO2 equals increased temp.

[Zythryn]

I am not sure where to go from here with the discussion. I must say, hearing the AGW-people's arguments has much enlightened me as to why this debate is still continuing.

 

Well, you mentioned the experiment you did (which I applaud you for, few people will actually try expirimentation any more).

I suggested to test the validity of your experiment, you try it again with one change. Instead of adding CO2 to the experiment, change the humidity and see what the results are when you double the humidity.

 

To summarize, most anti-AGW people and the pro-AGW people agree on almost everything. We generally all agree that the "greenhouse effect" is real, that CO2 follows temperature changes,...

That should be 'CO2 HAS followed temperature changes in the past'

...and that the planet is getting warmer. The major point we seem to disagree on is whether the changes in CO2 we have observed are causing all this. There is no "head shot" evidence that can kill this idea, just as there is no irrefutable evidence to prove it.

When you say 'prove it' do you mean with 100% certainty, or 'prove' as in the normal proof to a theory? There is lots of supporting evidence and as we continually refine the theory we get a clearer and clearer picture.

If AGW was easily disproved, someone more knowledgeable and eloquent than I would have already done it.

 

It IS easily disproved. All you have to do is show that your 'guess' that CO2 is only responsible for 2.5% of the 'greenhouse effect' is true.

The paper I last linked to calculates that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26%. Is there something wrong with the methodology, errors in the data or calculations? http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

Or, you could disprove it by showing that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

Or it could be disproven by showing that the earth is not in a warming trend.

 

No one has done this, because the experiments done support the theory.

 

I mean no insult, but AGW definitely seems to parallel how a religion works. Prove Moses didn't part the Red Sea - you can't. Prove that God didn't create the universe in a week - you can't. Prove that our tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 doesn't have a feedback effect on Earth's climate - you can't. It seems obvious to me that the universe probably wasn't created in a week - but a few billion other people disagree with me on that one, and nothing I can say is going to change their beliefs.

 

Very few, any?, religions test their own 'teachings'. We create hypothisis from observations, run experiments to test the hypothesis, revise the resulting theory, run more experiments to test the theory, which is then either supported, or refuted.

Peices of the theory are updated as evidence shows that the theory can be made more accurate.

Doesn't sound like religion to me.

Now, people arguing against AGW rarely use any data or experimentation. They call people names, try to make it a political argument, and try to scare people (if GW proponents have their way it will cost you your job, house, money, etc).

 

Fortunately for us, we can observe what happens regarding AGW over time and revise our opinions accordingly.

 

We have been doing exactly that. Look at the statements from the IPCC over the last 3 meetings of the IPCC.

• We aren't sure, there are no clear indicators.
  
• Things are happening, but we need more research to tell exactly what our role is.
  
• We are definately warming up and we are pretty damn sure that we are responsible for a good part of it.
  

[engineerdude]

The paper I last linked to calculates that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26%. Is there something wrong with the methodology, errors in the data or calculations? http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

 

 

Eh, I have not looked in detail at this particular document. At first glance it doesn't look exactly like a very light read, but I'll see what's up.

[Eclipse Now]

That should be 'CO2 HAS followed temperature changes in the past'

In some instances it has followed, but in other instances it has caused the greenhouse effect in the past.

 

Following.

The earth's Milankovitch "wobble" changes the angle of the sun's incoming rays, affects how much heat is in the atmosphere, which (when cooling) increases ice-sheets. About 800 years after the Milankovitch wobble, the Co2 in the atmosphere really starts to drop. That's Co2 following temperature changes. (Works the other way to... when Milankovitch warms, ice sheets release more Co2, which increases warming.) Note: Milankovitch is the "trigger" and although Co2 follows, it magnifies the effects.

 

CO2 causing the greenhouse effect.

Volcanoes from the dinosaur era increased atmopsheric Co2 to the point where it caused a "super-greenhouse effect" with dead oceans that caused today's oil fields to form! See free online movie,

"Crude" by the ABC science unit

.

 

Also, Tim Flannery documents an event 55 million years ago when a volcanic disaster near Iceland suddenly combusted methane clathrates on the ocean floor.... suddenly spiralling the earth into a super-greenhouse event.

[engineerdude]

Eh, I have not looked in detail at this particular document. At first glance it doesn't look exactly like a very light read, but I'll see what's up.

 

OK, I read over this document you have posted the link to. It is, honestly, just terrible science. I will create a new thread on it later tonight.

[engineerdude]

Note: Milankovitch is the "trigger" and although Co2 follows, it magnifies the effects.

 

Please show some geologic evidence that CO2 magnifies the effects. Bet you can't :)

[Eclipse Now]

As New Scientists says....

 

What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and

greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate.

There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2

levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in

another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured.

 

So why has Earth regularly switched between ice ages and warmer

interglacial periods in the past million years? It has long been

thought that this is due to variations in Earth's orbit, known as

Milankovitch cycles. These change the amount and location of solar

energy reaching Earth. *However, the correlation is not perfect and

the heating or cooling effect of these orbital variations is small.

It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the

dramatic temperature switches between ice ages and interglacials*.

 

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

Do climate scientists readily admit the Milankovitch cycle changes temperature first, or are they all "tricky" or "mistaken"? In fact it seems that — believe it or not — climate scientists actually know what they are talking about. Well before the "Great Global Warming Swindle" was produced NASA scientist James Hansen was writing about the longer term climate trends of Milankovitch cycles.

 

We see here that the journalist interviewing James Hansen on Global Warming was stunned by the admission that temperature causes CO2 change in the longer climatic picture. Maybe he had just seen "An Inconvenient truth"?

 

Hansen made another point about the temperature changes and

greenhouse gas concentration changes, specifically the temporal

relationship between them. Data on both can be obtained from the

same ice core with high relative temporal accuracy, with only a need

to correct for the time it takes between fluffy snow falling and

solid ice forming impervious bubbles (the air is younger than the

ice, the temperature data comes from the ice and the gas data comes

from the trapped air). Comparing the temperature change and gas

concentrations Hansen said:

 

The correlation is maximum when there is a 700 year lag, the

temperature leads the greenhouse gas change. So the greenhouse

gas changes are a feedback of the climate change.

 

 

That was news to me.

 

The conclusions from this part of the lecture were that greenhouse

gases and ice area are the chief mechanisms for paleoclimatic

changes, however they were 'merely' feedbacks from the instigators

of climate change which Hansen describes as orbital variations,

other small forcings and chaos, stressing the fact that long term

climate is very sensitive to very small forcings.

Dr James Hansen: Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change? | Energy Bulletin

 

 

Or, as ScienceMag.org says...

 

At the 100,000-year period, atmospheric carbon dioxide, Vostok air

temperature, and deep-water temperature are in phase with orbital

eccentricity, whereas ice volume lags these three variables. Hence,

the 100,000-year cycle does not arise from ice sheet dynamics;

instead, it is probably the response of the global carbon cycle that

generates the eccentricity signal by causing changes in atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentration.

The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity -- Shackleton 289 (5486): 1897 -- Science

 

This all means that even though Milancovic cycles (or "wobbles") kick start temperature change, they are only a small "kick" and the climate, being as fragile as it is, runs a million miles in the

direction it has been nudged because CO2 amplification gives it "legs to run" much, much further than the climate would have changed otherwise.

[Flying Binghi]

Did I hear the news correctly - it snowed in Florida :phones: (our Oz news doesnt always get it right)

[Eclipse Now]

First, did you take on board the moderator's requests above? You're not going to "link bomb" us again without demostrating WHY each link is actually important, or which bit of the websites you had in mind?

 

Second, did you hear the news today? 10th hottest year on record globally, 4th hottest year on record in the Murray-Darling, AND it's meant to be a "cooler" La Nina year! Hmmm, yeah, global warming definitely just "went away" in 2008. :phones: