Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!

by slipnslidemaster 108 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  besty

  "Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance."

  "rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks"

  further reading for those interested in the science.....

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

  sidepoint:

  Interesting company you are keeping these days BTS - Dr Fred Singer, Moonie, asbestos is good for you, oil company contractor and tobacco apologist....

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
• 

  BurnTheShips

  "Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance."

  If it was perfectly balanced, we would never see the proportion of atmospheric CO2 change. Ever. However, if proxies are to be relied upon, the proportion of Co2 has been dropping for a long, long time, and more and more of the planet has frozen. There were no ice ages millions of years ago. There was no ice cap either.

  Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas. Better stop watering your lawn and all those millions of acres of crops....

  Climatology and Trends of U.S. Surface Humidity and Temperature
  
  Climatological annual and seasonal dewpoint, specific humidity, and relative humidity maps for the United States are presented using hourly data from 188 first-order weather stations for the period 1961–90.
  
  With extended datasets for the period 1961–95, trends in these same variables and temperature are calculated for each of 170 stations and for eight regions of the country. The data show increases in specific humidity of several percent per decade, and increases in dewpoint of several tenths of a degree per decade, over most of the country in winter, spring, and summer.
  
  Locally, anthropogenic modification of the hydrological cycle may be more important. Within the conterminous United States, the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that consumptive use of water in agricultural irrigation contributes 100 billion gallons of water per day to the atmosphere, compared with 2,800 billion gallons per day from evaporation and transpiration from surface water bodies, land surface, and vegetation (van der Leeden et al. 1990). In dry regions during the growing season, the ratio of consumptive use to natural evaporative sources may be greater, and it is possible that long-term increases in evaporation from irrigated fields may be large enough to influence the surface trends at some stations. Other confounding influences may affect the trends presented here. However, the spatial consistency of the trends leads us to speculate that they are not primarily due to local phenomena but represent regional, indeed national, increases in near-surface specific humidity.

  That is a lot of water vapor. I don't see it taken much into account in any of the "big models" or the IPCC stuff. The report above says we are adding 100 billion gallons per day through agricultural irrigation, but we are really adding a total of about 160 billion gallons per day, in the USA (see videos below). 160/2,800 is a 5.7% increase of daily water vapor added to the air. We are increasing the daily amount of water added to the air by nearly 6%, over natural sources, in the US alone.

  The US is an easy example because we have lots of data. But think of other places like China and India that are probably adding even more of the worst largest greenhouse gas.
  
  The effect of our forcing water into the atmosphere is similar to changing the surface water of the planet from 70% to about 75%. It will have a sizeable effect on the earths temperature. Carbon dioxide is not a factor in these examples and I doubt that it is a major factor in global warming.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Hdixpk-TQ

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePLw6DyTYmI
• 

  besty

  I said "balanced", not "perfectly balanced" - thanks for adding to what I said yet subtracting from what I meant.

  I haven't seen any climate scientist claiming that CO2 levels have been constant.

  "Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming."

  further reading for those interested in the science.....

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
• 

  villabolo

  Burns cries out: "Besides, WTF is "natural CO2"? Ain't we natural bro?"

  And contradicts his previous statement

  What percentage of they yearly global CO2 put into the atmosphere is anthropogenic?

  Which statement by it's very nature implies a distinction between anthropogenic (man caused) and something else. That something else obviously the "natural". That's why in my previous statement I said that his statement was close to being meaningless or irrelevant. "Ain't we natural bro?" So is Bubonic Plague.

  Now for the rest of this post.

  Burns:

  This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

  Villabolo:

  Why do you claim that water vapor is not figured out in analyses of Greenhouse gases? Because some Right Wing magazine tells you so? I have seen water vapor factored into into GW scenarious and it is complicated to do so. Clouds, which are made up of water vapor, for example, both retain and reflect heat. That is something that is instinctivally known by even primitive man who through observation perceives that cloudy days are cooler but cloudy nights are warmer than their cloudless equivalent.

  There is of course non cloud water vapor which exists throughout the entire atmosphere. Without this water vapor the Earth would average 0 degrees fahrenheit. Does this make CO2 a non issue? Certainly not. While CO2 has less heat retaining abilities than water vapor-or virtually any other greenhouse gas-it is all a matter of relative abundance. What relative weakness CO2 has compared to Methane, Nitrous Oxide (go ahead laugh), and of course Water Vapor is more than made up by it's superabundance in the atmosphere. And we are the ones responsible for increasing that abundance.

  " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. " (Dr S. Fred Singer)

  Very suspicious qoute. You were talking about water vapor but I don't see its mention in this quote. On face value this quote sounds like something that a serious Climatologist , who strongly believes in anthropogenic mostly CO2 induced Global Warming would say. I have seen similar statements made in what you would call the extreme environmental movement. Basically it means, in their perception, that Global Warming is too dangerous to be reigned in by the Kyoto Protocol. In fact those environmentalists and climatologists think Kyoto is a joke at the very least or if actually passed a worse than useless action that would lull the ignorant masses into believing that "something" is being done.

  villabolo
• 

  WTWizard

  The problem Osama Obama wants to forget about when writing laws is that climate can and does change, for a variety of reasons. Was the climate the same when the continents were all bunched up? What about before North and South America joined? Or, when India was an island? All these natural factors had a much bigger effect on climate than the tiny wisp of carbon dioxide we are returning to the atmosphere.

  These factors both warm and cool the planet. Before the Americas joined, the Gulf Stream did not reach Europe, and hence Europe was much colder than today. Before India slammed into Asia, Siberia was much warmer (and that had an effect on the whole polar region), while parts of Africa and Asia were either much drier or wetter than they are now. So, what are we going to do, pull apart the Americas and destroy the Himalayas? That is what it will take to stop earth-caused climate change.

  Besides this, we have to examine the sun. Whoever said that the sun was not unusually active during the last 30 years does not have all the data. Do we have accurate means to gauge the activity of the sun before 1970? What about in the 1400s and 1500s? These things can and do change--sunspot activity was not noted before the 1500s. Thus, we have no way of knowing how active the sun was before Galileo studied it.

  And, I wonder how many greenhouse gases we would need to put into Earth's atmosphere to start warming Mars.
• 

  besty

  WTWizard has just graduated with Honors in Climate Change Zombie Denier Myths - the above post was his final term paper after 4 long minutes of web browsing.
• 

  slipnslidemaster

  I am not a scientist, I do not pretend to understand climate change, global forces, etc.

  However, I have this question: Assuming that the Earth is a relatively closed system now, the carbon that we are releasing has existed on the Earth just in a "dormant" form. What was the Earth like when all the "dormant" carbon wasn't dormant?

  Assuming that carbon is locked in our fossil fuels now, it hasn't always been. The gigantic flora that covered the planet that formed the fossil fuels today would have actually sucked MORE carbon out of the atmosphere, putting MORE oxygen into the atmosphere, in turn COOLING the planet? Thus killing the flora by dropping the temperature? However, it takes hundreds of millions of years to create those same fossil fuels? So it took hundreds of millions of years to cool the Earth?

  I mean from what I've watched on the Discovery Channel...NONE of the Earth's natural geologic processes takes 160 years. They are all measure in epochs, eras and ages! What am I missing?

  None of the modern carbon stuff makes any sense to me. Can someone take my ramblings and explain it to me?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  WTWizard's post raised valid issues.

  BTS
• 

  besty

  ok for the benefit of WTWizard:

  Zombie Myth 1 - It's the sun whats doing it.

  Answer - No its not.

  Evidence: http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf and in pictures:

  

  Zombie Denier Myth 2 - Mars is also warming - its the sun (again)

  Answer - Where is the evidence for your claim. I could cite evidence that dust and albedo are the primary drivers for Martian climate which isn't warming in any case, but I'll wait to see any evidence for your claim first.

  Zombie Denier Myth 3 - Its continental drift and plate tectonics that do it and the climate has changed before

  Answer - agreeing the climate has changed in the past makes the point that the climate is sensitive to varying inputs. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2, and the effect of CO2 is understood in great detail and with a high degree of confidence.

  Zombie Denier Myth 4 - 'Our' CO2 is proportionately insignificant compared to natural CO2, so it's not our fault.

  Answer - See top of Page 2 - already debunked this one on this thread, on this page in fact.
• 

  besty

  slipslide:

  spend some time googling carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and radiative forcings

  CO2 as giant thermostat is a well understood non-controversial theory