Global warming or Not?

[Pareto]

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?

[Mog]

Who is "we all" because I don't know that global warming is caused by urbanization. I am still not completely convinced that we truly have long term warming trends. In addition, atmospheric science is too young to really know anything for sure. How do you know that any observed changes in global temperatures are not just part of a natural cycle? I don't think you could have an answer to that just based on the limited atmospheric data that we have.

[Pareto]

Who is "we all" because I don't know that global warming is caused by urbanization. I am still not completely convinced that we truly have long term warming trends. In addition, atmospheric science is too young to really know anything for sure. How do you know that any observed changes in global temperatures are not just part of a natural cycle? I don't think you could have an answer to that just based on the limited atmospheric data that we have.

Partly i agree with you but being as a natural cycle seems wrong. Just when our technology, knowledge, etc. starts to develop into something where many years ago was not even imaginable the one of the biggest threats to the humanity ( glob. warm.) kicks in and becomes a real threat. Maybe you are right that is just like prophecy where natural cycle is part of it, who knows.

[The_Spartan]

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?

Moving any mass requires energy.

To move incalculable mass of ice and earth requires unimaginable amount of energy.

Such energy can only be produced on a gigantic scale on level of nuclear power.

Any nuclear reaction produces a signature.

Such signatures can be detected by modern science.

So far nothing has been detected.

So, such a device that uses such a power does not exist.

Simple physics.

[+DieChecker]

A more correct term is Climate Change, as some areas of the world are actually cooling down, but the overall average is indeed warming up.

It is not a problem with the polar ice moving. It is that the polar temperatures are up, resulting in the ice melting a little bit earlier each year, and freezing a little later each year.

Also the oceans/seas are warming a couple degrees, which results in glaciers calving off quicker and glaciers moving quicker, which melts more ice also.

It is well known that the world was heading into a warming trend, but the results are just happening at a much greater rate (like a factor of 100) then should be occuring naturally.

[Pareto]

I don't want to sound like a mad conspiracy theorist but lot's of things happen because someone out there is just playing with humanity ( i mean a real person in government or somewhere there) and letting people know that this is just nature where we made this process go faster while they use this as a advantage to their researches or some kinda planed action in the future.

[Sensible Logic]

Locally we have had climate change. It was the first winter in the history of this area (I live in NY state)that our rivers did not freeze over or even come close.

[Alienated Being]

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?

The concept of global warming involves urbanization, yes.

However, climatological information and models have suggested countless times that we are not the cause of the earth's warming - rather, it is merely a natural cycle that the earth has been going through since its creation.

[JayMark]

Global warming is a reality. Even if they didn't know why (which is completely false) the fact is that the global average T° is rising. It is simply a question of radiative balance. The two main factors determining it are: solar irradiance and radiative forcing.

Solar irradiance has an impact, of course, but nearly not as much as ours. I can breifly explain that in a simple paragraph with the actual numbers if anybody please.

Global warming dosen't necessarly mean T° rises everywhere. If you want to know why some places are "not affected" or why some places have suffered from unusually cold periods, I suggest you learn about air/water currents, which are majorly responsible of the heat distribution around the globe.

They have well enough knowledge and data to confirm that indeed, the major cause of global warming is the result of anthopogenic greehouse gas emissions. I suggest you learn about radiative forcing which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Also I suggest you learn about the natural GHG sources and sinks imbalance mainly due to human activity (majorly change in land use).

Everything you could ever need to know about the situation can be found in the 4th IPCC report which is available to everyone and contains a lot of simplified matter for everyday people. They also explain the diffrence between our situation and the other climate changes that occured in the past. You will then see how we know we are the main cause.

Last thing, man-induced global warming will inevitably result in a modification of natural phenomenons that will also provide to more warming such as the methane hydrates melting and warming/acidification of the oceans. It has already began.

Here is a link to the report section of the IPCC website. I suggest that anyone who doubt about global warming read through it with great attention. It also includes a new report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers (2010). Have fun!

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

Edited March 28, 2012 by JayMark

[questionmark]

The concept of global warming involves urbanization, yes.

However, climatological information and models have suggested countless times that we are not the cause of the earth's warming - rather, it is merely a natural cycle that the earth has been going through since its creation.

A "natural" cycle fueled by one evident variable, carbon. And now, somehow, without humans doing "anything" to help it, much of the carbon sequestered by nature during the carboniferous period is back in the atmosphere and temperatures are going back to the high levels of the carboniferous period. Naturally we did not so it...

BTW, is that a recognition sign of disinformation services paid by (****** censored)? Cause all who come with "we don't have anything to do with it" seem to use it...

[Alienated Being]

Global warming is a reality.

Can you prove that? If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.

Global warming dosen't necessarly mean T° rises everywhere.

Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".

They have well enough knowledge and data to confirm that indeed, the major cause of global warming is the result of anthopogenic greehouse gas emissions. I suggest you learn about radiative forcing which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Also I suggest you learn about the natural GHG sources and sinks imbalance mainly due to human activity (majorly change in land use).

Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.

Everything you could ever need to know about the situation can be found in the 4th IPCC report which is available to everyone and contains a lot of simplified matter for everyday people. They also explain the diffrence between our situation and the other climate changes that occured in the past. You will then see how we know we are the main cause.

Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001

Last thing, man-induced global warming will inevitably result in a modification of natural phenomenons that will also provide to more warming such as the methane hydrates melting and warming/acidification of the oceans. It has already began.

AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.

[JayMark]

Can you prove that?

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.

If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.

They do it because they are paid to do it by indistries that are concerned (mainly oil and gas industries). I've recently followed such a "debate" that happened between the IPCC Work Group and very reputable scientists in Europe. So far, all their attempts to prove the IPCC wrong have miserably failed.

Also, 400 scientists is nothing compared to how many people have been implicated in the IPCC report. 195 countries are members of the IPCC and and over 130 countries worked on the 4th report. That would represent thousands of scientists.

From the IPCC report:

"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.

Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."

Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".

Global warming refers to the overall rising temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and land due to a change in radiative balance. It is the average of all three around the globe. The IPCC report also covers them in detail.

Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.

People will do anything for money. Also here is another quote from the IPCC.

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001

The uncertainty majorly concerns predictions. It does not take away the fact that there is a warming and that this warming is majorly caused by us. Also it dosen't take aways the fact that it will keep rising for a long time and inevitably lead to more problems. Many species will be eventually facing extinction is the T° ever crosses a point of non-return which is a point at which it will become an irreversible process. It is estimated to be lying around 3.5°C over pre-industrial T°. Also, you should read the 4th report (2007) as it would prehaps be a better representation of newly acquired knowledge and understanding.

AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.

Global warming is a natural change to begin with. Only, we are the major cause. As simple as that.

A change in the earth's climate such as global temperature (main drive) is purely the result of a change in radiative balance. With all the knowledge, technology and experimentation, we can clearly state that our GHG emissions have affected the radiative balance beyond natural phenomenons over the same period of time. This anthropogenic cause will induce and/or accelerate other natural phenomenons, most of wich will lead to even more warming. The other natural phenomenons that would go the way around (GHG sinks for instance) will clearly not be able to compensate.

Finally, I understand your concern. I have been through it in the past. But facts are facts. I would also rather prefer that there was no global warming but there is.

So I might be repeating myself but I think you should go through the 4th report. It covers the physical science basis, the impacts/adaptation/vulnerability and finally the mitigation of climate change. All that with a nice synthesis on top of it. It could help you making your own conclusion.

Peace.

[JayMark]

Here are some informations in regards to human vs natural causes in radiative balance.

Source: IPCC, WG1 Report, Chapter 2

"Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes

Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."

Here is the figure 2. As you can see, it includes the uncertainty. As stated in the report, the major uncertainty concerning the current situation comes from cloud formation. Either way, the net forcing due to human activity is positive and beyond natural causes.

Edited March 29, 2012 by JayMark

[Alienated Being]

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.

No, you're right - I can't prove it myself, however... there exists a lot of physical evidence to suggest the contrary of supporting postulation of man-made global warming.

They do it because they are paid to do it by indistries that are concerned (mainly oil and gas industries). I've recently followed such a "debate" that happened between the IPCC Work Group and very reputable scientists in Europe. So far, all their attempts to prove the IPCC wrong have miserably failed.

Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not? Do you know how much money is made in the man-made global warming campaign? $5 Billion in grants is being accumulated annually for global warming research. Al Gore alone is worth $100 million, resulting from his "Inconvenient Truth" campaign.

Also, IPCC's entire purpose is to support their purported theories, even if they are wrong...

Also, 400 scientists is nothing compared to how many people have been implicated in the IPCC report. 195 countries are members of the IPCC and and over 130 countries worked on the 4th report. That would represent thousands of scientists.

From the IPCC report:

"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.

Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."

The fact of the matter is that, if man-made global warming DID undeniably, irrefutably exist, then there would simply exist no room to challenge the claims - it would simply... be. Clearly there are holes in global warming, hence why those scientists had gotten together to go and argue the validity of such claims.

Global warming refers to the overall rising temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and land due to a change in radiative balance. It is the average of all three around the globe. The IPCC report also covers them in detail.

If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth. I

People will do anything for money. Also here is another quote from the IPCC.

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Yes, and Al Gore's campaign is evidence of that.

The uncertainty majorly concerns predictions. It does not take away the fact that there is a warming and that this warming is majorly caused by us. Also it dosen't take aways the fact that it will keep rising for a long time and inevitably lead to more problems. Many species will be eventually facing extinction is the T° ever crosses a point of non-return which is a point at which it will become an irreversible process. It is estimated to be lying around 3.5°C over pre-industrial T°. Also, you should read the 4th report (2007) as it would prehaps be a better representation of newly acquired knowledge and understanding.

I, again, disagree with this. The earth has been warming for a very, very long time. The natural cycles of earth have converted the Sahara desert from being a thriving, beautiful grassland to the largest desert in the world.

Global warming is a natural change to begin with. Only, we are the major cause. As simple as that.

If it's a natural change, then how can we be the cause? Like I said, the earth has been warming, and cooling, for a much longer time prior to our existence.

A change in the earth's climate such as global temperature (main drive) is purely the result of a change in radiative balance. With all the knowledge, technology and experimentation, we can clearly state that our GHG emissions have affected the radiative balance beyond natural phenomenons over the same period of time. This anthropogenic cause will induce and/or accelerate other natural phenomenons, most of wich will lead to even more warming. The other natural phenomenons that would go the way around (GHG sinks for instance) will clearly not be able to compensate.

Finally, I understand your concern. I have been through it in the past. But facts are facts. I would also rather prefer that there was no global warming but there is.

So I might be repeating myself but I think you should go through the 4th report. It covers the physical science basis, the impacts/adaptation/vulnerability and finally the mitigation of climate change. All that with a nice synthesis on top of it. It could help you making your own conclusion.

Peace.

I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Alienated Being

[questionmark]

I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

Could that be because there is no worse blind than he who does not want to see?

[Von Bismarck]

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.

Just look at the data, it speak for itself.

There's so many free available data sets on the internet.

If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth. I

To keep it simple.

If you fart in your living room does it smell in the kitchen?

[JayMark]

No, you're right - I can't prove it myself, however... there exists a lot of physical evidence to suggest the contrary of supporting postulation of man-made global warming.

Do you have any source? I would be curious to see those "evidences".

Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not? Do you know how much money is made in the man-made global warming campaign? $5 Billion in grants is being accumulated annually for global warming research. Al Gore alone is worth $100 million, resulting from his "Inconvenient Truth" campaign.

If for you accumulating money to keep going with the reasearch (because it inevitably costs money) is a sign of corruption (or whatever), I fail to understand your point. Do you have a source expalining this more in detail?

And why would gas and oil industries fund an organization/scientists that state that we need to cut down massively on GHG emissions that are majorly produced by these same industries? Makes no sense.

Also, you should consider how much money has to be spent or that is lost as a concequence of man-made pollution and climate change as well. The $5.1 billions you talk about are rediculous compared to the actual costs generated/lost by climate changes, and all the lifes it is threatening and taking away.

Santé Canada (Health Canada) states that $4 billions alone are spend annually in medical care as a concequence of atmospheric pollution just in the Québec province (under 8 million people, clearly not the most polluted and/or affected place in the world).

Also, IPCC's entire purpose is to support their purported theories, even if they are wrong...

Their purpose is to know the facts and the truth about it (not to just back their pals) and they do it through rigourous and valid scientific observations, experiments and studies.

The fact of the matter is that, if man-made global warming DID undeniably, irrefutably exist, then there would simply exist no room to challenge the claims - it would simply... be. Clearly there are holes in global warming, hence why those scientists had gotten together to go and argue the validity of such claims.

Could you explain to me what are these holes? And could you explain to me where/what is the "room" to challenge it? Do you have any source?

If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth.

This is an assumption made out of a lack of knowledge about the heat distribution mechanism of the planet earth.

About the other part, CO₂ traps heat period. Whether it's from the incoming irradiance from space or from the land-reflected irradiance that also came from the sun, it traps it. The CO₂'s radiative forcing can be determined in a lab. Same with every GHG.

So basically more of them in the ATM will inevitably raise the radiative forcing resulting in a warming of the system unelss solar activity decreases enough to compensate for it, which is not happening. That is the basis of it.

Yes, and Al Gore's campaign is evidence of that.

The only ones that still doubt either lack of knowledge about the physics behind it all, refuse to see the truth or do it purposely for cash.

I, again, disagree with this. The earth has been warming for a very, very long time. The natural cycles of earth have converted the Sahara desert from being a thriving, beautiful grassland to the largest desert in the world.

The earth has been warming and cooling many times in the past. It's simply not a valid argument to imply it's not warming anymore or even that the current warming is simply not the result of human activity. The IPCC covers all that.

If it's a natural change, then how can we be the cause? Like I said, the earth has been warming, and cooling, for a much longer time prior to our existence.

I misinterpreted myself there. Our activity mainly results in an increase in radiative forcing. Then all the concequences are mainly just "natural reactions" to this increase. Hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

I seriously don't think you went through the report at least enough to understand the physics behind it. If you did, it seems that you have at some point a lack of knowledge and understanding about the basic physics behind it all (no harm intended) or refuse to understand them.

Saying global warming is not happening can only be proven if you demonstrate that the net radiative balance of the earth hasen't globally changed (in average) as the IPCC report states.

Peace.

Edited March 30, 2012 by JayMark

[JayMark]

Just look at the data, it speak for itself.

There's so many free available data sets on the internet.

To keep it simple.

If you fart in your living room does it smell in the kitchen?

Depends on the volume of gas you expel and the air currents. Oh, wait, isn't it the same for the earth? I thought so.

Thank you.

[Sundog]

well if insurance companies and the military around the world are convinced then who am i to disagree

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/navy-russians-shipping-insurance.html

[Alienated Being]

Do you have any source? I would be curious to see those "evidences".

A simple search on Google will return the results that you seek, I am almost certain.

If for you accumulating money to keep going with the reasearch (because it inevitably costs money) is a sign of corruption (or whatever), I fail to understand your point. Do you have a source expalining this more in detail?

My point is quite evident - you stated that people are simply argue against global warming are paid to do it, and I was merely stating that those who argue in support of global warming are, as well. I don't understand what was so difficult to comprehend about that.

And why would gas and oil industries fund an organization/scientists that state that we need to cut down massively on GHG emissions that are majorly produced by these same industries? Makes no sense.

Their purpose is to know the facts and the truth about it (not to just back their pals) and they do it through rigourous and valid scientific observations, experiments and studies.

Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all. I'd hardly consider it as being "fact" or as being a "truth".

Could you explain to me what are these holes? And could you explain to me where/what is the "room" to challenge it? Do you have any source?

Google will do this for you.

This is an assumption made out of a lack of knowledge about the heat distribution mechanism of the planet earth.

I think I have a pretty firm grasp on it, to be honest.

About the other part, CO₂ traps heat period. Whether it's from the incoming irradiance from space or from the land-reflected irradiance that also came from the sun, it traps it. The CO₂'s radiative forcing can be determined in a lab. Same with every GHG.

A lot of the reports that I have read regarding man-made global warming have stated that the heat is only trapped when it is leaving the earth, not when it is entering; hence that is why I am skeptical about global warming as a whole, because this notion is exercised rigorously.

The earth has been warming and cooling many times in the past. It's simply not a valid argument to imply it's not warming anymore or even that the current warming is simply not the result of human activity. The IPCC covers all that.

Um, well, if it has been warming and cooling in the past, and it is in the process of a warming state at this point, then I am rather inclined to believe that it is a natural cycle of the earth, and not the result of human interference. I never said that it wasn't warming now... I said that WE are not the cause of the current warming of the earth. Why should we believe that we are, when it is completely evident that it has gone through many warming/cooling trends in the end? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Saying global warming is not happening can only be proven if you demonstrate that the net radiative balance of the earth hasen't globally changed (in average) as the IPCC report states.

Peace.

You seem to put a lot of faith into the IPCC...

Edited March 31, 2012 by Alienated Being

[Doug1029]

Can you prove that? If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.

400 is a drop in the bucket. There are thousands of scientists working on problems related to global warming. Because a person is an expert in one subject area doesn't mean he/she knows anything in another one. I once had a MATHEMATICIAN try to tell me how a silvicultural thinning was bad for the forest. He didn't even know the units of measurement, let alone anything about biology. Some geologists really think we could go into another ice age. A quick look at atmospheric physics/chemistry will take care of that idea. At any rate, I'd like to know who these scientists are and in what fields their expertise lies.

Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".

The term applies to "surface" temperature. For ground weather stations, that means a height of 20 feet above the surface. For satellite observations, that means the surface itself; a satellite looks at the one-quarter inch of snow on the surface and doesn't see the warm rock underneath.

The 0.8 degrees often cited for the twentieth century is an average taken over land at mid-latitudes. The amount is about half this over the sea and about four times this in polar regions. Warming is damped by water, so is much less near an ocean (like the Gulf and Atlantic). It is greater in dry areas (Amarillo, Tx) because there is less water there to damp down temperatures.

Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.

There are a few scientists who have legitimate questions about some aspects of climate science. Robert Lindzen, for one, challenges any minor glitch he sees in anybody's statistics. For many years he insisted that the science did not support the conclusion that cigarette smoking is bad for your health - the statistics had problems. Now, those problems have been corrected, so he has gone on to climate science.

And I have seen names on lists of debunkers of people who were totally unqualified. A better idea than looking at lists of specialists in other fields would be to find out what CLIMATOLOGISTS are saying. What do people who really know about climate have to say?

Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001

AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.

Absolutely. But "chaotic" does not mean "haphazard." Read up on Chaos Theory - it spells out the "Laws of Chaos." Chaotic systems follow definite rules.

And what IPCC is talking about are climate models. They have a few difficulties - like treating glaciers like giant ice cubes and not taking ice dynamics into account. If you want to know what will happen in the future, look at the past. When the world was four degrees hotter, how high was sea level? How much CO2 was in the air? What was the solar irradiance? How much carbon was sequestered? That will tell you what to expect this time.

Do you want to bet the future of the planet, even all of humanity, on what the debunkers are saying? Especially those who have no qualifications in climatology? Especially some who let their Ph.D.s go to their heads? Especially when limiting greenhouse gases, particuarly CO2 is cheaper than our current business-as-usual practices?

Doug

[Doug1029]

Can you prove that?

For openers: there are lists of globally-averaged temperatures available for free on line. NCDC and NOAA have two. The Hadley Institute has several more. All show warming since about 1907/1908 with a brief interuption in the late 60s and now a decline in the rate of increase since 1998 (Hadley III shows a slight decline.). If you can't find these yourself, PM me and I'll send the NCDC one to you (It's in an EXCEL file.). The deniers have been unable to post a dataset of their own, even though all data needed to do it are available for free.

We have a continuous record of CO2 levels in the atmosphere beginning in 1957 when the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm. It is now close to 400 and may even be there as I write this (I also have a copy of this on EXCEL and will be glad to send it to you.). I am a dendrochronologist (someone who studies tree rings) and find it necessary to correct my ring widths for CO2 fertilization before I can extract information on storms and climate from them (This is one of the things the "climategate" emails were about: the "trick" of removing CO2 from the ring-width data.). Tree rings provide independent confirmation of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere; it's a nice, simple linear relationship, easy to use, but removal of the CO2 signal can also remove the temperature signal, so care is needed.

CO2 levels are now about 120 ppm higher than they were 200 years ago. We know of no sources of this much CO2 in the air that are not human-caused. The "proof" consists of a carbon budget: start with the total amount of CO2 released last year (change in CO2 concentration times amount of air). Then subtract the carbon contributed by each natural source. The human-caused part is what is left over. We can easily break this down further by subtracting out the carbon from coal (tons of coal mined times proportion of that toaage that is carbon), the carbon from oil, etc.

There's a huge amount of data to go through; that's why people are reluctant to do it - it would take a huge amount of time. I suggest you pursue a doctorate in climatology if you want all the details (Even then, you won't get them all.).

Doug

[Doug1029]

Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not?

I believe you misunderstand the mechanism. The guy who will peer review your paper may well be a supporter of global warming. You don't know, because it is the editors who choose the final reviewers. Unless you have really solid evidence, you don't want to go too far out in left field or you won't get published. The lack of anti-warming papers is a function of the weakness of the data supporting those conclusions.

So if you think previous author(s) got it wrong and your evidence isn't the best, what do you do? You publish something that is a little closer to what you think the truth is, but still reasonable from the perspective of previous research. Now YOU are part of the status quo.

The next author thinks you're both wrong and publishes an article detailing his ideas. As this process repeats over time, published estimates move closer to the truth. Eventually, somebody publishes something showing why the original study wasn't quite what it should have been and the entire field shifts its position.

But I see no movement away from human-caused warming.

About financing of research: most researchers are salaried. I am one such. I have no need for grants as my funding comes from the USFS by way of the McEntire-Stennis program. I am limited to the study of shortleaf pine, but as long as my papers have "Shortleaf Pine" in the title, I can do pretty much anything I want. So I am studying the effects of ice storms on shortleaf pines. The big disadvantage is shortleaf pine's short life-span (The oldest known tree dates from 1580; an the datasets I am able to extract reach back only to 1700.).

I will soon start work on an ice storm history of the Ouachita National Forest. To do this, I must remove the climate signal from my data. And that means I have to define that signal exactly. I have already run some preliminary studies to find out if CO2 is affecting tree ring width - it is. That CO2 levels have risen since 1960 and correlate very well with tree ring width is proven independently by my own climate models.

There are about 120 ppm more CO2 in the air than is "natural." All you have to do to calculate how much of that came from coal, for example, is to take the number of tons mined each year since 1900 and multiply by the proportion of that tonnage that is carbon (about 50%). CO2 is 27.3% carbon. Divide the tons of carbon by 0.273 and you have the number of tons of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere by burning coal. Do the same for oil and the same for natural gas. Total those. Divide that number by the total weight of the atmosphere. Then add in the current 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and you have the current CO2 concentration.

Except for one detail: the number you get is about 520 ppm. Humans have put twice as much carbon dioxide into the air as is there now. The question is not where did that extra 120 ppm come from: it's where did those extra 120 ppm go?

Most probably went into the ocean. As more and more goes there, the ocean's ability to absorb more decreases exponentially. The extra stays in the air, causing an exponential increase in atmospheric CO2. What does Keeling's graph show? An exponential increase in CO2!

A lot of research is being done by graduate students at their own expense, or with minimal support. The discovery that plants actively fight fire by pumping extra water into their leaves was made by a graduate student whose only financial support was a drying oven supplied for free by Edmund Scientific. Even if funding dries up, a few people, like me, will continue doing studies. Truth will out.

Doug

[JayMark]

A simple search on Google will return the results that you seek, I am almost certain.

I have seen a lot of them but most of them are rediculous and can be debunked pretty easily. If you have a more solid source, again, I'd like to see it. Anyhow, most sites that are concerned aren't even consistent with their "facts" and they all have diffrent "theories" and other crap. They also play with actual facts and number to fool people in many wrong ways.

My point is quite evident - you stated that people are simply argue against global warming are paid to do it, and I was merely stating that those who argue in support of global warming are, as well. I don't understand what was so difficult to comprehend about that.

I know but in what way is it an evidence that they lie? Not like they would all do it for free on their week-ends.

Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all. I'd hardly consider it as being "fact" or as being a "truth".

That's because you simply don't want to see it or plain and simply don't understand the physics of it. I've given you a lot of hints regarding it but you hardly talk about anything scientific. That's why I think you simply don't understand.

Google will do this for you.

Already done. Found nothing that is close to disproving global warming or our impact on it.

I think I have a pretty firm grasp on it, to be honest.

Then why do you imply something that suggests the oposite? If you stand by your affirmation, then you just don't know enough about it.

A lot of the reports that I have read regarding man-made global warming have stated that the heat is only trapped when it is leaving the earth, not when it is entering; hence that is why I am skeptical about global warming as a whole, because this notion is exercised rigorously.

Most of it is. A small part is trapped upon passage while the rest is trapped as you said. Global warming as a whole is simply the average rise in temperatures all around the world. Some places are very affected while some are not and even cooler. What matters concerning the notion of "global warming" is the net average of the whole, which is positive by about 0.8°C. That's why it dosen't necessarly imply that the T° is rising everywhere. Just that there is more warming than idle or cooling.

Um, well, if it has been warming and cooling in the past, and it is in the process of a warming state at this point, then I am rather inclined to believe that it is a natural cycle of the earth, and not the result of human interference. I never said that it wasn't warming now... I said that WE are not the cause of the current warming of the earth. Why should we believe that we are, when it is completely evident that it has gone through many warming/cooling trends in the end? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well you said in this very post that "Out of all of the reading I have done with regards to global warming, I find no reason to believe in it. Not at all." I thought you didn't plain beleive in it.

About the rest, just check the picture I posted in earlier message. Your anwser is right there conserning natural vs human influence in the radiative forcing. In the past, there were diffrent but also similar causes. We are only one added cause which is by far the greatest in the current situation. Not only are we a great source of GHG, our activity has greatly negatively altered the natural GHG sinks. Also most major causes of the past aren't even in play here such as a change in the orbital/axis or very intense volcanic activity. Sun has only contributed to a small increase in forcing since 1900's as well.

You seem to put a lot of faith into the IPCC...

I do. There is no better report. The thing is solid, valid and the conclusions are established and validated. Global warming is real, we are the major cause. That is an established fact. Proving both points have been done quite a while ago. Nobody ever has been able to prove those simple affirmations wrong simply because they aren't. Period.

Peace.

[Toolite]

unfortunately global warming is a problem... I believe we will see hotter summers and not as cold winters.. Proactively, I think we have to think of how to make it better..

All The Glory Belongs To God Forever!