Climate Change

[Amgine]

Can anyone point to a noted and respected climatologist who does not accept human-influenced climate change? If ya can't, then who the heck are you believing? Falwell? Helms?

Why are people looking to disagree with the people who they admit are the most knowledgeable about the subject? Do you really think a layman's prosey understanding of the research and methodology is likely to refute the scholarly arguments of the 1960s to 1980s?

[JiffyLube]

I think climate change has and will happen one way or the other, whether mankind is on this planet or not. Earth's climate was created by factors inside and outside our atmosphere, and will always be influenced by these factors as long as earth exists...with or without mankind. Certainly I agree that mankind can contribute to the inside factors, but for man to think that he along can make a major change to climate for the good or bad, is slightly egotistical in my opinion. The world is a very large place, and the universe is even larger. So large is the universe in fact, that mankind does not even matter...except to mankind.

[bobsadler]

the reason why atmospheric co2 increases succeed warming, rather than preceed warming, is probably no more complicated than the fact that warm water holds less gas in solution than cool water

[Robertcateran]

It will be interesting when the permafrost melts on a large scale and releases all the methane. A nice bit of positive feedback.
I must admit, as a scientist, I take much of what comes out of models and projections with a grain of salt, but when there are so many different groups of scientist out there, all coming to similar conclusions about the general direction, then it becomes highly credible. In many scientific arguments, there are often many sides to the debate, but with this one, the bulk of the argument is the strength of the affect.

Some interesting side affects of the increase in CO2 are the acidification of the oceans leading to the loss of the coral reefs and the possibility of creating the conditions for production of oil and natural gas- the putrefaction of the bottom of the oceans.


There are alternatives to burning coal, and they are available now. There are some large scale solar thermal projects starting up that are close to competitive with coal burning right now. (They can store the energy over a moderate length of time to take in the fluctuations in solar output by storing it as stem under ground and there is also a method of longer storage using the ammonia-nitrogen, hydrogen chemistry).

Cities designed for lower consumption of liquid fossil fuels seem to be more people friendly.

I do not think it would reduce our quality of life to reduce our carbon footprint. (I much rather sail than motor, and I feel time in a car is time out of my life, while time on a push-bike or walking is part of it and the exercise helps my joints feel younger)

Robert

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

...but when there are so many different groups of scientist out there, all coming to similar conclusions about the general direction, then it becomes highly credible. In many scientific arguments, there are often many sides to the debate, but with this one, the bulk of the argument is the strength of the affect.

So, in the 1970's you were equally convinced that we were heading for another ice age, as that was what the consensus then of "so many different groups of scientist out there, all coming to similar conclusions about the general direction"?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Amgine

Can anyone point to a noted and respected climatologist who does not accept human-influenced climate change? If ya can't, then who the heck are you believing? Falwell? Helms?

Why are people looking to disagree with the people who they admit are the most knowledgeable about the subject? Do you really think a layman's prosey understanding of the research and methodology is likely to refute the scholarly arguments of the 1960s to 1980s?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

No Hot Spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and
maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

[MidLandOne]

Come on 44'CruisingCat you know as well as any of us that any scientist that disagrees that man made carbon emissions are the cause of global warming is not "a noted and respected climatologist".

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

So, in the 1970's you were equally convinced that we were heading for another ice age, as that was what the consensus then of "so many different groups of scientist out there, all coming to similar conclusions about the general direction"?

The whole thing is very reminiscent of the Y2K bug that was going to be the end of civilization.

Many people made bucketloads of money on the back of that one.

Al Gore has already won a Nobel prize for making a largely untrue "documentary" and made a fortune from selling his time promoting his movie.

"Can you tell me the name of the game?
We call it riding the gravy train"

[roverhi]

If there is global warming, why has the ocean sea level barely increased?? After all, all that ice in the arctic and those lost glaciers has to be running into the ocean. The ice sheet on the antarctic has increased over all but not uniformly. Some areas are calving ice at a prodigious rate and losing ice mass, but overall, the continent in gaining ice. The same goes for Greenland. The center of the island has gained ice as some coastal areas have lost it. The glacier diminution has slowed drastically in the last two years to the point that the glacial ice lost is barely more than the new ice laid down from snow. The Greenland glacier that the global warming crowd loves to show off as evidence of loss of glacial ice is one bay away from a glacier that is increasing in size. FWIW, why did Lief Ericsson call Greenland, Greenland?? I know it was a realestate scam but it was way more ice free in the 10th-12th century than now. If the sun isn't having an effect on global warming, why is Mars also showing evidence of warming?? Polar ice coverage is back up to what it was 5 years ago and this summer's minimal ice free areas are playing havoc with the Nortwest Passage plans of sailors. Another winter like last winter and we could see arctic ice coverage wipe out the losses of the previous 20 years. The warmest years that we have measured have not been in the last 10 years but were in the 1930's. NASA had a big oops on that one when they had to revise their claim we were seeing record setting annual temperature increases continuously in this millenium. Overall, catastrophic weather phenomonon from drought to hurricanes were way worse in the '30s than any time since.

Last but not least, what would you rather see, global warming or global cooling?? Personally, I like sitting on a beach in my swim suit way better than wearing layers of clothing and hanging out on a glacier covering Puget Sound.

Our ability to stop adding CO2 to the atmoshpere, in a way that would significantly reduce the current level, is negligible. Yes we should implement practcial ways to cut down on our use of fossil fuels like a massive nuclear generating building program. The problem is that the greenies won't allow us to develop 'clean' energy. The US is a net reducer of CO2 because of our vast areas of greenery. Wish that could be said of the third world that is cutting down the forests for firewood and adding millions of new lungs to spew out CO2 every day.

Aloha
Peter O.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

I don't understand your point. Can you please clarify?

You made a specific claim. The burden of proof is on you. And yes, I do know where to find the correct figures, but I think it will be more instructive for you to do your own research.

Let me ask you another question. Based on what you have read that I have written, do you think that I don't know what I'm talking about? Just curious.

1. The point is that it sounds frightening to say "warmest year on record" and 80% of the people equate that to "warmest year ever" when in reality it is far from that. Record = human recorded history which is a drop in the bucket.

2. You make the claim that we all must change our lifestyles, stop progress, and give massive amounts of control of our daily lives to the government. My friend, the burden is on you.

3. No. Based on what I have read that you have written, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you are talking about.

[jzk]

Humans produce about 3% of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere annually:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/arc...1rpt/tbl2.html

Of course, these figures vary depending upon who is doing the measuring as our ability to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount that is emitted annually isn't that perfect.

However, as a greenhouse gas, CO2 is dwarfed by water vapor. But, conveniently, global warming advocates will tell you that CO2 is much more important as a greenhouse gas.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jzk

Humans produce about 3% of the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere annually...

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the very small “straw that broke the camel’s back”, of the natural carbon cycle.

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions do only represent about 3% of all CO2 emissions. This might seem, to the scientifically naive, to render man’s effect on the atmosphere insignificant. It doesn't.

What that small figure, on it’s own, doesn’t explain; is that the natural carbon sink absorbs all of the natural CO2 emissions, and a little more. This accounts for the fact that atmospheric CO2 has risen at a slower rate than have man-made emissions. The sink has absorbed some, but not all, of the CO2 we pump into our atmosphere.

We are emitting CO2 faster than our planet can absorb it.

Not only are man-made CO2 emissions significant, they actually make up an overwhelming majority of the recent increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Looking into the future, man-made CO2 emissions are predicted to continue increasing, which will no doubt result in higher concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere.

From your own link:
Carbon Dioxide (Million Metric Tons Carbon Equivalent)
Anthropogenic 6,300 ÷ Natural 210,000 = 3%
Absorption 213,100 ÷ Natural 210,000 = 101.4%
Anthropogenic 6,300 + Natural 210,000 = Total 216,300
Total 216,300 - Absorption 213,100 = Annual Increase 3,200

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by jzk

1. The point is that it sounds frightening to say "warmest year on record" and 80% of the people equate that to "warmest year ever" when in reality it is far from that. Record = human recorded history which is a drop in the bucket.

? 80% of who do what? Where do you pull this stuff out of?

2. You make the claim that we all must change our lifestyles, stop progress, and give massive amounts of control of our daily lives to the government. My friend, the burden is on you.

Can you please cut and paste such a claim I made?

3. No. Based on what I have read that you have written, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you are talking about.

Certain, huh?

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Co2 has little to do with global warming. It succeeds warming periods on the earth, not proceeds.

Which puts a damper on the theory of man made climate change.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf

See pages 16 on.............

Another point!
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...0&postcount=51

CO2 has little to do with kicking off glacial/interglacial cycles. It exacerbates and extends the warming that initiates because of orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles).

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jzk

3. Based on what I have read that you have written, I am absolutely certain that you don't know what you are talking about.

Who, among we cruisers, is willing to claim that he/she “knows what he’s talking about*”, regarding the climate sciences ? Not I.

* Claims scientific expertise.