• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The truth of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So what part of warming was caused by man? How much will stopping pollution affect the temp

The image tells you that. If you don't understand, there's not much I can do for you.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Are humans too stupid to survive as a species?

"Because we rarely look beyond our own immediate needs and wants, antecedents of our self-defeat are found in virtually every aspect of human activity. Our rudimentary abstract thought (a) allows us to invent, fabricate, and apply tools, but does not require us to use these tools wisely; (b) allows us to conceptualize healthy government and ecologically sound economies, but does not force us to apply these notions; and (c) allows us to create scientific models of high predictive value, but does not oblige us to apply these to prevent our own demise. Indeed, our political leaders resolutely culture scientific illiteracy--theirs and ours.

The fatal flaw in the human version of abstract thought is found in the conflict between our ability to use logic and symbols, and our inability to automatically think logically or distinguish the symbols from the realities they represent. This discordance is a natural consequence of our sequential development of speech and reasoning. We can speak early in life because that ability is built into our brains. On the other hand, we must learn how to reason. Thus children can speak many years before they can reason wisely. This pattern is carried into adulthood by typical members of our species, who routinely speak before reasoning. Although children can't reason, they can readily lie. This abuse of abstract thought also carries over to adulthood. Humanity's most revered social institutions--law, religion, politics--are founded on seductive lies. Significantly, these lies reinforce our grandiosity by alluding to the fictitious wisdom of juries, the Fathers, and the majority."

"Does this mean that Homo sapiens sapiens is a failed species? From the human perspective, the death of our species would represent the ultimate failure. But the wisdom of Nature provides a radically different appraisal. We are a successful species if we are serving as a forerunner of the next complex species. But for this species to be realized, we must relinquish our dominant position on the planet. Otherwise, if that species tried to find a foothold, we would summarily exterminate it
.
Humanity is the kudzu of the animal kingdom."
Is Homo sapiens sapiens a Wise Species?
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Are humans too stupid to survive as a species?

"Because we rarely look beyond our own immediate needs and wants, antecedents of our self-defeat are found in virtually every aspect of human activity. Our rudimentary abstract thought (a) allows us to invent, fabricate, and apply tools, but does not require us to use these tools wisely; (b) allows us to conceptualize healthy government and ecologically sound economies, but does not force us to apply these notions; and (c) allows us to create scientific models of high predictive value, but does not oblige us to apply these to prevent our own demise. Indeed, our political leaders resolutely culture scientific illiteracy--theirs and ours.

The fatal flaw in the human version of abstract thought is found in the conflict between our ability to use logic and symbols, and our inability to automatically think logically or distinguish the symbols from the realities they represent. This discordance is a natural consequence of our sequential development of speech and reasoning. We can speak early in life because that ability is built into our brains. On the other hand, we must learn how to reason. Thus children can speak many years before they can reason wisely. This pattern is carried into adulthood by typical members of our species, who routinely speak before reasoning. Although children can't reason, they can readily lie. This abuse of abstract thought also carries over to adulthood. Humanity's most revered social institutions--law, religion, politics--are founded on seductive lies. Significantly, these lies reinforce our grandiosity by alluding to the fictitious wisdom of juries, the Fathers, and the majority."

"Does this mean that Homo sapiens sapiens is a failed species? From the human perspective, the death of our species would represent the ultimate failure. But the wisdom of Nature provides a radically different appraisal. We are a successful species if we are serving as a forerunner of the next complex species. But for this species to be realized, we must relinquish our dominant position on the planet. Otherwise, if that species tried to find a foothold, we would summarily exterminate it
.
Humanity is the kudzu of the animal kingdom."
Is Homo sapiens sapiens a Wise Species?

Is this supposed to justify the fact that scientist have no idea how much man has if any affected warming and can not say how much cutting pollution will affect temp?
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Is this supposed to justify the fact that scientist have no idea how much man has if any affected warming and can not say how much cutting pollution will affect temp?

Deuce has already provided the information, you were just unable to understand it. This site might be more helpful to your understanding ~

Climate Kids: What is the greenhouse effect?
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Montague10

New member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hi guys,,,
Yeah i agree with you all people.Global warming is really a myth.As a general guidance, we identify the following three main indicators of global warming:
Loss of snow & ice cover
Rise of air and ocean temperature,
Rise of global sea level, and
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
As a general guidance, we identify the following three main indicators of global warming:

Loss of snow & ice cover
Rise of air and ocean temperature,
Rise of global sea level, and

Correct ~

"- The ice fields atop Mount Kilimanjaro have lost 85 percent of their coverage since 1912;

-- The Quelccaya ice cap in southern Peru – the largest tropical ice field on Earth, has retreated 25 percent since 1978;

-- Ice fields in the Himalayas that have long shown traces of the radioactive bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s have since lost that signal as surface melting has removed the upper layers and thereby reduced the thickness of these glaciers;

-- All of the glaciers in Alaska’s vast Brooks Range are retreating, as are 98 percent of those in southeastern Alaska.* And 99 percent of glaciers in the Alps, 100 percent of those in Peru and 92 percent in the Andes of Chile are likewise retreating;

-- Sea levels are rising and the loss of ice coverage in the North Polar region continues to increase annually."
Climate Scientist Warns World Of Widespread Suffering If Further Climate Change Is Not Forestalled

"Figure 1 shows the change in the world's air temperature averaged over all the land and ocean between 1975 and 2008. The warming is obvious -- about 0.5° C (0.9° F) during that time"

"Since around the time of the Industrial Revolution (the late 18th and early 19th centuries), Earth's atmosphere has warmed by a little less than 1° C (1.8° F) (Figure 2). In turn, the ocean has also risen by about 15 centimeters (6 inches) over the past 100 years -- for two reasons. First, when water warms up, it expands, in much the same way as a solid does when it heats up. As the volume of seawater increases, it causes sea level to rise. Second, global warming causes glaciers and ice sheets to melt, which adds more water to the world's ocean, again causing sea level to rise "
NASA - The Ups and Downs of Global Warming

"Current Sea Level Rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently, during the satellite era of sea level measurement, at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993–2003). Current sea level rise is suggested to be due significantly to global warming,[5] which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods."
Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Duece showed no temp rates. Still waiting for how much temp increased because of man and how much temp will be affected if we pollute less

Exactly, because, while there IS a correlation, CO2 does not CAUSE an increase in temperature... it might add an extra 1-2 degrees on top of how warm it would be ANYWAY, but it doesn't CAUSE warming.

Just because it's not exclusively the solar activity, doesn't mean that it is CO2. The reason they don't really offer any concrete numbers is because deep down they know that you can't offer any substantial number because then it would be clear that this is an unsustainable theory.

I remember it was supposed to be like this year that the coastal cities would be washed away... and then it's being pushed once again that 'oh it's cold now but climate change means the Co2 makes it cold... or warm'... it's all Co2's fault.

Oh BTW, that image of CO2 globally, was that ALL Co2? Well, how did you distinguish from that the part that we have control over, namely what is the CO2 of concern, and which part was CO2 from breathing??
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What the science says:

"The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2 concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?

As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Exactly, because, while there IS a correlation, CO2 does not CAUSE an increase in temperature... it might add an extra 1-2 degrees on top of how warm it would be ANYWAY, but it doesn't CAUSE warming.

... you seem to have a different understanding of the word "cause."

Would you also say a blanket does not cause you to be warmer? It's the same general principle.

The bolded part? That's what I've been saying all along. You've just agreed with my entire platform.
 
Last edited:

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,499
Reaction score
33,557
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You just proved it is politics and you are the one doing it. If it was Bush you would be screaming. You show if a democrat gives special passes it is ok. If you believe GW is real you should be mad if anyone gets a pass on GW regulations.


You prove my point. GW is about power, money and politics it has little to do with environment

Now listen very carefully, this is important:

Whether or not AGW is real has nothing at all to do with Democrats and Republicans, but with scientists vs. silly bloggers and pundits. If you think I'm some kind of raving super partisan, they you haven't been reading my posts. It is much more likely that you have run out of real arguments and are resorting to making claims of partisanship instead.

The only way that global warming is related to partisan politics is in the hot air being generated in Washington on the subject.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,499
Reaction score
33,557
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exactly, because, while there IS a correlation, CO2 does not CAUSE an increase in temperature... it might add an extra 1-2 degrees on top of how warm it would be ANYWAY, but it doesn't CAUSE warming.

It adds a couple of degrees, but doesn't cause warming? Now, there's the best anti AGW argument yet, and is quite typical of the kind of logic being used by the silly bloggers and pundits who are attempting to refute the findings of every scientific oranization in the world. It's a lot like saying that leaving your car in the sun vs in the shade might add a couple of degrees to the inside temperature, but doesn't cause it to be warmer. Now, how can anyone argue successfully against logic like that? Further, there is no doubt that a Democrat car will become warmer than a Republican car, right ptif?
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What the science says:

"The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.

The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2 concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?

As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.

We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

So that is a guess and not actual fact. Then again it could be natural climate change
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
... you seem to have a different understanding of the word "cause."

Would you also say a blanket does not cause you to be warmer? It's the same general principle.

The bolded part? That's what I've been saying all along. You've just agreed with my entire platform.

Yet you can not say how much man has influenced the warming and how much is natural..
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,499
Reaction score
33,557
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yet you can not say how much man has influenced the warming and how much is natural..

Nor can you say that it is all natural.. Oh, come to think of it, you can.

Of course, you'd be wrong if you did.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So that is a guess and not actual fact. Then again it could be natural climate change

Where do you read 'guess" into it? Do you understand what scientific theory is? Do you know that gravity is just a scientific theory? Would you let a rock fall on your head because you believe gravity is just a theory and not a fact?
 

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS WORLD OF WIDESPREAD SUFFERING IF FURTHER CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT FORESTALLED.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – One of the world’s foremost experts on climate change is warning that if humans don’t moderate their use of fossil fuels, there is a real possibility that we will face the environmental, societal and economic consequences of climate change faster than we can adapt to them.
[/url]

No logic, no stature, no reason to believe him, just another windbag egoist looking for recognition.

ricksfolly
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
... you seem to have a different understanding of the word "cause."

Would you also say a blanket does not cause you to be warmer? It's the same general principle.

Now, here's the difference, the blanket will trap heat, but since your natural body heat will be around 98 degrees, you can add more blankets but you're not going to CAUSE any further heating... meaning, you're not going to get heated up to 110 degrees because you added a blanket, or several blankets.

You can't boil water by putting a blanket over it... and it's the same way with CO2... yes, it will trap heat, you will be warmer with the CO2 then without it, but it's not going to CAUSE any more warming then the energy inputs can allow.

The bolded part? That's what I've been saying all along. You've just agreed with my entire platform.

Yes... but here's the difference : Where I"m saying you might have an extra fraction MORE heat with added Co2, it's NOT something drastic, ALSO, this isn't a CAUSE of heating, this is a magnification of heating that would already be present.

Whereas, at least semantically, you are saying that we could offset the sun by simply pumping out more CO2... which is absolute non-sense...

The thing is that the warming trend has very little to do with Co2, there's too many factors that science doesn't really KNOW what causes the overall climate to heat up or cool down... I mean even other planets have been seeing warming trends, and that alone shows that whatever influence we DO have on the climate is minimal... negligible... within the margin of error of the recordings.

It adds a couple of degrees, but doesn't cause warming? Now, there's the best anti AGW argument yet, and is quite typical of the kind of logic being used by the silly bloggers and pundits who are attempting to refute the findings of every scientific oranization in the world. It's a lot like saying that leaving your car in the sun vs in the shade might add a couple of degrees to the inside temperature, but doesn't cause it to be warmer. Now, how can anyone argue successfully against logic like that? Further, there is no doubt that a Democrat car will become warmer than a Republican car, right ptif?

I'm saying, whatever the CO2 levels, we're in a warming trend... because of CO2, now, by adding CO2 artificially, above and beyond what's been naturally produced there is a PORTION of that warming that is due to CO2... and if it went on a cooling trend, the cooling would be mitigated by the same amount. But, Co2 is not causing the warming trend of the past 100+ years.

Reality is more complex then that, and we don't truly understand. (in spite of all the fancy projections and climate models, these are little better then a slightly informed guesses.

There's a fraction of reality... there REALLY IS a greenhouse effect, water is the largest factor in this. Co2 CAN become toxic at high enough concentrations. BUT THEN, you have a basis to take something necessary to life and claim that because of the greenhouse effect we're warming the planet and will kill everyone. WHich can only be true at toxic levels of CO2, which isn't going to happen.

So, I don't know why every scientific organization in the world has signed on to this... but, among other factors, I'm sure the money factor comes into play as well. Maybe it's that most of these organizations accept the premise... the greenhouse effect is real... because it is. It doesn't scale up to a global level in any meaningful way though.

For example, the earths magnetic field is a variable, we don't know just how, as that moves, strengthens and weakens, how that might impact the total climate. Or the magnet field of the moon, the moon has an effect on tidal movements, etc... how does that factor in?

Now, if you're going to start adding in these types of factors, among the other commonly used factors, like the jet stream, atmospheric pressures, etc... THEN, we might start getting projections that aren't just exponentially getting warmer... like Al Gore used to say how the oceans would be flooding all coastal cities... well, now... but then they just make new projections and are never called on the failures of their previous projections.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No logic, no stature, no reason to believe him, just another windbag egoist looking for recognition.

ricksfolly

No stature????

"A research scientist with Ohio State’s Byrd Polar Research Center, Thompson is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.* In 2007, he received the National Medal of Science, the highest honor the United States gives to American scientists."

Oh, I see what you mean........he doesn't have a political blog, so how could he measure up to your sources, right?
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What the science says:

"The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

I'm impressed... let's get to the meat and crunch some numbers...

Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.

a) is this 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in that time, and blamed on humans?
b) Is this human production of Co2 has increased 40%?

This is a statement that gets used, and doesn't really go anywhere to prove anything... there's 40% more kittens around then 150 years ago too, could that cause the warming???

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2 concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ


dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature."
How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Ok... surface temperatures :
image318.gif


I'll use the averaged out line :

1890 - There was around 290ppm CO2 concentration...
So,
Df = 5.35 ln(290/280) = 5.35 (0.03509) = .1877385
Dt = (2to4.5) .1877385 = .375 to 0.8
Reality of change = MAYBE a 0.02 degree change over that 10 years...

Next example :

1940 - It was around 310ppm of CO2 for a few years there...
Df = 5.35ln(310/280) = .544537
Dt= 2 to 4.5 (.544537) = 1.1 to 2.45 degree change..

Reality - about 0.25 degrees warmer... damn... but no, I'm sure this equation works perfectly well within the confines of a climate model.

Edit : CO2 readings source :
co2_temp_trend.png
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,499
Reaction score
33,557
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How interesting to post two graphs showing a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature, while attempting to argue that AGW is a hoax.

That's quite a point made earlier, too, that carbon dioxide doesn't produce heat. Who could argue with that one? And, of course, that blanket doesn't produce heat, either.

So, let's do a little experiment. We'll both sit down and watch our favorite TV station in an unheated room. I'll put a blanket over me, while you can sit in your swimsuit. Since my clothes and blanket don't produce heat, we should both be equally comfortable, correct?

Further, the windows in your car don't produce heat either, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat windows. So, try this little experiment: Place two cars in the sun in the summer, side by side, one with the windows up, and the other with the windows down, and see which one gets the hotter.

Every argument used against AGW can be used in this experiment as well.

The glass doesn't produce heat.
Not all of the heating in the car with the windows up is caused by the windows being up.
While there is a correlation between the windows being up and temperature, there is no proven cause and effect relation.

Further, it is the same process, the greenhouse effect.
 

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
a) is this 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in that time, and blamed on humans?
b) Is this human production of Co2 has increased 40%?

This is a statement that gets used, and doesn't really go anywhere to prove anything... there's 40% more kittens around then 150 years ago too, could that cause the warming???



"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm)."

That is a 40% increase.

"The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase."

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere."
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
 

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How interesting to post two graphs showing a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature, while attempting to argue that AGW is a hoax.
That's how feeble the position is that I can use your own numbers to tear apart your argument. EVERY TIME! So, ya... keep proving my point it's fun.

That's quite a point made earlier, too, that carbon dioxide doesn't produce heat. Who could argue with that one? And, of course, that blanket doesn't produce heat, either.

Absolutely a blanket does not produce heat. It does TRAP heat, but it does not PRODUCE it. You can put a whole pile of blankets over a cup of water and it will not heat up, I assure you.

In the same way, you will produce heat from the engine, but once the exhaust cools to atmospheric temperatures, there's no more heat production.

So, let's do a little experiment. We'll both sit down and watch our favorite TV station in an unheated room. I'll put a blanket over me, while you can sit in your swimsuit. Since my clothes and blanket don't produce heat, we should both be equally comfortable, correct?

Is it the BLANKET that CAUSES the heat in that scenario?? Or is it your BODY producing the heat??? Thanks.

Further, the windows in your car don't produce heat either, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat windows. So, try this little experiment: Place two cars in the sun in the summer, side by side, one with the windows up, and the other with the windows down, and see which one gets the hotter.

Every argument used against AGW can be used in this experiment as well.

Again, it's not windows up or windows down that determines the heat inside the car. It's' how the OTHER FACTORS work together to determine how warm the car will get. You can have your car windows up in the dead of winter and it still won't heat up anymore then all the mitigating factors will allow.

The glass doesn't produce heat.
Not all of the heating in the car with the windows up is caused by the windows being up.
While there is a correlation between the windows being up and temperature, there is no proven cause and effect relation.

Further, it is the same process, the greenhouse effect.

Yes... but if it's an arctic winter, you need a bit more then just a glass greenhouse to keep it warm...

Edit:
Final point : using this calculation that is used as PROOF, and the data, well... that equation MAY HAVE been true for a specific period, but how are you going to turn this small scale only equation to make long- term projections into the future... also, you must use a specific start date...

If this is how they determined their predictions, it's actually really pathetic that these people think that they can oversimplify the climate to such a degree and still HONESTLY tell you that this is accurate.
 
Last edited:

BmanMcfly

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,753
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm)."

That is a 40% increase.

"The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase."

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere."
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Oh, I get it.,.. humans are 100% responsible for the increase in CO2... gotcha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom