Global warming

humans are totally responsible. there are so many preventitive measures we could have taken but ignored global warming all together. now we are just going in a downhill spiral and no matter what we do, its gonna get worse. its not gonna take years, but decades for everything to be "green house gas friendly" and still then, its gonna get way worse before it gets better

 

Try reading everything Sythe has said, and looking at the graphics, graphs, etc posted.

 

The article you posted pointed something else out too:

Volcanoes are also sources of water vapour and carbon dioxide, but their contribution to the global budgets of greenhouse gases is very small. On the time-scale of decades to centuries, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanic sources cause negligible climate change.

Volcanic sulphur emissions are effectively injected into the stratosphere, where they form sulphate aerosols and spread round the globe. They later settle in the upper troposphere to seed cirrus clouds. This causes short term cooling on a scale greater than human sulphur emissions. That was what the article was saying (this is clear if you read it carefully). It's not saying that volcanoes emit more sulphur than humans, because that would be wrong.

If you like, you can call human influence "enhanced acid rain". Human sulphur emissions are more harmful because they are concentrated and effect small regions, causing excessively acidic rain.

Well, random was the wrong word really. The petition is just a self-selected list of individuals, and that doesn't make it a scientific body.

The worry is not that global warming will make the whole planet uninhabitable. The problem arises from sudden change in temperature. Most greenhouse gases have good staying-power in the atmosphere, and will continue causing warming for a long time. If humans pump up CO2 concentrations to something like 1000 ppm in a relatively short period, then the effects will be swift and harmful.

The tests haven't come and gone. Look at your graph:



Do you see any times when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 appear to have risen at a rate of about 100ppm per century? You're welcome to hypothesize about a mechanism which automatically protects Earth from disaster, but whatever this mechanism is, it has never been subjected to human influence before.

I'm not going to argue about this. The overall economic implications of global warming are unclear, though most studies conclude a drop of aggregate GDP of a few percent is on the cards, with most of the effect going on low-lying and developing countries.

As I pointed out earlier, the link between that graph and volcanic eruptions is garbage. The staying power of sulphate aerosols is less than a decade. What link between volcanoes and global temperature are you trying to establish? The graph seems to have eruptions dotted all over.

 

It's alright, Sythe. Bush sez there's no such thing as Global Warming.

 

Erm, the x-axis is in millions-of-years. Let's do the maths:

gradient = delta(y)/delta(x) = 2500/40000000, translating to an average 0.00625ppm increase per hundred years

I'm sure there is actual evidence of great changes in CO2 concentrations in the short term if you go research it though.

No, I'm not saying that global warming will "DESTORY" anything. A lot of it will kill off a lot of species and have a mixed effect on the economy, but I'm not a greenie psychopath.

It makes perfect scientific sense, which is why the scientific community are in unanimous agreement about the issue.

It's true that the sea takes a long time to warm and cool (this is why CO2 increases often lag behind temperature increases). [1]

However sea-surface temperatures have already begun to rise, why is it impossible for the rest of the world to heat up before the oceans do? You would literally need to "mix up" the oceans in order to create a cool surface to slow warming [2]

Quite frankly, you insult your own intelligence with the extreme and unreasonable conclusions you make. I've never said I even supported green taxes or whatever, I've only disputed the claims that global warming isn't real.

You want proof? Here's where you can get proof:

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
http://scholar.google.co.uk/schhp?q=&hl=en&tab=ps

And alternatively, if you accept that government scientists haven't been falsifying their evidence for the last 120 years:

http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

As a final resort, you could even check Wikipedia out, assuming you don't think it's run by Communists or the government:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

Alrighty, today was "climate day" at our school, where many world-reknown climatologists came to speak at our school. I asked them many questions from this thread, and the panel answered some of them (but skimped some of the others). Here are the answers they provided:

First, Global Warming is based of 3 primary premises.

1. Solar Irradiance
2. Reflectivity
3. Green House Gases

When asked how we knew "number 1" couldn't be the cause of global warming, they responded that Solar irradiance is easily measurable, and could not be mathematically causing this warming streak.

They did say that often our distance from the Sun causes ice/warm periods, and that Co2 was not always the underlying cause, but often the result of positive feedback.

Then I asked, why should we care? First few guys dodged the questions, other responded that because we have fairly mild climate as is, it was an unnecessary risk. Another mentioned gradual flooding of coastal areas. And finally the extinction of species etc due to rapid warming. These answers were half satisfactory to me, and they even admitted that period of faster warming/cooling HAD INDEED occured before.

The end.

Qmark

 

I believe we have effected it somewhat, but the whole thing about the world flooding from the north pole or something is wrong.

 

I just find it an odd presmise: "People are good, but people in government will be the ones trying to stick a dick down your throat." Or is it power that leads to abuse? Interesting study on that as well, but I'm not sure if that's the point.

I just don't think the government "profits" enough to make studying it a worthy cause. Plenty of people I know have taken government jobs, and many agree that everything was lax and inefficient, but "evil?". There are many scientists you meet sincerely passionate about global warming, not some overarching paid off people, but just "people" like you and me.

Btw, I do believe in propoganda, and that businesses will always try to grab a nab. They were advertising "electric cars" and "solar panels" in ways they shouldn't in the policy panel I mentioned above.

 

My premise is that scientific fact is trustworthy. I've been a regular ranter on other forums on this topic for years, I'm not throwing myself into this argument with nothing but a blind trust in the IPCC. And furthermore, unlike you, I've actually read their reports.

Since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists revised their position on climate change in March 2007, every scientific body of national and international standing are in agreement that humans cause global warming.

The ocean isn't a pan of water, see:

I said "sea surface", since measurements are generally made <20m below sea level by vessels or automated measurement buoys. This segment of the ocean has seen temperature rises comparable to land. I'll say it again - there is a reason CO2 often lags behind temperature historically: the whole ocean takes a long time warm up.

In other words, you've tailored your own conclusions based on knowledge of high school physics, youtube videos, a graph that applies to paleoclimatology and another smooth-curve graph with pictures of volcanoes dotted on it.

I cannot believe you say that after I link you to 6 different places where you can find more studies than you could read in a year supporting anthropogenic global warming theory.

Climate models are always divergent with real data, you cannot predict the global climate accurately, it's impossible. But GCMs are used for things besides predicting global warming, and they work well enough to warrant their use. So there is uncertainty, but at the end of the day, every model agrees that the world is warming, not cooling.

Oh yes - this "research". I'm sick of you asserting that the thousands of scientists around the globe, paid by various governments all around the world, have been all working together to falsify data. If you have evidence, put it on the table, instead of blindly attacking the integrity of climate scientists everywhere.

For the second, third, fourth time? No. I'm not arguing for green taxes or more regulation on this thread. I'm just trying to prove that global warming is caused by humans, nothing more.