So, what did happen to all that warmth?

[Sceadwian]

Correlation is not data. It's a link between data sets... In a system which we don't fully understand perhaps we're just missing the data set that correlates more strongly to the true cause? If you look at the graphs on a gross scale, we don't even make a visible effect on it without magnification. Do we effect it statistically, of course. Are we the cause of it on a global scale? Absolutely not, and that can be emphatically stated without contention.

Global warming is occurring, man is influencing it, not the direct cause of the trend. It's a global system seeking entropy nothing more, and we don't understand even a fraction of all the influencing effects especially with an aging ecological system, to state otherwise is irresponsible from a scientific standpoint. Ignoring the data is just as irresponsible, which is why we should be (and are) starting to put some effort to reduce our perceived effects on our environment.

The political and media sensationalism surrounding every facet of our environment is nothing more than an extension of our basic self preservation tendancies starting to kick in on a larger scale. If we do everything we possibly can to understand our effect on the environment, undo what we've done and stabilize the existing system for the next few hundred thousand years we probably still wouldn't be able to stop the existing trend. Should we try? Suuuuuure why not, it's our existence that's really at stake here not the worlds. Even something as bad as what happened to the Dinosaurs or even earlier worse mass extinctions were completly 'natural' in origin. Trust me, if one little species like man is snufffed out, the planet will go on juuuuuuuuuuuuuust fine without us. The alarmism is our own self conscious catching up with us.

 

[BrownOut]

Who said correlation is data? Certainly not me. But the data does correlate to the rise in burning of fossel fuels, and it is irresponsible to ignor that. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The atmospheric content of CO2 is rising, and it's due to the activities of man. As a result of the increased greenhouse gas, global temperature is rising. If you have a better reason for the rise, which correlates perfectly with the increased greenhouse gas, then let's hear it. This is the most widely accepted theory by atmospheric scientists, governments, NASA, US Department of Defense, State Department, etc.

 

[kchriste]

It's Wiki science mind you.

Those are, of coarse, not linear timescale charts so it is hard to compare the rate of temp rise using them directly. I think the human race needs to err on the side of caution since the stakes are so high.

But all the sensationalism on every side of the global warming question just makes me absolutely sick.

Shall we talk about H1N1 now?

 

[Sceadwian]

The atmospheric content of CO2 is rising, and it's due to the activities of man. As a result of the increased greenhouse gas, global temperature is rising.

Yes C02 content is rising, and it is in PART because of man, the global sources of C02 and the Co2 cycle in general isn't well understood.

As a result of the increased greenhouse gas the temperature is rising FASTER it's not the cause of the inherent temperature increase it's only a part of it.

 

[BrownOut]

Rising CO2 is MOSTLY due to the burning of fossel fuels. And it is extermely likely that it is causing the rise in global temperatures.

 

[AllVol]

Rising CO2 is MOSTLY due to the burning of fossel fuels. And it is extermely likely that it is causing the rise in global temperatures.

You might have a point, except:

In the United States, fifty to 100 years ago nearly every residence was heated by the burning of coal. Trains plied back and forth on steam provided by the burning of coal. The coal mines of West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky worked three shifts a day, seven days to provide coal for the iron and steel industry. Many cities were so inundated daily with coal soot that it was impractical for a man to wear a white shirt to work.

Today, the only major consumption of coal is by the electrical power plants, and those are closely monitored and filtered to reduce the release of pollutants. The air-borne particles of yesterday and today are being cleansed by the natural rain cycles.

The auto and truck industries have taken great pains to reduce the pollution of their exhaust.

And more CO2 is produced by natural sources than any man-made activity. There may be some global warming... consensus is one-half degree F. in the past 40 years... but I submit it isn't man's doing entirely, as those who would profit greatly by a hysterical response would have you believe.

Two bright copper pennies worth.

 

[BrownOut]

Soot and other pollutants are not the same as CO2. The automobile industry has not been able to reduce the CO2 emmissions. The only way to reduce it is to burn less fuel. Some automobiles are high effencicy, but the number of automobiles on the road just keep increasing, as does the average number of miles being driven. Coal and natural power plants also contribute. No matter how many pollutants are cleaned from the talipipes and smoke stacks, CO2 continues to be released. This is responsible for the majority of CO2 that is being released. Natural CO2 is way less.

 

[Sceadwian]

The sources of C02 and the carbon cycle on earth isn't well understood yet.
Just did some quick googling for data.
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Not sure where they get their data and I'm not gonna do the research on it, but it says the baseline PPM is 288m. Natural additions are 68m, and manmade additions are 11m. So I'm not entirly sure where you're deriving your conclusions from Brownout, but it's not from real world data.

 

[kchriste]

Monte Hieb worked as a chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. He is not a climatologist by any stretch of the imagination. He hasn't published any peer reviewed papers on climatology at all. His "mining" connections make him a suspect source at best.

 

[BrownOut]

The sources of C02 and the carbon cycle on earth isn't well understood yet.
Just did some quick googling for data.

Not sure where they get their data and I'm not gonna do the research on it, but it says the baseline PPM is 288m. Natural additions are 68m, and manmade additions are 11m. So I'm not entirly sure where you're deriving your conclusions from Brownout, but it's not from real world data.

You don't know where the data comes from. You can't verify it's correct or not. But you're sure that I'm not using "real world" data, because this junk form unknown sources says so.

OH, I forgot, if it's on google, it MUST be true. Unless that is, if you disagree, then it must be false.

 

[Pommie]

Those numbers look a bit suspect to me,

Pre-industrial baseline            288,000
Natural additions                   68,520
Man-made additions                  11,880
Total (ppb) Concentration          368,400

Natural additions? How did nature know an industrial revolution had happened.

Mike.

 

[BrownOut]

We should only believe data if it comes from unknown sources. But of course, if NASA and the Department of Energy puts up facts and data, you should ingore it completely.

Before humans began emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the atmospheric uptake and loss of carbon dioxide was approximately in balance. "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remained pretty stable during the pre-industrial period," said Gregg Marland of Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn. "Carbon dioxide generated by human activity amounts to only about four percent of yearly atmospheric uptake or loss of carbon dioxide, but the result is that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been growing, on average, by four-tenths of one percent each year for the last 40 years. Though this may not seem like much of an influence, humans have essentially tipped the balance of the global cycling of carbon. Our emissions add significant weight to one side of the balance between carbon being added to the atmosphere and carbon being removed from the atmosphere.

"Plant life and geochemical processes on land and in the ocean 'inhale' large amounts of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and then 'exhale' most of it back into the atmosphere," Marland continued. "Humans, however, have altered the carbon cycle over the last couple of centuries, through the burning of fossil fuels that enable us to live more productively. Now that humans are acknowledging the environmental effects of our dependence on fossil fuels and other carbon dioxide-emitting activities, our goal is to analyze the sources and sinks of this carbon dioxide and to find better ways to manage it."

NASA - The Human Factor: Understanding the Sources of Rising Carbon Dioxide

 

[Sceadwian]

Pommie, natural additions mean increase in CO2 levels that are attributed to natural sources.

And technically both articles are suspect. Because they didn't provide any reference to where they got their information from. Ask two different scientists you'll get two different answers, I'm not sure where the 'scientists agree' or what data sets to believe. A quick quote from a Nasa site that the article you posted referenced for further reading was.

Current estimates of human-produced carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are based on inventories and estimates of where fossil fuels are burned and where other carbon dioxide-producing human activities are occurring. However, the availability and precision of this information is not uniform around the world, not even from within developed countries like the United States.

Anyone that outright believes without a lot of skepticism that scientists really have a handle on this either way right now is seriously mistaken.

 

[BrownOut]

And? Do you reject all science unless they can measure every quantity without tolerences? There is a huge body of work in this field, including cores taken from ice sheets, fossels, radio active methods, correlation with historical data, etc. We blow off scientific work on the Earth's health at our owp peril! None of the deniers has credible evidence to the contrary. They only have attempts to deny and discrdit.

BTW, you can crap-can the Hieb article as soon as he makes water vapor a green house gas. LOL! Credibility-zero!

 

[ke5frf]

I love the climate change controversy.

My stance has always been that:
1) I have no reason to doubt or question that human activity has some measure of influence on our environment, even climate.
2) It makes sense to continue to study data, collect new data, refine our understanding of the overall "big picture" (ie every variable that influences the climate), and implement culture changes (without severe economic consequences) that improve our relationship with the environment.
3) I am absolutely convinced that this is more of a political issue than scientific, by orders of magnitude. If you have ever spent more than a minute reading the comment section of "RealClimate.Org" and the associated articles, you very much get the sense that the science follows the assumptions of the scientists, rather the assumptions of the scientists following the science. Every last Tom, Richard, and Harry cheerleading the campaign is an admitted left leaning liberal, athiest/agnostic and they spend more time eschewing opposing ideaologies than discussing the science.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am fully aware of the political culture of academia and I would be naive to think it has no influence upon controversial science such as this. 50 years ago the title "climateologist" was a science without much to do, let alone funding to do it with. It was a small fraternity of a handfull of scientists, trained by the same handful of scientists from the generation before. Today it has become a heavily funded vogue science with plenty of people competing for the same money.

The above was my sarcastic but realistic impression of it all. I've read all the facts and data and ambiguities in great detail, for many years. I am not convinced that anthropogenic GW isn't real, therfore I think it deserves our study and attention. But until the politics are removed from the equation I'll have a skeptical eye.

One phrase that makes my stomach hurt: "The Science Is Settled"

When I heard and read the multitudes of science-politicos screaming this little phrase, My notch and bandpass filters were switched on.

 

[EN0]

Global warming is a complete farse, nothing that we can do about it. It is evidently clear that the earth goes through its cycles and such in changing temperatures. We had the ice age, then it got warmer and so on.

 

[Sceadwian]

I think ke5frf post stands on it's own. I agree with him 100% but I do have words to add for myself =)

Okay, lets start after my last post =P

And? Do you reject all science unless they can measure every quantity without tolerences?

Absolutely not, but EVERY article I have read concerning global warming has failed utterly to mention the fact that there is variability, the quantities mentioned are statistically derived from narrow data sources and make broad reaching statements, virtually no two of which agree.

There is a huge body of work in this field, including cores taken from ice sheets, fossels, radio active methods, correlation with historical data, etc.

That huge body of work contains all of the sketchy left and right wingers as well as true scientists that go for raw data an unbiased calculations.

We blow off scientific work on the Earth's health at our owp peril! None of the deniers has credible evidence to the contrary. They only have attempts to deny and discrdit.

No one here is a denier, to deny global warming is occurring is idiotic. No one is blowing off scientific work, but the scientific credibility goes out the window when fearmongers warn we need to immediately stop burning all fossil fuels reduce the worlds human population by a few billion and go back to the stone age.

The only thing I am attempting to deny and discredit is one thing and one thing only. The human race as a whole, including all scientists on this planet, including every theory and every variation of that theory concerning the true cause and effect relationship of man and natures effect on the carbon cycle on this planet is at BEST just a guess. The science itself has many years to go.

 

[BrownOut]

Good science always includes a discussion about variabilities. You find a good example in the articles I linked referenced for further reading, and then turn right around and state that every article fails to mention variability. Even bolded and underlined the word "every." How do you post a direct quote that mentions variability, then deny any such thing exists? You don't know if you're coming or going on this subject. Only the literature that attempts to discredit the science utterly fails to discuss the vaiability of their own data.

In fact, the science has done a good job of showing the variables. But as all good science does, it looks at the evidence and comes to the very best conclusion based on the evidence. Yes, there is alot of study left to do; however, that does not discredit all of the science done to date. It's not political; it's not left or right; it's not about a bunch of atheists or achedemia using a false issue to acquire government funds. It's not fearmongering. It's a warning about how we are affecting the climate by burning fossel fuels. It's a warning we should head, becuase we should leave something better to our children than we are on track for.

This discussion is only going around in circles. I have yet to see any evidence that the science is wrong. I only see one wrong, unsubstianted rant after another about the science of climate change, and the scientists who have worked hard to inform the public of the dangers of ignoring our impact on the world we live in. Science serves mankind. Go ahead and rant all you want. If I chose not to continue this rediculous roundabout discussion, it's not because you've done anything to change my mind. It's simply because the discussion has become a waste of my time.

 

[smanches]

Just thought I would post this..

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The methane makers

 

[tcmtech]

heres the dilemma I see with this whole global warming situation.
It depends on where you look and what you factor toward 'green house gas' production sources.
With a quick and unbiased on line search you will find that human influenced green house gas production numbers supposedly have risen by around 200% in the last 50 years or so.
But depending on what information source you chose that relates to any where from 10% of the worlds natural and man made combined numbers to about 90% of the worlds natural and man made combined numbers.

So what does that mean?
By my take that meant that in 1959 we produced between 5% and 85% of the worlds green house gases and in 2009 we produced about 10% to 90% of the worlds total green house gases.

I dont know about you but a tolerance of 5% to 90% seems pretty wide and inconclusive to me.

Would you like your tax man to use a 5% to 90% applied variable on your income?
He might only charge you 5% but then again he might charge you 90% too. It just depends on what reference source he felt like using that day.