The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?  (Read 59540 times)

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #100 on: 02/01/2010 19:04:56 »
"To me it's about being scared, really scared. Like when the mob rules your neighborhood, or that 'religion' defines what you're allowed to think... Which seems only proper considering the mess we made."  The only mob that tells us what to think these days seem to have birthed in the now discredited climate fiction factories of Denver and East Anglia. And of course I think the laughable hockey stick farce originated in Pennsylvania someplace

And What Mess? The industrial world has reduced or eliminated all the great plaques of the past. Small Pox is gone from the entire planet. There are no cholera epidemics in London UK, Europe, or North America anymore. I'm not sure how far North Malaria was endemic in Europe, but much of the South Eastern part of the US was known for it. Polio, Diptheria, and almost all serious bacterial infections are no longer near automatic death sentences. And the only famines ARE man made.

Much of this progress was made through industrializing water and and sewer systems within the span of just a few long lifetimes. The same thing for industrial discharges into the water systems and into the air. As for global warming? The planet started getting warmer long before humans introduced large amounts of CO2 into the atmoshpere.

The Climate is, apparently, not as warm as Roman Times, and about the same as the Midieval Warming period. Further, if the planet DOES get too warm, whatever that temperature might be, we have testable, scalable, and reversable methods to cool the place down. Since we know CO2 emissions will continue at high levels from China, India, and mush or the rest of the world for, probably generations to come it seews incumbent to move on to such a PLAN B.

However, I don't see the GW Crowd vigorously moving in that direction. Mostly what I see is hand-wringing about the evils of the Western World. Finally, I have actually seen the ravages of past uncontrolled coal and peat burning in Eastern Europe back in the 1980's, and have heard first hand accounts of Pittsburgh it the bad old days. Things are much better now then the smog ridden cities of the mid 1900's.

A lot of that phase of industrialization is now taking place in both China and India. I see now way to stop it until both places reach GDP levels of about $10,000 per year. Further, I am not convinced the climate might not actually cool down as time passes. After all, it has cooled down perhaps three times in the last two millenia already.

The most recent cooling lasted about 200 years or so, if I am not mistaken, and ended in the 1800's, prior to massive industrialization. We are now about as warm as it was during the Midieval warming era, and still a bit cooler then Roman times. And then there is Sunspot Cycle 24 which may have gone missing. Google Maunder Minimum. Cold was bad.
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #101 on: 03/01/2010 04:20:56 »
The Climate is, apparently, not as warm as Roman Times, and about the same as the Midieval Warming period. Further, if the planet DOES get too warm, whatever that temperature might be, we have testable, scalable, and reversable methods to cool the place down.

Not meaning to nitpick.

The Roman Warming was cooler than the Medieval Warming by a significant amount.  Also, the Medieval Warming *may* have been warmer in some regions than the modern climate optimum, but that is still under dispute at this time.  There is a lot of work being done by Poore, Quinn, and Richey in the Gulf of Mexico that shows that at least the Caribbean during the MWP may have been warmer than present.

The most recent cooling lasted about 200 years or so, if I am not mistaken, and ended in the 1800's, prior to massive industrialization. We are now about as warm as it was during the Midieval warming era, and still a bit cooler then Roman times. And then there is Sunspot Cycle 24 which may have gone missing. Google Maunder Minimum. Cold was bad.

The Little Ice Age began about 1250 and ended around 1800, so it lasted somewhere around 550 years, but as with all things in paleoclimate, the exact dates are different regionally.  Dont count solar cycle 24 out yet, either...the cycle looks like it is beginning to ramp up a bit.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #102 on: 03/01/2010 14:44:35 »
Fret,

Thanks for the correction on the little ice age. There was a good presentation on the topic awhile back ... "The Prosperity of the Medieval Warm Period was Followed by the Horror of the Little Ice Age..."  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/286237/must_see_tv_the_little_ice_age_big.html

As for Roman Warming etc being local events, I believe evidence is is accumulating the other way including your helpful citation on the Caribbean. I know this following citation is becoming a bit long in tooth concerning REA. Here is a compendium of studies on the subject. http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropenorth.php

I have, however, a growing sense of indifference for a number of reasons. The most recent reason is CO2 introduction from fossil fuels will continue unabated for generations. Accordingly, those who wish to take precautions need PLAN B. I hear almost nothing about Plan B. This is very suspicious for it seems to indicate a mental fossilization in the climate community.

Also, I do not trust the science community as far as I can through a Polar Bear. This all began back in my days as a congressional investigator, first at The National Science Foundation, (total concealed plagerism) followed by my study on metrification at the beureau of weights and measures. And so the incidents at East Anglia et all were hardly a surprise to me.

More generally, the hysteria of the whole thing positively reaks. For instance, one poster provided me with a link to a Sonorous Shakespearean actor. This 'actor' was totally convinced in human caused GW when someone or another showed him the hockey stick graph and simply told him industrial CO2 grew during that time. "I am now totally convinced" or some such pontificated the famous stage actor. And the less said about algore the better.

However, I still have some interests. Cosmic Rays have been a subtext for a long time and so I plan to research both their variability, and how much energy they impart directly through kinetic impact and then conversion to, I believe, X-Rays. Cosmic rays are implicated in both cloud cover variations and lightning strikes.

In addition, their is some indication the earths magnetic field may be in the early stages of a reverse. This means less protection from extraterestrial energy sources. I have heard none of these discussed at much length. And of course there is the enigmatic Sun Spot Cycle 24.

Lastly, I have seen nothing on variability of deep ocean volcanism. Terrestrial volcanism varies greatly, and so I may research that little corner of the subject. For strictly entertainment purposes I provide this quote from the UK:

"Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years ... The cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed it’s earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years.

Too many East Anglia interns, perhaps.....

I know its anecdotal, but turn about is fare play. After all, wasn't all this CO2 gong to produce so many category 5 huricanes the Southern US would become all but uninhabitable;)
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #103 on: 14/02/2010 19:35:52 »
To use an equation to analyze an event, we need to have accurate data regarding the different variables present in the equation.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

"Water Vapor

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."

How can we have highly accurate climate models if we admittedly have neither highly accurate data, nor understanding, of the most important variable in our equation?
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #104 on: 15/02/2010 07:00:59 »
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #105 on: 15/02/2010 08:03:09 »
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

So are you saying the overall effect of water vapor on climate is static?

I'm not sure I see how this could be possible.  I understand the idea of a feedback loop, but it seems to me that water is being removed and returned to the feedback loop at varying rates constantly.  Wouldn't water being held in ice caps be removed from the loop for a period?  We know that ice sheets, glaciers, etc., masses vary from year to year; wouldn't this mean that the effect of our primary source, for the greenhouse effect, on global climate can't possibly be static?  That doesn't even address the issue of rising or declining populations.  I don't mean just humans, is the biomass of the Earth static?  Doesn't a lot of biomass retain a lot of water?  What about evaporation rates, and the effects of water redistribution?

 What about the large shift in weather every 20,000 years which causes the Sahara green belt; what long term effect could that have on ice caps and the feedback loop.  If CO2 can wreak such havoc and it only represents a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases on Earth, shouldn't the most abundant greenhouse gas(95% of all greenhouse gases) be able to wreak more havoc?  On top of that, water vapor is supposed to enhance the greenhouse effect of CO2, so shouldn't that increase the effect even more?
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #106 on: 17/02/2010 04:02:55 »
Chis J - You wrote: "It can hardly be disputed that the earth is warming and the percent of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is increasing."

According to Phil Jones [the Climate God from East Anglia] the earth stopped warming about 15 years ago, and may have been cooling a little bit over the last decade or so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

The Climate, however, had been warming from a peak cold spell since about 1,400 AD or there abouts when the Little Ice Age was at its worse. This warming continued on and off till about 1995.

You asked how much warming is due to humane activity. Ok. Not much till the 20th century, of course.  Now we get into controversy. I have seen estimates that 2/3 of 20th century warming is due to increased solar activity and the resultant decrease in cosmic ray cloud production. Others claim it is primarily due to CO2 increases from human activity. The science on this IS NOT SETTLED! And since the climate has, according to Dr. Phil Jones, slightly cooled over the last 15 years the question is moot for the recent past.

This does not mean there is no reason for concern. Specifically, sun spot cycle 24 has gone missing for several years. That means a solar decrease of at least 1% over what it would otherwise be. Google Maunder Minimum for information on extended periods without sun spots. It is not a pretty picture.

To Quote myself: "Warm is good, cold is bad."

 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #107 on: 17/02/2010 07:48:11 »
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

So are you saying the overall effect of water vapor on climate is static?

No, the opposite. Regardless of the effects water vapour has, the vapour itself is a feedback from climate forcings. Warmer air holds more vapour, colder air holds less. So the amount of water vapour present is at an equilibrium with the other conditions of the atmosphere. Change these condtions, and you change the amount of water vapour, and therefore the effects the water vapour has.

For example, if you snapped your fingers and removed all water vapour from the atmosphere, after a short while and some interesting effects, more water would be evaporated again and after a while the water vapour conditions would return to equilibrium. Or the same if you instantly saturated the atmosphere with water.

But if you snapped your fingers and altered a climate forcing, for example if you doubled the CO2 level and output or solar radiance then you're stuck with a hotter planet.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 08:04:17 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #108 on: 17/02/2010 07:59:39 »
Chis J - You wrote: "It can hardly be disputed that the earth is warming and the percent of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is increasing."

According to Phil Jones [the Climate God from East Anglia] the earth stopped warming about 15 years ago, and may have been cooling a little bit over the last decade or so.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

The Climate, however, had been warming from a peak cold spell since about 1,400 AD or there abouts when the Little Ice Age was at its worse. This warming continued on and off till about 1995.

Disregarding the bias of the article, let's say this Phil Jones really did say the earth has been cooling for 15 years. Does he have both evidence for this and an explanation why every other scientific institution has measured the opposite?

All the graphs i've seen look like this:
(I found them on the wikipedia page on global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming )





Quote
I have seen estimates that 2/3 of 20th century warming is due to increased solar activity and the resultant decrease in cosmic ray cloud production.

This graph shows solar irradiance over 30 or so years:


Seems to steadily go up and down, whereas global temperature seems to go steadily just up.

To Quote myself: "Warm is good, cold is bad."

To Quote myself, in response to your constant regurgitation of this notion:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22348.msg282411#msg282411
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26664.msg283647#msg283647
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22612.msg282086#msg282086
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26664.msg283276#msg283276
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24403.msg289864#msg289864
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22612.msg282336#msg282336
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 12:05:11 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #109 on: 17/02/2010 11:57:13 »
More generally, the hysteria of the whole thing positively reaks. For instance, one poster provided me with a link to a Sonorous Shakespearean actor. This 'actor' was totally convinced in human caused GW when someone or another showed him the hockey stick graph and simply told him industrial CO2 grew during that time. "I am now totally convinced" or some such pontificated the famous stage actor. And the less said about algore the better.

Your ignorance is turning into lies, which in my opinion reaks more than what you percieve as hysteria.

Hopefully BC won't mind me quoting him, he said it best the first time you mentioned this.

I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Attenborough

If you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.

Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.
I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.

Why would you be so dishonest as to tell this story when you were already shown to be plainly wrong?

Not the first instance of dishonesty i've found in the thread either:

According to Phil Jones [the Climate God from East Anglia] the earth stopped warming about 15 years ago, and may have been cooling a little bit over the last decade or so.

Here is the actual interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

He does not say the earth stopped warming.

Quote
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 12:25:06 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #110 on: 17/02/2010 17:07:48 »
According to Phil Jones [the Climate God from East Anglia] the earth stopped warming about 15 years ago, and may have been cooling a little bit over the last decade or so.
http://www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Hi Litespeed,

Just a note to be careful of your sources - you're relying on the Daily Mail's interpretation of a BBC interview.  As you can see, the mail put a hearty spin on it to tie in with their political opinions.  Consider it to be like getting your science from Fox News, if an international comparison helps.

Also, Why do you call Phil Jones a "Climate God"?  Are you hoping that by elevating individuals to deity status, their (human) failings will have more impact - like creationists do with Darwin's mistakes/misunderstandings?  It's a bit like your constant referring to Al Gore - you're the only person here who ever mentions/seems to care about him.

Madidus has a good point about your Attenborough confusion - You either don't bother reading other people's posts, or you ignore their meaning.  Is this intentional deception or simple forgetfullness on your part?
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #111 on: 17/02/2010 19:48:13 »
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing.

So are you saying the overall effect of water vapor on climate is static?

No, the opposite. Regardless of the effects water vapour has, the vapour itself is a feedback from climate forcings. Warmer air holds more vapour, colder air holds less. So the amount of water vapour present is at an equilibrium with the other conditions of the atmosphere. Change these condtions, and you change the amount of water vapour, and therefore the effects the water vapour has.

For example, if you snapped your fingers and removed all water vapour from the atmosphere, after a short while and some interesting effects, more water would be evaporated again and after a while the water vapour conditions would return to equilibrium. Or the same if you instantly saturated the atmosphere with water.

But if you snapped your fingers and altered a climate forcing, for example if you doubled the CO2 level and output or solar radiance then you're stuck with a hotter planet.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes a simplistic view of the climate.  The fact is, global climate involves an incredibly massive number of variables, all affecting each other.  The scientists at the NOAA and NCDC obviously agree with me, otherwise they wouldn't say that measuring and understanding water vapor is critical to future climate models.  Obviously, measuring the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is beyond our current abilities, but the response seems to have been "We can't understand or measure it, so it must have no effect".  This is obviously highly flawed logic.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #112 on: 17/02/2010 20:45:56 »
Of course understanding it is critical to climate models. Where did I say it has no effect?
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #113 on: 17/02/2010 23:02:17 »
The question which started this post was "what proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?"

My response, was to show that we really have no clue, because we don't have anything remotely close to enough understanding of even water vapor, which is responsible for the vast majority of warming which allows us to even live on the planet.  We also don't have good temperature data going back nearly long enough to be sure of a trend, especially since this trend is supposed to be less than 1 degree.  No matter how much you "homogenize" data which was first measured with inaccurate devices, like a sailor dropping a bucket into the ocean and measuring the temperature, you are really just guessing.

We have no idea, whether the claimed "warming" trend is natural, natural cyclical, anthropogenic, or any combination of the three.  We also can't be sure our "homogenized" data from long ago is any good at all, especially for something as exact as tenths of a degree.  How do you take bad data, which could be off by several degrees, and somehow come up with anything resembling "highly accurate"?

I asked how we could come up with a highly accurate model, without accurate data or understanding, and the response seemed to imply it didn't matter.  If it does matter, I reiterate the question: How can we possibly have highly accurate climate models, without accurate data or understanding of the most basic element of the climate system?
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 23:19:18 by norcalclimber »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #114 on: 18/02/2010 02:39:32 »
norcalclimber

The entire thing is a fiasco. First, we have Phil Jones [East Anglia Climate God] telling us there has been no warming in the last fifteen years.  What The F**k is THAT! Even as a GW skeptic I never encountered anything more then ten years. Now the IPCC Climate God says: "Never Mind". Perhaps his mind became focused as he escaped criminal prosecution on Freedom of Information grounds due only to statute of limitations anomilies now being corrected. Funny how a close call with prison-time awakens a sense of Karma in some people.

And the IPCC is found to reference "Rock Climbers Monthly" in support the Himalaya glacier melt, and absentmindedly reports 55% of the Netherlands is now below sea level when the actual figure is 26%. And of course The Guys From Boulder report "It is a travesty..." their models do not account for recent cooling "...but just to be on the safe side we deleted the data as suggested..."

It is simply time to ctrl/alt/del the entire enterprise. It has become just so so tedious.
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #115 on: 18/02/2010 03:33:51 »
norcalclimber

The entire thing is a fiasco. First, we have Phil Jones [East Anglia Climate God] telling us there has been no warming in the last fifteen years.  What The F**k is THAT! Even as a GW skeptic I never encountered anything more then ten years. Now the IPCC Climate God says: "Never Mind". Perhaps his mind became focused as he escaped criminal prosecution on Freedom of Information grounds due only to statute of limitations anomilies now being corrected. Funny how a close call with prison-time awakens a sense of Karma in some people.

And the IPCC is found to reference "Rock Climbers Monthly" in support the Himalaya glacier melt, and absentmindedly reports 55% of the Netherlands is now below sea level when the actual figure is 26%. And of course The Guys From Boulder report "It is a travesty..." their models do not account for recent cooling "...but just to be on the safe side we deleted the data as suggested..."

It is simply time to ctrl/alt/del the entire enterprise. It has become just so so tedious.

I completely agree, don't forget about the 50% decrease in Africa's crops which wasn't based on anything peer reviewed.  I focused on the water vapor aspect of the whole fiasco because it's something we can just step outside and see, and because it illustrates so well the error factor.  There's also the nice little document called Agenda 21 which you can find at http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ which clearly illustrates the political push which is a huge driving force behind global warming alarmism.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #116 on: 18/02/2010 03:45:27 »
Ben - Your source on Phil Jones concerning global warming since 1995 seems to report exactly the same as the one I used and which you disparaged: "B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just."

Further, I never mentioned Attenborough, but I will stipulate it was he who made an absolute ass of himself in that video clip. It was one of the most childish presentations I have ever had the misfortune to witness. In fact, it was so bad I replayed it several times simple to ensure I was had the proper URL. It was so bad I became suspicious it was some sort of debating ruse. But no, alas, there are those among us who find it compelling. Road Runner Cartoons have more intellectual content - seriously.

As for Fox News Cable [FNC]? I read it has more viewers then the next three cable networks combined, and better demographics to boot. But I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.






 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #117 on: 18/02/2010 04:09:21 »
norcalclimber

Your point is well taken. Specifically, the huge number of climate variables have not even been adequately enumerated, let alone quantified. But at least the GW hysteria 'bubble' has now collapsed. Fifteen years of unrequited and non-existent GW seems to have been just one Polar Bear Too Far. So far, in fact, that actual prison time was at risk when things did not warm up as expected.

Perhaps some level headed and sober analysis will now emerge.  It may take some time, however, before the inebriated among us recognize they ever had a problem in the first place. And it will certainly be a very very long time before the general public will give the next crop of 'climatologists' so much as the time of day.....
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #118 on: 18/02/2010 10:26:42 »
Ben - Your source on Phil Jones concerning global warming since 1995 seems to report exactly the same as the one I used and which you disparaged: "B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just."

You then go on to claim that he says there may have been cooling:

Quote
According to Phil Jones [the Climate God from East Anglia] the earth stopped warming about 15 years ago, and may have been cooling a little bit over the last decade or so.

So when he says there hasn't been statistically significant warming you accept that, but ignore the bit where he says there hasn't been statistically significant cooling?  This is a lie on your part, as evidenced by even a casual glance at the BBC interview.  Why bother lying whe you're going to be so easily caught out?

Quote
Further, I never mentioned Attenborough, but I will stipulate it was he who made an absolute ass of himself in that video clip.

So you referred to Sir David Attenborough as "a Sonorous Shakespearean actor" despite it having been clearly pointed out to you before that you have got the wrong Attenborough - again, either a lie or forgetfullness on your part.

Quote
As for Fox News Cable [FNC]? I read it has more viewers then the next three cable networks combined, and better demographics to boot. But I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Demographics are irrelevant.  I'll admit I may be subject to confirmation bias with Fox News, as I don't receive it here, and probably only see the selected clips of complete right wing insanity and propaganda.  Maybe the rest of it is less biased?  Either way, based on the small samples I have seen of their coverage of climate change, vaccination scares etc, I wouldn't trust it as a news source for as you could throw a polar bear.

Yes; there are problems with climate models. Yes; the IPCC isn't perfect. Yes; some climate scientists may have made mistakes. Yes; the sun's activity is gearing up again which means we're going to see additional warming on top of any anthropogenic warming that may have occurred.  Yes; everything we can do to reduce CO2 emmisions is a good thing, ushering in an economy based on efficiency and less reliance on non-renewable fuel sources. Yes; every column inch of disinformation, ad-hominem attacks etc from climate change deniers delays and hampers our development.
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #119 on: 18/02/2010 16:20:52 »
BenV, you argue that anything we can do to reduce CO2 emissions is a good thing, and yet exactly the same argument can be made against Dihydrogen monoxide as can be made against CO2.  The fact is CO2 is no more poisonous than water when viewed from a global perspective.  And we don't actually even know how much CO2 can even affect the temperature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html here is the crux of the conclusion as written in the abstract "Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming."  Assumptions are sometimes necessary in science, but when you build an entire theory based on 90% assumption you have a good chance of being at least 90% wrong.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #120 on: 18/02/2010 20:14:54 »
I say that not from a climate perspective, but a sustainability perspective. Anything we do to reduce co2 emmissions will be the result of greater efficiency (a good thing) or less reliance upon unsustainable fossil fuels(a good thing).

Should it also turn out that we protect our environment in the process (even if we ignore warming, there's ocean acidification to consider) that will also be a good thing.

Reducing co2 emmissions, therefore, would be a good thing.
 

Offline norcalclimber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 255
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #121 on: 18/02/2010 22:17:30 »
I say that not from a climate perspective, but a sustainability perspective. Anything we do to reduce co2 emmissions will be the result of greater efficiency (a good thing) or less reliance upon unsustainable fossil fuels(a good thing).

Should it also turn out that we protect our environment in the process (even if we ignore warming, there's ocean acidification to consider) that will also be a good thing.

Reducing co2 emmissions, therefore, would be a good thing.

We should look to developing sustainable technology, fossil fuels will clearly not last.  Equating that with limiting CO2 simply wrong though.  CO2 is primarily released by nature, not humans.  Humans only account for ~3% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, the other 97% is natural.  Pollution should clearly be limited, but CO2 is a gas necessary for life on Earth not a pollutant.

You also have to pay attention to the "new" technology as well, since many times it turns out the new "green" solution is worse for the environment than the original technology.  Look at the subsidization of solar technology, it sounds like a perfect idea on the surface doesn't it?  Solar panels are expensive, but sustainable so with a little government help we can move toward sustainable living.  Government subsidies around the world for solar systems have helped to create a massive solar market, and a shortage of polysilicon.  The production of polysilicon produces 4 tons of toxic silicon tetrachloride for each ton of polysilicon, which in the US for instance must be recycled.  The recycling process is extremely expensive though.  China has joined the polysilicon market, and at least one of the polysilicon factories decided to just dump the waste...near a school, and homes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html to read the story.

My point of all that, and how it relates to CO2 legislation, is that we should always think before we leap and any CO2 legislation is based on poor assumptions and not nearly enough science at this point in time.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #122 on: 19/02/2010 05:49:27 »
Quote
Humans only account for ~3% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, the other 97% is natural.  Pollution should clearly be limited, but CO2 is a gas necessary for life on Earth not a pollutant.


It's the 3% that tips the balance. If CO2 output is greater than intake, it doesn't matter how small the percentage is, it will accumulate.

And it depends on how you define pollutant.

Not nearly enough science? It is fact that CO2 levels are increasing, and that increasing CO2 levels will increase greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. It is not a poor assumption that reducing CO2 output will dampen these effects.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #123 on: 19/02/2010 18:08:33 »
BenV - Remeber the rules. "Family Friendly" discourse. I will not report you as an abuser however, since I have family members who behave much as do you! For instance, my brother-in-law has a strange predilection for the dangerous dog breed known as Akitas. Dogs 101 on Animal Planet reports half of all Akitas end up in shelters, and they will drive up your home insurance rates. My brother-in-law obtained his insane Akita from a shelter, I believe.

He should have known better for the simple reason several previous 'well behaved' Akitas killed all the neiborhood cats, raccoons, and Four H project animals and wounded some expensive doggie pets for miles around. Akitas were, after all, bread to hunt down Japanese bears. His dog bit me twice down to the bone when I visited a year ago. I poured rubbing alcohol on the wound with a bandage and let it go at that.

However, my brother-in-law, far from being concerned or appologetic about the matter, got all huffy and defensive about his dog. I told him I was afraid of the dog, and unless he got a muzzle for the thing I would go stay at a motel. After much weirdness he subsequently muzzled the dog after which it became big time submissive to ME. Layed on its back and wizzed, in fact. My brother-in-law was perplexed.

So, why are you so defensive about this or that Atteburogh guys video? The video was the worst sort of simple minded embarrassment the likes of which are generally seen only from algore. You should be apologizing to forum members simply because you continue to aid and abet and continue to inflict this dog of a video upon the members. And you don't even get Fox News.

Seriously, do you have much in the way of higher education?



 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #124 on: 19/02/2010 20:29:52 »
So when your lie/repeated mistake is pointed out you proceed to question my education? Note how I didn't comment upon the video itself, in fact, I'm not even sure that I've seen it. I commented on the fact that, despite having been previously informed of your error, you continued to make what is either a foolish mistake or a misleading lie.

So you repeat your previous errors and have the audacity to question my education?  Nothing I said was in any way non-"family friendly", so feel free to report me to the moderators, I'm sure they will appreciate it.

Coincidentally, that's the second time you have been directly offensive to me.  The next one will result in you being banned.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #124 on: 19/02/2010 20:29:52 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums