The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?  (Read 59471 times)

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #75 on: 07/12/2009 07:30:41 »
Quote
So the decline he was hiding was from temp data based on tree rings from 1960 onwards.

Its called the "diversion problem", and it is actually very important because its still unknown why measured temp records would diverge from tree ring records.  The problem presented is that we dont really know when this may have happened before because there are no instrumental records with which to compare.  Other than asking if this is the *only* divergence, you would also have to ask: If there have been more than one, is the current event a shorter/longer divergence than normal, or is the amplitude of divergence shallower/deeper than normal.  Is this a naturally occurring phenomenon (and if so, do all trees record it), or could it be an artifact of data processing and standardization (such as growth detrending).  Also, would any existing past events show postive divergence...where proxy data is higher than measured data.  Its not really known.  Tree ring chronologies make up a substantial part of the whole data stack in the Mann and Jones papers, so this is not a trivial problem.

Acknowledgment of the diversion problem wasnt included into the IPCC TAR until the final draft was presented, which didnt exactly leave much time for peer review.  Obviously, a majority of scientists believe that anthropogenic forcing outweighs natural forcing (though a slow shift is occurring now that records are more robust), and the UT paleoclimate department is no exception, but if I were to cite MBH98 (or any of the "hockey stick" papers) in a paper meant for review, my advisor would likely ask that I use a different temp reconstruction.

That being said, taking a few lines out of an email from a series of correspondences is somewhat shaky ground to make a staunch judgment on, but there is nothing wrong with a good independent review of the CRU/IPCC/NOAA/NASA.  If there is nothing to hide, then a little daylight should only serve to strengthen their argument.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #76 on: 10/12/2009 01:50:19 »
Christopher Johnson - You wrote: "What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" The long and the short of it is that not one single human on the entire planet has even the smallest clue. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a knave. In fact, we may actually be in a global cooling event. [Research Sunspot Cycle 24].

Further, the Global Climate Scientific Community has aligned itself with the Global Climate Jackass Community and now deserves whatever the hell will befall it. I await in quiet anticipation.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2009 01:54:49 by litespeed »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #77 on: 10/12/2009 13:43:22 »
Christopher Johnson - You wrote: "What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" The long and the short of it is that not one single human on the entire planet has even the smallest clue.
Nonsense. There's a bundle of 'clues'. What there isn't is the sort of knock out blow that man is prominently responsible.

My view is the same as it would be if I found myself in the following circumstances. I have entered (for the first time) the engine house of a large, complex machine that appears to be slowly, but surely heading for a runaway condition. I also know that someone has recently (but long enough before to be the cause) moved one of the dozens of regulator valve controls to a new, higher setting. At this stage I can't be sure that the adjustment is the cause, but I would immediately put the that valve back to it's earlier state & then see what happened next.

Is the CO2 issue not like this?


I await in quiet anticipation.
If you're waiting in quiet anticipation, there seems to be a fairly constant level of background noise emanating from your direction!
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #78 on: 11/12/2009 22:58:33 »
pepper - You are a good adversary. However, you wrote: "...the engine house of a large, complex machine that appears to be slowly, but surely heading for a runaway condition."

I am unaware of any dangerous runaway condition. For instance, the planet was TEAMING with life at CO2 levels of 2,500 ppm. In recorded history we have Britain exporting drinkable wine in the Roman Era with CO2 level lower then now; [Incidentally, someplace I have a URL where-in one of the Low Countries is now celebrating its revived wine industry. It actually references ancient British vinticulture, and observes Britain has yet to recover its previous reputation.]

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 #79 on: 12/12/2009 05:45:48 »
Quote
I am unaware of any dangerous runaway condition.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change

Estimates of the size of the total carbon reservoir in Arctic permafrost and clathrates vary widely. It is suggested that at least 900 gigatonnes of carbon in permafrost exists worldwide.[21][unreliable source?] Further, there are believed to be around and another 400 gigatonnes of carbon in methane clathrates in permafrost regions alone,[22] and 10,000 to 11,000 gigatonnes worldwide.[22] This is large enough that if 10% of the stored methane were released, it would have an effect equivalent to a factor of 10 increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.[23] Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a higher global warming potential than CO2.

And the less ice there is the less sunlight the earth reflects.

There is also the effect ocean acidification has on phytoplankton which will reduce uptake of CO2 by the ocean.

The high temperatures also increase the risk of bushfires which release more CO2.

Quote
the planet was TEAMING with life at CO2 levels of 2,500 ppm

Were 6.8 billion humans part of this life?

Homo sapiens have only been around 50 thousand years or so. There is evidence to suggest CO2 levels have not been this high for 2 million years. You can't say what's good for life 2 million years ago will be good for life today.

If you're going to repeatedly regurgitate your long rebutted arguments i'll just continue to regurgitate my original rebuttals.

It is not only the level of CO2 that is a problem, but the rate at which it is increasing. Slow increases like those that have occured in history give life time to evolve and adapt, and ocean chemistry to buffer against ph decrease, but at the current rate this will be alot more difficult.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/09/2510699.htm
Quote
Dr Howard says that over time, the ocean may be able to counteract acidity by dissolving accumulated shells of dead marine organisms on the ocean floor, thus raising ocean pH and its ability to take up CO2.

But he says this will take a long time and come at the cost of living marine organisms.

"The buffering mechanisms in the ocean are quite slow compared to the rate at which we are putting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere and into the ocean.," he said.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/coralfutures.html
Quote
“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm
Quote
New calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen "dead zones" in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.


Quote
In recorded history we have Britain exporting drinkable wine in the Roman Era with CO2 level lower then now;

So what?

Quote
Warm is good, cold is bad.....

And concerning the advantages and disadvantages of global warming (from http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm )

Advantages:

Agriculture
    * Bumper crops in high latitude countries like Greenland, Canada
    * Higher rice yields in Northern China
Health
    * Fewer deaths from cold exposure
    * Record profits for pharmaceutical companies
Arctic Melt
    * Shippers get an Arctic shortcut between Atlantic and Pacific
    * Access to North Pole oil (hmm, good or bad?)
    * Thriving mammoth trade
Environment
    * Greener rainforests due to higher sunlight levels due to fewer rain clouds
    * Animals in Greenland can graze longer
    * Save grey nurse sharks from extinction
Glacier Melt
    * Access to more mining areas as Greenland's glaciers recede
    * New extreme sport of glacier surfing (riding waves when chunks of glaciers fall into the sea)
    * Longer grazing for sheep in Greenland
Economical
    * Increased summer movie box office
    * Lots of work and money for lawyers (not sure which column to put this one in)

Disadvantages:

Agriculture

    * China's grain harvest will be cut by 5 to 10% by 2030
    * Africa's food production will be halved by 2020.
    * Decelerating tropical forest growth
    * Increased conflict over resources
    * Dislocate millions (with subsequent economical and military ramifications) - an estimated 50 million by 2010
    * Coral reefs are dissolving due to CO2 turning seawater acidic and bleaching due to warmer waters
    * Increase of wildfire activity
    * Water shortages in the Mediterranean, flash floods along the Rhine and summers so hot that nuclear power stations can't cool down, more than half of Europe's plant species could risk extinction by 2080 according to EU paper
    * Increased range and severity of crop disease
    * Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing
    * Diminishing fresh water supplies for coastal communities
    * Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
    * Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
    * Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)

Health

    * Increased deaths to heatwaves (5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps)
    * Increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders, with implications for child growth and development.
    * Increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts.
    * Spread of malaria into wider regions
    * Increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change.
    * Spread of mosquito vectors and dengue fever in Singapore.
    * Spread of dengue fever throughout the Americas.
    * Increased pollen levels (due to more CO2) leading to increased allergies
    * Increased spread of flesh eating disease
    * More heart problems

Arctic Melt

    * Decrease in Arctic albedo, further accelerating warming
    * Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years
    * Positive methane feedbacks from mammoth dung (you can't make this stuff up)
    * Melting of Arctic lakes leading to positive feedback from methane bubbling.
    * Icebergs risk to shipping
    * Rising sea levels due to melting land ice over Greenland and Canada

Environment

    * Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier (from the 'greener rainforests' study)
    * Encroaching deserts displacing tens of millions
    * Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem
    * Vanishing lakes
    * Tibetan plateau warming at twice the global average, so that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline
    * Skinny whales (I always thought they stood to lose some weight)
    * Acidification of the ocean that violate EPA standards for ocean quality, threatening ocean ecosystems (eg - harming coral and plankton)
    * Threatened extinction of British shellfish
    * Gradual extinction of leeches (someone's gotta love em)
    * Dwindling penguin numbers
    * Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu
    * Disruption to New Zealand aquatic species
    * Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing (Stramma 2008, Shaffer 2009)
    * Increased mortality rates of healthy trees in Western U.S. forest (more...)
    * More severe and extensive vegetation die-off due to warmer droughts (Breshears 2009)
Glacier Melt

    * Flooding of low lying Asian rice fields
    * Water supply cut off for China and South America
Economical

    * Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure
    * Reduced water supply in New Mexico


So either you really really like Grey Nurse sharks, or you haven't really weighed up the pros and cons.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2009 06:10:34 by Madidus_Scientia »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #80 on: 16/12/2009 01:58:53 »
madi - I really do appreciate the effort you put into your posts. However, you seem to have a very limited range of thought on these topics. For instance, you wrote: "... Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu.."

Frankly, you seem to have chosen dozens and dozens of catastrophic events pulled out an an algore hat. Specifically, you claim Tuvalu will actually disappear. I have posted on this same topic for the Maldives citing specialists:  "We both know that the 1,200 islands of the Maldives are all low-lying with the highest point only some 2.5m (8ft) above sea level. Hence, your nation is vulnerable to extreme storms, tsunamis — and, of course, any possible sea level rise.. "

"[However]By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."  http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml

May I suggest your extensive list of cataclysms is counter productive to your own cause? You and The Goracle make comedy of your own positions. Yap Yap Yap. There are more polar bears now then twenty five years ago. Neither the Maldives nor Tuvalu are going to disappear. What IS disappearing is any credibility either you or the Gorical might once have had.  Essentially, we are onto your game.

Further, the recent Climate Gate scandals have simply diminished the entire effort.  And it does not even matter whether the science is discredited or not. The 'scientists' themselves have been shown as venal, vindictive, manipulatory, confused and vengeful individuals. Yeah. Like THESE are the guys I really really want to set my utility rates.

IMHO, they suck hind teat.



 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #81 on: 16/12/2009 07:33:15 »
Quote
you seem to have a very limited range of thought on these topics.

My range of thought is limited? And your absurd notion of "warm is good, cold is bad" isn't?

Quote
Frankly, you seem to have chosen dozens and dozens of catastrophic events pulled out an an algore hat.

Frankly, you seem to ignore dozens and dozens of potentially catastrophic results of global warming.

Quote
Specifically, you claim Tuvalu will actually disappear. I have posted on this same topic for the Maldives citing specialists:

I don't know about the Maldives but much of Tuvalu is less than 1 metre above sea level, and even before flooding occurs the rising saltwater table could destroy deep rooted food crops such as coconut and taro.

Anyway regardless of the fate of Tuvalu, it is as you say only one of dozens and dozens of potential catastrophies.

The two that effect me most have already had drastic effects, the decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin and the ocean acidity problem.

Quote
Further, the recent Climate Gate scandals have simply diminished the entire effort.

I'm sure you'd like to think so. Others know quotemining when they see it. Out of hundreds of emails they found a few sentences to take out of context? I wonder what picture the other thousands of sentences painted?

You accuse me of losing credibility, I think the fact that deniers have to quote-mine stolen emails for material they can ad-hominem climate scientists with to try to make their case throws all the credibility they never had out the window.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #82 on: 18/12/2009 20:26:26 »
Madidus_Scientia - You wrote: "Frankly, you seem to ignore dozens and dozens of potentially catastrophic results of global warming."

Human history IMHO, has flourished during times of warming and suffered mightily when it got cooler. Not to mention when it really got into Cold Ice Ages.  I have already posted URLs showing plants flourish with 500 ppm CO2. The dynosaurs flourished with 2,500ppm.

And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway. China already may be the most prolific CO2 emitter and is building coal plants at the rate of about one per week.  In an historic irony, almost all the advanced economies are in serious financial deficits. Accordingly, they will need to borrow money to give the third world places in some sort of reparations scam.

Much, if not all that money, will be borrowed from CHINA! You just can't make this stuff up......



 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #83 on: 19/12/2009 02:39:09 »
Human history IMHO, has flourished during times of warming and suffered mightily when it got cooler. Not to mention when it really got into Cold Ice Ages.

If you're refering to the medieval warm period, that was a regional effect, not a global effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

I also have a general predilection for warm anyway. My general point is human civilization does better in warmer times such as The Roman Era and the Midieval Warming, and does less well when weather cools. Such as late Roman Times, the post Midieval Warming period [famine, plaque and general mischief) etc.
Your general point is invalid considering we are in vastly different times to the romans, and more is at stake now. What was good for maybe a hundred million romans may be different to what's good for 6.7 billion odd people today.

I'm not denying that an ice age would be bad, but so would the opposite. If we're to endure ice ages at some period in the future maybe we should save our fossil fuels for then?

Quote
And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway. China already may be the most prolific CO2 emitter and is building coal plants at the rate of about one per week.

You may be right, but whether we will or won't decrease our emissions is not the point i'm making, it's that global warming and ocean acidification is due to our emissions and we should try reduce them.
 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #84 on: 19/12/2009 16:55:11 »
I have already posted URLs showing plants flourish with 500 ppm CO2. The dynosaurs flourished with 2,500ppm.

Plant life has also flourished at around 350ppm during the Carboniferous period. 

And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway.

While this is likely so, it doesnt necessarily provide an open invitation to pollute in the same fashion.  CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check.

If you're refering to the medieval warm period, that was a regional effect, not a global effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The regionality of the Medieval Warm Period was used to explain the lack of temperature variability in the hockey stick graphs when compared to the previous IPCC work.  Dendrochronology was rather new and it was not yet understood that when you detrend a trees growth curve from the record as a whole that you also squash much of the low frequency variability as well...especially when you use exceptionally long ring-width chronologies such as the bristlecone pine.  This is why RCS (regional curve standardization) began to be used (though it has its own shortcomings as well).

The MWP is very pronounced in the N Atlantic basin because of the sensitivity and variability of the Gulf Stream, but it is not the only region with a pronounced signature.  Now that China has begun to produce very high resolution proxy records, the MWP (and Little Ice Age) is very evident in south and southeast asia, which is an exceptionally large geographic region.  Recent high resolution records from Australia and S America also show the MWP and LIA.  It is not generally accepted that the MWP was a N American and European phenomenon.

I would be automatically suspicious of the objectivity of a video entitled 'Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"'

If you would like to read some recent peer reviewed literature, I would be happy to send the PDF's to you, as always.  If you have access to a university library, Ill even post the links here to save time. 
« Last Edit: 20/12/2009 04:19:17 by frethack »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #85 on: 20/12/2009 00:03:28 »
Fret

You are one of the few serious persons here about. In particular I take note: " CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check."

Chlorofloricarbons and SO2 may be among those industrial products and by-products that should be kept in check. Interestingly, the Electric Utility industry initially bellyached SO2 scrubbers would be expensive. This may actually be true. However, the resultant product from said scrubbing turns out to have a market value of its own. If I am not mistaken, it is used in road construction.

China, and soon India, will be almost the entirety of these issues. I do not know if China installs SO2 scrubbers, but I doubt it. And I don't know if R-12 is still produced outside the US. However, the industrialized nations are entirely impotent in this regard.  The very idea of borrowing money from China for climate reparations to Zimbabwe while China builds one or two coal plants per week belongs on Saturday Night Live.

IMHO, there is only one option available for the GW crew. They need to jump out of the box and begin thinking about ways to cool the planet, because there is no way in living hell they are going to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 50 years at least. Further, the technologies to do so do not appear all that difficult to me, as I have posted elsewhere.

And I do not object. If climate warming continues, and if it turns out to be a bad thing, I am entirely open to employing cooling mechanisms.  These include stratospheric SO2 delivery, sort of like volcanos. Seeding the Pacific with Iron filing to produce CO2 sequestration through algae plumes. Perhaps doping jet fuel with inert reflective nanao particles.

But the CO2 game is up, over and gone. Copenhagen was worse then a circus. I have even heard rumors algore tried to buy ten Polar Bear Hunting licenses just to get back at the buggers for over population ;).

Later....

 

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #86 on: 20/12/2009 16:36:50 »
Chlorofloricarbons and SO2 may be among those industrial products and by-products that should be kept in check. Interestingly, the Electric Utility industry initially bellyached SO2 scrubbers would be expensive. This may actually be true. However, the resultant product from said scrubbing turns out to have a market value of its own. If I am not mistaken, it is used in road construction.

Good point.  I dont know enough about environmental tech to know how effective SO2 scrubbers are, but I do know that sulfuric acid has a very wide industrial use.  There would be money to be made here to help recoup the costs of installing the technology.  I would still prefer to work toward using a much larger percentage of renewable energies though.

China, and soon India, will be almost the entirety of these issues. I do not know if China installs SO2 scrubbers, but I doubt it. And I don't know if R-12 is still produced outside the US. However, the industrialized nations are entirely impotent in this regard.  The very idea of borrowing money from China for climate reparations to Zimbabwe while China builds one or two coal plants per week belongs on Saturday Night Live.

Maybe not the entirety of the issue, but a very large fraction of it.  And I completely agree that the other developed nations (especially the US) will be in no position to demand any changes in the way that China conducts its business if we are over a trillion dollars in debt to them.

IMHO, there is only one option available for the GW crew. They need to jump out of the box and begin thinking about ways to cool the planet, because there is no way in living hell they are going to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 50 years at least. Further, the technologies to do so do not appear all that difficult to me, as I have posted elsewhere.

Geoengineering scares the hell out of me.  I think that it would be a good idea to understand MUCH more about the climate system before we actively begin tampering with it more than we already have.  I have a decidedly alarmist view on this subject, but it is difficult to see an endeavor like this ending well with our current knowledge.

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #87 on: 20/12/2009 17:07:54 »
Fret - You wrote: "I think that it would be a good idea to understand MUCH more about the climate system before we actively begin tampering with it more than we already have.  I have a decidedly alarmist view on this subject, but it is difficult to see an endeavor like this ending well with our current knowledge."

It seems clear to me there will not be any substantial tampering for generations to come. First, CO2 emissions will continue to grow, not decrease. This seems an inconvenient truth and the GW crowd needs to intellectually understand this and begin working on Plan B. Specifically, identifying ways and means to deploy cooling technology should things come to that.

One of the areas that bugs me is the GW crowd seem silent on warming that occurred after the little Ice Age and long before major industrialization. Isn't that nearly the entire 1800s? For instance, didn't the Thames stopped freezing over at the very begin of the industrial age?

And there have been other warming spells that took place before ANY industrialization. I see no discussion on these warming spells, or how the compare to the current climate. In fact, I get a sense some climatologists would just a soon deny Roman Warming or Midieval warming ever existed. And the Little Ice Age was the norm from which subsequent dreadful warming has evolved from CO2. It drives me nuts.

How do they expect to be taken seriously with these giant blind spots that seem positively willful in nature. Incidentally, there is a similar wilfulness concerning ocean levels. The Maldives want our money, and display a frogman in fishtank at Copenhagen.

And the formost expert on Sea Level and the Maldives writes to the Maldavian's thus: "...By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."

Exasperation begets skepticism, begets cynicism, and is now turning to hostility in much of the population.  And for good reasons beyond algor and his stupid war with the thriving Polar Bears. Geeze. Some of then need first to get a life, then all of them need get working on a reasonable Plan B, since Plan A is already too late and won't happen anyway. Is that really so much to ask?

« Last Edit: 20/12/2009 17:26:39 by litespeed »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #88 on: 22/12/2009 11:39:12 »
Plant life has also flourished at around 350ppm during the Carboniferous period. 
Rate of change is the key thing - as has been pointed out many times.

Quote
CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check.
I was under the impression that any chemical that became too abundant in an eco-system is a pollutant. CO2 is no where near the levels where it is directly poisonous, but clearly that is not the whole story.

Quote
The regionality of the Medieval Warm Period was used to explain the lack of temperature variability in the hockey stick graphs when compared to the previous IPCC work.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the data collection methods for the MWP and the LIA, but where those climate variations not a combination of natural factors? - Volcanic activity, Ocean Conveyor slowdown, Solar activity, human influences (growing with population).

Further, even if the MWP was not purely a regional effect, is there any valid figure for what the global mean temperature might have been? Since we are talking about figures around 2.x degC - what variation is the MWP predicted to have been?
What I want to establish is are we even talking in the same ball-park?


pepper - You are a good adversary. However, you wrote: "...the engine house of a large, complex machine that appears to be slowly, but surely heading for a runaway condition."

Fret - You are one of the few serious persons here about.

Looking at these two quotes side by side is an illustration of what it means to LS to be a serious person or an adversary.  "Serious" seems to mean having views broadly supportive of LS in terms of being (in the case of Frethack) sceptical about the present validity of climate science.   "Adversary" seems to be (possibly) a grudging respect for you enemy. [obviously MS has already explained how we are likely facing a runaway condition - That is not for me to reiterate for an untold time].

Can I ask Litespeed, seriously - Why?  Why has every post on the Environment section got you making more or less the same statements over and over again? Do you believe there is a crime being perpetrated by the massed ranks of climatology? Do you care so much for your fellow man & believe so unflinchingly that lives will be sacrificed in a pointless charade that you have to speak out so varmontly?  Really, just wondered.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2009 12:13:07 by peppercorn »
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #89 on: 22/12/2009 17:39:39 »
Pepper - You wrote: "Can I ask Litespeed, seriously - Why? 

1) Why has every post on the Environment section got you making more or less the same statements over and over again?

ANSWER: The GW faithful make the same arguements over and over again. For instance, I continuously point out Roman Era Warming, with citations. I have yet to find much in the way of serious rebuttal. In fact, Roman Era Warming seems clearly warmer then now since the UK can not grow Roman Cultivars. It has warmed up enough for the Dutch to grow hybrid cultivars, but not enough to grow the original Roman vines.

2) Do you believe there is a crime being perpetrated by the massed ranks of climatology?

ANSWER: Yes, the conspirators who deliberately erased data prior to audit seem to have commmited a crime. However, mostly I don't like being treated like a fool by climatologists. Specifically, 19th Century Warming followed at least a two hundred year cooling 'The Little Ice Age'. Yet climatologist repeatedly seem to use that as the norm from which CO2 has forced warming. THERE IS NO FRIGGN HOCKEY STICK.

3) Do you care so much for your fellow man & believe so unflinchingly that lives will be sacrificed in a pointless charade that you have to speak out so varmontly? 

ANSWER: Historical climate records seem unequivocal to me. Warm is Good and Cold is Bad. The Roman and Chinese Empires of the time benefited greatly from excess agricultural production.  How else do you explain how the Romans fed Legion Upon Legion and built all their monumental arcitecture.  During the same era the Chinese continued to build The Great Wall using at least half a million peasants. All these workers were fed by excess agriculture made possible by climate optimum.

The Midieval cold era led to famine, the black plaque of death, and lots of witch burnings. More then one historian implicates cold wet weather for psychotropic ergo poisoning from moldy rye in both the old and new worlds.

Besides, CO2 reduction is SO 1990's. It is unstoppable. Accordingly, I advocate, for insurance purposes, investigation of various non-CO2 mitigation methods to potentially cool the planet, if that becomes necessary. I have proposed my own; inert reflective nano particles in all jet fuel.  Others propose SO2 dopining of the Stratospher. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html

Its REALLY REALLY time to consider Plan B. Plan A has become a running fiasco from accademia to Copenhagen. If algore shows  me one more polar bear, or if the maldivians put one more scuba diver in a fish tank I will become nauseated.

PS: Further, the Nature Magazine rebuttal to the hacked emails cements my position. Those duplicitous, bigoted, and condescending THEOCRCRATS sealed their own fate, as far as I am concerned.

« Last Edit: 22/12/2009 17:50:18 by litespeed »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #90 on: 22/12/2009 17:50:28 »
Litespeed, you don't really make much sense.  You say that warming isn't happening, then say you're glad it is because warm is good, then say we should look at cooling technologies.

You also seem obsessed with Al Gore - noone else here talks about him, why you?

We get the point though, you're a climate change denier.  Can we just move on now please?
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #91 on: 22/12/2009 18:29:34 »
BenV - You wrote: "You say that warming isn't happening..."

ANSWER: Clearly the climate has warmed since The Little Ice Age. What else would you expect after an ice age of any sort. According to the hockey stick guys, the climate has been on a straight up increase ever since. However, significant industrial age CO2 is primarily a 20th century phenomena.

According, the increase should in no way be linear since much of it happened in the 1800s prior to the massive CO2 emissions of, particularly, the last half of the 20th Century. IMHO, the hockey stick guys tried to pull a fast one.

And yes, we are in a climate optimum which I believe is a good thing.  However, since the GW maniacs are both a menace and a nuisance, I simply point out to them the climate can be cooled in a variety of ways I have mentioned and referenced. That simply means the hysterical GW crowd is myopic, and not very intellectually active.

You also wrote: "...you're a climate change denier." You are a Silly Little Name Caller. You bore me. Go light a candle or two at East Anglia. Then genuflect.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #92 on: 22/12/2009 19:30:18 »
But you are a person who denies anthropogenic climate change - that's what climate change denier means - its' not an offensive term, it's a starement of fact.

And please don't even consider calling me silly again.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #93 on: 22/12/2009 19:54:27 »
BenV

My only recommendation to you is to give up the hopeless task of reducing CO2 enough to make any difference in the next several generations. Not with the Chinese building one or two coal plants per week. I encourage you to face reality and begin a Plan B: planetary cooling by artificial means.

I support research in this area for the simple reason it will accomodate everyone. The methods are many, are testable at low levels, can be scaled up, and reduced as required. Why beat the dead horse of reduced CO2 emissions in the next 40 years when we know that won't happen. To give you an idea how silly THAT is our own President promised reductions per capita to the rate we had in 1885.

If you really believe the planet is in grave danger from warming, it is incumbent on you to encourage ways to plan an actual intervention for cooling.  Thats all....

PS: We all know the term 'denier' is an epithet. Like holocaust denier. The proper term is skeptic.

« Last Edit: 23/12/2009 00:02:17 by litespeed »
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #94 on: 24/12/2009 02:29:44 »
You are a Silly Little Name Caller.

Man, you are pushing it rather far with this one. An insult addressed at one person who posts here. Hmmm.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #95 on: 24/12/2009 02:33:15 »
PS: We all know the term 'denier' is an epithet. Like holocaust denier. The proper term is skeptic.

I bet there are many holocaust deniers who consider themselves holocaust skeptics.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #96 on: 24/12/2009 02:42:27 »
BenV - You wrote: "You say that warming isn't happening..."

ANSWER: Clearly the climate has warmed since The Little Ice Age. What else would you expect after an ice age of any sort. According to the hockey stick guys, the climate has been on a straight up increase ever since. However, significant industrial age CO2 is primarily a 20th century phenomena.

According, the increase should in no way be linear since much of it happened in the 1800s prior to the massive CO2 emissions of, particularly, the last half of the 20th Century. IMHO, the hockey stick guys tried to pull a fast one.

And yes, we are in a climate optimum which I believe is a good thing.  However, since the GW maniacs are both a menace and a nuisance, I simply point out to them the climate can be cooled in a variety of ways I have mentioned and referenced. That simply means the hysterical GW crowd is myopic, and not very intellectually active.

You also wrote: "...you're a climate change denier." You are a Silly Little Name Caller. You bore me. Go light a candle or two at East Anglia. Then genuflect.

So those who are in disagreement with you are (at this point) maniacs, a menace, a nuisance, hysterical, myopic, and not very intellectually active? Wow! I have to say, I have enjoyed some of your other posts much more than this one. It feels not quite the same to have discussions with you any longer. Your latest attitude has pushed the issue in a direction and area that is not pleasant or reasonable any longer.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #97 on: 25/12/2009 05:05:07 »
Want to know why so many protest Global Warming :)
Well, to me its the same people that somehow got the notion that we somehow are different from all other animals..

Like the 'crown' of evolution, and made in the mold of our 'shaper' :)
Hang with me for a moment here ::))

And then we can't be, can we, cause we're 'good'?
After all, we're the ones 'revolutionizing' Earth with 'science' and 'stuff'.

And if 'Global Warming' was man-made then?
Where would that leave us?

And our 'inventions'.
And our jobs.

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.

But here it's our inability to face the fact that we ain't the crown of creation.
We're more like rats multiplying over a shrinking territory.
And the end result of your denial will be a war.

So why not accept that life doesn't care for us, we're just animals amongst animals.
Very clever, and mimicking, we learn quickly.
But only to maximize pleasure.

And this time it won't work.
Earth doesn't care for us.

Which seems only proper considering the mess we made.

 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #98 on: 01/01/2010 20:25:35 »
 yor_on - You wrote: "To me it's about being scared, really scared."

Scared about what, precisely? Do you fear personal starvation? Do you not have shelter? Do you not have adequate heating in the Winter. Is your water supply drying up and you fear death by dehydration. What in the hell do you have to be scared of? The price of automobiles and gasoline?

Methinks you have much excess time in hand to ponder catastrophies that are entirely irrelevant to your own situation. I suggest you sign up for a survival class that will dump you out into the middle of nowhere from which you use an axe to cut fuel for warmth, and branches for cover. Where you must fish, snare rabbits, or eat grubs for food.

You will take chances with the water supply. If you break a leg you simply die, or radio to be extracted from the exercise. And if you don't break a leg, what is your general situation? Adequate food, shelter, warmth and water?  No doctors, no dentists, no pharmacies. People do this sort of thing on purpose these days to test themselves against their ancestors.

But you seem scared to death in the very middle of civilization. Get a grip, already.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #99 on: 01/01/2010 23:26:26 »
yor_on - You wrote: "To me it's about being scared, really scared."

Scared about what, precisely?
(...)

If you do not rip a sentence out of context (or read it all) you might find what yor_on finds scary. It is written right after the sentence you quote. Same line even.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #99 on: 01/01/2010 23:26:26 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length