What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?

  • 129 Replies
  • 59855 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #50 on: 20/11/2009 18:43:51 »
pepper

My comment on Mecca was gratuitous, and I appologize for it.  However, Islam is not a race, it is religion. And I doubt you are a biggot even though that was unfortunately implied by your post. As for broken records. I confess. I don't take these CO2 concerns seriously for several reasons.

First, it does not matter; nothing meaningfull will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until both China and India become prosperous enough to consider alternatives. In addition, I do not believe in out-of-control global warming catastrophy for the simple reason life flourished during eras of 3,000 ppm.

Finally, [broken record again] the climate was warm during both Roman and Midieval times. The reasons are obscure, but there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why.  In any event civilization flourished during the warm eras. This seems to be related to excess food production available for non-agricultural work projects.

The most serious threat to life is the inevitable next Ice Age.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #51 on: 20/11/2009 19:24:17 »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

What life flourished during eras of 3000ppm?

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #52 on: 20/11/2009 19:51:50 »
You wrote: "What life flourished during eras of 3000ppm?"

I stand corrected. The CO2 curve varies from about about 1,500 ppm during the Triasic, to about 2,500ppm in the Jurasic, to as little as 750 ppm in the Cretaceous; a span of about 250 million years. Give or take a T-Rex or two...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
« Last Edit: 20/11/2009 20:01:37 by litespeed »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #53 on: 23/11/2009 05:47:09 »
I dont have a lot of time right now, as I have class in about 15 minutes, but I can provide evidence...lots of it.  Ive spent the last few years collecting resources, so this will not be nearly comprehensive.  I can also do a little better than 70 years...I can go back more than 400,000 years, and establish a very long trend.  Ill start with the landmark paper by Gerard Bond.  This particular paper doesnt equate temperature specifically, but it does relate North Atlantic ice rafted debris (IRD) events to solar activity over the past 12,000 years.  IRD events are caused by glacial calving in Greenland, Iceland, and Northern Canada during times of marked glacial growth (cooling events).  As the icebergs calve and spread into the N Atlantic, they carry LOTS of sediment within them that are dropped into the ocean when they melt.  The latitude and concentrations of these glacial sediments in the oceanic cores can tell us a lot about sea temperatures and the extent of glaciation/sea ice.

The citation for the paper is:
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S.,
Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., 2001. Persistent solar influence on North
Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294 (5549), 2130–2136.

I encourage you to look it up and read it if you can.  If you cant find it, let me know and I will email it to you.  Bond is a very well respected geologist/climatologist and is considered among the giants in the field.  This paper alone has been cited over 700 times, and this is not even including his works helping to lay the foundations of plate tectonics during the 60's and 70's.  Anyway...enough adoration :)

The black lines are abundances of different IRD sediments in oceanic cores (all originating from different areas of the N Atlantic). The blue lines are 14C concentrations taken from tree rings chronologies if I remember correctly, and the red lines are 10Be concentrations from Greenland ice cores (both proxies for solar activity)


I have much more to post on shorter and longer time scales if you would like to see it in the future. 

I thought I didn't care about disputing with you 'skeptics' anymore but.
Ah well, changed my mind :)

Quoting a conversation in realcimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

Go there and look in the 'readers comment section', and please, read the rest of the comments following the quotation and see for yourself.


---------Quote-----------------
With respect to your statement that “No one calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the atmospheric heat content”. I do not know how you made this bizzare interpretation of the quotes from the reports I provided to you!

[Response: Your quote stated exactly that the equation for determining T of the planet involved an equation using the rate of change of the heat content, the forcing and lambda. I do not recognise that anyone determines T in such a fashion. -gavin]

In your original post, you wrote

“Please point me to one study anywhere in the literature which has used the surface temperature record to infer changes in the heat content of the atmosphere”.

I have done that in the NRC (2005) report and the CCSP report which is in the chapter that Ben Santer authored.

[Response: Sorry, but no. I have no objection to the CCSP quote in the slightest. But it is completely un-responsive to my question since it does not address atmospheric heat content at all. And despite the NRC quote (on which you were a co-author) I still don't see anyone actually calculating H using T. Show me one such calculation. - gavin]

Now that I have answered your challenge to the question in your original post, you have changed the question to “”No one calculates the surface temperature (which is well observed) using the atmospheric heat content”. Of course, we don’t and no one has claimed this! You have mis-represented what I wrote with this later claim.

[Response: I just read what you quoted. I agree it would be a bizarre thing to do (progress!). - gavin]

The authors of the [with the"odd" quote] NRC report, besides myself, were Daniel Jacob, Roni Avissar, Gerald Bond, Stuart Gaffin, Jeff Kiehl, Judith Lean, Ulricke Lohmann, Michael Mann, V. Ramanthan and Lynn Russell. For you then to state that the “quote from the NRC report is, frankly, a little odd” simply means you disagree with it. The peer reviewed NRC report assessed the climate communities perspective on the surface temperature anomaly and what this metric means in terms of radiative forcing and climate system heat changes. Your disagreement with the statement in that report is with a wider community than just the authors of the Klotzbach et al 2009 paper.

[Response: Had I peer reviewed it, I would have questioned it. I didn't, and so there it is. I'm perfectly happy to be in disagreement with a few lines of an NRC report (these are good, but not infallible). However, there is still not a single calculation that uses this formulation that I can see. If this was so widely supported by the community, there would be an actual paper that used this equation to calculate atmospheric heat content anomalies surely? Yet there is not. - gavin]

On your statement that “Half of your paper using an incorrect expectation (based on the McKitricks’ inadvertently mistaken calculation) and the other half doesn’t address the issue at all (since no real physical process in the PBL can cause a bias in the surface temperature records)”

indicates that you still do not accurately report on (or understand) our paper. First, Ross McKitrick’s calculations were not mistaken but used a set of data from your GISS model output.

[Response: Unfortunately, it appears to be you that just doesn't understand. The subset of model output that McKitrick used (which was provided for a completely different issue) is not capable of giving the metric you want. It doesn't matter what model it came from. I did do the calculation that you wanted and let you have the full raw data to check it. The answer is very different from what you got from McKitrick. Did you find my calculation in error perhaps? If so, let me know and we can see what the issue is. In the meantime you appear to be arguing with me over what the GISS model shows for amplification of the MSU-LT trends over land. There is no argument here - McKitrick's answer is not correct (though his error was inadvertent). Your refusal to take the correction on board appears to be quite deliberate. Why? - gavin]

Moreover, to state that “half” of our paper depends on that calculation is wrong. Our results are robust even without using an amplification.

[Response: This makes no sense. What is your result then? Comparing two trends without having a reason to think about how they should be related allows you to conclude nothing. - gavin]

Second, the bias in using the surface temperature trends is in its interpretation as a metric of temperature trends above the surface. We have clearly shown (in several of our papers) that a systematic warm bias exists when the surface temperature measurements are in a stably stratified boundary layer, and the lower troposphere warms. The Klotzbach et al 2009 paper examined this issue and concluded this is a robust result.

[Response: But (and now we are apparently back to square one), no one has ever made that interpretation! If they had, there might be some point to this, but they haven't. The only paper I know that used the energy content of the atmosphere in a calculation (Levitus et al, 2001) used the energy content metric directly from a reanalysis. Perhaps you know of another example? - gavin]

As we have written before, we look forward to a formal exchange with you on this issue in the peer-reviewed literature as part of a Comment/Reply.

[Response: I tried really hard to help you guys out with this one, under the naive assumption that you would want to get it right all on your own. I didn't have to check McKitrick's calculation, let alone do the proper calculation myself and embroil myself in yet another pointless debate. You chose (are choosing) instead to persist in error despite having the right answer given to you, and the tools at your disposal to check the calculation any which way you want. Dr. Klotzbach said that you were going to put in a corrigenda and I urge you to do so and to make it substantive. - gavin]

----------End of quote-----------------------

And don't tell me it's humbug. We both know that this is one of the guys making the paper you cite.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2009 06:08:09 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #54 on: 23/11/2009 17:45:46 »
I thought I didn't care about disputing with you 'skeptics' anymore but.
Ah well, changed my mind :)

The label "skeptics" was always very amusing to me.  I wonder when exactly skepticism became unnecessary to science.

As for what you actually meant by the label, that I do not believe that humans have an effect on the climate system, you are very far off the mark.  The radiative effect of CO2 is at least qualitatively established (though not quantitatively), so I would be academically dishonest if I did not acknowledge that humans have altered the climate system to some extent.  I have said such in many previous posts, and would become a very poor climatologist if I didnt.  It is the degree of our contribution for which I am a "skeptic", and nothing more than that.

And don't tell me it's humbug. We both know that this is one of the guys making the paper you cite.

Im not sure if you meant to post a different link and accidentally included the wrong one.  Please clarify.  The person responding in the comments section is Dr. Gavin Schmidt, who runs the realclimate.org website, and is a colleague and co-author with at least one of my climatology professors.  He is not associated with Bond et al. 2001...nor with any other Bond publication that I have ever read.  The responses happen to *mention* Dr Bond once as an author of a National Research Council report, but Dr. Schmidts responses have absolutely nothing to do with the paper that I have posted.  They do discuss McKitrick and McIntyre some...was this supposed to be in response to the thread below and accidentally posted here?

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26877.msg284908#msg284908

Gerard Bond has written MANY papers and reports, and his opinions were highly sought after until his death in 2005.  This should serve to lend gravity to his body of work, which puts me at a bit of a loss as to your intention for posting this reply.





frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #55 on: 24/11/2009 13:00:57 »
I doubt you are a biggot even though that was unfortunately implied by your post.
How?

Quote
As for broken records. I confess. I don't take these CO2 concerns seriously for several reasons.
Not taking them seriously is one thing - that's dismissal or even apathy.
Repeatedly preaching the opposite is quite another!
Not being a bigot, I accept the possibility that I may be wrong to trust the body-scientific in their standpoint that:
1. The earth's eco-sphere is currently sustaining a warming trend.
2. That any rapid change is global temps is bad for life in general.
3. The vast majority of the change is caused of man's activities.

The one of these statements that lacks the 'knock-out blow' of truth is number 3.  The other two are, by scientific bodies the world over, beyond doubt.


Quote
nothing meaningful will be done to reduce CO2 emissions until both China and India become prosperous enough to consider alternatives.
Quite right.  We in the west have had our 'cake' for a long time.  Now we owe it to the rest of the world to pay them back for the damage.  India and China (& the rest) deserve the growth they are now on the verge of realising. We need to pay to ensure that they can do it cleanly; whilst cutting our growth back and concentrate on taking responsibly for our own poor & destitute. [obviously, what I've written is a massive oversimplification, but if it's a fair and sustainable world we want that's the general gist.]

Quote
...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why.
Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated? On provable evidence that is (after all, you would only accept the most rigorous evidence from the other side).

Quote
The most serious threat to life is the inevitable next Ice Age.
Undoubtedly another ice age will occur some indeterminate amount of time in the future.  Statistically, we are overdue for all sorts of planetary disasters - the Jellystone eruption, meteors the size of NYC, etc.  So what!  By your logic, we all should start building enormous towers now to get above the debris cloud that will be coming - Comparing this to your 'I'm going to drive around extra to combat the coming ice age'.

The difference is CC is happening now (the meteor is already in the sky -if you like) - let's at least attempt to try to slow it!

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #56 on: 24/11/2009 17:59:09 »
pepper - You wrote: "Original question: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" If the emails hacked from the Director of University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit are real, then GW for the last decade or more is directly attributable to specific individuals.

You may be better at math then I am. Perhaps you can figure out just how much of the reported GW is from these particular humans [emphasis added] they seem to have it all worked out:

-----------------------
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 18:04:27 by litespeed »

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #57 on: 24/11/2009 18:12:26 »
pepper -  "Quote ...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why." Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated?from the other side)."

"Scientists got the first unequivocal evidence of a continuing moderate natural climate cycle in the 1980s, when Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland first saw two mile-long ice cores from Greenland representing 250,000 years of Earth's frozen, layered climate history. From their initial examination, Dansgaard and Oeschger estimated the smaller temperature cycles at 2,550 years. Subsequent research shortened the estimated length of the cycles to 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years)."

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319


*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #58 on: 24/11/2009 19:11:16 »
pepper - You wrote: "... Now we owe it to the rest of the world to pay them back for the damage."

What Damage? All industrial nations have cleaner environments now then at any time in the last many hundreds of years. [Can you imagine living in a metropolitan area where chamber pots are thrown out of upstairs windows?] Further, the climate is far more docile then it was even 200 years ago. If you get The History Channel I recommend 'The Little Ice Age: Big Chill (History Channel)' this comming Wednesday.

At any rate, my basic point is that CO2 legislation in the Industrial World is entirely pointless:

"...wind and solar ... are just one-sixth of 1 percent of American ...consumption. Nuclear? ... rich nations endorse reducing world carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. [however] if nuclear is to supply even 10 percent ... the world must build more than 50 large ... plants a year. Currently five a year are being built."  http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will112209.php3

Reducing CO2 from industrial societies is little more then self-flagelation and would have about the same effect as the midieval version during the Black Death. [Which, incidentally, was accomodated by above mentioned Little Ice Age.]

So. Planetary CO2 will continue to increase. Inevitable. PERIOD. The good news? It just might not matter all that much. And Get A Load Of This: we now have evidence the highest levels of climate research scientists have been [pardon the expression] cooking the books. In order to "...hide the cooling".

As 'The Church Lady' used to say. "Well. Never mind..."



*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #59 on: 24/11/2009 22:38:57 »
pepper -  "Quote ...there does seem solid evidence of a 1,500 year cycle, but we don't know why." Okay, I'll indulge you.  How many times has this 'cycle' been repeated?from the other side)."

litespeed is correct.  At least the past two glaciations display Dansgaard/Oeschger (DO) events, and much of the reason we cant tell beyond that is because of resolution problems in glacial cores.  They show up in every major proxy...ocean sediment cores (around the world), glacial cores (both Antarctica and Greenland), as well as speleothem records (around the world, though the best examples are in China).  It is not yet known whether it is a true cycle, or an internal response from the climate system, but the period actually has a somewhat wide range in error at 1500 +/- 500 years.  These also agree well with ice rafted debris events reported in Bond 2001 above (Ill send you the paper if you like...just ask).  The Gleissberg (~87 yrs) and deVries/Suess (~220 yrs) solar cycles form harmonics with a periodicity that ranges at around 1500 +/- 500 years, which is also reported in the Bond paper, but a solid, compelling link between the two has not yet been established.  It is possible that centennial scale cooling events during the Holocene are expressions of the DO events from the glaciations.

As for the East Anglia emails...It would be better to judge them in the context of the conversation, which we do not know, unfortunately.  So far, the only definite wrongdoing that I can see is in circumventing FoI requests...which leads one to wonder exactly what they have to hide.  McKitrick and McIntyre have really been a thorn in their sides, but that is not a reason to circumvent the law.  (I actually think that McKitrick and McIntyre have done some pretty good work...the hockeystick fiasco...Goddard Space Institute having to change 1934 to being the warmest year on record instead of 1998)
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 22:43:33 by frethack »
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #60 on: 25/11/2009 14:14:08 »
emails hacked from the Director of University of East Anglia
Good grief! The 'denialist' camp must be be in dire-straits if we have sunk to a level where commenting on one alleged email that can't be substantiated is banded about  - on this site of all places.  In any case, one bad egg does not a conspiracy make!  This sort of thing is a distraction at best and should not be posted in the first place.

What Damage? All industrial nations have cleaner environments now then at any time in the last many hundreds of years.
I think you're confusing cleaner environments with better air quality.

Reducing CO2 from industrial societies is little more then self-flagelation
Do you want to explain that rhetoric, please?



It is not yet known whether it is a true cycle, or an internal response from the climate system, but the period actually has a somewhat wide range in error at 1500 +/- 500 years.
Thanks for the offer of sending the paper.  I'm sure it would be interesting, although being out of my field I will take it's rigour on trust at present.
That said, I have some a couple of queries that you might be able to illuminate on.
First, what do you mean by "internal response"?
Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?  And even that assumes that the extrapolation for the core samples is valid.
Thirdly, let's just say, for arguments sake that this analysis is right on the money, what does it give us as a prediction of future climate trends? Does it indicate in any good-science way a climate maxima is happening?
« Last Edit: 25/11/2009 14:30:54 by peppercorn »

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #61 on: 25/11/2009 23:44:02 »
fret - You wrote: "First, what do you mean by "internal response"? I don't have a clue, but also have the epistomological advantage of not having written it.

You also wrote: "Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?"  1,500 years plus/minus 500 is not fifty percent, and it is not an error margin, it is, I THINK, an observed variation.  None-the-less, those who argue this point tell us they observe this particular cycle in historical times, and we are now due for a warming.  Which, IMHO, is WAY better then the alternative.

As for the embarrassing email?  There is not just one. There is an entire sequence. I don't know how serious it is.  But hell, the guy flat out says he is manipulating the data. 

Flagelation?  The industrial world can begger itself back to huddling in caves without fire at all while India and China, about half the world population(?), build thousands of coal plants without even modern SO2 scrubbers. Its entirely pointless. Farting into a hurricane.






« Last Edit: 25/11/2009 23:46:33 by litespeed »

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #62 on: 26/11/2009 00:17:20 »
Flagelation?  The industrial world can begger itself back to huddling in caves without fire at all while India and China, about half the world population(?), build thousands of coal plants without even modern SO2 scrubbers. Its entirely pointless. Farting into a hurricane.

Depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want to stop or slow down the hurricane or do you want to get better at farting? I for one think that it would be wise to practice farting. We (in the USA) are lousy at it and it would be of great advantage to be so skilled that it will allow us to live entirely without hurricanes. Or at least smaller storms. We could even become one of the world's leaders in farting technology. Although it will be hard to catch up with the Europeans. Great farting going on there. I believe even the Chinese are practicing farting while they are building up the hurricane simultaneously. Now that we have created a hurricane ourselves, we just sit on our asses, expect to reap the benefits, and do nothing. Not knowing how to fart at a really big scale leads to "Developing County" status.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #63 on: 30/11/2009 17:12:17 »
First, what do you mean by "internal response"?

Sorry, the term is a little vague.  What I meant by "internal response" is the climate system reacting to a number of forcing agents that just happen to culminate about every 1500 years rather than a direct response to a single (or a few) forcing agents.  Say that Greenlands continental glaciers begin advancing because their accumulation rates overcome ablation (melting...sort of).  Because of this advancement, large ice rafting events occur in the N Atlantic as the glaciers calve off icebergs, which causes a freshening of the normally dense, salty water in the N Atlantic, and pushes the overturning circulation slightly southward (the meridional overturning circulation "recycles" surface water into deep water currents, somewhat like a conveyor belt).  This in turn would also cool the northern latitudes because heat is no longer carried as far north by the surface currents, and allow sea ice to extend further south...perpetuating the "cycle".

This is a very brief (and likely poorly written) synopsis of one hypothesis for Heinrich events.  DO events and Heinrich events are related in that DO events are warming periods lasting on centennial time scales with intermittent cool periods.  Some of these cooling periods have very large ice rafting events called Heinrich events, which appear to have a loose periodicity.

Second, a fifty percent error margin - how can anything be analysed or predicted from that?  And even that assumes that the extrapolation for the core samples is valid.
Thirdly, let's just say, for arguments sake that this analysis is right on the money, what does it give us as a prediction of future climate trends? Does it indicate in any good-science way a climate maxima is happening?


You would be very surprised at the error margins involved in almost all areas of climate research.  This particular one is not 50%, but about 33%.  As for the extrapolation from the core samples...DO and Heinrich events are repeated over many different types of proxy records from all over the world.  The timing and degree of climate system response varies somewhat from region to region, which is to be expected, but it is pretty certain that they have occurred. 

*If* solar activity is the main forcing agent for these events, as well as the cooling and warming events during the Holocene, it would be expected that the very high solar activity of the past 150 years or so would produce a climate optimum.  Even if this is proven the case (which could take many more years of research) that still does not mean that *all* of the warming being experienced is from natural sources.

Sorry it took me so long to reply...I love the holidays :)

 

« Last Edit: 30/11/2009 17:43:05 by frethack »
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #64 on: 01/12/2009 17:37:58 »
Hi Kartsten,

I understand Indians [from India] do a lot of loud farting, and may actually be a sort of status symbol for being well fed.  Cows and other ungulant animals are WAY good at this. Thus the term 'Holy Cow'. I believe some people support various types of vegetarianism in order to cut down on cow methane.

On the otherhand, trash dumps have become so technically efficient that methane is sometimes harvested from rotting trash. Further, human farts are also ignitable. As a college freshman we tried to convince one of our room mates of this.  He was skeptical but agreed to lay back on the lower bunk, put his feet on the underside of the upper bunk, while we held a butane lighter in the proper location.

He really let one go resulting in a perfect six or seven inch blue flame. This scared the living hell out of him and he ran from the room like, well, his butt was on fire, and quenched it all in the shower nearby.  One of the better stories of my long accademic life.....

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #65 on: 01/12/2009 18:12:00 »
fret - Your observations on margin of error are well taken. Its one reason I am a skeptic in general. During the 1970's oil embargo we were assured natural gas supplies would be exhausted in ten years. For Sure! 

I noticed unused tennis courts and office buildings brightly lit late at night and actually considered starting a small buisiness to provide specialized lighting management for such things.  We would contract with businesses and government to ensure lighting was turned off late in the evening after every one was gone. The Lighting Police! Now natural gas supplies are estimated at two hundred years. Decorative outdoor lighting in metropolitan areas is routine. Jeeze......

Also during the 1970's we were assured the signs of a New Ice Age were 'everywhere'. Over time I began to understand the social dynamics of hysteria. These hysterias range from poisoned Jack in the Box Taccos, to 'give up colesterol eggs' to the various statins to reduce cholesterol.

For decades I have challenged my physicians to provide studies showing statins routinely increased life expectancy in healthy people. HA! Talk about tortured science. They never even argued with me very much. Sort of shuffled their feet and mumbled about this or that advantage. In fact, EYE was the one who informed them of studies showing Simvistatin apparently has a huge impact on reducing dimentia in Veterans Administration studies. It seems to be the only LARGE advantage, and is limited to this particular statin.  But mums the word..... 

So. I get suspicious when people support GW by showing photographs of forlorn Polar Bears, or seem entirely ignorant of actual cyclical ups and downs within historic times. And of course they do themselves no service in trumpeting this hurricane, or that hot summer, or a cluster of toronadoes as support for their views. Its just rediculous. More specifically, the Little Ice Age endend in the mid to late 1800's.  And it got warmer. What in the living hell did they expect?

Now its getting cooler. For now. I just hope it does not get COLD, like the Little Ice Age.....


*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #66 on: 01/12/2009 18:40:51 »
fret - In addition to the very large margins of error in the variables we know, it seems clear we do not have anything near a complete list of variables.  For instance, I believe most vocanic activity takes place in the oceans. I have never even seen this listed as a variable, much less a quantification of the effects, or if these effects change over time.

It reminds me of The Drake Equation used to estimate the number of advanced civilizations in the Galaxy.  I think Drake plugged in some Wild Ass Quesses, and came up with less then twenty. Over the years, on a routine basis, some SETI reasearcher or another expresses absolute confidence we will discover such a civilization within x number of years. This usually happens after plans are made for ever more sophisticated detection methods.

Then actual data started coming in. Two things happened. First, the number of variables in the Drake equation started increasing. For instance, he never considered the importance of our specific, and very weird, moon. The equation for that variable adds orders of magnitude AGAINST the advanced life.  Seems you need just the exact size of an impact planet impacting the earth at just the exact angle and speed.  Without this you do not get a stable climate on the planet. Think a four bumper bank shot on a pool table to sink the eight ball.

Further, the original equation did not include consideration of Gas Giants.  It turns out you really really need at least one Gas Giant in the outer solar system to police up potential catastrophies such as Shumaker Levy Comet. But it gets worse.  We have now detected perhaps three hundred extra solar planets, and quess what. All but one of these systems have Gas Giants in their Inner Solar systems. Scratch 299 Goldie Locks orbits.

And the one rocky planet detected is too close to its sun.  I know something about statistical sampling, and all this is really really bad for the Drake Equation.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2009 18:43:42 by litespeed »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #67 on: 02/12/2009 09:26:13 »
What I meant by "internal response" is the climate system reacting to a number of forcing agents that just happen to culminate about every 1500 years rather than a direct response to a single (or a few) forcing agents.
Thanks for the explanation, frethack.
So, if my understanding is correct, this very general climate trend could either be related to some sort of long-term variation in energy input (most likely solar) OR a purely climatic feedback loop of one kind or another (I.E. influenced by many factors perhaps including northern sea salinity cycles).

I'm sure you would agree that the single outstanding conclusion that we can draw from this sea ('scuse the pun!) of observation and analysis is that our world's climate approaches one of the most complex and hard-to-predict systems Man has to deal with.

There is, at the same time, some very fundamental aspects that affect our atmosphere.  They include very well understood chemical interactions, including the spectral absorption of atmospheric gases.  It just seems foolish in the extreme to add Our own random impacts to a system we are still in the infancy of understanding.

*If* solar activity is the main forcing agent for these events, as well as the cooling and warming events during the Holocene, it would be expected that the very high solar activity of the past 150 years or so would produce a climate optimum.  Even if this is proven the case (which could take many more years of research) that still does not mean that *all* of the warming being experienced is from natural sources.
Even the most direct sampling from ice cores, etc seem to give a far from decisive image about what the Earth's climate looked like in any one period.  It would seem folly to claim as anything more than conjecture that this ambiguous evidence points to more than a bit-part for solar variation in the overall climate history.
Under the current circumstances of our known impact, I hope it will take a great deal more proof than this for any scientist working in the field.

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #68 on: 02/12/2009 14:02:09 »
So, if my understanding is correct, this very general climate trend could either be related to some sort of long-term variation in energy input (most likely solar) OR a purely climatic feedback loop of one kind or another (I.E. influenced by many factors perhaps including northern sea salinity cycles).

It would very much surprise me if it were an either/or situation.  The solar effect is very obviously there.  The radio nucleotides produced by variations in solar activity are very well correlated with major IRD events, but there are a few excursions that appear to be solely within the system.  There are more than a few papers on this subject, and if you would like, after finals are over I can compile a list.

I'm sure you would agree that the single outstanding conclusion that we can draw from this sea ('scuse the pun!) of observation and analysis is that our world's climate approaches one of the most complex and hard-to-predict systems Man has to deal with.

Yes, absolutely.  Without question.

There is, at the same time, some very fundamental aspects that affect our atmosphere.  They include very well understood chemical interactions, including the spectral absorption of atmospheric gases.  It just seems foolish in the extreme to add Our own random impacts to a system we are still in the infancy of understanding.

You are mostly very correct.  However, I am still waiting to see a paper that can quantitatively measure the radiative properties of the various greenhouse gasses.  We know that it happens, but its the "how much" that I want to know.  There are other gray areas as well, such as cloud nucleation, which we understand next to nothing about.  The importance of understanding this process cannot be overstated, as clouds are a major factor in the earths albedo.

Even the most direct sampling from ice cores, etc seem to give a far from decisive image about what the Earth's climate looked like in any one period.

One core cannot do much on its own, but a multiproxy approach that establishes a very large body of evidence can begin to reveal the big picture.  We know a lot more than we did 20 years ago and can make some educated assertions, but much more work is necessary. 

It would seem folly to claim as anything more than conjecture that this ambiguous evidence points to more than a bit-part for solar variation in the overall climate history.

If this were the only major evidence for solar influence, I would agree with you.  As I said, there is MUCH more to post, which I can return to after finals are over.  In perspective, the sun effectively provides the earths climate system with 100% of its energy.  There are other sources of energy input (cosmic radiation, volcanism (general tectonics), magnetism, etc.), but they comprise only a very small fraction of a percent of the total energy compared to that received from the sun.  In my opinion, the folly is in thinking that variations in the single source of energy to the climate system would have little effect here on earth.

Under the current circumstances of our known impact, I hope it will take a great deal more proof than this for any scientist working in the field.

As I stated above, this is not a single, lone paper that researchers are basing their findings on.  It was merely a paper by a scientist (who is very well respected on both sides of the debate) that can serve as a starting point to post more evidence.  It is worth stating that there are a good many reputable scientists researching solar influences on climate.  After finals are over I can begin posting the larger body of evidence (which by no means will be exhaustive...there is more out there than I can feasibly post).
« Last Edit: 02/12/2009 14:08:40 by frethack »
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #69 on: 02/12/2009 14:56:06 »
After finals are over I can begin posting the larger body of evidence.
Well, until then, good luck with those finals!
I will take on the generally valid points you've made -  It is good to ensure that no unfounded assumptions have slipped through the net for either argument.

When you are talking about radiative properties of GH gases, I take it you mean their emission spectrum. I would be surprised if those data are not easily found... I will start by Googling it...

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #70 on: 02/12/2009 19:01:34 »
When you are talking about radiative properties of GH gases, I take it you mean their emission spectrum. I would be surprised if those data are not easily found... I will start by Googling it...

Not necessarily their emission spectrum.  What I am looking for is a reproducible experiment that can show that X ppm of CO2 produces Y W/m2 of radiative forcing with Z W/m2 of incoming solar radiation.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #71 on: 03/12/2009 00:11:09 »
IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling. The guys in Bolder Colorado seem entirely perplexed by all the snow shoveling that has come their way. The actual words they use are something like 'inexplicable'. Perhaps they used the word 'travesty' or some such to describe climate modeling failures.

It does not matter much. The CO2 guys are looking more and more like Pope Urban whats his number and Galaleo. My quess is these maniacs are PRAYING for more signs of warming. Unhappily I hope for the same.  The alternative is cooling, famine, pestulance, and all that comes with cold climates.

Who woulda thought....



*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #72 on: 03/12/2009 03:45:55 »
IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling.

You can shorten that even further. How about:

Climatologists and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the climate.

If you dont understand or cant even account for all of the input parameters there is little hope of getting anything meaningful from the other end.  That being said, models will hopefully be far more useful once processor capacity and our knowledge of climate progresses.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #73 on: 04/12/2009 01:20:28 »
Hi Kartsten,

I understand Indians [from India] do a lot of loud farting, and may actually be a sort of status symbol for being well fed.  Cows and other ungulant animals are WAY good at this. Thus the term 'Holy Cow'. I believe some people support various types of vegetarianism in order to cut down on cow methane.

On the otherhand, trash dumps have become so technically efficient that methane is sometimes harvested from rotting trash. Further, human farts are also ignitable. As a college freshman we tried to convince one of our room mates of this.  He was skeptical but agreed to lay back on the lower bunk, put his feet on the underside of the upper bunk, while we held a butane lighter in the proper location.

He really let one go resulting in a perfect six or seven inch blue flame. This scared the living hell out of him and he ran from the room like, well, his butt was on fire, and quenched it all in the shower nearby.  One of the better stories of my long accademic life.....

Litespeed- my comments about farting where supposed to be understood as a metaphor. If we don't do the little things now ("farting into a hurricane", as you put it), we will fall behind developing technology that will help beginning today but later for sure. Especially since China is trying real hard to become the global leader in clean-energy technology while we in the USA still bicker whether it is really necessary and look for novel ways to get entertained.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?
« Reply #74 on: 07/12/2009 03:46:42 »
litespeed, the email you quoted about "hiding the decline" was referring to the temperature data based on tree rings, after 1960 there began to be discrepancies between tree ring data and thermometer data. (The tree ring data declined, whereas other data did not) "Mikes trick" refers to Dr Michael Mann, one of the worlds leading paleoclimate experts, famous for his reconstruction of global temps based on different sources such as corals, ice cores, historical data and of course tree rings, and overlaying all the data onto the same graph.

So the decline he was hiding was from temp data based on tree rings from 1960 onwards. We have instrumental data from this period anyway so unless you believe that tree ring temperature data is more accurate than every other source we have from 1960 onwards, there really is no argument against global warming from this cherrypicked sentence from a stolen email. It is only tree ring temp data that shows a decline, all other indicators follow each other to correlate with instrumental records.

Don't you see how weak it is though that this non-evidence has been bandied about by deniers who don't even understand what it means, as if it's the holy grail of evidence against global warming?

IN GENERAL

Climatologist and the climate models are entirely incapable of modeling the last decade of plantetary cooling. The guys in Bolder Colorado seem entirely perplexed by all the snow shoveling that has come their way. The actual words they use are something like 'inexplicable'. Perhaps they used the word 'travesty' or some such to describe climate modeling failures.

It does not matter much. The CO2 guys are looking more and more like Pope Urban whats his number and Galaleo. My quess is these maniacs are PRAYING for more signs of warming. Unhappily I hope for the same.  The alternative is cooling, famine, pestulance, and all that comes with cold climates.

Who woulda thought....

Regardless of the accuracy of climate models, how does it change the fact that actual instrumental data shows a steady warming trend? This isn't an argument against global warming.

And again you parrot your notion that "warm is good, cold is bad". I'm all for things being conveiniently simple but it's absurd to suggest this of global climate. But I and others have already tried to get this through to you, why do you keep parroting arguments that have long been refuted? It leads to circular discussion.

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

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
  • ****
  • 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

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 »
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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.

frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • *****
  • 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.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 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.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12188
  • (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.

"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • 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
  • *****
  • 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.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature