Dan Robinson
Has the link between CO2 and warming been scientifically explained, or is it still based entirely on the fact that the two data plots (temp VS CO2) are coincidentally similar?
30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud
- Thread starter Jim Saueressig
- Start date
Olivier Staiger
EF3
global warming started 12 000 years ago, at the end of Ice Age.
global cooling started billions of years ago, seconds after the Big Bang.
global cooling started billions of years ago, seconds after the Big Bang.
If any of you haven't see this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVw1PANUcdg
Jim Saueressig
EF5
Brian,
Although my viewpoint on the subject is similar to yours, I hate to see you shouting down someone else's evidence with your own when there's no source (that is to say, what is the source of your graphs?)
To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming. Even if you choose not to believe that, however, look at some of the graphs regarding radiative forcing contributions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over time. For the greenhouse gas concentrations you'll see a curve that resembles extreme exponential growth in the last 250 years. For radiative forcing contributions, you'll see that things like solar cycles contribute little compared to what C02 and other greenhouse gases are contributing.
Although my viewpoint on the subject is similar to yours, I hate to see you shouting down someone else's evidence with your own when there's no source (that is to say, what is the source of your graphs?)
To others, I advise you all to read through the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. It's true that a 100% true link between human activities and global warming has NOT been made, but the signs show that it is (if I may quote the IPCC AR4) "very likely" that human activities have caused a change in the climate leading to warming. Even if you choose not to believe that, however, look at some of the graphs regarding radiative forcing contributions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations over time. For the greenhouse gas concentrations you'll see a curve that resembles extreme exponential growth in the last 250 years. For radiative forcing contributions, you'll see that things like solar cycles contribute little compared to what C02 and other greenhouse gases are contributing.
Jeff Snyder
EF5
Here's the link to the 4th Assessment Report - Working Group I ("The Physical Science Basis"):
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
This part of the larger 4th Assessment Report is a full 1000 pages long. Therefore, I strongly suggest reading the "Technical Summary", a much shorter version that highlights the findings and important discussions of the longer report. If you find a particular point within the Technical Summary that you want to find more information on (or more explanation), then you can view the chapter in which that point is made or discussed. As always, please do not come into it thinking "this is UN propaganda crap", since it's simply not. There's a 1000 pages of science summarized there. And that's not including the Synthesis Report, Working Group II report, or Working Group III report. The latter deals with political factors, and I have no motivation to read that. The Working Group I report, however, deals solely with the science involved. Included is discussion about errors and uncertainty.
Mike Smith
The IPCC's position is correctly represented above but it is based on models with all of their imperfections.
The fact is that world temperatures as measured by Hadley, UAH and RSS have not gone up (and have, in fact, gone down slightly) in 11 years. Sea levels have stopped rising. Antarctic ice has been at record levels and arctic ice is now above the (very short term) normal. This is not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate as the IPCC contends since CO2 concentrations are at (modern day) record levels.
Hansen's/IPCC's projections have been consistently too warm when compared to actual temperatures.
I do believe mankind affects the climate. But the IPCC's projections and tales of woe are hardly "settled science."
Jason Harris
EF5
I'm sure others are more up on this, but regarding ice loss or gain, there needs to be clarity for everyone discussing the issue of sea ice vs. landmass ice, which is where the net loss has been coming from. Also, all data I've seen continues to indicate a trend of ice loss from the land ice, which is the main problem, and which is harder to get back. so, I don't understand these claims to the contrary when all the overwhelming evidence continues to show
ongoing melting. North Pole island for the first time (at least in our history)--see that? as of nov. 2008. Where are you getting your data Mike Smith? Seems like NASA and National Snow and Ice Data Centre tells an opposite story with satellite data.
--
A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up.
Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006
---
Furthermore, as that article points out--and many other studies have--the IPCC seems to have erred on the side of being too conservative in their predictions. However, we've also seen claims for some short-term checks in warming trends, but every year doesn't have to be yet another warm record to indicate a trend.
---
Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added.
--
quotes from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/loss-of-antarctic-ice-has-soared-by-75-per-cent-in-just-10-years-769894.html
And here's a more recent article noting record-breaking North pole loss:
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.
The historic development was revealed by satellite images taken last week showing that both the north-west and north-east passages have been opened by melting ice.
Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.
Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany says it will send the first ship through the north-east passage, around Russia, next year, cutting 4,000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister, has announced that ships entering the north-west passage should first report to his government. The routes have previously opened at different times, with the western route opening last year, and the eastern route opening in 2005.
The satellite images gathered by Nasa show that the north-west passage opened last weekend and the final blockage on the east side of the ice cap, an area of sea ice stretching to Siberia, dissolved a few days later.
Last year the extent of sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low that could be surpassed in the next few weeks, with some scientists warning that the ice cap could soon vanish altogether during summer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3350631/Arctic-becomes-an-island-as-ice-melts.html
ongoing melting. North Pole island for the first time (at least in our history)--see that? as of nov. 2008. Where are you getting your data Mike Smith? Seems like NASA and National Snow and Ice Data Centre tells an opposite story with satellite data.
--
A satellite survey between 1996 and 2006 found that the net loss of ice from Antarctica rose by about 75 per cent as the movement of glaciers towards the sea speeded up.
Scientists estimate that that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost about 132 billion tons of ice in 2006, compared with a loss of 83 billion tons in 1996. In addition, the Antarctic peninsula lost about 60 billion tons of ice in 2006
---
Furthermore, as that article points out--and many other studies have--the IPCC seems to have erred on the side of being too conservative in their predictions. However, we've also seen claims for some short-term checks in warming trends, but every year doesn't have to be yet another warm record to indicate a trend.
---
Computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict that sea levels will rise by no more than about 50cm by 2100, are based largely on the stability of the Antarctic ice sheets. But many scientists now believe this forecast is too restrained. "I agree with a number of scientists who feel the IPCC is likely to have underestimated the upper bound of predicted sea-level rise by the end of the century – 50 cm is probably too conservative," Professor Bamber added.
--
quotes from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/loss-of-antarctic-ice-has-soared-by-75-per-cent-in-just-10-years-769894.html
And here's a more recent article noting record-breaking North pole loss:
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history as climate change has made it possible to circumnavigate the Arctic ice cap.
The historic development was revealed by satellite images taken last week showing that both the north-west and north-east passages have been opened by melting ice.
Prof Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in the US said the images suggested the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming.
Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany says it will send the first ship through the north-east passage, around Russia, next year, cutting 4,000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan.
Meanwhile, Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister, has announced that ships entering the north-west passage should first report to his government. The routes have previously opened at different times, with the western route opening last year, and the eastern route opening in 2005.
The satellite images gathered by Nasa show that the north-west passage opened last weekend and the final blockage on the east side of the ice cap, an area of sea ice stretching to Siberia, dissolved a few days later.
Last year the extent of sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low that could be surpassed in the next few weeks, with some scientists warning that the ice cap could soon vanish altogether during summer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3350631/Arctic-becomes-an-island-as-ice-melts.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
Well, didn't I kick off the great debate that gives this site added purpose! lol!
Thanks for all of the responses everyone. I couldn't respond earlier as I was taking my HAM test for the Tech Class. Got 100% on the actual test after a previous night of about 980 practice questions that I averaged about 91%!
I pointed out that the first graph that Brian E displayed, showed NO RESPONSE to the super explosion of Yellowstone. Which - in itself - raised my suspicions (not 'conspiracies' - but that has yet to be proven either way as yet) to believe that if this is the evidence being presented - then it very well could be skewed. Who made this omission and was it an oversight - or was it intentional has also yet to be seen. Do you ruffle your feathers because I am skeptical of the presented evidence? Science, as a rule, waits for all of the evidence to be presented before any conclusions or theory can be drawn.
As far as the Mt St Helens thing, I have no evidence to present here - except to say that it was 'hearsay' from the TV reporter on national TV at the time of the actual event. So, I apologize for introducing that as evidence.
This is still a mute point because I am not convinced that the CO2 is the ABSOLUTE cause of this situation. I don't believe that any one of us know all of the factors involved, although all of us have our own opinions on this matter. What about all of the heat energy from all of the vehicles that are used everyday that adds extra heat energy? Is it merely entropy? Or is it also a major player or minor contributor - since this same heat is not lost into space but redirected int the atmosphere? No one has even mentioned this as a factor. Remember that catalytic converters generate FAR more heat than a vehicle that doesn't have them - considerably more. Or the amount of heat generated by homes and business that is radiated outward - there is far more homes and businessescreated in the last fifty years that also contributes this same energy as well. Entropy; no. Just to mention a few that can skew results and fog interpretations.
The possibilities are still unexplained and uncollected, and I see nothing here as yet that sways me either way - there isn't anything that one can say is conclusively responsible for what we are calling 'GW'...
Thanks!
Thanks for all of the responses everyone. I couldn't respond earlier as I was taking my HAM test for the Tech Class. Got 100% on the actual test after a previous night of about 980 practice questions that I averaged about 91%!
I pointed out that the first graph that Brian E displayed, showed NO RESPONSE to the super explosion of Yellowstone. Which - in itself - raised my suspicions (not 'conspiracies' - but that has yet to be proven either way as yet) to believe that if this is the evidence being presented - then it very well could be skewed. Who made this omission and was it an oversight - or was it intentional has also yet to be seen. Do you ruffle your feathers because I am skeptical of the presented evidence? Science, as a rule, waits for all of the evidence to be presented before any conclusions or theory can be drawn.
As far as the Mt St Helens thing, I have no evidence to present here - except to say that it was 'hearsay' from the TV reporter on national TV at the time of the actual event. So, I apologize for introducing that as evidence.
This is still a mute point because I am not convinced that the CO2 is the ABSOLUTE cause of this situation. I don't believe that any one of us know all of the factors involved, although all of us have our own opinions on this matter. What about all of the heat energy from all of the vehicles that are used everyday that adds extra heat energy? Is it merely entropy? Or is it also a major player or minor contributor - since this same heat is not lost into space but redirected int the atmosphere? No one has even mentioned this as a factor. Remember that catalytic converters generate FAR more heat than a vehicle that doesn't have them - considerably more. Or the amount of heat generated by homes and business that is radiated outward - there is far more homes and businessescreated in the last fifty years that also contributes this same energy as well. Entropy; no. Just to mention a few that can skew results and fog interpretations.
The possibilities are still unexplained and uncollected, and I see nothing here as yet that sways me either way - there isn't anything that one can say is conclusively responsible for what we are calling 'GW'...
Thanks!
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Smith
As I stated, the ice (2008 = red line) is above the short term normal. See: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png .
Earlier this year, I demonstrated that the summertime loss of ice was due to increased soot: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/ , "A Simple Experiment, April 2, 2008." Now that there is total darkness in the arctic (and albedo is not a factor) the ice has increased to above average levels.
And, on this date 70 years ago, The New York Times was proclaiming concern about arctic temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/ .
There is no evidence the Antarctic ice is melting, it is actually increasing: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent .
Earlier this year, I demonstrated that the summertime loss of ice was due to increased soot: http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/ , "A Simple Experiment, April 2, 2008." Now that there is total darkness in the arctic (and albedo is not a factor) the ice has increased to above average levels.
And, on this date 70 years ago, The New York Times was proclaiming concern about arctic temperatures: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/12/today-in-climate-history-dec-12th-1938-getting-warmer/ .
There is no evidence the Antarctic ice is melting, it is actually increasing: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent .
Jason Harris
EF5
Okay Mike, I'm calling foul on your source. You may not be aware of it, but Icecap is not a legitimate agency like NASA, NOAA, or USGS.
It's tied to the Frontiers of Freedom that is funded by Exxon and other oil companies.
---from sourcewatch.org
The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].
&
--
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. According to the New York Times: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents”.
George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times: “They've determined that we are effective at what we do”, He said Exxon essentially took the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that”.
--
Cherry picked propaganda sources funded by oil companies does not trump the scientific data. If that's how people are going to debate, I'm done here.
--
and again, another recent study (Jan. 2008)--yes, some resistance with the Eastern sheet but you can't just claim "75 percent in a decade" increase of loss doesn't exist when the survey indicates otherwise:
--
Global warming has caused annual ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet to surge by 75 percent in a decade, according to the most detailed survey ever made of the white continent's coastal glaciers.
In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tons of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate.
The West Antarctica ice sheet lost some 132 billion tons, while the Antarctic Peninsula, the tongue of land that juts up towards South America, lost around 60 million tons.
But there was a "near-zero" loss in East Antarctica, the world's biggest ice sheet, the paper says.
Investigators from five countries, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's fabled Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), used interferometry radar from four satellites to build a picture of the periphery of Antarctica.
They sought to measure the velocities of glaciers that shift ice to the coast from the massive sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock.
They built up a picture of around 85 percent of Antarctica's coastline thanks to the data supplied by the European Space Agency's two Earth Remoting Sensing (ERS) satellites, the Canadian Radarsat-1 and Japan's Advanced Land Observing satellites.
---
[P.S. I bet if you took a poll, people in Texas, MS, and LA will be especially resistant to the idea of global warming/climate change this year because of the recent snow--and that's precisely the problem with discussions on climate. People tend to think it's the weather you had yesterday or today, and if it's not hotter than climate change doesn't exist.]
It's tied to the Frontiers of Freedom that is funded by Exxon and other oil companies.
---from sourcewatch.org
The Web site domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20, 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo, who is listed among the personnel of the Science and Public Policy Institute, another organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics that is backed by the Frontiers of Freedom[2].
&
--
Frontiers of Freedom receives money of tobacco and oil companies, including Philip Morris Cos, ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco. According to the New York Times: "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents”.
George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times: “They've determined that we are effective at what we do”, He said Exxon essentially took the attitude, “We like to make it possible to do more of that”.
--
Cherry picked propaganda sources funded by oil companies does not trump the scientific data. If that's how people are going to debate, I'm done here.
--
and again, another recent study (Jan. 2008)--yes, some resistance with the Eastern sheet but you can't just claim "75 percent in a decade" increase of loss doesn't exist when the survey indicates otherwise:
--
Global warming has caused annual ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet to surge by 75 percent in a decade, according to the most detailed survey ever made of the white continent's coastal glaciers.
In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tons of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate.
The West Antarctica ice sheet lost some 132 billion tons, while the Antarctic Peninsula, the tongue of land that juts up towards South America, lost around 60 million tons.
But there was a "near-zero" loss in East Antarctica, the world's biggest ice sheet, the paper says.
Investigators from five countries, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's fabled Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), used interferometry radar from four satellites to build a picture of the periphery of Antarctica.
They sought to measure the velocities of glaciers that shift ice to the coast from the massive sheets that cover Antarctica's bedrock.
They built up a picture of around 85 percent of Antarctica's coastline thanks to the data supplied by the European Space Agency's two Earth Remoting Sensing (ERS) satellites, the Canadian Radarsat-1 and Japan's Advanced Land Observing satellites.
---
[P.S. I bet if you took a poll, people in Texas, MS, and LA will be especially resistant to the idea of global warming/climate change this year because of the recent snow--and that's precisely the problem with discussions on climate. People tend to think it's the weather you had yesterday or today, and if it's not hotter than climate change doesn't exist.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Weberpal
EF5
Perhaps we could set up a poll on here with a few questions,
I believe global warming is...
1) mostly cause by human disregard for the environment and rising CO2 levels
2) mostly a naturally occurring anomoly with some enhancement by humans
3) and even mix between humans and nature
4) a complete fraud
MODS - any way to add on a poll?
I believe global warming is...
1) mostly cause by human disregard for the environment and rising CO2 levels
2) mostly a naturally occurring anomoly with some enhancement by humans
3) and even mix between humans and nature
4) a complete fraud
MODS - any way to add on a poll?
Jeff Snyder
EF5
Just to present a graph that includes data from a little longer back...
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/seaice/s2-big.jpg
Short-term fluctuations are expected, by the general trend is for reduced arctic ice extent.
FWIW, the 4th Assessment Report from the IPCC acknowledges that Antarctic ice extent has increased of late. The increase is not enough to offset the mean decrease in N.H. / arctic ice loss, so the global mean change is negative.
Good idea, Scott. I have a feeling that most STers would be in the "moderate" zone of some natural forcing and some human/anthropogenic forcing. However, a poll would be nice to test my suspicion.
Robert Dewey
EF5
Al Gore is simply trying to help humanity. Unfortunately, he still hasn't figured out how to help himself; perhaps he should fly his private jet back to his mansion and start with his own back yard (or at least hire illegal immigrants to do it) 
Mike Smith
Then, I guess you are done.
I've known Joe for more than 20 years and he is an excellent meteorologist. He has a PhD in the subject unlike many of the so-called experts like Hansen who have never set foot in a meteorology or climatology classroom in their lives.
Facts are facts, it doesn't matter where they originate. Read the source documents I cited.
Jeff, thanks for the longer-term ice graph. Unfortunately, it stops last summer. Current value is (apprx.) 11.8 which is unremarkable (a good thing) when compared to the longer term averages.
Similar threads
