Bennett

interesting >>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

" the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s ... The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more"

The more emissions we pump into the atmosphere, the more of a problem we have. The Kyoto Protocol merely asks us to lessen our emissions, therefore mitigating this problem of ours. What we're trying to say is that America seems to ignore the problem for the sake its economy.

miniscule reduction to the total production of greenhouse gasses will make miniscule difference, just as miniscule excersize i take part of makes me minisculy fitter. there are no gradients or increments about it, every bit counts.

you can certainly help it rise and fall, e.g. at the moment

with out a doubt, we can say the relationship is widely accepted throughout the scientific community. does that not say something?


Ouch... lol, i'll ignore that comment, but i'll also say that you have to start somewhere. the biggest oaktree's sprout form the smaller seeds, by starting an initiative to slow carbon emissions, you are starting something that could really make a difference.

Ray

Sorry for not getting over the devastation that has occured. I was seeing the CNN and the horrying scenes. We too felt it here in Calcutta.

Acutally, it is true what you are saying about they being natural. Yet they ahve been far and between.

However this year alone but with the five cyclones hitting the Carribean and the US with horrifying devastation, Europe having disasterous floods, tsunamis in Japan, volcanoes spouting in the Andaman, bushfires in Australia and now this tsunami inSouth East Asia and this was 8.9 on the Richter scale!

All these are really worrying and especially so since they have happened in a time slot rather too close for comfort.

Other catastophies have been sorted of isolated. But this year, one catastophe after another.

Ray

The National Geographic I have received this month indicates how climate and environmental changes are occuring because of greenhouse gases and its equatiion with industry.

In fact in India there should be stricter emission laws as it should be in China. Our laws are lax. Realtors here are covering ponds and wetlands and are adding to the havoc.

The weather is so warm out here and a cold wave has hit North India. Meteorologist have stated that there is a warmimg up in Bay of Bengal and so it is making a front and not letting the cold air sweep in. And then came the tsunami! The fog in North India is running wild and visibility is less than 10 metres!

The Glaciers are receding rapidly which will mean high ocean levls. In fact quite a lot of Bangldesh has come underwater because of the rising ocean levels. Maldives is also under serious threat.

Therefore, it is time to heed to the warnings.

dalem

Yes, I've used that article many times to help bolster my point. Of course it helps if one reads the entire article instead of cherry-picking one thing. Let me help you with some relevant quotes:

""Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today."

"But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said."

"Solar activity was lowest during the 17th Century, when Earth was most frigid."

"A separate recent study of Sun-induced magnetic activity near Earth, going back to 1868, provides compelling evidence that the Sun's current increase in output goes back more than a century, Willson said."

No definite link is shown yet, but it should become more clear within the next few years.

You are ignoring the fact that there is no proven, significant link between "emissions" and any global "problem" regarding climate.

No, you can't. Not globally. There is no proven mechanism.

No. It is widely accepted among those who already want to believe it. The modeling used to drive the fear-mongering is poor, and the data inconclusive.

Only if you think Carbon emissions are bad. Otherwise you're just whacking off. Which is fine - whack off all you want, just don't expect me to pay for your Kleenexes or listen to your fantasies while you do it.

-dale

Confed999

If it only changes things by a day, then it didn't count...

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bennett

i think my quote was just as relevant to yours


"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned."


Greenhouse gasses (e.g. methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons) add to the greenhouse effect. I'm sure your aware of the theory that it acts as a blanket to the Earth, most of the scientific community accepts it, i even recall the US agreeing to the december 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut back on 7% of their greenhouse gas emissions because they accepted that the greenhouse effect will work at a detriment to the global temperature. your ignoring the fact that despite the fact that the theory holds no concrete evidence, the majority of the scientific community, accepts the theory.


not globally? as opposed to locally? help me here, im confused.

it may not be 100% proven, but the greenhouse effect is a good enough for the greater majority. to completly rule it out as a possible mechanism for global temperature change would be unreasonable.


sorry for slipping in the little carbon there (type-o), but they are greenhouse gasses are they not? otherwise you lost me at the whacking off bit, lol.

dalem

bennet-

Yes, I'm well aware of the greenhouse mechanism. I am well aware that CO2 is a component. Not as significant a component as other gases, but it's a component. What you may or may not be aware of is that, and I'll say it again, there is no demonstrated link between the emission output of human industry and average global temperature.

As far as that article, the overall tone and content is a cautionary support of the idea that solar input is much more significant than current global warming models allow. I would think that the recent earthquake & tsunami shows exactly how the natural physical environment and the mechanisms thereof dwarf the efforts of human civilization in power and effect. As far as "emissions" go, can you do anything to stop the next Krakatoa or Mount St. Helens? No you can't, and events like that outgas volumes into the atmosphere that are several orders of magnitude greater than what comes out the ass end of all the SUVs ever built.

What I mean by locally vice globally is simply that: it is unwise to poop where one eats. Lowering pollution is good in terms of efficiency and local environmental quality, and that's all it really is good for.

Here's a blurb I wrote on another discussion board on the topic when someone asked me why I dismiss the concept of human-driven "global warming":

---
The best thing to do is to read about the facts for the basis of this theory (any theory) and then determine the validity of its premise. After you do that, you may decide that it's a darned good basis of reasoning, or at least a good direction for general climatologial studies to head in and is quite worthwhile to pursue. But understanding what someone else posted before, that "global warming" is a political activist agenda, NOT a scientific theory, is the key.

It's like the "creation science" agenda - it's not scientific, it's purely political.

Anyway, the reason I dismiss it 100% is that, #1, laymen always confuse weather with climate. Weather is three harsh winters in a row. Climate is 300 harsh winters in a row. So basically, personal observations of "boy it doesn't snow as much anymore", or "the Antarctic ice shelves are calving off like crazy this year", or "Holy crap it snowed in May this year, what is wrong?" are meaningless, climatologically.

Instead you look at tree rings, growth patterns, ice cores, Oxygen isotope levels, sedimentation patterns, and the fossil record.

Reason #2 is that there is a fair amount of variation in global temperature from year to year, decade to decade. Depending on the ten-year slice of the graph you choose to report on, you can claim temps are up, temps are down, or temps are "wildly varying". That's what most of these reports do to press their agendas - the data are good, the scientists who did the study are honest, but 95% of the time, the public doesn't read the study, it reads a report on the study. Huge difference. Huge. You're relying on an interpreter almost every time.

Reason #3 is that if you look at it from an energy point of view, the Sun throws so much energy into the system as compared to the teeny amounts of emissions of greenhouse compounds emitted by industry and agriculture in the last 500 years that if the planet is getting hotter, your first suspect should always be the Sun. And the Sun has its own variations in temperature. And by Occam's Razor the Sun is a better answer anyway - it's a simpler process: Sun radiates energy into space, that energy hits Earth's atmosphere, atmosphere's temperature rises. Temperature increases from atmospheric components require extra steps to involve the greenhouse effect - more variables, more complex process. Harder to prove. Always look to the Sun first for anything involving our planet and temperature. Any extra temperature variations left over after you've accounted for the Sun, well then those are valid to explore further.

But as far as the history of "global warming", it went something like this:

Planetary Scientists developed a good model of Venus' atmosphere. Venus is an odd duck because it's the same basic size and mass of Earth, is a touch closer to the Sun, but has a super-corrosive and ultra-dense atmosphere that has a huge content of C02 (and other sundry nasties).

They asked "Hm, why so different than Earth, assuming roughly similar planetary ages and physical characteristics?" As the mechanism of a "greenhouse effect" seemed obviously in place currently on Venus, the question became "how did it start?" Working with models of atmospheres roughly similar to the theoretical makeup of Earth's atmosphere a billion or two years ago, they modelled a slightly higher outgassing (expulsion via vulcanism from the planet's interior) of things like CO2. They found in their model that by altering the amounts of CO2 (and water vapor, and some other compounds, but chiefly CO2 in this model) by relatively small amounts, they could really push the Venusian greenhouse effect hard. Drop CO2 emissions a little, no greenhouse; raise CO2 emissions a little, greenhouse; raise CO2 emissions by more than a little, and they got "runaway greenhouse", whereby the atmospheric "engine" begins trapping and insulating heat at tremendous rates, leading eventually to a super-dense, super-corrosive blanket of poisonous mush that is what Venus enjoys today. A sound theory, very probably correct. For Venus.

And then the environmental scientist groups got a hold of it. Coupled with fears of "nuclear winter" and the ridiculous Alvarez Asteroid extinction theory, the game was on: Earth's atmosphere was merely waiting for about seven extra molecules of HexaCorpoMortoZine before it turned overnight into a roiling, choking envelope of death. They could "prove" it because they had a good mechanism (greenhouse) and a lot of people with enough spare time to be afraid of things that they didn't have enough time to fully investigate.

And the fright was on.

People are always looking for something to fear, and something to blame. The Kyoto Accord was a political sop to keep people afraid and give them something to blame, with the added political benefit of trying to take economic power away from the West. Here's a non-politically-charged question to ask instead: Suppose global temperatures are on a perfectly-normal, solar-induced trend upward - what are you going to do then? Move inland? Build canals? Learn to pilot a gondola? Invest your money in Coppertone? Those are real solutions to a real (potential) problem, not headless chicken gyrations in response to a bad dream.
-----------

Parihaka

12.6 Concluding Remarks
In the previous sections, we have evaluated the different lines of evidence on the causes of recent climate change. Here, we summarise briefly the arguments that lead to our final assessment. The reader is referred to the earlier sections for more detail.

20th century climate was unusual.
Palaeoclimatic reconstructions for the last 1,000 years (e.g., Chapter 2, Figure 2.21) indicate that the 20th century warming is highly unusual, even taking into account the large uncertainties in these reconstructions.

The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability.
While these estimates vary substantially, on the annual to decadal time-scale they are similar, and in some cases larger, than obtained from observations. Estimates from models and observations are uncertain on the multi-decadal and longer time-scales required for detection. Nonetheless, conclusions on the detection of an anthropogenic signal are insensitive to the model used to estimate internal variability. Recent observed changes cannot be accounted for as pure internal variability even if the amplitude of simulated internal variations is increased by a factor of two or more. It is therefore unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) that natural internal variability alone can explain the changes in global climate over the 20th century (e.g., Figure 12.1).

The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate system.
Although there are measurements of these forcings over the last two decades, estimates prior to that are uncertain, as the volcanic forcing is based on limited measurements, and the solar forcing is based entirely on proxy data. However, the overall trend in natural forcing over the last two, and perhaps four, decades of the 20th century is likely to have been small or negative (Chapter 6, Table 6.13) and so is unlikely to explain the increased rate of global warming since the middle of the 20th century.

The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing.
The increase in volcanic activity during the past two to four decades would, if anything, produce tropospheric cooling and stratospheric warming, the reverse to what has occurred over this period (e.g., Figure 12.8). Increases in solar irradiance could account for some of the observed tropospheric warming, but mechanisms by which this could cool the stratosphere (e.g., through changes in stratospheric ozone) remain speculative. Observed increases in stratospheric water vapour might also account for some of the observed stratospheric cooling. Estimated changes in solar radiative forcing over the 20th century are substantially smaller than those due to greenhouse gas forcing, unless mechanisms exist which enhance the effects of solar radiation changes at the ground. Palaeo-data show little evidence of such an enhancement at the surface in the past. Simulations based solely on the response to natural forcing (e.g., Figure 12.7a) are inconsistent with the observed climate record even if the model-simulated response is allowed to scale up or down to match the observations. It is therefore unlikely that natural forcing and internal variability together can explain the instrumental temperature record.

Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change.
All models produce a response pattern to combined greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol forcing that is detectable in the 20th century surface temperature record (e.g., Figures 12.10, 12.12 (one model produces an estimate of internal variability which is not consistent with that observed)). Given that sulphate aerosol forcing is negative, and hence tends to reduce the response, detection of the response to the combined forcing indicates the presence of a greenhouse gas signal that is at least as large as the combined signal.

The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is detected, despite uncertainties in sulphate aerosol forcing and response.
The analysis used to derive Figures 12.10a and 12.12, left box, assumes that the ratio of the greenhouse gas and sulphate aerosol responses in each model is correct. Given the uncertainty in sulphate aerosol forcing, this may not be the case. Hence one must also consider the separate responses to greenhouse gases and aerosols simultaneously. A greenhouse gas signal is consistently detected in the observations (e.g., Figure 12.10b,c, Figure 12.12 right hand boxes; North and Wu, 2001; Tett et al. 2000). The greenhouse gas responses are consistent with the observations in all but one case. The two component studies all indicate a substantial detectable greenhouse gas signal, despite uncertainties in aerosol forcing. The spread of estimates of the sulphate signal emphasises the uncertainty in sulphate aerosol forcing and response.

It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for an anthropogenic signal.
In order to demonstrate an anthropogenic contribution to climate, it is necessary to rule out the possibility that the detection procedure has mistaken part or all of a natural signal for an anthropogenic change. On physical grounds, natural forcing is unlikely to account completely for the observed warming over the last three to five decades, given that it is likely that the overall trend in natural forcing over most of the 20th century is small or negative. Several studies have involved three or more components - the responses to greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and natural (solar, volcanic or volcanic and solar) forcing. These studies all detect a substantial greenhouse gas contribution over the last fifty years, though in one case the estimated greenhouse gas amplitude is inconsistent with observations. Thus it is unlikely that we have misidentified the solar signal completely as a greenhouse gas response, but uncertainty in the amplitude of the response to natural forcing continues to contribute to uncertainty in the size of the anthropogenic signal.

The detection methods used should not be sensitive to errors in the amplitude of the global mean forcing or response.
Signal estimation methods (e.g., Figures 12.10, 12.11 and 12.12) allow for errors in the amplitude of the response, so the results should not be sensitive to errors in the magnitude of the forcing or the magnitude of the simulated model response. This would reduce the impact of uncertainty in indirect sulphate forcing on the estimated greenhouse and net sulphate signal amplitudes, to the extent that the pattern of response to indirect sulphate forcing resembles the pattern of response to direct sulphate forcing. Some models indicate this is may be the case, others do not, so this remains an important source of uncertainty. Note that if the spatio-temporal pattern of response to indirect sulphate forcing were to resemble the greenhouse response, it would lead to the amplitude of the greenhouse response being underestimated in cases where indirect sulphate forcing has not been included in the model. Detection and attribution results are also expected to be insensitive to all but the largest scale details of radiative forcing patterns. Detection is only possible at the largest spatial scales (e.g., Stott and Tett, 1998). In addition, atmospheric motions and large-scale feedbacks smooth out the response. All these arguments tend to reduce the impact of the large uncertainty in the magnitude of the forcing due to indirect sulphate aerosols. The inclusion of forcing from additional aerosols (see Chapter 6) is unlikely to alter our conclusion concerning the detection of a substantial greenhouse gas signal, though it is likely to affect estimates of the sulphate aerosol response. This is because part of the response to sulphate aerosols can be considered as surrogate for other aerosols, even though the patterns of forcing and response may differ on smaller scales. In general, the estimates of global mean forcing for other neglected factors are small (see Chapter 6, Figure 6.6).

Studies of the changes in the vertical patterns of temperature also indicate that there has been an anthropogenic influence on climate over the last 35 years.
One study finds that even when changes in stratospheric ozone and solar irradiance are taken into account, there is a detectable greenhouse gas signal in the vertical temperature record.

Observed and simulated vertical lapse rate changes are inconsistent over the last two decades, but there is an anthropogenic influence on tropospheric temperatures over a longer period.
Over the last twenty years, the observed warming trend in the lower troposphere has been smaller than at the surface. This contrasts with model simulations of the response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Natural climate variability and the influence of natural external forcing, such as volcanism, can explain part of this difference. However, a discrepancy remains that cannot be accounted for with current climate models. The reduced warming in the lower troposphere does not, however, call into question the fact that the surface temperature has been warming over the satellite period (e.g., National Academy of Sciences, 2000). Over the longer period for which radiosonde data are available, an anthropogenic influence due to increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing stratospheric ozone is detected in all studies.

Natural factors may have contributed to the early century warming.
Most of the discussion in this section has been concerned with evidence relating to a human effect on late 20th century climate. The observed global mean surface temperature record shows two main periods of warming. Some studies detect a solar influence on surface temperature over the first five decades of the century, with perhaps a small additional warming due to increases in greenhouse gases. One study suggests that the early warming could be due to a combination of anthropogenic effects and a highly unusual internal variation. Thus the early century warming could be due to some combination of natural internal variability, changes in solar irradiance and some anthropogenic influence. The additional warming in the second half-century is most likely to be due to a substantial warming due to increases in greenhouse gases, partially offset by cooling due to aerosols, and perhaps by cooling due to natural factors towards the end of the period.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm

for the full text:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

These people seem to disagree with you

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Leader

And people disagree with you, not just regular people but scientists in the field. So I think it is clear that there is reasonable doubt as to whether global warming is cause by humans. Thus, what you have is faith that humans have caused global warming, not knowledge.

__________________

Parihaka

no actually, what I have is comprehensive scientific data. Sure other scientists disagree, but the comprehensive data doesn't support them. Next you'll be telling me that my belief that smoking harms me is only faith, not knowledge, because some scientists disagreed with the overwhelming data.

dalem

Fine. They are entitled to be wrong.

I was going to pick at specific parts of that text but I figure why bother? The text ignores valid solar modeling and evidence, ignores historical climate beyond 1000 years, etc. In short, they are very busy constructing a question around the answer they already like.

-dale

Parihaka

6.1.1 Definition
The term “radiative forcing” has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system. Such a perturbation can be brought about by secular changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols), changes in the solar irradiance incident upon the planet, or other changes that affect the radiative energy absorbed by the surface (e.g., changes in surface reflection properties). This imbalance in the radiation budget has the potential to lead to changes in climate parameters and thus result in a new equilibrium state of the climate system. In particular, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1994) and the Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) used the following definition for the radiative forcing of the climate system: “The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo-spheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values”. In the context of climate change, the term forcing is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, without any surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and with no dynamically-induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms). Note that one potential forcing type, the second indirect effect of aerosols (Chapter 5 and Section 6.8), comprises microphysically-induced changes in the water substance. The IPCC usage of the “global mean” forcing refers to the globally and annually averaged estimate of the forcing.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/214.htm#611

maybe you should read the whole thing? Or at least the index and summaries?

dalem

I skimmed the whole thing. Don't make the Lefty mistake of assuming that just because I read the same set of data you do and come to a different conclusion that I do not comprehend your point or the data.
That paragraph is full of forcing mechanisms wholly native to the Earth climate system, and while acknowledging in passing that radiative rates CAN change (in terms of W/m^2) there is no discussion of the evidence that radiative rates HAVE changed. At this point if we're going to be freaking to the tune of aerosols and volcanoes, a surface acknowledgement of the known sunspot activity cycles and the like would seem proper.

-dale

Leader

Show me those scientists.

Parihaka

6.11.1.1 The observational record

Figure 6.4: Measurements of total solar irradiance made between 1979 and 1999 by satellite, rocket and balloon instruments (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/solar_const/solar_const.html).
The fundamental source of all energy in the climate system is the Sun so that variation in solar output provides a means for radiative forcing of climate change. It is only since the late 1970s, however, and the advent of space-borne measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI), that it has been clear that the solar “constant” does, in fact, vary. These satellite instruments suggest a variation in annual mean TSI of the order 0.08% (or about 1.1 Wm-2) between minimum and maximum of the 11-year solar cycle. While the instruments are capable of such precision their absolute calibration is much poorer such that, for example, TSI values for solar minimum 1986 to 1987 from the ERB radiometer on Nimbus 7 and the ERBE experiment on NOAA-9 disagree by about 7 Wm-2 (Lean and Rind, 1998). More recent data from ACRIM on UARS, EURECA and VIRGO on SOHO cluster around the ERBE value (see Figure 6.4) so absolute uncertainty may be estimated at around 4 Wm-2. Although individual instrument records last for a number of years, each sensor suffers degradation on orbit so that construction of a composite series of TSI from overlapping records becomes a complex task. Figure 6.4 shows TSI measurements made from satellites, rockets, and balloons since 1979.

Willson (1997) used ERB data to provide cross-calibration between the non-overlapping records of ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II and deduced that TSI was 0.5 Wm-2 higher during the solar minimum of 1996 than during solar minimum in 1986. If this reflects an underlying trend in solar irradiance it would represent a radiative forcing2 of 0.09 Wm-2 over that decade compared with about 0.4 Wm-2 due to well-mixed greenhouse gases. The factors used to correct ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II by Willson (1997) agree with those derived independently by Crommelynk et al. (1995) who derived a Space Absolute Radiometric Reference of TSI reportedly accurate to ± 0.15%. Fröhlich and Lean (1998), however, derived a composite TSI series which shows almost identical values in 1986 and 1996, in good agreement with a model of the TSI variability based on independent observations of sunspots and bright areas (faculae). The difference between these two assessments depends critically on the corrections necessary to compensate for problems of unexplained drift and uncalibrated degradation in both the Nimbus 7/ERB and ERBS time series. Thus, longer-term and more accurate measurements are required before