Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[shawn001]

Look! I can get a bunch of claims without bothering to read the research behing them either:

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX


"The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain"

So here your comparing the "World Natural Health Organization" information which is

The World Natural Health Organization is part of the Christian Works Ministry group.

With Nasa's Earth Observatory information?




There's Been No Global Warming Since 1998


The headline of this post really shouldn’t be controversial. It chimes perfectly with what Kevin “null hypothesis” Trenberth wrote in that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)



The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years

Yay! I can use the internet too! And link to sites that make a lot of claims!

The posts I have been linking to are respected sites, not the rubbish your posting here. But you have already ruled out reading some of it which addresses some of the crap being posted.

The difference is that I actually realize how baseless the claims I linked to are. You have no idea about the validity of the headlines you keep linking too.

Yes I do. Show me what baseless claims I posted here? The million spent by oil companies to suppress the information. Bush adminstrations move to suppress the information. The oil companies involvement and tatics? What?

 

[shawn001]

They don't believe that humans have contributed much to the warming, that the projections of catastrophe or danger from emissions are accurate at all, and so on.

Right its stupid.



That you keep spouting headline news without knowing what you are talking about or having read any of the actual research is the part I don't understand.

wrong

Maybe that's because I've done more than browse the internet and to grab press releases.

So I have I for many years now as well as took climatology and meteorology in college.

 

[shawn001]

You might then enjoy the video.

The comment was like shoot the messenger! I have heard it before many times.

 

[shawn001]

LegionOnomaMoi

We seem to both agree Global warming is happening.

I am saying man is contributing to the warming.

You seem to be saying there is doubt still.

I am saying I don't doubt it at all. Man is contributing to the warming.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).


Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.'

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
"
Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?
A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.

Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.

KAREN BICE: We are taking carbon from deep in the Earth and putting it into the atmosphere. Rather than allowing carbon-rich sediments to remain buried and be naturally exposed and eroded over the course of millions and tens of millions of years, we’re reaching down into the Earth, and we’re pulling those carbon-rich sediments and liquids and gases out of the geology of the Earth and putting them into the atmosphere.

That is why the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere is going to be with us for a while. Because if we want to return to a preindustrial-like atmosphere, it would take millions of years for that carbon to be put back where we got it. It’s going to require erosion of silicate rocks and the chemical reactions that go with that.

The only explanation for the increase in CO2 that we’ve observed in the past 100 years is that we are taking carbon out of rocks and putting it into the atmosphere.

Humans are doing that. Other animals aren’t doing that. Plants aren’t doing that. It’s humans drilling for and burning fossil fuel.

And at the same time, we also know that, through deforestation, we’re taking way one of the short-term sinks for CO2, which is forest growth."

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This was a responce from


The Facts
The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change in recent years has generated increasing skepticism among the American public, especially as proposals to deal with the problem, such as reducing carbon emissions, have come with high price tags. But Perry is wrong to suggest that that skepticism has gained strength among scientists.


To the contrary, various surveys of climate researchers suggest growing acceptance, with as many as 98 percent believing in the concept of man-made climate change. A 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which surveyed 1,372 climate researchers, is an example of this consensus. After all, it was first established in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could help create a “greenhouse effect.”
There have been similar studies by, among others, the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, there are a few skeptics in the field, but even they generally do not question that human activity is warming the climate. A collection of statements by various scientific societies that support the consensus on climate change can be found here.

"But, although Perry claimed the scientists “were found to be manipulating this data,” five investigations have since been conducted into the allegations — and each one exonerated the half-dozen or so scientists involved.
So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, there were a handful — who were falsely accused. "

Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change - The Washington Post


The Human Caused Global Warming Fingerprint

"How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused?

There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm.

The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels."

Isoptope Evidence

When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:
14N + p → 14C + n
This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation


"
Humans are raising CO2 levels

The first point to establish is that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. This fact is common sense. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by around 15 billion tonnes per year. Humans are emitting around twice that much! On top of this, there are a number of lines of evidence to confirm that we’re the cause of rising CO2 levels.


When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006). As you burn fossil fuels, you take oxygen out of the atmosphere. Measured oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising (Manning 2006). There’s been a sharp rise in “fossil fuel carbon” in corals (Pelejero 2005) and sea sponges (Swart 2010). Anthropogenic CO2 is penetrating even to the ocean depths (Murata 2010). Measurements of radiocarbon in tree-rings confirms human activity is the cause of rising CO2 (Levin 2000). Even the pages of ancient books trace the rising effects of fossil fuel pollution going back to beginnings of the industrial revolution (Yakir 2011).
So many independent lines of evidence (and common sense) confirm that yes, we are responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

Graphic: How We Know We're Causing Global Warming | ThinkProgress

 

[shawn001]

Earth's Energy Budget Remained out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2012) — A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming.

Earth's energy budget remained out of balance despite unusually low solar activity, study finds


Unfortunately, we lost an extremely important nasa satellite in 2011 on climate research and one before that as well.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes I do. Show me what baseless claims I posted here?

I didn't say you made baseless claims. I said I had, but knew it. What I said was you were linking to press releases and similar information without the background to judge its validity. And as for why I think so, let’s take a look:

"but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets"
Yes it does.

Here’s an early mistake you made which shows you aren’t aware of the research. In fact, this information is available in the type of links you found (NASA):

Has Global Warming Slowed in the Past Decade?
"Figure 7 helps us examine the issue of whether global warming has "stopped" in the past decade or at least slowed down from the rate of the prior two decades. Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998. However, global temperature has a strong interannual variability tied to the Southern Oscillation (El Niño-La Niña cycle), as is apparent in Fig. 7.

Hansen et al. (2010) showed that the correlation of 12-month running-mean global temperature and Niño 3.4 index is maximum with global temperature lagging the Niño index by 4 months. Thus the 1997-1998 "El Niño of the century" had a timing that maximized 1998 global temperature. In contrast, the 2011 global temperature was dragged down by a strong La Niña. Indeed, the strength of the current double-bottomed La Niña, being based on ocean surface temperature relative to base period 1951-1980, is under-emphasized by the long-term trend toward higher temperature.
Thus, although the current global warming graphs (Figs. 2, 3 and the upper part of Fig. 7) are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added. In particular we need to see how high global temperature rises in response to the next El Niño, and we also need to consider the effect of the 10-12 year cycle of solar irradiance. This raises the question of when the next El Niño will occur and the status of the solar cycle."

In other words, the data doesn’t show the trend. The argument is that the reason for this is that two natural forcings hide the warming trend which would otherwise be there. But this begs the question, if our models are that good, so good we trust them to tell us what the climate will be in 2100 and what the results will be, why is it that scientists like Hansen are explaining the current trend in retrospect? Why didn’t the models predict it?

LegionOnomaMoi,

your graph goes to 2000.
The ones I have been posting go to 2011, but your not looking at the sites and the data I am posting.
NASA's RoleTaking a global perspective on Earth's climate
NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere, cyrosphere), with several more planned for launch in the next few years.

This was a nice gem too. First, you couldn’t even read the graph. Second, you wondered why I wasn’t looking at your links but posted one which talked about NASA and their satellites. And after trying to explain to you several times, I’m still not sure if you understand where the satellite data comes from. The important thing, though, is that if you had even a pretty basic grasp of the climate research, you’d know that 1) The two people most directly responsible for providing the satellite data, including the techniques which make it possible are both climate “deniers” and 2) NASA doesn’t produce the satellite data. Spencer and Christy are still doing so, alongside others now, but it was they who developed the sets and the techniques to produce them, which is why they were awarded:
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY SELECTS
NASA/UNIVERSITY RESEARCH TEAM FOR SPECIAL AWARD
The American Metorological Society has named Dr. Roy W. Spencer of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. and Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville to receive the society’s 1996 Special Award. The award will be presented at the society’s 76th Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Ga., today.
Spencer and Christy were "honored for developing a global, precise record of the Earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate," according to the society.

You do know that the Bush admin, changed Hansen's research papers from nasa.

First, I don’t recall Hansen ever saying that his research was changed. He said that he was told not to make certain public statements, that his press releases were edited, etc. Not his research. Second,according to this NY Times article: “In a 48-page report issued on Monday as a result of a request in 2006 by 14 senators, the internal investigative office said the activities appeared limited to the headquarters press office. No evidence was found showing that officials higher at NASA or in the Bush administration were involved in interfering with the release of climate science information, the report said.”
Third, did you read the quote from Spencer, who worked at NASA at the time? Among other things, he ended up resigning because he couldn’t say what he believed about the climate, and he’s a skeptic. Hansen is still the director of NASA’s GISS. So according to him, it’s the skeptics who are being silenced. Now, you can say he’s lying, or paid off, or whatever, but the point is that both sides are making these kinds of claims. And it’s kind of hard to believe there’s a massive conspiracy to silence global warming science and all this funding from big oil is behind in contrary research when the people with all the government funding (not to mention funding from environmentalist groups) which allow them to do extremely expensive research (satellites aren’t cheap, and supercomputers aren’t exactly a dime a dozen either) are groups which have made public statements in support of AGW theory.

Just to give you a sample of what the “other side” is saying, here’s an example report of some of the accusations of censorship and repression from the “deniers.” I’m sure you won’t read it and will instead claim that the group is paid for by big oil, that this is part of the conspiracy, and you will link to this or that internet site to “prove” this. And perhaps it’s all lies. If both groups, however, are claimingthey are censored and the other side is getting all the money, why, granted the "massive funding" and political clout thanks to "big oil", is it that the pro-AGW groups and scientists are the ones whose papers get published and who dominate all the largest most funded politically connected organizations from NASA to the IPCC, while the skeptics have to publish their findings and views elsewhere? And then are immediately smeared?

 

[Thief]

Here in this region, winter is typically a collection of snow, ice, low temp,
with a chance of a slight thaw in the middle of things.
Lousy weather generally speaking.

This season has been anything but that.
No zero temps at all....negligible snow cover...green grass here and there...
Scraped the windows of the car maybe six times altogether.

I believe in global warming....I LIKE IT!

But the rest of life..... won't.
Seeds and plants need the shut down to germinate as they should.
Radical temps will play havoc with the flow of things.

Insects will also feel the bite.
The warming trend will then have an uphill trickle affect.

It's good for me. I like laying in the sun, drinking beer.
But the good times will end up costing more...later on.

 

[shawn001]

I didn't say you made baseless claims. I said I had, but knew it. What I said was you were linking to press releases and similar information without the background to judge its validity. And as for why I think so, let’s take a look:


Here’s an early mistake you made which shows you aren’t aware of the research. In fact, this information is available in the type of links you found (NASA):

Has Global Warming Slowed in the Past Decade?
"Figure 7 helps us examine the issue of whether global warming has "stopped" in the past decade or at least slowed down from the rate of the prior two decades. Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998. However, global temperature has a strong interannual variability tied to the Southern Oscillation (El Niño-La Niña cycle), as is apparent in Fig. 7.

Hansen et al. (2010) showed that the correlation of 12-month running-mean global temperature and Niño 3.4 index is maximum with global temperature lagging the Niño index by 4 months. Thus the 1997-1998 "El Niño of the century" had a timing that maximized 1998 global temperature. In contrast, the 2011 global temperature was dragged down by a strong La Niña. Indeed, the strength of the current double-bottomed La Niña, being based on ocean surface temperature relative to base period 1951-1980, is under-emphasized by the long-term trend toward higher temperature.
Thus, although the current global warming graphs (Figs. 2, 3 and the upper part of Fig. 7) are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added. In particular we need to see how high global temperature rises in response to the next El Niño, and we also need to consider the effect of the 10-12 year cycle of solar irradiance. This raises the question of when the next El Niño will occur and the status of the solar cycle."

In other words, the data doesn’t show the trend. The argument is that the reason for this is that two natural forcings hide the warming trend which would otherwise be there. But this begs the question, if our models are that good, so good we trust them to tell us what the climate will be in 2100 and what the results will be, why is it that scientists like Hansen are explaining the current trend in retrospect? Why didn’t the models predict it?

All this was in my links! And the explanations of why.

This was a nice gem too. First, you couldn’t even read the graph. Second, you wondered why I wasn’t looking at your links but posted one which talked about NASA and their satellites. And after trying to explain to you several times, I’m still not sure if you understand where the satellite data comes from. The important thing, though, is that if you had even a pretty basic grasp of the climate research, you’d know that 1) The two people most directly responsible for providing the satellite data, including the techniques which make it possible are both climate “deniers” and 2) NASA doesn’t produce the satellite data. Spencer and Christy are still doing so, alongside others now, but it was they who developed the sets and the techniques to produce them, which is why they were awarded:
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY SELECTS
NASA/UNIVERSITY RESEARCH TEAM FOR SPECIAL AWARD
The American Metorological Society has named Dr. Roy W. Spencer of Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. and Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville to receive the society’s 1996 Special Award. The award will be presented at the society’s 76th Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Ga., today.
Spencer and Christy were "honored for developing a global, precise record of the Earth’s temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate," according to the society.

First I made a mistake about the graph that it went to 2000, but as you pointed out it went further, but that doesn't mean I didn't understand the graph in general, just the itme period.

"Second, you wondered why I wasn’t looking at your links but posted one which talked about NASA and their satellites. And after trying to explain to you several times, I’m still not sure if you understand where the satellite data comes from."

Yes I do and if you go back you will see they interpret the data for NOAA and the department of defence. They work with their own satellite data, even though Spencer and Christy use it for their models and also interpret the data.

I also posted the real time data from the nasa satellites in the "eyes on the earth" part of the eyes on the solar system in 3-d.

If you run your mouse over the satellites it explains what they do and the data they are collecting.

NASA - Eyes On The Earth

First, I don’t recall Hansen ever saying that his research was changed. He said that he was told not to make certain public statements, that his press releases were edited, etc. Not his research. Second,according to this NY Times article: “In a 48-page report issued on Monday as a result of a request in 2006 by 14 senators, the internal investigative office said the activities appeared limited to the headquarters press office. No evidence was found showing that officials higher at NASA or in the Bush administration were involved in interfering with the release of climate science information, the report said.”
Third, did you read the quote from Spencer, who worked at NASA at the time? Among other things, he ended up resigning because he couldn’t say what he believed about the climate, and he’s a skeptic. Hansen is still the director of NASA’s GISS. So according to him, it’s the skeptics who are being silenced. Now, you can say he’s lying, or paid off, or whatever, but the point is that both sides are making these kinds of claims. And it’s kind of hard to believe there’s a massive conspiracy to silence global warming science and all this funding from big oil is behind in contrary research when the people with all the government funding (not to mention funding from environmentalist groups) which allow them to do extremely expensive research (satellites aren’t cheap, and supercomputers aren’t exactly a dime a dozen either) are groups which have made public statements in support of AGW theory.


Just to give you a sample of what the “other side” is saying, here’s an example report of some of the accusations of censorship and repression from the “deniers.” I’m sure you won’t read it and will instead claim that the group is paid for by big oil, that this is part of the conspiracy, and you will link to this or that internet site to “prove” this. And perhaps it’s all lies. If both groups, however, are claimingthey are censored and the other side is getting all the money, why, granted the "massive funding" and political clout thanks to "big oil", is it that the pro-AGW groups and scientists are the ones whose papers get published and who dominate all the largest most funded politically connected organizations from NASA to the IPCC, while the skeptics have to publish their findings and views elsewhere? And then are immediately smeared?

I will read this and just form the start the writer is an economist, it looks like, but willll read the whole report.

I think you might want try to discuss these matters with me with a more Civil tone. You have no idea what I understand about all this and what I don't.


So we learned the planet is still warming even though we have had a couple of cooler years because in part La Nino and La Nina and and some other reasons. In fact more gasses would cool the planet some at first, reflecting energy back into space. The ice is melting in the artic, greenland and antartic and the perma frost in Russia and Alaska.

Changing the Ice albedo and creating warmer conditions, the more it melts.

Man is contributing.

Nasa expects things to get warmer in the future.

Shrinking Arctic ice is 'reflecting less sunshine back into space and adding to global warming'


Shrinking Arctic ice is 'reflecting less sunshine back into space and adding to global warming' | Mail Online

 

[shawn001]

The links I posted again show what I was talking about and big oil. You left out big oil lobbists, you left out Bush deny global warming until he had to accpet it, you left out Bush is a Big oil man himself and in bed with them. You left out companies like exxonmobil, make 6 billion every six months, the most sussessful businesses ever.

Bush aide who doctored global warming documents joins ExxonMobil

Bush aide who doctored global warming documents joins ExxonMobil

New York Times

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming - New York Times

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think you might want try to discuss these matters with me with a more Civil tone.

I tried (and you're right), but rather than pay attention to what I've said and address it, or approach this like a rational, scientific, objective thinker, all you've done his continually link to headlines, press releases, etc. I said that the data sets don't show a warming trend. Rather than try to really see if this was true, you claimed it wasn't and then provided links to sites like NASA. Not only did you choose not to look at a single research article, you didn't even bother to investigate what was on the very sites you were linking to. As I just showed you, the NASA website has a non-academic summary of the situation, akin to what you keep providing links for. It not only clearly shows, but also explains, that I was in fact correct. The warming trend isn't there.

You tell me Bush changed Hansen's research papers, but nothing you link to says that, nor (after spending 15 minutes or so looking) could I find anything else which did either. Rather, the accusation was that the Bush administration had tried to limit/censor public statements and releases. And according to an investigation, no one in the Bush administration had anything to do with this.

If you want to discuss ANYTHING in a "civil tone," you have to actually discuss it. You haven't. You just keep providing link after link after link to non-academic material without any discussion of the research behind the claims made in these links or addressing anything I've said apart from providing more links.

I've been reading climate change research for years. I used to check realclimate and climateaudit every day, but I got tired of trying to wade through the accusations from either side (that I didn't like realclimate's policy of deleting posts and censorship, but I didn't want to read climateaudit without getting the other perspective either). I still regularly read the journals, academic reports, conference proceedings, etc. I'm interested in the science both because of the social and environmental issues and because the climate is one of the few dynamical systems which has a complexity nearing that of the brain, so it is another system other than the one I'm studying which I can use to track the techniques developed and methods used to model complexity.

I'm fine with a civil discussion. But I asked you over and over again to stop posting link after link. Anybody can pull that stuff out of a google search. I did the same with the opposite type of claims. Discussion involves dialogue, and so far 99.9% of your posts have been copied and pasted from websites. That isn't a discussion.

So we learned the planet is still warming even though we have had a couple of cooler years because in part La Nino and La Nina and and some other reasons.

No, what "we" learned is that when you dismissed my claim that the data doesn't show a warming trend since ~1998 and linked to a bunch of websites, you didn't even bother to actually read the very websites you were linking to, let alone an actual research paper. As for "why" the warming trend isn't there, the argument that it is beause natural forcings are hiding it is one explanation. And even if it is true, again that still leaves the question: why didn't the models predict it? Why is Hansen writing an article in 2010 to explain why the past 10+ years don't show the warming the models predicted? If we have to explain the current trend in retrospect, why are we so certain of our predictive power?

The ice is melting in the artic, greenland and antartic and the perma frost in Russia and Alaska.

So you say. But have you read any actual research? Here's an paper published in 2010 in EOS, one of the American Geophysical Union's journals: Climate and Melting Variability in Antarctica. They conclude that the melting is of the AGW period is consistent with a longer trend (50-100) years.

Changing the Ice albedo and creating warmer conditions, the more it melts.

You are oversimplifying a vastly more complex situation. This article was published by the Royal Society's journal on Mathematical, Physical, & Engineering Sciences: Stability of ice-sheet grounding lines (I uploaded the article. If for some reason the link doesn't work, a pre-publication copy may be found here). You paint a simplistic picture of something vastly more complex.

Nasa expects things to get warmer in the future.

NASA expected in 1998 that the warming trend would continue. Now they are explaining, in retrospect, why they think they were wrong.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The links I posted again show what I was talking about and big oil.

I know what you were talking about. I also know how one-sided it is and how little it has to do with anything. You talk about "big oil" and lobbyists, but I'm talking about the science. And the people who dominate the discussion, who decides what gets published and what doesn't, what studies will be included in reports like the IPCCs, what the public will see when they go to websites like NASA or the NOAA, are all strong AGW proponents.

I also know that I could link to a ton of sites saying how skeptics are silenced and the environmentalist agenda is corrupting science, how none of the so-called "climategate" inquiries are conducted with any intent other to clear the scientists as quickly as possible, and so on. But as all such claims have two-sides, involve hearsay, and are easily refuted by saying X just was bought off by big oil or Y was just toeing the global warming environmentalist line, I don't want to bother. I'd rather talk about the science.

You left out companies like exxonmobil, make 6 billion every six months, the most sussessful businesses ever.

You know the difference between "net income" and "gross income," right? The oil companies hugely dependent on others, like Saudi princes, because they are selling a product which they have to buy from others. You really think that any greedy, money loving big oil executive wouldn't much rather develop an alternative fuel source they could develop and sell in house rather than have to buy it from others?

 

[painted wolf]

You know the difference between "net income" and "gross income," right? The oil companies hugely dependent on others, like Saudi princes, because they are selling a product which they have to buy from others. You really think that any greedy, money loving big oil executive wouldn't much rather develop an alternative fuel source they could develop and sell in house rather than have to buy it from others?

I think it would depend on the cost to develop, what is cheaper... using already existing technology and infrastructure to produce fossil fuels but having to put up with tin solder dictatorships (and remember the Saudis don't want to bite the hand that feeds them either, it's a mutalistic parasitic relationship)... or completely replacing your whole centuries worth of technology and infrastructure on a gamble that you will see return on profit for a new source of energy.

And lets not forget the potential for it remaining in house... solar and wind can be produced without the oil companies by people at their own homes. Why develop that technology more when the genie is already out of the bottle?

IMHO this is why ethanol was so attractive at first... there are only so many sources that can supply that much biomass. It's much easier to monopolize than solar or wind. Especially if they get the vat raised algae systems running.

But the oil will keep flowing until the bitter end... because the profit margin is so much higher thanks to the already existing infrastructure. Nothing short of adding the cost of externalities to oil will stop that.

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I(and remember the Saudis don't want to bite the hand that feeds them either, it's a mutalistic parasitic relationship)

If ever there was one, that's for sure. Running in for a close second are remora and sharks.

... or completely replacing your whole centuries worth of technology and infrastructure on a gamble that you will see return on profit for a new source of energy.

They aren't mutually exclusive. ExxonMobil is still buying and obtaining enormous amounts of oil. However, they are also developing or have interests in batter and cell technology for cars. I find it hard to believe that any corporation that large which has such a divide between gross income and net income wouldn't be constantly trying to increase the latter. One would have to be blind and stupid to run a business in the current market without having some idea of what has happened to even large corporations whose technology all of the sudden became obselete. Blockbuster, kodac, AOL, and so many other companies have had to radically change their business practices and/or have lost an enormous amount of their business because of new technologies. I would think, and it seems to be true, that even while "big oil" is throwing tons of money to lobbyists and so on, they are also racing to be the first to come out with whatever product(s) will replace gasoline engines.

And lets not forget the potential for it remaining in house... solar and wind can be produced without the oil companies by people at their own homes.

I don't think that's a big concern to them, because I don't see it happening on a large scale. Nor will it drive cars.

Why develop that technology more when the genie is already out of the bottle?

Because so far nothing has been able to compete readily. Hybrid technology is doing much better than the initial electric cars, and these are also improving. But companies like ExxonMobil are involved in these projects, because if someone else develops and engine that works just as well without combustion at all or some similar technological breakthrouh, all the lawyers and lobbyists in the world aren't going to help them. The music industry managed to bring down napster, but it didn't do much good. Once people realized they could get for free what they had been paying $16 bucks for over and over again, the only thing that stemmed the tide of illegal music downloads was the compromise of iTunes.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.

So we went from 275-285 ppm, or a total atmospheric CO2 level of almost 300 hundedths of 1%, to almost 400ppm, or nearly 400 hundredths of 1%.

When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays)

Interesting you bring up GCRs. A number of papers published over the last decade have proposed that it is these, not CO2, which are responsible for most of the observed warming. In his 2010 paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, "Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications," Scarfetta reviews the available data sets and research on CO2, temperature records, and solar activity, and concludes that 60% of the observed warming attributed to human activity was natural. One of the possible contributers to this natural forcing (according to Scarfetta) is GCRs, specifically their role in cloud-seeding. The theory was developed indepedently by Kirby and his collegues at CERN and Svensmark and his (mainly Calder and Marsh). In a recent paper in Physics Reports ("Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces"), however, Lu finds that GCRs also are responsible for ozone depletion, including that which is thought to be due to human activity. According to his study, "global temperature has been dominantly controlled" by the affect GCRs have on the ozone.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I don't think that's a big concern to them, because I don't see it happening on a large scale. Nor will it drive cars.

Electricity from the windmill can power these beauties.

 

[shawn001]

I know what you were talking about. I also know how one-sided it is and how little it has to do with anything. You talk about "big oil" and lobbyists, but I'm talking about the science. And the people who dominate the discussion, who decides what gets published and what doesn't, what studies will be included in reports like the IPCCs, what the public will see when they go to websites like NASA or the NOAA, are all strong AGW proponents.

"I know what you were talking about. I also know how one-sided it is and how little it has to do with anything."

It has nothing to do with anything? Yeah right. It was an attempt by the administration to downplay global warming, frank luntz even helped them change the name from global warming to climate change. Your right it had nothing to do with the actual science, it was manipluating the science to downplay it.

FRONTLINE did a special on it I posted.




I also know that I could link to a ton of sites saying how skeptics are silenced and the environmentalist agenda is corrupting science, how none of the so-called "climategate" inquiries are conducted with any intent other to clear the scientists as quickly as possible, and so on. But as all such claims have two-sides, involve hearsay, and are easily refuted by saying X just was bought off by big oil or Y was just toeing the global warming environmentalist line, I don't want to bother. I'd rather talk about the science.

You said yourself no credible scientists doubts the planet is warming up. In fact some skepdic's change their tunes to yes it is.


again there is a difference between scientific skeptics who are doubting parts of the research and flat out deniers and people working for the oil companes to help downplay it and they did a good job to their base.

environmentalist are not the President of the US.

Also if I were to side here it would be with the earth not the big oil companies profits.

The people in "climategate" were completely cleared of any wrong doing.


You know the difference between "net income" and "gross income," right? The oil companies hugely dependent on others, like Saudi princes, because they are selling a product which they have to buy from others. You really think that any greedy, money loving big oil executive wouldn't much rather develop an alternative fuel source they could develop and sell in house rather than have to buy it from others?

I know there has never been a more successful business then exxon mobile in the history of the planet are you saying otherwise?

Exxon reports $9.4 billion profit

Ben Rooney @CNNMoneyMarkets January 31, 2012:

Before the market opened Tuesday, Exxon reported net income of $9.4 billion, or $1.97 a share, in the fourth quarter. That's up from $9.25 billion, or $1.86 a share, in the same period in 2010.
Analysts were expecting earnings of $1.96 a share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.
Revenue rose 15% to $121.6 billion, the company said.

Exxon reports $9.4 billion profit - Jan. 31, 2012

I also stick by this

"A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents. "

They left a paper trail. It is well know Exxon mobile was using the same tatcics the tabacoo company was using to doubt the science that smoking causes cancer. Theone guy left to go work for them. Of course they are hostile to global warming.


" You really think that any greedy, money loving big oil executive wouldn't much rather develop an alternative fuel source"

Not until they quit making 1126 billion a year on oil. They put some money back into green research, but they would rather get all the oil first.


You really think that any company making a 126 billion a year is going to move fast to green energy where as mentioned there is no infrastructure for other green alternative fuel sources. Some of which they will have no control over.

 

[shawn001]

So we went from 275-285 ppm, or a total atmospheric CO2 level of almost 300 hundedths of 1%, to almost 400ppm, or nearly 400 hundredths of 1%.

Its like you cherry pick stuff out here that is important.

"So we went from 275-285 ppm, or a total atmospheric CO2 level of almost 300 hundedths of 1%, to almost 400ppm, or nearly 400 hundredths of 1%."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

We're raising CO2 levels

Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).


Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.'

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming


Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
"
Q. Are all these changes really caused by human behavior, or natural causes, or a combination?
A. RUTH CURRY: We have a pretty good idea of how CO2 has fluctuated in the atmosphere for the past 650,000 years. We have cores of glacial ice that have accumulated in Antarctica over 650,000 years, and they have trapped in them tiny bubbles from the atmosphere in the past. Scientists can figure out what atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels were in each year in the past.

Throughout that entire 650,000-year time span, the natural CO2 fluctuation is 190 to 280 parts per million. Today we’re at 381 parts per million, and almost all of that extra 100 or so ppm increase has happened in the last 100 years—that is, since the Industrial Revolution. There’s not much doubt that the increase is due to anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.

KAREN BICE: We are taking carbon from deep in the Earth and putting it into the atmosphere. Rather than allowing carbon-rich sediments to remain buried and be naturally exposed and eroded over the course of millions and tens of millions of years, we’re reaching down into the Earth, and we’re pulling those carbon-rich sediments and liquids and gases out of the geology of the Earth and putting them into the atmosphere.

That is why the CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere is going to be with us for a while. Because if we want to return to a preindustrial-like atmosphere, it would take millions of years for that carbon to be put back where we got it. It’s going to require erosion of silicate rocks and the chemical reactions that go with that.

The only explanation for the increase in CO2 that we’ve observed in the past 100 years is that we are taking carbon out of rocks and putting it into the atmosphere.

Humans are doing that. Other animals aren’t doing that. Plants aren’t doing that. It’s humans drilling for and burning fossil fuel.

And at the same time, we also know that, through deforestation, we’re taking way one of the short-term sinks for CO2, which is forest growth."

Global Warming Q&A : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This was a responce from


The Facts
The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change in recent years has generated increasing skepticism among the American public, especially as proposals to deal with the problem, such as reducing carbon emissions, have come with high price tags. But Perry is wrong to suggest that that skepticism has gained strength among scientists.


To the contrary, various surveys of climate researchers suggest growing acceptance, with as many as 98 percent believing in the concept of man-made climate change. A 2010 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which surveyed 1,372 climate researchers, is an example of this consensus. After all, it was first established in 1896 that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could help create a “greenhouse effect.”
There have been similar studies by, among others, the United States Global Change Research Program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, there are a few skeptics in the field, but even they generally do not question that human activity is warming the climate. A collection of statements by various scientific societies that support the consensus on climate change can be found here.

"But, although Perry claimed the scientists “were found to be manipulating this data,” five investigations have since been conducted into the allegations — and each one exonerated the half-dozen or so scientists involved.
So, in contrast to Perry’s statement, there have not been a “substantial number” of scientists who manipulated data. Instead, there were a handful — who were falsely accused. "

Rick Perry’s made-up ‘facts’ about climate change - The Washington Post


The Human Caused Global Warming Fingerprint

"How do we know the increase in CO2 is human caused?

There is an isotopic signature, like a fingerprint. CO2 that comes from natural sources has a low carbon-14 ratio. The pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were around 280ppm (parts per million). As of 2010 the amount is 390ppm.

The extra 100ppm does not have the carbon-14 signature. The only other possible source that can account for the extra 100ppm is human industrial emissions of fossil fuels."

"Humans are raising CO2 levels

The first point to establish is that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. This fact is common sense. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by around 15 billion tonnes per year. Humans are emitting around twice that much! On top of this, there are a number of lines of evidence to confirm that we’re the cause of rising CO2 levels.


When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006). As you burn fossil fuels, you take oxygen out of the atmosphere. Measured oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising (Manning 2006). There’s been a sharp rise in “fossil fuel carbon” in corals (Pelejero 2005) and sea sponges (Swart 2010). Anthropogenic CO2 is penetrating even to the ocean depths (Murata 2010). Measurements of radiocarbon in tree-rings confirms human activity is the cause of rising CO2 (Levin 2000). Even the pages of ancient books trace the rising effects of fossil fuel pollution going back to beginnings of the industrial revolution (Yakir 2011).
So many independent lines of evidence (and common sense) confirm that yes, we are responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

Graphic: How We Know We're Causing Global Warming | ThinkProgress

 

[shawn001]

Interesting you bring up GCRs. A number of papers published over the last decade have proposed that it is these, not CO2, which are responsible for most of the observed warming. In his 2010 paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, "Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications," Scarfetta reviews the available data sets and research on CO2, temperature records, and solar activity, and concludes that 60% of the observed warming attributed to human activity was natural. One of the possible contributers to this natural forcing (according to Scarfetta) is GCRs, specifically their role in cloud-seeding. The theory was developed indepedently by Kirby and his collegues at CERN and Svensmark and his (mainly Calder and Marsh). In a recent paper in Physics Reports ("Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces"), however, Lu finds that GCRs also are responsible for ozone depletion, including that which is thought to be due to human activity. According to his study, "global temperature has been dominantly controlled" by the affect GCRs have on the ozone.

Did they prove the above?

Yeah The 15 billion tonnes per year. Humans are emitting around twice that much!

Have no effect on warming. Just like fluorocarbons had no effect on our ozone.



Isoptope Evidence

When protons from GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) collide with the nitrogen-14 (seven protons plus seven neutrons in the nucleus) in the air, carbon-14 is created (in addition to other isotopes such as beryllium-10) through a nuclear reaction:
14N + p → 14C + n

This means that carbon with a low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays.

Furthermore, the ratio of O2 to N2 has diminished. This is expected from the increased combustion of fossil fuels, in which O2 combines with C to form CO2. The oceans have also become more acidic, leading to an increase in CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans.

Human Caused Global Warming — OSS Foundation



So how do ypou explain "low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know there has never been a more successful business then exxon mobile in the history of the planet are you saying otherwise?

And exactly how are you measuring success? The larger the company, the more all the income has to be spread around. Bill gates runs microsoft, not big oil. In fact, if you go to the list of richest people in the world, you'd have to go down pretty far to find a ExxonMobil executive.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/markets/exxon/index.htm

Exxon reports $9.4 billion profit - Jan. 31, 2012http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/markets/exxon/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/31/markets/exxon/index.htm

I like where you stop your quotes: "The company said earnings from oil exploration and production rose 18% to $8.8 billion in the quarter. But lower volumes and a negative impact from Exxon's production mix reduced earnings by $1.4 billion.
Forget Iran, Iraq is threatening oil prices

Exxon said earnings from its oil and gas refining operations declined during the quarter, citing tighter profit margins. Earnings from the company's chemicals business also declined.
Rival oil company Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) reported a 3% decline in quarterly profits last week, as its oil and gas production fell to the lowest levels in years. ConocoPhilips (COP, Fortune 500) also reported declining production volumes, even as profits rose in the quarter. "

It is well know Exxon mobile was using the same tatcics the tabacoo company was using to doubt the science that smoking causes cancer.

It doesn't. It vastly increases the likelihood that an individual will develop cancer.

You really think that any company making a 126 billion a year is going to move fast to green energy where as mentioned there is no infrastructure for other green alternative fuel sources. Some of which they will have no control over.

What are you talking about? solar power panels and hydrogen batteries come from...what? Trees? All of the energy sources require businesses. And it only takes one invention (an engine which doesn't use gas but works better, a process through which widely available precursers can be combined into a cleaner, cheaper, energy source, etc.) for all of that to come tumbling down. Blockbuster was an enormous and extremely profitable company. Then netflix, video on demand, etc., came out. And Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy. AOL was enormously successful, and when they merged with Time Warner, reactions ranged from "wow!" to "they're too powerful." But then the came high-speed internet in the form of cable, DSL, etc. And Time Warner abandoned the failing AOL. If there's one thing we've seen over the past several decades, it's companies everyone thinks are just going to increase or continue their monopoly (kodak) until someone develops something which brings the corporation to its knees. Which is why I absolutely think that "big oil" is making sure that they are the ones who develop, patent, and ship the technology rather than go out of business.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Did they prove the above?

Why don't you read the papers? I linked to them.

So how do ypou explain "low isotope carbon-14 ratio must come from deep in the ground, out of reach of cosmic rays."

Easily. Nobody is arguing the cosmic rays have anything to do with the CO2. The argument is that GCRs are responsible for the temperature rise, or most of it, independently of CO2.

Again, this increase of CO2 you are talking is 1) a rise of one hundredth of 1% of the total atmospheric carbon content, and 2) AGW theory DOES NOT argue that the CO2 rise itself is the problem, but that the feedbacks the CO2 cause in other climate systems will drive the temperatures to dangerous levels.