Global Warming: Your opinion ....

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by R29k, Jun 14, 2011.

?

Is Global Warming man made or a natural cycle ?

  1. Yes, it is man made

  2. Undecided

  3. No, I think there is another reason for it

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    "We are contributing" - our factor is not small, given our technology and numbers, so "contributing to causing"...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1002 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    .
    Your information is based on false assumptions by inept alarmists.

    The prominent one is that all new CO2 (all the rise in CO2 levels) is man made.
    Numerous studies in the last 2 or 3 years show that is not true.
    (Bearing in mind my stance. = GW exists, it's simply not driven by man.)
    The truth is natural CO2 sinks release far more CO2 (in response to higher global temperatures) than the alarmists account for in their projections/math.
    Small list of RECENT studies that show all types of sinks relase more CO2 than alarmists assumed in their math.
    (Which confirms what I've been saying for years. Sink release will accelerate with warming.)
    https://phys.org/news/2017-03-soils-carbon-climate.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2016-03-climate-carbon-loss-arctic-soils.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2016-01-soil-frost-affects-greenhouse-gas.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2016-02-tundra-soil-vulnerability-ecosystem-climate.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2015-04-soil-carbon-stable-previously-thought.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-nitrous-oxide-emissions-field-arctic.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2016-11-limited-soil-climate.html#nRlv
    https://phys.org/news/2014-07-climate-soil-net-losses-carbon.html#nRlv
    (There are dozens more new studies that show this is you if you look around.)
    Those are scientific (quantitative/empirical data) as opposed to your outright unfounded OPINION.

    In simple terms even gorski can understand... (Well, maybe not.)
    That alarmists assumed a very small (or no) change in CO2 retention by sinks with rising temps.
    Their assumptions are now shown wrong.
    The sink release is much greater than expected with rising temps.
    = Thus the alarmists math conclusions are wrong. - for any CO2 calculations done prior to ~2016.

    ~~~~~

    Prior to to this new information the IPCC and NOAA estimated the global CO2 sink release at 207 gigatons of carbon annually. (Includes ocean + terrestrial.)
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/img/carboncycle.gif
    Clearly (with the naturally rising temps) that 207 number is lower than current actual fact.
    Using that (dated=low) 207 gigatons and the (current) approximately 9 gigatons of man-made carbon annually...,
    (I am deliberately erring in the alarmist's favor.)
    ... it comes to only about 4% of the total CO2 going airborne is man-made. (Based on the underestimated sink release.)
    -- That 9 gigatons is only accurate if they are NOT taking the current levels of CO2 (and their erroneous sink release assumptions) and "back-calculating" how much CO2 is man-made,
    -- which is exactly what they do as their numbers 'work' WITH their false estimates of sink retention.
    -- This means they are including the new CO2 from sinks in their "man-made" 9 gigatons.
    -- Were this not the case they would have an error equal to the rise in sink release, and they don't.
    -- Thus their 9 gigatons is not all man made. Part of it is sink release they didn't account for.

    Even without their methodology/math errors (which are self evident) - as both ocean and terrestrial sinks are releasing more than the alarmists expected (and given their magnitude) it would not take much for that additional release to exceed the entire 4% (9 gigatons).
    - That would mean the man-made atmospheric CO2 is much less (of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory) than the mere 4% the alarmists currently claim.

    ~~~~~

    The IPCC admits repeatedly that their models don't properly account for water vapor.
    When the effects of water vapor are ignored man's affect on GW is 5.53%.
    When water vapor is taken into account it's 0.28% or less.

    If a fraction of 1% is "not small" to you then you're right.
    Otherwise you are (yet again) full of it.

    ~~~~~

    Another false assumption is that temp rise due to CO2 is linear.
    - That 'deletion' in discussions (and math/graphs) is deliberate and part of the alarmists 'scare tactics'.
    It's not, it's an exponentially decreasing function.
    Each new (added) 100ppm of CO2 has less effect than the previous 100ppm.
    - That fact is included in the IPCC reports but it's deliberately down-played and hidden where few will see it.
    It's contained in the data discussion but ignored/vacant in the policy sections. (Those sections meant for Politicians.)

    After about 1000ppm increasing CO2 has an immeasurably small effect on temp.

    First # = New ppm
    Next # = CO2 effectiveness increase over previous ppm
    Last # = total CO2 effectiveness as a % of it's max.
    0-200ppm - (start) = 0%-77%
    300ppm - (+5.9%) = 82.9%
    400ppm - (+4.1%) = 87.0%
    500ppm - (+3.2%) = 90.2%
    600ppm - (+2.6%) = 92.8%
    700ppm - (+2.2%) = 95.0%
    800ppm - (+1.9%) = 96.9%
    900ppm - (+1.7%) = 98.6%
    1000ppm - (+1.4%) = ~100% (effectively - exponentially decreasing)
    (Those are numbers right from IPCC studies.)

    Given we are currently at 408ppm (checked today), >87% of CO2's potential to raise temp has already been realized.

    If 408ppm equates to 87% (CO2 potential effect) and results in 0.28% of GW
    And 1000ppm is 100% (CO2 potential effect) then the 0.28% can increase by a maximum of 13% (if CO2 goes up another ~600ppm) which = 0.32% of GW.

    Now we will ignore the major factor (water vapor) - as the alarmists do.
    If 408ppm equates to 87% (CO2 potential effect) and results in 5.53% of GW
    And 1000ppm is 100% (CO2 potential effect) then the 0.28% can increase by a maximum of 13% (if CO2 goes up another ~600ppm) which = 6.36% of GW.
    WOW! - A whole 0.83% more GW with 600 more ppm! - And then it (effect of CO2 on GW) effectively stops completely.

    ~~~~
    .
    Unlike the alarmists, inept scientists (and wannabes) and outright GW scammers, I'm simply not alarmed.
    .
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Sadly, you are not the only inept capitalist parrot here...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. Joe C

    Joe C MDL Guru

    Jan 12, 2012
    3,522
    2,093
    120
    The truly inept actually believe that they can control the temp of the earth
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1005 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    Be wonderful if it was true. - Unfortunately it's not.

    Here again we see your bad habit of reading and believing anything you see without verifying authenticity and checking for current information.
    Perhaps if you read current articles that are well researched instead of dated articles that contain plans/proposals/projections that never actually happened you would have a clue what is going on.

    Germany covered the high % of their electric grid from renewables - a few times - for a few hours.
    Much of their renewables are Biomass which are non-fossil CO2 emitters that bypass the natural CO2 sinks. (Rather pointless. Possibly harmful.)
    Their CO2 emissions are going up, not down.
    They are still using Nuclear. About 6.5 GW worth in operation. (Around 8-10%.)
    Their Coal/Oil/Gas/Biomass (CO2 emitters) typically vary between supplying 40% & 70% of Germany's grid power.
    They are currently putting in new and/or reactivating Coal plants.

    As you can see here (snapshot, 12 week of 2017) 56.5% of Gemany's grid is on fossil and only 16.9% is on solar/wind.

    German_Power_Mix.jpg

    Germany has a surplus (not a short fall as you said) of capacity. They haven't been a net importer of power since 2002.

    Germany's overall energy situation is another case of what tonto11 has correctly brought up several times. (Which you blew-off.)
    (I've brought it up as well but my comments weren't region specific.)
    Essentially they are in the same boat as regions of Australia and Canada pointed out by tonto 11 earlier.
    All three are shooting holes in the bottom of their own boats. - Not too bright.

    (Rehash)
    Basically - Solar and Wind are expensive and not practical, especially on a large scale.
    Neither is reliable enough to use for a grid without a substantial backup supply.
    (Which means for the foreseeable future substantial fossil and/or nuclear capacity must be present as well.)

    Since when are back-up power plants in hot-standby (in case of no wind or no sun) or running at low output (to make room for more expensive generation) cost effective?
    All that does is drive power costs up.
    (Coal and Nuclear are both steam plants. They must observe heat-up rates to prevent cracking boilers, vessels and pipes. It takes 24-48 hours to take a Nuke plant from cold-shutdown to hot operation. I imagine coal plants take around 12-24 hours. (Fewer start-up checks.) Thus a cold-shutdown plant is useless for a backup to wind/solar. At minimum backup plant must be kept in hot-shutdown or hot-standby which essentially uses energy without producing power. Horrible for overall grid efficiency - and costs.)

    Germany is driving their energy costs up and they are losing their competitiveness in International markets because of it.
    Germany_Costs.jpg
    It takes x-many watts to make some gadget. If your watts cost more then someone else can make it cheaper and they get the sale.

    If you read anything RECENT about Energiewende it was essentially put on hold mid-late 2016 and they are (quietly) moving toward using more coal.
    By using more coal they aren't going to meet their 2020 carbon reduction commitments/promises & much touted glorious goals without crushing their own economy.
    And German CO2 emissions are rising, not falling.

    (2016) https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
    (2016) http://www.dw.com/en/german-cabinet-puts-brakes-on-clean-energy-transition/a-19318942
    (2016) https://www.theguardian.com/environ...erman-states-to-regulate-green-energy-rollout
    (2017) https://energytransition.org/2017/03/germany-to-miss-2020-carbon-reduction-targets-by-a-mile/
    (2017) http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/03/17/green-germanys-emissions-keep-rising/
    (2017) http://www.environmentalprogress.or...r-second-year-in-a-row-due-to-nuclear-closure

    All of that pain, effort and self destruction is laughable because - CO2 does not drive Temp anyway.
    Germany is screwing their own economy for NOTHING.
    - Gorski obviously thinks that's smart and worthy of applause.
    .
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1006 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    Someone that recently posted a link to something they think is science that says HEAT FALLS is going to tell me about caution and how hard science works.

    It's very clear that you have no idea about how the hard sciences work.
    - And you are the last one that should calling someone else out for being arrogant.

    Frankly in this and other threads you've concluded that I'm a Caucasian Conservative which makes me doubt your soft science (social studies) skills as well.
    I venture the lizards that run around in my yard are more worldly and intuative than you.

    I completed college courses in Chemistry, Geology and Biology - 2.5 years of college before going into the NNP program.
    Once working in the Nuc Engineering field I worked directly with Scientists fairly often. It comes with the job in a nuke plant.
    Your hard science prowess is all in your own imagination.
    EASY for anyone that's actually been in the "scientific scene" (your words) to see you are clueless.

    A hypothesis in hard science is not the same as one in philosophy (including scientific philosophy) and that you clearly don't know there is a difference is further evidence that you know the basics of hard science.
    Hard science is about data (numbers). If there are no numbers (empirical data) it's not hard science.
    -------------

    You are wrong. - That is a philosophy thing or theoretical sciences, but those are not hard science.

    Hard science has one absolute answer, that answer is "NO".
    As in "No, your hypothesis does not work. It is false. It is disproved."
    There is no such thing as "Yes, your hypothesis is true". Does no exist in hard science.
    (Data or a test can be yes or no, but not a hypothesis.)

    Clearly you haven't figured out that hard science is all about criticizing. - That's how it works by design.
    Trying to prove something is true (which is all I see you doing here) is not hard science.
    In hard science a hypothesis is either "not disproved" or "disproved". There is no "proved".
    (The first few steps of proper Scientific Method.)
    This is the stripped down basic/core (traditional/orthodox if you want) version taught in colleges. (And in high schools here...)
    - You find a question needing an answer. (Often about an observed phenomena.)
    - You check if it has already been answered. - If not continue.
    - You form a falsifiable hypothesis to explain it. (A claimed explanation which must be testable (falsifiable) or the hypothesis is not valid.)
    (A scientific hypothesis is generally an "If - Then". "If" 'this' - "then" the data will be 'this'.)
    - You test the hypothesis by way of verifiable (reproducible) experiments/research that produce measurable data. (Numbers.).
    (Tests can either look at existing data or generate new data by way of studies and/or experiments.)

    If the resulting data IS as predicted by the hypothesis then the hypothesis is "not disproved".
    (This leaves the door open for later tests/experiments by you or others to disprove it later with other data/experiments.)
    If the resulting data is NOT as predicted by the hypothesis then the hypothesis is "disproved".

    Disproved is ABSOLUTE.
    At that point you must start over with a new hypothesis. Your old one is dead, done, over.
    (This is not to say that the new one can't be derived from the old one, but the old one as it was is dead.)

    It only takes *ONE* "NO" to reject a hypothesis. (The Alarmist camp ignores this rule.)
    If you want to continue looking for an answer post rejection you need a new/different hypothesis. (Alarmists ignore this rule too.)
    - This is why it is said the Alarmists are using "Bad Science" or "Pseudoscience". - And the statement is accurate.

    The key word I use is "DRIVE". (Drive is not the same as affect.)
    The hypothesis that "CO2 *drives* Earth's Temperature" has failed many tests.
    The hypothesis should have been discarded long ago but ignorant politicians (with lots of money) money grubbing pseudo-scientists & ignorant News Media keep it alive.

    When the Vostok Ice Core data (came out in 1999 IIRC) it showed CO2 rising sharply for 6000 years while Earth's Temp was essentially stable for the entire 6000 year period.
    (And temp fell for a few 1000 years afterwards.)
    So 6000 years of rising CO2 did not cause a rise Earth's Temp at all for 8000 years.
    -- And the "CO2 drives Temp" based hypothesis are all CLEARLY FALSE.

    Vostok Ice Core data. - Plot by NOAA. - Most recent 50k years screenshot and zoomed.
    Recent_Last_15k_(6k-CO2)_C.JPG

    That is not opinion.
    It is quantifiable empirical per-reviewed DATA (numbers) that says CO2 does not drive Earth's Temp.


    Further it is confirmed false by way of examining other Ice Core datasets, including those from the Northern hemisphere.
    That meets the verifiable (reproducible) requirement.
    The alarmist's "CO2 drives Temp" hypothesis is shown false in BOTH the North and South hemispheres.

    - But there are more "no's".
    The next shows periods of time MILLIONS of years long where CO2 was consistently rising (often sharply) and Temp was stable or did the exact opposite.
    In once case CO2 was >4000ppm and rising and at the time an ice age began and lasted ~17 million years.
    Also note that for 78% of the last 600 million years CO2 was >1000ppm (> it's max effect on temp) yet temp rose and fell even at those CO2 levels.
    There are multiple "NO, CO2 does NOT *DRIVE* Temp" contained in the one plot/graphic.

    CO2_vs_Temp_Millions-Yrs_.JPG

    Thus the answer is an "absolute" - "NO, CO2 does NOT DRIVE Earth's Temp."
    The hypothesis is false. - Only takes ONE "no". - There are many "no's".

    None of your BS heckling, whining and isolated counter examples are going to change that. - Ever.

    You could show a million tests where the results say "not disproved".
    ONE "disproved" trumps all of them. Hard Science works that way by design.
    Those are the rules for hard science. If you don't like them get a new hobby.

    Further:
    Any hypothesis based on one that was shown false is irrelevant. (The "If" statement is False whatever follows is too.)
    In other-words if the fundamental/foundation argument is false (and it is) then anything that comes after is irrelevant.
    - The rules of hard science don't allow such arguments.
    A hypothesis that says GW is causing polar ice to melt may or may not be false. (Is not claiming CO2 drives Temp.)
    A hypothesis that says CO2 is driving Temp causing (GW or the polar ice to melt) is irrelevant/bogus. (Does not follow the rules.)

    I (or anyone else) can summarize all of the above with one simple statement.
    "CO2 does not *DRIVE* (Earth's) Temp."
    (And it hasn't for at least 600 million years.)

    Additionally ALL the Climate Models (which are essentially hypothesis that say "we can predict climate change") to date have failed every test.
    The expected data does not match the actual data 100 out of 100 times. (numbers)
    - That should have been expected because thus far we can't even consistently predict next week's or next month's weather.
    - Until we can get next week and next month predictions right predicting over decades is a complete waste of time.

    -----

    Interestingly I recently watched a video by a real live scientist (at this point I don't think gorski has ever seen one) that covered these same topics.
    (Including a little on Germany.)
    As evidenced by the fact you (gorski) clearly didn't read (or comprehend) the info in tonto11's earlier link you probably won't watch anyway....
    ... But others might gain from it. (And they will see just how silly your unfounded opinions really are.)

    Speaker - Professor John Christy - PhD. in Atmospheric Sciences. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
    Director, Earth System Science Center, University Alabama Huntsville.
    Alabama State Climatologist.
    Multiple per reviewed papers.
    Former IPCC Lead Author. (Listed by the IPCC as with the 'consensus' - but he's always been a denier.)
    Has testified before Congress regarding climate change as well as before several State legislatures and in Court.


    Code:
    Video link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttNg1F7T0Y0
    Acquire popcorn or tasty treats. It's a little over an hour.
    -----
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    #1007 gorski, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    Thank you, God!

    Only you could single handedly defeat all those scientific defeatists who "think" we actually have some responsibility for our own actions...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1008 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    As I expected, you didn't watch the video.

    I haven't single handedly done anything - except show long published empirical data produced by scientists.

    We do have responsibility for our own actions.
    The alarmists actions are to raise the cost of energy for NO GOOD REASON. (CO2 does not drive temp.)
    - Destroys economies.
    - Virtually everything becomes more expensive - for no good reason.
    - The poor are forced to make a choices between gasoline to get to work (or energy to heat their home) and food or health care.
    (One of the Alarmists goals is apparently to keep the underdeveloped countries poor and underdeveloped.)

    Unlike yourself and other inept Alarmists, I don't consider those good things.
    .
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Scientists? Interesting...

    But it is really good to know that the all knowing, all seeing, truly caring God is watching over us and letting us know which "scientists" are kosher... (Yum!)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. emk810

    emk810 MDL Member

    May 12, 2016
    149
    295
    10
  11. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1011 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    It's quite simple. I've already explained it despite that a 12 year could figure it out.
    Interesting that you can't figure it out.

    Also as I said, hard science is all about criticizing.
    You don't 'prove' things, You disprove them.

    For instance your choice in scientists, the ones that claimed (hypothesized) that HEAT FALLS, clearly are not "Kosher".
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. Joe C

    Joe C MDL Guru

    Jan 12, 2012
    3,522
    2,093
    120
    for the sake of humanity please do not get gorsky started on Jewish things
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. PCBONEZ

    PCBONEZ MDL Member

    Mar 10, 2012
    116
    35
    10
    #1013 PCBONEZ, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    I didn't bring Gods and "kosher" up, he did.
    Interesting that he keeps falling back on religious terms for something he "believes" that has been shown false by empirical data.

    The AGW hypothesis that CO2 drives temp was disproved by analysis of the Vostok Ice Core data which was released in 1999.

    Not quite 2 DECADES later and people still "believe" that CO2 drives temp.
    - No wonder they call AGW alarmism a religion.
    .
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. TheAncient

    TheAncient MDL Novice

    Feb 14, 2017
    5
    0
    0
    Bjerknes Lecture at American Geophysical Union Fall meeting 2009
    The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History - Dr Richard Alley
    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    sea ice 1128-2003.jpg


    For almost 500 million years global temperature and CO2 have moved in step with each other. Of course you have to take account of the sun's change in output over such a long timescale (a fact well known to astrophysicists).

    Phanerozoic_Forcing.gif

    Every major scientific body in the world, endorses man-made climate change. On the one side you've got best scientific minds in the world on the other you got a bunch of bloggers.

    The strange thing about denialists is even though they don't know what the cause of global warming is, they claim:

    Absolute unshakable certainty that whatever it is caused by, it must never be caused by anthropic CO2.
    And if it is CO2, it's only going to cause limited warming.
    And if it doesn't, that in any case there's going to be global cooling for the next 30 years so this is a good thing.
    And if that fails then its too late to do anything about it and in any case we can't afford to stop producing CO2.
    And if all else fails that it's a conspiracy by evil scientists.
     
  15. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Awwww, you are spoiling it now, PC was on a self-aggrandising roll... :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. emk810

    emk810 MDL Member

    May 12, 2016
    149
    295
    10
    #1017 emk810, Jun 3, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  18. emk810

    emk810 MDL Member

    May 12, 2016
    149
    295
    10
    Trump Didn’t Kill the Paris Agreement — It Was Already Dead

    Source: http://www.insidesources.com/trump-didnt-kill-paris-agreement-already-dead
     
  19. Palladin

    Palladin MDL Senior Member

    Feb 1, 2014
    476
    248
    10
    I wonder if anybody has done a study on the amount of nasty stuff that comes from active Volcanoes compared to the amount of nasty stuff we humans produce?

    There a lots of them and a some of them have been erupting for thousands of years.

    http://www.volcanolive.com/active2.html
     
  20. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...