Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
Quote:
That kind of presumption stuff is exactly what you are doing when you presume human emissions of CO2 are the primary or even partial cause of global warming and other climate changes.

This statement of yours MIGHT have some validity if you can name the factors NOT included in the warming calculations. I look forward to your science. It is YOU that is NOT including factors. I can name several of them in the case of your statements. Name the factors NOT included in the IPCC reports conclusion on human being a significant contributor to warming.

NO! It's your turn now. You have too long delayed naming the factors that ARE included in the IPCC reports conclusion on humans being a significant contributor to warming.

I see. So, you can't provide anything they forgot.

Thanks for showing us your ignorance yet again.

Things they included but not limited to:
Solar radiation
MSU readings
land and sea temperature readings
adjustments for urbanization
changes in ocean levels
changes in permafrost
aerosols including sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and
dust
CO2 CH4 N2O and the reasons for their increase in atmospheric concentrations
cloud albedo effect
Contrails
Ozone
Water vapor
Surface albedo effect
halocarbons

So now that I have backed up my statement by naming several of them that they included. Your turn. Name just one thing they didn't include that would possibly account for the warming that isn't caused by humans.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
That kind of presumption stuff is exactly what you are doing when you presume human emissions of CO2 are the primary or even partial cause of global warming and other climate changes.

This statement of yours MIGHT have some validity if you can name the factors NOT included in the warming calculations. I look forward to your science. It is YOU that is NOT including factors. I can name several of them in the case of your statements. Name the factors NOT included in the IPCC reports conclusion on human being a significant contributor to warming.

NO! It's your turn now. You have too long delayed naming the factors that ARE included in the IPCC reports conclusion on humans being a significant contributor to warming.
...
Things they included but not limited to:
Solar radiation
MSU readings
land and sea temperature readings
adjustments for urbanization
changes in ocean levels
changes in permafrost
aerosols including sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and
dust
CO2 CH4 N2O and the reasons for their increase in atmospheric concentrations
cloud albedo effect
Contrails
Ozone
Water vapor
Surface albedo effect
halocarbons

ican711nm wrote:

You have too long delayed naming the factors that ARE included in the IPCC report conclusion on humans being a significant contributor to warming.

Factors that YOU allege are factors that ARE included in the IPCC report conclusion on humans being a significant contributor to warming:

Solar radiation NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

MSU readings NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

land and sea temperature readings NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

adjustments for urbanization NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

changes in ocean levels NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

changes in permafrost NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

aerosols including sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

CO2 CH4 N2O and the reasons for their increase in atmospheric concentrations YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

cloud albedo effect NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Contrails YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

Ozone NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Water vapor NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Surface albedo effect NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

halocarbons YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.
---
There is NO conclusive evidence in the IPCC report that humans are making anything more than a TRIVIAL contribution to global warming.

0 Replies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
Carbon's ocean sink

Quote:

Oceans
Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[6] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans
Carbon in the Ocean

Quote:

In the oceans
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date[22]." Generally, gas solubility decreases with water temperature. Accordingly carbon dioxide is released from ocean water into the atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Factors that YOU allege are factors that ARE included in the IPCC report conclusion on humans being a significant contributor to warming:

Solar radiation NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Not a result of humans but we can demonstrate how much it actually contributes and it contributes less than the human factors do.

Quote:

MSU readings NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

land and sea temperature readings NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

No, but a factor that shows what warming is actually occuring. Without those factors you can't do anything when it comes to showing warming or cooling.

Quote:

adjustments for urbanization NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

No but a necessary adjustment to do accurate measurements.

Quote:

changes in ocean levels NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

changes in permafrost NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Factors that show warming is occuring. Evidence is evidence. This is to show that they provide a hell of a lot more evidence than you do.

Quote:

aerosols including sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

No, it actually contributes to cooling. But is a much smaller factor than the warming humans contribute to.

Quote:

CO2 CH4 N2O and the reasons for their increase in atmospheric concentrations YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

Oh? please provide your evidence of how much these gases contribute to warming. Simply declaring it is NOT a significant factor does not make it so. Human contributions make up 5.53% of these gases in the atmosphere. When you are talking an increase of .3% in overall temperature from 0Kelvin then 5.53% isn't a small quantity at all.

Quote:

cloud albedo effect NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Are you sure? Did you bother to read the IPCC before you made such a statement? aerosols actually contribute to cloud cover.

Quote:

Contrails YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming.

.03C increase is figured as their addition. We add it to the others caused by humans.

Quote:

Ozone NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Water vapor NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

A factor that must be included to do accurate measures of what humans contribute.

Quote:

Surface albedo effect NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming."

Really? So humans don't affect albedo by changing our environment? The change in albedo from humans may have an increase of only a few tenths of a degree but if we have to account for urbanization effect it is because humans DO change the albedo with black top.

Quote:

halocarbons YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming. Perhaps not but when you add up all the "not significant" contributions you do end up with something significant. Its called addition ican. Something you don't seem to understand.
---

I included factors that the IPCC uses. Since the factors that you claim are NOT human induced can NOT account for all the warming that means that what is left can only come from human causes.
There is NO conclusive evidence in the IPCC report that humans are making anything more than a TRIVIAL contribution to global warming.[/quote]
You discount the IPCC report but you don't even know what is in it. it is just your typical bull ****.

I asked you to list the things not included. I asked for a very real reason. You can't figure the human contributions until you figure the non human ones. You have done nothing but claim everything is insignificant. All of them are insignificant on their own but added together they start to add up and you MUST add them together or you are doing nothing but spinning bull **** which is what you always do.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
Carbon's ocean sink

Quote:
Oceans
Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[6] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans
Carbon in the Ocean

Quote:
In the oceans
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date[22]." Generally, gas solubility decreases with water temperature. Accordingly carbon dioxide is released from ocean water into the atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise.

Yes, and? I see no evidence from you of how much CO2 the oceans are actually putting out. We have solid evidence of the CO2 that humans are contributing. Your argument is contradictory since at one point you claim the oceans are absorbing extra CO2 because they have storage capacity and in the next breath you claim they are putting out CO2 because they beyond their storage capacity.

Humans put out X CO2 per year.
The CO2 in the atmosphere goes up Y every year.
Y is less than X.
Before humans put out X, the CO2 in the atmosphere was constant.
The oceans absorb X-Y. The extra CO2 is NOT absorbed. Where does that CO2 come from? The oceans absorb Z in CO2 every year. They now absorb Z+X-Y. Where does Y come from? It doesn't come from the oceans since the oceans still absorb more than Z.

0 Replies

Whether it is a matter of oceans putting out CO2, or a matter of the ability to absorb as part of the cycle, the effect would be the same, would it not, Parados. Isn't the seasonal highs and lows of CO2 in the atmosphere perhaps tied to ocean temperatures?

0 Replies

Quote:

Global Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Estimates for the Base Period 1901 to 2000

Land Surface
Mean Temp.
1901 to 2000 (°C)

J= 2.8

F= 3.2

M= 5.0

A= 8.1

M= 11.1

J= 13.3

J= 14.3

A= 13.8

S= 12.0

O= 9.3

N= 5.9

D= 3.7

Annual= 8.5

Sea Surface
Mean Temp.

1901 to 2000 (°C)

J= 15.8

F= 15.9

M= 15.9

A= 16.0

M= 16.3

J= 16.4

J= 16.4

A= 16.4

S= 16.2

O= 15.9

N= 15.8

D= 15.7

Annual= 16.1

Combined Mean
Surface Temp.

1901 to 2000 (°C)

J= 12.0

F= 12.1

M= 12.7

A= 13.7

M= 14.8

J= 15.5

J= 15.8

A= 15.6

S= 15.0

O= 14.0

N= 12.9

D= 12.2

Annual= 13.9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erratum: Please note that prior to 26 June 2000, the mean values added to the land and ocean anomalies were incorrect. These data are now correct. Analysis of trends in the time series would not be impacted by this error since the error involved adding a constant to the entire period of record.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Whether it is a matter of oceans putting out CO2, or a matter of the ability to absorb as part of the cycle, the effect would be the same, would it not, Parados. Isn't the seasonal highs and lows of CO2 in the atmosphere perhaps tied to ocean temperatures?

No, it is tied to summer. Plants my child, plants.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
I included factors that the IPCC uses. Since the factors that you claim are NOT human induced can NOT account for all the warming that means that what is left can only come from human causes.

ILLOGICAL! Obviously, what is left can come from anything including human causes.
...
I asked you to list the things not included. I asked for a very real reason. You can't figure the human contributions until you figure the non human ones.

AGREE!

You have done nothing but claim everything is insignificant.

FALSE! I said: NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming," or I said YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming. I did not "claim everything is insignificant."

All of them are insignificant on their own but added together they start to add up and you MUST add them together

AGREE!

...

0 Replies

By bringing up the CO2 cycle in the oceans ican, can we assume that you are now admitting that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warming?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

By bringing up the CO2 cycle in the oceans ican, can we assume that you are now admitting that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warming?

Or the other question is, does warming in the atmosphere contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere that exacerbates the warming? There is every bit as much reason to believe that as there is to believe that CO2 came first.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

By bringing up the CO2 cycle in the oceans ican, can we assume that you are now admitting that CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warming?

That has never been my issue. Of course, there is O2, N2, CO2, H2O, N2O et cetera in the atmosphere. Of course, the CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to warming.

I have persistently claimed that the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the Ocean. The warmer the ocean the more CO2 is evaporated from the ocean. And that the temperature of the Ocean is mostly affected by the sun's radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans
Carbon in the Ocean

Quote:

In the oceans
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date[22]." Generally, gas solubility decreases with water temperature. Accordingly carbon dioxide is released from ocean water into the atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
Carbon's ocean sink

Quote:

Oceans
Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[6] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.

Solar Radiation Graphs

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies_png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/dec/glob-jan-dec-pg.gif

Temperature Graphs 1880-2005 Land & Ocean; Ocean; Land

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

...
I included factors that the IPCC uses. Since the factors that you claim are NOT human induced can NOT account for all the warming that means that what is left can only come from human causes.

ILLOGICAL! Obviously, what is left can come from anything including human causes.
...

No it can't come from anything. It has to come from somewhere that makes sense. Please provide your sensical other source for warming. I listed the sources that the IPCC lists. You need to provide one that they missed if you are convinced they missed sources. It would also be helpful if you could provide a source and the actual contribution this source that is not human would contribute to warming.

Quote:

I asked you to list the things not included. I asked for a very real reason. You can't figure the human contributions until you figure the non human ones.

AGREE!

So then you shoud be able to point us to the non human reasons for warming not factored in by the IPCC.

Quote:

You have done nothing but claim everything is insignificant.

FALSE! I said: NOT a factor demonstrating "humans being a significant contributor to warming," or I said YES a factor demonstrating humans being a contributor, but not a significant contributor, to warming. I did not "claim everything is insignificant."

Maybe you should leave my sentence in it's paragraph. Every factor associated with humans you claimed was not significant. Are you denying you did that now? Or are you claiming that not significant is different from insignificant. Your attempt to change my meaning by taking my sentence of of its context where "claim" clearly references the previous sentence is pathetic and childish.

Quote:

All of them are insignificant on their own but added together they start to add up and you MUST add them together

AGREE!

...

Since we add them together and they are significant then you have just admitted that humans are a significant contributor to warming.

0 Replies

Well ican,
If the warming of the ocean causes the ocean to discharge some of CO2 stored there then what happens to all the CO2 put into the air by humans?

The atmosphere is going up by LESS than what humans are putting out so where is all the human produce CO2 going? Your argument is making no sense until you can show where human CO2 goes OTHER than the ocean since the ocean is putting OUT more CO2 than it absorbs if warming by the sun is causing the ocean to put out CO2.

0 Replies

btw,

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-EPA-Mercury-Pollution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Judge smacks down 'cap-and-trade' bs pushed by the Bushies.

Why is it that their policies keep getting denied in court?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png

What a lovely chart that shows why 2007 is cooler than 1998. It has nothing to do with the earth cooling. It has to do with the sun putting out less radiation. But the sun's radation will go back up in 5 years then what happens to your specious claim about cooling continuing based on 1998-2007?

You keep contradicting your own claims ican. It is really quite funny the way you can't keep your arguments straight.

0 Replies

I have never seen any proof that CO2 drives temperature instead of the other way around. I don't believe there is a consensus on this at all. In fact, this is the entire argument, is it not?

0 Replies

Blatham
this subect ( jan 24 - 2005)
which you had drawn the attention of A2K members
is a topic which need much attention.

In cologne where i live i see the end-effect.

Let us not disturb the natural JUSTICE
Rama

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
I included factors that the IPCC uses. Since the factors that you claim are NOT human induced can NOT account for all the warming that means that what is left can only come from human causes.

...

Since we add them together and they are significant then you have just admitted that humans are a significant contributor to warming.

Study my above post on your own with care or get counseling to help you study it with care:
Posted: Fri 08 Feb, 2008 5:24 pm Post: 3085776

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I have never seen any proof that CO2 drives temperature instead of the other way around. I don't believe there is a consensus on this at all. In fact, this is the entire argument, is it not?

There is almost 150 years of science that shows that CO2 drives temperature. CO2 absorbs infrared. It heats up. The more CO2 the more infrared that is absorbed. It is simple to understand. Because you don't want to believe it doesn't make the science go away.

Tyndall, John (1861). "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by
Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94,
273-85.

Tyndall, John (1863). "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere."
Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.

Tyndall, John (1863). "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous
Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

Tyndall, John (1873). Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain
of Radiant Heat. New York: Appleton.

Tyndall, John (1873). "Further Researches on the Absorption and
Radiation of Heat by Gaseous Matter (1862)." In Contributions to
Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat pp. 69-121. New York:
Appleton.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know