IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

@rosborne979,

I agree with your assessment about CO2's and human activity.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im willing to accept the data without preconditions. Let the evidence commence!

Me too. What are we looking for evidence of again?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

We're looking for evidence that human activity (unspecified) is causing the earth to warm (unproven) via some mechanism (unknown) over which we the humans exercise some control. Try this, as good as any of the global-warmist theories:

Quote:

n a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.

"The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s,".....

......higher dose of space radiation. Robotic space probes and satellites in high Earth orbit face an increased risk of instrument malfunctions ... there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth

http://www.rightsidenews.com/images/stories/september2008/energy_and_environment092008/nasa/electrons.jpg

If any human activity is causing this, I hope some global-warmist will explain the causal links in a few easy steps.

1 Reply

Yes, it is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-at-the-poles-is-manmade-980256.html

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre, who took part in the modelling analysis, said: "In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences " natural forcings [increases] alone are not enough.

I really wish they would be more specific about how they "prove" stuff. The article repeated many times how they now have "proof that climate change is caused by human activity", but the single sentence above is the only explanation of how they got that proof.

And I hate to point this out, but their entire argument (their "proof") is based on the behavior of their models. So suppose their models are wrong?

I hate to be a skeptic, but any argument of proof is going to have to be more detailed than that. First of all, we already know for certain that a portion of global warming is due purely to natural cycles (the Ice Cores are clear), so any indication of human contributions will have to be phrased as a percentage of contribution to warming, not as an absolute. Until someone can say how much human activity is contributing to the already present baseline of natural warming, then they haven't really answered the question accurately enough.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Quote:
Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre, who took part in the modelling analysis, said: "In both polar regions the observed warming can only be reproduced in our models by including human influences " natural forcings [increases] alone are not enough.

This is actually a true, if hilariously funny, sentence! I'm a mathematical modeler and believe every word that Mr. Stott says about HIS mathematical models. The fault however may lie with the models he's using, and not with nature Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

The fault however may lie with the models he's using, and not with nature

Exactly my point.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas, Those graphgs you posted in Sept. I cannot, for the life of me , interpret their significance. CAn you help me?

My paleo data has given me another piece of data that stupfs the eye of anthropogenic GW. From, varves, lake core diatom and pollen studies, ice cores, laser ablated tree rings, and coral stratigraphy, we note that a "delayed" effect of CO2 is common to all of these sample clusters. That is, CO2 appears to be a consequence of temperature change, and apparently not a cause of it. This is constantly showing up in repeatable samplingsyet it seems to be counter to the dogma of man induced GW.

Im still an extreme skeptic and dont consider this "Settled sciuence" by any means.

High Seas, what sort of systems modelling do you do?.
We work with mostly FD andFE models for ground water flow and chemistry. However, we never try to use ourmodels in any forensic sense because calibration can induce certain arguments that compromise the ultimate outcome of the models.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman - modelling I do is usually for financial apps. As you know though the basic equations for processes in financial apps are shared by totally unrelated fields like supernovas or neural networks (brains, not forex derivatives).

As to the charts I posted, they were just an illustration of the orders of magnitude by which anything done by our star overwhelms anything done by us to affect our planet's temperature. I do worry a lot about heavy metals accumulations in the oceans, but I never once worried about increases in harmless gasses like CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you like to learn more on financial modelling, look up "andy lo", or "bob merton", both are tops in the field.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

PS this is an excellent overview of the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Mathematical-Modeling-Neil-Gershenfeld/dp/0521570956

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Thanks HS. I wasnt certain what those graphs were even telling me, and Im still not quite sure the comparable units or fields.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman - elementary honesty compels me to state that, the way things are going, the best macroeconomic real-time modeling may well by found in a non-mathematical publication:

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/U.S.article_0.jpg

Quote:

..............Portions of the nuclear and conventional weapons stockpile will also be for sale to the public.[...]... the weapons are of "much better quality than those of our former Soviet-bloc competitors."

The 50 states will be sold at auction, the date to be announced. [.]

"The U.S. government has been on shaky ground for some time, but I think all the fast-depreciating goods President Bush bought to keep it responsive and relevant in the 21st century really sealed its fate," [.....] "I don't see Canada, Japan, or Germany investing in thousands of airport X-ray screening machines. [Bush] will be lucky if he recoups even a tenth of what he paid for them."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_holds_going_out_of_business

0 Replies

Science prepares way for climate lawsuits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/oil-business-climate-change-flooding

0 Replies

Given that Global Warming has been happening for purely natural reasons (the ice core samples are pretty clear) over the last several thousand years (on average), what percentage of the warming that we've seen over the last hundred years, can be blamed on humans?

What I would like to understand is the relative contribution humans have made to the already natural warming trend.

Any answer which simply says that Global Warming is purely natural, or purely artificial, is inaccurate because there is obviously a combination of things pushing the warming trend.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

No. Climate change is 100% driven by the sun and by related plasma physics phenomena.

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Quote:

The draft UN report is clearly a pile of bullshit and its authors a collection of idiots.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

No. Climate change is 100% driven by the sun and by related plasma physics phenomena.

A certain percentage of Climate Change is natural. But it's not 100% natural.

What is the real percentage?

0 Replies

The UN report is unable to suggest a mass balance of any sources of derived CO2, let alone tagging it to human activity or not. Rich Alley of Penn State has recently changed his data support and is favoring that the CO2 footprint is "unmistakeably" human origined. I must read his work and learn how he got there before I go any farther. Alley has been a staunch supporter of CO2 as a "following indicator " and its souce coming from natural processes.

I havent changed my mind but I have to understand his points before I continue.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Since CO2 measurements have been recorded since the early 1800s, the trend line of CO2 would suggest that it's a normal increase based on natural causes rather than man-made. We don't have any record of CO2 measurements during the two ice ages, and how that compares to the current trends.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

we have lots of CO2 from times as long past as 800000 ybp. CO2 is incorporated in ice layers, lake deposits and in stalagmites as well as ocean sediments and corals. Anything that has an annualized (or at least cyclic) growth can be an accumulators of various gases. Tree rings would work but they disperse the CO2 into their cell walls and vascular systems. We do collect contaminants other than CO2 from tree rings though.

1 Reply

IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know