| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 9:21 PM
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | When Munky says we don't need to conserve energy, then we know he's either paid by the oil industry or is a sell-out. So no matter what evidence you'll put out there, he will deny. The idiot is a total waste. |
My Niece and her husband are in this same state of denial. I'm fairly convinced neither of them are "sell-outs" or "paid by the oil industry". I really can’t figure why people such as these wish to deny the quite obvious conclusion that humans are affecting the global climate in a dramatic fashion. Could it be some sentimental attachment to the internal combustion engine? I really don’t get this.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 11:21 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MockingGods wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | When Munky says we don't need to conserve energy, then we know he's either paid by the oil industry or is a sell-out. So no matter what evidence you'll put out there, he will deny. The idiot is a total waste. |
My Niece and her husband are in this same state of denial. I'm fairly convinced neither of them are "sell-outs" or "paid by the oil industry". I really can’t figure why people such as these wish to deny the quite obvious conclusion that humans are affecting the global climate in a dramatic fashion. Could it be some sentimental attachment to the internal combustion engine? I really don’t get this. |
For some, it boils down to something as simple as laziness: if they would admit, they would be compelled to do something about, like put recycle waste in a different bin. That could ruin their potatocouch living style.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 11:21 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the NY Time, an article on research being conducted in Greenland:
| Quote: | Their last drilling project here, which was completed in 2004, focused on the layers 14,500 to 11,000 years ago. That project is already causing a stir in the climate community. In an article just published in the journal Science Express, Dahl-Jensen’s team wrote about how it had discovered from the ice cores that the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere over Greenland “changed abruptly” just as the last ice age ended around 11,700 years ago.
It seems to have been driven by a sudden change in monsoons in the tropics. The change was so abrupt that it warmed the Northern Hemisphere over Greenland by 10 degrees Celsius in just 50 years — a dramatic increase.
“It shows that our climate system has the ability to make very abrupt changes all by itself,” said Dahl-Jensen.
Some climate-change deniers would say that this proves that mankind is not important in changing the climate. Climate change experts, like Dahl-Jensen, say it’s not so simple: The climate is always changing, sometimes very abruptly, so the last thing that mankind should be doing is adding its own forcing actions — like pumping unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Because you never know — you never know — what will tip the balance and send us hurdling into another abrupt change ... and into another era. |
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03Friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 9:21 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe wrote: | | For some, it boils down to something as simple as laziness: if they would admit, they would be compelled to do something about, like put recycle waste in a different bin. That could ruin their potatocouch living style. |
Hmmm... I never looked at it from that perspective. You have a point here.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 9:21 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| munky99999 wrote: | Um... no I already said the department of energy from the USA just to state 1 source has proven that we account for very little of the increase. The increase has been significantly of natural reasons. Furthermore I have a fleeting feeling that you guys are nitpicking with this so as to avoid the argument that the CO2 and global warming relationship is a weak correlation.
Even if humans account for 100% of all co2 in the atmosphere... it means jack shit; so as long as CO2 is just correlative. |
It looks like their data is outdated. Again from the IPCC's 2007 Scientific Assessment...
| Quote: | IV. Trends and Projections of Global Environmental Change
The greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) persist in
the atmosphere for decades to centuries to longer periods. As such, their emission has long-term
impacts on climate. The combined radiative forcing due to the cumulative increase (from 1750 to
2005) in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O is +2.30 W/m2, with an uncertainty
range of +2.07 to +2.53 W/m2. The observed accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is
primarily from human activities, and as such, the positive radiative forcing from these gases is
primarily anthropogenic in origin as well. The IPCC (2007d) stated that the rate of increase in
positive radiative forcing due to these three greenhouse gases during the industrial era is very
likely (greater than 90% probability) to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.
The largest positive radiative forcing is due to CO2 (+1.66 ± 0.17 W/m2), and the trend for the
radiative forcing from CO2 is increasing. The period from 1995 to 2005 showed a 20% increase
in its radiative forcing—the largest change for any decade in the last 200 years. The IPCC
concluded, “Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change on
plant and soil carbon are the primary sources of increased atmospheric CO2” (Solomon et al.,
2007). |
Bolding mine.
A graph in the same section shows the data as
Net Natural Radiative forcing at .12 [0.06 to .3]
Net Anthropogenic Radiative forcing at 1.6 [0.6 to 2.4]
This graph clearly shows anthropogenic radiative forcing to be around 10 times that of natural, and the primary raditive forcing agent is CO2 at 1.66 [1.49 to 1.83].
Edit: This study didn't take into account volcanic aerosols because of their sporadic nature, so the actual anthropogenic radiative forcing may be closer to only 5 times that of natural radiative forcing, as shown in the study below. Even so, anthropogenic radiative forcing comprises the majority of the total, at least 80 percent.
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home
Last edited by MockingGods on Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MockingGods
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 3909
Local time: 9:21 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More information directly from the IPCC
| Quote: | Radiative forcing (RF)1 is a concept used for quantitative
comparisons of the strength of different human and natural
agents in causing climate change. Climate model studies since
the Working Group I Third Assessment Report (TAR; IPCC,
2001) give medium confidence that the equilibrium global mean
temperature response to a given RF is approximately the same
(to within 25%) for most drivers of climate change.
For the first time, the combined RF for all anthropogenic
agents is derived. Estimates are also made for the first time of
the separate RF components associated with the emissions of
each agent.
The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6
[–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely
likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming
influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least
five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For
the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the
combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol)
has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined
anthropogenic RF.
Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse
gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6); hereinafter
LLGHGs) have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m–2.
Their RF has a high level of scientific understanding. The 9%
increase in this RF since the TAR is the result of concentration
changes since 1998.
— The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379
ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2. Past emissions
of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed
about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder
caused by land use changes. For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the
growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr–1 and the
CO2 RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed
or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years. From
1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement
production increased at a rate of roughly 3% yr–1. |
_________________
Atheism... Evolving beyond superstition
Proud to support seti@home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
