"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

cnocbui

Jernal wrote: »

Hold a rock up in front of a light source. Light hitting it gets scattered in all directions. Similarly if you place rock particles, or in this case ash and volcanic aerosols, in the atmosphere incident radiation from the sun will get scattered in all directions. Due to the Earth being an oblate spheroid more heat radiation will be scattered back into the space than radiation that gets directed towards the earth's surface.* The net result being the particles contribute a cooling mechanism.

*If you have difficulty conceptualising this, imagine you can stand on a football with a flash light in your hand. Which is the bigger area that you could place the beam of the flash light inside? Anything that belongs to the ball, or anything that isn't part of the ball?

You have described why the output from volcanoes causes cooling. I have been perfectly well aware of the mechanism involved for some decades now since Carl Sagan used Mars an example to warn of the dangers of a nuclear winter in or around 1970.

My point was we are being asked by the prestidigitators to believe there is a miraculous mechanism delaying the effects of heating caused by CO2 - deep ocean sequestration of the heat being the current fairy story - Yet a cooling mechanism has a near instantaneous effect. In other words, continuing and increasing heat input is being magically masked, while a reduction in heat input has a sudden and profound effect.

FootShooter

Filibuster wrote: »

This is the same horse**** as "it is the hottest ever since records began". Pick an arbitary date that suits your agenda and suggest that is the level the climate should be consistent with. Ignore the solar cyce that is actually causing the climate to change.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/sea-level-rate-of-change-and-solar-cycles-510.jpg?w=640

Right. There is no evidence that shows the Sun is the main cause of the climate change we are experiencing today. The Sun is just one of many natural forcings. It was a large contributing factor to the warming before the 1950s when CO2 levels were still quite low. After that Sun activity has gone down, CO2 has gone up, and temperature has gone up. The Sun can not explain the rise in temperature since the 1950s. Saying "it's the Sun" displays a very large gap in what little knowledge you have about climate science.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/cosmic_temp.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Lean_Rind.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011639/abstract

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1387.abstract

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3585.1

FootShooter

cnocbui wrote: »

You have described why the output from volcanoes causes cooling. I have been perfectly well aware of the mechanism involved for some decades now since Carl Sagan used Mars an example to warn of the dangers of a nuclear winter in or around 1970.

My point was we are being asked by the prestidigitators to believe there is a miraculous mechanism delaying the effects of heating caused by CO2 - deep ocean sequestration of the heat being the current fairy story - Yet a cooling mechanism has a near instantaneous effect. In other words, continuing and increasing heat input is being magically masked, while a reduction in heat input has a sudden and profound effect.

The ocean accumulates over 90% of warming, that's been known for a long time. It's also known that there are several natural short-term variabilities that affect air temperature. So using anything shorter than a 30 year period to deduce any sort of long term trend in climate will result in mistakes because you can't filter out the short-term variabilities. Variabilities like La Nina and El Nino affect air temperatures. Since 1998 there have been 8 La Nina events which cause cooler air surface temperatures, and only a few El Nino events that have been weak. Usually the number of La Nina events would be half of that. Despite this, 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record and the temperature kept on rising indicating the strong effect of greenhouse gases. If the temperature rise continues to be not as fast as it was before 1998 for another 15 years, then you have an argument that climate change may be slowing down.

Of course there would be a difference between how fast a large volcano eruption affects temperature compared to a steady release of greenhouse gases. Volcanic eruptions are orders of magnitude bigger and faster, and they affect temperature with different mechanisms. Blocking the Sun out will have a more instantaneous effect on climate than trapping reflected long wave radiation.

Temptamperu

whether or not its cyclical or a human by product, the weather is heating up and ice is going to melt and oceans will rise so we need these scientists to work on it one way or the other.

Pushtrak

Temptamperu wrote: »

whether or not its cyclical or a human by product, the weather is heating up and ice is going to melt and oceans will rise so we need these scientists to work on it one way or the other.

We need more than that. We need politicians to give a crap. We need businesses to give a crap. We need people to give a crap.

hansfrei

Temptamperu wrote: »

whether or not its cyclical or a human by product, the weather is heating up and ice is going to melt and oceans will rise so we need these scientists to work on it one way or the other.

Ice caps are either going to decrease in size or increase in size? They're increasing now. Thats the problem. No one is making a clear case for climate.change.

FootShooter

FootShooter wrote: »

Yeah a point where human civilisation and maybe even human life will be impossible to sustain. If we use all of the estimated fossil fuels left, temperature may rise by an average of 20 C on land areas.

Of course this will take a very long time and we won't experience it so why bother with it. /s

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full

Well, that article fits into the alarmists category so.
Ignoring the negative feed back that is associated with rising temperatures, i.e. greater cloud cover blocking sunlight & reducing direct solar warming.

LordSutch

steddyeddy wrote: »

"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

"Global warming is real alright, but humans are only partially responsible"

The latter is a more reslistic and complete scientific statement IMO.

Thargor

hansfrei wrote: »

Ice caps are either going to decrease in size or increase in size? They're increasing now. Thats the problem. No one is making a clear case for climate.change.

No they're not, constant repetition of the same Daily Mail nonsense isnt going to make it true:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Not to mention basically every glacier on the planet shrinking, plus Greenland thawing out.

hansfrei

:pac:

Thargor wrote: »

No they're not, constant repetition of the same Daily Mail nonsense isnt going to make it true:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Not to mention basically every glacier on the planet shrinking, plus Greenland thawing out.

Lol.


Thats hilarious.

Thargor

hansfrei wrote: »

:pac:


Lol.


Thats hilarious.

Hilarious because you have evidence that its not happening? Feel free to post any actual evidence you have, or anything that contradicts the peer reviewed evidence in the original article that you found so funny.

Plenty of references at the bottom of this article, I really couldn't be bothered listing them for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

Hundreds of reports from Greenland aswell, again feel free to post any evidence you have that its not happening:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444772804577621470127844642

FootShooter

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, that article fits into the alarmists category so.
Ignoring the negative feed back that is associated with rising temperatures, i.e. greater cloud cover blocking sunlight & reducing direct solar warming.

The study is also not accounting for positive feedbacks which you just went ahead and ignored. The study is not about feedbacks, it's not actually ignoring them. Other studies take into account feedbacks, this is just the effect of human greenhouse gases as it clearly says.

Although there is still much unknown about the effect of feedbacks and their exact effect, climate science is pretty much settled that positive feedbacks have a greater effect than negative feedbacks. Estimates say that feedbacks will increase warming by 15% - 78% just this century. A large range I know, let's just hope it's in the lower of that range.

It's not even certain that clouds act as a negative feedback effect as you claim. It depends on the type of cloud, altitude, humidity and other factors whether it will have a net positive or negative effect on temperature.

Akrasia

hansfrei wrote: »

Ice caps are either going to decrease in size or increase in size? They're increasing now. Thats the problem. No one is making a clear case for climate.change.

Wrong
The ice caps are both losing ice mass. The people who told you that the ice caps are growing are lying.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, that article fits into the alarmists category so.
Ignoring the negative feed back that is associated with rising temperatures, i.e. greater cloud cover blocking sunlight & reducing direct solar warming.

The latest data show that increased cloud cover is actually a positive feedback. Clouds do reflect some light, but they also trap heat at night. The best data that we have now says that increased clouds lead to a warmer planet

hansfrei

Akrasia wrote: »

Wrong
The ice caps are both losing ice mass. The people who told you that the ice caps are growing are lying.

Course they are. Its all a big conspiracy. Last years arctic ice sheet was 950,000 miles square. At the same point this year it was 1.1m square miles.

Conspiracy theories forum ---->

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

The latest data show that increased cloud cover is actually a positive feedback. Clouds do reflect some light, but they also trap heat at night. The best data that we have now says that increased clouds lead to a warmer planet

Yes, clouds do increase the night time temperatures, but they reduce the daytime temperatures more, thus leaving less heat to be trapped the following night.

Red Nissan

We are leaving our current ice age and heading for a period of ice free state. The world has been ice free for longer in her history than in an ice age.

Ireland will become wetter, possibly tropical rainforest and the US will invade us for our water, mark my words.

You have been warned.

Red Nissan

Red Nissan wrote: »

We are leaving our current ice age and heading for a period of ice free state. The world has been ice free for longer in her history than in an ice age.

Ireland will become wetter, possibly tropical rainforest and the US will invade us for our water, mark my words.

You have been warned.

It won't be the US, it'll be the Arabs!

Daveysil15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, clouds do increase the night time temperatures, but they reduce the daytime temperatures more, thus leaving less heat to be trapped the following night.

We can speculate using 'common sense' till the cows come home, but when we use science, and input the data, the best answer we have so far is that more clouds = more heat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

FootShooter

hansfrei wrote: »

Course they are. Its all a big conspiracy. Last years arctic ice sheet was 950,000 miles square. At the same point this year it was 1.1m square miles.

Conspiracy theories forum ---->

Yesterday the temperature was 14 C. Today it's 15 C. Summer must be on it's way.

Akrasia

Daveysil15 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

I like George Carlin
He's funny.

He was very good at his job of being funny.

I also like Bill Hicks,he was funny too.

Bill Hicks made lots of jokes saying that smoking wasn't that bad for you. He died of lung cancer. He stopped smoking before he died but it was too late for him.

"Non smokers die every day" That's true Bill, but if you were a non smoker, you'd probably still be alive.

"Climate changes all by itself", that's also true, but it changes a lot more when we pump blazillions of tonnes of climate changing gasses into the atmosphere.......

We can quit polluting when we're dying of climate change cancer , but that's a bit too late...

And it's even worse than that. Smoking will 'probably' kill you when you're old after you've had your fun. Global warming will let you have lots of fun, but will kill your grandchildren

inocybe

Red Nissan wrote: »

We are leaving our current ice age and heading for a period of ice free state. The world has been ice free for longer in her history than in an ice age.

Ireland will become wetter, possibly tropical rainforest and the US will invade us for our water, mark my words.

You have been warned.

Winter is coming

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ice-age-interrupted

Thargor

More evidence against claims human contributions cant have any effect on the Earths climate:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060