Global Warming

[Naru523]

It was only a joke.

[atomic7732]

Fake too.
Every single chart and thing you throw at me, it's fake.

You claims are hypocritical. You are looking at the first charts you see, and then "Know" they are true. How do you know they aren't the ones that are false. And if you say NASA lies, I wonder why you don't believe that we have ever been to the Moon? Or sent robots to mars. maybe they are editing images? Huh? Ever think about that?

Wait, please hesitate to answer.

I think not.

[Laura]

Well, you started it in my thread about something completely different, so here I am 
Deoxy... your stance is just silly. It's creationist-evolution-denial-silly.
It HAS been getting warmer. What remains debatable isn't that, but rather exactly WHY it's getting warmer. Most notably, is it mainly our fault or not. It's debatable because the current climate models are still far from taking everything into account, and as the saying goes 'Garbage in, garbage out".
There are cutting edge climate theories that are not taken into account, such as the variation in cloud cover (and thereby albedo) due to the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere. Cosmic rays - the kind from distant supernovae and other highly energetic events out there - ionize the upper atmosphere, creating particles which eventually drift down and become droplet formation cores, leading to more clouds. Lower amounts of cosmic rays = less cloud formation = lower albedo = warming climate. The amount of cosmic rays is fairly steady in and of itself, but is influenced by solar activity. The solar wind deflects them. So, when solar activity is low, more clouds form, and vice versa. The solar wind itself is a plasma, so it doesn't do the same job; plasma follows the magnetic field of the Earth and only enters the atmosphere near the poles.
That's just one of the mechanisms not taken into account by current climate models, which only deal with solar activity variations insofar as pertains to direct energy output, which of course does cause modest warming.
Another thing, that arguably is our fault, is dark particulate matter lowering the albedo of icecaps - although it has nothing to do with CO₂.
There's also the interesting fact that ice core and geological evidence of past warming periods also shows a steep increase of CO₂, so it should come as no surprise that we're seeing one now as it gets warmer. Warm water simply isn't as good at dissolving it as colder water is, and so it is released from the oceans in staggering quantities.
It all has to be in the computer models to be able to forecast anything with any sort of accuracy, and it isn't, because some of the science is so new that the effects have not yet been exactly quantified. Instead, it gets left out completely.

Current global warming theory, as represented by the IPCC, has unfortunately become something of a pseudo-religious movement and a political hot potato. Gainsaying, however sober and scientific, has become a kind of heresy. People risk being shunned. Scientists risk their tenures. Many do not have the necessary courage of their convictions, and who can blame them; researchers have to eat, too.
The easiest way to grant money nowadays is through researching whatever in the light of global warming (as presented by the IPCC consensus).
For a politician, it is a serious obstacle to success if alternative views on global warming are voiced. Well, except in certain areas of mid-western USA
Science should never be a matter of belief or politics. Science thrives on disagreement - not consensus.
A theory is never supposed to be absolute truth. That is the realm of religion, not science.
Alas, the IPCC brand of global warming theory is treated as absolute gospel truth.
It's not a conspiracy, but it has taken on a life of its own and has become counterproductive to any scientific research going in a different direction.

EDIT: It's worth noting that it actually hasn't been getting warmer for about a decade, and now there seems to be a cooling trend. The regular 11 year solar activity cycle is still delayed. According to it, we're due for a solar maximum in 2012, and the Sun should have been observed ramping up its activity for several years now. That didn't happen. It remains at solar minimum conditions. Most of the time there are no sunspots at all, and when a few appear, they are very small. Right now, it's 43 days since a single spot was observed. Should this continue for decades (in what is known as a Maunder minimum) - which it has done in the past - global cooling will become our next problem.

[deoxy99]

Well, you started it in my thread about something completely different, so here I am 
Deoxy... your stance is just silly. It's creationist-evolution-denial-silly.
It HAS been getting warmer. What remains debatable isn't that, but rather exactly WHY it's getting warmer. Most notably, is it mainly our fault or not. It's debatable because the current climate models are still far from taking everything into account, and as the saying goes 'Garbage in, garbage out".
There are cutting edge climate theories that are not taken into account, such as the variation in cloud cover (and thereby albedo) due to the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere. Cosmic rays - the kind from distant supernovae and other highly energetic events out there - ionize the upper atmosphere, creating particles which eventually drift down and become droplet formation cores, leading to more clouds. Lower amounts of cosmic rays = less cloud formation = lower albedo = warming climate. The amount of cosmic rays is fairly steady in and of itself, but is influenced by solar activity. The solar wind deflects them. So, when solar activity is low, more clouds form, and vice versa. The solar wind itself is a plasma, so it doesn't do the same job; plasma follows the magnetic field of the Earth and only enters the atmosphere near the poles.
That's just one of the mechanisms not taken into account by current climate models, which only deal with solar activity variations insofar as pertains to direct energy output, which of course does cause modest warming.
Another thing, that arguably is our fault, is dark particulate matter lowering the albedo of icecaps - although it has nothing to do with CO₂.
There's also the interesting fact that ice core and geological evidence of past warming periods also shows a steep increase of CO₂, so it should come as no surprise that we're seeing one now as it gets warmer. Warm water simply isn't as good at dissolving it as colder water is, and so it is released from the oceans in staggering quantities.
It all has to be in the computer models to be able to forecast anything with any sort of accuracy, and it isn't, because some of the science is so new that the effects have not yet been exactly quantified. Instead, it gets left out completely.

Current global warming theory, as represented by the IPCC, has unfortunately become something of a pseudo-religious movement and a political hot potato. Gainsaying, however sober and scientific, has become a kind of heresy. People risk being shunned. Scientists risk their tenures. Many do not have the necessary courage of their convictions, and who can blame them; researchers have to eat, too.
The easiest way to grant money nowadays is through researching whatever in the light of global warming (as presented by the IPCC consensus).
For a politician, it is a serious obstacle to success if alternative views on global warming are voiced. Well, except in certain areas of mid-western USA
Science should never be a matter of belief or politics. Science thrives on disagreement - not consensus.
A theory is never supposed to be absolute truth. That is the realm of religion, not science.
Alas, the IPCC brand of global warming theory is treated as absolute gospel truth.
It's not a conspiracy, but it has taken on a life of its own and has become counterproductive to any scientific research going in a different direction.

EDIT: It's worth noting that it actually hasn't been getting warmer for about a decade, and now there seems to be a cooling trend. The regular 11 year solar activity cycle is still delayed. According to it, we're due for a solar maximum in 2012, and the Sun should have been observed ramping up its activity for several years now. That didn't happen. It remains at solar minimum conditions. Most of the time there are no sunspots at all, and when a few appear, they are very small. Right now, it's 43 days since a single spot was observed. Should this continue for decades (in what is known as a Maunder minimum) - which it has done in the past - global cooling will become our next problem.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! TOO LONG FOR ME TO READ, SO I'LL IGNORE IT!

[atomic7732]

Hehehe... That's what you always do. If you can ignore it, it no longer exists, it is done, and you don't care. That's a problem. Also, that's a problem if you don't like reading.

[deoxy99]

Hehehe... That's what you always do. If you can ignore it, it no longer exists, it is done, and you don't care. That's a problem. Also, that's a problem if you don't like reading.

I don't like reading hard text.

[Bla]

I don't like reading hard text.

Summary:
- Your denial of global warming is as silly as it would be to deny evolution, according to Laura.
- It has been getting warmer, but it is debateable why.
- It is extremely hard to take everything into account in a climate model.
- Some people and IPCC have gained an unhealthy, unscientific, more like religious, view on global warming, thinking of it as an absolute truth. It is important that Science can go in any direction and stay neutral.

I'd say that your view on global warming reminds me very much of a religious view. It is unscientific not to look at the evidence, but accept the first thing you see an deny everything that contradicts it after. That's why indoctrination is so easy, because it was beneficial for children not to have to consider whether they should follow what their parents told them or not, especially a few thousand years ago. But this can also be dangerous, when you follow false things blindly.

[Laura]

That's why indoctrination is so easy, because it was beneficial for children not to have to consider whether they should follow what their parents told them or not, especially a few thousand years ago. But this can also be dangerous, when you follow false things blindly.

Indeed. That is the sole reason why religion is so effective.

[deoxy99]

You know what? I HATE THIS STUPID ARGUMENT! I AM GETTING SO TIRED OF IT!

[atomic7732]

Don't reply then. It's quite simple.

[Dan Dixon]

Why make something about Global Warming if it's not real?

I don't know why you think this. Perhaps you don't want global warming to be true, because it's so sad.

Just because you wish something was true doesn't make it true. I wish global warming wasn't true, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence shows that the Earth is warming.

http://universesandbox.com/blog/2010/03/our-world-is-warming/

[deoxy99]

All charts can be modified by hackers. So I don't believe them.

[atomic7732]

Same as with all charts can be faked to look against global warming. You can't blame it on one side, just as one person or stereotype shouldn't make it be all *wink wink nudge nudge punch punch* jk about the punch

[Dan Dixon]

This is an interesting video about Global Warming:

What We Know about Climate Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas

[Dan Dixon]

And apparently Wolfram Alpha is in on the conspiracy too:
http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2010/06/03/computing-climate-data-from-around-the-globe/

(sarcasm)

[Laura]

Why make something about Global Warming if it's not real?

I don't know why you think this. Perhaps you don't want global warming to be true, because it's so sad.

It certain that there has been warming. It's also certain that during the period of rapid industrial growth from the 40's to the 70's, there was considerable cooling even as greenhouse gas emissions increased steeply. This suggests there's another factor (or several factors) at work that has nothing to do with, and is much stronger than, human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The scientific thing to do would be to admit that we have a poor understanding of what causes the warming this time around. There are too many unknowns, and the probability of error in predictions is high. The farther predictions are projected forward in time, the greater the error will be. It is not good science to say "This is how it'll be in 100 years" when the model is so incomplete. It's alright to fiddle with prediction, of course, but the statement should be "This is how it may be in 100 years, if our models are 100% correct, which they are not.".
Now, the scientists may actually be saying just that but that's not what gets conveyed to the general public through the media. The media likes to simplify things and to create sensation. Doom is always good for ratings.
There's also a cultural aspect to this. The global warming 'religion' that has sprung up bears all the hallmarks of a christian way of understanding the world; we commit sin, and we are punished. We always feel the need to blame ourselves (or other people) for all the ills of the world. This is how a field of science which is very far from complete, through the political body that is the IPCC, has been given a Vatican-like authority.
The scientific hypothesis that human emissions of CO₂ affect the climate so significantly is not yet a theory. Rather, the assumption is made that the warming is caused by these emissions, and the climate models are adjusted accordingly. Naturally, the models then show that we're heading for runaway warming.

The remedy of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is too little too late, even according to the models. The disaster is already a reality. Even if we stopped all emissions right now, which is unlikely in the extreme, warming would still continue for a long time due to other sources of greenhouse gases which are natural, and have been started by the level of warming we presently have. Methane in the melting tundra, methane hydrides in the sea floor becoming unstable as water temperatures rise, the release of CO₂ by the ocean itself as it becomes less able to dissolve CO₂ as it heats up, etc.
We're basically screwed no matter what, if the IPCC climate models are correct.
Cutting emissions by a modest percentage won't change anything in the slightest, yet that is what is being worked toward. Why? Would it not be more sensible to look at ways of cooling the planet instead? We know that SO₂ in the upper atmosphere works very well. We also know that increasing the planet's albedo works, so generating more clouds artificially would work as well. With the money being spent on futile reduction of emissions (that never really seem to materialize anyway), we could do either or both of those things. So what is the reason research into such proposals don't receive much funding?
Politics. We know that oil is not an infinite resource, and we know that at this rate it'll run out in less than 100 years - probably less than 50. Also, Muslim nations aren't very popular these days, yet they're sitting on most of the world's remaining oil. These two factors combine to create the need to conserve oil and develop sustainable alternatives to it. Conveniently, the man-made global warming paradigm is very helpful in this. The almost religious belief in it among the masses is pretty much a necessity as well, or people wouldn't change their habits. So, politically global warming does the job admirably and that is ultimately a good thing, even if I personally dislike this kind of manipulation. But is what we're being fed science? No, it is a gross misrepresentation of science.
Here's a longer term look at global temperatures:

[Bla]

If I've understood this¹ data correctly, CO₂ interacts with infrared radiation at 1499 nanometers and light with a wavelength of 425 nanometers (it's major absorption bands) like the H₂O interacts with the microwaves from a microwave oven that we use to heat food.
Could this be significant to the global warming?

1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Spectral_data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

[deoxy99]

Btw, I can't read the next long thing Laura said.

[Laura]

If I've understood this¹ data correctly, CO₂ interacts with infrared radiation at 1499 nanometers and light with a wavelength of 425 nanometers (it's major absorption bands) like the H₂O interacts with the microwaves from a microwave oven that we use to heat food.
Could this be significant to the global warming?

1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_(data_page)#Spectral_data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

Certainly it can be significant, but is it enough to explain the warming we've seen?
I'm not claiming that CO₂ isn't a greenhouse gas, but all things considered it makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere (0.038%).
Venus, which is often held up as the textbook example of CO₂'s effect on global warming, has 96.5% CO₂ in its atmosphere. Well yes, when almost all of it is CO₂ it's hardly any wonder that it gets very hot. CO₂ isn't a very effective greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule.
CH₄ is much more efficient (20 times more), yet nobody is considering culling the vast herds of livestock used for meat production. It would be a hard sell to get people to give up beef, even with the religious overtones, since we're not traditionally Hindu in the west
Methane also comes from natural gas and coal mining, so the oil industry is involved there as well.
What I am suggesting is that the Sun is the dominant influence on our climate, to the point of rendering most other things minor, including the amount of CO₂ we're outputting. The extremely large scale release of methane from natural deposits due to rising temperatures may well be enough to exacerbate warming significantly. The total amount of sequestered methane is unknown, but estimated to be as much as 400 times what is found in the atmosphere today. Warming can release some or all of it.
Depending on just how much is released, methane may indeed cause catastrophic warming.

The Sun affects the climate in both direct and indirect ways. Low activity not only decreases the raw energy amount that gets to earth, but also allows more cosmic radiation in, which in turn increases the amount of cloud cover, thereby increasing Earth's albedo.
Geological and ice core evidence does show CO₂ increases in past pre-industrial warming periods, but the interesting thing is that it lags behind the warming, so it has been a result of warming and not the cause. The reason, obviously, is the fact that cold water dissolves CO₂ better than warm water.

To summarize, past and present evidence does not support the man-made CO₂ driven global warming hypothesis. It does support a solar driven model, with (overwhelmingly natural) greenhouse gases providing a secondary amplifying factor due to initial solar warming.

[Laura]

Btw, I can't read the next long thing Laura said.

And you feel the need to state that why exactly? 

[deoxy99]

Btw, I can't read the next long thing Laura said.

And you feel the need to state that why exactly? 

I don't want to read it, it's a little long for me.

[Laura]

Btw, I can't read the next long thing Laura said.

And you feel the need to state that why exactly? 

I don't want to read it, it's a little long for me.

I never required you to read it

[deoxy99]

Btw, I can't read the next long thing Laura said.

And you feel the need to state that why exactly? 

I don't want to read it, it's a little long for me.

I never required you to read it

I require myself to read almost every post in the active topics.

[Bla]

Obviously, it is known that we release much CO_s, since we can read statistics about how much is released pr. inhabitant pr. year in the different countries.
I know CH₄ is 20 times stronger than CO₂ as a greenhouse gas, but the amount of it made by livestock should be insignificant compared to how much CO₂ we produce, even though I agree that CH₄ can probably be dangerous if it is released from ice.
Right now, CH₄ makes up¹ only 0,000179% of the atmosphere, while CO₂ makes up 0,039%. That means here is 218 times as much CO₂ in the atmosphere as CH₄, making the CO₂ 10,9 times as strong totally.
And I assume the amount of CO₂ is increasing much faster than the amount of CH₄ in the atmosphere, if you compare the tiny amount, measured in grams (I'd assume) of CH₄ produced by livestock when it's farting (if that's the cause, that's what I've heard), compared to the megagrams of CO₂ every single person in the rich world causes to be produced.

Also, I'd assume warm water is better at dissolving CO₂ than cold water. Isn't warm water better at that? Or isn't that a general rule? At least, I've heard that the CO₂ could possibly damage the corals, because the pH of the water will fall due to more CO₂ being dissolved in it.

And yes, doubtlessly the Sun is the most significant factor in Earth's temperature. But I don't think we should blame it all on The Sun. Think about the simple facts that we release huge amounts of CO₂, megagrams of the gas pr. inhabitant. pr. year in the rich world, and that we know CO₂ is a greenhouse gas.

And the thing about Venus... Yes, Venus is a good example, but we should also remember that it's atmosphere is much more dense than Earth's, so there are many more molecules to absorb the photons that would otherwise escape if it were less dense but has the same percentage of CO₂.

1: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Composition

[Laura]

The amount of methane currently being released from the sea floor in the north polar region alone is 1.1 Mt per year. The amount released by the Siberian tundra is about 4 Mt per year. That should be seen in the light of the amount released before the warming, which was nearly zero.
Conservative estimates of methane release in the reasonably near future due to warming amount to something like 50 Gt. This would happen quite suddenly, and would be enough to outweigh the warming effect of CO₂. In the short term, Methane is more than 20 times more effective than CO₂. The 20x value is an average over 100 years, as methane has an atmospheric half-life of 7 years. Initially, the effect would be more like 100x. Further warming would ensue, the oceans would begin to release CO₂ in earnest, and deeper methane hydrate deposits would be destabilized, leading to even further warming. That is the cascading warming scenario that is feared.
The oil industry contributes a lot to methane release as well, as does coal mining. Landfills are also a source. And, of course, livestock. Natural sources include swamps/marshes/bogs and mud volcanoes.

The capacity of water to dissolve CO₂ improves the colder the water is. Did you ever notice the difference between opening a cold bottle of soda and opening a warm one? The warm one releases more and larger bubbles. The problem with the coral reefs is that overall, there is more CO₂ dissolved in the oceans now than there has been in the past. A third of our emissions have been absorbed by oceans, thereby causing them to become slightly more acidic than they otherwise would have been. Man made emissions is estimated to have decreased the Ph value of the oceans by 0.1; Coral reefs are extremely sensitive.
There is a large amount of time lag between atmospheric warming and ocean (especially deep ocean) warming, but when it does warm up, it releases gaseous CO₂. There is deep ocean warming in certain regions now, as evidenced by the increase in methane release from arctic ocean. Levels measured there are hundreds of times greater than the background level.

Yes, of course greenhouse gases of any kind have an effect on global temperatures. The trick is to quantify that effect properly and then weigh it against other factors.
There is an unexpectedly deep solar minimum right now, and nobody really knows how long it'll be. It could be as long and as deep as the 'Little Ice Age', in which case our slightly higher amount of greenhouse gases may even turn out to be a blessing.

[Darvince]

while CO₂ makes up 0,039%.

How did it gain 0.001% in only about 5 days?

[dhm794]

There's no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels has an effect on the atmosphere.  Studies by NASA and the World Meteorological Organization show that the ozone layer has suffered its biggest recorded loss just this past winter. 

[atomic7732]

I didn't think carbon and sulfur gases caused damage to the ozone. But it for sure could be warming us up.

[/hr]
I don't want to take a side whether we're doing it or not (which it could go either way), but it's there, and we're gonna have to face it for real someday no matter how much propaganda we try to tell ourselves it's not happening, cause deep down, I just think those people are scared. They fear the truth.

As for everything, it's not everyone, I'm sure some aren't well educated in science, and others have other true reasons.

I also could be wrong, but it's my opinion.

Note: This was to no one in particular.

[Darvince]

All charts can be modified by hackers. So I don't believe them.

Then why did you believe that Universe Sandbox is real, or that Minecraft is real?

[Bla]

It's CFC gases which harm the ozone layer (CFC = chlor, flour and carbon). CO₂ doesn't harm the ozone layer, but stops the infrared radiation from escaping Earth.
CFC gases originate mostly from fridges and other things, but today they're forbidden. The problem is that the gases can work as catalysts, which means they're not just being used up as they destroy more ozone, but they can continue to destroy it without being used itself.

Example:
Cl + O₃ → ClO + O₂
ClO + O → Cl + O₂