Human caused global warming- True or False?

Wrangor said:

I agree. Was just making the point about causation. We are certainly contributing or escalating however you want to define it. We should be placing a greater concern on all areas that we pass down to the next generation.

I am by no means an environmental nut but to me it doesn't make sense not to place an emphasis on environmental impact as the worst case scenario is we were too cautious.

Click to expand...

+1 contributing vs. causing is a very import distinction

Marquee Moon said:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend

Click to expand...

:smallsamplesizedeacbatsignal

Spot the Wonder said:

Not true in either case.

But I'm with the Captain on this. The collective level of stupidity is staggering.

I'd suggest this web site.

Click to expand...

i got those figures from hulka over a year ago, and took them as gospel. neither of u have cited shit and i'm too lazy (because this ins't a real debate except from loony toons), but i'll go ahead and change positions on that.

dmcheatw said:

every half year os so this comes up, and i see I'mtheCapt has naturally interviened.

we as a board collectively went over this, taking just a few facts, and then DEDUCTIVELY reasoned out the possible causes. the best explanation for such accelerated changes to the natural cycles other than human induced climate change were changes in the sun....and frankly the sun does not change all that fast either...it's gonna take it another 7 billion years to get to the next appreciable stage in it's life.

obviously cows and volcanoes put out much more CO2 than humans. but the rate of increase is higher than earth's history suggest it should be. So you're really left with human behavior accelerating this (and there are many many times more cows alive today than there have ever been and that is also due to humans anyway.

btw, the earth is 4.5B years old and only 1/10th of it's entire surface volume can sustain life. for more than 4.4999B of those years, the surface of the earth looked nothing like it does now. look at mars and look at venus...in its history earth has looked a lot like one of those planets more often than not.

Click to expand...

Earth hasn't looked like Mars or Venus in billions of years. Venus has always been a fiery maelstrom of volcanism with no plate tectonics or carbon cycle and quite literally no detectable water on its surface or in the atmosphere. Mars magnetic field hasn't been active in billions of years. I'd say they really only looked the same during formation.

Life exists all over the Earth. I'd bet that more like 90% of it's surface can support life. If not more.

Earth would have to lose all of its water to end up looking like Venus. But I think it is a good example of how far things can go with a runaway greenhouse effect. Even a temperature rise of 10 degrees would be deadly for the majority of life on our planet. Sure. Humans would survive in some form but you can kiss millions of animals goodbye.

Self-roasting meats would be quite the innovation.

Boy, this is a sweltering August, no?

Fucking gulls.

And no, ONW, Svensmark is a "Discoverer". The kind of person you'd find in a "Daniel Boorstin" tome.

TW Deac is afraid to look at his research on the "Suns role in creating cloud cover on Earth" -- which He PROVED last year at CERN. PROVED IT.

Sandwiches all around...Cold Cuts, Bitches!

Lectro said:

Boy, this is a sweltering August, no?

Fucking gulls.

And no, ONW, Svensmark is a "Discoverer". The kind of person you'd find in a "Daniel Boorstin" tome.

TW Deac is afraid to look at his research on the "Suns role in creating cloud cover on Earth" -- which He PROVED last year at CERN. PROVED IT.

Sandwiches all around...Cold Cuts, Bitches!

Click to expand...

Oh, Lectro. Don't ever change OK? It's just too easy. Candy from a baby.

TWDeac said:

Oh, Lectro. Don't ever change OK?

Click to expand...

Oh,I won't TW...and don't you, either.

Here is the Reality that awaits...all of your Romantic notions of how Gallileo had to fight to be heard over the din of religious orthodoxy has been replaced by a scientific community behaving (on this subject!) as if it were itself a quasi religious organization. An organization deaf to its own calling and one which will only review and sanction those "findings" which validate their own bias.

Here...this is your future understanding of how climate changes on earth...this man, is your modern day Gallileo. This is the man whose scientific findings are "unwanted". This the man who was denied access to the facilities at CERN for over a decade.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

or Google:

"Henrik Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery"

Watch it and learn...or remain seated with your hand covering your face...just as "Imthecaptain".

You are a brighter man than I am, TW, get your head up out of the sand.

Lectro said:

Oh,I won't TW...and don't you, either.

Here is the Reality that awaits...all of your Romantic notions of how Gallileo had to fight to be heard over the din of religious orthodoxy has been replaced by a scientific community behaving (on this subject!) as if it were itself a quasi religious organization. An organization deaf to its own calling and one which will only review and sanction those "findings" which validate their own bias.

Here...this is your future understanding of how climate changes on earth...this man, is your modern day Gallileo. This is the man whose scientific findings are "unwanted". This the man who was denied access to the facilities at CERN for over a decade.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ&desktop_uri=/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

or Google:

"Henrik Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery"

Watch it and learn...or remain seated with your hand covering your face...just as "Imthecaptain".

You are a brighter man than I am, TW, get your head up out of the sand.

Click to expand...

Luckily we don't have religion dictating to the scientific community any longer.

Obviously, I disagree with the whole bias thing. If an out of the box theory or idea is truly vetted, it would be accepted. It's just the scientific method at work.

Still on my phone but I will watch this video when I get home.

TWDeac said:

Luckily we don't have religion dictating to the scientific community any longer.

Obviously, I disagree with the whole bias thing. If an out of the box theory or idea is truly vetted, it would be accepted. It's just the scientific method at work.

Still on my phone but I will watch this video when I get home.

Click to expand...

You are the definition of "naïveté"...but you are young yet.

Svensmark contains your future understanding of climate change on earth.

Lectro said:

Boy, this is a sweltering August, no?

Fucking gulls.

And no, ONW, Svensmark is a "Discoverer". The kind of person you'd find in a "Daniel Boorstin" tome.

TW Deac is afraid to look at his research on the "Suns role in creating cloud cover on Earth" -- which He PROVED last year at CERN. PROVED IT.

Sandwiches all around...Cold Cuts, Bitches!

Click to expand...

Um..wtf are you talking about? He didn't prove anything. The cloud researchers at CERN found the following:

A year or so ago, some researchers at Cern, working at the Cloud experiment, made an interesting discovery: cosmic rays might affect cloud formation. More specifically, it said that cosmic rays could "nucleate", or bring together, aerosol particles.

It was in response to suggestions by Henrik Svensmark, the Danish researcher, who had hypothesised that cosmic rays could nucleate particles, that those particles could seed more clouds, and that the extra clouds could cause cooling. He suggested that this meant that in times of high solar activity, the magnetic activity of the Sun would deflect more of the rays, so that fewer clouds would form. Fewer clouds, he thought, would mean less energy reflected into space, and so a warmer Earth. He also said that increased solar activity in the 20th century was behind the observed warming in that time.

Is he right? Has he been vindicated by Cern's brave physicists, after years in the wilderness?

As always, no. As always, it's an interesting piece of research which adds to our understanding of atmospheric behaviour. As always, it's been leapt upon by "sceptics" who think all climate scientists are charlatans until those scientists say something they agree with, whereupon they're modern-day Galileos being placed under house arrest for heresy by the Church of AGW.

So let's look at what the research actually found. It did, as Svensmark predicted, find that cosmic rays could cause aerosol particles to form. But what it didn't find was that this leads to cloud formation; nucleation may lead to cloud formation if the particles are large enough, but it has not, yet, been shown that they are. As the Cern authors say themselves in the paper: "The fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow to sufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets… remain open questions experimentally."

And if it did lead to cloud formation, that would not necessarily lead to cooling. Clouds don't only cool the planet: they reflect sunlight, but they also prevent heat from escaping from the Earth. Higher clouds and clouds further from the equator have a cooling effect; lower ones and ones near the equator tend to warm the planet. So even if cosmic rays make enough cloud to have a noticeable effect on the climate, it's far from clear which way it will go, or whether the two will cancel each other out. The authors are extremely clear that it is far too early to make any claims: "This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed." All of this, incidentally, is why the director-general of Cern, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, said that people should be careful of over-interpreting the results.

So there's more to learn. But we can confidently assume that whatever the findings are, they won't be particularly groundbreaking, for the very basic reason that if cosmic ray cloud formation was a big deal, we'd expect to see some correlation between solar activity and global temperature. But cosmic rays and solar irradiance have been essentially stable over the last 35 years, while the world has been steadily warming (and, yes, it's still been warming since 1998: 2001-2010 was the hottest decade on record). This study suggests that the Sun cannot acount for more than 14 per cent of global warming since 1956, and that will be due to direct solar activity, not cosmic rays.

I believe you are mistaken in your assumptions -- what Svensmark has proven is the direct correlation between cosmic rays and the geologic record -- the two have a startling synchrony...the basis is found in magnetic levels. The magnetism of the sun fluctuates...when it is strongest then the cloud formation on earth is weakest and vice versa...the effects you will see today will result in colder winters for some 25-30 years...and then the oscillation is expected to reverse -- at least according to the esteemed geologist in the video.

The sun's state of magnetic strength is the central feature I take away from Svensmark's work. As he says, much more work and research is needed. Nevertheless the correlation between cosmic rays,cloud formation and earth's climate have been proven. We need to understand more intensely how this process works and further the role of our Milky Way in this phenomena...

Lector is on it. What I have been saying for years! I aint even a scientist!

No,actually,an Astro Physicist named Svensmark is on it.

He has come a long way. Previously you couldn't get anybody on the boards to even address what his research has revealed.

So, there are signs that evolution is occurring...

You are just simply wrong lectro.



GCR vs. Temp

Figure 5: Annual average GCR counts per minute (blue - note that numbers decrease going up the left vertical axis, because lower GCRs should mean higher temperatures) from the Neutron Monitor Database vs. annual average global surface temperature (red, right vertical axis) from NOAA NCDC, both with second order polynomial fits.

"GCR Cloud Seeding

In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must achieve the following three steps.
1.
GCRs must induce aerosol formation

2.
These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently (through the condensation of gases in the atmosphere) to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)

3.
The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation.


The first step is not controversial, and is being investigated by the CERN CLOUD experiment. A recent study by Enghoff et al. (2011) also demonstrated some success in inducing aerosol formation under laboratory conditions, although they have yet to test the process under atmospheric conditions.

However, the second step is often glossed over by those espousing the GCR warming theory. Freshly nucleated particles must grow by approximately a factor of 100,000 in mass before they can effectively scatter solar radiation or be activated into a cloud droplet (Verheggen 2009). Pierce and Adams (2009) investigated this second step by using a a general circulation model with online aerosol microphysics in order to evaluate the growth rate of aerosols from changes in cosmic ray flux, and found that they are far too small to play a significant role in cloud formation or climate change.

"In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change."

Numerous studies have also investigated the effectiveness of GCRs in cloud formation (the third step):

Kazil et al. (2006) found:

"the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover."

Kristjansson et al. (2008) found:

"no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR"

Calogovic et al. (2010) found:

"no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."

Kulmala et al. (2010) also found

"galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well."

TWDeac said:

Earth hasn't looked like Mars or Venus in billions of years. Venus has always been a fiery maelstrom of volcanism with no plate tectonics or carbon cycle and quite literally no detectable water on its surface or in the atmosphere. Mars magnetic field hasn't been active in billions of years. I'd say they really only looked the same during formation.

Life exists all over the Earth. I'd bet that more like 90% of it's surface can support life. If not more.

Earth would have to lose all of its water to end up looking like Venus. But I think it is a good example of how far things can go with a runaway greenhouse effect. Even a temperature rise of 10 degrees would be deadly for the majority of life on our planet. Sure. Humans would survive in some form but you can kiss millions of animals goodbye.

Click to expand...

would be hard times for those humans that did make it. but yeah i agree with everything you've written. the point i was trying to get at is that the earth we see today is a rarity. as little as 11,000 years ago during the ice age the earth looked pretty darn different. i didn't mean to imply there were any fundamental similarities between mars and venus and earth...except for the fact that for most of earth's existence it has looked very desolate and incapable of supporting any type of life other than single celled organisms in the oceans.

It does seem reasonable that the sun has a greater influence on the earth's climate than anything that people do. Just a thought.

It is reasonable that taking away the sun would have a larger impact on our climate then well just about anything.