|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Whats the really cool bit of data on that graph.
The global temperature.
And recorded history, let me show it to you.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/7/4167
In terms of weighted for greenhouse strength the human contribution is .28% of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
Keep chasing that rainbow guys.
I'm more than willing to talk about the effects of potential climate change, but those are I know are boring and non-political. What to do if it gets warmer, colder, if areas get a drought etc. |
Ustwo, let's recap what has transpired here....you set out to author a thread to "pooh pooh" "global warming", as you often attempt to debunk what mainstream science views as a human activity influenced, climate crisis. The centerpiece of your OP is an "article" authored by a British satirist, Christopher Booker: (in post #1)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
The, in your post (#10), you provide info about the "change of heart" (announced on Jan. 17, 2005) of meteorologist/hurrican expert Dr. Chris Landsea, which does not even seem to support your contention, because Landsea also said:
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weath...nce_10-18.html
HURRICANE SCIENCE
<h3>October 18, 2005</h3>
....JUDITH CURRY: OK, first in our paper, we didn't say anything at all about greenhouse warming. It's a global increase in tropical sea surface temperatures. In the subsequent press releases and press conferences, everybody is asking us the question about is this greenhouse warming? <h5>And the answer is partially the warming is associated with greenhouse warming and the burning of fossil fuels.</h5> To what extent, you know, that's debated by scientists. Nobody is arguing that increase is 100 percent due to greenhouse warming, but clearly a portion of it, very likely up to 50 percent or 60 percent, of that increase that we've seen over the period is associated with greenhouse warming.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right well let's start with that question, Mr. Landsea. What's your response on that?
<h3>CHRISTOPHER LANDSEA:</h3> Well, we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, <h5>and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.</h5> The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity. And the study that the authors Judy Curry and Peter Webster and company have done, you know, they are very well renowned scientists in field, and anything that they're putting together needs to be taken seriously........
|
In your post (#28), you provide a link to an IBD editorial. IBD editorials are written by and exclusively for the consumption of "wingers"....remember, you chose to start this mocking exercise of a thread....is this all you got????
No....in your post (#32), you've displayed a cartoon graphic....
...and in post (#34) you post a link to an article which seems to be a gesture by you to mock academy award winning global warming documentarian, Al Gore !
Finally....all the way out in your post (#45) you've posted a linked excerpt to a scientific report concerning the effect of CO2 on climate change, but it's almost seven years old:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Geology
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Daniel H. Rothmandagger
Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
Communicated by Paul F. Hoffman, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, January 30, 2002 (received for review October 9, 2001)
|
Rothman's aka Rothmandaggar's findings are put in context in this 18 months old article:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/sc...etD%203Cfsh3bg
In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming
...Throughout the 1990’s, reconstruction papers offered evidence on both sides of the debate about the effects of carbon dioxide. Starting in 2000, the attacks intensified as Dr. Veizer of Ottawa questioned the CO2-climate link across the whole Phanerozoic. He and two Belgian colleagues, writing in Nature, based their doubts on how two ice ages — 440 million and 150 million years ago, in the age of dinosaurs — apparently had very high carbon dioxide levels.
<h5>In 2002, Daniel H. Rothman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also raised sharp Phanerozoic questions after studying carbon dioxide clues teased from marine rocks. Writing in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he said that with one exception — the recent cool period of the last 50 million years — he could find “no systematic correspondence” between carbon dioxide and climate shifts.</h5>
Published: November 7, 2006
(Page 3 of 3)
In 2003, Dr. Veizer joined Nir J. Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to propose a new climate driver. They envisioned slow movements of the solar system through the surrounding galaxy as controlling the cosmic rays that bombard Earth’s atmosphere. A reduction, they argued, would lessen cloud cover and Earth’s reflectivity, warming the planet. The reverse would cause cooling. The Phanerozoic record of cosmic-ray bombardment showed excellent agreement with climate fluctuations, trumping carbon dioxide, they wrote.
In 2004, Dr. Berner of Yale and four colleagues fired back. While saying cosmic rays were possibly “of some climatic significance,” they argued that such an effect was much less than that of carbon dioxide.
In the debate, opponents can differ not only on the contours of past CO2 fluctuations but also on defining hot and cold eras. Although Dr. Veizer sees a cold period 150 million years ago, a time of increased ice at sea but not on land because the continents had shifted from the poles, Dr. Berner, in his modeling, disregards it. Such differences can muddy the dispute.
Today, each side claims new victories. Dr. Veizer says he has a comprehensive paper on the cosmic-ray theory coming out soon. Dr. Berner recently refined his model to repair an old inconsistency.
The revision, described in the May issue of The American Journal of Science, brings the model into closer agreement with the fact of wide glaciation 440 million years ago, yielding what he sees as stronger evidence of the dominant role of carbon dioxide then.
Dr. Yapp, once a carbon dioxide skeptic, concurred, saying, “The data complied in the last decade suggests that long-term climate change correlates pretty well with CO2 changes.”
Some climatologists view the Phanerozoic debate as irrelevant. They say the evidence of a tie between carbon dioxide and planetary warming over the last few centuries is so compelling that any long-term evidence to the contrary must somehow be tainted. They also say greenhouse gases are increasing faster than at any other time in Earth history, making the past immaterial.
Carbon dioxide skeptics and others see the reconstructions of the last 15 years as increasingly reliable, posing fundamental questions about the claimed powers of carbon dioxide. Climatologists and policy makers, they say, need to ponder such complexities rather than trying to ignore or dismiss the unexpected findings.
“Some of the work has been quite meticulous,” Thure E. Cerling, an expert at the University of Utah on Phanerozoic climates, said. “We are likely to learn something.”
|
<h3>Meanwhile, since Rothman's late 2001 determinations on the historical effects of CO2 levels, leading authorities on the subject have conducted further research:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0328155540.htm
Greenhouse Gas Effect Consistent Over 420 Million Years
ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2007) — New calculations show that sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been consistent for the last 420 million years, according to an article in Nature by geologists at Yale and Wesleyan Universities.
A popular predictor of future climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature produced by each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. This study confirms that in the Earth's past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3° Celsius, or 5° Fahrenheit.
According to the authors, since there has continuously been life on the planet over this time span, there must be an ongoing balance between CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere from the rocks and waters at Earth's surface. Their simulations examined a wide span of possible relationships between atmospheric CO2 and temperature and the likelihood they could have occurred based on proxy data from geological samples.
Most estimates of climate sensitivity have been based on computer simulations of climate or records of climate change over the past few decades to thousands of years, when carbon dioxide concentrations and global temperatures were similar to or lower than today. Such estimates could underestimate the magnitude of large climate-change events.
To keep Earth's carbon cycle in balance, atmospheric CO2 has varied over geologic time. Carbon-cycle models balance chemical reactions that involve carbon, such as photosynthesis and the formation of limestone, on a global scale. To better predict future trends in global warming, these researchers compared estimates from long-term modeling of Earth's carbon cycle with the recent proxy measurements of CO2.
This study used 500 data points in the geological records as "proxy data" and evaluated them in the context of the CO2 cycling models of co-author Robert Berner, professor emeritus of geology and geophysics at Yale who pioneered models of the balance of CO2 in the Earth and Earth's atmosphere.
"Proxy data are indirect measurements of CO2 -- they are a measure of the effects of CO2," explained co-author Jeffrey Park, professor of geology and geophysics at Yale who created the computer simulations for the project. "While we cannot actually measure the CO2 that was in the atmosphere millions of years ago, we can measure the geologic record of its presence. For example, measurement of carbon isotopes in ancient ocean-plankton material reflects atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
Led by Dana L. Royer, assistant professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Wesleyan University, who did his graduate work in geology at Yale, the collaboration simulated 10,000 variations in the carbon-cycle processes such as the sensitivity of plant growth to extra CO2 in the atmosphere. They evaluated these variations for a range of atmospheric warming conditions, using the agreement with the geologic data to determine the most likely warming scenarios. The model-estimated atmospheric CO2 variations were tested against data from ancient rocks.
Other proxy measurements of soil, rock and fossils provided estimates of CO2 over the past 420 million years. Calculation of the climate sensitivity in this way did not require independent estimates of temperature. It incorporated information from times when the Earth was substantially warmer and colder than today, and reflects the sensitivity of the carbon-cycle balance over millions of years.
"Our results are consistent with estimates from shorter-term records, and indicate that climate sensitivity was almost certainly greater than 1.5, but less than 5.5 degrees Celsius over this period," said Park. "At those extremes of CO2 sensitivity, [1.5°C or 5.5°C] the carbon-cycle would have been in a 'perfect storm' condition."
|
Quote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ent_report.htm
IPCC Report on Climate Change - 2007
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change.
See also:
Earth & Climate
Two of the three reports (Working groups I and II) have been been published so far.
The first report concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Climate Change 2007 The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change." The report was produced by about 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments.
Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I, which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007. The key conclusions were that: It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring; the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%; and the probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%. As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century the following will occur. Regarding surface air warming in the 21st century, the best estimate for a "low scenario" is 1.8 degrees Celsius with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit).....
|
Ustwo, aside from demonstrating your political ideology so prominently in this thread, what do you think are your most convincing posts and citations to support your opinion? I think I've done a better job supporting my contention that NIST has not conducted an investigation into the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, given the stature of the collapse as unique in the annals of high rise steel structures, commensurate with what is potentially at stake by not providing a thorough and timely determinationL
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html
I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?
This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.
NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”
Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
......14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007....
|
....than you have in debunking the threat of human activity influenced global warming.
Please post your opinion of what piece of information you have already provided to support your opinion in this thread, is closest to being on a par with the any of the three items in the preceding quote box, supporting my contention that NIST has never been serious about investigating the collapse of WTC 7, because I don't see anything compelling posted to support your contrary claims about global warming, Your thread is akin to a poorly documented conspiracy theory, the kind of thread you abhor when the subject is challenges to the official story of what happened on 9/11....
You don't even seem to take your own attempt here as seriously as I have approached posting my observations about your "work" here.
Bottomline: I've presented in past threads, a hell of a lot better documented challenge to NIST's 9/11 WTC collapse investigation performance, and hence, a reasonable challenge to the official story of what happened on 9/11, than you have here in support of your challenge to scientific determinations about global warming and it's causes. Yet, you continue to label my well supported opinions as "extreme"...only worthy of discussion in the "paranoia" forum. Your presentation here does not even rise to the level I have maintained in challenging the official 9/11 record. Does your weaker challenge of conventional scientific consensus even belong in this forum? How is the OP here not a conspiracy theory?
Last edited by host; 05-07-2008 at 03:05 AM..
|