Global Warming Trends Must Be Looked At Over The Long Term

With respect to man's impact on our global climate, far too many people base their opinions on what Limbaugh or Hannity have told them to believe rather than on the actual evidence that climatologists use to draw their conclusions. Some try to negate the power and validity of a theory by equating "theory" with "hypothesis".

Scientific theories are our best explanation for an event or phenomenon based on the available evidence, i.e., a theory tells us HOW it happens. Theories have generally been subjected to rigorous testing and represent the consensus of the scientific community, whereas a hypothesis is a possible explanation and has not necessarily been extensively tested.

Calling something a theory does not cheapen or weaken it. On the contrary, the term "theory" gives it legitimacy as something that is scientifically testable and that has been rigorously examined to the point that the available evidence overwhelming supports it.

Climate change or "global warming" is factual and measurable; it is the mechanism or cause of the change that can be debated, but the available evidence overwhelming suggests a manmade cause, hence the label "theory" applies.

It is important to understand that climate change is not the same as daily local weather phenomena. You may be experiencing an unusually cold day where you live--that is irrelevant. The issue is the pattern that has emerged when looking at GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures taken over many, many years.

While it is true that climate shifts have taken place naturally in earth's history, the alarmingly unique factor in the current trend is the RATE at which it is happening--many, many times faster than anything previously measured in ice core or geological/mineralogical samples that provide evidence of past climates.

WOW!

I concur completely with the information presented!

It has really been difficult to deal with the disinformation being thrown around, these last 10 yers or so.

By disinformation you mean like labeling people as deniers? Nice propaganda piece.

Seems though you have this one bundled and packaged ready for the "Obama Bunch" to move on. Wow now this should get that energy policy right through Congress with no troubles. Tell me one thing, if the United States decided to go forward with the plans that Obama has in stored for us, do you think a reversal of the Global Warming could achieved? We can not count on the rest of the worlds population to help with this problem. Most don't care or the cost would be move than a developing country could stand.

If the trend is so advanced, as you think, can we as a planet be doomed by these conditions? You mentioned ice cores as a source of information. If I remember right the core samples are limited to a certain time period. The earth has been estimated to be at least 4.5 billions years old can any information be obtained in periods before the core samples range? In earth science we learned that at a certain time period the earth had a very violent volcanic past which also raised carbon rates higher than we see now. So if this is true this is not the first time this has happen to or planet or not?

In the early 1800's, I think 1883, a volcano named Krakatoa erupted in Indonesia. It was the largest volcanic activity and the loudest sound mankind ever heard and recored. History tells us that the dust and gases that were released into the atmosphere changed the climate of our planet for an estimated four or five years. The carbon levels were raise in that same time period as well, which all volcanos emitt into the atmosphere. If the volcanic activity we see now would increase wouldn't that raise carbon levels more than mankinds effects would or could be?

One other thing when, we talk about green house gases and increased carbon levels it is believed that these effects would change high altitude cloud formations. With ash and gaes released from the volcano Krakatoa the high clouds formations were effected and cause a cooling effect to the planet. These same coud features were also noticed at the beginning and during the industrial revolution and today we see the same effects. Would it be possible that with the cloud changes we could see another cooling and/or little ice age as we have seen before?

So what do we have Gobal Warming and then Gobal Cooling?

(Post #1) With respect to man's impact on our global climate, far too many people base their opinions on what Limbaugh or Hannity have told them to believe rather than on the actual evidence that climatologists use to draw their conclusions.

I am curious as to what that “actual evidence” is because I have never seen any presented that actually proves that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for any increase in global temperatures.

Historical records of different sources shows that increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 quantities most always lag behind increases/decreases in temperatures. Said “lag” in CO2 quantities is attributed to the fact that the ocean is a “carbon sink” which absorbs CO2 as it slowly cools down after the global temperature starts decreasing and dissipates stored CO2 as it slowly warms up after the global temperature starts increasing. Large bodies of water require a long time to effect a change in their average temperature.

But in several instances the CO2 quantities remained high even though the temperatures decreased. In the following cited article is a Temperature/CO2 graph I offer in reference to my above statements, to wit:

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Thus, again I ask, ….. what actual evidence has been presented that actually proves that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is responsible for the current increase in global temperatures, …… rather than the current increase in global temperature is the actual cause that is responsible for the current increase in atmospheric CO2 quantities?

Deniers of AGW would appreciate an answer to my “chicken or egg” question.

Cheers, SamC

You know the Global Warming is a theory that has become a political topic. When you mix science with politics no one wins. Today Global Warming is to a point where it is made out to be needed right now status. By risking all on untested alternatives is stupid. When we can get to a point that other means or available and work well, we will change with the technology this has happened before. These alternative tools need time to develop but to force on this country now is way out there. The price tag for these measures are expense. The cost of living and the lost of many jobs will just be a few that will damage our country more. We don't need this now. We have to many people wondering where their next pay check will come from or if they will be able to keep that home they have been paying for most of the lives. Just flat out bad timing.

(Post #6.2) (SamC) what actual evidence has been presented that actually proves that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is responsible for the current increase in global temperatures,

What evidence is there that it is not?

What evidence is there that proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist?

(Post #6.2) It seems to me that such a vehement opinion requires some sort of substantiation.

Will mathematics and science facts substantiate my vehement opinion, to wit:

The scientific facts, calculations and conclusion concerning the claims of AGW.

FACTS:

Concentration of atmospheric “greenhouse” gases

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppm -- 0.0383% ----- Specific Heat Capacity - 0.844 kJ/kg K

Water vapor -- (H2O) 40,000 ppm - 4.0000% -- Specific Heat Capacity - 1.930 kJ/kg K

Methane ------ (CH4) 1.745 ppm - 0.0001745% -- Specific Heat Capacity - 2.220 kJ/kg K

CALCULATIONS:

@ 4% H2O vapor there is 104 times as much in the air as there is CO2 @ 0.0383%

@ 1.930 kJ/kg K, H2O vapor has 2.3 times the SHC than does CO2 @ 0.844 kJ/kg K

CONCLUSIONs:

If both atmospheric H20 vapor and CO2 are considered “greenhouse” gases and there is on average 104 times as much H2O vapor with 2.3 times as much SHC …… as there is CO2 in the atmosphere ….. then an increase of even 200 ppm of CO2 should not really be significant relative to any increase in global warming due to a “greenhouse gas effect”.

The overwhelming amount of H20 vapor in the atmosphere as compared to the amount of CO2 will completely overshadow any warming effects of the CO2 and thus render it impossible for anyone to be blaming and/or attributing any of said “warming” on said CO2..

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons. (5.1480 × 10 to the 18th. kg)

Thus, @ 0.0383%, there is - 1,915,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And, @ 4%, there is ----- 200,000,000,000,000 metric tons of H20 vapor in the atmosphere.

Now that figures out to be 2 trillion tons of CO2 …. verses …. 200 trillion tons of H2O vapor that is 104 times more effective at “warming”.

So, 104 x 2.3 SHC = a potentially 239.2 greater “warming” potential for H20 vapor than that of CO2.

So, give or take 200 billion metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn’t affect the total that much or the "warming" effect that much.

“Figures don’t lie, but ……. Cheers

(Post #6.2) There is no doubt that the "consensus" amongst the scientific community is that man is contributing to global warming.

Humans are contributing to global warming, …. "YES", that I will agree with.

Humans are the cause of global warming, … “NO”, that I can not agree with.

The human caused “heat island effect” contributes 100 fold more to global warming than does all the atmospheric CO2 they are responsible for.

.

.

Two years ago we had to do something within 10 years ... now we have to look really long term to see the problem? It sounds more like religion than science at some point.

The fact is numerical models for irreducibally complex systems are tough and climate scientists who smelled funding should have used better judgment in their hyperbole. Now the whole discipline is suspect and the baby is thrown out with the bathwater and they have no one to blame but themselves.

P.S. Using terms like 'denier' for people who disagree with people you have chosen to believe is silly and partisan. You should instead compare people who disagree to Holocaust deniers and flat earth believers like the rest of the irrational anti-science contingent who populate this topic. 'Denier' is 'racist' for this decade, it gets thrown around so much it has no meaning.