Global warming debate continued

[Mik1984]

Redirected from game forum.

 

[Lord Civius]

What a great debate! Sure puts a sock in the mouth of any who claim the debate is over. It is really dishonest to group global warming/climate change/end of the world into the same meaning. The truth is the globe was warming ever so slightly the past 100 years. Now it has leveled out in the last decade and will either cool or warm a little more in the years to come. The slight warming effect has done far more good then harm. Look at Greenland they will soon claim their Independence from Denmark and it's all due to GW . See article

The truth is there are many theories about why we warmed a little and the best one in my opinion is the Solar Constant. It is funny how Greenland is losing alot of its ice and the Arctic ice is growing. Funny, maybe we should leave the earth and its climate alone and concentrate on more real issues that actually effect people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Have we shown that CO2 doesn't sequester heat, yet?

 

[Masquerouge]

The truth is there are many theories about why we warmed a little and the best one in my opinion is the Solar Constant. It is funny how Greenland is losing alot of its ice and the Arctic ice is growing. Funny, maybe we should leave the earth and its climate alone and concentrate on more real issues that actually effect people.

Read this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208566&highlight=solar
The guy is a researcher, and he did his research on whether or not solar activity can explain global warming.

His conclusion?

We easily see that there is no systematic trend in TSI, Sunspots, or GCR on these timescales. This alone makes it hard to believe that solar activity can explain the recent trend in global temperatures.

Funny, maybe we should leave the actual science to scientists?

 

[Mik1984]

There are many other scientists who claim there is such correlation.
However one thing the global warming alarmists seem never to explain adequately is how CO2 which is only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases is supposed to drive the entire effect. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O and most of the CO2 emissions are natural. Moreover the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors that influences the global temperatures.
It's obvious that more CO2 is more greenhouse effect, but without some magical, non-linear leverage effect the CO2 on the greenhouse effect even doubling the human emissions would have minimal consequences.

 

[Joe Harker]

There are many other scientists who claim there is such correlation.
However one thing the global warming alarmists seem never to explain adequately is how CO2 which is only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases is supposed to drive the entire effect.

Because Without greenhouse gases the global temperature would be -20 odd, today temp is about 15, so 35C is down to the greenhouse (roughy) With CO2 we are only talking 1-2C change, so it's although it's quite a big increase in CO2 it only has a small effect, only being a small part of the atomosphere.

Most of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O and most of the CO2 emissions are natural. Moreover the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors that influences the global temperatures.

Totally agree with you, however H2O varies with climate CO2 doesn't and is always there

 

[Kerozine]

And massive chunks of ice are breaking off, because they.. feel like it?

 

[Masquerouge]

There are many other scientists who claim there is such correlation.

Such as?

However one thing the global warming alarmists seem never to explain adequately is how CO2 which is only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases is supposed to drive the entire effect. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O and most of the CO2 emissions are natural. Moreover the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors that influences the global temperatures.
It's obvious that more CO2 is more greenhouse effect, but without some magical, non-linear leverage effect the CO2 on the greenhouse effect even doubling the human emissions would have minimal consequences.

Why should I believe you over the scientific community?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

There are many other scientists who claim there is such correlation.

I think you should cite some so that we can see that this is more than an assertion.

However one thing the global warming alarmists seem never to explain adequately is how CO2 which is only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases is supposed to drive the entire effect. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O and most of the CO2 emissions are natural. Moreover the greenhouse effect is only one of many factors that influences the global temperatures.

Bold mine, and false.

Let's say that CO2 is providing 10 000 'units' of heating to the planet, while H2O provides 100 000, and other "factors that influence the global temperatures" provide another 256 000 'units'. Meanwhile other things such as heat loss to space are providing 365 000 'units' of cooling to the planet, resulting in a net 1 000 'units' of heat.

Now, let's say that of the total CO2 output, humans are responsible for 5%. And then let's say that over the course of twenty years, human CO2 output doubles. Do the math and tell me how much net heat goes up as a percentage.

My result:

Spoiler my result :

50%.

Now the above numbers are completely wrong and out of proportion and pulled out of my rear, but the principle should be comprehensible now: a small change in a small factor in a large system having a large effect on the state of that system.

It's obvious that more CO2 is more greenhouse effect, but without some magical, non-linear leverage effect the CO2 on the greenhouse effect even doubling the human emissions would have minimal consequences.

Is the leverage effect described above comprehensible?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Let me point out that previous naturally caused, slow scale, relatively minor temperature changes often had drastic and negative effects on humanity. We are living close to the edges, a minor change can mean a lot.

 

[Berzerker]

And massive chunks of ice are breaking off, because they.. feel like it?

Because they feel gravity

Have we shown that CO2 doesn't sequester heat, yet?

We haven't shown the overall effect is warming because of the other variables, like global dimming and cloud cover, more life forms consuming CO2, etc or other factors favoring a cooling trend. For example, it wouldn't matter if CO2 was 10 x higher than today if the earth's tilt was 22 degrees - we'd still be freezing our butts off.

The guy is a researcher, and he did his research on whether or not solar activity can explain global warming.

His conclusion?

We'll find out soon enough, apparently we're headed into one of those solar cycles (Maunder Minimum?) with reduced output. But there are astronomers who believe solar output matters too. I've seen plenty of documentaries that cite this as a possible explanation for the mini ice age, that an 5x the volcanic activity.

Totally agree with you, however H2O varies with climate CO2 doesn't and is always there

CO2 doesn't vary? H20 increases with "global warming" because of increased evaporation, that dims the sun and reduces radiation reaching us. So whats the overall effect?

Let me point out that previous naturally caused, slow scale, relatively minor temperature changes often had drastic and negative effects on humanity.

Like what? Researchers now believe the mass extinction of ice age fauna, especially in N America, was the result of rapid temperature increases (even double digit). That was neither slow nor relatively minor but it sure didn't inhibit us.

 

[Abaddon]

And massive chunks of ice are breaking off, because they.. feel like it?

'Bergs have feelings too!

 

[Mik1984]

Is the leverage effect described above comprehensible?

Nope. You assume a static model resembling a bucket with a hole in the bottom with water dripping out through it and water dripping into the bucket from above. Earth is nothing like that. This problem has much more dimensions, i.e. increase in CO2 causes increases in plants vegetation. You might have some lag and shock effect, but you won't increase the CO2 by 50% by adding 5% from an "external" source over a 20 years period. 1.05^20 is a no-no. Even more that most oxygen on the planet is provided by one cell sea organisms, whose population reacts very quickly to climate changes. Rainforests are overstated.

Couple of other facts that came to my mind which seem to be ignored by the alarmists: Milankovic cycles, warming observed simultaneously on other planets in solar system in recent years, most of the current 1900AD - now GW occurring before 1945....

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I asked if the model was comprehensible. I know perfectly well that it's oversimplified, so don't bother telling me which things it's left out.

 

[Masquerouge]

Nope. You assume a static model resembling a bucket with a hole in the bottom with water dripping out through it and water dripping into the bucket from above. Earth is nothing like that. This problem has much more dimensions, i.e. increase in CO2 causes increases in plants vegetation. You might have some lag and shock effect, but you won't increase the CO2 by 50% by adding 5% from an "external" source over a 20 years period. 1.05^20 is a no-no. Even more that most oxygen on the planet is provided by one cell sea organisms, whose population reacts very quickly to climate changes. Rainforests are overstated.

Couple of other facts that came to my mind which seem to be ignored by the alarmists: Milankovic cycles, warming observed simultaneously on other planets in solar system in recent years, most of the current 1900AD - now GW occurring before 1945....

I am going to ask this again: given that I don't know much about the actual science behind global warming, why should I believe a random guy like you on the internet, over the consensus of the scientific community?

 

[Mik1984]

Nope, you don't have to believe me, but why would you want to believe Al Gore?
All I can do is what you can do as well on your own - find the links on Internet. And it is all what I did. The stuff exist, because I found it and read it, but I don't know and I don't have time to look for it again in the moment, maybe later I'll post links to some stuff.
To be strict the model was comprehensible, but it doesn't fulfill the second part of the condition which is to adequately explain the supposed leverage effect.

 

[Masquerouge]

Nope, you don't have to believe me, but why would you want to believe Al Gore?
All I can do is what you can do as well on your own - find the links on Internet. And it is all what I did. The stuff exist, because I found it and read it, but I don't know and I don't have time to look for it again in the moment, maybe later I'll post links to some stuff.
To be strict the model was comprehensible, but it doesn't fulfill the second part of the condition which is to adequately explain the supposed leverage effect.

Al Gore is not a scientist, last time I checked.

And last time I checked scientific sites on the internet, they convinced me that:
a. global warming was happening
b. a non-negligible part of it was due to human-induced changes
c. solar forcing alone was not enough to explain the more recent temperature changes
d. most critics were not scientists (but journalists, or economists, etc.)

a nice place to find a lot of links is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and one thing is certain: a post like the one Gothmog made (link provided in my first post) with data, explanations and links to back it up, will do a lot better job at convincing me that someone who's too busy to provide any links, sprouts random theories without any sort of evidence, and who thinks Al Gore is a scientist

 

[El_Machinae]

Have we shown that CO2 doesn't sequester heat, yet?

Regarding the leverage effect:

Have we shown that vaporous H2O doesn't sequester heat, yet? Or have we shown that warmer air doesn't hold more water? Because unless a hundred years of chemistry is wrong, water vapour helps trap heat.

And it would be pretty simple to tell me the albedo change in last 30 years due to the increased water vapour

 

[BasketCase]

Let's say that CO2 is providing 10 000 'units' of heating to the planet, while H2O provides 100 000, and other "factors that influence the global temperatures" provide another 256 000 'units'. Meanwhile other things such as heat loss to space are providing 365 000 'units' of cooling to the planet, resulting in a net 1 000 'units' of heat.

Now, let's say that of the total CO2 output, humans are responsible for 5%. And then let's say that over the course of twenty years, human CO2 output doubles. Do the math and tell me how much net heat goes up as a percentage.

My result:

Spoiler my result :

50%.

The initial numbers may be hypothetical. That's not the problem. The math is accurate--well, actually, I didn't bother to check any of it, but I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. That's not the problem either.

The final statistic? That's the problem. Wow! FIFTY PERCENT! That's a huge increase in net heat.

And it's meaningless. The final answer is deceptive. 50% of an extremely small number is (drum roll) another extremely small number. It doesn't tell you anything. How much of that heat is going to translate into warmer climate, and how much of it is simply going to disappear into outer space? That's the question we really need to answer, and that figure of 50% is no help.

Edit: Oops! Forgot to do my line--
Yay, another global warming thread, goodie goodie.....
Blah. Didn't have the same gusto it used to have. I think I'm getting bored with these threads.

 

[Berzerker]

I am going to ask this again: given that I don't know much about the actual science behind global warming, why should I believe a random guy like you on the internet, over the consensus of the scientific community?

Well, sit back and remain ignorant then and wait for the majority of scientists to tell you what to believe.