1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Global Warming Theory Received Coolly.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Turner, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/07/global-warming-theory-received-coolly/

    Interesting if it turns out to be true. I've never completely bought that just CO2 was completely responsible for the climate change we are experiencing. Yeah, partially, but I do believe that there is a bigger picture involved, and it's not just CO2.
     
  2. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    It's naive to think that the warming/climate change is solely caused by co2 emissions.
     
  3. Atlas14

    Atlas14 "Sophomoric Troll Master"

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Location:
    Maryland
    The oceans are currently absorbing a huge chunk of our CO2 emissions, when the ocean can no longer take any more, things could be interesting.
     
  4. Godwynn

    Godwynn March to the Sea

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    20,498
    Even if CO2 isn't the sole cause for global warming, we still shouldn't exacerbate the problem. I think we should keep that in mind for the rest of the thread, before the usual suspects arrive.
     
  5. Till

    Till Adventurer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    4,171
    Location:
    Background Noise
    Who claimed that CO2 is solely responsible?

    From the IPCC report - Frequently Asked Questions.
     
  6. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    CO2 was never claimed to be a huge part by any proper studies, just one that can cause changes. There are significant greenhouse gases that go in and out as part of the Earth's cycle. CO2 is small in comparison, but no less worrisome.
     
  7. Kerozine

    Kerozine Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,213
    'Why?'
     
  8. PeteAtoms

    PeteAtoms FormulaRandom

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    3,722
    Location:
    Land of Ooo
    Water vapor has a much greater effect on the greenhouse effect on Earth that CO2
     
  9. Holycannoli

    Holycannoli Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,406
    Some of us were mentioning the sun as a large part of this climate change for a long time now. No I'm not saying "told you so", but it's crazy that for a while there people who were insistent that it was humans and industry causing it, with emissions and whatnot. The thinking was stop the emissions, stop the warming. That's pretty much done with now. There may be a few people who still believe it but most have accepted that there's multiple reasons, including our mighty sun.

    Yeah jerks in California start them every year.
     
  10. Till

    Till Adventurer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    4,171
    Location:
    Background Noise
    Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, but it has had little part in the current warming. As i quoted above, solar irradiance has been a driver of climate change in the past (and it is the biggest natural contributor), but its impact has been dwarfed by anthropomorphic factors:
    Spoiler :


    (same source as above - the FAQ is quite informative!)
     
  11. History_Buff

    History_Buff Knight of Cydonia

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    6,529
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    I hope that he's right, but I still have to go with the IPCC on this one.

    This is a very interesting point. Even if CO2 has no real effect on climate, it will still acidify the oceans, devastating marine life.
     
  12. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,294
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    It's like some people aren't reading the article.

    No one has been ignoring the Sun. It's a complete strawman to suggest people have been. Sunspot variation has been known about for decades, and everyone knows that the Sun will influence Earth temperature. We know that the energy from the sun increases until about January, and that it's about 7% higher than in July. And the knowledge about sunspots has been tracked for some time.

    As well, you'll note that sunspots are at a cyclical low, as detailed in the article. This will cause a lower amount of heat. And yet, despite this, we've just experienced the hottest oceans in the last 100 years.

    He talks about a 34 year cycle, and 34 year cycles are important. We're going into an El Nino (so expect even warmer oceans), and we're watching that cycle. And ocean cycles are important, too. But it's important to remember that CO2 insulation is rising. Perry & Svensmark have had trouble with their previous theories, because they'd find a pattern in cycles, and then new datasets would disprove that theory. Then they'd find a new cycle. You'll always be able to find patterns if you're willing to shift things around.

    The fact is that sunspot forcings are a factor, but they're well accounted for. As well, they're not a major input as a changing forcing. We'll see how their predictions bear out. They predict a dropping in temperatures ever the next 4-5 years. We'll see a drop off after the El Nino (but people will think Perry & Svensmark are right), but as we've seen with the warming from 1998 to 2009, the general trend will continue to be upward. Since, you know, the planet is warming due to GHGs.

    Their theory was not complete in 2005, I don't think it will be complete now.

    And, again, to suggest people are ignoring sunspots is a complete strawman. Here's a picture on the NOAA website published in 2001



    The direct effect on water temp is being well followed & accounted for. And people are happy to look for circulation trends as well. No one's going to poo-pooh a report finding a good trend, especially if they publish some good predictions from it.
     
  13. uppi

    uppi Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,871
    I think you and the journalist missed this: Sun activity is very low at the moment. The last time it was this low it was really cold. It isn't really cold right now. This is very alarming. That means that the current warm climate is actually very cold for the current conditions. That means once the sun activity picks up again it is going to be very very hot.

    Sadly the article (in order to find evidence for Climate Change hype) gets this totally wrong: This means that the effect of CO2 is even higher! If it wasn't for the sun giving us a break right now, it would be even warmer!

    I guess it's time to build water pipelines. Southern Bavaria could get very rich if we could sell at that excess water to drought regions.
     
  14. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,714
    Location:
    the golf course
    we've had one of our coolest summers on record, the absence of sunspot activity explains it - the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't.

    And that was during a warming trend as well

    huh?

    Tell that to all them critters living off the heat of thermal vents in our oceans. A better question is why the Earth is still so active...

    You know, that doesn't make sense to me. I'd think a cooler solar surface would mean lower temps. Unless the sunspots are cooler because more heat was ejected into the solar wind.
     
  15. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Big "if" there. I've done a whole lot of reading on the Web about global warming, and the science wonks can't even seem to agree on what the sun is doing right now. I've seen lots of claims that it's near a maximum, lots of other claims that it's near a minimum.....

    :mad:
     
  16. AngryZealot

    AngryZealot King

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    To suggest climate scientists ignore the sun would be like suggesting rocket scientists ignore gravity.

    Water and carbon dioxide absorb at different wavelengths. Not a fair comparison.
     
  17. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Who cares what wavelengths they absorb??

    It's the final result that's important. One mole of carbon dioxide warms the planet by how much? One mole of water vapor warms the planet by how much? The second one is bigger. A lot bigger.
     
  18. AngryZealot

    AngryZealot King

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    I'm saying 1.8 moles of water and 0.2 moles of CO2 can retain more heat than 2.0 moles of water. CO2 accounts for about 1/4 of the greenhouse effect -- it's not insignificant.
     
  19. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    19,714
    Location:
    the golf course
    wrong

    wrong

    ;)
     
  20. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    If you disagree with this, wait for a highly humid day, step outside, and you will be proved wrong.

    Water vapor is a powerful insulator because it interferes with evaporation. And evaporation is much quicker and more powerful than carbon dioxide's method (CO2 transmits visible light but absorbs infrared).
     

Share This Page