This message has been edited. Last edited by: john galt,
Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans
New research by the University of East Anglia (UEA) has demonstrated for the first time that human activity is responsible for significant warming in both polar regions.
The findings by a team of scientists led by UEA's Climatic Research Unit will be published online by the Nature Geoscience this week.
Previous studies have observed rises in both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures over recent decades but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence due to poor observation data and large natural variability. Moreover, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that Antarctica was the only continent where human-induced temperature changes had yet to be detected.
Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence.
The results demonstrate that human activity has already caused significant warming, with impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.
"This is an important work indeed," said Dr Alexey Karpechko of UEA's Climatic Research Unit.
"Arctic warming has previously been emphasized in several publications, although not formally attributed to human activity. However in Antarctica, such detection was so far precluded by insufficient data available. Moreover circulation changes caused by stratospheric ozone depletion opposed warming over most of Antarctica and made the detection even more difficult.
"Since the ozone layer is expected to recover in the future we may expect amplifying Antarctic warming in the coming years."
Citation: 'Attribution of polar warming to human influence' by Nathan Gillett (UEA/Environment Canada), Phil Jones (UEA), Alexey Karpechko (UEA), Daithi Stone (University of Oxford/Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research), Peter Scott (Met Office Hadley Centre), Toru Nozawa (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan), Gabriele Hegerl (University of Edinburgh), and Michael Wehner (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California) is published by Nature Geoscience on Thursday October 30.
Source: University of East Anglia
21 years off the grid and counting
Influence NOT "cause" as you stated. Credible scientists recognize the difference.
So what's the difference?
Humans have influenced the climate? or humans have caused the change in climate?
You quibble about the meaning as if it changes the outcome of the report. Maybe you could write a response to Nature detailing this "biggest
con-job anyone is ever going to see!"
and perhaps you could do your own study documenting this money trail you speak of to brainwash us all into giving up all our hard earned money to who is it again?
You ask for peer reviewed documentation in other threads yet when it comes to this one you blatently diregard any to voice your own opinion. One that is unorthadox to say the least and not backed up with any peer reviewed literature at all
these are just inflamatory jabs at a fictional conspericy you seem to have invented but for what purpose only you know
so lets see your money trail and your peer reviewed reports that suggest the senario your supporting since you deem them proof for other subjects then this one is no different.
Credible scientists recognize the difference.
and here's the link to the original story that said Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans.
I didn't state it
21 years off the grid and counting
Believe what ever gives you comfort in these difficult times.
Both of us have such insignificant personal eco-footprints, that nothing we do has any influence on the inevitable outcome.
It's not about belief on my part despite your attempt to portray me a such. the facts stand up to scrutiny of peer review time and time again and become ever more sustantiated every day. the only objections to this concensus comes from outside that arena and that's where your theory about the sun lives as well.
It would appear that your opinion seems to be based on more of some sort of belief system than facts since you don't seem to be able to provide much in the way of proof,at least none of the peer reviewed variety anyway.If you believe this explanation of global warming/climate change then stand up and show me what it's based on.
As individuals your right but there are always intangables
I intend to try to at least educate the people around here to the scientific evidence and debunk the many theorys being presented as alternative explanations for whats happening like the sun one you have implied. you don't realy believe that one do you?
based on what?
21 years off the grid and counting
Human activity is one of many things contributing to the increase in average temperature on this planet for the past 15,000 years. If you need proof, then re-read this discussion from the beginning.
If you really want to educate people then focus on toxic pollution. There's no argument, it's nearly all caused by human activity and there's irrefutable proof that it impairs health, and shortens life.
Actually I was focusing on your conspiracy
rant and it's inconsistancies and you were ducking the questions...
Human activity is the main cause of of this temp trend not one of many as you have us to believe to the tune of 10 billion tons annually now and rising ever faster. None of your explanations hold water at least not in the scientific community so why portray them and ignore the questions I put forth?.
Not Very scientific of you dispite your claim of being one
21 years off the grid and counting
You're becoming redundantly boring again, and now back on ignore.
Falling Ice bridge
I personally feel the signs are already showing all around us.
but then I think about how much we don't understand how the functionning of the planet.
then I get even more confused...but I still feel we should take action
Just in case.
just my 2 cents but recently I read an article ( can't remember where just now) That the business Al Gore started while leading this parade of Global warming has netted him tens of millions of dollars
(follow the money) like I said just my 2 cents
An easy way to recycle paper that doesn't require lots of chemicals that end up in waterways, is worm-farming.
Check out worm composting, aka vermiculture. You can turn most of your household food waste into really good fertilizer, and you need lots of paper in the process as well. Worm Kits aren't that expensive, or you can build your own for next to nothing out of an old plastic tub or half a plastic barrel.
I'm starting a worm farm this summer, so I'll be posting under the same name in the fertilizer sections of some of the gardening forums out there. Maybe one day the city will PAY ME to take waste paper off their hands. (How's that for a goal)
Solutions to pollution etc like this one are cheap, easy, and practical. Let's hope the government doesn't find out about it too soon or it'll be taxed and regulated out of existence.
I'm just getting into learning about this, didn't know paper wasn't necessary. Regardless, it would be an infinitely more eco-friendly way to recycle paper versus chemical-intensive 'recycling', or even burning in the county incinerator.
I can't wait to get started and make my first 5 or 10 major mistakes. I adore these learning experiences!
I'm planning to use just the black and white newsprint, and they use soy ink on our local paper.
Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong
ScienceDaily (July 15, 2009) — No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.
The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."
During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.
In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.
Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.
"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said. "This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."
Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.
That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.
Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
OK I'll bite. Whats your take on this story? Almost sounds like we don't need to worry about AGW now don't it?
21 years off the grid and counting
AGW, aka AlGoreWierdness, is a myth promulgated to make some people richer. Yes humans are making a contribution to the warming of the planet, but that's far from being the "Cause" as the AGW aficionados would like to 'guilt trip' us into believing, just so we will buy 'carbon credits' from their companies. Scammers and Suckers, is one of the oldest games in human history. Believe in AGW if it makes you feel better, I personally don't care what others want to believe, as long as they don't try to coerce me into paying for their beliefs.
So who is behind this grand conspericy, besides the entire scientific comunity of the world?. There has to be a leader in charge of all this isn't there? It must be quite the organization to be able to manipulate so much science and literature. If you want to contend that this is just a myth then post your sources to back up your claim
under a cap and trade "we" wont be buying carbon credits so there's no need for a guilt trip. Thats just a fabrication or "strawman" to confuse the public
I don't believe in AGW just because it makes me "feel better". once one checks out the facts of the mater and sees whats coming in the near future they are hardly left "feeling better".
As for the story you posted;
The 7 degree rise experianced during the PETM was fueled from co2. what the author is saying is that the total rise in temperature can not be attributed to co2 alone. the climate sesitivity to double the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is generaly agreed at aprox 3 degrees C but the models don't match the geological record and can only account for half the temperature rise recorded.
This shows that there must be some other process involved in helping drive the teperature so high. Remember the PETM is a period when most of the life on Earth was eliminated due to these high temps,it wasn't pretty. The conclusion is that there were other feedbacks involved in that climate forcing 55 million years ago that raised the temps to an extinction event, feedbacks that quite possably are relevent now and as said in the letter (from which your post is about) can be insightful in our own future temperature rise.
A quote from the letter which can be found here
"The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2."
and concludes with this quote
" At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum."
So when Science Daily says the Predictions may be wrong they arn't saying to forget about AGW. What they are saying is that it could be a lot worse than what is accepted now if these amplifying feedbacks (like methane and co2 curently locked in the arctic permafrost or frozen methane ice crystals at the bottom of the ocean) kick in and raise temperatures on their own without any more help from us and could possably create another extinction event like the one 55 million years ago.
There's plenty of evidence that we are in the middle of the 6th extinction event right now
21 years off the grid and counting
When you make a claim like "What really gets me is the constant propaganda about global warming. Is
the Earth Warming. Yes. Are humans the cause? Highly unlikely "
Then post a story with the headline "Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong
But add no comment. Why? you never extrapolate just what your trying to say. Do it enough times and one has to wonder just what you are doing.
one gets the impression that this story backs your point of view if one were to skim by and not follow up on whats actually being stated in this letter.
Was this your point of view? and if not just what was your point?
Because I don't want to get the impression that your just manipulating this thread to promote your wilfuly ignorant view on AGW ,that would be a falacy. Repeat a falacy enough times becomes willfuly ignorant
21 years off the grid and counting
Tens of millions might die in an overpopulated world, ....so?
Climate Change: Two Cheers for Two Degrees
By Gwynne Dyer
Wednesday July 22, 2009
This is how the human race does business. What the G8 summit in Italy decided to do about climate change last week was much less than is necessary, but the very best that a realist could have hoped for. Some tens of millions of people will probably die as a result, or some hundreds of millions if we are really unlucky, but there is still time to avoid the worst. And anyway, it can’t be helped: this is the way we do business.
An example. President Barack Obama has hired the best people in the business as his clima te advisers. They know exactly how grave the situation is, and so does Obama. Yet when his chief scientific adviser, John Holdren, was asked why the US would not commit to the same target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 as the European Union, he replied as follows.
“If we had not wasted the last eight years, we could probably achieve that target. But we did waste the last eight years and in consequence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to officially embrace a target that is not realistically within reach.” Analyse that sentence, and what it says is: We didn’t do what we should have for the past eight years, so we can’t do what we should for the next twelve years either.
Get upset about it if you like, but this is how the system works. Obama cannot ignore the fact that climate change denial is still stronger in the United States than anywhere else, and that much of the US Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industries. He’s going as far as he can, for now. He can’t go any farther even if what he’s doing is not good enough, which it isn’t.
All the parts of the system work like that, not just the American parts. The Indian government, for example, cannot ignore the resentment felt by most Indians when their country is asked to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and= 0slow its own development to deal with a problem that India had little role in creating.
Almost all the excess greenhouse gas that is in the air now were put there by the old industrialised countries, yet the newly industrialising ones like India will be hurt first and worst by the resulting climate change. Cutting their emissions means slowing their escape from poverty, which the old rich countries were never required to do – and if they refuse, climate change will hurt them even faster and worse. No matter which way they jump, India’s decision-makers will face the anger of the voters.
Every country comes to the table with powerful lobbies at home to satisfy, and it’s something of a miracle that the eighteen biggest emitters, countries that together account for 80 percent of human greenhouse gas emissions, all managed to agree that the average global temperature should never be allowed to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1900 level. But there were other important things that they didn’t agree on.
The big industrialised countries of the G8 (US, Russia, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Canada) said they would cut their emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and asked the developing countries to cut their emissions enough to produce 50 percent global cuts by the same date. The developing countries refuse d.
But those same rapidly industrialising countries of the G5 (China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa) then called the rich countries’ bluff by demanding that the G8 set an interim target for emissions cuts by 2020. Any leader can make promises for 2050, safe in the knowledge that they won’t be around by then. Promises for 2020, on the other hand, may fall due while you’re still in the game – so the G8 leaders refused.
Nevertheless, the idea that all these countries, plus five other big emitters (the European Union, Indonesia, Egypt, South Korea and Australia) would actually agree in mid-2009 on a never-exceed target of +2 degrees C= 0would have been seen as fantasy only eighteen months ago. “It certainly doesn’t give you a roadmap on how you should get there but at least they’ve defined the destination,” said Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
Well, not quite, because even at only 2 degrees C hotter the world would be running out of food (global warming hits food production very badly), and that would lead to waves of refugees, failed states, and savage local wars over the remaining water, especially in the sub-tropical regions. Moreover, the two-degree target gives us only a fifty percent chance of avoiding tipping points that would lead to runaway warming.
&nbs p; So we ought to have much more ambitious targets now, and strict penalties for those countries that miss or evade them. Our children’s future really does depend on it. But we can’t have stricter targets yet, because the international political system does not work that fast – and we have no time to re-design it.
If we are lucky, some early disasters that don’t kill too many people will frighten the world’s countries into accepting tougher cuts in emissions while there is still time to avoid the worst, but this is the best that we are going to get for now. So two cheers for the two-degree limit.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59|