Before we draw the conclusion that human activities are contributing to global warming, has anyone or any organization keeping track of the energy output of the sun? Sure, I believe that we have too many humans on this planet and we are all selfish SOB who don't like to share rides and drive our own cars. However, I have yet seen any data collected by anyone who has been tracking the energy output of the sun over a long period of time. We can't assume that the sun's energy output has always been and will always be constant.
Yes, we have been tracking the amount of energy coming from the sun for decades. It doesn't correlate very well at all. We also DON'T assume the energy from the sun remains constant. It does change over time, but that tends to be over millions and billions of years, not decades. The energy output does fluctuate, but it is such a minor amount that it is overwhelmed by other factors most of the time. For example, a big volcano goes off, the earth will cool for a year or two regardless of the sun's fluctuations.
I see. Speaking of natural disaster. What do you think of the wild fires we are having? Do you think they would erase all the carbon credit we (Prius drivers) saved by driving Prii?
Yes, this has been well studied for some time and does not appear to play a significant role in the climate change we are experiencing. A quick summary: The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change: Scientific American
No. The vegetation lost by the fires will grow back thus erasing the initial CO2 put into the atmosphere.
I'm all for discussion on global warming but this thread should probably be moved to the environmental forum instead of the PiP forum since it isn't specific to any one type of car.
This is an interesting argument. However, having more sun should be a good thing. It will induce plant growth on land and in oceans. And that would lead to lower level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which should reduce the level of greenhouse effect.
More likely that air pollution was masking or partially offsetting the warming. But that pollution was very bad for other reasons, and should be reduced regardless.
whether you believe in climate change and / or AGW or not one thing is certain - there is money to be made btw, that money is usually from you to someone else
My economic professor said "The reason why you're making money is because someone else has a problem."
Wildfires burn living (or very recently living) biomass that is technically still part of the life-atmospheric carbon cycle. This carbon is already on the surface and, through plant growth / decay / natural fires, cycles between the air and the surface every few months / years / decades / centuries. While this carbon is better stored on the ground, its early release into the air doesn't have a large impact because it was eventually headed there anyway, as part of the continuous cycling. Coal, oil, and natural gas are fossil carbon, removed from the life-atmospheric carbon cycle and buried eons ago. When we dig up and burn it, it becomes new carbon injected into this cycle. It has a far greater impact than the early release of carbon already in the cycle.
Sunspot Cycle and the Global Temperature Change Anomaly | Watts Up With That? "82% correlation between the sunspot cycle and the Global Temperature Anomaly. The correlation is obtained through a non linear time series summation of NASA monthly sunspot data to the NOAA monthly Global Temperature Anomaly."
You got a point there. However, it will take a long time for those tree to grow back. In the mean time, there are less tree to absorb the carbon dioxide.
When somebody hits you with that new ‘IPCC is 95% certain’ talking point on global warming, show them this | Watts Up With That? Which side is which time period? What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver? How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?
Well this is a good Post by CheSleyn, and he beat me to posting this news item. The news is that IPCC is about to issue a 5-yr update report on Global warming. They are saying 95% probability AGW is man made. They are however also saying it is quite hard to predict local effects this might cause, in some ways backing off or hedging a little from more dire predictions. Sea level rise predicted to go from +11-inch(minimum) to +33-inch (maximum) by 2100. But the +11 inch is more or less what we have been seeing last 200 years, so that is reasonable...+33 inch is scary but who knows if it will happen? The new report feeds into a new round global government talks (and countless Prius Chat threads) next couple years, it will be interesting to see where it goes. For me I am comfortable with 95% confidence in man-made, but to me that does automatically equate to the need to ban fossil fuels.
