want another place to refute those who claim global warming is false/not caused by humans?

I was reading through my son's solar system books and learned that our orbit and angle of rotation change over time which affects our weather. How much this affects it I am not sure.

Although I do think humans contribute to global warming I do not think we are the only cause. Aren't Earth systems are too complicated and dependent to isolate specific causes?

It definitely could not hurt to increase our renewable fuel usage and get away from fossil fuels. If anything it would reduce our political constraints.

Here is another thought: If we stop using fossil fuels the market price would drop and/or 3rd world countries would pick up the usage slack. So nothing would change as far as impacts on the environment right?

I do not know much about this topic but find it interesting.

 

www.realclimate.org

 

I posted this is in a now dead thread: I reserve the right to repost

I want to point out something on a majority opinion (heck call it consensus) and having a few lone individuals fighting it. Think Galileo Galilei, he and Kopernikus where among a handful of individuals who went against a widely adopted, known and proven (in their own way) status quo that the sun and the planets evolved around the Earth. Earth was also standing still, else everyone would be flung of its surface . So the dissenting voices have a place in this discussion, even if it only forces the other side to strengthen their findings with more research and insight or in Galileo's case, relent to the proof founded in sound science.

Now having said that, I would also like to point out that despite naturally occurring fluctuations in global temperatures, which have happened without humankind being involved for a very long time, it would be utterly foolish to assume that humankind has *no* impact on its environment. I would offer that humans at minimum exasperate a system already in flux, and that this exasperation breaks from the norm which the planet can handle. Man has truly used and abused its environment and never kept in tune with giving back what is taken. Only in the last century has humankind seen its full power of destruction and also realized its potential to undo or prevent harm being done.

GW is really a misnomer, IMNSHO. Perhaps it would be wise to label it Global Climate Change (GCC) which allows for warming and cooling trends to happen. In either case, a change in climate, be it warmer or colder, will have an effect on where the majority of humans continue to settle down and establishing their agricultural bases. Warming in one place will have a cooling effect in other areas, that is the basic refrigeration effect.

I will gladly give the dissenters the time to express their views and will hear their opinion, for they have a chance to proof me wrong, but you know what, that would be one loss I would cherish. If the GW nay sayers are correct and all our efforts to bring about change, invent better ways to generate, use and reuse energy was for naught, wow… hooray for all of us. However what if they are wrong, even just partially wrong? That is a risk I am afraid we can't take until we have proven that the danger is not as real as feared or we have adopted a sustainable way of life that ultimately sets things right.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Mar 9 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]402945[/snapback]</div>

Yep. The climate goes through cycles and there are single point events that can have a dramatic, but short term effect on climate (think volcanic eruptions or meteorite impacts). Humans certainly aren't the only ones that can modify the climate. The geologic record shows that things have been quite different in the past, long before humans existed or existed in numbers large enough to have any impact. However, the rate of change of change that we're seeing now is what's disturbing. The rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is much higher than we've seen in the last 600K years and CO2 correlates very well with temperature.

As far as poorer nations etc. First, the distribution of coal over the earth will govern this to some extent. If we don't mine our coal reserves then it doesn't get exported, which means that the supply of coal is tighter which puts upwards pressure on the price of it. If we tax the hell out of products from countries who use a lot of coal then they won't be able to sell their products. So it's in their best interest to find something else. Also, in a lot of developing countries the power grid is small. It takes massive capitol to develope these things so many of these countries would really benefit from distributed generation and forgo a highly developed grid. If we can push the envelope on renewables it will make a lot of sense for these countries to acquire these technologies instead of fossil fuels.

 

Milankovitch Cycles take 100,000 years with subcycles of 45,000 years. Milankovitch cycles relate to the extremes and means of Earth's parabolic orbit around the sun, tilt of the Earth's axis (23.5°) and distance from our sun.

The current climate change as identified in the 4th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reviewed 30,000 published and peer-reviewed papers. The IPCC report, the most rigorous to date, did not consider anecdotes, opinion or hearsay.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Mar 9 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]403075[/snapback]</div>

And yet with all that peer reviewed brainpower, they still manage to get the radiative forcing estimates wrong! :lol:

"The SPM reports on a “Total Net Anthropogenic†global average radiative forcing for 2005 of +1.6 [0.6 to 2.4] Watts per meter squared. When one converts the units, this means that the Earth’s climate system should be accumulating Joules at a rate of 2.61*10**22 Joules per year [0.98*10**22 Joules to 3.91*10*22 Joules per year] in 2005...The data, however, show quite a different accumulation of Joules in recent years...Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, [Lyman, Willis] present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2..."

See here

I think most people will agree that CO2 influences climate, but there are many other impacts (human and natural) of which we have little to no understanding and it is strange to me that so few people are willing to acknowledge that fact.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 9 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]403032[/snapback]</div>

This is THE site to go to for the latest info. Posts are from climate specialists, meterologists and the like. They will answer your questions and you can search for specific info. Highly recommended!
Jim

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 11 2007, 02:44 AM) [snapback]403687[/snapback]</div>

If anything is incorrect, it's a misleading caption on figure SPM-2 in the IPCC SPM, as you can see from the comments discussion between Pielke and Gavin on that article you cite. At worst, it's an editorial mistake, not a scientific one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Mar 11 2007, 12:44 AM) [snapback]403687[/snapback]</div>

Most climatologists do acknowledge that nature plays a HUGE part in CO2 and climate. In fact the GAIA hypothesis is almost centered on this knowledge. What I find disconcerting is how too many people want to pretend human contributions to GHGs and particulates have no effect and want to point the blame on nature. This is such a flaw within our culture. No one wants to be held accountable for their actions. How can the layperson even pretend to say that releasng nearly 2 billion metric tons of pollutants is not going to have any effect?

It is very obvious when one looks at the climbing trend of atmospheric CO2 levels that our natural systems are not uptaking as much as is being put out. Couple this with deforestation, loss of soil, melting of permafrost, and ocean acidification (inhibits calcification thus reduces CO2 uptake, and even releases CO2 due to decalcification) and the earths ability to uptake more CO2 is lost while more CO2 is put back into the cycle. Should we just keep pretending we don't know enough to act and wait until a bonfied positive feedback loop apears and we are completely screwed? We wont even talk about methane and methane hyrdates...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 15 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]406151[/snapback]</div>

I get the impression that a great many global warming "skeptics" want to underscore the folly of intellectualism by pretending to observe that the smartest minds on the planet have simply neglected to include the obvious in their models. To wit:


* A CO2 detection station on a volcano? No wonder it registers so high. Stupid scientists.

* Everyone knows all our energy comes from the Sun, and since there's global warming on Earth AND Mars, it must be the Sun's fault. Stupid scientists. Are we supposed to ban the sun? Ha!

* Ice ages come and go. Apparently scientists are too stupid to recognize this simple fact, so it must be all our fault.

Such arguments usually serve no purpose other than to highlight the ignorance of those quoting them which, ironically, was kind of the point, huh?

Yeah, nature plays a big part in historical cycles of CO2 and temperature, but not *this* one.

 

Whether global climate change is "true" or "false" is moot. A rational person bypasses all the anecdotal rhetoric and takes advantage of efficiency. When you double your efficiency you either cut your cost by one-half or double your profit. The Kyoto protocol is a "baby" step compared to efficiency.

Rather than arguing over trivia and minor points, grasp efficiency and move way forward. Example: incadescent vs. compact flourescent light bulbs.

Incadescent: Cost ? $1.50, 100 W, lasts about 850 hr, puts out mostly heat
Compact Florescent: Cost ? $5 to $8, 15 to 18 W, lasts 10,000 hr, puts out mostly light

Efficiency is a superior choice every time. A rational person does not use an incadescent light bulb to generate heat (inefficient, not cost effective). Efficiency works for energy, water and just about any resource. Which is more efficient a true hybrid or an ICE Hummer? This is a no brainer without all the arguing based on ignorance.

 

What about accepting that we are an integral part of the whole system on this planet. It is not just efficient to be recycling or using CF bulbs, it is also a logical extension of maintaining your place in the creation queue without breaking the chain.

If you take something, you have to give something back, CF bulbs are a great step forward (very nice example btw) but it would truly be efficient if the spent bulbs could turned back to resources that can either be reused or reintegrated into the chain.

 

Well sure -- every decision I've made that leads to efficiency saves me money:

1. Buying energy-star windows for my home (saves money and increases home value)

2. CFLs where color rendition is not key or application is not inappropriate (e.g., closets, hallways).

3. Buying a Prius (without which I would not be at this site).

A common argument against climate change mitigation is the one that says we have to destroy the economy to do it, but it seems to me that more technology, not less, is going to solve the problem -- and technology is known for building wealth, not destroying it (bursting bubbles notwithstanding).

Lywyllyn, another common argument is that we don't *have* to maintain our place because either [a] God's gonna do it himself or He's gonna toast the whole mess anyway. Sad but true. I was amazed to discover a fundamentalist element to the AGW "skeptics" but there it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TeeSeeJay @ Mar 15 2007, 06:55 PM) [snapback]406438[/snapback]</div>

In there defense, there's also a growing evangelical green movement as well. En sh Allah :lol: that group will grow quicky.

 

realclimate is certainly the place to go deep, but take a peek at the summary at

http://gristmill.grist.org./skeptics

and see what you think

 

Not being pinned on GCC but nevertheless:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/northe...3722749097.html

"according to the US Government"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Mar 9 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]402945[/snapback]</div>

That would be the Milankovich cycle, it affects earth's climate a lot, but it happens on a period of tens of thousands of years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Mar 9 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]402945[/snapback]</div>

On what basis would you believe humans were a certain portion of the problem?
Yes climate systems are complex, which is why there is so much research devoted to them. When you have a variety of models with a variety of resolutions, parameters etc. all agreeing on the direction of warming, but only generally agreeing on the amount, then you trust that the complexity is a factor. You do not, however, lose confidence in the fact that the models agree on the most important aspect.

If you can understand that CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas, and that this is leading to climate change, then you'd be interested to know that Carbon isotope ratios are one of the factors that determine how much of the contribution is from petroleum, and how much is from other sources.

If you or anyone else has scientific evidence that contradicts the rest of the climate science conclusions, then by all means, publish it. It wasn't long ago that the whole concept of climate change due to humans was a "bizarre" concept to climatology.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tochatihu @ Mar 16 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]406788[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the link...that will now become my new favorite site for the skeptical, though I will still look to realclimate for the 'latest'

Jim