Community

General discussion

Locked

Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

By Absolutely ·
Excerpt from http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/**1/2

For the entire article, purchase a membership to www.sciencemag.org

"Hurricanes are born in the warm waters of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are both getting warmer. Over the 20th century, ocean surface temperatures increased by between 0.32 degrees Celsius in the Pacific tropical region and 0.67 degrees C in the Atlantic tropical region. This has correlated with a twofold increase in category-4 and -5 hurricanes over the last 30 years (ScienceNOW, 17 August). Some researchers maintain that these changes in sea surface temperature (SST) are within the natural variability of climate. Others say that the human-caused climate change is the culprit.

"To figure out just how much people are to blame, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared observed SSTs with the predictions of 22 global climate models. They ran the different models under various physical scenarios, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions. Only model simulations that included the known human-caused increases in greenhouse gases replicated the observed rise in SST. In total, the team found an 84% probability that two-thirds of the observed temperature changes were caused by human activities. "There is no way of explaining the observed increases without positing a large human impact on these ocean temperatures," Santer says."

Maxwell, don't even start with your BS about political bias: Ben USED the competing models, and they all FAIL to account for the measured change. Address the science, or STFU, please.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Couldn't agree more

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to The only

But if you take a position to keep on the way we are based on the fact that the evidence for changing isn't incontavertible, then by way of action you are saying it's wrong.
The consequences of being wrong about global warming and not taking action are far greater than those of being wrong about it and doing something.
One hurts a few people's pockets temporarily, the other, everybody permanently. So simple pragmatism says you should operate on the basis that human caused global warming is fact until proven otherwise.

Any argument that says we should do nothing until it happens and is therefore too late to do anything is flat out self serving, short sightedness as best

Collapse -

One simple fact...

by JCitizen In reply to The only

I concur Tony. The thing that amazes me about this whole argument is one simple fact. The fossile fuels that we're burning were, at one time, in the air.

Now I don't think anyone would argue that the Precambrian epoch wasn't hot; but the Carboniferous period that followed was the one that trapped all that carbon under ground. Looks like carbon was good for life! If the Cambrian explosion is any yardstick.

So DUH! I am really worried about a new explosion of life! There may be more of the species that like hot weather, that we don't like; but BOO HOO! I'm not too worried about it.

Now if you want to talk about energy independence; thheeennnn you will get my attention. This is more important to me. I don't want to depend on fossile fuel for my nation. I think there is room for compromise on this, no matter what a guy believes; because energy independence equals freedom and no more wars over fuel.

Collapse -

2 important points, JC

by deepsand In reply to The only

1) All of the CO2 trapped in fossil fuels, the now frozen tundra, etc., was not all in the atmosphere at the same time.

2) While the Cambrian period may have been "good for life", I doubt that it was a "life" that either you or your descendants would view as "good."

It's easy to say that you don't care; but, you've no right to impose the results of your indifference on future generations.

Collapse -

RE: 2 important points....

by JCitizen In reply to The only

I am more worried that ocean species will not adapt soon enough to climate change. Arthropods were adapted to glean oxygen from the water, and they had no problem leaving the water and adapting to land; yet their size didn't change to smaller body types until the oxygen levels were higher? Why?Notice that very little geologic science enters into most of the arguments in the media. Like how much CO2 was in the air through the periods of prehistory and what kind of life was supported above water?

Just after the Carboniferous period there was a global warming period. Why? Paleontologists claim, during this period, that even a lighting strike could light the forests for miles because the oxyten was so high! There is a lot of mixed messages in the science. Perhaps an enlightened individual such as yourself could set us straight - opposed to all these other experts. Who are we to beleive?

Besides if you read the end of my statement there; you'll notice that I want an end to fossil fuel dependence anyway. Also I feel there are economical ways to absorb the excess CO2 from the atmosphere even if we kept using fossile fuels - which I am NOT in favor of (once again).

Collapse -

Wrong, Tiger

by Absolutely In reply to Right,

"CO2 is at the highest level we've ever estimated it to be.

Temperatures are not the highest we have ever estimated it to be."

Therefore, what?

"Therefore, the link between temperature and CO2 levels is obviously not" the only factor involved, nor is that "what these scientists are claiming it is."

From the article, emphasis added now to make crystal clear that TonytheTiger doesn't know science from his azzho1e:

"To figure out just how much people are to blame, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared observed SSTs with the predictions of 22 global climate models. They ran the different models under various physical scenarios, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions. Only model simulations that included the known human-caused increases in greenhouse gases replicated the observed rise in SST.(sea surface temperature) In total, the team found an 84% probability that two-thirds of the observed temperature changes were caused by human activities. "There is no way of explaining the observed increases without positing a large human impact on these ocean temperatures," Santer says."

Go find yourself another strawman, loser, I'm out of your league.

Collapse -

If 84%

by TonytheTiger In reply to Wrong, Tiger

of trains made it their destination without crashing, I'll be damned if I'd get on one. You can stay on yours though. Have a nice ride.

Collapse -

84% probability that two-thirds of measured global warming is human-caused

by Absolutely In reply to If 84%

If you have ever taken ... Excuse me, I mean, if you had ever passed a statistics class, you would understand that the probability is higher than 84% that at least 60% of the observed increase in SST is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, and that the probability that human greenhouse gas emissions is directly responsible for at least half of the observed temperature change is higher still. Of course, you don't know a confidence interval from your own azzh0le, either.

Collapse -

Just keep on

by TonytheTiger In reply to 84% probability that two- ...

ridin' that train... Whoo Whoooo

Collapse -

This train

by Absolutely In reply to Just keep on

This train is bound for glory.

Collapse -

CO2 Levels A Blame ALL

by m.daspit In reply to Wrong, Tiger

In the 19080s many of these same scientist were proclaiming the Co2 particals from nuclear explosions would cause a nuclear winter.

What is really correct seems that "Natural Science is today Polical Science

Related Discussions

Related Forums