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 -

CO2 particles ?

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to CO2 Levels A Blame ALL

Nuclear winter would be caused by multiple ground bursts throwing dust particles in to the high atmosphere, ther by blocking sun light from reaching the earths surface. The only person I've heard make the claim you did is in fact you, personally I'd be wary of making any more, this one wasn't too clever.

Collapse -

There was conjecture

by TonytheTiger In reply to CO2 particles ?

that the K-T impactor hit in an area with a high concentration of lime....

Collapse -

Tony, he specified the 19080s

by Absolutely In reply to CO2 particles ?

Do you mean to imply, by contradiction, that you also have access to his time machine, and know what these scientists said more than 17,000 years from now?

Collapse -

No, just pointing out

by TonytheTiger In reply to CO2 particles ?

that according to conjecture, large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause a global cooling (which had been described as like a 'nuclear winter')

Collapse -

No you've misunderstood

by ralphclark In reply to No, just pointing out

The nuclear winter claim specified that dust & ash particles from nuclear groundbursts would collect in the upper atmosphere and block out the sun's rays thus causing the Earth to cool. It is still thought to be the case. Please note that "particles" in this sense may well contain carbon and even oxygen but they not CO2, they are solid and a lot bigger than individual gas molecules.

The global warming hypothesis is that CO2 gas in the atmosphere - regardless of origin - blocks infrared (i.e. heat) but passes light and ultraviolet. Hence it lets sunlight in, which heats the Earth, but doesn't let heat out. So it works just like the glass in a greenhouse (hence "greenhouse gas", "greenhouse effect"). As a result the more CO2 lingering in the atmosphere, the more the Earth heats up.

What the Vostok ice core studies established as a matter of incontravertible fact is that since the start of the industrial age (when, coincidentally, humans started burning fossl fuels on an industrial scale, ha ha) CO2 levels shot up from 180ppm to 360ppm which is far above anything seen during any ice age or any interglacial period going back as far as we have data for (about half a million years).

So we have three things here that we know for sure:
1. Atmospheric CO2 levels have grown continually ever since human fossil fuel usage began to increase when we started burning fossil fuels to power our machines.
2. There is a simple theory that predicts how increased CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute to a rise in average global temperature.
3. The average Ocean temperature is in fact rising.

The ONLY valid question there ever was about this, was how much of number 3 is down to numbers 1 and 2.

The article which this thread is discussing is about a study which showed how the various explanatory models were testing - both the ones beloved of the treehuggers and the ones beloved of the gas guzzling dont-take-my-car-away right wing, and the only models that resulted in the effects so far observed were the ones that included human-caused CO2 output. So 1 and 2 really do lead to 3.

Anyone still contending otherwise clearly has no clue what they are talking about. Fortunately such people are a dwindling minority. Most of the loudmouth right wing corporate apologists have suddenly gone unusually quiet on this subject.

Collapse -

Hellooooo?

by Oz_Media In reply to Global warming is real, a ...

Funny how everyone wants to debate global warming but ignore the facts and findings. LOL. :)

Collapse -

Hello!

by Absolutely In reply to Hellooooo?

I'm not at all amused by morons who want to discuss any topic, "but ignore the facts and findings."

The only things in the universe that mean anything are facts.

Collapse -

A counter argument

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Hello!

Facts have no meaning until you use them to illustrate what you mean.

I mean if you ignore the facts that mean you are wrong, it seems to mean you are right.

Or if you only consider the facts that mean you are right , it seems to mean you are not wrong.


No I mean , what exactly are the facts and who says so. I don't agree with you , your facts are wrong, therefore it means I'm right.

The fact is what the facts mean isn't what you say they mean but what they I say they mean, otherwise it would mean I was wrong.

and that's a fact.

LOL

Collapse -

That was mean!

by neilb@uk In reply to A counter argument
Collapse -

Cruel nonsense, pointed or barbed perhaps

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to That was mean!

Hold on, I seem to have caught something.

Nothing like a bit of virtual angling if you can't get any of the real thing.

Related Discussions

Related Forums