ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 68 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jringe01

  I cannot recall another period in human history in which we destroyed more forest than we do now.

  It's strictly a suspicion on my part but when you pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air if we still had most of our forrests they would act to balance it out but we lose an area the size of the Netherlands every year to deforestation they can no longer do the job as effectively as they once did.

  We are always going to have natural heating and cooling cycles but when you compound that with centuries of abuse it disrupts nature's efforts to repair the dammage.

  The Thames was once so polluted that it was considered dead. Now thanks to the massive clean up effort life has again return to this river. If earth is the Thames then we haven't yet seen life depart from the river but if the analogy holds true it will happen one day.
• 

  dilaceratus

  Jringe01: "It's strictly a suspicion on my part but when you pump billions of tons of CO2 into the air if we still had most of our forrests they would act to balance it out but we lose an area the size of the Netherlands every year to deforestation they can no longer do the job as effectively as they once did."

  Unfortunately, climate is a little more complex. Briefly, it's the loss of tropical rain forests that is the most damaging. From Science Daily.

  "Growing a forest might sound like a good idea to combat global warming, since trees draw carbon dioxide from the air and release cool water from their leaves. But they also absorb sunlight, warming the air in the process. According to a new study from the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, planting forests at certain latitudes could make the Earth warmer....

  "The researchers found that while tropical forests help keep Earth cool by evaporating a great deal of water, northern forests tend to warm the Earth because they absorb a lot of sunlight without losing much moisture. In one simulation, the researchers covered much of the northern hemisphere (above 20° latitude) with forests and saw a jump in surface air temperature of more than 6° F. Covering the entire planet’s land mass with trees led to a more modest increase of about 2° F."

  Oh-- the reason for more than 25% of the loss of rain forest? Beef production.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Auld Soul: "I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing..."
  
  Complete nonsense, even to yourself, as you have now changed your statement to "MANY."

  Brush up on comprehension next time you want to scathe me verbally, won't you?

  —AuldSoul
• 

  P&C

  It doesn't matter....

  People and things AREN'T going to change...( don't fool yourselves )

  And how come no one EVER looks at the POSITIVES of GW (whether it's real or not)???

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/29/131501/1.ashx

  P&C
• 

  AuldSoul

  P&C,

  And how come no one EVER looks at the POSITIVES of GW (whether it's real or not)???

  Scientists do. But the media rarely reports on it. Gloom and doom draws ratings and sells lots of pseudo-science docudrama DVDs.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  BrentR

  Given the fact that erupting volcanoes pump thousands of tons of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere then nature allready knows how to deal with it. The earth and atmosphere does have compensatory mechanisms that keep everything in check. The earth has been doing this long before humans and animals were here.

  Then maybe we should start pluging up those dirty nasty CO2 emitting volcanoes. After all mother nature would be at a complete loss how to keep everything balanced without us.
• 

  SixofNine

  Quote AuldSoul:

  NO ONE says 90% of even these 200 scientists believed CO 2 was the primary cause.

  hmmm, well, not exactly I suppose; it's better than that, as presumably, 100% of them believe that there is a 90% certainty that currently observed climate change is predominately anthropogenic. I'm pretty sure those "proponents" you mention that Seeker4 was referring to are the scientist who just released the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, from which I quote the following:

  [snip]
  7 In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgments on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct. (See Box TS.1.1)

  [snip]

  The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence 7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2. (see Figure SPM-2). {2.3. 6.5, 2.9}

  • The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m-2, and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years (see Figures SPM-1 and SPM-2). The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005, the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years.{2.3, 6.4}

  • Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modeling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime
  and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

  • Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative forcing come from several other sources. Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) contribute +0.35 [+0.25 to +0.65] W m-2. The direct radiative forcing due to changes in halocarbons8 is +0.34 [+0.31 to +0.37] W m-2. Changes in surface albedo, due to land-cover changes and deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow, exert respective forcings of -0.2 [-0.4 to 0.0] and +0.1 [0.0 to +0.2] W m-2. Additional terms smaller than ±0.1 W m-2 are shown in Figure SPM-2. {2.3, 2.5, 7.2}

  
  • Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}
• 

  SixofNine

  Thank goodness for cache. The following is the post from AuldSoul (AS responding to dilaceratus) that I was quoting from in my above reply:

  Auld Soul : "I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing..."
  
  Complete nonsense, even to yourself, as you have now changed your statement to "MANY."

  Wow, do you need reading comprehension lessons. I was told that I had not seen ANY scientists that combine these two into one thing. In fact, I have seen MANY that do, but allow for the possibility that some exist which I have NOT seen who might NOT do this. I have not seen ANY who do not combine these two issues as though they are the same thing.

  Even gaiagirl did this on another thread. I asked her questions to try and separate the two issues, because the fact of global warming does not constitute the fact of human cause.

  Notice the sliding scale of proponents Seeker4 referred to: 90% agree that global warming is occurring, an unstated but lower number believe that human activities are a major contributor to the cause, and an undisclosed but even lower number believe that CO 2 is the primary cause. NO ONE says 90% of even these 200 scientists believed CO 2 was the primary cause. But that is the inference drawn and anyone who draws a different inference is demeaned and chided.

  When thousands of trained scientists agree that it is more than 90% certain that the current global warming trends are the result of human activity, those with some sense of numeracy find this compelling.

  Pathetic. Science is supposed to rely on proof , not on consensus. When 200 scientists who have achieved a 90% that there are global warming trends and some armchair interpreter arbitrarily decides they represent the opinion of thousands who have reached a 90% consensus on a completely different issue (namely, that it is the result of human activity) those with some sense of numeracy find the lack of comprehension appalling.

  Brush up on comprehension next time you want to scathe me verbally, won't you?

  —AuldSoul
• 

  P&C

  The Ocean... is by magnitude the largest absorber of CO2...

  The change in ocean currents... should worry any would be chicken littles more than CO2...

  As "they" could change everything as we know it... and there ain't a dang thing we can do about it...

  So eat drink and be merry!

  P&C

  p.s.- I can't wait till Summer gets here and it gets HOT...and all the GW disciples start screaming..."SEE WE WARNED YOU"! Sounds just like this other little cult I was once a part of...
• 

  dilaceratus

  SixofNine: "Thank goodness for cache."

  Honestly, as a human being, it would be far better not to see such a public humiliation.

  I suppose those professing Christianity have a psychological need to believe in Repentance-- even if the Do-Over is only fifty-three minutes later.