Global warming.

[stan]

Where have you been, Freethinker?

[Digit]

The CET is useful Beag but it's no Bible despite what is stated there. It's useful because of its years of coverage, but it covers a relatively small part of the country and the methods of measurement of years ago would not now be acceptable.
Before I'm jumped on, yes it does help establish global warming as a fact, but the earlier figures should be looked at with a somewhat jaundiced eye.
I would like to refer you to the ice core graph that Marduk posted some days ago and tell me if GW is man made.

Ive added the link Beag.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/

[Digit]

Try this one o ye of little faith.
Loved the bit placement of thermometers!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm

[Beagle]

Thanks Digit. I've seen those charts and many like them. We used to post this stuff in a thread called climate change. It's buried somewhere deep in the forum.

I've always maintained that man is not responsible for global warming. I believe that if there were no humans on planet Earth, global warming would be happening anyway. I think it was last spring when I posted that NASA reported that Mars was in a period of global warming.

The question remains though, whether or not humans are contributing to the warming and to what degree is that contribution. I think we have to be, considering the amount of greenhous gases that we are pumping into the atmosphere.

It's also true that I am an environmentalist at heart and I would be advocating less use of fossil fuels etc, even if there was no global warming going on at all.

How do you feel about the issue?

[Minimalist]

Apples and oranges. True, now we have millions of vehicles and power plants but back at the LGM they had mammoth farts.

You have to figure that in to the equation somehow.

[Beagle]

I know quite a few humans who are making up for the lack of mammoths.

[Digit]

In the link that I posted second time Beag there is a statement that temperature measuring devices tend to be located at airports. With an aircraft taking off from LAP something like every 2 min the idea that the heat they produce would not have some effect is incredible. Even placing them in urban areas leaves a lot to be desired, common sense says that winter temps at least will show artificially high figures.
Yes, our activities must contribute to GW, my main objection is that the subject has become a band wagon, a means of advancing people's prospects. If it wasn't GW they would find some other band wagon to climb aboard, from there they tend to look only for evidense that supports their ideas and rubbish alternatives.
If that graph I posted is anything to go by we could be facing a drop in temp and if these peolple care so much they should be looking at that as a possible alternative scenario before I have to start looking for my winter woolies!

[Beagle]

I agree with all that Digit. Thanks.

[stan]

Best I can make of the chart posted by marduk and then again by digit, it seems that we have been in a warm phase for 10 thousand years. It does seem to be hovering there rather than falling precipitously as it did after other spikes.
But it started hovering long before the industrial revolution.
(not visible on this chart)....
Unless the effect of human activity causes it to stay, which seems doubtful, we should indeed remain cognizant of where we put our woolies!

[john]

Yeesh. This is driving me nuts.

For once and for all.

Global climatic change is a symptom, not a cause.

Although in general the model calls for global warming, it also calls for localized continental cooling.

The primary driver of this engine is the increase in global CO2 emissions. Secondarily, the relative reflectivity of the polar icecaps, glaciers, and snow worldwide is decreasing rapidly due to the deposit of the fly-ash, for lack of a better word, of burning huge amounts of hydrocarbons. The tertiary event in this model is a worldwide change in the relative warmth or cold of ocean currentsl, and their cyclic patterns, due to the increased percentage of freshwater being introduced into the oceans and an increase in ocean water temperatures.

Natural primary emitters of CO2 have been significantly diminished by industrialization. Industrialization as an emitter of CO2 has been verifiably graphed as a damn near vertical geometric curve over the last century.

So get a clue.

WE are the elephant in the living room, albeit in a severe psychosis of combined denial and greed.


john

[stan]

You may be right, John.

Can you show that the near vertical curve since industrialization has pushed the climate beyond the levels in the normal fluctuations?

I have no doubt we are having an effect, but my question is, "how much?"

Thanks.

[Forum Monk]

WE are the elephant in the living room, albeit in a severe psychosis of combined denial and greed.

No we're not.

[john]

You may be right, John.

Can you show that the near vertical curve since industrialization has pushed the climate beyond the levels in the normal fluctuations?

I have no doubt we are having an effect, but my question is, "how much?"

Thanks.

Stan -

I just tried, but I'm not cool enough with the computer to steal what I need. Get a copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth". There's a Harvard (I believe) professor who started tracking CO2 in the 1950's. Coincidentally, I discovered same guy in late 60's. The vertical curve is there. Along with this is ZPG, which is another subject.

john

[Forum Monk]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carb ... Flux-2.png

[john]

WE are the elephant in the living room, albeit in a severe psychosis of combined denial and greed.

No we're not.

What would the other variable be? Or variables. Your version of Maxwell's demon, please.


john