Global Warming

[Old Rocks]

Just a very few of the scientific societies that state AGW is a fact

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[27]
[edit] American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[28]

[edit] American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[29]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
[edit] American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[30]

[edit] Australian Institute of Physics
In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP) issued a science policy document in which they stated:

Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal.
Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.[31]

[edit] European Physical Society
In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy:

The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[32]

 

[del]

*yawn*

get a new shtick already.

 

[Big Black Dog]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Putting me to sleep with this same old bullshit. I think you must be a slow learner because this whole global warming thing has been proven to be a fraud. Time to find a new cause to rally around. This one's dead.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a joint statement by 32 of the National Academies of science of various nations. You will, of course, post a list of those that state the AGW is not a fact, correct?

Would you also like a list of the major universities that state AGW is a fact? Have a list of major universities that state otherwise?

Come on, people. Lots of yap-yap here, support some of your yap-yap with facts.

Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.

 

[Old Rocks]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Putting me to sleep with this same old bullshit. I think you must be a slow learner because this whole global warming thing has been proven to be a fraud. Time to find a new cause to rally around. This one's dead.

LOL. Meaning that neither of you have any other answer other than "I ain't agonna believe it, no matter what".

 

[Old Rocks]

The proof was provided over one hundred years ago by scientists.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

- LINKS -



For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.









<=Other gases

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)






<=Simple models

Greenhouse Speculations: Arrhenius and Callendar
TOP OF PAGE
The next major scientist to consider the question was another man with broad interests, Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm. He too was attracted by the great riddle of the prehistoric ice ages. In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level. But this idea could only answer the riddle of the ice ages if such large changes in atmospheric composition really were possible. For that question Arrhenius turned to a colleague, Arvid Högbom. It happened that Högbom had compiled estimates for how carbon dioxide cycles through natural geochemical processes, including emission from volcanoes, uptake by the oceans, and so forth. Along the way he had come up with a strange, almost incredible new idea.
Hogbom
<=Simple models


S. Arrhenius


It had occurred to Högbom to calculate the amounts of CO2 emitted by factories and other industrial sources. Surprisingly, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate roughly comparable to the natural geochemical processes that emitted or absorbed the gas. As another scientist would put it a decade later, we were "evaporating" our coal mines into the air. The added gas was not much compared with the volume of CO2 already in the atmosphere — the CO2 released from the burning of coal in the year 1896 would raise the level by scarcely a thousandth part. But the additions might matter if they continued long enough.(2) (By recent calculations, the total amount of carbon laid up in coal and other fossil deposits that humanity can readily get at and burn is some ten times greater than the total amount in the atmosphere.) So the next CO2 change might not be a cooling decrease, but an increase. Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth's temperature some 5-6°C.(3)

 

[Old Rocks]

Now this is the American Institute of Physics site, with many, many links showing the science of GHGs.


Simple Models of Climate

The Discovery of Global Warming Spencer Weart
May 2009 HOME Table of Contents for printer
Simple Models of Climate

What determines the climate? Explanations proliferated &#8212; models for climate built out of little more than basic physics, a few equations aided by hand-waving. All began with a traditional picture of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedbacks. A few nineteenth-century scientists suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most scientists thought the gas could not possibly have such effects. Yet climate did change, as proven by past ice ages. Some pointed out that feedbacks did not necessarily bring stability: in particular, changes in snow cover might amplify rather than dampen a climate shift. In the 1950s, an ingenious (although faulty) model involving changes in the Arctic Ocean suggested a disturbing possibility of arbitrary shifts. Experiments with fluids made that more plausible. Apparently the interlinked system of atmosphere, ice sheets, and oceans could swing in regular cycles or even in random jerks. Worse, around 1970 highly simplified computer models raised the specter of a catastrophic climate runaway. In the 1980s, the center of research shifted to large and complex computer models. These did not show a runaway, but reinforced what many simpler models had been suggesting: the next century would probably see significant greenhouse warming. Meanwhile the simple models remained useful for exploring questions that the large models could not handle. ( Basic general greenhouse effect ideas and observations are covered in the core essay on The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. Technical calculations on how radiation and heat move through levels of the atmosphere are described in a supplementary essay on Basic Radiation Calculations and for the large-scale computer work, see the essay on General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere.) "This is a difficult subject: by long tradition the happy hunting ground for robust speculation, it suffers much because so few can separate fact from fancy."
&#8212; G.S. Callendar(1)


Subsections: Basic Physics (19th century), Many Sorts of Models (1900-1960), Feedbacks Causing Cycles or Catastrophe (1960s-1970s), From Small Models to Big Computers (1980s), After 1988

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, sceptics. Your turn. Some real science from scientists.

 

[Oddball]

You've already categorically stated that you'll accept nothing short of a 180° from the hoaxers as evidence, so what would be the point?

 

[code1211]

OK, sceptics. Your turn. Some real science from scientists.

We're 1 degree cooler right now than we were 8000 years ago. The CO2 in the air is higher now than it was then by a good bit.

All of the theoreticians in the world wondering why the theory don't work don't make the theory work.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art

The following data sources were used in constructing the main plot:

1.(dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: Zhao, M., N.A.S. Beveridge, N.J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton (1995). "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675.
2.(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: [abstract] [DOI] Petit J.R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N.I., Barnola J.M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V.M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M. (1999). "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436.
3.(light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: [abstract] [DOI] Alley, R.B. (2000). "The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland". Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.
4.(green) Kilimanjaro ice core, &#948;18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M.E. Davis, K.A. Henderson, H.H. Brecher, V.S. Zagorodnov, T.A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V.N. Mikhalenko, D.R. Hardy, and J. Beer (2002). "Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa". Science 298 (5593): 589-593.
5.(yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: [abstract] [DOI] Lea, D.W., D.K. Pak, L.C. Peterson, and K.A. Hughen (2003). "Synchroneity of tropical and high-latitude Atlantic temperatures over the last glacial termination". Science 301 (5638): 1361-1364.
6.(orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Davis, B.A.S., S. Brewer, A.C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). "The temperature of Europe during the Holocene reconstructed from pollen data". Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1701-1716.
7.(red) EPICA ice core, interpreted site temperature, Central Antarctica: [DOI] Stenni, B., J. Jouzel, V. Masson-Delmotte R. Roethlisberger, E. Castellano, O. Cattani, S. Falourd, S.J. Johnsen, A. Longinelli, J.P. Sachs, E. Selmo, R. Souchez, J.P. Steffensen, R. Udisti (2003). "A late-glacial high-resolution site and source temperature record derived from the EPICA Dome C isotope records (East Antarctica)". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 217: 183-195.
8.(dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L.D. Stott, K.G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G.H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). "Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch". Nature 431: 56-59.
Additional data used in inset plot and for matching temperature scale to modern values. Colors match those used in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png.

1.(orange 200-1995): [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002.
2.(red-orange 1500-1980): [abstract] [DOI] Huang, S. (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205.
3.(red 1-1979): [abstract] [full text] [DOI] Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617.
4.(thin black line 1856-2004): Instrumental global annual data set TaveGL2v [3]: [abstract] Jones, P.D. and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

Copyright
This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shouldn't the second tank generate spontaneous mini hurricanes and tornadoes and melt the glass?

No. Was it a nail gun or a drill bit that went through your skull at a young age?

Once again, you Warmers are the ones telling us that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous, cataclysm changes on Earth...show me how.

Show me one time.

Take a 100,000 or a 1,000,000 gallon tank, make it like Earth as a control, then add 200PPM CO2 and let's see what the difference are if any.

You're telling us that the changes are irreversible and instantaneous

Show me.

Just once.

 

[Old Rocks]

And here is another interpretation of the last 20,000 years.

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/harders/geo390/chapter15.pdf

Also much of interest on climatic affects of many natural occurances.

 

[Old Rocks]

Shouldn't the second tank generate spontaneous mini hurricanes and tornadoes and melt the glass?

No. Was it a nail gun or a drill bit that went through your skull at a young age?

Once again, you Warmers are the ones telling us that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous, cataclysm changes on Earth...show me how.

We have already done that. Instantaneous on the geologic scale, not on the scale of a human lifetime. Cataclysmic over the space of the lifetime of a person that is a child now.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Methane catastrophe

Show me one time.

We have shown you many times already.

Take a 100,000 or a 1,000,000 gallon tank, make it like Earth as a control, then add 200PPM CO2 and let's see what the difference are if any.

You're telling us that the changes are irreversible and instantaneous

No, only instantaneous in geologic history. Not irreversable, either. Over a period of a hundred thousand to a million years, depending on the role of the ocean clathrates, things will return to a lower level of CO2.

Show me.

Just once.

As stated, you have been shown many times.

The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 was discovered by Tyndal in 1858, and was recognized to warm the atmosphere at that early date.

 

[elvis]

No. Was it a nail gun or a drill bit that went through your skull at a young age?

Once again, you Warmers are the ones telling us that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous, cataclysm changes on Earth...show me how.

We have already done that. Instantaneous on the geologic scale, not on the scale of a human lifetime. Cataclysmic over the space of the lifetime of a person that is a child now.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Methane catastrophe

Show me one time.

We have shown you many times already.

Take a 100,000 or a 1,000,000 gallon tank, make it like Earth as a control, then add 200PPM CO2 and let's see what the difference are if any.

You're telling us that the changes are irreversible and instantaneous

No, only instantaneous in geologic history. Not irreversable, either. Over a period of a hundred thousand to a million years, depending on the role of the ocean clathrates, things will return to a lower level of CO2.

Show me.

Just once.

As stated, you have been shown many times.

The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 was discovered by Tyndal in 1858, and was recognized to warm the atmosphere at that early date.

That's absorption, dumbass.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, not only a fixation on male genitals, but also a spelling cop.

Elvis, an 'it' of many perversions.

 

[elvis]

Oh my, not only a fixation on male genitals, but also a spelling cop.

Elvis, an 'it' of many perversions.

I guess you never received that "hooked on phonics" in the mail, eh dumbfuck? Let's see how many more words you can butcher tonight, rockhead.

 

[Foxfyre]

huked en foniks werked fer me

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again, you Warmers are the ones telling us that de minimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 will cause instantaneous, cataclysm changes on Earth...show me how.

Uhh, no. No one ever said that, actually. You really are retarded.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I think you must be a slow learner because this whole global warming thing has been proven to be a fraud.

Link please.

 

[midcan5]

Why does 'believe' enter into all discussions of GW in America today? Data becomes belief? Science in divisive America is now about belief - not facts.

Do you believe in [fill in blank]? Weird science for sure! But any reading of history confirms the skepticism all knowledge is first met with that is contrary to so called common sense judgments. More curious is why taking care of the earth is debated and why moving away from pollution and fossil fuels is not a good thing.

"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." Global Warming Fast Facts

And why does the right use any contrary information as a stick? What is it with these negative arguments, let's hope GW isn't significant but the idea we can go on polluting the earth with no consequences is truly weird. Even if GW is not a significant problem why not take of the world our grandchildren will inherit.

"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com