GW: human activities vs natural influences

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,870
5,289
290
N/A
Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out-going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.

FAQ-2.1_Fig-1.png


Greenhouse Gases
Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.

o Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation, building heating and cooling and the manufacture of cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO2 and reduces its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.

o Methane has increased as a result of human activities related to agriculture, natural gas distribution and landfills. Methane is also released from natural processes that occur, for example, in wetlands. Methane concentrations are not currently increasing in the atmosphere because growth rates decreased over the last two decades.

o Nitrous oxide is also emitted by human activities such as fertilizer use and fossil fuel burning. Natural processes in soils and the oceans also release N2O.

o Halocarbon gas concentrations have increased primarily due to human activities. Natural processes are also a small source. Principal halocarbons include the chlorofluorocarbons (e.g., CFC-11 and CFC-12), which were used extensively as refrigeration agents and in other industrial processes before their presence in the atmosphere was found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. The abundance of chlorofluorocarbon gases is decreasing as a result of international regulations designed to protect the ozone layer.

o Ozone is a greenhouse gas that is continually produced and destroyed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions. In the troposphere, human activities have increased ozone through the release of gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, which chemically react to produce ozone. As mentioned above, halocarbons released by human activities destroy ozone in the stratosphere and have caused the ozone hole over Antarctica.

o Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example, a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour. Human activities also influence water vapour through CH4 emissions, because CH4 undergoes chemical destruction in the stratosphere, producing a small amount of water vapour.

o Aerosols are small particles present in the atmosphere with widely varying size, concentration and chemical composition. Some aerosols are emitted directly into the atmosphere while others are formed from emitted compounds. Aerosols contain both naturally occurring compounds and those emitted as a result of human activities. Fossil fuel and biomass burning have increased aerosols containing sulphur compounds, organic compounds and black carbon (soot). Human activities such as surface mining and industrial processes have increased dust in the atmosphere. Natural aerosols include mineral dust released from the surface, sea salt aerosols, biogenic emissions from the land and oceans and sulphate and dust aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions.

Radiative Forcing of Factors Affected by Human Activities

FAQ-2.1_Fig-2.png

FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). Human activities cause significant changes in long-lived gases, ozone, water vapour, surface albedo, aerosols and contrails. The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. Positive forcings lead to warming of climate and negative forcings lead to a cooling. The thin black line attached to each coloured bar represents the range of uncertainty for the respective value. (Figure adapted from Figure 2.20 of this report.)

The contributions to radiative forcing from some of the factors influenced by human activities are shown in Figure 2. The values reflect the total forcing relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). The forcings for all greenhouse gas increases, which are the best understood of those due to human activities, are positive because each gas absorbs outgoing infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Among the greenhouse gases, CO2 increases have caused the largest forcing over this period. Tropospheric ozone increases have also contributed to warming, while stratospheric ozone decreases have contributed to cooling.
Aerosol particles influence radiative forcing directly through reflection and absorption of solar and infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Some aerosols cause a positive forcing while others cause a negative forcing. The direct radiative forcing summed over all aerosol types is negative. Aerosols also cause a negative radiative forcing indirectly through the changes they cause in cloud properties.
Human activities since the industrial era have altered the nature of land cover over the globe, principally through changes in croplands, pastures and forests. They have also modified the reflective properties of ice and snow. Overall, it is likely that more solar radiation is now being reflected from Earth’s surface as a result of human activities. This change results in a negative forcing.

Aircraft produce persistent linear trails of condensation (‘contrails’) in regions that have suitably low temperatures and high humidity. Contrails are a form of cirrus cloud that reflect solar radiation and absorb infrared radiation. Linear contrails from global aircraft operations have increased Earth’s cloudiness and are estimated to cause a small positive radiative forcing.

Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes

Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).
The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

All from https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html
 
The Nitrous might be the problem, stop snorting it before you think about "Global Warming"
 
3GreenhouseGasPotential_lg.jpg


People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.
 
16WarmingComputer-model_lg.jpg


Almost all evidence for man-caused global warming originates with eight climate change models called global climate models or GCMs. These are very sophisticated models, so sophisticated that they have to be run on super computers. However, the modelers are not climate scientists and have to get all their information from climate scientists. The modelers also admit that although they use thousands of variables in their models, those variables make up less than half of all the variables that impact climate. Not only that, every one of these models is based on the premise that CO2 warming must occur physically in a certain way, a way that is now proven not to be what has actually happened. The earth did not warm in the twentieth century like these models said it must.
 
Last edited:
If you believe that CO2 drives the climate you believe in magic....if you believe that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 drives climate change you not only believe in magic but are just f'ing stupid.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:
MWP blows this CO2 scam to shit!!!:D:D:2up:

yuk......yuk.......:badgrin:

Why do you think it was so important for them to make it disappear? That in itself is enough to discard the AGW hypothesis.,,not to mention the roman warm period, the minoan warm period and the holocene optimum...as soon as one looks at history, one really has no rational option but to laugh out loud at warmer wackos.
 
A fine, fine display of the denier nitwits egging each other on to ever-greater heights of stupid.

Deniers, you can scream on a message board all you want, and it doesn't matter. The world is still ignoring you, and will keep ignoring you, until you can do some science to back up your raving.
 
A fine, fine display of the denier nitwits egging each other on to ever-greater heights of stupid.

Deniers, you can scream on a message board all you want, and it doesn't matter. The world is still ignoring you, and will keep ignoring you, until you can do some science to back up your raving.




Hey genius.......how about we wait here for you to come up with a single link that shows us the science is mattering in the real world!!! Besides showing us other internet OCD climate change nutballs getting giddy about getting attention...........show us how the "consensus science" is impacting the real world!!!


The "denier nitwits" have all the time in the world s0n................:eusa_dance::eusa_dance:


But you wont come up with dick because like all weenie, limpwrister lefty fairies, the only option is to whine, piss and moan while the facts crush you and all the bozo's who are in here perpetuating this haox.



Links please????
 
Last edited:
Penn Gillette has backpedaled frantically from his previous emotional hyperventilating on the topic, hyperventilating illustrated by the video above. Now, when asked about global warming, he just gives a mealymouthed "I don't know". He's plainly very embarrassed about his past behavior. He knows he screwed up badly, but isn't ready to say it yet.

Deniers, take an example from Penn Gillette. He jumped off the sinking ship before it was too late, and thus avoided becoming a laughingstock. It's not too late for you.
 
Last edited:
If you believe that CO2 drives the climate you believe in magic....if you believe that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 drives climate change you not only believe in magic but are just f'ing stupid.


Odd, then, that I seem to have 97% of all climate scientists and 97% of all their studies supporting my point of view (because that's where I get my point of view) while you actually have LESS than the remaining 3% of those scientists and their studies. So on what do you base your conclusion that I (and the scientists I follow) are "f'ing stupid"? Eh?
 
Must see...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8]Democrat-Invited Witnesses Refuse To Endorse Obama Climate Alarmism - YouTube[/ame]
 
That was just Senator Sessions with some "gotcha" nonsense aimed at EPA administrators, and giving us some I-hate-the-EPA nonsense. I suppose it impresses denier rubes, but smarter people expect Senator Sessions to be stupid. He's a denier, after all.
 
Penn Gillette has backpedaled frantically from his previous emotional hyperventilating on the topic, hyperventilating illustrated by the video above. Now, when asked about global warming, he just gives a mealymouthed "I don't know". He's plainly very embarrassed about his past behavior. He knows he screwed up badly, but isn't ready to say it yet.

Deniers, take an example from Penn Gillette. He jumped off the sinking ship before it was too late, and thus avoided becoming a laughingstock. It's not too late for you.


Still awaiting some links s0n!!!:2up:



Heres about 100 from me!!! USMB domination from my skeptic pals >>> http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html .......all clearly displaying that despite the so-called "consensus science", its effect on the real world doesn't add up to dick. Green energy is still a joke......fringe and still far less than 10% for at least the next 3 decades.( according to the Obama EIA ) :fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu::fu:



Links please????



Or are you what everybody thinks you are on here.......a fake, phoney, fraud?? ( they avatar pic is a dead giveaway s0n!!!:D)


Nobody cares about the science!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You actually think a link into that denier echo chamber is worth ANYTHING? You never cease to amaze, son.

Have I told you today that you're an ignorant bigot? No? Well, you're an ignorant bigot.

If you want to see the backpedaling of Mr Jilette, just google "Penn Jilette, global warming". You really need to learn how to use a search engine. We won't always be around to hold your sweaty little hand.
 
Last edited:
If you believe that CO2 drives the climate you believe in magic....if you believe that the human contribution to the atmospheric CO2 drives climate change you not only believe in magic but are just f'ing stupid.


Odd, then, that I seem to have 97% of all climate scientists and 97% of all their studies supporting my point of view (because that's where I get my point of view) while you actually have LESS than the remaining 3% of those scientists and their studies. So on what do you base your conclusion that I (and the scientists I follow) are "f'ing stupid"? Eh?

There is no 97% of scientists consensus. That's a Cook paper that has already been discredited as crap. You have .3% consensus based off Cook's formula and findings.
 

Forum List

Back
Top