NASA says Climate Change exagerated?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Wow, what a great way to explain the science with math. Really gets down to the root of what some people look at the above-ground portion and assume that it's the whole plant.

Also, it's quite humorous to see herbivor say something about propaganda whilst quoting one propaganda website.

[joshh]

ok, if its anthropogenic, lets do the math shall we
i've studied this about as much as herb

anthropogenic CO2 is about 4% annually of all CO2 emissions
there is no evidence CO2 causes GW. there is plenty of evidence rising CO2 is a result of GW.
CO2 is logrithmic in its limited greenhouse effect, that is, to double its effect you have to rise its level by a factor of 4
the GW camp, IPCC et al propose 20% reductions in anthropogenic CO2 which all parties agree will have serious negative economic affects

so, do the math and tell me where i'm missing something here

20% of 4% is an 8/10th's of one percent reduction in annual CO2
or, put another way, if we wreck the world economy, doom third world populations to poverty due to a lack of cheap energy, we still get 99.2% rise in annual CO2 of what it would be without wrecking the world economy

and remember its logrithmic

and there is no causal link

and i shouldn't be skeptical of government sponsored scientists on the free tax money subsidized gravy train

that about right?

how narrow minded of me to question the "consensus"

:ohsnap:

[HarryPotter]

ok, if its anthropogenic, lets do the math shall we
i've studied this about as much as herb

anthropogenic CO2 is about 4% annually of all CO2 emissions
there is no evidence CO2 causes GW. there is plenty of evidence rising CO2 is a result of GW.
CO2 is logrithmic in its limited greenhouse effect, that is, to double its effect you have to rise its level by a factor of 4
the GW camp, IPCC et al propose 20% reductions in anthropogenic CO2 which all parties agree will have serious negative economic affects

so, do the math and tell me where i'm missing something here

20% of 4% is an 8/10th's of one percent reduction in annual CO2
or, put another way, if we wreck the world economy, doom third world populations to poverty due to a lack of cheap energy, we still get 99.2% rise in annual CO2 of what it would be without wrecking the world economy

and remember its logrithmic

and there is no causal link

and i shouldn't be skeptical of government sponsored scientists on the free tax money subsidized gravy train

that about right?

how narrow minded of me to question the "consensus"

This made my pants quite tight.

[mrsleeve]

I love you gwb. well done.

[herbivor]

ok, if its anthropogenic, lets do the math shall we
i've studied this about as much as herb

anthropogenic CO2 is about 4% annually of all CO2 emissions
there is no evidence CO2 causes GW. there is plenty of evidence rising CO2 is a result of GW.
CO2 is logrithmic in its limited greenhouse effect, that is, to double its effect you have to rise its level by a factor of 4
the GW camp, IPCC et al propose 20% reductions in anthropogenic CO2 which all parties agree will have serious negative economic affects

so, do the math and tell me where i'm missing something here

20% of 4% is an 8/10th's of one percent reduction in annual CO2
or, put another way, if we wreck the world economy, doom third world populations to poverty due to a lack of cheap energy, we still get 99.2% rise in annual CO2 of what it would be without wrecking the world economy

and remember its logrithmic

and there is no causal link

and i shouldn't be skeptical of government sponsored scientists on the free tax money subsidized gravy train

that about right?

how narrow minded of me to question the "consensus"

You guys are seriously getting a boner over this? Really? I agree with the 4%, although a little higher than I thought. I also agree a 20% reduction in the 4% probably won't do a whole lot of good, primarily because the feedback loops are pretty well set in motion now. You forgot to mention the change in the 13C/12C Carbon isotope ration is only 0.15%, although 5 times the norm from any time we can measure in history, but hey what can a few tenths of a percent really do? Also, I've been asking the entire thread for you guys to site me some scientific articles that backs up your statements like "there is no casual link" and "there is no evidence CO2 causes GW" but I have yet to see any so I'm just going to presume it's your personal opinion. This article is from those left wing liberal hippies at NASA. I feel they dumbed it down for the masses but hopefully that means you guys will understand it, although I doubt it.
Is Current Warming Natural?

In Earth’s history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s climate changed due to natural causes not related to human activity. Most often, global climate has changed because of variations in sunlight. Tiny wobbles in Earth’s orbit altered when and where sunlight falls on Earth’s surface. Variations in the Sun itself have alternately increased and decreased the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. Volcanic eruptions have generated particles that reflect sunlight, brightening the planet and cooling the climate. Volcanic activity has also, in the deep past, increased greenhouse gases over millions of years, contributing to episodes of global warming.
A biographical sketch of Milutin Milankovitch describes how changes in Earth’s orbit affects its climate.
These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades. We know this because scientists closely monitor the natural and human activities that influence climate with a fleet of satellites and surface instruments.


Remote meteorological stations (left) and orbiting satellites (right) help scientists monitor the causes and effects of global warming. [Images courtesy NOAA Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (left) and Environmental Visualization Laboratory (right).]


NASA satellites record a host of vital signs including atmospheric aerosols (particles from both natural sources and human activities, such as factories, fires, deserts, and erupting volcanoes), atmospheric gases (including greenhouse gases), energy radiated from Earth’s surface and the Sun, ocean surface temperature changes, global sea level, the extent of ice sheets, glaciers and sea ice, plant growth, rainfall, cloud structure, and more.
On the ground, many agencies and nations support networks of weather and climate-monitoring stations that maintain temperature, rainfall, and snow depth records, and buoys that measure surface water and deep ocean temperatures. Taken together, these measurements provide an ever-improving record of both natural events and human activity for the past 150 years.
Scientists integrate these measurements into climate models to recreate temperatures recorded over the past 150 years. Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans.
Though people have had the largest impact on our climate since 1950, natural changes to Earth’s climate have also occurred in recent times. For example, two major volcanic eruptions, El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991, pumped sulfur dioxide gas high into the atmosphere. The gas was converted into tiny particles that lingered for more than a year, reflecting sunlight and shading Earth’s surface. Temperatures across the globe dipped for two to three years.


Although Earth’s temperature fluctuates naturally, human influence on climate has eclipsed the magnitude of natural temperature changes over the past 120 years. Natural influences on temperature—El Niño, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols—have varied approximately plus and minus 0.2° C (0.4° F), (averaging to about zero), while human influences have contributed roughly 0.8° C (1° F) of warming since 1889. (Graphs adapted from Lean et al., 2008.)


Although volcanoes are active around the world, and continue to emit carbon dioxide as they did in the past, the amount of carbon dioxide they release is extremely small compared to human emissions. On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. By burning fossil fuels, people release in excess of 100 times more, about 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere every year (as of 2005). As a result, human activity overshadows any contribution volcanoes may have made to recent global warming.
Changes in the brightness of the Sun can influence the climate from decade to decade, but an increase in solar output falls short as an explanation for recent warming. NASA satellites have been measuring the Sun’s output since 1978. The total energy the Sun radiates varies over an 11-year cycle. During solar maxima, solar energy is approximately 0.1 percent higher on average than it is during solar minima.


The transparent halo known as the solar corona changes between solar maximum (left) and solar minimum (right). (NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Telescope images from the SOHO Data Archive.)


Each cycle exhibits subtle differences in intensity and duration. As of early 2010, the solar brightness since 2005 has been slightly lower, not higher, than it was during the previous 11-year minimum in solar activity, which occurred in the late 1990s. This implies that the Sun’s impact between 2005 and 2010 might have been to slightly decrease the warming that greenhouse emissions alone would have caused.


Satellite measurements of daily (light line) and monthly average (dark line) total solar irradiance since 1979 have not detected a clear long-term trend. (NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from the ACRIM Science Team.)


Scientists theorize that there may be a multi-decadal trend in solar output, though if one exists, it has not been observed as yet. Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.


Satellite measurements show warming in the troposphere (lower atmosphere, green line) but cooling in the stratosphere (upper atmosphere, red line). This vertical pattern is consistent with global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases, but inconsistent with warming from natural causes. (Graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Remote Sensing Systems, sponsored by the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program.)


The stratosphere gets warmer during solar maxima because the ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet light; more ultraviolet light during solar maxima means warmer temperatures. Ozone depletion explains the biggest part of the cooling of the stratosphere over recent decades, but it can’t account for all of it. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the troposphere and stratosphere together contribute to cooling in the stratosphere.

[mrsleeve]

*cough* Hockey stick *cough*


stop posting anything with one of those, its has been shown time and time again that the algorithm can be manipulated to show those results no matter what data is entered into it.

[joshh]

*cough* Hockey stick *cough*


stop posting anything with one of those, its has been shown time and time again that the algorithm can be manipulated to show those results no matter what data is entered into it.

The pirates cause was quite interesting. You never know...

[herbivor]

*cough* Hockey stick *cough*


stop posting anything with one of those, its has been shown time and time again that the algorithm can be manipulated to show those results no matter what data is entered into it.

Maybe this should clear your throat:
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analyzing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
The "hockey stick" describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years.

Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large uncertainty (grey area) as you go further back in time.
A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant.
An independent assessment of Mann's hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red). Instrumental record in black (Wahl 2007).
While many continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). What are some of the proxies that are used to determine past temperature?
Changes in surface temperature send thermal waves underground, cooling or warming the subterranean rock. To track these changes, underground temperature measurements were examined from over 350 bore holes in North America, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia (Huang 2000). Borehole reconstructions aren't able to give short term variation, yielding only century-scale trends. What they find is that the 20th century is the warmest of the past five centuries with the strongest warming trend in 500 years.

Figure 3: Global surface temperature change over the last five centuries from boreholes (thick red line). Shading represents uncertainty. Blue line is a five year running average of HadCRUT global surface air temperature (Huang 2000).
Stalagmites (or speleothems) are formed from groundwater within underground caverns. As they're annually banded, the thickness of the layers can be used as climate proxies. A reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature from stalagmites shows that while the uncertainty range (grey area) is significant, the temperature in the latter 20th Century exceeds the maximum estimate over the past 500 years (Smith 2006).

Figure 4: Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction from speleothem reconstructions shown with 2 standard error (shaded area) (Smith 2006).
Historical records of glacier length can be used as a proxy for temperature. As the number of monitored glaciers diminishes in the past, the uncertainty grows accordingly. Nevertheless, temperatures in recent decades exceed the uncertainty range over the past 400 years (Oerlemans 2005).

Figure 5: Global mean temperature calculated form glaciers. The red vertical lines indicate uncertainty.
Of course, these examples only go back around 500 years - this doesn't even cover the Medieval Warm Period. When you combine all the various proxies, including ice cores, coral, lake sediments, glaciers, boreholes & stalagmites, it's possible to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures without tree-ring proxies going back 1,300 years (Mann 2008). The result is that temperatures in recent decades exceed the maximum proxy estimate (including uncertainty range) for the past 1,300 years. When you include tree-ring data, the same result holds for the past 1,700 years.

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).
Paleoclimatology draws upon a range of proxies and methodologies to calculate past temperatures. This allows independent confirmation of the basic hockey stick result: that the past few decades are the hottest in the past 1,300 years.

[HarryPotter]

If it continues at this rate

[mrsleeve]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Al Gore Loses it at a climate talk. and mocks his invention, and is pissed off that some people other than his cronies are using it to Organize and oppose their agenda.

[herbivor]

^ I feel his frustration 100%. At least a few prominent skeptics changed their minds.
http://theweek.com/article/index/206...ed-their-minds

[HarryPotter]

Herb are you really that blind? Do you believe EVERYTHING you read or hear? There is no possible way they are using "climate change" to further their agendas? Such as imposing devastating taxes and caps on the power industry? They aren't like you know trying to control EVERYTHING. They aren't like that, its to better the environment right? The people pressing climate change don't give a flying fuck about the environment, they do it to gain power. This is so fucking obvious it hurts to read shit that people like you post.

[BraveUlysses]

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of which tens of thousands of climate scientists to...do what exactly?

[Farbin Kaiber]

To gain access to large amounts of Govt. Grants. In trade for slighted opinions.

[CorvallisBMW]

Ah right, the global conspiracy of tens of thousands for the sole purpose of research grants. Ya, that makes sense :loco:

If anyone has an agenda, its all the polluters who don't want to clean up or fork over any $. Since when have scientists ever been regarded as rich, greedy and selfish? Lol

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk