4 things to consider when discussing Man-Made Global Warming

[Didacus]

1.  The weather and temperature of the earth has never been constant.  Why would we expect it to be constant now?

2. The largest energy input on the earth is the sun; sun flares (IE; the sun fluffy air extractions) and the temperature of the earth is affected.

3.  The most effective and common green house gas is water - in the form of clouds.  It constitutes over 95% of all green house gases in our atmosphere.  Have you ever seen a CO2 cloud?

4.  There is indeed a correlation between CO2 and temperature; but can anyone demonstrate which is the leading and which is the lagging indicator between the two?

 

 

discuss amongst yourselves....

[dUSt]

Who cares. If the polar ice caps melt, we got boats.

Besides, we don't need this land anyway:

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/what-america-will-look-like-once-global-warming-melts-the-polar-ice-caps/

 

 

[Didacus]

The above is not referencing global warming, but man-made global warming. 

I agree the earth is warming up; I am not convinced of the green house gas effect is the root cause, nor that the root cause is man-made.  (or woman-made for that matter)

[little2add]

 

[Dr_Asik]

1.  The weather and temperature of the earth has never been constant.  Why would we expect it to be constant now?

2. The largest energy input on the earth is the sun; sun flares (IE; the sun fluffy air extractions) and the temperature of the earth is affected.

3.  The most effective and common green house gas is water - in the form of clouds.  It constitutes over 95% of all green house gases in our atmosphere.  Have you ever seen a CO2 cloud?

4.  There is indeed a correlation between CO2 and temperature; but can anyone demonstrate which is the leading and which is the lagging indicator between the two?

discuss amongst yourselves....

Are you suggesting that these factors are not taken into consideration by the vast majority of climate scientists, who agree that human activity is responsible for most global warming? Because they are.

[Didacus]

If they are taking in consideration item 1; they what would the weather and temperature be if no humans were on earth?

[Dr_Asik]

According to the IPCC report, -0.1C to 0.1C of variation can be attributed to natural causes, while about 0.6C is caused by human activity. This includes all warming and cooling effects. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans

Edited June 26, 2015 by Dr_Asik

[Didacus]

[Dr_Asik]

Not sure what you're trying to get at with that graph. Doesn't look like the 1950-1980 period is correlated with the solar cycle length, from that graph, and most warming occurred since 1980 which isn't included on the graph.

[Didacus]

a few more considerations

• The CO₂ is not sufficient to drive the currently observed warming.
• The atmospheric CO₂ level has been up to 10 times higher in the past. Why weren't there catastrophic consequences then?
• Much of this century's temperature rise was in early years when industrial emissions were small, and there was a temperature decrease during the postwar economic boom.
• Ice core records show CO₂ rises lagging temperature rises rather than driving them.
• Surface warming is more than atmospheric warming, in contrast to CO₂-driven models.
• The global temperature of t he past century correlates more strongly with solar activity than with CO₂.
• The sunspot activity of our Sun and the associated magnetic fields divert some of the cosmic rays that nucleate clouds on the Earth.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Didacus
I wanted to edit my post

[Dr_Asik]

I'm not a specialist of the topic, but it looks like the site you are referencing provides answers to those points. For example, on CO2 levels lagging temperature increases in the ice record:

 

Though the CO₂ levels lag the rise in temperature and peak after the temperature starts to drop in the natural records above, we know on physical grounds that the CO₂ does always exhibit thegreenhouse effect and that rising CO₂ levels make the temperature higher than it otherwise would have been. You can beam infrared radiation through a volume of CO₂ and clearly measure the absorption associated with exciting the vibrational levels of the CO₂ molecules. This does not happen with the dominant N₂ and O₂molecules in the air because they are symmetric and don't absorb in the infrared. The natural cycles that have driven the temperatures in the past have incorporated that greenhouse effect and have collectively determined the climate. That is to say, the temperature changes and CO₂ changes were not independent and were both determined by natural causes. The concern of the present era is that enough human-origin CO₂ is being added independently of those natural drivers that it is tipping the balance of climate to higher temperatures.