The supposed evidence, according to some, of cosmic rays causing global warming has now been proven to not stand up to any real scientific scrutiny by this comprehensive study:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/nov/05/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming
This is now one less bit of misinformation for the greenhouse effect deniers to use. No doubt they will now simply make greater use of other misinformation.
Originally posted by humyThe greenhouse effect is real but it is something that we cannot change and barely contribute to with technology.
The supposed evidence, according to some, of cosmic rays causing global warming has now been proven to not stand up to any real scientific scrutiny by this comprehensive study:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/nov/05/comprehensive-study-shows-cosmic-rays-are-not-causing-global-warming
This is now one less bit of misinformation for the greenho ...[text shortened]... e effect deniers to use. No doubt they will now simply make greater use of other misinformation.
Normal exchange of gasses from mammals is the number one contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
The greenhouse effect is real but it is something that we cannot change and barely contribute to with technology.
Normal exchange of gasses from mammals is the number one contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
That is both all true and totally irrelevant to the CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels which have been scientifically proven to significantly contribute to global warming.
Originally posted by humyThe point is all we can do is slightly delay the inevitable by discontinuing use of burning fossil fuels, we can't stop it.The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
That is both all true and totally irrelevant to the CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels which have been scientifically proven to significantly contribute to global warming.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSThat doesn't mean reducing our carbon footprint now couldn't significantly reduce the magnitude of the disaster later.
The point is all we can do is slightly delay the inevitable by discontinuing use of burning fossil fuels, we can't stop it.
With all else being equal, if we had a choice of a 2 metre rise in sea level or a 30 metre rise, we would be stupid to choose the latter.
Originally posted by humyIt is not a sudden occurence, the sea level is already on the rise and will continue to rise until the ice caps stop melting. This will occur when sea levels become high enough to significantly change the weather patterns and refreeze them.
That doesn't mean reducing our carbon footprint now couldn't significantly reduce the magnitude of the disaster later.
With all else being equal, if we had a choice of a 2 metre rise in sea level or a 30 metre rise, we would be stupid to choose the latter.
Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
It is not a sudden occurence, the sea level is already on the rise and will continue to rise until the ice caps stop melting. This will occur when sea levels become high enough to significantly change the weather patterns and refreeze them.
It is not a sudden occurence,
Did I say it was?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not a greenhouse effect denier. It is obvious to anybody with a brain there is a greenhouse effect but it is just as obvious that we currently can't do anything except delay the repercussions.
Your prediction came true very quickly. 🙂
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSYou still did your best to make use of misinformation as he predicted.
I am not a greenhouse effect denier. It is obvious to anybody with a brain there is a greenhouse effect but it is just as obvious that we currently can't do anything except delay the repercussions.
And delaying the repercussions is a good thing.
I see acting as the best economic choice. Warming is costly and risky as many of the effects are unknown. Doing something about it now makes economic sense. The problem is that humans have difficulty dealing with long term planning and political systems are even worse.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think part of the problem is that people do not WANT to believe that we are the cause of a problem. And the reason could not be more obvious; if we are not the cause of a problem then we don't have to take any responsibility and don't have to go to all the bother and huge expense to do something about it -how convenient! And, because people WANT this to be true, by various twisted logic they convince themselves this is the truth.
You still did your best to make use of misinformation as he predicted.
And delaying the repercussions is a good thing.
I see acting as the best economic choice. Warming is costly and risky as many of the effects are unknown. Doing something about it now makes economic sense. The problem is that humans have difficulty dealing with long term planning and political systems are even worse.
Of course, this doesn't only apply to those denying that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming...
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSYou mentioned water vapor. I do believe it is true that clouds absorb energy, but does the white clouds reflect more energy back to space than if they were not there? If we have a global warming scenario where there is an increase in evaporation from the oceans, will the clouds cause more of a warming effect or a cooling effect?
The greenhouse effect is real but it is something that we cannot change and barely contribute to with technology.
Normal exchange of gasses from mammals is the number one contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
Originally posted by joe beyserI vaguely remember hearing somewhere that clouds generally have an overall cooling effect but only just! And only 'just' not just because even white cloud absorbs some of the sunlight but also because cloud acts as an insulating effect by reflecting heat back to the surface of the Earth (which is why the nights in winter tend to be less cold with less frost when they are cloudy ) .
You mentioned water vapor. I do believe it is true that clouds absorb energy, but does the white clouds reflect more energy back to space than if they were not there? If we have a global warming scenario where there is an increase in evaporation from the oceans, will the clouds cause more of a warming effect or a cooling effect?
But that also tends to depend on the type of cloud so it is a very complicated picture indeed!
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSCarbon put into the atmosphere by animals (farts and breathing) is part
The greenhouse effect is real but it is something that we cannot change and barely contribute to with technology.
Normal exchange of gasses from mammals is the number one contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The top three greenhouse gasses are water vapour, CO2 and CH4 of which 2 come from most mammals. We as humans exhale CO2 and produce flatulence containing CH4 as do all cattle as well as pigs with the biggest culprits being cows.
of the natural Carbon Cycle (the Carbon ultimately came from CO2 fixed
by plants). The net effect is zero (apart from the increased effect of CH4)
Burning fossil fuels puts extra Carbon into the Carbon Cycle.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM!
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-ozone-pact-cool-planet.html
"....
Ozone pact helped cool the planet, study reports.
A slowdown in global warming that climate sceptics cite in favour of their cause was partly induced by one of the world's most successful environment treaties, a study said on Sunday.
The UN's Montreal Protocol, designed to phase out industrial gases that destroy Earth's protective ozone layer, coincidentally applied a small brake to the planet's warming, it said.
Without this treaty, Earth's surface temperature would be roughly 0.1 degrees Celsius (0.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher today, according to its authors.
"Paradoxically, the recent decrease in warming, presented by global warming sceptics as proof that humankind cannot affect the climate system, is shown to have a direct human origin,"
according to the paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Signed in 1987 and implemented in 1989, the Montreal Protocol committed signatories to scrapping a group of chlorine- and bromine-containing chemicals.
Used in aerosol sprays, solvents and refrigerants, these substances destroy ozone molecules in the stratosphere that filter out cancer-causing ultraviolet light.
Some of the chemicals also happen to be hefty greenhouse gases, with a powerful ability to trap the Sun's heat.
So their phaseout, which began to hit its stride in the 1990s, was also a small but perceptible gain in the fight against climate change, the scientists said.
From 1998 to 2012, Earth's mean global temperature rose by an average of 0.05 C (0.09 F) per decade, a benchmark measure of warming.
This is far less than the average decadal increase over half a century of 0.12 C (0.2 F), and is out of sync with the ever-rising curve of greenhouse-gas emissions.
As a result, sceptics claim the 15-year "Pause" as proof that climate change has natural causes, showing that green calls to reduce fossil-fuel emissions are flawed or a scam.
The paper, led by Francisco Estrada, an atmospheric physicist at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, is a statistical comparison of carbon emissions and warming during the 20th century.
Overall, temperatures rose last century by 0.8 C (1.4 F).
Cooling and warming
Two World Wars contributed to cooling, as did the Great Depression—massively so. From 1929 to 1932, annual emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) fell by 26 percent.
It took until 1937 for CO2 emissions to return to their pre-1929 levels. The cooling effect took some time to kick in, but it lasted until the middle of the century.
The post-World War II boom led to a surge in emissions that, from 1960, began to be perceived in a clear signature of sustained warming, according to the investigation.
The paper said that the "Pause" may also be attributable, but in a far smaller way, to changes in rice farming in Asia, a generator of the potent greenhouse gas methane.
In a comment on the study, Alex Sen Gupta, of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Australia, said the cooling benefits from the Montreal Protocol "are going to be short-lived."
"In the end, the continuing rise in other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, will keep temperatures marching upwards."
In September, the UN's paramount group of climate experts scoffed at the "Pause," essentially calling it a non-issue.
They said the period of 1998-2012 was far too short to give a long-term view of climate trends.
They also hinted at selective bias, noting that the period began with a strong El Nino, a heat-linked weather phenomenon, thus making following years seem cooler by comparison.
..."