Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Post by TDPerk »

Because it is going to get colder.

I can recall four or five years ago when the astronomers predicting higher and higher solar activity began to be humble and quiet, because the warming (in the Sun) they were looking for kept on not showing up. Their theories were all wrong.

Looking forward for the same from the AGW crowd, because they keep on having to hide the trend.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Re: Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

Post by seedload »

TDPerk wrote:Because it is going to get colder.

I can recall four or five years ago when the astronomers predicting higher and higher solar activity began to be humble and quiet, because the warming (in the Sun) they were looking for kept on not showing up. Their theories were all wrong.

Looking forward for the same from the AGW crowd, because they keep on having to hide the trend.
Interesting. Yet, I am not sure that this is any kind of evidence for or against AGW as your title suggests.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

The peak sun spot cycle will end between 2012-2014, however; this has little or nothing to do with AWG. Also astronomers as far as I know weren't predicting any such nonsense, they were predicting the 11 year sunspot cycle, which is fairly common knowledge now.

AWG states the average temperature of the Earth has risen since the beginning of the industrialized era due to pollutant particles released into our atmosphere. The right wing contends that we have no proof its these particles because we have no data pre-industrialization and the left wing are of the mind that its directly related to this pollution of our skies. At this point it is no longer a matter of if it is happening, but more of what is causing it to happen. To reiterate for clarity, global warming is occuring, but we are not on agreement as to the cause.

What confuses many is they hear global warming and assume everywhere is going to get hot, but this is a misunderstanding of the effect. Global warming states the average temperature across the globe, not a localized temperature at a single point on the globe. This could mean it becomes 200 deg. F in the western hemisphere and 0 deg. F on the eastern hemisphere, but the average temperature would be 100 deg. F which sounds unhappily livable. My example is an extreme, but hopefully gets the point across.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Disregarding the global warming aspect of the post, I want to say that the solar cycle only has a very limited affect on the temperatures on earth.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

in the 19th century, we had blizzards with snow accumulation of over 2 meters.

nowadays, we make news when a small snowfall accumulating 5cm, the first "so big accumulation" in 10 years happens, and I even see Global Warming deniers saying this 5cm of snow is proof Global Warming is not happening :D

(I am talking about southern Brazil, so the people who think snow in southern Brazil means the Earth is cooling obviously dont have much idea about weather in Brazil, just a general notion that Brazil is tropical... in its entirety! :roll: )

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Skipjack wrote:Disregarding the global warming aspect of the post, I want to say that the solar cycle only has a very limited affect on the temperatures on earth.
I always find this a really odd statement.

Is it not usually colder at night than day time?

I can absolutely assure you that there are solar cycles that impact temperature on Earth.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

chrismb wrote:
Skipjack wrote:Disregarding the global warming aspect of the post, I want to say that the solar cycle only has a very limited affect on the temperatures on earth.
I always find this a really odd statement.

Is it not usually colder at night than day time?

I can absolutely assure you that there are solar cycles that impact temperature on Earth.
The part that always confuses me is that the sun is the source of 99.999999% of all the heat the Earth receives. I'm not sure how many 9's that should really contain, but I'm confidant I underestimate the Sun's contribution as is.

I'm also sick of people talking about solar output varying very little over time, while we are still trying to get satellites in place to ACTUALLY MEASURE the solar output hitting the Earth.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

bcglorf wrote:The part that always confuses me is that the sun is the source of 99.999999% of all the heat the Earth receives.
Actually, I am not entirely sure about that. I understood the heat from the core was not a totally insignificant fraction. Don't have the figure to hand, though, and maybe it is difficult to give anyway.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

chrismb wrote:
bcglorf wrote:The part that always confuses me is that the sun is the source of 99.999999% of all the heat the Earth receives.
Actually, I am not entirely sure about that. I understood the heat from the core was not a totally insignificant fraction. Don't have the figure to hand, though, and maybe it is difficult to give anyway.
A quick google look at Wikipedia has unattributed values of 99.97 for solar and 0.025% for Geo, so you may be right.

I think my point remains though.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

I have not heard of predictions of the Sun getting warmer in the short term (less than a million years). The Sun is gradually heating up so that in 1-2 billion years (well before the Sun leaves the main sequence and becomes a red giant) the Earth will be uninhabitable (oceans boiling).
There is a 11 year (actually 22 year) solar cycle where Sun spots minimize every ~11 years. The last minimum did last several years longer than expected and triggered some speculation about the last major solar minimum- which was the Mauder (sp?) minimum during the little ice age.

During the solar cycle the overall luminance of the Sun does not change much, but with few Sun spots there is less ultraviolet radiation and there is some ideas that this causes changes in the Earth's upper atmosphere which may have significant effects.
Global temperature is complex and multifactorial. The contribution of DIFFERENCES is solar radiation is often ignored, which is obviously naive. The magnitude of the effect is what is in contention.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I always find this a really odd statement.

Is it not usually colder at night than day time?

I can absolutely assure you that there are solar cycles that impact temperature on Earth.
Uhm, we are talking about the 11 year solar cycle, what are you talking about?
IIRC, the solar cycle causes a temperature increase/decrease by 0.3% from maximum to minimum...
Something like that...

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

ScottL wrote:The peak sun spot cycle will end between 2012-2014, however; this has little or nothing to do with AWG. Also astronomers as far as I know weren't predicting any such nonsense, they were predicting the 11 year sunspot cycle, which is fairly common knowledge now.

AWG states the average temperature of the Earth has risen since the beginning of the industrialized era due to pollutant particles released into our atmosphere. The right wing contends that we have no proof its these particles because we have no data pre-industrialization and the left wing are of the mind that its directly related to this pollution of our skies. At this point it is no longer a matter of if it is happening, but more of what is causing it to happen. To reiterate for clarity, global warming is occuring, but we are not on agreement as to the cause.

What confuses many is they hear global warming and assume everywhere is going to get hot, but this is a misunderstanding of the effect. Global warming states the average temperature across the globe, not a localized temperature at a single point on the globe. This could mean it becomes 200 deg. F in the western hemisphere and 0 deg. F on the eastern hemisphere, but the average temperature would be 100 deg. F which sounds unhappily livable. My example is an extreme, but hopefully gets the point across.
Your assumptions about "right wing" and "left wing" are giant generalizations best left out of the conversation.

You use of the term "pollutants" shows a general lack of education on the subject matter. Specifically, the IPCC claims that many "pollutants" make it cooler while CO2 (not classically a pollutant) makes it warmer.

Your comment that skeptics (right wingers in your description) arguments hinge on the fact that we don't have any pre-industrial data is just flat out wrong.

Your attempt at education of this forum that global warming is indeed happening is not necessary. Not sure why you felt the need to do this.

Your last paragraph about localized vs global warming is just silly.

Finally, your statement that the argument is about what is causing global warming is a great simplification. Most skeptics and supporters of AGW alike acknowledge a contribution of CO2 to potential warming. Most skeptics and supporters of AGW acknowledge a contribution of solar variance to global warming. The argument is much deeper than you seem to understand - IMHO.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Skipjack wrote:
I always find this a really odd statement.

Is it not usually colder at night than day time?

I can absolutely assure you that there are solar cycles that impact temperature on Earth.
Uhm, we are talking about the 11 year solar cycle, what are you talking about?
IIRC, the solar cycle causes a temperature increase/decrease by 0.3% from maximum to minimum...
Something like that...
Actually, I can't find clear, peer review and quantified max/min measurements. The peer review literature that the IPCC reviewed seems to vary between qualitative statements declaring that solar variations dominate climate forcings to declarations that it is almost entirely irrelevant. It'll be nice once we start gathering some harder numbers to actually have a clue about it. Or at least that's my take from what I've been able to find.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

Seedload,

Skeptics believe the trends we see are natural. They argue that believers don't have enough previous data (pre-industrial) to prove otherwise. That is the base of many of the claims, but if you'd like I can link several skeptical politician's arguments on the matter.

CFCs break down our Ozone, not necessitating cooling of the Earth, but rather removing the vital shielding from Solar Radiation. The original poster seemed to require a simple response back so I didn't differentiate between CFCs and the increase in CO2 release in our atmosphere. The main concern of the pro-global warming group is that by increased CO2 emissions trapping green house gases within our atmosphere we'll experience a global warming. What many take this as is that the temperature everywhere on the Earth is increasing. This is simply not the case. Some regions will have temperature increases, some will have decreases, but the average of these temperatures will be a global increase. I tried to simplify the argument by stating global vs local systems. There's just far too much information and many underlying ideas to go through all and suffice to say sometimes a simplified explanation is the easiest to convey.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

ScottL wrote:The peak sun spot cycle will end between 2012-2014, however; this has little or nothing to do with AWG. Also astronomers as far as I know weren't predicting any such nonsense, they were predicting the 11 year sunspot cycle, which is fairly common knowledge now.

AWG states the average temperature of the Earth has risen since the beginning of the industrialized era due to pollutant particles released into our atmosphere. The right wing contends that we have no proof its these particles because we have no data pre-industrialization and the left wing are of the mind that its directly related to this pollution of our skies. At this point it is no longer a matter of if it is happening, but more of what is causing it to happen. To reiterate for clarity, global warming is occuring, but we are not on agreement as to the cause.

What confuses many is they hear global warming and assume everywhere is going to get hot, but this is a misunderstanding of the effect. Global warming states the average temperature across the globe, not a localized temperature at a single point on the globe. This could mean it becomes 200 deg. F in the western hemisphere and 0 deg. F on the eastern hemisphere, but the average temperature would be 100 deg. F which sounds unhappily livable. My example is an extreme, but hopefully gets the point across.
The issue for "deniers" is not the warming. It is not even anthropogenic warming. The place we take issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Of course the world is warming. It has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 19th century. Of course humans have had some impact on climate - but massive and decisive impact?

What baseline is being used as "normal" that we are warming from? One that was validly "normal," or one that was abnormally cold to begin with (the LIA)?

Why did most of the 20th Century's warming happen in the first half of the century, but most of the human CO2 release happen in the second?

Why are the forcing coefficients used by the IPCC and "The Team" several times higher than those observed in experiment?

Why did the IPCC try to zero out the Medieval Climate Optimum?

Why does the Akasofu graph fit observed data almost perfectly?
Image

Why did "The Team" try to "Hide the Decline?" Forget "Mike's Nature Trick." "Trick" is just geek-jargon for "I'm smart and I like to prove it." But "Hide the Decline" is intentional deception wrt results. The last guy to get a legitimate pass on that was Niels Bohr and his neutron cross-section of carbon results.
Vae Victis

Post Reply