Guess what? Sun warms Earth

[Bravus]

Nice infographic is not a direct answer to your question, Shane, but definitely puts it in perspective. Shockingly, Limbaugh is nowhere near the truth...

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

karl, you have mixed up 'greenhouse effect' and 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. [snip] That greenhouse effect is a Good Thing.

The 'enhanced greenhouse effect' is any unbalancing of the energy balance of the earth such that instead of maintaining a constant range of temperatures, it begins to increase average temperatures (while still experiencing a wide range).

Oh thank you so much for the lecture on the proper way to discuss this.

You know, Karl, your being less than gracious to this discussion doesn't help with this problem....Your attitude is less than....well, it certainly doesn't merrit a worthy allowance to continue here...

You do know, that Jesus concider this sort of thing wrong, don't you? That is why we are still here on earth and not on our way to heaven. It's because of this sort of less than gracious attitude in the face of adversity that we find out just who we are in relation to Christ.....

Unfortunately, everyone sees the beam that you carry, all the while you are pointing out the speck....

With all due respect, you need an ax to remove that tree from your forehead....

[John317]

Bravus, don't you think this oil gushing out of the bottom of the ocean is a more serious problem for the planet than any other environmental issue right now? How do you see this going down? What are the probable consequences if they don't get it stopped for the next 2 or 3 months?

[Bravus]

From what I'm seeing now, they've started the 'top kill' procedure, it's going as planned and it should take another day or so to shut it down. Of course, the veracity of what they've said so far has been... dodgy. Guess we'll see. But yes, it *is* a horrendous accident, largely caused by failure of regulation and safety procedures.

Of course, if we'd weaned ourselves off oil we'd *neither* have as many climate problems nor these oil spill problems... It's a win-win!

[John317]

I sure hope you're right, Bravus. I feel sorrier for those animals than for the people. At least people can understand what's happening. It must have already killed millions and millions of the animals. God help the men doing the work to get it plugged up and hope it never happens again.

[there buster]

Quote:

You do know, that Jesus concider this sort of thing wrong, don't you?

If we had a moderator who knew what he/she was doing, this sort of God-talk would be prohibited. It's out of place.

[Dr. Shane]

Shockingly, Limbaugh is nowhere near the truth...

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

Are you trying to knock someone off their pedestal?

[Bravus]

You asked the question, I answered it. Guess I couldn't resist adding a tiny editorial comment.

[BobRyan]

Once Believers, Now Skeptics

...

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

Karl - thank you for researching this.

Any time hoax and deliberate-attempt-to-hide-data tactics come to the surface as we saw with the global warming database - it raises a red flag. It usually means that government funding and propaganda are at work trying to "get science" to be bent a "certain way" for reasons totally non-scientific.

If the solar warming "heat source" and the associated water vapor effect is like a giant earth mover - meandering about moving dirt here and there -- while all the tiny man-made aspects are like little insects gathered on that earth mover and sliding to one side of the giant machine. -- when will the effect of their added "bug weight" be observable in the outcome?

That is the scenario that comes to mind whenever one reads a summary such as the one that Dr. Jan Veizer provides.

in Christ,

Bob

[karl]

While "Climategate" has opened up a larger flow of scientists from believers to skeptics, Dr Veizer and the other scientists listed above made the switch before 2007. They did it against tremendous pressure and with the possible consequence of losing their funding. Certainly they lost status in a large part of the scientific community.

This adds enormously to the significance of their switching from believers to skeptics in the Gorebal Warming Debacle.

[olger]

Makes sense, Karl. The bloom is clear off the rose regarding climategate.

og

[olger]

Nice infographic is not a direct answer to your question, Shane, but definitely puts it in perspective. Shockingly, Limbaugh is nowhere near the truth...

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

"When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it emitted 42 million tons of CO2" It is noteworthy that your site link acknowledges that they are "guessing" about these figures - in the endnotes, DG.

Limbaugh has a lot of connections (more than all of us), and he is usually correct in the sources he cites. Whether or not we like what he says is another matter.

g

[Bravus]

Total human CO2 emissions are currently on the order of 27 billion tonnes per year. Say half of that is from transport, that's around 13 billion. 13 billion is over 300 times as much as the 42 million from Mt Pinatubo. So they have that much margin for error at least in their guesses about the current Iceland volcano. And then Limbaugh's claim was 'more than all cars ever put together', so multiply that 13 billion by at least 20 (because there have been fewer cars in the past than now).

I tend to dislike what he says because it is plain wrong, factually.

[karl]

From Times Online May 29, 2010

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures....

Sir Alan, 72, an electrical engineer, is a member of the advisory council of the climate sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

He said: “I think the Royal Society should be more neutral and welcome credible contributions from both sceptics and alarmists alike. There is a lot of science to be done before we can be certain about climate change and before we impose upon ourselves the huge economic burden of cutting emissions.”

He refused to name the other signatories but admitted that few of them had worked directly in climate science and many were retired.

“One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labelled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective.”

Article URL here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece

[karl]

U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000)

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Pre-industrial baseline - 288,000

Natural additions - 68,520

Man-made additions - 11,880

Total (ppb) - 368,400

[Bravus]

Seems like a very odd set of numbers. How is 85% of the change in CO2 between the time when humans were not putting it into the atmosphere and the time when they are *not* attributable to human actions? I'd be interested to see how they're defining their terms. Could be partly due to volcanoes, although volcanoes certainly erupted in pre-industrial times too, and at about the same rate.

But even with that, the increase (from whatever sources) is almost 28% since pre-industrial times. And you want to keep claiming that that is going to have zero effect on climate? The human-caused increase, on those figures, is still about 4%, which is not negligible.

(incidentally, these numbers also don't salvage Mr Limbaugh's claim, which I have demonstrated above is manifestly false)

[karl]

But even with that, the increase (from whatever sources) is almost 28% since pre-industrial times. And you want to keep claiming that that is going to have zero effect on climate? The human-caused increase, on those figures, is still about 4%, which is not negligible.

(incidentally, these numbers also don't salvage Mr Limbaugh's claim, which I have demonstrated above is manifestly false)

I couldn't care less about Limbaugh's figures and am not discussing them. I consider him a talking head. The hot air he produces may have a higher CO2 content, but his useful function has been to present a contrasting viewpoint to all the liberal talking heads in the lamestream media. I am not supporting the accuracy of what he says.

But above, you are ignoring that CO2 is a very small fraction of total greenhouse gasses. 4% of a very small fraction is a smaller fraction.

Taking into consideration that CO2 is a small fraction of total greenhouse gases, it magnifies the signficance of the fact that manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatons of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatons. The ocean releases about 332 gigatons. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions could be as high as 29 gigatons per year. Land plants absorb about 450 gigatons of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatons. The earth has a kind of respiration that buffers the manmade and natural CO2 production.

The figures for CO2 above are estimates, of course, and you may find estimates that differ somewhat, but these will serve for discussion.

Even if the Chicken Littles should convince us all that we can significantly lower atmospheric CO2 by riding bicycles, living in tents, and slaughtering all the methane-producing cattle, we should first consider the potential benefits of increased CO2. An increase in atmospheric CO2 is arguably a good thing for the planet. Global warming is arguably a good thing for the planet.

[Bravus]

But this is part of the problem: one minute you're arguing that there is no warming, the next you're arguing that there is but it's OK.

All those natural emissions above are (or were before massive human involvement) in balance. There were absorptions as well as emissions, so that the net level in the atmosphere was unchanging. Not very honest to only look at one side of the ledger... Human emissions, on the other hand, are not balanced, they're new additions (at least, new since the fossil fuels were first deposited).

[Bravus]

(but you'll get no argument from me that we should attend to methane as much or more than CO2. Methane is something like 30 times as powerful a greenhouse gas, and has increased by something like 300% rather than 30% over its pre-industrial levels)

[karl]

But this is part of the problem: one minute you're arguing that there is no warming, the next you're arguing that there is but it's OK.

....Human emissions, on the other hand, are not balanced, they're new additions (at least, new since the fossil fuels were first deposited).

Not at all. Please read what I wrote. Part of the problem is not reading with comprehension. I argued that, IF you prove that a significant contribution to greenhouse gas effect is due to the small contribution of manmade carbon emissions, you still have NOT proven that this is a bad thing.

Nor have you proven that the ecosystem of the planet, so beautifully (and presciently) set up by our Creator, is incapable of buffering the small addition of manmade carbon emissions.