Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Wahita

Global Warming is real, but not primarily caused by Humans

2 posts in this topic

In my opinion it is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are primarily natural. Critics will now probably say that I am just of this opinion because it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans(including myself).

A case could be made that I do indeed enjoy incandescent light bulbs over flourescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convernient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”

Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” near the end of this post:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...-radiation.html

“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”

Last but not least I will present a quotation from an article by Amitakh Stanford, I got the inspiration to research and write this post because of this. I had never heard this perspective in the media clearly presented like that:

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar8.html

My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more than likely true that more CO2 will have a warming effect on the climate, but what is left unsaid is precisely how large it would be. The amount of warming caused purely by the excess CO2 can be easily determined by radiation physics, but it is a small amount that would not lead to any alarm (it is also roughly equivalent to the variability in forcing from the sun as it goes through cycles that slightly modulate its intensity). The reason why some scientists thing excess CO2 would lead to a runaway warming disaster is because they make the assumption that the climate will respond to the excess CO2 with positive feedback mechanisms that reinforce the warming, with the sum total being significantly greater than the warming caused purely by the CO2 alone.

However there is no observational evidence for these positive-feedback mechanisms. The scientists who advance this theory do so on the basis that they can construct global climate computer models with these assumptions and accurately recreate the last century of global temperatures when they run simulations. However so little is known about major physical mechanisms in the climate that affect temperature (cloud formation and patterns of cloud cover being just one, but an immensely significant one) that there are at least several parameters in their calculations that are essentially free to be adjusted arbitrarily by the individual performing the calculations. Hence, what should be a principled approach to modeling a phenomenon on principles of physics is reduced to a pragmatic game of fudging variables, which demonstrates nothing except given enough free parameters one can make any calculation fit any pre-determined result.

This is not how computational scientists do things in other areas. In the fields of physics and chemistry scientists routinely use software based on principles of physics to accurately predict and explain the properties of atoms, molecules, clusters, and solids. Similar to modeling the climate, many approximations must be made in order to reduce the complexity of the equations to the point of being numerically or analytically solvable by a computer. Yet the modeling of the physicists/chemists of these chemical systems is distinct from the climate scientist in that we know exactly all the different physical mechanisms involved in our system, and it is merely a matter of finding a computationally efficient manner to describe these mechanisms, and what regimes of accuracy we can expect for each approximation or mechanism we ignore. In some cases the approximated equations unavoidably require some free parameter which must be determined empirically, but even then as careful and principled of an approach as possible is taken, and the approximation is rigorously validated by using the model to predict other phenomena for which it wasn't empirically calibrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0