Climate change: an overview [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

davyj0nes

8th February 2011, 01:26

(from stomy's article, i had to cut some stuff out, it seems the article when translated repeats certain sentences)

Climate change: an overview

In my opinion The Problem of Climate Change That Denouncement sacrifice part of The Scientific Community is Not in numbers to In Their interpretation: That Man Is There or Not for something, and if so At What level?! In my opinion the problem of climate change that denounces some of the scientific community is not in numbers but in their interpretation: that man is there or not for something, and if so at what level ?!

Unfortunately by It Is Difficult to Achieve a Real Scientific Analysis Worthy Of The name was complex subject, Especially When The Political and the Media Involved are, however, Rightly, goal Hoping to silence climate deniers Skeptics horrible eating Children. Unfortunately it is difficult to achieve a real scientific analysis worthy of the name on a complex subject, especially when the political and the media are involved, however, rightly, but hoping to silence climate skeptics deniers horrible eating children .

This article is deliberately long. I do not pretend to Have the truth, I wanted to put to The Most current thinking is The Subject That I think are covered as a scientist. I do not pretend to have the truth, but I wanted to put the most current thinking on the subject that I think are relevant as a scientist. Thank you to all constructive comments Who leave. Thank you to all who leave constructive comments.

In our cities, the exhausts of cars are under our noses, intensive agriculture and fertilizers in our base: today! Aim to have whether we are Causing a disruption of The Climate of Planet Earth Is Another problem And Also Another Dimension. But as to whether we are causing a disruption of the climate of planet Earth is another problem and also another dimension. And This Must Be Proven. Especially When It calls for comprehensive binding the Peoples Policies: Taxation (CO 2, Even green fuels), industrial investment Inappropriate

To recall the CO 2 is not a pollutant. It Is an Inert Gas That Is Used Elsewhere In The trays freshness. It Is A Natural Gas in the Atmosphere along Before the emergence of Homo sapiens, Which Provides food for plants

The Media Have we embarked year uncritical acceptance of the Human Origin of global warming, With The Whole lot of guilt and citizen solutions to save the planet by consuming more responsible, Along With taxes on air We Breathe.

Just Look at the tone Used by Rue89 (though I Appreciate That by now) to Deal With thesis publications, & the jubilation of finally Being Able to make throat, and I quote "The clique of skeptical [that] encompasses Malthus A Handful of diehards . Despite The Scientific Consensus, however, THEY SUCCEEDED, false emails scandal to Attack The Credibility Of The IPCC, to sow Doubt in people's minds. If The climate negotiations stalled, seven months after Copenhagen, Because The Political Momentum in Favor of a binding agreement to Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases IS Largely fallen, Including The Effect of theses "deniers."

And others:
The Express - Climate experts cleared of suspicion Express - Climate experts cleared of suspicion

BBC - A setback for Climate Skeptics bbc - A setback for climate skeptics
"Deniers"! "Deniers"! No, drank it borders On The Godwin point there! No, but it borders on the Godwin point there!

Not "deniers" do not deny global warming.
several times co² ok 1914- but it's normal 1915- co² isn't the problem 1915- it's IFCC who say that 1916- and climate skeptics what they did take a globalize of information of the planet

Not "deniers" do not Deny The Increase of CO 2 in air due to Human. Not "deniers" do not deny the increase of CO 2 in air due to humans.

(Not the "deniers" do not claim That the Earth is Flat Al Gore). (Not the "deniers" do not claim that the Earth is flat Al Gore).

The numbers are there, there is nothing to deny. The question IS Simply Cause and Effect Between the two, & the intensity of this relationship. Rather I think thats the failure of Copenhagen Is Only due to the clash of interests Between Those Who want to tax the Co 2 and create a Highly lucrative carbon (They believe in climate change or not), and Those Who do not want (They Believe it too or not).

A brief gambling; Environmental issue is Not present, if not long ago That Would appeal to certain pollutants Much Easier to solve for gold Much cheaper. The Problem That We Know That There Is No fudging of figures and models Used by IPCC Is That The Model Used Perhaps are not good. There are too many scientific uncertainties for the theory of man made global warming is proven. What I will repeat briefly here, referring readers to the referenced links.

II. What is known about past climate
The energy from the Sun IS Roughly constant goal the Earth-Sun distance varies, & the angle of exposure to sunlight. The energy from the Sun is roughly constant, but the Earth-Sun distance varies, and the angle of exposure to sunlight. These Three Factors Are Called: These three factors are called:

A-The Precession of the Equinox. A-The precession of the equinoxes.

B-The Change Of The Axis Of The inclination of the Earth. B-The variation of the inclination of the axis of the Earth.

C-The eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun. C-The eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun.The summation of These Three cycles of 23.000 Years, 41000 100000 Years and Years, producer year oscillation curve (Milankovitch cycles) of the intensity of solar radiation that controls the climate in the geologic time scale, causing a variation intensity of solar radiation by about 20% which is very important. The last glacial period (Würm glaciation) Took Place Between 70 000 and 14 000 Years Before the current period ", With A maximum intensity of 20 000 years ago. The Ice Caps Were Much Larger Than Then at present and extended to southern Britain. Right now we are in year interglacial period "Called Holocene.

II.1.Since 14,000 years
The Earth's history has Already Shown Major climate change Far Greater Than What Anticipate Some here, and the Life (and human) are not so far off. The history of the Earth has already shown major climate change far more important than some expect here, and the life (and human) are not so far off.
This period will last another few thousand years. What Changes in climate in this period?
We know today That "climate change" Is Anything but new.From ice cores from Greenland temperatures reconstructed (study published in the journal Science in 2008) show that despite the end of the Ice Age and the warming of a sudden cooling of the temperature has nonetheless produced more than 1500 years latest (12,500 years ago). Why? Why? With The massive warming of about +15 ° C (Nothing To Do With +0.74 ° C we're talking about today) That the Glaciers Covered Much of Europe Have Melted.

The flooding that followed was disastrous and fresh water dumped into the Atlantic Ocean caused a decrease in salinity interrupting the overall flow of the ocean current. This ruling plunged Part of the globe in the Cold. It Was Like a Return to the ice age, the Younger Dryas Called. "It was like a return to the ice age Then Another 1000 Years Later, 11.500 years ago, temperatures at breakneck speed Went up: 7 ° C in less Than 100 Years! Continuing the thaw.

The period from 8000 to 6000 years before the present time was much calmer, and our ancestors knew a warm period, called "optimum Holocene that exceeds 1 to 3 ° C average temperatures today.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1157707

II.2. For 2000 years
There Are The medieval warm period ", Followed By The famous" little ice age "from 1450 to 1850, Then It Is The Rising global temperatures today. There are the medieval warm period, followed by the famous "little ice age" from 1450 to 1850, then it is the rising global temperatures today.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

The hockey stick curve Is So Well Known Commonly Used now: it was derived Mostly From the data of tree-rings (ring analysis of tree growth) and has-been invalidated. The hockey stick curve is so well known now commonly used: it was derived partly from the data of tree-rings (ring analysis of tree growth) and has been invalidated.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7203/abs/nature07031.html

III. The facts: Since 1850, the planet warms
After a long cold period "Between the late Middle Ages and The Eighteenth Century, Called" Little Ice Age ", The list overall temperature of Our planet has Warmed, Roughly from The Years 1850-1880. After a long cold period between the late Middle Ages and the eighteenth century, called "Little Ice Age", the overall temperature of our planet has warmed, roughly from the years 1850-1880. The official figure in icts Of The IPCC 2007 report is + 0.74 ° C. Between 1906 and 2005 (margin of Uncertainty: from 0.56 to 0.92). The official figure of the IPCC in its 2007 report is + 0.74 ° C between 1906 and 2005 (margin of uncertainty: from 0.56 to 0.92).

III.1. Since 1850 the Glaciers melt
The latest postponement of IPCC No. 4 of 2007 Provides melting Alpine glaciers thats the, African and Andean result of global warming. The latest report of IPCC No. 4 of 2007 provides that the melting Alpine glaciers, African and Andean result of global warming. Indeed a study of 169 glaciers over-the 1700-2000 period "shows thats the Decrease in glacier length Largely Began in 1850. Purpose It Was Before the use of well fossil fuels by Humans, Which Is dated to the Early Twentieth Century, and really exploded in 1950. The melting of glaciers Has Begun together logically global warming That Followed the Little Ice Age. This rise has not accelerated despite The Massive human releases of CO 2 after 1950.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

III.2.The sea level rise since 1860 (and has not accelerated since)
Sea Levels To Rise Began in 1860, at The End of the Little Ice Age, well Before "significant human releases of CO2 in the Atmosphere. Sea levels began to rise in 1860, at the end of the Little Ice Age, well before significant human releases of CO2 in the atmosphere. This rise has not accelerated despite The Massive human CO2 emissions after 1950. This rise has not accelerated despite the massive human CO2 emissions after 1950. The award is therefore risky to CO2. Rising Sea Levels Since 1993 IS 3mm/an average. The IPCC is very careful in its 2007 report on sea level and provides (medium scenario) 40cm in 2100.

III.3. greenhouse gases and temperatures in the 20th century and today
From 1850 to today's global temperatures are rising, drank With A Long colder interlude about 30 Years, from 1945 to 1977. From 1978 to 1998 temperatures grow again. Since 1998 they climb over.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

The famous Richard Lindzen (see below) showed that contrary to model predictions of the IPCC, when the ocean temperature rises, the heat flux emerging from the planet into space also increases, which is a negative feedback. In short, When temperatures rise, The Climate controls alone Sending more heat Into Space, Which tend to cool and causes a return to equilibrium.
http://www.pensee-unique.eu/Lindzen2009a.pdf http://www.pensee-unique.eu/Lindzen2009a.pdf

IV.3. Global temperatures no longer progress since 1988
Contrary to common Belief, global temperatures of the Past 12 years Have stagnated. The data are from the UAH and RSS (satellite data, lower troposphere from 0 to 5000m). Try it yourself, The graphs are interactive: Try it yourself, the graphs are interactive:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/ http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html

It is usually caused by a change in water salinity. Researchers' conclusion: Our study Confirms That Numerous Exchange In The Traffic Of The upper Arctic Ocean In The 1990s Were Such decadal Rather Than Resulting from global warming. Conclusion researchers: Our study confirms that numerous changes in the circulation of the upper Arctic Ocean in the years 1990 were likely decadal rather than resulting from global warming.

IV.5. Powerful hurricanes are less Cyclones are less powerful
The U.S. NOAA had predicted an increase of 140% to 200% of cyclone activity over the average for the year 2007. Yet since 2006 the decline in hurricane activity, and returns to levels that are the lowest in 30 years. This Is in total contradiction With The Predictions Of The IPCC, based On The Assumption thats the rate of CO2 Drive the climate.

According to the IPCC's own figures, water (water vapor and clouds) account for 72% of the global greenhouse effect and CO2 with the other gases to 28%. First observation: the man has no effect on water and Its 72% negative impact on the global greenhouse effect.

Now see the role of humans in the remaining 28%. How to allocate 28% thesis According To The IPCC? How to allocate these 28% according to the IPCC? The CO2 IS carving the lion's share With Its Own 77% of the total, 14% methane, nitrous oxide 8%, Other gases accounted for 1%. The CO2 is carving the lion's share with its own 77% of the total, 14% methane, nitrous oxide 8%, other gases accounted for 1%. Little calculation: 77% from 28% this is 0.28 x 77 = 22%. So Would The CO2 account for 22% of global greenhouse effect from all causes.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_fr.pdf

But ... Man Is Not Responsible For the 22%. It Is That Nature Sends 97% of CO2 in the Atmosphere. There are also natural releases (including the oceans): Man rejects only 3% of total CO2 in the atmosphere. (Source: NASA)

Moreover we must know that roughly half of the 3% of CO2 is absorbed by the soil, oceans, plants and only the remainder (1.5%) goes into the atmosphere. More CO2 Does not Remain Indefinitely in the Atmosphere. More CO2 does not remain indefinitely in the atmosphere. It Is Absorbed Within a Few Years. It is absorbed within a few years.

The man is responsible for 1.5% of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually. CO2 accounts for 22% Of The global greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for 22% of the global greenhouse effect. So The Role of Man in Annual Greenhouse Effect Through the CO2 IS 1.5% of 22% 0.33% Which Is ... So the role of man in annual greenhouse effect through the CO2 is 1.5% of 22% which is 0.33% ...

In short, 0.33% is not. According To The IPCC The thesis represents 0.33% Would Drop that Repeatedly Broke The Camel, year after year, by Increasing The Greenhouse Effect, Which Would Explain The Observed warming of 0.74 ° C of the Last Century. This implies that the climate feedback is positive and not negative. Outside the central goal of the Senses problem of feedback, There Are Two major objections related CO2 Opposed to this scenario.