Global warming basically "confirmed"

[HyperionX]

GLOBAL-WARMING 'SMOKING GUN'

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

April 29, 2005 -- Climate scientists, with the aid of diving robots probing the world's warming seas, have found the heat exchange between Earth and space is seriously out of balance — what the researchers called a "smoking gun" discovery that validates forecasts of global warming.

They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the NASA-led scientists said.

Besides raising ocean levels, global warming is expected to intensify storms, spread disease to new areas and shift climate zones hundreds of miles, possibly making farmlands drier and deserts wetter.

The study, published yesterday in the journal Science, is the latest to report growing certainty about global-warming projections.

More than 1,800 technology-packed floats, deployed in oceans worldwide beginning in 2000, are regularly diving as much as a mile undersea to take temperature and other readings.

Researchers led by NASA's James Hansen used the improved data to calculate the oceans' heat content and the global "energy imbalance."

"There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."

The researchers found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back to space as heat.

Computer models — numerical simulations of climate change — factor in many influences on climate, including greenhouse emissions — carbon dioxide, methane and other gases. Such gases, produced by everything from cars to pig farms, trap heat as they accumulate in the atmosphere. AP

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/43235.htm

I guess the final nail in the coffin for naysayers against global warming has been hit. I can only wonder what they have to say now.

[Castor Troy]

I wouldn't say "final nail in the coffin". It's pretty much guarenteed that another scientist will come out with evidence proving otherwise. I say let the scientists debate it out.

[HyperionX]

I wouldn't say "final nail in the coffin". It's pretty much guarenteed that another scientist will come out with evidence proving otherwise. I say let the scientists debate it out.

Have you failed High School level science?! Anything that absorbs more energy than it's releasing is heating up, PERIOD. Any evidence that claims otherwise would a violation of the laws of physics.

[Castor Troy]

Where the fuck did you get the impression that I was arguing the information?

I said that another scientist would come out with something contradicting what these scientists say, like how it wouldn't be a threat and we wouldn't have to worry about it.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I assume one can only downplay the rate of global warming but I'm not so sure as evidenced by the melting of polaric ice.

[HyperionX]

Where the fuck did you get the impression that I was arguing the information?

I said that another scientist would come out with something contradicting what these scientists say, like how it wouldn't be a threat and we wouldn't have to worry about it.

That's not what you said, you said (fucking 8 minutes ago I might add!):

I wouldn't say "final nail in the coffin". It's pretty much guarenteed that another scientist will come out with evidence proving otherwise. I say let the scientists debate it out.

And I called your BS. Point to me where I went wrong.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I assume one can only downplay the rate of global warming but I'm not so sure as evidenced by the melting of polaric ice.

Polar ice. "polaric ice" isn't a real term, mostly becasuse "polaric" isn't a real word.

[Jaepheth]

I can't seem to find it, but I saw something basically like this:



Basically, the argument was that humans and/or industry aren't responsible for global warming and it's just a natural cycle of warming/cooling.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

[Castor Troy]

Where the fuck did you get the impression that I was arguing the information?

I said that another scientist would come out with something contradicting what these scientists say, like how it wouldn't be a threat and we wouldn't have to worry about it.

That's not what you said, you said (fucking 8 minutes ago I might add!):

I wouldn't say "final nail in the coffin". It's pretty much guarenteed that another scientist will come out with evidence proving otherwise. I say let the scientists debate it out.

And I called your BS. Point to me where I went wrong.

What BS?

What are you talking about?

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you is the thought that "well, it's official". Problem is, there will be scientists to refute this, hence why I said that.

I'm not debating the evidence or arguing the point. All I'm saying is that we can't say that it's official, that's all.

Also, just calm down, man.

[Castor Troy]

I can't seem to find it, but I saw something basically like this:

[img]http://img244.echo.cx/img244/1696/timetemp4bo.jpg[/im]

Basically, the argument was that humans and/or industry aren't responsible for global warming and it's just a natural cycle of warming/cooling.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

I also heard that it was the result from the sun's 90 year helium cycle. Could be all 3, for all we know.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Basically, the argument was that humans and/or industry aren't responsible for global warming and it's just a natural cycle of warming/cooling.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

I know exactly what you're talking about, and totally believe that myself.

[El Moose Monstero]

I can't seem to find it, but I saw something basically like this:

[img]snip[/img]

Basically, the argument was that humans and/or industry aren't responsible for global warming and it's just a natural cycle of warming/cooling.

Anyone know what I'm talking about?

That's true, but human influence on global warming is causing deviations in that pattern, so the earth is getting warmer more than it should do at a faster rate, so our position on that graph would be raised above the curve.

And I'll be interested to see the effects of all this on policy, if any, there's been three seperate pieces of substantial evidence for anthropogenic global warming in the past few months, it's getting rather ridiculous for people to still be denying it - especially now the main counter argument of sunspots appears to have been discredited.

[Sea Skimmer]

Looks to me like they sort of proved global warming is occurring. Then like all such studies inevitably do, made a big leap to the still totally unproven assumption that human CO2 production is responsible for it. It is known for a fact that the earth has had many enormous climate shifts over its history. Ice core samples going back tens of thousands of years show this. Meanwhile claims that human activity is warming the globe are based off simply making a correlation between rising CO2 emissions and the mere few hundred years worth of exact temperature data humans have recorded.

That's true, but human influence on global warming is causing deviations in that pattern, so the earth is getting warmer more than it should do at a faster rate, so our position on that graph would be raised above the curve.

We don't have nearly enough data to support such a claim. Accurate temperature readings which could show shifts as small as have so far occurred simply doesn't exist for a remotely significant length of time. You can't claim the pattern is out of wack when we do not know what the pattern is. All we really know is that very large climate shifts do occur naturally and often.

[The Dude]

I guess the final nail in the coffin for naysayers against global warming has been hit. I can only wonder what they have to say now.

I don't really see where that they've made the case that "human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming". Obviously, global warming will be measurable in the form of heat accumulation, regardless of whether the primary causes are natural or manmade.

At the same time, I doubt representatives of NASA would make such bold claims without something more substantial than a single hit on mathematical models that are, to date, extremely poor at predicting air temeprature changes. There must be something in the main report that is not in the Post article.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I assume one can only downplay the rate of global warming but I'm not so sure as evidenced by the melting of polaric ice.

Polar ice. "polaric ice" isn't a real term, mostly becasuse "polaric" isn't a real word.

[Sea Skimmer]

At the same time, I doubt representatives of NASA would make such bold claims without something more substantial than a single hit on mathematical models that are, to date, extremely poor at predicting air temeprature changes. There must be something in the main report that is not in the Post article.

NASA managed to get the entire Space Shuttle program funded based on a lot of math, which showed that it could turn a profit launching satellites for the military and civilians. When NASA opens its mouth, it's no more trustworthy then any other huge mass of goverment bureaucracy piled on top of more bureaucracy.

[HyperionX]

What BS?

What are you talking about?

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you is the thought that "well, it's official". Problem is, there will be scientists to refute this, hence why I said that.

I'm not debating the evidence or arguing the point. All I'm saying is that we can't say that it's official, that's all.

Also, just calm down, man.

I've just said it would break the laws of physics for Global Warming to be refuted. You claimed otherwise. In short, you spewed a cattleherd's worth of BS. So please, don't deny it, what you are claiming will never happen.

[HyperionX]

I guess the final nail in the coffin for naysayers against global warming has been hit. I can only wonder what they have to say now.

I don't really see where that they've made the case that "human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming". Obviously, global warming will be measurable in the form of heat accumulation, regardless of whether the primary causes are natural or manmade.

That's the only issue left, the question of whether humans are causing. However, there is very strong evidence that it is: The sun isn't getting brighter, or at least not enough AFAIK. Combined with the fact that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it's releasing is powerful evidence for greenhouse gas style global warming.

At the same time, I doubt representatives of NASA would make such bold claims without something more substantial than a single hit on mathematical models that are, to date, extremely poor at predicting air temeprature changes. There must be something in the main report that is not in the Post article.

Yeah, the 1800 floats collecting data from year 2000 as the article has so claimed. And they didn't predict a single thing when they said the the Earth is warming up: they just collected sea temperatures, which are hard facts, so it is more or less hard facts that global warming is happening, and the evidence points almost exclusively to man.

[Castor Troy]

What BS?

What are you talking about?

The only thing I'm disagreeing with you is the thought that "well, it's official". Problem is, there will be scientists to refute this, hence why I said that.

I'm not debating the evidence or arguing the point. All I'm saying is that we can't say that it's official, that's all.

Also, just calm down, man.

I've just said it would break the laws of physics for Global Warming to be refuted. You claimed otherwise. In short, you spewed a cattleherd's worth of BS. So please, don't deny it, what you are claiming will never happen.

You're claiming that some scientist won't come out and try to refute this?

Are you kidding?

Furthermore, I never disagreed with the laws of physics. Quit acting like I did. Anyways, I'm not one for anal retention...

[Master of Ossus]

Hyperion, we already know that the Earth is growing slowly warmer. That isn't the issue. The issue is why the Earth's getting warmer. If it's part of a natural process, as some scientists suggest, then there may be little we can do about it even if we wanted to since the natural processes behind climate cycles are poorly understood. If, on the other hand, carbon dioxide emissions are responsible then there may be something we can do, assuming that we wish to return to the basic climate shift.

[HyperionX]

I've just said it would break the laws of physics for Global Warming to be refuted. You claimed otherwise. In short, you spewed a cattleherd's worth of BS. So please, don't deny it, what you are claiming will never happen.

You're claiming that some scientist won't come out and try to refute this?

Are you kidding?

Don't put words in my mouth: You explicitely said that some scientist will "prove" global warming wrong, hence my reaction. If that is not what you intended then you should have corrected yourself.

Furthermore, I never disagreed with the laws of physics. Quit acting like I did. Anyways, I'm not one for anal retention...

Well word speak louder than... words. Your original statement would've necessitate a violation of the laws of physics.

Hyperion, we already know that the Earth is growing slowly warmer. That isn't the issue. The issue is why the Earth's getting warmer.

To any person knowledgable in climate science that should be the case, but there are always naysayers, especially in politics and with people with agendas. This is the final nail in the coffin for them.

If it's part of a natural process, as some scientists suggest, then there may be little we can do about it even if we wanted to since the natural processes behind climate cycles are poorly understood. If, on the other hand, carbon dioxide emissions are responsible then there may be something we can do, assuming that we wish to return to the basic climate shift.

Problem is, this study basically limits you to only two possible explanations: 1.) The sun is getting brighter or 2.) The Earth is trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect because the warming is shown to be coming from energy originating outside the planet itself. Since the sun isn't really getting brighter, or at least not enough, greenhouse gases come down as practically the only possibly explanation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's the only issue left, the question of whether humans are causing. However, there is very strong evidence that it is: The sun isn't getting brighter, or at least not enough AFAIK. Combined with the fact that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it's releasing is powerful evidence for greenhouse gas style global warming

Actually... you will be surprised. Trace elements in the earths atmosphere are a two way street. CO2 and other trace gases act like the glass panels in a greenhouse, keeping heat AKA infared light from escaping into space. However they have this wonderful side efect of balancing this out by REFLECTING that same solar radiation back out into space. The more trace gases the more light is reflected. SO even if the amount of C)2 is 350 PPM(and it is) the amount of heat is largly balanced out.

[HyperionX]

That's the only issue left, the question of whether humans are causing. However, there is very strong evidence that it is: The sun isn't getting brighter, or at least not enough AFAIK. Combined with the fact that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it's releasing is powerful evidence for greenhouse gas style global warming

Actually... you will be surprised. Trace elements in the earths atmosphere are a two way street. CO2 and other trace gases act like the glass panels in a greenhouse, keeping heat AKA infared light from escaping into space. However they have this wonderful side efect of balancing this out by REFLECTING that same solar radiation back out into space. The more trace gases the more light is reflected. SO even if the amount of C)2 is 350 PPM(and it is) the amount of heat is largly balanced out.

This is completely false: CO2 virtually reflects no sunlight, only infrared. Other kinds might but I've never heard of this "balancing" effect. Anyways, oOnce you have proven that the Earth is releasing less heat that it is absorbing, then you are still left with only greenhouse gases as the explanation. Any other weird claims outside a warming sun are just irrelevant.

[SirNitram]

I'm gonna go on a limb and suggest that maybe the folks who ran the simulations, have qualifications for this, and submitted it for peer review might be more reliable than armchair commentors with a common political view. Just, you know, my crazy, Left-Wing bias.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's the only issue left, the question of whether humans are causing. However, there is very strong evidence that it is: The sun isn't getting brighter, or at least not enough AFAIK. Combined with the fact that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it's releasing is powerful evidence for greenhouse gas style global warming

Actually... you will be surprised. Trace elements in the earths atmosphere are a two way street. CO2 and other trace gases act like the glass panels in a greenhouse, keeping heat AKA infared light from escaping into space. However they have this wonderful side efect of balancing this out by REFLECTING that same solar radiation back out into space. The more trace gases the more light is reflected. SO even if the amount of C)2 is 350 PPM(and it is) the amount of heat is largly balanced out.

This is completely false: CO2 virtually reflects no sunlight, only infrared. Other kinds might but I've never heard of this "balancing" effect. Anyways, oOnce you have proven that the Earth is releasing less heat that it is absorbing, then you are still left with only greenhouse gases as the explanation. Any other weird claims outside a warming sun are just irrelevant.

Are you familiar with what Infared is? It is LIGHT you ignoramus. Electromagnetic radiation, and where does it come from? Could it be *gasp* the sun? Holy shit, what a concept. How many toads have you had to lick to have your brain paralyzed like that?

You havent heard of the light reflecting off the atmosphere? Wow you are sceintificaqlly ignorant. How the fuck do you think the earth is visible from space? COuld it be because*gasp* light gets reflected? Oh wait... and I suppose there is some sort of magical force that prevents CO2 from blocking infared light coming from one direction but not the other.

Also, the earth itself absorbs a fair amount of heat in and of itself, releasing it via conduction.

It would only make sense that YES the earth absorbs more light than it re-radiates. The whole law of physics thing. But it also absorbs less energy than originally hits the fucking planet you stupid fucktard.