What is your take on the Global Warming Data?

Question

This youtube link below shows some CO2 emissions data. What do you believe it means. I see that natural cycles of the earth. It doesn't seem political it just states facts based off of a couple years of observations. It is pretty detailed. What conclusions do you draw, and do you believe this solidifies or debunks global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpj8UUMTaI

Answer 1

It does neither. All it does is detail where CO2 is coming from.

Answer 2

I think that IF Global Warming is a real problem, that DHMO is a much greater contributor than CO2.

Besides, The UN and the IPCC are promoting AGW, and we all know how to tell when a politician is lying.

Their lips move.

Answer 3

global warming is a bunch of b.s.!!!!

Answer 4

Global Warming (G.W.) is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. The facts about GW are that the phenomenon is poorly understood and contaminated by skewed data.

Case in point:

Anthony Watts is a broadcast meteorologist who is leading an all-volunteer effort to photograph and document all of the weather stations in the GHCN. He started in the US and now 1/3 of US stations have been photographed. 85% of them do not meet the minimum standards of NOAA and have a strong warm bias. The NOAA specifies that temperature sensors should be a minimum of 100 feet away from buildings, concrete, and asphalt. This indicates that up to half of the observed warming is not real. Watts presented his findings to scientists at UCAR. You can see examples here:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather...

Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

Interesting how noting is mentioned about the Largest Sheet of ice the South Pole (S.P.) Besides Greenland, the S.P  is the only other significant ice sheet.  It should be noted that summer 2003, at the S.P., was the greatest summer extent of sea ice ever measured, and Antarctic sea ice is in an upward trend. The media instead has choosen to 'cherry pick' the data and discuss only the Ross Ice Shelf which is the only portion of South polar ice in recession. Eventhough it represents less than 10% of the total aggregate ice in the S.P. the public is misled into thinking that ALL Regions of the S.P. reflect conditions found at Ross. Ask any penguin (massive die off) last year due to the ice being so far away out into the ocean from the breeding grounds, or ask any Russian inhabitant of Vostok (only time ever to be forced from Vostok base because supply ship could not get near shore) and they will tell you there is not much global warming at the South Pole. Ask a climate expert and they will smugly tell you that the models predict a no warming at the South Pole. That is, AFTER they changed the forecast for the South Pole. Original IPCC predictions called for "most the warming to be at the poles" then when the observations did not show this they CHANGED THEIR MODELS to predict no warming at the South Pole.

Answer 5

It's just an assessment of emission patterns.  It doesn't speak at all to the radiative forcing of CO2 that drives climate change.  I'm not sure what you mean by "natural cycles of the Earth" since the model results shown aren't dealing with non-fossil fuel sources of atmospheric CO2.  The only "natural cycles" shown are the diurnal patterns, which are mainly driven by temperature effects and by the fact that in the summer, for instance, CO2 emissions go up in the daytime due to electrical power use by air conditioners.

It's tangentially related to climate change insofar as it addresses the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.  That man is responsible for the increase in CO2 seen over the last 200 years is not in contention except by those who are completely inept scientifically.  So, it isn't a piece of evidence one way or the other about the fundamental theory of how mankind is affecting climate.  These results are of importance in addressing the issue of mitigation or reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Answer 6

good stuff thanks. you can see america gassing off!

it will help keep tabs on the emitters when we do get proper carbon cap regulations.

Answer 7

Like all other information, data on Global Warming can be easily manipulated. Contrary to your own conclusion, I believe it became an issue only for political gain. When Al Gore did his "research" on the subject he was careful to choose people who supported his own claim. While it may be true that our planet is experiencing warmer temperatures on a wide scale, this is nothing all that devastating. You will find that the majority of (neutral) climatologists actually see Global warming as a cyclical phenomenon. It simply happens on a recurring basis and is documented as such. Frankly, if Mister Gore were truly a disciple of environmental concern his lifestyle would be less wasteful of energy. Are you aware that he uses two private jets almost daily, regularly travels by limousines and his home(s) use absurd amounts of energy? His twelve years in the white house were some of the most silent of any "environmentally concerned" politician. By the way, he has justified his extreme energy footprint by buying "carbon credits". Another fun fact, he owns the company that sells these offsetting items. Hmmm...

Answer 8

Interesting.  A dispersion model capable of running for the entire US at 10 kilometer resolution.   I'm still just trying to parameterize mixing height for the city I live in.

The model only really accounts for anthropogenic sources (decaying vegetation is not capture for example).  However, I have no doubt this is the source of a majority of the CO2 emitted though.  This is a model - not monitoring data.  I would like to see how well their predictions match with observations.  I'm sure that is in the works. It doesn't solidify or debunk global warming.  That is not the purpose.  The purpose is to show the areas where most of the CO2 is produced , the diurnal pattern of the emissions, and the atmospheric transport across the nation.

Models such as these are great policy tools for playing "what-if" games if policy-makers don't get to carried away. Models are only simplified abstractions of reality that are sometimes very useful for helping us understand and solve a problem.  It can help focus pollution reduction efforts (most will follow the pattern that CO2 exhibits) and be used for more than just reducing AGW.  But monitoring and continuous improvements to the models are usually necessary as we gain insights into the problems we are investigating.

Answer 9

i feel bad for global warming. I watched this program and this government said it is caused by us. A lot of polar bears, penguins, and more are getting extinct! i love those poor creatures! i wish i could do something.

Answer 10

You're not seeing a "natural cycle".  What you're seeing as a very short term cycle because of man's activities.  CO2 goes up during the day, because there are a lot of cars out, and goes down at night, when people are sleeping.

This short term data has little to do with whether nor not global warming is real and mostly man made (which other data shows it is).

Answer 11

Here ya go indiana

Answer 12

i second angiew's assessment!