As any person (born and) raised near the arctic circle and now in his fifties knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, the climate has warned radiclly in those areas. Big changes in flora and fauna from the days of my youth are obvious, when I visit my ancestral homes now. There have been dramatic changes in people's life styles and clothing. I wonder if sellers of recreational and sport clothing can corraborate this with their sales figures because gas grilles, chaise lounges, t-shirts and shorts are ubiquitous there now (in summer) but were unheard of then.
So, FACT is, significant parts of the globe have warmed up over the last few decades.
As a side fact, mines have gone into operation in Greenland in recent years that just a decade ago were inaccessible, buried underneath 60 feet of ice that now has melted.
But is it manmade or man contributed?
It matters not that the globe has gone through periods of cooling and warming before human habitation. It matters only if the habitation of humans is generating the effects that can cause warming, whether just like those that have occurrred naturally or new modes.
My understanding is that experiments have been conducted that prove that CO2 in an "atmosphere" receiving sun light radiation has a significant heating effect, i.e. the green house effect is, again, FACT. It therefore stands to reason that if human habitation releases large quantities of CO2 into the atmophere it can have a heating effect.
How big an effect? Well 40 million barrels of oil bunred 365 days a year for 5 decades or so might have an effect, I'd say. Does any minimally scientifically educated person think that 40 million barrels of oil per day for decades HAS NO (warming) EFFECT? Add to that deforestation/tree burning, coal burning, gas combustion, etc. Still conclude it has NO EFFECT?
To convince me that GW is real and not a boon doggle all the forecaster's have to do is publish the assumptions on which they have based their predictions and the method(s) they are using to calculate their predictions. I can judge for myself if said assumptions and methods are reasonable. I have never seen any info on what they are basing their predictions. I really doubt that their predictions can stand in depth examination.
40 years ago I led a comparision study of the various solar heating and cooling simulation programs that were in vogue. The differences in assumptions and input data were amazing as were the outright programing errors.
There's a big difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist. Climatology is about the signal, and meteorology is about the noise. Also, many weather people are simply talking heads and not meteorologists, so don't expect too much.
You really should do some research before you post. Most of what you claim is more than likely due to you not being a climatologist, so why post them, or at least let the researchers speak for themselves by providing links to their work. And your claim about global cooling prediction in the 1970s is just not true!
My local Weatherperson can't predict the temperature within 1 degree C beyond today, much less 10 days - and I'm expected to believe in predictions of tens of years? Back in undergrad days, circa 80s, Ohio State University measured Ice Core samples and one of the parameters of interest was temperature. The fluctuations were significantly larger (defined as greater than 10 degrees C) change in temperature as compared with what we're arguing about (less than 3 degrees C) over a fairly short time span (defined as between 50 and 200 years). While I'm no Geologist or Climatologist, if these changes occcured pre "man-made/caused" interference, I'm sure we'd all (humans) be more certain the Scientists of today knew what they were talking about if they could identify, explain, and define / model the cause of these changes and incorporate them sucessfully into their current working (? not sure how well it's working - neither is my local Weatherperson, so this must be a subjective term) model of the earth's environment.This model would be able to plot the large increases as well as large decreases and accurately (within 1 degree perhaps - or is that asking too much?).
Bottom line, I'll have more confidence when my local Weatherperson can predict daily temperatures a year in advance and be more than 3 sigma accurate. I'm expected to be within 3 sigma in my calculations / tests / and predictions in my job. Heck, just to give them the benefit of doubt, make it very simple and only predict the daily temperatures 2 weeks in advance and be within 2 sigma accurate. At that point, then I'll have much more confidence in their predictions of tens of years. The best my Weahterpeson can do is a 3 degree F guarantee for tomorrow (not any further out than that and it should be noted that the prediction is given at 11 pm the night before) - and they are no where near 99% accurate. Based on this demonstrated peformance - I can only expect the current estimations of Climate warming will have similar results.
One last thing; the reason so much effort was put into the ice core studies back in the 70s - 80s is because during the 70s it was predicted by these same Scientists that we were going to see temperatures dropping.
It gives me hope that some people are capable of seeing the bigger picture when it comes to GW. I agree with all your thoughs. Here is one more to add to your list. Weather or not GW is the end result, what about all the man made posions that a being dumped into our world everyday?
As the article stated, this is a very complex issue and only a handful of people understand it deeply. I am not one of them. A lot of this climate change witch hunt revolves around whether or not it's man made. As such, things like volcanic activity, the sun, and many other "natural" influences are discounted. This is why I say this is a witch hunt and not science. There is little if any evidence that the last 10 years has yeilded any global warming. Man made or otherwise. Core samples and the like can give us pretty good information to help construct a historical record of how things were. We were in an Ice age. Of course we have warming... We can make some educated analysis but that doesn't mean we know everything. The witch hunters say we have to take action now. If that's the case, we should be moving away from the shore.
If GW was happening and the poles are melting, where's the rising oceans? There is no confirmation of water rising other than normally. It's ok to talk about the possibilty of GW but to demand usary taxes on individuals for living is beyond belief.
Considering North America was covered in glaciers 30,000 years ago points to natural warming and cooling trends. We are at the end of a natural warming trend and a cooling one is coming.
Yes, you are partly right. Clouds are an important part of the GH Effect. Schmidt et al 2011 estimated the percentage contributions to the total GH effect of various components as
Other gases 5%
Clouds aren't a larger component than this because the entire planet isn't covered by clouds. And only some cloud types contribute to GH warming. Other types have a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight to space.The net effect of both of these is approximately neutral, perhaps slightly net warming.
So your comment " I would think the cloud effect has much greater effect than the CO2 concentration changes we have seen" is true. However the issues is whether the cloud component grows as the GH Gas component grows to maintain the same relative proportions. We know that the H2O component has to grow since in a warmer atmosphere you can have a higher water vapour content and in fact you need a higher water vapour content to keep enough of the atmosphere near Water Vapour Saturation to allow clouds to form. This is the water vapour feedback.
The question of what feedback clouds then cause depends mainly on whether the proportions of different cloud types changes. If they current ratios remain, even with an increase in total cloud cover the effect would be small as they two cloud behaviours cancel out. All the current research suggests that cloud changes will have a small net warming effect, but not on the same scale as the water vapour increase.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.