Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are looking for recent peer-reviewed work that confirms that carbon emissions raise the earth's temperature (based on laboratory work and not based on models) then I have two examples for you:
1: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf (broken link)
2: http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf
The first is from 2006 and the second is from 2007.
Enjoy.
Neither are peer reviewed lab tests, sorry. Both are observational based.
And please provide WHICH recognized peer review groups reviewed these papers.
The second one wasn't on Google Scholar so I am less sure about that one. Their results pretty much mimicked the other study using different data. I included it because its conclusion went out of its way to state that it was not based on models (which I thought you would like).
Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny the entire greenhouse concept? I'm not sure how basic an item that I need to provide evidence for.
The second one wasn't on Google Scholar so I am less sure about that one. Their results pretty much mimicked the other study using different data. I included it because its conclusion went out of its way to state that it was not based on models (which I thought you would like).
Are you denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny the entire greenhouse concept? I'm not sure how basic an item that I need to provide evidence for.
No one ever talks about how much solar energy green house gases reflect back out into space before it touches the earth.
No one ever mentions when a saturation point is met where the flora of the planet simply cannot process CO2 fast enough, and it starts to build up.
No one seems to want to talk about "CO2 Lag", the phenomina noticed in ice core samples showing CO2 levels increasing AFTER periods of tempurature rise. Does this indicate CO2 actually cools the earth?
These are some of the reasons why hard physical evidence generated by laboratory testing and peer review is essential.
Using observations and statistics merely reflect opinions, and while all three are PART of the scientific method, without peer reviewed testing, they simply remain opinions.
That said, I am indeed a responsible environmentalist. I agree and advocate for sensible legislation and regulations to protect our environment, and for the wise usage of our natural resources.
However, as with all concerns, I refuse to jump on every hysterical bandwagon that comes tearing down the street at breakneck pace simply because the banner says something neat.
If you are looking for recent peer-reviewed work that confirms that carbon emissions raise the earth's temperature (based on laboratory work and not based on models) then I have two examples for you:
1: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf (broken link)
2: http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf
The first is from 2006 and the second is from 2007.
Enjoy.
Oy, so many big words. All I need to know about global warming is that it was 100 degrees today here in Houston and a hurricane just swept up the east coast. I dare you to deny global warming with all of this real, easy to understand evidence.
Well, I for one am now sold on Global Warming ®. Clearly we did not have hurricanes before Bush was president, and now we do. Thank you Al Gore for helping me see the light. Plus, here in Houston it is really, really hot outside. C'mon people, how much more proof do you need that Global Warming ®?
And I just watched History Channel. There is a new Ice Age coming. And it is because of global Warming
N
Oy, so many big words. All I need to know about global warming is that it was 100 degrees today here in Houston and a hurricane just swept up the east coast. I dare you to deny global warming with all of this real, easy to understand evidence.
And my cat just coughed up a fur ball, further proof as well.
Not speaking of climate. I am looking for verified tests proving that man-made carbon emissions are creating/accelorating climate change, ie "global warming".
Anyone who thinks the climate doesn't change drastically over time has no business being on the internets.
However, there is little to no evidence, other than statistical "evidence" that appears to contradict itself and is open to much debate (and agenda driven "adjsutments").
Simple lab research for man-made "global warming" is all I'm asking for.
So what you are saying is that the CO2 (it has always been one carbon and two oxygen atoms) in the geological history of the earth is different than the CO2 produced by man? If my chemistry serves me right, I believe it is still one carbon and two oxygen- just like the dinosaurs used to exhale.
Again- The experiment you ask for has already been done-
1. Lab- planet earth
2. Data- the fossil record and ice cores
3. methods- mother nature
4. results- cylical cold and hot phases related to earth's eliptical orbit around the sun and influence of the moon's gravitationl pull (did you realize that the moon is further away from us now)
5. CO2 rises in RESPONSE to increased temperature, but does NOT CREATE increased temperture.
Just to remind the left of the scientific "facts" that they have tried to foist on us in the past. They are just as laughable as "global warming" will be in a few years in the midst of our cooling phase. But again, it will change then to new ice age. Kind of reminds me of the witch in the movie "The Wiz", a black musical based on the "Wizard of Oz". The witch calls out a color, to which the environement of the stage changes to a particular color and the attendees dutifully dance to the new color, only to have it change a minute later. Just like the dems dancing to the new color of "global warming", they will be dutifully mouthing a new command in a few years. I can't wait to see what the new "color" will be, but I am sure it will be as entertaining as the old ones. Isn't blind compliance fun?
1.Thalidomide is good for your unborn baby.
2. Wal Marts are great for local business people
3.An ice age is impending (1977)
4. Global warming is real (2002)
5.The ozone layer will disappear soon and we are doomed (1988)
6. We have reached “peak oil” and will run out very soon (1973 & 2008)
No one seems to want to talk about "CO2 Lag", the phenomina noticed in ice core samples showing CO2 levels increasing AFTER periods of tempurature rise. Does this indicate CO2 actually cools the earth?
My understanding is that, during a natural warming period, the southern hemisphere is the first to heat up. The warming of the southern pole releases stored CO2 which slowly disperses throughout the atmosphere and then proceeds to provoke a warming of the northern hemisphere.
There is probably some reason why the southern hemisphere warms first due to the tilt of the earth or from a slightly elliptical earth orbit around the sun but I'm sure you've seen the images of massive ice sheets that were thought to cover much of the northern hemisphere. At one point in earth's history Antarctica had a temperate climate and supported a wide range of dinosaurs and plants (which is probably where all that stored CO2 came from).
In terms of a scholarly paper to confirm this, I'll offer this (located from a Google Scholar search):
Quote:
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
Someone else will more time can find something better (or at least read more than the abstract) but at least that suggests that the southern hemisphere warmed first, it causes a release of CO2 which in turn caused a warming (deglaciation) of the northern hemisphere.
On another note there seems to be a lot of confusion about whether the planet is warming or cooling and about the predictions from the 1970s.
First of all there was no Global Cooling Consensus. There were only about 7 peer-reviewed articles on subjects such as the effects of unrestrained aerosol use on the globe. None of these major institutions backed Global Cooling but have all since backed the Global Warming Consensus:
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- Environmental Protection Agency
- NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Physics
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- American Meteorological Society
Part of the problem is that Global Warming and Global Cooling are both true to some degree (so long as you are in no particular hurry). Well after this global warming phase, in about 20,000 years, we will enter a new glacial period that will stick around for quite a long time. Many people complain when they talk about sea level rises over the next 300 years as being too far into the future as it is, so I wouldn't be too concerned about what will happen to the earth 20,000 years from now.
My understanding is that, during a natural warming period, the southern hemisphere is the first to heat up. The warming of the southern pole releases stored CO2 which slowly disperses throughout the atmosphere and then proceeds to provoke a warming of the northern hemisphere.
There is probably some reason why the southern hemisphere warms first due to the tilt of the earth or from a slightly elliptical earth orbit around the sun but I'm sure you've seen the images of massive ice sheets that were thought to cover much of the northern hemisphere. At one point in earth's history Antarctica had a temperate climate and supported a wide range of dinosaurs and plants (which is probably where all that stored CO2 came from).
In terms of a scholarly paper to confirm this, I'll offer this (located from a Google Scholar search):
Someone else will more time can find something better (or at least read more than the abstract) but at least that suggests that the southern hemisphere warmed first, it causes a release of CO2 which in turn caused a warming (deglaciation) of the northern hemisphere.
The illiterate don't understand nor seek to understand the complex cycle that can affect the CO2 level in the atmosphere. There is a huge amount of CO2 sequestered in the oceans and in plants. Climatic change, can affect the balance of sequestration and release. Huge fires certainly occurred in the past and that would have released meaningful amounts of CO2. Warmer temperatures would have increased the rate of decay of plants, leading to a faster rate of CO2 release. Changes in the ocean thermohaline circulation could change the surface waters ability to hold CO2 in solution. Soil respiration is affected by climate.
On top of these naturally occurring sources of CO2 we have added anthropogenic source and changed the dynamic balance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
