Could There Be Another Cause Of Global Warming?

[percussivemadness]

Interesting and fascinating theory, which, rather ironically considering when it was posted, rather prophetically in the first few lines (see excerpt below) predicts the current backlash as a result of ClimateGate...

"Don`t get me wrong here, I am fully behind the climate change theory, our climate is changing, no-one can have any doubt about that.

The issue is of course, whether carbon emissions are solely to blame or merely a symptom of a greater problem? It is here I am having major doubts and I welcome all and everyone to counter this blog with facts, not facts that repeat the same old same old arguments, but ones that demonstrably disprove my hypothesis. The points I have made in this blog are not by any means scientific, however they pose enough anomalies for me to ask the question.

I also have absolutely no doubt in my mind that sociologically, geo-politically and morally we have a collective responsibility to not only find an alternative to our reliance on fossil fuels, but to also clean up our planet from the ravages of pollution. Hypoxias (dead zones in the sea) for example, are becoming more and more frequent as a result of man`s irresponsible environmental policies. Herein lies my dilemma. Whilst I appreciate the positive effect this current discussion regarding carbon emissions is having on our world as a whole, my concern is that at some point this "theory" will be proved wrong, and knowing people as I know people, the backlash against the "green movement" for promoting this questionable theory of man-made global warming, will have long ranging effects that may take many years to undo......."

Read complete blog here: http://www.djpauledge.com/v2/blog.php?id=160

[tabatha]

1. He should do some more research

the cooling period has been explained.

[joeybee12]

2. It's like Obama's birth certificate, show it to them, and they still don't

believe it...facts are not the right's friend.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Partially Explained

We don't really have sufficient data to explain any short term change in weather. We never will have enough data because there are too many interactive variables.

The current models give about a 60% chance of explaining the recent cold spell. But, that means 40% of the change in climate is random error.

We agree in principle about climate change. It absolutely has to happen. The climate is not exempt from the laws of thermodynamics.

But, the current cool spell isn't even really relevant to long term climate change. So, it's apples and oranges.
GAC

[tabatha]

4. I was not talking about the current cool spell.

If you read the article, this is what he said:

"Circa 1945, in the great post-war economic boom, one can see from the widely available charts, that although carbon emissions rose quite dramatically as is to be expected, temperatures fell. I`m not a scientist by any means, but that struck me as very illogical if we are to believe the claims of the pro-Global Warming lobby"

[ProfessorGAC]

7. I Read It

I just missed that and your point making the connection went right past me. However, my ending point is still the same. Short term changes in weather aren't really relevant to long-term climate change.

So, in the article, he's still comparing apples to oranges.

Sorry about the confusion.
GAC

[tabatha]

10. I had read that it had to do with particulates in the atmosphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13740-clearing-smog-reveals-true-extent-of-global-warming.html

[ProfessorGAC]

12. I'm Agreeing

I just didn't make the connection between the thing in the article and what you had originally said. My fault entirely. I thought you were talking about the current cold spell, because we had a thread about that last week.

I got my signals crossed.
GAC

[jwirr]

15. Also isn't it cumulative pollution that is supposed to be causing global

warming not one years worth? This would mean that the effect of the 1945 pollution would be seem on future years and not just immediately?

[ProfessorGAC]

33. See My Other Reply

Remember that in 1945 there was a massive amount of particulate that went up into the atmosphere as well as enormous amounts of heat (millions of tons of explosives, millions of gallons of diesel and gasoline, and three nukes detonated). So, we have a weird combination of things that would both heat up the atmosphere and cool it down.

The models for that would have to be awfully complicated to accurately explain the events of that single year.

Finally, i think you're pretty much right. The events of 1945 wouldn't probably have been the result of human activity in 1945.

The photochemistry effects are instantaneous, but the measurable effect probably will never be.
GAC

[jwirr]

21. I thought that it was cumulative pollution that causes global warming?

That would mean that the problems of 1945 would merely contribute to the problem not immediately cause a large spike in change.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Not Sure That's Right

The kind of pollutant is what matters. There are pollutants that wouldn't create a warming effect. Particulates actually reflect more light back into space then they absorb. The net absorption is less than that of nitrogen and oxygen.

But, compounds like CO2, CO, SO2, methane, ethylene, and most polyhalogenated organics absorb far more light energy per unit mass (much, much more per mole) than does the pristine atmosphere. Even water absorbs more light per mole than nitrogen or oxygen, and the molecular weight is really close to those two predominant gasses.

So, pollution is a systemic cause, but not every kind of pollutant.
GAC

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. This is just pure conjecture...

That any sharp rise in greenhouse gases caused by WWII (increase fuel consumption, large burnings, etc.) would be very slow and yes, cumulative, in causing a global rise in temperatures. But particulate matter (ash, dust, etc. caused by bombings, burnings, etc) causing cooling would be comparitvely faster, and would then end comparatively quickly as the particulates settle out of the atmosphere.

[jwirr]

39. Okay, I meant to put my post as a question because I do not know

about these things. Thanks for not calling me an idiot. We idiots need to understand this stuff if we are going to win or even make a dent in this problem so thanks again.

[Uncle Joe]

91. I wonder, as much of World War II was fought on the frozen tundra whether vast quantities of methane

was released from explosions and burning?

From my understanding Methane has much stronger heat trapping characteristics than CO2.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. No, it wasn't fought on frozen tundra

It was fought on normal farmland that unfreezes every summer, and therefore doesn't contain any significant amounts of methane.

See, for instance, a map of where the Russian permafrost is: http://nsidc.org/fgdc/maps/perm_ext_browse.html

Notice it's all seasonal in the European part of Russia, apart from the Kola Peninsula in the far north next to Norway.

[Uncle Joe]

93. Thanks for the response

and link, muriel.

[northernlights]

97. there's a current cool spell?

Not where I live. Here in Maine the weather in November was more like September. I had (pale yellow-)green shoots emerging in my garden. Now that it's December, we're finally seeing some October temps and even a couple flurries this evening (melting on contact).

[Teaser]

5. There is no "climategate"

.

[timeforpeace]

64. Right. Nancy Pelosi says it's Hacked-Email-Gate, period.

[tabatha]

6. Dumb blog

There is no place for commentary, and no contact information.

Why? Is he afraid of different opinions.

[jpak]

8. A steaming heap of anti-science horseshit

this guy is a complete idiot and does not know what he is talking about

period

[percussivemadness]

16. Some of the comments here are beyond belief...this is what goes for civilized discussion

on this board.....You should be so proud...FYI, he states repeatedly "I am no scientist"...However, noone here has actually refuted anything he said..As for being anti-science, ROFL.....He also states right at the outset "Don`t get me wrong here, I am fully behind the climate change theory, our climate is changing, no-one can have any doubt about that."....

Stick to the insults, it says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about him....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. "I'm no scientist, but..."

"...let me posit my loony ignorant scientific claim."

[percussivemadness]

25. let me posit...

when you learn how to use spell check, then I`ll take you seriously...


so what points that he made are you refuting?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Eh heh, um, percussivemadness...

You know what? Nevermind.

Shit is cash.

[tabatha]

59. Maybe a dictionary would be better:

Main Entry: pos·it
Pronunciation: \ˈpä-zət\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pos·it·ed \ˈpä-zə-təd, ˈpäz-təd\; pos·it·ing \ˈpä-zə-tiŋ, ˈpäz-tiŋ\
Etymology: Latin positus, past participle of ponere
Date: 1647

1 : to dispose or set firmly : fix
2 : to assume or affirm the existence of : postulate
3 : to propose as an explanation : suggest

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. LOL.... Conservatards........ what a country

[percussivemadness]

43. conservatards?

are you saying he is a conservatard? Because he asks a question?

try watching www.wewillnotbesilenced.com ...do some research before you start slinging mud...That is the true definition of a conservatard, who are you, Sean Hannity`s love child?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Probably.

I've never met a global warming denier that wasn't some teabagging conservative.

[Ichingcarpenter]

54. I'm a scientist and read the whole blog

I'm sorry its intellectual ga-gaism cherry picking data
to achieve a end.

Go to our science and environmental forums
on DU......

you could learn something.

Or maybe not.

[jpak]

34. There is no fucking peer reviewed fucking scientific evidence that fucking falsifies

anthropogenic climate change.

There is NONE.

That debate was settled a decade ago.

This guy is not a scientist and he does not know what he is talking about.

period.

[percussivemadness]

40. refute what he asks then....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. How do you refute a question?

If you want an answer to the question, the answer is no. No, there are no plausible alternatives to explain the warming.

[percussivemadness]

46. fair enough....I`ll take your word for it...Just like I took George Bush`s word

that there were WMD`s in Iraq...

Then again, I didn`t...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. George W. Bush, like you, pretended to not believe in global warming.

And I suspect you did believe in GWB's WMDs.

[percussivemadness]

50. please quote me where I have said I never believed in Global Warming?

or are you just making stuff up?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. The part where you posted global warming denialist bullshit.

It's pretty obvious, bub. You can't post this shit and then expect anybody to take you seriously.

[jpak]

55. Let him fucking publish his fucking research in a fucking peer reviewed science journal

or he can just shut his fucking igorant mouth

:D

[tabatha]

60. LOL

You don't mince words - fucking = GWD

[jpak]

75. Calculate the energy released from all nuclear tests and then compare it to

the measured climate forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The first number is infinitesimally small and the other very very large and the energy trapped by enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases accounts for the measured rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years.

and there's these inconviences....

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001

Abstract

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

and this...

Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 270 - 274
DOI: 10.1126/science.1058304
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports

Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans

Tim P. Barnett,* David W. Pierce, Reiner Schnur

Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world's oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint.

and this...

Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5515, pp. 267 - 270
DOI: 10.1126/science.1058154
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports

Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System

Sydney Levitus,1* John I. Antonov,1 Julian Wang,2 Thomas L. Delworth,3 Keith W. Dixon,3 Anthony J. Broccoli3

We compared the temporal variability of the heat content of the world ocean, of the global atmosphere, and of components of Earth's cryosphere during the latter half of the 20th century. Each component has increased its heat content (the atmosphere and the ocean) or exhibited melting (the cryosphere). The estimated increase of observed global ocean heat content (over the depth range from 0 to 3000 meters) between the 1950s and 1990s is at least one order of magnitude larger than the increase in heat content of any other component. Simulation results using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century agree with our observation-based estimate of the increase in ocean heat content. The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.

and this


Science 3 June 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5727, pp. 1431 - 1435
DOI: 10.1126/science.1110252
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Research Articles

Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

James Hansen,1,2* Larissa Nazarenko,1,2 Reto Ruedy,3 Makiko Sato,1,2 Josh Willis,4 Anthony Del Genio,1,5 Dorothy Koch,1,2 Andrew Lacis,1,5 Ken Lo,3 Surabi Menon,6 Tica Novakov,6 Judith Perlwitz,1,2 Gary Russell,1 Gavin A. Schmidt,1,2 Nicholas Tausnev3

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.

[Ichingcarpenter]

82. The Results from Super Computers studies verify the cosmology

of Global Warming/Climate Change...... these are mathematical
studies with an immense amount of data integrated on studying possibilities
and probabilities...


This post is like creationism

[jpak]

83. Yup - peer reviewed scientific papers published in the most prestigious science journals

on the planet and verified with actual climate data are the same as creationism.

what a stupid post

:rofl:

[tabatha]

58. Yep, it is funny that with all the

hundreds of scientists, thousands of science followers, no-one else has thought of this - but this non-scientist guy?

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Apparently, The Earth is Exempt From The Laws Of Thermodynamics

Well, at least to this guy.

Add more active photon absorbing compounds into the air and you create more heat. Simple.

Keep doing it and you continue to add heat. The heat has nowhere to go. Simple.

The entire atmosphere heats up. Simple.

Even if the data is inconclusive (which will happen given the complexity of the system involved), the mechanisms are proven scientific concepts and what is happening just HAS to happen.

But, if you deny the immutable laws of physics, it's easy to be a denier.
GAC

[percussivemadness]

23. "the entire atmosphere heats up"

I don`t think he disagrees with you there....

[ProfessorGAC]

27. He's Still Denying Simple Physics

Even by looking for a different explanation, he's ignoring the proven mechanisms that are in play.
GAC

[percussivemadness]

36. I disagree...however at least you are being civil...

The whole article starts with a question...could there be another cause...He doesn`t dismiss current viewpoints on GW, what he does ask is a pertinent question, what are the ramifications of rampant nuclear testing and could they be a contributory factor?

As the guy in question is also responsible for www.bidforgreen.com and Climate Counts` Unstoppable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf4RIieY1BI , I sincerely doubt if the article didn`t have some input from prominent members of the Green community, he wouldn`t have posted it.

Great this climate fundamentalist fascism isn`t it? Don`t ask questions....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Are you and this joker the same person?

Because I have a hard time believing two different people could actually believe this shit.

[percussivemadness]

49. no we`re not...However, I have never once said I agreed with it...

I said it was a fascinating theory....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Meaning you take it seriously.

And I find it hard to believe that more than one person could take it seriously.

[kestrel91316]

24. Well, given how most the deniers also believe the earth was created in

7 days, and Jesus rose from the dead, and other such claptrap, why is this surprising?

Carl Sagan must by spinning in his grave by now.

[percussivemadness]

28. hmmmm....refute the specific points made, don`t sling mud....

where exactly does he say the world was made in 7 days?

[kestrel91316]

32. I never claimed HE did. You need remedial reading. I am referring to

the majority of denialists.

Oh, and don't presume to tell me what to post. If I wish to post MY OPINION, I'll do so.

[percussivemadness]

37. lol...touchy aren`t we....

[fascisthunter]

9. yeah... his breath

from spewing too much shit. I guess this will be the new meme... man isn't responsible.

Be scared scientific community.


PS - "climate gate" was the kicker.

[old mark]

11. Cow farts? nt

[timeforpeace]

13. Hope this isn't some nonsense about the big burning ball of hydrogen that's 92 million miles away

having anything to do with it.

[percussivemadness]

18. no, it appears to be an attack on nuclear testing and the ramifications

to our world..

[Laelth]

14. Of course, there COULD be.

It might be the work of mitichlorians, for all I know, but it's safest to reduce our CO2 emissions, just in case.

:dem:

-Laelth

[timeforpeace]

89. Not a soul denies this. The mechanism is subject to debate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Well, sure.

Maybe Thor's made at us for bombing his favorite fishing hole on the moon.

But if you're looking for a credible cause, then no, no there isn't.

[dysfunctional press]

20. this has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever proposed to explain global warming.

nuclear explosions simply aren't that large, compared to the size of the planet- and most of those nuclear tests have occurred underground, anyway.

[percussivemadness]

38. fantastic response...

ingore the facts and make shit up.... "Between 16 July 1945 and the 23rd September 1993, there were 2,044 tests worldwide, the equivalent of one test occurring somewhere in the world every nine days for the last fifty years. Nuclear weapon test explosions have been carried out in all environments: above ground, underground, and underwater. Of the 2,044 nuclear weapons tests worldwide, there have been 711 in the atmosphere or underwater....."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Ignoring the facts and making up shit is what this hack is doing.

"Between 16 July 1945 and the 23rd September 1993, there were 2,044 tests worldwide, the equivalent of one test occurring somewhere in the world every nine days for the last fifty years. Nuclear weapon test explosions have been carried out in all environments: above ground, underground, and underwater. Of the 2,044 nuclear weapons tests worldwide, there have been 711 in the atmosphere or underwater....."


And none of it caused global warming.

[percussivemadness]

47. so that`s not a fact?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. It may be a fact, but it's an irrelevant fact.

On this day in 1639, English astronomer Jeremiah Horrocks observed the transit of Venus across the sun.

That's a fact.

But it doesn't explain global warming either.

[dysfunctional press]

56. who are you accusing of ignoring the facts and making shit up?

me or him?

2044 tests- 711 in the atmosphere or underwater...2044-711= 1333 underground. therefore, most of the tests have been underground- where they wouldn't be expelling debris (or water vapor) into the air.
and as for the water vapor from underwater tests that the blog writer wonders about- as to 'where it went?'- well, i'm no meteorologist, but my guess would be that a lot of it found it's way back to the earth's surface in the form of precipitation of one kind or another(gravity is a bitch).

[spanone]

26. carbon emissions are strangling this planet.

[jpak]

57. I just read that link and that guy is a loon

There is absolutely no way the energy released from nuclear weapons testing could contribute to the measured rise in global temperatures over the last 60 years.

This guy spews pseudoscience bullshit that only the ignorant could believe.

and apparently do

[Xithras]

61. There are alternative ideas, but this isn't one of them.

Deforestation, for example, is commonly cited as a contributor to global warming due to the CO2 released when they are burned. There is a growing body of evidence, however, that is suggesting that the removal of the forests themselves may be permanently impacting the global CO2 balance, even when the short-duration burn releases are finished, and will continue to do so even if they were completely halted right now.

Researchers have known for a long time that forests are net carbon sinks, and that they are an important part of the carbon cycle responsible for removing a great deal of the CO2 from our atmosphere and sequestering it into the soil. Over the past several thousand years, mankind has been slowly removing the forests from the planet. About 150 years ago the rates took off like a rocket, and over the past 60 years deforestation absolutely exploded globally. Mankind has now permanently removed HALF of the natural forest cover on the planet, and the vast majority of the remaining forest is second or third growth forest that has regrown after mankind has cut it, and therefore lacks a multistory biome and suffers from a reduced ability to absorb CO2. Only a very small percentage of the worlds natural forest remains in an optimum state for removing CO2.

For a long time, many researchers discounted the real impact this might have on the atmosphere, but over the last couple of years there have been a number of papers demonstrating that the forests play an important role in moderating global CO2 levels...and that their removal may be playing a role in global warming at least as large as that of direct CO2 emissions, and possibly an even larger one. There's a lot of active study on the subject right now, and more definitive info should be out within the next couple of years.

[timeforpeace]

90. ...the big burning ball of gas in the sky...

[MH1]

98. Important point. Geo-engineering to stop global warming is all the rage, but maybe we should simply

start "engineering" the end of deforestation and replacing it with rapid reforestation. (I don't study this for a living so I don't know, it's quite likely more is needed, but sheesh, the things I've seen suggested vs. the simple concept of turning more land back into forests.)

Too bad the author of the article in the op seems to be emphasizing something that is probably not a significant contributing factor; if in fact he is really a greenie, maybe he could jump on the deforestation issue. That's simple enough that most people should be able to understand. (Until you tell them the cost of their steak will go up. Not to mention the cost of housing outside the cities.)

[beyond cynical]

62. Sure there could...

But this about money, not science. And there is a whole lot riding on the opposing viewpoint.

[Overseas]

63. New Denier Spin -- The Monolithic Climate Change Theory

The Denier Spin bell rang upon reading the phrase -- "counter this blog with facts, not facts that repeat the same old same old arguments" a.k.a. don't bother me with science.

Look how he talks about "The Climate Change Theory" -- all the thousands of independent research studies over a few decades now, on the various ways in which different human activities are causing the deterioration of our atmosphere and oceans which contribute to global warming and climatic destabilization, are reduced to a monolithic idea-- The Climate Change Theory. And if that falls, golly, it's all over.

If one cause of global warming independent of carbon emissions is discovered, he'd like us to think, well then, gee whiz, it's sayonara to the whole idea that human activity is at fault for climatic destabilization. The Whole Theory Will Die !!!

That's a new twist for deniers. Usually they're saying -- AHA! Scientists disagree !! They're not making absolute statements, so all their warnings are Just Theories! Never mind empirical evidence. They all disagree on the causes, so we don't have to act.

Now they've got a brand new twist-- Scientists Are All Supporting One Theory!! So, oh no, if it goes; they go!

[percussivemadness]

69. If one cause of global warming independent of carbon emissions is discovered, he'd like us to think,

it's sayonara to the whole idea that human activity is at fault for climatic destabilization. The Whole Theory Will Die !!!

Can you exactly show me where he says that is definitely going to happen?

This is great, I just love how people are simply making stuff up and attributing to to the author...

[Overseas]

80. YOU said it-- "Could there be another cause?"

Well of course there are !

THen the guy was saying gee, he'd like people to make those nice greeny changes but maybe they'll stop doing that if they find out man-made CO2 emissions aren't the sole cause.

[Swamp Rat]

65. certainly........ *oink!*

[percussivemadness]

66. For those of you spewing vitriolic bile, a few points for you to consider

1) The title of the article is "Could there be another cause of Global Warming?" - This in itself shows the author believes in Global Warming, because it treats the term "Global Warming" as a reality.

2) Whilst many of you have slammed the author on an incorrect assumption he doesn`t believe in Global Warming, despite the fact he says at the outset he does, so far noone has managed to refute anything he says, which I find interesting. You are attacking the author because he dares to question a scientific theory, despite the fact throughout history, what was once believed to be scientific fact is often changed as new evidence becomes available...

3) However you look at it, he agrees with the "man-made global warming" theory, he just asks the question, "whether carbon emissions are solely to blame or merely a symptom of a greater problem?" I fail to see how asking this question can make someone a Global Warming Denier as is the conclusion that many of you have immediately jumped to, which has resulted in the use of derogatory insults directed at the author.

4) I still await an answer to the following line - 'The issue is of course, whether carbon emissions are solely to blame or merely a symptom of a greater problem? It is here I am having major doubts and I welcome all and everyone to counter this blog with facts, not facts that repeat the same old same old arguments, but ones that demonstrably disprove my hypothesis'.

I posted this blog because I found it interesting, assuming that there would be a civil discussion and someone with far more knowledge than me would say the following..."If you watch the test of the Tsar explosion , the largest nuclear weapon ever tested at some 60 megatons, the debris and water vapor reached 40 miles into the atmosphere. Where has all this debris gone? The blast wave was still felt on its third time round the planet, and certainly, whilst not at this level, we have had one of these bombs go off to the equivalent of every 9 days for 50 years. Toxic contamination from nuclear testing can be found for example, in every state in America." I know that the atmosphere is a closed circuit, in other words, once something is released into the atmosphere it doesn`t go away, thats why I found this interesting. None has actually said, the reason that the following is wrong is because....

In an earlier blog, the same author attacks the Republicans in an article entitled "The Gay Marriage Amendment - Nazi Ideology with Neocon Spin"...He states "it is following the same old formula that the fascist Republican regime has used in its 6 years in power. Invent an enemy, divide the American people so they are fighting amongst themselves, when this objective has been achieved, it`s business as normal." In another article "Dubya`s war on the youth of America" he slams the Free Republic stating "and anyone who even attempts to disagree with the dominant mindset is either 1) a traitor 2) a "fag" 3) a fag traitor.". Whilst the words are different, the same vicious traits are amply displayed in this thread as well and from what I have seen in this thread, the Global Warming fascists are employing the same tactics..

Well done...

[Viking12]

68. Boo-hooo.

Here's your facts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

[percussivemadness]

70. I have read that...as I have stated repeatedly, I don`t disbelieve in GW

What you have failed to do however, is prove anything he says is wrong...Sending me to the IPCC site only proves you understand how to find a link, it doesn`t prove you actually understand the discussion at hand...

[Viking12]

71. You have not read it or you wouldn't be repeating such stupid fucking questions.

They're all answered in the Assessment.

[percussivemadness]

73. You like swearing don`t you.....Really makes you sound educated

and terribly fearsome...I`m quivering in my chair just looking at your swear words, I would hate to meet you in a pub, I would probably die from fright seeing how scary you really are...

keep it up....

[Viking12]

74. As Justice Harlan wrote from the SCOTUS bench concerning the term...

"much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force."

That seems to be lost on you. As does the general concept of logic, reasoning, and science.

[dysfunctional press]

78. where has all the debris gone?

most of it has fallen back to the earth's surface in one form or another. (see: Theory of gravity)
volcanoes pump more debris into the atmosphere than ANY nuclear test or explosion has.
most of the nuclear tests have been underground(do the math- it really isn't all that difficult)

next?

[Overseas]

79. Sorry pal, your title was so ridiculous-- Could there be another cause?-- well, duh!

It was the anti-science absolutist nature of the question in your title that tipped me off to denier talk. It was obviously posed by someone pretending, or someone who hadn't been following the global warming/climate destabilization debate for very long.

Such a foolish question-- Could there possibly be more than one cause of something?

The question implied that someone somewhere had said Man-made CO2 Emissions are The Only Cause of Global Warming, and if they were not The Sole Cause in Perpetuity then the whole premise for advocating reduction in CO2 emissions would collapse.

Could there be another cause? Oh heavens no!
Could anything except man-made carbon emissions warm up our atmosphere? Oh heavens no!
Could there be More Than One cause of particular phenomena ? Oh heavens no !
Actual Answer-- DUH !

Of course other things heat up and cool down the atmosphere too. Duh. Heating & cooling cycles have occurred throughout history. That was the big denier spin for a long time. Hey, it's all natural, so quit bellyachin' about bothersome restraint on our carbon emissions.

Those cycles are still happening, just at much hotter base temperatures than they did 300 years ago, before industrialization. The cooling & warming cycles are happening at hotter basic temps than pre-industrial cycles. The chart of those temperature records is quite dramatic. Right wing spinners have tried to reduce that inconvenient chart to "Al Gore's hockey stick."

[Viking12]

67. It's a bunch of bullshit

Starting with this howler, "when you consider that the "global warming" theory was initially promoted by the Thatcher government in the UK in the early 90s, because Margaret Thatcher wanted to make a cohesive and persuasive argument for Nuclear Power, it tends to confirm an alternative agenda. "

Umm, no. The theory of global warming dates back to at least 1896 and warnings that it could potentially create serious consequences to the 1950s.

Then he continues with this fucking nonsense, "As I have previously stated, carbon emissions rose dramatically between 1945 and 1985, however temperatures dropped. Many of you reading this blog will remember the "ice-age is coming" hysteria of the early 1970s, this was because temperatures had dropped annually for 30 years. So one has to ask the question, what if it isn`t carbon emissions?

Emissions rose dramatically but the atmospheric concentrations didn't build up instantly. Then , take into account the cooling effect of aerosols, lag time, and other factors and the lack of warming from 1945-1975 is not a freakin' mystery. Finally, the "global warming hysteria" is a fucking myth perpetrated by the RW. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1

I could go on but there's really no need. The author is wrong on just about every point throughout the essay.

[percussivemadness]

72. The author is wrong on just about every point throughout the essay.

so he is wrong about Nuclear testing? He is wrong about the model formulated by Hochstein? He is wrong about the percentages of CO2? He is wrong about pollution? He is wrong about Hypoxias? He is wrong about the sea hotspots?

Just asking....

[dysfunctional press]

76. i'm still waiting for a response from you upthread...

where you seem to be accusing me of 'ignoring facts and making shit up'.

or can't you defend your accusation?

[Viking12]

77. You won't get one.

I predict a continual restatement of irrelevant questions despite the fact they've been answered repeatedly on this thread.

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. We don't need a Cray Super computer nor the Leopard super computer

to figure out this post.

[donco6]

96. Yes. That pattern is already clear. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

81. The Senate is debating today, right? HUGE source of hot air...

[billyclem]

85. The author of the blog asked a question

that was based on his very common lack of knowledge about the power and the effects of the isotopes from nuclear weapons. It seems he was easily led into a woo-woo scenario as a possible alternative explanation for warming. His concern about a backlash against the green movement occurring is valid. As for the woo-woo, others up thread have addressed that.

It would be nice for a change to see people stay on topic and not just vent inane profanity which adds nothing to the thread. There are a lot of whackos out there with alternative theories and discussing them here can be interesting, without the useless posts.

[RyboSlybo]

86. Thank You BillyClem! Best post in this thread!

Seriously people?

What's with all the hateful comments? Why not just have a civil discussion?

I feel like I walked into a Neocon thread...

[beardown]

87. It's simple

Time and again ( and the frequency and number of posters and posts is increasing ) this type of "I'm just asking a question" posts are showing up here. There is often times a dishonest and unethical poster behind the question who deserves neither patience or respect and quite frankly civil discourse is wasted on them.

Generally, it's not asking for a debate anymore than if I try and engage you in a debate on whether or not the Earth is flat or round. First, the direct query of How do you know the Earth is round? Then questioning your direct knowledge of Have you been in space and seen that it's round? Then the pseudo science approach of Have you considered that if the Earth was round and it is spinning how come we can't jump 5 feet farther if we jump against the spin, instead of with the spin?

They usually aren't honest debate. They are intentional and sometimes directed and orchestrated attempts to obscure the real science and real debate and delay the ultimate decisions to be faced on dealing with global warming.

Occasionally, an innocent bystander will get caught in the crossfire, but given many of the followup responses from the original poster in the vast majority of these types of subjects, those types of mistaken identity incidents are extremely rare.

If this was a neocon site and you posted a belief in global warming you'd be lucky to get a few uncivil comments thrown in with the barrage of death threats and ethnic slurs.

[billyclem]

88. I think this type of poster

is revealed soon in the thread; besides, the topic is usually one that has been posted numerous times and the disruptive intent of the post is clear. I would not expect any interesting discussion to take place in such a thread. Sometimes there might be enough of an oddity factor to warrant some time, at least for fun.

We pride ourselves on being the rational, reality based segment of the population. Why not respond to the disruptive sockpuppets by just ignoring their posts in a thread? That would seem to be a better way.

[MH1]

100. Thank you. The fact is that most people really don't know a lot of this stuff.

Why is it necessary to infer malice when lack of knowledge will suffice? Why not just calmly discuss why he is mistaken, without all the personal attacks? That would help ALL (okay the less knowledgeable MOST) of us here.

(Unless and until evidence is presented showing the guy is deliberately trying to game his readers. Maybe that was posted upthread, but if so I didn't see it, and I read most of the responses).

[petronius]

94. There are a number of things wrong with this blog page, but most

importantly is the energy - nuclear tests (even 1000s of them) are orders of magnitude smaller than the amounts of energy responsible for changing global temperatures. They're just too tiny to have any effect.

Second, the cool(ing) period of the 40s-70s is largely understood - anthropogenic sulfate aerosols as well as natural sea surface temperature variabilities are behind that. It's important to remember, as this author seems to have forgotten and most 'skeptics' willfully ignore, that variations in climate are due to a whole host of superimposed natural and anthropogenic processes operating at various time scales. There is no one cause of climate change.

The Global Cooling Hysteria never happened in the scientific realm, but the mention of it (and the bit about Thatcher) is characteristic of the 'skeptical' literature. Too many people confuse the public discourse with the scientific discourse, but the comments of politicians or advocates (or even the use of climate change to push a position like nuclear power) are totally irrelevant in assessing the credibility of a scientific theory. However, that tack is often taken by people who prefer not to engage with the actual science - typically because the science is saying things they don't want to hear.

Finally, the maps of nuclear tests and surface temperatures are so out of place that they make me suspect this whole blog post is supposed to be a joke - those areas are hot because they are low latitude and/or desert locations, and the temperature patterns looked like that long before humans figured out fission...

[donco6]

95. That temp map made me guffaw.

I mean, talk about getting cause and effect mixed up.

[Blue-Jay]

99. Possibly, but what is the downside of creating less pollution?

Even if the vast majority of climate scientists (who are much smarter than you or me) are wrong, than what is the problem with (a) polluting less (b) researching renewable energy (c) creating "green" jobs (d) reducing man-made carbon emissions (e) lessening our dependence on foreign oil, etc?

Seriously, what is the downside of doing these things? Even IF Global Warming is an incorrect conclusion of the majority of scientists. Even IF we're (humans) not responsible for global climate change.... What is the actual harm in taking better care of our planet and attempting to be energy-independent?

Seriously, WTF?