My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

First, did you take on board the moderator's requests above? You're not going to "link bomb" us again without demostrating WHY each link is actually important, or which bit of the websites you had in mind?

Second, did you hear the news today? 10th hottest year on record globally, 4th hottest year on record in the Murray-Darling, AND it's meant to be a "cooler" La Nina year! Hmmm, yeah, global warming definitely just "went away" in 2008.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Did I hear the news correctly - it snowed in Florida (our Oz news doesnt always get it right)

This is likely a misunderstanding of news reports of unexpected early and heavy snow in a region of Louisiana known as the Florida Parishes, such as this one. The sharing of a name of these 8 Louisiana parishes (unlike most US states, the sub-jurisdictions of Louisiana are called parishes, not counties) with the nearby state of Florida is a coincidence of American history, owing to the differences in names given to these territories by Spain and the US.

[Essay]

Snow in Louisiana! That's why they say we should call it Global Weirding, instead of Global Warming.
===

Engineerdude,
I'd like to ask for a link on this conjecture: "The Earth has been cooling for the past several years...." from your post #1062. I've recently seen this sort of statement made casually, as if everyone knows about this. Maybe I missed something, but where does this come from? I thought the past decade had been one of the hottest.

I think there has been a slight slowing in the rate of increase of heating (sensible heat--as measured by temperature), but that was during years which saw a large reduction in global ice mass (latent heat absorbed).
Physical State/Latent Heat

The PDO is an interesting topic though, deserving of it's own thread (hint, hint).
===

But yes, what "cooling" are you referring to when you say the "Earth has been cooling for the past several years...."

~

p.s. ...and what about my comment on your experiment?
My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky
"CO2 would affect how quickly (or not) the room cools after the heat source is removed. It [CO2] wouldn't affect the temperature of the golfball."

[froggy]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

So, what am I missing?

Your missing something called 'the one percent doctrine'. Even tho the recent execution of this concept has been horribly bumbled by ningconpoops, there is some validity to the concept. Its why I carry insurance. Its not for the 99 % of the time that I drive or electicity flows thru my walls that I have it, its because the chance that I just might be wrong and dont want to lose everything and then some.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

So, what am I missing?

You are also missing something of just as much importance, that CO2 isnt the only issue. CH4, NOx SOx Hg, Ozone in the wrong places and not enough in other, etc.... There is a very long list of other impacts on the global system that humans produce thru their land and energy practices.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

So, what am I missing?

Lastly, you are missing the obvious economic point. Not only are we ruining our rivers and lakes and groundwater and oceans thru coal and other fuel mining, and not only are we ruining our ATM with pollutants, but we are giving away $ after $ after $ down a rat hole or even worse-into a den a theives. We have proven better ways to do the job and only hold back because of intrenched systems and interests. Make no mistake that the energy revolution will drag the US back into the economic engine that it has been for a century. Carbon credits and other pollution pricing will grease those wheels of progress.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

So, what am I missing?

I think your missing the big picture, your not seeing the forest because you are trying to indentify each and every tree. Your missing more than enough proof to act in a responsable way to solve what is more than likely not, a huge issue.

[Eclipse Now]

Engineerdude, don't forget yesterday's ABC news announcements and interviews with our head climatologists.

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

10th hottest year on record globally, 4th hottest year on record in the Murray-Darling, AND it's meant to be a "cooler" La Nina year! Hmmm, yeah, global warming definitely just "went away" in 2008.

[Michaelangelica]

Global methane levels move upward again

Tuesday, 16 December 2008 Dani Cooper ABC

rice field Costly crop: The loss of wetlands to agricultural crops has been highlighted as a possible cause behind the increase in methane levels (Source: iStockphoto)
Related Stories

* Soil study muddies climate change debate, Science Online, 18 Nov 2008
* Melting permafrost spews out more methane, Science Online, 07 Sep 2006
* Greenhouse methane levels stop rising
* Map: Aspendale 3195

Methane levels in the atmosphere have started to rise after almost eight years of near-zero growth, an international study says.
. . .
"After seven years [of zero growth] methane has started to rise again to growth rates of the early 1990s," Fraser says.

"If methane concentrations continue to grow at the current rate then it will be once again the second-most important greenhouse gas to control after CO2 over the next few decades," he says.

Fraser says methane accounts for about 20% of all greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution.

It is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas and comes from sources such as natural wetlands, rice fields, fires, coal mines and natural gas reticulation.

Emissions have been balanced over the past decade by natural sinks that absorb the gas and through oxidation into the atmosphere.

Fraser says sources of methane have been growing with drainage of tropical wetlands for agricultural use and increased fossil fuel use.

Global methane levels move upward again (ABC News in Science)
Nice theory, but I am not sure anyone knows what the hell is going on with methane.

[Eclipse Now]

Thanks for that.

Now, this "20 times more powerful than Co2" is an interesting abbreviation, because isn't it something like 70 times more powerful with the refraction process but has a different lifespan in the atmosphere so they divide it by the time difference to come up with only 20 times as powerful?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

Thanks for that.

Now, this "20 times more powerful than Co2" is an interesting abbreviation, because isn't it something like 70 times more powerful with the refraction process but has a different lifespan in the atmosphere so they divide it by the time difference to come up with only 20 times as powerful?

It depends on what time frame you're looking at. Methane is 70 times more powerful than CO2 in the 20 year span, but drops to 20x over 100 years, which is what most regulators use. Here's a nifty tidbit on global warming potential.

Global warming potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Michaelangelica]

Thanks for that freeztar
Tim Flannery told me that methane had been stable or dropping for eight years and no-one had aclue as to why..

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Thanks for that freeztar
Tim Flannery told me that methane had been stable or dropping for eight years and no-one had aclue as to why..

Somehow, I wasn't aware that methane levels have dropped off for the past eight years. Thanks for the info!

It seems they are increasing again:

Methane levels increasing worldwide: study (ABC News in Science)

From my understanding, the big methane threat is in the frozen tundra of Siberia. As it warms, the methane there will be released in vast amounts, causing further warming and more melting etc. etc.

It's the runaway positive feedback loops that are really going to bite us if things spiral out of control.