Aussies Living Simply

Is a warmer world a worse world?

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 89 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #264513
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    What I always question is the “content” of what we are told not to believe.

    #264514
    MetuMetu
    Member

    What I always question is the “content” of what we are told not to believe.

    My bold, just because I had to read it a few times to see where you altered the original statement. 😉

    Either way (your way or mine) nothing is absolute.

    #264515
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Metu post=351886 wrote: Hi Bullseye

    It appears you are using an e.g. of viability in short term climatic factors that are indicators used for seasonal predictors for regional weather as an e.g. of lack of scientific understanding of global climate.

    I was not protraying a lack of understanding about climate factors (on behalf of the bureacracy) but rather despite their knowledge of it, they still cannot predict how the underlying forces respond to what eventuates as weather patterns. Kind of like quantum physics. You can predict the variables (points of origin) but not the spread of them.

    This is neatly covered by giving a wide range of variables under the term ‘Neutral”.

    I quote from the Bureau of Meterology for ENSO Wrap-up 23 Dec 2012

    The retreat from El Niño thresholds over the past several weeks is considered highly unusual, as September–October is typically the time when developing El Niño (or La Niña) events consolidate and mature. While some chance of El Niño remains, climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean are likely to be warmer than average, but stay within the neutral range for the rest of 2012 and early 2013.

    My bold. What exactly is the “Neutral” range though? It’s anything the bureacracy sets up as it’s widest band of possible variables. Which is a nice way of saying, we don’t know but we’re very academic about how wide apart these variables can be spread.

    The question is not the neutral zone, but why PR for climate change, persists in defining it as “settled” when even the bureacracies give themselves ample room for the variables to move. “Highly unusual”, sounds rather quaint in the BOM quote above, but it neither tells us why it is unusual or whether it will ultimately “move” the neutral brackets (decided by the bureacracy) at a later date.

    If the weather is changing, and climate change science is based upon patterns in weather data, then nothing is settled until history records it as such (ie: past tense not future).

    My issue is not with climate change science giving ample room to move within the wide variables – because realistically, you have to mark the boundaries of understanding somewhere – rather it’s the absolutism with the term “settled”. Anyone who actually works in the field of climate changes knows without doubt, how much the variables move. And they’re still researching why.

    That is not settled. Although I do appreciate you wanted to point out the difference between regional climate variances and global climatic patterns. I was not specific and it could cause confusion. What is interesting from the quote I gave from BOM above, is they were still predicting an El Nino, when a La Nina pattern started to emerge in other parts of the country.

    How do you consolidate the two? BOM is still sticking with their El Nino, at least until the end of the year. I’m not a naysayer of logic, but I do reserve the right to question what I am told to believe by those who are still researching the answers. 😉

    Did you overlook the following BOM statement for the period you were referring to, in their “ENSO Wrap-Up”?

    Tropical Pacific neutral for remainder of summer

    Issued on Tuesday 18 December 2012

    The tropical Pacific Ocean remains neutral – neither El Niño nor La Niña.

    The BOM has been reporting neutral ENSO for a few months.

    Here’s the whole ENSO report for December.

    Tropical Pacific neutral for remainder of summer

    Issued on Tuesday 18 December 2012 | Product Code IDCKGEWWOO

    The tropical Pacific Ocean remains neutral – neither El Niño nor La Niña. The central to eastern Pacific has cooled somewhat over the past month, with sea surface temperatures (SSTs) now close to their long-term average. Atmospheric indicators of ENSO, such as the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), trade winds and cloudiness near the Date Line have shown some fluctuations recently, but have also continued at neutral levels. Further falls are expected in the SOI over the coming days, as a result of the tropical weather system which spawned TC Evan. Large fluctuations in the SOI over summer due to tropical weather systems are not uncommon.

    Climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that the tropical Pacific is likely to remain ENSO neutral through the southern hemisphere summer. This means that in contrast to the two prior summers, Australian rainfall and temperatures are unlikely to be strongly influenced by ENSO. Given current conditions and outlooks, this will be the first ENSO-neutral summer since 2005–06.

    The influence of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) on Australian rainfall is limited during summer and autumn, though near-record ocean temperatures off the northwest Australian coast may have at least a local influence.

    Next update expected on 3 January 2013

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    #264516
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Here’s a nice explanation below at the link, for El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It would be good if everyone became familiar with the basics of ENSO.

    The BOM’s ENSO reports are based upon measurable factors for specific periods of time before determination of El Nino, Neutral or La Nina.

    El Niño and La Niña events are determined by, amongst

    other indicators, the strength of sea surf ace temperature

    anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean; with La Niña

    associated with cooler-than-av erage temperatures and El

    Niño warmer-than-av erage temperatures. The transition from

    cool, La Niña conditions to warmer ocean temperatures

    occurred during winter and persisted until September of

    2012. Although Pacific climate indicators remained near, or

    just in excess of, the values generally associated with an El

    Niño event, these values were not maintained for a

    sufficiently long period for 2012 to be considered an El Niño

    year. The Pacific returned to neutral (neither El Niño nor La

    Niña) by mid-spring, and remained so to year’s end.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/about-weather-and-climate/australian-climate-influences.shtml?bookmark=enso

    #264517
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Metu – If the weather is changing, and climate change science is based upon patterns in weather data…

    I’m assuming you were referring to anthropomorphic climate change science, since the whole topic of climate change or global warming and the problem, that being reported is by the overwhelming majority of science researchers as anthropomorphic.

    Metu as you state “climate change science is based upon patterns in weather data” but it isn’t based on weather patterns. Anthropomorphic climate change science is fundamental to the theory of the “green house effect”, a theory, not an hypothesis. The “Green house effect” has been a theory since the early 1900’s. It would be wise to thoroughly understand what the “green house effect” is.

    Human use of fossil fuels with the massive releases of CO2 into the atmosphere is the largest part of the problem of anthropomorphic climate change, being human expansion of the “Green house effect”.

    Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as “forcing” climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as “feedbacks.”

    The Global warming potential of CO2 is approx 500 to 1000’s of years.

    Observation of physical factors in our global climate, including weather, are ways by which researchers further test the theory of human expansion of the “Green house effect” AKA “Global Warming” or “Anthropomorphic Climate Change” – not “climate change science is based upon patterns in weather data”.

    #264518
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    An interesting story from Arstechnica.com

    “IPCC’s climate projections on target so far”

    Checking in on IPCC predictions going back to 1990.

    by Scott K. Johnson – Dec 29 2012, 4:30am EST

    The simplest way to evaluate a chef is to taste the food. So when thinking about climate science, the simplest way for the public to get a feel for the reliability of future projections is to see how past temperature projections have held up so far. A real evaluation of climate modeling would be (and is) much more involved and rigorous than that, but that’s a more challenging meal that most people have time for.

    Many modeling studies result in projections about the future, but the consensus projections made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are the highest profile. A pair of recent papers has gone back to those reports to see how well they match the trends we’ve observed since their release. It can take a couple of decades for climate trends to become clear, but the first IPCC report was published in 1990, so there’s now enough data to make a comparison worthwhile.

    It’s been said that prediction is difficult—especially about the future. That’s certainly the case for climate, where unpredictable variability—from volcanoes, the El Niño Southern Oscillation, and subtle changes in solar output, for example—are collectively a large determinant of year-to-year changes. On top of that, trends in human emissions depend on unforeseeable socioeconomic circumstances. When IPCC reports project future changes, they don’t try to guess at these things. They project average trends for multiple scenarios of human emissions.

    This means that the comparison between projections and observed temperatures is not quite as simple as it sounds. First, you’ve got to figure out how well the scenarios given in the reports match the actual amount of carbon dioxide we’ve emitted. Then, you’ve got to account for the natural year-to-year variability somehow. Only then can you have an apples-to-apples comparison.

    The IPCC temperatures are on target

    A paper in Nature Climate Change checks in on the projections from the first IPCC report, published in 1990. That report projected simple trends based on greenhouse gas emissions through 2030, a period we’re just over halfway through. The most frequently cited projection estimates 0.7–1.5°C of warming between 1990 and 2030, which means we would see an increase of about 0.35 – 0.75 °C through 2010. (The range of values is a product of uncertainty about the exact sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases.) The observed temperature trend through 2010 is about 0.35–0.39°C, depending on the dataset.

    So, is it as simple as saying the projection was (barely) correct, but overestimated warming? Not really. The first thing to do is account for natural variability. The researchers chose to address this by running many climate model simulations in a “stable” configuration with no drivers of warming or cooling. Ninety percent of the natural variability fell within a range of ±0.19°C. If you apply that as a measure of potential noise around the signal of the underlying trend, the projected warming by 2010 becomes 0.28 – 0.81°C, which includes the observed trend a little more cleanly.

    It’s also important to note that both the projection and the observed trend lie above the estimated range of natural variability. That means the difference between the observed warming and natural variability is statistically significant.

    There’s still the matter of emissions scenarios, though. That oft-cited 1990 projection is actually based on a higher level of emissions than we actually produced. The emissions scenario closest to reality gives a projected trend of 0.16–0.63°C through 2010 (using the researchers’ estimate for natural variability). The observed warming of 0.35–0.39°C is right in the middle of that range.

    Our comparison might be down to apples and apples at this point, but it’s Granny Smith and Red Delicious. To really assess the IPCC projections, the researchers used a very simple climate model like the one used for that IPCC report and calibrated it to make sure it would yield the same results as the 1990 model. Then they fed in actual emissions data and added in the volcanic eruptions that have occurred, as well.

    The result, including natural variability, was a predicted warming of 0.29–0.67°C by 2010. Twenty-two years ago, that’s where the report predicted we’d be at today.

    Another paper, this one published in Environmental Research Letters (Open Access), takes a different approach. The researchers build on previous work in which they attempted to adjust global temperature data to remove most of the natural variability, dampening some noise and bringing out the signal. Comparing this data to the projections in the third and fourth IPCC reports (2001 and 2007) shows solid agreement.

    Sea levels, less so

    The researchers also compare the sea level projections associated with those reports to the observed sea level rise since their publication. Here the projections are less accurate. Sea level has very slightly exceeded the upper bound of the uncertainty range for the projections. The reports’ best estimate of projected sea level rise was about 2.0 millimeters per year—it has actually increased at a rate of 3.2 ±0.5 millimeters per year.

    This isn’t a surprise, as the projections are considered to be conservative by many researchers. Uncertainty about how quickly Greenland and Antarctica will lose ice seems to be largely responsible for the cautious estimates. The researchers note that the difference between projected and observed sea level rise to this point (and what we know about ice sheets) “suggests that the 21st Century sea-level projections of the last two IPCC reports may be systematically biased low.”

    The reality is that the IPCC projections have stood up well in some ways, and work is ongoing in others. This is the nature of scientific progress.

    Each IPCC report is a summary of the science existing at the time. If there were no questions remaining or progress to make, climate scientists would have moved on to something more interesting. But underlying all the complicated details is a very simple relationship—adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere raises temperatures and changes climate. That’s what the science predicted, and that’s what we’re seeing play out.

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/ipccs-climate-projections-on-target-so-far/

    #264519
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Metu –

    “BOM is still sticking with their El Nino, at least until the end of the year.”

    Here’s a further BOM statement of neutral conditions, contradicting what you are stating the BOM is still sticking with their El Nino…

    Metu, I don’t know how you can come to an alternative conclusion.

    Model Outlooks of ENSO Conditions

    About ENSO outlooks

    Issued on Wednesday 19 December 2012

    “Models predict neutral conditions to continue”

    Summary

    As detailed in the ENSO Wrap-Up, all indicators of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remain at neutral levels. A recent drop in the Southern Oscillation Index is associated with a passing low pressure trough near Tahiti, and is likely to be just a brief fluctuation from more neutral values. Sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific are neutral with warmer than normal waters in central and western regions and some cooler than normal areas in the far east. Tropical patterns of winds and cloud also remain near normal. Climatologists will continue to monitor atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the Pacific closely for future developments, as well as the impacts the current ENSO conditions will have on Australian climate.

    All dynamical models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest that sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific will maintain values in the neutral range at least until the end of the first quarter of 2013.

    Model Outlooks

    The following table summarises the opinion of National Climate Centre (NCC) climatologists regarding the outputs from various long range forecast models. The model set contains seven reputable ocean, or coupled ocean/atmosphere, climate models that take into account complex physical ocean processes. NCC’s interpretation may not necessarily be the same as the organisations producing the model output. You are therefore encouraged to follow the hyperlinks to the various institutions listed in the table.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml

    Also note all of the models at the above URL state Neutral, as below.

    Forecast Start Date /1-3 MONTHS (Jan 2012 to Mar 2013) /4-6 MONTHS (Apr to Jun 2013)

    POAMA – Australian Bureau of Meteorology 1 December Neutral Neutral

    CFSv2 NCEP (US) 18 December Neutral Neutral

    ARPEGE* MeteoFrance 1 December Neutral Neutral

    GEOS-5 NASA Goddard GMAO (US) 1 December Neutral Neutral

    System 4 ECMWF (EU) 1 December Neutral Neutral

    JMA/MRI-CGCM Japan Met. Agency 1 December Neutral Neutral

    GloSea UK Met Office 1 December Neutral Neutral

    #264520
    MetuMetu
    Member

    The BOM has been reporting neutral ENSO for a few months.

    At no point did I refute that, I even posted the link from BOM where people could read all the ENSO updates for themselves. My point was – the feedback of reported weather data is important for testing the Greenhouse theory – so reporting should reflect the theory. What happens when it doesn’t?

    Did you overlook the following BOM statement for the period you were referring to, in their “ENSO Wrap-Up”?

    No I didn’t miss it, but I’ve gotten my dates wrong. I’ve just realised I’ve written 23 Dec in my link, when it was actually 23 Oct I was reporting from. Human error. I thought I was quoting a December update – a few days before Christmas.

    Embarrassing, yes, but still a marker back in October at least, the Neutral estimation was being thoroughly tested by El Nino. The last, more current ENSO update you quoted from (18 Dec) pretty much sums up my point.

    Australian rainfall and temperatures are unlikely to be strongly influenced by ENSO.

    So what is influencing weather patterns, if one of the feedbacks is not recording a correlation? [Insert Greenhouse Effect theory here]. But how does immeasurable feedbacks, “settle” anything?

    Like I said before, I have nothing against the science wanting to explore the realms of possiblity in regards to climate change, my issue is with the use of the term “settled” and the PR which goes along with it. Clearly the evidence to date is not settled and in some cases, doesn’t even correlate.

    #264521
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Where you state “BOM is still sticking with their El Nino, at least until the end of the year.” Maybe you are referring to or should be using the term “ENSO” as in El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Using just El Nino doesn’t make what you are saying clear, because El Nino, Neutral and La Nina are events of the “El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)”.

    #264522
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    My point was – the feedback of reported weather data is important for testing the Greenhouse theory

    The reporting and the checking and the reporting again over decades is that the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reporting in 1990 was/is accurate.

    There’s no valid scientific argument that stands up refuting Anthropomorphic Climate Change… None!

    The only arguments are the circular nonsense types, the loud ones from mining and fossil fuel interests propagated through some politicians and representative industry bodies…

    Spoken loudly and widely by the likes of some well known radio shock jocks… :spam:

    #264523
    MetuMetu
    Member

    Where you state “BOM is still sticking with their El Nino, at least until the end of the year.” Maybe you are referring to or should be using the term “ENSO” as in El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Using just El Nino doesn’t make what you are saying clear, because El Nino, Neutral and La Nina are events of the “El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)”.

    I’m not sure this is relevant, though I will take your feedback on board. I always quote the source of my information – that being the Bureau of Meterology (BOM). When I say “their El Nino”, I mean their interpretation of El Nino in the ENSO wrap-up. I thought it was obvious if I quoted BOM and provided links to their ENSO wrap-ups, what I was talking about.

    The reporting and the checking and the reporting again over decades is that the IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reporting in 1990 was/is accurate.

    That was 1990, this is now. If current information is so irrelevant, why all the funds into new scientific research?

    There’s no valid scientific argument that stands up refuting Anthropomorphic Climate Change… None!

    Not yet. Don’t label me a denier, just a rationalist. We weren’t able to walk on the moon once upon a time either, and when we were able to, the research didn’t end there. We sent more elaborate probes further and further into space, which taught us new things and challenged the old.

    I remember being taught in school about Pluto being a planet – but they since found new information when I was an adult, and took it off the planet list. How things change when new information is discovered.

    That’s all I’m saying. I’ve lived through many absolutes which later got redefined. Just because Climate Change is the flavour of this generations economic cycle, doesn’t mean it will always be the case. Teachers were paid to instruct students about Pluto being one of the nine planets. Now they’re paid to teach them something new.

    Spoken loudly and widely by the likes of some well known radio shock jocks…

    I don’t listen to shock jocks. There are intelligent people who are on the quest to find information outside the Climate Change absolutes. I listen to them, as I listen to the other side too – not to be convinced of anything “absolute” either way. Which is why I have such issues with the PR about “settled”. Science has never been settled, otherwise, why do we spend so much money, resources and human effort trying to learn more?

    The Greenhouse Effect was something else I learned at school. I’m expecting for that information to change as well – which all scientific research inevitably does when it’s evaluating moving variables. 1990 was my second last year in high school. The Greenhouse Effect has only been studied for 23 years since then. How many years were they teaching Pluto was one of the original nine planets, since they discovered it in 1930? The International Astronomical Union reclassified Pluto in 2006, so that’s 76 years after it was originally discovered.

    #264524
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    Metu post=352000 wrote:

    I don’t listen to shock jocks. There are intelligent people who are on the quest to find information outside the Climate Change absolutes. I listen to them, as I listen to the other side too – not to be convinced of anything “absolute” either way.

    Who are these rational geniuses so we can all be enlightened?

    #264525
    MetuMetu
    Member

    I squarely put the onus on others to do the research for themselves. There’s more to be gleaned from the journey of pursuing knowledge, than simply being directed by others.

    #264526
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Anyone read any IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports? It’s the first place to start…

    IPCC Home http://www.ipcc.ch/

    IPCC Reports http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

    If you’re wondering… Yes, of course…

    #264527
    BullseyeBullseye
    Member

    Metu –

    The Greenhouse Effect was something else I learned at school. I’m expecting for that information to change as well – which all scientific research inevitably does when it’s evaluating moving variables. 1990 was my second last year in high school. The Greenhouse Effect has only been studied for 23 years since then.

    What relevance you’re placing on the validity or the lack of, of the theory of The Green House Effect has regarding the 23 years, as you state, at the school level teaching/study of The Green House Effect, I just don’t know…

    The Green House Effect, as I’ve stated numerous times, has been studied scientifically significantly longer than 23 years.

    The Earth’s Greenhouse Effect

    The realisation that Earth’s climate might be sensitive to the atmospheric concentrations of gases that create a greenhouse effect is more than a century old. Fleming (1998) and Weart (2003) provided an overview of the emerging science. In terms of the energy balance of the climate system, Edme Mariotte noted in 1681 that although the Sun’s light and heat easily pass through glass and other transparent materials, heat from other sources (chaleur de feu) does not. The ability to generate an artificial warming of the Earth’s surface was demonstrated in simple greenhouse experiments such as Horace Benedict de Saussure’s experiments in the 1760s using a ‘heliothermometer’ (panes of glass covering a thermometer in a darkened box) to provide an early analogy to the greenhouse effect. It was a conceptual leap to recognise that the air itself could also trap thermal radiation. In 1824, Joseph Fourier, citing Saussure, argued ‘the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat’. In 1836, Pouillit followed up on Fourier’s ideas and argued ‘the atmospheric stratum…exercises a greater absorption upon the terrestrial than on the solar rays’. There was still no understanding of exactly what substance in the atmosphere was responsible for this absorption.

    In 1859, John Tyndall (1861) identified through laboratory experiments the absorption of thermal radiation by complex molecules (as opposed to the primary bimolecular atmospheric constituents O2 and molecular nitrogen). He noted that changes in the amount of any of the radiatively active constituents of the atmosphere such as water (H2O) or CO2 could have produced ‘all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal’. In 1895, Svante Arrhenius (1896) followed with a climate prediction based on greenhouse gases, suggesting that a 40% increase or decrease in the atmospheric abundance of the trace gas CO2 might trigger the glacial advances and retreats. One hundred years later, it would be found that CO2 did indeed vary by this amount between glacial and interglacial periods. However, it now appears that the initial climatic change preceded the change in CO2 but was enhanced by it (Section 6.4).

    G. S. Callendar (1938) solved a set of equations linking greenhouse gases and climate change. He found that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in an increase in the mean global temperature of 2°C, with considerably more warming at the poles, and linked increasing fossil fuel combustion with a rise in CO2 and its greenhouse effects: ‘As man is now changing the composition of the atmosphere at a rate which must be very exceptional on the geological time scale, it is natural to seek for the probable effects of such a change. From the best laboratory observations it appears that the principal result of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide…would be a gradual increase in the mean temperature of the colder regions of the Earth.’ In 1947, Ahlmann reported a 1.3°C warming in the North Atlantic sector of the Arctic since the 19th century and mistakenly believed this climate variation could be explained entirely by greenhouse gas warming. Similar model predictions were echoed by Plass in 1956 (see Fleming, 1998): ‘If at the end of this century, measurements show that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen appreciably and at the same time the temperature has continued to rise throughout the world, it will be firmly established that carbon dioxide is an important factor in causing climatic change’ (see Chapter 9).

    In trying to understand the carbon cycle, and specifically how fossil fuel emissions would change atmospheric CO2, the interdisciplinary field of carbon cycle science began. One of the first problems addressed was the atmosphere-ocean exchange of CO2. Revelle and Suess (1957) explained why part of the emitted CO2 was observed to accumulate in the atmosphere rather than being completely absorbed by the oceans. While CO2 can be mixed rapidly into the upper layers of the ocean, the time to mix with the deep ocean is many centuries. By the time of the TAR, the interaction of climate change with the oceanic circulation and biogeochemistry was projected to reduce the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions taken up by the oceans in the future, leaving a greater fraction in the atmosphere (Sections 7.1, 7.3 and 10.4).

    In the 1950s, the greenhouse gases of concern remained CO2 and H2O, the same two identified by Tyndall a century earlier. It was not until the 1970s that other greenhouse gases – CH4, N2O and CFCs – were widely recognised as important anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Ramanathan, 1975; Wang et al., 1976; Section 2.3). By the 1970s, the importance of aerosol-cloud effects in reflecting sunlight was known (Twomey, 1977), and atmospheric aerosols (suspended small particles) were being proposed as climate-forcing constituents. Charlson and others (summarised in Charlson et al., 1990) built a consensus that sulphate aerosols were, by themselves, cooling the Earth’s surface by directly reflecting sunlight. Moreover, the increases in sulphate aerosols were anthropogenic and linked with the main source of CO2, burning of fossil fuels (Section 2.4). Thus, the current picture of the atmospheric constituents driving climate change contains a much more diverse mix of greenhouse agents.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4.html

    Metu on The Green House Effect –

    I’m expecting for that information to change as well

    It’s only reasonable that “change” as in refinement of the theory would be expected and change as in refutation would not. You appear to be in mind of refutation rather than refinement, since you were discussing how Pluto was classified as a planet and is now classified as a dwarf planet. Are you expecting for the theory of The Green House Effect to be refuted?

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 89 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.