Man Made Global Warming; Does it exist, Yes and its a fact; Is it bad? Not so much...

[CUnknown]

Not necessarily. The issue is whether it is largely being caused by man, or it is a natural cycle. Gore and his camp believe it is caused by man and therefore man's actions have to be curtailed or changed.[...]

Okay, that is cool. Can we all at least agree that the earth has been warming over the past, let's say, two decades? The first 3/4ths of this entire thread have been people denying global warming over and over. But, global warming is a fact, as has been demonstrated.

We should agree about the warming first, because it is really undeniable. Then we can move on to whether it is man-made and whether it is a problem or not. Would anyone who had been previously denying global warming in this thread like to reconsider? I'm talking about just the warming itself.

 

[Paulitician]

You really shouldn't be skeptical, this is pretty much basic physics. All of this is non-contraversial. If the Earth is warming, glaciers will melt. If glaciers melt, the sea level rises. How much, how fast, depends on how fast the earth is warming. They have models to predict these things, and the models are painting a dire picture.

Once you accept that the Earth is warming, all the rest flows easily from that. These other jokers don't accept the Earth warming thing.

I understand that sea levels will rise, I'm skeptical whether it will be as much as the alarmists are claiming. As for the models, I believe they still need a lot of work (not because they contradict my opinion, because they don't, but because I know there will be a lot of alterations, some major and some minor, as the science progresses).

I actually used to believe in CO2 induced, anthropogenic global warming by default. Now that I looked at the science, as well as heard both sides of the debate, I can't say I'm so sure anymore.

 

[CUnknown]

Let's see how much more we can agree on.

1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and has the potential to greatly increase the surface temperature of the earth, if present in large quantities in the atmosphere.

2) In the past, rises and falls in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have mirrored rises and falls in surface temperature. This includes ice ages and other dramatic swings.

3) Industrial output and other human activity has pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, to levels exceeding the amount that humans have ever seen / been exposed to.

4) The planet has been warming in recent decades.

5) CO2 concentration is still increasing, and will almost certainly continue to do so until humans cease burning fossil fuels.

6) There is a strong possibility that this projected rise in CO2 concentration will cause further global warming, unless countered by some, more permanent, negative-feedback loop than the one described in the recent Nature article.


1-5 should be non-contraversial. Perhaps you will not accept 6, but the burden of proof seems to lie with you to give reasons for your doubt. The evidence for concern seems very solid.

 

[Danke]

Let's see how much more we can agree on.

1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and has the potential to greatly increase the surface temperature of the earth, if present in large quantities in the atmosphere.

2) In the past, rises and falls in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have mirrored rises and falls in surface temperature. This includes ice ages and other dramatic swings.

3) Industrial output and other human activity has pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, to levels exceeding the amount that humans have ever seen / been exposed to.

4) The planet has been warming in recent decades.

5) CO2 concentration is still increasing, and will almost certainly continue to do so until humans cease burning fossil fuels.

6) There is a strong possibility that this projected rise in CO2 concentration will cause further global warming, unless countered by some, more permanent, negative-feedback loop than the one described in the recent Nature article.


1-5 should be non-contraversial. Perhaps you will not accept 6, but the burden of proof seems to lie with you to give reasons for your doubt. The evidence for concern seems very solid.

I thought others have show CO2 lags warming, usually by over 400-800 years.

 

[Dr.3D]

The change in CO2 levels follows the temperature change.

I have a problem with numbers 1 and 5.

There is no proof CO2 will cause the surface temperature of the earth to rise. If that were really going to happen, then how did the atmospheric temperature go down when the earth cooled the last time this happened? The atmospheric temperature went down some 800 years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2 went down.

There is no proof the total present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans. Studies show the amount of atmospheric CO2 changed after the atmospheric temperature changed, each and every time there has been a change in atmospheric temperature and CO2 content.

The atmospheric temperature causes the level of CO2 to go up or down by heating and cooling the oceans.

 

[Jason T]

CUnknown,

The most powerful greenhouse gas is h20, not co2. The reason why the politicians focus on co2 is because it polls better to go after the people driving hummers than the farmer irrigating his crops. The same can be said with methane; it polls better to go after the people driving hummers than the cattle rancher.

Besides, it'd be literally impossible for us to lower our co2 levels. As long as humans need farming land, we'll need enough forests cleared that the ecosystem can't take in as much co2 as it would be able to naturally.

But politicians are far more worried about controlling us. If people wanted us to change our lifestyles to fight global warming, the best thing to do would be to add an VAT to beef. 50% of our cropland is dedicated to growing feed (deforestation, irrigation, emissions from the tractors, etc), and cows put out a lot of methane. But they want to attack industry because it requires far more complex solutions and global cooperation.

 

[CUnknown]

Danke said:

I thought others have show CO2 lags warming, usually by over 400-800 years.

We'd have to go through the evidence more carefully, but the precise timing is not really at issue here. 400-800 years is probably within the margin of error for these experiments dating back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Suffice it to say that there is a rough correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global average earth surface temperature. Are we in agreement on that point?


Dr.3D said:

I have a problem with numbers 1 and 5.

There is no proof CO2 will cause the surface temperature of the earth to rise.

You disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? This has been known for many years now. Very solid evidence, based on the physical properties of CO2. This should really be non-contraversial.

If that were really going to happen, then how did the atmospheric temperature go down when the earth cooled the last time this happened? The atmospheric temperature went down some 800 years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2 went down.

I fail to see how this has relevance to CO2 being a known greenhouse gas. Besides, the data here is surely not known to within +/- 800 years on experiments ranging across geological eras. Although I don't know that for a fact, we'd have to look it up.

I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing with #1, it's not just climate scientists saying that, but physicists. It is a known fact. There is no one in the scientific community who disagrees with it. If CO2 goes up, temperatures will follow, all other things being equal. That's a fact. The question is, how much, how fast. If the CO2 levels were increased 10 fold from what they are now, do you honestly believe that temperatures would not change? CO2 is known to absorb heat, based on its physical properties.

There is no proof the total present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans.

It's not reasonable to believe otherwise, it has been proven by experimental data. Humans have pumped tons of CO2 into the air, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration goes up. That is known. CO2 concentrations are higher than they have ever been (in recent geological eras, anyway), and this happens to coincide with massive burning of fossil fuels (a process which creates CO2). You think this is just a coincidence?

Studies show the amount of atmospheric CO2 changed after the atmospheric temperature changed, each and every time there has been a change in atmospheric temperature and CO2 content.

Yes, this is point #2, I'm glad we can agree that there is a correlation between CO2 rise/fall and warming/cooling. Which caused which to occur in what order is most likely not known, I will grant. If it occured then as it has happened in recent decades, it would be the CO2 rise coming first, followed by temperature increase later.


Jason T said:

The most powerful greenhouse gas is h20, not co2.

This has no relevance to points 1-6. H2O being a greenhouse gas does not stop CO2 from being one as well.

Besides, it'd be literally impossible for us to lower our co2 levels.

We should focus on points 1-6 and not get side-tracked. Do you agree with me on these points? We can talk about implications of them later, I just want to get our facts straight first.

If people wanted us to change our lifestyles to fight global warming, the best thing to do would be to add an VAT to beef.

I agree. Switching to a plant-based diet is probably even more important than buying a hybrid or walking/biking/carpooling to work. Although we need to do all of these things.

Still, Jason T, you didn't really mention in your response whether you agree on the points or not. I think to have a really productive conversation, agreeing on the facts is necessary before we can proceed to talking about the implications of the facts.

 

[Dr.3D]

See the data.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time​

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M​

Correlation between Sunspot Activity and Global Mean Surface Temperature.​

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M​

North American land Temperature Trends​

Now wouldn't you think from those charts, the global temperature has more to do with sunspot activity than carbon dioxide levels?

Edit: As for the truth about ice core data.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"Scream!"

I'd just like to place out my views on the Global Warming idea. Global Warming is happening thats a fact. The earth is getting warmer there is no refute to it. Are humans the cause? To some extent yes; all the scientists say this and all the data point to it. It's as true as evolution at this point.

Is that bad? Not neccesarily; and I will give you three points why.


1. Warmer temperatures = Better for Agriculture. Its true; as the temperature warms up the arrible regions of earth increase; and some of the previously temperate plains reaches the status of tropical jungle. Is that bad? Hell no! The best fruits available to mankind are only growable in the Tropical Jungle. The American Diet alone is severely lacking in good fruits; not to mention other countries diet.

Undoubtedly this shift in temperature can cause serious changes in the agriculture of local regions; leaving some areas as deserts and others as new plains. But overall a warming trend on a planet as cold as earth will create more arable land that can produce crops for longer time. One of the long term effects that could come from it is the end of winters. Of course people will be hot; and require more energy to cool their homes (which arguably could be transfered from the energy usually used to heat their homes) but the land will be able to produce; with proper soil nutrition techniques year round. This could be a very good thing.

2. The water level will increase.

The polar ice caps are melting; theres no doubt about it. But I want to state something very important about water. It EXPANDS as it freezes. That means that if the ice caps were fully submerged they would displace more water then they ever could melted. Saddly they aren't; they are only about 60% submerged. But that also means that the total visible area of the ice will be about the amount the water level increases; minus of course the expansion created when that ice freezes.

Does that mean 1-5 feet of water increase? Sure. Some peoples houses will be flooded; and it will cost us money. But whole cities will most likely not be flooded, unless they are built at sea level. In fact the whole impact of the water rising will not be a major problem in the United States. The major problem will be internationally; many smaller Islands will dissapear and that is a problem; but its not something that couldn't happen from a small earthquake or any other multitude of natural reasons.

3. Global Warming can be reversed. Beleive it or not we have the abilities to reverse a lot of the effects of global warming. I want to quote a post from a forum; made by a idiot



As naive and as stupid as this sounds, this idea provides real ramifications for what could be done to get rid of that "extra" water. There are thousands of dry lakes around the world nowdays. Chad for example; was the third largest lake in Africa. It is completely dry. Much of this water that was in these dry lakes no doubt were deposited in the Ocean. If we really wanted to (Humanity does have the resources) we could filter the water and refill many of these lakes. Althought it would probably not be cost effective when compared to the price actual relocation and property losses would cost.





Ultimately Global Warming is a issue for me. And I beleive in man made global warming; just not in the way you guys think.

Also I don't advocate wasting earths resources. We are a wasteful society and that must stop. I advocate education as that source though; not force. I personally can't stand waste; and refuse to be a part of it or associate with extremely wasteful people. Hopefully by reading this everyone here can understand where I stand on this issue and understand why it is a important one.

Peace.

Firstly, if global warming is real and we can't do anything about it, then we don't need scientists any longer.
Secondly, if going naked and living in a grass hut is the solution to the problem with global warming, then we don't need scientists teaching us how to be naked or build a grass hut.
Thirdly, it was the scientists who poisoned the earth by showing us how to live better.
Therefore, all factors point towards first firing all the scientists in our never ending quest to battle the existential crisis called:


"Global Warming!"

 

[CUnknown]

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time​

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Now wouldn't you think from those charts, the global temperature has more to do with sunspot activity than carbon dioxide levels?[...]​

The chart you have presented shows atmospheric CO2 concentrations having a rough correlation to surface temperature all the way back to 600 million years ago. I assume you agree with point #2, as this chart provides further evidence for it. Unfortunately, it can't provide information on the timing or causation of one event (CO2 rise/fall) and the other (temp. rise/fall) due to the error involved. The paper which was cited there says this in the conclusion:

This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

It's difficult to get data on events that happened that long ago, of course. The exact numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, the ice core data goes back only hundreds of thousands of years, and is of much higher quality (less error).

I agree that it's possible that sunspots may have something to do with global temperatures, but how much, it's hard to tell. Let's focus on getting our facts straight regarding CO2 first, then maybe we can focus on sunspots if you want.​

 

[brandon]

Let's see how much more we can agree on.

1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and has the potential to greatly increase the surface temperature of the earth, if present in large quantities in the atmosphere.

Could you be any more vague? I agree CO2 is a GHG, but the rest of your statement is just fear mongering. It means absolutely nothing if you don't quantify what you mean by "large quantities" and "greatly increase." Get back to us with some hard data.

2) In the past, rises and falls in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have mirrored rises and falls in surface temperature. This includes ice ages and other dramatic swings.

I think the above graph disproves this pretty well. Can you provide alternative data which backs up your claim?

3) Industrial output and other human activity has pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, to levels exceeding the amount that humans have ever seen / been exposed to.

Possibly true, but again, can you provide data to back this up?[/quote]

4) The planet has been warming in recent decades.

OK, i'll concede this. Although it has been cooling for the last year.

5) CO2 concentration is still increasing, and will almost certainly continue to do so until humans cease burning fossil fuels.

Yea this appears to be the case

6) There is a strong possibility that this projected rise in CO2 concentration will cause further global warming, unless countered by some, more permanent, negative-feedback loop than the one described in the recent Nature article.

But how much global warming? Will the earth heat up by 0.o1 degrees due to the CO2 emissions? Or moar then this? Again, this is just vague fear mongering without quantifying it.

1-5 should be non-contraversial. Perhaps you will not accept 6, but the burden of proof seems to lie with you to give reasons for your doubt. The evidence for concern seems very solid.

[/quote]
No actually if you are trying to convince a bunch of skeptics that some terrible climate change is about to occur as a result of human behavior, then the burden of proof lies with you. I'm still not convinced.

 

[brandon]

The chart you have presented shows atmospheric CO2 concentrations having a rough correlation to surface temperature all the way back to 600 million years ago. I assume you agree with point #2, as this chart provides further evidence for it. Unfortunately, it can't provide information on the timing or causation of one event (CO2 rise/fall) and the other (temp. rise/fall) due to the error involved. The paper which was cited there says this in the conclusion:

You've gotta be kidding me. There is almost no correlation between the two. Look at the sunspot graph for an example of two sets of data that are highly correlated.

 

[CUnknown]

Man, I must have way too much time on my hands. I should really stop checking this thread. I am obsessed. :o

1) CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and has the potential to greatly increase the surface temperature of the earth, if present in large quantities in the atmosphere.

Could you be any more vague? I agree CO2 is a GHG, but the rest of your statement is just fear mongering. It means absolutely nothing if you don't quantify what you mean by "large quantities" and "greatly increase." Get back to us with some hard data.

Point #1 is composed of two parts, a) A statement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and b) the definition of a greenhouse gas. You agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but disagree on the definition? What is your definition of a greenhouse gas, if it's not a gas that can trap in heat?

Quantification is unnecessary -- I'm just saying, that, by definition, if there are massive quantities (like exists on Venus, for example) of greenhouse gases, that there will be great increases in the amount of heat they trap. For sake of argument, let's just say, what if the atmosphere was composed of 100% CO2. The surface temperature would clearly be much, much higher than it is now.

2) In the past, rises and falls in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have mirrored rises and falls in surface temperature. This includes ice ages and other dramatic swings.

I think the above graph disproves this pretty well. Can you provide alternative data which backs up your claim?

Which graph? The graph that was just posted by Dr. 3D backs up the claim.

3) Industrial output and other human activity has pumped CO2 into the atmosphere, to levels exceeding the amount that humans have ever seen / been exposed to.

Possibly true, but again, can you provide data to back this up?

Yes, they have taken samples of air, dating back maybe 50 years, I believe. The CO2 concentration has been rising greatly, far beyond that seen in the past few hundred thousand years. That means that humans are responsible, unless you're saying it's a coincidence, which of course is extremely silly, given the massive amounts of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year. You are surprised that is it going up?

6) There is a strong possibility that this projected rise in CO2 concentration will cause further global warming, unless countered by some, more permanent, negative-feedback loop than the one described in the recent Nature article.

But how much global warming? Will the earth heat up by 0.o1 degrees due to the CO2 emissions? Or moar then this? Again, this is just vague fear mongering without quantifying it.

There are climate models which predict how much more warming will occur. The models vary in their predictions. Through the end of the 21st century, the warming ranges from 1-5 degrees C, I believe.

No actually if you are trying to convince a bunch of skeptics that some terrible climate change is about to occur as a result of human behavior, then the burden of proof lies with you. I'm still not convinced.

Let's not discuss the effects of climate change yet (which are also predicted by the models, but they're not facts of course, only guesses), and focus just on the facts that we can agree on. If we can't agree on the facts, then there is no point in talking about projections and theories. Right now I'm still working on convincing people that global warming is occuring, it is occuring as a result of human activity, and it will likely continue to occur unless we change our activities that are causing it.

 

[CUnknown]

You've gotta be kidding me. There is almost no correlation between the two. Look at the sunspot graph for an example of two sets of data that are highly correlated.

Huh? You are going to present data from a scientific paper, you agree with the data itself, but you disagree with their conclusions? Are you a climate scientist? I think the authors and peer-reviewers are better suited to judge the correlation in that graph than either of us. If you think the authors are competant scientists (I assume you do, or you wouldn't have used their data), then why disagree with their conclusions?

I'll repeat my quote from the conclusion of that paper:

Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Edit: Oh wait, you didn't present the data yourself. But, still. Do you think it is good data, and good science, or not? If you don't think they are good enough scientists to trust their interpretation of the data, why do you trust their data collection skills any better?

Edit x 2: And, besides, there is a correlation in that graph. Whenever CO2 goes up, temperature tends to go up, give or take. And when CO2 goes down, temperature tends to go down, give or take some. And you do have to give and take some, because the error in these measurements dating back millions of years is pretty high.

Edit yet again: Looking a little more closely, it seems that the CO2 data and the temperature data were taken by two different labs. Each one would have its own error. I think that makes the comparison even less valid, although there is a very rough correlation.

 

[Sarge]

I doubt these other planets have CO2 problems.

"Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain’s Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth’s recent warming. “In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years … Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.”

Anyone up to explaining why these planets with no CO2 did the same thing?

 

[brandon]

Huh? You are going to present data from a scientific paper, you agree with the data itself, but you disagree with their conclusions? Are you a climate scientist? I think the authors and peer-reviewers are better suited to judge the correlation in that graph than either of us. If you think the authors are competant scientists (I assume you do, or you wouldn't have used their data), then why disagree with their conclusions?

I have done a lot of work with signal processing. If you know anything about signal processing, you know that correlating random data is a big part of it. I know how to calculate a correlation, and the co2/temp graph has a far far lower correlation then the sunspot/temp graph.

 

[CUnknown]

I have done a lot of work with signal processing. If you know anything about signal processing, you know that correlating random data is a big part of it. I know how to calculate a correlation, and the co2/temp graph has a far far lower correlation then the sunspot/temp graph.

But it is still correlated.

 

[Dr.3D]

Please read this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

 

[Kade]

Please read this:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

I'd rather not get in this, but WorldNet Daily is not a reliable news source. Period.

 

[Dr.3D]

I'd rather not get in this, but WorldNet Daily is not a reliable news source. Period.

Fine, then how about going to the petition web site and see what it has to say and exactly how what you find there compares with the WorldNet Daily article?

http://www.petitionproject.org/