Global Warming Debate

[hectorberlioz]

Nothing was ever here...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And they are who? Al Gore, Kofi Annan...thats two

No Hector, actual scientists. Trust me. I really don't have time to look up a huge pile of names of scientists you haven't heard of, but trust me, there's a general consensus.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ok, let's say we exacerbated it. The question is weather...er, whether, starting from the premises that global warming has happened before, whether it is dangerous at all.

Temperatures during the 1930's were warmer than they have been in the past few years.

If the 1930s is your example, than obviously global warming is dangerous, since it was during the 1930s that there was a very, very serious drought in the USA and Canada, leading to widespread crop failure, the loss of top soil, and widespread unemployment, starvation, and hardship.

We don't want to look at isolated incidents (though they can indicate a general warming trend), we want to look at overall trends.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

MIT professor Richard Lindzen.

Okay. (Why did I ask for his name again?)

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

He has more weight than either me or you individually, on this matter.

Why? I'd argue that as a Forestry student, I know more about global warming than he does.

Sure, he's more famous than you and I (even though you are the illustrious Entmoot Prez), but that doesn't mean he knows squat about global warming.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It is a possibility, but it is a slim candidate among other factors.

Other factors like what?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Undeniable, but perhaps not the first time. Does Al Gore know that Kilimanjaro lost insurmountable amounts of ice, say, during the 1400's? Do any of us?

I don't know, did it?

If it did, it certainly build up its snow pack again since that time. Now, it's losing ice but the mean temperature of the Earth is actually rising. It's projected to rise between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius, which is a smoking big deal. Mount Kilimanjaro would only be able to restore its ice pack if the Earth experienced a general cooling trend.

That certainly may happen, but meanwhile, humanity will be in a lot of trouble for reasons that I will outline later in this post.

The way in which carbon dioxide is added to the air is very important in the greenhouse effect. When people burn fuels, carbon dioxide is not the only gas that is released. Many other gases are released as well. Some of these gases tend to reflect light rather that absorb it. This actually reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, causing a net cooling effect. It could be that any increase in the greenhouse effect due to human-produced carbon dioxide is offset by the cooling caused by the other chemicals associated with human activity.
-Exploring Creation With Biology

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

So the build up does not neccesarily come from humans. If you take from that 3% the cooling gases we add, would there be a significant change in the greenhouse gases added to the air? What would be a significant change anyway? From the standpoint of the greenhouse effect, we really do not know.

Link to the text's site

I'm sorry Tolkienfan, but the author of your textbook has absolutely no understanding of global warming whatsoever. This is unfortunate, but it's best that you know, because now you can look for a textbook to study from that isn't complete rubbish.

Sorry to be so harsh, but... cooling gasses? I wish it was true. I really do. But if wishes were fishes then we could have a viable cod fishery in the Atlantic provinces again.

Allow me to outline why this textbook is not providing accurate information:

"When people burn fuels, carbon dioxide is not the only gas that is released. Many other gases are released as well."
Yes, other gasses like chlorine, which are a catalyst (something that enables a previously impossible chemical reaction) in the reaction of ozone (O3) breaking down into oxygen (O2) and an oxygen cation (O-). The chlorine allows the ozone to break down: O3 -> O2 + O

"Some of these gases tend to reflect light rather that absorb it."
Dr. Wile: There's a magical gas in the atmosphere that stops global warming! It's shiny! It reflects light!
Sensible people: But Dr. Wile, whether or not there are gasses that reflect light is totally irrelevant. The problem with global warming is that radiation (the transfer of heat) from the Earth is not able to leave the atmosphere because of CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses". Heat and light are two completely separate things.
Dr. Wile: ...... shiny!!

Please forgive the sarcasm. But nothing pisses me off more than abusing the trust of young people by teaching them absolute bollocks in high school. (I'm assuming you're in high school because this is a high school text book.) You have been lied to my friend, and I think that really stinks. It's totally unfair to you.

I can't believe this guy has a PhD in nuclear chemistry. (He does, I looked it up.) You'd think a chemist would know the difference between heat and light, two completely different entities. Maybe he does, he just didn't feel you high school kids needed to know they are two separate things. Man, I hate that crap.

"This actually reduces the amount of energy absorbed by the earth, causing a net cooling effect."
First of all, if this were actually occuring, it could be observed. What has been observed is the exact opposite. Second of all, if the Earth were experiencing a net cooling effect, we'd be in as much trouble as we are right now with the net warming effect. Imagine what would happen if the average temperature of the Earth dropped by 2 to 6 degrees Celsius! Yeah.

"It could be that any increase in the greenhouse effect due to human-produced carbon dioxide is offset by the cooling caused by the other chemicals associated with human activity."
I can't believe this guy is actually arguing that random other chemicals that he doesn't name (at least not in that quote) are somehow off-setting the effects of global warming. That is totally irresponsible, not to mention incorrect. This phenomena has obviously not been observed at all.

Also, claiming that people don't have a hand in global warming is a totally irresponsible attempt to say that then we shouldn't have to mend our polluting ways, since it isn't exacerbating global warming.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The people who have looked at all of the scientific evidence in an impartial way say it is "over 90% likely that current climate change is being caused by human activity".

That's worth repeating.

Lizra, I heart you.

[tolkienfan]

(thanks for the interesting quote in your first post Hector. what exactly are you quoting though?) Or are they all just various quotes, and you put it all together yourself.

Oh, never mind, I just noticed the from here at the bottom.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

No Hector, actual scientists. Trust me. I really don't have time to look up a huge pile of names of scientists you haven't heard of, but trust me, there's a general consensus.

So now you know how it feels to have "Source! Now!" thrown at you all the time

And I'm telling you that there is just as professional consensus that thinks otherwise.

If the 1930s is your example, than obviously global warming is dangerous, since it was during the 1930s that there was a very, very serious drought in the USA and Canada, leading to widespread crop failure, the loss of top soil, and widespread unemployment, starvation, and hardship.

We don't want to look at isolated incidents (though they can indicate a general warming trend), we want to look at overall trends.

Isolated incidents don't mean anything? And I wouldn't say the 1930 was isolated.

Okay. (Why did I ask for his name again?)

You think he's an amateur?

Why? I'd argue that as a Forestry student, I know more about global warming than he does.

Sure, he's more famous than you and I (even though you are the illustrious Entmoot Prez), but that doesn't mean he knows squat about global warming.

Maybe you do, and that fact that he's famous, no I didn't work from that premise. But he does his good bit of research for everything, and he seems to know more than just the basics of evolution at least.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't know if you guys remember, but there was some fairly recent news that came out saying that cows, of all people, caused more global warming than suvs. It was then that I knew that global warming, at least man-made, was junk. I'll look up the link...

Well, one of the chief sources of methane is cattle, and methane is I believe a stronger green house gas than CO2. But, the cattle's 'out-put' is still smaller than our CO2-output and methane (IIRC) stays in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2.

Also, never have the SUV's been cited as sole source of climate change. And the unnatural high number and density of cattle is man-made. So even if hypothetically, the cattle's methane was the biggest contributor to global warming, it would still be man-made.

Originally Posted by tolkienfan

The sum total of all carbon dioxide produced by human activity is aproximately 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by the other processes that make up the carbon cycle.

I can't verify that, but nevertheless CO2 concentrations globally have risen significantly since the industrial evolution.

Natural processes have enough CO2 sinks to keep the system in balance. If you add human-made CO2 to that, you have a surplus. Consider also that the available CO2 sinks diminish every year, so we are faced with a greater CO2 surplus every year. So it isn't just the CO2 production, humans influence the climate change both ways: adding more green house gasses, and diminishing the carbon sinks.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So now you know how it feels to have "Source! Now!" thrown at you all the time

It hasn't been that bad.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

tolkienfan can't help that the people responsible for his/her education have chosen to keep science a secret.

There will be more and more of that, as time goes on.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

EDIT: I love you Lizra, just so you know

What a bunch of poopy.

To Nurv:

[Nurvingiel]

I re-wrote a huge part of my last post, mainly about Dr. Wile's textbook, while you guys were all writing these new posts.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So now you know how it feels to have "Source! Now!" thrown at you all the time

Fair enough, so I found this for you.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And I'm telling you that there is just as professional consensus that thinks otherwise.

There are scientists who aren't in the general consensus, of course, but there are enough scientists to make it a general consensus on the issue.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Isolated incidents don't mean anything? And I wouldn't say the 1930 was isolated.

Doesn't saying the 1930s drough wasn't an isolated incident prove my point?

Isolated incidents do matter, but what we are looking at is a warming trend, not one incident.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You think he's an amateur?

Haha. Well, I guess I could look him up, but I forget why this mattered in the first place, so meh.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Maybe you do, and that fact that he's famous, no I didn't work from that premise. But he does his good bit of research for everything, and he seems to know more than just the basics of evolution at least.

He still doesn't know squat about global warming, necessarily. Why should we believe him? There's no reason at all.

Tolkienfan, I'm done editing my previous post, so feel free to respond. Sorry I took so long editing it.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

"Some of these gases tend to reflect light rather that absorb it."
Dr. Wile: There's a magical gas in the atmosphere that stops global warming! It's shiny! It reflects light!
Sensible people: But Dr. Wile, whether or not there are gasses that reflect light is totally irrelevant. The problem with global warming is that radiation (the transfer of heat) from the Earth is not able to leave the atmosphere because of CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses". Heat and light are two completely separate things.
Dr. Wile: ...... shiny!!

Hold yer horses for a sec, Nurv, I think this fellow may be referring to global dimming, which is thought to have masked the effects of global warming for long time.

There are gasses we push into the atmosphere that form smog. (Blast that memory of mine, I was pretty sure it's a sulfuric compound but I can't bloody remember, it's too late for my brain to function correctly.)

It's another sort of 'blanket' over the earth than with global warming. The smog would stop the heat penetrating too far into the atmosphere and so would reflect much of the heat back into space. However, it would also stop more light getting to the earth's surface. We wouldn't have a global warming then, but a global dimming.

In this line of thought some scientists have suggested to emit more aerosoles, which reflect to some degree, and so use global dimming to combat global warming. However, aerosols have other, equally unwanted side-effects.

Too much life on earth depends on a sufficient degree of light. Crops failures would increase significantly, rain forests would be under even more stress and the risk for respirational problems would also increase. If you want an example: the year the volcano Krakatoa (where was it again, near Indonesia, I think) erupted and hurled tonnes and tonnes of ash into the atmosphere, the consequences were even felt all the way to Brittain. It was generally known as the 'Year Without Summer'. We'd get that, only longer, if not permanently. Damn frightening thing too, if you ask me.

[The Telcontarion]

The sun is heating up, plain and simple. Academic and very credible research can be found easily to prove this very well known but highly supressed fact.

when a large volcano like the Montserrat Volcano for instance erupts, it spews more green house gases into the atmoshpere than all of mans pollution for the last 100 years, that's a fact.

We only contribute 3% (facts not my opinion) to global warming.

The sun is going threw it's natural cycle, and guess what, it's due to get, 50 % hotter than it is now, so just wait.

Not only is the temperature on earth is warming up but every planet in the solar system, is man causing that as well?

Interesting link.
http://archives.zinester.com/13183/74197.html

Ooch!!
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

[Lizra]

No....man is damaging this planet. Since we've added all our crap to the atmosphere, and cut down so many forests, I imagine the earth's atmosphere has lost lots of it's ability to absorb fluctuations like it used to. So.....move inland, and enjoy the insects.

[rohirrim TR]

*scrolls through long posts* * sigh*

I haven't read much in this thread....and I don't have time to but lets get one thing straight 1)the largest contributor to global warming is the sun

Sun= not manmade

2)cows produce the most methane.

(last time I checked cows weren't considered manmade...but then again we are starting to clone beef now..so maybe we'll leave that an open question. )

3)the computer models used to predict global warming are notoriously inaccurate to the point of the ridiculous.

4) If you really dig into the issue there is great division amongst scientists, thus its not a great topic for a constructive forum.

P.S. I don't know if all of that has already been covered, I don't have time to read back. So if i'm inadvertently being redundant I apologize.

[The Gaffer]

* Nurv rocks*

Three worrying trends in this thread:

1) it seems the education people are getting is politically biased
2) there is a lack of understanding of what constitutes "evidence" and "consensus"
3) willingness to embrace any rationale for believing that everything is just fine.

On the third point, the IPCC sets out very clear and transparent methodological criteria for monitoring the evidence on climate change. Note that this is principally observational evidence: i.e. based on things people are measuring with validated instruments. Going "well, cows arent people" does not constitute evidence.

On consensus, it is a simple fact that the vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC statement. The ones that don't are usually paid to say so by the oil industry, which wants us to carry on using more and more oil all the time.

To repeat, on the one hand you've got the overwhelming majority of scientists and studies pointing to climate change, on the other you've got a pile of out-of-context irrelevant factoids allied with industry lobbyists. You choose whom to believe.

What was interesting about the recent IPCC report was the strength of the language they used. The IPCC is a sober, scientific body. Their use of the phrase "the debate is over" is highly significant, particularly as it was endorsed unanimously.

Hector, let me tell you what an overview is: a summary of all the available evidence. You might prefer to dig around individual studies, looking for one measurement that backs up your ideas, but science works on the basis of the body of evidence. The IPCC has produced three reports previously, each one updated with more studies. Their statements about global warming and the human impact on climate change have become stronger and stronger over time as more evidence has been added.

Ignoring the IPCC is like getting a surveyor to look at your house, tell you it's got subsidence and you going "no it hasn't".

Really, people should bother their arses as it is not just some academic debate: your (and my) children and grandchildren will be cursing the idleness and complacency of our generation.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.

[Butterbeer]

I'll take a 3) with my coffee thanks. (too tired to argue against pointy hatted theo-scientist types)

You got any Snow there Gaffer? Throwing it down here!

[The Gaffer]

Some fiddle with your burning Rome, sir?

Just got a dusting up here. I take it S of England has ground to a halt though.

[Butterbeer]

Well compared with the sea levels rising and the end of the world , it's fair to say that's a mere walk in the park to the sheer devastation, dire warnings and suddren surge to buy warm clothes, spades and to not go on dangerous road journeys to work or school ... that is England this morning!



WEATHER CHAoS! HITS UK!

(or, it has actually snowed for once this winter ..you decide ...)

[The Gaffer]

Thought as much. I was supposed to travel south today but cancelled it as I don't fancy another 14 hours on a crappy plastic Virgin train with no wireless connection and no signal on my crappy Virgin phone.

This country is rapidly turning into a Branson Own-Brand Hell.

[Lizra]

Yes...... the sun warms the earth more than man-made greenhouse gasses do.... brilliant observation!
But get this, it's not the sun that is altering the complex chemical mechanisims that have gradually evolved over millions of years to make our atmosphere the perfect one to support life.......The life that has evolved over the eons with the atmosphere, that cannot change/evolve as quickly as man alters the atmoshere/ecosystem...an therefore dies off. Man is changing this, and it is extremely well documented....by IMPARTIAL scientists, all over the world.

Enjoy the oily milk naysayers.....Hey! Here's a cheery thought midst the gloom and doom..... I bet somewhere, an oil exec has added another mansion to his/her collection this lovely day.

It's a bloody shame (and shocking/shameful) that some people have allowed themselves to be so easily manipulated by the oil industry. It's unbelievable (to me) that the USA is the leader in this game of lying and denial. Why have some in our country allowed themselves to be so influenced by silly political hate that their common sense and their concern and stewardship for our earth has flown out the window. Damn...I tell ya, it's pathetic, this sad state of affairs we have allowed to occur in the USA these last 25 years or so.

Fight the good fight people......move forward with care and concern....do the right thing and pull your head out of the sand....make progress, not money.

I know much of the damage won't show itself to me, in my lifetime. But I am a human and can adapt far better than the thousands of creatures that are endangered and rapidly going, going, gone in this current era of mass extinctions....The earth is such a beautiful, planet!.....it really makes me depressed to think so many are thumbing their nose at vast amounts of well documented data and honest scientific research.
I can only conclude it is due to greed (on the oil industry part) and lazyness and selfishness on the part of the general population that simply doesn't want to change their lifestyle/ways at all. Of course, throw in the popular quality of good old human hate, as that seems to be so in-vogue in these times of media (big $$) manipulated, politally dividing, gasbag talking heads and such.

Read and reread......
On consensus, it is a simple fact that the vast majority of scientists agree with the IPCC statement. The ones that don't are usually paid to say so by the oil industry, which wants us to carry on using more and more oil all the time.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Fight the good fight people......move forward with care and concern....do the right thing and pull your head out of the sand....make progress, not money.

I know much of the damage won't show itself to me, in my lifetime. But I am a human and can adapt far better than the thousands of creatures that are endangered and rapidly going, going, gone in this current era of mass extinctions....The earth is such a beautiful, planet!.....it really makes me depressed to think so many are thumbing their nose at vast amounts of well documented data and honest scientific research.

Too true.

However, the US has a good record of action, once it decides it wants to act. Many of your state governments and indeed large corporations are taking the initiative. I think that the Christian movement will also start to increase its voice in this area: crapping all over God's creation is looking harder and harder to justify each day.

The other thing that needs to happen is that we really, really, really have to embrace multilateralism on this issue. At least people like Guiliani are making positive noises in this direction.

Here, there is a bit of a klondyke going on to build wind turbines, accompanied by the usual nimbies (Not In My Back Yard). There is still a lot to learn about those: turns out they are barely 15% efficient on land; 30% on water. However, we won't learn it by sitting on our McArses chugging Doritos.