Man Made global warming. Is it real or a massive hoax?

[Kur]

The best science available including state of the art computer models suggests that man made global warming is real and something to be very worried about.

Sure, 15 years ago.

But like always, science is never 100% sure of anything and often must change its mind about things. From what I can tell, science has done a 180 concerning global warming, saying it isn't real, that man is not causing a significant change in climate, if causing any change at all. But the problem is that the media and certain powerful people have already latched onto global warming and are using it to push their own agendas.

For some evidence of this, I have decided against my usual wall of text posts in favor of a link to a scientific article concerning the subject. It is complete with graphs, explanations, equations, and references. It does a very good job of showing the science behind the evidence and has been continually updated beginning in March of 2003 to the most recent update 1 month ago. This article does not deal with the outright denial of global warming, but it clearly shows that the supposed leading cause of global warming, CO2, is NOT responsible for the kinds of warming everybody thinks it is.

So please, read and enjoy. If you think you can counter any of the points made in the article, please feel free to do so here, and send an e-mail to the articles author, his e-mail address is posted on the top right corner of the page.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

 

[Mic_128]

But like always, science is never 100% sure of anything and often must change its mind about things. From what I can tell, science has done a 180 concerning global warming, saying it isn't real, that man is not causing a significant change in climate, if causing any change at all. But the problem is that the media and certain powerful people have already latched onto global warming and are using it to push their own agendas.

I think you've got it the other way around.

Global warming being man-made: Crap, okay, big businesses! Spend hundreds of thousands to reduce emmisions! Lets get rid of the current poluting power generation systems we have (looking at you coal!) and forget petrol cars, roll on electric cars!

Big Business: Oh ****, we're going to get screwed! I know! Lets pay some scientists to make a theory about how it's not man-made, therefore what we're doing has no impact at all and we can keep in business! YAAAY!

 

[Kur]

I think you've got it the other way around.

Global warming being man-made: Crap, okay, big businesses! Spend hundreds of thousands to reduce emmisions! Lets get rid of the current poluting power generation systems we have (looking at you coal!) and forget petrol cars, roll on electric cars!

Big Business: Oh ****, we're going to get screwed! I know! Lets pay some scientists to make a theory about how it's not man-made, therefore what we're doing has no impact at all and we can keep in business! YAAAY!

Ok first of all this isn't the 'post your conspiracy theories' forum.

Second, you need to supply evidence to back up your claims.

Third, you are just spouting radical left wing propaganda.

And fourth, I don't see any logic at all in your post.

What exactly is big business? Is it one single business or some kind of smoke filled back room where all the richest business men get together and decide how they are going to screw the little guy?

Come on now. Get serious. If anybody would benefit from global warming being real, then it is big business. Who else is going to make all the cfl light bulbs, solar panels, tie-dyed shirts, and electric cars?

And before you start blaming oil companies, I want you to really consider who is driving the price of oil up. The government will not allow oil companies to drill in Alaska, northern US, and the gulf of mexico. The government will not allow oil companies to build new, more efficient refineries. The government taxes the oil companies and then taxes us at the pump. The government is requiring that certain areas of the US have different grades of fuel. The government is imposing restrictions on the oil companies all the time.

Imagine if the government let the oil companies run their business. They would be drilling in US territory, vastly reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing supply. They would have cleaner more efficient refineries producing more gasoline per barrel of crude. There would be less taxes being paid by the oil companies. All in all the price at the pump would be somewhere between $1.15 and $1.50 a gallon.

Do you wonder why the government is so hard on the oil companies? Because of pressure from liberal environmentalists who are trying to convince everybody that global warming is real.

If you really think that 'big oil' as a part of 'big business' is gouging people at the pump, think about this. 15 years ago the price of oil was $17 a barrel and the price of gas was about $1.00 a gallon. Today, the price of oil has gone up by a factor of 7.6 but the price of gas has only increased by a factor of 3.5.

Just imagine how much you are going to be paying for gas when companies are required to fall under a certain carbon emissions limit. The short answer is that those old refineries won't be able to produce nearly enough gasoline to supply the country so we will be buying even more (if they let us) oil from foreign sources. You will be paying over $10 a gallon at the pump and the liberals will be loving it because that will mean there is less CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

Quite the goldmine global warming is for the liberal agenda is it not?

 

[Crimson King]

The earth undergoes polar shift and climate changes, which humans either haven't lived through or were too young to have written it down. That can be a scary thing. Hell, when some volcano erupted decades ago, the ash and soot blacked out the sun long enough that the year didn't have a summer in some parts. People freaked the **** out.

One of my most compelling argument against Global warming though: George W. Bush thinks it may exist.

 

[Kur]

The earth undergoes polar shift and climate changes, which humans either haven't lived through or were too young to have written it down. That can be a scary thing. Hell, when some volcano erupted decades ago, the ash and soot blacked out the sun long enough that the year didn't have a summer in some parts. People freaked the **** out.

One of my most compelling argument against Global warming though: George W. Bush thinks it may exist.

lol.

I actually believe Bush is smarter than most people give him credit for. Sure he garbles words and sound like a ******, but not all of us have the gift of gab. I know I stumble over words when I am talking in public.

I especially like the speech he just gave in Israel concerning peoples notions that it is ok to meet and negotiate with terrorists without preconditions.

However, the fact that he isn't convinced global warming is real is of some comfort to me, but I don't see much hope in the future considering all 3 of our candidates are buying it hook line and sinker.

Funny also how this past winter was one of the coldest in the last 100 years.

 

[derek.haines]

Whether global warming is real or not is really irrelevant to me. It could be completely fake, and might be completely disproven next Tuesday for all I know, but I think that any situation--whether real or not--that leads the world towards being more environmentally conscious, makes manufacturers look towards more energy-efficient technology, and forces research into renewable resources is a good thing. It might be real. It might be fake. But it's probably going to have a good outcome either way.

 

[Eriatarka]

I'm convinced that it's real and that human activity is having a significant effect on climate, but that's because I'm listening to the guys who are proving it's real as opposed to the guys who are proving it isn't.

It's weird how this divides people, the impression I get in general is that people on both sides tend to think that everyone who doesn't agree with them on global warming, is an idiot. Not my stance, nor am I accusing anyone here of having that stance, but I see it a lot in these arguements.

I would say that enough people, and by people I mean credible scientists, believe in mans effect on global warming for it to be worthy of action being taken now. I mean, why should we take a chance? If we do something about it and cut back on emissions and fossil fuel use and all that, but it turns out our impact on global warming was a lie all along, there's no real harm done.
BUT, if we ignore it and presume it to be a lie, and (worst case scenario) the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, large areas of the world become uninhabitable, weather becomes more extreme and erratic, ect ect, we're going to seriously regret not taking action now.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm merely saying that when the stakes of global warming being true are so high, surely it's better to be safe than sorry, right?
Even if I believed it to be a lie, if 10 scientists told me it was a lie, and 5 told me it was true, I'd still much rather not take any chances.

 

[The Executive]

I was under the impression that the Earth actually cooled a bit this winter, hence Al Gore's mysterious silence/lack of public appearance. Could be wrong though.

 

[WuTangDude]

I think at least SOME degree of global warming was created/accelerated by man-made intervention. I fail to see how it isn't debateable.

Those hot gases from our cars and stuff don't just float into space, ya know.

 

[blazedaces]

I think at least SOME degree of global warming was created/accelerated by man-made intervention. I fail to see how it isn't debateable.

... I agree with you... and I mean no insult here... but would you mind actually debating it instead of just claiming it's debatable? This isn't an argument: "I think" ... "SOME (in capital letters so we know you're serious) degree"...

Those hot gases from our cars and stuff don't just float into space, ya know.

This is even worse. If we drove around in fuel-cell powered cars they would emit water vapor ... so what does this say? Perhaps the conservation of matter is not a relevant argument for causal inference of man-made interaction to global warming?

Note: if you read the website, the argument is not that something "is going away", it's that it doesn't make much of a difference being there, so my fuel cell analogy works very well actually....

I'm convinced that it's real and that human activity is having a significant effect on climate, but that's because I'm listening to the guys who are proving it's real as opposed to the guys who are proving it isn't.

Listen, would you mind bringing a credible source to the table (not saying one doesn't exist) so we can actually compare and contrast the points. The fact that it's a scientific debate as opposed to a one-sided practically obvious truth is part of the reason we're here debating it...

It's weird how this divides people, the impression I get in general is that people on both sides tend to think that everyone who doesn't agree with them on global warming, is an idiot. Not my stance, nor am I accusing anyone here of having that stance, but I see it a lot in these arguements.

Well... you did say you weren't accusing anyone here of that stance... but I mean... what's your point exactly? The people in general when debating anything tend to be disrespectful? I'm perfectly willing to respect your point of view and I see that you're willing to respect mine. Let's ignore everyone else and move on, shall we?

I would say that enough people, and by people I mean credible scientists, believe in mans effect on global warming for it to be worthy of action being taken now. I mean, why should we take a chance? If we do something about it and cut back on emissions and fossil fuel use and all that, but it turns out our impact on global warming was a lie all along, there's no real harm done.
BUT, if we ignore it and presume it to be a lie, and (worst case scenario) the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, large areas of the world become uninhabitable, weather becomes more extreme and erratic, ect ect, we're going to seriously regret not taking action now.
I'm not scaremongering, I'm merely saying that when the stakes of global warming being true are so high, surely it's better to be safe than sorry, right?
Even if I believed it to be a lie, if 10 scientists told me it was a lie, and 5 told me it was true, I'd still much rather not take any chances.

If there would be no harm done than no one would be against it. What you mean I think is that there wouldn't be environmental harm done... but if we take an economic punch to the gut because of a hunch that the movie "the day after tomorrow" is really going to happen...

Both groups agree that the earth has its own warming and cooling cycles regardless of human activity, yes (this is true)? So what happens in that scenario of yours when we actually do waste all that money and still all these (worst case scenario) scenarios actually occur?

I'll tell you what: we'll be wondering why we wasted all the time, effort, and resources on this idea when we could have spent all that on perhaps better preparing ourselves in other ways...

-blazed

 

[Eriatarka]

Listen, would you mind bringing a credible source to the table (not saying one doesn't exist) so we can actually compare and contrast the points. The fact that it's a scientific debate as opposed to a one-sided practically obvious truth is part of the reason we're here debating it...

Fair enough, some recent studies and such that support the claim that humans are having a significant effect on global warming;

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0119-07.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118093350.htm

These all specifically say that it is mans' impact on the climate which is causing changes in the environment, not the kind of warming of the planet that occurs naturally. But in looking those up I found plenty of articles claiming the opposite. I am open to have my mind changed on whether or not it's all true by the way, but it's because of articles like these that I'd prefer we play it safe and presume it to be true, as I mentioned before.

Well... you did say you weren't accusing anyone here of that stance... but I mean... what's your point exactly? The people in general when debating anything tend to be disrespectful? I'm perfectly willing to respect your point of view and I see that you're willing to respect mine. Let's ignore everyone else and move on, shall we?

It wasn't really intended as a point, and as such it's inconsequential, but I only threw it down as an observation. Ok then, onward!

If there would be no harm done than no one would be against it. What you mean I think is that there wouldn't be environmental harm done... but if we take an economic punch to the gut because of a hunch that the movie "the day after tomorrow" is really going to happen...

Both groups agree that the earth has its own warming and cooling cycles regardless of human activity, yes (this is true)? So what happens in that scenario of yours when we actually do waste all that money and still all these (worst case scenario) scenarios actually occur?

I'll tell you what: we'll be wondering why we wasted all the time, effort, and resources on this idea when we could have spent all that on perhaps better preparing ourselves in other ways...

I'd say the economy taking a hit is a far better option than the environment taking one, if it does have one coming that is, you can't put a price on the environmental damage it's been claimed is possible. And it's not fair to dismiss it as a 'hunch', we know that this is a real possibility.
A hit to the economy in trying to prevent human damage to the environment would be a far easier one to recover from than the worst case scenario, which you basically can't recover from. If it did turn out that spending to prevent human impact on climate change was unnecessary/in vain because it was all going to happen anyway, then ok, it didn't help matters. But we don't know that, for what we know now spending to reduce emissions/fossil fuel use, ect ect, might actually prevent some of the the negative effects to the environment it is claimed are coming if we don't take action, which would definitely be worth the effort now.

What are the other ways of "better preparing ourselves" you mention, out of genuine curiosity?

 

[Kur]

There are some people here saying things like "Well even if global warming isn't real, anything that makes us clean up our act is a good thing and really there is no harm done!"

Take a look at gas prices lately?

The global warming hoax is directly responsible for the higher gas and food prices we are seeing today. Environmentalists that have Washington's ear are pushing for stricter restrictions on anything and everything we need to create energy and food. The price of gas is high because oil is high. Oil is high because there is more demand than supply. There is more demand than supply because oil companies can't drill for oil, or even build new, cleaner, more efficient refineries. There is a huge tax imposed on the oil companies and it should be known that corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do. This leads to insane gas prices and as a result, higher food prices.

Did you know that oil companies make an average of $.08 per gallon of gas, while the government makes anywhere from $.35 - $.67 per gallon in taxes. Then the government has the nerve to put the oil companies on trial every couple years for 'price gouging' even though no evidence of it can be found.

Some argue that even if global warming isn't real, it pushes for the advancement of alternative fuels and cleans up the environment and that is good! Yes, that is good, but companies can do that without having to pay taxes and work around expensive restrictions imposed by the government because of global warming. And if this 'good' is worth sacrificing your freedoms, then you go ahead and do that, but do not force the rest of us to do it too. The government is mandating what kind of light bulbs people can use in the next year or so. Soon they will be requiring all cars be hybrids or run on alternative (and expensive) fuels. They already tell us to dig through our own trash to recycle (another hoax for another thread) and what we can and can't do with our yard waste. Global warming, whether true or not, is the liberals ticket into our homes. It gives them the power to tell us what to buy, how much energy to use, what to keep our thermostat set at, how far we can drive, and what we can drive. Not much longer before we all have to wear uniforms and be in bed by 10:00 every night.

It should be known that the government is also spending ridiculous amounts of money on things intended to combat global warming. Ethanol made from corn was supposed to replace oil as the main source of fuel. It costs far more to make and uses up farmland needed to grow food corn, thereby increasing the price of both oil and corn. And finally, the EPA is realizing that ethanol produces far more toxic pollutants when burned than oil does. Critics of the ethanol program have known this for years but were ignored in favor of people like Al Gore.

If the US ever signs that Kyoto agreement then we may as well bend over and grab our ankles because we will be screwed out of every penny we have.

So is the hoax of global warming 'not a big deal' if proven wrong? Only if you don't mind ever increasing gas and food prices, higher taxes, higher government spending, rationing of fuel and energy, and being told what cars and light bulbs you can and can not use.

Of course, this argument was not intended to prove or disprove global warming, but instead to show that it IS a big deal if shown to be false.

If you don't believe what I am saying, the government regulations and restrictions imposed on the oil companies can be found online. Don't take my word for it. Don't take anybodies word for it, always do your own research.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

It's not all man-made. The earth is always changing it's temperature. But man is causing it to at least some extent. CO2 doesn't just disappear when it is released.

 

[adumbrodeus]

*sigh* this again...


Premise 1: Co2 causes heat retention in excess of the gases it replaces. (I don't think anyone actually believes this is false...)

Premise 2: Human industry is causing there to be more Co2 in the atmosphere. (again, duh fact)



Therefore: Human industry is causing an increase in the total heat on earth.


It's that simple, the only relevant questions therefore are, "by how much", and "how do we counteract it"?

If it's a small effect then ultimately this just makes it a longer-term problem as opposed to a more immediate one. It's obviously a long-term problem anyway, but the question is of course, how long?

P.S. Methane is also a major issue in this area. Think cattle ranching.

Funny also how this past winter was one of the coldest in the last 100 years.

This comic says petty much what I'd like to say on this.

Increases in total heat on earth are going to change weather patterns which are inherently unpredictable. Yes, unusually cold weather is one possible outcome of this.

 

[yossarian22]

It's that simple, the only relevant questions therefore are, "by how much", and "how do we counteract it"?

I'd put "Why should we care?" in there as well. Whenever I had to establish a position against global warming, I used that as a foundation. Worked fairly well. What little I have stumbled across in journals has tended to bolster that position. I don't really bother keeping up with this.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd put "Why should we care?" in there as well. Whenever I had to establish a position against global warming, I used that as a foundation. Worked fairly well. What little I have stumbled across in journals has tended to bolster that position. I don't really bother keeping up with this.

Ah, but if I use that I have to answer that which sort of breaks the flow.

In all seriousness, really, that's covered in the "by how much question" however, because "by how much" decides ultimately what will occur and when, and therefore establishes why we should care. However, I'll answer it seperately.


We should care because, while earth existed for a long long time, the majority of that time it wasn't really habitable for humans. If we shift the climate too much, we'll make earth uninhabitable for humanity and we'll die out to be replaced by something different. The earth doesn't care, whatever survives, survives.

 

[Kur]

*sigh* this again...

Sorry to bore you. I didn't see any other thread on the subject.

Premise 1: Co2 causes heat retention in excess of the gases it replaces. (I don't think anyone actually believes this is false...)

Premise 2: Human industry is causing there to be more Co2 in the atmosphere. (again, duh fact)

What gas does CO2 replace? Doesn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere simply increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Therefore: Human industry is causing an increase in the total heat on earth.

And you know this how? Computer models? The same computer models that can not even predict current conditions?

It's that simple, the only relevant questions therefore are, "by how much", and "how do we counteract it"?

I will answer your questions.

1. A maximum of 1.7C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.

2. No need to counteract it.

If it's a small effect then ultimately this just makes it a longer-term problem as opposed to a more immediate one. It's obviously a long-term problem anyway, but the question is of course, how long?

CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of 5-10 years. Meaning it can not stay in the atmosphere long term. If we left our CO2 production at a constant rate, the atmospheric levels of CO2 would stabilize after 10-20 years and not increase.

CO2 accounts for about 4% of the IR absorption in the atmosphere and it is not nearly as good at absorbing IR energy as other gases such as O3 and water vapor.

The oceans are huge CO2 buffers, constantly absorbing CO2 and releasing Oxygen. At any one time there is 50 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere.

At our current rate of CO2 production increase, it would take until 2255 for the CO2 levels of today to double. A doubling of CO2 levels would cause a maximum of 1.7C increase in global temperatures, meaning it would probably be less.

By 2255 if we are still even emitting CO2 in the amounts we are today, the increase in temperature will be negligible if there is an increase at all.

Did you even read the link I provided?


P.S. Methane is also a major issue in this area. Think cattle ranching.

This comic says petty much what I'd like to say on this.

Cute, but wrong. Yes the climate is more complicated than that. If global warming were true, then yes, claiming it isn't because it is currently winter time would be stupid. But last year was the coldest in 100 years and there has not been a global temperature increase since 1998. That was 10 years ago. If humans are causing global warming at such a rate as to be worried about it now, then why has there been no warming in the last 10 years? As a matter of fact, the current trend is cooling.

Increases in total heat on earth are going to change weather patterns which are inherently unpredictable. Yes, unusually cold weather is one possible outcome of this.

Yes weather is unpredictable. That is why a meteorologist will never forecast more than a week in advance. It is also why computer models of the climate can never predict current weather conditions. But we are to trust them in telling us that we are cooking the planet to death?

If anybody had a working understanding of all of the elements that go into the planets climate fluctuations then I would accept their proposals that global warming may be true. But for now we do not have that model and so no prediction can be made.

The earths climate changes. If it wants to get hot or cold there is nothing we can do to stop it. At least not currently.

Please read the link I posted.

P.S. Methane is also a major issue in this area. Think cattle ranching.

If you really think a bunch of farting cows are making the planet hot, please consider the huge amounts of herding animals that currently live on the planet and the even larger amounts that lived in the past. Currently there are about 111 million cattle in the US and believe it or not the estimated number of American buffalo a few hundred years ago was over 100 million.

I am not arguing that cows don't fart and produce a lot of methane. But it is hard to believe they are a problem to the environment when nature can and does produce far more.

 

[Zero Beat]

A ****ing hoax. I don't see how anyone within the Debate Hall can believe that mainstream bull****.

A simple search on google can disprove man-made Global Warming. It's a minuscule effect if you can call it that.(Man on the climate)

 

[cF=)]

A ****ing hoax.

I fail to see if this is sarcastic or not

Anyway, Kur, you're deadly wrong on many things. I'll just take some other time to right down the reasons because I accidentally closed my browser when I had this huge response. Guess I'm too lazy tonight to type it all over again.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Doesn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere simply increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Yes, and therefore it increases the net irradiance.

And you know this how?

They follow directly from the premises. Nothing about computer models needs to be said if you accept the premises. Not to mention that simply releasing chemical energy can only increase the temperature unless somehow the products of the reaction somehow are involved in a cooling mechanism (which as we know is in general quite the opposite).

CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of 5-10 years.

So far your source has the lowest estimate of this number that I've found, even among sites which ostensibly provide evidence against man-made global warming. I generally see numbers 3-6 times this. In any case, your link does not provide an explanation for the increase in CO2 levels in the last 150 years that I could find.

CO2 accounts for about 4% of the IR absorption in the atmosphere and it is not nearly as good at absorbing IR energy as other gases such as O3 and water vapor.

This is something I wonder about myself, is why is the focus on CO2 and not water vapor, when water vapor is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas, and so one would think a much bigger factor in the net irradiance. Any good model that predicts man made global warming should have a detailed explanation of this. The best I have found so far is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
which states that it is basically because the half-life of water is about 10 days. Also your "4%" number seems to be quite on the low end of things just like your half life number.

there has not been a global temperature increase since 1998.

What do you mean by "global temperature increase"? Do you mean in sequential years? Or that 1998 is the warmest year on record? I think you mean the second (which may be true though some sources quote 2005 as the warmest with 1998 second), but your statement is easily interpreted to mean the first (which is false).

And although the global temperature has not changed very much in the last 10 years, it is possible that it is an anomaly in an overall warming trend (which the last 100 years are according to almost all evidence), and were it not for man-made warming it would be much cooler than it is. Not that I necessarily am asserting this is the case. However your numbers are suspect and I don't take the calculations that are made using them too seriously.

XZero BeatX:

"Google it" is not a reasonable argument for anything, it's just arguing by proxy. You can find sources to support almost any viewpoint from a Google search.

 

[Zero Beat]

"Google it" is not a reasonable argument for anything, it's just arguing by proxy. You can find sources to support almost any viewpoint from a Google search.

You're right, I forgot that not everyone here can distinguish between bull**** and a source with credibility.

Alright class, let's go back to the basics.

The idea of "Global Warming" is? Excess in CO2 causes high temperatures. Hold that thought..

According to the CO2 vs Temperature chart, temperature comes before CO2. Furthermore, Mars is getting hotter too, and while it may have LOT of CO2 in its atmosphere, the amount is fixed. Thus, this whole man-made global warming, while it may promote a safer environment, fails to prove that we are the cause.

Very simple argument. I don't see why it's such a big deal once you understand how it works. Sure you can debate on the same stupid "wel hod you know huh huh," that's why I say research it yourself.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

You're right, I forgot that not everyone here can distinguish between bull**** and a source with credibility.

You're fairly naive if you think you can with 100% accuracy.

The idea of "Global Warming" is? Excess in CO2 causes high temperatures. Hold that thought..

A bit of an oversimplification but sure let's run with it. However I think "Global Warming" is a misnomer in the first place and it should be more accurately called climate change, because some places are likely to get cooler it turns out according to many models.

According to the CO2 vs Temperature chart, temperature comes before CO2.

Even if I accept your premises (show me a reliable source please), that does not mean that the CO2 increase has nothing to do with the temperature increase. It could simply be that there is an additional warming trend superposed which started earlier. And what does "temperature comes before CO2" mean exactly? It's not a binary thing where you can point to a place and say "temperature increase starts here" and "CO2 increase starts here." You have to do some real (gasp!) math.

Furthermore, Mars is getting hotter too, and while it may have LOT of CO2 in its atmosphere, the amount is fixed.

First, Source?

Second, even if I accept that as fact, that doesn't prove anything about the mechanism of warming on Earth. They could be completely unrelated.

Third, even if I accept that they ARE from the same mechanism, say, some kind of solar cycle, that only shows that it is ONE cause of the effect, not the ENTIRE cause.

Thus, this whole man-made global warming, while it may promote a safer environment, fails to prove that we are the cause.

No, again even if the Mars argument is valid to some degree, that only means that AT LEAST that mechanism is responsible, and it does not rule out others or put an upper limit on their significance to the effect.

Very simple argument.

Simple because it's fallacious.

Sure you can debate on the same stupid "wel hod you know huh huh," that's why I say research it yourself.

...What?

 

[TheManaLord]

If you think global warming isn't real you don't deserve to talk about it.

If you think there's any debate involved you don't deserve to have access to the debate hall.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

If you think global warming isn't real you don't deserve to talk about it.

If you think there's any debate involved you don't deserve to have access to the debate hall.

If you think people should acquiesce to arguments like this without being provided evidence, you shouldn't be in the debate hall.

 

[Kur]

Yes, and therefore it increases the net irradiance.



They follow directly from the premises. Nothing about computer models needs to be said if you accept the premises. Not to mention that simply releasing chemical energy can only increase the temperature unless somehow the products of the reaction somehow are involved in a cooling mechanism (which as we know is in general quite the opposite).



So far your source has the lowest estimate of this number that I've found, even among sites which ostensibly provide evidence against man-made global warming. I generally see numbers 3-6 times this. In any case, your link does not provide an explanation for the increase in CO2 levels in the last 150 years that I could find.



This is something I wonder about myself, is why is the focus on CO2 and not water vapor, when water vapor is a much more prevalent greenhouse gas, and so one would think a much bigger factor in the net irradiance. Any good model that predicts man made global warming should have a detailed explanation of this. The best I have found so far is:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
which states that it is basically because the half-life of water is about 10 days. Also your "4%" number seems to be quite on the low end of things just like your half life number.



What do you mean by "global temperature increase"? Do you mean in sequential years? Or that 1998 is the warmest year on record? I think you mean the second (which may be true though some sources quote 2005 as the warmest with 1998 second), but your statement is easily interpreted to mean the first (which is false).

And although the global temperature has not changed very much in the last 10 years, it is possible that it is an anomaly in an overall warming trend (which the last 100 years are according to almost all evidence), and were it not for man-made warming it would be much cooler than it is. Not that I necessarily am asserting this is the case. However your numbers are suspect and I don't take the calculations that are made using them too seriously.

XZero BeatX:

"Google it" is not a reasonable argument for anything, it's just arguing by proxy. You can find sources to support almost any viewpoint from a Google search.

The release of sulfides into the atmosphere adds to global cooling. Soot and particulates (smog) also contribute to cooling.

Even if CO2 half life is 5 times what I said, it doesn't matter, levels of CO2 can not be cumulative over periods of hundreds of years like global warming activists claim. I believe the link I provided addresses this as well.

The link clearly says what the source of higher levels of CO2 are. From the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

The global warming activists (nut jobs) are the ones making the big stink about CO2. I am simply trying to debunk that claim. If they tried to go after water vapor, I would give them a whole other set of reasons that they are wrong about that too.

CO2 may account for more than 4% of the atmosphere, but it only accounts for 4% of the IR absorption in the atmosphere.

Now would be a good time to point out that there is a limit to how much IR can be absorbed. Eventually there will be a point where increasing the amount of CO2 will not increase IR absorption because all of the IR energy is already being absorbed.

I meant that there was a period of warming lasting from 1970 to 1998 which caused the whole global warming stink in the first place, and from 1998 to 2005 the global temperature did not change significantly from 0, with a slight decrease if you bother to measure it. After 2005 there was some slight warming but 2007 until recently has seen enough cooling to offset the last 100 years of warming.

"For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate."

I notice you didn't address all of the points I made in my previous post.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The release of sulfides into the atmosphere adds to global cooling. Soot and particulates (smog) also contribute to cooling.

Indeed, but I just said "in general," since greenhouse gas emissions far exceed emissions of sulfides and particles by any means of measuring them.

Even if CO2 half life is 5 times what I said, it doesn't matter, levels of CO2 can not be cumulative over periods of hundreds of years like global warming activists claim. I believe the link I provided addresses this as well.

Your link does not have a source article for its number, and it seems to be a point of contention.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Caldeira_Wickett_2005_JGR.pdf

Let us ask hypothetically what would change if the half-life was indeed orders of magnitude longer. You say 1.7C per doubling of CO2 levels (the generally logarithmic nature of the increase is not disputed). It's probably more than that given the numbers used to calculate that were on the low end, and it's also not quite that simple because there are positive feedback mechanisms. However, whatever that number came out to be, it would still stand; the hypothetical situation just means that it would be much easier to double CO2 levels, if I understand it correctly.

CO2 may account for more than 4% of the atmosphere, but it only accounts for 4% of the IR absorption in the atmosphere.

It's for sure less than 4% of the atmosphere, it's like 2 orders of magnitude less (depending whether you want to measure by mass/volume/partial pressure/whater). The 4% of IR absorption isn't the relevant quantity (although it may be related to it), it's radiative forcing or net irradiance. The numbers on the site I provided say that CO2 is 9% 26% of the overall global warming effect. Still not that impressive though, so I still wonder why man made global warming activists are so worked up about CO2 as opposed to water vapor.

Nevertheless, the question I am trying to work out is, let's say your number of 1.7C per doubling is accurate for the 4% greenhouse effect number. Does a revised number of 9% translate into an approximate doubling of the *C per doubling of CO2 levels number?

Now would be a good time to point out that there is a limit to how much IR can be absorbed. Eventually there will be a point where increasing the amount of CO2 will not increase IR absorption because all of the IR energy is already being absorbed.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound correct; can you explain more?

After 2005 there was some slight warming but 2007 until recently has seen enough cooling to offset the last 100 years of warming.

What do you mean by "offset"? We certainly can't conclude that we are at climate trends of 100 years ago.

I notice you didn't address all of the points I made in my previous post.

That's because I'm questioning some of your specific claims and not your overall conclusion (not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it). Let's say I tentatively agree with most of whatever else you say until I find something I don't like.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What gas does CO2 replace? Doesn't adding CO2 to the atmosphere simply increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

No, it depends on the process, but generally CO2 is converted from oxygen when, for example, things are burned.

And you know this how? Computer models? The same computer models that can not even predict current conditions?

Because of premise 1. This "therefore" follows directly from "CO2 causes heat retention".

I will answer your questions.

1. A maximum of 1.7C per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.

2. No need to counteract it.

Doesn't sound like much over the short term, but over time, as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere, even with an amount that low, that is a major issue.

CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of 5-10 years. Meaning it can not stay in the atmosphere long term. If we left our CO2 production at a constant rate, the atmospheric levels of CO2 would stabilize after 10-20 years and not increase.

Except that half-life is a reletive decrease, it will never eliminate the entire base. Granted the the rate of increase is logorythmic is amount added remains consistent, but still, long term issue.

Furthermore, you're wrong. The average survival of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 31 years. The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere, ignoring terristrial effects is 92.

Were it all one mass of carbon, then yes, you'd be correct, however the fact that it's seperated works against the half-life.

Source

CO2 accounts for about 4% of the IR absorption in the atmosphere and it is not nearly as good at absorbing IR energy as other gases such as O3 and water vapor.

And? It still does, it still does.

The oceans are huge CO2 buffers, constantly absorbing CO2 and releasing Oxygen. At any one time there is 50 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere.

Again, so, enough of it remains to produce an increase.

At our current rate of CO2 production increase, it would take until 2255 for the CO2 levels of today to double. A doubling of CO2 levels would cause a maximum of 1.7C increase in global temperatures, meaning it would probably be less.

So it's not a problem because it won't happen for a while? The issue is a long-term one.

By 2255 if we are still even emitting CO2 in the amounts we are today, the increase in temperature will be negligible if there is an increase at all.

Did you even read the link I provided?

Cute, but wrong. Yes the climate is more complicated than that. If global warming were true, then yes, claiming it isn't because it is currently winter time would be stupid. But last year was the coldest in 100 years and there has not been a global temperature increase since 1998. That was 10 years ago. If humans are causing global warming at such a rate as to be worried about it now, then why has there been no warming in the last 10 years? As a matter of fact, the current trend is cooling.

Coldest where? Weather changes can easily cause heat concentrations in a specific religion, making the temperature appear to be much colder on average then it is.

Yes weather is unpredictable. That is why a meteorologist will never forecast more than a week in advance. It is also why computer models of the climate can never predict current weather conditions. But we are to trust them in telling us that we are cooking the planet to death?

Who said anything about using computer models? I certainly didn't.

If anybody had a working understanding of all of the elements that go into the planets climate fluctuations then I would accept their proposals that global warming may be true. But for now we do not have that model and so no prediction can be made.

The earths climate changes. If it wants to get hot or cold there is nothing we can do to stop it. At least not currently.

As your link stated, we know for sure that there is an increase in total heat, which happens reguardless of weather, weather just makes things appear to be different then they are.

If you really think a bunch of farting cows are making the planet hot, please consider the huge amounts of herding animals that currently live on the planet and the even larger amounts that lived in the past. Currently there are about 111 million cattle in the US and believe it or not the estimated number of American buffalo a few hundred years ago was over 100 million.

I am not arguing that cows don't fart and produce a lot of methane. But it is hard to believe they are a problem to the environment when nature can and does produce far more.

The issue is that human industry is causing a predisposition towards certain types of herding animals which happen to release a large amount of methane, which is a greenhouse gas.

I mentioned it merely as a contributing factor.

 

[DeliciousCake]

An environmental geology lesson for the masses

I'm pulling out my environmental geology book from last semester just because some of the people in this thread don't appear to have any knowledge on the subject.

Environmental Geology 8th Edition
Mc-Graw Hill Higher Education
Copyright 2008

I'm half-paraphrasing, and I take no credit for the information presented other than my own personal comments. Let's start:

Chapter 10: Climate - Past, Present, and Future


Greenhouse Effect - In short, infrared rays radiating outward from the Earth's surface get trapped by certain atmospheric gases.

Greenhouse gas - Any gas that traps infrared rays and promotes atmospheric warming. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere and is in equilibrium with surface water and oceans. Human activities do not tend to substantially affect its abundance. Excess water readily converts into rain or snow, and excess carbon dioxide is removed by natural geologic processes. Since the start of the Industrial Age in the mid-nineteenth century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased by an estimated 30%.

Ok, so there's our first point in human-environment interaction. Whether or not we happened to hit the Industrial Age at the same point in the Earth's geologic cycle that leads to an increase of atmospheric CO2 may be a coincidence.

If the heat trapped by carbon dioxide were proportional to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, the increased carbon dioxide would by now have caused sharply increased greenhouse-effect heating of the earth's surface. So far, the actual temperature rise has been much more moderate; the earth's climate system is more complex.
Score one for you non-believers.
Certain areas of the earth (glacial sections, deserts, rain forests, temperate regions) are subject to wide seasonal variations in in temperature and rainfall, so determining any direct increase from human CO2 emissions is difficult. One of the challenges in determining global climate trends is deciding how to measure the global temperature at any given time. Altogether, global surface temperature has risen about 0.8C (1.4F) degrees.
So we've determined that measuring the direct influence of greenhouse gas emissions, but that since the point at which we began emitting them at a large scale the temperature has gone up. Whether this is a coincidence or not is still up in the air. Haha, I made a bad pun. I'll go ahead and outline a few more key points from the chapter.

- The ocean is a large thermal reservoir and can store much of the heat produced from the greenhouse effect, thus making it harder to determine the direct correlation of emissions.
- Scientists have found evidence of "abrupt climate change" most likely due to the disruption of thermohaline circulation (the natural movement of salt within the ocean.) In this case, "abrupt" means change on a timescale of decades to centuries.
- If we understood past climactic fluctuations of the earth, it would help us in developing models of possible future climate change. Glacial deposits are recognized in now tropical regions. Coal deposits indicate warm, wet conditions conducive to plant growth in possible swampy settings. However, because we have no direct measurement of ancient temperatures, creating accurate long-term models is difficult. Because of the length of time taken for the earth to change, it is incredibly hard for us to determine the true cycle of the earth.
- One proxy used to determine temperature over hundreds of thousands of years is atmospheric composition, normally through the difference of 16 O and 18 O isotopes. Because glaciers have a great longevity, they serve the purpose of trapping air bubbles which allow us to determine atmospheric composition from many years in the past.What I'm trying to get at with this point is that in short: the highest concentration of greenhouse gases seen in ice cores is just prior to our Industrial Age. We have no records that show naturally occurring results of such high CO2 levels.

I'm not gonna bother going any more into this because most likely people would have stopped reading this way earlier. The point I'm trying to make is that scientists are not saying that global warming is an inevitability. Because it's hard for us to produce highly accurate feedback from geological experiments, we have no way of knowing if what we're going through is natural or because of our own doing. The real issue at hand is whether or not we try and do something about it. This about sums up our options: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

I hope that most of you weren't annoyed at that huge wall o' text, I just wanted to try and reach the people who have been debating this thread without any real points to back themselves up.

 

[Kur]

Indeed, but I just said "in general," since greenhouse gas emissions far exceed emissions of sulfides and particles by any means of measuring them.

But they do have an effect.

Your link does not have a source article for its number, and it seems to be a point of contention.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Caldeira_Wickett_2005_JGR.pdf

Yes the article did say it was a point of contention, but that it did not matter what the actual number is because in either case, CO2 is not cumulative over long periods of time. It degrades, it gets absorbed by plants and much more by the oceans (plankton is some powerful stuff) Any CO2 we pumped out 80 years ago is not in the atmosphere anymore.

Let us ask hypothetically what would change if the half-life was indeed orders of magnitude longer. You say 1.7C per doubling of CO2 levels (the generally logarithmic nature of the increase is not disputed). It's probably more than that given the numbers used to calculate that were on the low end, and it's also not quite that simple because there are positive feedback mechanisms. However, whatever that number came out to be, it would still stand; the hypothetical situation just means that it would be much easier to double CO2 levels, if I understand it correctly.

That 1.7C is the MAXIMUM the temperature can increase from a doubling of CO2. This means the actual number is likely lower. So even if the number is higher, for example 5C increase, then that is still the maximum and likely to be lower.

It's for sure less than 4% of the atmosphere, it's like 2 orders of magnitude less (depending whether you want to measure by mass/volume/partial pressure/whater). The 4% of IR absorption isn't the relevant quantity (although it may be related to it), it's radiative forcing or net irradiance. The numbers on the site I provided say that CO2 is 9% 26% of the overall global warming effect. Still not that impressive though, so I still wonder why man made global warming activists are so worked up about CO2 as opposed to water vapor.

The global warming activists are not concerned with water vapor because water vapor stays in the atmosphere for very short periods of time. But probably the most compelling reason is that they claim it as 'green' and harmless. They want hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (pretty cool actually) that produce water vapor rather than normal exhaust gases.

Nevertheless, the question I am trying to work out is, let's say your number of 1.7C per doubling is accurate for the 4% greenhouse effect number. Does a revised number of 9% translate into an approximate doubling of the *C per doubling of CO2 levels number?

No. Because the formula used to calculate the temperature per doubling was not based on that 4% number. It was based on the Global warming activists own numbers concerning the increase in levels of CO2 and increase in temperature over a period of time.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:

***Insert equation pic here***

This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer.

Unfortunately, the above calculations slightly overestimate the degree of warming, because they allow the temperature to rise indefinitely. At very high CO2 levels, self-absorption would become a limiting factor. A more accurate calculation is shown below.

A reader named Ted Ladewski made an interesting suggestion: use the 255K zero-greenhouse gas data point, where there is zero CO2, as a data point, and fit the other points to a smooth curve. To maximize the accuracy of the estimate, we will only use global CO2 and temperature values between 1900 and 2000 [14], about which there is relatively little dispute, and ignore estimates of prehistoric values, which could be more affected by changes in solar flux and other factors. This gives a total of 102 data points. These points are shown in blue in the figure below.

Including the CO2 = 0 data point severely constrains the shape of the curve (and, interestingly, effectively rules out any sort of hockey stick-shaped curve). It is also clear that some sort of monotonically-increasing curve, and not a straight line, has to be used. The best fit was obtained with a hyperbola. If the 102 data points are fitted to a hyperbola, we obtain 288.92 ±0.27K (±1 SD) for 736 ppm CO2 (red line).

The present-day value is taken as the average of the global mean temperatures between 1980 and 2000, or 287.17K. If the above estimate is correct, this means that the temperature would increase by 1.76 ±0.27°C above the present-day value when CO2 levels double their present levels. This is very close to the 1.85°C calculated above.

***insert graph here***

However, there is a problem with this method. The 255K data point is not just zero CO2, it is zero water vapor as well. In reality, there would always be some water vapor present, even if there were no CO2. This means that the actual temperature for zero CO2 would be higher than 255K, which would change the shape of the curve. For example, if the CO2=0 value was 271 (halfway between 255 and the current temperature), the prediction changes to 288.55K, or about a 1.39 degree increase for doubling of CO2. This can be seen in the blue curve (see enlarged graph below). The result is not much different than the 1.76, but the important point is that as the estimates become more realistic, the predicted temperature does not increase, but decreases slightly.

***another graph***

Fitting other curves to these data points gives similar results. For example, Ted Ladewski suggested deriving an exponential curve from Beer's Law. Although there are obvious problems involved in applying Beer's Law quantitatively to a transparent medium as complex as the atmosphere (as he discusses in greater detail on his website, http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm#Spec), the equation he recommends is:
T = A * Io * (1 - exp(-k*C ))

where AIo and k are constants, C is the CO2 concentration, and T is temperature. (This is also discussed in http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWnonlinear.htm )

Fitting the data to this equation, as shown in the brown curve in the figure above, gives the much lower value of 287.62±0.07 K (±1 SD), or 0.46±0.08 °C increase above the 1980-2000 mean for a doubling of CO2 from current values.

Although extrapolating beyond the ends of the data, as is done here and as is done with climate models, is hazardous, it's clear that both of these curves are significantly lower than a straight linear estimate. The hyperbola is probably closest to the actual value, because it makes the fewest assumptions about the underlying physical processes. In any case, both estimates should be regarded as upper limits because, as mentioned above, they assume that CO2 is the root cause of the observed changes in temperature.

So yeah, increasing the value of IR absorption by CO2 will not affect the maximum temperature increase value because the IR absorption value was not used in the formula to determine the number.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn't sound correct; can you explain more?

I am saying that there is only so much IR energy coming into earth. Eventually it is possible to reach a limit as to how much of the escaping IR energy can be absorbed, limited by the finite amount available. I do not know what the numbers are or how long it would take us to reach that point, or even if we could survive that much IR absorption. But it just means that there is an upper limit to just how warm 'global warming' could possibly make the planet.

What do you mean by "offset"? We certainly can't conclude that we are at climate trends of 100 years ago.

No, I mean that last years average global temperature dropped last year the same amount as all of the warming between 1908 and the present.

That's because I'm questioning some of your specific claims and not your overall conclusion (not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it). Let's say I tentatively agree with most of whatever else you say until I find something I don't like.

Fair enough.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

This is what I've always wondered...

a) Ice expands, unlike any other chemical, water expands not shrinks when it freezes. Dint believe me? Try freezing a bottle of water in the freezer.

b) Isn't over 90% of the icecaps underwater? Wouldn't this cause displacement causing the water to rise anyway? The ice melting wouldn't cause a drastic increase in water levels as some people like to think. Only the small amount of ice above water will increase the water levels

c) Since water expands, wouldn't this be causing MORE displacement in the water? Therefor, 90% of the ice, when melted, could possibly cause water levels to be reduced, not increase.

d) Since carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere causing global warming, why is there so much attention towards reducing factory and vehicle emissions, and so little on the amount of forests we are cutting down, which feed off of the carbon dioxide and convert it back into oxygen

 

[blazedaces]

This is what I've always wondered...

a) Ice expands, unlike any other chemical, water expands not shrinks when it freezes. Dint believe me? Try freezing a bottle of water in the freezer.

Water in it's solid state at freezing temperature is slightly more dense than water at it's liquid state at freezing temperature. That's the extent of it. Look up more specifics online if you want exact numbers on density values, but that's about it.

Here's the important part here: warm water is still less dense than ice. Clearly this must occur because we know water vapor is obviously less dense than ice (so somewhere between cold water and water vapor it must become less dense).

b) Isn't over 90% of the icecaps underwater? Wouldn't this cause displacement causing the water to rise anyway? The ice melting wouldn't cause a drastic increase in water levels as some people like to think. Only the small amount of ice above water will increase the water levels

Next time you make any of these claims, by the way, please look up some more info online. There is readily available information that contradicts almost entirely what you say. I'm almost having trouble wondering where you came up with it...

Are 90% of the icecaps underwater? Are all icecaps icebergs? Is that where this misconception comes from?

Again, the ice is still less dense than a large amount of water. A lot of the ice caps, by the way, are above water and, in fact, above land. If the earth's temperature rose dramatically much of the ice on land will melt in areas that are cold enough today to hold ice. Therefore, much of this ice that was frozen in place will melt and eventually reach the oceans.

c) Since water expands, wouldn't this be causing MORE displacement in the water? Therefor, 90% of the ice, when melted, could possibly cause water levels to be reduced, not increase.

I hope you understood from above why this doesn't make sense.

d) Since carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere causing global warming, why is there so much attention towards reducing factory and vehicle emissions, and so little on the amount of forests we are cutting down, which feed off of the carbon dioxide and convert it back into oxygen

We're cutting down forests? Are you talking about lumber companies? There are more trees today than there were a century ago because of lumber companies. It's in their best interest to keep making money and therefore for trees to continue existing. It's not very expensive for them to plant many seeds for every tree they cut down. So that's exactly what they do.

Please do some more research before posting this nonsense.

-blazed

 

[DeliciousCake]

d) Since carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere causing global warming, why is there so much attention towards reducing factory and vehicle emissions, and so little on the amount of forests we are cutting down, which feed off of the carbon dioxide and convert it back into oxygen

Area's with concentrated CO2 emissions tend to be... yes, cities. There's already so few trees in the areas with major emission problems that attempting to plant more trees isn't going to help much, if any. Also, another major issue with global warming is CFC's (chloro fluorocarbons) which breaks down ozone much more dangerously than carbon dioxide, and it can't be used in photosynthesis by plants. So, the amount trees we have isn't exactly an issue, since more than CO2 is harming us.

 

[yossarian22]

A ****ing hoax. I don't see how anyone within the Debate Hall can believe that mainstream bull****.

A simple search on google can disprove man-made Global Warming. It's a minuscule effect if you can call it that.(Man on the climate)

Incidentally, a simple google search can prove that carrots cure cancer.

Y
Even if I accept your premises (show me a reliable source please), that does not mean that the CO2 increase has nothing to do with the temperature increase. It could simply be that there is an additional warming trend superposed which started earlier. And what does "temperature comes before CO2" mean exactly? It's not a binary thing where you can point to a place and say "temperature increase starts here" and "CO2 increase starts here." You have to do some real (gasp!) math.

I am assuming that he is referring to this
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
Vostok Ice Core. CO2 lags behind temperature by some 300-800 years in this particular sample of ice

 

[Dexter Morgan]

I don’t have a problem with someone who wants to care for the environment simply because they care. I don’t have a problem with someone who recycles because they prefer it over throwing it in the garbage, and I don’t have a problem with someone who wants cleaner, safer, and more renewable resources so that the air is clearer.
What I have a problem with are the people who are "going green" because of the propagandized B.S. that gets spewed everyday. What I have a problem with are the people who are pressing for a cleaner Earth because of their own selfish fears. Well, here are the facts for these people. You don’t care about the environment, you care about yourself. If every other day there wasn’t an article on how some iceberg is breaking off and that we’ve caused it (GUESS WHAT-- THIS ISN’T THE FIRST TIME THE ICEBERGS HAVE MELTED!!), and if every other day CNN wasn’t reporting some monumental increase in temperature, and if every other day there wasn’t a politically funded commercial telling us to ’go green’ with some sort of catastrophic prophecy, I can GUARANTEE that half of these present day "green freaks" wouldn’t give a **** about what’s going on.

We need to cut the panic and cut the drama. The world has done this before, it’s a natural process. After an Ice Age (the last one that happened, although quite insignificant was in 1850), the Earth warms naturally. The waters do heat, thanks to a geothermal increase of temperature straight from the core of the earth itself. the icecaps do melt and then guess what-- they freeze again!

If you want to help the environment, go ahead, but don’t do it because of whatever the politicians are telling you. Don’t do it because you’re a Hillary Clinton fan and she says it exists so she must be right. Don’t do it because you THINK, without doing ANY research other than watching T.V., that global warming is a catastrophe. Do it because you care, and because you want to protect the ecosystems that help to balance our world. Not because you think there are going to be 40 hurricanes every season for the next 100 years.

It’s time for America to rid itself from the cloud of fear, angst, and negativity that has plagued us for so long. It’s time for us to realize the truth, and not believe every thing that comes out of the color-coded box that we spend half our lives watching. It’s time, America-- to get real.

 

[DeliciousCake]

I don’t have a problem with someone who wants to care for the environment simply because they care. I don’t have a problem with someone who recycles because they prefer it over throwing it in the garbage, and I don’t have a problem with someone who wants cleaner, safer, and more renewable resources so that the air is clearer.
What I have a problem with are the people who are "going green" because of the propagandized B.S. that gets spewed everyday. What I have a problem with are the people who are pressing for a cleaner Earth because of their own selfish fears. Well, here are the facts for these people. You don’t care about the environment, you care about yourself. If every other day there wasn’t an article on how some iceberg is breaking off and that we’ve caused it (GUESS WHAT-- THIS ISN’T THE FIRST TIME THE ICEBERGS HAVE MELTED!!), and if every other day CNN wasn’t reporting some monumental increase in temperature, and if every other day there wasn’t a politically funded commercial telling us to ’go green’ with some sort of catastrophic prophecy, I can GUARANTEE that half of these present day "green freaks" wouldn’t give a **** about what’s going on.

We need to cut the panic and cut the drama. The world has done this before, it’s a natural process. After an Ice Age (the last one that happened, although quite insignificant was in 1850), the Earth warms naturally. The waters do heat, thanks to a geothermal increase of temperature straight from the core of the earth itself. the icecaps do melt and then guess what-- they freeze again!

If you want to help the environment, go ahead, but don’t do it because of whatever the politicians are telling you. Don’t do it because you’re a Hillary Clinton fan and she says it exists so she must be right. Don’t do it because you THINK, without doing ANY research other than watching T.V., that global warming is a catastrophe. Do it because you care, and because you want to protect the ecosystems that help to balance our world. Not because you think there are going to be 40 hurricanes every season for the next 100 years.

It’s time for America to rid itself from the cloud of fear, angst, and negativity that has plagued us for so long. It’s time for us to realize the truth, and not believe every thing that comes out of the color-coded box that we spend half our lives watching. It’s time, America-- to get real.

Great, you have an opinion about hippies and politics. I see no scientific evidence in your post aside from "lol the icebergs melted before."

 

[Me14k]

Scientists created the fear of global warming for one reason:

They needed more money. Global warming brings about so much more opportunities for these scientists.

/close thread.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Scientists created the fear of global warming for one reason:

They needed more money. Global warming brings about so much more opportunities for these scientists.

/close thread.

Which is a perfectly fine and good assertion to make... if you have evidence to back it up...

*waits patiently for said evidence*

 

[Me14k]

Which is a perfectly fine and good assertion to make... if you have evidence to back it up...

*waits patiently for said evidence*

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen020707.htm

"Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: "Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says." Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics."

Not only do scientists profit directly--but it is supported by the politicians which get necessary funding from it and companies make great profits from the fear of climate disaster.
Looking at these facts--global warming crisis is only supported because it is economically beneficial for it to exist, for as Richard Nixon once said " Change is often resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the present."

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/driessen020707.htm

"Scientists who use climate change to explain environmental changes improve their chances of getting research grants from foundations, corporations – and US government programs that budget a whopping $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007. They also increase the likelihood of getting headlines and quotes in news stories: "Climate change threatens extinction of rare frogs, scientist says." Climate disaster skeptics face an uphill battle on grants, headlines and quotes.

Politicians get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, magically transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows.

Companies in the CAP and EIC can develop and promote new product lines, using tax breaks, subsidies, legal mandates and regulatory provisions to gain competitive advantages. They get favorable coverage from the media, and kid-glove treatment from members of Congress who routinely pillory climate chaos skeptics."

Not only do scientists profit directly--but it is supported by the politicians which get necessary funding from it and companies make great profits from the fear of climate disaster.
Looking at these facts--global warming crisis is only supported because it is economically beneficial for it to exist, for as Richard Nixon once said " Change is often resisted because bureaucrats have a vested interest in the present."

That only proves that politicians are shady (I don't think anyone disputes that), but we knew that already. To claim that climate change is wrong because scientists who support it profit is an ad hominem fallacy. It may very well be wrong/exaggerated but the money flow doesn't prove it. Plus you also seem to say that this was some kind of premeditated hoax, which you have no way of proving. I don't see why it has to be some conspiratorial hoax and not just a rush to judgement based on the limited evidence that was available in the past. It's practically indisputable that the Earth's climate has changed markedly, the point of contention is how much humans are responsible for it.

 

[yossarian22]

Good lord...

So, in a nutshell, the majority of the scientific community is in cahoots with the politicians and the media to swindle money out of us?
Well, I guess it sounded better when wrapped in a thin layer of rhetoric.

What of the following do you think people are more interested in?
1: We are all going to die!
2: We are not going to die.

Of course the media is going to push global warming. Fear sells. They have a duty to their stock holders, not the truth. Sad as it is, it is how the media works.

Of course some of the politicians are going to push it. Fear gets votes. In the 50s, it was fear of the Pinkos and the Reds. Now it is global warming. And some politicians will take the opposite approach. See most of the Republican Party.

And how did they generate those funding numbers? They could just point to most scientists finding global warming correct (hence they received more funding). Either way, the amount of funding each side received is ultimately irrelevant to their conclusions.