PDA

View Full Version : Permafrost



MrBungle
04-25-2011, 11:30
Would some of you well informed folk debunk this? Im still looking for a loophole somewhere in that whole argument, I haven't found one yet.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/

Any reason to raise the alarm?
Is it too late?

bongloads
04-25-2011, 11:50
Global warming is a snowball/domino-effect.




Is it too late?

On paper, no, but in actuality, probably. By relying on our current aptitude of absorbing information about our environment and properly reacting to it, we're doomed. If humanity somehow makes a 180 and focuses on its survival as a whole instead of the survival of 7 billion individuals, we might be able to realize what's happening around us and react before it's too late.

Ya, it's probably too late.

MrBungle
04-25-2011, 12:02
...

Still waiting on a reply to help me back into my bliss realm of ignorance.

Esudar
04-25-2011, 12:09
its true bro

only some outstanding retarded armerican might try to debunk this

MrBungle
04-25-2011, 12:23
So now...who's still crazy enough to take the risk?

Actually it may no longer be just a risk and seems and more like fatality.

Still it just "seems" so.

What I really want to know is, who's crazy enough to attempt at forcing a real verification of risk to fatality?

Like, right now.

Things come to mind:

Stop and leave your car.
Stop buying into mass agriculture.
Stop consuming mass processed industrial goods.
...

I mean we're evidently crazy motherfuckers, why not do it the other way round?
It might just be enough to save it.

nizzie
04-25-2011, 12:24
armerican

An Armenian living in the US? Or someone like EE? :ninja:

Esudar
04-25-2011, 13:09
An Armenian living in the US? Or someone like EE? :ninja:

armerican like ee, yes
trying to stop global warming with his firepower

BulletToothTony
04-25-2011, 13:24
Would some of you well informed folk debunk this? Im still looking for a loophole somewhere in that whole argument, I haven't found one yet.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/

Any reason to raise the alarm?
Is it too late?

"A Project of Center for American Progress Action Fund'

I try to get my science from scienctist's just not chick scienctist's because that makes no sense.

MrBungle
04-25-2011, 13:38
"A Project of Center for American Progress Action Fund'

I try to get my science from scienctist's just not chick scienctist's because that makes no sense.

Do share.

Edit: A nice debate:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&feature=fvwrel

Makestro
04-25-2011, 17:54
I don't think we're the cause of climate change... since studies have shown co2 is healthy for the planet as a whole and our sun affects the weather/climate more than we're giving it credit for.

The Cougar
04-26-2011, 00:53
I don't think we're the cause of climate change... since studies have shown co2 is healthy for the planet as a whole and our sun affects the weather/climate more than we're giving it credit for.
Link to your first point please, and your second point is a straw man.

[LoD] EE
04-26-2011, 01:33
armerican like ee, yes
trying to stop global warming with his firepower

Global Warming is utter bullshit.

Its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Lets blame Earth for the warming on other planets like Jupiter, Mars and Saturn.

Only good a gun will do is to take care of Gore and all others who made up this scheme to get rich on fools like you.

GirlyMan
04-26-2011, 01:38
Climate Change is real. Unfortunately, it's not man made and cannot be averted.

The earth goes through major climate shifts as it travels through it's orbit. Poles shift over time, the axis wobbles constantly and there is no reason to expect things will remain the same forever.

There are some man made factors, though. A weakening ozone layer and magnetic interference with the Schumann resonance means a weaker protection field for the Earth that would protect against solar flares and such events.

Crustal shifts, earthquakes.. the earth cannot sustain it's current geography under the influence of such constant pressures placed upon it. It would be foolhardy to think so.

Yes, things will change. It will be very subtle unless something major happens. Massive earthquake in the wrong place sparking tidal waves, comets, etc. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

GirlyMan
04-26-2011, 02:03
Try to make a bit clearer..

Man made influences that would weaken the Schumann resonance.. satellites, radio waves, etc.. would cause the resonance to weaken. If an electromagnetic storm from the sun were to bombard the Earth with a massive punch, it could be disastrous.

Solar storms, etc, shoot out from the sun all the time and bring with them cosmic radiation that earth protects against with it's own magnetic field. If we weaken that field, and a large storm erupts on the sun and "punches" the earth, our magnetic pole MAY actually shift a large degree. For example, your compasses True North could point towards Shanghai, not the north pole.

To compensate for such an event, the actual physical pole would gradually shift. The north Pole would be, say, more to the south west, and the new North Pole could become, say California.. and you'd have to go west from California to reach Mexico.

And assuming none of that happens, the earth will still change regardless due to events here on Earth I describe in my last post. Earthquakes, crustal shifts, etc. For example, if everything goes relatively well, in one billion years the entire north American continent could be split in half from the Mississippi and west. California could become an island, the North Pole could become a habitable environment.. just from natural forces.

xpiher
04-26-2011, 02:16
Climate Change is real. Unfortunately, it's not man made and cannot be averted.


We are making it go faster.

[LoD] EE
04-26-2011, 02:33
We are making it go faster.

No, we are not. We are nothing compared to the natural cycles.

It was warmer in 1300AD and 1100 BC than it is now and the world didnt end, no reason to believe it will end now.

GirlyMan
04-26-2011, 02:34
We are making it go faster.

To some degree, yes. What we are doing is definitely not helping.

Drilling for oil even, I wonder what sort of consequences that would bring? If you took a straw and sucked the filled out of the cake, would that not compromise the structural integrity of the cake?

But, climate change should be the least of concerns, imo. We'll likely extinct our selves and much of the life on the planet through some science experiment gone wrong.

And the next life to spring forth and develop into sentient beings like ourselves will look at the ruins of our civilization, try and decipher our language and credit these things to their own ancestors. But they'll mistranslate and misinterpret everything, and think the sign that spelled out the formula that destroyed us all, is just our belief that "Man was created from a giant explosion, and formed out of the dust thereof".

;[

Makestro
04-26-2011, 03:27
Link to your first point please, and your second point is a straw man.

I guess I can dig it up but more co2 = better for plant life what = better crop yields and forest growth due to plants growing faster and bigger.

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 03:41
So now...who's still crazy enough to take the risk?

Actually it may no longer be just a risk and seems and more like fatality.

Still it just "seems" so.

What I really want to know is, who's crazy enough to attempt at forcing a real verification of risk to fatality?

Like, right now.

Things come to mind:

Stop and leave your car.
Stop buying into mass agriculture.
Stop consuming mass processed industrial goods.
...

I mean we're evidently crazy motherfuckers, why not do it the other way round?
It might just be enough to save it.

It sounds reasonable, but you are doing precisely what happens to all people who aren't stupid but are not really informed and read a science article, take too fast conclusions.

The articles is stating what they think is a fact with certain evidences: The artic is melting and it is a vicious cycle. Nowhere does it say that we will all burn in flames in 1 year or that it's all because you left your computer on during the night. That is way too egocentric. It is something that happens.

Considering changing overall habits, thinking about it, adapting, etc... is good. But the whole film-ish reaction of "EVERYONE STOP FUCKING DRIVING RITE NOW!!!" is really not well thought.

I'm talking out of ignorance (or rather, not full knowledge) here, but i believe that the disaster it would be for society to take a "drastic" effort against climatic change plus what would happen regarding climatic change anyway is WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY worse than what will actually happen due to climatic change. It's not something that happens from day to night, nor in a couple of years. It's pretty fast, according to everything i've read, but that means decades/centuries; and eventually we will adapt or die, and in any case it won't matter. Earthquakes happen, and shit goes wrong, nothing you can do against it. Anticipating it too much and taking drastic sollutions will probably not solve the problem and it will only give you more troubles.

xpiher
04-26-2011, 03:48
EE;4925267']No, we are not. We are nothing compared to the natural cycles.

It was warmer in 1300AD and 1100 BC than it is now and the world didnt end, no reason to believe it will end now.

Who says anything about the world ending? We will kill ourselves by keeping doing the things we are.

Tenebrion
04-26-2011, 03:52
I hear Y2K is really going to fuck shit up.

[LoD] EE
04-26-2011, 04:25
Who says anything about the world ending? We will kill ourselves by keeping doing the things we are.

The point is, we will still be here after it and the big bad warming isnt going to do shit to really anything at all.

2200 BC we had a warm phase
1700 BC we were in a cold phase
1100 BC we had a warm phase, the Warmest in recorded history
250 BC we had a cold phase
200 AD we had a warm phase
700 AD we had a cold phase, during the Dark Ages
1300 AD we had a war phase, which was warmer than we have right now. 2nd warmest on history
1600 AD That warmth switched to cold, the little ice age, the coldest temps in recorded history
2012 We are still warming back up.

There are large cycle swings to the planet, the solar system, etc. We see warm/cold swings every year between the seasons, imagine the planet has its seasons as well over a larger scale... We will be fine, move along, nothing to see here.

zato`1
04-26-2011, 05:24
EE;4925461']The point is, we will still be here after it and the big bad warming isnt going to do shit to really anything at all.

2200 BC we had a warm phase
1700 BC we were in a cold phase
1100 BC we had a warm phase, the Warmest in recorded history
250 BC we had a cold phase
200 AD we had a warm phase
700 AD we had a cold phase, during the Dark Ages
1300 AD we had a war phase, which was warmer than we have right now. 2nd warmest on history
1600 AD That warmth switched to cold, the little ice age, the coldest temps in recorded history
2012 We are still warming back up.

There are large cycle swings to the planet, the solar system, etc. We see warm/cold swings every year between the seasons, imagine the planet has its seasons as well over a larger scale... We will be fine, move along, nothing to see here.

and then...

APOCALYPSE!

sadmemories20
04-26-2011, 08:56
Would some of you well informed folk debunk this? Im still looking for a loophole somewhere in that whole argument, I haven't found one yet.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/

Any reason to raise the alarm?
Is it too late?



Such a very amazing link!
Thanks you for the post.

Glabro
04-26-2011, 09:44
EE;4925196']Global Warming is utter bullshit.

Its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Lets blame Earth for the warming on other planets like Jupiter, Mars and Saturn.

Only good a gun will do is to take care of Gore and all others who made up this scheme to get rich on fools like you.

I have to agree here.
There is no man-caused global warming - don't fool yourself.
It's all part of Earth natural cycle, which is part of Solar System's natural cycle which is part of Galactic natural cycle and so on and on...

As above, so below. So global warming and hotter weather will influence you and probably also bacteria in your intestines. Let's just hope those bacteria won't be vainglorious enough to think, that the fact that your body temperature is 0.1 degree Celsius higher than normal is because they produced a little bit more gas after you drunk one cold beer too much.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-26-2011, 10:09
Climate Change is real. Unfortunately, it's not man made and cannot be averted.

The earth goes through major climate shifts as it travels through it's orbit. Poles shift over time, the axis wobbles constantly and there is no reason to expect things will remain the same forever.

There are some man made factors, though. A weakening ozone layer and magnetic interference with the Schumann resonance means a weaker protection field for the Earth that would protect against solar flares and such events.

Crustal shifts, earthquakes.. the earth cannot sustain it's current geography under the influence of such constant pressures placed upon it. It would be foolhardy to think so.

Yes, things will change. It will be very subtle unless something major happens. Massive earthquake in the wrong place sparking tidal waves, comets, etc. It's happened before, and it will happen again.

mans certainly aint fucking helping.


I guess I can dig it up but more co2 = better for plant life what = better crop yields and forest growth due to plants growing faster and bigger.

not if crop dies fires/deshydration. Fresh water is going to become extremely rare soon real soon.

the Excuseme
04-26-2011, 10:19
its true bro

only some outstanding retarded armerican might try to debunk this
STFU you fucking Nazi bastard. OP why you so worried over a zone in Everquest, its just a game man.

Bissen
04-26-2011, 12:03
EE;4925196']

Only good a gun will do is to take care of Gore and all others who made up this scheme to get rich on fools like you.

So you don't pay taxes?

/calls the IRS

Esudar
04-26-2011, 12:15
STFU you fucking Nazi bastard. OP why you so worried over a zone in Everquest, its just a game man.

EE confirmed my point.
i think i dont even have to go into it.. gso

BulletToothTony
04-26-2011, 12:20
I don't think we're the cause of climate change... since studies have shown co2 is healthy for the planet as a whole and our sun affects the weather/climate more than we're giving it credit for.

lol wtf is going on up in minnisOtA, you guys have like a derb factory up there? co2 is not "healthy" for the planet.


EE;4925267']No, we are not. We are nothing compared to the natural cycles.

It was warmer in 1300AD and 1100 BC than it is now and the world didnt end, no reason to believe it will end now.

I was unaware they had thermometers back then, they use C or F?


I have to agree here.
There is no man-caused global warming - don't fool yourself.
It's all part of Earth natural cycle, which is part of Solar System's natural cycle which is part of Galactic natural cycle and so on and on...

As above, so below. So global warming and hotter weather will influence you and probably also bacteria in your intestines. Let's just hope those bacteria won't be vainglorious enough to think, that the fact that your body temperature is 0.1 degree Celsius higher than normal is because they produced a little bit more gas after you drunk one cold beer too much.

I'm not sure you even understand what the QQ about globalwarming is about. They are not worried about your body temp raising...:bang:

Bissen
04-26-2011, 12:20
mans certainly aint fucking helping.

Man IS helping. To destroy himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnUjTHB1lvM

Who cares about nature? Man is above nature. He ain't part of it. At least that what he believes.

Rapa Nui (Easter Island, once a tropical paradise, when the dutch arrived not a single tree was there) destroyed themselves by becoming unattached with nature. They needed wood to roll their giant idols in place, only to find themselves trapped on an island abandoned by animals and fauna. We're doing the exact same thing on large scale.

Here's a great horizon documentary on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBTtC4J0OY

Bissen
04-26-2011, 12:23
I was unaware they had thermometers back then, they use C or F?It wasn't recorded back then. Modern science showed it. Icecap measurements and shit. We also know the dinosaurs lived on a MUCH MUCH warmer earth.

Adûn_East
04-26-2011, 12:28
Here's a great horizon documentary on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBTtC4J0OY

Saw this a bit ago, fascinating stuff.

Glabro
04-26-2011, 12:37
I'm not sure you even understand what the QQ about globalwarming is about. They are not worried about your body temp raising...:bang:

I think you don't understand analogy and therefore anything I wanted to say.

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 13:02
not if crop dies fires/deshydration. Fresh water is going to become extremely rare soon real soon.

Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.

Lol apocalyptic people.


lol wtf is going on up in minnisOtA, you guys have like a derb factory up there? co2 is not "healthy" for the planet.



I was unaware they had thermometers back then, they use C or F?



I'm not sure you even understand what the QQ about globalwarming is about. They are not worried about your body temp raising...:bang:

Did you even go to school?

Sqarak
04-26-2011, 13:05
Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.

Lol apocalyptic people.



Did you even go to school?

Fresh drinkable water is rare. That is why industrialized nations recycle it as much as possible.


Did you ever finish elementary school?

Viluin
04-26-2011, 13:06
Tl;dr

When is the apocalypse?

Sqarak
04-26-2011, 13:13
Tl;dr

When is the apocalypse?

Normally it was tomorrow, but I have a meeting at 2, so I had it postponed till next month on the 21st. I hope this doesn't inconvenience you.

Bissen
04-26-2011, 13:15
Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.

Lol apocalyptic people.



Did you even go to school?

Irony at its finest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd9D4J0lag
Full documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1j_LO7mrAQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/755497.stm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=facing-the-freshwater-crisis
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-17/tech/water.crisis_1_water-supply-global-water-crisis-clean-water?_s=PM:TECH

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 13:16
Fresh drinkable water is rare. That is why industrialized nations recycle it as much as possible.


Did you ever finish elementary school?

Ah yeah, and all the animals drink from the water that we recycle, right???

Drinkable water as in actually drinkable is not significantly different in quantity as it has always been, except for normal changes that a lot of people are mentionning here which simply happen, and which even though under obvious contribution of human beings, is stupid to try to favoid.

Drinkable water as in "it tastes good and i'd give it to my children" isn't as common, no, but that's not strange.

Glabro
04-26-2011, 13:18
Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.

Lol apocalyptic people.

It really is rare and is becoming even more rare/precious with every year.

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 13:21
Irony at its finest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd9D4J0lag


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/755497.stm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=facing-the-freshwater-crisis
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-17/tech/water.crisis_1_water-supply-global-water-crisis-clean-water?_s=PM:TECH

Yeah i can make a documentary, say apocalypse is comming and call myself an expert too; and i will have a bunch of other people who want to call themselves experts supporting my expertise.

I didn't even read those articles, some might be actual scientifics that simply state empirical evidences of changes; and then you come over and say apocalypse is coming and we are demons who parasytised earth; or some may say so themselves so you don't have to do the job. I don't really care. Purely scientifically, there's no reason to panic, not because the situation isn't bad, but because situation will be bad whether we panic or not.

Love how reading newspapers now makes you intelligent. So fucking fed up of all these "cult" people who only repeat over and over again what they read and never, ever, think about what they're reading. "Yo, here it says this guy's an expert, and he said apocalypse coming, it's scientific yo! it's not bullshit religion! This is SCIENTIFIC PROVE (most retarded phrase ever)! Also, it blames humans, and we are so powerful and at the same time so evil yo! It's all our responsibility and our fault. Let's not understand what the actual evidences are, let's jump to the conclussions instead, they're much easier!"

/rage.

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 13:23
It really is rare and is becoming even more rare/precious with every year.

Things change, yes; but he didn't say "fresh water is becoming harder to obtain". He said "fresh water will become extremely rare", which just doesn't make any sense.

It's like saying oil will end tomorrow. No it won't, oil is becoming very scarce, but in a general way of talking, there's still tons of oil, it just means that at this rate it is harder to get, more expensive, and each time more, but it won't just "end".

Napalm_Enema
04-26-2011, 13:24
NEXT UP: VOLCANOES releasing their poison gas will kill us all!!

The fuckers that wrote the articles you posted sound to me like the standard run of the mill fear monger that needs to secure some government funding for their 'research' and other bullshit.

Viluin
04-26-2011, 13:34
It really is rare and is becoming even more rare/precious with every year.

Luckily us rich countries should technically be able to afford the mass desalination of water if fresh water runs out.

Poor people gon' die.

Bissen
04-26-2011, 13:35
Yeah i can make a documentary, say apocalypse is comming and call myself an expert too; and i will have a bunch of other people who want to call themselves experts supporting my expertise.

I didn't even read those articles, some might be actual scientifics that simply state empirical evidences of changes; and then you come over and say apocalypse is coming and we are demons who parasytised earth; or some may say so themselves so you don't have to do the job. I don't really care. Purely scientifically, there's no reason to panic, not because the situation isn't bad, but because situation will be bad whether we panic or not.

Love how reading newspapers now makes you intelligent. So fucking fed up of all these "cult" people who only repeat over and over again what they read and never, ever, think about what they're reading. "Yo, here it says this guy's an expert, and he said apocalypse coming, it's scientific yo! it's not bullshit religion! This is SCIENTIFIC PROVE (most retarded phrase ever)! Also, it blames humans, and we are so powerful and at the same time so evil yo! It's all our responsibility and our fault. Let's not understand what the actual evidences are, let's jump to the conclussions instead, they're much easier!"

/rage.

I see I pushed the right button monsieur cockface.

And you are btw the only talking about panicking.

Bissen
04-26-2011, 13:39
Luckily us rich countries should technically be able to afford the mass desalination of water if fresh water runs out.

Poor people gon' die.

We'll sell them their own water to their feeble rich population. The rest will be put to rest. Muaahahahahaha.

[LoD] EE
04-26-2011, 17:09
I was unaware they had thermometers back then, they use C or F?



Educate yourself, moron. (http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php)

BulletToothTony
04-26-2011, 17:28
EE;4926038']Educate yourself, moron. (http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php)

where does it show the projected temp? and what is the +/-?

its ok I'll wait. I love OT discussion threads, its like fighting puppies.


I think you don't understand analogy and therefore anything I wanted to say.


Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.
Lol apocalyptic people.
Did you even go to school?

I did go to college and thats where I heard about this word called "estimate", and how dino's where thought to be coldblooded in the beginning but then they realized how derb that idea was, kinda like the ideas in this thread.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-26-2011, 17:43
Please do remember to phone me when fresh water becomes extremely rare.

Lol apocalyptic people.



Did you even go to school?

are you for real?


http://img856.imageshack.us/i/13freshwateravailabilla.jpg/

Population increase but fresh water dont.

Orolt, you're living in Europe this means you are probably paying for your fresh water. Get a clue. Only a few countries are not going to have water shortage problems before the end of this century.

Orolt Lifebring
04-26-2011, 18:53
Only a few countries are not going to have water shortage problems before the end of this century.


Fresh water is going to become extremely rare soon real soon.

See the difference??? I can agree with the first one, supposing no "sollutions" are thought of before, but the 2nd one is just apocalyptic talking.

Abaratican
04-26-2011, 19:05
http://img856.imageshack.us/i/13freshwateravailabilla.jpg/

Africa ftw

Makestro
04-26-2011, 19:54
lol wtf is going on up in minnisOtA, you guys have like a derb factory up there? co2 is not "healthy" for the planet.


Really? You should rethink what you just said because you seem to be the retard here

MrBungle
04-26-2011, 19:59
EE;4925461']The point is, we will still be here after it and the big bad warming isnt going to do shit to really anything at all.

2200 BC we had a warm phase
1700 BC we were in a cold phase
1100 BC we had a warm phase, the Warmest in recorded history
250 BC we had a cold phase
200 AD we had a warm phase
700 AD we had a cold phase, during the Dark Ages
1300 AD we had a war phase, which was warmer than we have right now. 2nd warmest on history
1600 AD That warmth switched to cold, the little ice age, the coldest temps in recorded history
2012 We are still warming back up.

There are large cycle swings to the planet, the solar system, etc. We see warm/cold swings every year between the seasons, imagine the planet has its seasons as well over a larger scale... We will be fine, move along, nothing to see here.

Hey LOD and all others skeptics out there, skepticism's healthy science!
Here's some more info.

For LOD:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)

And for the rest of you out there thirsty for arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Happy reading!

PS: According to Lindzen in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&feature=fvwrel), Co2 levels can currently reach as high as 600ppm under forest canopy, is this claim valid? I havent found any scientific backing for this, help here would be appreciated. Thanks.

Zezune
04-26-2011, 22:42
EE;4925461']The point is, we will still be here after it and the big bad warming isnt going to do shit to really anything at all.

2200 BC we had a warm phase
1700 BC we were in a cold phase
1100 BC we had a warm phase, the Warmest in recorded history
250 BC we had a cold phase
200 AD we had a warm phase
700 AD we had a cold phase, during the Dark Ages
1300 AD we had a war phase, which was warmer than we have right now. 2nd warmest on history
1600 AD That warmth switched to cold, the little ice age, the coldest temps in recorded history
2012 We are still warming back up.

There are large cycle swings to the planet, the solar system, etc. We see warm/cold swings every year between the seasons, imagine the planet has its seasons as well over a larger scale... We will be fine, move along, nothing to see here.

Numbers and links.
Also, you are doing what we scientists call ignoring the big picture. Its what most uneducated retards do.

Think of it like stocks. Every company goes up and down, but when looking at the bigger picture its easier to see upwards and downward trends.

Grow up imo, preferably before you conspiracy bullshit us into the atmosphere of mars.

I mean shit, seriously, even if it wasn't true, why the fuck would you want us to remain on oil based technology instead of being eco friendly regardless?

MrBungle
04-26-2011, 22:46
Numbers and links.
Also, you are doing what we scientists call ignoring the big picture. Its what most uneducated retards do.

Think of it like stocks. Every company goes up and down, but when looking at the bigger picture its easier to see upwards and downward trends.

Grow up imo, preferably before you conspiracy bullshit us into the atmosphere of mars.

I mean shit, seriously, even if it wasn't true, why the fuck would you want us to remain on oil based technology instead of being eco friendly regardless?

Their usual ways of being so fucking utterly convinced all the time would indeed turn them into spiffingly intelligent beings.

Zezune
04-26-2011, 22:49
Shit, I'd settle for you telling me how much shit we spew into the ozone/atmosphere every year.

Next thing you'll be telling us is that water has memory, homeopathy works, and yahweh exists.

Rule of thumb - If big business is against it, its the right thing to do.

Makestro
04-26-2011, 22:51
I mean shit, seriously, even if it wasn't true, why the fuck would you want us to remain on oil based technology instead of being eco friendly regardless?

We don't, you have to take your fight up with the oil companies who own a majority of alternative energy patents and sit on them because they're already making money this way.... and since oil replenishes it's self(proven by dry wells filling up again) it probably wont happen for another 100 or so years.

Plus since CO2 actually helps the planet, note I'm not syaing ozone depleting agents like aerosol, oil based technology is actually more eco friendly than clean energy.

Zezune
04-26-2011, 22:59
We don't, you have to take your fight up with the oil companies who own a majority of alternative energy patents and sit on them because they're already making money this way.... and since oil replenishes it's self(proven by dry wells filling up again) it probably wont happen for another 100 or so years.

Plus since CO2 actually helps the planet, note I'm not syaing ozone depleting agents like aerosol, oil based technology is actually more eco friendly than clean energy.

Its pointless because without the backing of the general population I can't do much other than buy an electric car and get solar panels.
And the general population is worthless because they are fucking stupid and listen to con artists like you.

I wish you uneducated fucks would just shut the fuck up for once so scientists can fix the world.

Also...LOL@ oil refueling itself. Those dry wells didn't magically refill themselves, other pockets seeped into them.
Go learn exponential growth rates.

Makestro
04-26-2011, 23:02
Its pointless because without the backing of the general population I can't do much other than buy an electric car and get solar panels.
And the general population is worthless because they are fucking stupid and listen to con artists like you.

I wish you uneducated fucks would just shut the fuck up for once so scientists can fix the world.

Also...LOL@ oil refueling itself. Those dry wells didn't magically refill themselves, other pockets seeped into them.
Go learn exponential growth rates.

Science is that plants breath CO2, what science are you referring to? the shit they tell you on TV to scare you....?

Zezune
04-26-2011, 23:06
Science is that plants breath CO2, what science are you referring to? the shit they tell you on TV to scare you....?

o rly? well that solves everthan! lets just give plants cars!
Would you like to share anything else you learned in kindergarden, or would you like to listen to people who dedicate their lives to science?

And on a side note, I did the fucking research myself, but thats ok, I know how morons like you work, theres nothing I can post or say that will make you just shut the hell up.

So im just gonna have to simply ask that you dont breed and stop, just fucking stop and shut up.

Oh, and whoop deee fucking do, you digging up oil saved us for another 100 years, so fucking glad that when the earth ends.....oh wait.

Bissen
04-26-2011, 23:10
And on a side note, I did the fucking research myself
http://polarfieldservice.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/north-pole-environmental-observatory/
Which one is you?

MrBungle
04-26-2011, 23:12
http://polarfieldservice.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/north-pole-environmental-observatory/
Which one is you?

What the fuck are you doing?

Zezune
04-26-2011, 23:19
What the fuck are you doing?

Being an idiot, what else is new? Its OT afterall, nonstop habitual lying and no lifer trolling be the rules here because ppl have nothing better to do with their time and think being mad at stupidity is wrong/bad.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-26-2011, 23:20
See the difference??? I can agree with the first one, supposing no "sollutions" are thought of before, but the 2nd one is just apocalyptic talking.

only countries like Canada, Iceland and the other darkblue are probably still going to be able to use fresh water mostly from rivers at that point. other countries are going to have to rely on desalination which is far from the optimal way of getting fresh water. No electricity no desalinization, etc.


PS: 89 years is very soon on a humanity scale.

Makestro
04-26-2011, 23:26
Being an idiot, what else is new? Its OT afterall, nonstop habitual lying and no lifer trolling be the rules here because ppl have nothing better to do with their time and think being mad at stupidity is wrong/bad.

How am I lying? You're the one who believes what they tell you on television.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

MrBungle
04-26-2011, 23:37
How am I lying? You're the one who believes what they tell you on television.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

lol lol





lol






lolol












































and lol

MrBungle
04-26-2011, 23:39
Let me quote myself here for those who clearly dont understand their own language anymore.


Hey LOD and all others skeptics out there, skepticism's healthy science!
Here's some more info.

For LOD:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-year-natural-cycle.htm)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)

And for the rest of you out there thirsty for arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Happy reading!

Makestro
04-26-2011, 23:47
lol

What's so funny? I posted an article written by a qualified scientist on the subject that CO2 isn't affecting the global warming trends like people are being told. What is the whole basis of man made global warming.

MrBungle
04-27-2011, 00:28
Qualified scientist?

Rumours are this guy hasn't had a single peer-reviewed article on his name for this issue, nor does he source any of the info in that article.

Highly suspect, at the very least...

You're a farce.

Lets see the content of that article in details:


since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming

What evidence, one wonders? Where is it? Links please links...


by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming

Ahem....


So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.

AHEM....For sure huh? Now it can be said with some confidence that he's a clueless pseudo skeptic.


There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

Yeaarh! And now it can be said with some confidence that he's a whacked out zealot, due to these ludicrous absolute statements.


the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year

Even if this were true (I don't think it is), year to year fluctuations are insufficient to draw conclusions from, given the multi-decade trend.

Orolt Lifebring
04-27-2011, 00:41
Science is that plants breath CO2, what science are you referring to? the shit they tell you on TV to scare you....?

Plants don't breathe CO2, they do photosyntesis which turns CO2 into oxygen and organic matter and then breathe oxygen just like animals do. The reason they do photosyntesis is actually to be able to breathe afterwards.

Yes, plants produce more oxygen than they consume, therefore why animals can exist, but they don't "breathe CO2".


Oh, and whoop deee fucking do, you digging up oil saved us for another 100 years, so fucking glad that when the earth ends.....oh wait.

First, i can't understand if you "did the research yourself" why didn't you just tell him that plants don't breathe CO2 as he's saying, which is a fact that you get to know from primary school.

Second, is it me the one talking about apocalypsis??
"Earth" is not gonna "end". There's worrying climatic changes foreseen which will have to be thought about and measures taken, as there's already underway.



PS: 89 years is very soon on a humanity scale.

Not really, acknowledging the problem a lot of sollutions can be thought of. Not sollutions to "avoid" the problem and get back to how it was before, as that's not always the best sollution, but sollutions to somehow counter the problem.

In any case the main problem here is overpopulation imho, it's the cause of most long-term environmental/economical/humanitary/health problems.

Makestro
04-27-2011, 00:46
Plants don't breathe CO2

No shit you fucking moron they don't have lungs, it wasn't meant to be taken as literal breathing I just didn't use the scientific terminology... god damn

Makestro
04-27-2011, 00:53
blah blah blah


http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

co2 isn't to blame deal with it

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-27-2011, 00:57
Not really, acknowledging the problem a lot of sollutions can be thought of. Not sollutions to "avoid" the problem and get back to how it was before, as that's not always the best sollution, but sollutions to somehow counter the problem.

In any case the main problem here is overpopulation imho, it's the cause of most long-term environmental/economical/humanitary/health problems.

you cant really undry dry lakes. You can make your used water more potable to reuse it yes, but it doesnt matter when the source doesnt exist anymore or has moved. The glaciers are eventually going to be completely out. That's very likely going to make a lot of rivers/lakes disappear. The only way we can stop overpopulation is by not trying to save 70s and over's live. Population average age is going to get higher and higher because of science when in fact why would you want to live past 70, 90% of the people cant even enjoy it anyway. Why do we spend hundreds of thousands to maintain vegetable alive when by all-means they are gone. Even on a religious(I'm not) model, their soul is gone yet the body is kept alive.

MrBungle
04-27-2011, 01:01
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/

co2 isn't to blame deal with it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Oh look! Top of the list rebuttal: "It's the Sun!"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

l2read.
Deal with it.

Oh and, stfu once and for all please, randomly googling out articles thinking you're the only one on this earth who could've figured it all out, really isn't doing your intelligence any good.

Ragnarok Delrhe
04-27-2011, 01:02
The methane cattles liberate because we have overpopulation is man-made too.

Orolt Lifebring
04-27-2011, 17:31
you cant really undry dry lakes. You can make your used water more potable to reuse it yes, but it doesnt matter when the source doesnt exist anymore or has moved. The glaciers are eventually going to be completely out. That's very likely going to make a lot of rivers/lakes disappear. The only way we can stop overpopulation is by not trying to save 70s and over's live. Population average age is going to get higher and higher because of science when in fact why would you want to live past 70, 90% of the people cant even enjoy it anyway. Why do we spend hundreds of thousands to maintain vegetable alive when by all-means they are gone. Even on a religious(I'm not) model, their soul is gone yet the body is kept alive.

Well, water doesn't "disappear". It can be consumed in chemical reactions, but afaik, overall more water is produced from chemical reactions than actually consumed; so overall, on a very overall view, water doesn't disappear.

The problem is in what shape it is, and when i say try to work out sollutions it is identifying where is all that water going and trying to use it from there.

Is it on sea?? Well, it seems we might have to work on figuring out more efficient/easier ways of desalinizating/cleaning it; is it on the shape of steam?? Well, try to figure out ways to obtain it in drinkable shapes. Is it just contaminated?? Work on contaminating it less and decontaminating it. Etc, etc, etc... Of course if it is possible to keep rivers and lakes like they are now then do it, but it's not the only possible sollution.

That's what i mean with trying to figure out sollutions.

Environmentalists in general are generally very afraid of changes and don't consider adapting much, because it's not "natural".

Take for example all the people who take efforts in saving endangered species. We could go on and argue about the species which are clearly endangered because of human action, and i'd argue that in the long run, all species are endangered because of some other species or whatever, and that human is as natural as anything else, etc, etc... But let's not jump into that. Koala's for example, apparently are endangered due to their own action, as they tend to eat and eat and eat eucalyptus, so that if they're left in a somehow isolated area of eucalyptus, they end up eating it all when they don't need it and eventually die of hunger. Well, that's sad, but why so many efforts on trying to save them?? Species disappear, it's something natural, imo even if caused by human, it's ok that you "would prefer" they didn't disappear and used your own time and money to save them; but all the laws, investments, general annoyance of people due to endangered species just sickens me. Let them fucking die, ffs; world's not gonna end cos we don't have Koalas or Condors.

Same applies to this, don't be afraid to adapt to a new situation where water is not obtained in the same way that it has always been obtained. Try to adapt, try to find new sollutions, even if they look "artificial" in the start.

Think about lightning rods for example. It's not the same as lightnings are not that big of a deal, i know, but anyway; what would we do without lightning rods?? Deal with lightnings in a much harder, dangerous and unstable way. That doesn't mean that lightning rods is a "bad" sollution, just because it's artificial. It doesn't mean we should change our WHOLE way of life just so that lightnings didn't affect us and that we didn't depend on them to avoid them. Once again, it's an exaggerated example, it's not as important as fresh water supplies, but i hope you get what i mean. Work out a way to obtain fresh water if the supplies we've been using so far are not going to be overall enough, and don't be afraid if they seem "artificial" at first.


I overall agree with the overpopulation thing, and also people shouldn't be so encouraged to have children because the economy is fucked up and it needs new contributors to work. It's an overall retarded situation and it needs a straight cut.

Of course each case is different, i wouldn't negate people to have children if they want to, and i wouldn't take away all support from elder people; but overall i wouldn't encourage having children and i wouldn't give as much forced support to elder and ill people as we have nowadays.

Bissen
04-27-2011, 17:41
http://imagengratis.org/images/1295596142041.jpg

The Cougar
04-27-2011, 20:59
I've read a lot on skepticalscience.com, I've rephrased their arguments in several debates on this forum, quoted and linked it a bit as well as linking its sources.

Yet the same flawed arguments keep popping up, sometimes by the same people who got them disproven last debate. If you only post links to the site I can guarantee that no one is willing to read them, because most people on here are completely disinterested in actually reading things that goes against their opinion and only post the latest fad within the amount of fallacies that exist on the subject. I don't know if it's just a perverse enjoyment of always going against the grain, but it's certainly ironic that these self-proclaimed skeptics are so utterly blind to the obvious holes in some of the arguments they're endorsing. Maybe it's just the bias that gets in the way, but it's amazing how otherwise intelligent people can read a somewhat well-written article on something and then condifently parrot it with contempt and condescension towards anyone who disagrees - all when a simply google-search would explain logically and coherently why it's exactly one hundred percent wrong.

Allow me to exemplify:



Global Warming is utter bullshit.

Its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Lets blame Earth for the warming on other planets like Jupiter, Mars and Saturn.

The funny thing about this argument is that I never have to write a new debunking on it; within every 250 posts I make it pops up in some form or another and I can simply backtrack my posts a couple of pages and link back to the chain of links that goes back to my original reply from 2009(!). If you're one of the roughly everyone who doesn't want to click on links and read argumentation, the gist of it is basically 1) The evidence of other planet warming is miniscule, 2) The evidence of hitherto unknown sun activity being the cause of the additional warming on Earth is at best virtually non-existant (and probably wrong anyway), thus the sun isn't causing this "warming" on other planets and 3) This still doesn't account for mountains of data related to anthropogenic global warming that needs to be explained if the sun was the sole cause of recent warming on Earth.

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=196309&highlight=mars&page=2


By the way, I actually replied to a very similar post in 2008:

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=1414457#post1414457

Why is this significant? Because [LoD] EE posted it, including the exact same arguments that he uses in this topic. Apparently his entire belief system on global warming for three years has been based on these couple of links, and never once did he question it enough to look up the opposing stance on it! This is so laughable it actually saddens me no one is going to read this and realize how funny it is.


All right. As amazing as it might sound, [LoD] EE has another point which he uses to discredit people who believe in this anthropogenic global warming (incidentally also found in the same 2008 topic and recycled here):



Global Warming is utter bullshit.

Its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Lets blame Earth for the warming on other planets like Jupiter, Mars and Saturn.


Well, more exact, it's basically that "climate is affected by natural cycluses". And this one is actually true! Unnuanced of course, devoid of any scientific curiousity or understanding of how it relates to the rest of his argument, but nonetheless... true. And nobody disputes that. Which is why this is a school-example of a straw man fallacy.

Let's be real. Everyone knows that temperature on Earth has changed in the handful of billion years, and no one disputes that when the next time the sun acts up it'll likely override everything we've done to the climate. The whole debate revolves around the degree (if any) we're contributing to the short-term warming of the atmosphere, and if we're causing a feedback that will linger for what's longer than comfortable for humanity. I'm not updated on the prognoses of how a couple of degrees of warming will affect us in say 100 years from now, but it should be obvious to everyone that whether the 1600eds were colder than now is largely irrelevant in this context. Looking at the correlation between temperature increase during the last 70 years or so and the industrial revolution, we might very well be creating something that will affect us severly long before any slow-paced natural solar cyclus kicks in, especially when the very basics of greenhouse gas theory suggests that what we're doing has an affect on our climate that both will linger as well as receive responses from other areas of our planet we're not directly in control of (so-called "positive feedback").


To end, I do take an interest in everything that is in disagreement with the "mainstream" scientists that endorse global warming, and I don't blindly believe everything I'm being told about the subject. (For example, I find the article linked by Makestro very interesting and it was silly to dismss and ridicule it off hand). But there's a huge difference between an educated disagreement and a continuously parroted fallacy. Kudos to you if you bothered with reading any of this!

Esudar
04-27-2011, 21:07
I've read a lot on skepticalscience.com, I've rephrased their arguments in several debates on this forum, quoted and linked it a bit as well as linking its sources.

Yet the same flawed arguments keep popping up, sometimes by the same people who got them disproven last debate. If you only post links to the site I can guarantee that no one is willing to read them, because most people on here are completely disinterested in actually reading things that goes against their opinion and only post the latest fad within the amount of fallacies that exist on the subject. I don't know if it's just a perverse enjoyment of always going against the grain, but it's certainly ironic that these self-proclaimed skeptics are so utterly blind to the obvious holes in some of the arguments they're endorsing. Maybe it's just the bias that gets in the way, but it's amazing how otherwise intelligent people can read a somewhat well-written article on something and then condifently parrot it with contempt and condescension towards anyone who disagrees - all when a simply google-search would explain logically and coherently why it's exactly one hundred percent wrong.

Allow me to exemplify:


The funny thing about this argument is that I never have to write a new debunking on it; within every 250 posts I make it pops up in some form or another and I can simply backtrack my posts a couple of pages and link back to the chain of links that goes back to my original reply from 2009(!). If you're one of the roughly everyone who doesn't want to click on links and read argumentation, the gist of it is basically 1) The evidence of other planet warming is miniscule, 2) The evidence of hitherto unknown sun activity being the cause of the additional warming on Earth is at best virtually non-existant (and probably wrong anyway), thus the sun isn't causing this "warming" on other planets and 3) This still doesn't account for mountains of data related to anthropogenic global warming that needs to be explained if the sun was the sole cause of recent warming on Earth.

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=196309&highlight=mars&page=2


By the way, I actually replied to a very similar post in 2008:

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=1414457#post1414457

Why is this significant? Because [LoD] EE posted it, including the exact same arguments that he uses in this topic. Apparently his entire belief system on global warming for three years has been based on these couple of links, and never once did he question it enough to look up the opposing stance on it! This is so laughable it actually saddens me no one is going to read this and realize how funny it is.


All right. As amazing as it might sound, [LoD] EE has another point which he uses to discredit people who believe in this anthropogenic global warming (incidentally also found in the same 2008 topic and recycled here):



Well, more exact, it's basically that "climate is affected by natural cycluses". And this one is actually true! Unnuanced of course, devoid of any scientific curiousity or understanding of how it relates to the rest of his argument, but nonetheless... true. And nobody disputes that. Which is why this is a school-example of a straw man fallacy.

Let's be real. Everyone knows that temperature on Earth has changed in the handful of billion years, and no one disputes that when the next time the sun acts up it'll likely override everything we've done to the climate. The whole debate revolves around the degree (if any) we're contributing to the short-term warming of the atmosphere, and if we're causing a feedback that will linger for what's longer than comfortable for humanity. I'm not updated on the prognoses of how a couple of degrees of warming will affect us in say 100 years from now, but it should be obvious to everyone that whether the 1600eds were colder than now is largely irrelevant in this context. Looking at the correlation between temperature increase during the last 70 years or so and the industrial revolution, we might very well be creating something that will affect us severly long before any slow-paced natural solar cyclus kicks in, especially when the very basics of greenhouse gas theory suggests that what we're doing has an affect on our climate that both will linger as well as receive responses from other areas of our planet we're not directly in control of (so-called "positive feedback").


To end, I do take an interest in everything that is in disagreement with the "mainstream" scientists that endorse global warming, and I don't blindly believe everything I'm being told about the subject. (For example, I find the article linked by Makestro very interesting and it was silly to dismss and ridicule it off hand). But there's a huge difference between an educated disagreement and a continuously parroted fallacy. Kudos to you if you bothered with reading any of this!

thank you

StainlessSteelRat
04-27-2011, 21:48
I've read a lot ................... example, I find the article linked by Makestro very interesting and it was silly to dismss and ridicule it off hand). But there's a huge difference between an educated disagreement and a continuously parroted fallacy. Kudos to you if you bothered with reading any of this!

We've heard all of this before as you point out. What no one seems to be able to point out is where anyone has been able to establish causation.

All the shit you reference shows correlation. Man-made global warming is a huge unknown.

Just look at the article on all the CO2 and methane in the permafrost. As it melts, those 'pollutants' will be released. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The Cougar
04-27-2011, 23:01
We've heard all of this before as you point out. What no one seems to be able to point out is where anyone has been able to establish causation.

All the shit you reference shows correlation. Man-made global warming is a huge unknown.

Just look at the article on all the CO2 and methane in the permafrost. As it melts, those 'pollutants' will be released. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
I think looking at it from the viewpoint of what came first is too simplistic. We agree upon that an increased temperature leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere, but I (or rather, climate scientists) also believe an increased amount of CO2 also leads to higher temperatures. Hence we get a feedback effect where more CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature, which again increases the amount of CO2. (That's the idea behind the why the article refers to the effects of the permafrost as "the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback".) Correlation does not automatically mean causation, but it is indeed very suggestive, especially when the basic theoretical science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave, as well as both experimental evidence and observations made in our atmosphere supports it.

I know I haven't mentioned exactly how CO2 causes warming, and I'm happy to get into that if you want. I'm curious though, what exactly is "unknown" about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming? Is it simply that you believe increased concentration of CO2 and other (I assume mislabeled) "greenhouse gases" does not affect temperature? Or is it that you believe that our greenhouse gas contribution is not significant?

StainlessSteelRat
04-28-2011, 16:55
I think looking at it from the viewpoint of what came first is too simplistic. We agree upon that an increased temperature leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere, but I (or rather, climate scientists) also believe an increased amount of CO2 also leads to higher temperatures. Hence we get a feedback effect where more CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature, which again increases the amount of CO2. (That's the idea behind the why the article refers to the effects of the permafrost as "the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback".) Correlation does not automatically mean causation, but it is indeed very suggestive, especially when the basic theoretical science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave, as well as both experimental evidence and observations made in our atmosphere supports it.

I know I haven't mentioned exactly how CO2 causes warming, and I'm happy to get into that if you want. I'm curious though, what exactly is "unknown" about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming? Is it simply that you believe increased concentration of CO2 and other (I assume mislabeled) "greenhouse gases" does not affect temperature? Or is it that you believe that our greenhouse gas contribution is not significant?

There is no agreement on whether increased temp leads to more CO2 or vice versa. That's the problem. The evidence and observations you speak of rely on models. Models rely on formula which rely on assumption or theory of how things work. If you tell the model that CO2 creates feedback which increases temp, then your model will give that result.

There is no real data to support this, only models/theory. Historical data shows that the Earth has both been warmer w/ less CO2 and cooler w/ more CO2.

I know how some models predict that CO2 causes warming. And I know how these experiments are created in a lab to support the theory. And it may even be true. My belief is that man-made influence is insignificant and that we don't know that an increase in greenhouse gases results in increased temperature. I don't think they know and they fudge the data to get results that get them $$$.

The Cougar
04-28-2011, 17:54
There is no agreement on whether increased temp leads to more CO2 or vice versa. That's the problem. The evidence and observations you speak of rely on models. Models rely on formula which rely on assumption or theory of how things work. If you tell the model that CO2 creates feedback which increases temp, then your model will give that result.

There is no real data to support this, only models/theory. Historical data shows that the Earth has both been warmer w/ less CO2 and cooler w/ more CO2.

I know how some models predict that CO2 causes warming. And I know how these experiments are created in a lab to support the theory. And it may even be true. My belief is that man-made influence is insignificant and that we don't know that an increase in greenhouse gases results in increased temperature. I don't think they know and they fudge the data to get results that get them $$$.
Okay, thanks. You don't believe that the models are based on any sort of actual observation, so what you're basically saying that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase temperature in our atmosphere.

First of all, we of course have a very good understanding of how CO2 absorbs temperature from theoretical physics and years of lab measurements (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/), from long before global warming was something we were thinking about. I don't think anyone can contest this, mainly because it doesn't take much effort for even your average high school science class to set up an independent experiment that will get similar results. Of course, whether this piece of theory translates to the complexity of our atmosphere or if we're even emitting enough greenhouse gases to affect it at all is a different question altogether.

I'm sure everyone who reads this is familiar with what climate scientists call the greenhouse effect (Again, keep in mind the theory behind the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere precedes the global warming "hysteria" by decades): As solar radiation heats up the Earth, the Earth reradiates infrared radiation into space. Then CO2 absorbs this "outgoing" radiation, for so to release it in all directions, including back towards the Earth. That's in theory at least. And luckily for us there's a way to measure whether this is really what's happening; if CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave in the same way in our atmosphere as in the laboratory, we can via satellite data measure the rate of radiation going out from Earth and compare it to the wavelengths radiation is expected to be absorbed in CO2!

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

Argumentation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Studies:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no


In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

Studies:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml



Historical data shows that the Earth has both been warmer w/ less CO2 and cooler w/ more CO2.
This is a straw man, because no one is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of the Earth's climate. When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.



My belief is that man-made influence is insignificant and that we don't know that an increase in greenhouse gases results in increased temperature.
If you for a second hypothetically accept the premise that an increase greenhouse gases results in increased temperature, it's fairly easy to demonstrate how man-made influence is far from insignificant.

While it's true that human contribution to the carbon cycle is fairly small compared to the natural carbon cycle (29 gigatons vs 750 gigatons), there are three things that cause it to be significant:

1) If Earth's warming is due to greenhouse gases, it makes more sense to look at concentrations in the atmosphere rather than the entire cycle. The burning of previously buried fossil fuel releases a significant amount of additional CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and as a result concentration levels of CO2 has risen 30% - from 280 ppm to 380ppm, an increase that historically has taken 5 000 - 20 000 years occured in only 120 years. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/) The link also shows that it's undeniable that the increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is due to human emissions. While it's fairly technical, the point is that the type of CO2 found increasing in our atmosphere bears the mark of a human fingerprint. Again, empirical evidence.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/keeling.rFF328Oral.pdf

2) The reason for this increase is that human emissions upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle. In fact, the ocean and vegetation are natural carbon sinks that absorbs CO2 in the atmosphere, and they are currently absorbing less than what we're putting out, hence increase in concentrations in the atmosphere. There are also evidence that the ocean's ability to absorb excess CO2 is diminishing, leading to even higher concentration levels in the future (ehh too lazy to find the link).

3) Feedback. Since you wrote that you don't believe that increased temperature leads to increased CO2 levels, I urge you to read the OP again. If greenhouse gases are trapped in the permafrost (which should be fairly easy to establish with simply sampling the earth), then logically a thawing would obviously release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

MrBungle
04-28-2011, 19:29
Okay, thanks. You don't believe that the models are based on any sort of actual observation, so what you're basically saying that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase temperature in our atmosphere.

First of all, we of course have a very good understanding of how CO2 absorbs temperature from theoretical physics and years of lab measurements (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/), from long before global warming was something we were thinking about. I don't think anyone can contest this, mainly because it doesn't take much effort for even your average high school science class to set up an independent experiment that will get similar results. Of course, whether this piece of theory translates to the complexity of our atmosphere or if we're even emitting enough greenhouse gases to affect it at all is a different question altogether.

I'm sure everyone who reads this is familiar with what climate scientists call the greenhouse effect (Again, keep in mind the theory behind the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere precedes the global warming "hysteria" by decades): As solar radiation heats up the Earth, the Earth reradiates infrared radiation into space. Then CO2 absorbs this "outgoing" radiation, for so to release it in all directions, including back towards the Earth. That's in theory at least. And luckily for us there's a way to measure whether this is really what's happening; if CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave in the same way in our atmosphere as in the laboratory, we can via satellite data measure the rate of radiation going out from Earth and compare it to the wavelengths radiation is expected to be absorbed in CO2!

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

Argumentation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Studies:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no


In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

Studies:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml



This is a straw man, because no one is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of the Earth's climate. When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.



If you for a second hypothetically accept the premise that an increase greenhouse gases results in increased temperature, it's fairly easy to demonstrate how man-made influence is far from insignificant.

While it's true that human contribution to the carbon cycle is fairly small compared to the natural carbon cycle (29 gigatons vs 750 gigatons), there are three things that cause it to be significant:

1) If Earth's warming is due to greenhouse gases, it makes more sense to look at concentrations in the atmosphere rather than the entire cycle. The burning of previously buried fossil fuel releases a significant amount of additional CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and as a result concentration levels of CO2 has risen 30% - from 280 ppm to 380ppm, an increase that historically has taken 5 000 - 20 000 years occured in only 120 years. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/) The link also shows that it's undeniable that the increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is due to human emissions. While it's fairly technical, the point is that the type of CO2 found increasing in our atmosphere bears the mark of a human fingerprint. Again, empirical evidence.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/keeling.rFF328Oral.pdf

2) The reason for this increase is that human emissions upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle. In fact, the ocean and vegetation are natural carbon sinks that absorbs CO2 in the atmosphere, and they are currently absorbing less than what we're putting out, hence increase in concentrations in the atmosphere. There are also evidence that the ocean's ability to absorb excess CO2 is diminishing, leading to even higher concentration levels in the future (ehh too lazy to find the link).

3) Feedback. Since you wrote that you don't believe that increased temperature leads to increased CO2 levels, I urge you to read the OP again. If greenhouse gases are trapped in the permafrost (which should be fairly easy to establish with simply sampling the earth), then logically a thawing would obviously release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yup.

Thank you sir.

Now the big question is, what can each individual do?

I look around and all I see is this gigantic mass of people with confused priorities, which isn't their fault necessarily.

For one, I've already refused to drive a fossile fuel car.

Sad things is, Im self-employed, so no boss to call the next morning saying I could be running late because Im cycling to work.
I'd give a tooth to hear a boss's and co-workers' reaction to that though, wouldn't you?

Whatabout this? http://gen.ecovillage.org/

StainlessSteelRat
04-28-2011, 23:41
Okay, thanks. You don't believe that the models are based on any sort of actual observation, so what you're basically saying that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gases increase temperature in our atmosphere.

First of all, we of course have a very good understanding of how CO2 absorbs temperature from theoretical physics and years of lab measurements (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/), from long before global warming was something we were thinking about. I don't think anyone can contest this, mainly because it doesn't take much effort for even your average high school science class to set up an independent experiment that will get similar results. Of course, whether this piece of theory translates to the complexity of our atmosphere or if we're even emitting enough greenhouse gases to affect it at all is a different question altogether.

I'm sure everyone who reads this is familiar with what climate scientists call the greenhouse effect (Again, keep in mind the theory behind the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere precedes the global warming "hysteria" by decades): As solar radiation heats up the Earth, the Earth reradiates infrared radiation into space. Then CO2 absorbs this "outgoing" radiation, for so to release it in all directions, including back towards the Earth. That's in theory at least. And luckily for us there's a way to measure whether this is really what's happening; if CO2 and other greenhouse gases behave in the same way in our atmosphere as in the laboratory, we can via satellite data measure the rate of radiation going out from Earth and compare it to the wavelengths radiation is expected to be absorbed in CO2!

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

Argumentation:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Studies:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no


In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

Studies:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml



This is a straw man, because no one is claiming that CO2 is the only driver of the Earth's climate. When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.



If you for a second hypothetically accept the premise that an increase greenhouse gases results in increased temperature, it's fairly easy to demonstrate how man-made influence is far from insignificant.

While it's true that human contribution to the carbon cycle is fairly small compared to the natural carbon cycle (29 gigatons vs 750 gigatons), there are three things that cause it to be significant:

1) If Earth's warming is due to greenhouse gases, it makes more sense to look at concentrations in the atmosphere rather than the entire cycle. The burning of previously buried fossil fuel releases a significant amount of additional CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and as a result concentration levels of CO2 has risen 30% - from 280 ppm to 380ppm, an increase that historically has taken 5 000 - 20 000 years occured in only 120 years. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/) The link also shows that it's undeniable that the increase in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is due to human emissions. While it's fairly technical, the point is that the type of CO2 found increasing in our atmosphere bears the mark of a human fingerprint. Again, empirical evidence.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/keeling.rFF328Oral.pdf

2) The reason for this increase is that human emissions upsets the natural balance of the carbon cycle. In fact, the ocean and vegetation are natural carbon sinks that absorbs CO2 in the atmosphere, and they are currently absorbing less than what we're putting out, hence increase in concentrations in the atmosphere. There are also evidence that the ocean's ability to absorb excess CO2 is diminishing, leading to even higher concentration levels in the future (ehh too lazy to find the link).

3) Feedback. Since you wrote that you don't believe that increased temperature leads to increased CO2 levels, I urge you to read the OP again. If greenhouse gases are trapped in the permafrost (which should be fairly easy to establish with simply sampling the earth), then logically a thawing would obviously release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Everything from the hockey stick graph to the tree ring analysis have been disputed as to their conclusiveness. I'm not going to do that again. I will just point out the bold part above.

That is the exact point I made already and it is the opposite of the man-made global warming theory which tries to claim that we, man, are increasing CO2 levels which increases temperature.

Regardless, I'm not trying to prove to you that the world is not warming, it is. I'm not trying to prove to you that there isn't more CO2, there is. I'm saying there's nothing, as far as we know, that we can do about it. They don't know what is causing and what is effect. Which means they can't know what to do to affect a change. Nor do they know if a change is even beneficial.

What you cite as 'proof' of man-made warming is not proof btw.

The Cougar
04-29-2011, 01:33
Everything from the hockey stick graph to the tree ring analysis have been disputed as to their conclusiveness. I'm not going to do that again. I will just point out the bold part above.

That is the exact point I made already and it is the opposite of the man-made global warming theory which tries to claim that we, man, are increasing CO2 levels which increases temperature.

I already explained how increased CO2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming. The fact that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes a feedback that again increases warming is NOT the opposite of man-made global warming. The only reason I even made that point is because you said that "there is no agreement on whether increased temp leads to more CO2 or vice versa". Yes, we do in fact agree upon the fact the higher temperatures, the more CO2. You just said so yourself. What we apparently don't agree upon, is whether CO2 affects temperature or not. Either way, the whole idea is that two aren't mutually exclusive, and thinking of it as "what's the cause and what's the effect" is too simplistic. You haven't told me why I'm wrong when I cite the evidence for why we know increased CO2 levels increase temperature, and stating "no, feedback is the opposite of the man-made global warming theory" is evidently exactly wrong on your part.

I haven't made a mention of the hockey stick - it's about temperature increase trends and you already stated that you aren't trying to dispute that temperature is rising, thus I really don't care if you think it's flawed because it's not relevant to this discussion. If you don't believe the tree ring method that's fine too, because there are several other ways we can tell that a lot of the increased amount of CO2 in our atmosphere does in fact come from fossil fuel burning; e.g. oceanic uptake of fossil fuel (see sources in the realclimate link. Actually there are multiple sources that link to several different studies.), and also by measuring the drop in oxygen levels compared to the increase in CO2 (as you would expect when you burn fossil fuel), as well as finding the same isotopes in coral reeves (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204.abstract). And of course there's the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels on a large scale for a couple of decades now... I take it it just dissappears then? Really, of the many things you could doubt about anthropogenic global warming, you doubt that there are large traces of CO2 that stems from fossil fuel in the atmosphere...



Regardless, I'm not trying to prove to you that the world is not warming, it is. I'm not trying to prove to you that there isn't more CO2, there is. I'm saying there's nothing, as far as we know, that we can do about it. They don't know what is causing and what is effect. Which means they can't know what to do to affect a change. Nor do they know if a change is even beneficial.

What you cite as 'proof' of man-made warming is not proof btw.
So we agree that the world is warming, and we agree that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. But you disagree that human's are largely responsible for the latest increase in CO2 levels due to fossil burning, and you also reject the idea that CO2 causes temperature rise in the first place.

I've attempted to show that yes, the latest decades of burning fossil fuel is in fact why we see an increased level of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere today. Not only is this fairly logical, but I've also cited studies that confirms this. I've also shown fairly conclusively that CO2 does rise temperature, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and theoretical science and an abundance of laboratory results confirm this. In addition I've illustrated how CO2 interacts with radiation in our atmosphere and cited undeniable empirical evidence of this, which you've apparently dismissed as "not proof". The obvious and suggestive correlation between temperature and CO2 (which I've claimed is due to increased CO2 levels and increased temperature affecting each other mutually, labeled "feedback") should not even be necessary to point out as the logical conclusion of the (largely uncontested by you) material above is that the majority of the recent warming trends is due to man, namely decades of fossil fuel burning on a large scale and the inevitable emissions of carbon into the atmosphere that resulted from it.

So, then, if this is not enough, I wonder what exactly would constitute as "proof" of man-made global warming for you?

Death's Chill
04-29-2011, 02:33
The planet goes through cycles (always has) and while the planet is warming now it will undergo extreme cooling again leading to another ice age. So? It's not our fault. We contribute only a very, very small part of the problem, and even if we dedicated our entire efforts towards stopping global warming, there's nothing we can do. We could reduce our C02 emissions to 0 but it wouldn't stop it.

Methane is far more potent and we release that just by surviving, so do most animals. C02 is barely worth mentioning, it would have to be several orders of magnitude higher in concentration to affect the climate. What it DOES affect is the quality of the air for our own health though, so it should be eliminated.

tehWise
04-29-2011, 04:13
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/

^^ See with your own eyes how much we've fucked ourselves/our environment.

Beyond that look at biodiversity, we've lost most of the variety in the crops we grow for food.

The great famine in the 1800's was caused by a pathogen/blight that affected the most commonly grown species of potato for food, a large percentage of the population of Ireland died from starvation. Many others left out of desperation.

In 1844 Ireland produced 14,862 tons of potatos before being struck by a new pathogen which wiped out their entire crops for years to come. Production in 1846, fell to 2,999 tons! Basically only potatoes that weren't the species that caught the blight survived.

We used to grow thousands of types of potatoes, apples, corn, etc Indian corn is an excellent example. Native Americans/Latin Americans normally would grow domesticated corn near wild corn in hopes it would breed and diversify. It's an ancient practice of farming to cross plants with traits you want to create a hearty strain. Marijuana is probably the most diverse plant on earth most likely to resist blight from all the variety lol.

Here in the UNITED STATES the chestnut blight killed off THE LARGEST TREE IN THE FOREST on the east coast, the American Chestnut tree. In 1904 blight started killing off all the healthy American chestnut trees. There was a short period from 1904 until almost 1920 where there was an abundance of American chestnut lumber because all the tree's started dying and were cut down. Many barns on the east coast built between 1904-1920 have $$$ chestnut timber in their construction.

I used to dismantle old barns and sell chestnut lumber for more than any imported exotic lumber because it's all but extinct (can only get from taking down buildings or finding a sunken log). Wormy chestnut is most famous though the non wormy is more rare because it pre-dates the blight.

If we ever get a blight that affects wheat, rice, corn, etc in a manner we cannot counter, we're fucked.

Chandrasekhar
04-29-2011, 04:41
I've read a lot on skepticalscience.com, I've rephrased their arguments in several debates on this forum, quoted and linked it a bit as well as linking its sources.

Yet the same flawed arguments keep popping up, sometimes by the same people who got them disproven last debate. If you only post links to the site I can guarantee that no one is willing to read them, because most people on here are completely disinterested in actually reading things that goes against their opinion and only post the latest fad within the amount of fallacies that exist on the subject. I don't know if it's just a perverse enjoyment of always going against the grain, but it's certainly ironic that these self-proclaimed skeptics are so utterly blind to the obvious holes in some of the arguments they're endorsing. Maybe it's just the bias that gets in the way, but it's amazing how otherwise intelligent people can read a somewhat well-written article on something and then condifently parrot it with contempt and condescension towards anyone who disagrees - all when a simply google-search would explain logically and coherently why it's exactly one hundred percent wrong.

Allow me to exemplify:


The funny thing about this argument is that I never have to write a new debunking on it; within every 250 posts I make it pops up in some form or another and I can simply backtrack my posts a couple of pages and link back to the chain of links that goes back to my original reply from 2009(!). If you're one of the roughly everyone who doesn't want to click on links and read argumentation, the gist of it is basically 1) The evidence of other planet warming is miniscule, 2) The evidence of hitherto unknown sun activity being the cause of the additional warming on Earth is at best virtually non-existant (and probably wrong anyway), thus the sun isn't causing this "warming" on other planets and 3) This still doesn't account for mountains of data related to anthropogenic global warming that needs to be explained if the sun was the sole cause of recent warming on Earth.

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=196309&highlight=mars&page=2


By the way, I actually replied to a very similar post in 2008:

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=1414457#post1414457

Why is this significant? Because [LoD] EE posted it, including the exact same arguments that he uses in this topic. Apparently his entire belief system on global warming for three years has been based on these couple of links, and never once did he question it enough to look up the opposing stance on it! This is so laughable it actually saddens me no one is going to read this and realize how funny it is.


All right. As amazing as it might sound, [LoD] EE has another point which he uses to discredit people who believe in this anthropogenic global warming (incidentally also found in the same 2008 topic and recycled here):



Well, more exact, it's basically that "climate is affected by natural cycluses". And this one is actually true! Unnuanced of course, devoid of any scientific curiousity or understanding of how it relates to the rest of his argument, but nonetheless... true. And nobody disputes that. Which is why this is a school-example of a straw man fallacy.

Let's be real. Everyone knows that temperature on Earth has changed in the handful of billion years, and no one disputes that when the next time the sun acts up it'll likely override everything we've done to the climate. The whole debate revolves around the degree (if any) we're contributing to the short-term warming of the atmosphere, and if we're causing a feedback that will linger for what's longer than comfortable for humanity. I'm not updated on the prognoses of how a couple of degrees of warming will affect us in say 100 years from now, but it should be obvious to everyone that whether the 1600eds were colder than now is largely irrelevant in this context. Looking at the correlation between temperature increase during the last 70 years or so and the industrial revolution, we might very well be creating something that will affect us severly long before any slow-paced natural solar cyclus kicks in, especially when the very basics of greenhouse gas theory suggests that what we're doing has an affect on our climate that both will linger as well as receive responses from other areas of our planet we're not directly in control of (so-called "positive feedback").


To end, I do take an interest in everything that is in disagreement with the "mainstream" scientists that endorse global warming, and I don't blindly believe everything I'm being told about the subject. (For example, I find the article linked by Makestro very interesting and it was silly to dismss and ridicule it off hand). But there's a huge difference between an educated disagreement and a continuously parroted fallacy. Kudos to you if you bothered with reading any of this!

Is it really necessary to point out that Lod EE is an idiot? .. everyone knows that already.

MrBungle
04-29-2011, 09:22
So, then, if this is not enough, I wonder what exactly would constitute as "proof" of man-made global warming for you?

He doesn't know, he's always been up to finding tricky spins of logic to maintain status-quo, for some perv reason.

Special K
04-29-2011, 09:40
I enjoy watching people without a science education invoke these folksy graft-jobs of common sense and wikipedia to validate their own opinion.

StainlessSteelRat
04-29-2011, 14:20
I already explained how increased CO2 is both a cause and an effect of global warming. The fact that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere causes a feedback that again increases warming is NOT the opposite of man-made global warming.

There is no need for you to explain anything. The studies you are so fond of don't even attempt to claim causation because there is historical evidence that contradicts that claim.


The only reason I even made that point is because you said that "there is no agreement on whether increased temp leads to more CO2 or vice versa".

That a causal relationship is yet to be determined is the whole problem with the man-made warming claim. Even if you assume that increases in CO2 are man-made.


Yes, we do in fact agree upon the fact the higher temperatures, the more CO2. You just said so yourself. What we apparently don't agree upon, is whether CO2 affects temperature or not. Either way, the whole idea is that two aren't mutually exclusive, and thinking of it as "what's the cause and what's the effect" is too simplistic. You haven't told me why I'm wrong when I cite the evidence for why we know increased CO2 levels increase temperature, and stating "no, feedback is the opposite of the man-made global warming theory" is evidently exactly wrong on your part.

I don't need to tell you why you are wrong w/ every citation you make. I've seen all those studies before. They have been disputed before. They are not conclusive within their field of study, why should I treat them like scripture?


I haven't made a mention of the hockey stick - it's about temperature increase trends and you already stated that you aren't trying to dispute that temperature is rising, thus I really don't care if you think it's flawed because it's not relevant to this discussion. If you don't believe the tree ring method that's fine too, because there are several other ways we can tell that a lot of the increased amount of CO2 in our atmosphere does in fact come from fossil fuel burning; e.g. oceanic uptake of fossil fuel (see sources in the realclimate link. Actually there are multiple sources that link to several different studies.), and also by measuring the drop in oxygen levels compared to the increase in CO2 (as you would expect when you burn fossil fuel), as well as finding the same isotopes in coral reeves (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2204.abstract). And of course there's the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels on a large scale for a couple of decades now... I take it it just dissappears then? Really, of the many things you could doubt about anthropogenic global warming, you doubt that there are large traces of CO2 that stems from fossil fuel in the atmosphere...

It's not about what I believe. The tree ring study was disputed. It was one of the studies that was revealed to have been fudged by the email leaks.


So we agree that the world is warming, and we agree that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. But you disagree that human's are largely responsible for the latest increase in CO2 levels due to fossil burning, and you also reject the idea that CO2 causes temperature rise in the first place.

Correct with the exception of the last part. Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect. Our atmosphere is much more complicated however and what exactly all of this means is not known. For all we know, it is the rise in temperature that is causing the CO2 to increase and reducing man-made CO2 emissions will do nothing because the earth is seeking a new equilibrium and will naturally create CO2 to compensate for what we do not produce. The huge increase in crop yields and the need for that increase is just one reason why the increase in CO2 levels is good. Maybe mother nature is responding by finding a new balance that allows for a further increase? Maybe it's just a natural cycle?


I've attempted to show that yes, the latest decades of burning fossil fuel is in fact why we see an increased level of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere today. Not only is this fairly logical, but I've also cited studies that confirms this. I've also shown fairly conclusively that CO2 does rise temperature, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and theoretical science and an abundance of laboratory results confirm this. In addition I've illustrated how CO2 interacts with radiation in our atmosphere and cited undeniable empirical evidence of this, which you've apparently dismissed as "not proof". The obvious and suggestive correlation between temperature and CO2 (which I've claimed is due to increased CO2 levels and increased temperature affecting each other mutually, labeled "feedback") should not even be necessary to point out as the logical conclusion of the (largely uncontested by you) material above is that the majority of the recent warming trends is due to man, namely decades of fossil fuel burning on a large scale and the inevitable emissions of carbon into the atmosphere that resulted from it.

So, then, if this is not enough, I wonder what exactly would constitute as "proof" of man-made global warming for you?

You draw false conclusions by linking scientific studies that you don't think anyone can read, understand, or that haven't been disputed already by other scientists.

Take this one for example: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Remember your claim?

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

You assert that this study proves man-made CO2 is increasing the radiative effect of our atmosphere by reflecting more 'CO2 wavelength' radiation back to earth. Actually, the study concludes that:

"The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration."

There is no conclusion regarding CO2 'specific' wavelength bullshit like you implied. Atmospheric water vapor is also responsible. What's the ratio of atmospheric water vapor to CO2 in our atmosphere?

Also, regarding this little tidbit:

When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.

For the sun to have been cooler, it must by definition be warmer today. So how can you conclude that current warming of the earth is unrelated to a warming of the sun?

And don't cite more studies. They aren't conclusive either, on either side of the debate. The sooner you accept the fact that the proverbial 'they' don't know, the better off you will be. You are just choosing to assist in a transfer of or sharing of power between the traditional MIC and the new EnvironmentalIC.

On a side note, I just wanted to let Special K know how special he/she really is. It's always a pleasure when sheeple join the discussion. A word of caution, however, when following others too closely, as opposed to thinking for yourself, you will often find your head up someone's ass before you know it. Messy situation.

MrBungle
04-29-2011, 19:25
There is no need for you to explain anything. The studies you are so fond of don't even attempt to claim causation because there is historical evidence that contradicts that claim.



That a causal relationship is yet to be determined is the whole problem with the man-made warming claim. Even if you assume that increases in CO2 are man-made.



I don't need to tell you why you are wrong w/ every citation you make. I've seen all those studies before. They have been disputed before. They are not conclusive within their field of study, why should I treat them like scripture?



It's not about what I believe. The tree ring study was disputed. It was one of the studies that was revealed to have been fudged by the email leaks.



Correct with the exception of the last part. Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect. Our atmosphere is much more complicated however and what exactly all of this means is not known. For all we know, it is the rise in temperature that is causing the CO2 to increase and reducing man-made CO2 emissions will do nothing because the earth is seeking a new equilibrium and will naturally create CO2 to compensate for what we do not produce. The huge increase in crop yields and the need for that increase is just one reason why the increase in CO2 levels is good. Maybe mother nature is responding by finding a new balance that allows for a further increase? Maybe it's just a natural cycle?



You draw false conclusions by linking scientific studies that you don't think anyone can read, understand, or that haven't been disputed already by other scientists.

Take this one for example: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Remember your claim?

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

You assert that this study proves man-made CO2 is increasing the radiative effect of our atmosphere by reflecting more 'CO2 wavelength' radiation back to earth. Actually, the study concludes that:

"The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration."

There is no conclusion regarding CO2 'specific' wavelength bullshit like you implied. Atmospheric water vapor is also responsible. What's the ratio of atmospheric water vapor to CO2 in our atmosphere?

Also, regarding this little tidbit:

When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.

For the sun to have been cooler, it must by definition be warmer today. So how can you conclude that current warming of the earth is unrelated to a warming of the sun?

And don't cite more studies. They aren't conclusive either, on either side of the debate. The sooner you accept the fact that the proverbial 'they' don't know, the better off you will be. You are just choosing to assist in a transfer of or sharing of power between the traditional MIC and the new EnvironmentalIC.

On a side note, I just wanted to let Special K know how special he/she really is. It's always a pleasure when sheeple join the discussion. A word of caution, however, when following others too closely, as opposed to thinking for yourself, you will often find your head up someone's ass before you know it. Messy situation.

How much should it actually take for you to see that warming trends measured in the past shows something's been doing 5000 years work in just 30?

Are we considered such special creatures we'd be left witnessing the first, never-before-seen natural warming trend on record?

You're doubting science altogether now?

...

Also to quote Cougar:

Really, of the many things you could doubt about anthropogenic global warming, you doubt that there are large traces of CO2 that stems from fossil fuel in the atmosphere...

And you still say we don't know?
As in, we shouldn't ever be allowed to know.

lol

gotcha.


What's the ratio of atmospheric water vapor to CO2 in our atmosphere?

It's as relevant as to how much of it evaporates due to its related Co2 effects on temperature...


For the sun to have been cooler, it must by definition be warmer today. So how can you conclude that current warming of the earth is unrelated to a warming of the sun?

Because it's been shown that despite sunspots temperature going down recently, earth temperature's on the rise still.

You may show us studies explaining that fact's unconclusiveness...


You are just choosing to assist in a transfer of or sharing of power between the traditional MIC and the new EnvironmentalIC.

Don't we all know which side you chose, perhaps "undeliberately" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGSBF9JPVXw)?

StainlessSteelRat
04-29-2011, 22:25
How much should it actually take for you to see that warming trends measured in the past shows something's been doing 5000 years work in just 30?

Go go hockey stick!


Are we considered such special creatures we'd be left witnessing the first, never-before-seen natural warming trend on record?

lol, just let Cougar argue his side. While I don't agree with him, he is, at least, making his points intelligently. rofl, "first" warming trend.....


You're doubting science altogether now?

And you still say we don't know?
As in, we shouldn't ever be allowed to know.

lol

gotcha.

Yeah, you got it. A+ for reading comprehension for you today.


It's as relevant as to how much of it evaporates due to its related Co2 effects on temperature...

lol


Because it's been shown that despite sunspots temperature going down recently, earth temperature's on the rise still.

You may show us studies explaining that fact's unconclusiveness...

gobble gobble gobble

It is clear you are afflicted w/ FiM disease. Seek medical help.

Orolt Lifebring
04-29-2011, 22:30
How much should it actually take for you to see that warming trends measured in the past shows something's been doing 5000 years work in just 30?

Any link to that well-explained page which states that??

Cos i'm pretty sure you just totally made that up.

StainlessSteelRat
04-29-2011, 22:31
Any link to that well-explained page which states that??

Cos i'm pretty sure you just totally made that up.

http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/2010/04/as-manns-hockey-stick-is-attacked-the-church-steps-in-to-defend-it/

MrBungle
04-29-2011, 23:24
Go go hockey stick!



lol, just let Cougar argue his side. While I don't agree with him, he is, at least, making his points intelligently. rofl, "first" warming trend.....



Yeah, you got it. A+ for reading comprehension for you today.



lol



gobble gobble gobble

It is clear you are afflicted w/ FiM disease. Seek medical help.

Clearly for your own childish amusement.
Sure, Cougar then.

Hockey Stick indeed (http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm)

MrBungle
04-29-2011, 23:45
Any link to that well-explained page which states that??

Cos i'm pretty sure you just totally made that up.

Think what you want.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=10

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm)

Jonte912
04-29-2011, 23:51
I don't see why people cry and shit and cry some more about this kind of stuff.




WE WILL ALL BE FUCKING DEAD WHEN IT HAPPENDS.


so who cares? :)
I know I don't

bongloads
04-29-2011, 23:58
Hockey Stick indeed (http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm)

Seems like every graph/study supports it.

In order for the hockeystick theory to be wrong, there's gotta be a VERY compelling counter-arguments with strong scientific studies debunking it, which don't seem to exist. It seems like the biggest detractors from the hockeystick theory would rather attempt to poke holes in the avalanche of evidence rather than bring their own explanation to the table.

MrBungle
04-30-2011, 00:18
Seems like every graph/study supports it.

In order for the hockeystick theory to be wrong, there's gotta be a VERY compelling counter-arguments with strong scientific studies debunking it, which don't seem to exist. It seems like the biggest detractors from the hockeystick theory would rather attempt to poke holes in the avalanche of evidence rather than bring their own explanation to the table.

Dont panic!
http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/2010/04/as-manns-hockey-stick-is-attacked-the-church-steps-in-to-defend-it/

GirlyMan
04-30-2011, 00:36
Labeling the skeptics of climate change holocaust deniers and terrorists isn't going to help. Instead of trying to start WW3 why not do something?

Oh right, you can't.

Everyone wants a clean planet. Unfortunately we can't have one. Our governments will continue to start wars for oil and use depleted uranium as ammunition. Water-powered cars will still be kept from us, and the companies that pollute the most will be moved to China.

Nothing will get anyone to change their ways until their children are born with two heads and require a puffer for each head to control it's asthma.

GirlyMan
04-30-2011, 00:55
That's right. BBC can say it's real all they want and tell me to turn my nightlight off when I go to bed. But guess what?

I didn't drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, nor am I responsible for spilling millions of gallons of oil in the gulf!

I didn't start a company that produces lead-painted childrens toys that are choking hazards and inject millions of tonnes are carbon dioxide and noxious chemicals into the environment!

I am not responsible for climate change. I have no power to change it, therefore I am not responsible.

Why attack your fellow man on such issues, when the subhuman government officials that have us on their leash are using us for entertainment like a dog fight? This is how wars are started and it wont be Obama volunteering to go overseas.

Lord Bulleteus
04-30-2011, 01:36
http://www.suite101.com/content/greenhouse-gas-theory-discredited-by-coolant-carbon-dioxide-a365870

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146138/146138

il just leave these here

The Cougar
04-30-2011, 02:45
There is no need for you to explain anything. The studies you are so fond of don't even attempt to claim causation because there is historical evidence that contradicts that claim.
The correlation between increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature is obvious, but causation can't be read out the graph. Good, I agree with that, and I'm not claiming otherwise. You, however, is claiming that by looking at the historical evidence we can tell that it is "contradicting" man-made global warming. That's a logical inconsistency. If we can't tell causation from a graph, then we can't rule out causation from a graph. The fact that no one attempts to claim causation on the basis of historical data is not because it is contradicting, it is because it is a scientifically fallacious way of proving something. Your wording makes it seem like scientists are conviniently ignoring historical evidence, something that couldn't be further from the truth.

I hope you realize that the method of argument I'm making here (however much you disagree with it) on how CO2 affects temperature does not start nor end with a graph of earlier temperatures and atsmohperic CO2 levels, it rests on conclusions based on what I believe is empirical evidence. It makes no sense for you to keep stating in different ways that correlation does not prove causation when it's not the point of my argument at all.



That a causal relationship is yet to be determined is the whole problem with the man-made warming claim. Even if you assume that increases in CO2 are man-made.
Based on your position I agree with you. This is the main point we disagree on. I explained how feedback works because the phrasing of your original comment made it (at least to me) seem like you rejected the idea of temperature increasing CO2 levels as well as the other way around. Now that I've read your posts I realize that this isn't the case, you're fine with increased temperature increasing CO2 levels, but you see no evidence of CO2 increasing temperature. Which is why I've been trying to concentrate on showing how CO2 acts in our atmosphere.



I don't need to tell you why you are wrong w/ every citation you make. I've seen all those studies before. They have been disputed before. They are not conclusive within their field of study, why should I treat them like scripture?
Well if you're going to dismiss every point as make as "wrong" and "disputed" without any sort or argumentation I'm afraid the discussion wont be going too far... but I think it's kind of interesting that every study I cite has been disputed and are inconclusive, but every rebuttal you have read (hockey stick, tree ring study etc.) is apparently undeniable truth.



It's not about what I believe. The tree ring study was disputed. It was one of the studies that was revealed to have been fudged by the email leaks.
Actually, it is about what you believe. Because if you say that the tree ring study was disputed, but that every other type of study that lead to results consistent with it was not, that's certainly a strong belief in the scientists that "disputed" the tree ring study and a strong disbelief in the scientists that confirmed its results.

Especially since you're not going to follow up on the extended conclusion of your point, which is that we don't know that a large amount of CO2 in our atmosphere stems from fossil fuel burning. If you agree that it does, why does it even matter?




Correct with the exception of the last part. Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect. Our atmosphere is much more complicated however and what exactly all of this means is not known.
If greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect, then all of it exactly means that temperatures increase when we we emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The "our atmosphere is complicated" claim is actually fairly fallacious, and at best a ridiculously bold claim on your part, as a huge amount of experiments have been conducted here on Earth in atmospheres exactly... umm, exactly like here on Earth. In addition I've provided you with evidence that shows that it behaves exactly the same on a larger scale (why shouldn't it?) which you've of course dismissed, although it's a rather logical conclusion if you accept the premise that greenhouse gases do indeed cause a greenhouse effect.

So the burden on proof is now on you. Prove why the theory is wrong, show with empirical evidence that greenhouse gases act differently in our atmosphere than it does in the mountain of laboratory experiments, and show why the well-established laws of radiation in theoretical physics does not apply when it comes to applying greenhouse gases to our atmosphere!


For all we know, it is the rise in temperature that is causing the CO2 to increase and reducing man-made CO2 emissions will do nothing because the earth is seeking a new equilibrium and will naturally create CO2 to compensate for what we do not produce. The huge increase in crop yields and the need for that increase is just one reason why the increase in CO2 levels is good. Maybe mother nature is responding by finding a new balance that allows for a further increase? Maybe it's just a natural cycle?
Mere speculation. And I dare say, it has all been proven wrong multiple times (see what I did there?).

Jokes aside, the comment about CO2 increase being good for crops sounds like a gross oversimplification, but I wont even begin to argue the net worth or loss of it here as it isn't relevant to the discussion. For all I know you could be right.

Regarding your first point here though. Stating that temperature is because of CO2 increase is partly right because of feedback; as temperature increases more natural CO2 will be released from previously natural traps of CO2 (like permafrost). But in the sense of what I think you're trying to claim, you're totally off base here. The CO2 increase in our atmosphere lately is mainly due to fossil fuel emissions, and this should be undeniable, even if you're still hung up on the "disputed" tree ring studies I'm fairly sure we no matter what agree on the fact that humans have done it on a large scale for several decades now.

As for the "equillibrium theory". Well, it's kind of hard for Mother Nature to create CO2 in the same pace as we humans do now should humans suddenly stop emissions, as CO2 sinks in the carbon cycle is nowhere as fast as humans at releasing CO2 and because the rest of the fossiled fuel on Earth will remain fossiled, meaning no more rapid additions to the carbon cycle. (Unless she suddenly decides to start manifacturing carbon I guess, although I'm fairly sure carbon is a chemical element that originates from stars.) But it's true that due to feedback, temperatures will continue to rise for a while and therefore affect also CO2 levels.



You draw false conclusions by linking scientific studies that you don't think anyone can read, understand, or that haven't been disputed already by other scientists.

Take this one for example: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Remember your claim?

And indeed, over a 26 years period satellites measure less heat escaping into space at the wavelengths CO2 absorbs heat (confirmed multiple times by several papers using data from different satellites).

In addition, by measuring radiation in the opposite direction, i.e. from our atmosphere down to the surface, we find that more heat is returning at CO2 wavelengths. This combined should be empirical evidence as good as any, and it's certainly not "relying on models".

You assert that this study proves man-made CO2 is increasing the radiative effect of our atmosphere by reflecting more 'CO2 wavelength' radiation back to earth. Actually, the study concludes that:

"The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration."

There is no conclusion regarding CO2 'specific' wavelength bullshit like you implied. Atmospheric water vapor is also responsible. What's the ratio of atmospheric water vapor to CO2 in our atmosphere?]
All right. That study shows that the there is an increased downward infrared radiation, which while consistent with the theory I posted and the point I'm making, admittedly doesn't back up my claim that downward radiation has increased on the wavelengths specific to CO2. I'm sorry. So here is a study that shows that a closer examination of the downward infrared radiation and how it has increased because CO2 and other greenhouse gases:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

"[...] This code [FASCOD3 radiation code] has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Of course, the word "model" will scare you, and I'm sure everything we don't understand in the methodology will scare you as well. I suppose it's fairly simple to argue how man-made global warming isn't real when your premise is that every acclaimed methodology they use is a hoax, but it does make your arguments seem very circlish.

Anyway, thanks for the sourcecheck and I'm glad my assertion wasn't completely baseless. One last thing about water vapor; it's is the most dominant greenhouse gas, and it is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. I'm sure you remember that positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming in the first place. Implying that the conclusion of the study you cited is proving me wrong because water vapour is "more reponsible" is an absurd argument to me, considering more water vapour in the atmosphere is the result of more greenhouse gases in the first place. (Of course that's assuming you argue on my premises that CO2 increases temperature.)




Also, regarding this little tidbit:

When CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the Earth still has maintained a lower temperature it's probably due to the sun being cooler. The point is that CO2 does affect climate, and that the sun currently can't be the reason for the warming trend we're seeing right now.

For the sun to have been cooler, it must by definition be warmer today. So how can you conclude that current warming of the earth is unrelated to a warming of the sun?
Because the sun cycles has been accounted for and does not explain the sudden warming


And don't cite more studies. They aren't conclusive either, on either side of the debate. The sooner you accept the fact that the proverbial 'they' don't know, the better off you will be. You are just choosing to assist in a transfer of or sharing of power between the traditional MIC and the new EnvironmentalIC.
Invoking the "we can't know for sure either way"-argument is never going to win you any debate. If this had been a debate about evolution and I had cited a study done by biologists on microevolution no one would have questioned it validity and instead argued what it implied. Just because your starting position is that all studies done by climate scientists are riddled with flaws doesn't mean no one else takes an interest in knowing that there are actually real scientists researching this subject, that they aren't so incompetent that they forget to account in the sun when it's the main driver of the Earth's climate, and that their methodology is in fact fairly advanced.

The Cougar
04-30-2011, 02:55
Actually, I'll sum up your position real quick for you:


You agree with me on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes a CO2 effect:

- "Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect."

You agree with me on the fact that humans have been emitting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere?

- "?"

You agree that temperature is rising:

- "I'm not trying to prove to you that the world is not warming, it is."


So basically:

Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere -> CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases temperature -> Temperature is rising in the atmosphere

But the conclusion is that there is no causative link between humans and global warming?

ExcursionRob
04-30-2011, 14:03
global warming is the beginning of te new flood age and Noahs arc will rise again.

StainlessSteelRat
04-30-2011, 16:32
The correlation between increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature is obvious, but causation can't be read out the graph. Good, I agree with that, and I'm not claiming otherwise. You, however, is claiming that by looking at the historical evidence we can tell that it is "contradicting" man-made global warming. That's a logical inconsistency. If we can't tell causation from a graph, then we can't rule out causation from a graph. The fact that no one attempts to claim causation on the basis of historical data is not because it is contradicting, it is because it is a scientifically fallacious way of proving something. Your wording makes it seem like scientists are conviniently ignoring historical evidence, something that couldn't be further from the truth.

No, it's not inconsistent. It is always easier to disprove than to prove. A causal relationship would require that temperature increase when CO2 increases (ceterus paribus). The historical data does not show this. So you can rule out a causal relationship; it is a much simpler burden but that doesn't make it illogical.


I hope you realize that the method of argument I'm making here (however much you disagree with it) on how CO2 affects temperature does not start nor end with a graph of earlier temperatures and atsmohperic CO2 levels, it rests on conclusions based on what I believe is empirical evidence. It makes no sense for you to keep stating in different ways that correlation does not prove causation when it's not the point of my argument at all.

Then you should realize that your opinion is being based on the conclusions/opinions of some scientists who earn a living based on the opinions/conclusions they publish. It's what you would call an incentive. I know your argument. I refuse to accept it at this time based on the fact that there is no consensus w/ the interpretations of data you choose to believe.


Based on your position I agree with you. This is the main point we disagree on. I explained how feedback works because the phrasing of your original comment made it (at least to me) seem like you rejected the idea of temperature increasing CO2 levels as well as the other way around. Now that I've read your posts I realize that this isn't the case, you're fine with increased temperature increasing CO2 levels, but you see no evidence of CO2 increasing temperature. Which is why I've been trying to concentrate on showing how CO2 acts in our atmosphere.

And you have not succeeded. The studies you cite base their conclusions on lab experiments where our atmosphere can not be replicated and/or base their conclusions on something other than that which you put forth.


Well if you're going to dismiss every point as make as "wrong" and "disputed" without any sort or argumentation I'm afraid the discussion wont be going too far... but I think it's kind of interesting that every study I cite has been disputed and are inconclusive, but every rebuttal you have read (hockey stick, tree ring study etc.) is apparently undeniable truth.

I'm not trying to make you buy an electric car. I'm just telling you to leave me the fuck alone w/ your global warming religion. I am not interested in forcing you to accept one side as gospel, only to show you that there are two sides here; only to show you that the issue is extremely gray and inconclusive.


Actually, it is about what you believe. Because if you say that the tree ring study was disputed, but that every other type of study that lead to results consistent with it was not, that's certainly a strong belief in the scientists that "disputed" the tree ring study and a strong disbelief in the scientists that confirmed its results.

Especially since you're not going to follow up on the extended conclusion of your point, which is that we don't know that a large amount of CO2 in our atmosphere stems from fossil fuel burning. If you agree that it does, why does it even matter?

It's about what you believe. I don't believe anything except that nothing is certain.


If greenhouse gases cause a greenhouse effect, then all of it exactly means that temperatures increase when we we emit more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The "our atmosphere is complicated" claim is actually fairly fallacious, and at best a ridiculously bold claim on your part, as a huge amount of experiments have been conducted here on Earth in atmospheres exactly... umm, exactly like here on Earth. In addition I've provided you with evidence that shows that it behaves exactly the same on a larger scale (why shouldn't it?) which you've of course dismissed, although it's a rather logical conclusion if you accept the premise that greenhouse gases do indeed cause a greenhouse effect.

Obviously, it has not been replicated or, once again, higher CO2 levels in the past would have lead to higher temps. The information is inconsistent and inconclusive. Add to that the blatant manipulation of data.... But go ahead and drink the koolaid.


So the burden on proof is now on you. Prove why the theory is wrong, show with empirical evidence that greenhouse gases act differently in our atmosphere than it does in the mountain of laboratory experiments, and show why the well-established laws of radiation in theoretical physics does not apply when it comes to applying greenhouse gases to our atmosphere!

The burden of proof is not on me b/c I'm not trying to steal your money in the name of the flying spaghetti monster.



Mere speculation. And I dare say, it has all been proven wrong multiple times (see what I did there?).

You did nothing. I accept that what I said is speculation. That's the point.


Regarding your first point here though. Stating that temperature is because of CO2 increase is partly right because of feedback; as temperature increases more natural CO2 will be released from previously natural traps of CO2 (like permafrost). But in the sense of what I think you're trying to claim, you're totally off base here. The CO2 increase in our atmosphere lately is mainly due to fossil fuel emissions, and this should be undeniable, even if you're still hung up on the "disputed" tree ring studies I'm fairly sure we no matter what agree on the fact that humans have done it on a large scale for several decades now.

Humans have done what? Emit CO2? Sure.

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

All things are relative.


As for the "equillibrium theory". Well, it's kind of hard for Mother Nature to create CO2 in the same pace as we humans do now should humans suddenly stop emissions, as CO2 sinks in the carbon cycle is nowhere as fast as humans at releasing CO2 and because the rest of the fossiled fuel on Earth will remain fossiled, meaning no more rapid additions to the carbon cycle. (Unless she suddenly decides to start manifacturing carbon I guess, although I'm fairly sure carbon is a chemical element that originates from stars.) But it's true that due to feedback, temperatures will continue to rise for a while and therefore affect also CO2 levels.

First, its not a theory, it's garbage speculation which is the point I was making.


All right. That study shows that the there is an increased downward infrared radiation, which while consistent with the theory I posted and the point I'm making, admittedly doesn't back up my claim that downward radiation has increased on the wavelengths specific to CO2. I'm sorry. So here is a study that shows that a closer examination of the downward infrared radiation and how it has increased because CO2 and other greenhouse gases:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

"[...] This code [FASCOD3 radiation code] has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Of course, the word "model" will scare you, and I'm sure everything we don't understand in the methodology will scare you as well. I suppose it's fairly simple to argue how man-made global warming isn't real when your premise is that every acclaimed methodology they use is a hoax, but it does make your arguments seem very circlish.

Models don't scare me. People not understanding models do. Do you understand the part below? Did you read it before citing the study? Are you willing to just accept what they have done? I can't just accept it and I certainly can't confirm it w/ the information provided w/o some serious research.

In order to extract the greenhouse flux
from individual gases, the background
emission of the atmosphere was simulated
using the radiative transfer code, FASCOD3
(Clough et al., 1988). The simulations
incorporated the temperature, relative
humidity and pressure profiles from
radiosonde measurements obtained at
Maniwaki, Quebec, a location 280 km distant
from Peterborough. A constant mixing ratio
profile of 360 ppmv was used for carbon
dioxide (IPCC, 1995) and the concentrations
of other background gases were taken from
the AFGL Atmospheric Constituent profiles
(Anderson et al., 1986) and scaled to current
tropospheric concentrations (IPCC, 1995).
The line transition parameters for the


Anyway, thanks for the sourcecheck and I'm glad my assertion wasn't completely baseless. One last thing about water vapor; it's is the most dominant greenhouse gas, and it is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. I'm sure you remember that positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming in the first place. Implying that the conclusion of the study you cited is proving me wrong because water vapour is "more reponsible" is an absurd argument to me, considering more water vapour in the atmosphere is the result of more greenhouse gases in the first place. (Of course that's assuming you argue on my premises that CO2 increases temperature.)

Never said it proved you wrong. I merely stated that it was not supporting your claim. Nor did I ever claim it was 'more responsible'. Although it is 'more' responsible simply b/c there is more of it.


Because the sun cycles has been accounted for and does not explain the sudden warming

No they haven't. They have no idea for sure.


Invoking the "we can't know for sure either way"-argument is never going to win you any debate. If this had been a debate about evolution and I had cited a study done by biologists on microevolution no one would have questioned it validity and instead argued what it implied. Just because your starting position is that all studies done by climate scientists are riddled with flaws doesn't mean no one else takes an interest in knowing that there are actually real scientists researching this subject, that they aren't so incompetent that they forget to account in the sun when it's the main driver of the Earth's climate, and that their methodology is in fact fairly advanced.

I'm not trying to win a debate. Just leave me and the US economy alone until you have something conclusive.

And your 'real' scientists are the ones that drive all this research and the ones that faked it and withheld the raw data from the rest of the scientists. Are you so stupid that you don't see most of these studies cite data from IPCC reports? The same reports that have now been found to be suspect? /sigh

mr doom
04-30-2011, 16:49
We are making it go faster.

Seems like we are following a nice saying
"Don't put off till tomorrow, what you can do today."

Weeking
04-30-2011, 17:01
Would some of you well informed folk debunk this? Im still looking for a loophole somewhere in that whole argument, I haven't found one yet.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/tundra-part-1-the-permafrost-wont-be-perma-for-long/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/04/science-nsf-tundra-permafrost-methane-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-venting/

Any reason to raise the alarm?
Is it too late?

No. Earth has been heading out of the ice-age for the last 10 thousand years or more. Finally we can normal non-ice age.

Not too late to prevent it, but it would probably need human activity having a net cooling effect on the climate since it would have heated up by itself anyway/eventually. Trying to do it by not emitting gases to the atmosphere though is horribly retarded, damaging, expensive, totalitarian and ineffective. We could come up with much better ways to terraform the planet. F ex genetically engineer bacteria having a cooling effect, ways of killing the bacteria having a warming effect (virii, antibiotics), blocking out parts of the sun, dumping ash and similar particles into the atmosphere, cover the ice with a more reflecting coating, changing the tilt of the earth so that the populated parts get less sun or even stopping the rotation of the earth so that the dark part becomes livable (it the heating gets extreme and we ways to create food without sunlight.)

Weeking
04-30-2011, 17:09
Actually, I'll sum up your position real quick for you:


You agree with me on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes a CO2 effect:

- "Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect."

You agree with me on the fact that humans have been emitting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere?

- "?"

You agree that temperature is rising:

- "I'm not trying to prove to you that the world is not warming, it is."


So basically:

Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere -> CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases temperature -> Temperature is rising in the atmosphere

But the conclusion is that there is no causative link between humans and global warming?

Humans don't emit a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to what volcanoes and the ocean manage to emit just by itself or compared to the total amount there already. And it's it not even an important greenhouse gas. Water is the most important greenhouse gas/liquid by a freaking fucking hellofa shitload margin. it makes CO2 seem like a drop in the ocean. You'd be more right trying to accredit global warming to water vapors emitted from tall factory pipes and airplanes.

And anyway, the effect of the greenhouse is that plants grow better, not that it is too hot to stay there comfortably for humans. Do you want to live in a greenhouse with lots of appetizing food or starve out in the cold? If you choose the later, I'll be in the greenhouse waiting for you to die so I can ignore you.

Orolt Lifebring
04-30-2011, 17:18
Actually, I'll sum up your position real quick for you:


You agree with me on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes a CO2 effect:

- "Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect."

You agree with me on the fact that humans have been emitting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere?

- "?"

You agree that temperature is rising:

- "I'm not trying to prove to you that the world is not warming, it is."


So basically:

Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere -> CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases temperature -> Temperature is rising in the atmosphere

But the conclusion is that there is no causative link between humans and global warming?

Not saying i think there is no relation at all, but from a logical point of view, what you just did is a falacy. (Not easily translatable into pure logical symbols though, but i'll put an example).

-I poisoned my dog.

-Poison kills dogs.

-My dog died.

Therefore, my dog died because i poisoned him.

Not true, as my dog died when a car ran over him after i poisoned him.

On the CO2/global warming case, the problem is that even though there is evidence and theory that it is a greenhouse gas that reflects radiation; that is on a smaller and much simpler model; and when it comes to the atmosphere and all the variables and unknowns there is, it can't be made clear if it is actually doing that much effect or not.

Personally, i think that it is indeed one of the main causes, but not the only one; but i do think that society tends to blame itself way too much for things which they couldn't/can't really control or that it is not worth controlling; and that predictions are overall exaggerated.

There is a problem, and that problem is on a mid-high degree human-caused. But that problem is not entirely human's fault and it's not apocalypse.

StainlessSteelRat
04-30-2011, 18:49
To put myself in perspective for you, Cougar:

There is science and economic incentive in favor of fracking. I don't buy into that either. It's just one more example of science failing (so far) to make its case one way or the other.

The Cougar
04-30-2011, 20:58
Humans don't emit a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere compared to what volcanoes and the ocean manage to emit just by itself or compared to the total amount there already. And it's it not even an important greenhouse gas. Water is the most important greenhouse gas/liquid by a freaking fucking hellofa shitload margin. it makes CO2 seem like a drop in the ocean. You'd be more right trying to accredit global warming to water vapors emitted from tall factory pipes and airplanes.
Sigh, I already went over all of this in previous posts and all your points are completely unnuanced or just straight up wrong. Human emissions of CO2 is significant as it has caused a rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by 30% and is exhausting natural CO2 sinks like the ocean by causing inbalance in the carbon cycle. CO2 is the driving force between the last decade's temperature increase: The reason the temperature increase began in the first place is because carbon gases that was previously buried underground for millions of years has been released by humans, which causes feedback in our climate, including more water vapor in the atmosphere and even more increases in temperature.

If say a fixed amount of increase in CO2 would normally only increase the the temperature by 1 degree C, the effects of the increased water vapor resulting from that temperature increase instead puts it at 3 degrees C. That means water vapor is "more important" than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but it also shows that by increasing CO2 we're increasing temperature at a much more rapid rate than one might expect precisely because there are feedback from amplifiers such as water vapor.



And anyway, the effect of the greenhouse is that plants grow better, not that it is too hot to stay there comfortably for humans. Do you want to live in a greenhouse with lots of appetizing food or starve out in the cold? If you choose the later, I'll be in the greenhouse waiting for you to die so I can ignore you.
You're conviniently ignoring the obvious point that increased temperatures will also lead to drought, increased sea levels and insect flora. But hell, again, I'm not here to argue the net worth or loss of global warming, I'm here to show people that it's real and that humans is the driving force behind it. If everyone accepts that then I would be happy to hear people arguing about consequenses, but alas we're not that lucky.

Hypothetically, maybe a global warming of a couple of degrees would be beneficial to humanity as a whole if everyone optimized resource spendage and began relocating from places global warming would affect negatively. In reality though, the lag in human reaction will make it more likely that some unlucky people will suffer disastrous consequenses while us lucky sobs here in Norway enjoy the nice summer weather. But I'm not here to pass judgement and attempt to steal your money, I'm just trying to put some dogmas to rest.

The Cougar
04-30-2011, 21:11
Not saying i think there is no relation at all, but from a logical point of view, what you just did is a falacy. (Not easily translatable into pure logical symbols though, but i'll put an example).

-I poisoned my dog.

-Poison kills dogs.

-My dog died.

Therefore, my dog died because i poisoned him.

Not true, as my dog died when a car ran over him after i poisoned him.

You miss the whole picture here. It isn't a logical fallacy when such a relation isn't the base of my argument - I've already explained how the "dog died of poison" so to speak. I just find it curious that he doesn't see any link between the events at all, especially when all the evidence points at one direction (no car tire marks or anything of the sort!). The only real objection he has is that the methods the vet used to establish poisoning is inconclusive simply because he doesn't understand it.

Imagine if you were put on trail for poisoning your dog and this was the circumstances. I can assure you there would be no room for reasonable doubt among any jury.

The Cougar
04-30-2011, 23:13
No, it's not inconsistent. It is always easier to disprove than to prove. A causal relationship would require that temperature increase when CO2 increases (ceterus paribus). The historical data does not show this. So you can rule out a causal relationship; it is a much simpler burden but that doesn't make it illogical.
You can't rule out a causal relationship because historical data doesn't show it.

If I say "This graph shows correlation, but we can't prove causation from it", it is indeed logically inconsistent for you to state "I agree, and because causation can't be directly proven from this graph, it means it isn't there".



Then you should realize that your opinion is being based on the conclusions/opinions of some scientists who earn a living based on the opinions/conclusions they publish. It's what you would call an incentive. I know your argument. I refuse to accept it at this time based on the fact that there is no consensus w/ the interpretations of data you choose to believe.
While I don't understand the nuances, the whole premise is very logical to me. The fact that thousands of serious scientists publish peer-reviewed research and data that largely backs it up is just icing.

I understand and respect your position of critically questioning "truths" that scientists want us to take for granted. I think it's both natural and imperative that one questions such things. But I also think in this case there is no longer any reason to doubt the main premise; that man-made CO2 causes global warming and is the main reason for the Earth's current warming trend. Everything else, like consequenses and solutions, and even the that data might be sometimes be exaggerated or corrupted to ensure funding, I will remain skeptic about. The whole antrhopogenic global warming might be a huge convinience for environmentalists and leftist governments, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.



And you have not succeeded. The studies you cite base their conclusions on lab experiments where our atmosphere can not be replicated and/or base their conclusions on something other than that which you put forth.
To state that we can't make functioning models that serve as reduplications of our atmosphere is a bold claim that goes far beyond accusing only global warming-endorsers.



I'm not trying to make you buy an electric car. I'm just telling you to leave me the fuck alone w/ your global warming religion. I am not interested in forcing you to accept one side as gospel, only to show you that there are two sides here; only to show you that the issue is extremely gray and inconclusive.
Don't project onto me a stance that I don't agree with. I'm not trying to make you buy an electric car neither. I'm merely showing you and everyone here a bit of what I consider to be evidence for global warming, and also to kill off some dogma that pollutes the serious discussion. I'm not forcing you to accept anything you don't want to, and when we're both done here you'll most likely hold the same opinion (though I'm already sure it will be slightly more educated, as will mine).



It's about what you believe. I don't believe anything except that nothing is certain.
You're willing to believe that a couple of disputions of a couple of areas of the anthropogenic global warming evidence somehow greyens the whole thing. I'm actually quite familiar with the hockey stick argument, and I've also seen the dispution be disputed so to say, inclusive numerous other independent studies that concludes the exact same thing as the hockey stick without taking the same approach. The same was evidently true when you said the tree ring study had been disproved and I showed a couple of other studies that agreed with its conclusion. These things make me question the validity of these alleged disputions, but you still seem to hold them in such high regard that it hasn't occured to you to look up whether they actually hold water. Similarily, both of them seem to argue from a very scientifically technical standpoint, but this time you have no problem accepting them as truth, because they let you dismiss man-made global warming as "inconclusivve and disputed".

I know you enjoy pretending your position more exalted than mine, but it's not true. You've picked a side, and you readily agree with scientists that backs up your view while rejecting everyone else. You've already projected your fear by stating that I'm trying to force my opinion on you when I had no such intentions. Believe me; I live in Norway, a country far more likely to intervene in my personal life based on things like global warming. I don't want it to be true any more than you do.




Obviously, it has not been replicated or, once again, higher CO2 levels in the past would have lead to higher temps. The information is inconsistent and inconclusive. Add to that the blatant manipulation of data.... But go ahead and drink the koolaid.
CO2 levels in the past has lead to higher temperatures if we can conclude that CO2 leads to higher temperatures based on the evidence we observe today. Basically, we follow the scientific method and establish the causal link based on empirical evidence. If you don't think the evidence is conclusive, that's okay. But what you're doing by claiming the above is the exact opposite, you're staring at a graph and concluding "it can't be this way now because it wasn't like this in the past" which is committing the exact logical fallacy I've pointed out numerous times already.



The burden of proof is not on me b/c I'm not trying to steal your money in the name of the flying spaghetti monster.
Neither am I, which we have established. I'm not trying to achieve anything other than personal growth in both of us by having this discussion. But logically, you have to explain exactly why CO2 behaves differently in our atmosphere than in theoretical and experimental physics. You overstepped when you claimed that CO2 works differently in our atmosphere because it is "more complex", so it's only reasonable that you explain what exactly is so complicated about it that our models can't reduplicate it. Or at least you could concede that your point basically boils down to "I don't trust the models", which I think might be directly refutable with enough research and professional knowledge about them.



You did nothing.
I made a joke.



Humans have done what? Emit CO2? Sure.

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

All things are relative.
And if you go back to reading the introduction of the study I linked about downward radiation, the scientists evidently realized the effects of water vapor, clouds and day/night time, accounted for it in the measurements and thereby isolated the effect of the various greenhouse gases. Which illustrates my point that water vapor isn't something that climate scientists doesn't know about, on the contrary it's recognized as one of the large amplifiers of CO2:

"How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C."




First, its not a theory, it's garbage speculation which is the point I was making.
Yes, and speculation is easily dismissed as speculation while something with scientific basis actually takes a bit of effort to refute. That's why I even bothered responding to it, to show the contrast between loosely thought up speculation and a solid scientific theory.



Models don't scare me. People not understanding models do. Do you understand the part below? Did you read it before citing the study? Are you willing to just accept what they have done? I can't just accept it and I certainly can't confirm it w/ the information provided w/o some serious research.

In order to extract the greenhouse flux
from individual gases, the background
emission of the atmosphere was simulated
using the radiative transfer code, FASCOD3
(Clough et al., 1988). The simulations
incorporated the temperature, relative
humidity and pressure profiles from
radiosonde measurements obtained at
Maniwaki, Quebec, a location 280 km distant
from Peterborough. A constant mixing ratio
profile of 360 ppmv was used for carbon
dioxide (IPCC, 1995) and the concentrations
of other background gases were taken from
the AFGL Atmospheric Constituent profiles
(Anderson et al., 1986) and scaled to current
tropospheric concentrations (IPCC, 1995).
The line transition parameters for the

I read it, and I actually also read the study. The terms in the part you quoted might not be exactly layman, but with the help of an aquintance at my university that studies physics I managed to discern its meaning and their purpose. Of course I can't confirm their findings nor point of eventual flaws in their methodology, but that's why we generally have to put our trust in the system of peer-reviewing scientific publishments. For example, astronomers uses (to me) somewhat similar terms when they explain the method they used to find out something cool, and I would have to study physics for a year to keep up with it. But since I assume their paper has been peer-reviewed, I'll believe them until something else comes up.



No they haven't. They have no idea for sure.
Climate scientists certainly have "an idea" of whether the sun has shown signs of activity or not based on several satellite measurements (they haven't). I'm sure you might know whether the data flawed or not, but either way they do actually pay attention to sun activity. The argument goes something along the lines of "CO2 increases in the atmosphere explains the reason warming, and we have no reason to believe the sun is responsible because it hasn't shown any signs of increased activity since 1976, the point in time where (probably not coincidentally) correlation between sun activity and temperature stops".

(Note: Not a citation.)



I'm not trying to win a debate. Just leave me and the US economy alone until you have something conclusive.
All right, I was going to send you a recycle bin and an electric car but now you get neither!



And your 'real' scientists are the ones that drive all this research and the ones that faked it and withheld the raw data from the rest of the scientists. Are you so stupid that you don't see most of these studies cite data from IPCC reports? The same reports that have now been found to be suspect? /sigh
I'm well aware that some parts of the IPCC has been criticized, but I was under the assumption that it wasn't mainly concerning the collecting of data, but rather the interpretation of it. Either way, a link would be beneficial for this sort of claim, because I could at least compare the data used in the studies I cited to the ICPP data and check for myself if it is at all related.

MrBungle
05-01-2011, 00:53
"I agree, and because causation can't be directly proven from this graph, it means it isn't there".

It's the exact same fallacy creationists pull when confronted by scientists about God.

"If science can't prove the existence of God, it can't disprove it either for certain, hence God can still exist."

I admit it's a bit of shit time for people to realise this global warming fact on top of all the other problems we have today, yep, but what would you rather have SSRat?
Merry Christmas?

The Cougar
05-01-2011, 22:10
All right, I think I've had enough of this for a while, thus I present my "closing statement" so to speak. The whole "quote war" where every few sentences will be picked apart and responded to is a practice ill-suited for debate, and only serves to diffuse the main arguments. Instead I'll quickly sum up the gist of where our argument is at now (however you should read my previous post for clarification at some of your points). Feel free to respond, but I wont promise I'll have the energy to continue the point-for-point argument indefinitely.

CO2 is a gas that we humans have been releasing relatively large quantities of at a significant rate over the last few decades. The temperature has also been rising in the same period of time, and we believe it's due to CO2. We then must prove a causal relationship between the two, which we have, namely that theoretical physics and a large amount of confirming labratory results AND observations shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes a greenhouse effect (which you agreed with) in our atmosphere. The only argument you responded with is that the conditions of our atmosphere is somehow different than what we assume or that models show, a claim that is supported by absolutely no evidence on your part. And despite these glaring facts and the obvious causal relationship between CO2 and temperature (which you in your own words agreed with, you just don't think this is what is occuring in our atmosphere [1]), you still see the last decades of the observed warming trend as some sort of a statistical fluke unrelated to the large emissions of a greenhouse gas that theoretically should increase our greenhouse effect. Without coming up with any sort of conflicting theory that better explains the warming trend and also explains why CO2 does not increase warming in our atmosphere - assumingly because you don't have one.

And, it should be obvious that you don't have a better theory, because you claim assumed disputions and corruption of data in some areas of global warming science, though it does nothing to take away from the main points of the debate. You simply use it to question the validity of just about every scientist handling the subject, providing you an illusionary wedge between the mountains of actual evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming and yourself to create a tiny area of space where you can still doubt its conclusions. You claim that the historical data proves that there is no causal relationship between an increase in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, but not only is this conclusion largely fallacious, it's also evidently wrong as already shown by the peer-reviewed research I cited above, methods of science you have yet to make any attempt at disproving.

You accuse me of trying to "force an opinion down your throat" and want me to "leave you alone", when your participation in this debate is entirely voluntarily. You imply I'm being part of an "global warming religion"-agenda that wants to "steal your money", projecting upon me motives and opinions that I don't hold at all. All I want is to show you that while you should certainly question the motives of the governments that acts in the name of the danger of anthropogenic global warming, the bias towards your mission of preventing the government to impose upon your freedom should not get in the way of the devotion of accurate science that should be the basis of the debate.


1: You said that CO2 increase temperature, thus there is by definiton a causal relationship. However, you don't think there's a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and an increase in Earth's temperature. What I said might be slick semantically, but it's nonetheless a hundred percent true.

MrBungle
05-02-2011, 19:27
And it's not like we haven't the potential to do great either..

StainlessSteelRat
05-02-2011, 20:38
Are you seriously trying to defend your person with regards to the economic outcomes attempting to be forced upon us by the global warming religion? Obviously, you, personally, will not be stealing from me. But you are representing their theories here. You are advocating on their behalf. No shit you don't want to steal from me.........

Regardless, you are still attempting to misrepresent my position.

We then must prove a causal relationship between the two, which we have,

No, you haven't.

And despite these glaring facts and the obvious causal relationship between CO2 and temperature (which you in your own words agreed with, you just don't think this is what is occuring in our atmosphere [1]),

No, I don't agree with it. No one even attempts to make the claim that a causal relationship exists. They only seek to make us act based on the correlation.

Without coming up with any sort of conflicting theory that better explains the warming trend

How about the ice age ended and we have been warming ever since?

because you claim assumed disputions and corruption of data in some areas of global warming science,

I don't claim anything. The studies are disputed by scientists. The data was manipulated. All of this is undisputed fact.

You said that CO2 increase temperature, thus there is by definiton a causal relationship. However, you don't think there's a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 and an increase in Earth's temperature. What I said might be slick semantically, but it's nonetheless a hundred percent true.

No, I don't believe I did say anything to that effect.

The terms in the part you quoted might not be exactly layman, but with the help of an aquintance at my university that studies physics I managed to discern its meaning and their purpose. Of course I can't confirm their findings nor point of eventual flaws in their methodology, but that's why we generally have to put our trust in the system of peer-reviewing scientific publishments.

The terms in that section are easily understood by anyone w/ half a brain. It means they used data and simulations from other reports previously published. It means they used manipulated data and assumptions of other scientists. A chunk of which was published by the IPCC. The same group that is totally discredited today based on their very unscientific and data manipulating report from 2001.

but that's why we generally have to put our trust in the system of peer-reviewing scientific publishments.

Generally, yeah, but after climategate it's quite obvious that peer review is inadequate.

MrBungle
05-02-2011, 22:25
Are you seriously trying to defend your person with regards to the apathetic outcomes attempting to be forced upon us by the Deniers religion? Obviously, you, personally, will not be stealing Earth from me. But you are representing their theories here. You are advocating on their behalf.

This converstation goes places...


We then must prove a causal relationship between the two, which we have,
No, you haven't.


You totally ditched his next part or any relevant references shown throughout the thread:

namely that theoretical physics and a large amount of confirming labratory results AND observations shows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes a greenhouse effect (which you agreed with) in our atmosphere.

Self-contradiction gone a long way within one sentence:


I don't claim anything. The studies are disputed by scientists. The data was manipulated. All of this is undisputed fact.

........

Kudos to Cougar for at least trying this long, few have such patience.
You misrepresent logic and the scientific method at every turn.
It's obvious you're quite unshaken about anything else but your own little world.
So have it your way, die alone in it with the rest of you poor lonelies, but make it fast please. More of us are eager to move on more pressing deeds than spend an entire lifetime endlessly arguing for your lacks of functioning hearing-aids. (no offense) and (inb4 rofl, lol, gobblegobble and other bored amusement parks)

Weeking
05-02-2011, 22:32
Are you seriously trying to defend your person with regards to the apathetic outcomes attempting to be forced upon us by the Deniers religion? Obviously, you, personally, will not be stealing Earth from me. But you are representing their theories here. You are advocating on their behalf.

This converstation goes places...

Denying is no religion, it's like atheism, but are strongly linked with skepticism.
Man-made global warming is a religion, which are linked with trusting authority figures and group-think.

MrBungle
05-02-2011, 22:54
Denying is no religion, it's like atheism, but are strongly linked with skepticism.
Man-made global warming is a religion, which are linked with trusting authority figures and group-think.

Nevermind any of the said content, saves on having to actually READ into it so much.

Yes one can go a long way in religiously and intelligently denying almost everything to maintain status-quo.

It certainly doesn't make that person/group any less stupid, despite what they think of themselves in that regard...

The Cougar
05-03-2011, 00:02
"Are you seriously trying to defend your person with regards to the economic outcomes attempting to be forced upon us by the global warming religion?"

What? I'm saying that whatever side of the political spectre you're on, facts should still be the basis of the debate.


"No, I don't believe I did say anything to that effect."
"Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect."

^That's why there is causation. You can't backpeddle here and deny that CO2 causes warming in the lab or in theory. It does. You just don't think that's how it works in our atmosphere for some reason, and you have yet to explain why.

And there is noone trying to make us "act only upon correlation" wish-wash. We believe CO2 causes atmospheric warming because that's what both observations in our atmosphere and scientific theory show. This is evidence, like it or not, and even if you disagree and say it's disproved it's still an attempt to show causation.

The entire reason you had a problem with this in the first place was because you said there was no evidence. I've shown you the evidence, disagree if you may but don't revert back to your original stance and try to claim no one has put any effort into proving causation.


"How about the ice age ended and we have been warming ever since?"

You're going in circles now; you've basically resorted to [LoD] EE's argument. This does not challenge the key elements in anthropogenic global warming, and moreover, it doesn't even attempt explain anything at all. Actually I went over it in the very first post you originally quoted me on - you didn't seem to have a problem with my reasoning then.


"The studies are disputed by scientists. The data was manipulated. All of this is undisputed fact."

It is not "undisputed fact" at all, and if you had taken the time to google the response to these attacks you would've found several counter-disputions. I repeat, it's interesting that you're so ready to trust these scientists when you show such a massive amount of skepticism towards everyone who disagrees with you.

Since you keep mentioning Climategate and how it proves "manipulation of data", I'll just leave this here for anyone's who's interested. But sure, I'll open the can of worms: Linkage to whoever is making the claims that the data is manipulated?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Also click the Advanced tab for more information.

MrBungle
05-03-2011, 00:10
Edit: *sigh*

MrBungle
05-04-2011, 10:09
Some inaccuracies no doubt but anyway.
If you have kids...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/05/201153222731219991.html

Also I'll leave that (http://www.mandalore.com/ProblemSolvingFlowchart.jpg) here for us poor bastards.

StainlessSteelRat
05-04-2011, 22:28
What? I'm saying that whatever side of the political spectre you're on, facts should still be the basis of the debate.

And your facts are still being debated is my point.



"No, I don't believe I did say anything to that effect."
"Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect."

^That's why there is causation. You can't backpeddle here and deny that CO2 causes warming in the lab or in theory. It does. You just don't think that's how it works in our atmosphere for some reason, and you have yet to explain why.

I don't need to explain anything. Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Yes, that is proof of the greenhouse gas effect. But it is not our atmosphere, it is a controlled environment. No wind, no clouds, etc etc. Causation has not been claimed let alone proven by your religion. Your own believers don't pretend to have found causation. You saying it doesn't make it so.



And there is noone trying to make us "act only upon correlation" wish-wash. We believe CO2 causes atmospheric warming because that's what both observations in our atmosphere and scientific theory show. This is evidence, like it or not, and even if you disagree and say it's disproved it's still an attempt to show causation.

You believe, others disagree. All you have is correlation so you are trying to make huge changes to everyone's lives based on your beliefs.


The entire reason you had a problem with this in the first place was because you said there was no evidence. I've shown you the evidence, disagree if you may but don't revert back to your original stance and try to claim no one has put any effort into proving causation.

You have shown theories and studies based on discredited studies. That's not evidence. Your peer-review bullshit is just that. The raw data behind the principle studies conducted around AGW was never released, there was no peer-review.


"How about the ice age ended and we have been warming ever since?"

You're going in circles now; you've basically resorted to [LoD] EE's argument. This does not challenge the key elements in anthropogenic global warming, and moreover, it doesn't even attempt explain anything at all. Actually I went over it in the very first post you originally quoted me on - you didn't seem to have a problem with my reasoning then.

I'm not going in circles. You asked for why the earth was warming if not 'man'. I told you why.



"The studies are disputed by scientists. The data was manipulated. All of this is undisputed fact."

It is not "undisputed fact" at all, and if you had taken the time to google the response to these attacks you would've found several counter-disputions. I repeat, it's interesting that you're so ready to trust these scientists when you show such a massive amount of skepticism towards everyone who disagrees with you.

Since you keep mentioning Climategate and how it proves "manipulation of data", I'll just leave this here for anyone's who's interested. But sure, I'll open the can of worms: Linkage to whoever is making the claims that the data is manipulated?

Just b/c someone is trying to spin the hacked emails doesn't mean the studies are sound. Of course its not proof but it clearly shows intent to deceive and intent to discredit anyone not buying into the religion.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/NOAA_JanJun2010.htm

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SatelliteSeaLevel.htm

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/US_NoWarming.htm

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm



http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

Also click the Advanced tab for more information.

I dunno, might be too advanced.......

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

Nope, not advanced at all. All spin, no science.

MrBungle
05-04-2011, 23:48
I don't need to explain anything.

lol

Then why are you here?


Nope, not advanced at all. All spin, no science.

Read on, don't just put your own spin to it.

Also you may want to watch: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?blend=3&ob=5#p/u/20/7nnVQ2fROOg

As for the rest, who are these people at AppInSys? Software Engineers?
Then perhaps they should research what multiproxy averaging means.
Oh, and actually read the fucking emails entirely instead of cherrypicking sentences...

The Cougar
05-05-2011, 02:41
And your facts are still being debated is my point.
Actually, that wasn't the point you were making at all.

You were trying to claim I'm part of a "global warming religion" and saying I'm trying to defend my person "with regards to the economic outcomes attempting to be forced upon". Your point were that I was part of something that is attempting to impose upon your freedom. I state that your accusation is largely irrelevant, because I'm not interested in imposing upon your freedom at all but simply trying to create a more accurate foundation on the scientific debate - regardless if I'm right or not the foundation should be based on facts. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that following that up with "and your facts are still being debated" is such an out-of-place comment it borders on childish.




I don't need to explain anything. Have you ever been in a greenhouse? Yes, that is proof of the greenhouse gas effect. But it is not our atmosphere, it is a controlled environment. No wind, no clouds, etc etc. Causation has not been claimed let alone proven by your religion. Your own believers don't pretend to have found causation. You saying it doesn't make it so.
It has been claimed. It's the entire basis for why we believe in anthropogenic global warming, and besides I already linked you to a study where the conclusion is that there is causation. How can you still say that "causation has not been claimed"?




You believe, others disagree. All you have is correlation so you are trying to make huge changes to everyone's lives based on your beliefs.
This is so largely fallacious based on the disussion thus far I have to split the response into three parts just to cover it.

First of, I'm not trying to make huge changes to everyone's lives, this isn't what this discussion is even about. It's about whether or not anthropogenic global warming exists. From what I've seen our political stances are generally fairly similar, so these kind of comments are nothing but ad hominems.

Secondly, I provided you with causation. You don't think I'm right. That's fine. But why keep saying that "all you have is correlation" when that's not the position I'm arguing from? It makes as much sense as saying "I disproved all your shit" which again is just a slightly less juvenile way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong".

And finally, why are you still pretending that my stance is more based on belief than yours? I tell you scientists have proven anthropogenic global warming, you tell me other scientists have proven those scientists wrong. You preach about being skeptical, but you have no qualms about accepting scientific explenations as long as they support your view. You even go as far as to state "this has been disproven by science" and that it is "undisputed fact" when you have no basis of claiming such - at least no more than me. Seems like a prime example of bias. At least I recognize that we're not climate scientists and that once the discussion turns more technical, e.g. about data sampling or analyzing, it's a lot harder for us to tell who's right.



You have shown theories and studies based on discredited studies. That's not evidence. Your peer-review bullshit is just that. The raw data behind the principle studies conducted around AGW was never released, there was no peer-review.
You have never even attempted to discredit the studies independently. You simply allude loosely the IPCC being "disproved" and act as if this has a direct effect on the studies I cited. Basically it is really becoming evident that you believe every single study done on anthropogenic global warming (that has come to a positive conclusion of course) is unsound because it inbreeds from IPCC, which I guess is an effective way of blowing off any study that has IPCC listed in its sources, nevermind you actually knowing or understanding exactly if the IPCC material used is "disproved" or "unsound" and even deters from the conclusion in the first place.



I'm not going in circles. You asked for why the earth was warming if not 'man'. I told you why.
You didn't tell me why. You told me an equivalent of "there has been temperature changes long before human began emitting CO2". That's not a conflicting theory, nor is any sort of explanation for anything; at best it is simply a self-evident statement. Do I really have to quote my response to [LOD] EE just to make you respond to it? That would be the definition of going in circles.




Just b/c someone is trying to spin the hacked emails doesn't mean the studies are sound. Of course its not proof but it clearly shows intent to deceive and intent to discredit anyone not buying into the religion.
The investigators cleared the studies in question, as well as any intent to deceive or discredit.



I dunno, might be too advanced.......

Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.

Nope, not advanced at all. All spin, no science.

Umm, clicking the Advanced tab doesn't just change some wording in the summary, it also brings you to a whole different body off text that includes several references to the processes behind every single one of the e-mails in question. Your last sentence is mind-blowingly ironic however, as believing in Climategate is all about putting a spin on cherry-picked quotes taken out of contex. The most science-related thing about the allegations made towards the authors of the mails, were attempting to attribute the quotes into a scientific context in which they turn out to have no connotation. When you look at the actual context the comments were made in, as several independent investigations have figured out, it turns out to be nothing but rather baseless accusations.

The Cougar
05-05-2011, 02:50
Ehh, the discussion feels rather stagnant now. Maybe I'm in the wrong, but it doesn't feel like you're actually addressing my points and as a result we're just repeating ourselves. I'll take a look at your links though, they are very interesting to me.

StainlessSteelRat
05-05-2011, 03:54
Ehh, the discussion feels rather stagnant now. Maybe I'm in the wrong, but it doesn't feel like you're actually addressing my points and as a result we're just repeating ourselves. I'll take a look at your links though, they are very interesting to me.

We are. You just seem to think that I'm trying to disprove your 'scientists'. The only thing I'm trying to convey to you that there are other scientists that disagree w/ their models, conclusions, etc. And there is some cause to doubt the motives of the AGW alarmists.

You were trying to claim I'm part of a "global warming religion" and saying I'm trying to defend my person "with regards to the economic outcomes attempting to be forced upon". Your point were that I was part of something that is attempting to impose upon your freedom. I state that your accusation is largely irrelevant, because I'm not interested in imposing upon your freedom at all but simply trying to create a more accurate foundation on the scientific debate - regardless if I'm right or not the foundation should be based on facts. It should be fairly obvious to anyone that following that up with "and your facts are still being debated" is such an out-of-place comment it borders on childish.

I already told you that you are representing that group by advocating their position. Those comments which came later in the discussion were not directed at you, the individual. Your belief in them give them power to impose their will on me whether you, as an individual, desire it or not.

Chandrasekhar
05-05-2011, 04:38
global warming denialists = creationists (for the most part)

MrBungle
05-05-2011, 08:56
I already told you

We ought to believe. :rolleyes:

Oh the irony

The Cougar
05-05-2011, 19:30
We are. You just seem to think that I'm trying to disprove your 'scientists'. The only thing I'm trying to convey to you that there are other scientists that disagree w/ their models, conclusions, etc. And there is some cause to doubt the motives of the AGW alarmists.
You've shown very conclusively that there are scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. A couple of your links does also include studies that goes against some of the claims being made around it, which is exactly the sort of thing that I consider valid concerns. But while that might have been your main point it also came with had several misconcepted statements. I also think there is a necessity for you (i.e. not you personally but for anyone who disagrees) to disprove some of the studies that have been made, because without any it's very hard to overlook the already existing evidence for anthropogenic global warming.



I already told you that you are representing that group by advocating their position. Those comments which came later in the discussion were not directed at you, the individual. Your belief in them give them power to impose their will on me whether you, as an individual, desire it or not.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that I'm on the same side of the fence with people that also wishes to impose extreme measures to combat it. I don't deny that if I by a stroke of magic personally shifts the heart of every denier out there these people would be that much closer to their goal. I just think it's an unnecessary focus, because it's not what the debate is ultimately about.

Bedies, I can't stop voicing my convictions just because it might come back to me in the end, not only because I'm ideologic like that, but also because I think supporting what I think is mainly dogma in order to try to keep down the advances of an "environmental left" will in the long run do more harm to my side than good.