Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

[BasketCase]

But it's never been as high as it is now in recent history, and it doesn't follow the pattern of the CO2 increase that other spikes do? Would this not suggest inconsistency with older models? What would explain the inconsistency with the last 4 spikes?

Loaded question. It presumes that there's an inconsistency to begin with. There isn't--mostly because the last five spikes were highly irregular in both intensity and temporal spacing. The only factor common to them all is that each appears to have been preceded by a large CO2 spike of at least 1,000 parts per million.

No I think you got you arse handed to you by Gothmog and ever since you've been spoiling for war.

Unlike you, Goth played nice, and the two of us didn't fight each other. We simply disagreed. He said the current evidence wasn't ironclad proof, but that it was good enough for him.

 

[BasketCase]

Sooooo, humans are not responsible for any CO2 now? You get less credible with every post...

A little something else I found interesting, from one of the previous global warming threads:

Way back in the Dark Ages (say, around a year ago) some post somewhere gave an estimate of the amount of CO2 being belched by human sources. In pounds. Shortly after reading that, I found a web site somewhere else that gave another estimate: the amount of CO2 exhaled by the average human being per year, also in pounds.

I multiplied that last figure by the population of the Earth, and I got the rather surprsing result that human breathing is responsible for more than eight percent of ALL carbon dioxide produced by humans!

Well, just yesterday, I realized--humans are only a small percent of the actual animal biomass on the planet! Some completely random web site somewhere said that we humans are only five percent of total animal biomass--meaning that the actual amount of CO2 exhaled planetwide by all living things is around twice the amount attributed to human industry.


Puts rather a different perspective on things.

 

[BasketCase]

Again, the solar wind does not contain enough energy to contribute to global warming.

Note how the web site you linked includes phrases like "theories" and "might be evidence". But then, when I posted the magnetic field thingy, I said the same thing. It's only a theory.

However--if one is convinced that "global warming is a definite threat", then even a possible dissenting theory becomes dangerous.........

 

[Sidhe]

Loaded question. It presumes that there's an inconsistency to begin with. There isn't--mostly because the last five spikes were highly irregular in both intensity and temporal spacing. The only factor common to them all is that each appears to have been preceded by a large CO2 spike of at least 1,000 parts per million.

Also each can be explained by natural phenomina, that's the difference you have a hard time comprehending.

Unlike you, Goth played nice, and the two of us didn't fight each other. We simply disagreed. He said the current evidence wasn't ironclad proof, but that it was good enough for him.

Actually I think he made every argument you gave look worthless and you presented no scientific counter argument of any merit, but that's by the by, what is sad though is that you continue to make grandiose claims with no referal to scientific evidence, if there is scientific evidence that confirms your suspicions then show it. Just throwing out opinion is not liable to be taken seriously in what is a subject that is totally reliant on data and modelling.

I supose we'll be subjected to the cow breaking wind formualtion for global warming next.

Note how the web site you linked includes phrases like "theories" and "might be evidence". But then, when I posted the magnetic field thingy, I said the same thing. It's only a theory.

However--if one is convinced that "global warming is a definite threat", then even a possible dissenting theory becomes dangerous.........

Actually each scientific theory is analysed for worth then dismissed if found lacking, this is not some big global conspiracy to keep down the money obsessed industrialists of the US.

 

[mrlaze]

I think we have an effect on the Earths atmosphere. Thinking all the industry and pollution has no effect on the ecosytem is stupid. Hello flaming Ohio River. However most research regarding temperature and weather is based only on meterological data from the last 100-150 years. Who is to say we are not still in the declining part of the 'Ice Age'. Have we accelerated it? Quite possiably. Regardless the overall outlook is not promising, right now, for human civilization ( ). I believe everything....everything goes in cycles. I think those cycles can gradually increase and/or decrease and can occur over long periods of time(basically a sort of double cycle, I am sure there is a mathmatical expression for it.) Everything is in flux, but nothing is absolute. Could current trends kill of humans?...maybe. Could some humans survive to repopulate the Earth in a few hundred(or thousand) years? I think so(we are quite resilliant as a spiecies, IMO).

It is thought that that the poles have changed over the course of the Earths life and from scientific data, some think we are far overdue for a polar 'flip' which could be catosrophic .....or just a period of wacky, random radiation showers(albeit bad to people caught in them) and only a set back to human evoloution.

Personally i think we have been in a "Golden Age" for the last 2000-3000 years and something "Earthly" is soon to happen.


it's 5am here...I hope this makes some sense...Im going to bed....

 

[BasketCase]

Also each can be explained by natural phenomina, that's the difference you have a hard time comprehending.

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous.

Each of these extinction events occurred MILLIONS of years ago. They all MUST have occurred as a result of natural phenomena!!! That is 100% fact--unless you think aliens landed on the planet or something???

If the previous five CO2 spikes were natural, the CURRENT (alleged) CO2 spike could also be natural. Your claim to the contrary is baseless, because you have no evidence to support it. You simply called it "inconsistent with previous spikes" but you gave no evidence to back that up.

But then, there's no reason you should be so worked up about my latest idea: science is NOT sure that these five extinction events were actually caused by global warming. The whole thing is a THEORY. Frankly, I'm surprised you skipped over that part.

if there is scientific evidence that confirms your suspicions then show it.

If there is scientific evidence that proves my suspicions false, show it.

You haven't.

All the theories I've been tossing out are exactly that: theories. Not fact, and not false. This isn't a federal trial, and you have to right to impose "false until proven true" on me.

I supose we'll be subjected to the cow breaking wind formualtion for global warming next.

I don't have to subject you to that one--because other people already have. Ironically, those people are on YOUR side of the table!!! Environmentalists are the ones to blame for this one. Meaning you have to call them crackpots with no credibility now.

Pwnt!

 

[Sidhe]

Okay, now you're just being ridiculous.

Each of these extinction events occurred MILLIONS of years ago. They all MUST have occurred as a result of natural phenomena!!! That is 100% fact--unless you think aliens landed on the planet or something???

If the previous five CO2 spikes were natural, the CURRENT (alleged) CO2 spike could also be natural. Your claim to the contrary is baseless, because you have no evidence to support it. You simply called it "inconsistent with previous spikes" but you gave no evidence to back that up.

Ah basket case no, they can be explained simply by other means, by the sort of means you have little understanding, in, by milankovich cycles, by volcanic activity, by continental drift by the proximity of the sun to the Earth. The modern ways has taken account of all that, and can't show it is purely natural.

But then, there's no reason you should be so worked up about my latest idea: science is NOT sure that these five extinction events were actually caused by global warming. The whole thing is a THEORY. Frankly, I'm surprised you skipped over that part.

Actually yours was a hypothesis, a theory needs experimental evidence to support it.

If there is scientific evidence that proves my suspicions false, show it.

You haven't.

I think Gothmog already did that. Read it again.

Which means all the theories I've been tossing out are exactly that: theories. Not fact, and not false. This isn't a federal trial, and you have to right to impose "false until proven true" on me.

No a theory is not true but it is more substantiated than a hypothesis, nothing in science is fact, but nothing in opinion is either if you want to overrturn the rich evidence you need science, hell go back over the threads, bring out all the proofs then substantiate a counter claim, that is theory.

I don't have to subject you to that one--because other people already have. Ironically, those people are on YOUR side of the table!!! Your fellow environmentalists are the ones to blame for this one.

Pwnt!

Yeah I know but I've seen this same BS used as an excuse by knowlessmen, and humans breathing is better?

I have never sought to pwn anyone, I think it's childish, but if I am pwned you have done little to actually prove it. What is to blame is pseudoscience, things like Bush saying he's aware that the polar bears are starting to move towards extinction but he can't explain why, this sort of industrial governmental rubbish may play in Basket world but in the big boy world, you have to back up insubstantial opinion.

 

[BasketCase]

Ah basket case no, they can be explained simply by other means, by the sort of means you have little understanding, in, by milankovich cycles, by volcanic activity, by continental drift by the proximity of the sun to the Earth. The modern ways has taken account of all that,

No, they have not. Scroll up to my first post about exploding stars: the possibility always exists that science made a plain old basic mistake.

People used to think the Earth was flat; they couldn't explain why the planet just seemed to disappear when you looked out towards the horizon. They tried to come up with various explanations, of course--all of which were wrong. Eventually, some guy came up with the idea that the Earth was spherical--but before that, absolutely nothing was any different.

The world doesn't care if we understand it. The world is not a sentient being; things happen for specific reasons. If a tree falls in the forest, the falling tree doesn't care if anyone is around to hear it; the course of events (and the shock wave produced by air compression) is precisely the same. Nothing changes if human beings don't understand something or can't explain it. The only thing that changes is in our minds--our perceptions and our thoughts.


Flip-flopping magnetic field? Such an event would change the amount of incoming energy by X. X being an unknown. Nobody's done any real work to find out what X is, therefore it's possible X is a large positive number.

Natural CO2 spike? All it would take is a couple large underwater volcanoes that go undetected by humans. It's that simple. That today's (alleged) CO2 spike is a natural one, is entirely possible.

 

[Sidhe]

Basket case I wasn't talking about extinction events I was talking about the last 5 CO2 spikes which have happened in the last few hundred thousand years, extinction events are a completely different kettle of fish and frankly not relevant to the discussion, except maybe severe glatiaition events. When people talk about recent temperature spikes their not talking about 70 odd million years ago, anyway this misunderstanding aside. I've ceased to expect anything cogent or scientific in anything you say, essentially you base your entire stand on what you are told by your government and media.

If your this interested in the subject, study it properly, because just saying widely speculative things is not really going to make much sense in talking about global warming. What about seagull poo and animal excreta doesn't that contribute! * insert obvious joke here*

EDITED: To clear up a misunderstanding.

 

[carlosMM]

BasketCase, it seems you still do not comprehend a basic problem in your argumentation:

either, nothing can be said with certainty at all, because science can always err - then even the existence of gravity and your own must be doubted.

or you try to distinguish based on how likely an error is. If you do that, your doubts about Global Warming are ridiculous.

 

[EdwardTking]

That today's (alleged) CO2 spike is a natural one, is entirely possible.

My understanding is that Coal is mainly carbon and Air is 1/5 oxygen,
so that when coal is burned in our grate or nearest coal power station.

i.e. C + O2 = C02

produces C02.


What do YOU think happens when coal is burnt?


That is assuming that coal is not a figment of everybody
else's (but not yours) imagination.

 

[Atlas14]

When CO2 reacts with O3 in the atmosphere, the ozone is lost through a chemical reaction. The geometry of the O3 molecule allows radiation from the sun to pass through, but also allows heat coming back up from earth to escape.
When O3 is lost in the chemical processes involving reacting CO2, the molecules left have a much different geometry than our wonderful ozone molecule, and heat is trapped inside our atmosphere, heating the earth as a result.

Thats my input.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, just yesterday, I realized--humans are only a small percent of the actual animal biomass on the planet! Some completely random web site somewhere said that we humans are only five percent of total animal biomass--meaning that the actual amount of CO2 exhaled planetwide by all living things is around twice the amount attributed to human industry.


Puts rather a different perspective on things.

100% of the CO2 produced by exhalation today was sequestered the previous day in the form of organic solids (biomass). We have good reason to assume that our current biosphere is capable of safely sequestering that CO2 tomorrow, since it was the biosphere that had sequestered it in the first place

The whole of today's industry-produced CO2 (excepting any 'green' fuels) was sequestered as fossil fuels yesterday, not as biomass. While we have good reason to assume that some of it will be sequestered casually, we don't really know how much can be sequestered easily enough (or quickly enough) to prevent the CO2 from having an impact as a greenhouse gas.

Look at it this way; lock me in an airtight greenhouse with enough tomato plants, and I should be able to survive just fine, because my CO2 will be recaptured by the plants and resynthesised into food (a null CO2 net output). However, if I were to light enough parafin candles, I would eventually put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants could recover (at least, in the timespan necessary to prevent my suffocation).

Of course the suffocation is an analogy for heat accumulation, but the principal is the same. We're currently burning 1000 barrels of oil a second; do you think that our biomass is sequestering the CO2 at this rate? Clearly not.

 

[carlosMM]

btw, BasketCase, I once asked you were all that new biomass is supposed to be - it certainly is neither in forests (which are cut down world-wide), nor peat (no significant new peat forming today), nor in oceanic plancton or sedimentation.

WHERE IS IT??????

 

[BasketCase]

Basket case I wasn't talking about extinction events I was talking about the last 5 CO2 spikes

So was I.

To keep it real short and simple: it appears to have happened five times already--without the asssistance of humans. Therefore it might happen again. Naturally. Without the assistance of humans.

BasketCase, I once asked you were all that new biomass is supposed to be

I answered you last time: we don't know where it is. We have no way to measure biomass with 100% accuracy. We can only estimate.

For which reason, you can't claim that said biomass is "definitely not" in forests or sediment or anywhere else. Well, you CAN, but it's a bogus claim.

If you refuse to accept answers you don't like, that's your problem.

 

[BasketCase]

Look at it this way; lock me in an airtight greenhouse with enough tomato plants, and I should be able to survive just fine, because my CO2 will be recaptured by the plants and resynthesised into food (a null CO2 net output). However, if I were to light enough parafin candles, I would eventually put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants could recover (at least, in the timespan necessary to prevent my suffocation).

Absolutely true. The question is....HOW MANY CANDLES....?

We don't know.

When winter hits and that greenhouse gets real cold, you're going to need some heat to avoid freezing to death. And then you reach the point where the planet is today--with more than one possible scenario that could destroy everything.

You risk suffocation if you start a fire, and freezing to death if you don't. There's risk no matter what you do. Deal with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Absolutely true. The question is....HOW MANY CANDLES....?

We don't know.

Except we have a CO2 meter, and we can see that the CO2 is rising. We can measure the CO2 produced per candle, easily.

And you're creating a false emergency; cutting back on CO2 production is not the same thing as risking freezing over the winter. At worst, it's going to slow the economy (which, I believe, is merely capturing the externality; a good thing in the long run)

 

[batteryacid]

@Basketcase:
Read the link-Humans put around 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere through oil/coal burning and deforestation. About 3.2 billion tons (or ppm) stay in the atmosphere

So it´s the other way round : we don´t have to blame the environment for the rise of C02, but be thankful for it, because the ecosphere STILL (nobody knows how much loger) manages to get rid of more of the the half of the additional CO2 humans blow into the atmosphere (As El Machinae already said, exhaled CO2 from humans and cattles etc. are not to be counted, as they are neutral concerning the Plant-animal subsystem of the global CO2 cycle).

 

[bhsup]

These CO2 levels, I have a question about them. How are they measuring what they were millions of years ago and how are they measuring what they are now? What is the margin of error? Are rising CO2 levels the cause of global warming, or does global warming induce rising CO2 levels?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll let someone link the wiki that answers your 'millions of years ago' question (there are many different sources, from examining pollen trapped in rock, to measuring acidity (I think) in old ice); but with regards to CO2, it happens both ways. CO2 traps heat, but heat causes the oceans' water to not hold as much CO2 as normal (a warm liquid can absorb less gas than a cool liquid)