Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

[Atlas14]

Because people are already starving to death by the millions. Because AIDS is already killing people by the millions. Because there are already numerous wars in progress around the planet. Some of which have been ongoing for decades.

Whereas the damage from global warming is largely a case of "what if".

Greenland's Ice Cap is Melting

How much of the Greenland cap will actually melt? How much arable land will become desert? How much nastier will the weather get?

That which is "unlikely" remains possible, of course. The Greenland cap might melt completely. Global warming alarmists tend to take those headlines and run with them. Well, worst case scenario: AIDS infects everybody on the planet and the human race goes extinct. So there. Time to drop everything else and spend all our money on AIDS? Didn't think so.

You are forgetting what is the basis of the Global Warming theory. When we produce excess amounts of methane and they go into the air, we produce acid rain. This kills entire forests, entire ecosystems for that matter. Car exhaust literally is the cause for many deaths relating to air pollution. AIDS is overplayed as scientists will most likely find a cure within the next decade, and it is largely preventable with the right education. Starvation in many cases is out of our own control. Destroying the earth with pollutants is not.

Btw, you cannot deny that human-induced global warming exists, as I already have shown it does.

 

[Antilogic]

For all the people who are *****in' about the US not signing Kyoto, has your country lived up to its promise?

Yes people do have a hand in climate change but the question is how much? How much is natural? How much is from volanic discharge? How much is from solar flairs? Is it hotter now then ever before? What cycle p[osition are we in? How much is it el nino? Why wasn't this year as hurricanely active as the 'experts' said it was going to be? Why were they wrong about the number and strength? Are we coming out of the tail end of a mini ice age and returning to normal? Are we entering a mini hot age? Why can't all the scientist agree?

This is the ranting of someone who hasn't seen the evidence and listens to hearsay. If you look at a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 650,000 years, it never exceeded 300 ppm...until now. I think it is somewhere around 400 ppm and increasing at a truly prodigious rate, which has not been matched in magnitude in over a half-million years. Just because one hurricane season is an exception of the trend--the hurricane seasons have been getting worse and worse. Exceptions don't prove rules, they just add a little spice. The fact is, there is remarkably little disagreement among scientists about global warming. I remember seeing a particular fact on Inconvenient Truth that made me shiver: of over 900 articles in scientifically-reviewed and peer-edited journals, not a single one disagreed with the notion that 1) global warming is real, and 2) humans are at least in part responsible for it. Read that again for emphasis: every article agreed that humans are responsible for global warming, which is real. When a similar sample was taken of the popular news sources and "experts" on TV shows, there were something like 48% opinions dissenting.

Human-affected climate change has been scientifically proven beyond a doubt, as evidenced by the agreement amongst the scientific journals. The PR campaign that science apparently has to run against the ignorant blowhards on TV, though, is not going as well.

 

[BasketCase]

@Atlas14 (Antilogic snuck a post in while I was writing this ): The basis of global warming is a whole lot wider than that.

If you're referring to your theory about the breakdown of ozone into carbonate and oxygen, that is definitely a valid theory. And no, people, Atlas doesn't need to provide any further links for me to consider the possibility. Less ozone up high means more UV radiation hitting the Earth and being converted into heat.

How much more heat? Same answer again: I dunno. It may turn out to be insignificant compared to other factors.

 

[Antilogic]

(Antilogic snuck a post in while I was writing this )

Atlas14 posted just before I managed to complete my response to a guy on the previous page.

 

[BasketCase]

This is the ranting of someone who hasn't seen the evidence and listens to hearsay. If you look at a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 650,000 years, it never exceeded 300 ppm...until now.

You're only viewing a slice of Earth history--one favorable to your viewpoint.

View the entire history of Earth, and the picture is much more chaotic. At several points, Earth's CO2 levels were about what they are now. In between two such points, the Permian extinction event occurred--and CO2 levels were 3,000 parts per million. Afterwards, for a large chunk of history, the level was between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million.

Edit: Yeah, we're all posting too hard here. Taking a break so somebody else can get a word in edgewise.

 

[Narz]

BasketCase, the "big picture" (outside of human history) is irrelivant. Whether the Earth will survive global warming is obvious (it will), whether humans will is another story.

How anyone can still think this is a big coinkedink is beyond me.

The poll results made me somewhat embarassed to be an American.

 

[refracted]

You're only viewing a slice of Earth history--one favorable to your viewpoint.

View the entire history of Earth, and the picture is much more chaotic. At several points, Earth's CO2 levels were about what they are now. In between two such points, the Permian extinction event occurred--and CO2 levels were 3,000 parts per million. Afterwards, for a large chunk of history, the level was between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million.

Edit: Yeah, we're all posting too hard here. Taking a break so somebody else can get a word in edgewise.

While you are correct, CO2 levels would be lower today if humans did not contribute at all. And if high CO2 levels led to an extinction before, as you claim, isn't that a good reason to do something about them, whether they are natural or artificial?

 

[azzaman333]

While you are correct, CO2 levels would be lower today if humans did not contribute at all. And if high CO2 levels led to an extinction before, as you claim, isn't that a good reason to do something about them, whether they are natural or artificial?

Yes .

 

[skadistic]

This is the ranting of someone who hasn't seen the evidence and listens to hearsay. .

All I did was ask some questions. Instead of telling me what I know and don't know why don't you honestly answer each quest one at a time.

 

[Antilogic]

You're only viewing a slice of Earth history--one favorable to your viewpoint.

View the entire history of Earth, and the picture is much more chaotic. At several points, Earth's CO2 levels were about what they are now. In between two such points, the Permian extinction event occurred--and CO2 levels were 3,000 parts per million. Afterwards, for a large chunk of history, the level was between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million.

Edit: Yeah, we're all posting too hard here. Taking a break so somebody else can get a word in edgewise.

The entire history of Earth is mostly uninhabitable to primates such as us measly humans. You say I'm only looking at a slice favorable to my viewpoint--I'd say I'm looking at the slice that is appropriate. Also, even if the CO2 levels were higher in the past, you have indirectly strengthened my argument. Notice how you mentioned extinction? I'd love to avoid that if at all possible. Also, when you have 3000 ppm CO and CO2, that is toxic to humans because it inhibits O2 absorption in hemoglobin, I think. I know that happens with CO, and I think CO2 operates in the same fashion (could someone double-check?).


@skadistic: I'm sorry, but I interpreted your post as one of those neo-con anti-green "there's no such thing as global warming and I'm going to barrage with silly questions that science as already answered" posts. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post as a uninformed politicized attack rather than real questions. The fact is, television is one of the worst places to get information about global warming unless you are watching the Science Channel or some comparable station.

The fact is, big oil as well as a few other offenders have decided to hire "experts" to question global warming because they don't want their profits hurt. These are the same kinds of "experts" that the tobacco industry hired decades back to say smoking didn't hurt you (or was even good for you--less likely to die of age-related diseases!)--they are quasi-scientists that typically do not follow the scientific method, ignore evidence, or have doctorates in things like theology and not an applicable scientific field. Of course, the vast majority of the public doesn't know that, so the public accepts them as legitimate opposition when in fact they are phonies with no corroborated experimental data to back them up. Same thing with evolution and intelligent design--science has become a PR campaign to the public.

It's late tonight, but I'll try to answer those questions (if you asked them seriously) in some more detail when I have the time. I would suggest you see An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore--it's the scariest powerpoint you will ever see. He does politicize a little bit in the show, especially when he mentions the reason why US car manufacturers are falling behind their European and Asian counterparts, but overall the evidence he presents has been scientifically observed and corroborated by peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 

[batteryacid]

The way to determine whether you have a surplus or a deficit is to add up TOTAL expenses and subtract that from TOTAL income.

If global CO2 levels are rising, it must be because TOTAL emissions are greater.

The numbers don't care where the extra CO2 comes from. And, as batteryacid's "Missing Carbon" link describes, the numbers don't seem to be adding up. The planet's CO2 level is lower than expected.

You ignore the the point o fthis article completely: Natuer dumps one half of the CO2 emissions caused by burning of coal and oil, where it dumps it is not known, but this knownledge is not necessary in concluding that exactly this burning of fossile fuel is the cause of the rise of the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Should we cut oil and coal burning to zero, CO2 levels will go down with 1-2 ppm per year and likely stabilise at a pre-industrial age level.
We don´t know, as the author of this article wrote, HOW MUCH LONGER natuer makes us a favor and takes up 50% of our CO2 emissions, because pollution, burning of forests etc. we bring down the capacity of the environment to regenerate and to dump this surplus.

@CO2 and CO:
CO2 is only at high concentrations toxic; it is not bound at the HEM groups of hemoglobine and thus not prevent it to take up oxygen but influences at high concentrations the respiratory center of teh brain and leads first to fading and then to death.
CO is very toxic even at low concentrations, as it binds nearly irreversible on the part of hemoglobine that should transport oxygen; CO is produced when something is burned with not enough oxygen available. Smokers e.g. loose about 5-10% of their hemoglobine to CO.

 

[El_Machinae]

@skadistic: I'm sorry, but I interpreted your post as one of those neo-con anti-green "there's no such thing as global warming and I'm going to barrage with silly questions that science as already answered" posts. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post as a uninformed politicized attack rather than real questions.

Yeah, you have to be careful with judging skadistic; I've learned that when he asks a question, he's always willing to have it answered. And unlike many others, he'll not just use the answer to refine his argument against your position but use it to refine his position.

 

[StarWorms]

It's called an analogy.

We might die from AIDS or warfare or plain old basic starvation. All of which are very real and immediate problems competing with global warming for attention. Many world leaders have already rendered their opinion: they don't care about global warming because their people have bigger problems.

That's where the world leaders are wrong. They need to satisfy their people to stay in power. People aren't bothered about what happens 100 years down the line, they're only bothered about the present for the simple reason that people are selfish. It's the "I'll be long dead by then" attitude.

 

[WerBackIII]

Born to be wi-i-ild! Not urgentered.
Why are Americans so stupid ?(not the CFC one!)

 

[skadistic]

Yeah, you have to be careful with judging skadistic; I've learned that when he asks a question, he's always willing to have it answered. And unlike many others, he'll not just use the answer to refine his argument against your position but use it to refine his position.

Quite right. So many people just don't get that. Maybe I come off as a prick?

As per global warming: I don't deny it at all just think the doom and gloom is over blown. As of yet no one can tell me exactly how much is man made. Don't get me wrong I'm all for cleaning up and reducing gasses but until there is more diffinitve proof that man is the primary cause after factoring all the othe variables I'm not willing run around and yell "The sky is falling!". A few graphs about CO2 and temp just isn't enough for me.

 

[BasketCase]

The entire history of Earth is mostly uninhabitable to primates such as us measly humans.

Yeah, that's going back way too far. Let me be more specific: I was looking back about 300 million years, to before the Permian extinction event.

You say I'm only looking at a slice favorable to my viewpoint--I'd say I'm looking at the slice that is appropriate.

And I say it's appropriate to look at the part of Earth history where CO2 levels spiked to more than 1,000 ppm--before human industry ever reared its head. The planet appears to have done it five times already; if you wish to place the blame for the current spike on humans, you must prove that the current spike isn't just a natural burp. So far, nobody has.

Also, even if the CO2 levels were higher in the past, you have indirectly strengthened my argument. Notice how you mentioned extinction? I'd love to avoid that if at all possible.

Well then, here's the only sure way to do it: abandon modern life. No more cars. No more factories. No more Internet. No more computers. No more Enya CD's, no more South Park DVD movies. No more roof over your head. And, probably, no more farms either.

Even then the problem wouldn't be completely solved. Because eight to ten percent of human emissions don't come from human industry at all. It comes from our breathing. There are seven billion of us, after all. In order to fully solve the problem, human population would have to be vastly reduced.

The whole human race would be waging total war against you before you got through the first of those two above paragraphs. (DO NOT touch my South Park DVD's!!! ) The second paragraph is academic. Someday far in the future, a global war might actually kill off a few billion of us--but it would be universally considered an abomination.

You see? A substantial level of human industrial emissions is unavoidable. We're just going to have to deal with some damage to the planet.

Aside from which, reducing human emissions by 300-400 ppm would be useless if the planet burped again and spewed 2,000 ppm at us.

Also, when you have 3000 ppm CO and CO2, that is toxic to humans because it inhibits O2 absorption in hemoglobin, I think. I know that happens with CO, and I think CO2 operates in the same fashion (could someone double-check?).

Carbon dioxide is all but harmless. It forms a very mild acid when dissolved in water, and that's about it. Other than that, CO2 can kill you in the same way any other inert gas will: in high concentrations, there's not enough oxygen.

Carbon monoxide, on the other hand, is deadly. Red blood cells absorb carbon monoxide three hundred times more readily than oxygen; inhale too much carbon monoxide, and there's no space left on a red blood cell for oxygen to get a seat. And you asphyxiate. It doesn't take high concentrations, either. One part per thousand will usually cause you to pass out--and an atmosphere of one percent carbon monoxide will kill you in minutes.

 

[Kozmos]

Two words: Ocean acidification.

 

[Sidhe]

Basket case your talking unsubstantiated arse, over and over again, good luck with that, just go and learn the half of it before you judge the whole of it, your ideas are little more than a religion and thus not worthy of a response. Belief will only get you so far, science'll get you further. Do it, get the science vibe, you'll sound so much more believable if you do.

 

[BasketCase]

My ideas are the heart and soul of science: when there is insufficient proof, you cannot slap the label "FACT" on the conclusions.

Is the Earth's fading magnetic field causing global warming? I don't know. (I'll remind you that I asked a career astronomer this one, and HE doesn't know)

Did the Earth have five natural CO2 spikes? I don't know. Is the Earth doing it again right now? I don't know.

Are the above two scenarios possible? Yes. "Possible" does not equal "fact".

My opponents are saying they do know: they are saying "no, the magnetic field is definitely not contributing to the problem" and they are saying "no, the current CO2 spike is definitely not natural". Yet they can't prove either.

I'm not the one who's forsaken the laws of science.


Is global warming being caused primarily by humans?

I don't know.

Edit: am I putting too much white space in my posts lately? Yes--and that's a plain fact.

 

[batteryacid]

My ideas are the heart and soul of science: when there is insufficient proof, you cannot slap the label "FACT" on the conclusions.

1) Is the Earth's fading magnetic field causing global warming? I don't know. (I'll remind you that I asked a career astronomer this one, and HE doesn't know)

Did the Earth have five natural CO2 spikes? I don't know. Is the Earth doing it again right now? I don't know.

Are the above two scenarios possible? Yes. "Possible" does not equal "fact".

2) My opponents are saying they do know: they are saying "no, the magnetic field is definitely not contributing to the problem" and they are saying "no, the current CO2 spike is definitely not natural". Yet they can't prove either.

I'm not the one who's forsaken the laws of science.


Is global warming being caused primarily by humans?

I don't know.

Edit: am I putting too much white space in my posts lately? Yes--and that's a plain fact.

1) We already discssed that sufficiently and the answer was a clear "no" and "how should it be the case" and "at the 3 magnetic flips in the past no impact on climate clould be observed"

2) CO2 amount in the atmosphere rises with 3.5 billion tons per year, we produce 8 billion tons CO2 per year by oil and coal uptake, so the answer is: Without these emissions CO2 levels would go down. It doesn´t matter which emission sources and sinks exist aside human made, because -let´s make an analogy with a lake: It doesn´t matter if 5 rivers or one flow in and if 3 or ten rivers transport water out; changeing the input of one will lead to a change of the water level independently of the net water turnover rate of the river.