1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Anyone Not believe we are causing Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Abaddon, Dec 26, 2006.

?

Do Humans cause Global Warming?

  1. Yes - American

    33.2%
  2. No - American

    11.5%
  3. Yes - Non American

    48.4%
  4. No - Non American

    6.9%
  1. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Alrightey, everybody, pay attention. Gonna show ya how it's done.

    Azzaman has proposed a theory: that we humans could have set off one of those great big CO2 spikes I previously mentioned.

    Now, I'm not going to ask Azzaman to substantiate his claim; no evidence is required at this stage because it's not a definite claim. It's a "maybe" claim which is equivalent to a question. Did human beings trigger a great big CO2 spike? No evidence or further substantiation is required to ask a question, and he asked a good one. Just because the last five were natural doesn't mean the same phenomenon can't get set off artificially.

    It's when someone tries to answer "yes, that's happening" or "no, it's NOT happening" that the circumstances change. When you move from maybe to a definite yes or no, now you're making a claim of fact. Such claims must be substantiated by evidence, experiment, or preferably both.

    I've seen no evidence to either substantiate or disprove Azzaman's claim--mostly because I haven't looked yet. :) However, just because he hasn't posted evidence to prove "yes" does not mean the answer is "no". It means the answer is "unknown".


    Is the Earth's magnetic field contributing to global warming? I never said "definitely yes" or "definitely no". I said I wasn't sure. Therefore no further evidence is required on my part; all I did was ask a question. If you say the answer is "definitely no" you must substantiate it. Nobody has.

    Is the Earth having a natural CO2 spike? Same deal. More than one poster in here says "definitely not". But they have posted no evidence. The claim has been made that the current spike is inconsistent with previous ones--but no evidence has been posted to support that.

    Those who wish to "definitely" disprove the above two theories must back up their claims. They have not.

    However, failure to back up a claim does NOT allow BasketCase to relegate it to the trash bin. If Sidhe cannot prove the answer is "no", that does not make the answer "yes". It makes the answer "maybe".


    That is real science.
     
  2. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Yes you were. I've got it right here:

    You just got busted.


    Funny how you keep claiming I said things I didn't. If you claim I said the above, substantiate it. Quote me.

    What I said so long ago is that the planet's extra CO2 might be going into biomass. I consider it the most likely candidate. And the Missing Carbon article earlier in this thread backs up my claim when they say the forests, grasslands, and oceans must be acting as sinks. But since I had the word "might" in my claim--making it a "maybe" claim--I don't have to substantiate it.

    Is the planet's extra CO2 going into biomass? Existing biomass? New biomass?

    You make a claim that the answer is "certainly" no. Prove it.
     
  3. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    You used the words "most likely". Meaning your idea is a "maybe".
     
  4. carlosMM

    carlosMM Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,565
    Ah yes, basketCase theoretsizing about things is 'real science'? :lol: Please, will you submit that to a peer reviewed journal? :lol:

    bring proof, buddy!


    About teh 'new biomass claim': you made it in a different thread, at least 3 months ago. Gothmog, among others, busted it. Do you really think I'll spend hours searich for it? I remember well what you wrote, you have not answered the resulting question; instead you now argue from ignorance. Great, I see what substance your posts have.

    Also, your constantly asking for 'proof' of well-known things (e.g. no formation of peat, deforestation) is rather stupid to use in a public discussion: it looks like a pure denial routine. Go watch TV, go read journals, go travel, go read scientific journals, go read meta-studies done by e.g. Greenpeace. I can't help it if you lack even the most basic knowledge of biology, geography, biogeography, climatology, meteorology and so many other sciences.
     
  5. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    What a load of garbage. You know damn well what the evidence is: Humans dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and hey wow, the CO2 levels are increasing. If that isn't evidence for humans causing global warming then what the hell is?
     
  6. Turner

    Turner Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2002
    Messages:
    28,169
    Location:
    Randomistan
  7. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    @Carlos: If you claim no new biomass is developing, you are making a definite claim of fact. You must prove that claim. You haven't. Claim dismissed.

    @Brennan: I've seen that argument before. I first saw it ten years ago on some BBS chat forum, where some wingnut was blaming defense spending for the budget deficit. His reasoning: if defense spending was cut to zero, the deficit would disappear. Therefore, he claimed, defense spending is entirely responsible for the budget deficit.

    Strike "defense" from his post and replace it with "welfare" and suddenly it's welfare spending that's responsible for the deficit. I did that to this guy, and he cried foul. "No, welfare is NOT responsible for the deficit!!! Defense spending is!!!" He blithely ignored the hole I'd punched in his cherished myth. I dropped out of the thread; he was no longer arguing reasonably, he was chanting his religious message like one of those Hare Krishna goofballs at LAX.

    How is it defense spending and not social spending that's responsible for the U.S. budget deficit?

    Considering that humans are NOT the number one source of CO2 on this planet....how can you blame humans specifically?
     
  8. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    Because humans upset the applecart. Let's use your own analogy. Let's say a country had been bumbling along for a couple of centuries with no budget defecit, then suddenly started spending vast amounts of extra money on defence: lo and behold an enormous budget defecit appears, what do we blame it on? Answer: the increased spending on Defence.

    What do we blame increased atmospheric CO2 on? Answer: increased emissions caused by humans.

    ANother of those claims which tries to shift burden of proof. Back up your arguments or don't make them.

    Your argument: there is increased biomass. Prove it.
     
  9. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    If the deficit is not equal to the extra defense spending, then there's a problem, and the finger of blame can't be pointed so easily.

    This is precisely what's happening with the planet's CO2 "budget"--assuming, of course, that the Missing Carbon article is accurate in its statement that planetary CO2 is only going up by 3.5 billion tons a year.

    The F.A.C.E. Carbon Dioxide Enrichment studies

    Carbon dioxide went up--and crop yields went up.

    However, I reviewed several articles on the FACE studies when I first discovered then, and noticed that the results weren't 100% conclusive. There were fairly large statistical variations. In a majority of cases, crop yields went up (even when sunlight, water, and soil nutriets were in varying or deficient quantities), but there were some cases were yields dropped.

    Plus there's the fact that FACE has a few problems. For one thing, it's outdoors and therefore subject to interference from the outside world.

    So, while the evidence is fairly strong, I don't consider it conclusive.

    The same can be seen with fish tanks. Add a carbon dioxide bubbler to your fish tank, and the plants will grow faster--within limits. Run the bubbler too fast and you can kill off the whole tank.

    The general rule is that when the food supply increases, the populations that live on that food increase in number. It's been seen with many different species of wild animals, with plants, and with humans. When more moose are around, but the supply of water and air remain constant, wolves increase in population--usually.

    It's not a sure bet, but I consider it highly probably that plant biomass is increasing due to more CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.

    Edit: there's a more direct quote, on another part of the above web site, that says this:
    Another F.A.C.E Quote
    Re-edit: under construction. It only took me about 40 seconds of searching to find a FACE link, but it's not the same one I used so long ago. Still hunting for that one.

    Re-re-edit: Aha, found it. A vanilla site on FACE:
    Gettin' In Yo' F.A.C.E.!
     
  10. batteryacid

    batteryacid Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    449
    heres is a schematic of the global carbon cycle:" align="" border="0" />
    And here one with quantities of the flux and the amounts:



    Problem is, as you note, that anthropogenic caused carbon dioxide sinks (reforestation, restoration of ecosystems) are much smaller than the inputs (combustion, deforestation etc.).
    And, furthermore, we take carbon sources (fossile ones) that were build up and deposited in the litoshpere within millions of years and put them again into the cycle within 150 years. As the biosphere changes are much slower and thus biosphere net uptake can be assumed to be constant (or getting worse due to deforestation), CO2 levels in the atmosphere as well as the amount of physical dissolved CO2 in the ocean rises (assuming constant ocean temperature; when oceanic temperatures rise, CO2 will be released from the ocean as you can see in the following graph:

    " align="" border="0" />
     
  11. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    If biosphere net uptake was constant, CO2 levels would be rising at the same rate humans pump it into the atmosphere.

    It's not. It's rising a lot slower than that. Explanation?

    Edit: wait a second--how do you know biosphere net uptake isn't increasing?? Did you measure it?
     
  12. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    You have merely pointed out the limitations of your analogy, we are not talking about money, we are talking about a complicated natural system with a built-in ability to partially absorb changes in input.
    Was that really so hard? Next time be more prepared to back yourself up.

    And oh-look, there's evidence for part of the damping mechanism we need to explain why atmospheric CO2 isn't increasing as fast as human emissions.;)

    Edit: looking at your source. What's the bias? Well there's a rather derisory comment about Al Gore on the Home page...
     
  13. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,362
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
  14. skadistic

    skadistic Caomhanach

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    15,239
    Location:
    Land of Mary
  15. Chieftess

    Chieftess Moderator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Messages:
    24,160
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Google "Water Wars". There's some articles on that, too. With nearly 50% of people living in cities, that's a good 3.0 to 3.5 billion right there - nothing a few nukes can't handle. Then there's fighting in the countryside, in which another billion will probably die. I think they're essentially hinting at World War III. But it does sound a bit like a rabid frenzy.

    Although I do think that the Maya were on to something when they essentially said "History repeats itself".
     
  16. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    43,504
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    If you truely, seriously, don't believe that global warming is an economic threat and that it's man-caused then I challenge you to do the following.

    Google your local university, and use their website to randomly pick one of their ecology profs. An ecology prof should be a decently informed expert in this field. Email or phone this person, and ask them if global warming is something to be concerned about and whether it is caused by humans.

    Might as well go with a local expert; just make sure it's a random pick, or else you're throwing in bias.
     
  17. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    These are all links I've used a couple of times before. I presented them, and my opponents went right on believing in their beliefs.

    Do you still believe that global warming is being caused primarily by humans? Of course you do. My presentation of evidence didn't change a damn thing. So, really, what was the point? If people aren't going to be flexible in their opinions and view all the evidence with a critical eye, why should I bother?

    Aside from which, the evidence isn't conclusive. The FACE studies show that the world's plants will probably respond to elevated CO2 levels by growing faster. Probable does not equal definite.

    Did you mean this quote? It was the only Al Gore quote I could find:
    I see nothing derisive about Al Gore in this. He is doing exactly that: complaining about what we're (allegedly) doing to the planet. Whoever wrote this is saying, very plainly: "The behavior of the Earth's plants suggests that Al Gore could be wrong...."


    I think overpopulation is the core of the problem. If there were only a million people living on Earth, they could have their cars and factories and more--and their impact on the Earth would be insignificant. But as population keeps going up, with each person demanding a rising standard of living (and threatening to start wars and commit terrorist attacks if they don't get it), whatever damage the human race is doing will be compounded.

    Since the human race is not willing to control its reproduction, and is not willing to lower its living standards, it appears that warfare will indeed be the eventual long-term solution.
     
  18. brennan

    brennan Argumentative Brit

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Messages:
    9,023
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Worthing, Southern England
    Yeah, because the argument do not stack up: you accept that humans emit large amounts of extra CO2, you even believe that there is a mechanism that reduces atmospheric CO2, yet given the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the fact that it is lower than human emissions, you apparently can't believe in Global Warming. You have all the pieces to explain the puzzle, but just can't seem to do it. Pretty much everyone else can.
     
  19. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    No. A lot of the pieces are missing.

    In 1967, federal spending was $136 billion. Quick, what was the budget deficit in that year??? I'll bet you can't tell me without looking it up. :p

    It's that simple. Just knowing how much CO2 we're spewing isn't enough.


    And this is demonstrated very clearly, ironically, by....

    CFC's Global Dimming thread

    Human beings spew a lot of other stuff besides CO2. Some of the pollutants we emit are COOLING agents. But global dimming keeps it simple. Human spew particulate matter. Dust. Soot. All this particulate crap blocks sunlight and exerts a cooling effect on the planet. This was demonstrated when Saddam Hussein (ooh, look! Iraq segue! :) ) set Kuwait's oil wells on fire; the entire country cooled by ten to fifteen degrees in a matter of weeks.

    From statistics in the global dimming thread, the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface appears to have dropped anywhere from five percent to more than thirty percent in various parts of the industrialized world. Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? A ten percent drop in solar radiation is almost 30 degrees Celsius--enough to drop the weather in Los Angeles below freezing! (The actual cooling effect would be less than that, because solar radiation that doesn't reach the Earth's surface still exerts a warming effect.)


    And there you have it. The human contribution to global warming doesn't depend only on CO2 after all, and knowing what our sum total CO2 emission rate is, doesn't come anywhere near answering the question. Human emissions of particulate matter are reducing our contribution to global warming--in fact, depending on how much dust and soot we emit, our total contribution could be a COOLING effect!!


    But wait, it gets better! You guys are gonna enjoy this one.....

    Way back in the 70's, the Big Problem was pollution. Global warming didn't get a lot of attention back then. The issue was that we humans were dirtying up the planet, and that's where our environmental efforts were aimed: at cleaning up.

    Cleaning up soot. Not carbon dioxide.

    The end result: a reduction in global dimming--with no reduction in global warming.

    So it's possible that human CLEANUP efforts are what is causing global warming.....


    And I've got still more. Y'all ready for something completely different?

    The idea has been raised (don't look at me, somebody else came up with this one) that the next Ice Age should have started thousands of years ago. Suppose this is true. Let's assume that, if whatever stopped the next Ice Age hadn't stopped it, that said Ice Age would have started 5,000 years ago and that the Earth would have bottomed out right about now.

    If that's true......then instead of one degree of warming, human beings could be responsible for ELEVEN degrees!!! :eek:

    You see? The real truth is that we don't have the foggiest goddamn idea what's going on. The actual human contribution to global warming is not known.
     
  20. Phlegmak

    Phlegmak Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2005
    Messages:
    10,966
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Maybe it's just you who doesn't have the foggiest goddamn idea what's going on.
     

Share This Page